Surge Afganistan

[Lemon law]

Ozoned, maybe our differences if any are contained in your signature line of " Let me save you some trouble. If I don't like what you have to say, I can just go Fvck myself. "

Maybe the counterproductive wrong song line for Afghanistan, more by happenstance than inevitable logic, Afghanistan and its unique politics happened to be the platform Islamic extremists choose to launch what amounted to, IMHO, an attack on the USA and the world trade center. Such an attack was not necessarily inevitable, but history always turns on defining events and missing horsenails. And once the 911 attack was a done deed, some sort of US response was certainly inevitable.

The fact that you share a confusion on what there is to win for the US, certainly leaves me with no reason to say fvck you, and while I do not necessarily expect you side with me, its still no reason to attack your posts or question your patriotism. We still must all come together as fellow Americans. Come let us reason together should be the right song. Even if I am almost 100% opposed to palehorse type ideas, I refuse to question palehorse's patriotism or right to advocate his position.

 

[Farang]

From what I understand, the basic idea is to get out of Iraq, improve international ties by doing so, and then with the added resources that generates focus on Afghanistan. The surge won't look the same but options will expand.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly the last year or so. Kabul was secure, but even there the situation has turned for the worst.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A not hard call to make sandorski , a natural progression in what amounts to a bad US strategy, but the question is and remains, can a smarter US strategy
reverse the trend line?

Or is all now lost?

All we know for certain is that our current strategy stinks. With all due respects to palehorse type thinking, there are deep divisions regarding the way forward.

We cannot much longer continue with a straddle the fence middle ground, down that road lies seven years of past failure, now we must go all in on a military strategy, or all in on a diplomatic solution. Little middle ground exists.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: feralkid
If by "Surge" you mean paying off our enemies like we've done in Iraq, I don't think that would work in Afghanistan.


If you mean more troops, better late than never; although the time may well have passed for any real success over there..

sure........ we just walked in and said here... have this briefcase

don't' spew rhetoric, theories, or bs conspiracy theories

While feral was being blunt, in a sense that is what we were doing. It's no secret that the Sunnis we are paying as the "Sunni Awakening" were previously sympathetic to insurgents, if not outright insurgents themselves. Also known is that said Sunnis switched sides through a combination of alienation and money.

And I doubt that the surge will work in Afghanistan UNLESS we can also provide security and a stable infrastructure. We are fortunate that the Sunni Awakening turned against insurgents and they're competent. I'm not sure we have a similar group in Afghanistan (and it seems to me the situation is worse with the Taliban reconstituting itself and funding itself thru opium).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Come let us reason together should be the right song. Even if I am almost 100% opposed to palehorse type ideas, I refuse to question palehorse's patriotism or right to advocate his position.

I knew you couldn't resist...

That said, my "palehorse type ideas" are very much in line with our most senior leaders, including Gen. Petraeus. For years now, I have called for a multi-pronged strategy that includes the simultaneous implementation of (1) more kinetic operations against the major AQ and Taliban havens in NW Pakistan, (2) a dramatic increase in economic aid for the entire region, (3) infrastructure renewal throughout the entire region, (4) improved diplomatic efforts at all levels and eliminating corruption (to include tribal leaders, police chiefs, governors, etc), and (5) an amplified counter-drug campaign to eradicate the opium industry that thrives there. We also need to build a well-funded coalition of workers willing and able to build thousands of miles of paved roads and install thousands of miles of fiber optic cable for communication.

I've even done some of the footwork for you in drawing the parallels between the Lashkars that are springing up throughout Waziristan, and Iraq's own Awakening Councils. If leveraged properly, as we did with the Awakening Councils and others in Iraq, we can drive a gigantic wedge between the innocent locals and all of the AQ/Taliban in the region. Hell, they're already starting to fight against both groups! All we need to do now is give them a lot of encouragement and the right incentives to continue...

So, for you to consistently say you are opposed to "all of palehorse' failing ideas" means that you are opposed to all of the above. That makes you a fool, or a liar.

Which is it?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The place seems kind of a lost cause in many ways.

As long as people keep the Rep vs Dem mentality instead of a Gov vs People one, yeah, I agree.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Come let us reason together should be the right song. Even if I am almost 100% opposed to palehorse type ideas, I refuse to question palehorse's patriotism or right to advocate his position.

I knew you couldn't resist...

That said, my "palehorse type ideas" are very much in line with our most senior leaders, including Gen. Petraeus. For years now, I have called for a multi-pronged strategy that includes the simultaneous implementation of (1) more kinetic operations against the major AQ and Taliban havens in NW Pakistan, (2) a dramatic increase in economic aid for the entire region, (3) infrastructure renewal throughout the entire region, (4) improved diplomatic efforts at all levels and eliminating corruption (to include tribal leaders, police chiefs, governors, etc), and (5) an amplified counter-drug campaign to eradicate the opium industry that thrives there. We also need to build a well-funded coalition of workers willing and able to build thousands of miles of paved roads and install thousands of miles of fiber optic cable for communication.

I've even done some of the footwork for you in drawing the parallels between the Lashkars that are springing up throughout Waziristan, and Iraq's own Awakening Councils. If leveraged properly, as we did with the Awakening Councils and others in Iraq, we can drive a gigantic wedge between the innocent locals and all of the AQ/Taliban in the region. Hell, they're already starting to fight against both groups! All we need to do now is give them a lot of encouragement and the right incentives to continue...

So, for you to consistently say you are opposed to "all of palehorse' failing ideas" means that you are opposed to all of the above. That makes you a fool, or a liar.

Which is it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When palehorse puts it the way he just did above, I start to agree with that basic position, but the area of disagreement I have with palehorse is not hard to understand.

Because it all well and fine to talk that kind of overall strategy, BUT IF YOU DON"T HAVE THE RESOURCES IN PLACE BEFOREHAND, its counterproductive to blunder around, speaking loudly, while carrying a small stick.

And sad to say and with all due respect to the US military, like some Peter Principle character promoted beyond their level of competence, instead of working on anything else needing done, Nato defaults back to only what Nato is good at, namely killing people and breaking things. Maybe useful things in a war but worse than useless in an military occupation. As for all the other things palehorse pays lip service to, they never get even started

And contrary to what palehorse asserts, General Petraeus does not endorse the palehorse strategy, the main first significant difference is making a distinction between Al-Quida and the Taliban, hopefully driving a wedge between them, and then going after only Al-Quida. Reducing a huge and almost impossible problems into two separate and doable tasks.

And palehorse is also the idiot who is bellyaching to invade Pakistan, maybe doable with 400+ K troops if we ignore the huge political problems, but with 72 K troops, widening the war would be the bone head play of the century.

In short, what we can and can't productively do depend on what we have in place in terms of resources. And by in large, a military occupation depend on three things.
(1) GO BIG OR STAY AT HOME. (2) BE ABLE TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.
IF ANARCHY IS ALLOWED TO FLOURISH PAST MONTH ONE, its going to be far more difficult a job. (3) ITS ALL ABOUT WINNING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE.

In Vietnam which we lost, at least we had #1, we failed at #2 and #3. In Afghanistan we do not have any of them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Come let us reason together should be the right song. Even if I am almost 100% opposed to palehorse type ideas, I refuse to question palehorse's patriotism or right to advocate his position.

I knew you couldn't resist...

That said, my "palehorse type ideas" are very much in line with our most senior leaders, including Gen. Petraeus. For years now, I have called for a multi-pronged strategy that includes the simultaneous implementation of (1) more kinetic operations against the major AQ and Taliban havens in NW Pakistan, (2) a dramatic increase in economic aid for the entire region, (3) infrastructure renewal throughout the entire region, (4) improved diplomatic efforts at all levels and eliminating corruption (to include tribal leaders, police chiefs, governors, etc), and (5) an amplified counter-drug campaign to eradicate the opium industry that thrives there. We also need to build a well-funded coalition of workers willing and able to build thousands of miles of paved roads and install thousands of miles of fiber optic cable for communication.

I've even done some of the footwork for you in drawing the parallels between the Lashkars that are springing up throughout Waziristan, and Iraq's own Awakening Councils. If leveraged properly, as we did with the Awakening Councils and others in Iraq, we can drive a gigantic wedge between the innocent locals and all of the AQ/Taliban in the region. Hell, they're already starting to fight against both groups! All we need to do now is give them a lot of encouragement and the right incentives to continue...

So, for you to consistently say you are opposed to "all of palehorse' failing ideas" means that you are opposed to all of the above. That makes you a fool, or a liar.

Which is it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When palehorse puts it the way he just did above, I start to agree with that basic position, but the area of disagreement I have with palehorse is not hard to understand.

Because it all well and fine to talk that kind of overall strategy, BUT IF YOU DON"T HAVE THE RESOURCES IN PLACE BEFOREHAND, its counterproductive to blunder around, speaking loudly, while carrying a small stick.

And sad to say and with all due respect to the US military, like some Peter Principle character promoted beyond their level of competence, instead of working on anything else needing done, Nato defaults back to only what Nato is good at, namely killing people and breaking things. Maybe useful things in a war but worse than useless in an military occupation. As for all the other things palehorse pays lip service to, they never get even started

And contrary to what palehorse asserts, General Petraeus does not endorse the palehorse strategy, the main first significant difference is making a distinction between Al-Quida and the Taliban, hopefully driving a wedge between them, and then going after only Al-Quida. Reducing a huge and almost impossible problems into two separate and doable tasks.

And palehorse is also the idiot who is bellyaching to invade Pakistan, maybe doable with 400+ K troops if we ignore the huge political problems, but with 72 K troops, widening the war would be the bone head play of the century.

In short, what we can and can't productively do depend on what we have in place in terms of resources. And by in large, a military occupation depend on three things.
(1) GO BIG OR STAY AT HOME. (2) BE ABLE TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.
IF ANARCHY IS ALLOWED TO FLOURISH PAST MONTH ONE, its going to be far more difficult a job. (3) ITS ALL ABOUT WINNING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE.

In Vietnam which we lost, at least we had #1, we failed at #2 and #3. In Afghanistan we do not have any of them.

you just argue for the sake of arguing... it gets old.

I think I'll let me previous post speak for itself, with one caveats: A very large "surge" in troops was implied.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Why do we need to pull out of Iraq and jump right into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a shit that has a crop known as poppy. We need send NO troops to Afghanistan. There nobody never have been never will be.

Besides I thought OBAMA was pulling all troops out of middle east. When did that change. When he became president elect. I like the people they are looking at for treasury . Same idiots got us to were we are.

Its just as I thought same old shit just new puppets on strings with same old master.

Obama had better get us out of Iraq and fast . Thats was his promise. Ya I know after the election . He said it might take more than 4 years. LOL .

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Dulanic

Originally posted by: bamacre
I thought Obama was the anti-war president?

Glad you listened and researched before the whole presidental vote. Obama said multiple times we need to be in Afganistan and we need to push strong there.

So those poppy plants are important to Obama some how. Looks like he wants the drug trade.

 

[Nemesis 1]

USA needs a time out. We need to lick our wounds. More needles military spending won't help. We need to revise our standing in the world. Let china try to keep things straight . Its as important to them as any . Now that there a Super power.

America 2 times has answered the pleas of the world . WW1 WW2 . WE should not have interferred with there problems. They are all fools . Europe is the biggest joke of all and our greatest threat.

We need to take care of AMERICA first . Those corporations who don't like . Move to China and good bye don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out traitors.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Why do we need to pull out of Iraq and jump right into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a shit that has a crop known as poppy. We need send NO troops to Afghanistan. There nobody never have been never will be.

Besides I thought OBAMA was pulling all troops out of middle east. When did that change. When he became president elect. I like the people they are looking at for treasury . Same idiots got us to were we are.

Its just as I thought same old shit just new puppets on strings with same old master.

Obama had better get us out of Iraq and fast . Thats was his promise. Ya I know after the election . He said it might take more than 4 years. LOL .

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So those poppy plants are important to Obama some how. Looks like he wants the drug trade.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
USA needs a time out. We need to lick our wounds. More needles military spending won't help. We need to revise our standing in the world. Let china try to keep things straight . Its as important to them as any . Now that there a Super power.

America 2 times has answered the pleas of the world . WW1 WW2 . WE should not have interferred with there problems. They are all fools . Europe is the biggest joke of all and our greatest threat.

We need to take care of AMERICA first . Those corporations who don't like . Move to China and good bye don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out traitors.

Hey Nem, when are you supposed to graduate the 3rd grade? We should throw you a party, or something...

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of significant troop reductions in Iraq, Obama and Hillary were both basically talking time frames of at least 18 months.

Sadly with Afghanistan, its the Northern Alliance, the very folks we initially allied with when we first invaded Afghanistan, who are doing the most to promote the opium trade. And now the opium trade also corrupts the Afghan army, much of the central government, and now even the Taliban is joining the party.


Before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban had almost wiped out opium production as a matter of public policy. And IMHO, if Obama and Petraeus cannot address the corrupting influences of the opium trade, Afghanistan may well be hopeless. But I can agree with palehorse, a huge surge in troops and economic development is needed for Afghanistan. And in 70 some days, hopefully new and more realistic strategies will start.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I would think a "surge" in Afghanistan would require a major troop shift from Iraq...

There are over a million people in the U.S. military in one form of service or another . We had over 500,000 involved in the Gulf War. So why have we strained our military over a 150,000-troop occupation in Iraq?

I think the answer has to do with the Pentagon's military model. First, you have a large permanent army/navy/air force. These troops are committed throughout the world in countries on every continent. The rationale for having so many troops in, say, Germany, is no longer clear, but for political and economic reasons the Pentagon must keep them there.

Second, you have the reserves, a force that is intended to be called up on a temporary basis for short periods of time, as with the Gulf War. Because the permanent army is already fully committed to "peacetime obligations" any actual war of any size requires the temporary reserves, either to go to war or to backfill the permenent troops.

The problem comes when the "temporary" war/occupation drags on and on without end. The rational solution is to treat the Iraq occupation the same as we do the permanent bases in Europe - include it as part of the Pentagon budget and in the planning for the permanent troop levels. But to do that would require either a) admitting that the "defense" budget is now $200B higher than the already absurd $600B, or b) cutting back on troop allocations elsewhere. Although (b) would make the most sense - you can't reasonably justify the massive number of troops in, say, Korea or Kosovo, let alone Britain - it's just not politcally acceptable to admit that we don't need them.

So, instead we keep the occupation going with the "temporary" reserves. But, the "temporary" reserves are meant to be used for unforeseen wars and war situations - if you are using them for a permanent occupation then you have no reserves left for the next war that comes up.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Come let us reason together should be the right song. Even if I am almost 100% opposed to palehorse type ideas, I refuse to question palehorse's patriotism or right to advocate his position.

I knew you couldn't resist...

That said, my "palehorse type ideas" are very much in line with our most senior leaders, including Gen. Petraeus. For years now, I have called for a multi-pronged strategy that includes the simultaneous implementation of (1) more kinetic operations against the major AQ and Taliban havens in NW Pakistan, (2) a dramatic increase in economic aid for the entire region, (3) infrastructure renewal throughout the entire region, (4) improved diplomatic efforts at all levels and eliminating corruption (to include tribal leaders, police chiefs, governors, etc), and (5) an amplified counter-drug campaign to eradicate the opium industry that thrives there. We also need to build a well-funded coalition of workers willing and able to build thousands of miles of paved roads and install thousands of miles of fiber optic cable for communication.

I've even done some of the footwork for you in drawing the parallels between the Lashkars that are springing up throughout Waziristan, and Iraq's own Awakening Councils. If leveraged properly, as we did with the Awakening Councils and others in Iraq, we can drive a gigantic wedge between the innocent locals and all of the AQ/Taliban in the region. Hell, they're already starting to fight against both groups! All we need to do now is give them a lot of encouragement and the right incentives to continue...

So, for you to consistently say you are opposed to "all of palehorse' failing ideas" means that you are opposed to all of the above. That makes you a fool, or a liar.

Which is it?

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN'T STOMACH YOU DOING YOUR JOB. YOU KNOW,,,, FLUSHING OUT AND KILLING 2 OR 3 MILLION PEOPLE THAT WILL NEED TO BE KILLED ALONG WITH ANOTHER 500,000 CIVILLIANS KILLED IN COLLATERAL DAMAGE. THAT IS THE STRATEGY OF YOUR ENEMY. HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU WIN WITH THE DECK STACKED AGAINST YOU, IN THAT WAY?

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe it would help if we understand that Al-Quida is just another Lashkar, the enemy of your enemy usually does not end up as anything but your short term friend. Maybe palehorse would profit by reading some Frankenstein Novels. Or maybe the Sourchers's apprentice.

As it is, the bone headed play of Afghanistan and a fatal mistake was to initially ally our self with the super corrupt Northern Alliance, the only group in Afghanistan so bad as to make the Taliban look excellent in comparison.

With friends like you palehorse, we do not need enemies, your stinking type thinking is more than enough to guarantee defeat.

 

[SagaLore]

I think Afghanistan should be annexed into Pakistan, and Iraq annexed into Saudi Arabia. Let those countries deal with them. The end.

 

[Budmantom]

Obama will surrender.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe it would help if we understand that Al-Quida is just another Lashkar, the enemy of your enemy usually does not end up as anything but your short term friend. Maybe palehorse would profit by reading some Frankenstein Novels. Or maybe the Sourchers's apprentice.

As it is, the bone headed play of Afghanistan and a fatal mistake was to initially ally our self with the super corrupt Northern Alliance, the only group in Afghanistan so bad as to make the Taliban look excellent in comparison.

With friends like you palehorse, we do not need enemies, your stinking type thinking is more than enough to guarantee defeat.

It's nice to know that the ONLY thing you disagree with are my plans concerning Waziristan, yet you continue to portray all of my opinions and proposed strategies as everything they are not.

You are totally and completely full of shit. You're either ignoring 99% of what I write, you're lying, or you're retarded. Which is it?

I take solace in knowing that great men, such as Obama and Petraeus, agree with me, on nearly every point.

That's gotta suck, eh?

I'll be over here ensuring that you have the rights and freedom to go on being as fucking stupid as you are.

peace.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Dulanic

Originally posted by: bamacre
I thought Obama was the anti-war president?

Glad you listened and researched before the whole presidental vote. Obama said multiple times we need to be in Afganistan and we need to push strong there.

Yep, Obama is going to be a war president Hopefully he will deal with Iran