[nolidad]

With all the brouhaha going on in the media and with the new ROE's for our troops which are designed to insure more American casualties, it is time we should leave Afghanistan.

Russia when it was in Afghanistan was far more brutal and callous in their fighting and they left with a humiliating defeat. They had more troops, tanks and weapons and couldn't win. Neither can we.

I think it best we have a few brigades of force recon, delta force commandos jsut taking otu high priiority targets as well as using drones. Lets plow under the opium fields as we are on the way out.

[DaGeek]

I just can't see how pulling out could possibly help our situation there. Sure, we'd have fewer casualties, but, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, the point of the Army isn't to sustain as few casualties as possible. Yes, that's a good thing (heck, I'm in the Army, and I don't want to be a needless casualty), but it's not the purpose of the Army. Before pulling out, we need to weigh the options and what our end-strategy is. If we have no purpose in Afghanistan, why stay? However, if we are, as we say we are, fighting for stabilization, more troops may be just what we need.


Also, on ROE's:

I really do hate when the government ties our hands behind our backs. However, we can't go willie-nillie if we're trying to win over the population. We learned that from Vietnam.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by nolidad

With all the brouhaha going on in the media and with the new ROE's for our troops which are designed to insure more American casualties

I may be completely off base here, and I'm not trying to start a fight. But are you suggesting that the US government is intentionally trying to insure more American casualties? Or am I reading this wrong?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

I may be completely off base here, and I'm not trying to start a fight. But are you suggesting that the US government is intentionally trying to insure more American casualties? Or am I reading this wrong?

Well before we attack an area or call in artillery or air support, the troops on the ground have to insure there are no civilians in the area to be assaulted. Even if a civilian is in a house loaded with Taliban, our troops are not allowed to fire on the house. I think the intent is to keep as many non combatants from dying, but the unintended consequence (at least I hope it is unintended) is to insure an increase in casualties in our troops.

I really do hate when the government ties our hands behind our backs. However, we can't go willie-nillie if we're trying to win over the population. We learned that from Vietnam.

I agree we just can't have a type of "scorched earth" policy, but with al-Queada and the Taliban they intentionally mingle with the populace. Also we are not a very welcome presence in Afghanistan. I don't think we are ever going to win the populace over there.

I just can't see how pulling out could possibly help our situation there. Sure, we'd have fewer casualties, but, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, the point of the Army isn't to sustain as few casualties as possible.

Well the point is to insure you suffer fewer casualties than you inflict on your enemy. And to have your troops in a hot zone and have them under orders to not fire when they cannot insure noncombatants will not be harmed- places them in a positrion to have to either retreat or sustain unsustainable casualties.

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Kanye

I just can't see how pulling out could possibly help our situation there. Sure, we'd have fewer casualties, but, and maybe I'm old-fashioned, the point of the Army isn't to sustain as few casualties as possible. Yes, that's a good thing (heck, I'm in the Army, and I don't want to be a needless casualty), but it's not the purpose of the Army. Before pulling out, we need to weigh the options and what our end-strategy is. If we have no purpose in Afghanistan, why stay? However, if we are, as we say we are, fighting for stabilization, more troops may be just what we need.


Also, on ROE's:

I really do hate when the government ties our hands behind our backs. However, we can't go willie-nillie if we're trying to win over the population. We learned that from Vietnam.

Call me silly but I thought the purpose of the U.S. Army was to defend this country's borders.



I know...I know...terrorists. Yada yada yada.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Leboman

Call me silly but I thought the purpose of the U.S. Army was to defend this country's borders.



I know...I know...terrorists. Yada yada yada.

Don't forget that whole "arm of the government to enslave the unenslaved with 'Democracy' bit"... Ooh, wait, did I say that out loud?

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well before we attack an area or call in artillery or air support, the troops on the ground have to insure there are no civilians in the area to be assaulted. Even if a civilian is in a house loaded with Taliban, our troops are not allowed to fire on the house. I think the intent is to keep as many non combatants from dying, but the unintended consequence (at least I hope it is unintended) is to insure an increase in casualties in our troops.

But that's not what you said. You said this was designed to insure more US fatalities.
That sounds like a pretty serious claim. Do you have any reason why you believe the US is trying to kill more of it's own soldiers by designing plans to insure more fatalities? Any evidence for this conspiracy?

[Skeeter]

I would argue that it's a far better idea to devote more troops to Afghanistan. Pulling out now could be disastrous. Heck, it was an idiotic idea to ever devote troops to Iraq over Afghanistan...

[Ax]

I think we should not only devote more troops to Afghanistan, but I think we need to gain assistance from other nations there. The Taliban and Al'Qaeda are both very very evil entities and need to be gotten rid of.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Ax

I think we should not only devote more troops to Afghanistan, but I think we need to gain assistance from other nations there. The Taliban and Al'Qaeda are both very very evil entities and need to be gotten rid of.

I assume you mean "more assistance". There are thousands of NATO troops there.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

With all the brouhaha going on in the media and with the new ROE's for our troops which are designed to insure more American casualties,

Of course you know this is slander. Your insistance on bearing false witness is tenacious.

it is time we should leave Afghanistan.

OK. Let's see your argument in favor of that.

Russia when it was in Afghanistan was far more brutal and callous in their fighting and they left with a humiliating defeat. They had more troops, tanks and weapons and couldn't win. Neither can we.

The Russians, as I recall, were trying to control Afghanistan against a populus that was being funded and armed by the US.

It's also argueable that it was their brutal callousness that cost them the war.

I think it best we have a few brigades of force recon, delta force commandos jsut taking otu high priiority targets as well as using drones. Lets plow under the opium fields as we are on the way out.

If we could plow under the opium fields (not like they wouldn't get replanted anyway) then we would already be in control of Afghanistan.

How would you know who the high-priority targets were? What shall these small brigades do when the Taliban-government starts attacking them?

I think Obama is asking exactly the right questions right now: what is it that we are going to consider "victory" and how can we forsee getting there. It's a question I routinely complained was not asked before.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think Obama is asking exactly the right questions right now: what is it that we are going to consider "victory" and how can we forsee getting there. It's a question I routinely complained was not asked before.

It's the question for all of these type of wars. It's been the question for Iraq and it was the question for Vietnam: What does it mean to "win" the war? And depending on how we define victory, is victory even possible?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

But that's not what you said. You said this was designed to insure more US fatalities.
That sounds like a pretty serious claim. Do you have any reason why you believe the US is trying to kill more of it's own soldiers by designing plans to insure more fatalities? Any evidence for this conspiracy?

Well the Rules of Engagement for our troops in Afghanistan are set so that they cannot fire upon a house loaded with Taliban Warriors firing upon them if innocent civilians are also in the house. they cannot bring artillery support if civilians might get harmed. The intent of the rules is to create as few civilian casulaties as possible but because of the "law of unintended consequences" I am sure that the JCS, the Pres. and Gen. McChrystal all knew that we would be inflicitng more US casualties as a result of inhibiting our tropps from engaging until civilians are out of the way.

Of course you know this is slander. Your insistance on bearing false witness is tenacious.

And you know my mind on this how???? Do you think the Generals in charge know that when they set these ROE's up that it wouldn't cause more troops to be killed and wounded. It is inly slander when it is untrue. It wasn't the priority reason they did it, but the reasons for these ROE's were done knowing they would be causing more deqaths of troops because of handcuffing them.

Military Rules Of Engagement (ROE) Are FUBAR! | NowPublic News Coverage

It's also argueable that it was their brutal callousness that cost them the war.

How? The terrain and ability to rearm is what kepot the mujahadeen a vibrant fighting force. NOw they are being armed by Russia via the Islamic cash lines.

How would you know who the high-priority targets were? What shall these small brigades do when the Taliban-government starts attacking them?

Well I am not privy to the intelligence- so I can't begin to guess- but I am sure that the intelligence staffs have a good idea where they could send small strike forces.

I suppose they would fight back? Seems the appropriate thing armed forces would do.

The Russians, as I recall, were trying to control Afghanistan against a populus that was being funded and armed by the US.

If we could plow under the opium fields (not like they wouldn't get replanted anyway) then we would already be in control of Afghanistan.

Well they know where many of them are-- why they aren't is probably a political thing which I disagree with.

The US is doing the same ting through differing means.

[JerryLove]

And you know my mind on this how????

By assuming that you are not so insane or incredibly dense as to believe that the millitary would implament a policy with the express purpose of killing more of its own men.

Or am I wrong in that assumption?

Do you think the Generals in charge know that when they set these ROE's up that it wouldn't cause more troops to be killed and wounded. It is inly slander when it is untrue. It wasn't the priority reason they did it, but the reasons for these ROE's were done knowing they would be causing more deqaths of troops because of handcuffing them.

That's not interactive with what you said before. You said that the ROE were "designed to ensure [I assume that's the word you meant to use] more US fatalities".

How? The terrain and ability to rearm is what kepot the mujahadeen a vibrant fighting force. NOw they are being armed by Russia via the Islamic cash lines.

So the Mujahadeen would have won if there were only two people involved in it? They would have won with every Afghan hating them and wanting them dead and loving the Russians?

No. Of course not. They needed men, and supplies, and local support. The supplies were provided by the US... but the men had to be recruited and the support gotten. The Russian's heavy-handedness is one reason that the locals opposed them, and in turn supported the Mujahadeen.

The same is the case here. When the population is against you, and supporting your enemies, you will not be able to hold territory.

Well I am not privy to the intelligence- so I can't begin to guess- but I am sure that the intelligence staffs have a good idea where they could send small strike forces.

Your certanty that getting the title "intelligence official" makes you magically aware of all sorts of obscure facts with complete accuracy is irrellevent to the fact that, in reality, its not true.

From someone else, I would call the claim surprising in light of the many obvious intelligence failures (like the failure to find Bin Lauden). Given your posting history however...

The fact remains: without resources on the ground, our intelligence will get worse, not better.

I suppose they would fight back? Seems the appropriate thing armed forces would do.

And be killed by vastly more numerous opponents. That's what makes your suggestion a poor tactic.

Well they know where many of them are-- why they aren't is probably a political thing which I disagree with.

What was I thinking? Let's just grab a million bulldozers that aren't there, put a million troops we don't have on them, and drive them out into the middle of poppy fields to see what IEDs and Taliban Snipers we can find. Great plan.[/sarcasam]

The US is doing the same ting through differing means.

If so then we should not. Nothing in what I've advocated requires it.

[nolidad]

By assuming that you are not so insane or incredibly dense as to believe that the millitary would implament a policy with the express purpose of killing more of its own men.

Or am I wrong in that assumption?

Saul Olinski rides again !!!!

Well I will answer you with a question- do you think the JCS and Pres. Obama issued these ROE's knowing that they would increase US military casualties or not?

That's not interactive with what you said before. You said that the ROE were "designed to ensure [I assume that's the word you meant to use] more US fatalities".

Well if you weren't always so quick to jump to the worst possible conclusion of my words maybe we could have a real debate instead of these games.

these rules are implemented to try to win the Afghani people over by not unduly harming non combatants. So much so that a fightrer- shooting at US troops from one building. Leavers that building unarmed to go to another prepositioned firing point in another cannot be shot at while croissing the street if he is unarmed.

So the Mujahadeen would have won if there were only two people involved in it? They would have won with every Afghan hating them and wanting them dead and loving the Russians?

No. Of course not. They needed men, and supplies, and local support. The supplies were provided by the US... but the men had to be recruited and the support gotten. The Russian's heavy-handedness is one reason that the locals opposed them, and in turn supported the Mujahadeen.

Proof?

And be killed by vastly more numerous opponents. That's what makes your suggestion a poor tactic.

Talk to Biden- He presented it.

What was I thinking? Let's just grab a million bulldozers that aren't there, put a million troops we don't have on them, and drive them out into the middle of poppy fields to see what IEDs and Taliban Snipers we can find. Great plan.[/sarcasam]

Yeah you could if you wanted to. But napalming them from the air would work a whole lot better. But once again it is politics preventing that.

Your certanty that getting the title "intelligence official" makes you magically aware of all sorts of obscure facts with complete accuracy is irrellevent to the fact that, in reality, its not true.

Well your highness I never claimed to be an intelligence official no knowing of magical information. You love to put words in my moputh that aren't there. I smell another thread being closed by your vitriol.

No. Of course not. They needed men, and supplies, and local support. The supplies were provided by the US... but the men had to be recruited and the support gotten. The Russian's heavy-handedness is one reason that the locals opposed them, and in turn supported the Mujahadeen

.


These kinds of statement show you are unlearned in the mindset of middle eastern nations uniquiley so of Afghanistan above all others. We will lose this war just as Russia did. Afghanistan is not a cohesive nation. Though it has a central govt. it is a govt barely. Outside ofthe major cities it is the taliban, al-Queda, and the tribal chieftains as well as drug lords that rtule the varied regions. They are a generally intnese and fiercely independent people who do cohese well except to fight off invaders. Russia is one, we are now. Iran, and many otrher nations are now supplying the modern day muhajadeen with weapons. They have the advantage of knwoing the horrendous terrains well.

Armies are not designes nor trained to be police forces or counter insurgency forces. Things like Delta force, Seals, Green Beret are designed for the kind of warfare the generals want to fight.

From someone else, I would call the claim surprising in light of the many obvious intelligence failures

Your insults notwithstanding- it is not hard to know where the concentration of taliban and Queda as well as tribal forces are at. Drones do a good job of doing that as well as KH=11 and KH-13 sat images.