• 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!

The Vietnam moment

I love America, and would normally support the idea of carrying fire and sword into the heartland of the enemy. But not this time. American forces are operating under the command of a man who is ambivalent about their mission and their lives. Want an example? How about the fact that Obama has changed the rules of engagement for the use of smart bombs against the Taliban and Al Qaeda when civilians are present. Imo the result is fewer Taliban and AQ deaths, and more American deaths.

Obama is not concerned about victory or the national interest. He's concerned about not suffering political damage from his campaign lie that he would wage a necessary war in Afghanistan. Have you noticed there are apparently no Obama supporters on this thread? There's a reason for that. They can't articulate a defense of their president on this issue, and thus avoid engagement.
 
apdst said:
I believe the diplomatic situation may improve if we are able to neutralize Tally operations in Afghanistan. Then, we could tell the Paks, "ok, we killed them all on our end, we'll block the exit door, while you mop them up on your end".
Click to expand...

What do we do if Pak doesn't play ball?

It's hard to insist that the Paks do more, when we have a CIC that is considering doing less.
Click to expand...

CIC is probably waiting on NATO commitment and Pak commitment before deciding. He may have more than one scenario with different strategies/force levels.

I note that we haven't even talked about the impact on successful COIN from the Kabul government, corrupt as it seems to be.
 
apdst said:
We should totaly destroy Tally forces in Afghanistan, thereby concentrating them inside Pakistan, making them an easier target for the Paki forces and denying them any escape from Paki forces into Afghanistan. If we deny the Tals's ability to maneuver, we take away alot of their combat power.
Click to expand...

When the Taliban live with the people and dress like the people how do you tell them from the people?
 
bhkad said:
When the Taliban live with the people and dress like the people how do you tell them from the people?
Click to expand...
I thought the Taliban were the ones with the black towels around their heads. :lol:
 
reefedjib said:
What do we do if Pak doesn't play ball?
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer for that one, but I still maintain that getting them to play ball might be much easier if we covered all the bases. Think about it from Pakistan's position: why should they become embroiled in a slug fest with the Tallies, when all they've seen America do for the last 30 years, is leave and not finish the job?



CIC is probably waiting on NATO commitment and Pak commitment before deciding. He may have more than one scenario with different strategies/force levels.
Click to expand...

PBO is the leader of the free world. It's time for him to start leading.

I note that we haven't even talked about the impact on successful COIN from the Kabul government, corrupt as it seems to be.
Click to expand...

I don't think that we'll be able to immediately count on that kind of asset from the Karzai government. If we up-n-leave, we can guarantee that it'll never happen.


bhkad said:
When the Taliban live with the people and dress like the people how do you tell them from the people?
Click to expand...


Simple, shoot the guys that are carrying the weapons. And, yes, it's going to be time consuming. That's not a reason to just give up.
 
apdst said:
I don't have an answer for that one, but I still maintain that getting them to play ball might be much easier if we covered all the bases. Think about it from Pakistan's position: why should they become embroiled in a slug fest with the Tallies, when all they've seen America do for the last 30 years, is leave and not finish the job?
Click to expand...

Very good point.

apdst said:
Simple, shoot the guys that are carrying the weapons. And, yes, it's going to be time consuming. That's not a reason to just give up.
Click to expand...

Also, HUMINT can point them out, even if they don't have their guns.
 
reefedjib said:
Very good point.
Click to expand...

Let me add to that: Pakistan saw us walk off from Afghanistan once. Why should they have any reason to think we wouldn't do it again?
 
apdst said:
Simple, shoot the guys that are carrying the weapons. And, yes, it's going to be time consuming. That's not a reason to just give up.
Click to expand...

That's not a reason to give up but this is what Thomas Friedman says:

We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/28friedman.html?_r=1&em
 
American said:
All of our allies except UK and Canada are ******s. If we had the Russians as allies that place would be cleaned up in a month.
Click to expand...

How??? Why???
 
American said:
All of our allies except UK and Canada are ******s.
Click to expand...

Making them less of allies and more of business partners. Our true allies seem to all speak English. France's de Gaul made it clear that English speaking nations were less than European in the 1950s and 60s. This attitude, coupled with the fact that they "owe" outsiders (to include the Russians) for their salvation and futures, crossed borders. Let's move on to today...

The leaders of the EU (at least in voice, sentiment, and influence) are France and Germany. Two of the worst torturers, slaughterers, and troublemakers in the region have labeled themselves as our voice of conscience as they criticize everything we do. They complain about having to do anything more than the bare minimum for America in Afghanistan and dare question the validity of removing a dictator (of which they proved to contuinue to have love affairs for).

The hardest workers in Afghanistan are the English speaking nations. The same as it was during World War II with help on the east from Russians. Nothing has changed. It's the same Europe.
 
GySgt said:
Making them less of allies and more of business partners. Our true allies seem to all speak English. France's de Gaul made it clear that English speaking nations were less than European in the 1950s and 60s. This attitude, coupled with the fact that they "owe" outsiders (to include the Russians) for their salvation and futures, crossed borders. Let's move on to today...

The leaders of the EU (at least in voice, sentiment, and influence) are France and Germany. Two of the worst torturers, slaughterers, and troublemakers in the region have labeled themselves as our voice of conscience as they criticize everything we do. They complain about having to do anything more than the bare minimum for America in Afghanistan and dare question the validity of removing a dictator (of which they proved to contuinue to have love affairs for).

The hardest workers in Afghanistan are the English speaking nations. The same as it was during World War II with help on the east from Russians. Nothing has changed. It's the same Europe.
Click to expand...
I should have mention Australia as well.
 
apdst said:
Congress's authority ends there. They have no authority to give orders to the military, concerning tactics and strategy. The only civilian that has that authority is the president. There are no members of Congress in the chain of command.
Click to expand...

Try fighting a war without money. Congress is second in power in America (first being the Presidency) because it has the power of the purse.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Try fighting a war without money. Congress is second in power in America (first being the Presidency) because it has the power of the purse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they have the power of the purse and if they excercise that power, to force our army's retreat in the face of the enemy, they can all start filling out their resume's, because it will be the last term in office for everyone that signed off on it and they all know it. There may even be some prosecutions, because it would be an abuse of power and dereliction of duty.

Personally, I would love to see the Libbo Congress do something that stupid.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, they have the power of the purse and if they excercise that power, to force our army's retreat in the face of the enemy, they can all start filling out their resume's, because it will be the last term in office for everyone that signed off on it and they all know it. There may even be some prosecutions, because it would be an abuse of power and dereliction of duty.

Personally, I would love to see the Libbo Congress do something that stupid.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe that Congress is the primary power, if you want to look at it that way.
 
American said:
If we had the Russians as allies that place would be cleaned up in a month.
Click to expand...

The original coalition comprised the US, Russia and India with Tajikistan in supporting roles. But, fortunately for Russia, the US corporations decided cooperating with all those countries, taking into account their interests and sharing the results was a lot less preferable than making use of Article 5, and going into Afghanistan in a company of countries that will do as they are told and accept the US will over the results of the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom