Iraq & Afghanistan Body Counts

[srkruzich]

Without the draft, how do you get them to join up? Ya can't shame 'em into it and speculation on the welfare rolls is just that, speculation. It's easy for all of us to sit here and talk about what "they" should do, but that doesn't actually solve the problem. As far as a" conventional war", none of them are any more and probably never will be again. Yes, we do hear about the infrastructure repairs and such that have been going on for some time.The guys coming home talk freely about it. We've had some really good discussions at the back table at the fire house. I've learned a lot from those guys. So what is it you want the Pres. to do that can actually be done."Grow a pair" translates to what?

Growing a pair translates into 1. Unleash the Dogs of War.  IF you do not understand this, back in fallujah in 2004, my son was in the 2nd scout  platoon and the war started with his platoon.  The terrorists holed up in the mosque started assaulting our men, and it was by the bridge that they had killed those contractors and hung their bodys from. 
My sons commander got demoted for his decision but they were under heavy fire and he ordered them to return fire.  That essentially started the war for the next 3 or 4 days.  SHortly after that incident, the orders came down and gave rules of engagement.  The rules of engagement were valid on the west of x street and below y street for example.   ANYTHING IN THAT ZONE WAS A KILL ZONE.  Nothing was sacred.  IF it walked and looked like it was armed or was a threat it was shot.  Thats unleashing the dogs of war.   More specifically it refers to sending in the Marines with a kill order.  I can attest to the fact their very good at breaking things!

Growing a pair also entails 2. No negotiations.  They either do what we say or rule number 1 comes into play. Unleash the dogs of war.

Growing a pair also entails 3. telling the so called allies to lead follow or get the hell out of the way, and if they get in our way and try to sabotage our efforts, rule number 1 will apply to them also.

Last of all, growing a set for obama would be to stand up there and support our military 100% and tell congress get them the materials they need, the resources, they need and send in the marines to finish the job and get it over with.  IF the generals need 100,000 men, send in 150,000 men and get it done quicker. 

Last of all growing a set would entail him quitting his attempt to appease the enemy. The only solution to islamic terrorism is rule number 1!

As far as flintaqua says this will never be won, thats true if we appease.  It won't.  The ONLY WAY to win this, and we are doing it this way, is to teach the young.  In iraq, our men were doing this.  The young are the future and by spending time giving things to the kids, building schools for the kids, hospitals, and taking care of the people and treating the people there with respect, they will see that were not the evil enemy that the terrorists try to espouse that we are.  By winning the kids hearts, we will defeat islamic terror in 20 years.   We won't win by force unless we kill them all off.  SO by using our military force to get a foothold in there and then educating the children, we have a chance to change things.

[jarhead]

well said Steve. when Gen McCrystal went aboard the Air force One, in Denmark, to talk to Obama about the war in afghanistan, they said he was aboard a whopping 25 minutes. 25 minutes wouldn't be enough time to get done with the introductions, I would think. The week before ,McCrystal did some talking to the British press and I guess "the O man " didn't like his rehtoric so the 25 minutes was not about the war but was to rein the General in.  Now I know that is a rumor but seems to come from a reliable soarce and it does sound like standard operational procedure for this administration. I guess in time we will know if it's true

[larryJ]

WHITE HOUSE:  NO AFGHANISTAN PULLOUT

By Ane Gearan and Lara Jakes
The Assoiciated Press

WASINGTON-----President Barack Obama won't walk away from the flagging war in Afghanistan, the White House declared Monday as Obama faced tough decisions - and intense administration debate - over choices that could help define his presidency in his first year as Commander in Chief.

The fierce Taliban attack that killed eight American soldiers over the weekend added to the pressure.  The assault overwhelmed a remote U.S. outpost where American forces have been stretched thin in battling insurgents, underscoring an appeal from Obama's top Afghanistan commander for as many as 40,000 additional forces - and at the same time reminding the nation of the cost of war.

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, appealed Monday for calm - and for time  and privacy for the president  to come to a decision.

Last week, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, called publicly for the administration to add more resources which prompted a mild rebuke from Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, for lobbying in public.

Obama may take weeks to decide whether to add more troops, but the idea of pulling out isn't on the table as a way to deal with a war nearing its ninth year, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

The question of whether to further escalate the conflict after adding 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year is a major decision facing Obama and senior administration policy advisers this week.

Obama also invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war.  And Obama will meet twice this week with his top national security advisers.

Divided on Afghanistan, Congress takes up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the president settles on a direction for the war.

unquote------

I personally think it is time for all Americans to call, write, e-mail their Congressmen and tell them to S--- or get off the pot.  Either finish it for good and/or bring them home.  The Russians couldn't beat them and we aren't going to beat them either unless we go all out and leave the politics out of it.  IMHO

Larryj

[srkruzich]

I agree Larry.  The only way to weed out the rats there is in superior numbers to hunt them down and exterminate them.

[jarhead]

Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders

Monday, October 5, 2009 7:42 PM

By: David A. Patten   



Sources tell Newsmax the Obama administration is muzzling its top military leaders, and keeping them from publicly airing their views on how to fight the war in Afghanistan.
The administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caught administration officials off guard.
In fact, The Daily Telegraph reported that Obama's advisers were "shocked and angered" by McChrystal's speech.
"This is a food fight in the war room, and it's getting ugly," observed Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent and Manhattan Institute scholar Judith Miller, regarding the sharply contrasting views being aired within the administration over how to fight the war.
In his speech, McChrystal defended his request for 40,000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy."
Without mentioning Vice President Joe Biden by name, McChrystal said the vice president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."
Shortly after those remarks, McChrystal was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with President Obama aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, where Obama was making his ill-fated attempt to support Chicago's bid to host the 2016 summer Olympic games. Obama's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, described their discussion as an exchange of "very direct views."
On Monday, in an obvious reference to McChrystal, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army that "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."
That statement appeared to echo remarks on Sunday from Jones, a retired Marine general. He told CNN, "Ideally, it's best for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
The none-too-subtle message to America's top military leaders: Don't share your candid views on the war in public. It appears McChrystal received the message loud and clear. According to The Washington Independent, McChrystal spokesperson and Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis stated: "General McChrystal concurs with the secretary and shares his perspective that the president's military and civilian policy advisers need to provide candid but private advice."
Sholtis also said that McChrystal has no current plans for additional public appearances, The Washington Independent reported.
McChrystal became the top U.S. general in Afghanistan after Gates fired Gen. David D. McKiernan in May. McKiernan, who was criticized in some circles as insufficiently innovative, presided over a troop-strength increase of 21,000 soldiers. He had filed a request with the Pentagon for 10,000 more at the time he was replaced.
At the time, Gates ordered McChrystal to provide "fresh thinking" and "fresh eyes" on Afghanistan. But apparently it was McChrystal's fresh tongue that got him in trouble.
The New York Times reported Monday that Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was widely credited with carrying out the successful surge in Iraq, has already toned down his remarks since Obama attained the presidency.
"General Petraeus's aides now privately call him 'David the Dull,'" the Times reports, "and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general's ambitions in particular."
The concern among some experts is that President Obama's effort to tone down his military leaders may indicate he wants to triangulate a more politically palatable approach to fighting the war that may fall short of being militarily decisive.
"The president won't get honest opinions from his military advisers," warns Dr. James Jay Carafano, a former Army lieutenant colonel who serves as a leading Heritage Foundation expert on defense and homeland security. "He has to trust people who work for him. And when you've muzzled the people who work for you, you can't turn around and trust them to give you honest, candid guidance."
Carafano sharply criticized what he sees as Obama's "committee" approach to Afghanistan.
"This is not how wars get fought," Carafano tells Newsmax. "You don't fight wars by committee. Because now he's turned this into a political debate, and you're going to end up with a sub-optimal outcome."
Carafano says Obama appears to be "replaying all the worst decision making of McNamara and Johnson in Vietnam."
"This is the classic prescription for failure," Carafano says of the administration's indecisive approach. "And the military guy is sort of caught in the middle, because when the president doesn't want to fight the war the right way, you have three options: You can salute and drive on, or you can resign, or you can stay but play politics and leak things. None of those are good outcomes; none of them are the way to win a war."
Carafano says: "I think this is a case where the generals are dead right and the politicians are dead wrong. And we're going to choose a strategy based on what's politically convenient."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., issued the following statement to Newsmax on Monday evening: "As we near the 8th anniversary of sustained combat in Afghanistan, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to victory there. At a time when record numbers of American and allied troops are losing their lives during combat in Afghanistan, we should give the utmost priority to listening to our commanders on the ground. We owe it to the troops who have already lost their lives to provide our forces with the adequate number of troops to accomplish the mission that they set out to do.
"After the release of General McChrystal's assessment, some Obama administration officials have gone so far as to minimize the value of the Commanding General's assessment.
"Instead, President Obama should be predominantly relying on the advice of his two senior commanders for the region, General Petraeus and General McChrystal."
Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen have voiced support for deploying additional troops, but Petraeus has stopped short of endorsing McChrystal's specific report. As Gen. Jones' comments indicate, the military is far from united over how best to prosecute the war, however.
Inhofe also stated Monday: "Politics, indecision, or ambivalence have no place in this process when we are clearly at a crucial stage of the war. Time and decisiveness are critical. As many have said, time may not be on our side in Afghanistan. With the winter approaching and the time to allocate additional forces dwindling, it is imperative that we enable our military leaders and the troops on the ground with all the resources and tools they require to make inroads against the insurgency.
"While I agree that the Afghan Security Forces (ASF) also need to be dramatically increased to adequately protect the Afghan people and fight the Taliban, those efforts should happen in conjunction with an allied troop increase, not in place of such an increase. 'Wait and see' is not a war strategy and certainly not an approach that our military commanders are recommending," he stated.
While Miller believes McChrystal's statements about Biden's ideas went too far, she says she understands the frustration of some military leaders with an extended policy review that, in some ways, actually began even before Obama assumed office. She says Obama's policy reversals on a host of issues – military tribunals, CIA torture investigations, and support for a shield law to protect reporters' sources are but three examples – have left onlookers both at home and abroad wary of the direction Obama's new Afghan strategy may take.
"It's been a series of flip-flops, and they have people very nervous," she says.
Obama also finds himself under serious pressure from the left wing of his party. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed legislation that would halt sending any additional troops to Afghanistan. Lee enlisted 21 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as co-sponsors.

[srkruzich]

Ok now, who put this clown up there.  Correct me if i am wrong, wasn't it the damn democrats that were crucifying President Bush for not Sending enough troops into iraq to begin with, and now when their faced with the SAME S*** Different Day, they say ohh noooo, we can't send in troops we have to scale back.

COME ON GIVE ME a freaking break.  Sheesh.  THis is a PRIMARY REASON you want the CIC to have military experience and preferrably combat experience. 

[flintauqua]

(I am so going to get slammed for this:)

We managed to win WWI and WWII with CICs that had no military service! 

How did we manage to do that? 

If the CIC doesn't have any experience, then he has to rely on the appropriate Cabinet secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, and theater CIC's.  This is where Obama is failing, IMHO.

[srkruzich]

(I am so going to get slammed for this:)

We managed to win WWI and WWII with CICs that had no military service! 

How did we manage to do that? 

If the CIC doesn't have any experience, then he has to rely on the appropriate Cabinet secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, and theater CIC's.  This is where Obama is failing, IMHO.

And thats why wilson and fdr was able to win the wars because they did rely on those with experience. 

We can't afford to lose this one, or pull out before something has been stablized there. 

[Diane Amberg]

Is there anything to what I've heard speculation on about the main Taliband organizers  having moved into Pakistan and are no longer in Afghanistan?