MarineTpartier said:
…We invaded Afghanistan due to 9/11.
Not good enough. How long will it take this to sink in:
(From post #149) The short, sweet and simple point to staying in Afghanistan is above all else to avoid giving the place back to the same nightcreatures who had attacked us, and who we removed from power in 2001.
Our nightcreature enemies are on the verge of annulling the results of effort in Iraq because WE LEFT TOO EARLY. Only a real idiot could even think about making the same mistake in Afghanistan.
MarineTpartier said:
A)This is the internet. Simply saying you have a high GPA…
You don’t even remember what you wrote, do you?
Take another look at your post #167 for why I needed to cite my educational credentials.
MarineTpartier said:
Two, any decent points you do make are hidden by the fact that you feel the need to not only comment on the topic at hand, but also comment on things that no one really cares about and attempt to insult people who haven't insulted you.
I only insult people who deserve to be insulted.
MarineTpartier said:
Comments such as "Or were you too busy keeping up with your homework to pay attention to the news back then? (Haha- homework? you?)" are unwarranted. Again, this references my belief that you were in fact a teenager or early 20's punk.
Like a punk yourself.
Take another look your post (#142) that started our conversation. I take it, I dish it out. Your *ss hurts where my foot imprint is? Don’t start something you can’t finish.
MarineTpartier said:
B) You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel better about your not serving in Vietnam.
It would not do any good to lose sleep over it so I never have.
MarineTpartier said:
I agree that you don't need to have served to be able to have an opinion on wars that our country does or doesn't participate in…
Good to have you on board. It would still be a good idea for you to take a few PoliSci courses.
MarineTpartier said:
What I don't agree with is…
Skip the speeches.
MarineTpartier said:
Now, on to Afghanistan…
More Troops in 2001:
No, more doesn't always mean better. If that were the case, we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq.
Stop right there!
You just got through saying in your last post that there was only one airport available for us in Afghanistan. Now you pull a flipflop because, apparently, one airport was no problemmo after all, as in we could “ have gone in heavy like we did in Iraq.”
Everything that follows is therefore a self-contradiction by you not formally requiring rebuttal from me. Since it is so full of complete nonsense I will nevertheless deal with it.
I will from here on be using the following previously cited link for information which I will
designate by underlining rather than go to the trouble of setting off with quotation sections:
The United States Army in Afghanistan Operation ENDURING FREEDOM October 2001-March 2002
MarineTpartier said:
As it is, we went in with small groups of elite troops such as ODA's, CIA paramilitary, etc. Their mission was to train the Northern Alliance and lead them in to combat against the Taliban.
Incorrect.
Their mission was reinforcement on the ground, and directing close air support.
You think Kabul could have been taken (11/14/01) less than four weeks after our first men set foot in the country (10/19) if we had had to wait on training everybody? Most to all of the warriors of the NA had been engaged in mountain warfare for most to all of their lives, many going back to the Soviet era 1979-1988. Once we delivered
NA was capable of leading itself all the way to Kabul, and it was their leaders who were in command.
MarineTpartier said:
Note the NORTHERN Alliance ie the North was not a haven for the Taliban like the south was. I never said there wasn't a Taliban presence anywhere else in the country. I simply stated they were concentrated in the south.
You said that Afghanistan was not a giant safe house for Taliban, and that was incorrect.
It was in firm control of about 2/3 of the country, and since the entire country is the size of Texas Taliban’s share made for a damn big safe house.
MarineTpartier said:
Small groups like ODA's, which I have worked with extensively in Iraq, do not need nor do they want the burden of conventional units attached to them during the type of mission they were conducting in 2001...
Only a FEW HUNDRED elite US troops were needed to to drive Taliban from power, and we had a lot more than a few hundred available, didn’t we ???
Also, as far as I can determine The it was the US Army which conducted all ground operations in Afghanistan for the first several weeks of the war.
The USMC had set up positions in Pakistan, but did not enter Afghanistan until 11/25, when it committed the 15th MEU. If they had begun to go in to stay during the 101 AB raid in October the city might have fallen weeks earlier, and we might have gotten our hands on the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, who is still at large today.
Also, THERE ARE SIX OTHER USMC MEUs. A half an additional MEU, sent in as soon as Kabul fell and then sent against Tora Bora could have taken OBL and other AQ before they had a chance to rationalize both defenses and escape routes.
The whole problem was that George Bush and Colin Powell were so paranoid about US casualties that they held our elite troops back so as to let the Afghanis spill all the blood if possible, even when, as
at Kandahar and Tora Bora, Afghani forces were far below the standard for effectiveness set by NA earlier in the war.
MarineTpartier said:
...Simply pointing to terrain on a map and saying "Go there and complete this mission"
That is exactly what our fighting men and women have been asked to do since 2001, and they delivered every time. Every single time. I guess all that was while you were on guard duty.
MarineTpartier said:
Further, tactics do not win wars. Logistics do…
Oh, but according to you if more had meant better “we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq.” Therefore, according to you, logistics for a larger operation in Afghanistan would not have been a problem.
MarineTpartier said:
…The reason Iraq turned out the way it did is because we sent in a blunt object to correct a problem that required a precision instrument. I was there for the invasion of Iraq and it was much bigger debacle that was portrayed on TV.
A debacle? The 2003 invasion of Iraq a debacle? A country that size defended by several 100,000 conquered in 41 days a debacle???
It was a textbook operation if there ever was one.
For you to suggest it might have been accomplished by a few 100 specops tells me it is time to end our conversation, because your command of proportion, fact and logic is short of what it takes for you to be a worthwhile opponent.
Good bye.