![]() |
Obama issues new Afghanistan military orders |
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 December 2009 at 9:56pm |
|
If you announce the exit strategy at the same time you are putting in "new" troops, you are not looking to "win", but to appease.
This will be a mess. Many soldiers will die, and there is no clear direction to "win".
All the terrorists have to do is wait us out now...
This is the weakest President I have ever seen in my lifetime. Every decision (no matter how long it takes) is based on polling.
|
|
|
They tremble at my name...
|
|
![]() |
|
__sneaky__
Platinum Member
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer Joined: 14 January 2006 Location: Uncertain Status: Online Points: 5242 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 December 2009 at 10:09pm |
|
|
|
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl
Forum Vice President |
|
![]() |
|
brihard
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 December 2009 at 10:40pm |
|
I agree that putting a specific timeline on it is idiotic. There need to be metrics to gauge success, not arbitrary timelines. They just need to wait us out. If a timeline is going to be artificially imposed, they need to get bloody busy training up the Afghans to take over security. I'm not optimistic that this can be accomplished in a year and a half.
|
|
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
|
![]() |
|
JoStal
Member
Joined: 01 December 2009 Status: Offline Points: 27 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 December 2009 at 10:56pm |
|
Yeah a year and a half is a short timeline. Should be indefinite
|
|
![]() |
|
rednekk98
Platinum Member
Dead man... Joined: 02 July 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 9:26am |
|
Ugh. I understand that the time-table approach is meant to appease his critics on the left, but I doubt it will do so. I don't think this will appease anyone on either side. Hopefully they can get local authorities to oppose the Taliban, but that may be difficult with the time-table. I don't think I can support this plan. From the cadets sleeping during his speech, it doesn't seem like it's going to please the military much either. He tells them to their faces it's a conflict worth sacrificing their lives in, but only until the next presidential election. This is one of those compromises that will please nobody.
|
|
![]() |
|
Eville
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge Joined: 19 September 2008 Status: Offline Points: 3083 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 9:49am |
This is not a good indication of anything. Cadets will sleep through any speech. It's what we do. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
ParielIsBack
Platinum Member
future target of fratricide Joined: 13 October 2008 Status: Offline Points: 3782 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 9:51am |
|
Gotta catch up on the sleep you missed, ya know?
Timetable is bad. I would say very bad. And the people of Afghanistan are going to suffer because of it. |
|
|
BU Engineering 2012
|
|
![]() |
|
Gatyr
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Begging for strikes Joined: 06 July 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Status: Offline Points: 10299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 10:15am |
|
Word. Time is meaningless without accomplishments being made in the time given.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
Rofl_Mao
Platinum Member
request denied Joined: 27 October 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3117 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 4:16pm |
|
you guys are only agreeing because Bri said it. Most you wanted a timeline for Iraq....
NB4: Iraq and Afghanistan are different wars. |
|
![]() |
|
oldsoldier
Platinum Member
Frequent target of infantile obsessives Joined: 10 June 2002 Status: Offline Points: 6483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 4:51pm |
|
An outstanding cover your 4th point of contact speech, in front of a "hostile camp". Never has a specific time frame for victory been contemplated by the military in any war from the first rock thrown in anger. Securing the urban centers is a proven a failed strategy. The enemy is in the hinterlands, and the only way to defeat that is boots on the ground and overwhelming force.
Yes this is a repeat of 1972, pretend to assist in a big push, claim a 'victory' and then leave the Afghans hanging as the Taliban and or Al Queda take over and we will not commit again, despite any agreement signed. At one tine a General stated give me 6 months and a free hand and this is over in 6 months, but America is too used to 'nintendo' wars, and not willing to commit to what is needed. 30,000 troops is just peeing in a bucket compared to what is needed, 5 Divisions, and a full Armored Division, according to the wargames at the War College. Airpower and surgical strikes will not alone accomplish what is needed, This will get messy, and the Taliban will win in the American living room and not on the field, been done once before, and the Taliban do read history better then most Americans. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
brihard
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 6:12pm |
Exactly what use would an armoured division be? The Taliban and Hizb-e Islami aren't known for fielding tanks. Tanks in penny packets are useful for blowing big holes in walls, but such direct fire support is about it. They could do the job just as well - and with greater speed - using the Strykers equipped with the 105mm Mobile Gun System. I will reiterate again that military means exist only to facilitate the civil objectives of the conflict; that's the restoration of a central government, establishment and protection of the democratic practices used in selecting both the legislature and the executive, establishing and building the credibility of a judiciary, and establishing a national security infrastructure that will take over the fight completely. We do not have the ability to 'destroy' the insurgency, not without resorting to means that would guarantee we would lose in a strategic sense. We need to set the Afghans up to fight it themselves, and we have to help them fight the root causes that push people towards insurgency in the first place. I'm doubtful that this is achievable in an 18 month to two year timeframe. Professionalizing the Afghan NAtional Army and Police alone will take longer than that.
|
|
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
|
![]() |
|
ParielIsBack
Platinum Member
future target of fratricide Joined: 13 October 2008 Status: Offline Points: 3782 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 6:25pm |
|
Five to ten years, in other words.
Which means we're leaving this country a huge mess. |
|
|
BU Engineering 2012
|
|
![]() |
|
brihard
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 6:36pm |
Not as bad as it was in 2000, but yeah, basically doing a halfass job and leaving it to see what happens. If Bush hadn't idiotically diverted the necessary troops in 2003, of course, we wouldn't be in the position we're in. I feel that he betrayed the coalition in Afghanistan by not ensuring that Afghanistan was taken care of before committing to Iraq. If the troops there now had been there in 2003, the insurgency probably never would have recovered. Iraq needed to be taken care of, but America already had a fight on its hands that was not yet complete.
|
|
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
|
![]() |
|
agentwhale007
Platinum Member
Forum's Vladimir Lenin Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: GNV FLA Status: Offline Points: 11644 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 December 2009 at 11:43pm |
|
Bri- NPR recently had a really good series of interviews with U.S. State Department officials in Afghanistan, the ones on the group trying to actively find positive diplomatic relations with he Afghan people - establishing farming lands, supporting infastructure, etc. The most surprising part of it all was that they also interviewed soldiers. I expected the soldiers to sort of shrug off what the State Department workers were doing, I guess I thought they would see it as white-collar or something, but one soldier flat-out said that it would be those guys who win the war. To quote as best I can - "Our bullets won't be what wins over Afghanistan."
|
|
|
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists. |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |