Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 91

Thread: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

  1. #21
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    We are victims of our own latent bi-polar schizophrenia.

    It's like we get ourselves all in a self-righteous huff about how we're going to give someone the beating of a lifetime, and then lose our nerve halfway through delivering the first punch. Sure, any fist that connects with it's target is still going to do damage anyway regardless, but that's not really going to help you much when your heart simply isn't in the fight, and you haven't got the will to see things through to their conclusion.

    The only inevitable outcome such an attitude can result in is defeat.
    Also, you can't impose your will on other nations even if you win on the battlefield. This isn't WW II with a clearly defined sense of whose ass needed kicking. How would you even know if you won? Why would you care?

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    So kill as many of civilians until they respect you... Howd that work in Vietnam, Iraq?
    Kill the bad guys until the locals respect you. There is a bit of a difference.

    It worked just fine in Iraq. That's exactly what made the original "surge" so successful in the first place.

    Local tribal leaders saw that they didn't have to take Al Qaeda's crap anymore, so they allied with us instead.

    With the vast vast vast vast majority supporting withdrawl for quite sometime now not to well...
    Keep dreaming. If we had withdrawn immediately in '08, Afghanistan would have gone to pot, the media would have had a field day, and Obama almost certainly would have lost re-election.

    Major in whose book? Yours personally?
    The generals who planned the operation, obviously.

    They wanted 50,000 to 80,000 men and possibly more, not 30,000 hamstrung by all sorts of ridiculous political concessions.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Also, you can't impose your will on other nations even if you win on the battlefield. This isn't WW II with a clearly defined sense of whose ass needed kicking. How would you even know if you won? Why would you care?
    Honestly, the only way to really "win" here would be to either leave Afghanistan as a stable US client state, or to neutralize Iran in some fashion. That way, we could be assured some measure of either regional stability, or regional dominance.

    The problem is that we can't really seem to make up our minds on which we want to do. We're trying to be both imperialistic conquerors and selfless philanthropists at the same time, and the end result is that we simply wind up being wildly mediocre at both.

  4. #24
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    He had many other choices besides the troop surge such as limited air strikes, pulling out completely, leaving only advisers, and a barrage of increasing troops such as a surge another 40,000 troops, a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops, and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements. He did infact send the middle ground but i dont see how the made a lick of a difference seeing that its done little to no good but made the situation more unstable.
    I think you need to re-read my reply. I said it was a middle ground choice between the maximalist position and the minimalist one. The maximal position was the 40,000 McChrystal officially request, the minimal was Biden and others proposal for substituting a troop surge with more special forces, drones, advisers, etc. It hasn't made any difference, my whole point was that the troop surge was too small.

  5. #25
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Honestly, the only way to really "win" here would be to either leave Afghanistan as a stable US client state, or to neutralize Iran in some fashion. That way, we could be assured some measure of either regional stability, or regional dominance.

    The problem is that we can't really seem to make up our minds on which we want to do. We're trying to be both imperialistic conquerors and selfless philanthropists at the same time, and the end result is that we simply wind up being wildly mediocre at both.
    And you can see how welcome we are by recent challenges from the leaders of this unstable society. We're not wanted or needed. They are incapable of a civilized society. It's tragic really but just like we leave crazy NK alone to their terrible fate, we must do so with these people. We can NOT win here. We are throwing blood and treasure at an unfeeling wall.

    Imagine if we took every penny we spent in Afghanistan and spent it on education. We'd have a University on every corner and everyone could afford it. Or on NASA, we'd be building colonies in the Oort Cloud. Or roads, so I don't have to bounce through the potholes. Anything.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Dont surges "work so good"? Now the Taliban is back and is gonna be in serious political business here pretty soon. All this worthless bloodshed for what? The unwinable "war on terror"?
    that happens with half assed leadership

  7. #27
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    that happens with half assed leadership
    The way i look at it no matter what Obama did the right would disagree with it no matter what.


  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    It's not actually a "surge" if you're not allowed to fight.
    I think that's what former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates mentions in his soon to be released book. Obama never had any intentions on winning in Afghanistan.

    And Obama's politically correct rules of engagemnet only favor the enemy and has caused American and coalition troops to bleed and die.

    Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement

    >" The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths..."<

    >" But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

    “In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

    “It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”..."<

    Read more: Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I think that's what former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates mentions in his soon to be released book. Obama never had any intentions on winning in Afghanistan.

    And Obama's politically correct rules of engagemnet only favor the enemy and has caused American and coalition troops to bleed and die.

    Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement

    >" The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths..."<

    >" But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

    “In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

    “It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”..."<

    Read more: Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement - Washington Times

    Heya Apache.....then that part on our Troopers getting shot in the back came to play.....lets not forget how that came with those Stricter ROE and under the Obama watch too.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: 74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post


    The generals who planned the operation, obviously.

    They wanted 50,000 to 80,000 men and possibly more, not 30,000 hamstrung by all sorts of ridiculous political concessions.
    Your correct. The generals requested something like 60,000 troop surge. It took Obama months to make up his mind. Once he made up his mind he signed off on half the numbers that was requested and it wasn't even a surge but a slow trickle of troops that didn't start showing up in-country until six months after the request was made.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •