• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO flag lowered in Afghanistan as combat mission ends

11Bravo said:
I never once stated it was sadder than that. I said it is a sad time in US history. The only one who put spin on it is you.
Click to expand...

Well when you make statements about obama changing the rules of engagement you open yourself upto that. America like many other countries struggled to declare total victory in Afghanistan because we tie one hand behind our backs every time we go into these type of conflicts. Did the same in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa etc. No one is willing to get their hands dirty anymore.
 
Higgins86 said:
Well when you make statements about obama changing the rules of engagement you open yourself upto that. America like many other countries struggled to declare total victory in Afghanistan because we tie one hand behind our backs every time we go into these type of conflicts. Did the same in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa etc. No one is willing to get their hands dirty anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh you were referring to that. Yes, Obama's decision to have more of us killed was a dumb one. Hence why over 70% of casualties since 2001 in Afghanistan happened under Obama. His "wait to get shot" rule is one for the record books.
 
The war against Afghanistan ended over a decade ago. Their citizens elected new leaders, formed a new government, ratified a Constitution. Our soldiers fight alongside and train with Afghinstan soldiers and police officers. So...

The question you have to ask now is what just happened? Did we decide that post war ops are no longer needed? Who were we at 'combat' with and what were the parameters to declare victory (or did we just sound retreat?)?
 
Higgins86 said:
Sadder than Vietnam, Somalia?

This isn't your first dance no matter how much anti obama spin you put on it.
Click to expand...

I'll say it...Yes. Sadder than that....Because VN, Somalia, and even Korea to some extent, the US could say wasn't a properly executed conflict, about any of them, in that it kept the world on good order still because there was still the respect, and fear that an absolute commitment from the US would bring a world of hurt...All this "limited" engagement crap, and the so called "new way to wage war" is just that...Pure crap...Now, the rest of the world, and our enemies, don't respect us, don't fear us, and damned sure don't care what we want anymore...Obama always said that we were no more exceptional than anyone else, he has made that a reality....Now how many will die because of that.
 
11Bravo said:
Oh you were referring to that. Yes, Obama's decision to have more of us killed was a dumb one. Hence why over 70% of casualties since 2001 in Afghanistan happened under Obama. His "wait to get shot" rule is one for the record books.
Click to expand...

70% of casualties happened in Afghanistan under Obamas presidency because their was a renewed effort during those years. Bush switched a lot of focus to Iraq however in the first five months of 2008 troop numbers increased by 80% and then Obama added another 30k during the "surge" of 2010. There was also a lot more activity during this time against the Taliban especially in the Helmand region ( operation eagle summit etc) a region where the Taliban had dug in. Casualties increased not only with Americans but also with the British and other Nato forces.
 
Higgins86 said:
70% of casualties happened in Afghanistan under Obamas presidency because their was a renewed effort during those years. Bush switched a lot of focus to Iraq however in the first five months of 2008 troop numbers increased by 80% and then Obama added another 30k during the "surge" of 2010. There was also a lot more activity during this time against the Taliban especially in the Helmand region ( operation eagle summit) a region where the Taliban had dug in. Casualties increased not only with Americans but also with the British and other Nato forces.
Click to expand...

So you support his move to change the rules of engagement to the 'wait to get shot' rule? You're a supporter of that is what you're impying? You keep ignoring that part so I have to bring it up. Because those of us (especially during the Surge under Obama) who served, know that this rule kills Americans.
 
annata said:
NATO flag lowered in Afghanistan as combat mission ends - The Washington Post

While remaining NATO forces will have a formal mission of providing training and "assistance" to Afghan forces, a separate U.S. force will continue to provide security, logistical support, and engage in "counterterrorism."

In other words a limited combat role for U.S. forces will continue. Five thousand Americans will remain with the NATO contingent of 12,000, while 5,500 U.S. troops will remain in the separate, combat role. In other words, no, the U.S. war in Afghanistan is not over.
Click to expand...



Once again we see an administration practicing that for which Bush was tarred and fathered...."Mission Accomplished".

As I read the OP, this means there will be still 10,500 American troops after this, 5,500 of which will be active combat. Ironically, 10,000 troops where what Iraq's government wanted left behind when Obama "ended" that one.

So we have essentially 17,500 troops in country in supposed "training and support" missions, which likely means running drones, support artillery etc.

That's "Mission Accomplished" in Obamaland.

One good aspect, he appears to have learned from the Iraq disaster.
 
11Bravo said:
So you support his move to change the rules of engagement to the 'wait to get shot' rule? You're a supporter of that is what you're impying? You keep ignoring that part so I have to bring it up. Because those of us (especially during the Surge under Obama) who served, know that this rule kills Americans.
Click to expand...

Show me the rule you are referring to and I will respond. I served in Iraq with the British army and we have similar rules of engagement and have done this the troubles of Northern Ireland, we live in a world that demands we use restraint in combat and this certainly isn't unique to Obama. In fact if I remember rightly the US Rangers had very similar orders during the battle of Mogadishu.

Troop numbers increased, combat missions increased as did patrols and that is the reason why more casualties happened in the last 6-7 years compared to the start of the war.
 
Grant said:
That's putting the best light on it.
Click to expand...

We have to defend ourselves. So first we need to see if non intervention will stop them attacking us, and if not, then we drop in, kill everyone in sight, and go home. No need to have troops stationed in every middle eastern country protecting one dictator from another.
 
Higgins86 said:
70% of casualties happened in Afghanistan under Obamas presidency because their was a renewed effort during those years. Bush switched a lot of focus to Iraq however in the first five months of 2008 troop numbers increased by 80% and then Obama added another 30k during the "surge" of 2010. There was also a lot more activity during this time against the Taliban especially in the Helmand region ( operation eagle summit etc) a region where the Taliban had dug in. Casualties increased not only with Americans but also with the British and other Nato forces.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it was all Bush's fault.

Seems to me Bush invented the idea of "surge" and lost a lot less people when he did it.

Having said that, heading into the seventh year of Obamapolitics, isn't it time he and his trolls started looking at their own mistakes, or are you like most "stupid voters" and believe he is incapable of error?
 
Higgins86 said:
Show me the rule you are referring to and I will respond. I served in Iraq with the British army and we have similar rules of engagement and have done this the troubles of Northern Ireland, we live in a world that demands we use restraint in combat and this certainly isn't unique to Obama. In fact if I remember rightly the US Rangers had very similar orders during the battle of Mogadishu.

Troop numbers increased, combat missions increased as did patrols and that is the reason why more casualties happened in the 6-7 years compared to the start of the war.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you could have been a soldier and not heard of this change in ROE under Obama. Unless you were discharged prior to serving under him:

Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times!
 
Higgins86 said:
Show me the rule you are referring to and I will respond. I served in Iraq with the British army and we have similar rules of engagement and have done this the troubles of Northern Ireland, we live in a world that demands we use restraint in combat and this certainly isn't unique to Obama. In fact if I remember rightly the US Rangers had very similar orders during the battle of Mogadishu.

Troop numbers increased, combat missions increased as did patrols and that is the reason why more casualties happened in the last 6-7 years compared to the start of the war.
Click to expand...

That's why those of us that served under Obama call it the "Wait to get shot" rule. Because that's all you can do in A-stan these days. Thanks for Obama.
 
JANFU said:
Staying in AStan after the Taliban were toasted was and is a complete failure.
How many killed.
How many injured.
How many tens of billions spent that supported corruption.
After the Taliban were sent on there way, the coalition should have loaded up, got on a plane and left them to kill each other.
Click to expand...

The Taliban were "wasted"?

Can you substantiate that in any credible way?

The last reports I heard were that the Taliban just slaughtered an entire village on the border with Pakistan in retaliation for the villagers having allowed American forces tom operate.

If you have some conclusive proof that the Taliban or other little renamed groups are not still killing, raping and torturing women, please present it.
 
11Bravo said:
I don't know how you could have been a soldier and not heard of this change in ROE under Obama. Unless you were discharged prior to serving under him:

Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times!
Click to expand...


That's an opinion piece which is ignoring the fact that more troops were engaging the enemy during those years than the ones previously. As I said more troops on the ground, more combat missions, more patrols = more casualties.
A fact you are also conveniently forgetting is that being a US soldier under Bush was no picnic either. Yes less of them died in Afghan but that's because nearly 5k of them were dying in Iraq which is nearly double the casualties of Afghan is half the time period.
Now don't get me wrong I am not a fan of modern rules of engagement as I pointed our earlier we tie a hand behind our back every time we get into these "wars" but this isn't Obama's fault nor is it Bush's, Blair's etc. We live in a world with 24 hours news, a squeamish public and shrewd politicians.
 
Higgins86 said:
That's an opinion piece which is ignoring the fact that more troops were engaging the enemy during those years than the ones previously. As I said more troops on the ground, more combat missions, more patrols = more casualties.
A fact you are also conveniently forgetting is that being a US soldier under Bush was no picnic either. Yes less of them died in Afghan but that's because nearly 5k of them were dying in Iraq which is nearly double the casualties of Afghan is half the time period.
Now don't get me wrong I am not a fan of modern rules of engagement as I pointed our earlier we tie a hand behind our back every time we get into these "wars" but this isn't Obama's fault nor is it Bush's, Blair's etc. We live in a world with 24 hours news, a squeamish public and shrewd politicians.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa dude. I don't care about the opinion piece. The fact is that Obama changed the Rules of Engagement and you didn't know, so I merely provided an article that mentioned it since apparently you were on leave and didn't get the memo. That article had nothing to do with my opinion.

And you KEEP dodging my question about the ROE. Do you think Obama did the right thing by creating the 'wait to get shot' rule? I think we both know the answer to that question. You're a military man too, you KNOW how unpopular he became in the military when he started that bull(@*#
 
Higgins86 said:
That's an opinion piece which is ignoring the fact that more troops were engaging the enemy during those years than the ones previously. As I said more troops on the ground, more combat missions, more patrols = more casualties.
A fact you are also conveniently forgetting is that being a US soldier under Bush was no picnic either. Yes less of them died in Afghan but that's because nearly 5k of them were dying in Iraq which is nearly double the casualties of Afghan is half the time period.
Now don't get me wrong I am not a fan of modern rules of engagement as I pointed our earlier we tie a hand behind our back every time we get into these "wars" but this isn't Obama's fault nor is it Bush's, Blair's etc. We live in a world with 24 hours news, a squeamish public and shrewd politicians.
Click to expand...

Also, the casualties in Iraq are 100% different. We fought more conventionally over there compared to A-stan. Heck, we were up against an actual Army for a while.
 
jonny5 said:
We have to defend ourselves. So first we need to see if non intervention will stop them attacking us, and if not, then we drop in, kill everyone in sight, and go home. No need to have troops stationed in every middle eastern country protecting one dictator from another.
Click to expand...

And how's that working out for you?

This "drop in" has been 13 years and counting. That's a long "drop in" considering it ain't even over
 
11Bravo said:
Also, the casualties in Iraq are 100% different. We fought more conventionally over there compared to A-stan. Heck, we were up against an actual Army for a while.
Click to expand...

Not for that long, a good majority of time in Iraq was COIN which American forces struggled with. Then again in fairness it wasn't something you had ever really had to do especially compared to our forces which had decades of experience being an "occupying force".
 
Higgins86 said:
Not for that long, a good majority of time in Iraq was COIN which American forces struggled with. Then again in fairness it wasn't something you had ever really had to do especially compared to our forces which had decades of experience being an "occupying force".
Click to expand...

I will agree. Will you please address my rules of engagement questions though?
 
11Bravo said:
What? Of course not. You should go back and read our conversation. I would never disrespect our fallen like that.
Click to expand...



Then how the **** are they "different"?

FFS the statement is ludicrous. If you had said how they were incurred I might have agreed with you, although what's the point? Dead is dead, a loss, a fatality, a dead soldier,a ****ing body bag, no name, just a flag and not covered by MSM.

Talk about sanitizing horror...
 
Fearandloathing said:
Then how the **** are they "different"?

FFS the statement is ludicrous. If you had said how they were incurred I might have agreed with you, although what's the point? Dead is dead, a loss, a fatality, a dead soldier,a ****ing body bag, no name, just a flag and not covered by MSM.

Talk about sanitizing horror...
Click to expand...

They are different in a sense of why they happened. Your attempts to draw it down as "dead is dead" are noted, yet irrelevantt. In Iraq we fought a much tougher opponent in URBAN environments as well as rural. Unlike Afghanistan where you have to chase a dude up a mountain for 18 hours just to have him hide in a cave, and then get hit by an IED. Since you were not there, it's natural that you do not understand.
 
11Bravo said:
I will agree. Will you please address my rules of engagement questions though?
Click to expand...

I already have, no I don't agree with them however its not really massively different from what was already in place and regardless casualties would of increased anyway.

You can cite protocol changes, leadership etc but the cold hard facts of war are that when you expose more troops to an enemy more are going to come home in boxes.

Now could Nato have blown the helmand province ( for example)into dust? Yes they could of but unfortunately that kind of force ended long long ago, long before Obama or even me and you were born.
 
Higgins86 said:
I already have, no I don't agree with them however its not really massively different from what was already in place and regardless casualties would of increased anyway.

You can cite protocol changes, leadership etc but the cold hard facts of war are that when you expose more troops to an enemy more are going to come home in boxes.

Now could Nato have blown the helmand province ( for example)into dust? Yes they could of but unfortunately that kind of force ended long long ago, long before Obama or even me and you were born.
Click to expand...

Maybe, however, my overall point was about why Obama changed the rules of engagement to put us in MORE harm. It's one question I'd love to ask him if I ever got to meet him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom