• 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 Chief of Staff of the army is not credible? The SecDef is not credible? The JCS is not credible? That is where the debate is taking place now.

Not as credible as the theater commander. Are you claiming that they know more about the actual situation on the ground than the theater commander? Who could possibly know more about the theater of operations than the actual commander of that theater? No one, that's who.

They put McChrystal in command, it's their job to support him and trust his evaluation of the current situation.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Not as credible as the theater commander. Are you claiming that they know more about the actual situation on the ground than the theater commander? Who could possibly know more about the theater of operations than the actual commander of that theater? No one, that's who.

They put McChrystal in command, it's their job to support him and trust his evaluation of the current situation.

Are you claiming that McChrystal knows more about the overall strategic situation than the others? Are you claiming that he is not keeping all those people fully briefed?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Are you claiming that McChrystal knows more about the overall strategic situation than the others?

Does the theater commander know more about the over strategic situation in Afghanistan than the others? You bet that's what I'm claiming. You're going to be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

Are you claiming that he is not keeping all those people fully briefed?

Sure he has kept them fully briefed and he has informed them that he wants more troops on the ground. So, it sounds as they're second guessing their own ground commander with less information and actual perspective to go on. Bad move, IMO.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Does the theater commander know more about the over strategic situation in Afghanistan than the others? You bet that's what I'm claiming. You're going to be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

No, the overall strategic situation, ie including beyond Afghanistan. For example, one reported point of debate on the troop request is the effect sending those forces will have on the readiness of the military overall. Over deployment has huge negatives associated with it as one example.



Sure he has kept them fully briefed and he has informed them that he wants more troops on the ground. So, it sounds as they're second guessing their own ground commander with less information and actual perspective to go on. Bad move, IMO.

Those people he is keeping informed have all his information, and more information to make a decision with. They have chosen not to yet. Just one example: are there political situations that would result in a higher chance of success with a change in strategy in Afghanistan? Is a possible change in strategy in Afghanistan going to change force level requirements, and force makeup requirements?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No, the overall strategic situation, ie including beyond Afghanistan. For example, one reported point of debate on the troop request is the effect sending those forces will have on the readiness of the military overall. Over deployment has huge negatives associated with it as one example.

Now, you're speculating. Allow me to speculate, PBO is trying to figure out what's going to be better for his political career, deploy more troops, or not.


Those people he is keeping informed have all his information, and more information to make a decision with. They have chosen not to yet. Just one example: are there political situations that would result in a higher chance of success with a change in strategy in Afghanistan?

Battles are won on the battlefield, not in the political arena. If we're going to destroy the enemy, we have to put troops in the field to engage him and destroy him, preferably on his own ground.

Is a possible change in strategy in Afghanistan going to change force level requirements, and force makeup requirements?

Sure, that's possible, but unless they're going to fight a completely assymetrical battle on the enemy's terms, I can't imagine what change in strategy would require fewer troops, other than a totally defensive strategy that is meant to end with a complete withdrawel and no attempt to destroy the enemy. Defensive strategies have never worked before, so itwould be a bad idea to do so now. Care to speculate on what strategic changes might be made that would require fewer troops?

If it were me calling the shots, I would plan division level operations to go into the enemy's territory and take the fight straight to him and destroy him with overwhelming combat power. That's just me.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The lives and well being of our soldiers is NOT a priority for the left or even worthy of consideration. That is why there has been no action from the administration.

Our president hates the military as do all leftists. That is why they are incapable of leading the free world and insist on dragging us into a totalitarian marxist regime were they feel comfortable in their self-loathing, narcissism.

They consider anyone that didn't attend Harvard expendable and just wish they'd DIE QUICKLY!
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Which is why, of course, when the 50% increase in troop strength he ordered wasn't enough to put a dent in the situation, he stopped to think about what to do next.

Because he hates the military and wants it to die.

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

Which is why, of course, when the 50% increase in troop strength he ordered wasn't enough to put a dent in the situation, he stopped to think about what to do next.

Because he hates the military and wants it to die.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

If that's the case, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out what to do next.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Did you miss my sarcasm, or are you saying the right thing to do is obvious?

If it is the latter, mind sharing your inspration with the rest of the class?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Did you miss my sarcasm, or are you saying the right thing to do is obvious?

If it is the latter, mind sharing your inspration with the rest of the class?

Maybe I missed the point. Care to expand?

But, as to the latter, if a 50% increase isn't enough, then it's obvious that there needs to be a larger increase. Just common sense.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Maybe I missed the point. Care to expand?

But, as to the latter, if a 50% increase isn't enough, then it's obvious that there needs to be a larger increase. Just common sense.

Or a change in tactics to make more efficient use of the current troop level and thus remove the need for more troops.

Your logic is like saying if a business doesn't work you just throw more money at it to make it work. Sometimes a business strategy needs tweaking and more money isn't really needed.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Maybe I missed the point. Care to expand?

No, never mind. :lol:

But, as to the latter, if a 50% increase isn't enough, then it's obvious that there needs to be a larger increase. Just common sense.

No, that's not common sense. That's like getting stuck in the mud, discovering that revving your engine isn't moving the vehicle, and deciding that the logical conclusion is to floor the accelerator.

Your "common sense" conclusion might be "obvious" if we were fighting a more traditional war, but numbers are simply not enough when fighting an asymmetrical war.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No, that's not common sense. That's like getting stuck in the mud, discovering that revving your engine isn't moving the vehicle, and deciding that the logical conclusion is to floor the accelerator.

A better comparison might be the difference between fighting a fire by pissing on it and figureing out you're going to need more water and get a fire hose.

Your "common sense" conclusion might be "obvious" if we were fighting a more traditional war, but numbers are simply not enough when fighting an asymmetrical war.


Alone, they're not enough, I agree. However, numbers with solid tactics are a winner. The more troops you have in theater, the more economy of force you have, more down time for the soldiers, less combat fatigue, higher morale. Those things are important combat multipliers.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Or a change in tactics to make more efficient use of the current troop level and thus remove the need for more troops.

Your logic is like saying if a business doesn't work you just throw more money at it to make it work. Sometimes a business strategy needs tweaking and more money isn't really needed.


So, IOW, do more with less? If we had a small military, I would say that is the order of the day, but with the numbers we have to draw on, what sense does it make to overwork the soldiers that are already in theatera? That would be bad for morale. Some business strategies require more personel to create a happier and more efficient work environment. If you over work an experienced and edicated employee and he quits, just to save money on hiring additional personel, what have gained? Nothing, that's what.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Alone, they're not enough, I agree. However, numbers with solid tactics are a winner. The more troops you have in theater, the more economy of force you have, more down time for the soldiers, less combat fatigue, higher morale. Those things are important combat multipliers.

We've already got tens of thousands of troops on the ground. What's to say that we don't already have enough when coupled with a winning strategy?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So, IOW, do more with less? If we had a small military, I would say that is the order of the day, but with the numbers we have to draw on, what sense does it make to overwork the soldiers that are already in theatera? That would be bad for morale. Some business strategies require more personel to create a happier and more efficient work environment. If you over work an experienced and edicated employee and he quits, just to save money on hiring additional personel, what have gained? Nothing, that's what.

No do more strategically. I don't care if I have a 100 million active soldiers. That doesn't mean we should put 100 million into battle when 100,000 could do the job.

There may be need for more soldiers in Afghanistan. However, just because a general asks for more soldiers doesn't mean the President should unquestionable oblige. I personally would want the President to look at the current strategy before making a decision.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

We've already got tens of thousands of troops on the ground. What's to say that we don't already have enough when coupled with a winning strategy?

The theater commander says we don't have enough. That's good enough for me. Why be stingy with troops on the ground. If they go over there and wind up sitting on their asses doing nothing, then I don't have a huge problem with that.

What sense does it make to squeek by with the bare minimum?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

No do more strategically. I don't care if I have a 100 million active soldiers. That doesn't mean we should put 100 million into battle when 100,000 could do the job.

There may be need for more soldiers in Afghanistan. However, just because a general asks for more soldiers doesn't mean the President should unquestionable oblige. I personally would want the President to look at the current strategy before making a decision.

We have a million people in our military. McChrystal is asking for an additiona 40 thousand.

What qualifies the president to second guess his theater commander? He's persident? Is that all?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Now, you're speculating. Allow me to speculate, PBO is trying to figure out what's going to be better for his political career, deploy more troops, or not.

No, I am basing this on what is being reported. You are making blind speculations.


Battles are won on the battlefield, not in the political arena. If we're going to destroy the enemy, we have to put troops in the field to engage him and destroy him, preferably on his own ground.

Wars are political in nature. If we just wanted to destroy all the terrorists without worrying about politics, we could do it with probably fewer troops, but a more destructive attitude. The goal is to make Afghanistan a place where terrorists are not, and part of doing that is winning the hearts and minds of those living there.

Sure, that's possible, but unless they're going to fight a completely assymetrical battle on the enemy's terms, I can't imagine what change in strategy would require fewer troops, other than a totally defensive strategy that is meant to end with a complete withdrawel and no attempt to destroy the enemy. Defensive strategies have never worked before, so itwould be a bad idea to do so now. Care to speculate on what strategic changes might be made that would require fewer troops?

If it were me calling the shots, I would plan division level operations to go into the enemy's territory and take the fight straight to him and destroy him with overwhelming combat power. That's just me.

If this was just a simple fight with a known enemy in uniform, that would work. Since that is not the case this time, you are not correct.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

We have a million people in our military. McChrystal is asking for an additiona 40 thousand.

What qualifies the president to second guess his theater commander? He's persident? Is that all?

Those who are above the theater commander in the chain of command, who have issues with the troop request.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

We have a million people in our military. McChrystal is asking for an additiona 40 thousand.

What qualifies the president to second guess his theater commander? He's persident? Is that all?

The fact that he is the General's commanding officer is one reason. The President has more facts then McChrystal has and those facts need to be weighed in also. The President also has military advisors who he can discuss the situation with to make sure McChrystal indeed needs what he is asking for.

Does McChrystal give all of his subordinates everything they ask for without question? Do you feel he should? I mean, who is he to question them right? They know more about what they are commanding over then he does. McChrystal just knows what they and the rest of the subordinates report to him.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

What qualifies the president to second guess his theater commander? He's persident? Is that all?

Yep. The President is meant to gather what information he can and come to a decision, or a series of decisions, etc etc.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The fact that he is the General's commanding officer is one reason. The President has more facts then McChrystal has and those facts need to be weighed in also. The President also has military advisors who he can discuss the situation with to make sure McChrystal indeed needs what he is asking for.


The president knows more about the real situation than the actual ground commander? Hell, the info the president has about the scene on the ground came directly from the ground commander, so it's unrealistic to think tht the president knows more about it than the commander.

Does McChrystal give all of his subordinates everything they ask for without question? Do you feel he should? I mean, who is he to question them right? They know more about what they are commanding over then he does. McChrystal just knows what they and the rest of the subordinates report to him.

Yes, he does. It's his job to keep his field commanders informed and give hem whatever they need to do their job, be it information, training, or equipment.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Yep. The President is meant to gather what information he can and come to a decision, or a series of decisions, etc etc.

Then, he needs to ****, or get off the pot.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The president knows more about the real situation than the actual ground commander? Hell, the info the president has about the scene on the ground came directly from the ground commander, so it's unrealistic to think tht the president knows more about it than the commander.

The commander knows of all political talks and/or military talks with Joint Cheifs the President is having involving Afghanistan going on that may impact US or other countries presence in Afghanistan?

What makes you 100% certain the McChrystal strategy is perfectly flawless and requires no type of review or over site?


Yes, he does. It's his job to keep his field commanders informed and give hem whatever they need to do their job, be it information, training, or equipment.

So he's not required to make sure his field commanders are doing their job correctly and efficiently before proving them their every request?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom