Afghanistan war

[moreluck]

"WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has told its top commander in Afghanistan to delay submitting his request for additional troops, defense officials say, amid signs that the Obama administration is rethinking its strategy for combating a resurgent Taliban."

While we are on the verge of losing a war, B.O. made sure he took the time to make 5 Sunday talk shows and David Letterman's show too.

How much "re-thinking" could he be doing when he was busy admiring a heart shaped potato from an audience member on Letterman.

The 'rock star's' priorities are messed up!!

[ajblakejr]

Originally Posted by moreluck

While we are on the verge of losing a war, B.O. made sure he took the time to make 5 Sunday talk shows and David Letterman's show too.

How much "re-thinking" could he be doing when he was busy admiring a heart shaped potato from an audience member on Letterman.

The 'rock star's' priorities are messed up!!

Agreed!!

[Hawaii50]

As a nation we have had two very successful wars in eight years. AV8torntn said this in January of 2009 in the Israeli invasion post.

Now we are on the verge of losing a war. What happen to the success?

Obama is not going to send reinforcements until spring/summer of 2010. Because during the winter months the enemy has a difficult time crossing over the snow covered mountains from the Pakistan side, combat with the enemy during the winter will be far less then the summer months.

IMO we are not on verge of losing a war. More like a stalemate the battle will start again next spring/summer 2010.

[Baba gounj]

Originally Posted by Hawaii50

As a nation we have had two very successful wars in eight years. AV8torntn said this in January of 2009 in the Israeli invasion post.

Now we are on the verge of losing a war. What happen to the success?

Obama is not going to send reinforcements until spring/summer of 2010. Because during the winter months the enemy has a difficult time crossing over the snow covered mountains from the Pakistan side, combat with the enemy during the winter will be far less then the summer months.

IMO we are not on verge of losing a war. More like a stalemate the battle will start again next spring/summer 2010.

Sending in troops now would allow us to have quite a tactical advantage come next spring. With more troops on the ground we could have better control over more area, thus preventing any new attacks.

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by Hawaii50

. AV8torntn said this in January of 2009 in the Israeli invasion post.

.

It is interesting that you point out that in less than a year under our new leadership they are turning a very successful campaign into a possible failure. Does that make you happy? Does that concern you at all?

In Afghanistan we waged a successful war. Our goal was to overthrow the taliban and keep US causalities low. Check and Check. Not only did we crush the taliban we did it in a matter of a couple of months. I would have to check but I believe that we had one cia agent killed and one member of the military killed during these operations which only took a couple months to achieve.

Neutralize Bin Laden and the Al Queada training grounds in Afghanistan. You guessed it we did both of those as well. Of course some fled to Pakistan and this could have possibly been avoided but as a nation we would have had to have been willing to accept higher causalities which is something as a nation we never want to do.

We have a new commander in chief now. The goal I think is to duplicate the Iraq strategy of the last administration. This will take more troops. US causalities will go up at least in the near term. If they are planning on implementing the old Iraq strategy in OEF, which I would not believe that is the plan just because you see it on the news, it will be a very different strategy that what was in place. I also think part of the new strategy is to use Afghanistan as a sort of social experiment as I think you will see a shift in the mid term to more of a we need to educate them, build roads, eliminate the local farming, etc. even though we are already doing some of this under the effort to minimize the influence of some of the hard liners. This will be a shift away from purely battlefield gains to include more political gains. This was a part of his campaign. I think under this administration you will see a push for a stronger central government in Afghanistan as well.


The bottom line is if the commanders feel they need more troops for continued success I feel we should supply them. They know what this administration is expecting of them not us. They also know what resources it would take to give a better chance of success at whatever the new strategy is or turns out to be.

[klein]

From a different perspective, dated today Sept. 22nd :




Listening to Stephen Harper and Barack Obama after their Washington hug-in yesterday, ordinary Canadians might be excused for thinking Afghanistan is no longer about winning, but how the heck do we get out of there.
The two leaders emerged from their 75 minutes behind closed doors with the usual declaration that Canada and the United States remain the closest of friends and allies.


http://www.lfpress.com/newsstand/New...49521-sun.html

[The Other Side]

I will disagree with AV8 (again) about both wars (Iraq/Afghanistan)

Afghanistan was NOT a successful endeavor for 8 years. While in the begining, our military was able to push the Taliban to the outskirts of the country, but they DIDNT KILL THEM. Indeed, the military forced them out of some cities and villages, but within 2 years, President Bush reduced troop levels to less than 31K, or in other words, less soldiers than there are policemen in New York City.

As with every other miscalculation of war (from Bush's perspective) he no longer needed to continue in Afghanistan because his advisors including Dick Cheney told him it was unnecessary and his efforts needed to be turned towards Iraq.

Once this decision was made, and leaving less soldiers in Afghanistan than policemen in New York City, the Taliban re-organized, re-funded and re-distributed their efforts across Afghanistan.

Bush could not send more troops to Afghanistan when he needed them cause his brilliant calculation of the Iraq war was going haywire. In the time where Cheney was telling the world that the "enemy was in their final throws" , the US military was sending thousands more troops to Iraq and attention was diverted away from Afghanistan.

Where Bush failed in Afghanistan is eliminating the flow of funds and the ability to finance war. Revenue from Poppy fields have quintupled since we invaded. Heroin output has dramatically increased and that money funds war.

Indeed, our military is going after "rogue" fields not associated with the current goverment and on the appearance, it looks as if they are trying to stop the production of poppy's, but the real problem is that those fields considered to be "goverment friendly" are left alone.

Opium, poppys and heroin make up a majorty of Afghanistand GDP, and if our country was to actually wipe out the drug trade in Afghanistan, then President Karzai would be assassinated.

Until we stop the endless flow of money that fuels the war chest of the taliban, this war will be a waste of time.

Russia spent 7 years, 2 trillion in todays dollars, and lost over 15 thousand soldiers in a losing effort. Money from the sale of opium, poppys and heroin helped pay for the weapons used against the Russians.

Now, its being used against us.

Afghanistan will continue to be a bottomless pit until the funds are completely cut off.

Bush failed in 8 years to produce anything in afghanistan, all the gains made initially were lost long before Obama took office. In fact, in January 2009, the Taliban controlled close to 80% percent of the country.

They currently control a large part of the country, down somewhat since Obama took office.

When Bush decided to leave Afghanistan in order to save his "rear" in Iraq, he sold afghanistan out and left our country in a position to "start over" in Afghanistan.

Now that more troops are dying, and millions of Taxpayer dollars are being spent daily, some decision has to be made on what to do.

The real answer is simple. Wipe out all the crops in afghanistan whether goverment controlled or Rogue and eliminate the ability to finance war.

The problem is, we dont have the resolve to do such a thing. The political fallout in Afghanistan will lead to coup's and violence.

There is no solution to the Afghanistan war. We will never Kill "every" person considered to be a taliban.

They are widespread and live in many countries. The Taliban, formerly the Mujahadin, founded by Osama Bin Laden, President Reagan and Dick Cheney in the 80's, have connections all over the muslim world.

To believe that bombs and bullets will solve the war is nonsense.

Bush should have never taken his eye of the ball and we wouldnt be in this mess and many US Soldiers lives would have been saved.

You can all thank him.

[Hawaii50]

[QUOTE=av8torntn;604953]It is interesting that you point out that in less than a year under our new leadership they are turning a very successful campaign into a possible failure. Does that make you happy? Does that concern you at all?

Are you for real. If the campaign was successful in 1/2009 and prior to 1/2009. Why are more troops being sent to that theater of war. Back then thos troops stationed in that theater were confined to the cities and districts in immediate vicinity of those cities . Thats why in the news now you keep hearing in the reinforcements soliders are pushing into Taliban strongholds in 2009.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ghanistan.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071703352.html

Why were'nt the troops who were in that theater prior to Obama sending in reinforcements not attacking taliban strongholds. It's because the troops footprint back then was small. Now that more troops are being sent over the footprint in expanding.
Ever year the taliban/AQ regrouped and restrategize and start their spring/summer counter offensive. Now that footprint has expanded next years taliban/AQ offensive should be interesting.

Did you go back and read our debate on the afghan war in 1/2009. You were so adamant about how sucessful the war was."I said no, if the commander at the time was asking for reinforcements that is not a sign of winning. Now they want more troops. The theaters commanders asked three times for more troops.

updated 11:17 a.m. PT, Fri., March. 27, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698/
President Obama has ordered a significant troop increase in Afghanistan authorizing the deployment of an additional 17,000 troops to take on the resurgent Taliban in southern Afghanistan. The first units will begin deploying in the spring. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Presi...6899206&page=1.

You may be right on the current strategy on trying to duplicate the success in Iraq with Afghanistan. However the strategy is still in it's infancy. Inorder for that strategy to work the civil population have to turn on Taliban/AQ. It's called the enemy of my enemy is my friend strategy.

[klein]

Canada to boycott Ahmadinejad's UN speech



By The Canadian Press
September 23, 2009


OTTAWA - Canada's seat at the United Nations will be empty during today's speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Canada will not attend Ahmadinejad's address to the UN General Assembly in New York, said a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. "Canada's seat at the UN will be vacant during the Iranian president's speech," Catherine Loubier said.

The Iranian president denies the Holocaust, harbours "hostile views towards our democratic ally Israel" and continues to violate the human rights of his own people, Loubier said.

"President Ahmadinejad's repeated denial of the Holocaust and his anti-Israel comments run counter to the values of the UN General Assembly and are shameful," she said by email.

"It is clear that President Ahmadinejad uses his public appearances to provoke the international community and Israel. Canada does not tolerate such unacceptable behaviour."

Iran's pro-reform opposition has staged dramatic protests since Ahmadinejad was re-elected in June, claiming the vote was fraudulent. The Iranian government waged a bloody crackdown and opposition groups say at least 72 protesters were killed.

Government officials maintain that only 36 people died, and Ahmadinejad repeated that claim in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday. Hundreds more have been jailed.

Ahmadinejad told AP those who died were "not at fault." He blamed Iranian opposition politicians and "European and American politicians" who, he said, fuelled the violence.

Loubier said Canada will continue to demand the release of those "unjustly detained" in Iran, including Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-Canadian reporter working for Newsweek.

Bahari was imprisoned while covering the election unrest.

Ahmadinejad said in the AP interview that three Americans detained in Iran for 53 days illegally entered the country when they went off course while hiking in northern Iraq in July.

Nevertheless, he said he will ask the Iranian judiciary to treat the case with "maximum lenience."

Ahmadinejad also was asked about Bahari but he did not reply. The ambassador at Iran's UN mission, Mohammad Khazee, later said he hoped Bahari's case would also be resolved.

Canada and Iran have been involved in a diplomatic row since Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist from Montreal, died in Iranian custody in 2003 after she was tortured and beaten.

Wednesday's move by Cannon and his delegation is somewhat muted by the absence of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has not addressed the UN General Assembly in three years, even though Canada is seeking a Security Council seat.

In 2006 - eight months after he was first elected - Harper lauded Canada's role in the UN-sanctioned war in Afghanistan and called the mission "vital to the health and future" of the United Nations.

However, in a thinly veiled criticism of the UN, he said the difficulties Canadians face in Afghanistan "don't daunt us. But lack of common purpose and will in this body would."
He questioned UN commitment, not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere, citing "challenges" in Haiti, Darfur and the Middle East along with human rights.
"Will the new Human Rights Council become a forum where human rights are genuinely put above political manoeuvring? Or will it emulate the fate of its failed predecessor organization?" he asked.
"I must tell you, the early signals suggest that too little has changed, that the page has not yet been turned."
The United Nations, he added, must become "more accountable and more effective."
Spokesman Dimitri Soudas has said Harper chose to attend G20 meetings in Pittsburgh this week rather than address the General Assembly.
But U.S. President Barack Obama, host of the G20 meeting, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, both addressed the UN.
Cannon is scheduled to speak to the 192-member body on Saturday evening - well out of the primetime spotlight.
In contrast to former prime minister Jean Chretien, who famously cited the absence of UN approval for Canada's refusal to participate in the Iraq war, Harper continues to criticize the UN.
"Instead of polling the United Nations General Assembly to determine Canada's foreign policy, we have taken a strong and principled stand in favour of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world," he said in a recent, secretly taped speech to Conservative party faithful.

[av8torntn]

[QUOTE=Hawaii50;605065Why are more troops being sent to that theater of war. QUOTE]


Not sure if that was a question since you answered it with your post. You seem to be behind a little so I'll try to catch you up quickly. Obama made it a part of his campaign to implement a new strategy in Afghanistan that would cause an escalation of the violence. He also said he would possibly invade Pakistan. He said this would require more troops. He was elected President. He implemented his strategy. He sent more troops. The white house leaked a report from the military leadership saying they did not have enough troops to carry out this new strategy and would likely need more. US deaths in Afghanistan have increased. Polling data has showed a decrease in support on the way the nation building effort in Afghanistan is going. The President is now hinting that he may abandon the strategy he wanted six months ago.

Looks to me that we elected a poor leader. You yourself admitted it takes time to nation build yet we have a leader who wants to change strategy every six months.

[fact check]

av8torntn, What is your strategy for 'winning' in Afghanistan?

Is it even possible?

If so, how? If not, why waste resources?

[klein]

A piece of history :

The Russians invaded Afghanistan first. (back in the 80"s)
The US gave the Taliban all the weapons they needed to fight those Russians off.

Now, those same weapons are killing americans...
(along with ceased russian ones).

We, or the USA, should have left the Russians finish thier job.
Would have been all done.

[wkmac]

YouTube - SA@Takimag - Lessons Not Learned: Jim DeMint, 9/11 and Limited Government

YouTube - SA@Takimag - Lessons Not Learned: Jim DeMint, 9/11 and Limited Government

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by fact check

av8torntn, What is your strategy for 'winning' in Afghanistan?

Is it even possible?

If so, how? If not, why waste resources?

What do you mean by winning? Are you talking about nation building? You must first define your goals before talking about any military action.

[The Other Side]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

What do you mean by winning? Are you talking about nation building? You must first define your goals before talking about any military action.

The question was really simple, he wants YOUR idea of winning. Nothing hard to comprehend in his request.

Nice dodge though.

Now step up.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

A piece of history :

The Russians invaded Afghanistan first. (back in the 80"s)
The US gave the Taliban all the weapons they needed to fight those Russians off.

Now, those same weapons are killing americans...
(along with ceased russian ones).

We, or the USA, should have left the Russians finish thier job.
Would have been all done.

Klein,

The Carter adminstration along with a compliant democrat Congress started the Afghan/Russian war as a pretext to undermine the Soviet military. Carter's advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 1998' interview admitted it all and what Carter and the democrat adminstration started with the funding of so-called "freedom fighters" that esculated in the Reagan years only grew to fever pitch in the Clinton years as that adminstration used Al Qeada as a means and pretext to intervention in the Balkans. Again, Caspain Oil pipeline security were paramount as the US and Nato secured commodity resources while maintaining the planned encirclement of Russia from oil resources in the Caspain and Persian regions.

This timeline starting in the last few months of Reagan and going through 9/11 and into 2007' is obviously very long but it may open some doors of thought into a much bigger picture you may not have considered. Then again, you could hoist another beer and kill more brain cells too!

[klein]

Originally Posted by wkmac

Klein,

The Carter adminstration along with a compliant democrat Congress started the Afghan/Russian war as a pretext to undermine the Soviet military. Carter's advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 1998' interview admitted it all and what Carter and the democrat adminstration started with the funding of so-called "freedom fighters" that esculated in the Reagan years only grew to fever pitch in the Clinton years as that adminstration used Al Qeada as a means and pretext to intervention in the Balkans. Again, Caspain Oil pipeline security were paramount as the US and Nato secured commodity resources while maintaining the planned encirclement of Russia from oil resources in the Caspain and Persian regions.

This timeline starting in the last few months of Reagan and going through 9/11 and into 2007' is obviously very long but it may open some doors of thought into a much bigger picture you may not have considered. Then again, you could hoist another beer and kill more brain cells too!

I don`t like to even go there... because if you ever go to Europe... thats what they all say. Americans are out for the oil !

Not 1 day went by, I wouldn`t hear that in Germany.

And, you are probably 100% right.
But, thats another whole new argument, that I didn`t want to touch.

Just think about it, how fast they were to help Kuwait.
But Sudan, and other countries.... nope.

[wkmac]

Dated but still true and funny!

YouTube - George Carlin - We LIke War

YouTube - George Carlin - We LIke War

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by The Other Side

The question was really simple, he wants YOUR idea of winning. Nothing hard to comprehend in his request.

Nice dodge though.

Now step up.

I am more than willing to step up. My questions were just as simple. Do you want to know what I think it takes to build a nation or defeat a government or foreign army or what. It really is not hard to comprehend my request but I know you feel you would like to just jump right in so go ahead and answer my original question for him to define his parameters if you feel he is to timid to answer on his own or something. I for one just think he has not had time to reply or lost interest.


If you want my opinion, which is worthless since I am not the commander in chief, go ahead step up. I think I made my point though that there is more to consider than just some oversimplified question.

Nice dodge back at you by the way.

[klein]

Originally Posted by klein

From a different perspective, dated today Sept. 22nd :




Listening to Stephen Harper and Barack Obama after their Washington hug-in yesterday, ordinary Canadians might be excused for thinking Afghanistan is no longer about winning, but how the heck do we get out of there.
The two leaders emerged from their 75 minutes behind closed doors with the usual declaration that Canada and the United States remain the closest of friends and allies.


http://www.lfpress.com/newsstand/New...49521-sun.html

Again ! : How in the heck do we get out of there ?

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

I am more than willing to step up. My questions were just as simple. Do you want to know what I think it takes to build a nation or defeat a government or foreign army or what. It really is not hard to comprehend my request but I know you feel you would like to just jump right in so go ahead and answer my original question for him to define his parameters if you feel he is to timid to answer on his own or something. I for one just think he has not had time to reply or lost interest.


If you want my opinion, which is worthless since I am not the commander in chief, go ahead step up. I think I made my point though that there is more to consider than just some oversimplified question.

Nice dodge back at you by the way.

Now wait a minute! True you aren't the scumbag-n.....I mean commander-n-chief but you are running for Congress, got elected and was a political sensation so let's think positive (maybe for you ) and pretend you got elected to top dog and you now run the show. From my POV we already defeated the gov't in power that caused our being over there and thus it's army (that may be a subjective observation even before 9/11) so now let's say for the sake of discussion, we are in the Nationbuilding phase (I do believe that to be the case anyway) so as top taxeater-n-charge, what do you need to be successful in your policy and operations in Afghanistan?

And to be fair, if you believe we are still at war fighting a gov't and it's army, same question, what do you need and what should we be doing?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts either way!

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

Again ! : How in the heck do we get out of there ?

We could ask the Russians or the British for the map coordinates!

Or we could just Mapquest it!

[The Other Side]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

I am more than willing to step up. My questions were just as simple. Do you want to know what I think it takes to build a nation or defeat a government or foreign army or what. It really is not hard to comprehend my request but I know you feel you would like to just jump right in so go ahead and answer my original question for him to define his parameters if you feel he is to timid to answer on his own or something. I for one just think he has not had time to reply or lost interest.


If you want my opinion, which is worthless since I am not the commander in chief, go ahead step up. I think I made my point though that there is more to consider than just some oversimplified question.

Nice dodge back at you by the way.

Ill take it that you dont want to get pinned down on an answer, because you know it will always zero back onto GW BUSH's failure to lead in afghanistan.

So far, Afghanistan has been a huge waste of time.

This last election was chockfull of corruption, corruption we support in order to keep President Karzai in office.

Our men have fought valiantly in both wars, yet the goal will always elude their deaths.

The problem with answering the question asked begins and ends with politics. The right wing has to find a way to turn the "war on terror" they sold to those in this country into a "liberal" failure of leadership.

Bush had control of the white house, the republicans had control of congress and all the purse strings, yet they failed to have a plan for success in either war.

Bomb,bomb,bomb, shock and awe, blah blah blah......7 years later, its worse than ever. Now, a new president , a new congress has to decide to fight to save "political face" or cut bait.

Bill Orielly, who I will never accuse of being intelligent said the other night that staying in afghanistan and fighting until an eventual win will make us "look" like we won, vs leaving and letting the "terrrorists" think they "won" is better for america.

This is why we shouldnt start wars we cant end. His statement is a purely political one. He could care less how many soldiers are killed, or how much red ink is booked, as long as it appears like we won, he's all for it.

So AV8, answer the question, youve been put in charge, you are the "pretend" commander in chief, HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THERE?

Now that youve been promoted, stop the line dance, put down the american flag, stop cleaning your gun and answer the question.

You decide whether you want a political end, or a military end, the choice is all yours, we are all listening.

[Baba gounj]

The rules murdering our troops

By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 2:55 AM, September 24, 2009
Posted: 12:57 AM, September 24, 2009
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.
Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:
* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.
These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)
The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.
So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.
We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?
It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
This week's rumblings from the White House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range.
Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards.
Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal.
And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."
The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).
The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does that tell you?
A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general.
As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
We need to recognize that true morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.
The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by Baba gounj

The rules murdering our troops

By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 2:55 AM, September 24, 2009
Posted: 12:57 AM, September 24, 2009
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.
Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:
* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.
These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)
The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.
So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.
We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?
It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
This week's rumblings from the White House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range.
Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards.
Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal.
And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."
The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).
The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does that tell you?
A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general.
As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
We need to recognize that true morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.
The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons.

If our goal is nation building, we simply had to cut down on the amount of civilian casualties we were causing, and that's impossible to do without using more restrictive ROE's that put the guys on the ground more at risk. Blaming Obama and code pink is a little over the top, my impression is that he's relying primarily on advice from Petraeus, who actually wrote the counterinsurgency manual that this guy is badmouthing. He also says that the purpose of going to war is to win, but following what seems to be a trend in this thread he fails to define what exactly we are trying to win. Personally I think nation building is a fool's errand, but no one's asking me.