A Tale of Two Surges

[The Rabbi]

I still find it funny that people think there is a military solution in Afghanistan that can be solved with a magic "surge" of troops.

It's like there is a magic number of troops we have to find or something.

The problem in Afghanistan is economic in nature.

BTW, the surge was just window dressing. Iraq was starting to stabilize prior to it.

Harry Reid: The War is lost.

January 5, 2007: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Bush stating, “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake.”

Looks like you're wrong on that one.

Oh, so you respect Reid's opinion now?

Reid's a moron. Quit deflecting.

Again, hilarious that you think a magic "surge" can solve every American conflict. Of course, conservatives have demonstrated time and again that they are completely ignorant of tactics in the 21st century.

I mean, how surprised were you guys when Iraq turned into an insurgency fight? I thought we were supposed to be in and out in a few months?

You guys are clueless and, if a simple surge really was the magic bullet to Afghanistan (or any tactical move) or some quick fix, then why didn't Bush do it? I mean, we've been in Afghanistan for two years longer than Iraq.

Do you even know what you're arguing?
Let's be clear: I did not support the surge in Afghanistan. I think Obama's policy is a mistake and the product of his own inexperience and poor judgement.
You claimed Iraq was getting better and the surge was window dressing. It was not. No one thought it was getting better and I quoted Reid and Pelosi as saying the war was doomed to fail. If things had been going well they wouldn't have said that.
So your reviionism is plain wrong. The rest ofyour post is a jumble of facts and half truths I don't ahve time to sort through.

 

[geauxtohell]

people on the right seem to think the military is some sort of GOP cheerleading club

i like this. is it the reason obama wants a "civilian army"??
the is no subsitute for victory

When is the last time we have had a "victory".

The last time I checked, no one has surrendered to us since World War II.

 

[The Rabbi]

Equating Iraq to Poland is a bit over the edge Goose, Again equating Bush to Hitler. Peace loving Iraq? Don't you get tired of that bullshit, ever. The problem with Iraq, was Daddy Bush should have resolved it the first time around. His bullshit PC plan was a fail before Desert Storm started. You don't turn your back on a wounded Animal, and that is what Hussein was, spewing poison for a decade, because of a fucked up plan.

Daddy was smart enough to know it would turn into a clusterfuck the first time and didn't want to inherit a nation building operation, which is why we didn't go into Baghdad and remove Saddam. We got them out of Kuwait and the stated objectives were accomplished. It was a smart move. Of course, Daddy knew his ass from a hole in the ground because he ran the CIA for a few years and was capable of assessing these things.

Junior was just a fuck up. He should personally kiss the ass of every American Serviceman and woman who served in Iraq. Because it if wasn't for their blood, sweat, and tears in stabilizing Iraq, Bush would most likely be impeached and in prison right now.

This is exactly right.

The reason Bush 1 didn't go into Iraq is to avoid exactly what happened when Sonny Boy did it.

And it's too bad thousand of our military people had be be killed to see that.

No, that isn't the reason. Bush I did not go into Iraq because he had no mandate from the UN. Bush II did go into Iraq because he a mandate from the UN.
See the difference?
I guess we're through now. Your lies, half truths, distortions and lefty talking points have been dismembered. Maybe you could take up knitting?

 

[geauxtohell]

Harry Reid: The War is lost.

Looks like you're wrong on that one.

Oh, so you respect Reid's opinion now?

Reid's a moron. Quit deflecting.

Again, hilarious that you think a magic "surge" can solve every American conflict. Of course, conservatives have demonstrated time and again that they are completely ignorant of tactics in the 21st century.

I mean, how surprised were you guys when Iraq turned into an insurgency fight? I thought we were supposed to be in and out in a few months?

You guys are clueless and, if a simple surge really was the magic bullet to Afghanistan (or any tactical move) or some quick fix, then why didn't Bush do it? I mean, we've been in Afghanistan for two years longer than Iraq.

Do you even know what you're arguing?
Let's be clear: I did not support the surge in Afghanistan. I think Obama's policy is a mistake and the product of his own inexperience and poor judgement.
You claimed Iraq was getting better and the surge was window dressing. It was not. No one thought it was getting better and I quoted Reid and Pelosi as saying the war was doomed to fail. If things had been going well they wouldn't have said that.
So your reviionism is plain wrong. The rest ofyour post is a jumble of facts and half truths I don't ahve time to sort through.

So you did or did not support the surge in Iraq?

What would have been your solution for Afghanistan?

 

[geauxtohell]

No, that isn't the reason. Bush I did not go into Iraq because he had no mandate from the UN. Bush II did go into Iraq because he a mandate from the UN.
See the difference?
I guess we're through now. Your lies, half truths, distortions and lefty talking points have been dismembered. Maybe you could take up knitting?

Now you are just making shit up.

The UN did not support our going into Iraq.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, so you respect Reid's opinion now?

Reid's a moron. Quit deflecting.

Again, hilarious that you think a magic "surge" can solve every American conflict. Of course, conservatives have demonstrated time and again that they are completely ignorant of tactics in the 21st century.

I mean, how surprised were you guys when Iraq turned into an insurgency fight? I thought we were supposed to be in and out in a few months?

You guys are clueless and, if a simple surge really was the magic bullet to Afghanistan (or any tactical move) or some quick fix, then why didn't Bush do it? I mean, we've been in Afghanistan for two years longer than Iraq.

Do you even know what you're arguing?
Let's be clear: I did not support the surge in Afghanistan. I think Obama's policy is a mistake and the product of his own inexperience and poor judgement.
You claimed Iraq was getting better and the surge was window dressing. It was not. No one thought it was getting better and I quoted Reid and Pelosi as saying the war was doomed to fail. If things had been going well they wouldn't have said that.
So your reviionism is plain wrong. The rest ofyour post is a jumble of facts and half truths I don't ahve time to sort through.

So you did or did not support the surge in Iraq?

What would have been your solution for Afghanistan?

I did support the surge. I supported the initial war as well.
There is no solution for Afghanistan.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, that isn't the reason. Bush I did not go into Iraq because he had no mandate from the UN. Bush II did go into Iraq because he a mandate from the UN.
See the difference?
I guess we're through now. Your lies, half truths, distortions and lefty talking points have been dismembered. Maybe you could take up knitting?

Now you are just making shit up.

The UN did not support our going into Iraq.

You're the one making things up. Iraq was in material breach of many resolutions, many of them threatening military action. We simply acted on that when the UN proved too gutless to enforce their own resolutions. That and the fact Kofi Annan was sucking Saddam's dick for money.

 

[Intense]

You follow orders. Your Superior's pick and choose, and try not to over reach and sacrifice the integrity of combat effectiveness, by being spread out too thin, or be caught unprepared. What else would you do?

Just that.

That's all you can do when the CINC is a fucking moron who decides to put a conflict in the "Graveyard Of Superpowers" on the back burner while charging into another conflict.

Bush could have been great. If he'd have flooded Afghansitan with every available soldier and Marine right after the SF teams took out the Taliban and dumped a ton of money, time and resources in Afghanistan in the three to four years the Taliban was reeling after Tora Bora, the situation would be much different now.

Instead, he decided to ignore Afghanistan for five years and start a new war under false pretenses.

And you guys would have us believe that Obama is the one that fucked this situation up.

I actually agree with you strategically. I do. I think the reason Bush went into Iraq, was because if he didn't go when he did, it would probably been halted. I would have preferred a Stabilized Afghanistan with new hope, and a working model, before starting anything else. We lost it in Afghanistan with the Cease Fires, Player's changing sides, Bin Laden cornered, and we hand it over to the locals. Who's fucking idea was that? The State Department's? How much do they need to fuck up, before we learn to ignore them?

 

[geauxtohell]

I did support the surge. I supported the initial war as well.
There is no solution for Afghanistan.

Okay, then where do we go from here?

 

[The Rabbi]

I did support the surge. I supported the initial war as well.
There is no solution for Afghanistan.

Okay, then where do we go from here?

Why don't you ask Obama since he's the one who will make that decision?

 

[antagon]

Yet the Military and Intelligence Arm is Totalitarian. At least till you hit Command Level, there is no choice, it is a command structure.

a lot rides on the competency of majors who couldnt effectively execute their commands or communicate circumstances to their commanders.

Majors? Other than in SF, Majors aren't in charge of tactical units. They are staff officers. LTCs are kings in Afghanistan, and they had no trouble telling their commanders what was going on. It's irrelevant when the guy at the top isn't listening.

this is the problem that i'm referring to. there's an isolation between what is happening and what is supposed to happen, and it is fundamental to the way our system is set up.

 

[geauxtohell]

You follow orders. Your Superior's pick and choose, and try not to over reach and sacrifice the integrity of combat effectiveness, by being spread out too thin, or be caught unprepared. What else would you do?

Just that.

That's all you can do when the CINC is a fucking moron who decides to put a conflict in the "Graveyard Of Superpowers" on the back burner while charging into another conflict.

Bush could have been great. If he'd have flooded Afghansitan with every available soldier and Marine right after the SF teams took out the Taliban and dumped a ton of money, time and resources in Afghanistan in the three to four years the Taliban was reeling after Tora Bora, the situation would be much different now.

Instead, he decided to ignore Afghanistan for five years and start a new war under false pretenses.

And you guys would have us believe that Obama is the one that fucked this situation up.

I actually agree with you strategically. I do. I think the reason Bush went into Iraq, was because if he didn't go when he did, it would probably been halted. I would have preferred a Stabilized Afghanistan with new hope, and a working model, before starting anything else. We lost it in Afghanistan with the Cease Fires, Player's changing sides, Bin Laden cornered, and we hand it over to the locals. Who's fucking idea was that? The State Department's? How much do they need to fuck up, before we learn to ignore them?

It's not the State Department's fault. They are a minor player. It was the SECDEF, the dismal failure Rumsfeld. We only really had Bin Ladin cornered in Tora Bora. Not surprisingly, the Pashtun double crossed us. Didn't take Kreskin to see that one coming.

If an honest person is capable of looking at these two conflicts from beginning to end (and not just focusing on the magical Iraqi "surge") they would realize that it was a comedy of errors from the get-go. Bush was a disaster.

He could have been great, but he wasn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

... opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway.

Now there's a fascinating concept.

Yeah, it's called gutless demagoguery. The Dems opposed Bush's policies and voted against them many times but refrained from actually taking action, like ending funding, which would make them take responsibility.

Just for the record:

Did you support the Iraq surge? Did you support the Afghanistan surge?

 

[geauxtohell]

I did support the surge. I supported the initial war as well.
There is no solution for Afghanistan.

Okay, then where do we go from here?

Why don't you ask Obama since he's the one who will make that decision?

So, admittedly, you have no fucking clue as to what Obama can do to fix this giant turd either?

Yet, you are still going to bitch about it?

Spoken like a true partisan.

 

[geauxtohell]

Now there's a fascinating concept.

Yeah, it's called gutless demagoguery. The Dems opposed Bush's policies and voted against them many times but refrained from actually taking action, like ending funding, which would make them take responsibility.

Just for the record:

Did you support the Iraq surge? Did you support the Afghanistan surge?

Iraq: yes.

Afghanistan: no.

I'd imagine that was a function of who was in charge at the time.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, that isn't the reason. Bush I did not go into Iraq because he had no mandate from the UN. Bush II did go into Iraq because he a mandate from the UN.
See the difference?
I guess we're through now. Your lies, half truths, distortions and lefty talking points have been dismembered. Maybe you could take up knitting?

Now you are just making shit up.

The UN did not support our going into Iraq.

You're the one making things up. Iraq was in material breach of many resolutions, many of them threatening military action. We simply acted on that when the UN proved too gutless to enforce their own resolutions. That and the fact Kofi Annan was sucking Saddam's dick for money.

LMAO.

The UN did not support us going into Iraq in any way. We did not have a "mandate" in any shape or form.

And, the last time I checked, it wasn't the job of the United States to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions. That's what the security council is for.

Are you always this dishonest?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pelosi says rallying votes for troop surge in Afghanistan will be Obama's job

Nancy Pelosi: Obama must "make his case." (Harry Hamburg - AP)

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 17, 2009

President Obama will have to argue his own case to House Democrats as he seeks support for a planned surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday, adding that she is finished asking her colleagues to back wars that they do not support.

Pelosi says rallying votes for troop surge in Afghanistan will be Obama's job - washingtonpost.com

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay, then where do we go from here?

Why don't you ask Obama since he's the one who will make that decision?

So, admittedly, you have no fucking clue as to what Obama can do to fix this giant turd either?

Yet, you are still going to bitch about it?

Spoken like a true partisan.

I didnt know the answer but I knew Obama would do exactly the wrong thing. And I wasn't disappointed.
What do you think he ought to do, since you seem to know everything about everything?

 

[geauxtohell]

I didnt know the answer but I knew Obama would do exactly the wrong thing. And I wasn't disappointed.
What do you think he ought to do, since you seem to know everything about everything?

Funny, I remember when people on the left were saying similar things about Iraq and douchebags on the right were calling them un-American, cowards, and all sorts of other things.

Just be glad Iraq had a shit ton of oil money to finally let the dust settle.

At any rate, it doesn't matter what Obama does. By your own admission, you are going to oppose it. So what is the point?

I think we should reduce our footprint, start subsidizing the massive governmental infrastructure we have set up with taxpayers money (because the government will collapse otherwise) indefinitely, open up a trade route into Lahore if Pakistan will play ball (doubtful), and let the Afghans have their own country back.

At this point it is doubtful it would work, as the Afghans have had five years of empty promises from us.

Bush dicked up Afghanistan. We lost our momentum there years ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now you are just making shit up.

The UN did not support our going into Iraq.

You're the one making things up. Iraq was in material breach of many resolutions, many of them threatening military action. We simply acted on that when the UN proved too gutless to enforce their own resolutions. That and the fact Kofi Annan was sucking Saddam's dick for money.

LMAO.

The UN did not support us going into Iraq in any way. We did not have a "mandate" in any shape or form.

And, the last time I checked, it wasn't the job of the United States to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions. That's what the security council is for.

Are you always this dishonest?

Are you always this ignorant?
Here's part of Resolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Looks like authorization to me. The U.S ambassador to the UN at the time thought so too.