The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87

Thread: A'stan: More Troops Needed

  1. #31
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #32
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,271

    Default

    Seems like this General does have a strategy ... and that concern for civilian casualties is definitely a departure from the approach of previous outsiders who have tried to "tame" A'stan.

    If I had to choose between the instincts of this man or Joe Biden to protect life and limb ...
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #33
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    One concept I would put forward as we discuss Afghanistan is that we need to avoid using undefined terms in any stated goals or missions. To say, "we will surely lose..." or "in order to win..." is very ambiguous, and open for misinterpretation, either intentional or not. Back to the old question, what is winning or losing?

    If losing means Al Qaeda takes over and bombs the US in one year killing millions, that is not acceptable. If losing means we pull out before a stable democracy, with less civil unrest than Pittsburgh is currently experiencing, then losing may not be so bad.

    Again, once this G20 pig roast is over, Mr. Obama needs to explain in clear, concise terms what our mission in Afghanistan is. Unless he can show that there is a clear and present danger to the United States or allies to justify the presidential war powers, then a brief period to allow the Congress to decide whether or not it wants to declare war on behalf of their constituent American citizens would be necessary. I do not EVER want to concede presidential war powers upon ANY sitting president except under existential crises. The power of the purse and power to declare war were kept out of the president's hands by a group of white-haired men who knew first hand what happens when too much power is vested in one person or branch of government.

    Actually, since he is advancing the concept of "global issues" and "global solutions", maybe his speech at the G20 would be the perfect place to lay out his vision and mission for Afghanistan, and if it includes war or occupation, employ a few other heads of state to support that mission.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #34
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,271

    Default

    dnf777
    If he's against the war, which was implicit in his campaign,
    I clearly remember O, in the debates, stating that we should not be in Iraq, and resources withdrawn from Iraq should be put in A'stan. He believed winning in A'stan was important then; and as late as March of this year; and implicitly also when he assigned McChrystal as the new man in charge for A'stan.

    Remember those TV commercials from a few years back? "Never let 'em see you sweat." I think you can see O sweating now. He thought he knew all the answers when he was on the outside looking in. Thank goodness he has an international expert like Joe Biden to help him out
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,271

    Default

    NY Times 9/25/09
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/op...html?th&emc=th

    The record suggests what Gen. Stanley McChrystal clearly understands — that only the full counterinsurgency doctrine offers a chance of success. This is a doctrine, as General McChrystal wrote in his remarkable report, that puts population protection at the center of the Afghanistan mission, that acknowledges that insurgencies can only be defeated when local communities and military forces work together.
    We have tried to fight the Afghan war the easy way, and it hasn’t worked. Switching now to the McChrystal strategy is a difficult choice, and President Obama is right to take his time. But Obama was also right a few months ago when he declared, “This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. ... This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
    It appears that McChrystal has engendered respect for his credibility in his area of expertise.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #36
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    One concept I would put forward as we discuss Afghanistan is that we need to avoid using undefined terms in any stated goals or missions. To say, "we will surely lose..." or "in order to win..." is very ambiguous, and open for misinterpretation, either intentional or not. Back to the old question, what is winning or losing?

    If losing means Al Qaeda takes over and bombs the US in one year killing millions, that is not acceptable. If losing means we pull out before a stable democracy, with less civil unrest than Pittsburgh is currently experiencing, then losing may not be so bad.

    Again, once this G20 pig roast is over, Mr. Obama needs to explain in clear, concise terms what our mission in Afghanistan is. Unless he can show that there is a clear and present danger to the United States or allies to justify the presidential war powers, then a brief period to allow the Congress to decide whether or not it wants to declare war on behalf of their constituent American citizens would be necessary. I do not EVER want to concede presidential war powers upon ANY sitting president except under existential crises. The power of the purse and power to declare war were kept out of the president's hands by a group of white-haired men who knew first hand what happens when too much power is vested in one person or branch of government.

    Actually, since he is advancing the concept of "global issues" and "global solutions", maybe his speech at the G20 would be the perfect place to lay out his vision and mission for Afghanistan, and if it includes war or occupation, employ a few other heads of state to support that mission.

    2 things:

    #1---When has "the Obama" ever succinctly and clearly stated his position on anything?
    He is Mr. Ambiguous!

    #2---With your military strategy & tactics expertise, which academy did you attend?


    stan b
    Stan b & Elvis

  7. #37
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    2 things:

    #1---When has "the Obama" ever succinctly and clearly stated his position on anything?
    He is Mr. Ambiguous!

    #2---With your military strategy & tactics expertise, which academy did you attend?


    stan b
    #1----When did I ever say he DID? I said he NEEDS TO. I said that about Bush, and same rules apply to Obama. Need CLEAR reasons to send our boys and girls into harms way.

    Again, once this G20 pig roast is over, Mr. Obama needs to explain in clear, concise terms what our mission in Afghanistan is. Unless he can show that there is a clear and present danger to the United States or allies to justify the presidential war powers, then a brief period to allow the Congress to decide whether or not it wants to declare war on behalf of their constituent American citizens would be necessary.

    #2----Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets --the largest supplier of Army Officers to the military throughout history. But that doesn't qualify me to expect clear mission objectives and justifications for sending our kids and dollars to war---being an American citizen who votes does!

    Do you disagree with what I said?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  8. #38
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Seems like this General does have a strategy ... and that concern for civilian casualties is definitely a departure from the approach of previous outsiders who have tried to "tame" A'stan.
    I'm sure it wasn't intended, but you perhaps give the impression that before McCrystal came along that the US was wily-nily killing civilians, and the notion of minimizing civilian casualites is some sort of novel approach.

    From the CBS article that Stan linked to above:

    The increased violence has resulted in 265 civilians killed in U.S. or coalition action in the past 12 months the general says, a situation that must stop if victory is to be attained.

    "This civilian casualty issue is much more important than I even realized. It is literally how we lose the war, or in many ways how we win it," McChrystal explained.
    The obligatory and obvious disclaimer: it sucks that we inadvertently kill any innocent civilians. But 256? In one year? That's insanely lower than I would have guessed, and in the grand scheme of things (i.e. ummm, this is a WAR), seems pretty praiseworthy that it's already that low.

    If McChrystal believes civilian casualties are the main reason that we're not winning, and that the main thrust of his strategy is to lower that number (likely at the expense of killing fewer bad guys and thus increasing the danger to our people), then I'm not too confident that we're going to eventually win. For the love of Pete, the Taliban and al Qaeda INTENTIONALLY kill more civilians than that in a given week or month with IEDs and assassination, and we're supposed to believe that Afghanis find that acceptable and our accidents are atrocities?!? They're either an incredibly stupid people or we have the absolute worst propoganda/public relations program in the history of warfare. Or McChrystal has completely misread the situation.


    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  9. #39
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    #1----When did I ever say he DID? I said he NEEDS TO. I said that about Bush, and same rules apply to Obama. Need CLEAR reasons to send our boys and girls into harms way.

    Again, once this G20 pig roast is over, Mr. Obama needs to explain in clear, concise terms what our mission in Afghanistan is. Unless he can show that there is a clear and present danger to the United States or allies to justify the presidential war powers, then a brief period to allow the Congress to decide whether or not it wants to declare war on behalf of their constituent American citizens would be necessary.

    #2----Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets --the largest supplier of Army Officers to the military throughout history. But that doesn't qualify me to expect clear mission objectives and justifications for sending our kids and dollars to war---being an American citizen who votes does!

    Do you disagree with what I said?
    I was not coming at you, I was standing next to you.

    Afgahnistan is a "lose-lose."

    This is a bad deal.

    Been there, done that regards,
    Stan b & Elvis

  10. #40
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869
    Stan b & Elvis

Similar Threads

  1. Troops depressed.....no direction
    By TXduckdog in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-09-2009, 10:40 AM
  2. Treats for Troops
    By Richard Halstead in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2009, 04:52 PM
  3. Yo Vicky...Christmas Greetings for the Troops
    By Uncle Bill in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 04:39 PM
  4. One more for the troops this 4th.
    By Uncle Bill in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 10:51 PM
  5. YOU Can Help The Troops and their Families! (GDG)
    By AmiableLabs in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 10:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •