US-Afghanistan withdrawal in 6-Months?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 11:41 AM by dwiggen

reply to post by dooper

Dooper, just want to start off by asking you to please not take what I'm about to say as a personal attack on you or your character. As much as it's going to sound like that's what I'm doing; I'm not.

That being said: I am so thankful that men like you are a "retiring" breed. Everything you have thus far said has been sentiments and strategies of the past. This, not unlike Vietnam, is not a war where you can just go in, bomb the living hell out of everything, and expect it all to go away. In fact, I can say that doing so would more than likely make matters much, much worse. I can say from a personal standpoint that, as a junior Army officer, I would much rather my Commander in Chief think about (and I mean REALLY think hard), where he is going to send my brothers and sisters, and myself. And if that means he has to delay any action for several months, or even a whole year, then so be it. I have the luxury of making quick, snap decisions when needed, and not having to fear disasterous consequences... the President, on the other hand, does not.

In response to the posts about Afghani Police being infiltrated by the Taliban: the Afghanis are a pragmatic people. They understand that as soon as we pull out, the Taliban and their ilk are going to flood right back in and take over. I can't say that I blame them for playing both sides of the fence at the moment. After all, we haven't really given them a good reason not to, have we?

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 11:48 AM by Helmkat

reply to post by SLAYER69

You may of been slammed however you were a realist in this regard and called it right. Lets face it we are all "Armchair Quarterbacks" in regards to this scenario and if we really were privy to all the information and were responsible for our decisions we would very likely have a very different opinion of what to do.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 11:57 AM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by dwiggen
In response to the posts about Afghani Police being infiltrated by the Taliban: the Afghanis are a pragmatic people. They understand that as soon as we pull out, the Taliban and their ilk are going to flood right back in and take over. I can't say that I blame them for playing both sides of the fence at the moment. After all, we haven't really given them a good reason not to, have we?

When the US first took on the Taliban it was prosecuted in the correct manor. We with the use of our Spec Op Forces and the assistance of the indigenous Northern alliance were able to drive the Taliban from power and into their hideouts in the Afghan mountains and across the border into Pakistan.

Now however we seem to have forgotten how we did that in only a few short years. The Taliban are not some super human force. They are flesh and blood and can be defeated. We just need to go at them in the correct manor. Pakistan is presently in a knock down drag out fight on their side of the border. This is driving the Taliban out of their traditional winter hideout and back into Afghanistan. There will be an increase in activity this winter and spring.

I've even wrote a thread on this topic.
It's worth a read IMO.

Marines Engage Al-Qaeda & Taliban Militants

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 12:03 PM by LadySkadi

Curious-
If there really is a planned withdrawal in the works, are we to presume that the Pakistan Govt. is back in "control" of country and that insurgents are not a threat to destabilization?
Or, is planned withdrawal from Afghanistan (and I realize that does not mean complete withdrawal) also mean it's just a possible shift to location in Pakistan? Not a war than, but can be deemed "support" instead...

[edit on 5-11-2009 by LadySkadi]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 01:01 PM by Obinhi

At the end of Charile Willisons War you see a series of scenes where our government fails to care about afghanastan after the soviets are kicked out. We in fact caused the problems that we have today by not rebuilding the country that we helped to blow up. That said, the russians and Brits should feel some responsibility for what they did to scar the afghan people.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 01:07 PM by nunya13

Originally posted by SLAYER69

The day of his first real briefing as the President...

He sat behind the BIG desk and a few high ranking individuals behind closed doors informed him of the real situation and there was no change.

I just can't imagine what would be so explosive as to change someone's mind from wanting to end any war, i.e. suffering/dying/destruction, to one of allowing those things to continue once they have all the facts.

Any thought, anyone?

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 01:07 PM by dwiggen

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Now however we seem to have forgotten how we did that in only a few short years. The Taliban are not some super human force. They are flesh and blood and can be defeated. We just need to go at them in the correct manor. Pakistan is presently in a knock down drag out fight on their side of the border. This is driving the Taliban out of their traditional winter hideout and back into Afghanistan. There will be an increase in activity this winter and spring.

I completely agree. I wasn't attemping to make an excuse for the Afghanis, just pointing out an observation of my own.

I do believe that we need to take the fight to them, but I think it needs to be done in a manner that is balanced with the humanitarian efforts we are currently making as well. We CANNOT win the war in Afghanistan, without also winning over its people.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 01:08 PM by arcnaver

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Oh absolutely! I agree, no way did he have all the info. But it was still part of his campaign and it was foolishness on his part to put that in his campaign, so now that he is President, he owns the whole mess, despite who started it. They cant blame failure on the previous President. This is his ball of wax now, his General He put into the theater is having his recommendations blatantly ignored by him.

edit: And thats a lot of hims!

[edit on 5-11-2009 by arcnaver]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 01:18 PM by infinite

If we withdraw, I predict a much larger international force will reoccupy Afghanistan within years. Especially Russia, if the Taliban turns its attention to the Islamic terrorist groups within Russian provinces.

Problems will escalate and intensify.

Brutal lesson: You do not give true democracy whilst engaged in an occupation - it does not work. A puppet government would've been the must appropriate method and a slow transition to democracy on the NATO's departure.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 02:41 PM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by SaturnFX

The common sense of the people for the people goes a long way, something our leaders have been sadly lacking.

If Obama get's America and it's Allies out of Afghanistan in 2010 it will have proved something, he is capable of changing his core policies after further consideration on what is best for America, not a bad quality in a leader.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 03:07 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by dooper
His hesitation in all things military is enough to knock a buzzard off a gut wagon. It's not even hesitation - it's an attempt to ignore the task before a Commander-in-Chief.

For any of his soldiers, Obama's "freezing" would be called "dereliction of duty."

Seriously this bit of rhetoric has gotten really old really fast.

The President should be faulted for not making lightening fast, gut instinct decisions about putting American lives in harms way!!

Miss President Bush do you? Someone willing to invade other countries lickety split! Only wussies think about right or wrong, how many lives it will cost...or demand evidence or facts...exit strategy...or any strategy beyond "kickin ass and takin names" for that matter.....you don't need to bother reading a news paper or intelligence reports to just "feel" that a country is "evil"...send more boys over there to shoot em up!!!

All that "thinking" and "careful decision making" crap is for liberal commies!!

I know the GOP has had it's talking heads repeating this simple minded trash straight from the memo talking poitns, but like much of the GOPs BS ...they underestimate the intelligence of the American people.

Newsflash to the GOP...the average American prefer a President who actually gathers opinions and THINKS before sending our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, moms and dads half-way around the world with the certaintity that many of them won't come back.

Now back to your regular bashing of all that commie "thinking" and "listening" he does before spending American lives.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 03:47 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by nunya13
I just can't imagine what would be so explosive as to change someone's mind from wanting to end any war, i.e. suffering/dying/destruction, to one of allowing those things to continue once they have all the facts.

Any thought, anyone?

I don't think he changed his mind, I think he found out how little power the POTUS has as regards something like this. I think he'd LOVE to end the war, but there are too many factors at work that prevent him from making a unilateral decision.

There's a lot of money involved, oil, the drug trade, international relations... It's not as simple as he thought it was going to be. A POTUS is privy to a lot more information than a junior Senator is. So, now... he may still be working on ending it, but it's definitely not going to be as easy as he thought it was. Have you noticed how gray he's gotten in the last year?

Originally posted by arcnaver
But it was still part of his campaign and it was foolishness on his part to put that in his campaign, so now that he is President, he owns the whole mess, despite who started it.

Every candidate says what they WANT to do once they're in office and few of them are able to meet all their desires. That's just politics. And it's usually because they don't know what they're talking about, basically.

They CAN'T know until they get in there. I do agree that this war is his responsibility now and what he does with it will be on his shoulders. I mean, we can still blame Bush/Cheney for starting it but what Obama does with it is on his hands.

I am happy that Obama is (hopefully) rethinking his original idea of going back into Afghanistan. He's not going to get out of this with clean hands, though...

Excellent discussion, guys!

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 03:58 PM by gtatix

After listening to Craig B Hulet on Coast Nov 3, I am convinced that our men and women are fighting a high-finance battle against an "enemy" that became thus simply by refusing to allow a pipeline through their land for the peanuts they were offered.

Apparently under the Taliban, there were NO poppies in Afghanistan. Apparently a lot of former top officials of the George W regime had/have connections with fossil fuels and this pipline through Afghanistan.

This small piece of the EVIL political agenda of a virtually invisible rogue government is but one of many things killing the average man/woman that KNOWS there is a lot of bogus crap going on in The West and the whole world.

I can't find a lot of information about this pipeline and the gold-collar criminals involved. Many of the names from the Bush regime come-up as does Karzai who worked with the CIA in the past.

I look forward to someone here who has a LOT of "digging" power to either find the details from Mr Hulet or other similar sources of REAL and DOCUMENTED information available regarding this provable conspiracy.

ECONOMIC EXPOSE - CRAIG HULET ON COAST NOV 3 2009

OLD ATS THREAD ON AFGHAN PIPELINE - 2002

[edit on 5-11-2009 by gtatix]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by gtatix]

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:09 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by gtatix

Here are some interesting threads I've done that are very relevant to what you just posted.

Iranian revolt Explained - Wake Up!

AND

The New Great Game

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:31 PM by Sky watcher

reply to post by dooper

Obama probably has made a back-door deal with the Teliban. Don't attack the U.S., Give us your drugs and allow the pipelines to run through with no problem.

Considering Obama, Baxter and the WHO has started infecting everyone with a bio-weapon in the swine flu vaccine, What in gods name are we waiting for? They have declared war on the American people.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 04:40 PM by Sky watcher

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Pakistan is presently in a knock down drag out fight on their side of the border. This is driving the Taliban out of their traditional winter hideout and back into Afghanistan. There will be an increase in activity this winter and spring.

Marines Engage Al-Qaeda & Taliban Militants

Have you seen any videos of them actually fighting the Teliban? I have yet to see one that would prove that they are doing anything worth a dam.

Pakistan has never been on our side and I doubt for a second that they would attack their own in force.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:08 PM by dooper

reply to post by dwiggen

Dwiggen, please note that my response will be to you as an officer, and not a personal attack in any manner, shape, or form.

Your assumption that "old school" doesn't work is entirely incorrect. When the core principles of warfare - when followed - have NEVER lost a single battle, campaign, or war since 1479 BC, then it is to these principles that a military man SHOULD give serious weight.

This modern "enlightened" approach is precisely why we didn't do worth a damn in Korea, Vietnam, and why we were caught with our britches down in Iraq, and keep firing generals in Afghanistan.

When month after month it's not getting any better - then it's time to get back to the basics.

The problem is that our political and especially our military leaders don't know their business. Thus we are CONSTANTLY changing our "strategy."

The reason? They're doing it all wrong each time they rotate generals, and every time, regardless of the "new and improved" strategy, they have neglected the core, time-proven principles of warfare that work without fail all through written history.

I trust these principles, what when were followed, enabled the unbridled success of Phillip, Thucidides, Alexander, Vegetius, Lysander, Caesar, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Suvarov, Cassander, Hannibal, Scipio, Armenius, Martel, William, Subotai, Turenne, Villar, Jourdan, Bonaparte, Grant, Sherman, Patton, Dayan, and recently Boyd, as executed by Schwartzkopf.

Only when they unaccountably abandoned one or more of these simple principles did they fail.

By knowing the principles learned from his father, this is why Alexander at age 15 knew more of warfare than his generals, and even ours. He never failed, he always held these principles close to hand.

T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) stated, "With 2000 years of examples behind us we have no excuse when fighting, for not fighting well."

About your CIC's inexplicable hesitation. "Opportunity in war is usually of greater value than bravery . . . terrain is often of more value than bravery . . . bravery is often of more value than numbers." Vegetius

Hesitation is ruin. Ask Chamberlain or that French President Dildolier. The longer you hesitate, the worse the problem, the more blood required to correct it. Fact.

As an officer, it behooves you to know these things. Your men's lives depend on you knowing your business.

Because your superiors sure as hell don't.

By the way - I want to thank you and your men for taking your turn on the wall.

A very big thank you.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:16 PM by dooper

reply to post by maybereal11

No rhetoric.

You'll not hear me singing Bush's praises. So get off that goat - it's dead and isn't taking you where you intended.

Jesus. Read the above post by me.

In war, that which is intuitive is counter-productive.

That in war which is counter-intuitive is productive.

IF, and I specify IF we're going to fight the Taliban - then for GOD's sake, let's get on with it, and quit fartin' around.

Get the Generals asses out in the field with the troops, and make it happen.

It's one sorry-assed General to require his men perform without leadership, and every tool and weapon they need to perform their task. Including leadership.

The most abominable SOB's in hell, I hope, are those panty-waist political pretenders who wear a General grade uniform, and because they wouldn't - or couldn't - stand up for their men - and opted instead to became the instrument of their suffering - or worse - defeat.

Let's either do it, wide-assed open, full bore, or let's get on home.

Squeeze hard or get off the pot.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 05:20 PM by Pathos

reply to post by SLAYER69

SLAYER69,
Thanks for sharing that link man. Hmmm.... I think we need to keep an eye on what the president does with Pakistan.

reply posted on 5-11-2009 @ 06:57 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by Pathos

Gordon Brown vows to fight Taliban in Afghanistan but public support falters

Gordon Brown will today pledge not to "walk away" from Afghanistan in the wake of the deaths of six British soldiers this week and mounting polling evidence that public support for the war is crumbling.

British forces reported the death of another soldier in an explosion in Helmand province yesterday as the hunt continued for the Afghan policeman who shot dead five British soldiers on Tuesday.