Why Continue War in Afghanistan?

[mundame]

<FORM action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">Defense Secretary Gates Says U.S. Intends to Boost Combat Forces in Afghanistan Next Year (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346388,00.html)</FORM>
<FORM action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">

</FORM><FORM action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">Friday, April 04, 2008
</FORM>http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. intends to send many more combat forces to Afghanistan next year, regardless of whether troop levels in Iraq are reduced further.
************************************************** *

So why bother? Bin Laden is long gone, years gone, maybe in Pakistan but we don't go in there after him.

Why bother the Afghans? Our war has made no positive changes --- they have upped their opium poppy growing considerably, they burn all the girls' schools, women still have to wear burkas, the Taliban just lurks on bases right over the Pakistan border and strikes at the NATO forces.

Most of the NATO forces won't fight at all, and few have any appreciable numbers there ------ they expect us to do it all because they simply don't care about this fight. They don't believe in it. France and their useless 700 troops they promised to send yesterday ---- the French troops don't fight at all! They hang out in Kabul, that's it.

Seems to me if we ever get out of Iraq, this mess in Afghanistan is the next big thing to protest. It's pointless, it's losing, and it's all on us. Anyone agree?

[DragonStryk72]

I agree, but on different grounds: We are not the world's police. Yes, we need to pursue Bin Laden, he made an actual attack against us, and if that means into Pakistan we go, then spot on.

Personally, I think we should just send in SEAL teams and such, and let them go play against AQ. Aside from that, we need to start closing down our foreign Military bases, and bring our people home. Nationbuilding is a failure, and has been for some time now.

Let the world take care of their own countries, we wouldn't be having nearly the level of trouble we're having now if we would simply stop trying to 'fix' everything. countries rise and fall, this is the natural way of things.

[mundame]

I agree, but on different grounds: We are not the world's police. Yes, we need to pursue Bin Laden, he made an actual attack against us, and if that means into Pakistan we go, then spot on.

Personally, I think we should just send in SEAL teams and such, and let them go play against AQ. Aside from that, we need to start closing down our foreign Military bases, and bring our people home. Nationbuilding is a failure, and has been for some time now.

Let the world take care of their own countries, we wouldn't be having nearly the level of trouble we're having now if we would simply stop trying to 'fix' everything. countries rise and fall, this is the natural way of things.


Agreed, generally.

One of the biggest reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was his "no nationbuilding." [Sigh] THAT's been a disappointment!

[Pale Rider]

I agree, but on different grounds: We are not the world's police. Yes, we need to pursue Bin Laden, he made an actual attack against us, and if that means into Pakistan we go, then spot on.

Personally, I think we should just send in SEAL teams and such, and let them go play against AQ. Aside from that, we need to start closing down our foreign Military bases, and bring our people home. Nationbuilding is a failure, and has been for some time now.

Let the world take care of their own countries, we wouldn't be having nearly the level of trouble we're having now if we would simply stop trying to 'fix' everything. countries rise and fall, this is the natural way of things.

ITA... but I don't know where the Defense Secretary thinks he's going to get any troops to send in Afganistan. Is he going to shit some troops. Practically everything we have is tied up in Iraq, and it's wearing out... people, equipment... so this is just what a I love to hear, we're going to start invading ANOTHER country when there's really no way we can do it.

I'll tell ya... we got some real winners running our shit right now... :talk2hand:

[Gaffer]

We did nation building in Germany, we did it in Japan. We did it in S. Korea and Italy. While those countries don't always agree with us, they are not a direct threat to us.

Nation building is not something you do over night. It takes decades. The result is a friendly ally and trade partner. Eliminating threats to our security.

Afgan, like iraq is a place AQ and iran want to control. These countries would become bases of operations. Funded in the case of iraq by oil, in the case of Afgan by heroin. Places to train, equip and attack from.

In Afgan's case the only way you could control what goes on there is to outlaw islam. The government there would have to do that. Things have improved there. Inspite of the media's lack of reporting on it. Women are not repressed and executed as they were. Attacks on people are being carried out by taliban not average mo's on the street. And nothing is going to be secure there until we go into pakistan and clear out all the taliban and AQ bases. There is also the iranians who are supplying the taliban with weapons and money. Caravans have been captured with the evidence.

Afgan is a prime example of what NATO has become. As useless as the un. The nato countries supply the minimum expected of them and nothing more. The US has to send more troops there because the nato countries won't.

There are operations going on in somolia and other parts of north africa. Also the Philippines. Clandestine ops are going on world wide. You would be flabbergasted to see the extent of the actual war. You think SEAL teams are not operating in pakistan?

Pulling out of any place is just giving up. We are at war. Even though it doesn't seem like it to most people sitting comfortably in their homes and going about their business unmolested. But that is the case. Those bases in other countries and troops in combat zones are what allow you to go about your business. They are what allows you to get on here and spout about how the bases should be closed and the troops brought home.

The war is a big picture puzzle, the size of a ping pong table. And you have one piece. Can you really determine what the picture looks like from that piece?

[Pale Rider]

The US has to send more troops there because the nato countries won't.
And where is the US going to GET more troops? Star Ship Enterprises replicator? How about a draft? Because right now... THERE ARE NO MORE TROOPS! There is no more equipment. 95% of it is in Iraq, and it's all wearing out. Have you seen the equipment grave yards lately? They're growing FAR more rapidly than any of the equipment is being replaced. Most heavy fighting equipment is refurbished and replaced in times of peace. Well... forget that as long as we have a war monger in the White House. We will be all but in capable of waging a war ANYWHERE if we keep up the present pace in another then years.


There are operations going on in somolia and other parts of north africa. Also the Philippines. Clandestine ops are going on world wide. You would be flabbergasted to see the extent of the actual war. You think SEAL teams are not operating in pakistan?
Not like you think.


Pulling out of any place is just giving up. We are at war. Even though it doesn't seem like it to most people sitting comfortably in their homes and going about their business unmolested. But that is the case. Those bases in other countries and troops in combat zones are what allow you to go about your business. They are what allows you to get on here and spout about how the bases should be closed and the troops brought home.

The war is a big picture puzzle, the size of a ping pong table. And you have one piece. Can you really determine what the picture looks like from that piece?
This "war" will be the end of America. We - can't - afford - it.

[bullypulpit]

<FORM action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">Defense Secretary Gates Says U.S. Intends to Boost Combat Forces in Afghanistan Next Year (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346388,00.html)</FORM>
<FORM action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">

</FORM><FORM action=/cgi-bin/email.cgi method=post _extended="true">Friday, April 04, 2008
</FORM>http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. intends to send many more combat forces to Afghanistan next year, regardless of whether troop levels in Iraq are reduced further.
************************************************** *

So why bother? Bin Laden is long gone, years gone, maybe in Pakistan but we don't go in there after him.

Why bother the Afghans? Our war has made no positive changes --- they have upped their opium poppy growing considerably, they burn all the girls' schools, women still have to wear burkas, the Taliban just lurks on bases right over the Pakistan border and strikes at the NATO forces.

Most of the NATO forces won't fight at all, and few have any appreciable numbers there ------ they expect us to do it all because they simply don't care about this fight. They don't believe in it. France and their useless 700 troops they promised to send yesterday ---- the French troops don't fight at all! They hang out in Kabul, that's it.

Seems to me if we ever get out of Iraq, this mess in Afghanistan is the next big thing to protest. It's pointless, it's losing, and it's all on us. Anyone agree?

Why continue with a military presence in Afghanistan? Simple. In his desire to work off his chubby for Saddam, Bush left the job in Afghanistan unfinished. As result the Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped, rearmed and rebuilt to a point that they are nearly at, or above, their pre 9/11 levels. Thank you, President Bush.

[Gaffer]

And where is the US going to GET more troops? Star Ship Enterprises replicator? How about a draft? Because right now... THERE ARE NO MORE TROOPS! There is no more equipment. 95% of it is in Iraq, and it's all wearing out. Have you seen the equipment grave yards lately? They're growing FAR more rapidly than any of the equipment is being replaced. Most heavy fighting equipment is refurbished and replaced in times of peace. Well... forget that as long as we have a war monger in the White House. We will be all but in capable of waging a war ANYWHERE if we keep up the present pace in another then years.


Not like you think.


This "war" will be the end of America. We - can't - afford - it.

95% of our equipment is NOT in iraq. About 10% is there. The equipment is over hauled and repaired as needed in theater. Equipment is placed in the "graveyards" to preserve it for future use. That's why those graveyards are located in dry climates so it doesn't erode. Old equipment that is decommissioned is placed there because something better has replaced it.

As I said in other posts, this is a war with islam, it's going to go on for a long time. Until islam or the west is eliminated. Over the years there will be heavy fighting in certain areas and periods of relative peace. Get use to it. It's going to be a long war. Made longer by the pc attitude that runs this country and the whiny, we need to pull out now people.

This war very well could be the end of America. Because we are low on real fighting spirit and the sense to do what is right. The government is full of wimpy politicians who are only interested in their own personal power and party affiliations.

As I said before, iraq is a front in a much larger war. It's a propaganda tool for the media and politicians. If we weren't in iraq afgan would be the target of the left and their media goons.

[mundame]

If we weren't in iraq afgan would be the target of the left and their media goons.


That's what I said. From a different perspective.

When we finally drag ourselves out of Iraq, the protests and anger will switch immediately to Afghanistan, in my opinion. (And yours, Gaffer.)

And why? Because Afghanistan has been botched by Bush just as badly as Iraq was. He failed to bother to catch bin Laden, who has had a healthy video career all these years since, inspiring bombings all over the world. He fails to bother to take down the Taliban camps inside Pakistan, so they simply strike repeatedly at any forces fighting on our side in Afghanistan.

This does not include forces from most NATO nations, who mostly just sit in Kabul and drink, because no one in Europe believes in all this nonsense going on there, and I don't either.

It would be worthwhile to blast the Taliban camps and find and obliterate bin Laden and his lot. But hanging around Afghanistan not doing much of anything for years? No, I don't believe in that, either. The whole situation is pointless, as far as I can see.

The only reason the American people have tolerated it this long is that not as many Americans are being killed as they are in Iraq.

[Dilloduck]

That's what I said. From a different perspective.

When we finally drag ourselves out of Iraq, the protests and anger will switch immediately to Afghanistan, in my opinion. (And yours, Gaffer.)

And why? Because Afghanistan has been botched by Bush just as badly as Iraq was. He failed to bother to catch bin Laden, who has had a healthy video career all these years since, inspiring bombings all over the world. He fails to bother to take down the Taliban camps inside Pakistan, so they simply strike repeatedly at any forces fighting on our side in Afghanistan.

This does not include forces from most NATO nations, who mostly just sit in Kabul and drink, because no one in Europe believes in all this nonsense going on there, and I don't either.

It would be worthwhile to blast the Taliban camps and find and obliterate bin Laden and his lot. But hanging around Afghanistan not doing much of anything for years? No, I don't believe in that, either. The whole situation is pointless, as far as I can see.

The only reason the American people have tolerated it this long is that not as many Americans are being killed as they are in Iraq.

If something is "botched" why do we need to give up trying? If I gave up on every job I did because I botched it, I would never accomplish a thing. Are you really tryin to say that we should never involve ourselves in anything outside of our borders ?

[mundame]

If something is "botched" why do we need to give up trying? If I gave up on every job I did because I botched it, I would never accomplish a thing. Are you really tryin to say that we should never involve ourselves in anything outside of our borders ?


I think we should win a war if we start it at all.

Going in on the cheap and hoping it will be quick and easy and then when it isn't persevering for years more with a steadily deteriorating military ------


Nope, I'd say pull out, rethink it all, repair the military in case, God forbid, we actually NEED it some day!!

I am becoming worried at the severely broken quality of our military, for one thing. How they have to take really dumb people with prison records, lower standards every year, because more able men won't sign up.

I remember the last time the U.S. military was viewed with contempt by most of the nation -- after Vietnam -- and we were pretty much inactivated for three decades. This isn't working out. We've destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan enough for a good lesson in the inadvisability of bombing New York, I'd say --- and there IS value to that lesson. Let's pull out and regroup, try to figure out how to wage war without losing all the time so we can do it right if we have to.

[theHawk]

I wouldn't have a problem with a full withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, but only if we nuke'em from pillar to post to ensure they cannot regroup and attack in the near future.

[Gaffer]

I think we should win a war if we start it at all.

Going in on the cheap and hoping it will be quick and easy and then when it isn't persevering for years more with a steadily deteriorating military ------


Nope, I'd say pull out, rethink it all, repair the military in case, God forbid, we actually NEED it some day!!

I am becoming worried at the severely broken quality of our military, for one thing. How they have to take really dumb people with prison records, lower standards every year, because more able men won't sign up.

I remember the last time the U.S. military was viewed with contempt by most of the nation -- after Vietnam -- and we were pretty much inactivated for three decades. This isn't working out. We've destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan enough for a good lesson in the inadvisability of bombing New York, I'd say --- and there IS value to that lesson. Let's pull out and regroup, try to figure out how to wage war without losing all the time so we can do it right if we have to.

You would have been a great aid for Gen George McClellan during the civil war.

The standards of the military are not lower. They do not take dumb people, You do have to pass their tests to get in. And a prison record will keep you out of the military period.

If you think we have done enough and need to pull out now your a fool. The islamists are not going to stop just because we went and took out a few bases and supporting countries. They are pulling back and regrouping. And as soon as we relax they will strike again. They are not logical and they do not think in terms of having a better life and a future for their children. They do not think as you do. Their sole goal is the conquest of the west by islam and to die in the process.

The war needs to be waged in full against islam, period. Until it is the war will drag on for decades.

You don't fall back and regroup after a victory, you press ahead and continue pursuing your enemy until he is annihilated.

[Dilloduck]

I think we should win a war if we start it at all.

Going in on the cheap and hoping it will be quick and easy and then when it isn't persevering for years more with a steadily deteriorating military ------


Nope, I'd say pull out, rethink it all, repair the military in case, God forbid, we actually NEED it some day!!



There is absolutely no reason that our tactics and military cannot be improved right now and where they are. Maybe you have a different agenda ?

[mundame]

You would have been a great aid for Gen George McClellan during the civil war.

I hope so; God knows he needed aid. Needed some better aides, too.



The standards of the military are not lower. They do not take dumb people, You do have to pass their tests to get in. And a prison record will keep you out of the military period.

Gracious, of course they have lowered their standards! That's been going on since 2006. The current issue of Time has a story on the broken Army: "As the nation's armed forces slog through a seventh year of war, with soldiers and Marines churning through repeated combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, re-enlistment bonuses and lower recruitment standards (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1727490,00.html)can only do so much to maintain force levels."



The islamists are not going to stop just because we went and took out a few bases and supporting countries. They are pulling back and regrouping. And as soon as we relax they will strike again. They are not logical and they do not think in terms of having a better life and a future for their children. They do not think as you do. Their sole goal is the conquest of the west by islam and to die in the process.

Could be. I'm inclined to agree they'd LIKE to be that way -- they certainly get in large crowds and chant "Death to America" enough. Whether they are able enough, doesn't seem to be the case since there have been no more attacks on us since 9/11. For that reason, no more attacks in six years, I'm not sure there still is a war on -- it IS a sort of long time between battles in a war, even McClellan would have been ashamed, I hope, though Lincoln might have thought his problem general was capable of hiding out that long.



The war needs to be waged in full against islam, period. Until it is the war will drag on for decades.

Do we need, like, some sort of signal they are still THERE? The enemy? Or are we taking this on faith?



You don't fall back and regroup after a victory, you press ahead and continue pursuing your enemy until he is annihilated.

Who? Who does this? Not George Bush, that's real clear. He didn't bother to catch bin Laden, let him flee, didn't go after him, still isn't going after him, lets the Taliban camps stay right over the border striking our troops whenever they want and then running back across the border ---- I don't know, doesn't sound like "annihilation" is much going on.

Well, except for the mothers and children in Iraq cities that never had anything to do with anything about 9/11. Guess we're showing them, huh?! Bomb another apartment building where bin Laden is 4,000 miles away from! That'll annihilate that enemy!!

[mundame]

There is absolutely no reason that our tactics and military cannot be improved right now and where they are.


Well, except that they haven't been. For FIVE YEARS.

That's not a great sign that you are right, frankly.

It seems clear to me that

1) we aren't good at this kind of Vietnam/Iraq sort of war. Wow, are we ever truly bad at it!!

2) We've lost the momentum. Some years ago. Sometime during 2003, actually. Can't win a war without momentum: Patton knew that.

Shooooooooo, all the Joint Chiefs know that. They've been trying to pull out for a year and a half that we KNOW about, because they keep leaking it to the papers!

[glockmail]

.....
You don't fall back and regroup after a victory, you press ahead and continue pursuing your enemy until he is annihilated. This is a very important concept that the US has forgotten ever since it adopted the Powell Doctrine.

[mundame]

This is a very important concept that the US has forgotten ever since it adopted the Powell Doctrine.


The Powell Doctrine INCLUDES that concept!!

1) Go to war only if it is a matter of serious national security.

2) Go in with an overkill number of troops and win BIGTIME!

3) Have an exit strategy so we can get out again.


One of the great ironies of this Iraq War is that we had the very author of the Powell Doctrine in the administration that totally ignored that whole military concept, and instead made all the Vietnam-type mistakes the Powell Doctrine was written to correct.

[Sitarro]

Well, except that they haven't been. For FIVE YEARS.

That's not a great sign that you are right, frankly.

It seems clear to me that

1) we aren't good at this kind of Vietnam/Iraq sort of war. Wow, are we ever truly bad at it!!

2) We've lost the momentum. Some years ago. Sometime during 2003, actually. Can't win a war without momentum: Patton knew that.

Shooooooooo, all the Joint Chiefs know that. They've been trying to pull out for a year and a half that we KNOW about, because they keep leaking it to the papers!

I have to say that it is pretty impressive that you get your vast knowledge of war and the military from Time magazine, I guess that is better than Playgirl or The National Enquirer.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[glockmail]

The Powell Doctrine INCLUDES that concept!!

1) Go to war only if it is a matter of serious national security.

2) Go in with an overkill number of troops and win BIGTIME!

3) Have an exit strategy so we can get out again.


One of the great ironies of this Iraq War is that we had the very author of the Powell Doctrine in the administration that totally ignored that whole military concept, and instead made all the Vietnam-type mistakes the Powell Doctrine was written to correct. You say the PD includes your #2 but obviously it doesn't. This is proven by the fact, as you noted, that Powell was in the Administration. Gaffer's Dotrine requiers annihilation, which is proven to be effective.

[mundame]

You say the PD includes your #2 but obviously it doesn't. This is proven by the fact, as you noted, that Powell was in the Administration. Gaffer's Dotrine requiers annihilation, which is proven to be effective.


Certainly it does include my No. 2 point. This from Powell himself: "We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/powell.htm). When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic -- both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation."

This from the Financial Times: The "Powell doctrine" (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/powells_military_doctrine_is_set_to_sway_president s_4287) holds that the US should go to war only as a last resort and then only with overwhelming force.

That article continues:
****************************************
A case can be made that no amount of conventional forces, using conventional tactics, can be effective against insurgencies. But that argument strengthens the Powell doctrine, according to which the military should not be used for prolonged counter-insurgency wars, peacekeeping operations or occupation. The purpose of the military is to break the enemy’s conventional forces. Other groups local allies, peacekeeping forces and civilian relief agencies should be responsible for postwar reconstruction or pacification of insurgents.

The US military would also welcome a revival of the Powell doctrine. Simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained the military and forced it to lower its recruitment standards. It took a decade and a half to rebuild the armed forces after Vietnam, and rebuilding a demoralised and ex-hausted military after Iraq may be the work of several presidents, not one.
************************************************** *

Powell wrote the Powell Doctrine after Vietnam, before he joined the Bush Administration.

During the Bush Administration, they totally ignored Powell's great contribution to military thinking, and Powell eventually resigned. Because they ignored the Powell Doctrine, IMO, the war was lost. It was the way to win ---- and they didn't bother to use it.

[glockmail]

Certainly it does include my No. 2 point. This from Powell himself: "We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/powell.htm). When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic -- both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation."

This from the Financial Times: The "Powell doctrine" (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/powells_military_doctrine_is_set_to_sway_president s_4287) holds that the US should go to war only as a last resort and then only with overwhelming force.

That article continues:
****************************************
A case can be made that no amount of conventional forces, using conventional tactics, can be effective against insurgencies. But that argument strengthens the Powell doctrine, according to which the military should not be used for prolonged counter-insurgency wars, peacekeeping operations or occupation. The purpose of the military is to break the enemy’s conventional forces. Other groups local allies, peacekeeping forces and civilian relief agencies should be responsible for postwar reconstruction or pacification of insurgents.

The US military would also welcome a revival of the Powell doctrine. Simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained the military and forced it to lower its recruitment standards. It took a decade and a half to rebuild the armed forces after Vietnam, and rebuilding a demoralised and ex-hausted military after Iraq may be the work of several presidents, not one.
************************************************** *

Powell wrote the Powell Doctrine after Vietnam, before he joined the Bush Administration.

During the Bush Administration, they totally ignored Powell's great contribution to military thinking, and Powell eventually resigned. Because they ignored the Powell Doctrine, IMO, the war was lost. It was the way to win ---- and they didn't bother to use it. You continue to misunderstand the PD. From his own words:
Over the past three years the U.S. armed forces have been used repeatedly to defend our interests and to achieve our political objectives. In Panama a dictator was removed from power. In the Philippines the use of limited force helped save a democracy. In Somalia a daring night raid rescued our embassy. In Liberia we rescued stranded international citizens and protected our embassy. In the Persian Gulf a nation was liberated. Moreover we have used our forces for humanitarian relief operations in Iraq, Somalia, Bangladesh, Russia and Bosnia.

All of these operations had one thing in common: they were successful....

The reason for our success is that in every instance we have carefully matched the use of military force to our political objectives. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/powell.htm

Powell is clearly advocating limited military power, which is exactly what was done in Iraq.

[Sitarro]

The US military would also welcome a revival of the Powell doctrine. Simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained the military and forced it to lower its recruitment standards. It took a decade and a half to rebuild the armed forces after Vietnam, and rebuilding a demoralised and ex-hausted military after Iraq may be the work of several presidents, not one.

It may never be rebuilt if a Democrat is placed into the Presidency along with the idiots in Congress. Both Jimma Carter and Bubba Clinton decimated the military with base closings and budget cuts.



Powell wrote the Powell Doctrine after Vietnam, before he joined the Bush Administration.

The Middle East isn't Vietnam. When the U.S. went into Iraq the forces took less than 2 weeks to destroy the Saddam regime, I think they won that part. The Iraqis voted freely, again a victory for both the U.S. and the Iraqi people. The Iraqi soccer team competed and won the 2007 AFC Asian Cup and none had their legs chopped off by a person with the Hussein name....... a victory for Iraqis and made possible because of the U.S.


During the Bush Administration, they totally ignored Powell's great contribution to military thinking, and Powell eventually resigned. Because they ignored the Powell Doctrine, IMO, the war was lost. It was the way to win ---- and they didn't bother to use it.

The war was not lost..... see above.

I have to admit that I misread your screen name..... I thought it was mundane and it is reinforced every time I read one of your posts.

[Gaffer]

The main problem I have with the Powell Doctrine is the "exit strategy". If you need an exit strategy you are not there to win. You go in with overwhelming force and kill your enemy. Then you create a government sympathetic to you and set up their police and defensive organizations and turn it all over to them. Then you leave. There is no time frame for doing this.

Afgan was a different action. bin laden escaped because we didn't have enough troops in there at the time and had to contract the operation to local war lords. A simple case of not using overwhelming force when it was needed. Pakistan is being used as a staging area for attacks into Afgan. It's closer to the Vietnam situation than iraq is. The paks make a few attacks on taliban camps and tell the US they are on our side while letting the taliban and AQ remain and resupply. Same thing Cambodia did.

Should we invade pakistan, yes. Will we invade pakistan, no.

Afgan and iraq are two fronts in a global war. They are still in conflict which is why we have troops there. And the purpose of the military is to fight the enemy, take and hold positions, reestablish order and win over the hearts and minds of the people so they can stand on their own. The US military is a very multifaceted organization. They can both kill and destroy or heal and rebuild, depending on what is needed.

[mundame]

All of these operations had one thing in common: they were successful....

Powell is clearly advocating limited military power, which is exactly what was done in Iraq.


No, that's not it at all: Powell is advocating SUCCESSFUL military power.

Which was exactly what was NOT done in Iraq. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[mundame]

The main problem I have with the Powell Doctrine is the "exit strategy". If you need an exit strategy you are not there to win. You go in with overwhelming force and kill your enemy. Then you create a government sympathetic to you and set up their police and defensive organizations and turn it all over to them. Then you leave. There is no time frame for doing this.

Interesting point you make. I am inclined to agree that exit strategy needs a careful definition.




Afgan was a different action. bin laden escaped because we didn't have enough troops in there at the time and had to contract the operation to local war lords. A simple case of not using overwhelming force when it was needed. Pakistan is being used as a staging area for attacks into Afgan. It's closer to the Vietnam situation than iraq is. The paks make a few attacks on taliban camps and tell the US they are on our side while letting the taliban and AQ remain and resupply. Same thing Cambodia did.

Should we invade pakistan, yes. Will we invade pakistan, no.


Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgh. I generally agree with you here, Gaffer.

[glockmail]

No, that's not it at all: Powell is advocating SUCCESSFUL military power.

Which was exactly what was NOT done in Iraq. <!-- / message --><!-- sig --> How can you claim that our military wasn't sucessful in Iraq? Not even Maineman is deluded enough to try and claim that.

[mundame]

How can you claim that our military wasn't sucessful in Iraq? Not even Maineman is deluded enough to try and claim that.


He isn't? That's an easy call; I'll have to talk to him and buck him up a little.




(Just kidding, ManFromMaine. http://macg.net/emoticons/grin10.gif)

[glockmail]

I see you have a habit of dodging the issue at hand. The obvious conclusion is that you know you are wrong, embarrassed to admit it, yet need to have the last word.

[Gaffer]

No, that's not it at all: Powell is advocating SUCCESSFUL military power.

Which was exactly what was NOT done in Iraq. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

iraq has been successful, in spite of the powell doctrine. He, like rumsfeld, advocated a small specialized military for dealing with small actions. Neither one of them envisioned having to go to war with multiple countries and needing large numbers of troops.

The iraq war, is over. It ended after three weeks. The occupation is on going. A limited occupation, as 150,000 troops occupying a country is nothing. There should be at least twice that number with most being used to close the borders. But powell and rumsfeld convinced Bush that less was more. You will note that since those two are gone things have turned around in iraq.

There have been no more attacks since 9/11 because AQ and the other groups like them have been kept on the run and off balance through intelligence, listening to phone intercepts and hard interrogation of prisoners, along with the military operations. Curtail any of these and you will see more 9/11's.

[OCA]

How can you claim that our military wasn't sucessful in Iraq? Not even Maineman is deluded enough to try and claim that.

Glock the military was very successful..............the few times that the military has actually been used for what it is truely intended. Currently by all accounts the military is nothing more than a social service agency in Iraq.

I'd like to add to that that its time for us to go, we've been saying recently that we would leave when the Iraqis could defend themselves.........well they can't and aren't ever going to. Witness Basra last week, by all eyewitness accounts the Iraqi military was routed and many Iraqi soldiers defected in the middle of the fighting to Sadr's army.

What a joke.

[mundame]

The iraq war, is over. It ended after three weeks. The occupation is on going.

What I think is that occupations are post-war, after the fighting ends. The fighting has certainly not ended; that's why we call it the "Iraq War."

And I don't think our side can ever win the war now. We've lost; better go home.



But powell and rumsfeld convinced Bush that less was more. You will note that since those two are gone things have turned around in iraq.

Well, it's getting worse and worse, certainly, if that's what you mean by "turned around" --- note, the Green Zone is constantly shelled now, daily. It didn't used to be shelled often. We are supposed to have conquered and invested Baghdad, where the Green Zone is. Obviously, we haven't, since we can't find and stop the people shelling our headquarters. Yesterday alone three American troops were killed in the Green Zone and 31 injured. That hardly sounds like an occupation: that's a losing war. It's never a good sign when the enemy has the range of your headquarters and just keeps shelling it.



There have been no more attacks since 9/11 because AQ and the other groups like them have been kept on the run and off balance through intelligence, listening to phone intercepts and hard interrogation of prisoners, along with the military operations. Curtail any of these and you will see more 9/11's.

But that's not what you would have said for six months after 9/11. I know because that's what we ALL thought, that al Qaeda would attack again. They didn't, and haven't in six years. I think the GWOT is over and we won. Iraq is also over and we lost; same with Afghanistan, given that our military is too weak to take on Pakistan. There's no question of surrender or even of defeat, so far, but we can't achieve our war aims.

Better come back and rethink it before we end up with a draft.



In my more paranoid moments, I wonder if the Army isn't being weakened and run down specifically so that we'll HAVE to have a draft as soon as there's any other trouble spot. Certainly a volunteer army is always a weak army and whenever there is any serious war every country institutes a draft at once: WWI, WWII. All this silly talk about how the Pentagon loves the volunteer Army --- that's all hogwash. Look how they can't get enough men even for these little pissant wars! The Pentagon hates a volunteer Army, of course: every war department wants infinite cannon fodder, it's the only way to win.

[Gaffer]

What I think is that occupations are post-war, after the fighting ends. The fighting has certainly not ended; that's why we call it the "Iraq War."

And I don't think our side can ever win the war now. We've lost; better go home.

An occupation is post war. It doesn't mean the fighting ends. It was called the iraq war because we were fighting the country of iraq. That is over. We are now fighting AQ, shea militia and iranian qods force. Not to mention the local thugs who are out for personal gain and power.




Well, it's getting worse and worse, certainly, if that's what you mean by "turned around" --- note, the Green Zone is constantly shelled now, daily. It didn't used to be shelled often. We are supposed to have conquered and invested Baghdad, where the Green Zone is. Obviously, we haven't, since we can't find and stop the people shelling our headquarters. Yesterday alone three American troops were killed in the Green Zone and 31 injured. That hardly sounds like an occupation: that's a losing war. It's never a good sign when the enemy has the range of your headquarters and just keeps shelling it.

Don't know where you get your news but the green zone is NOT being shelled often. If it was it would be on the news nightly. Since the enemy lives among the population it makes it difficult to keep them out of range of the main base short of killing the entire population. They strike and then blend back in with the regular population.




But that's not what you would have said for six months after 9/11. I know because that's what we ALL thought, that al Qaeda would attack again. They didn't, and haven't in six years. I think the GWOT is over and we won. Iraq is also over and we lost; same with Afghanistan, given that our military is too weak to take on Pakistan. There's no question of surrender or even of defeat, so far, but we can't achieve our war aims.

Better come back and rethink it before we end up with a draft.

I was saying the same thing the day after 9/11 that I say now. AQ hasn't attacked again because all their efforts have been thwarted so far. Thinking the GWOT is over is foolish. We are at war with islam. If we kill bin laden and a thousand others with him, it will still be going on. Our military is not to weak to take on pakistan. Our congress, worried about world opinion is. Our war aims will take decades to achieve. Shorter if we get rid of the pc mentality, but still a very long time.

In my more paranoid moments, I wonder if the Army isn't being weakened and run down specifically so that we'll HAVE to have a draft as soon as there's any other trouble spot. Certainly a volunteer army is always a weak army and whenever there is any serious war every country institutes a draft at once: WWI, WWII. All this silly talk about how the Pentagon loves the volunteer Army --- that's all hogwash. Look how they can't get enough men even for these little pissant wars! The Pentagon hates a volunteer Army, of course: every war department wants infinite cannon fodder, it's the only way to win.

A volunteer army is a strong army. Because they are there for a purpose. A draft should only be instituted when congress has the balls to declare war. Just giving the president authority to do something does not constitute a reason for creating a draft.

I was drafted and served in combat. While I and others like me were willing to go and do our duty we also did not want to be there and couldn't wait to get out. There is a huge difference between a conscript and a volunteer. There's also a big difference between being dumped in the infantry with no options and volunteering for it because you want to do that.

The only thing libs want a draft for is so they have something else to bitch about. And it is only liberals that want a draft. It was their most important crutch during Vietnam. They can't paint the military as victims without it.

I was drafted. I was not a victim. I served proudly. I got out and four years later enlisted in the Air Force. I got out after carter began destroying the military. A draft at this time is not necessary and should never be considered until congress grows a pair.

[glockmail]

Glock the military was very successful..............the few times that the military has actually been used for what it is truely intended. Currently by all accounts the military is nothing more than a social service agency in Iraq.

I'd like to add to that that its time for us to go, we've been saying recently that we would leave when the Iraqis could defend themselves.........well they can't and aren't ever going to. Witness Basra last week, by all eyewitness accounts the Iraqi military was routed and many Iraqi soldiers defected in the middle of the fighting to Sadr's army.

What a joke.

Although I agree with you in concept, I don't see how we could just leave. We made a commitment to certain people and we should hold to that commitment. If we don't finish what we started we look like panisies and we'll end up going back later to clean up te resulting mess.

On the other hand I don't understand why we didn't put a 50 cal up Sadr's nose when he first became a pain in the ass three years ago.

[Gaffer]

Although I agree with you in concept, I don't see how we could just leave. We made a commitment to certain people and we should hold to that commitment. If we don't finish what we started we look like panisies and we'll end up going back later to clean up te resulting mess.

On the other hand I don't understand why we didn't put a 50 cal up Sadr's nose when he first became a pain in the ass three years ago.

Yep, sadr should have been snuffed early on. The pc concept of letting these guys live to stir up future trouble is why iraq is taking so long.

[OCA]

Although I agree with you in concept, I don't see how we could just leave. We made a commitment to certain people and we should hold to that commitment. If we don't finish what we started we look like panisies and we'll end up going back later to clean up te resulting mess.

On the other hand I don't understand why we didn't put a 50 cal up Sadr's nose when he first became a pain in the ass three years ago.

We made a commitment to the Iraqi people and they took their end of the bargain and wiped their asses with it. I say fuck em, lets load up every oil tanker sailing under an American flag, pack our shit and let them sort their shit out, and no we don't have to go back there until we get shit sorted out on the home front.

I'm sick of Maliki and his weak kneed crap, either he craps or gets off the pot.

[manu1959]

We made a commitment to the Iraqi people and they took their end of the bargain and wiped their asses with it. I say fuck em, lets load up every oil tanker sailing under an American flag, pack our shit and let them sort their shit out, and no we don't have to go back there until we get shit sorted out on the home front.

I'm sick of Maliki and his weak kneed crap, either he craps or gets off the pot.

that won't be many....last count of the thousands of tankers america has something like 59....

per wiki.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

[edit] Flag states
As of 2007, the United States Central Intelligence Agency statistics count 4,295 oil tankers of 1,000 long tons of deadweight (DWT) or greater worldwide.[55] Panama was the world's largest flag state for oil tankers, with 528 of the vessels in its registry.[55] Six other flag states had more than 200 registered oil tankers: Liberia (464), Singapore (355), China (252), Russia (250), the Marshall Islands (234) and The Bahamas (209).[55] By way of comparison, the United States and the United Kingdom only had 59 and 27 registered oil tankers, respectively.[55]

with all the liberian tankers kinda explains why bush stabilized that country huh......

[OCA]

that won't be many....last count of the thousands of tankers america has something like 59....

per wiki.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

[edit] Flag states
As of 2007, the United States Central Intelligence Agency statistics count 4,295 oil tankers of 1,000 long tons of deadweight (DWT) or greater worldwide.[55] Panama was the world's largest flag state for oil tankers, with 528 of the vessels in its registry.[55] Six other flag states had more than 200 registered oil tankers: Liberia (464), Singapore (355), China (252), Russia (250), the Marshall Islands (234) and The Bahamas (209).[55] By way of comparison, the United States and the United Kingdom only had 59 and 27 registered oil tankers, respectively.[55]

with all the liberian tankers kinda explains why bush stabilized that country huh......

59!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holy hell! Work out a deal with the Liberians or the Panamanians for the love of God!:laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

that won't be many....last count of the thousands of tankers america has something like 59....

per wiki.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

[edit] Flag states
As of 2007, the United States Central Intelligence Agency statistics count 4,295 oil tankers of 1,000 long tons of deadweight (DWT) or greater worldwide.[55] Panama was the world's largest flag state for oil tankers, with 528 of the vessels in its registry.[55] Six other flag states had more than 200 registered oil tankers: Liberia (464), Singapore (355), China (252), Russia (250), the Marshall Islands (234) and The Bahamas (209).[55] By way of comparison, the United States and the United Kingdom only had 59 and 27 registered oil tankers, respectively.[55]

with all the liberian tankers kinda explains why bush stabilized that country huh......

Hopefully that's counted in as part of the reparation deal. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

We made a commitment to the Iraqi people and they took their end of the bargain and wiped their asses with it. I say fuck em, lets load up every oil tanker sailing under an American flag, pack our shit and let them sort their shit out, and no we don't have to go back there until we get shit sorted out on the home front.

I'm sick of Maliki and his weak kneed crap, either he craps or gets off the pot.


I think its not unike over here, where we have weak kneed politicians, 1/2 or so anti-American butt-sniffers, and the rest are sane buggers who want to make some cash, make a decent life for their families and just be left alone.

[DragonStryk72]

The main problem I have with the Powell Doctrine is the "exit strategy". If you need an exit strategy you are not there to win. You go in with overwhelming force and kill your enemy. Then you create a government sympathetic to you and set up their police and defensive organizations and turn it all over to them. Then you leave. There is no time frame for doing this.

Afgan was a different action. bin laden escaped because we didn't have enough troops in there at the time and had to contract the operation to local war lords. A simple case of not using overwhelming force when it was needed. Pakistan is being used as a staging area for attacks into Afgan. It's closer to the Vietnam situation than iraq is. The paks make a few attacks on taliban camps and tell the US they are on our side while letting the taliban and AQ remain and resupply. Same thing Cambodia did.

Should we invade pakistan, yes. Will we invade pakistan, no.

Afgan and iraq are two fronts in a global war. They are still in conflict which is why we have troops there. And the purpose of the military is to fight the enemy, take and hold positions, reestablish order and win over the hearts and minds of the people so they can stand on their own. The US military is a very multifaceted organization. They can both kill and destroy or heal and rebuild, depending on what is needed.

But, just in the section of the doctrine I read, our forces should never have been involved past taking the country, hence they would have been exitting post-victory to allow the infrastructure to get built by the people associated with that job. The Army isn't an infrastructure builder, it is a mace.

bombing either or both countries back into the stone age would be counterproductive, we might as well slap up AQ recruiting posters while we're at it. We can't win the war we are fighting here, and we certainly cannot take this battle worldwide like we are doing now, we will botch it horribly, as we have botched both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because we are not learning the lesson. We need to stand this war as ethically as we can, why, because they look to everything we do that isn't on the up and up, and they use it to convince more people that they are right.

The difference between now, and with Germany, Japan, and S.Korea, was that, with Germany and Japan, they admitted defeat, and allowed us to help them rebuild. With S. Korea, they wanted us there because they opposed communism, but could not stop N. Korea on their own.

These people have no idea what to even do with freedom, and they have blood debts against one another. This is a completely different situation, than any we have faced before, and we need to change the way in which we do battle in order to meet the demands of the battle we are in.

[Dilloduck]

But, just in the section of the doctrine I read, our forces should never have been involved past taking the country, hence they would have been exitting post-victory to allow the infrastructure to get built by the people associated with that job. The Army isn't an infrastructure builder, it is a mace.

bombing either or both countries back into the stone age would be counterproductive, we might as well slap up AQ recruiting posters while we're at it. We can't win the war we are fighting here, and we certainly cannot take this battle worldwide like we are doing now, we will botch it horribly, as we have botched both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because we are not learning the lesson. We need to stand this war as ethically as we can, why, because they look to everything we do that isn't on the up and up, and they use it to convince more people that they are right.

The difference between now, and with Germany, Japan, and S.Korea, was that, with Germany and Japan, they admitted defeat, and allowed us to help them rebuild. With S. Korea, they wanted us there because they opposed communism, but could not stop N. Korea on their own.

These people have no idea what to even do with freedom, and they have blood debts against one another. This is a completely different situation, than any we have faced before, and we need to change the way in which we do battle in order to meet the demands of the battle we are in.

We have changed the way we "do battle". Don't be fooled by LNs sporadic but predictable posts about US casualties.

[Gaffer]

But, just in the section of the doctrine I read, our forces should never have been involved past taking the country, hence they would have been exitting post-victory to allow the infrastructure to get built by the people associated with that job. The Army isn't an infrastructure builder, it is a mace.

bombing either or both countries back into the stone age would be counterproductive, we might as well slap up AQ recruiting posters while we're at it. We can't win the war we are fighting here, and we certainly cannot take this battle worldwide like we are doing now, we will botch it horribly, as we have botched both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because we are not learning the lesson. We need to stand this war as ethically as we can, why, because they look to everything we do that isn't on the up and up, and they use it to convince more people that they are right.

The difference between now, and with Germany, Japan, and S.Korea, was that, with Germany and Japan, they admitted defeat, and allowed us to help them rebuild. With S. Korea, they wanted us there because they opposed communism, but could not stop N. Korea on their own.

These people have no idea what to even do with freedom, and they have blood debts against one another. This is a completely different situation, than any we have faced before, and we need to change the way in which we do battle in order to meet the demands of the battle we are in.

Our forces got involved building because there was no infrastructure, the place was chaos. Remember the riots and looting. If we had just packed up and left either AQ, iran or both would have been all over that place. To prevent that we had to set up some form of government and reestablish it as a country. They are a barbaric bunch with blood feuds like you say. It's going to take a long time to educate that out of them. It was a recruiting ground for AQ. That has turned around. It is because we were there to back up the people that realized AQ was nothing but a bunch of savages.

There are only two things needed to secure iraq, time and determination.