• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
95,987
Reaction score
33,329
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

October 8, 2009
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.
Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.
“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.
“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.
The base is not, it has to be said, obviously downcast, and many troops do not share the chaplains’ assessment. The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can. Re-enlistment rates are surprisingly good for the 2-87, though poor for the 4-25. Several men approached by The Times, however, readily admitted that their morale had slumped.
“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”
You know this pisses me off. The left can take full ownership of this one. There is no way anyone can blame the right for lousy troop morale. Anti-war protesting, calling them nazis, saying they scare women and children in the dark of night, saying the war is lost, comparing their families to little Eichmanns, and voting against funding....no this is the legacy of the left.
 
It must be horrifying to be in Afghanistan and know that the Commander in Chief despises the very nature of what you do and makes his military decisions based on poll numbers and appeasing George Soros.
 
This is exactly what I have been saying for weeks. EXACTLY.

When your president is more interesteded in leno or the olympics according to what you see while you are waiting and being shot at, you get a sour taste in your mouth for he whole thing.
 
I hate stories like this. I hated them 8 years ago, I hate them now. For one, we shouldn't be informing our enemies that our men and women are losing morale and are essentially being weak. Two, they're almost always concerning a small sample group and trying to proclaim it as if its something wide sweeping. Three, it almost always takes a particular issue or statement and contorts it to the direction it wants to go. This exact same story could've/would've came out 2 years ago and it would've been spun by the left to instead be Bush having them in a quagmire of a war with no care for them due to Iraq, etc etc.

Its just another emotioanl heart strings attempt to manipulate people into a political position by using the troops. Its disgusting, just as it was the past 8 years, yet now its conservatives doing it. Wonderful. We're 9 months into a Democrat Presidency and already so many conservatives have shown themselves little to no dignity or honor for these people, becuase I refuse to believe someone can truly honor someone while using them to push their political opinions and views. You're using dead and disheartened soldiers to take pot shots at a politican. I hated this on the left, I dispise it on the right because for years we kept hearing how they don't use the troops. Its becoming obvious that that is bull****.
 
Last edited:
I hate stories like this. I hated them 8 years ago, I hate them now. For one, we shouldn't be informing our enemies that our men and women are losing morale and are essentially being weak. Two, they're almost always concerning a small sample group and trying to proclaim it as if its something wide sweeping. Three, it almost always takes a particular issue or statement and contorts it to the direction it wants to go. This exact same story could've/would've came out 2 years ago and it would've been spun by the left to instead be Bush having them in a quagmire of a war with no care for them due to Iraq, etc etc.

Its just another emotioanl heart strings attempt to manipulate people into a political position by using the troops. Its disgusting, just as it was the past 8 years, yet now its conservatives doing it. Wonderful. We're 9 months into a Democrat Presidency and already so many conservatives have shown themselves to have absolutely no dignity or honor for these people that can if weighed would make a feather look heavy, becuase I refuse to believe someone can honor someone while using them to push their political opinions and views. I hated this on the left, I dispise it on the right because for years we kept hearing how they don't use the troops. Its becoming obvious that that is bull****.




Hmm I am torn on the story part. I can tell you, this whole losing heart thing, I have heard personally, Like I said, when I started on this weeks ago before the MSM got on board with it, that when you are unsure of your mission while your CiC is fiddling, and you are being shot at. Its not shocking that we would be losing morale.

and this is not an R or a D thing. Like I mentioned before, this is similar to how I felt Bush I treated us right after Desert Storm.


It was wrong then, its wrong now.
 
Rev, you specifically, I just am continued to be mistified. I know you in your heart respect and honor these men, but quite frankly, your actions this past week don't show it. You keep correcting yourself after the fact, but yet it keeps happening. You want to talk about the perception that him going on Leno and Letterman is giving? Well, what about you supporting the continual push of anyone in the media or elsewhere hyping up that fact again, and again, and again. Were you not one in the crowd that didn't want constant death counts to be reported, or constant negative news about the war to be reported, etc, because it kills the morale of the troops. And yet you haven't shut up for days on end now in bringing up this idiotic point about Leno/Letterman/Olympics and how it must kill morale while you continually keep pounding that drum.

This EXACT SAME kind of story came out over and over again for the past 8 years. About Bush not caring about afghanistan after Iraq. About soldiers not feeling it was a just war. About soldiers feeling disheartened by the whole torture thing. About soldiers unsure of when they'd get home. Of soldiers being forced to have extended tours of duties. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

And whenever they did conservatives would point out its only a singular or small group of people. Or that the words of those soldiers were being twisted in context. Or that its natural to be a bit disheartened at time but Bush is doing right. Or whatever other excuse you'd want.

Yet then they'd have no issues when the stories came out the same way due to say protests, or actions by senators. Or now, by actions by the President.

Likewise...

Conservatives went on and on about how we need to stop having the media and people harping on the negatives. Stop talking so much about torture, let them do their job, you're killing morale. Stop talking and highlighting protests, you're killing morale. Stop making outlandish accusations, its killing morale. Don't state that Bush doesn't care about the troops, that kills morale. Don't say Bush is just doing this for oil or political reasons, that kills morale. Stop propping up the things that kill morale.

But now...

"Hmm, Leno/Letterman/Olympics is killing their moral. They're somehow getting the impression that Obama cares more about Leno than the troops. Naturally, the best thing to do is to CONTINUALLY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN harp on the fact that Obama despises the troops and what they do and cares about Leno more. Who cares if that will continue to propogate the same moral draining effect, it'll score us political points, make Obama look bad, and force change to how I want it so SCREW the troops morale, lets keep making damn well sure they KNOW that we think Obama despises them and that he's going to all these things and that obviously means he cares about them more, but lets not say screw morale because...you know....we support the troops".

I'm sorry Rev, I know I may be being harsh to you, but that's what your ACTIONS seem to be saying and I know that may seem insulting to you because of your history. I know your history. That's why YOUR comments and actions are so insulting to ME, because it doesn't make sense to see a guy that proudly served this country, who was a staunch defender of the troops the past yeras seemingly happily putting their well being and what's best for them even before politics, and yet here you sit seemingly doing things you'd previously rail against seemingly because it benefits your politically while saying you're doing it "for the troops".

Sorry, but I heard that excuse before. I heard it for years. We want them out because we care about the troops. We want torture stopped becuas we care about the troops. We want to focus on Afghanistan and get out of iraq because we care about the troops. That's not a new excuse, its just a pretty thing to tack on to make the person saying the stuff not feel as bad about going at it partially for political reasons, or to make them not look as bad on the outside.

I do think you care about the troops over there Rev, but it honestly looks like that your desire to attack and damage Obama and make the point you've now handcuffed yourself to (while throwing away the key) is neck and neck in importance right now.
 
The problem is we no longer fight wars correctly.

In WWII, Churchill let an English town be bombed because he didn't want the Nazis to know they had cracked their code. He sacrificed a few in order to save the many. Truman killed thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in order to save many more thousands from a protracted war.

We don't have that resolve anymore. We fight wars based on poll numbers.
 
I thought bush dropped the ball on Afghanistan. At first, I was of the opinion that it was the MSM who was ignoring Aghanistan and they were, but it became apparent to me over the years, so was Bush.


However, Bush was not sitting around with a decisio to make. Obama made some hefty promises, then fiddled (one contact in 70 days), while the troops wait for direction.


You think its an anti-obama thing, that's part of it, sure. But its an inmaterial part when you have friends over there who do not know what they are supposed to be doing...


Again, I looked at drudge, and see he is milking this story like he had pictures of coffins, this is most abhorrent.


However, my concern is for the troops, Either we are there to kill people and break things, or we need to come home.


Sitting on a decision while doing all these uninportant things like leno and the olympics, and 50 tv apperances, leaves a bad taste in troops mouths. The same bad taste many of us had, waiting for Bush I to tell us we were not going into bagdhad.


I have now critisized three presidents. I could talk about Clinton as well, to even things up however Right now, my main concern, zyph, is the present.
 
Last edited:
Rev, you specifically, I just am continued to be mistified. I know you in your heart respect and honor these men, but quite frankly, your actions this past week don't show it. You keep correcting yourself after the fact, but yet it keeps happening. You want to talk about the perception that him going on Leno and Letterman is giving? Well, what about you supporting the continual push of anyone in the media or elsewhere hyping up that fact again, and again, and again. Were you not one in the crowd that didn't want constant death counts to be reported, or constant negative news about the war to be reported, etc, because it kills the morale of the troops. And yet you haven't shut up for days on end now in bringing up this idiotic point about Leno/Letterman/Olympics and how it must kill morale while you continually keep pounding that drum.

This EXACT SAME kind of story came out over and over again for the past 8 years. About Bush not caring about afghanistan after Iraq. About soldiers not feeling it was a just war. About soldiers feeling disheartened by the whole torture thing. About soldiers unsure of when they'd get home. Of soldiers being forced to have extended tours of duties. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

And whenever they did conservatives would point out its only a singular or small group of people. Or that the words of those soldiers were being twisted in context. Or that its natural to be a bit disheartened at time but Bush is doing right. Or whatever other excuse you'd want.

Yet then they'd have no issues when the stories came out the same way due to say protests, or actions by senators. Or now, by actions by the President.

Likewise...

Conservatives went on and on about how we need to stop having the media and people harping on the negatives. Stop talking so much about torture, let them do their job, you're killing morale. Stop talking and highlighting protests, you're killing morale. Stop making outlandish accusations, its killing morale. Don't state that Bush doesn't care about the troops, that kills morale. Don't say Bush is just doing this for oil or political reasons, that kills morale. Stop propping up the things that kill morale.

But now...

"Hmm, Leno/Letterman/Olympics is killing their moral. They're somehow getting the impression that Obama cares more about Leno than the troops. Naturally, the best thing to do is to CONTINUALLY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN harp on the fact that Obama despises the troops and what they do and cares about Leno more. Who cares if that will continue to propogate the same moral draining effect, it'll score us political points, make Obama look bad, and force change to how I want it so SCREW the troops morale, lets keep making damn well sure they KNOW that we think Obama despises them and that he's going to all these things and that obviously means he cares about them more, but lets not say screw morale because...you know....we support the troops".

I'm sorry Rev, I know I may be being harsh to you, but that's what your ACTIONS seem to be saying and I know that may seem insulting to you because of your history. I know your history. That's why YOUR comments and actions are so insulting to ME, because it doesn't make sense to see a guy that proudly served this country, who was a staunch defender of the troops the past yeras seemingly happily putting their well being and what's best for them even before politics, and yet here you sit seemingly doing things you'd previously rail against seemingly because it benefits your politically while saying you're doing it "for the troops".

Sorry, but I heard that excuse before. I heard it for years. We want them out because we care about the troops. We want torture stopped becuas we care about the troops. We want to focus on Afghanistan and get out of iraq because we care about the troops. That's not a new excuse, its just a pretty thing to tack on to make the person saying the stuff not feel as bad about going at it partially for political reasons, or to make them not look as bad on the outside.

I do think you care about the troops over there Rev, but it honestly looks like that your desire to attack and damage Obama and make the point you've now handcuffed yourself to (while throwing away the key) is neck and neck in importance right now.
I don't know about this. When have conservatives said bad things about the troops? It's not what we're saying the hurts the troops, it's what elected Democrats are saying. For 8 years they did it from Congress, now it's from the Oval Office (but in a form of not being concerned). Bush always held the troops in high esteem, and so did conservatives. Yeah, Obama seems to be spending more time on bull**** than making a decision that will benefit our troops. I don't see anything hypocritical there.
 
I don't know about this. When have conservatives said bad things about the troops? It's not what we're saying the hurts the troops, it's what elected Democrats are saying. For 8 years they did it from Congress, now it's from the Oval Office (but in a form of not being concerned). Bush always held the troops in high esteem, and so did conservatives. Yeah, Obama seems to be spending more time on bull**** than making a decision that will benefit our troops. I don't see anything hypocritical there.

The President is privy to alot more information than we are and Pakistan is a real big concern where AQ is operating out of. So he has weigh all this information ad determine the best course of action to ever changing situations.
 
I thought bush dropped the ball on Afghanistan. At first, I was of the opinion that it was the MSM who was ignoring Aghanistan and they were, but it became apparent to me over the years, so was Bush.


However, Bush was not sitting around with a decisio to make. Obama made some hefty promises, then fiddled (one contact in 70 days), while the troops wait for direction.


You think its an anti-obama thing, that's part of it, sure. But its an inmaterial part when you have friends over there who do not know what they are supposed to be doing...


Again, I looked at drudge, and see he is milking this story like he had pictures of coffins, this is most abhorrent.


However, my concern is for the troops, Either we are there to kill people and break things, or we need to come home.


Sitting on a decision while doing all these uninportant things like leno and the olympics, and 50 tv apperances, leaves a bad taste in troops mouths. The same bad taste many of us had, waiting for Bush I to tell us we were not going into bagdhad.


I have now critisized three presidents. I could talk about Clinton as well, to even things up however Right now, my main concern, zyph, is the present.
I don't think Bush ever stopped caring about Afghanistan, I think he felt the work there was best done by the SOF and Marines, and drawing attention to Iraq took the limelight off of bin Laden. It made him less important publicly, but not behind the scenes. It wasn't the troops that were made less important, but reduced bin Laden's ability to be important by denying him the public stage.
 
I don't think Bush ever stopped caring about Afghanistan, I think he felt the work there was best done by the SOF and Marines, and drawing attention to Iraq took the limelight off of bin Laden. It made him less important publicly, but not behind the scenes. It wasn't the troops that were made less important, but reduced bin Laden's ability to be important by denying him the public stage.




I think that was part of it as well. However, Afghanistan went from a SOCOM operation to a more conventional take and hold affair, conventional troops were needed. I think Bush, missed this, and needed to address this and did not.


Obama saw this, and campaigned on it. Now, he is fiddling.


There is plenty of blame to go around.
 
The President is privy to alot more information than we are and Pakistan is a real big concern where AQ is operating out of. So he has weigh all this information ad determine the best course of action to ever changing situations.
And the point is, is Leno more important? or the Olympics? or healthcare?
 
I think that was part of it as well. However, Afghanistan went from a SOCOM operation to a more conventional take and hold affair, conventional troops were needed. I think Bush, missed this, and needed to address this and did not.


Obama saw this, and campaigned on it. Now, he is fiddling.


There is plenty of blame to go around.
Well maybe you're right, but I always felt Bush put a lot of stock in what his ground commanders wanted. If they didn't speak up then nothing would change.
 
Well maybe you're right, but I always felt Bush put a lot of stock in what his ground commanders wanted. If they didn't speak up then nothing would change.




I agree with this, however, I think he could have done better in Afghanistan as the battlefield changed.


Bush was incontact with this people, unlike this president.
 
And the point is, is Leno more important? or the Olympics? or healthcare?

Should he be sitting in the Oval Office twiddling his thumbs while military, strategic, foreign relations experts form their proposals?
 
Should he be sitting in the Oval Office twiddling his thumbs while military, strategic, foreign relations experts form their proposals?




That, or be in touch with the guy he tapped more than once in 70 days, and make a presidential decision on a-stan like he campaigned on. :shrug:
 
Either pull the troops out, or provision them to win. It's one or the other!
 
That, or be in touch with the guy he tapped more than once in 70 days, and make a presidential decision on a-stan like he campaigned on. :shrug:

He just got McChrystal's report last week and it is being distributed through the system now. Deploying 40 thousand American lives is not a decision that should be made in haste.
 
He just got McChrystal's report last week and it is being distributed through the system now. Deploying 40 thousand American lives is not a decision that should be made in haste.




I agree. He should have started this though back in January. :shrug:
 
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama approved adding some 17,000 U.S. troops for the flagging war in Afghanistan, his first significant move to change the course of a conflict that his closest military advisers have warned the United States is not winning.

Obama OKs 17,000 troops for Afghanistan - Afghanistan- msnbc.com




Yes, he threw 17k more troops atafghanistan, by your previous post, you think that was a mistake when you say "Deploying 40 thousand American lives is not a decision that should be made in haste. "?
 
Let me just be clear.

I don't have issue saying Obama needs to make a decision on this.

I don't have much issue with people complaining about his amount of direct content with the general.

I actually agree he needs to not take too long making this choice, however at the same time I don't want it done rashly either.

What I don't agree with is complaining about troop morale and claiming its due to him "carring more" about Leno/Letterman/The Olympics and putting forward troops as props for getting your attack across, all the while you're (generic you) continually being the ones that continue to shout out that "Obama cares more about Leno than you!", "Obama doesn't care about the troops but cares about the Olympics". This is like the people saying Bush just did the war for Halliburton and shouting that out continually. Is there corrolation to both? Definitely. Halliburton benefited from the Iraq War, Obama to The Olympics/Talk shows. Does that somehow definitively prove "Bush did Iraq for Halliburton" or "Obama cares more about the olympics than the troops"? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Sure, some troops may hear the news and think that, but I dare say MORE are going to think that way...and thus lose morale...when you have a plethora of right wingers continually pounding the drums telling them "He doesn't care about you, he doesnt' care about you, he doesn't care about you".

Yet we're supposed to believe that these people pushing their political point in such a way that it will damage morale even further .... "Care about the troops" ?
 
Hey guys, this isn't about January or February, it's about right now. And now he's concerned about healthcare, the Olympics and running around like a campaigner. He should be in the situation room deciding today about sending more troops.
 
Yes, he threw 17k more troops atafghanistan, by your previous post, you think that was a mistake when you say "Deploying 40 thousand American lives is not a decision that should be made in haste. "?

Probably not. The 17k was part of what he campaigned on and as such was probably studied and thought about for some time to be ready to do it early on in the Presidency as he stated.

This new increase is something different, and thus I'm guessing he feels he should re-evaluate the situation to see if its needed, what affect the 17k had, etc.

If I spend 2k on a computer I researched for a few weeks prior and in 9 months its still not working right, I don't go back out and immedietely just throw 4k on a new computer using the same info I had the first time and assume everythings going to be hunky dorey. For one, technology could change during that time and it may be that what I bought wasn't the problem but what I was doing. Its a different situation.

Likeweise, its not unheard of to re-examine the situation 9 months after he did something previous to see if perhaps the information is different. I'm no saying he needs to take a month to figure it out, I'm just saying you can't equate the two.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom