Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Obama issues new Afghanistan military orders

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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...
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 December 2009 at 10:09pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

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.
You're right. Since when did elected officials ever listen to the people who elected them?
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
JoStal View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JoStal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 December 2009 at 10:56pm
Yeah a year and a half is a short timeline. Should be indefinite
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2009 at 9:49am
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

From the cadets sleeping during his speech,


This is not a good indication of anything.  Cadets will sleep through any speech.  It's what we do. 
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2009 at 10:15am
Word. Time is meaningless without accomplishments being made in the time given. 
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2009 at 6:12pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

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.

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.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2009 at 6:36pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Five to ten years, in other words.

Which means we're leaving this country a huge mess.

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.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.