• 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 Backs McChrystal Strategy

apdst said:
So, 8 years is the official time limit? Where's that written?
Click to expand...

So "NOW" is the official time limit for the President to make a logical decision based on recent facts?
 
kansaswhig said:
You are getting desperate...
Click to expand...

I'm serious and not desperate. We've been told it's a failure, because Bush didn't wrap it up in 8 years. Why is it a failure?
 
goldendog said:
So "NOW" is the official time limit for the President to make a logical decision based on recent facts?
Click to expand...

That's right. Bush was wrong for dragging his feet and so is PBO.
 
apdst said:
I'm serious and not desperate. We've been told it's a failure, because Bush didn't wrap it up in 8 years. Why is it a failure?
Click to expand...

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!
 
apdst said:
That's right. Bush was wrong for dragging his feet and so is PBO.
Click to expand...

How many troops has the president added into the theater in the last 9 months? How many did Bush add into the theater in the last 18 months?
 
kansaswhig said:
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!
Click to expand...

There was NO progress? At all?

Alotta AQ and Tally fighters were killed and run out of the country. That isn't progress?
 
apdst said:
So, 8 years is the official time limit? Where's that written?
Click to expand...

No one mentioned a time limit. But to make the situation worse is not what we are going for. Thus the need for reevaluation.
 
goldendog said:
How many troops has the president added into the theater in the last 9 months? How many did Bush add into the theater in the last 18 months?
Click to expand...

It's all about Bush ain't it? You don't give a **** if PBO doesn anything, just as long as he doesjust enough to say he did more than Bush. I'm trying to figure out if your politics are based around your love for PBO, or your hatred for Bush.
 
Catawba said:
No one mentioned a time limit. But to make the situation worse is not what we are going for. Thus the need for reevaluation.
Click to expand...

PBO had made the situation worse.
 
apdst said:
There was NO progress? At all?

Alotta AQ and Tally fighters were killed and run out of the country. That isn't progress?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Catawba said:
After 8 years of war, the Taliban have increased their presence in Afghanistan to now approximately 80% of the country, and terrorists have grown in numbers worldwide.

Was that the objective of the 8 year war? If not then the objective failed.
Click to expand...

I thought the goal was to weaken AQ's ability to launch future attacks on the USA.
 
apdst said:
It's all about Bush ain't it? You don't give a **** if PBO doesn anything, just as long as he doesjust enough to say he did more than Bush. I'm trying to figure out if your politics are based around your love for PBO, or your hatred for Bush.
Click to expand...

No President Obama will be held responsible for the consequences of his decisions he makes too.

Won't he?
But some people have stated they will support the President after he comes to a decision. Haven't they apdst?
 
apdst said:
PBO had made the situation worse.
Click to expand...

That is laughable. Let's see your link that states that the growth in Taliban in Afghanistan and terrorists worldwide in the last 8 years is due to what this president did in the last 8 months.
 
kansaswhig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Somebody should send a copy of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" to Obama.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
bhkad said:
I thought the goal was to weaken AQ's ability to launch future attacks on the USA.
Click to expand...

Right, the mission was not to establish a pro-west Afghanistan by killing all of the Taliban.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
kansaswhig said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com
 
apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
bhkad said:
A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

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.
 
kansaswhig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom