McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by DiveCon, Sep 20, 2009.

  1. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

    more at link

    so, what will Obama do?
     
  2. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    For me, THIS is a pass/fail situation for BHO. He should take the advice of those who know a hell of a lot more about this than he could ever dream of knowing.
     
  3. Sidestreamer
    Offline

    Sidestreamer BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,480
    Thanks Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Slugging whores in the jaw, because they're such c
    Ratings:
    +255
    We need to know what failure means, how dangerous Afghanistan will be under Taliban rule and whether or not Al Qaida would operate or thrive in a neo-Taliban government. Then see if the net losses would be greater than the amount of money we're dumping there.

    That's not the popular way of thinking but we have to be realistic at some point.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Sort of like what the definition of 'is' is?
     
  5. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Before we get into the inanity of Newspeak redefinitions, McChrystal clearly defines the potential failure if politiciaons don't step up to the plate. It's a military failure and the military knows how to define it.
     
  6. Sidestreamer
    Offline

    Sidestreamer BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,480
    Thanks Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Slugging whores in the jaw, because they're such c
    Ratings:
    +255
    Yeah, and that is the inability to stop the insurgency. Now, what does that mean for Afghanistan, the political situation there, the ability for the Taliban to take the country's government over and reinstate its totalitarian rule, our relations with Afghanistan's neighbors, Afghanistan's neighbors' stability, Al Qaida's future in Afghanistan...
     
  7. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    I suggest you read the article as those are addressed.
     
  8. Lycurgus
    Offline

    Lycurgus Who is Obama, really...??

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,743
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +258

    Exactly! ............... Further, without ample forces on the ground, in the theater of operations, then we place the forces we have on the ground, in the theater at much greater risk!

    So IMO the request is really two fold, proper completion and properly protecting our own!

    Either we do that or we cut and run without hesitation, only to fight there again, years down the road.

    Obama will either lead and lead his party to support our men and women in uniform, he will fail then or cut and run totally
    .
     
  9. JW Frogen
    Offline

    JW Frogen Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,165
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,206
    More troops are needed for nation building but we could stop nation building, our war is with Al Qaeda and the Talaban, we do not have to pick and choose among the alternatives.

    We could give Kabul financial support and arms, but also arm any other group who opposes the Taliban, including drug lords who know long term a Taliban victory would eliminate them, and use Special Forces and predator drones to relentlessly hunt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Allow more violence but reduce our cost and keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda pinned down fighting a relentless war with a growing enemies list, this war we could fight for decades.

    So the choice is between idealism or ruthless realism.

    Surrender is not an option.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2009
  10. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    Not necessarily true.
    Plus as said above, we went to punish the Taliban for harboring Ossama. They offered him if he would be tried outside the US. We refused. Then we let down our guard and moved on to Iraq. Now are we trying to defeat the taliban or Al Quaeda or both? They aren't the same entity.

    How long do you keep pouring lifes and money into a hole that never fills up? At some point in time, you either go all out if possible or leave. I bet the Romans and Alexander the Grape, Genghis Khan also had there "we can't leave until we win" crowd.

    They left.
     

Share This Page