Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 143

Thread: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

  1. #91
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,402

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    No. Tactical success is essentially determined by the ground the good guys hold. We hold less now than in 2001. Body count is never a measure of success. Not even tactically.

    Strategically? The only plus is that Pakistan has JUST NOW increased operations slightly against the Taliban...as opposed to helping them the entire time Bush was President.
    You can't fully gauge success by holding ground in an unconventional war. You have to also use the destruction of the enmy's ability to wage war as a barometer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #92
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Somebody should send a copy of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" to Obama.
    If this were a conventional war, that might make sense. Perhaps you should read the Rand Report to the Pentagon on how our "war on terror" has been a failure.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #93
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,402

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    If this were a conventional war, that might make sense. Perhaps you should read the Rand Report to the Pentagon on how our "war on terror" has been a failure.
    War is war. Tactics and strategy don' suddenly take on new meanings depending on if a war is conventional, or unconventional.

    The Rand Report? What units did those guys serve in?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #94
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    I thought the goal was to weaken AQ's ability to launch future attacks on the USA.
    Right, the mission was not to establish a pro-west Afghanistan by killing all of the Taliban.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You can't fully gauge success by holding ground in an unconventional war. You have to also use the destruction of the enmy's ability to wage war as a barometer.
    Well, yes and no. The problem is that we lacked strategic objectives (we still do) for so long, that it makes the barometer kind of a non-factor. The Taliban were at their weakest about 90 days after 9/11; they have regrouped and grown since. So based on your premise, their ability has increased steadily. Now that we've thrown more rocks at the hornet's nest by going back in and retaking ground that we ceded to them, we are taking more casualties and realizing their actual manpower to combat allied operations.

    Much like Iraq, COIN depends on ground that the allies hold. If we don't hold the ground, that is where the Taliban will rule and where AQ will be sanctuaried (in theory).

    Particularly in COIN, body count never matters, as I noted earlier. This enemy won't run out of warm bodies willing to pick up the AK.
    Last edited by kansaswhig; 10-25-09 at 02:35 AM.

  6. #96
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Because not only was there no progress...

    There was major regression!

    The Taliban was nearly eradicated by the end of 2001!

    AQ was on the run to PAK!

    Now look!
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, July 3, 2008

    The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq.
    A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com

    OBL 11/24/02

  7. #97
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    War is war. Tactics and strategy don' suddenly take on new meanings depending on if a war is conventional, or unconventional.

    The Rand Report? What units did those guys serve in?
    That kind of out dated thinking is exactly why we are losing an 8 year war on terror!

    The Rand Corporation are the experts the Pentagon looks to for research, as opposed to your opinion.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Very True. Afghanistan's location (land-locked) also prevents the Army from deploying Mechanized forces to the AO. They must depend on light, airborne, air assault and striker units to carry the load in A-stan, because the 1st CAV, 1st Armored or any other Tank BDE won't be coming to help. They can't get into the country.

    Iraq continues to plague us. Many brigades that could go to A-stan to help are STILL on orders to Iraq, a conflict that is over for us. All that is left is to haul all of our crap out. I wish the Iraqis would just ask us to leave.

  9. #99
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,402

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Well, yes and no. The problem is that we lacked strategic objectives (we still do) for so long, that it makes the barometer kind of a non-factor. The Taliban were at their weakest about 90 days after 9/11; they have regrouped and grown since. So based on your premise, their ability has increased steadily. Now that we've thrown more rocks at the hornet's nest by going back in and retaking ground that we ceded to them, we are taking more casualties and realizing their actual manpower to combat allied operations.

    Much like Iraq, COIN depends on ground that the allies hold. If we don't hold the ground, that is where the Taliban will rule and where AQ will be sanctuaried (in theory).

    Particularly in COIN, body count never matters, as I noted earlier. This enemy won't run out of warm bodies willing to pick up the AK.
    Cap, in counter-insurgency operations, holding ground is not a barometer of success. If the enemy isn't interested in holding ground, then we shouldn't be either. We should interested in one of two things: interdicting the enemy on his on turf, or drawing him out so we can engage him. Actually, we should be doing both.
    Last edited by apdst; 10-25-09 at 02:43 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #100
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: NATO Backs McChrystal Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    If this were a conventional war, that might make sense. Perhaps you should read the Rand Report to the Pentagon on how our "war on terror" has been a failure.
    Maybe you should read The Art of War also? A war is a war. No matter how it's fought. Just because it's "unconventional" (when in all seriousness what the terrorists are doing is about as old a tactic as war itself) doesn't mean that you throw out ALL tactics.

    What gets me is that so many want to play at war. If we are loosing the war on terror then it is because our leaders are only playing at it. They are not conducting a War.

    In a real war innocents do die. In a real war you do what ever it takes to destroy your enemy. There is no such thing as a "civilized war", in a real war.

    Edit Note: Corrected spelling mistake.
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 10-25-09 at 02:52 AM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •