• 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

They were neither. I was just letting you know the way a man would question my service. :shrug:

I see. ......So calling me "Old Man" twice in the same sentence was really your way of endearing yourself? :kissass
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Using your logic, George W. Bush should have been impeached for:

1. Invading Iraq with too few troops. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was ignored for having the temerity to suggest this was the case, and was thereafter, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned. Should Bush have done exactly what Shinseki suggested, as you insist Obama should do with McChrystal's advice?

Well, he didn't. Your "impeach him!" logic fails.

1a. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki had been correct that more troops were needed. Should Bush have listened to Shinseki AND Abizaid and followed their advice, as you insist Obama should do with McChrystal's advice?

Well, he didn't. Your "impeach him!" logic fails.

2. Sending troops into Iraq with insufficient body armor, tank armor, and more. Should Bush have listened to Shinseki's AND Abizaid's recommendations, as you insist Obama should do with McChrystal's recommendations?

Well, he didn't. Your "impeach him!" logic fails.

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets

Iraq-bound soldiers confront Rumsfeld over lack of armor

Soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor


At least you understand that.

:doh

I love when people bring up the trumped up armor issue. Newsflash: a Hummvee isn't a tank and no matter how much armor you hang on it, or on the body of a soldier, you're not going to make them impregnable. I always taught my soldiers how to avoid getting shot, therefore negating the need for body armor. But, at the end of the day, Bush isn't president anymore. is he?




I think therein lays the problem. There is no goal in Afghanistan for our military that is remotely achievable.
As far as Obama doing the right thing or not.......I'd much rather have a President who doesn't shoot from the hip or make major decision based on what his "Gut" tells him.I think Obama is trying to formulate an achievable strategy for us over there. Anyone who uses the term "Win" or "Lose" doesn't understand the reality of the ME.

The goal is to destroy the enemy. That's been the goal of warfare since cavemen first went after each other with rocks and sticks.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I see. ......So calling me "Old Man" twice in the same sentence was really your way of endearing yourself? :kissass




How about you get back to the topic instead of whining about the response you got to trolling me?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

How about you get back to the topic instead of whining about the response you got to trolling me?

OK...I will then.

At the risk of antagonizing TacticalEvilDan again..I'll just ask you one pertinent question:

Why should we accept the military strategy/advise of an ex AF sergeant over the words of our DefSec & Chief of Staff & CinC when it comes to high level Afghanistan policy?
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The answer is so self-evident that the question practically answers himself, but here we go:

3 months into his Presidency, Obama increases troop strength in Afghanistan, no doubt at the request of his general, by 50%.

It has now been brought to his attention that, in the opinion of his general, more troops are needed.

If this is true, I would imagine that he now believes that he needs to rethink the current strategy, since he increased troop strength after a "careful policy review."

If he doesn't think about it and simply repeats what he did back in March, he could simply be throwing more troops at a bad strategy, and I imagine he takes his job seriously enough that he doesn't want to do that.

Are you saying they're just bagging the whole thing?

If it was such a "comprehensive strategy," it should be able to weather a few things going the wrong way, and it should anticipate that the unexpected would happen. There weren't that many more troops committed back in March; a simple request for more shouldn't send him into such a spin.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

OK...I will then.

At the risk of antagonizing TacticalEvilDan again..I'll just ask you one pertinent question:

Why should we accept the military strategy/advise of an ex AF sergeant over the words of our DefSec & Chief of Staff & CinC when it comes to high level Afghanistan policy?


I was not the one who injected my military experience into the conversation.

Are you done yet?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I think therein lays the problem. There is no goal in Afghanistan for our military that is remotely achievable.As far as Obama doing the right thing or not.......I'd much rather have a President who doesn't shoot from the hip or make major decision based on what his "Gut" tells him.I think Obama is trying to formulate an achievable strategy for us over there. Anyone who uses the term "Win" or "Lose" doesn't understand the reality of the ME.

Afghanistan cannot be fixed with military intention alone. It has to form part of the strategy, as does humanitarianism, politics and economics. The humanitarian problem is huge and plays a complex role, which needs complex negotiations on a multinational basis.

UNHCR - Afghanistan

"Even though the international community pledged an additional USD 21 billion to Afghanistan in 2008 to support the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, the country's transition to political, economic and social stability remains uncertain"

So this perhaps highlights where some of the problems lie. As we all know corruption is a charge floated about with regards to Afghanistan.

With porous borders refugee movement is vast

"The return of almost 5 million Afghans since 2002 has placed great pressure on the country's absorption capacity, especially on its limited local-labour markets"

This problem is intertwined with much of the stability problems.

I think you mentioned somewhere using smaller mobile forces, this of course can be effective but a double edged sword also


8 Americans Dead in Fierce Afghan Battles - CBS News

"Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. soldiers and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said."

"It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province."

A couple of instances of the vulnerability of lightly protected outposts. You may suggest these were perhaps sitting ducks but all the same you need some-kind of static base, if only for re-supply or alternatively it does, and obviously did, draw the insurgents out of cover. But of course their are other ways of using smaller forces in a more effective manor such as special forces long range patrolling techniques etc

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

OK...I will then.

At the risk of antagonizing TacticalEvilDan again..I'll just ask you one pertinent question:

Why should we accept the military strategy/advise of an ex AF sergeant over the words of our DefSec & Chief of Staff & CinC when it comes to high level Afghanistan policy?

The Chief of Staff and the CENTCOM Commander both support McChrystal's evaluation of the scene on the ground in Afghnistan. The question is, why should the opinions of highly experienced and educated officers suddenly become suspect, by people who aren't nearly as qualified to make such judgements. It appears that PBO is ignoring his entire uniformed chain of command.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I was not the one who injected my military experience into the conversation.

Are you done yet?


Not quite Rev......

You did in fact inject your military experience when you presumed to attack the CinC for his military thinking when you said this in your OP:

Which is more inportant to Obama the olympics or US troops. There has been a request for reinforcments and a plea that we are going to lose this war id this requirment is not met.
That would presume that you know better about military decision making than the CinC who has the advise of the Joint Chiefs, The Sec. of Defense & others at hand.

You went on to say:




It would be one thing for the CiC to say "no", but to do 50 or so interviews and leno, then run off to take credit for getting the olympics while troops are dying waiting for an answer?


Inexcusable, just when you think this guy can't get any worse. Shame on him.


pathetic. simply pathetic.

Which can only be interpreted as you chastising the CinC's decision schedule as "Inexcusable"....when you have no way of knowing the info that he has gotten from his commanders & advisers, & alleging that he can't walk & chew gum at the same time. (Presidents are always required to juggle many important things.....at the same time, especially wartime Presidents)

So I ask again, totally pertinent to your topic:
Why should we accept your castigation of the CinC as you knowing better than the him & all his advisers combined?

That's a fair question to ask you & not an attack.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

So I ask again, totally pertinent to your topic:
Why should we accept your castigation of the CinC as knowing better than the CinC & all his advisers combined?

That's a fair question to ask you & not an attack.


Because common sense should dictate that if your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, your CENTCOM commander and your theater command are all of the same opinion, it shouldn't take this long to make a decision.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Because common sense should dictate that if your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, your CENTCOM commander and your theater command are all of the same opinion, it shouldn't take this long to make a decision.

It obviously does take this long to come up with the correct decision. Afghanistan is not a simple problem.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It obviously does take this long to come up with the correct decision. Afghanistan is not a simple problem.

The correct decision would be to listen to his military commanders.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

There's nothing "obvious" about it.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It obviously does take this long to come up with the correct decision. Afghanistan is not a simple problem.

If three men with over 100 years of combined military experience, who have proven themselves on the battlefield, tell you what the correct decision is, it's usually wise to trust them.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The correct decision would be to listen to his military commanders.

Not at all! Civilians control our military...not vice versa! You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

If three men with over 100 years of combined military experience, who have proven themselves on the battlefield, tell you what the correct decision is, it's usually wise to trust them.

& when our founding fathers specifically prescribed civilian control of the military "it's usually wise to trust them."
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Not at all! Civilians control our military...not vice versa! You couldn't be more wrong.

Civilians do NOT run military operations in a war zone.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Not at all! Civilians control our military...not vice versa!

Just because civilians run the show doesn't mean they know what they're doing. They should be smart enough to know their limitations when comes to military matters and trust the leaders that they put in place.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

& when our founding fathers specifically prescribed civilian control of the military "it's usually wise to trust them."

When the fouding fathers were looking for someone to make miltiary decisions, who did they turn to? It sure as hell wasn't a lawyer with zero military experience.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

When the fouding fathers were looking for someone to make miltiary decisions, who did they turn to? It sure as hell wasn't a lawyer with zero military experience.

Is the POTUS CinC or not?

Is there anyone above him to make decisions for this country? (military or not)

Didn't someone once call his job "The Decider?";)
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

That the President makes the decision is not the question. That's a blatant strawman.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Two reasons.

We felt the same way when Bush I wasn't sure if we were going into Bagdhad or not.

#2, from people I know in Afghanistan which is the impetus for my recent tirades on this topic.

Well, this isn't Iraq, Obama isn't Bush, and anecdotal evidence, while it can certainly inspire, doesn't qualify as evidence.


Do you think they just accept that or do you think they do that critical thinking sometimes?

I assume that they think critically about their situation. I also assume that they don't need strategic details any more than, say, I do.

I guess I thought that your average military grunt, with all the training and discipline that comes with being a grunt, would be better equipped to think about and judge the situation better than your average armchair quarterback.

As such, I figured they'd be less susceptible to the media-generated hysteria over the situation -- that they'd know that there's nothing wrong with the fact that Obama isn't communicating regularly with the general, that they'd expect him to need to rethink his strategy after a 50% increase in troops didn't get the job done, that they'd appreciate the extra thought the President is putting into what is a matter of life and death for them, that they wouldn't assume that he's not dealing with the situation simply because he's not having a meeting with the SecDef in front of a camera.

From what you're saying, Rev, I guess I gave the average military grunt too much credit.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

That the President makes the decision is not the question. That's a blatant strawman.

Then what is the question here??? (characterization of someone else's post is not needed or helpful to the discussion)
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Is the POTUS CinC or not?

Is there anyone above him to make decisions for this country? (military or not)

Didn't someone once call his job "The Decider?";)

You are missing the point....If you do not know what to do/what you are doing you should follow the advice of those that do....In this case the military brass.
 
Back
Top Bottom