Afghanistan, more troops?

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by VRM

Yep, I've read it many times before, and I like it. It just does not apply here, and the sooner we get our heads out of cold war thought processes the better off we will be.

MacChrystal seems to realise this - hopefully Obama will listen.

Steve

No...instead Obama and his DC folks chose instead to chastize him for talking about his thoughts in public.

For a liberal, he sure does like to screw with the First.

[Excaliber]

Seems to me, specifically what he was chastised for were his comments about the possible collapse of the Afghan government to the Taliban. That information and his opinion's are available on-line. So it's to late to put the Genie back in the bottle wether he speaks publicily or not.

More troubling to me, than his being chastied, is wether his opinion is accurate or not. IS the Taliban take over of the Government imminent in the near future, or not? The Administration's position seems to be it is not imminent. That sounds suspciously like politic's at best, don't scare the people, let's talk about it quietly behind closed doors sort of thing.

The discord may arise from a time table and man power dispute, which could mean both parties are "correct" in their statements. How long do we have before this take over is likley? What can we do to stop it? IS it really imminent if we continue on our current path? Will it happen soon if we don't send another 40,000 troops NOW?

McCrystal sure sounds like a very competent guy with a well thought out plan of attack. If he says he needs 40,000 troops NOW, I'm inclined to believe him. But still, a thorough review is warranted. Just don't take to long with it, if the General is right, were all ready out of time!

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

No...instead Obama and his DC folks chose instead to chastize him for talking about his thoughts in public.

For a liberal, he sure does like to screw with the First.

I think you know as well as I do that the military does not have quite the same use of the First that a bunch of angry old farts posting on a forum do.
There were a number of generals who resigned when Bush was in office rather than make their thoughts known. I give a lot of credit to our upper echelon military guys who have had to endure more than their share of bad civilian leadership from both parties (Bush Sr. was the last one worth a damn IMHO). I can understand a general not wanting to risk a court martial and possible loss of pension for speaking out against the CinC, but I personally think we are at a point where it really needs to be done. Obama won the election in large part due to Bush not listening to his generals - we will see if history repeats...

And as an aside, Project Confidence is not going to go over too well with the home crowd who can't think past lunch time today. That should be a fun sell...it's probably a good thing that nobody reads anymore.

Steve

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Jamo

No...instead Obama and his DC folks chose instead to chastize him for talking about his thoughts in public.

For a liberal, he sure does like to screw with the First.

Right Jamo, he can forget that next star.... I can sure remember the good old days when Rummy encouraged everyone to speak their mind about whatever they wanted without fear of retribution and not only encouraged descent but rewarded it....and Richard B. Meyers was DOD speak for BOTTOM...

[Excaliber]

Rummy might have encouraged it, but I'm left with the impression he did what HE wanted to do in the end, regardless of their input, or anybody else for that matter.

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Rummy might have encouraged it, but I'm left with the impression he did what HE wanted to do in the end, regardless of their input, or anybody else for that matter.

Ex...this ground has been plowed and plowed... however..I am under the impression that the reason we got into so much trouble was that Cheney and Rumsfelt didn't listen and in fact (with the other Neo Cons) actually bullied the career people in the DOD, CIA etc...to support their agenda..... the Administration has the power and the right and the responsibility to make the decisions, but they (IMHO) take a terrible chance when they decide to discount the career people and go another direction. History, with all it's imperfections will give us some clues...It was painful to me to watch Meyers....I suspect there are some people in here with stars and from my lofty position as a peace time 1st Lieutenant I am in awe of the skills of those that survive that marathon thru a mindfield and reach the medal stand....they are truly remarkable people...

[Excaliber]

I'd like to see McChrystal make his case before Congress and thus the American people. I doubt that will happen. I think it's important if for no other reason than for the "transparency" Obama so often talks about. I'm NOT saying I totally support his view point, but the man should be given that respect.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

... mindfield ...

Heh, heh... full of all that unexploded ordnance.

Ernie,
Have you read the report? What about it do you disagree with?

Steve

[Excaliber]

It's not a matter of disagreeing with his report, which I have read. It is one man's opinion, a very worthy man with boots on the ground! His counsel should be seriously considered, but the review process for such input is there for a good reason, a balance of power. View points from several sides of the issue are warranted. No matter WHAT the final decision is there is no gaurentee anybody will make the best one. Even McChrystal acknowledges that. Such is the nature of war,,,

Here is a link to the actual report, which I think is more valuable than seeing it with pundit comments or political spin. It's just his straight forward assessment.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ted_092109.pdf

Good or bad, like it or not, a Commander in Chief MUST take into account the publics support or non-support of a war effort. Not so much for political gain or loss but because he should listen to the will of the misguided, often swayed by political party affiliation, right wing and left wing nut peoples. As if to suggest "WE" actually have a freakin' clue as to what's really going on, I assure you, we don't! But we have excellent "gut feelings", perfect hindsight and plenty news reports upon which to base our opinions, that will have to be enough. Unless, some of us have recently attended a morning National briefing on what's going on.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by VRM

I think you know as well as I do that the military does not have quite the same use of the First that a bunch of angry old farts posting on a forum do.
There were a number of generals who resigned when Bush was in office rather than make their thoughts known. I give a lot of credit to our upper echelon military guys who have had to endure more than their share of bad civilian leadership from both parties (Bush Sr. was the last one worth a damn IMHO). I can understand a general not wanting to risk a court martial and possible loss of pension for speaking out against the CinC, but I personally think we are at a point where it really needs to be done. Obama won the election in large part due to Bush not listening to his generals - we will see if history repeats...

And as an aside, Project Confidence is not going to go over too well with the home crowd who can't think past lunch time today. That should be a fun sell...it's probably a good thing that nobody reads anymore.

Steve

Steve...I truly don't think I need instruction on the Constitution from you, buddy.

My comment reached beyond the current snafu...I'm also talking about how Obama tries to control what opponents say about his health care proposals and other issues. Actually, he's starting to remind me of Agnew. (ouch!)

As for the general's comments...seems to be a bit of mixed message from the Oval Office...they put him out there as their face for Afghanistan and to promote a troop buildup, but when they start encountering questions about that approach, especially from his own party, they then belatedly try to pull him back in.

THAT's what happens when too much attention is placed on controlling the message.

And don't come back with a Bush analogy...not even close. Bush's folks were pretty damn open about their thoughts, even as to their disputes, which is not a bad thing.

Again...please don't waste your good efforts on Constitutional teachings on me. It's sort of like talking to a plumber about how sh!t is created.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

Right Jamo, he can forget that next star.... I can sure remember the good old days when Rummy encouraged everyone to speak their mind about whatever they wanted without fear of retribution and not only encouraged descent but rewarded it....and Richard B. Meyers was DOD speak for BOTTOM...

Note my remarks to Steve...They (Obama et al) put him out there.

Also, Bush had an former area commander (Powell), "Rummy" and Cheney (and his dad) to rely on and listen to during those first few years of response in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm glad they didn't all agree...at least they knew what they were talking about. Many generals agreed with Bush...when you allow folks to disagree, the decision-maker is always going to have some folks who think his decision is wrong.

Obama has Oprah.

[Excaliber]

I've all ready made a case for why the public opinion may be flawed or without sufficient data, BUT, it's a system that seems to work pretty well for the most part (go figure).

In view of that I was not real happy with the view of the previous administration that the public didn't know what was best for them!

OK, maybe, but man that's a mean road to start to go down, red flags popping up all over the place.

[Chaplain]

The War on Terror and the War in Afghanistan are two different things while the first is global, the second is regional. We have to destroy Al Qaeda we have to defeat the Taliban. The problem is the Taliban are intermixed with the population and only come out to plant an IED or launch an attack when they think the outcome will make a political statement without any regard as to how many casualties they receive. It is a classical gorilla type insurgency. If we want to win, we're going to have to after them and sorry to say the people that are protecting them. Lastly, when you start to hear Kabul compared to Saigon (hasn't happened yet), meaning the fight has collapsed to protecting the capital it's over.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Steve...I truly don't think I need instruction on the Constitution from you, buddy.

My comment reached beyond the current snafu...I'm also talking about how Obama tries to control what opponents say about his health care proposals and other issues. Actually, he's starting to remind me of Agnew. (ouch!)

As for the general's comments...seems to be a bit of mixed message from the Oval Office...they put him out there as their face for Afghanistan and to promote a troop buildup, but when they start encountering questions about that approach, especially from his own party, they then belatedly try to pull him back in.

THAT's what happens when too much attention is placed on controlling the message.

And don't come back with a Bush analogy...not even close. Bush's folks were pretty damn open about their thoughts, even as to their disputes, which is not a bad thing.

Again...please don't waste your good efforts on Constitutional teachings on me. It's sort of like talking to a plumber about how sh!t is created.

Well, you tried to instruct me on computer networking and security once - so fair is fair...

I agree about this being one of Obamas failings, and it is something I have a rather large problem with this current administration on. They are very shortsighted and seem to be only able to handle the information needed for the soundbite. They rarely seem to plan a few moves ahead and anticipate something simple like a general being asked questions during the dog and pony show...so they try to control it after the fact.

Bush had a completely different set of problems that had more to do with the decision maker refining things to too simplistic a level, and not changing the strategy when it became painfully obvious that things were not working. His administration was more open about some things (and I agree that was good), but once the decision was made then discussion was over - not good if the decision needed to be modified.

Still - if Kerry had won he would still be pondering what the right thing to do would be...

Steve

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Chaplain

The War on Terror and the War in Afghanistan are two different things while the first is global, the second is regional. We have to destroy Al Qaeda we have to defeat the Taliban. The problem is the Taliban are intermixed with the population and only come out to plant an IED or launch an attack when they think the outcome will make a political statement without any regard as to how many casualties they receive. It is a classical gorilla type insurgency. If we want to win, we're going to have to after them and sorry to say the people that are protecting them. Lastly, when you start to hear Kabul compared to Saigon (hasn't happened yet), meaning the fight has collapsed to protecting the capital it's over.

Chaplain,
Go read MacChrystals report.

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Note my remarks to Steve...They (Obama et al) put him out there.

Also, Bush had an former area commander (Powell), "Rummy" and Cheney (and his dad) to rely on and listen to during those first few years of response in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm glad they didn't all agree...at least they knew what they were talking about. Many generals agreed with Bush...when you allow folks to disagree, the decision-maker is always going to have some folks who think his decision is wrong.

Obama has Oprah.

Gee....Jamo, the problem was he didn't listen to his Dad ....he even admitted it...saying he spoke to a higher power...how come you are indulging in these cheap shots ?? Oh well...I'll be back in a month or so to throw a few bombs...see ya...

[Dan40]

Bush this, Bush that! Bush is GONE! He is not coming back! He is so far gone he blew the political aspirations of the 'smart' brother, JEB, too!

Bush is history, period. Obummer is the CiC and he is lost in dreamland. He has no clue of reality. He wants reality to meet with his far left fantasy world. He NEEDS to deal with reality as it is but he has no clue and his "advisors" ALL come from the same fantasy dreamworld.
He doesn't even realize that he is still campaigning to be President and he hasn't an inkling how to actually BE President.

[Sharroll Celby]

First of all, I agree that Obama shoould not be President. I think his whole outlook stinks, as well as his policies, and I am glad I didnt vote for him.
Second, we are fighting TWO guerrilla-type wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are fighting with WWII-era methods. Christ, the enemies dont even wear uniforms, and hide behind the skirts and robes of the civilians.
With that said, I think we need to change our tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we should withdraw our troops to defensible positions, and get better INTEL on WHICH INDIVIDUALS we are actually fighting.
Third, we took Saddam Hussein, which was good and bad. Good, because he was a thug for many reasons already mentioned by others. BAD, because he was a thorn in Iran's side, and with Iraq out of the picture, we now have to deal with Iran.
We NEED to get better INTEL, and fight the guerrillas with our own guerrilla-type warfare. Our present methods of driving a military convoy down a road and having it blown up by IEDs just doesnt cut it. Never did and never will.

[Excaliber]

I like Obama myself and think he's doing a fine job! Doesn't mean I agree with all his policy decisions, that never happens with ANY president EVER for all the people all the time.

It has been suggested he is not getting the best recommendations from the best people, I disagree. For the most part, their just people some folks don't like. And then we wonder is he LISTENING to these recommendations? I have seen nothing to suggest his counsel on the war effort is anything less than the best the country has to offer! If he doesn't make a decision in 48 hours he is considered "wavering" and "undecisive". Gimme a break! The voices on what to do are many, the suggestions quite varied. PLEASE, take your time all ready! I like his considered and thoughtful approach when it comes to making an important decision like: Send in 40,000 troops or not? Send in more? Less? Let's not jump to any conclusions here I say! BUT people are dieing while he waits!!! Yeah, thats a drag, MORE people will die if he jumps to the wrong conclusion, it is "war" after all.

The "faults" of Obama, so often cited on THIS web site, ad nauseum, are largely without merit. In short, 90% of what you see here is BS spin, period! Those that dare to offer ANY kind of support for this or that Obama decision or policy are quickly ridiculed and labeled "Liberal". You could say that stems from a "herd mentality", maybe a circle jerk, Kool Aid drinkers, what ever the current negative label is the "herd" is using today to describe these so called "liberals". MABYE, they are the REAL independants amongst a bunch of replica independants!

I must say though:
THIS thread has been an exception. There has been some good dialog and not a lot of inflaming posts (until this one).

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

Gee....Jamo, the problem was he didn't listen to his Dad ....he even admitted it...saying he spoke to a higher power...how come you are indulging in these cheap shots ?? Oh well...I'll be back in a month or so to throw a few bombs...see ya...

You overestimate me...I can be as cheap and dirty as anyone here. Refences back to Bush in this thread are assinine (my intent in being so cheap)...Obama owns the war now.