Military Breaking Away From White House?

[MaggieMae]

And BHO said he would put Afghanistan first. Suckers bought that crap.

The Taliban had returned doubling in size because Iraq was more important. We had 28,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq. Obama has doubled the size of troops on the ground in Afghanistan in response. What is it you expected?

Since autumn last year, ~50K were set to depoly because of GWB. ~17K were deployed because of BHO.

Yet, the military told BHO over eight weeks ago that they need an additional (that means add this number to the number already deployed, BTW) 40K.

BHO has done NOTHING about that. He has made no decision whatsoever whether to help the military by sending troops or pull them out.

In the meantime, while he is trying to figure out what to do, October has been the deadliest month on record since the start of the NATO operation for US troops.

BHO is no friend of the military, especially not to those deployed.

He is a hack - complete hack - as CiC.

Yap yap yap. McCrystal said he WANTED 40,000 more troops for HIS strategy. So the "hack" CIC should just say, Oh, okey-dokey, no questions asked? Yeah, right. Obama's PROMISE to the troops from the outset was that he would not put them in harms way without having a strategy, yet you morons are not willing to allow time for such strategy to develop, except for that proposed by McChrystal sans any other input. Unfuckingbelievable.

 

[Si modo]

The Taliban had returned doubling in size because Iraq was more important. We had 28,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq. Obama has doubled the size of troops on the ground in Afghanistan in response. What is it you expected?

Since autumn last year, ~50K were set to depoly because of GWB. ~17K were deployed because of BHO.

Yet, the military told BHO over eight weeks ago that they need an additional (that means add this number to the number already deployed, BTW) 40K.

BHO has done NOTHING about that. He has made no decision whatsoever whether to help the military by sending troops or pull them out.

In the meantime, while he is trying to figure out what to do, October has been the deadliest month on record since the start of the NATO operation for US troops.

BHO is no friend of the military, especially not to those deployed.

He is a hack - complete hack - as CiC.

Yap yap yap. McCrystal said he WANTED 40,000 more troops for HIS strategy. ...

It's a military and NATO operation, you moron.

And the 'commander' still can't make a decision in over eight weeks, and now we have the deadliest month on record.

 

[saveliberty]

Having trouble finding the poll, but NBC reported last night that 61% of respondents thought generals should make decisions on troop levels, not Obama.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Yeah? Well guess what? The next "war" this country wages should be against illiterate loudmouths.

Idiocracy: Not Just a Movie Anymore

I notice you completely failed to address that the troops death rate THIS YEAR is surpassing the total combined of the last seven years.

And, why would we want to wage war on you illiterate loudmouths?

It's much more fun watching idiots like you make complete asses of themselves on podunk message boards.

Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

I addressed increase in troop deaths before. Pay attention. More US troops equal more Taliban fighters equal more deaths. A no-brainer.

Seriously, you're fucking stupid.

You may as well just quit while you're behind.

LMAO!

Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

 

[Si modo]

I notice you completely failed to address that the troops death rate THIS YEAR is surpassing the total combined of the last seven years.

And, why would we want to wage war on you illiterate loudmouths?

It's much more fun watching idiots like you make complete asses of themselves on podunk message boards.

Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

I addressed increase in troop deaths before. Pay attention. More US troops equal more Taliban fighters equal more deaths. A no-brainer.

Seriously, you're fucking stupid.

You may as well just quit while you're behind.

LMAO!

Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

Some really are.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Since autumn last year, ~50K were set to depoly because of GWB. ~17K were deployed because of BHO.

Yet, the military told BHO over eight weeks ago that they need an additional (that means add this number to the number already deployed, BTW) 40K.

BHO has done NOTHING about that. He has made no decision whatsoever whether to help the military by sending troops or pull them out.

In the meantime, while he is trying to figure out what to do, October has been the deadliest month on record since the start of the NATO operation for US troops.

BHO is no friend of the military, especially not to those deployed.

He is a hack - complete hack - as CiC.

Yap yap yap. McCrystal said he WANTED 40,000 more troops for HIS strategy. ...

It's a military and NATO operation, you moron.

And the 'commander' still can't make a decision in over eight weeks, and now we have the deadliest month on record.

Yep, and just today 9 NATO support staff were slaughtered in a guest house, including 1 american. And, Obama continues to sit on his hands.

And of course, there was "Good time" Robert Gibbs laughing and joking in the whitehouse press room during his briefing this morning.

This president and administration are a bunch of fucking weak-minded yahoo's. As are the scumbags who voted them in.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Thank you for your service WJ.

I mean that - more than you can imagine...

Yes, he must be so proud. Didn't even bother to mention that in his profile. Very odd. Most military people are proud to show their background. Anybody can steal a logo.

Why would I waste time adding it to my profile when there is a really cool thread for vets to get to know each other?

Besides, liberal morons like you would then consider it bragging if we put it in the profile. After all, you've just fully proven your willingness to attack vets.

Seriously, you're a fucking whacked in the head liberal clown.

LMAO!

Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

 

[Si modo]

Yap yap yap. McCrystal said he WANTED 40,000 more troops for HIS strategy. ...

It's a military and NATO operation, you moron.

And the 'commander' still can't make a decision in over eight weeks, and now we have the deadliest month on record.

Yep, and just today 9 NATO support staff were slaughtered in a guest house, including 1 american. And, Obama continues to sit on his hands.

And of course, there was "Good time" Robert Gibbs laughing and joking in the whitehouse press room during his briefing this morning.

This president and administration are a bunch of fucking weak-minded yahoo's. As are the scumbags who voted them in.

Nero's in the WH.

 

[Diuretic]

Having trouble finding the poll, but NBC reported last night that 61% of respondents thought generals should make decisions on troop levels, not Obama.

That's interesting. I know this is bordering on the rhetorical but I wonder why someone would support that position? Anyone got a thought on it?

 

[MaggieMae]

I addressed increase in troop deaths before. Pay attention. More US troops equal more Taliban fighters equal more deaths. A no-brainer.

Seriously, you're fucking stupid.

You may as well just quit while you're behind.

LMAO!

Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

Some really are.

If it makes you feel better to say so...ho hum.

On the contrary, I call 'em after I listen to the experts. Obviously you two (three, four, and more) do not. Think less; feel better--your code.

Click here for 4 logical perspectives; no bias, no bull:
msnbc.com Video Player

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Having trouble finding the poll, but NBC reported last night that 61% of respondents thought generals should make decisions on troop levels, not Obama.

That's interesting. I know this is bordering on the rhetorical but I wonder why someone would support that position? Anyone got a thought on it?

Because experts tend to know what they're doing. Mostly.

Its the same reason folks tend to want doctors to make medical decisions.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Having trouble finding the poll, but NBC reported last night that 61% of respondents thought generals should make decisions on troop levels, not Obama.

That's interesting. I know this is bordering on the rhetorical but I wonder why someone would support that position? Anyone got a thought on it?

Because experts tend to know what they're doing. Mostly.

Its the same reason folks tend to want doctors to make medical decisions.

You know, when Desert Storm pts I and II were implemented, Bush Sr. told Powell and Schwartzkopf to do their job and get it done. He was hands off.

We won. Quickly.

Viet Nam? Johnson tried to run the war from the White House.

It was a miserable failure.

Iraq? Bush Jr. and Co. tried to run it from the White House, as well as sent in Blackwater, and totally back burnered Afghanistan.

It's still a mess.

Bottom line? Let the commanders WHO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, fight the war. That's why they have the rank they do, they know things.

Politicians generally don't.

 

[Diuretic]

Having trouble finding the poll, but NBC reported last night that 61% of respondents thought generals should make decisions on troop levels, not Obama.

That's interesting. I know this is bordering on the rhetorical but I wonder why someone would support that position? Anyone got a thought on it?

Because experts tend to know what they're doing. Mostly.

Its the same reason folks tend to want doctors to make medical decisions.

Interesting analogy but I have to disagree with it. A doctor isn't an instrument of policy.

 

[Diuretic]

That's interesting. I know this is bordering on the rhetorical but I wonder why someone would support that position? Anyone got a thought on it?

Because experts tend to know what they're doing. Mostly.

Its the same reason folks tend to want doctors to make medical decisions.

You know, when Desert Storm pts I and II were implemented, Bush Sr. told Powell and Schwartzkopf to do their job and get it done. He was hands off.

We won. Quickly.

Viet Nam? Johnson tried to run the war from the White House.

It was a miserable failure.

Iraq? Bush Jr. and Co. tried to run it from the White House, as well as sent in Blackwater, and totally back burnered Afghanistan.

It's still a mess.

Bottom line? Let the commanders WHO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON, fight the war. That's why they have the rank they do, they know things.

Politicians generally don't.

Afghanistan isn't a war, it's an occupation. Just like Iraq is an occupation. The wars were successful, the occupations are different from the actual invasions. The military shouldn't be able to call the shots in an occupation of a country, just carry out their orders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The faux majority in 2000 and the actual majority in 2004 were wrong in the elections. The majority of those queried in this opinion poll are dead wrong. Only the President makes the final decision. That dumb ass MacArthur sure found that principle out in 1951. Give ‘em Hell Harry.

 

[Maple]

It appears agitation over increasing confusion and lack of direction is underway, with a top Afghanistan official and former Marine resigning in protest over the Afghan war - "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy..."

This resignation is no small matter folks - especially if followed by more...


washingtonpost.com

It's rather obvious, as there is no clear direction from the man in charge, his commander in chief, Barrach Obama, who does nothing to instill confidence in our American soldiers or their comanders.

He's waffling, sitting on his hands testing the political winds, he is an empty vessel with no convictions, but promises everyone everything and can deliver on none of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, Maple, right there chatting with BHO about these tough times, good for you. Give him a pep talk.

 

[QUENTIN]

Whoa, wait a minute, are you serious?

You're trying to use this former Marine who is resigning because he wants us to immediately leave Afghanistan because the war is not only unwinnable but actually strengthening the very people we're attempting to combat, the position of progressives and those in the reality-based community, to say he's leaving because of Obama's poor leadership? The dude is completely repudiating the conservative argument on Afghanistan and those pushing for Obama to just do a Bush-style troop increase on the basis of McChrystal's recommendation. Did you read his fucking letter?

Former Marine captain resigns in protest of Afghanistan war

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, resigned last month from his position with the Foreign Service, where he was the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan province of Zabul, because he became convinced that our war in that country will not only inevitably fail, but is fueling the very insurgency we are trying to defeat. Hoh's resignation is remarkable because it entails the sort of career sacrifice in the name of principle that has been so rare over the last decade, but even more so because of the extraordinary four-page letter (.pdf) he wrote explaining his reasoning.

Hoh's letter should be read in its entirety, but I want to highlight one part. He begins by noting that "next fall, the United States' occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical involvement in Afghanistan," and contends that our unwanted occupation combined with our support for a deeply corrupt government "reminds [him] horribly of our involvement in South Vietnam." He then explains that most of the people we are fighting are not loyal to the Taliban or driven by any other nefarious aim, but instead are driven principally by resistance to the presence of foreign troops in their provinces and villages...

How long are we going to continue to do this? We invade and occupy a country, and then label as "insurgents" or even "terrorists" the people in that country who fight against our invasion and occupation. With the most circular logic imaginable, we then insist that we must remain in order to defeat the "insurgents" and "terrorists" -- largely composed of people whose only cause for fighting is our presence in their country. All the while, we clearly exacerbate the very problem we are allegedly attempting to address -- Terrorism -- by predictably and inevitably increasing anti-American anger and hatred through our occupation, which, no matter the strategy, inevitably entails our killing innocent civilians. Indeed, does Hoh's description of what drives the insurgency -- anger "against the presence of foreign soldiers" -- permit the conclusion that that's all going to be placated with a shift to a kind and gentle counter-insurgency strategy?

Relatedly, Hoh points out the transparent fallacy of the claim that we will reduce -- rather than worsen -- the problem of Terrorism by occupying Muslim countries with a massive military presence:

Hoh's observations are entirely consistent with David Rohde's account of his seven-month hostage ordeal with the Taliban: namely, the longer we occupy Afghanistan, the more people we kill and imprison without charges, the greater the central fuel of terrorism -- anti-American hatred -- rises, not only in Afghanistan but across the Muslim world. As the Pentagon's own commissioned Report from 2004 concluded:

Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America's national security . . . Direct American intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for Islamic radicals.

Hoh told The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung that he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love" and that he believes "there are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," adding: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys." Plainly, there's nothing ideological about his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment, based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve.

...

The rest of the article can be read here and the Captain's letter is really worth reading for insight into our occupation, impact, and exactly why it's in both American and Afghan interest for us to leave immediately.

He's certainly not pro-Obama, but his complaint isn't directed at him, it's over the entire boondoggle in Afghanistan and policies there implemented for the last 8 years.

Hoh's points are extremely credible and valid, as well as TIMELY. I have no doubt whatsoever that is the problem that is at the center of the closed-door debate over strategy. But if we just "left," where does that put the US footprint on the global war on terror? Afghanistan remains geopolitically vulnerable, and would become ripe for a huge al-Qaeda footprint from which to launch all kinds of attacks.

I appreciate when people take the opinion of on-the-ground military personnel like Hoh or master detainee interrogator Matthew Alexander as credible and valid. Frankly, they know more on the subject than any general in the comfort of his command post, politician in Washington, hawkish editorialist, or dove protester.

But your question about the ramifications of leaving are based on a false premise that if we leave, Afghanistan will become ripe for a huge Al-Qaeda footprint. It's also exactly the same rationale used for staying in Vietnam for many years after we knew it was, by the government's own estimation, "unwinnable." We all know how that turned out.

Afghanistan would not become a haven for terrorist groups. Afghanistan is currently in a state of chaos and, along with Pakistan, a major haven for "terrorist" groups. Thing is, according to analysis of who we have captured in the War on Terror, intelligence estimates on who we're fighting, and interrogators of "enemy combatants," less than <10% of so-called terrorists are actually hardened ideological jihadists associated with Al-Qaeda. The vast majority of people we're fighting in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, are people who took up arms against us not because they're crazy radicals hellbent on destroying our freedoms, but because we invaded and occupied their country and/or destroyed their lives, their homes, their business, killed their family members, etc. There is basically unanimous agreement and understanding that our occupation of Afghanistan has greatly increased the threat to America, and leaving would reduce that threat. The same is true in Iraq. There is no way to eliminate the threat.

It is a waste of time and effort, period. Any invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan will be, especially after we condoned the Taliban massacre of all the moderate Aghanis who may have worked with us back in the 80s. Staying will not ever result in Afghanistan becoming a democratic state free from "terrorists" (i.e., people who want to do Americans, especially occupying soldiers harm), no one serious in the military or intelligence community believes that is an achievable goal. It was a waste of time and effort from the start, no reason to continue to waste time, effort, and of course thousands of human lives, to only exacerbate the situation. The longer we stay, the more normal people we turn into people willing to practice violence against Americans. That's the key. It is our presence, not our absence, that fuels anti-American sentiment and violence and leads to support for truly terrorist, ideologically driven jihadist groups. We cannot fight an anti-American ideology, particularly while killing scores of civilians. But if we were to extricate ourselves from the situation ASAP, we would at least stop exacerbating the problem and creating new terrorists every day. There is absolutely no value in remaining. The sooner we remove ourselves completely from the region, the better. Then we can refocus our defense efforts where they should be, on protecting the American homeland, and have a much better shot at preventing domestic terror attacks.

Hoh's resignation letter pretty much argues exactly what I'm saying here and is truly an invaluable read for anyone interested in the current status of the occupation of Afghanistan.

 

[ayiakri]

You know things are screwed when your S.O.D. and top ground commander have to go to the media to argue their case.

God help us if we are attacked again with this sham president and administration in place.

What bullsh*t. When Bush Jr. was President, there were several Generals (both active and retired) that made negative remarks about his "strategy" (or lack of one) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I recall more than one General telling Congress that the forces that Bush deployed to Iraq in the first year were inadequate to bring security to the country. It was only in 2007, when Sen. McCain pushed the "surge", and Bush finally relented and sent another 20,000 combat troops, that the tide turned.

There were also resignations a'plenty under Bush, and "early retirements" for the Generals that made remarks negative of Bush.

History has shown that war is far too important to be left to Generals - as Eisenhower himself admitted after World War II, when he had pushed for the D-Day invasion to be in mid-1943, instead of 1944 (which he later admitted was a mistake, in that the Germans were not yet weakened, and the Allies not yet prepared).

When I was in the 101st Airborne Division, I heard negative remarks about then-President George H. W. Bush often, from Lt. Colonels on down to the lowest Private E1.

 

[namvet]

none of our kids should have to die for this dictator. he's just not worth it