• 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!

American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains

I am still in contact and close to people still serving. I do CQB training several times a year where I assist a well known school in instruction. I talk to many many vets, active duty, and contractors, and it's pretty obvious where they stand.

A lot probably are not informed or smart enought to know better, sadly. It doesn't mean they aren't good people. They are entitled to their opinion. I'm get mine.


Uhm, Problem is we are already over there.

We were not already in Iraq prior to 2003. What are you talking about?

Would you rather have the hand that feeds, or the hand that fights funding, wont make a decision, calls you murderers, nazis, and war criminals?

I'm not partisan, so I don't care. All I ask is that if a politicians sends me and my buddies to war, it is to defend our nation against a threat.

No one has ever called me a nazi (which wouldn't even make sense), war criminal or murderer (although a few Soldiers are).

I'm not sure what it is that Republicans (or Democrats for that matter, since they all voted to invade Iraq) have done so special for me? What has any Republican done for me that a Democrat hasn't? I am not following the logic of the argument.

Maybe all that high-level partisan secret stuff that you are privy to that goes on in the halls of Congress and the West Wing hasn't trickled down to my foxhole yet...
 
A lot probably are not informed or smart enought to know better, sadly. It doesn't mean they aren't good people. They are entitled to their opinion. I'm get mine.




We were not already in Iraq prior to 2003. What are you talking about?



I'm not partisan, so I don't care. All I ask is that if a politicians sends me and my buddies to war, it is to defend our nation against a threat.

No one has ever called me a nazi (which wouldn't even make sense), war criminal or murderer (although a few Soldiers are).

I'm not sure what it is that Republicans (or Democrats for that matter, since they all voted to invade Iraq) have done so special for me? What has any Republican done for me that a Democrat hasn't? I am not following the logic of the argument.

Maybe all that high-level partisan secret stuff that you are privy to that goes on in the halls of Congress and the West Wing hasn't trickled down to my foxhole yet...
Our troops just don't get it.
 

Attachments

  • Soldiers need Kerry's help.jpg
    Soldiers need Kerry's help.jpg
    69.6 KB · Views: 6
A lot probably are not informed or smart enought to know better, sadly. It doesn't mean they aren't good people. They are entitled to their opinion. I'm get mine.


Do they believe in, or even know what their mission is?


We were not already in Iraq prior to 2003. What are you talking about?


I don't think he was making that claim, however, prior to '03 there were calls for regime change in Iraq from both sides of the isle. The fact that once we started it and the demo's found out that large majorities of their constituents were against it, they changed on a dime, like spineless cowards.


I'm not partisan, so I don't care. All I ask is that if a politicians sends me and my buddies to war, it is to defend our nation against a threat.


Do you believe that no threat exists now?


No one has ever called me a nazi (which wouldn't even make sense), war criminal or murderer (although a few Soldiers are).

Who are these soldiers? People you know?


I'm not sure what it is that Republicans (or Democrats for that matter, since they all voted to invade Iraq) have done so special for me? What has any Republican done for me that a Democrat hasn't? I am not following the logic of the argument.


Aptly funded you, and believed in your capabilities.


Maybe all that high-level partisan secret stuff that you are privy to that goes on in the halls of Congress and the West Wing hasn't trickled down to my foxhole yet...


You offer in opinion to some things, yet claim that you don't know on the overall picture.....Quite strange.


j-mac
 
Do they believe in, or even know what their mission is?

Tactically: Yes, WE usually know the mission; but not necessarily believe in it. I heard a lot more complaints about how much Soldiers hated Iraqis than how much they cared to help them.

Strategically...no, not normally.



I don't think he was making that claim

That's sure how it sounded

however, prior to '03 there were calls for regime change in Iraq from both sides of the isle. The fact that once we started it and the demo's found out that large majorities of their constituents were against it, they changed on a dime, like spineless cowards.

True, but that doesn't mean invasion and occupation with a bad plan and too little forces was the answer.

Do you believe that no threat exists now?

Where? Iraq?




Who are these soldiers? People you know?

Two in my Brigade and at least a dozen in my division.


You offer in opinion to some things, yet claim that you don't know on the overall picture.....Quite strange.

If only I were more wise and had all this partisan stuff sorted out, huh?
 
You're a gun bunny! There's isn't anywhere to follow you to, 'cept maybe the chow hall...:rofl

I find this pretty amusing coming from a truck driver and a leg (I'm assuming)
 
Tactically: Yes, WE usually know the mission; but not necessarily believe in it. I heard a lot more complaints about how much Soldiers hated Iraqis than how much they cared to help them.

Strategically...no, not normally.


Maybe you need to ask more questions of your Chain?


True, but that doesn't mean invasion and occupation with a bad plan and too little forces was the answer.


We from the 101st, current, and former love to see overwhelming force, because it works, and it's just so damned cool. But, as a former member, I know that we on the ground rarely know the big picture, until the objective is achieved. That can be frustrating for sure, but we must trust that we are a force for good. Do you believe that?


Where? Iraq?


Islamic fascism


Two in my Brigade and at least a dozen in my division.


Read your code of conduct again, if you have knowledge, and haven't turned them in then you are also compliant in their actions.


If only I were more wise and had all this partisan stuff sorted out, huh?


I suspect you do. Thinly veiled ignorance is no excuse.

Gotta hit the road, but will check in later.....Good luck, and Gods speed.


j-mac
 
All I ask is that if a politicians sends me and my buddies to war, it is to defend our nation against a threat.

There are more than one kind of threat. Regarding Iraq:

There are military threats: Iraq was marginally one of these kinds of threats, due to the possibility of WMD. It has a run-down ad poorly supplied military after years of sanctions. It turned out they didn't have WMDs, although we weren't sure of that going in.

Then there are geopolitical threats: Iraq influenced its region. A perpetual threat to Iran it helped militarize Iran's foreign policy. As a threat to Saudi Arabia helped give rise to Wahhabism (along with funding from the Saudi royal family). Assisted various terrorist groups, which represented a strategic threat.

But more than anything, Iraq was an opportunity for transformation that would impact the region, beyond it being a geopolitical threat. The US military has a long history of entering conflict on this basis: French and Indian War, Civil War, American West, Spanish-American War, Phillipine Insurgency, Central American Countries, Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc... Many have been motivated by commercialism. This is not a new set of justifications in American history.

Men have been going to war for these reasons with honor.
 
Maybe you need to ask more questions of your Chain?

No, I get it. I'm tracking. But not everyone is...particularly the Chain in some cases.


We from the 101st, current, and former love to see overwhelming force, because it works, and it's just so damned cool. But, as a former member, I know that we on the ground rarely know the big picture, until the objective is achieved. That can be frustrating for sure, but we must trust that we are a force for good. Do you believe that?

Hooah...but don't be confused. I don't believe the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was immoral. I even believe it could be considered noble. However, I do think it was totally unnecessary. I know 99.99% of our forces served honorably, because we did. We helped a lot of people. I just believe it didn't HAVE to happen, which is upsetting. I lost friends. I'm not sure what for.

Iran, however, I have always believed to be the real enemy. I support military action against them. I'm ready to go.


Islamic fascism

I'm not tracking that as a geographical location, nor am I tracking that in Iraq prior to our invasion.



Read your code of conduct again, if you have knowledge, and haven't turned them in then you are also compliant in their actions.

I would have. All incidents I'm talking about were widely publicized. I'm sure you heard about the guys in Strike BDE and Rakkasans. Probably not Bastogne, but we had ours too. (LT/PSG execute Iraqi POW)



I suspect you do. Thinly veiled ignorance is no excuse.

You are right. I understand it very well (all to well) and despise it. It's easier just to forget about it all and pretend like I never knew.

Gotta hit the road, but will check in later.....Good luck, and Gods speed.

Air Assault, sir.
 
There are military threats: Iraq was marginally one of these kinds of threats, due to the possibility of WMD. It has a run-down ad poorly supplied military after years of sanctions. It turned out they didn't have WMDs, although we weren't sure of that going in.

I will never believe that. Never. It was the right time b/c of the opportunity and the political climate.

Then there are geopolitical threats: Iraq influenced its region.

I agree, which makes the war even more perplexing.

A perpetual threat to Iran it helped militarize Iran's foreign policy.

The real enemy, IMO

As a threat to Saudi Arabia helped give rise to Wahhabism (along with funding from the Saudi royal family). Assisted various terrorist groups, which represented a strategic threat.

More assholes

But more than anything, Iraq was an opportunity for transformation that would impact the region, beyond it being a geopolitical threat.

If that's what the goal was, then why didn't we say that?

The US military has a long history of entering conflict on this basis: French and Indian War, Civil War, American West, Spanish-American War, Phillipine Insurgency, Central American Countries, Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc... Many have been motivated by commercialism. This is not a new set of justifications in American history.

Most of those examples are not applicable. Iraq is unique because we pre-emptively invaded another soveriegn nation. The commercialism link I don't get.

Men have been going to war for these reasons with honor.

I'm glad you can speak on their behalf
 
Last edited:
Then there are geopolitical threats: Iraq influenced its region.
I agree, which makes the war even more perplexing.
How's is that perplexing? I must have missed something.

A perpetual threat to Iran it helped militarize Iran's foreign policy.
The real enemy, IMO
Indeed, but we couldn't very well make a case to pre-emptively attack Iran, could we? Plus, Iran has a real military and bad terrain for armor - we don't want a shooting war with Iran. Therefore, we attack Iran non-militarily. See next point...

But more than anything, Iraq was an opportunity for transformation that would impact the region, beyond it being a geopolitical threat.
If that's what the goal was, then why didn't we say that?

We did. They did. They claimed the objective was to create a democracy that would help transform the region. Now we have Iran with a Shiite dominated democracy on its border. Everyone is always worried about what Iran is doing to influence events in Iraq. Nobody seems to ask what Iraq is doing to influence Iran. There are a number of Iraqi clerics visiting and consulting in Qom, Iran - their holy city.

There are two schools of political theory in the Twelver sect of Shia Islam. The Twelver sect is the dominant sect in Iraq and Iran (and other countries in the Gulf). One of these political schools is in power in Iran and is the Khomenist School. This school believes that the government is run by the clerics and so the clerics have executive power in Iran. The other school is the Quietist School headed by Ali Sistani of Iraq. This school thinks that the jurisprudence of a government should be run by the Clerics, or at least that the Quran is a leading text of jurisprudence, but that the executive is a secular function.

Since the invasion and introduction of democracy in a Quietist fashion in Iraq, there has been a lot of clerical travels between Najaf, Iraq and Qom, Iran. Qom is the spiritual center of Iran. The Quietist school has been gaining significant ground against the Khomenist School in Qom and the real struggle in Iran is between groups of clerics over who will run the government.

This is a non-trivial result of the invasion of Iraq, and it's true long-term objective, IMHO.

Most of those examples are not applicable. Iraq is unique because we pre-emptively invaded another soveriegn nation. The commercialism link I don't get.

Well, we preemptively invaded Mexico starting the Mexican-American War, but that wasn't on my list. My list was for occupations for the purpose of spreading democracy. They were interventionist, even if we had to wait for a precipitating event.


Men have been going to war for these reasons with honor.
I'm glad you can speak on their behalf

Well, my opinion. Let me put it another way: Those were honorable wars. So is the war in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, but we couldn't very well make a case to pre-emptively attack Iran, could we? Plus, Iran has a real military and bad terrain for armor - we don't want a shooting war with Iran. Therefore, we attack Iran non-militarily.

I think a shooting war with Iran is OK...we can win that. It's the staying and democracy imposing that I'm opposed to; that's when Americans start really dying. We can also strategically bomb the nuclear sites, as well.

We did. They did. They claimed the objective was to create a democracy that would help transform the region. Now we have Iran with a Shiite dominated democracy on its border. Everyone is always worried about what Iran is doing to influence events in Iraq. Nobody seems to ask what Iraq is doing to influence Iran. There are a number of Iraqi clerics visiting and consulting in Qom, Iran - their holy city.

Iran is in charge. Iraq is not. Iran showed that by decimating Americans with EFPs by way of Iranian agents in Shia militias. Trust me, they suck. The Iraqi clerics going to Qom are getting their marching orders. Wait until we leave.

There are two schools of political theory in the Twelver sect of Shia Islam. The Twelver sect is the dominant sect in Iraq and Iran (and other countries in the Gulf). One of these political schools is in power in Iran and is the Khomenist School. This school believes that the government is run by the clerics and so the clerics have executive power in Iran. The other school is the Quietist School headed by Ali Sistani of Iraq. This school thinks that the jurisprudence of a government should be run by the Clerics, or at least that the Quran is a leading text of jurisprudence, but that the executive is a secular function.

Ahmedinejad takes orders from Khomeni. He may act rogue sometimes, but the Ayatollah is behind the curtain...I don't care what the twelver doctrine says.

Since the invasion and introduction of democracy in a Quietist fashion in Iraq, there has been a lot of clerical travels between Najaf, Iraq and Qom, Iran. Qom is the spiritual center of Iran. The Quietist school has been gaining significant ground against the Khomenist School in Qom and the real struggle in Iran is between groups of clerics over who will run the government. This is a non-trivial result of the invasion of Iraq, and it's true long-term objective, IMHO.

Thanks for reading the Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. Still doesn't justify our invasion and 4K soldiers being dead. For what?

Well, we preemptively invaded Mexico starting the Mexican-American War, but that wasn't on my list. My list was for occupations for the purpose of spreading democracy. They were interventionist, even if we had to wait for a precipitating event.

The military isn't a democracy spreading machine. We aren't good at it and that's not what we are designed for.
 
I think a shooting war with Iran is OK...we can win that. It's the staying and democracy imposing that I'm opposed to; that's when Americans start really dying. We can also strategically bomb the nuclear sites, as well.
We could win at great cost, especially if we are sending in ground forces. It would be a hard slog because it is all mountainous. And to what end? Something will have to replace the current Iranian regime.

I am totally for promoting regime change and doing nation building. We should be in the business of democracy promotion/imposing. It is the second half of war. We keep focusing on that first half. Petraeus focused on the second half and Marines are known for their small wars.

However, we have to be very selective about who we do this with. It should only be strategically important countries that could support a democracy. Iraq is at the center of a much larger picture, whereas Iran is a great regional power on the periphery. Iraq is at the faultlines of Sunni-Shia, Arab-Persian, Arab-Kurd, and is an OPEC country. It is impacting the whole region: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey directly. Iran doesn't have that kind of impact.


Iran is in charge. Iraq is not. Iran showed that by decimating Americans with EFPs by way of Iranian agents in Shia militias. Trust me, they suck. The Iraqi clerics going to Qom are getting their marching orders. Wait until we leave.
I totally believe EFPs completely suck. Iran is fighting back hard because they see what is happening and the risk they run. Certainly there are some clerics in the pay of Iran, but there are a lot of clerics influencing thought in Iran. Trust me. Haven't you seen the news about the demonstrations in Iran? That is only the surface. The real struggle has been between Rafsanjani and Khomeine.


Ahmedinejad takes orders from Khomeni. He may act rogue sometimes, but the Ayatollah is behind the curtain...I don't care what the twelver doctrine says.
That underscores my point. Ahmedinejad, as the President of Iran, holds executive power, but is formally beholden to the Ayatollah. It is the cleric which holds real executive power.


Thanks for reading the Shia Revival by Vali Nasr.
I have not heard of it before. Is it good?

Still doesn't justify our invasion and 4K soldiers being dead. For what?
It does in my book. The promotion of a democracy in the middle east will secure the political situation and protect the oil industry. Strategic geopolitical interest.

The military isn't a democracy spreading machine. We aren't good at it and that's not what we are designed for.

It is. See the list of wars I mentioned. We are actually pretty darn good at it. Iraq has gone well, once we admitted there was an insurgency and fought a counterinsurgency war. Perceive reality correctly to set a realistic objective.
 
Last edited:
"President Barack Obama does not intend to decide about sending additional troops to Afghanistan until he is satisfied that the Kabul government can work effectively with the U.S., a top White House aide said Sunday.

"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing," said the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel."


The Associated Press: Emanuel: Can Afghan govt be effective US partner?

I don't know if you all read this in today's news.

Selfishly, I'm glad Obama is taking his time and making the wisest decision he can (I recognize this is selfish, because if my son were already over there, I would want Obama to hurry up and send more troops as soon as possible).

On the other hand, if I had no horse in this race, no personal stake in this game... I think I would still want Obama to take his time and make the wisest decision possible.
Either way, it's obviously going to cost lives. There are troops over there now in isolated rural outposts, without enough backup to call on when militants attack. it's awful.
But that's war.

If Obama sends more troops before determining the right course for this operation to take, it could unnecessarily cost thousands and thousands of additional American lives, for no tangible gain.

We need to be clear about our objective over there first, and we need to determine whether the current Afghan government is going to be able to partner with us in achieving that objective. And if not, we need to replace them with one that will.

It truly is another Vietnam, if we simply hurl more bodies at an unwinnable war without a clear objective.
I can't support that. I'm glad Obama can't, either.
I wish we didn't already have troops there.
It tears at my heart to think about our brave soldiers over there in danger and without a clear objective.
I wish with all my heart that they can be safe while we figure out what to do.
 
Last edited:
We need to be clear about our objective over there first, and we need to determine whether the current Afghan government is going to be able to partner with us in achieving that objective. And if not, we need to replace them with one that will.


This is what made the counterinsurgency a success in Iraq, by comparison. They identified the correct achievable objectives.

Afghanistan is tricky however. The largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns, are not favorably inclinated toward Kabul's government and the coalition forces. There are few dedicated indiginous partners. At least that is my impression for here.

Afghanistan is a mess - we should get out.
 
Afghanistan is a mess - we should get out.

That's the million dollar question. It really is difficult to see what can be done for the best. If we continue in an ad hoc manner the situation on the ground is unlikely to improve. Unfortunately we have to go in big, on all fronts, by that i mean militarily, humanitarian and economically. We cannot afford to neglect any part of the jigsaw.

Alternatively pull out. The one certainty from that, the country ploughing into disarray and chaos....and not doubt become a safe haven all over again.

Paul
 
I find this pretty amusing coming from a truck driver and a leg (I'm assuming)

A, "leg"? uh, no. An airborne, air assault, pathfinder qualified, EIB/CIB totin' infantry soldier, yes.
 
A, "leg"? uh, no. An airborne, air assault, pathfinder qualified, EIB/CIB totin' infantry soldier, yes.

Really? Well, my apologies. I'm all the above except EIB/CIB...being a cannoncocker and all. Although I did serve with an INF company in Iraq as the FSO.
 
Really? Well, my apologies. I'm all the above except EIB/CIB...being a cannoncocker and all. Although I did serve with an INF company in Iraq as the FSO.

What does INF and FSO mean?
 
Really? Well, my apologies. I'm all the above except EIB/CIB...being a cannoncocker and all. Although I did serve with an INF company in Iraq as the FSO.

I've always felt like CIB's shouldn't be restricted to infantry MOS's. I think that FSO's, medic, TAC-P type personel should be awarded the CIB if they are directly attached to an infantry unit in combat.

What does INF and FSO mean?

INF = infantry

FSO = fire support officer. The FSO leads the FIST, the fire and indirect support team. The FIST guys are the ones that communicate between the infantry unit and the artillery unit. The infantry unit commander tells the FIST where he wants fire to impact, the FIST figures out the coordinance and identifies what type of target it is--troops, tanks, trucks, buildings, etc.--and sends that info the artillery battery(s).
 
Last edited:
"President Barack Obama does not intend to decide about sending additional troops to Afghanistan until he is satisfied that the Kabul government can work effectively with the U.S., a top White House aide said Sunday.

"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing," said the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel."


The Associated Press: Emanuel: Can Afghan govt be effective US partner?

I don't know if you all read this in today's news.

Selfishly, I'm glad Obama is taking his time and making the wisest decision he can (I recognize this is selfish, because if my son were already over there, I would want Obama to hurry up and send more troops as soon as possible).

On the other hand, if I had no horse in this race, no personal stake in this game... I think I would still want Obama to take his time and make the wisest decision possible.
Either way, it's obviously going to cost lives. There are troops over there now in isolated rural outposts, without enough backup to call on when militants attack. it's awful.
But that's war.

If Obama sends more troops before determining the right course for this operation to take, it could unnecessarily cost thousands and thousands of additional American lives, for no tangible gain.

We need to be clear about our objective over there first, and we need to determine whether the current Afghan government is going to be able to partner with us in achieving that objective. And if not, we need to replace them with one that will.

It truly is another Vietnam, if we simply hurl more bodies at an unwinnable war without a clear objective.
I can't support that. I'm glad Obama can't, either.
I wish we didn't already have troops there.
It tears at my heart to think about our brave soldiers over there in danger and without a clear objective.
I wish with all my heart that they can be safe while we figure out what to do.



so if it was your son, you would want obama to make a decision already?



i think the time is now to make a decision.
 
so if it was your son, you would want obama to make a decision already?



i think the time is now to make a decision.

The longer it takes to make a decision, the more cluster ****ed the situation will become, making life harder on those who are eventually sent to the theater.
 
You righties motives are so clear...If he does it to quickly you will attack him. If he takes too long you will attack him.

You people don't think the nation sees your motives here?
 
You righties motives are so clear...If he does it to quickly you will attack him. If he takes too long you will attack him.

You people don't think the nation sees your motives here?

You just can't imagine how wrong you are. We're not Libbos. We don't play dat.
 
I've always felt like CIB's shouldn't be restricted to infantry MOS's. I think that FSO's, medic, TAC-P type personel should be awarded the CIB if they are directly attached to an infantry unit in combat.

Agreed...Something Fisters fought for years, but after the CAB came out, we don't have a dog in the fight anymore.



FSO = fire support officer. The FSO leads the FIST, the fire and indirect support team. The FIST guys are the ones that communicate between the infantry unit and the artillery unit. The infantry unit commander tells the FIST where he wants fire to impact, the FIST figures out the coordinance and identifies what type of target it is--troops, tanks, trucks, buildings, etc.--and sends that info the artillery battery(s).


Pretty good description...don't forget all the sexy non-lethal stuff we do now: IO, EWO, etc
 
Back
Top Bottom