Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Ame®icano

Platinum Member
Jul 8, 2008
24,750
7,531
350
Michigan
All done quietly...

In an unannounced move, President Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced in March.

The additional forces are primarily support forces, such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police, bringing the total buildup Obama has approved for the war-torn nation to 34,000.

Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan
 
Fallen Marine's father wants change - Military- msnbc.com

Right...but this has absolutely nothing to do with the troop request from McChrystal a couple weeks ago. I like how the Obama's "Supreme War Council" meets, expresses concern about all of the civilian deaths, orders the SecDef to tell ground commanders to stop it, McC' issues new rules of engagement that get U.S. soldiers killed!!!

Bernard's criticism is aimed at new rules of engagement imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, five weeks before Joshua Bernard was killed. They limit the use of airstrikes and require troops to break off combat when civilians are present, even if it means letting the enemy escape. They also call for greater cooperation with the Afghan National Army.

Under those rules, John Bernard said, Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage. In a letter to his congressman and Maine's U.S. senators, Bernard condemned "the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in."

and like I said in an earlier thread...THE GENERALS WRITE THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT....
 
There is a definate need for more troops..while REMF's are important..we need combat troops...enough to kick ass and then come home. All this pussyfooting around and appeasing the left wing kooks is doing is causing needless deaths to soldiers and civilians alike.
 
There is a definate need for more troops..while REMF's are important..we need combat troops...enough to kick ass and then come home. All this pussyfooting around and appeasing the left wing kooks is doing is causing needless deaths to soldiers and civilians alike.

i would object to increaasing the number of troops without a clear strategy or a clear goal. in vietnam they kept saying that if they got more troops they'd "win".

first they have to define what winning is. you don't waste lives and money indefinitely ....
 
There is a definate need for more troops..while REMF's are important..we need combat troops...enough to kick ass and then come home. All this pussyfooting around and appeasing the left wing kooks is doing is causing needless deaths to soldiers and civilians alike.

i would object to increaasing the number of troops without a clear strategy or a clear goal. in vietnam they kept saying that if they got more troops they'd "win".

first they have to define what winning is. you don't waste lives and money indefinitely ....

That's fine, but while sitting in our nice, warm, and safe offices, we can't just leave our troops to be sacrificial lambs while we are dithering about what needs to be done.

I sure as hell don't know what needs to be done, and don't claim to, but it isn't worth a single life of ours, or our allies, while these asshole terrorists take advantage of our pussy footing around by hiding behind civilians.
 
I am under the impression that the strategy is build a stronghold in the country, mostly around Kabul, to stabilize the security and the economy there, while training Afghani troops and police. That means much of the country is going to be left to the terrorists until we and the good Afghanis come back later.

Research the British model in Malaysia, guys. I think that is the idea. I am not sure that it will work, but what we are doing right now sure is not working.
 
Well, dilloduck, I sure with Bush and company had considered exit strategies when invading both countries. Obviously, they had not, or if they had, the strategies were woefully flawed.
 
There is a definate need for more troops..while REMF's are important..we need combat troops...enough to kick ass and then come home. All this pussyfooting around and appeasing the left wing kooks is doing is causing needless deaths to soldiers and civilians alike.

i would object to increaasing the number of troops without a clear strategy or a clear goal. in vietnam they kept saying that if they got more troops they'd "win".

first they have to define what winning is. you don't waste lives and money indefinitely ....
There is no goal, they know that, it just goies on and on.

End it.

Now.
 
Ya...that's why we are leaving Iraq in a few months...because of Bush's woefully flawed Surge that broke the back of the insurgency and decimated Al Qaeda in Iraq....woefully flawed...:lol:
 
And we done gave the son of a bitch a Peace Prize. Fact is, he ain't no different than Dubya... we're gonna be at war for a long time.

We need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else while we're at it.
 
Well, dilloduck, I sure with Bush and company had considered exit strategies when invading both countries. Obviously, they had not, or if they had, the strategies were woefully flawed.

Yes, Bush fucked it up, I think most people will grant you that, move on.

EDIT: I'm talking about Afghanistan here
 
Last edited:
We need the politicians to get out of the war business and let the soldiers do what they're trained to do. Seems the govt. wants to tie up our soldiers hands like they did in Vietnam.
 
Ame®icano;1613217 said:
All done quietly...

In an unannounced move, President Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced in March.

The additional forces are primarily support forces, such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police, bringing the total buildup Obama has approved for the war-torn nation to 34,000.

Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Obama "wins" the Nobel Peace Prize and sends 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan? I guess some poll somewhere said that we are there to save the Afghani people. God bless Obama. Or maybe I should say Obama bless Obama.
 
Ya...that's why we are leaving Iraq in a few months...because of Bush's woefully flawed Surge that broke the back of the insurgency and decimated Al Qaeda in Iraq....woefully flawed...:lol:

no one has won a war in Afghanistan since Alexander the Great.

The soviets were there for 10 years...

and even he didn't really win anything either....but we are there and I think we should definately have a strategy....just not one put forth by a bunch of politcians in a comfy room under the WH while eating Dominos Pizza.

Warriors are like that special tool you keep locked up in the tool shed. You take it out, look at it, admire it, oil it and then put it away until the day you need it. After you take it out and put it to use, it's best if you leave it alone and let it do it's job instead of fiddling around with it. It may take off your fingers if you don't know what your doing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top