• 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!

NATO flag lowered in Afghanistan as combat mission ends

11Bravo said:
Sorry, I always get a little heated when I see that question.

-I would say that we are ending our combat mission. It's now a tactical training operation rather than a war. It's time for the Afghans to fight their own extremism. However, I really don't see this working.
Click to expand...
I understand. I appreciate the passion. I think people need to be clear. The war against Afghanistan ended in 2001. The war against Iraq ended May of 2003. Since those dates we have established relationships with both governments and their military. Clearly we arent 'at war' with either country. Now...if we are in 'post war ops' ala Germany and Japan post WW2, then all of this should be expected and we should still be working with newly formed allies (even if that means doing it differently).

Theres a whole lot of people that think this is all still The War against Afghanistan. When Obama declares it is over, many of his supporters will say he 'ended' the war with Afghanistan. We need to be quite clear about what is 'ending'. What is ending is sustained combat ops against an enemy that while ousted and hiding in caves, still represents a threat.

Personally...I think Bush made a mistake in post war ops in both countries and Obama simply continued those mistakes. The ROE in the last 6 years has been disastrous. I guess its better that we just 'quit' but its not going to make anything better (except maybe making fewer of our troops in theater and vulnerable).
 
VanceMack said:
I understand. I appreciate the passion. I think people need to be clear. The war against Afghanistan ended in 2001. The war against Iraq ended May of 2003. Since those dates we have established relationships with both governments and their military. Clearly we arent 'at war' with either country. Now...if we are in 'post war ops' ala Germany and Japan post WW2, then all of this should be expected and we should still be working with newly formed allies (even if that means doing it differently).

Theres a whole lot of people that think this is all still The War against Afghanistan. When Obama declares it is over, many of his supporters will say he 'ended' the war with Afghanistan. We need to be quite clear about what is 'ending'. What is ending is sustained combat ops against an enemy that while ousted and hiding in caves, still represents a threat.

Personally...I think Bush made a mistake in post war ops in both countries and Obama simply continued those mistakes. The ROE in the last 6 years has been disastrous. I guess its better that we just 'quit' but its not going to make anything better (except maybe making fewer of our troops in theater and vulnerable).
Click to expand...

I 100 percent agreee with every word you've just spoken.

Well said.
 
VanceMack said:
Still havent seen anyone say what this amounts to. Did we 'win'? Are we 'surrendering'?
Click to expand...

It used to be called 'surrendering', or a 'retreat', or even a 'defeat', but now it is called 'a withdrawal of troops and ending the war'. The 'withdrawal of troops' is the honest part but it takes at least two sides to end a war.

Always on the cutting edge for defining new meanings for outdated words and phrases, President Barrack H. Obama said, ""But this is how wars end in the 21st century: not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility".

I think we can all sleep a little more peacefully at night knowing that BHO is working on these 'transitions' and giving them his full attention.
 
Grant said:
It used to be called 'surrendering', or a 'retreat', or even a 'defeat', but now it is called 'a withdrawal of troops and ending the war'. The 'withdrawal of troops' is the honest part but it takes at least two sides to end a war.

Always on the cutting edge for defining new meanings for outdated words and phrases, President Barrack H. Obama said, ""But this is how wars end in the 21st century: not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility".

I think we can all sleep a little more peacefully at night knowing that BHO is working on these 'transitions' and giving them his full attention.
Click to expand...

Yes....Obama's extensive military background offers him the opportunity to make these kinds of speeches.
 
Grant said:
It used to be called 'surrendering', or a 'retreat', or even a 'defeat', but now it is called 'a withdrawal of troops and ending the war'. The 'withdrawal of troops' is the honest part but it takes at least two sides to end a war.

Always on the cutting edge for defining new meanings for outdated words and phrases, President Barrack H. Obama said, ""But this is how wars end in the 21st century: not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility".

I think we can all sleep a little more peacefully at night knowing that BHO is working on these 'transitions' and giving them his full attention.
Click to expand...
I sense a note of sarcasm in your tone. But I may be wrong.

Theres probably a reason why so many military people and their family members are so repulsed by their current CiC.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Father-of-fallen-Marine-upset-by-president-s-letter/16904582
 
VanceMack said:
I sense a note of sarcasm in your tone. But I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
Damn! I didn't lay it on thick enough!:)

Theres probably a reason why so many military people and their family members are so repulsed by their current CiC.
Father of fallen Marine upset by president's letter | News - Home
Click to expand...
The survivors of the loved ones killed in battle in Iraq have to be asking themselves why they died. Why were so many lives lost or destroyed, quite apart from the money spent, when a retreat was being engineered by a neophyte C in C? It seems many people don't realize at the moment that they are living through one of the most historical times in American history, certainly since the Civil War, but those who survive the next decade or two will get it..
 
Grant said:
Damn! I didn't lay it on thick enough!:)

The survivors of the loved ones killed in battle in Iraq have to be asking themselves why they died. Why were so many lives lost or destroyed, quite apart from the money spent, when a retreat was being engineered by a neophyte C in C? It seems many people don't realize at the moment that they are living through one of the most historical times in American history, certainly since the Civil War, but those who survive the next decade or two will get it..
Click to expand...
I work with a fair number of Soldiers and we usually can resolve the question "what was I fighting for". Lets be honest...MOST (not all-but MOST) soldiers want to go to war. Dont get me wrong...that doesnt mean they like it or that they want to be at war, but that IS why we exist. Soldiers in Afghanistan today dont resent having to be there. They are there for the guy standing next to them. They are their for their unit. Sure...some will even attach the whole God and Country thing, but what it comes down to is the guy standing next to you. Its not a question of fighting or even of some people dying. The biggest anger and frustration is knowing you are there and stand a better chance of being a target than a war fighter.

If we are going to be there...be there. Aggressively pursue and eliminate the enemy, even if that means going into the mountains of Pakistan to do it. If we arent going to fight, we shouldnt be there.

If those goes in the books as a loss, it will do so as an administrative loss. Both recent Commander in Chiefs bear responsibility for that.
 
VanceMack said:
I work with a fair number of Soldiers and we usually can resolve the question "what was I fighting for". Lets be honest...MOST (not all-but MOST) soldiers want to go to war. Dont get me wrong...that doesnt mean they like it or that they want to be at war, but that IS why we exist. Soldiers in Afghanistan today dont resent having to be there. They are there for the guy standing next to them. They are their for their unit. Sure...some will even attach the whole God and Country thing, but what it comes down to is the guy standing next to you. Its not a question of fighting or even of some people dying. The biggest anger and frustration is knowing you are there and stand a better chance of being a target than a war fighter.

If we are going to be there...be there. Aggressively pursue and eliminate the enemy, even if that means going into the mountains of Pakistan to do it. If we arent going to fight, we shouldnt be there.

If those goes in the books as a loss, it will do so as an administrative loss. Both recent Commander in Chiefs bear responsibility for that.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say about the soldiers, certainly, and I once wore a uniform myself. We were also a solid group.

But it is those left behind who suffer, the children without fathers, those who lost their sons and daughters. They'll understand the camaraderie and unity of those in battle but not the reason why these soldiers died.

If the US is to eventually retreat whenever it involves themselves in a war can the military continue to maintain its morale? Who would really want to die for Barrack Obama and whatever it he stands for? Does anyone really know what it even is?
 
11Bravo said:
Sorry, I always get a little heated when I see that question.

-I would say that we are ending our combat mission. It's now a tactical training operation rather than a war. It's time for the Afghans to fight their own extremism. However, I really don't see this working.
Click to expand...

Same thing as in Iraq. Billions spent on train/ arming- quipping. Then the Iraqi PM Maliki, ruined the Military through blatant corruption and sidelining Sunnis., a nice term for how he treated them.
I wonder if Afghanistan will be a repeat of Iraq.
 
Grant said:
I agree with what you say about the soldiers, certainly, and I once wore a uniform myself. We were also a solid group.

But it is those left behind who suffer, the children without fathers, those who lost their sons and daughters. They'll understand the camaraderie and unity of those in battle but not the reason why these soldiers died.

If the US is to eventually retreat whenever it involves themselves in a war can the military continue to maintain its morale? Who would really want to die for Barrack Obama and whatever it he stands for? Does anyone really know what it even is?
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone dies 'for' the CiC, whoever that may be. When you decide to join, you just do the job. I get that is hard on families, but is it any more so than on the families of a thrill seeker doing something they love to do or anyone that was just doing something 'stupid'?
 
JANFU said:
Same thing as in Iraq. Billions spent on train/ arming- quipping. Then the Iraqi PM Maliki, ruined the Military through blatant corruption and sidelining Sunnis., a nice term for how he treated them.
I wonder if Afghanistan will be a repeat of Iraq.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you are right. Time will tell.
 
The justification for the huge CIA operation had been to halt Soviet aggression, not to take sides in a tribal war certainly not to transform the killing capacity of these warriors.

What now seems clear is that, under the umbrella of the CIA's programme, Afghanistan had become a gathering place for militant Muslims from around the world..
Jalaluddin Haqqani, had long been a gateway for Saudi volunteers, and for years the CIA had no problem with such associations. Osama bin Laden was one of those volunteers who could frequently be found in the same area where Charlie had been Haqqani's honoured guest.
Click to expand...
The presumption had been that when the United States packed its bags and cut off the Afghans, the jihad would simply burn itself out.
The consequence for America of having waged a secret war and never acknowledging or advertising its role was that it set in motion the spirit of jihad and the belief in surrogate soldiers that, having brought down one superpower, they could just as easily take on another.
Click to expand...


But with the Russians gone, sanctions were imposed and all military and economic assistance was cut off.
Within a year, the Clinton administration would move to place Pakistan on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
The Pakistan military had long been the surrogates for the CIA, and every Afghan and Arab mujahedin fighter came to believe that America had betrayed the Pakistanis.
And when the United States kept its troops (including large numbers of women) in Saudi Arabia, not just bin Laden but most Islamists believed that America wanted to seize the Islamic oil fields and was seeking world domination
Click to expand...
Charlie Wilson's War: How one man changed history - Features - Films - The Independent

I found this to be a really good read that shows how the CIA arming the mujahideen to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,
eventually created the Taliban, or at least the AQ presence in Afghanistan by jihadist that eventually caused 9-11, and so forth
 
annata said:
Charlie Wilson's War: How one man changed history - Features - Films - The Independent

I found this to be a really good read that shows how the CIA arming the mujahideen to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,
eventually created the Taliban, or at least the AQ presence in Afghanistan by jihadist that eventually caused 9-11, and so forth
Click to expand...
Versions of the Taliban and the accompanying terrorism existed long before Afghanistan and 9/11, and was going on internationally. The western nations were eventually going to be attacked but certainly not with conventional warfare. The truth is fascinating and far more interesting and complex than the movie. We can also see the tremendous progress they are making.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Council on Foreign Relations

The Muslim Brotherhood's Strategic Plan For America - Court Document
 
Grant said:
Versions of the Taliban and the accompanying terrorism existed long before Afghanistan and 9/11, and was going on internationally. The western nations were eventually going to be attacked but certainly not with conventional warfare. The truth is fascinating and far more interesting and complex than the movie. We can also see the tremendous progress they are making.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Council on Foreign Relations

The Muslim Brotherhood's Strategic Plan For America - Court Document
Click to expand...
sure. terrorism has been diffuse on going on for as long I can remebbr -at least back to the Munich Olympics.
 
annata said:
sure. terrorism has been diffuse on going on for as long I can remebbr -at least back to the Munich Olympics.
Click to expand...
Yes, I also think that's when the modern era began, followed by plane hijackings, shoot-outs at airports, etc. I don't know if an honest documentary exists on the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and their ambitious plans but the Clarion Project makes for some fascinating reading. The Muslim Brotherhood's Strategic Plan For America - Court Document

The problem is that it seems too ambitious and farfetched to be true, and just another conspiracy theory, until we take a step back and look at the progress, on several levels, they have made. Just Google Islam in American schools, while Christianity is being rejected, and you'll find they're progressing quite well. Islam In Our Schools | We expose the light treatment and revisionist history given Islam in public schools And of course the media is nervous about voicing any criticism because of charges of Islamophobia, another Muslim Brotherhood inspired term.
 
11Bravo said:
You are so right my friend. So right.
Click to expand...

I am ex Canadian Military and our MOC 's, trade classifications are numeric. Is 11b - your MOC? Infantry?
 
JANFU said:
I am ex Canadian Military and our MOC 's, trade classifications are numeric. Is 11b - your MOC? Infantry?
Click to expand...

We refer to our 'jobs' as MOS (military occupation specialty). 11B is infantry. Good ol' grunts :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom