• 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

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

We won't do it right. We shouldn't do it at all. Save the blood. It might be mine or my buddy's.
 
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.




This is incorrect, the head of the effort in Afghanistan is clear on what he wants.
 
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. 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.

It is my understanding that this is a big part of what is being debated. Is the result going to be worth the effort? That is an important topic.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

This is incorrect, the head of the effort in Afghanistan is clear on what he wants.

As Commander of MNF-I, Gen. Casey didn't want the Surge and said it wouldn't work. Looks like he was wrong.

Just because McChrystal wants something and has made a recommendation doesn't make it right. He's only been in command a few months.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

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.

Really? Read THIS

Sounds like they are pretty combat-savvy.

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

It is my understanding that this is a big part of what is being debated. Is the result going to be worth the effort? That is an important topic.

As recently as July, Obama called it a "must-win." Sounds like it's worth a considerable effort. Like, anything it takes, really.

What's changed since July which would make it no longer a "must-win"?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Really? Read THIS

Sounds like they are pretty combat-savvy.

Just like their fathers.

Nearly 300 Tallies attack an outpost, our troops are outnumbered and the enemy only manages to kill 8 soldiers. Not what I would call a highly successful attack on the part of the Tallies.

Don't you mean their grandfathers? Most of the fighters in Afghanistan weren't even alive during the Soviet War.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Nearly 300 Tallies attack an outpost, our troops are outnumbered and the enemy only manages to kill 8 soldiers. Not what I would call a highly successful attack on the part of the Tallies.

They don't care about success in terms of body count. They care about audacity, which they have plenty of. Have you fought them?

Don't you mean their grandfathers? Most of the fighters in Afghanistan weren't even alive during the Soviet War.

Uh...wrong. It was twenty years ago. I think that many of the Taliban were kids then and remember their dads and maybe grandpa's fighting an occupying army.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

They don't care about success in terms of body count. They care about audacity, which they have plenty of. Have you fought them?

They can have whatever perspective they wish, but reality is reality. If they lose more troops than we do, in every fight, then they can't win. No unconventional war has ever been successful without transitioning to a conventional strategy at some point. Even the North Vietnamese did it.



Uh...wrong. It was twenty years ago. I think that many of the Taliban were kids then and remember their dads and maybe grandpa's fighting an occupying army.


Well, I'm 40 and I was in grade school when the Soviets invaded. I'm betting that there aren't many 40 somethings in the Taliban. I turned 18 in 1987, so there are a few Tallies that were very small children during the war, but I believe they are the minority within the Taliban's ranks.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

They can have whatever perspective they wish, but reality is reality. If they lose more troops than we do, in every fight, then they can't win. No unconventional war has ever been successful without transitioning to a conventional strategy at some point. Even the North Vietnamese did it.

Again, wrong. We killed millions of NVA and VC and still lost. Reality is reality, sir. So why did we respond to the "weak" Taliban attack by closing the Combat Outpost that was attacked? Looks like they made an impression.


Well, I'm 40 and I was in grade school when the Soviets invaded. I'm betting that there aren't many 40 somethings in the Taliban. I turned 18 in 1987, so there are a few Tallies that were very small children during the war, but I believe they are the minority within the Taliban's ranks.

So I'm right. And by the way, most of the Taliban leadership are Soviet war vets. You should know that from all those books you read.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Again, wrong. We killed millions of NVA and VC and still lost. Reality is reality, sir. So why did we respond to the "weak" Taliban attack by closing the Combat Outpost that was attacked? Looks like they made an impression.

The VC ceased to be combat effective in 1968. The main force units were absorbed into the NVA and the local force units were disbanded. The Communists were ready to surrender after the Tet Offensive, so your analysis is erroenous.




So I'm right. And by the way, most of the Taliban leadership are Soviet war vets. You should know that from all those books you read.


Only the highest levels of leadership and few of them.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The VC ceased to be combat effective in 1968. The main force units were absorbed into the NVA and the local force units were disbanded. The Communists were ready to surrender after the Tet Offensive, so your analysis is erroenous.

No it's not at all, you failed to answer my question, which was:

If the Taliban attack last week was so ineffective, then why did the Army close the outpost that was attacked?

Secondly, not all VC fell into NVA formations, but you are right that many did; primarily because VC and NVA units LOC and unit boundaries began to blur so it made sense to collapse into the same unit(s). Also, The first NVA tactical units sent south still had at least 20% southern-born cadre. As the war progressed, more and more native North Vietnamese deployed south and, as of August 1969, 2/3 of all VC battalions in South Vietnam were NVA. During Tet 1968, 30,000 Viet Cong were lost, basically destroying the VC as a fighting force, but there were still local guerrillas who operated as farmers by day and soldiers by night. Their primary activities were intelligence gathering, sniping, setting booby traps, and acting as porters, scouts, and guides for Main Force and NVA units.

But, that's neither here nor there...this is a mundane point anyway because all I did was say that we killed millions of Vietnamese in the war and you cited some obscure fact not even germane to the point I made in an attempt to change the subject, look smart (which you don't) and avioid answering my questions or rebutting my claims. I'll give you this; you are persistent. But you suck at debating and admitting when you are wrong.

Only the highest levels of leadership and few of them.

So I'm right. Thanks. This is the first time that you've been gracious in defeat.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

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.

And the unwillingness to do what needs to be done to thoroughly and truly defeat an enemy.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No it's not at all, you failed to answer my question, which was:

If the Taliban attack last week was so ineffective, then why did the Army close the outpost that was attacked?

They had planned to abandon the post, anyway; even before the attack.





So I'm right. Thanks. This is the first time that you've been gracious in defeat.


You're part right.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It is my understanding that this is a big part of what is being debated. Is the result going to be worth the effort? That is an important topic.

The problem is that most the people in the Washington debate know as much about Afghani matters as they did about Iraqi matters.

The moment Bush got rid of Rumsfeld, started listening to his military voices, and enlisted the aid of cultural expert Vali Nasr, Iraq turned around. Today, in regards to Afghanistan, the same idiots in suits fancy themselves again worthy of spewing their ignorance while the military voices are told that their uniformed and experienced opinions carry the same weight as the idiots.

And today's retired generals have as much knowledge into what it takes to defeat this enemy as a World War II general did in regards to Vietnam. They are out of touch.

The president has already stated that we aren't going anywhere. Therefore, the only option left is to give the generals their men. They trained them. They maintained them. And for what....A war?
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Really? Read THIS

Sounds like they are pretty combat-savvy.

Just like their fathers.

The Tali-ban have been slaughtered and slaughtered since 2001. There is nothing savvy about them. Like the majority of all military organizations in the Middle East, they rely heavily upon Soviet handbook tactics. A handbook our military trained to defeat for decades. But they are fighters and thismeans they will fight. This also means that they will get their shots in. But sacrificing dozens to hundreds of fighters so that CNN can report that an American G.I. was killed in "intense" fighting hardly puts themon verge of defeating us.

There is nothing savvy about running and hiding so that you can be slaughtered another day.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

GYSGT well said GYSGT,go and show them what it is all about,just to win.

all the best to u.

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

The Tali-ban have been slaughtered and slaughtered since 2001. There is nothing savvy about them. Like the majority of all military organizations in the Middle East, they rely heavily upon Soviet handbook tactics. A handbook our military trained to defeat for decades. But they are fighters and thismeans they will fight. This also means that they will get their shots in. But sacrificing dozens to hundreds of fighters so that CNN can report that an American G.I. was killed in "intense" fighting hardly puts themon verge of defeating us.

There is nothing savvy about running and hiding so that you can be slaughtered another day.

I,d say its somewhat savvy when there considerably out numbered, have no air support, and next to no artillery support. As you know full well if they were to fight conventionally that 'slaughtered another day' would come a whole lot quicker.

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

I,d say its somewhat savvy when there considerably out numbered, have no air support, and next to no artillery support. As you know full well if they were to fight conventionally that 'slaughtered another day' would come a whole lot quicker.

Paul

I don't think they're all that combat savvy. Recently, 200 Tallies went up against 100 Americans, outnumbering them 2-to-1 and took 50% casualties.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I don't think they're all that combat savvy. Recently, 200 Tallies went up against 100 Americans, outnumbering them 2-to-1 and took 50% casualties.

That's a pretty good ratio for a highly trained fighting force. British forces often accept disparity in terms of numbers, with a ratio of 4 to 1 being fully expected. The Falklands was an example where we were outnumbered.

You have to take into account our superior fire power over the Taliban, it always helps to even the odds.

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

That's a pretty good ratio for a highly trained fighting force. British forces often accept disparity in terms of numbers, with a ratio of 4 to 1 being fully expected. The Falklands was an example where we were outnumbered.

You have to take into account our superior fire power over the Taliban, it always helps to even the odds.

Paul

That's what I mean, though. It's as if the Tallies assaulting the outpost didn't take into account the fire superiority.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

That's what I mean, though. It's as if the Tallies assaulting the outpost didn't take into account the fire superiority.

I,m not sure they dont take it into account. Theres simply little they can do about it, as you know 'we fight the enemy thats in front of us'.

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

I,m not sure they dont take it into account. Theres simply little they can do about it, as you know 'we fight the enemy thats in front of us'.

Paul

We also, 'turn out weaknesses into strengths and the enemy's strengths become his weakness', too. Why attack a position that you know will be unsuccessful, lose half your unit and only kill 8 of your enemy?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

We also, 'turn out weaknesses into strengths and the enemy's strengths become his weakness', too. Why attack a position that you know will be unsuccessful, lose half your unit and only kill 8 of your enemy?

It easy if you don't care if you live or not.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It easy if you don't care if you live or not.


Not being afraid of dieing and being stupid aren't the same thing. There still has to be a method to the madness. Just like Japanese Banzai and Kamikaze attacks; it was bad tactics, but there was an objective.
 
Back
Top Bottom