What's new
By:

Six years later......

local 12 proud said:
Were not killing taliban in Germany, your point? :blink:
Click to expand...
Okay...I know that anything more than 2 weeks ago is ancient history (unless of course we are dealing with Bill Clinton)...but waaaaay back in 2003...when we hadn't yet taken out the mastermind of the attacks on the US, why were the vast majority of troops MOVED from the hunt for that man and his organization, and shifted over to Iraq? That's the puzzling question. Why, when we had him cornered...when we all but eliminated the Taliban...did we shift the forces to another front? And in the process, the Taliban kind of started to re-grow. I mean...to use Chauncey Gardner's explanation..."In the garden, when we want to kill a bush, we do it completely. If we only prune a bush, it grows back stronger". If you don't understand that - rent the movie Being There. We are still killing the Taliban in Afghanistan...we could have eliminated them back in 2003...but somehow, Saddam Hussein (who wasn't a party to Isalmofascists since he was very much a secular leader and despised by said Taliban) was a bigger threat. Nobody's bothered to 'splain' that one yet.
 
KCFlyer said:
It's comforting to know that our all volunteer military is capable of conducting a "global" war on terror...even though most of them are currently deployed in a country that had far LESS to do with terrorism than the other countries.
Click to expand...

Most infers greater than 50%......

Looks like less than half........

Fact

Well almost.... :lol:

If you look down that list MOST have nothing to do with terrorism so Iraq actually does have more.
 
delldude said:
Most infers greater than 50%......

Looks like less than half........

Fact

Well almost.... :lol:

If you look down that list MOST have nothing to do with terrorism so Iraq actually does have more.
Click to expand...
How come, when we fought two "world wars", we had other countries troops fighting with us...but in this "global war" on terrorism, it's our volunteers? And are they prepared for a "global war"? Hell, in WWII we had more troops in FRANCE than we have troops today. Where are we gonna get troop levels like that for this global war???
 
KCFlyer said:
Why, when we had him cornered...when we all but eliminated the Taliban...did we shift the forces to another front? And in the process, the Taliban kind of started to re-grow. I mean...to use Chauncey Gardner's explanation..."In the garden, when we want to kill a bush, we do it completely. If we only prune a bush, it grows back stronger". If you don't understand that - rent the movie Being There. We are still killing the Taliban in Afghanistan...we could have eliminated them back in 2003...
Click to expand...

People seem to think that if we had just sent or were to send all the troops in Iraq too Afghanistan the Taliban would have/would be eliminated. This however ignores one important fact. In the history of insurgencies sheer numbers and firepower do not work. It did not work in Vietnam, it did not work for the Soviets in Afghanistan and it's not really working in Iraq currently. Do the troops in Afghanistan need some backup, yes they do. However it would be a mistake to think we can just "throw money at the problem" and it will go away. You flood that country with soldiers there's the risk that you might make the Afghan people a bit resentful. It's a very delicate balancing act.

Now here's what has worked in the past and is currently working. Hearts and minds using small groups of soldiers. The British have been very good at this in places like Oman and Malaya. One story that has not gotten a lot of attention is the US efforts in the Philippines. The terrorist group Abu Sayef was very active there. In conjunction with the Philippine military a small group of US Special Forces embarked on a campaign of hearts and minds. By providing medical care, construction efforts etc a lot of the support for Abu Sayef has dried up. Most of its leadership is either dead, in jail or in hiding.
 
777 fixer said:
People seem to think that if we had just sent or were to send all the troops in Iraq too Afghanistan the Taliban would have/would be eliminated. This however ignores one important fact. In the history of insurgencies sheer numbers and firepower do not work. It did not work in Vietnam, it did not work for the Soviets in Afghanistan and it's not really working in Iraq currently. Do the troops in Afghanistan need some backup, yes they do. However it would be a mistake to think we can just "throw money at the problem" and it will go away. You flood that country with soldiers there's the risk that you might make the Afghan people a bit resentful. It's a very delicate balancing act.
Click to expand...
NOW I understand...we shifted our focus to Iraq because we didn't want to make the Afghan people resentful. Now THAT'S a brilliant strategy....corner the enemy...then shift direction to a country that had no part in the attack on us. While that strategy was successful in keeping the Afghan people from becoming resentful...our unilateral actions DID make others, like the French and Germans and Russians a bit resentful. But they are a classy lot...they'll get over it.
 
KCFlyer said:
NOW I understand...we shifted our focus to Iraq because we didn't want to make the Afghan people resentful. Now THAT'S a brilliant strategy....corner the enemy...then shift direction to a country that had no part in the attack on us. While that strategy was successful in keeping the Afghan people from becoming resentful...our unilateral actions DID make others, like the French and Germans and Russians a bit resentful. But they are a classy lot...they'll get over it.
Click to expand...

Obviously you did not get the point I was trying to make. Since you seem to have it figured out why don't you tell us where sheer numbers and firepower have worked in counter insurgencies? Answer this one question for me. Do you think numbers and firepower is working in Iraq? If the answer is no then what makes you think it would work in Afghanistan?
 
777 fixer said:
Obviously you did not get the point I was trying to make. Since you seem to have it figured out why don't you tell us where sheer numbers and firepower have worked in counter insurgencies? Answer this one question for me. Do you think numbers and firepower is working in Iraq? If the answer is no then what makes you think it would work in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a matter of firepower. We had the Taliban cornered. We had them weakened. We had bin laden cornered...and we suddenly decide that Saddam posed such a serious threat to US security that we pull back and start a war with him. Today, the Taliban is growing. Ready...FIRE...Aim. The Bush war strategy.
 
KCFlyer said:
It wasn't a matter of firepower. We had the Taliban cornered. We had them weakened. We had bin laden cornered...and we suddenly decide that Saddam posed such a serious threat to US security that we pull back and start a war with him. Today, the Taliban is growing. Ready...FIRE...Aim. The Bush war strategy.
Click to expand...

Maybe you think that my view on this is a defense of GWB. It is not, he's made quite a mess of things. However you seem to think that if we had just sent those troops to Afghanistan that everyone would be just peachy. Ignoring the fact that Afghanistan would still be a magnet for jihadists. Or that they have safe harbor across the border in Pakistan.

You never really answered my question. I have historical precedence to back up my view, what do you have?
 
777 fixer said:
Maybe you think that my view on this is a defense of GWB. It is not, he's made quite a mess of things. However you seem to think that if we had just sent those troops to Afghanistan that everyone would be just peachy. Ignoring the fact that Afghanistan would still be a magnet for jihadists. Or that they have safe harbor across the border in Pakistan.

You never really answered my question. I have historical precedence to back up my view, what do you have?
Click to expand...

Here's my opinion. Had we "stayed the course" in Afghanistan, we would have sent a message with no uncertain terms that if you mess with us, you're gonna pay. Instead - we have demonstrated to our enemy that while we will come after you, after a couple of years we'll shift our focus somewhere else, but won't crush you.

And while everyone and their dog is an infidel to these jihadists, by invading Iraq, which had been run by a secular leader who (brutally) tolerated NO uprisings, we have "freed" groups of people who can't stand each other...even though they supposedly worship the same God.
 
Garfield1966 said:
It’s an interesting idea but one that we will never know the answer to. No politician much less a POTUS would ever institute a draft unless we were looking at a world war. It would be political suicide.

The other problem is evidenced by the military history of Clinton, W, Cheney and the like. They are people of means and power. That will insure that they or their off spring will never serve on the front lines of combat. They will get a deferment (or 5) or they will be protecting Indiana from danger.

As for their equipment, it is appalling that we will spend billions to try and build up a nation but won’t spend what it takes to make sure our troops have adequate equipment. But hey, like Rumsfeld said, you fight with what you have, not what you want. Some how I am guessing he was never near an IED that went off, much less saw the carnage that was present after the explosion.

And yet these same SOB’s have the nerve to accuse others of not supporting the troops. If that is not amount to dereliction of duty I don’t know what is. The actions of this administration, more so than any other are criminal.
Click to expand...

I often hear this "they wouldn't be so eager to start a war if their kids were in the Army" logic, and to be honest, I dont think it holds much water, particularly as we have an all volunteer military. As a combat vet, and a father of 4, (three of which are currently in the Army), I like to think I would not let my feelings as a father interfere in carrying out my duties as commander in chief. Besides the security risks, not to mention the tremendous propaganda potential far outway whatever political support may be gained by sending these children into a combat theatre. (As was pointed out when Prince Harry was denied the right to deploy with his unit to the sandbox)
 
CSAR GYRENE said:
I often hear this "they wouldn't be so eager to start a war if their kids were in the Army" logic, and to be honest, I dont think it holds much water, particularly as we have an all volunteer military. As a combat vet, and a father of 4, (three of which are currently in the Army), I like to think I would not let my feelings as a father interfere in carrying out my duties as commander in chief. Besides the security risks, not to mention the tremendous propaganda potential far outway whatever political support may be gained by sending these children into a combat theatre. (As was pointed out when Prince Harry was denied the right to deploy with his unit to the sandbox)
Click to expand...

So let's change it a bit...rabid war supports might not be so supportive if THEIR kids were subject to a draft. Right now "supporting the troops" means little more than slapping a yellow ribbon on a Yukon and thanking your lucky stars that the military is all volunteer and YOUR kids aren't in harms way.

That's my issue with this president and this war. Nobody is asked to sacrifice except the soldiers and the families of the soldiers. Everybody else is encouraged to "shop". There was an article in Newsweek last week from a Marine Major who was surprised that the draft wasn't re-instituted on September 12,2001. The WTC attacks left no doubt that we were at war. IMHO, had the draft been reinstated on 9/12/01, Bush would have received a whole lot more opposition about taking the battle to Iraq. I'm proud of our soldiers, and I'm proud that they do the job that their commander in chief ordered them to do. But to question the commander in chief about his decision to send our soldiers into IRAQ means that I don't really support our troops. Or at least, that's what many on the right tell me.

If I am eating out at dinner and a soldier is in the restaurant, I'll buy his meal. It's the least I could do. He may disagree with my stance on the war...he may think George Bush is the best president we ever had. Because according to the right, the troops loathed Bill Clinton, but think Bush is great. So we have our differences. But Bush hasn't asked me to sacrifice in any way, and that soldier and his family sacrifice every day. It ain't much...but it's my way of saying thanks.
 
KCFlyer said:
So let's change it a bit...rabid war supports might not be so supportive if THEIR kids were subject to a draft. Right now "supporting the troops" means little more than slapping a yellow ribbon on a Yukon and thanking your lucky stars that the military is all volunteer and YOUR kids aren't in harms way.

That's my issue with this president and this war. Nobody is asked to sacrifice except the soldiers and the families of the soldiers. Everybody else is encouraged to "shop". There was an article in Newsweek last week from a Marine Major who was surprised that the draft wasn't re-instituted on September 12,2001. The WTC attacks left no doubt that we were at war. IMHO, had the draft been reinstated on 9/12/01, Bush would have received a whole lot more opposition about taking the battle to Iraq. I'm proud of our soldiers, and I'm proud that they do the job that their commander in chief ordered them to do. But to question the commander in chief about his decision to send our soldiers into IRAQ means that I don't really support our troops. Or at least, that's what many on the right tell me.

If I am eating out at dinner and a soldier is in the restaurant, I'll buy his meal. It's the least I could do. He may disagree with my stance on the war...he may think George Bush is the best president we ever had. Because according to the right, the troops loathed Bill Clinton, but think Bush is great. So we have our differences. But Bush hasn't asked me to sacrifice in any way, and that soldier and his family sacrifice every day. It ain't much...but it's my way of saying thanks.
Click to expand...
On behave of myself, my children, and the thousands of vets out there, I thank you for your support. I find no fault whatsoever with your post. <salute>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xUT
Pakistan
Replies
4
Views
1K
signals
signals

Latest posts

Back
Top