Taliban vow to defeat Pakistan offensive
Fierce battles rage on second day of military’s assault
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33367064/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

At the same time we have General McChrystal telling us, send more troops or we could lose the war within the next 12 months.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

But Washington decides they are going to wait and see what is going on with the Afghan election? 

White House: No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-reckless-credible-afghan-government-place-white-house-says/

No wonder top NATO personnel have been bailing

UK general resigns, exposing gaps on Afghan policy

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLP483246

UK lawmaker resigns from defense post, criticizes government and NATO approach in Afghanistan

blog.taragana.com/n/uk-lawmaker-resigns-from-defense-post-criticizes-government-and-nato-approach-in-afghanistan-159001/

I don;t get it.. We have our generals telling us we need more troops fast or we lose the war, yet our officials say," lets wait and see what happens with the election." WTH? who cares at this point .. we  need to try and get this over, bring our boys home and sort out the election BS after we take care of the other business.  If we have to run another election so be it.. this should not take priority over winning the war.

There is a simple truth proven time and again for the last 2000 years.  Politicians don't know how to fight wars.

Originally posted by Cleffy

There is a simple truth proven time and again for the last 2000 years.  Politicians don't know how to fight wars.

Amen to that.  I swear, Washington is going to find a way to lose in Afghanistan.  All this quibbling that's going on right now sends a terrible message to both our troops and to our enemies.  It's our soldiers that I feel worst for.  They are going to pay for the politicians indecisiveness.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Cleffy

There is a simple truth proven time and again for the last 2000 years.  Politicians don't know how to fight wars.

 

Amen to that.  I swear, Washington is going to find a way to lose in Afghanistan.  All this quibbling that's going on right now sends a terrible message to both our troops and to our enemies.  It's our soldiers that I feel worst for.  They are going to pay for the politicians indecisiveness.

I'm going to jump off the rails and agree here. Politicians (even those with extensive military service) really don't know how to fight wars.

Maybe they don't want to win? 

1. Of course the Taliban will vow to defeat whoever faces them. What else were they going to say? 

It's good that we're starting to see successes in getting Pakistan to engage Taliban strongholds. It's important we keep redoubling our efforts in Pakistan for that purpose. So everything from the quadrupled missile drone attacks to recent legislation that demands an end to the Pakistan security and Taliban times are a step forward.

Getting Pakistan to do more than preserve its own state security for incremental moments is integral.

2. The very same report that requested more troops also cited problems with Afghanistan's government. Pakistan has a problem with corruption in Afghanistan's government. Our NATO allies in the very links you post cite corruption in Afghanistan's government as reasons for wanting backstep, so it's particularly, and extremely short-sighted to say things like "no wonder our NATO allies are bailing" when we're actually obliging to their interests and our own in fixing corruption in the Afghanistan government.

There's no competing interest between more troops and resolving the election and corruption within the government. Afterall, the purpose of troops is to bolster security and facilitate a -working- government.

Obama hasn't denied any troop requests, so there's no reason to treat the situation as if he did.

In general. How about actually reading McChrystal's report? You're quite a bit off by underwriting the importance of resolving the elections and what it means. McChrystal cites criminal behavior in all levels of the government as a chief enabler of the insurgency in Afghanistan, so obviously getting a government that's an ally against the enemy instead an enabler of is kind of an important step and apart of the strategy, nothing something antagonistic of it.

Originally posted by sepher

1. Of course the Taliban will vow to defeat whoever faces them. What else were they going to say? 

It's good that we're starting to see successes in getting Pakistan to engage Taliban strongholds. It's important we keep redoubling our efforts in Pakistan for that purpose. So everything from the quadrupled missile drone attacks to recent legislation that demands an end to the Pakistan security and Taliban times are a step forward.

Getting Pakistan to do more than preserve its own state security for incremental moments is integral.

2. The very same report that requested more troops also cited problems with Afghanistan's government. Pakistan has a problem with corruption in Afghanistan's government.

3. Our NATO allies in the very links you post cite corruption in Afghanistan's government as reasons for wanting backstep, so it's particularly, and extremely short-sighted to say things like "no wonder our NATO allies are bailing" when we're actually obliging to their interests and our own in fixing corruption in the Afghanistan government.

4. There's no competing interest between more troops and resolving the election and corruption within the government. Afterall, the purpose of troops is to bolster security and facilitate a -working- government.

5. Obama hasn't denied any troop requests, so there's no reason to treat the situation as if he did.

 

6. In general. How about actually reading McChrystal's report?

7.  You're quite a bit off by underwriting the importance of resolving the elections and what it means. McChrystal cites criminal behavior in all levels of the government as a chief enabler of the insurgency in Afghanistan, so obviously getting a government that's an ally against the enemy instead an enabler of is kind of an important step and apart of the strategy, nothing something antagonistic of it.

1. To that, I say, it's about fucking time. Pakistan has operated far too long trying to mollify the extremists in their nation while at the same time putting up a semblance of relations with the rational West. It was time for Pakistan to put up or shut up, and they wisely chose the right path. Especially since India, Pakistan's rival in the subcontinent, has its fair share of Muslims and has explicitly said they will have nothing to do with extremist Islam or the Taliban.

2. In this case, Pakistan does need to look in the mirror before it starts chucking out accusations of corruption in the Afgani government, especially considering that it (the Afghani one) is essentially a puppet regime when we're coming off an era where Musharraf was supported by the United States when he had zero interest in actual democracy or fair leadership.

3. Our NATO allies wanting to backstep is an understandable reaction. I don't condone it, but I understand it ... they're shit-ass scared. They have a lot higher Muslim population than we do, and most of them are very poor. They do not want to incite a religious riot in their slums by publicly endorsing a POV that seems to condone the secular Muslim puppet regime in Afghanistan being corrupt.

4. Thank you for pointing that out.

5. Bingo. People look at Obama not immediately acquiescing to McChrystal's wishes as some form of weakness, yet conveniently ignore that Bush (or, rather, Rumsfeld and Gates by proxy) routinely ignored their generals' requests. Not saying it's right, by any means -- the generals are far more in tune with what's happening on the ground than the people in Washington. Not saying that the generals' requests should automatically be met no questions asked -- the first rule of negotiating is to ask for more than you honestly expect to receive. However, Obama's feet have been held to the fire over McChrystal's requests FAR more than Bush ever was.

6. tl;dr. lol. I will read it later, when I have more time.

7. Thank you! Just saying "yay, we have a democracy, mission accomplished" isn't enough. Especially in a part of the world that, quite frankly, isn't 100% ready for American-style democracy.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Taliban vow to defeat Pakistan offensive
Fierce battles rage on second day of military’s assault
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33367064/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

At the same time we have General McChrystal telling us, send more troops or we could lose the war within the next 12 months.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

But Washington decides they are going to wait and see what is going on with the Afghan election? 

White House: No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-reckless-credible-afghan-government-place-white-house-says/

No wonder top NATO personnel have been bailing

UK general resigns, exposing gaps on Afghan policy

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLP483246

UK lawmaker resigns from defense post, criticizes government and NATO approach in Afghanistan

blog.taragana.com/n/uk-lawmaker-resigns-from-defense-post-criticizes-government-and-nato-approach-in-afghanistan-159001/

I don;t get it.. We have our generals telling us we need more troops fast or we lose the war, yet our officials say," lets wait and see what happens with the election." WTH? who cares at this point .. we  need to try and get this over, bring our boys home and sort out the election BS after we take care of the other business.  If we have to run another election so be it.. this should not take priority over winning the war.

 

 

The problem is:  Sun Tzu is required reading for our Military Officers but not our politicians

Although technology in warfare changes, basic philosophy and strategies do not and history has taught us that not heeding these principles by the loosing side (WW2 -Germany, Vietnam -USA ,US Civil War -CSA ...etc.) is like a roadmap of their demise to the quatrains of "The ART of WAR" by Sun Tzu

 There is even a History channel documentary that gives play by play of the accounts of the documented downturns of these wars and the quatrain that lists the example

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by deviliscious

Taliban vow to defeat Pakistan offensive
Fierce battles rage on second day of military’s assault
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33367064/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

At the same time we have General McChrystal telling us, send more troops or we could lose the war within the next 12 months.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

But Washington decides they are going to wait and see what is going on with the Afghan election? 

White House: No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-reckless-credible-afghan-government-place-white-house-says/

No wonder top NATO personnel have been bailing

UK general resigns, exposing gaps on Afghan policy

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLP483246

UK lawmaker resigns from defense post, criticizes government and NATO approach in Afghanistan

blog.taragana.com/n/uk-lawmaker-resigns-from-defense-post-criticizes-government-and-nato-approach-in-afghanistan-159001/

I don;t get it.. We have our generals telling us we need more troops fast or we lose the war, yet our officials say," lets wait and see what happens with the election." WTH? who cares at this point .. we  need to try and get this over, bring our boys home and sort out the election BS after we take care of the other business.  If we have to run another election so be it.. this should not take priority over winning the war.

 

 

The problem is:  Sun Tzu is required reading for our Military Officers but not our politicians

Although technology in warfare changes, basic philosophy and strategies do not and history has taught us that not heeding these principles by the loosing side (WW2 -Germany, Vietnam -USA ,US Civil War -CSA ...etc.) is like a roadmap of their demise to the quatrains of "The ART of WAR" by Sun Tzu

 There is even a History channel documentary that gives play by play of the accounts of the documented downturns of these wars and the quatrain that lists the example

It does amaze me that Sun Tzu is not required reading for anyone who even thinks about sending troops off to war.

And I think I've seen that HC doc, and it was very, very good.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by sepher

1. Of course the Taliban will vow to defeat whoever faces them. What else were they going to say? 

It's good that we're starting to see successes in getting Pakistan to engage Taliban strongholds. It's important we keep redoubling our efforts in Pakistan for that purpose. So everything from the quadrupled missile drone attacks to recent legislation that demands an end to the Pakistan security and Taliban times are a step forward.

Getting Pakistan to do more than preserve its own state security for incremental moments is integral.

2. The very same report that requested more troops also cited problems with Afghanistan's government. Pakistan has a problem with corruption in Afghanistan's government.

3. Our NATO allies in the very links you post cite corruption in Afghanistan's government as reasons for wanting backstep, so it's particularly, and extremely short-sighted to say things like "no wonder our NATO allies are bailing" when we're actually obliging to their interests and our own in fixing corruption in the Afghanistan government.

4. There's no competing interest between more troops and resolving the election and corruption within the government. Afterall, the purpose of troops is to bolster security and facilitate a -working- government.

5. Obama hasn't denied any troop requests, so there's no reason to treat the situation as if he did.

 

6. In general. How about actually reading McChrystal's report?

7.  You're quite a bit off by underwriting the importance of resolving the elections and what it means. McChrystal cites criminal behavior in all levels of the government as a chief enabler of the insurgency in Afghanistan, so obviously getting a government that's an ally against the enemy instead an enabler of is kind of an important step and apart of the strategy, nothing something antagonistic of it.

1. To that, I say, it's about fucking time. Pakistan has operated far too long trying to mollify the extremists in their nation while at the same time putting up a semblance of relations with the rational West. It was time for Pakistan to put up or shut up, and they wisely chose the right path. Especially since India, Pakistan's rival in the subcontinent, has its fair share of Muslims and has explicitly said they will have nothing to do with extremist Islam or the Taliban.

2. In this case, Pakistan does need to look in the mirror before it starts chucking out accusations of corruption in the Afgani government, especially considering that it (the Afghani one) is essentially a puppet regime when we're coming off an era where Musharraf was supported by the United States when he had zero interest in actual democracy or fair leadership.

3. Our NATO allies wanting to backstep is an understandable reaction. I don't condone it, but I understand it ... they're shit-ass scared. They have a lot higher Muslim population than we do, and most of them are very poor. They do not want to incite a religious riot in their slums by publicly endorsing a POV that seems to pigeonhole the secular Muslim puppet regime in Afghanistan as corrupt.

4. Thank you for pointing that out.

5. Bingo. People look at Obama not immediately acquiescing to McChrystal's wishes as some form of weakness, yet conveniently ignore that Bush (or, rather, Rumsfeld and Gates by proxy) routinely ignored their generals' requests. Not saying it's right, by any means -- the generals are far more in tune with what's happening on the ground than the people in Washington. Not saying that the generals' requests should automatically be met no questions asked -- the first rule of negotiating is to ask for more than you honestly expect to receive. However, Obama's feet have been held to the fire over McChrystal's requests FAR more than Bush ever was.

6. tl;dr. lol. I will read it later, when I have more time.

7. Thank you! Just saying "yay, we have a democracy, mission accomplished" isn't enough. Especially in a part of the world that, quite frankly, isn't 100% ready for American-style democracy.

1. Yep.

McChrystal's report also very clearly states that a majority of Afghanistan doesn't want the Taliban back in power. India has been placated by Karzai, the rest of the international community worries about him, I'm currently liking the US idea of imposing a chief executive to handle the day to day operations in Kabul alongside American mentors; the same thing we employed early in Iraq.

One more reason though the elections have to resolve, it doesn't matter who wins so much as the win is seen as legitimate, we aren't depending on whomever is President if we go through with the above plan.

2. Yeah. We signed a new aide package recently as well that calls for an end of Pakistani support to certain militant groups. It's good that Obama's been willing to confront the ISI issue head on, and do more than write blank checks. In the past we've been giving Pakistan untraceable direct transfers that Musharraf spent as he pleased, this time the money is being appropriated out of our own embassy in Islamabad contingent upon our State department seeing no issues with the conditions set forth like Pakistan's security ties to militants.

Another heavy-handed move on the US's part, but necessary.

3. Yep. But as pointed out by the article devil herself linked, they cite corruption in Afghanistan's government as a big reason for backpedaling from Afghanistan. So long as the elections are resolved and we insist removing criminality from the government, in ways akin to what I mentioned above, we do our part in restoring faith to the mission. A dependable Afghan government is apart of that mission.

5. It's just important that critics of Obama's apparent 'indecisiveness' not be short-sighted about McChrystal's report. He very clearly states in it that resources alone aren't the "crux" of whether or not the mission succeeds. He also redefines the mission in Afghanistan as largely one of winning the favor of the people. Obviously aide is necessary for that, and security before that, and more troops and resources before that. Having an actual government to work with is important, so chiefly my problem with the original post was the insinuation that resolving the elections somehow was insignificant in the grand scheme of things rather than a very central issue.

7. Yep!

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by deviliscious

Taliban vow to defeat Pakistan offensive
Fierce battles rage on second day of military’s assault
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33367064/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

At the same time we have General McChrystal telling us, send more troops or we could lose the war within the next 12 months.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

But Washington decides they are going to wait and see what is going on with the Afghan election? 

White House: No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-reckless-credible-afghan-government-place-white-house-says/

No wonder top NATO personnel have been bailing

UK general resigns, exposing gaps on Afghan policy

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLP483246

UK lawmaker resigns from defense post, criticizes government and NATO approach in Afghanistan

blog.taragana.com/n/uk-lawmaker-resigns-from-defense-post-criticizes-government-and-nato-approach-in-afghanistan-159001/

I don;t get it.. We have our generals telling us we need more troops fast or we lose the war, yet our officials say," lets wait and see what happens with the election." WTH? who cares at this point .. we  need to try and get this over, bring our boys home and sort out the election BS after we take care of the other business.  If we have to run another election so be it.. this should not take priority over winning the war.

 

 

The problem is:  Sun Tzu is required reading for our Military Officers but not our politicians

Although technology in warfare changes, basic philosophy and strategies do not and history has taught us that not heeding these principles by the loosing side (WW2 -Germany, Vietnam -USA ,US Civil War -CSA ...etc.) is like a roadmap of their demise to the quatrains of "The ART of WAR" by Sun Tzu

 There is even a History channel documentary that gives play by play of the accounts of the documented downturns of these wars and the quatrain that lists the example

It does amaze me that Sun Tzu is not required reading for anyone who even thinks about sending troops off to war.

And I think I've seen that HC doc, and it was very, very good.

Wow ..we agreed on something ,I am awestruck.

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by deviliscious

Taliban vow to defeat Pakistan offensive
Fierce battles rage on second day of military’s assault
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33367064/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

At the same time we have General McChrystal telling us, send more troops or we could lose the war within the next 12 months.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

But Washington decides they are going to wait and see what is going on with the Afghan election? 

White House: No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-reckless-credible-afghan-government-place-white-house-says/

No wonder top NATO personnel have been bailing

UK general resigns, exposing gaps on Afghan policy

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLP483246

UK lawmaker resigns from defense post, criticizes government and NATO approach in Afghanistan

blog.taragana.com/n/uk-lawmaker-resigns-from-defense-post-criticizes-government-and-nato-approach-in-afghanistan-159001/

I don;t get it.. We have our generals telling us we need more troops fast or we lose the war, yet our officials say," lets wait and see what happens with the election." WTH? who cares at this point .. we  need to try and get this over, bring our boys home and sort out the election BS after we take care of the other business.  If we have to run another election so be it.. this should not take priority over winning the war.

 

 

The problem is:  Sun Tzu is required reading for our Military Officers but not our politicians

Although technology in warfare changes, basic philosophy and strategies do not and history has taught us that not heeding these principles by the loosing side (WW2 -Germany, Vietnam -USA ,US Civil War -CSA ...etc.) is like a roadmap of their demise to the quatrains of "The ART of WAR" by Sun Tzu

 There is even a History channel documentary that gives play by play of the accounts of the documented downturns of these wars and the quatrain that lists the example

It does amaze me that Sun Tzu is not required reading for anyone who even thinks about sending troops off to war.

And I think I've seen that HC doc, and it was very, very good.

 

Wow ..we agreed on something ,I am awestruck.

It is a fundamental flaw in our discourse that people who are generally polar opposites find that they can never agree on anything, ever. Scubie, for as much as we are diametrically opposed, we probably agree on 60-70% of our positions. It's the 30-40% that we don't that are so contentious.

Originally posted by zzvicezz

Pakistan has been a good ally of the USA from the start in this.

 We overthrew Saddam Hussein and he was hung for Crimes Against Humanity. We defeated al Qaeda and their insurgent friends in Iraq. WE WON IRAQ. One of the great victories this nation has achieved in its history.

 Now onward to Victory in Afghanistan and wherever else the enemy may reside.

 

 ..and to hell with the leftist liars in this nation who are as much a threat to our troops as the al Qaeda terrorist they face on the battlefield is had we listened to them in 2005 the enemy would be in control of large parts of Iraq and MILLIONS of people would be dead.

 

 

 

/////

As for Obama..its been a damn month!..DECIDE what plan for VICTORY you are going to chose!...Quit dicking around!

VICTORY Obama..if you don't believe in it then get the hell out of the WH so someone who does can lead this great nation.

 

 

 

Yeah you leftist liars. Watch out.

Dude, there already are millions dead from both wars.

I'm really not quite sure what we are doing anymore in Iraq or Afghanistan. Can we just bring our men and women home already? This became a hassle years ago.

Pakistan may have said they were good allies, but up until now we've had to pressure them to attack the Taliban strongholds near their borders.

Full scale genocide against the Taliban and their supporters is the only option.

Amount dead: 655000 Iraqis

Amount Dead: 706,899 Afghanis
many more injured

U.S. Troops dead: 3853 (more than 9/11)

Yeah, yeah you can use that bullshit about the "left" undermining the military but actually the people control the military by extension. If a large portion of the country wants em back I can't falter the leadership for wanting them back. Heard that same shit during Vietnam.

These were two wars, especially Iraq, that we had no reason to fight. Caused extensive tax dollars and loss of innocent life. There really was no reason for it, it was not a just war. The basic premise behind Iraq: WMD's was proven false.

So who was our enemy that would be in control of large parts of Iraq in 2005?

It all comes down to: how many lives do you want to ruin to further your own political agenda. Sure, we won militarily in Iraq but are doing a terrible job trying to rebuild. Let the Iraqis rebuild themselves. Any fault of their own they can't trace back to us.

Originally posted by Precusor

Full scale genocide against the Taliban and their supporters is the only option.

If this is meant to be a joke it is not funny.

If this is not meant to be a joke I certainly hope you are not an American.

Let me just say one thing my american friends, don't pretend to have a clue about pakistan, the taliban or the current offensive. You really have NO idea... And what do I know? I have close links with high ranking officials in the army, some related to me others not. Believe me you have no freaking clue. I cba writing about this, it would take too much time but just don't pretend you have a clue. And don't just read the news papers....

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Let me just say one thing my american friends, don't pretend to have a clue about pakistan, the taliban or the current offensive. You really have NO idea... And what do I know? I have close links with high ranking officials in the army, some related to me others not. Believe me you have no freaking clue. I cba writing about this, it would take too much time but just don't pretend you have a clue. And don't just read the news papers....

"You have no clue" would've sufficed there. All the other words could've been used to explain in brief why you believe that if you're short on time.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by deviliscious

Taliban vow to defeat Pakistan offensive
Fierce battles rage on second day of military’s assault
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33367064/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

At the same time we have General McChrystal telling us, send more troops or we could lose the war within the next 12 months.

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

But Washington decides they are going to wait and see what is going on with the Afghan election? 

White House: No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-reckless-credible-afghan-government-place-white-house-says/

No wonder top NATO personnel have been bailing

UK general resigns, exposing gaps on Afghan policy

www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLP483246

UK lawmaker resigns from defense post, criticizes government and NATO approach in Afghanistan

blog.taragana.com/n/uk-lawmaker-resigns-from-defense-post-criticizes-government-and-nato-approach-in-afghanistan-159001/

I don;t get it.. We have our generals telling us we need more troops fast or we lose the war, yet our officials say," lets wait and see what happens with the election." WTH? who cares at this point .. we  need to try and get this over, bring our boys home and sort out the election BS after we take care of the other business.  If we have to run another election so be it.. this should not take priority over winning the war.

 

 

The problem is:  Sun Tzu is required reading for our Military Officers but not our politicians

Although technology in warfare changes, basic philosophy and strategies do not and history has taught us that not heeding these principles by the loosing side (WW2 -Germany, Vietnam -USA ,US Civil War -CSA ...etc.) is like a roadmap of their demise to the quatrains of "The ART of WAR" by Sun Tzu

 There is even a History channel documentary that gives play by play of the accounts of the documented downturns of these wars and the quatrain that lists the example

It does amaze me that Sun Tzu is not required reading for anyone who even thinks about sending troops off to war.

And I think I've seen that HC doc, and it was very, very good.

 

Wow ..we agreed on something ,I am awestruck.

 

It is a fundamental flaw in our discourse that people who are generally polar opposites find that they can never agree on anything, ever. Scubie, for as much as we are diametrically opposed, we probably agree on 60-70% of our positions. It's the 30-40% that we don't that are so contentious.

Yeah I know that most everone whether Liberal or Conservative leanings want the same things in life its just the way of going about it to achieve it longterm for a country that differ.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Let me just say one thing my american friends, don't pretend to have a clue about pakistan, the taliban or the current offensive. You really have NO idea... And what do I know? I have close links with high ranking officials in the army, some related to me others not. Believe me you have no freaking clue. I cba writing about this, it would take too much time but just don't pretend you have a clue. And don't just read the news papers....

 

"You have no clue" would've sufficed there. All the other words could've been used to explain in brief why you believe that if you're short on time.

True but then you get trolls n all that storming in... i'll explain later today when I've got more free time...

Originally posted by sepher

1. Of course the Taliban will vow to defeat whoever faces them. What else were they going to say? 

It's good that we're starting to see successes in getting Pakistan to engage Taliban strongholds. It's important we keep redoubling our efforts in Pakistan for that purpose. So everything from the quadrupled missile drone attacks to recent legislation that demands an end to the Pakistan security and Taliban times are a step forward.

Getting Pakistan to do more than preserve its own state security for incremental moments is integral.

2. The very same report that requested more troops also cited problems with Afghanistan's government. Pakistan has a problem with corruption in Afghanistan's government. Our NATO allies in the very links you post cite corruption in Afghanistan's government as reasons for wanting backstep, so it's particularly, and extremely short-sighted to say things like "no wonder our NATO allies are bailing" when we're actually obliging to their interests and our own in fixing corruption in the Afghanistan government.

There's no competing interest between more troops and resolving the election and corruption within the government. Afterall, the purpose of troops is to bolster security and facilitate a -working- government.

Obama hasn't denied any troop requests, so there's no reason to treat the situation as if he did.

 

In general. How about actually reading McChrystal's report? You're quite a bit off by underwriting the importance of resolving the elections and what it means. McChrystal cites criminal behavior in all levels of the government as a chief enabler of the insurgency in Afghanistan, so obviously getting a government that's an ally against the enemy instead an enabler of is kind of an important step and apart of the strategy, nothing something antagonistic of it.

I DID READ his report, and do not think you understood what I was saying. AS I stated above" if we have to run a new election so be it." Yes, the election is an important issue, and needs to be addressed, but you have to do BOTH at the same time. We cannot wait until investigations are over and we have stablized the government to take action. Preparing and deploying that many troops take time, and that is not something we have alot of right now.
 

We authorize the troops now, and work out the problems with their government AT THE SAME TIME, not put everything on hold and " wait and see" what happens ..

No, they have not denied troops, they have "delayed" them after being told  the war will be decided within the next 12 months.  Yes, the elections are important, but it isn't like we can't solve that at the same time.  These are not competing interests, no they should be  synchronized efforts.  Saying we need to wait to authorize the troops is like saying you can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Let me just say one thing my american friends, don't pretend to have a clue about pakistan, the taliban or the current offensive. You really have NO idea... And what do I know? I have close links with high ranking officials in the army, some related to me others not. Believe me you have no freaking clue. I cba writing about this, it would take too much time but just don't pretend you have a clue. And don't just read the news papers....

It is nice to see you 'round these parts of the forums again.

You are correct, we do know little of what is going on in Pakistan right now, I only hear from my family and friends serving in Afghanistan at the moment.  I know better than take the papers as truth in war, they just become propaganda machines for whatever the governments decides they want you to think is happening. I would love to hear your viewpoints on the Pakistan/ Taliban in Pakistan right now. The masses of people fleeing the situation there does not look good, I am hoping you will tell me it is is not as severe as it sounds.

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Let me just say one thing my american friends, don't pretend to have a clue about pakistan, the taliban or the current offensive. You really have NO idea... And what do I know? I have close links with high ranking officials in the army, some related to me others not. Believe me you have no freaking clue. I cba writing about this, it would take too much time but just don't pretend you have a clue. And don't just read the news papers....

I agree. We have web links to Fox News and other stupid news agencies. What does that tell you?

It is an unwinnable war.    Short of genocide, the way Genghis Khan conquered it, it just isn't going to happen.   Think about it, even after Genghis Khan ordered the destruction of whole cities, killing all men, women and children, and all living things including birds and animals - he still failed to completely conquer Afghanistan completely.   What makes the US think they are going to have a better chance.    The people of Afghanistan need to be left alone.    What we on the outside need to do is just monitor for terrorist camps being set-up and eliminate them when needed.   Other than that - let them people govern themselves.    We have no business being there.

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Let me just say one thing my american friends, don't pretend to have a clue about pakistan, the taliban or the current offensive. You really have NO idea... And what do I know? I have close links with high ranking officials in the army, some related to me others not. Believe me you have no freaking clue. I cba writing about this, it would take too much time but just don't pretend you have a clue. And don't just read the news papers....

 

"You have no clue" would've sufficed there. All the other words could've been used to explain in brief why you believe that if you're short on time.

True but then you get trolls n all that storming in... i'll explain later today when I've got more free time...

Please do! As someone whose instincts are always against military options, yet whose practical understanding of things sometimes makes him feel the opposite, I always want more knowledgeable opinions than my own.

Screw the trolls, share what you know :)