• 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!

74% of U.S. Afghan Casualties Came After Obama Ordered Troops Increased

TheDemSocialist said:
It didnt happen?

BBC News - Barack Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Obama takes final gamble with Afghanistan troops surge | World news | The Guardian
Obama Bets Big on Troop Surge - WSJ.com

Did he not send enough or something?
Click to expand...
No plenty of military there, but the hands are tied so badly it's very difficult to get the job done. Lots of regulations and rules that normally in times of war do not exist. Very political situation. We need to get out I agree, but as I just stated I am highly concerned on what will happen when we do. Most of the afghan people are actually good people.
 
Steve Ja said:
No plenty of military there, but the hands are tied so badly it's very difficult to get the job done. Lots of regulations and rules that normally in times of war do not exist. Very political situation. We need to get out I agree, but as I just stated I am highly concerned on what will happen when we do. Most of the afghan people are actually good people.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they arent good people what im saying is that we had no business to be there in the first place because of the realistic political situtation. If the Afghan people actually want to strive forward they will on there own. The Soviets tried the same thing we did just under a guise of a different socio-economic system and they failed there was no reason for us to believe if we did it then we would achieve.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I'm not saying they arent good people what im saying is that we had no business to be there in the first place because of the realistic political situtation. If the Afghan people actually want to strive forward they will on there own. The Soviets tried the same thing we did just under a guise of a different socio-economic system and they failed there was no reason for us to believe if we did it then we would achieve.
Click to expand...
I think AFG was necessary. Our ultimate goal was to get OBL and take out those that harbored him. The leadership highly miscalculated the levels of resistance it would face in both wars. Plus we gotta remember both wars were nearly unanimous in support from congress.
 
Steve Ja said:
I think AFG was necessary. Our ultimate goal was to get OBL and take out those that harbored him. The leadership highly miscalculated the levels of resistance it would face in both wars. Plus we gotta remember both wars were nearly unanimous in support from congress.
Click to expand...

I would disagree about the support of the wars cuz the Iraqi war barely passed congress when it came to the democratic vote.
But other than that i would still disagree. Now i agree something had to be done. I think honestly airsrtirkes were in need on various targets but other than that congress and the White House knew we couldnt do much. We would invade a country that was still stuck on a tribal system and was vastly underdeveloped and would try to catch a small group of militants. Hell look at what happened if the Taliban was in control of a village that village would love them to death but once we entered and kicked out the Taliban then that village would love us but once we left the Taliban would enter right back in and next thing you know that village would love the Taliban again. Honestly i think the Afghani residents dont really give a **** who controls them as long as people leave them alone and i think we see this now with Karzi even welcoming the Taliban to the negotiating table.
 
Gathomas88 said:
If you're going to dump 30,000 men on a region and then simply leave the sitting on the ground with their thumbs up their asses instead of allowing them to do the job they were sent to do, you can't really expect results, now can you?



So he can buy time for withdrawal without looking like a weakling who abandons his allies at the earliest possible opportunity.

Nevermind the fact that he's simply opted to do so at a slight later opportunity instead, of course. :roll:



There never was an especially massive "offensive" in the first place; just some minor skirmishing here and there.

The only reason they've agreed to expand the drone campaign is because it is comparatively quiet and costs little in the way of political capital.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...1st you say the Afghan Govt. is working against us and now we are abandoning our allies? Which is it?
By the way....."kill 'em all" is not a plan.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I would disagree about the support of the wars cuz the Iraqi war barely passed congress when it came to the democratic vote.
But other than that i would still disagree. Now i agree something had to be done. I think honestly airsrtirkes were in need on various targets but other than that congress and the White House knew we couldnt do much. We would invade a country that was still stuck on a tribal system and was vastly underdeveloped and would try to catch a small group of militants. Hell look at what happened if the Taliban was in control of a village that village would love them to death but once we entered and kicked out the Taliban then that village would love us but once we left the Taliban would enter right back in and next thing you know that village would love the Taliban again. Honestly i think the Afghani residents dont really give a **** who controls them as long as people leave them alone and i think we see this now with Karzi even welcoming the Taliban to the negotiating table.
Click to expand...
The people really just want to be left alone to live their lives.
 
iguanaman said:
Wait a minute...1st you say the Afghan Govt. is working against us and now we are abandoning our allies? Which is it?
Click to expand...

Karzai knows full well what's happening here, and that we're basically giving him the shaft. He also knows that there isn't jack all he's going to be able to do to stop the Taliban after we leave.

He's doing his very best to get on their good side now precisely because of those facts. That is the primary cause of the Afghan Government's recent obstructionism.

If they felt that we were actually serious about getting the job done, rather than simply puffing out our chests in the interests of saving face, he would be more willing to work with us.

Again, their culture respects strength above all else, not good intentions.

By the way....."kill 'em all" is not a plan.
Click to expand...

Which is why I never suggested it. :roll:
 
Steve Ja said:
The people really just want to be left alone to live their lives.
Click to expand...

And i agree. And i dont think our troop presence and drown strikes are leaving them so much alone.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And i agree. And i dont think our troop presence and drown strikes are leaving them so much alone.
Click to expand...
Most the drone strikes aren't in Afghanistan, but I agree. Who likes their home being bombed
 
Steve Ja said:
Most the drone strikes aren't in Afghanistan, but I agree. Who likes their home being bombed
Click to expand...

I agree they arent but they are mostly right along the border region.
But then again we did agree that Afghanis really dont give a rats ass who they are goverened by as long as they are left alone.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree they arent but they are mostly right along the border region.
But then again we did agree that Afghanis really dont give a rats ass who they are goverened by as long as they are left alone.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what tit comes down to. Let the people make their own destiny. We have an interest to protect ourselves and our allies, but not outside that.
 
Steve Ja said:
That's pretty much what tit comes down to. Let the people make their own destiny. We have an interest to protect ourselves and our allies, but not outside that.
Click to expand...

I agree up to a point on what it is considered to be an "ally". But overall i agree with Afghanistan.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
It didnt happen?

BBC News - Barack Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Obama takes final gamble with Afghanistan troops surge | World news | The Guardian
Obama Bets Big on Troop Surge - WSJ.com

Did he not send enough or something?
Click to expand...

A) No he didn't. McCrystal asked for enough to push into both regional commands bordering Pakistan in order to effectively shut down the taliban's ability to project force across that border and into the country. Obama gave him enough to push into one, apparently not realizing that these guys are like water, and if you push them down here they will squirt up over there unless you push that down too.

B) In the very next breath after the one that he used to promise to send troops there, he doomed their mission. The strategy that has become known by the nomenclature of "Surge" works when you are able to convince a native populace that you are going to be the ultimate victor in the contest, and their incentives are thus to side with you. When you announce that you intend to force an early withdrawal of troops in-line with political datelines as opposed to conditions on the ground, you are effectively announcing to every Afghan villager out there that you intend to lose, and it is in his best interest to do nothing for us, and quietly support the Taliban, but as little as possible.

C) Furthermore, incredibly restrictive ROE's have created a no-win discontinuity between command and field that damages the efforts of both. When you impose impossible standards, you are effectively ensuring that the standards will be ignored by those who think they can get away with it, and obeyed by those who think they can't, even if doing so costs them the lives of those under them and ultimately victory in combat. The top therefore loses it's ability to effectively communicate direction and intent. Which, it seems, there wasn't much of, anyway. In the Civil War, Sherman knew he had to bring the South to its' knees in order to end the war. Soldiers in WWII said that the road home went through Berlin. Obama seems to have thought that victory in Afghanistan would come from pretending that it didn't exist.

;) Remember, it's not just how big a Surge is, it's how you use it :mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
A) No he didn't. McCrystal asked for enough to push into both regional commands bordering Pakistan in order to effectively shut down the taliban's ability to project force across that border and into the country. Obama gave him enough to push into one, apparently not realizing that these guys are like water, and if you push them down here they will squirt up over there unless you push that down too.

B) In the very next breath after the one that he used to promise to send troops there, he doomed their mission. The strategy that has become known by the nomenclature of "Surge" works when you are able to convince a native populace that you are going to be the ultimate victor in the contest, and their incentives are thus to side with you. When you announce that you intend to force an early withdrawal of troops in-line with political datelines as opposed to conditions on the ground, you are effectively announcing to every Afghan villager out there that you intend to lose, and it is in his best interest to do nothing for us, and quietly support the Taliban, but as little as possible.

C) Furthermore, incredibly restrictive ROE's have created a no-win discontinuity between command and field that damages the efforts of both. When you impose impossible standards, you are effectively ensuring that the standards will be ignored by those who think they can get away with it, and obeyed by those who think they can't, even if doing so costs them the lives of those under them and ultimately victory in combat. The top therefore loses it's ability to effectively communicate direction and intent. Which, it seems, there wasn't much of, anyway. In the Civil War, Sherman knew he had to bring the South to its' knees in order to end the war. Soldiers in WWII said that the road home went through Berlin. Obama seems to have thought that victory in Afghanistan would come from pretending that it didn't exist.

;) Remember, it's not just how big a Surge is, it's how you use it :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And now you are going to tell me how well the surge worked in Iraq. It is all pointless and asinine. I'm tired of all the plans that involve troops on the ground, they are nothing but targets. We are not going to keep sacrificing our troops and treasure forever and we can't win unless we kill them all. It is beyond stupid, it is criminal.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
A) No he didn't. McCrystal asked for enough to push into both regional commands bordering Pakistan in order to effectively shut down the taliban's ability to project force across that border and into the country. Obama gave him enough to push into one, apparently not realizing that these guys are like water, and if you push them down here they will squirt up over there unless you push that down too.
Click to expand...
McChrsyatl himself asked between 30,000 and 40,000 troops. Other estimates Obama took for a option took much more. Obama took McCrystals low ball.

B) In the very next breath after the one that he used to promise to send troops there, he doomed their mission. The strategy that has become known by the nomenclature of "Surge" works when you are able to convince a native populace that you are going to be the ultimate victor in the contest, and their incentives are thus to side with you. When you announce that you intend to force an early withdrawal of troops in-line with political datelines as opposed to conditions on the ground, you are effectively announcing to every Afghan villager out there that you intend to lose, and it is in his best interest to do nothing for us, and quietly support the Taliban, but as little as possible.
Click to expand...
How did the surge in Vietnam work?
OR hell about the Iraq War? We surged stayed there for a hell of a long time and unless you wanna stay there forever hows it gonna work out? Look at Iraq now... Terrorist attack everyday... Its unstalbe, and is considered a failed state...
We are essentially fighitng a unwinable war...
As i said in a earlier post...
"I would disagree about the support of the wars cuz the Iraqi war barely passed congress when it came to the democratic vote.
But other than that i would still disagree. Now i agree something had to be done. I think honestly airsrtirkes were in need on various targets but other than that congress and the White House knew we couldnt do much. We would invade a country that was still stuck on a tribal system and was vastly underdeveloped and would try to catch a small group of militants. Hell look at what happened if the Taliban was in control of a village that village would love them to death but once we entered and kicked out the Taliban then that village would love us but once we left the Taliban would enter right back in and next thing you know that village would love the Taliban again. Honestly i think the Afghani residents dont really give a **** who controls them as long as people leave them alone and i think we see this now with Karzi even welcoming the Taliban to the negotiating table."

C) Furthermore, incredibly restrictive ROE's have created a no-win discontinuity between command and field that damages the efforts of both. When you impose impossible standards, you are effectively ensuring that the standards will be ignored by those who think they can get away with it, and obeyed by those who think they can't, even if doing so costs them the lives of those under them and ultimately victory in combat. The top therefore loses it's ability to effectively communicate direction and intent. Which, it seems, there wasn't much of, anyway. In the Civil War, Sherman knew he had to bring the South to its' knees in order to end the war. Soldiers in WWII said that the road home went through Berlin. Obama seems to have thought that victory in Afghanistan would come from pretending that it didn't exist.

;) Remember, it's not just how big a Surge is, it's how you use it :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Didnt we use that same exuse in Vietnam and we were a hell of a lot more brutal?
 
iguanaman said:
And now you are going to tell me how well the surge worked in Iraq. It is all pointless and asinine. I'm tired of all the plans that involve troops on the ground, they are nothing but targets. We are not going to keep sacrificing our troops and treasure forever and we can't win unless we kill them all. It is beyond stupid, it is criminal.
Click to expand...

Troops on the ground can be targets, which does not mean they have to be nothing but targets. Troops are targets in battles they win, as well. Ultimately you need infantry to win a war; they are the only asset that can really take and hold terrain.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
McChrsyatl himself asked between 30,000 and 40,000 troops. Other estimates Obama took for a option took much more. Obama took McCrystals low ball.
Click to expand...

McCrystal told Obama that if he sent less than 40K, he couldn't win. Obama sent 30. :shrug:

How did the surge in Vietnam work?
Click to expand...

well, where it's principles were put into place, it was extremely effective. I would urge you to read up on the highly successful CAP program run by the Marines, for example. Bing Wests' The Village is a classic, and a great place to start.

OR hell about the Iraq War?
Click to expand...

The same principles when applied to Iraq worked very well later as well. That we later gave up those gains not withstanding.

I would disagree about the support of the wars cuz the Iraqi war barely passed congress when it came to the democratic vote.

But other than that i would still disagree. Now i agree something had to be done. I think honestly airsrtirkes were in need on various targets but other than that congress and the White House knew we couldnt do much. We would invade a country that was still stuck on a tribal system and was vastly underdeveloped and would try to catch a small group of militants. Hell look at what happened if the Taliban was in control of a village that village would love them to death but once we entered and kicked out the Taliban then that village would love us but once we left the Taliban would enter right back in and next thing you know that village would love the Taliban again. Honestly i think the Afghani residents dont really give a **** who controls them as long as people leave them alone and i think we see this now with Karzi even welcoming the Taliban to the negotiating table."
Click to expand...

You don't get airstrikes unless you have targets, you don't get targets unless you have quality intelligence, and you don't get much in the way of quality intelligence unless you have assets on the ground. Trying to run a counterinsurgency without daily regular interaction with the locals is like trying to operate a police force without accepting citizen reporting or tips.

Didnt we use that same exuse in Vietnam and we were a hell of a lot more brutal?
Click to expand...

Yes and no - yes people argued we needed to be more brutal (and we were - foolishly so), no that is not the same as arguing in favor of ROE's that don't break faith with reality - which is where ROE's were harmfully destructive in Vietnam, namely, that we weren't allowed to treat the conflict as a single conflict.


If you are honestly interested in the variety of approaches that we took to Vietnam, I couldn't recommend more John Nagl's Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife. Fascinating stuff, really.
 
cpwill said:
Troops on the ground can be targets, which does not mean they have to be nothing but targets. Troops are targets in battles they win, as well. Ultimately you need infantry to win a war; they are the only asset that can really take and hold terrain.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, this is not Guadalcanal and we can't win any "territory" it is not our country. We can keep the Taliban in check with Drones alone.
 
iguanaman said:
Give me a break, this is not Guadalcanal and we can't win any "territory" it is not our country. We can keep the Taliban in check with Drones alone.
Click to expand...

That is false - we tried something like that once. It was called the "Rumsfeld Doctrine", and it failed, miserably.
 
Steve Ja said:
How many of these deaths are a result of the rules and regulations Coalition soldiers have to follow. Having our hands tied has not helped the situation at all there. It's become quite political. The time has come for us to leave, however I am very concerned on what will happen when we do
Click to expand...

One reason those ROE's are in place is a modest attempt to protect civilians. You want to remove the only precaution we have and watch the civilian death tolls climb higher? Faster?
 
Montecresto said:
One reason those ROE's are in place is a modest attempt to protect civilians. You want to remove the only precaution we have and watch the civilian death tolls climb higher? Faster?
Click to expand...
Not even gonna comment on your attempt to start an argument im not making
 
Steve Ja said:
Not even gonna comment on your attempt to start an argument im not making
Click to expand...

Ok, sure. But you said the ROE's amount to their hands being tied!
 
Montecresto said:
Ok, sure. But you said the ROE's amount to their hands being tied!
Click to expand...
I didnt mention ROE i said rules and regulations. there's more to it then the ROE that we normally follow in wartime. There is other additions added on top of it that we must follow now. Like I said it has become political.. ROE as intended is very good.
 
Steve Ja said:
I didnt mention ROE i said rules and regulations. there's more to it then the ROE that we normally follow in wartime. There is other additions added on top of it that we must follow now. Like I said it has become political.. ROE as intended is very good.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs there. It's part of the expanded ROE's that exist when your fighting a loosing war against people that blend into civilian population.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The way i look at it no matter what Obama did the right would disagree with it no matter what.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets see if they are as immature as the left and blame him 6 years after he has left office
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom