US general calls for new strategy against Taliban

[Friday on my mind]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

KABUL – The commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan said Monday in an assessment of the war that a new strategy was needed to fight the Taliban, while NATO officials disclosed he is expected to separately request more troops.

Explosions ****** two more U.S. troops, raising the record death toll in August to 47 — the deadliest month of the eight-year war for American ******.

Boosting the number of U.S. ****** in Afghanistan is a hot-button issue that could ignite furious debate in Washington on the U.S. military's future in an increasingly unpopular war. Some Democratic senators have increased calls for a timeline to draw down troops.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent his strategic review of the Afghan war to the Pentagon and NATO headquarters Monday. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered the 60-day review to size up the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan as Taliban attacks rise and U.S. deaths spiral upward.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement Monday.

Afghanistan has long been seen as the "good" war by many in the United States, especially in comparison with U.S. efforts in Iraq, where U.S. troops are now drawing down. But some Democratic senators are beginning to question whether U.S. goals in Afghanistan are achievable, and when U.S. troops will be brought home. "





Eight years and counting.Yeah I would say its well past time to figure if what we are trying to do is achievable.Eight years is more than long enough,too long in fact.God we so have forgotten Vietnam and its lessons or even the Russians experience in Afghanistan where they were involved in a war for many years and has been called the russian vietnam.These Generals sound just like Westmoreland the top general during Vietnam.Just give it a little more time and some more troops and we can win,whatever winning is here.

Time to pack up and come home,hope those democratic senators can get that done.Both Iraq and Afghanistan will be remembered as collosal errors by the US and waste of lives and resources.We should have never invaded Iraq at all and all we should have done was inflict enough damage to the taliban in Afghanistan to make them be wary about allowing plots and ****** training in their country and then gotten the heck out.Going in and staying was big error.

 

[busenbust]

New strategy?? Long time coming...Christ!

 

[jasonk282]

The general is a former Special ****** general and will use counter-insurgency. Also this is what Obama wanted. I remeber him saying we have to back out of Iraq and go into Afghanistan and hunt for OBL.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698/

One problem is that they are mountain/cave fighters. Some of the caves are set up like the Japanesse had on Iwo Jima, with miles of caverens to move through. Either we have to go cave dwelling to look for the Taliban or get some Howetizers and just pepper the monutains with FA.

 

[Spleen]

Pull out. Glass the entire country. Job done. Great success.

 

[Hot Mega]

I remeber him saying we have to back out of Iraq and go into Afghanistan and hunt for OBL.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698/

Not quite...Obama's position was our involvement in Iraq was unnecessary to begin with...but now that we went there, having found no stockpiles of WMD, helped them reconstruct their government and gotten rid of a few extremists that followed us there...our job there is done. Iraqis need to reconcile their country for themselves....Just like we did in the **** of our civil war. No one intervened and stopped us from fighting each other.

I see some people forget what this whole thing was about. It wasn't to go over to the middle east and **** as many Arabs and Muslims as revenge for 9/11. We went to Afghanistan to bring to justice the perpetrators and co-conspirators of that crime. To the degree that a government tried to intercede in our efforts, to bring to justice this criminal syndicate..they became our enemy too.

Victory there is the decimation of at minimum the criminal cabal hell bent on projecting their attacks on Americans, America and/or her interests.

Once that's done....Afghanistan can figure out for themselves what type of government they need or want. But if they harbor enemies of America who ****** her, we'll be back over there bombing and shooting again.

So it should be in their interests to not allow such a circumstance to come to pass again.

 

[jasonk282]

But with the taliban making raids from Pakistan it's going to be hard to fight them.

 

[Hot Mega]

But with the taliban making raids from Pakistan it's going to be hard to fight them.

It has been in the past. Obama has pretty much enlisted unprecedented assistance from Pakistan and their ISI.

The ISI for the first times is being forthright about their knowledge of Taliban and AQ leadership. Previously they looked the Bush administration square in the eyes and would say, we don't know what you're talking about.

Where ever they are...they need supplies, they need to move around, they need to communicate and they need to try and execute their operations.

It's impossible to interrupt that cycle if we "can't" operate on the ground in Pakistan and the Pakistanis aren't putting forth a credible effort to help us.

That is changing...the problem with Afghanistan is we allowed certain conditions to fester and grow nearly out of controllable means by chasing Saddam around Tikrit for no reason.

 

[feller469]

until the Taliban and their ilk decide to fight "honorably" there is no need for our troops and allies to follow certain protocols. The PR nightmare is an American creation. I am willing to bet that most of the innocents appreciate the international ******, but can't show their support because of the fear or retaliation by the cowards.

 

[jasonk282]

until the Taliban and their ilk decide to fight "honorably" there is no need for our troops and allies to follow certain protocols. The PR nightmare is an American creation. I am willing to bet that most of the innocents appreciate the international ******, but can't show their support because of the fear or retaliation by the cowards.

It's a double edge *****. We follow the ROE and we are the good guys, but we get 30 plus castualies in a month. We do not follow the ROE the internation community will be up in arms and people like al-jerza will blow it out of porportion and actually could gear up another ****** on American soil.

Technically speaking and ****** on any Army base, Marine camp, Navy ship or American embassy is actually an ****** on American soil.

 

[jasonk282]

It has been in the past. Obama has pretty much enlisted unprecedented assistance from Pakistan and their ISI.

The ISI for the first times is being forthright about their knowledge of Taliban and AQ leadership. Previously they looked the Bush administration square in the eyes and would say, we don't know what you're talking about.

Where ever they are...they need supplies, they need to move around, they need to communicate and they need to try and execute their operations.

It's impossible to interrupt that cycle if we "can't" operate on the ground in Pakistan and the Pakistanis aren't putting forth a credible effort to help us.

That is changing...the problem with Afghanistan is we allowed certain conditions to fester and grow nearly out of controllable means by chasing Saddam around Tikrit for no reason.

The only problem that I have with this is that we are taking the ISI's word that they are doing all that they can. I am not saying that we should be in Pakistan, but if they lied in the past how creditable do you think they are being.

Also I was part of that group chasing around Saddam in Tikrit, which was a hot bed of Baath party supporters.:2 cents:

 

[delasoul]

I flippin hated Afghanistan. Then again I had a whole like 3 month break in between OEF and OIF. I remember those times as operation enduring deployment.

 

[jasonk282]

I flippin hated Afghanistan. Then again I had a whole like 3 month break in between OEF and OIF. I remember those times as operation enduring deployment.

what branch and unit?

 

[Hot Mega]

Technically speaking and ****** on any Army base, Marine camp, Navy ship or American embassy is actually an ****** on American soil.

Exactly as I've argued before...despite what the rhetoric is, we've had an uncountable number of attacks on "American soil" since 9/11.

If a person is not inclined to count those types of attacks as "attacks on American soil"...then neither should the USS Cole nor Embassy bombings in the '90s. Some people want to have it both ways.

The only problem that I have with this is that we are taking the ISI's word that they are doing all that they can. I am not saying that we should be in Pakistan, but if they lied in the past how creditable do you think they are being.

Also I was part of that group chasing around Saddam in Tikrit, which was a hot bed of Baath party supporters.:2 cents:

Well, we're not just taking their word for it. We're appraising the fruits of the intelligence and judging their actions...which up until recently have been virtually nonexistent.

As far as chasing Saddam around Tikrit....our POTUS at the time implied he's was involved in 9/11, possessed WMD and was developing nuclear weapons...neither of which ended up being close to the truth. Why did you think you were there up to and beyond the point where all of that was proven untrue?

 

[jasonk282]

Exactly as I've argued before...despite what the rhetoric is, we've had an uncountable number of attacks on "American soil" since 9/11.

If a person is not inclined to count those types of attacks as "attacks on American soil"...then neither should the USS Cole nor Embassy bombings in the '90s. Some people want to have it both ways.

I agree. But they don't hit close to home so some people don't care about them. but regarless they are an ****** on american soil.

Well, we're not just taking their word for it. We're appraising the fruits of the intelligence and judging their actions...which up until recently have been virtually nonexistent.

True.

As far as chasing Saddam around Tikrit....our POTUS at the time implied he's was involved in 9/11, possessed WMD and was developing nuclear weapons...neither of which ended up being close to the truth. Why did you think you were there up to and beyond the point where all of that was proven untrue?

We were getting rid of the Baath party and allowing the Iraqi people to build their own nation. Put Al-Quida came to crash the party so we had get rid of them since they were preventing the Iraqi people from having free election. They put up massive attacks in Sept and Oct leading up to the elections. IMO the mission changed from ousting Saddam to creating a stable Iraq IMO.

 

[Hot Mega]

We were getting rid of the Baath party and allowing the Iraqi people to build their own nation.

The Iraqi people of which the Baathists were as well already had their own nation and as nations go....it was already built.

Put Al-Quida came to crash the party so we had get rid of them since they were preventing the Iraqi people from having free election. They put up massive attacks in Sept and Oct leading up to the elections.

AQ goes where they can ****** Americans especially under the guise of fighting Jihad. So you have to see the irony in us fighting to oust an element that is there only because we went there. Saddam could have taken care of 10 times as many AQ as we did in half the time (or less). No because he has a better fighting ***** but because he knew the lay of his own land.

IMO the mission changed from ousting Saddam to creating a stable Iraq IMO.

Well, we were "ousting Saddam" because we claimed him guilty of all sorts of things that weren't true....so we end up trying to create a stable country from the destabilization we caused?

 

[jasonk282]

Baathist were molded after the ****'s so to say the Iraqi people had their own country is a mute point IMO. Yes cause you did not see million of Iraqi's cheer and celberate the day Saddam was captured. People were comming up to any US soldier and kissing them and thanking for getting rid of the ******. Terrorist saw this as an oppuntunity. When we caputred HVT or other we got passports for all over the middle east, asia and a few from the US. We took out a dictartoship to establish peace, much like Germany in 1945.

 

[Hot Mega]

Baathist were molded after the ****'s so to say the Iraqi people had their own country is a mute point IMO.

What you fail to realize is Saddam and his Baathists were products of the history of Iraq...In other words, their history created the circumstance for a strong man capable of holding a country full of people with pretty disparate ideologies toward one another together. As we see now how it was no easy task.

Yes cause you did not see million of Iraqi's cheer and celberate the day Saddam was captured. People were comming up to any US soldier and kissing them and thanking for getting rid of the ******.

No. I saw religious and political opponents of Saddam cheering...no doubt as some here would have been doing if Clinton was served up to his political enemies, Bush to his and/or Obama to his.

Terrorist saw this as an oppuntunity. When we caputred HVT or other we got passports for all over the middle east, asia and a few from the US. We took out a dictartoship to establish peace, much like Germany in 1945.

No extremists saw it as an opportunity to **** Americans and opportunists saw it as a way to profit off of ******* Americans...that's why they were there.

Baathists didn't even like AQ extremist in their country...they sure as hell didn't like us there.

Again, this whole circus has been tried before starting with the British Mandate and Faisel I to Nuri as-Said to Faisel II to when Abd al-Karim Qasim eventually overthrew and ****** many of them (Faisel II, as-Said, families et al).

 

[jasonk282]

^ Yep I agree we just need to stay the hell out of the middle east altogether. Saddam did not like anyone but baathist, and even the it was shaky.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Great discussion Hotmega and Jason.Just a couple quick points.

1.Some places in the world are historically known as places you do not want to be engaged in military action in,as the results are always negative.Afghanistan is one of these,it is a tribalistic place often combative and has been for centurys.Many army's have found out the difficulties with the people, the terrain,weather at times etc that afghanistan poses.

Could it be different this time and we pacify them or something else, sure I guess it could but history which I think is important would say the odds are against it.


2.And on Iraq I often have thought I would bet parts of the US govt have thought wished they had not allowed Saddam to be executed.That way they could get him a new blue suit ,say sorry about your sons man, and give him his old job back.Thats a joke (sorta).

My point is that it's true baathists (sunnis even though the minority) were ruling the country and Saddam was the current baathe leader.While their were inequeties in country favoring sunnis it was nothing like the trouble we saw between the two after saddam was removed.Now we IMO have it where after we leave they have to settle this thing between them as to who runs the country and the rest of it.Maybe someday they will all be better off for this but I think most think they would probably rather have skipped the visit by the US and friends.Lot of people in Iraq have died as a result of all this.I'm not saying that was the intention of the US Govt,they miscalculated a lot of things IMO.

Countries like Iraq are used to strongmen running them, trying to ***** them into what we think they should want is always problematic,maybe admiral but still problematic for for both host and foreign power.History is full of such attempts by countries to go half way round the world and impose themselves on others and it more often than not is a failure.It's been a failure every time the US has tried to do it since ww2.We can do limited objectives like the 1st gulf war but this nation building thing is just not something not only us but pretty much anyone has been very good at in the post war world. Korea,Vietnam,Iraq (2nd war) and now even Afghanistan IMO show just how the world has changed and miltary conflict is no longer the effective device it may have once been.Spend tons of money, and we have on such enterprises and recieve really very little in tangible positive results.Are we better off for Vietnam ,Iraq,Afghanistan? I guess some would say we are, but I don't really see it.Gotta be a better ,smarter ,cheaper way to work these problems.

Not to mention a more humane world lol:angels:

 

[CunningStunts]

We either need to start ******* them all and let their god sort em out, or GTFO.

You can't win a war fighting it half-assed.