Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

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

  1. #61
    Banned Steve Ja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,092
    Blog Entries
    6

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    I agree they arent but they are mostly right along the border region.
    But then again we did agree that Afghanis really dont give a rats ass who they are goverened by as long as they are left alone.
    That's pretty much what tit comes down to. Let the people make their own destiny. We have an interest to protect ourselves and our allies, but not outside that.

  2. #62
    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 Steve Ja View Post
    That's pretty much what tit comes down to. Let the people make their own destiny. We have an interest to protect ourselves and our allies, but not outside that.
    I agree up to a point on what it is considered to be an "ally". But overall i agree with Afghanistan.


  3. #63
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

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

    A) No he didn't. McCrystal asked for enough to push into both regional commands bordering Pakistan in order to effectively shut down the taliban's ability to project force across that border and into the country. Obama gave him enough to push into one, apparently not realizing that these guys are like water, and if you push them down here they will squirt up over there unless you push that down too.

    B) In the very next breath after the one that he used to promise to send troops there, he doomed their mission. The strategy that has become known by the nomenclature of "Surge" works when you are able to convince a native populace that you are going to be the ultimate victor in the contest, and their incentives are thus to side with you. When you announce that you intend to force an early withdrawal of troops in-line with political datelines as opposed to conditions on the ground, you are effectively announcing to every Afghan villager out there that you intend to lose, and it is in his best interest to do nothing for us, and quietly support the Taliban, but as little as possible.

    C) Furthermore, incredibly restrictive ROE's have created a no-win discontinuity between command and field that damages the efforts of both. When you impose impossible standards, you are effectively ensuring that the standards will be ignored by those who think they can get away with it, and obeyed by those who think they can't, even if doing so costs them the lives of those under them and ultimately victory in combat. The top therefore loses it's ability to effectively communicate direction and intent. Which, it seems, there wasn't much of, anyway. In the Civil War, Sherman knew he had to bring the South to its' knees in order to end the war. Soldiers in WWII said that the road home went through Berlin. Obama seems to have thought that victory in Afghanistan would come from pretending that it didn't exist.

    Remember, it's not just how big a Surge is, it's how you use it

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,361

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    A) No he didn't. McCrystal asked for enough to push into both regional commands bordering Pakistan in order to effectively shut down the taliban's ability to project force across that border and into the country. Obama gave him enough to push into one, apparently not realizing that these guys are like water, and if you push them down here they will squirt up over there unless you push that down too.

    B) In the very next breath after the one that he used to promise to send troops there, he doomed their mission. The strategy that has become known by the nomenclature of "Surge" works when you are able to convince a native populace that you are going to be the ultimate victor in the contest, and their incentives are thus to side with you. When you announce that you intend to force an early withdrawal of troops in-line with political datelines as opposed to conditions on the ground, you are effectively announcing to every Afghan villager out there that you intend to lose, and it is in his best interest to do nothing for us, and quietly support the Taliban, but as little as possible.

    C) Furthermore, incredibly restrictive ROE's have created a no-win discontinuity between command and field that damages the efforts of both. When you impose impossible standards, you are effectively ensuring that the standards will be ignored by those who think they can get away with it, and obeyed by those who think they can't, even if doing so costs them the lives of those under them and ultimately victory in combat. The top therefore loses it's ability to effectively communicate direction and intent. Which, it seems, there wasn't much of, anyway. In the Civil War, Sherman knew he had to bring the South to its' knees in order to end the war. Soldiers in WWII said that the road home went through Berlin. Obama seems to have thought that victory in Afghanistan would come from pretending that it didn't exist.

    Remember, it's not just how big a Surge is, it's how you use it
    And now you are going to tell me how well the surge worked in Iraq. It is all pointless and asinine. I'm tired of all the plans that involve troops on the ground, they are nothing but targets. We are not going to keep sacrificing our troops and treasure forever and we can't win unless we kill them all. It is beyond stupid, it is criminal.
    Last edited by iguanaman; 01-12-14 at 02:37 AM.

  5. #65
    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 cpwill View Post
    A) No he didn't. McCrystal asked for enough to push into both regional commands bordering Pakistan in order to effectively shut down the taliban's ability to project force across that border and into the country. Obama gave him enough to push into one, apparently not realizing that these guys are like water, and if you push them down here they will squirt up over there unless you push that down too.
    McChrsyatl himself asked between 30,000 and 40,000 troops. Other estimates Obama took for a option took much more. Obama took McCrystals low ball.

    B) In the very next breath after the one that he used to promise to send troops there, he doomed their mission. The strategy that has become known by the nomenclature of "Surge" works when you are able to convince a native populace that you are going to be the ultimate victor in the contest, and their incentives are thus to side with you. When you announce that you intend to force an early withdrawal of troops in-line with political datelines as opposed to conditions on the ground, you are effectively announcing to every Afghan villager out there that you intend to lose, and it is in his best interest to do nothing for us, and quietly support the Taliban, but as little as possible.
    How did the surge in Vietnam work?
    OR hell about the Iraq War? We surged stayed there for a hell of a long time and unless you wanna stay there forever hows it gonna work out? Look at Iraq now... Terrorist attack everyday... Its unstalbe, and is considered a failed state...
    We are essentially fighitng a unwinable war...
    As i said in a earlier post...
    "I would disagree about the support of the wars cuz the Iraqi war barely passed congress when it came to the democratic vote.
    But other than that i would still disagree. Now i agree something had to be done. I think honestly airsrtirkes were in need on various targets but other than that congress and the White House knew we couldnt do much. We would invade a country that was still stuck on a tribal system and was vastly underdeveloped and would try to catch a small group of militants. Hell look at what happened if the Taliban was in control of a village that village would love them to death but once we entered and kicked out the Taliban then that village would love us but once we left the Taliban would enter right back in and next thing you know that village would love the Taliban again. Honestly i think the Afghani residents dont really give a **** who controls them as long as people leave them alone and i think we see this now with Karzi even welcoming the Taliban to the negotiating table."


    C) Furthermore, incredibly restrictive ROE's have created a no-win discontinuity between command and field that damages the efforts of both. When you impose impossible standards, you are effectively ensuring that the standards will be ignored by those who think they can get away with it, and obeyed by those who think they can't, even if doing so costs them the lives of those under them and ultimately victory in combat. The top therefore loses it's ability to effectively communicate direction and intent. Which, it seems, there wasn't much of, anyway. In the Civil War, Sherman knew he had to bring the South to its' knees in order to end the war. Soldiers in WWII said that the road home went through Berlin. Obama seems to have thought that victory in Afghanistan would come from pretending that it didn't exist.

    Remember, it's not just how big a Surge is, it's how you use it
    Didnt we use that same exuse in Vietnam and we were a hell of a lot more brutal?


  6. #66
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    And now you are going to tell me how well the surge worked in Iraq. It is all pointless and asinine. I'm tired of all the plans that involve troops on the ground, they are nothing but targets. We are not going to keep sacrificing our troops and treasure forever and we can't win unless we kill them all. It is beyond stupid, it is criminal.
    Troops on the ground can be targets, which does not mean they have to be nothing but targets. Troops are targets in battles they win, as well. Ultimately you need infantry to win a war; they are the only asset that can really take and hold terrain.

  7. #67
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    McChrsyatl himself asked between 30,000 and 40,000 troops. Other estimates Obama took for a option took much more. Obama took McCrystals low ball.
    McCrystal told Obama that if he sent less than 40K, he couldn't win. Obama sent 30.

    How did the surge in Vietnam work?
    well, where it's principles were put into place, it was extremely effective. I would urge you to read up on the highly successful CAP program run by the Marines, for example. Bing Wests' The Village is a classic, and a great place to start.

    OR hell about the Iraq War?
    The same principles when applied to Iraq worked very well later as well. That we later gave up those gains not withstanding.

    I would disagree about the support of the wars cuz the Iraqi war barely passed congress when it came to the democratic vote.

    But other than that i would still disagree. Now i agree something had to be done. I think honestly airsrtirkes were in need on various targets but other than that congress and the White House knew we couldnt do much. We would invade a country that was still stuck on a tribal system and was vastly underdeveloped and would try to catch a small group of militants. Hell look at what happened if the Taliban was in control of a village that village would love them to death but once we entered and kicked out the Taliban then that village would love us but once we left the Taliban would enter right back in and next thing you know that village would love the Taliban again. Honestly i think the Afghani residents dont really give a **** who controls them as long as people leave them alone and i think we see this now with Karzi even welcoming the Taliban to the negotiating table."
    You don't get airstrikes unless you have targets, you don't get targets unless you have quality intelligence, and you don't get much in the way of quality intelligence unless you have assets on the ground. Trying to run a counterinsurgency without daily regular interaction with the locals is like trying to operate a police force without accepting citizen reporting or tips.

    Didnt we use that same exuse in Vietnam and we were a hell of a lot more brutal?
    Yes and no - yes people argued we needed to be more brutal (and we were - foolishly so), no that is not the same as arguing in favor of ROE's that don't break faith with reality - which is where ROE's were harmfully destructive in Vietnam, namely, that we weren't allowed to treat the conflict as a single conflict.


    If you are honestly interested in the variety of approaches that we took to Vietnam, I couldn't recommend more John Nagl's Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife. Fascinating stuff, really.

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,361

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Troops on the ground can be targets, which does not mean they have to be nothing but targets. Troops are targets in battles they win, as well. Ultimately you need infantry to win a war; they are the only asset that can really take and hold terrain.
    Give me a break, this is not Guadalcanal and we can't win any "territory" it is not our country. We can keep the Taliban in check with Drones alone.

  9. #69
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Give me a break, this is not Guadalcanal and we can't win any "territory" it is not our country. We can keep the Taliban in check with Drones alone.
    That is false - we tried something like that once. It was called the "Rumsfeld Doctrine", and it failed, miserably.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Ja View Post
    How many of these deaths are a result of the rules and regulations Coalition soldiers have to follow. Having our hands tied has not helped the situation at all there. It's become quite political. The time has come for us to leave, however I am very concerned on what will happen when we do
    One reason those ROE's are in place is a modest attempt to protect civilians. You want to remove the only precaution we have and watch the civilian death tolls climb higher? Faster?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •