• 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!

Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

Yeah, let's bring them home no, so someone else can go back later and do it all over again. Do we really have to let history repeat itself??

What's the winning strategy?
 
What's the winning strategy?

Kill the enemy, destroy as much of his combat power as possible, with as little collateral damage as possible. Constantly seek out and destroy the enemy on his own turf; an offensive strategy is always the best. The Confederate army employed a defensive strategy and look what happened to them.

People talk about the, "winning strategy", as if there are an infinite number of strategies to choose from, and there isn't. You can employ an offensive strategy; static, or mobile. Or, you can employ a defensive strategy; static, or mobile.

Yeah, the political scene in country has to whipped into shaped, but that will never happen before the enemy is beat down and that has to happen, before you can start getting the political scene shaped up. We learned that in Iraq; once conditions on the battlefield improved, the political situation improved almost exponentially.
 
Good question....& what does WINNING mean exactly in Afghanistan?

Why do ya'll make it so hard?? "Winning", is the Taliban destroyed and a stable government in control of the country.

It took some of the smartest men in history, 13 years from the day they declared independence, to the day they finally established the government we have now and didn't have nowhere near as many issues to deal with. Now, you folks want all this wrapped up in a couple of years? Git real!
 
Kill them and break thier things, until they have no more will to fight. :shrug:

Ah....But finding THEM & identifying THEM is always the problem when fighting shadows who kill by exploding roadside bombs. ;)

Large standing armies is not the way to win these type of wars.
 
Last edited:
Why do ya'll make it so hard?? "Winning", is the Taliban destroyed and a stable government in control of the country.

Why??
Because it is easy to SAY it but we've been fighting over there for 8 years with good troops. If it's so easy....why haven't we won yet?
Saying it & Doing it are not the same...right?...Mission Accomplished ring a bell?
 
Last edited:
Ah....But finding THEM & identifying THEM is always the problem when fighting shadows who kill by exploding roadside bombs. ;)

Large standing armies is not the way to win these type of wars.
None of this invalidates what he said.
 
Why??
Because it is easy to SAY it but we've been fighting over there for 8 years with good troops. If it's so easy....why haven't we won yet?
Saying it & Doing it are not the same...right?...Mission Accomplished ring a bell?

Who said that doing it was going to be easy? The concept isn't as complicated as you all would make it out to be. Actually executing that concept is going to be damn hard. But, you keep confusing things with all the, "what's the winning strategy", whining.
 
Kill the enemy, destroy as much of his combat power as possible, with as little collateral damage as possible. Constantly seek out and destroy the enemy on his own turf; an offensive strategy is always the best. The Confederate army employed a defensive strategy and look what happened to them.

People talk about the, "winning strategy", as if there are an infinite number of strategies to choose from, and there isn't. You can employ an offensive strategy; static, or mobile. Or, you can employ a defensive strategy; static, or mobile.

Yeah, the political scene in country has to whipped into shaped, but that will never happen before the enemy is beat down and that has to happen, before you can start getting the political scene shaped up. We learned that in Iraq; once conditions on the battlefield improved, the political situation improved almost exponentially.

Two points:

1 - his combat power - the combat power of the enemy is people. They have AKs, some machine guns, RPGs, and explosives. There are no planes, tanks, howitzers, fuel trucks, etc. You have to kill the right people. This means intelligence. Not SIGINT, but HUMINT, and the only way to get that is through the local population. The only way the locals feel secure enough to tell you is if you secure the population. Classic counterinsurgency. More troops can help with this.

2 - Constantly seek out and destroy the enemy on his own turf - the reality is that the enemy has sanctuaries in Pakistan. How do we eliminate the sanctuaries? Critical to success. More troops does NOT help this situation. So how do we deal with these?
 
Ultimately, that is the only way to win a war.
You win a war by eliminating your opponent's ability to make war agianst you.
This means the destruction of his physical infrastructure and his will to fight.

Kill people and break things sums it up perfectly.
 
Ah....But finding THEM & identifying THEM is always the problem when fighting shadows who kill by exploding roadside bombs. ;)

Large standing armies is not the way to win these type of wars.

The enemy can't win fighting from the shadows trying to kill by exploding roadside bombs.
 
None of this invalidates what he said.

I never said it did....I just say it's impossible to kill the enemy if we don't know who they are...or where they are. (we're fighting shadows with Abrams(sp) tanks.
 
You win a war by eliminating your opponent's ability to make war agianst you.
This means the destruction of his physical infrastructure and his will to fight.

Kill people and break things sums it up perfectly.

And a fine job Cheney did of that in Iraq...while leaving the Nations problems in Afghanistan behind..

The old fool needs to go into a resthome.
 
Funny, then, that I never see any protests calling for the Taliban to be tried for war crimes. :roll:
 
I never said it did....I just say it's impossible to kill the enemy if we don't know who they are...or where they are.
So... you find them and kill him.
That it might not be easy doesnt change anything other than the effort necessary.
 
And a fine job Cheney did of that in Iraq...while leaving the Nations problems in Afghanistan behind..

The old fool needs to go into a resthome.
Still waitng for your response:

If Cheney is wrong, as you say, then, according to you:

-Signals of indecision out of Washington do NOT hurt our allies and do NOT embolden our adversaries

-The White House does NOT need to stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger

-It is NOT time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.
 
The enemy can't win fighting from the shadows trying to kill by exploding roadside bombs.

Depends on you definition of "Win"

If getting us war weary with dead GI's returning in body bags ...with no end in site is their goal...I'd say they are winning right now.
 
Funny, then, that I never see any protests calling for the Taliban to be tried for war crimes. :roll:
They use Kalishnikovs -- this means they are Freedom Fighters.
Freedom Fighters are exempt from war crimes.
 
Still waitng for your response:

If Cheney is wrong, as you say, then, according to you:

-Signals of indecision out of Washington do NOT hurt our allies and do NOT embolden our adversaries

-The White House does NOT need to stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger

-It is NOT time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

You need to reread the thread because I've answered that question..

Hell yes Cheney is wrong..as he has been many times before.

Now he's a freaking expert on not Dithering...the guy is a Joke.

His comments bash America, the troops and their moral...again.
 
They use Kalishnikovs -- this means they are Freedom Fighters.
Freedom Fighters are exempt from war crimes.

Ah. Forgot about the Kalashnikov Codicil. :doh
 
Who said that doing it was going to be easy? The concept isn't as complicated as you all would make it out to be. Actually executing that concept is going to be damn hard. But, you keep confusing things with all the, "what's the winning strategy", whining.

For three years, we had the wrong strategy in Iraq. Events deteriorated. The strategy was, train the Iraqis and turn over control as fast as possible. As the Iraqi Army failed in the face of sectarian insurgents and large portions of the population were chased out of the country, we finally got some reality back in Washington and Bush listened, bless him. Keane and Petraeus educated important people about counterinsurgency. Bush changed the strategy to secure the population.

Strategy is very important - nay critical to winning.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom