quote:

Originally posted by K_Freddie:
As in any scenario, the military wing is the last that you want to employ, and the first that you want to 'pull out'.

Pouring more troops in will continue 'your Vietnam', as I said many years ago when this started.

Essentially you have 2 scenarios
1) You can remain there and prolong the 'agony' while more of your personel become 'calateral damage'

2) Immediately pull out and let them sort themselves out, without your personel taking the damage.

Yeah! a lot of more people are going to die, but it will happen if you're there or not.


And NO.. 'Western Democracy' will never happen in the Middle East, so why bother enforcing it.

There is evidence that the scenarios you see are not the only ways it could go, as there is ample evidence that US objectives ('winning the war') can be acchieved. Consider the accounts of two US commanders who experienced success in improving the security situation in their respective areas of operation:
Major Vincent Heintz argues convincingly that only boots on the ground can improve the situation.

Cmdr. David Adams explains that the key to winning in Afghanistan is working with the tribes, and simply sending more troops isn't an answer in and of itself.

Both of these men were there, and saw the success that the correct strategy can bring. The war in Afghanistan will only be a 'Vietnam' if the US leadership chooses to make it one.

quote:

There is evidence that the scenarios you see are not the only ways it could go, as there is ample evidence that US objectives ('winning the war') can be acchieved.

Can you define what these objectives are? What would constitute 'winning'?

quote:

Major Vincent Heintz argues convincingly that only boots on the ground can improve the situation.

He doesn't convince me. Here's why:

quote:

I saw little evidence that the sheer size of an American presence will cause Afghans to resent us as an occupying force.

This is what happened in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Some smart man once said that on the most exalted throne we are seated on nothing but our own arse.

Indecision is a virus that can run through an army and destroy its will to win, or even to survive.

Indecision and thoughtful decision are two entirely different things..

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... During the campaign 0bama argued that Bush and Cheney had it all wrong, that Afghanistan was the truly essential campaign, and that the effort there had to be dramatically reinforced. In March, 0bama replaced the existing commander with his own hand-picked guy (McChrystal) and announced that his appointment marked a change in the way of doing business in Afghanistan. Six months later, McChrystal is being painted as an officer who suddenly "just doesn't get it".

What exactly suddenly happened to McChrystal's military acumen? Why did 0bama select him in the first place? Sorry, but it doesn't add up for me. I have the feeling that there is something else in play here.

First off DUHHH he won the election and got the full scoop.. You can plan all you want from the passenger seat.. but once you get behind the wheel.. and feel the road underneath you... weeeeellll.. It is another ball game.. sort of like Roy Schieder in "Jaws".. ("Your're gonna need a bigger boat..") In March of 09 it was reported in an interview with Margaret Warner of The News Hour that 80% of civilian deaths were caused by the Taliban.. However UN attributed 55% to the Taliban with 39% caused by coalition forces.. Two months later McChrystal was brought in.. and airstrikes were cut back considerably.. I am no mind reader.. but from what I know of the man's temperment perhaps he is trying to wait to see what happens in the run offs next week.. perhaps he is weighing all his options and trying to find the best solution that will save lives all around.. knowing that even if we "win" if we kill half the civilians in the process or leave half of them homeless and destitute.. more so than they already are.. that wont bode well for the future.. I don't know.. but I do know that he knows more than I do.. and just like when our previous CIC said "Sadaam has WMD etc etc etc" .. and "We have to fight the war on terror.." yadda yadda yadda inspite of that little voice that was saying.. "Waitaminnit.. How did we go from Osama did it to GET SADAAM!!! NOW!!!" and ..."... but hold up... AlQaida hates Sadaam.. they look at him as a despot and a man corrupted by the infidels.. " I said in the end... He is the CIC.. and Cheech & Chong not withstanding (Look like BS, Smell like BS, taste like .. must be BS.. good thing we no step in it.. _{yeah I know.. in the skit it was DS}) He probably knows more than me... Somehow I don't think I will be as far off the mark in this case as I was in the previous one..

P.S. He is also probably looking at what... a few centuries of history... going.. "Now.. now... now.. wait a minute here... let's .. let's just think this through ok..? "

quote:

Originally posted by Pudfark:

quote:

What exactly suddenly happened to McChrystal's military acumen? Why did 0bama select him in the first place? Sorry, but it doesn't add up for me. I have the feeling that there is something else in play here.

BLUTARSKI

Bingo!!! Well stated...

C'mon guys, us of all people being students of WWII should know that generals can come and go on the whim of the CiC with no real reasons needed. Just cause the great socialist satanic Obama is doing it this time doesn't make it a freakin conspiracy.

This thread seems to have a very heavy democrat/republican slant to it... much of the conflict arises from that. I would plea for people on both sides (many good brains, well informed, more or less disciplined)to consider the possibility that this dichotomy (repubs vs dems) is false and obscuring of truth. It is a real dynamic but is so far from the most important dynamic... to concentrate on it is to entirely miss the real thing... which is the rich and powerful taking advantage of their position to become even more rich and powerful... simple enough and repubs vs dems are both in it.... Sorry BC I see your hope but so far Obama rules as his predecessor, seeing the 'great game' playing out now, as a historian would, the basics are obvious.

For Afghanistan the basics seem clear enough (viewed historically):
- a negotiation between one of the great powers and a regional and geographically key country broke down. These negotiations were about access to dwindling oil reserves. Also that small country started choking off the (worldwide) supply of opium which had been for centuries a source of great power illicit funding. Invasion naturally followed.

??? what follows the unfolding of time will show.... who could say? Coming from a family with strong ties to the military I see with sadness Canada's death toll rising faster than ever. I fully support the troops and utterly condemn the war. Opium and pipelines are a sad reason to die or be maimed, for the same old great power BS

What message is Obama sending? Think of this, the troops are becoming aware that we are over there for great power goals and manueverings - the stated goals are not real. This is a bigger morale buster than Obama taking time to ponder more troops or not... think of a parallel. Roman legions fought clear eyed and cynical, paid to die if need be. No crap about saving the world for freedom or whatever the nonsense is... those legions knew their job was to maintain the frontier for the empire, period. Our boys are doing the same thing but they are asked to lie to themselves and each other about the whole thing, to swallow ridiculous lies about spreading democracy and freedom, saving women rights etc etc. There's your morale buster. Its opium, pipelines and Iran. We could be 200 years ago... except consequences and stakes are much higher now

I hear ya... I never thought that he would be the savior of the country.. and if you search through many of my posts you will see that.. The powers that be are giving up jack... we all know power concedes nothing without struggle.. and the time for that is long gone.. we had the moment in the 60s and it has passed.. I just get a little bent sometimes because it seems like so many want to think that, or at least act as if all this started with the current administration.. and these things have been in the works for decades.. probably since way before Jekyll Island although that was a truning point I think...

Fair enough BC. Jekyll Island would be about right i would agree, I see your eyes are open

If you search <my> posts you will see I have a pretty reasonable record of predictions (peak oil, 'economics' and the 'free market' as cover for robbery (ie the 'banking crisis'LOL), and more recently this nonsense/hysteria over Georgia, the Iranian election hysteria, others...). I too have impatience, as arrogant and cocky as I am I forget my fairly recent awakening to the realities of the world and expect all to be following as closely... most folks are more or less asleep and/or fixed and dilated on mostly the wrogn things - like repubs vs dems eg

BC reread your post and to counter your 'moment has passed' would suggest the founders of your nation forsaw this moment in their framing of your great constitution. That foresight is typified by Jefferson(? Madison...?) saying something like 'The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be refreshed by the blood of patriots". Apply the rule of law and the constitution as intended. The internet is a great tool, unique in history (for now, it is under threat).

History never repeats,and for <our> time the world is on many axes of change at once. Ecological, technological, energy, population, great power machinations, all these factors are acting simultaneously, many on tipping points, and what we are pleased to call 'politics' may become surprisingly fluid. Your federal state and municipal governments are being bankrupted simultaneously and the 'safety net' is dissolving. This means the time for bold men of good character to step forward in their lives and communities and help lead is coming.

Good luck and good hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Bearcat99:

quote:

Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Some smart man once said that on the most exalted throne we are seated on nothing but our own arse.

Indecision is a virus that can run through an army and destroy its will to win, or even to survive.

Indecision and thoughtful decision are two entirely different things..

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... During the campaign 0bama argued that Bush and Cheney had it all wrong, that Afghanistan was the truly essential campaign, and that the effort there had to be dramatically reinforced. In March, 0bama replaced the existing commander with his own hand-picked guy (McChrystal) and announced that his appointment marked a change in the way of doing business in Afghanistan. Six months later, McChrystal is being painted as an officer who suddenly "just doesn't get it".

What exactly suddenly happened to McChrystal's military acumen? Why did 0bama select him in the first place? Sorry, but it doesn't add up for me. I have the feeling that there is something else in play here.

First off DUHHH he won the election and got the full scoop.. You can plan all you want from the passenger seat.. but once you get behind the wheel.. and feel the road underneath you... weeeeellll.. It is another ball game.. sort of like Roy Schieder in "Jaws".. ("Your're gonna need a bigger boat..") In March of 09 it was reported in an interview with Margaret Warner of The News Hour that 80% of civilian deaths were caused by the Taliban.. However UN attributed 55% to the Taliban with 39% caused by coalition forces.. Two months later McChrystal was brought in.. and airstrikes were cut back considerably.. I am no mind reader.. but from what I know of the man's temperment perhaps he is trying to wait to see what happens in the run offs next week.. perhaps he is weighing all his options and trying to find the best solution that will save lives all around.. knowing that even if we "win" if we kill half the civilians in the process or leave half of them homeless and destitute.. more so than they already are.. that wont bode well for the future.. I don't know.. but I do know that he knows more than I do.. and just like when our previous CIC said "Sadaam has WMD etc etc etc" .. and "We have to fight the war on terror.." yadda yadda yadda inspite of that little voice that was saying.. "Waitaminnit.. How did we go from Osama did it to GET SADAAM!!! NOW!!!" and ..."... but hold up... AlQaida hates Sadaam.. they look at him as a despot and a man corrupted by the infidels.. " I said in the end... He is the CIC.. and Cheech & Chong not withstanding (Look like BS, Smell like BS, taste like .. must be BS.. good thing we no step in it.. _{yeah I know.. in the skit it was DS}) He probably knows more than me... Somehow I don't think I will be as far off the mark in this case as I was in the previous one..

P.S. He is also probably looking at what... a few centuries of history... going.. "Now.. now... now.. wait a minute here... let's .. let's just think this through ok..? "

..... BC, here is the sequence of events:

[1] 0bama and his people were fully briefed on Afghanistan by the outgoing Bush administration before the end of 2008.

[2] Three months later (Mar 09) the 0bama adminstration on its own initiative announced a change in both command and in Afghan war policy and appointed McChrystal to take over in that theater, citing his extensive record of military achievement in counter-insurgency operations.

[3] After several months in theater, McChrystal submitted a report back to Washington stating that a substantial increase in troops (40,000 to 60,000 men according to figures bandied about in the media) would be necessary to successfully carry out the new strategy.

[4] It has now been at least a month (that we know about) and 0bama has not responded.

[5] The press is carrying reports which are now portraying McChrystal as suddenly somehow out of touch with what is required in Afghanistan.


It is certainly possible to spin this in a million different ways, but only a few explanations really make any sense. My bet is that 0bama is fearful that his authorization of a large-scale commitment of additional troops to Afghanistan will alienate the left wing of his congressional support base at a time when he desperately needs them to advance his ambitious domestic agenda. 0bama is therefore stalling on the troop commitment decision and hoping that the onset of Afghan winter will put a halt to Taliban operations, as it usually does. Winter will then buy him some domestic political breathing space and put off the Afghan issue until next Spring.

I do not believe that this has anything to do with re-assessing tactics to save lives, etc, etc. That was the function of the new March 09 strategy which introduced very strict theater rules of engagement and severely curtailed the use of close air and artillery support in the vicinity of civilians.

In my last posting, I quoted what erco415 had written:

quote:

...there is ample evidence that US objectives ('winning the war') can be achieved.

I than asked whether soomeone could define what these objectives are and what would constitute 'winning'. It seems to me that there have been several postings from those opposed to hasty troop deployment suggesting what the military objectives are, but there has been no real input from those in favour of deployment. If these troops are to be put into action, is it not reasonable to ask why? A clear rationale for the deployment would seem a priority, and only then is discussion of numbers and tactics on the ground worthwhile.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
In my last posting, I quoted what erco415 had written:

quote:

...there is ample evidence that US objectives ('winning the war') can be achieved.

I than asked whether soomeone could define what these objectives are and what would constitute 'winning'. It seems to me that there have been several postings from those opposed to hasty troop deployment suggesting what the military objectives are, but there has been no real input from those in favour of deployment. If these troops are to be put into action, is it not reasonable to ask why? A clear rationale for the deployment would seem a priority, and only then is discussion of numbers and tactics on the ground worthwhile.

..... A fair question. I suspect that there is a very great deal about the strategic decision process that led to US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan that we do not know and probably will never know in my lifetime. My personal belief is that, although there were secondary factors which could justify intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan, these acts are really part of a coordinated overall campaign to isolate theocratic Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... A fair question. I suspect that there is a very great deal about the strategic decision process that led to US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan that we do not know and probably will never know in my lifetime. My personal belief is that, although there were secondary factors which could justify intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan, these acts are really part of a coordinated overall campaign to isolate theocratic Iran.

The objectives are simple...
1) Control the Oil supplies.
2) Place a puppet government - We've seen where this went - The cost was around 50 000 troops over 20 years. What's the current score?
3) The 3rd Crusade I think it is, and we all know that the first 2 Crusades ended up the creek.

Rather you than me

quote:

Originally posted by K_Freddie:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... A fair question. I suspect that there is a very great deal about the strategic decision process that led to US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan that we do not know and probably will never know in my lifetime. My personal belief is that, although there were secondary factors which could justify intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan, these acts are really part of a coordinated overall campaign to isolate theocratic Iran.

The objectives are simple...
1) Control the Oil supplies.
2) Place a puppet government - We've seen where this went - The cost was around 50 000 troops over 20 years. What's the current score?
3) The 3rd Crusade I think it is, and we all know that the first 2 Crusades ended up the creek.

Rather you than me

..... Fascinating, although it doesn't explain why the first country to sign a big oil deal with the new Iraqi government was China.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Fascinating, although it doesn't explain why the first country to sign a big oil deal with the new Iraqi government was China.

Consider that China is following the teaching of Sun Tzu, in that one gets someone else to do the fighting. The Middle Kingdom in this case, steps in to reap the benefits. Perhaps because the U.S. invasion and resulting Iraqi resentment towards American companies would give the Chinese an advantage with establishing business operations there. Also, their tendency of turning a blind eye to the repressive practices of whatever country they do business with would certainly give them an advantage.

Witness that they already have a contract with the Afghan government, and currently have copper mining operations there while NATO is currently doing the hard work. In other words: Use a situation to one's benefit, and weaken potential adversaries in the bargain. Note that one of the axioms of Sun Tzu is "Trade a colored tile for a jade." may apply in this situation.

Consider as well that China may seem to be 'passive' at the moment, but like a somewhat quiet river on the surface, the undercurrent could prove to be a problem. They might be supplying money and perhaps arms to the insurgents in Afghanistan in the same way they did in Viet Nam, and the way the U.S. did when the Soviet Union were occupying Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Fascinating, although it doesn't explain why the first country to sign a big oil deal with the new Iraqi government was China.

Consider that China is following the teaching of Sun Tzu, in that one gets someone else to do the fighting. The Middle Kingdom in this case, steps in to reap the benefits. Witness that they already have a contract with the Afghan government, and currently have copper mining operations there while NATO is currently doing the hard work. In other words: Use a situation to one's benefit, and weaken potential adversaries in the bargain. Note that one of the axioms of Sun Tzu is "Trade a colored tile for a jade." may apply in this situation.

..... Interesting. I wasn't aware of the Chinese dealings in Afghanistan. As far as claims about US foreign plots to "control the oil supply" are concerned, I find them uproariously hilarious. Exactly what foreign oil sources do we "control"? Did we control OPEC in 1974? Did we control Iran in 1979? Do we control Nicaragua or Venezuela? Canada?, Russia?, UK?, Norway? Borneo? Nigeria?