Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

The decision is being pondered and pondered and pondered some more, while our troops are awaiting reinforcements, or orders to pack up and leave. A Marine from 40 miles away from me was killed over the weekend, on the second day of his second tour. Malicki in Iraq has control of over 100,000 U.S. troops while the Afghan U.S. commander is being told not to request troops until they tell him to. The multiple tours are crimininal. If we want to fight multiple wars, we should support the right number of troops to do it, whatever it takes. I believe the current delay in making a decision is 100% political a** covering and has nothing to do with protecting our troops. We need large numbers of troops to win these wars (if I am not mistaken, we had 500,000 troops in VN at one point. That stirred up the protesters and the politicians because it started getting personal). I am a veteran but not an expert, but those kinds of numbers of troops means reinstituting the draft, if we are going to commit our young folks to wage these wars. Exposing the same soldiers to combat over and over, until many don't come back, while life goes on normally for the rest of us, is shameful. Personally, I believe that while we have so much equipment and so many troops in the Middle East we will never have a better shot at accomplishing what we need to do there, so long as we are committed to winning. If I were Obama, I would put an emergency measure in Congress to reinstitute the draft, and let Congress share in the heat. I realize that is radical but we need Congress and the American people to show their cards.

---

I agree with everything except one point...

"Malicki in Iraq has control of over 100,000 U.S. troops..."

What do you mean by "control"? Can Maliki order the troops into or out of combat? My understanding is that the troops are under the full command of their officers. Can Maliki break the chain of command?

Am I misunderstanding your statement? Or do you have some information that I haven't read that says that Maliki is in charge of our troops in Iraq.

In general, however, I am in complete agreement... it's time for Obama and Congress to $h!t or get off the pot in Afghanistan. We CAN accomplish the mission of eliminating the Taliban as a credible threat in Afghanistan, if we just get off the button and fight the damn war.

We have the best trained troops in world history, using the best equipment in history, and each of our troops have just about the most combat experience in history as well. There have been very few armies in history that have seen ongoing military action for 8 years with 95%+ survival rates for that period. Our soldiers have accumulated actual experience in combat that has not existed in any modern army before... or certainly not in the last half century. (Even the most experienced combat troops of WWII didn't serve for 8 years under constant combat conditions.) This experience makes them even better for their jobs than the US military of 10 years ago, which was already the best in the world.

With that level of military assets, we could accomplish the mission in Afghanistan if we wanted to.

If not, we should get out.

Elliot

I agree but would like to add too. The citizens of Afgjanistan are not interested in picking up a weapon a fighting for themselves. They want this war fought for them. In the meantime, our soldiers are not allowed to fight. They are supposed to let the ANP or the ANA, (I believe that's correct,) fight for them. My husband is deployed for the second time in two and half years, and while the Taliban sets up trap checkpoints our soldiers hunker down in their MRAPS like pu**ies and wait for the ANP to handle the situation. Instead of allowing our soldiers to fight and handle their business, our government wants to play paddicake with terrorists. You will never win a war that way. NEVER! Meanwhile, our brave young men are dying.

This war is just putting the U.S. deeper into debt and is not accomplishing anything useful. Bring the troops home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earl237

This war is just putting the U.S. deeper into debt and is not accomplishing anything useful. Bring the troops home.

---

Earl,

Does that mean that if they WERE accomplishing something that you would be in favor of staying? If our troops were allowed to do their jobs and were given the assets needed to do their jobs, would you be OK with letting them do so?

I am not challenging you, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Elliot

POTUS is going to cut and run as soon as he can make it look like it is not cut and run. What he doesn't want is Code Pinko and Cindy Sheehad rallies on the Mall in front of the WH protesting against him.

How he wants to do this is becoming evident. McCrystal will be overruled by Sec Def Gates . The rest was revealed by Laura Rozen in Politico . Les Gelb of the CFR agrees that POTUS has no patients for the McCrystal plan and says the President should pay off elements of the Taliban to give us cover .

Quote:

---

What should the U.S. do then? “We have to do a lot of different things, including rent and deal with the Taliban,” Gelb said. “We can rent a whole bunch of Taliban fighters, and pull away some of the leadership, by allowing them to go back and exercise power in Pashtun territory. And by the time you finish that, and do it well, it will have weakened the Taliban.”

---

Wise men advice to Obama's war council - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

Beyond that ;the President will adopt the Biden counter-terrorism strategy; [which stripped of veneer is similar to the Clintoon strategery of lobbing bombs from a safe distance and pretending to be a CIC], over the McCrystal counterinsurgency and claim he will "get "Bin Laden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

POTUS is going to cut and run

---

Hello again, tom:

Cutting and running is a GOOD strategy when you realize that the only way to possisbly win is to institute a draft and ship a HALF MILLION or MORE of our fighting men and women over there.. In fact, it's an extremely GOOD strategy when you realize the country won't go along with it.

It WOULD be a good idea for Obama to re-enforce exactly what we're going to WIN if we do stay, because it's not clear to me anymore. Oh, yeah, way back then, before we started what is SOON to become our LONGEST war in history, it made some sense... But, the dufus screwed it up soooooooooooo bad, especially when he DIDN'T get Bin Laden when he COULD have, that it makes NO sense to stay.

One thing Obama isn't, is dumb.

excon

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice and handle our part from a safe distance while blathering about the need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al- Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven..."

Obviously the guy doesn't really stand for much of anything except compromise, apologizing for America, punishing our allies and appeasing dictators.

I believe McCrystal when he says 30-40,000 will do the trick .

Quote:

---

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice

---

The funny thing is that is exactly what Ex just criticized President Bush for doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice and handle our part from a safe distance while blathering about the need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al- Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven..."

---

Hello again, Steve:

Psssst.. Here's a secret. Al Quaida isn't in Afghanistan any more. They're in Pakistan. We had NO clear strategy when we went in, so it's no wonder we're floundering now. The war, like Iraq, has evolved into an insurgency - which has the support of the people - and that's NOT a war we'll EVER win..

I'm not trying to convince you, Steve or tom. I know you're WILLING to send in our boys and girls. You were willing to send 'em to Iraq. You were willing to send 'em to Afghanistan. And, you're going to be willing to send 'em to Iran..

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

excon

PS> By the way, you're willing to BORROW from our GRANDCHILDREN to fight your wars too. So, of course, all the rhetoric about Democrat spending is a lot of hooey, isn't it? I KNOW who you guys are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I believe McCrystal when he says 30-40,000 will do the trick .

---

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops?? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama?? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

excon

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to convince you, Steve or tom. I know you're WILLING to send in our boys and girls. You were willing to send 'em to Iraq. You were willing to send 'em to Afghanistan. And, you're going to be willing to send 'em to Iran..

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

---

Yeah yeah ;I know... the wrong war is whatever war that is being fought. To briefly reply to your personal attack;I have family members in the military .As far as "sending them "... my daughter is an adult quite capable of making her own choices.

You want to be angry at something ;try being angry at Obama who pretended to support their mission during the campaign for political expediency.

Quote:

---

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops?? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama?? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

---

Nope . I'm saying that when the strategy of Vietnamization and counterinsurgency was implemented in Vietnam the war was well on it's way to being won. That is until the Democrats decided to cut the rug from under the program by ending the financing of the plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Psssst.. Here's a secret. Al Quaida isn't in Afghanistan any more. They're in Pakistan.

---

That's a secret? Is the Taliban still in Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

---

That's quite an unfounded insult.

Quote:

---

PS> By the way, you're willing to BORROW from our GRANDCHILDREN to fight your wars too. So, of course, all the rhetoric about Democrat spending is a lot of hooey, isn't it? I KNOW who you guys are.

---

This is now Obama's war of choice, he has to own it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You want to be angry at something ;try being angry at Obama who pretended to support their mission during the campaign for political expediency.

---

Hello again, tom:

We ALL supported the mission in the beginning. But, when there was no effort to WIN, our capital was SPENT, and it's time to go.

The problem you guys got is, it doesn't matter WHAT changes occur on the ground, you've got this misguided belief that we can't leave because it somehow dishonors the dead soldiers... So, you're willing to risk MORE dead soldiers in the name of HONORING those already dead? Makes no sense to me.

In the Vietnam era, we HAD discussions like THIS one, when our casualty's numbered around 5,000 dead soldiers... Then, because we listened to people like you, another 50,000 or our young men were slaughtered... Lot's of honor there, all right...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

We ALL supported the mission in the beginning. But, when there was no effort to WIN, our capital was SPENT, and it's time to go.

---

I certainly don't support a half-a$$ed effort, which is what this President seems hellbent on doing in spite of his bravado on the campaign tail.

Quote:

---

“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.”

---

Quote:

---

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism"

---

Quote:

---

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq."

---

Just words?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.".... Just words?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Not at all. He's saying the SAME thing I'm saying. We FAILED 8 years ago. THAT failure caused the Taliban to REINFILTRATE the country, and pretty much take it ALL BACK.

THAT is NOT a good result... But, at this point in time, considering ALL the facts on the ground, as they are TODAY, is THIS the time to commit the troops we SHOULD have committed back then?? I don't think so.

I'm NOT an incrementalist when it comes to war. If you recall, MY take back then was to go ALL IN. We DIDN'T and because we didn't, we FAILED. These things DO matter.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Not at all. He's saying the SAME thing I'm saying. We FAILED 8 years ago. THAT failure caused the Taliban to REINFILTRATE the country, and pretty much take it ALL BACK.

---

And his other point was he was going to get the job done. Just words?

Quote:

---

I'm NOT an incrementalist when it comes to war. If you recall, MY take back then was to go ALL IN. We DIDN'T and because we didn't, we FAILED. These things DO matter.

---

I think I said I'm not for a half-a$$ed effort. Git 'er done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops??? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama??? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

excon

---

Funny thing about Vietnam, excon. We won every single battle, but lost the war anyway.

The issue in Vietnam wasn't a lack of troops. In fact, we had TOO LARGE a troop presence in Vietnam. Our troops were practically stepping on each others' heels. The issue in Vietnam was a lack of willingness to press home the battle to the point of victory.

That is the same question we are facing in Afghanistan. IF we are willing to press home the attack and win the war, the 40-50,000 more troops will be enough to do the job. However, if we are unwilling to do so, then 500,000 won't be enough.

We don't need to institute a draft to win in Afghanistan any more than we needed one in Iraq. What we need is the conviction to win. If we have that, then an additional 40,000 added to the approximately 60,000 that we currently have there now (30,000 in Operation Enduring Freedom and 30,000 in the ISAF) will be enough to accomplish the job. If we don't have that conviction, no number of troops will be enough to win and we ought to leave. Either way, a draft is unnecessary.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

IF we are willing to press home the attack and win the war

---

Win what? I don't know what "win" means in this "war."