http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_ … fghanistan
Nice to see the reincarnation of Napoleon is doing so well concerning the course of the war. As much as I dislike FDR, at least he was smart enough to listen to his commanders in the field and let them run the war. FDR's job was to make sure they had what they needed to fight the war.
All this President wants to do is ignore the problem and hope it goes away. That's what all this talk about a weak corruption tainted government is really about. Bush got slammed for his decision to increase troop levels in Iraq. His State department, the American people, hell even the Joint Chiefs were against it. But it worked and he won. At least he cleaned that mess up before he left office.
Afghanistan was put on the back burner for years. If anything we have more of a moral duty to end this war than the Iraq war. I shouldn't be so surprised, this is what happens when you elect a freshman Senator to the Presidency.
Your take on the troop build up in Iraq is interesting. There is still hostilities going on and you think that works. What you fail to notice in your comments is that there were a lot of pay offs to the warlords that came with the build up and that had the desired effect.
Committing to a corrupt government such as is the case in Afganistan with more troops and money is a disaster in the making. Perhaps we should learn what came about in Iraq and for go the troops.
Nice to see that Nazis can still relate their opponents to the anti-christ.
I'm really trying not to start up a polemic over the whole situation. Did you see the "shoutout" he gave before talking about the Fort Hood thing?
Sun Tzu this guy is not.
I remember watching this live and not understanding what the hell Obama was doing. He was all giddy and cracking jokes before he talked about the tragedy.
I was soooo surprised that no media outlets gave him hell for that.
I don't feel confident having this clown leading our military or making military decisions.
If it was a public speaking competition, I would want Obama on my side anyway (as long as there was a teleprompter), but not running this country.
His Afghanistan decision has less to do with the safety of our troops and our military goals and more with how to make sure the Democrats don't get slaughtered in the 2010 elections.
It's funny how people gave Bush crap for stuttering when he spoke, but unless Obama has a prepared speech in front of him, he doesn't do too well either. Especially when it's about a topic he cares nothing about.
Yeah, CNN even pointed out he's the first president to bring a teleprompter everywhere, including giving 2 or 3 minute speeches in an old folks home.
And we've seen on the late night talk shows how poorly he does without guidance or a teleprompter.
I like the way Fox showed the lead in to his remarks of a totally unrelated story. The twist was good enough to manipulate you. How many others were led down this path? If the Obama gets slaughtered as you say it will be because of the distortions and crap that we were led astray with. We really are lemmings.
I watched it live on CNN. I don't watch FOX.
His actions before the speech were very weird.
Then you could not distinguish the two. The reference and link was to Fox. I did not take it the way you did. I separated the two different topics.
I saw it live. The President acted just as weird when it was sent out live as it was when Fox rebroadcast it. He can't change that.
For someone who is supposedly tired of the political game, you sure do go to great lengths to defend the president and his party.
War should be left to warriors.
When the politicians decide to enter into war, they then need to get out of the way and let the Warriors do their jobs, you cannot fight a war while counting the polls.
The Politicians can outline the objectives of that war, but should not in anyway try to manage it. Politicians interfering with the execution of that war should be prosecuted as Traitors.
Further no person should be elected to the Presidency of the United States without first having served. I don’t believe anyone can properly perform the duties of Commander and Chief without this experience.
I don't think that's necessarily true. FDR never served and he, for the most part, let his generals fight the war. Unconditional Surrender being an exception, of course.
Um FDR died before the bomb was tested, he could not have made any plans to drop it, that was left to Truman. He met with Churchill and Stalin to coordinate overall strategy, but he did not countermand his commanders. Stalin, for example, pushed for a Second Front in Europe pretty much from 1942 onwards. FDR didn't even consider a Second Front until his commanders told him they were ready.
I'd check my sources if I were you. Obviously you've not read much on WW II. Midway was Nimitz baby, and he kicked Jap tail. Operation Torch was Eisenhower. Market-Garden was Montgomery, I think, not an American operation except that we provided troops.
he wasn't exactly the greatest president either, he did however have some of the greatest Generals in History, and certainly the greatest military to ever stand on the face of the earth
Oh believe me, I don't think he was in any way responsible for the quality of generals. Most of the outstanding generals of the War were proteges of Marshall, who himself was a protege of Pershing. Those men were responsible for the quality of our military leadership in World War II.
Agreed, he performed best during the war by keeping congress at bay
The politicians are not the ones who have lost the stomach for war and are interfering but the American people who abhor seeing their sons dying in combat and plead for the politicians to bring them home. It is by and large the American people who expect war to be a sanitary affair and over quickly. If you want to point a finger point one at all those who voted those politicians in and continue to leave them there, then we'll see who's hung the troops out to dry.
All I can say about the indecision of BO is that at least he can't blame this one on Bush. During the campaign, candidate Obama obviously LIED when he said Afghanistan was a war of necessity or he would have already decided how to help our troops. I heard the soundbite with my own ears where Barry said this war wasn't a football game and he wasn't interested in winning! Then WHY are we still there if the commander-in-chief isn't interested in a victory! BO CHOSE this General to lead over there---why doesn't he listen to the man?
rhamsom--BO needs to remind himself that he WON!!! He is the president and as such, he must make difficult decisions that will always make some of the people unhappy. If he doesn't want a victory, then he should bring the troops home and not leave them over there with our increasingly worried allies because nobody truly knows what this administration is doing. Sorry if you feel the war is unwarrented, but Al Quaeda is headquartered in that country and THEY ATTACKED US! Let me guess, it was all OUR fault that 9-11 happened?
I agree with you that Obama is the one making the decisions and that there is danger to our troops over there as time passes but let him make the decision. As far as victory is concerned, you have to assess that on a different scale. Some claim that Iraq was a victory and a blueprint for Afganistan when the military states it clearly is not.
My opinion for the war as being not warranted is an entirely different issue. The war was supposed to be based on rooting out Al Quaeda but has turned into another country building project by our government. Obama feels there is reason to pause and assess that situation with the corrupt Karzai regime and with good reason. Is it better to be expediant and charge the battlefield backing a government that the people of Afganistan will not support rather than taking a cautious tact and making the best decision for both Afganistan and the US?
As far as your assumption as to the attacks on 911 you will have to catch up on your history and see what kind of role the US has taken in the middle east since the break up of Palestine and what role we play in resolving the mess.
Unfortunately our troops and their families will suffer for his lack of experience and support. Another reason why in 2012 we should vote this bum out.
Yeah, the nerve of that guy! Actually thinking it through before sending 18 year olds into the quagmire. So unlike the genius who led us into this glorious campaign.
Is this another aspect of the "He's only been president for a year, give him time!" attitude? When exactly does 'thinking it through' become 'not doing his damn job'?
It's not at all surprising that you don't understand the concept of thinking something through.
This is a guerilla based and politically charged war. No one can predict the time or the place. If you read history about these things you would better understand. Until the political solution is in place there is not going to be a truce. We cut back some of the violence in Iraq through the pay offs. We just haven't found the right people to pay off in Afganistan.
No, no, when does the Empty-Suit-In-Chief have to make a freakin' decision before "thinking it through" becomes 'not doing his damn job'?
I don't know what would be worse. In your world of absolutes there is no time for thinking and planning. Making a decision on half the information can and probably will give you a half assed decision. Then I guess you will get a half assed result. Kind of like we had before don't you think.
Ok, assuming there is time (when in reality there often is not), HOW MUCH TIME? Is the question too difficult to understand?
One is mutually exclusive of the other. Ask yourself first is it prudent to set up a corrupt leader that can garner little or no support from his constituency? Add on top of that the time that could be spent and the cost of lives and money to reinforce it.
The cut and run choice would cut out the cost of life and expense in the short term but would the longterm expense be to allow Al Quaeda to rejuvenate enough to have to fight them again? Maybe bombing runs could keep them underground and somewhat in check.
What if another election were held? Would it validate Karzai and put you in the same situation? Or would a new leader not have the support of the Afganistan people because of the US involvement?
What kind of absolute do you see in these examples and the million others to give you a resolute decision?
Actually, with his current rules of engagement, not sending troops is what's costing lives.
Funny, that glorious leader seems to have won in Iraq.
Then why are we still there? Why are American men and women still dying in Iraq? Why can't we just pull out completely if HE (Bush) won? Need more clarification on what you call a win.
We're mopping up in Iraq. That doesn't mean we don't take casualties, heck we still take casualties in Korea. What we do have is a stable government that is rooting out the insurgents. That's light years away from where we were a few years ago.
I have no qualms about the Afghan issue you have, but Iraq is not Won yet. Bush lied there. If you win, it is over! How many lives have to be lost before the "mopping" is done. How many years do we have to stay there? Iraq is becoming the new Vietnam.
If Bush won Iraq...we could pull out and Iraq would be a secure nation. It would not, so we have to stay.
Bush is out of office, get over it already. For the record I don't believe we ever should have been there in the first place, but at least we didn't fight all half-assed and cut an run leaving people who counted on us high and dry. That's something this President seems ready and willing to do.
Battle deaths in Iraq have been decreasing for years now. Not so Afghanistan. Things are heating up there and now our "Commander in Chief" has hamstrung our troops with his idiotic rules of engagement. We wouldn't even need any more troops if he'd just rescind those ROE. That's what we get for making a freshman Senator, President. At least if we'd have had a former governor as President they'd have had some experience with the state National Guard.
I will Not get over it when BUSH is declared to have WON in Iraq! He did not. It does not matter if he is out of office or not. He did not win. American soldiers are still fighting there. You tell the soldiers they are just mopping up.
It's obvious you're all tied up around your hatred of Bush. Great. It's also obvious you don't understand much about our military or the people who serve.
Now I know how to take you comments. You declare I hate Bush. How much do you know about me? When have I ever said I hated Bush, much less anybody. Do you know the meaning of "Assume?" SO, attack me and call me a Bush hater because I made a correct statement that Bush did not win Iraq. Ok, I see where you come from now.
I will take the words of my friends who have served in Iraq over yours.
How 'bout three years ago when Harry Reid declared that we had already lost? Remember that one?
You're right. Palin would have Bin Laden's head mounted on her wall by now.
Mopping up???? Temporarily propping up a regime that has no chance of survival after we leave is mopping up??
What world are you living in? There are actual national parties that cut across Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish lines now. They won big in the last election. Who lost? Religious political parties. Iraq really seems to be on the road to recovery.
When our money is pulled out, and warlords can no longer be bribed, they're back to square one.
You really must catch up on your history and cultural and religious traditions in that part of the world. If you do you will see how ludicrous that statement was.
Maybe Obama is looking for the right people to pay off as we did in Iraq. My dear fellow you don't win a war until the political solution is secured. The pay offs are what facilitated the truces.
The same guy who claimed to have won 6 years ago?
That was in reference to pulling Saddam out of power, not the insurgency which sprang up after.
In revisionist history, you are correct. In actuality, not so much.
Making statements with noting to back them up again, Ron?
What are you backing up your statements with years of military service? Funny in my two tours in Iraq, and another two in Afghanistan I don't remember seeing you there with eyes on the ground. What exactly are you basing your opinions on popular media reporting? Iraq is not stable, who tells me this? My friends and fellow Marines that are there now. Why do we need more troops in Afghanistan now, because your glory boy Bush switched focus to Iraq before finishing the job and allowing the Taliban to escape across the border and resupply and rearm. Someone of your limited experience and background in this issue should be more careful about making broad generalizations of which once again you have no practical knowledge of. Rules of Engagement change as the enemy evolves his tactics. They were changed this time to limit risk to civilian casualties in country, in response to American public outcry, and advice from the pentagon and joint chiefs of staff. Once again "Leden" you are talking out of the side of your mouth. Now go ahead and tell me an 8 year veteran and decorated combat Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan that i am misinformed and confused.
You're misinformed and confused. How can you possibly defeat an insurgency if you're restricted in the targets you can engage? Don't you think the insurgents will use your unwillingness to fire on civilian homes and businesses into consideration and use that to their advantage? You claim to be a former military guy, I get that. We're you by chance in the combat arms or support?
I was a combat Infantryman in Baghdad, and a platoon sergeant so I dare you to say something about my experience you book smart little chump. You're here debating what I did for a living and you're going to lecture me about tactics. Let's see yopu get your head out there where the bullets are and dictate what does and doesn't work. people like you always have a complaint and remark but when it comes time to make it happen you sit on the sidelines second guessing those who fight. I suggest you just shut your mouth and learn when to be quiet.I payed for my knowledge in blood and a purple heart. Talk smack to me you little punk.
All you know about fighting a war is what you played on XBOX or read in a book. You're done
Oh and to defeat insurgents you avoid engaging them on their terms and ground, you attack their base of support and deny them opportunity for refuge and rest by turning the civilian population against them. You can not beat an opponent by playing their game you have to change the rules and play to your strengths, but then again what do I know I only spent four out of the last eight years in combat, learning from day to day experience what does and doesn't work. Then again the new strategies aren't in any text book so I see where I'd be at a disadvantage as far as knowledge goes.
Ok, reincarnation of Eisenhower, what happens when you give insurgents any sort of breathing space? Don't they get stronger? And since we can no longer fire into places where there may be civvies, well that pretty much rules out artillery and air support doesn't it? So now our little insurgent has 2 out of 4 combat arms taken out of play. Afghanistan is mountainous terrain, so tanks are of limited use there. At least as the "armored fist" in a stand up set battle. So one again, it's the riflemen who have to take the fight to the enemy.
Do you really think the Taliban or Al Qaeda is really going to care if they barge into some poor Afghan's house and use it as an ambush point? Especially when they know the ROE won't allow our troops to fire back? You could probably whip me in a tactical situation, but even I know that's a recipe for disaster.
Just as I don't know you, you don't know me. I might surprise you.
You're not surprising anybody. How can you say that FDR was great for listening to his military leaders and then try and silence someone who clearly has more knowledge on this particular subject, based on first-hand experience?
Besides, anybody who has learned anything from the Iraq war knows the power of the civilian population. They are the prize to be won. The enemy wants us to mistreat the civilian population, because that's how they gain support against us. Then, the next time an American patrol walks by their house, they make a phone call and the patrol is ambushed.
What is saddest about this whole argument is even when you are clearly out of your depth and field , you refuse to stop talking. Instead of listening to people who know what they're talking about having been there, done that, and made a living out of it, you just keep right on going, and preclude yourself from actually learning something real and practical from experienced and knowledgeable people. You do not surprise me at all infact you have been nothing but predictable in the time I have been on HP. You rattle on about something you read on the internet, assume yourself to be an authority on everything, and argue with anyone who disagrees even when they are clearly more informed on the subject then you.
There is a reason why men like you do not make policy, because you would have men killed in a hurry due to your blundering insistence on not listening to those who have been there before you. You have no real concept of counter insurgency or tactics, and obviously are only repeating what you pull from the media and internet. The world is more then facts and info, and you can fill your head with all the links, articles, and stories you want but that doesn't make you an expert, only an insufferable no it all with no common sense and the ability to piss people off in 6 seconds flat. Whether you like it or not, my argument has been backed by years of real world application and use, I suggest you try that sometime, going out and doing what you debate for a few years before proclaiming yourself an authority. Until then you're just a mean little kid who spends too much time online with his foot in his mouth.
Having dealt with this poster over many subjects I think you have made a fair characterization.
Obama's way just gives insurgents time to catch their breath and regroup. Do you see any similarities at all between what's going on in Afghanistan and things like, I don't know, Mao's Long March. Or how about Washington retreating most of the Revolutionary War until he could fight on his terms. Are you aware that the Pentagon is now reporting troop morale is crashing in Afghanistan? Do you think it might be because they think the President is dithering on getting their buddies into the fight and having people there who have their back, instead of more political maneuvering.
You can poke fun that all I know is "book learning", but one benefit to the study of history is knowing what strategies have been used in the past and why they were or were not successful. You'd be correct if we were talking about Vietnam where we were propping up a government that was unpopular with the people as well as fighting insurgents. I'm not so sure the same can be said yet of Afghanistan. Even if Karzai doesn't clean up his act, by stabilizing the country like we did Iraq, we can create an environment that effective political opposition can grow, rather than the opposition being forced into insurgency.
You're all over the place with this comment. First The Taliban is not retreating their on full attack, second they want us to engage them in the villages and towns to incur maximum civilian casualties. We can not allow them to dictate the tempo of combat or the terrain of engagement. I know all about military history and what strategies have and have not worked, and the problem with your histories is that Afghanistan is unlike any other war before, even Vietnam is a bad comparison. You would understand this better if you had a chance to go there. All of our previous strategies have failed because we have once again been trying to fight the last war not the current one. Even Iraq is a totally different kind of war. The fact is the government in Afghanistan is very unpopular with the people as they are the ones who are leveling corruption allegations at him, not just American politicians. We haven't really stabilized Iraq, this is a misconception not a fact, there are still massive terrorist attacks going on there daily and while our military casualties have declined civilian ones have not. Their government is teetering on collapse from the same corruption and power struggles that are plaguing Afghanistan.
Yes I know about the morale issues there, it's all over Yahoo, and I think you'd have morale issues too if you had no clear sense of what was going on or what your mission was, and I have never argued against that point or that Obama needs to decide one way or the other, I never even had the opportunity to express my beliefs on that issue before you started attacking my knowledge of the issue and experience on the subject. Before you blame this all on Obama you need to stop for a second and remember that Bush had a full 7 years to run this war and accomplish the mission, many of the issues being faced there are direct effects of his policies and refocusing of American attention onto Iraq before finishing the objective there.
That being said, yes Obama needs to make a decision, I had heard that he was waiting until after elections in the hopes that Karzai would be ousted, but we all see how that ended up so now the whole agenda has been rearranged and most likely I predict that we will start to withdraw troops from the region and somehow come to an agreement with The Taliban. The said simple truth is without a massive reinforcement of troops we just can not beat the Taliban short of leveleing the whole nation, even then they'll just run across the border into Pakistan. Free fire rules of engagement will not solve this issue only create more. The conditions are not the same as they were in 2001, the Taliban has evolved and grown more sophisticated in their efforts and means.Just as Al Queada has. The real problem my friend and one, you are not understanding is that the ROE are changing because the enemy is too, Most of the time we have no real idea who the enemy is until after the shooting stops. They don't wear uniforms or carry badges, in fact they go out of their way not to. The restriction of artillery and air support you refer to was in response to increasing operations in heavily populated urban areas where the use of either would be problematic and dangerous at best to all involved. Have you ever seem what happens when a 2000 pound bomb explodes in the middle of a mud village? It pretty much levels the village. Once again , you have well researched arguments but what they lack is practical and first hand knowledge. I see that you don't like Obama, and I didn't vote for him either but this constant attack of everything he does smacks of pettiness and immaturity not logic.
No military conflict is exactly like another and you have to match tactics to the situation we find ourselves in. I know that. But insurgents can be beaten. They've been defeated in the Philippines, Peru and Malaya. I'd imagine fighting insurgents is just as hard in jungle as it is mountain terrain.
I also didn't say that things are just rosy in Iraq, but as you've said our battle deaths are on the decline and while there are still terrorist attacks, I think it's safe to say that groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq do not enjoy the broad based support they did in years past. While I didn't agree with the war in the first place, I can be glad that things are getting better for the Iraqi people. We may be at the end of the beginning rather than the beginning of the end there, but things are improving.
Were you in Iraq? If so, did you ever see Kurds, Shi'a or Sunni ever agree on anything with each other? There are actual national political parties there now. Did you hear of anything like that three or four years ago? Having parties that cut across those ethnic lines are important because now political parties now have an incentive to discourage sectarian fighting. Their power, after all, rests on a broad spectrum of the Iraqi people, not just one particular group.
Again, I have a lot of problems with how we've proceeded in Afghanistan, too. It would have been better to use SF forces to do a snatch and grab, rather than try nation-building, for example. Still we can argue all day about what should have been done, but the important thing is that we have our boys and girls over there and they need help now. Complaining about Karzai is a waste of time. People know he's corrupt but our having troops there battling the Taliban can stabilize things so that a real political opposition is going to form.
Even the Pakistan issue is not what it once was. I still think that Musharraf was reluctant to go into Waziristan because he was afraid that would put pressure on his government and convince people it was illegitimate. Now that he's out, Pakistani units are in the area.
What the Taliban lacks is support from a nation-state. Look at Korea, first the NKA had support form Russia, then China. That, coupled with the terrain, is what made Korea a bloodbath. While the Taliban may be getting support from Iran or Arab nations, the amount cannot be anything like what North Korea was getting from Russia or China. Even the insurgency in the US during the Revolutionary War wasn't enough, we needed the support of a nation-state, in that case, France.
Yes as I said before I did two 9 month deployments in Iraq, one during the invasion of 03' and another in 04',my frinds are there now along with others across the mountains in Afghanistan. The things I tell you are not coming from the media or internet but from people on the ground I have served with and bled with. And the parties you speak of have always existed, they were just repressed and terrorized by Saddam, and yes I noticed them, they were some of our supporters and allies from the very start. Second a decline of military casualties is not an indication of stability, you are not listening to what I'm saying. We have not pulled out of Iraq, merely the cities and Urban areas, so in accordance our casualties have lessened as we are engaging the enemy less in a direct role, meanwhile the Iraqi forces we trained have assumed that role and their casualties continue to be horrific along with civilians. Even today one cannot take route one from Basra to Mosul without coming under fire or ambush, that is not stability.
You're not going to listen to what I'm saying or acknowledge the facts if they bring your particular ideology under question, and I see that now. You keep avoiding the issues I bring up and deflect them to another track. It's tiring and boring, and I'm over it. Yes insurgents can be beat, but not by the strategy you advocate, I've lived that proof and seen it, that you continue to argue with me about things I have seen and done myself is what is infuriating. Its like you're telling me what I know and have done, and don't even realize you're doing it or how condescending and asinine it is. I'm telling you what I have seen with my own eyes. If you would just listen and learn then you might have the chance to understand what is really going on there and the challenges being faced by the troops on the ground. I could tell you everything you ever needed to know about fighting insurgents and engaging the enemy in Iraq, and Afghanistan but you continue to tell ME what should be done. You have got to get out of this black and white mindset of political parties and popular trends.
The Taliban does not need the support of another nation, when they have the support of an entire group of people spreading across whole continents and regions, and you seem to forget in 2001, they controlled a whole nation and were the ones giving the support. As for Al-Queada they moved their refuges and operations out of Afghanistan long ago, if you want to find them look on the Arabian peninsula, Indonesia, and Europe. This war isn't about Osama, he's not in Afghanistan and most likely died years ago, it's about power and money, and the problem is we're fighting the insurgents not the power brokers or bankrollers, that's why we will not win the war on terror, or defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan, they're attacking us now while we are weak and compromised and as soon as we send in 40,000 more troops they'll melt back into the mountains, and simply wait us out for a generation if needed.
So tell me. All you've been talking about is how Obama is doing the right thing by waiting. How, by the way is that making things better and not worse?
So are you saying that policies put in place to track where money is going to and coming from after 9/11 are not working? What you're talking about sounds more and more like Forth Generation Warfare. I'm not too sure I believe in that, but is that what you're getting at?
You just made a very valid point when you asked, "So tell me. All you've been talking about is how Obama is doing the right thing by waiting. How, by the way is that making things better and not worse?"
I'm never for war, and I think you know this. Moreover though, what good is it doing having our troops wait in uncertainty? I'd really like to know what the thinking is behind that.
I did notice that Germany today has committed 100 troops. What that means, I haven't a clue. I'm a history major, I usually have to wait a few 100 years before it all begins to make sense to me.
My concern is that by taking pressure off the Taliban now, we'd inadvertence be giving the breathing space in order to regroup and rebuild. I see this President dithering and not making a decision. He's already stated that he doesn't like any of the options he's been given by his commander in the theater. To be honest, neither do I, but you can't argue with the hand you're dealt. He wanted the job as President and now he has a duty to do even the jobs he doesn't like to do.
Right now, it seems to be a war of perceptions. Germany, by committing 100 troops really hasn't made a material commitment to the war but is signaling to the world that the war still has support in Germany. It's a way of covering their bets. If things go well, they can claim to have helped, if things go south, they haven't totally thrown in with us and can avoid political backlash at home. At least that's my read of the situation.
As for the waiting, well it seems to be a trait of our President. Look at how he's handled the less than stunning news of our economic turnaround. He's calling a summit in December, by then he hopes, I think, that there will be better news. Unfortunately, and I regret this for a variety of reasons, I don't think the news will get any better.
How will committing 40,ooo troops to this war before deciding if there will even be a viable government in place in six months help the outcome?
Do you think those troops will, at the very least, stop or slow the destabilization of the country?
Dude, beats me. I thought I was asking for answers? Oh, I was. I don't know. I was just asking for an educated opinion, and I highly regard LEF's viewpoints. Got a problem with that?
Well LEF, that makes no difference with me. When it comes to matters of historical accuracy or historical perception rather, there are times where you and I disagree. However, your opinion and viewpoint does matter to me.
Stand strong- if you believe in something that is all anyone can do.
And if i do what are you going to do tell me how long you've been here and where to stick it. What's next you gonna beat me up and tell your parents on me? Then what? I don't care what you regard that only makes you as much as a double talking ignorant hypocrite as he is. Go ahead tell me what you're going to do big man, I am so scared of your Hubpages supremacy.
Dude, why you being so childish. Do I know you? WTF?
Are kidding me? What's your deal?
You know I was asking everyone's opinion. So why don't you get your head out of your ass, and reread my post. I'm looking for opinions. It would have been nice to have been able to read yours on the subject matter, but no! You just chose to act like a total ASS instead.
Well done, sport, job well done.
What an ignorant Jackass you are. Seriously, WTF is your deal?
Don't play hurt you arrogant jack ass, I just read your other thread post where you jumped all down someones throat using your time on Hubpages as your ultimate justification WTF is right buddy you are a hypocrite in the extreme, you think because you said it on another thread it didn't happen? You need to learn to watch your mouth.
Scotty boy, going to be beat me up?
What a laugh.
Dude, your ignorance on social behavior and the fact that you cannot admit it that YOU were out of line- just shows the rest of us what a silly little boy you are.
Ha Ha, ho ho, hee hee. Scotty boy is gonna beat me up everybody!
God, that is so damn funny.
I get the impression he hates the world and perpetually sticks up for the underdog, just because they are the underdog.
Yeah I hate the world that's why I'm the one constantly talking about the conspiracies and enemies everywhere like you, that's original. I hate it sooo much that I gave 8 years of my life to try and make it a better place, so I could come back and be insulted by you that's right. I'm the one who hates the world and everyone that doesn't vote my party line, that's just funny.
Nite, LEF. We'll catch up another time. I don't have time for the Scott's of the hubpage forum. I rather watch "A Haunting in Conn." instead. So I'm off, be well.
However, I do find Scott to be quite the hypocrite and in doing so, I now find him nothing but a comical side note.
Thanks for the laugh Scott. You little stint in the HubPage Forum Hub Etiquette Thread, was really quite amusing.
I've never said Obama was doing the right thing, I have said that he is not alone in making these decisions and that some of the changes made to the ROE were not made on a whim, but by unfolding conditions, and I do remember just saying that I think he needs to make up his mind either way. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you are not reading my entire posts but scanning through to find something to contend with then ignoring the rest. I also like how you cut apart my posts and leave out other sections that do not paint your argument in a pretty light, but moving on.
The military has already begun developing and implementing fifth generation warfare much of which is being tested in combat in Afghanistan as to what I am talking about once again you are not paying attention and I'm tired of wasting my breath, I have explained myself repeatedly to you, and every time you dance around that and move to another political twist. The issue here is not what i believe it's you, you trying to tell an experienced combat professional about his business, and debating war fighting based on what you have read or garnered from the media while ignoring real world experience and insight that disagrees with your conclusions. What you believe in is irrelevant in the face of concrete data and results pulled from in country operations and missions. Why are you still arguing with me over something you have no real knowledge of firsthand?
I didn't argue, I asked for an explanation. Our ROE changed in Afghanistan due to the number of civilian casualties, correct? So clue me in on fifth generation warfare, it's the first I've heard of it.
Once again thank you for ignoring the first part of my reply and cutting it out, you know the part where I answered your question about Obama. Fifth Generation warfare has been around for six years my friend I suggest you look it up or go to yahoo, or wherever it is you get your authority on military operations from. Once again ignore the point of my reply and just keep on denying the issue.
So let me get this straight. You're giving me crap about not listening to someone who was in the military and when I ask a question, you tell me to look it up on Yahoo? Isn't that more of the "you only know what you've read, instead of lived it" stuff you've been giving me? It's nice to see you're consistent in your beliefs.
Or it could be I'm tired of repeating myself again and again to you over the last two weeks only to be ignored and argued, so maybe if you look it up yourself then you will believe it and leave me alone about it.
OK, but William Lind, the guy who came up with "Forth Generation Warfare" has problems with what's being branded as "Fifth Generation Warfare".
Interesting how he notes that one shouldn't be afraid to think beyond or outside the framework of "Generation Warfare", ideology which he labels poisonous. So I ask you again. What is "Fifth Generation Warfare"?
LOL, "the guy who came up with" Fourth Generation Warfare.
Here's a good piece from Colonel (USMC Ret) Hammes. Someone who's BTDT:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/mil … nd-5th.pdf
How if 5GW any different from the concept of total war? Since the middle of the US Civil War, total war has come to define war more and more. Insurgencies seem to be the epitome of total war as there are no real fronts or lines, the entire theater is one continuous battlefield.
Total warfare is exactly what we need to be moving towards, instead of fighting the visible arm of the insurgency with guns and bombs we need to be taking down the unseen backers and support system, we started this after 9/11 to a degree but have been hampered in our efforts because of political concerns. unfortunately this then becomes as much a political thing then military and allows the objective to be blurred.
Are you talking about things like Tora Bora? Trying to make allies among the Afghan warlords and letting them guard the very passes the Taliban and Al Qaeda used to escape?
@ediggity, I'm not sure that any type of modern warfare doesn't become total war after a while. Can you think of a modern conflict which raged for more than a year that didn't totally destroy the nation involved?
No I'm talking about going into Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and taking down the people who are really supporting these people and financing them where they live and work instead of turning a blind eye to it in the name of oil and diplomacy. Giving money to kill and pulling the trigger is the same thing. Sure we seize property and finances here when we can but the real money is over there and they flaunt it at us.
We're in agreement for once. We could save so much money and so many lives if we used economy of force, rather than knocking off entire countries. Still we do have a bit of a moral obligation to fix the mess we made in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One fix we could make right away is stop subsidizing the cost of oil in this country. That would force the price of oil up and spur developments of alternative sources of energy. Then the petronations would have less dollars to give terrorists. But then again, that's an idea that is anathema to Progressive politicians.
It would not be popular but it would effect change that is needed and swing the power away from oil producing nations.
Special Forces are definitely an underutilized force. I'm curious as to why you think the fighting in the Middle East doesn't use more SF assets than it does.
It uses alot more then you think or is publicized. But to answer your question they are actually an expensive asset when you factor in the average age of the operator, his length of training, and money involved in it. They are used extensively in both theaters as advisers and instructors to indigenous personnel thus freeing up regular troops for security and escort purposes. There are several teams deployed right now in Iraq, and Afghanistan and they operate with locals in more dangerous areas. They are also being utilized in several South American, and African nations in the role of counter insurgency, the fact that you don't hear about them attests to their professionalism and success rates. I have often heard and said anytime a man tells you he's a navy seal he's lying. As for the SF, and Delta, they were all over Iraq when I was there and provided security for tier one officials and government dignataries in Afghanistan.
I think we differ in the uses for SF. They cost much more than training someone in other jobs in the military, but taken as a whole, SF is much less expensive to train and use when you compare it to how much it costs to run, say, a division of troops.
Sun Tzu had a point when he said that the waging of war can bankrupt a nation. We're seeing the effects of that today. We did what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, in part, to justify the amount of money we spend on our military.
One of the benefits that the insurgents have over us is that they don't have the useless, or at least cost ineffective, bureaucracy that we labor under. It gives them a flexibility that we sorely need. Much like the US came to understand the value of light troops after Vietnam and the establishment of light infantry units of the US Army. We could really change the dynamic if we took a page from the tactics of the enemy. In that, you're right, we're using tactics better suited for a stand up drag out fight like you'd see armies in the West fight it out, not forces that are optimized for taking out raiders.
I'm curious, do you approve of this type of use of our American patrons?
Do I approve of the use of Delta, SF, and Navy Specwar personnel to guard American officials and dignitaries, Yes I do. That role was formally handled by private military companies until the American outrage over the perceived actions of several companies in Iraq, since that time special operations people have been pulled off of other duties and tasked with being glorified bodyguards. Maybe I should have clarified the nationality of the dignitaries I was referring to. As far as their use in guarding Afghan political figures like Karzai, no I do not approve and think it speaks volumes to his popularity among his own people that he cannot trust fellow afghans to guard him,however it is not for me to approve and this nation seems to be fickle about who we do and do not mind dying for but the fact remains that it happens anyway and just is. So instead of second guessing it, I'll just leave it there as I am sure there are many tactical and strategic considerations at play here that I am not privy to or knowledgeable of.
As far as our military's role in South America and Africa I can only state that there are ongoing operations there and efforts to arrest the growth of Al Queada in several nations outside of the middle east, as their presence in Afghanistan today is actually greatly declined. They are more of a threat in areas such as Yemen, Indonesia, and the Saudi peninsula. Unfortunately the media's focus on military operations is centered on the middle east and likewise many in the pentagon would like to keep it this way and for good reason. The fact remains that we are engaged in Afghanistan, and need to come together behind the troops there (All of us). We rail against Obama's indecision, while half the country now thinks we should pull out. The American people are just as much to blame for the indecision and stalling of this government, WE can't make up our minds about whether we should be there or not. One day we say get it done whatever it takes, the next we want out if we can't have a quick, clean victory. Either we as an American people are committed to winning this or we are not, there is no government vs. the people struggle here beyond what we the people have created through indifference and silent acquiescence.
Your point is irrelevant, because 5 Gen warfare only takes into account future evolving warfare conditions. Additionally, you are loosely using terms like "modern warfare" and "total war", which strictly defined terms like 1-5 Gen warfare were introduced in order to cease any ambiguity.
We can't use Total Warfare because we are bound by the LOAC, Geneva Convention etc. Therefore, we must place boundaries of what we define as war (which 5th Gen does), and abide by what is acceptable within those boundaries. It's a tough reality to deal with, especially if you are knee deep in the suck.
Again thanks for ignoring the point of the issue and turning it around.
The Island of Mindanao is not considered safe unless you know what you are doing. Kidnappings of foreigners are constantly in the news. The worst trouble spots are in the Sulu Islands. These islands stretch down from the south west of Mindanao to Sabah, which is part of Malaysia. The most famous of the trouble spots, Basilan and Jolo, are part of these Islands.
November 02, 2009
THREATS TO SAFETY AND SECURITY: The Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) terrorist group is still active, and sporadic incidents of Shining Path violence have occurred in the recent past in rural provinces of Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Huanuco, Junin, and San Martin. The Shining Path has previously targeted U.S. interests and there are indications that it continues to do so. Other incidents have included attacks by large, heavily armed groups believed to be members of Shining Path on Peruvian army and police patrols in remote areas, as well as kidnappings of Peruvian and foreign aid workers. None of these incidents occurred in areas normally visited by tourists. Mining prospectors, adventure travelers, and others considering travel to remote areas of Peru are strongly advised to contact the U.S. Embassy in Lima for current security information.
A peace treaty ending the Peru/Ecuador border conflict was signed on October 26, 1998. The Peruvian government is working to remove mines and unexploded ordnance left over from the conflict, but crossing or approaching the Peru-Ecuador border anywhere except at official checkpoints can still be dangerous. The entire Peru/Colombia border area is very dangerous because of narcotics trafficking and the occasional incursions of armed guerrilla forces from Colombia into Peru’s remote areas.
Political demonstrations and labor-related strikes and marches regularly occur in urban and some rural areas and sometimes affect major highways. They can also cause serious disruptions to road, air, and rail transportation. Demonstrations are often – but not always – announced in advance. While these activities are usually peaceful, they can escalate into violent confrontations. As a general rule, it is best to avoid large crowds and demonstrations. Visitors are encouraged to keep informed by following the local news and consulting hotel personnel and tour guides.
The U.S. Embassy restricts travel of U.S. government employees where terrorist groups and narcotics traffickers have recently resorted to violent actions, usually directed against local security forces, local government authorities, and some civilians. Overland travel in or near these areas, particularly at night, is risky.
Apart from the following list of locations restricted because of the danger from terrorist and narcotics groups. Embassy employees are prohibited from nighttime overland travel anywhere outside major urban areas because of the risks posed from robbery and unsafe road conditions. The only exception is that nighttime travel by commercial bus on the Pan-American Highway is permitted for official or personal travel. Road travel along this route, by means other than commercial bus service, and nighttime travel via commercial bus service along other routes anywhere in Peru, continue to be prohibited for Embassy employees.
Two of the three cases you cited have warnings of travel in those countries by the US State Department. Your facts are flawed.
The Malayan group you cited while not as volotile as the other two are still being watched by the State Department because flair ups do occur.
This was quite amusing. lol Entertaining, thanks.
LDT, , Sorry, I think you might wanna go and hide. It's fairly obvious he was a military guy.
He's insulting you now Scott Life. A good sign he is on the run.
Obama's indecision is costing American lives. One way or the other, DO something!
With the current rules of engagement I'm not sure what good sending more troops is going to do. It's the same kind of political mismanagement that cost us so many lives in the Vietnam conflict.
McCrystall specifically asked for more troops because the rules of engagement had been changed by Obama in March. Before that we were doing ok, according to McCrystall.
I'm debating who the worst President was at Commander in Chief. It's a toss up between Johnson, Clinton and Obama is definitely in the running.
Bush has them all beaten hands down. He is lucky not to be in prison.
It's kind of twisted to be all bitter about Iraq stabilizing isn't it? I mean would you really want the alternative, a failed state which is a breeding ground for genocide and terrorism like Somalia. Oh wait, we cut and run from there, didn't we?
You might consider Reagan and Bush in your top three.
The Pat Tillman debacle showed how smart it is to go by McCrystalls evaluation skills of a situation.
We do have an unfortunate habit however of staying past the sell by date. I wish we could pull our troops out of Europe. It's not like we have to protect them against anything.
They're there to "keep an eye on things". Screw that, we have the lift capability to get anywhere in the world. Bring them home, then we'll have our idiot politicians thinking twice before engaging in any "peacekeeping" missions, read: short victorious war, to get people's minds of the mess the politicians have made of things domestically.
Right! To protect against a Soviet invasion....Oh wait, there is no Soviet Union.
Who sold you that camel? We are there because we can be period.
Let's not forget it was Bush that sent thousands to war with unarmored Hummers and inadequate body armor while Haliburton was making millions on defense contracts. Or that Bush lied about the presence of WOMD, or that he used false information to declare war on a sovereign nation in direct violation to UN treaty and law, violating a major US military rule of engagement.
Or the fact that every time he ran his mouth off to the media telling the insurgents to "bring it on", that American soldiers and Marines died for his bravado and insults. The American people sent those boys and my friends over there and their inability to solidify their support of this war is the reason why it is still going on.
WOW, MORE HILARITY. WHERE'S THE 'CUTE' PICTURE TO GO WITH IT?
Is that one of your dirty little secrets, farting in public?
Shh. Crop-dusting is a talent.
Haha no. I just meant the cute part. But apparently no one's buyin' it. I have a lot better secrets, trust me.
They're not secrets anymore. Trust me.
The cute part is self-evident. Goes without saying, really.
Eh, maybe they aren't. Doesn't matter anyways. Nothin' to hide really.
It came out today that Obama is looking for a solution to Afghanistan that will garner the most POLITICAL support among the democrats.
Obama is in constant campaign mode! All he cares about is power, how to keep it, and how to increase it!
In other words, for mindlessly fawning supporters like you there is no limit and no point where the Empty-Suit-In-Chief can ever be held accountable.
If you wish to simplify it as you indicate there is no answer to your question because it relies on absolutes that are not present in this issue.
I don't know about characterizing my position as mindless but I can assure you that your take is thoughtless.
Simple question: BY WHEN MUST THE EMPTY SUIT MAKE A DECISION BEFORE YOU HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE? EVER?
I guess if you must have an answer that comes close your useless timeline it would be when he makes his decision. Sorry you just don't listen and grasp the gravity of the issue.
What a shameless apologist.
So if he were to continue avoiding a decision on troop levels beyond the end of the year it would stil be "thinking it through"? How about by next summer? Next winter? The end of his term? To what ridiculous lengths do you want to stretch this excuse-making?
So you can't or won't answer. Got it. That confirms what I thought.
The Philippines action was in reference to the US takeover of the island after the Spanish American War. Not everything is contemporary, you know. Malaysia too, was referenced during the post-colonial, post-World War II era, not today. You really might want to check your assumptions at the door, they don't help you out any.
by Army Infantry Mom6 years ago
Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops - http://bit.ly/3iD702 Obama better get on his job, quit lally gagging around on late night talk shows and decide what hes going to do - Either A - Give McCrystal...
by TimTurner7 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq....
by Holle Abee6 years ago
I think it was great that the POTUS payed a surprise visit to troops in Afghanistan. I'm sure these men and women often feel that they perform a thankless job, and a special thanks from the prez had to be a...
by gspot9117 years ago
President Obama promises to make a major reduction of troop in Iraq within the next two years. But how many of us actually belive that this is going to happen. Not me! I was deployed to Iraq when the war first kicked...
by Dave McClure8 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said yesterday that he is in full agreement with President Obama's newly announced strategy for the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.