scottsoperson
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 11
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
maybe mcchrystal didn't feel obama was kissing his ass enough.
What is odd is Obi said McChrystal followed his orders.
COIN was a passive response.
This is not The Obi Plan we had.
Seems like the problem the foot soldiers complained about is about to result in more dead terrorists.
I wonder if Petraeus will ask for more troops.
.
General Petraeus is an expert in this kind of warfare. He literally wrote the book on it. Assuming he is given reasonable independence of action, I expect he will do very well and achieve substantial results, though the effects may take time.
The current rules of engagement are resulting in a lot of US military casualties, even as they protect Afghan civilians.
The war has become unpopular, and daily headlines about 10 or 15 more dead American boys are not helping the cause.
If Petraeus can significantly reduce US casualties in Afghanistan, even at the cost of the death of a few more Afghan civilians, he may be able to buy more time- possibly even another troop increase, for this war.
On the other hand, I don't know how long Petraeus will remain in charge.
This may be only a temporary thing, for appearance sake, to get us past the whole McChrystal debacle.
I've heard rumors that he's dying of metastatic prostate cancer.
He's passed out in public on more than one occasion recently, and he does not appear to me to be a well man.
Probably because the General doesn't get any sleep, running a war isn't a 9 to 5 job. I think this would be taxing on anyone who runs a campaign not to mention Patreaus does worry about his troops.He's passed out in public on more than one occasion recently, and he does not appear to me to be a well man.
There wasn't an attack. There was a statement of fact.
I am happy to see the troops be able to fight. They didn't like the existing rules of engagement. Some were so despondent they did not feel they were winning.
This is good news.
Now, will he ask for more troops and will Obama agree?
.
The current rules of engagement are resulting in a lot of US military casualties, even as they protect Afghan civilians.
The war has become unpopular, and daily headlines about 10 or 15 more dead American boys are not helping the cause.
If Petraeus can significantly reduce US casualties in Afghanistan, even at the cost of the death of a few more Afghan civilians, he may be able to buy more time- possibly even another troop increase, for this war.
Ya know, when a President like Obama is more interested in socialism than security nothing good will come out of this because Eikenberry and special envoy Holbrooke will still be pulling the strings
This started in Iraq. The left wanted more politically correct fighting and the civilians that protect the terrorist are more important than victory.
TBone come on, ric27 does have a point, look at your own state and the border and immigration issue and what Obama is doing about it.Please show me where he is not interested in security.
It shows rules of engagement in 2007. This was a continuation of what started in Iraq. Finally Petraeus will untie the hands of our soldiers.
TBone come on, ric27 does have a point, look at your own state and the border and immigration issue and what Obama is doing about it.
Now you also have a point but, wars are won by slaughter and maneuver no two ways around it. Now if this isn't a satisfactory condition for victory, I would say lets not engage in war. We have tried limited warfare since Korea and it has failed every time to achieve it's objective. Now noone wants collateral damage in regards to civilian lives but, we should do has we did in the 1940's and before, allow the civilians to leave in a certain period of time and those who remain will be considered combatants. That said, all wars that have been fought civilians will be the ones that pay the ultimate price and this is why we should fight by all means necessary and end it quickly, this way we are not dragging it out over decades where eventually more civilians will perish.Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.
I agree with you about past and present administration turning a blind eye in regards to immigration policy. I can't speak for ric27 but, to me it seems he is pointing out that Obama is more interested in flipping this country into a more socialistic style government than he is about winning the war in the M.E.I will give you that when discussing our border and immigration problem, BUT every previous president and congress (democrat and GOP) is responsible for what is happening on our border. I don't agree on the security in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I am wrong, I will apologize. All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.
I find it very interesting that all of a sudden the rules of engagement are under review just after McChrystal resigns. The fact is it was Petraus who was McCrystals boss & who originally designed the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal was employing with much the same ROE. My theory is that McChyrstal never decided on the "rules of engagement" and that this was pushed on him by the Obama administration probably with pressure from the commie lawyers over at the ACLU, one of Obamas constituencies. McChystal over time probably saw that there was no way his plan would work with these kind of rules. His pleas to the president & his minions probably fell on deaf ears so he decided to change paths not wanting to preside over a lost war and in the process bring attention to the problem. Falling over the sword for the good of the country so to speak. How else do you explain the timing of the changes in ROE ?
I doubt whether any serious military man (McChrystal or Petraus) would impose rules that would result in more of there own soldiers being killed (especially a special forces guru like McChrystal) so these incredibly restrictive rules must have come from the the civilian leadership & was imposed on the military by someone who knows very little about how to win a war. Have any guess's? Could it p[ossibly be the same guy who wants to impose his will over the banking indusrty, mthe car companies, the energy sector ect ect ect
The stench of Obama & the left are all over this one, they griped & griped & griped until they twisted Gates arm enough to impose them, then when they found the results to be not very good for them politically (losing a war) they did a 180. How Ironic how they scorned Petraus when he "Bushes" man but when Obama apponted his own guy and he supposedly failed now we have Bushes man (whom they hated before) replacing him. Anyone see the Irony in this?
Please provide a link from a media source that is not right or left.
Excuse my confusion, but what more do you want the troops to do? The list you gave looks good. I have issues with the collateral because the enemy uses this to their advantage, but I understand the rule. After all, if an enemy combatant shoots at us, and runs in the middle of a daycare or school, I do want the children blown up innocent victims.
Have anything more than your theory?
What? do I look like an insider? Whether or not my theory is correct or not what you are hearing out of the administration is not the whole story and my theory is as good & sound as any.
I mean why the change in ROE so fast after McChyrstal leaves? Unless maybe this was the issue all along & not the Rolling stone article, maybe the article was just an excuse to cover the real motive.
All I want from ric27 is something that shows me I am wrong or he is right.
What? do I look like an insider? Whether or not my theory is correct or not what you are hearing out of the administration is not the whole story and my theory is as good & sound as any.
I mean why the change in ROE so fast after McChyrstal leaves? Unless maybe this was the issue all along & not the Rolling stone article, maybe the article was just an excuse to cover the real motive.
What is odd is Obi said McChrystal followed his orders.
COIN was a passive response.
This is not The Obi Plan we had.
Seems like the problem the foot soldiers complained about is about to result in more dead terrorists.
I wonder if Petraeus will ask for more troops.
.