I just heard the ROE are set to change in DAYS.

[geauxtohell]

Oh they know WHY the ROE is in place GTH. They understand that very well. And they all repeat the same stuff you've been saying.

The thing is, you seem to approve of the way you were asked to fight this conflict. Most of them don't. They follow orders. They respect their superiors. They do what they are told to do. But they know it could be different.

I'd expect nothing less from professional soldiers. It could always be better, and no soldier gets everything they want. We most likely could have won Viet Nam if we would have nuked Hanoi. However, the second order effects of it and possible initiation of World War III made it completely impractical.

Most of them have also had tours in Iraq and would very much like to be able to see the same kinds of success in Afghanistan.

Again, that problem is economic in nature, and not military. Afghanistan doesn't have a GNP to support the government we've set up. Iraq does.

So again, if we can't make another 'Iraq' out of Afghanistan, what do we hope to accomplish? If there is no infrastructure to build, no economy to restore, and things seems to be getting much worse rather than better militarily, isn't it time to rethink what we're doing and how we are doing it?

The only alternative is to leave right now. That's not a good alternative. The problems we have in Afghanistan are, at large, a result of dividing our efforts and attention with Iraq. Why we decided to go half ass in a conflict in a nation known as the "Graveyard of Super Powers" is something I'll never know.

I sure gave the Bush administration hell for fighting a too wimpy war in Iraq for too long even as I supported the concept of a free and independent Iraq that would be an shining example for the folks in the Middle East. I thought there too overwhelming force should be used, inflict maximum pain quick and absolute, defeat the enemy totally, and then rebuild it as we and the Allies did in Germany, Italy, Japan et al.

We did that in the early days of the war to defeat the conventional Iraqi Army. That was not an option with the insurgency. Again, you can't look at modern warfare in the same light as World War II. It's much different.

Can that be accomplished in Afghanistan? If not, then what can be accomplished. And what price is worth it?

I don't know. We've lost our momentum and the perception of the people is turning against us. We are in a hell of a mess. I was of the opinion that our shelf life in Afghanistan had expired in March of '05.

 

[AllieBaba]

What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Let's fight to the death of the bad guys. Not our guys please. We have sacrificed far too many of our guys trying to be accommodating with our ROE and I'm getting damn tired of that. The ONLY way to fight a war is via overwhelming force and bludgeoning the enemy into total submission. Yes the innocent get hurt in war, but why not accept that, get it done, instead of dribbling out the hurt over years and ultimately racking up more casualities and misery than we would do the quicker more absolute way?

Every time we have used overwhelming force and defeated our enemy into unconditional surrender, the enemy wound up being our friend. Almost every time that we've pulled our punches and stopped short of bludgeoning our enemies into submission, our enemies have remained our enemies.

That sounds great on paper. Now go to Afghanistan and find the "enemy to bludgeon".

You guys really demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between conventional and asymmetric war with these comments. You think the Taliban is going to surrender? At best, they will assimilate.

You're a fucking idiot. Every time we take highly trained soldiers out of commission for interminible periods of time and treat them like criminals for DOING THEIR JOB we improve the prospects of the taliban.

You sound like you just want to wavce the little white flag. You go right ahead and do that.

 

[Jos]

the government we set up. That is the difference.

I wonder how Iraqi's look on the government we set up.

Why did Americans invade Afganistan?

 

[geauxtohell]

What a suck [ROE] way to fight a war. If we are going to fight, let us fight to the death or get the hell out....

Indeed. That's what happens when politicians get involved. The conflict soon becomes a target of political correctness...and when that becomes the order of the day? We're doomed to failure.

And I dare say that's what the Liberal apologists want. Korea and Viet Nam are two glaring examples.

And interestingly enough? Conflicts that two Democrats got us embroiled in.

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one? But he will do his best to ensure this one ends the same as the examples I gave.

It's almost a sure bet unless the people stand up and demand the shenanigans cease and we win this on OUR terms and cease with tying the hands of our troops.

These cretins want to repeat bad history at every turn to punctuate their do-gooder idealsm (PC by any other name), while our troops are killed for no good reason but the mishandling of the conflict by these Liberal politicians.

And that puts our security at further risk, and makes us a riper target for our enemies. Our enemies respect toughness...right now they laugh as they plot our demise.

Are you Micheal Steele's speechwriter? I mean, you are doing a fabulous job of rewriting history.

I fully agree that Obama is the CINC now and is in charge of Afghanistan.

However, when I was there, I seem to remember a different CINC. That would be the CINC who stopped paying attention to Afghanistan and helped protract or involvement there.

BTW, Eisenhower had committed troops to Viet Nam during his time as President too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's fight to the death of the bad guys. Not our guys please. We have sacrificed far too many of our guys trying to be accommodating with our ROE and I'm getting damn tired of that. The ONLY way to fight a war is via overwhelming force and bludgeoning the enemy into total submission. Yes the innocent get hurt in war, but why not accept that, get it done, instead of dribbling out the hurt over years and ultimately racking up more casualities and misery than we would do the quicker more absolute way?

Every time we have used overwhelming force and defeated our enemy into unconditional surrender, the enemy wound up being our friend. Almost every time that we've pulled our punches and stopped short of bludgeoning our enemies into submission, our enemies have remained our enemies.

That sounds great on paper. Now go to Afghanistan and find the "enemy to bludgeon".

You guys really demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between conventional and asymmetric war with these comments. You think the Taliban is going to surrender? At best, they will assimilate.

You're a fucking idiot. Every time we take highly trained soldiers out of commission for interminible periods of time and treat them like criminals for DOING THEIR JOB we improve the prospects of the taliban.

You sound like you just want to wavce the little white flag. You go right ahead and do that.

I don't think Geaux meant it that way Allie. He apparently has been there getting shot at. And for that he has earned whatever opinion he hold about that. I am probably waving more white flag than he is because I don't want our guys fighting when they are not allowed to win or when there is no clear objective for what a win looks like.

He is right that modern warfare is much different than what it used to be. But I have had family fighting in every war this country has ever fought going all the way back to the Revolution. And up through WWII the objective has always been the same. Defeat the enemy all the way to unconditional surrender. Remove him as the enemy. And then inevitably we are free to help him rebuild as our friend, and we did that every single time.

I can't believe the objective for war should be any different now. And if it is not, then short of hands on self defense, there is no purpose in fighting wars now.

 

[Meister]

Anybody ever wonder how many of our troops ended up as statistics in one form or another from the current ROE?

 

[geauxtohell]

You're a fucking idiot. Every time we take highly trained soldiers out of commission for interminible periods of time and treat them like criminals for DOING THEIR JOB we improve the prospects of the taliban.

And you are a plebe that, apparently, can't grasp the nuance and difference between asymmetric and conventional conflicts. I don't blame you, most Americans don't understand tactics and strategy. That's one reason these wars have been messy.

You sound like you just want to wavce the little white flag. You go right ahead and do that.

Spare me your goofy Hannity-esque talking points. When I was in Afghanistan, I served under a restrictive ROE. I got the purpose of it, and didn't bitch about the fact that I couldn't do "reconnaissance by fire".

As I said, my thoughts on the ROE are in line with General Petraeus. You are the one behind the power curve here.

 

[geauxtohell]

the government we set up. That is the difference.

I wonder how Iraqi's look on the government we set up.

Why did Americans invade Afganistan?

To remove Al Queda and the Taliban. However, in doing so, we created a power vacuum that had to be filled.

Nation building goes hand in hand with armed conflict in the 21st century. That's just the reality of the matter. If people don't understand that, they need to educate themselves.

Then maybe they won't be so quick to support these wars.

 

[The T]

Indeed. That's what happens when politicians get involved. The conflict soon becomes a target of political correctness...and when that becomes the order of the day? We're doomed to failure.

And I dare say that's what the Liberal apologists want. Korea and Viet Nam are two glaring examples.

And interestingly enough? Conflicts that two Democrats got us embroiled in.

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one? But he will do his best to ensure this one ends the same as the examples I gave.

It's almost a sure bet unless the people stand up and demand the shenanigans cease and we win this on OUR terms and cease with tying the hands of our troops.

These cretins want to repeat bad history at every turn to punctuate their do-gooder idealsm (PC by any other name), while our troops are killed for no good reason but the mishandling of the conflict by these Liberal politicians.

And that puts our security at further risk, and makes us a riper target for our enemies. Our enemies respect toughness...right now they laugh as they plot our demise.

Are you Micheal Steele's speechwriter? I mean, you are doing a fabulous job of rewriting history.

I fully agree that Obama is the CINC now and is in charge of Afghanistan.

However, when I was there, I seem to remember a different CINC. That would be the CINC who stopped paying attention to Afghanistan and helped protract or involvement there.

BTW, Eisenhower had committed troops to Viet Nam during his time as President too.

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

 

[geauxtohell]

And interestingly enough? Conflicts that two Democrats got us embroiled in.

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one? But he will do his best to ensure this one ends the same as the examples I gave.

It's almost a sure bet unless the people stand up and demand the shenanigans cease and we win this on OUR terms and cease with tying the hands of our troops.

These cretins want to repeat bad history at every turn to punctuate their do-gooder idealsm (PC by any other name), while our troops are killed for no good reason but the mishandling of the conflict by these Liberal politicians.

And that puts our security at further risk, and makes us a riper target for our enemies. Our enemies respect toughness...right now they laugh as they plot our demise.

Are you Micheal Steele's speechwriter? I mean, you are doing a fabulous job of rewriting history.

I fully agree that Obama is the CINC now and is in charge of Afghanistan.

However, when I was there, I seem to remember a different CINC. That would be the CINC who stopped paying attention to Afghanistan and helped protract or involvement there.

BTW, Eisenhower had committed troops to Viet Nam during his time as President too.

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you Micheal Steele's speechwriter? I mean, you are doing a fabulous job of rewriting history.

I fully agree that Obama is the CINC now and is in charge of Afghanistan.

However, when I was there, I seem to remember a different CINC. That would be the CINC who stopped paying attention to Afghanistan and helped protract or involvement there.

BTW, Eisenhower had committed troops to Viet Nam during his time as President too.

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

No, the Democrats weren't in power when we voted to go to war in Afghanistan though a fair number of Democrats did vote to do that. And the Democrats were mostly the ones petitioning Bill Clinton to go after Saddam Hussein, though most did stop short of suggesting a shooting war to do that. But the events, circumstances, policy, or whatever that dealt with Al Qaida, the Taliban, and all other ruthless militant Islamic groups span numerous administrations and can't be laid squarely at the feet of any any more than economic fortunes, good and bad, can be attributed all to one leader or Administration.

The serious historian looks at the big picture in all this stuff and knows that you can't pinpoint any specific person or usually even any specific event to accuse and/or blame for international conflicts. For all of human history nations have risen up against nations and at various times have been enemies, then allies, then indifferent to one another. To accuse one administration who is forming alliances with somebody who we later declare war on flies in the face of reason as there are constantly changing governments, policies, and political alliances.

 

[geauxtohell]

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

No, the Democrats weren't in power when we voted to go to war in Afghanistan though a fair number of Democrats did vote to do that. And the Democrats were mostly the ones petitioning Bill Clinton to go after Saddam Hussein, though most did stop short of suggesting a shooting war to do that. But the events, circumstances, policy, or whatever that dealt with Al Qaida, the Taliban, and all other ruthless militant Islamic groups span numerous administrations and can't be laid squarely at the feet of any any more than economic fortunes, good and bad, can be attributed all to one leader or Administration.

The serious historian looks at the big picture in all this stuff and knows that you can't pinpoint any specific person or usually even any specific event to accuse and/or blame for international conflicts. For all of human history nations have risen up against nations and at various times have been enemies, then allies, then indifferent to one another. To accuse one administration who is forming alliances with somebody who we later declare war on flies in the face of reason as there are constantly changing governments, policies, and political alliances.

Just trying to keep it honest. While some Democrats might have wanted a more aggressive stance against Hussein, Clinton, the only person who could make that decision, didn't buy that we needed to invade.

That's the difference.

 

[Charles_Main]

Not being able to shoot until fired upon is a pretty standard ROE for the US military. Agree with it or not. However not allowing them to us air strikes is anything but standard. You are essentially asking them to give up a huge part of their technological advantage over the enemy, and fight them on their terms.

It is pure lunacy. If we are going to tie our hands like that, then just lets just get the hell out of there now.

 

[The T]

Are you Micheal Steele's speechwriter? I mean, you are doing a fabulous job of rewriting history.

I fully agree that Obama is the CINC now and is in charge of Afghanistan.

However, when I was there, I seem to remember a different CINC. That would be the CINC who stopped paying attention to Afghanistan and helped protract or involvement there.

BTW, Eisenhower had committed troops to Viet Nam during his time as President too.

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

Requoted for the reading impaired...

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one?

And several Democrats voted for the action in the Senate. So guess what? You lose...again.

 

[Charles_Main]

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

Requoted for the reading impaired...

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one?

And several Democrats voted for the action in the Senate. So guess what? You lose...again.

So wait now they are trying to Deny that in the Aftermath of 9/11 there wasn't strong Bipartisan support for invading Afghanistan?

Seriously? these people wont even take credit when they make a good decision?

 

[geauxtohell]

Nice little dig. No cigar for you. I stand by my statement. it was Democrats that got us there no matter what you expouse.

Try again. I don't buy what you're selling sport.

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

Requoted for the reading impaired...

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one?

And several Democrats voted for the action in the Senate. So guess what? You lose...again.

Then were you talking about Viet Nam?

Okay, whatever. Just so long as you realize that this Michael Steele-esque "This is Obama's War" isn't going to walk. It's bullshit.

 

[Charles_Main]

Democrats got us into Afghanistan? Seriously?

Requoted for the reading impaired...

Granted Obama 'inherited' this one?

And several Democrats voted for the action in the Senate. So guess what? You lose...again.

Then were you talking about Viet Nam?

Okay, whatever. Just so long as you realize that this Michael Steele-esque "This is Obama's War" isn't going to walk. It's bullshit.

Obama has been in charge for 18 Months. He has the power to end the war. He ran on a platform of winning it and getting it over with. When will you people ever hold Obama to account for anything?

It is his war now. He has chose to stay there, and send more troops and up the ante. Yet you Dems still claim it is not his war.

Unreal.

 

[geauxtohell]

Requoted for the reading impaired...


And several Democrats voted for the action in the Senate. So guess what? You lose...again.

Then were you talking about Viet Nam?

Okay, whatever. Just so long as you realize that this Michael Steele-esque "This is Obama's War" isn't going to walk. It's bullshit.

Obama has been in charge for 18 Months. He has the power to end the war. He ran on a platform of winning it and getting it over with. When will you people ever hold Obama to account for anything?

It is his war now. He has chose to stay there, and send more troops and up the ante. Yet you Dems still claim it is not his war.

Unreal.

I hold Obama accountable for what he is reasonably responsible for. It's not Obama's fault that Afghanistan was put on the back-burner and miss-managed for six years.

He is the boss now and responsible for every that happens or fails to happen. However, it's factually inaccurate to state that Obama created this war in Afghanistan.

A precipitous withdrawal would be a disaster and you guys would torch him for doing that. As it stands, I have faith that he is doing the best he can to get us out of there in a manner that is as tactically sound as can be expected.

Furthermore, most Democrats supported getting into Afghanistan and have been pointing out for the past years that going into Iraq was taking the eye off of the ball.