• 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!

43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcemen

Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Okay they have proven themeselves then why have we been at war for eight years now? Like I said I will link to different views when I get home.

They haven't won a complex counter-insurgency campaign in less than eight years!? They obviously don't know what's going on...:roll:

Seriously, that is freakin dumb.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

They haven't won a complex counter-insurgency campaign in less than eight years!? They obviously don't know what's going on...:roll:

Seriously, that is freakin dumb.

Yeah an 8 year war is pretty dumb.:2wave:
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Redress, if one of the consequences of indecision actually is that more soldiers are being killed, how is it out of line to point that out?

Unfortunately, even if Obama is being 100% thoughtful and high-minded about all of this, he's is unquestionably giving the appearance of indecisiveness by doing all these other things while the decision still hangs in the air. And the appearance of indecisiveness is the appearance of weakness, and weakness emboldens the enemy.



Exactly. And to be called "exploitive" of the troops for voicing this, is abhorrent in my opinion.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Exactly. And to be called "exploitive" of the troops for voicing this, is abhorrent in my opinion.

And if a hasty decision gets more troops killed? or if publicizing plans gets more troops killed?

Nah whomever it is as long as it a democrat you guys will whine and cry just like the left did with Bush. And that is probably more demoralizing to the troops than anything else.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

And if a hasty decision gets more troops killed? or if publicizing plans gets more troops killed?

How long does he need? exactly?


Nah whomever it is as long as it a democrat you guys will whine and cry just like the left did with Bush. And that is probably more demoralizing to the troops than anything else.




What part of "I had the same problem with Bush I" and this sort of indecision are you guys not getting in order to misrepresent my position?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It's not about Democrats or Republicans, it's about leadership. Leadership involves more than just being oh so thoughtful. It means making it appear as though you know what you're doing. Even if he does, he doesn't look like he does. That's suicide.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

How long does he need? exactly?

I dunna know you tell me since you seem to know







What part of "I had the same problem with Bush I" and this sort of indecision are you guys not getting in order to misrepresent my position?

Personally I hoped I was wrong about Bush's strategy and the troops had all the success of coming home.

Gatta split making dinner for the family tonight.:)
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

It's not about Democrats or Republicans, it's about leadership. Leadership involves more than just being oh so thoughtful. It means making it appear as though you know what you're doing. Even if he does, he doesn't look like he does. That's suicide.

Leadership is not a Hollywood movie.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Listen, man; I take it you are at JRTC, so I know you have some knowledge. Let's be honest here; if McChrystal and Petraeus were serious about securing the Afghan populace, they should be asking for more troops than 40K. But they can't have them b/c many BCTs are in Iraq still, a war that I'm assuming you support. I'm not sure the same COIN strategy will work in AFG like it did in Iraq, which is what McChrystal is essentially advocating, if I read the memo right. For one, Iraq was easier because the LOC existed and were clear and easy for our leaders to access. Buying off the Sunnis was easy b/c they weren't the Taliban. Not even close, dude. I'm not sure if you've done a tour in AFG (I know 1st CAV has not), but I think the dynamic is so different and so much more difficult that any half-ass "surge" in AFG to implement a COIN strategy maybe a fruitless effort if it's not going to work...I understand it maybe the best we can do right now, but is it really worth it if we can't do it right?


I don't know the exact dynamics of the battlespace. I don't have a crystal ball and can't tell you that McChrystal's plan is full-proof. What I do know, is that most experienced and most successful counter-insurgency leaders that the United States military has are opting for a new plan. They have more credibility than anyone else. I also know two other things: 1) Doing nothing just ain't gonna work, period. 2) Sending more troops to the theater isn't going to have a negative affect. Now, combine all three of these things and there's no reason not to go ahead with McChrystal's plan.




I don't think I would call exploiting the deaths of our soldiers to make a political point is "helping your country".

Whose doing that?

Got those names for us, Winston?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Whose doing that?

Got those names for us, Winston?

Ill have to do it later it is time for me to make dinner and I need to go to the store and get some stuff.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Ill have to do it later it is time for me to make dinner and I need to go to the store and get some stuff.

Ok, cool. We'll be patiently waiting. I have to go fight with my kids and explain to them why they can't have gumbo for supper.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Leadership is not a Hollywood movie.

Yeah. No ****ing ****. I think you'll find that this criticism of Obama boils down exactly to the fact that HE is treating the Presidency as though it IS a Hollywood movie and he's the star.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I don't know the exact dynamics of the battlespace. I don't have a crystal ball and can't tell you that McChrystal's plan is full-proof. What I do know, is that most experienced and most successful counter-insurgency leaders that the United States military has are opting for a new plan. They have more credibility than anyone else. I also know two other things: 1) Doing nothing just ain't gonna work, period. 2) Sending more troops to the theater isn't going to have a negative affect. Now, combine all three of these things and there's no reason not to go ahead with McChrystal's plan.

I'm not an advocate of doing nothing. But I'm not sure "doing something" is the answer. Is deploying more troops to execute a fledgling strategy really what we need? To execute a true COIN strategy, they need a hell of a lot more than 40K. I'm not sure we even have that many troops available right now, considering the only BCTs that can deploy there are Marines, "Light" Brigades and Strykers. Still a lot in Iraq right now.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

You have no standing.


I already explained how I thought Bush I, did the same thing. I also explained, how those I know in Afghanistan are feeling. My position comes from my care and concern for our brothers and sisters in harms way. For you to go back down this line of attacks because I DARE critisize your guy, is what is low. And I suggest you pull it back... BN rules dictate I use the articles title. I did so. I then explained what my concerns are. Now I don't believe you to be of low intelligence, so I think your attacks on me are deliberate and considered. And that is most regrettable.



I think his indecisivness is endangering the lives of our troops. YOu could care less about it. So don't try to turn this around on me that I am the one "using the troops" when it is you ignoring thier plight for your guy.

If he takes so long that troops cannot get there when wanted, then you might have a point. 2 weeks is not taking too long.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I'm not an advocate of doing nothing. But I'm not sure "doing something" is the answer. Is deploying more troops to execute a fledgling strategy really what we need? To execute a true COIN strategy, they need a hell of a lot more than 40K. I'm not sure we even have that many troops available right now, considering the only BCTs that can deploy there are Marines, "Light" Brigades and Strykers. Still a lot in Iraq right now.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs seems to think we have troops enough and they're just waiting for the president to issue marching orders.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Redress, if one of the consequences of indecision actually is that more soldiers are being killed, how is it out of line to point that out?

Unfortunately, even if Obama is being 100% thoughtful and high-minded about all of this, he's is unquestionably giving the appearance of indecisiveness by doing all these other things while the decision still hangs in the air. And the appearance of indecisiveness is the appearance of weakness, and weakness emboldens the enemy.

Again, taking the time to make a good decision is not just appropriate, it is ideal. Whether that is what is happening or not, neither you nor I know for sure. What we do know is that there is resistance within the pentagon over the additional troops, and that even the Chief of Staff of the Army is not 100 % for it. This suggests that the holdup might be in collecting and analyzing the thoughts of the advisers and military people Obama has to count on.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Leadership is not a Hollywood movie.

Tell that to Obama....He seems obsessed with being on the Hollywood talk show circuit.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

If he takes so long that troops cannot get there when wanted, then you might have a point. 2 weeks is not taking too long.




This is our disagreement, you stating I am exploitin g the troops is outside that disagreement, and uncalled for.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Again, taking the time to make a good decision is not just appropriate, it is ideal. Whether that is what is happening or not, neither you nor I know for sure. What we do know is that there is resistance within the pentagon over the additional troops, and that even the Chief of Staff of the Army is not 100 % for it. This suggests that the holdup might be in collecting and analyzing the thoughts of the advisers and military people Obama has to count on.

The time it takes is only one part of it. When he's off doing all these other things -- the TV appearances, the trips to Denmark, etc. -- he sends a signal that he's got other priorities, or that he's indecisive -- especially when his military commanders have NOT been, and have told him unequivocally what they need.

Fair or not, that's what it looks like. And it looks like weakness. Enemies sensing weakness gets people killed.

And it's not just the soldiers in Afghanistan which are put at risk. The sense of weakness and indecisiveness permeates everything else, too, so "tough talk" toward anyone seems hollow.

So, yeah, he needs to step up, concentrate on the decision, and make it. And if it truly takes this long, then the midnight oil needs to be seen burning brightly in the Oval Office. Otherwise, he doesn't look serious.

And, as I said, that's suicide.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

Again, taking the time to make a good decision is not just appropriate, it is ideal. Whether that is what is happening or not, neither you nor I know for sure. What we do know is that there is resistance within the pentagon over the additional troops, and that even the Chief of Staff of the Army is not 100 % for it. This suggests that the holdup might be in collecting and analyzing the thoughts of the advisers and military people Obama has to count on.

The General says we need more troops or we're going to lose.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says we got enough troops.

What's there to think about?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The death rate is up for a reason. And it is not because a Democrat sit sin the White House.

The focus of the Marine Corps for years has been Iraq. With that country behind us, the Marines are being sent over to Afghanistan where the aggression to destroy the enemy has picked up. The rise in troops strength has allowed the Army and the Marines to be more effective against the enemy. Instead of waiting them out or dealing with them as they emerge, we are hunting them. Now two things naturally occur when a military goes on the offense and treks into territory it was unable to do before...

1) The death rate will rise, but no where near what the enemy is suffering

2) And the media will provide their sorted and twisted wisdom to our dumbfounded politicians as they declare that these deaths have to mean that the Tali-Ban is gaining power.


The choices are clear and there are only two. If the administration wants to strengthen the corrupt Afghani government, then the generals need more troops. If they do not get them then they will have to make do and lose more men than is necessary to accomplish the mission (they are very used to that anyway). But if the administration acknowledges that Pakistan is of far more interest tothe U.S. then we need to pull our troops out and simply punish our enemies as they emerge out of the Afghani mountains and deserts.
 
Last edited:
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

The General says we need more troops or we're going to lose.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says we got enough troops.

What's there to think about?

I don't know.....Maybe a strategy for their use over there?...A clear purpose?....A way we can get the hell out of there eventually?
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I don't know.....Maybe a strategy for their use over there?

That's why we have generals.

...A clear purpose?....

Defeat the insurgency and create a stable government.

A way we can get the hell out of there eventually?

Planes and boats should suffice.
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

That's why we have generals.



Defeat the insurgency and create a stable government.



Planes and boats should suffice.
Better rush those thoughts off to Washington!
That should clear everything up
 
Re: 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforc

I don't know.....Maybe a strategy for their use over there?...A clear purpose?....A way we can get the hell out of there eventually?

There is a strategy. But the mother strategy is to strengthen the Afghani government enough to fight this territorial battle without our intimate involvement.

I do not believe this is practical. This population is nowhere near what we dealt with in Iraq. The population in Iraq was educated. It is leaps and bounds ahead in regards to social habits. It is true that historical tribal identity haunts them (and will continue to do so), but clans divide the population in Afghanistan. And they are extremely corrupt. My point is that we have to stop thinking that we can "nation build" everywhere and with any society.

Our critics have been entirely stupid about these matters. They declared that Iraq's elections would be failures. They declared Iraq a civil war. They declared that Iraq was hopeless. And they declared Iraq another "Vietnam." They were always wrong, yet still ran their mouths as if they understood military matters and this region. They also go ahead and declare Afghanistan another "Vietnam," but they can't even get this default response to every conflict correct. In Vietnam, we supported an ever more corrupt government against a communist enemy. In the mean time, the Vietnamese were stuck between a government who cared less about them and the warring sides (American & Vietcong) that punished them for their allegiances. Where Afghanistan differs is that we aren't going to be run out of Afghanistan as the Afghani government crumbles. In the end, a corrupt Afghani government will limp along and deal with the festering Tali-Ban problem. But what we have to accept is that whatever this Afghani govenment does will be blamed on us. Same old story of the Middle East. Our critics are fond of pointing out today's enemies and how we "helped" to create them, but are to stupid to see that we are doing it right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom