The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: More Confusion on Afgahnistan

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Not off hand, that's why I said "floated by the media". I HOPE it's NOT true, but if it is, certainly requires some noodling. I've been trying to track down some verification on that, as it made my head spin too. Sorry if it seemed like I was presenting that as fact.
    I wasn't attacking, just genuinely curious because that is extremely hard to believe...
    ________
    Head shop
    Last edited by ducknwork; 04-21-2011 at 06:02 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    In the NY Times today
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th
    Afghan War Debate Now Leans to Focus on Al Qaeda
    (I've done some "snipping", so some might feel I have left out important pieces. Feel free to discuss what I may have "snipped".)

    WASHINGTON — President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

    But the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials on Wednesday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.

    It remains unclear whether everyone in Mr. Obama’s war cabinet fully accepts this view. (I don't think it remains "unclear", baased on the following statements.) While Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has argued for months against increasing troops in Afghanistan because Pakistan was the greater priority, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have both warned that the Taliban remain linked to Al Qaeda and would give their fighters havens again if the Taliban regained control of all or large parts of Afghanistan, making it a mistake to think of them as separate problems.

    In reviewing General McChrystal’s request, the White House is rethinking what was, just six months ago, a strategy that viewed Pakistan and Afghanistan as a single integrated problem. Now the discussions in the White House Situation Room, according to several administration officials and outsiders who have spoken with them, are focusing on related but separate strategies for fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

    The official contrasted that with the Afghan Taliban, which the administration has begun to define as an indigenous group that aspires to reclaim territory and rule the country but does not express ambitions of attacking the United States. “When the two are aligned, it’s mainly on the tactical front,” the official said, noting that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan. (Only 100? are causing all this mayhem?)

    Another official, who also was authorized to speak but not to be identified, said the different views of Al Qaeda and the Taliban were driving the president’s review. “To the extent that Al Qaeda has been degraded, and it has, and to the extent you believe you need to focus on destroying it going forward, what is required going forward?” the official asked. “And to prevent it from having a safe haven?” (To me this clearly says that the Taliban & AQ cannot be viewed as "separate" from each other.)

    Mr. Obama has defined his mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan as trying “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and other extremist networks around the world.” But he made it clear during a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday that the larger goal behind the mission was to protect the United States. “That’s the principal threat to the American people,” he said.

    Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday that Mr. Obama’s “primary focus is on groups and their allies that can strike our homeland, strike our allies, or groups who would provide safe haven for those that wish to do that.” (Again, this would be the "connection" between AQ and T. At least the advisors are not minimizing the threat of AQ to U.S. safety, a mistake made before 9-11).

    Moreover, they suggest that the Taliban have no interest in letting Al Qaeda back into Afghanistan because that was what cost them power when they were toppled by American-backed Afghan rebels in 2001. (Seems a naive assumption. If the T regain power in A'stan, it is possible that their "limited" goals of control in A'stan would give them a taste for more power. They just might be more covert in the future about providing haven for AQ. We should not assume that the T are stupid, or lack thirst for greater power once they have "won out" on their own territory.)

    “The policy people and the intelligence people inside are having a big argument over this,” said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised Mr. Biden. “Is the Taliban a loose collection of people we can split up? Can we split the Taliban from Al Qaeda? If the Taliban comes back to power in parts of Afghanistan, are they going to bring Al Qaeda back with them?” (If the T believe that AQ can help them, I believe they would work with them.)

    “The kind of separation that existed between the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001 really doesn’t exist anymore,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised General McChrystal. “You have much more ideological elements in the Taliban. In the east, they’re really mixed in with Al Qaeda.” (Obviously there IS significant disagreement here about whether the T and AQ can be viewed as separate threats.)

    Frances Fragos Townsend, who was President George W. Bush’s homeland security adviser, said the two groups remained linked.
    “It’s a dangerous argument to assume that the Taliban won’t revert to where they were pre-9/11 and provide Al Qaeda sanctuary,” she said. Referring to General McChrystal, she added, “If you don’t give him the troops he asked for and continue with the Predator strikes, you can kill them one at a time, but you’re not going to drain the swamp.” (Interesting that this woman shares an opinion with Hillary I note, FWIW, that this woman is NOT one of O's advisors.)

    The meeting on Wednesday was Mr. Obama’s third with his full national security team. Another is scheduled for Friday to talk about Afghanistan and then a fifth is planned, possibly for next week. Mr. Gibbs said the president was still several weeks away from a decision. (I might be concerned that "several weeks" could end up being "several months". According to Gen. McC, time is definitely a factor.

    During the interim while O makes his decision, if I were an Afghani I'd be sitting on the fence WRT helping out the U.S. with any useful intelligence. I'd be wanting to wait and see whether the U.S. will abandon me before I make any commitment. If I help the U.S. and they walk out, the T would murder me and probably my whole family ... and probably in an ugly way. That seems logical to me. So, during this decision period (as mentioned in the first article that started this thread), the General's plans would be, IMO, "on hold" to a large degree due to lack of cooperation and confidence of John Q Afghani.
    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. #23
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    Listening to KYW News radio station on the way home in the car... latest comment was that O thinks that the T can/should have a place in the political future of A'stan; saying that the T and AQ are really not connected that much ... and that T not of much importance to U.S. safety.

    The gist that was coming across was that the General will not get the troops he's asking for.

    Just this AM, the NYT reported that the decision could take several weeks ... just hours later, someone is indicating that the decision really has been made? I think they were quoting Gibbs.
    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.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    From the NY Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th

    What I find disturbing is that while it was acknowledged early on that the goals in A'stan would not be easy to achieve, when that turns out to be as anticipated, they are surprised?! Did they really expect somebody to wave a magic wand and miraculously move a poor country ahead hundreds of years in a matter of months?

    In over 200 years, the US, itself, has not been able to solve it's own problems, yet we would expect to solve somebody else's in months?
    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. #25
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    From the NY Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th

    What I find disturbing is that while it was acknowledged early on that the goals in A'stan would not be easy to achieve, when that turns out to be as anticipated, they are surprised?! Did they really expect somebody to wave a magic wand and miraculously move a poor country ahead hundreds of years in a matter of months?

    In over 200 years, the US, itself, has not been able to solve it's own problems, yet we would expect to solve somebody else's in months?

    So true! And does anyone think that killing bin Laden, as good as it would feel, will solve ANYTHING related to terrorism in the world? In reality, granting him martyrdom may only embolden new young terrorists to step up. Terrorism in the 21st century is truly a global issue, with global solutions. Not all terrorists are going to assemble in desert camps, flying a flag, that we can flush out and destroy. They can operate anywhere there's a wi-fi. This is akin to fighting a cancer that's already spread throughout the entire body. I wish I had a solution, but I don't think sinking trillions of dollars, chasing shadows in the vast expanse of Afghanistan, at the cost of our blood and gold, as well as alientating potential allies in the region, is a good option.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  6. #26
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    So true! And does anyone think that killing bin Laden, as good as it would feel, will solve ANYTHING related to terrorism in the world? In reality, granting him martyrdom may only embolden new young terrorists to step up. Terrorism in the 21st century is truly a global issue, with global solutions. Not all terrorists are going to assemble in desert camps, flying a flag, that we can flush out and destroy. They can operate anywhere there's a wi-fi. This is akin to fighting a cancer that's already spread throughout the entire body. I wish I had a solution, but I don't think sinking trillions of dollars, chasing shadows in the vast expanse of Afghanistan, at the cost of our blood and gold, as well as alientating potential allies in the region, is a good option.

    You wouldn't because you have no conception of how those people look upon the importance of "saving face".
    Once the allies 'walk away' as you suggest, we WILL be fighting them on our soil. They will then have the real power to call us the infidels and cowards they believe we are; What your ilk has promoted us to be.

    Have you ever given this view a thought?

    On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: 'Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.' He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. ... The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama's own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it's McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged. The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm's-length use of cruise missiles, Predator drones and special ops. The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of 'counterterrorism' in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations. When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- 'counterinsurgency,' meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war. Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success. Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?" --columnist Charles Krauthammer

    How can something so obvious and important to this Nation be passed over by you leftists with such reckless abandon?

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  7. #27
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quite the contrary, UB. Anyone who understands their concept of "face" would not even mention using drones in warfare. They consider that one of the biggest forms of cowardice, and laugh at us for doing so. I don't agree with that, but jusy sayin' since you seem concerned about their "faces".

    After living in the middle east for 6 months, the one thing about their culture I learned was that most of us have NO STINKIN IDEA of their culture...especially those who profess to!

    Let me ask you this...why aren't we invading/occupying Yemen? What about Quatar? Iran? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Any country ending in -stan? There are undoubtedly islamic radicals harbored in all of these places. What is your and Mr. Krauthamer's strategy for rooting out and eradicating those people? What size army are we going to need to muster to occupy every terrorist-haven country? One million? Ten million? How much do we have to spend on these missions? One trillion? Five trillion? Where does it end, because it seems EVERY time there's an opportunity to wage war, we're told by the hawks it's either war, or cease to exist. Where does it end?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  8. #28
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Quite the contrary, UB. Anyone who understands their concept of "face" would not even mention using drones in warfare. They consider that one of the biggest forms of cowardice, and laugh at us for doing so. I don't agree with that, but jusy sayin' since you seem concerned about their "faces".

    After living in the middle east for 6 months, the one thing about their culture I learned was that most of us have NO STINKIN IDEA of their culture...especially those who profess to!

    Let me ask you this...why aren't we invading/occupying Yemen? What about Quatar? Iran? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Any country ending in -stan? There are undoubtedly islamic radicals harbored in all of these places. What is your and Mr. Krauthamer's strategy for rooting out and eradicating those people? What size army are we going to need to muster to occupy every terrorist-haven country? One million? Ten million? How much do we have to spend on these missions? One trillion? Five trillion? Where does it end, because it seems EVERY time there's an opportunity to wage war, we're told by the hawks it's either war, or cease to exist. Where does it end?

    You're right again. Time to tuck tail and just run and hide. I hope you find a safe spot. The current leadership will see to it you will have your way, and then we'll see how this oligarchy survives.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  9. #29
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    You're right again. Time to tuck tail and just run and hide. I hope you find a safe spot. The current leadership will see to it you will have your way, and then we'll see how this oligarchy survives.

    UB
    Ya know, that's a bunch of crap! If that's all the more intelligent response you can muster to a discussion on a major undertaking, which many experts are struggling with, there's no need to carry this on. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is ducking and running, or communist, or whatever your latest buzzword is.

    Have a nice day in your world.

    And I noticed that instead of answering any of the questions posed, you resorted to your standard bylines.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  10. #30
    Senior Member TXduckdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    So true! And does anyone think that killing bin Laden, as good as it would feel, will solve ANYTHING related to terrorism in the world? In reality, granting him martyrdom may only embolden new young terrorists to step up. Terrorism in the 21st century is truly a global issue, with global solutions. Not all terrorists are going to assemble in desert camps, flying a flag, that we can flush out and destroy. They can operate anywhere there's a wi-fi. This is akin to fighting a cancer that's already spread throughout the entire body. I wish I had a solution, but I don't think sinking trillions of dollars, chasing shadows in the vast expanse of Afghanistan, at the cost of our blood and gold, as well as alientating potential allies in the region, is a good option.
    I'm not so sure that actually killing and being able to verify it, Bin Laden might upset the house of cards.

    We'd certainly like to think so, anyway.

    You're dead on about terrorism in other areas, Yemen, etc.....there are threats everywhere.

    I'm with you on not having a solution...but I say we finish the job in Afghanistan.
    Train the dog, the ribbons will take care of themselves.

Similar Threads

  1. Afgahnistan?
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 02:46 PM
  2. Novice Trainer Confusion
    By foresterpoole in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-27-2009, 01:34 PM
  3. Prefix and suffix confusion
    By Jersey in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 01:16 PM
  4. Confusion about the DOW this week
    By Shayne Mehringer in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 05:17 PM
  5. "no" confusion on blinds
    By K92line in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

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