• 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!

Afghan War Debate Endangers U.S. Troops - Veterans

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Afghan War Debate Endangers U.S. Troops - Veterans

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/15/world/international-uk-afghanistan-usa.html



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. veterans criticized President Barack Obama's lengthy review of Afghan war strategy, saying on Thursday the drawn-out debate in Washington was a direct threat to troops and the nation's defence.

The head of Veterans of Foreign Wars, a group representing 1.5 million former soldiers, issued a tersely worded statement urging Obama to follow the advice of his military commanders, who want more troops for the eight-year war.

"The extremists are sensing weakness and indecision within the U.S. government, which plays into their hands," said Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., a Vietnam veteran and head of VFW.

That was "evidenced by the increased attacks in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan," he said.

"I fear that an emboldened enemy will now intensify their efforts to kill more U.S. soldiers," Tradewell added.




This is exactly what I have been saying, and have been bashed for for weeks here at DP. Obama's fiddling endangers our troops and destroys morale. He needs to piss or get off the pot.



I urge the president to heed the assessment and advice of his military leaders," Tradewell said, adding Obama needed to be "decisive during this critical juncture."


Exactly.



Nato also is wondering what to do as Obama demonstrates the same indecisiveness that he showed in the debates.
 
Re: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/15/world/international-uk-afghanistan-usa.

Full text:



"In Afghanistan, the extremists are sensing weakness and indecision within the U.S. government, which plays into their hands, as evidenced by the increased attacks in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. I fear that an emboldened enemy will now intensify their efforts to kill more U.S. soldiers.

"President Obama’s primary responsibility is that of Commander-in-Chief, and he has a obligation to ensure his commander's advice takes precedence over opinion polls and politics. When the president addressed VFW delegates during its 110th National Convention in August, he was very specific when he stated, ‘This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.’

"When the president directed more troops into Afghanistan in March, he issued a statement that said, ‘This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border.’

"In other words, President Obama identified Afghanistan as a counterinsurgency operation requiring appropriate planning, which means our commanders are the experts in this regard, not our politicians.

"In addition to the deployments that have occurred, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal also requested 40,000 additional troops he says are necessary to prevent the country from falling into the hands of the Taliban. That request has provoked opposition in Washington from some administration officials as well as congressional members who do not want to further escalate a war that so far has been under resourced and undermanned.

“I urge the president to heed the assessment and advice of his military leaders who have provided a clear path forward for achieving success against al Qaeda and its allies. I ask that he be decisive during this critical juncture. Time is not a luxury when our magnificent men and women in uniform are in harm’s way,” concluded Tradewell.

Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., was elected national commander of the 2.1 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries in August 2009. He served as an Army demolition specialist with the Americal Division in South Vietnam from 1967-1968.
 
Re: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/15/world/international-uk-afghanistan-usa.

Can someone fix my title? Thanks!
 
You can't get a man with no brains or balls to listen to military commanders that have plenty of both. They need to send more of us(soldiers) over there or bring my brothers home, and lob a few glass makers over there. The glass makers will serve notice to Iran, and the rest of the anti American crowd that we will not tolerate any BS that threatens the American Way. All of you lame-in-love Barry lovers should be proud of the most gutless POS we have ever had as president. It is too bad you can't get rid of all the anti-American crowd(liberals) in the US. Maybe we could get San Francisco or Seattle to hold a ACLU convention, and drop a glass maker there as well.

Greetings to all.
 
The Afghanistan war needs an infusion of troops by the spring of 2010. That means that a decision must be made in a couple three weeks.

Yet let us not fool ourselves - again!! Afghanistan also needs an American driven political front along with economic push. Along with all of this Afghanistan needs to start owning it's own war and that means Afghan n military training and transitioning the fight from the US / Nato to the Afghans. The Afghan government needs to behave in a legitimate manner in order to gain confidence from its peoples or we will never be able to count on them to take on their own fight.

We also need to surreptitiously kill of the bad guys hiding and operating out of Pakistan.

All of this should have been done in 2003 but guess who went off to fight in Iraq !!!
 
You can't get a man with no brains or balls to listen to military commanders that have plenty of both. They need to send more of us(soldiers) over there or bring my brothers home, and lob a few glass makers over there. The glass makers will serve notice to Iran, and the rest of the anti American crowd that we will not tolerate any BS that threatens the American Way. All of you lame-in-love Barry lovers should be proud of the most gutless POS we have ever had as president. It is too bad you can't get rid of all the anti-American crowd(liberals) in the US. Maybe we could get San Francisco or Seattle to hold a ACLU convention, and drop a glass maker there as well.

Greetings to all.

Welcome aboard. Great post.
 
You consider advocating a nuclear attack on a civilian population center of the United States to be a "great post" apdst? I'd rate it as "weak troll" myself.
 
If the path is so clear why is Gates saying he needs to meet with Obama before a decision is made?

Are you advocating the President make a major military strategy decision without the input of the Secretary of Defense?
 
The war in Afghanistan has no strategy, not anymore. The only strategy should be to get out. Enough with the waste of dollars and lives already.
 
If the path is so clear why is Gates saying he needs to meet with Obama before a decision is made?

Are you advocating the President make a major military strategy decision without the input of the Secretary of Defense?

That should have happened the second Obama received McChrystal's report. A real CIC would have convened an emergency meeting among military leadership and told them to have a recommendation on his desk in two days. Instead, he dithered, and talked, and delayed, and went to grovel for the Olympics, and went on talk shows, and launched a war against a news channel...still nothing, still no results.
 
The war in Afghanistan has no strategy, not anymore. The only strategy should be to get out. Enough with the waste of dollars and lives already.

I'm starting to feel this way, too. Obama is a coward. He doesn't have the stomach to finish this war. It'll only result in defeat and death.
 
Military forces are not designed for "nation building," they are designed to confront, contain, and defeat armed enemies. But in Afghanistan defeating the Taliban will require the willing cooperation and support of the population. We do not have that, and there is no reason to expect that we will ever get such support.

For that reason, I would propose a redical redefinition of our mission there--focusing solely upon destruction of those elements which constitute a danger to the United States and its allies, and abandoning any pretense that we can remake a society which has been thousands of years in its formation. Cut back on the number of American troops there, enlist the cooperation of those fcorces which helped us drive the Taliban from power in 2001, pay off whoever we need to pay off, and get the bad guys. Then bring ALL our boys and girls home as quickly as possible.

We cannot "conquer" Afghanistan and we cannot occupy it for the next two centuries. So let's agree to pursue a strategy that is attainable.
 
You consider advocating a nuclear attack on a civilian population center of the United States to be a "great post" apdst? I'd rate it as "weak troll" myself.

A weak troll, is that what you call people who you disagreeeee with? You can't come up with a post with substance to refute me, so you just call me a troll, and weak at that. Grab your ruck & M16 and come go with me, and we shall see who the weak is. The best thing that could happen to this country is the total annihilation of all of you people who hate America. I just can't understand why all of you Haters just don't move to cuba or Venezuala, where you can tell those Socialist regimes how to do it. Yet you remain here in the country you hate so bad. The best thing that could happen in the short term is for Obama to declare a dictakership, and then it would simply be easier to overthrow the govt, and flush the toilet of all the scumbags in the govt. You sir, are simply WEAK. :shock:
 
You consider advocating a nuclear attack on a civilian population center of the United States to be a "great post" apdst? I'd rate it as "weak troll" myself.


I agree with the tone of the post, not the specific nuclear attack. You'll figure out that kinda stuff when you grow up.
 
On one hand, Obama has to get a handle on what's really going down there. But he has to do so in a manner which best serves the military. But I wouldn't expect an end to this any time soon. These wars we started....we ****ed them up since the beginning.
 
On one hand, Obama has to get a handle on what's really going down there. But he has to do so in a manner which best serves the military. But I wouldn't expect an end to this any time soon. These wars we started....we ****ed them up since the beginning.


And just how many lives must be wasted while Rhambo slow walks this through the decisions process? 100? 200? 500? This is disgusting! Obama has had these recommendations on his desk for going on 60 DAYS now. What the hell is he doing?


j-mac
 
The damage is done, and at the risk of someone saying we are using troops death for politics (a disgusting notion)., I agree with Jmac. I agree with ethereal, If Obama took this as serious as he took the olympics, a decision would have been made by now.


Obama is a poor poor leader, he is indecisive, as he has been since the campaign when he could not decide who to back in the georgian war.
 
On one hand, Obama has to get a handle on what's really going down there. But he has to do so in a manner which best serves the military. But I wouldn't expect an end to this any time soon. These wars we started....we ****ed them up since the beginning.

It is not the President's job to "best serve the military." His assignment is to best serve the people of the United States. If, in his best judgment, that means withdrawing from ill-conceived and inadequately supported military operations, then it is his duty to order them military to withdraw. If, on the other hand, he can identify a realistic military objective which will better serve the interests of the American people, it is his responsibility to provide the military with all the personnel and support which they need to fulfill their mission.

But neither course is automatically correct. It is a matter of having a clearly defined goal and a realistic way to achieve it. That is something we have not had for the past eight years, and Mr. Obama is only going to get one chance to get it right. I don't blame him for being careful--those are our sons and daughters whose lives are being put at risk.
 
It is not the President's job to "best serve the military." His assignment is to best serve the people of the United States. If, in his best judgment, that means withdrawing from ill-conceived and inadequately supported military operations, then it is his duty to order them military to withdraw. If, on the other hand, he can identify a realistic military objective which will better serve the interests of the American people, it is his responsibility to provide the military with all the personnel and support which they need to fulfill their mission.

But neither course is automatically correct. It is a matter of having a clearly defined goal and a realistic way to achieve it. That is something we have not had for the past eight years, and Mr. Obama is only going to get one chance to get it right. I don't blame him for being careful--those are our sons and daughters whose lives are being put at risk.




How long? How long, do you give him? our sons and daughters are taking fire while the man fiddles.
 
That should have happened the second Obama received McChrystal's report. A real CIC would have convened an emergency meeting among military leadership and told them to have a recommendation on his desk in two days. Instead, he dithered, and talked, and delayed, and went to grovel for the Olympics, and went on talk shows, and launched a war against a news channel...still nothing, still no results.

I guess I have never seen a real CiC in action then. Bush also took months to make a decision on strategy changes in Iraq.
 
I guess I have never seen a real CiC in action then. Bush also took months to make a decision on strategy changes in Iraq.




Link to where he had troops sit in harms way while he decided whether to pull out or continue.
 
Link to where he had troops sit in harms way while he decided whether to pull out or continue.

Obama isn't deciding to pull our or continue. He's deciding on whether to change the primary objective towards Al-Q rather then the Taliban.


While commanders in Iraq sit and wait for a request for 20,000 troop increase to be granted by Bush. Bush says "I'm not going to be rushed On Iraq" strategy.
Bush: I'm Not Going To Be Rushed On Iraq - CBS News
 
Obama isn't deciding to pull our or continue. He's deciding on whether to change the primary objective towards Al-Q rather then the Taliban.


Bush: I'm Not Going To Be Rushed On Iraq [Strategy], while commanders in Iraq sit and wait for a request for 20,000 troop increase to be granted.
Bush: I'm Not Going To Be Rushed On Iraq - CBS News




:lol: you see the difference here? Bush was activley persuing solution. Obama is fiddling in indecision.
 
:lol: you see the difference here? Bush was activley persuing solution. Obama is fiddling in indecision.
Oh I don't deny Obama should have met and had all the options a while ago. At the same time I also don't pretend to believe determining the overall strategy that impacts hundreds of thousands of peoples lives and billions of dollars is a decision that can happen in over a lunch meeting.
 
Oh I don't deny Obama should have met and had all the options a while ago. At the same time I also don't pretend to believe determining the overall strategy that impacts hundreds of thousands of peoples lives and billions of dollars is a decision that can happen in over a lunch meeting.




The lunch meeting was 70+ days ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom