http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/ |
|
| No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1160 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
So, later on tonight the President will announce he's authorizing a mini-surge in Afghanistan of 30,000 troops plus 10,000 NATO troops. Those troops will be in place by 2010. He will also announce that withdrawal of those troops will begin 1 year after that in 2011. Poll included, you can choose multiple options, comment as you see fit. |
|
| Author: | mechaphil [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
Too bad we can't choose multiple options. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
mechaphil wrote: Too bad we can't choose multiple options. Bah...sorry, that's fixed now. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I chose just about right. A straight pullout isn't a good idea. Since we're in there, let's do what we need to do CORRECTLY. I think giving them the troops they want, yet setting some timetables to get the job done is the right course of action. Undersizing the force and having no defined timetable were my biggest complaints about the previous policy. This seems to address both. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I think it's about right (see, I don't disagree with everything he does  )...however I think he waited about 4 months too long...He's had those recommendations for a long time.I also think setting a timeline (at least one made public) is a bad idea. |
|
| Author: | mechaphil [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I agree with Squanto. See, Afghanistan is where the military should have been all along, not Iraq. There's a real purpose to the presence in Afghanistan, so why not finish it the right way. Boost numbers, get the job done, and get the fuck out. Besides, if I remember correctly, isn't decreasing troop presence in Iraq and increasing troop presence in Afghanistan something Obama was campaigning with? Way to make good, Pres! |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
mechaphil wrote: Besides, if I remember correctly, isn't decreasing troop presence in Iraq and increasing troop presence in Afghanistan something Obama was campaigning with? Way to make good, Pres! Well, technically the decreases in Iraq troop levels we committed to under Bush...we signed an agreement to get out by 2011. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I think the public timeline isn't the greatest idea, simply because it's liable to go past that date regardless because of the nature of the task at hand, and passing that end date will mean the opposition will scream about his failure to get the troops home like he promised. On the other hand, if he doesn't set a timeline, his party flips out about open ended wars. So, he's dammed either way really. |
|
| Author: | Rud [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I don't think releasing a public time line is a good idea in this scenario. Fairly easy for non-uniformed combatants to scale back while US & NATO forces are at their peak, then begin to escalate once forces begin to dwindle. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
Rud wrote: I don't think releasing a public time line is a good idea in this scenario. Fairly easy for non-uniformed combatants to scale back while US & NATO forces are at their peak, then begin to escalate once forces begin to dwindle. Well, speculation is the public timeline is meant to put the screws on the Afghan government to shape up in a hurry...I still think it's a bad idea though and 18 months just seems unrealistic. let's not forget the damn Soviets couldn't wrangle Afghanistan into shape with a much larger military presence. |
|
| Author: | Rud [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
If you're just running it between the governments involved, that's fine. I just wouldn't let everyone in on it. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
Who in NATO is going to give us 10,000 actual fighting troops???? The UK public is kind of sick of following America into war...Australia probably would but they're not in NATO. |
|
| Author: | BlueandYellow [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I'm sorry get our guys the hell out... I'm sick of this... |
|
| Author: | End The Curse [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
I don't care about the number of troops, I care about how the war is fought. If we will be attempting to win the hearts and minds of the enemy with 30,000 troops in a benevolent military police action, focusing on outreach and trying to demonstrate our goodness to the Afghani people at the expense of total military victory, I want out right now. Not one more fucking American soldier should lose their life needlessly in that Vietnamish morass of fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it. I suspect it's the former, and if correct I support a complete and total withdrawal. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
End The Curse wrote: If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it. The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan. |
|
| Author: | End The Curse [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
Crosscheck wrote: End The Curse wrote: If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it. The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan. In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us? |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
End The Curse wrote: Crosscheck wrote: End The Curse wrote: If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it. The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan. In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us? I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating the obvious
|
|
| Author: | End The Curse [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
Crosscheck wrote: End The Curse wrote: Crosscheck wrote: End The Curse wrote: If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it. The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan. In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us? I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating the obvious Obvious to you and I, perhaps.
|
|
| Author: | SchonyGal [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
Overall, I'm very pleased. It's tough to celebrate sending more troops, but it's a job that needs to be finished. Let us remember that those in todays Armed Forces freely and willingly chose to fight for our Freedom. |
|
| Author: | slesh [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No snark discussion about POTUS Afghan speech |
End The Curse wrote: Crosscheck wrote: End The Curse wrote: Crosscheck wrote: End The Curse wrote: If we go in with a slash and burn, scorched earth policy of win at all costs, as fast, brutal and uncompromising as possible, using the entire force of our military to crush the enemy without any other objective except total victory, than I support it. The problem with that, which no one seems to be mentioning, is that would involve invading Pakistan. In Vietnam we were unwilling to go after major strategic military targets out of fear of upsetting the Soviets. How'd that go for us? I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating the obvious Obvious to you and I, perhaps. In order to go out and slash and burn as you stated you would have to call up an all out wartime draft. Every able bodied man age 18 to 45 to immediately enter into military service. Then of course there is the implications of what this would mean to the military branches, the Marines, Army and Air Force would fold roughly 85% of those drafted, the Navy not so much as this is a land action. The Navy has the existing capabilities to go after them in Somalia, Yemen and along the Coast of Pakistan on the Western edge of the country. It could be done and should be done. I think people need to understand, the war on terror is not going to end in our lifetimes. To many holes in the policies implemented both by Bush and by this most recent moron. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|