• 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!

For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

For Veterans and Military personnel only.

  • Total voters
    51
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
You watched it through the lense of your own bias and world view. I know you don't understand this, but many watched it, and we still have differences of opinion among those who watched it. And no one said you didn't work with the Awakening. In fact, I gave credit to the General for being smart enough to take advantage. I said, it wasn't part of the plan of the surge because it happened independent of the surge and not at our prodding. You seek to take credit where it isn't due.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read counterinsurgency doctrine?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
What I find especially funny is the fact that then Senator Obama railed against the surge yet used one of his own no more than 2 years later.
Click to expand...

That's the ticket, right there. If the man really didn't believe in the success of the strategy, then he wouldn't have used it.

Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

cpwill said:
Have you ever read counterinsurgency doctrine?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. But that doesn't change fact CP. The fact is it wasn't our idea. They did it completely on their own. You're merely letting your ideology color your perception. Facts are what they are.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

mac said:
I was there also, and I also agree with CP.

Where you in Iraq, Boo?
Click to expand...

As I told them, there are not enough on this thread to represent all who were there. But you and they miss the point. As there are differences of opinon, someone is wrong. The fact remains, regardless of what you think, the events are recorded and we did not start the awakening. This is an undisputed fact. Sorry, but you and they are wrong.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
Once again Boo, I will say that I side with CP. Further, I will show you where we executed our doctrine to the T. The surge provided the atmosphere to allow people such as Sheikh Satar to be brave enough to stand up to AQI. If not for the security provided by us, and especially the surge, he would not have been able to do that. Examples of the COIN doctrine are below. This manual was written before the surge, yet, is eerily similar to what happened in Anbar Province.
2-2. The integration of civilian and military efforts is crucial to successful COIN operations. All efforts
focus on supporting the local populace and HN government. Political, social, and economic programs are
usually more valuable than conventional military operations in addressing the root causes of conflict and
undermining an insurgency. COIN participants come from many backgrounds. They may include military
personnel, diplomats, police, politicians, humanitarian aid workers, contractors, and local leaders. All must
make decisions and solve problems in a complex and extremely challenging environment.
2-3. Controlling the level of violence is a key aspect of the struggle. A high level of violence often benefits
insurgents. The societal insecurity that violence brings discourages or precludes nonmilitary organizations,
particularly external agencies, from helping the local populace. A more benign security environment
allows civilian agencies greater opportunity to provide their resources and expertise. It thereby relieves
military forces of this burden.
2-6. COIN is fought among the populace. Counterinsurgents take upon themselves responsibility for the
people’s well-being in all its manifestations. These include the following:
Security from insurgent intimidation and coercion, as well as from nonpolitical violence and
crime.
Provision for basic economic needs.
Provision of essential services, such as water, electricity, sanitation, and medical care.
Sustainment of key social and cultural institutions.
Other aspects that contribute to a society’s basic quality of life.
Effective COIN programs address all aspects of the local populace’s concerns in a unified fashion. Insurgents
succeed by maintaining turbulence and highlighting local grievances the COIN effort fails to address.
COIN forces succeed by eliminating turbulence and helping the host nation meet the populace’s basic needs.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
I could keep going and going posting portions of this manual. As CP said before, the policy to go into Iraq may have been wrong (I believe it was). But that doesn't mean we should lose too. You seem to be unwilling or unable to differentiate between the two. The surge was lauded by politicians, especially Dems. What I find especially funny is the fact that then Senator Obama railed against the surge yet used one of his own no more than 2 years later.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address the point. The Awakening happened on it's own and largely away form where we were targeting. They did that on their own. There is not doubt on that point.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

cpwill said:
That's the ticket, right there. If the man really didn't believe in the success of the strategy, then he wouldn't have used it.

Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?
Click to expand...

No, you miss much. Obama was not sold. There was vigorous debate. The Generals, whoo argued strongly for it, were clear that even if they got everything they wanted, it might fail anyway. At the end of the day, with a lot of hesitation, he allowed them to try. This is not the same as him seeing success and pushing for the strartegy. I know context and nuance isn't for ideologues. But again, it is best that we be truthful.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

The Anbar Awakening was largely a grassroots Iraqi initiative to replace the provincial government with an emergency government led by the Awakening leadership. Police recruitment and partnering with the United States were means to that end.

(Snip)

As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.

(snip)

If the Awakening leadership were able to tap into that power and use it to expel al Qaeda from Anbar, they would be able to claim that they had conquered an enemy the strongest military in the world could not defeat—negating the argument that they were collaborating with the Americans.

(snip)

U.S. support for the Awakening changed, though, in February 2007, when General Petraeus replaced General George Casey and first heard about tribal movement. In an effort to expand the influence of the Awakening, General Petraeus started the Sons of Iraq program for operations in Diyala and Baghdad, usually paying Sunni tribesmen in al Qaeda– infested areas to work as paramilitaries with the hope that someday they would be integrated into the Ministry of the Interior. Initially, the ethnosectarian parties in the government agreed to integrate the Anbar Awakening fighters into the ministry because they were from a homogeneous Sunni province that was a former al Qaeda sanctuary. (My note: It had already started, now we take advantage)

(Snip)

The surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful, other than on the eastern border with Baghdad where the ISF acted as a sectarian militia. In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge.

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/prism2-1/Prism_3-18_Al-Jabouri_Jensen.pdf
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

This is a no-brainer - OBAMA, hands down.

A check of both WhiteHouse.gov under "Defense" and "Veterans" clearly shows President Obama is doing and has DONE so much more for our Defense Department, active duty service personnel and their families and veterans. A review of MittRomney.com, however, only covers information on "National Defense" where he details (loosely, I might ad) how he'd appropriate funds to add more ships to our Navy or increase the size of our Air Force fighter squadrons. In short, Mitt Romney would rekindle the military industrial complex. Thing is, most of his information is WRONG! Such as the following line from his website:

The Obama administration’s cuts have left us with a military inventory largely composed of weapons designed forty to fifty years ago.
Click to expand...

Oh, really, Mr. Romney? Care to explain how the latest smart bombs, advanced weapons capable of shooting around corners, or the latest in snipper riffle technolog such as the Army's XM2010 with an effective range greater than 2,000 meters has found its way into combat action in Afghanistan? Or how he used Stealth Helicopters in concert with SealTeam 6 using the most advanced weaponry to kill OBL?

I mean, c'mon, people. Some things are just clear cut! There's no argument as to which person is doing and HAS DONE MORE or will do for our military. One clue as to who it's not: MITT ROMNEY! But don't take my word for it. Just go to the aforementioned web sites and check out the facts for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
What I find especially funny is the fact that then Senator Obama railed against the surge yet used one of his own no more than 2 years later.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
That's the ticket, right there. If the man really didn't believe in the success of the strategy, then he wouldn't have used it.

Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?
Click to expand...

This is one of those, "Eat alittle crow/if it ain't broke, don't fix it" moments.

Granted, President Obama did implement an increase in troop force similar to the surge that was used in Iraq, but let's get a few things straight about that.

1. It took GW Bush nearly a year to finally decide to switch tactics and go with the surge long after Gen. Petraeus recommended a new "counter-insurgency" strategy over the "counter-terrorism" strategy that was in place. Source: The War Within by Bod Woodward and The Gamble by Thomas E. Ricks

2. It took President Obama a mere 6 months to make a similar decision concerning Afghanistan. Source: Obama's Wars by Bod Woodward

Now, granted, President Obama had the advantage of hindsight in his favor - his ability to review the mistakes made concerning implenting the Iraq surge and the military leaders at his disposal. There's also the fact the w/Petraeus' military acumen at his disposal, President Obama and his defense team combined facets of counter-terrorism w/counter-insurancy to tackle the AfPak problem. So, it's the same as the surge but different. (See "Memorandum for the Principals: President Obama's Final Orders for Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy or Terms Sheet" at the end of the book, "Obama's Wars" for details)
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
As I told them, there are not enough on this thread to represent all who were there. But you and they miss the point. As there are differences of opinon, someone is wrong. The fact remains, regardless of what you think, the events are recorded and we did not start the awakening. This is an undisputed fact. Sorry, but you and they are wrong.
Click to expand...

I guess I see a different point. It seems that all who where there, and in this thread, disagree with you (who wasn't). I'm sure you'll catch up on the interweb, though.

Interesting.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Objective Voice said:
This is a no-brainer - OBAMA, hands down.

A check of both WhiteHouse.gov under "Defense" and "Veterans" clearly shows President Obama is doing and has DONE so much more for our Defense Department, active duty service personnel and their families and veterans.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe a check of active duty personnel under Obama would clearly show something different. However, getting your facts from a website controlled by the Obama administration is sure to tell the whole story. Carry on, Sir.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.
Click to expand...

Enabled by US forces.....

:shock:
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
Actually, yes. But that doesn't change fact CP. The fact is it wasn't our idea.
Click to expand...

What a fascinating claim. So we had the idea that local, tribally based Iraq forces were going to be necessary to defeating AQI, then we convinced the amenable Sheikhs to return from Syria, then we gave them protection, then we gave them weapons, then we gave them money, then we gave them radios, then we gave them our comm freqs, and then we trained them, and then we gave them operational freedom in our AO's, but the fact that they later went up against AQI had noting to do with us.

:roll: right

They did it completely on their own.
Click to expand...

see above. If they had done it completely on their own, AQI would have murdered them all, as it successfully did to Sheikh Satar later. That's why they fled to Syria to begin with.

You're merely letting your ideology color your perception. Facts are what they are.
Click to expand...

no, I am remembering what we did, and I am noting that it is directly in line with what we said we were going to do.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
The surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful, other than on the eastern border with Baghdad where the ISF acted as a sectarian militia. In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge.

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/prism2-1/Prism_3-18_Al-Jabouri_Jensen.pdf
Click to expand...

:lamo

Man, I was in Fallujah in 2007 (hint, that's in Anbar). When we rolled into that city there were M&I events going down on a daily basis, the locals were terrified to leave their houses at night or send their kids to school, and if we were in place for 15 minutes we were getting small arms fire (half an hour and they could bring mortars on-line). Then we moved into the city itself, moved to block and control traffic, set up local forces, trained local forces, paid local forces, moved in to live with local forces in their neighborhoods to provide 24 hour security, and rounded up a bunch of bad guys. Attacks dropped from 200 at the beginning of the year in our AO to 2 by October. M&I stopped. Locals were sending kids to school, opening up markets, by Ramadan they could enjoy staying out late together... I remember one of our terps (a guy out of Baghdad) turning to our boss, with amazement in his voice: "Sir... they're.... happy...."

The most common question we got was whether or not we were going to stick around long enough to make sure that AQI couldn't take back over. The most effective enemy propaganda campaign we faced were posters by them quoting our own political leadership saying that we were going to abandon the fight, so Iraqi's shouldn't work with us.


Now before the Surge, I would agree, US troops weren't being employed all that usefully. The idiotic "anti-terrorist" strategy VP Biden wanted us to pursue in Afghanistan wherein we live on big bases and only leave to do raids ensured that we would have poor intelligence and degraded effects. We didn't provide security to the populace (the high ground in a counterinsurgency), and so we basically abandoned them to AQI. But you are sticking your head in the sand.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Boo Radley said:
That doesn't address the point. The Awakening happened on it's own and largely away form where we were targeting. They did that on their own. There is not doubt on that point.
Click to expand...

Away from where we were targeting? lol. Anbar Province was one of the most contested areas of both OEF and OIF. There were Marine RCT's there not to mention Army personnel. The surge, once again, provided the sercurity needed for The Awakening to happen.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Objective Voice said:
This is one of those, "Eat alittle crow/if it ain't broke, don't fix it" moments.

Granted, President Obama did implement an increase in troop force similar to the surge that was used in Iraq, but let's get a few things straight about that.

1. It took GW Bush nearly a year to finally decide to switch tactics and go with the surge long after Gen. Petraeus recommended a new "counter-insurgency" strategy over the "counter-terrorism" strategy that was in place. Source: The War Within by Bod Woodward and The Gamble by Thomas E. Ricks

2. It took President Obama a mere 6 months to make a similar decision concerning Afghanistan. Source: Obama's Wars by Bod Woodward

Now, granted, President Obama had the advantage of hindsight in his favor - his ability to review the mistakes made concerning implenting the Iraq surge and the military leaders at his disposal. There's also the fact the w/Petraeus' military acumen at his disposal, President Obama and his defense team combined facets of counter-terrorism w/counter-insurancy to tackle the AfPak problem. So, it's the same as the surge but different. (See "Memorandum for the Principals: President Obama's Final Orders for Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy or Terms Sheet" at the end of the book, "Obama's Wars" for details)
Click to expand...

I think you just debated yourself dude. I might be wrong though. I think you just advocated that President Obama made a faster decision but only because President Bush was his case study.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

mac said:
Well, I believe a check of active duty personnel under Obama would clearly show something different. However, getting your facts from a website controlled by the Obama administration is sure to tell the whole story. Carry on, Sir.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have a problem believing the information from the Executive Branch, perhaps you'll believe the figures directly from DoD.

Active Duty military force strength as of FY2010:

Fiscal year 2010 DoD AC end-strength totaled 1.42 million servicemembers. This represents a slight increase from the FY09 AC total of 1.41 million. In FY10, the Army, the largest of the military services, had 562,000 active duty servicemembers, an increase of 13,000 from FY09. The Army expansion accounted for half of AC growth between FY08 and FY09, but for nearly all of the growth between FY09 and FY10. The Marine Corps and Air Force each grew by 2 percent from FY08 to FY09, but they changed little
in size from FY09 to FY10. The Navy shrank by 2,500 personnel between FY08 and FY09, and continued to decrease between FY09 and FY10 by 1,000.
Click to expand...

There's lots more public information you can find on our armed forces by going to their respective ".mil" websites or DoD's website itself.

Sidenote: I find it interesting that you'd dismiss the information contained on the President's website where much of it is derived directly from the various branches of government including Congress (i.e., signed legistlation), but it seems you're quick to accept information derived from a civilian's website who very likely receives his information from partisan sources that may not be as reliable (i.e., "The U.S. Navy has only 284 ships today" which is two short of the actual number of warships in our active duty fleet. We have several more in our inactive fleet ready to activate when necessary; always have. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of the truth.)
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
I think you just debated yourself dude. I might be wrong though. I think you just advocated that President Obama made a faster decision but only because President Bush was his case study.
Click to expand...

Well, sure he was and I clearly admitted that. However, that doesn't mean that you can't admit when you're wrong and change contingency plans and make them better in order to carry out the mission. Any sitting President would be stupid NOT to take the good that was done by his predecessor, fine tune it and make it work better especially where military warfare is concerned.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Objective Voice said:
Well, if you have a problem believing the information from the Executive Branch, perhaps you'll believe the figures directly from DoD.

Active Duty military force strength as of FY2010:



There's lots more public information you can find on our armed forces by going to their respective ".mil" websites or DoD's website itself.

Sidenote: I find it interesting that you'd dismiss the information contained on the President's website where much of it is derived directly from the various branches of government including Congress (i.e., signed legistlation), but it seems you're quick to accept information derived from a civilian's website who very likely receives his information from partisan sources that may not be as reliable (i.e., "The U.S. Navy has only 284 ships today" which is two short of the actual number of warships in our active duty fleet. We have several more in our inactive fleet ready to activate when necessary; always have. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of the truth.)
Click to expand...

Using force size as an indicator of President Obama's support for the military is misleading. Normally, the policies of the previous POTUS dictate the size and scope of the military. Its very hard to recruit fast and even harder to boot people once you don't need them anymore. While the military doesn't have a union, its just bad form to kick someone to the curb without some sort of chance to transition. Especially when that person potentially went to war for the country.

I will ask this question again to everyone. Where is the Scott Walker like outrage against President Obama for the planned hike in contributions military members must make to their medical care? Especially considering the fact that he cannot be considered a "peaceful" POTUS by any stretch. President Bush may have been a warmongerer but at least he gave us the assets we needed and took care of us. President Obama would rather cut funding, still ask the same of the military as before the cuts, and make us pay more for the healthcare we will need from fighting the war he has doubled down on.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Objective Voice said:
Oh, really, Mr. Romney? Care to explain how the latest smart bombs, advanced weapons capable of shooting around corners, or the latest in snipper riffle technolog such as the Army's XM2010 with an effective range greater than 2,000 meters has found its way into combat action in Afghanistan? Or how he used Stealth Helicopters in concert with SealTeam 6 using the most advanced weaponry to kill OBL?

I mean, c'mon, people. Some things are just clear cut! There's no argument as to which person is doing and HAS DONE MORE or will do for our military. One clue as to who it's not: MITT ROMNEY! But don't take my word for it. Just go to the aforementioned web sites and check out the facts for yourself.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you this bro but most of those weapons you speak of were procured during the Bush years. 3 years is not enough time to identify a short fall, put it up for bid, have various companies bid on it, have those companies develop prototypes, test all of them (usually 3 or 4), award the contract, then that company produce them en mass, test them again, train trainers on the gear, train the users, then field it. Yes, it takes that long to get a piece of gear to the military. The only exception to that rule that I have seen is the MRAP. It was rapidly pushed to the front of the line. The XM2010 took a year from contract approval to fielding. That's just one step of the process.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

cpwill said:
:lamo

Man, I was in Fallujah in 2007 (hint, that's in Anbar). When we rolled into that city there were M&I events going down on a daily basis, the locals were terrified to leave their houses at night or send their kids to school, and if we were in place for 15 minutes we were getting small arms fire (half an hour and they could bring mortars on-line). Then we moved into the city itself, moved to block and control traffic, set up local forces, trained local forces, paid local forces, moved in to live with local forces in their neighborhoods to provide 24 hour security, and rounded up a bunch of bad guys. Attacks dropped from 200 at the beginning of the year in our AO to 2 by October. M&I stopped. Locals were sending kids to school, opening up markets, by Ramadan they could enjoy staying out late together... I remember one of our terps (a guy out of Baghdad) turning to our boss, with amazement in his voice: "Sir... they're.... happy...."

The most common question we got was whether or not we were going to stick around long enough to make sure that AQI couldn't take back over. The most effective enemy propaganda campaign we faced were posters by them quoting our own political leadership saying that we were going to abandon the fight, so Iraqi's shouldn't work with us.


Now before the Surge, I would agree, US troops weren't being employed all that usefully. The idiotic "anti-terrorist" strategy VP Biden wanted us to pursue in Afghanistan wherein we live on big bases and only leave to do raids ensured that we would have poor intelligence and degraded effects. We didn't provide security to the populace (the high ground in a counterinsurgency), and so we basically abandoned them to AQI. But you are sticking your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

I linked it for you. You are missing the point completely. The Awakening was before the surge, and they were not dependent on the surge. We wisely took advantage, but it was not the surge. CP, you're just factually wrong.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Objective Voice said:
Well, if you have a problem believing the information from the Executive Branch, perhaps you'll believe the figures directly from DoD.

Active Duty military force strength as of FY2010:



There's lots more public information you can find on our armed forces by going to their respective ".mil" websites or DoD's website itself.

Sidenote: I find it interesting that you'd dismiss the information contained on the President's website where much of it is derived directly from the various branches of government including Congress (i.e., signed legistlation), but it seems you're quick to accept information derived from a civilian's website who very likely receives his information from partisan sources that may not be as reliable (i.e., "The U.S. Navy has only 284 ships today" which is two short of the actual number of warships in our active duty fleet. We have several more in our inactive fleet ready to activate when necessary; always have. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of the truth.)
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you put no stock in actual accounts of people IN the military during the Obama administration but rather take the words of the politicians instead.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

mac said:
I find it interesting that you put no stock in actual accounts of people IN the military during the Obama administration but rather take the words of the politicians instead.
Click to expand...

This from the individual who puts more faith behind the campaign promises a civilian who isn't even Commander-in-Chief yet than the man who is. But I'll bite...

Other than Gen. McCrystal, what are the military personnel and the leadership saying that concerns you?
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
Using force size as an indicator of President Obama's support for the military is misleading. Normally, the policies of the previous POTUS dictate the size and scope of the military. Its very hard to recruit fast and even harder to boot people once you don't need them anymore. While the military doesn't have a union, its just bad form to kick someone to the curb without some sort of chance to transition. Especially when that person potentially went to war for the country.

I will ask this question again to everyone. Where is the Scott Walker like outrage against President Obama for the planned hike in contributions military members must make to their medical care? Especially considering the fact that he cannot be considered a "peaceful" POTUS by any stretch. President Bush may have been a warmongerer but at least he gave us the assets we needed and took care of us. President Obama would rather cut funding, still ask the same of the military as before the cuts, and make us pay more for the healthcare we will need from fighting the war he has doubled down on.
Click to expand...

First of all, I was responding to Mac's assessment that the size of the active duty military had decreased under President Obama. That may be the case for the Navy, but not so for the Army, Marines and Air Force.

Second, I agree with you that policy and strategic implementation of troop forces along with results should be how we judge our Commander-in-Chief. Still, I would argue that if people are volunteering to enlist even while there's still a war going on at the same time that active duty personnel are deciding to remain on active duty at the end of their tours, doesn't that speak well of policy? (And yes, I am aware that tours have been extended for many of our military personnel, but the fact that our combat troops are still volunteering to stay on active duty in spite of this speaks volumns to how correctly aligned military policy apparently has been under Pres. Obama.)

MarineTpartier said:
Hate to tell you this bro but most of those weapons you speak of were procured during the Bush years. 3 years is not enough time to identify a short fall, put it up for bid, have various companies bid on it, have those companies develop prototypes, test all of them (usually 3 or 4), award the contract, then that company produce them en mass, test them again, train trainers on the gear, train the users, then field it. Yes, it takes that long to get a piece of gear to the military. The only exception to that rule that I have seen is the MRAP. It was rapidly pushed to the front of the line. The XM2010 took a year from contract approval to fielding. That's just one step of the process.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Many of the advanced weapons that our troops are using in theater were developed long before Obama took office. But that does not exclude the fact that he has made every effort to equip our troops with such weapons during his tenure. Consider, if you will, the cry for kevlar vest and improved Humvees with better shielding under the chassy and/or equipping with IED detectors. When did those get distributed to combat troops? Took a long time to get those vest to the troops under GW Bush. Obama all but demanded that they get such equipment. SecDef Gates went to the Pentegon and demanded that the new Humvees as described above were built at a rapid pace and shipped to Iraq with hast! This, too, happened under Obama's watch.

So, yes, policy and decisive action does matter where our active duty forces are concerned. But troop strength and equipment also matter. It's the collectiveness of it all that folks should take into consideration, not just the politics of the moment.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

MarineTpartier said:
So they protested and violence ensued. What's your point?
In Seattle, protesters dressed in black smashed windows and police pepper-sprayed some in the crowds.
View attachment 67129198
Marches turned violent in Oakland and San Francisco, where a protester was throwing what appeared to be bricks and metal rods from the roof of a building into the crowd of demonstrators, reporters, and police - injuring at least one person
Protesters hit streets for May Day rallies; violence flares in Oakland, Seattle - U.S. News
Click to expand...


I must have missed where it said 10,000 were protesting as they were against the corrupt government in Iraq. Please provide that quote from the article. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom