For those of you that listened to the Presidents speech
 

...last night. What is your thinking about the "new strategy in Afghanistan"?

He has way more info than I do.
That alone makes me think I am way to non qualified or educated to even begin to second guess what his plans are.

Well...this would apply to most on this board...but there are some on this board that have been in the military...with various ranks and years served...and with some knowledge of military tactical and strategic planning. Maybe some of them will weigh in.

He was asked for 40k troops. He is only sending 30 - 34k.

Once again, the suits are deciding what is needed on the ground and ingnoring the guys in the shit who KNOW what they need.

This is why we lose wars. Let the generals do their jobs. That's what they are there for.

There have been reports that the CG actually wanted 60,000 troops and said that he would need a minimum of 40,000 troops. He will be getting approximately 50,000 troops...combined US and NATO troops so that will be 10,000 more than the minimum requested and 10,000 less than his wish list. These figures will only apply if NATO lives up to its end...and that may or may not happen.

My opinion is a simple one. He should have gone up there and said, "Here is the plan for Afghanistan. It is a shit hole. It has been for as long as anyone can remember. It always will be. They are extremists. You can't reason with extremists. We are packing our shit and leaving. We will still use drones to keep an eye on them. Anyone in the country that doesn't want to live under Taliban rule (or the rule of whatever nutjob takes over) pack your shit and come with us, we will find you a decent place to live. If you choose to stay, you get what you asked for. Nobody has ever won a war here, I'm not going to continue to spend American dollars and American lives trying to prove we can."

That is it.

My take on what will happen: We will send the troops and we will kill a few terrorists and we will get some kind of control over the country and eventually we will decide that everything is good and we can leave. We pull out and not too long after that there is a coup and an extremist takes over the country and we are right back to square one. I predict the same for Iraq as well.

I guess I am a little pessimistic.

I spent six years in the Navy, but was never in combat. Simply being in the military does not necessarily make one qualified in military and tactical planning. I learned more about those kind of things while majoring in History, than I did while in the military.

Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I agreed with President Obama that his predecessor made a major strategic error in starting a second and totally separate war in Iraq, before our mission to eliminate Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was complete.

The result has been two pronged wars that have dragged on for the better part of the decade, with (until now) no exit strategy and no end in sight. The result of the Bush Administration policy was costly both in terms of money and precious lives lost.

The main beneficiary of Bush's two wars so far has been the people running the military-industrial complex.

Further exacerbating the matter is that Al Qaeda has expanded heavily into Pakistan, and Iran has acted for the most part with relative impunity with regards to it's nuclear technology development.

Afghanistan is ranked #43 in world population, with approximately 28.3 million people. Iraq is ranked #41 in world population, with approximately 28.9 million people.

To add a little bit more perspective, the population of North Vietnam when the US was fighting against them, was about 16 million.

Another part of the equation which cannot be ignored, is Pakistan, which is ranked #6 in world population, with approximately 176 million people, and has a government which is facing rising unrest, and also has a nuclear arsenal which could spell disaster if it were to fall into the hands of terrorists.

A war between Pakistan and it's bitter rival India, #2 in population, with 1.1 billion people (not far behind China's 1.3 billion), is yet another issue to take into consideration, and underscores even more why the war on two fronts was a total disaster of the highest magnitude.

I mostly blame the chicken hawks in the Bush administration that pushed this position - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, however the top commanders in the military are not without blame either, since they seemed to have been given pretty much free reign and have little to show for it besides two corrupt (and dare I say) puppet governments.

So, enough of this "Obama isn't giving the military everything they want malarkey", unless you want the military to run the government instead of our democratically elected leaders.

Our preoccupation with Iraq, allowed the Taliban to regain strength in Afghanistan, and for the Poppy Fields (the source of the heroin trade) to once again flourish, and although on the run, Al Qaeda is still a major threat to be reckoned with, as they have now found safe haven in and around Pakistan.

Without a change of direction from the failed "Mission (un)Accomplished", that is the legacy of nearly 8 years of Bush administration bad policies, we will surely be mired in a quagmire (if we aren't already).

How do we extricate ourselves from the muck?

The Obama administration appears to have been deliberate in taking it's time to come up with a comprehensive strategy, in consultation with the military and intelligence services, which has several specific measurable goals.

A gradual reduction of troops in Iraq, a surge in military forces in Afghanistan over the next several months, followed by a blueprint for the commencement of troop withdrawals from that country commencing in about 18 months.

Critics of a phased withdrawal argue that enemy combatants and terrorist elements will simply wait us out and then move back in.

Personally, I think the timetables could work in a few different ways.

If our opponents withdraw in the face of a surge, that will put them in an even more defensive position, making them more vulnerable to attack and infiltration, while we simultaneously try to train and shore up the Afghan and Iraq governments, so that should the Taliban and Al Qaeda start trying to reassert themselves, and go on the offensive as we begin standing down, the Afghan and Iraq military might have a fighting chance.

It's pretty clear that even as we begin scheduled troop withdrawals, there will still be a substantial amount of US forces on the ground in both countries for some time to come (perhaps a decade or more). In the end though, it's up to the governments and citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq to determine their own fate.

I say give Obama's plan a chance. None of us have a crystal ball or can predict the future.

What I am most concerned about is the well-being of our troops, and the past course was not working. Our all-volunteer military personnel are suffering mightily from the heavy burden of having to endure multiple tours of duty, and other hardships.

Mental illness, suicide, and divorce rates are all on the rise among military personnel. How much more are we going to ask these brave individuals to sacrifice?

While it is imperative that the government do what it can to keep the nation safe, it should not come at such an enormous cost in money and lives which perpetual military conflict demands.

Since Obama has outlined timetables with significant measurable milestones set to occur before he is up for re-election, the electorate in 2012 will be able to make a clear decision as to whether or not he has come up with the proper mix of strategy and tactics which the people can support.

I think this is far better than writing a blank check that pushes us endlessly deeper into debt, with an ever-increasing body count of our most precious resource.

:2 cents:

ADG

nato = lol

Sounds about right......:thumbsup

As was said, have far too little information other than hindsight. A huge error was made, and it isn't a simply matter of get them out now or fearing declaring USA Lost which I don't think they have to a point. My only hope is that they spend just as much money on the country to regain it's strength than they did on the war.

My confidence level about your prediction on what will happen is high. It is not with hindsight when I state that...both the Iraq conflict and the Afghanistan conflict...were not handled properly. Our civilian leaders appear not to learn anything at all from previous conflicts. The best Commander in Chief in my lifetime was President Bush Senior...in that he gave General Powell and General Schwarzkopf...the time and the forces that they requested...and abided by the Powell doctrine of warfare.

In a way I blame our military leaders for the failure to conduct war in the manner that they know a war should be conducted. I understand the multiple reasons why they do what they do, but I wish they would not do it. As an example of what I am talking about...when General Tommy Franks was asked by the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld what force levels he would need to invade Iraq...General Franks told him 400,000 warm bodies. Rumsfeld told him he could have 75,000...which was ultimately raised to 140,000. When the actually invasion began we went in an entire Division short of the alloted forces because Turkey...at the last minute...would not allow the Division to jump off from their country.

Actually General Franks 400,000 number was not a good request. The number should have been a minimum of 500,000 and closer to 700,000. He should have resigned before agreeing to go with less than his requested number...but Generals do not do that and as I stated I understand the multiple reasons why they don't...even though I think that they should.

In addition to denying force levels to our Generals the civilian leadership will deny targets (for political reasons) that our Generals know should be taken out. SNAFU (Situation Normal All Fucked Up) is the keyword when it comes to civilian leadership making war time decisions.

Anymore input?

Someone should have told him to ask the Russian's about sending way more troops to Afghanistan, and what it did for them.

More troops = more targets.

I have grown up around the military. I am very avid in military history, planning, theory. I just also know again what I said is true. He has way more info that we do.

Otherwise I will agree with what ADG said.

missed it

well said :thumbsup

I hope he knows something I dont know. I'm just concerned because the USSR was next door and they couldnt make it work. I'm not sure how we will be any different.

Well I agree with the idea we should have finished this a long time ago before we tried a second country to attack, finish one, they move on.

I feel that if we are to finish in Aftganistan, we should DO IT, and send more than they need to show our troops that they are worthy of our support, I'm tired of the goverment not backing up our troops, they can't get the right equipment, like reliable bullet proof armor and yet Obama can get a bullet proof tent for a party and a couple people not on the list can just walk into, getting tired of all the waste this administration is doing.

They can't find the jobs that the stimulus package has created, they can't explain the health reform bill, how many senators do you think have read the 2000 page bill and understand it? The last time the government got involved with health care, the rates shot up and it's doing that again! They rasied employment taxes in california 10% and they let countries like china have free trade with us so jobs are lost to that country because business to survive all the government red tape is moving out of the country, the most american made car is a honda! Unemployment is at 10.2% highest since 83 and our fucked up government wants to have a war tax to fix another country?

Lets fix our country, lets tap our oil and supply all the countries that the middle east does and take away their money so they can fight each other with rusty AK-47's, if a country wants to build nukes, lets make that plant have an accident!

OK, getting off my soap box, been watching Oreilly again

Anymore input?

Pull the troops and nuke the sand dunes. Period. Anyone who isnt suspected to have ties to any terrorist group, put them all in a safe place til after the nuke is done. Then send them back, give them a few million to recoup, and closely monitor them. If they act suspicious, nuke them, too. Too much trouble in that area.

This reminds me too much of Vietnam. Even if the current administration actually allows the Generals to fight a war,it will go on indefinitely. You never know who the enemy is. They don't wear uniforms,there is no front and the taliban have a distinct advantage because when they aren't hiding out in caves,they can just blend in.

I think this is a war that can not be won.

If all we want is Bin Laden, it would be far cheaper to raise the bounty to a billion dollars and see how loyal his followers really are.

Add 30k so we can withdraw them in 18 months? Yeah, right. That always works.

No one wins there. Do like Minte suggested, raise the bounty to 2 billion and we save a ton of cash.

was that called a strategy? They should forget about the war and put the money to use in America. We have terror in our own country, gun violence, thefts, rape, assualt, etc. Use the military with local police to catch and lock up people.

I can't believe you're even asking for feedback on all those lies.
How can you give ANY credibility to anything that was said?
You can't see it's all a scam to enslave you?

Comments?? hahaha wtf???

This is one area where Bush was miles ahead of Obama. Bush always deferred to his commanders in the middle east, whereas Obama stalls and wants to make his own decision, like he has any military or tactical experience. Everyday more and more troops die while he sits back and considers sending more troops. What a moron.

One of the primary reasons I was against him. Commander in Chief should have a clue.

:2 cents::2 cents:
I believe you are right on the money Kane....it's the American way

:2 cents::2 cents:

Oh great, another conspiracy nut.

Yeah, that worked out really well for Bush. :upsidedow

Actually they did, when he did the initial attacks, he destroyed the objective, then when the war was over, we had to be humanatarian and be police instead of warriors. The biggest problem is that we need to do this like we're dealing with cockroaches. It doesn't help that if we attack the Taliban and the just move off to another country. We have to attack the whole Taliban at once in every country that is giving them refuge

Has anyone watched "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden" ?http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...270_SY400_.jpg
It was kind of eye opening to see how many people really dont like the US and what they are doing. I dont think anything has changed in 8 years over there "fighting" for their freedom and ignoring our country. I had a good friend get killed at a supposed "safe" location but a IED was tossed into the barracks window and when someone went to investigate it went boom. And I have a nephew who is a scout sniper who was "stationed" in Germany but sent back to the Post in OK because he had mild PTSD from being "deployed". This war will take atleast another 10 years and probably 50k dead soldiers or more before someone pulls them out and lets the crazy terrorist dudes duke it out. It seems they spend more tracking down "bad" guys in another country than monitoring the situation on their own bases stateside. The Hood thing could have been caught if someone would have told what they saw or heard instead of not wanting to get involved. Alot of our soldiers we are sending cant pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel but thats just the way Gen XYZ is. Most think it will be just as easy as playing MW2, after shooting up the place you just exit the game and go home :(