• 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!

43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcemen

Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

There is a strategy. But the mother strategy is to strengthen the Afghani government enough to fight this territorial battle without our intimate involvement.

I do not believe this is practical. This population is nowhere near what we dealt with in Iraq. The population in Iraq was educated. It is leaps and bounds ahead in regards to social habits. It is true that historical tribal identity haunts them (and will continue to do so), but clans divide the population in Afghanistan. And they are extremely corrupt. My point is that we have to stop thinking that we can "nation build" everywhere and with any society.

Our critics have been entirely stupid about these matters. They declared that Iraq's elections would be failures. They declared Iraq a civil war. They declared that Iraq was hopeless. And they declared Iraq another "Vietnam." They were always wrong, yet still ran their mouths as if they understood military matters and this region. They also go ahead and declare Afghanistan another "Vietnam," but they can't even get this default response to every conflict correct. In Vietnam, we supported an ever more corrupt government against a communist enemy. In the mean time, the Vietnamese were stuck between a government who cared less about them and the warring sides (American & Vietcong) that punished them for their allegiances. Where Afghanistan differs is that we aren't going to be run out of Afghanistan as the Afghani government crumbles. In the end, a corrupt Afghani government will limp along and deal with the festering Tali-Ban problem. But what we have to accept is that whatever this Afghani govenment does will be blamed on us. Same old story of the Middle East. Our critics are fond of pointing out today's enemies and how we "helped" to create them, but are to stupid to see that we are doing it right now.

So why don't we just leave right now?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So why don't we just leave right now?

Because the President hasn't given the order.

But since our military is to remain there, he may as well give them what they state they need. Can our military continue punishing and killing the enemy here with the present numbers? Absolutely. But one should never go to war with "just enough" (Even Rumsfeld has to be able to admit this behind closed doors.) It lengthens the conflict, expends more treasure, and creates an environment that is more dangerous than it has to be; not ony for our troops but also for the civilian population.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Because the President hasn't given the order.

But since our military is to remain there, he may as well give them what they state they need. Can our military continue punishing and killing the enemy here with the present numbers? Absolutely. But one should never go to war with "just enough" (Even Rumsfeld has to be able to admit this behind closed doors.) It lengthens the conflict, expends more treasure, and creates an environment that is more dangerous than it has to be; not ony for our troops but also for the civilian population.

So you agree that since we will be leaving one of these days....Why not tomorrow & save some GI lives?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So you agree that since we will be leaving one of these days....Why not tomorrow & save some GI lives?

I believe that the best move we can make is to vacate Afgahnistan. We can continue to hunt down our enemies via UAVs and special forces launched from ships. "Nation building" is only beneficial if the nation is capable of being anything other than corrupt. As it is, we are merely going to be blamed for anything it does. If the Afghani government goes on to assasinate a few opposition leaders or slaughter a few hundred people who oppose them politically, then we will be blamed.

Afghanistan isn't worth it. Our focus in this territory needs to be Pakistan.

But since we aren't vacating, the best thing the administration can do is give the military what it needs so that less have to die.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Because the President hasn't given the order.

But since our military is to remain there, he may as well give them what they state they need. Can our military continue punishing and killing the enemy here with the present numbers? Absolutely. But one should never go to war with "just enough" (Even Rumsfeld has to be able to admit this behind closed doors.) It lengthens the conflict, expends more treasure, and creates an environment that is more dangerous than it has to be; not ony for our troops but also for the civilian population.

The problem is that the military is divided on what they need, and what the right strategy is. Until the strategy going forward is known, troop level decisions are premature.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The problem is that the military is divided on what they need, and what the right strategy is. Until the strategy going forward is known, troop level decisions are premature.

They aren't as divided as people think.

After 8 years of having their intelligence reports screened so as not to offend the politically correct nonesense coming out of the Clinton White House, our military leadership spent the next 7 years having their advice thrown in their face if it didn't agree with the idiocy of the Rumsfeld coven.

Our military leadership is shell shocked from this. And it doesn't help that some of our higher military leaders are part politicians who would rather please our civilian leaders than speak on absolute truths. But from what I've read from the Pentagon and the field commanders is that we need more troops if we are to continue this fight in theatre. And from what I know of this culture, I agree.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

They aren't as divided as people think.

After 8 years of having their intelligence reports screened so as not to offend the politically correct nonesense coming out of the Clinton White House, our military leadership spent the next 7 years having their advice thrown in their face if it didn't agree with the idiocy of the Rumsfeld coven.

Our military leadership is shell shocked from this. And it doesn't help that some of our higher military leaders are part politicians who would rather please our civilian leaders than speak on absolute truths. But from what I've read from the Pentagon and the field commanders is that we need more troops if we are to continue this fight in theatre. And from what I know of this culture, I agree.

Gunny,
You and I are about on the same page. I'm not sure commiting another 10 brigades/regiments to pursue a strategy that won't work anyway is worth it. I would hate to see another guy die fight the Taliban, if that's not what we are going to end up doing.

So a theater commander asked for more troops...is this really a surprise. These guys don't stay in to be 4-stars because they are good-hearted. They are ultra-ambitious, as well. Casey didn't in Iraq, because he didn't believe in the war, IMO. This is now McChrystal's war and he wants to win...he has a legacy to write in the history books. But what he wants may not be feasible or even necessary...is that worth ten more brigades/regiments deploying to root out taliban? I'm not so sure...
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Gunny,
You and I are about on the same page. I'm not sure commiting another 10 brigades/regiments to pursue a strategy that won't work anyway is worth it. I would hate to see another guy die fight the Taliban, if that's not what we are going to end up doing.

So a theater commander asked for more troops...is this really a surprise. These guys don't stay in to be 4-stars because they are good-hearted. They are ultra-ambitious, as well. Casey didn't in Iraq, because he didn't believe in the war, IMO. This is now McChrystal's war and he wants to win...he has a legacy to write in the history books. But what he wants may not be feasible or even necessary...is that worth ten more brigades/regiments deploying to root out taliban? I'm not so sure...

We can win, it'll just take a long time and some guts.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So you agree that since we will be leaving one of these days....Why not tomorrow & save some GI lives?

If he's not going to give them the resources they need, then that's exactly what we should do. I think it will be a monumental mistake and we'll be going back in a few years, but hopefully when the next president is forced to send troops back to Afghanistan, he'll be smart enough to let the military do it's job.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

If he's not going to give them the resources they need, then that's exactly what we should do.

Exactly,we should either go all in or all out....Not this halfarse nonsense going on now.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Exactly,we should either go all in or all out....Not this halfarse nonsense going on now.

That's right. If it's jsut going to be a dog-n-pony show, we need to pack our **** and haul ass. PBO can wear his crown of shame for the rest of his one and only term.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

We can win, it'll just take a long time and some guts.

I don't think so, man. This isn't Iraq. It's so much different.

The terrain...the diverse populace and advanced multi-ethnic tribalism, the Kinetics are harder, the GOVT Corruption is worse, More rural areas to cover, lack of NATO support..etc, etc.

I was for the Surge in Iraq because I knew we could do it. I honestly don't think we can do this. We don't have the resources available right now or the political or national will to do it.

You know, the Taliban say:

You Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.

They are right, I'm sorry to say.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I don't think so, man. This isn't Iraq. It's so much different.

The terrain...the diverse populace and advanced multi-ethnic tribalism, the Kinetics are harder, the GOVT Corruption is worse, More rural areas to cover, lack of NATO support..etc, etc.

I was for the Surge in Iraq because I knew we could do it. I honestly don't think we can do this. We don't have the resources available right now or the political or national will to do it.

You know, the Taliban say:

You Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.

They are right, I'm sorry to say.


It isn't winnable, as long as folks continue to buy into the enemy propaganda.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It isn't winnable, as long as folks continue to buy into the enemy propaganda.

From all the books you've read, you should have learned something:

No one occupies AFG. They lose and go home. Who has had any success there with an occupation?

I'm hardly an enemy propagandist believer...I'm a Realist.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I don't think so, man. This isn't Iraq. It's so much different.

The terrain...the diverse populace and advanced multi-ethnic tribalism, the Kinetics are harder, the GOVT Corruption is worse, More rural areas to cover, lack of NATO support..etc, etc.

I was for the Surge in Iraq because I knew we could do it. I honestly don't think we can do this. We don't have the resources available right now or the political or national will to do it.

You know, the Taliban say:

You Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.

They are right, I'm sorry to say.

You're right. We don't have the political will to accomplish this, and that's a big reason why we don't have the national will to accomplish it either.

Defeatist cry-babies have done more to prolong these wars than the enemy ever could have.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I'm not sure commiting another 10 brigades/regiments to pursue a strategy that won't work...


Insurgencies are defeated all the time. The strategy will work. It just won't usher in the results some of our politicians are looking for. Our leaders better be aware that this government we are supporting in Afghanistan is all there is ever going to be and that it will depend on us for a very long time.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

From all the books you've read, you should have learned something:

No one occupies AFG. They lose and go home. Who has had any success there with an occupation?

I'm hardly an enemy propagandist believer...I'm a Realist.

But nobody has ever occupied Afghanistan for the expressed goal of making it a temporary stay. We are not the Soviet Union and we are not looking to add to our turf. This is no secret even amongst our enemies. Our history shows that we have never kept any ground that we have occupied or conquered. Waiting out the Americans is easy for the enemy because eventually we will leave anyway.

Our goal was never to occupy Afghanistan any longer than we had to. The Tali-Ban was beaten out of power and control. Al-Queda has been effectively destroyed on every level throughout the world. The only thing left is to leave.

Leaving does not give our enemies a victory, though they will parade it as if it is. This is how pathetic our enemies are. But a constant barrage of steel will silence their false cries of victory long after we have left the Afghanistan waste land.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

From all the books you've read, you should have learned something:

No one occupies AFG. They lose and go home. Who has had any success there with an occupation?

I'm hardly an enemy propagandist believer...I'm a Realist.


Just because no one has done it, doesn't mean it can't be done. No one had ever defeated the Japanese, either. No one had ever defeated the Soviets, before the US trained and armed a bunch of Asian hillbillies.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No one had ever defeated the Soviets, before the US trained and armed a bunch of Asian hillbillies.

Funny you should mention that...
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Funny you should mention that...

Not funny, at all. The Soviets were winning, before we showed up with modern arms and training. If not for US intervention, the Soviets would still be in Afghanistan.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Not funny, at all. The Soviets were winning, before we showed up with modern arms and training. If not for US intervention, the Soviets would still be in Afghanistan.

I agree. I mean, it's funny you mentioned that b/c it's who were are fighting now (or the offspring of). Kinda came back around to bite us.

I think the Soviet definition of "winning" and ours are pretty catastrophically different.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Insurgencies are defeated all the time. The strategy will work.

In fact, insurgencies usually are.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I agree. I mean, it's funny you mentioned that b/c it's who were are fighting now (or the offspring of). Kinda came back around to bite us.

I think the Soviet definition of "winning" and ours are pretty catastrophically different.

The CIA trained them well, that much is true, but we ARE the CIA...we can beat them. It just takes time and blood.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I agree. I mean, it's funny you mentioned that b/c it's who were are fighting now (or the offspring of). Kinda came back around to bite us.

I think the Soviet definition of "winning" and ours are pretty catastrophically different.

Well, I'm sure everyone wishes that someone would have had a crystal ball back then, but no one did. That being said, the threat from AQ is nothing compared to the threat of the Soviets invading the Mid-East, possibly closing the Straits of Hormuz. After conquering Afghanistan, I doubt it would have been hard for the Russians to strike a deal with Iran, seeing how Iran was in the midst of a slug-fest with Iran at the same time and could have really used a friend, that had some serious firepower and trained ground troops.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The CIA trained them well, that much is true, but we ARE the CIA...we can beat them. It just takes time and blood.

I think the thing that alot of folks are missing, is that we're going up against the third generation, not the original guys that we trained. When you look at the speed at which we routed the Tallies, initially, they don't have the same skills that the Mujas had back in the 80s.
 
Back
Top Bottom