Okay they have proven themeselves then why have we been at war for eight years now? Like I said I will link to different views when I get home.
They haven't won a complex counter-insurgency campaign in less than eight years!? They obviously don't know what's going on...:roll:
Seriously, that is freakin dumb.
Redress, if one of the consequences of indecision actually is that more soldiers are being killed, how is it out of line to point that out?
Unfortunately, even if Obama is being 100% thoughtful and high-minded about all of this, he's is unquestionably giving the appearance of indecisiveness by doing all these other things while the decision still hangs in the air. And the appearance of indecisiveness is the appearance of weakness, and weakness emboldens the enemy.
Exactly. And to be called "exploitive" of the troops for voicing this, is abhorrent in my opinion.
And if a hasty decision gets more troops killed? or if publicizing plans gets more troops killed?
Nah whomever it is as long as it a democrat you guys will whine and cry just like the left did with Bush. And that is probably more demoralizing to the troops than anything else.
How long does he need? exactly?
What part of "I had the same problem with Bush I" and this sort of indecision are you guys not getting in order to misrepresent my position?
It's not about Democrats or Republicans, it's about leadership. Leadership involves more than just being oh so thoughtful. It means making it appear as though you know what you're doing. Even if he does, he doesn't look like he does. That's suicide.
Listen, man; I take it you are at JRTC, so I know you have some knowledge. Let's be honest here; if McChrystal and Petraeus were serious about securing the Afghan populace, they should be asking for more troops than 40K. But they can't have them b/c many BCTs are in Iraq still, a war that I'm assuming you support. I'm not sure the same COIN strategy will work in AFG like it did in Iraq, which is what McChrystal is essentially advocating, if I read the memo right. For one, Iraq was easier because the LOC existed and were clear and easy for our leaders to access. Buying off the Sunnis was easy b/c they weren't the Taliban. Not even close, dude. I'm not sure if you've done a tour in AFG (I know 1st CAV has not), but I think the dynamic is so different and so much more difficult that any half-ass "surge" in AFG to implement a COIN strategy maybe a fruitless effort if it's not going to work...I understand it maybe the best we can do right now, but is it really worth it if we can't do it right?
I don't think I would call exploiting the deaths of our soldiers to make a political point is "helping your country".
Whose doing that?
Got those names for us, Winston?
Ill have to do it later it is time for me to make dinner and I need to go to the store and get some stuff.
Leadership is not a Hollywood movie.
I don't know the exact dynamics of the battlespace. I don't have a crystal ball and can't tell you that McChrystal's plan is full-proof. What I do know, is that most experienced and most successful counter-insurgency leaders that the United States military has are opting for a new plan. They have more credibility than anyone else. I also know two other things: 1) Doing nothing just ain't gonna work, period. 2) Sending more troops to the theater isn't going to have a negative affect. Now, combine all three of these things and there's no reason not to go ahead with McChrystal's plan.
You have no standing.
I already explained how I thought Bush I, did the same thing. I also explained, how those I know in Afghanistan are feeling. My position comes from my care and concern for our brothers and sisters in harms way. For you to go back down this line of attacks because I DARE critisize your guy, is what is low. And I suggest you pull it back... BN rules dictate I use the articles title. I did so. I then explained what my concerns are. Now I don't believe you to be of low intelligence, so I think your attacks on me are deliberate and considered. And that is most regrettable.
I think his indecisivness is endangering the lives of our troops. YOu could care less about it. So don't try to turn this around on me that I am the one "using the troops" when it is you ignoring thier plight for your guy.
I'm not an advocate of doing nothing. But I'm not sure "doing something" is the answer. Is deploying more troops to execute a fledgling strategy really what we need? To execute a true COIN strategy, they need a hell of a lot more than 40K. I'm not sure we even have that many troops available right now, considering the only BCTs that can deploy there are Marines, "Light" Brigades and Strykers. Still a lot in Iraq right now.
Redress, if one of the consequences of indecision actually is that more soldiers are being killed, how is it out of line to point that out?
Unfortunately, even if Obama is being 100% thoughtful and high-minded about all of this, he's is unquestionably giving the appearance of indecisiveness by doing all these other things while the decision still hangs in the air. And the appearance of indecisiveness is the appearance of weakness, and weakness emboldens the enemy.
Leadership is not a Hollywood movie.
If he takes so long that troops cannot get there when wanted, then you might have a point. 2 weeks is not taking too long.
Again, taking the time to make a good decision is not just appropriate, it is ideal. Whether that is what is happening or not, neither you nor I know for sure. What we do know is that there is resistance within the pentagon over the additional troops, and that even the Chief of Staff of the Army is not 100 % for it. This suggests that the holdup might be in collecting and analyzing the thoughts of the advisers and military people Obama has to count on.
Again, taking the time to make a good decision is not just appropriate, it is ideal. Whether that is what is happening or not, neither you nor I know for sure. What we do know is that there is resistance within the pentagon over the additional troops, and that even the Chief of Staff of the Army is not 100 % for it. This suggests that the holdup might be in collecting and analyzing the thoughts of the advisers and military people Obama has to count on.
The General says we need more troops or we're going to lose.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says we got enough troops.
What's there to think about?
I don't know.....Maybe a strategy for their use over there?
...A clear purpose?....
A way we can get the hell out of there eventually?
Better rush those thoughts off to Washington!That's why we have generals.
Defeat the insurgency and create a stable government.
Planes and boats should suffice.
I don't know.....Maybe a strategy for their use over there?...A clear purpose?....A way we can get the hell out of there eventually?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?