We Should Have Won This One

[rayboyusmc]

When you take your eye off the ball to attack a country who is no threat and had no connection to the 9-11 attack, you get this kind of crap.

We can thank George when he leaves US with two wars.

How many more will die for his incompetence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/magazine/24afghanistan-t.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When you take your eye off the ball to attack a country who is no threat and had no connection to the 9-11 attack, you get this kind of crap.

We can thank George when he leaves US with two wars.

How many more will die for his incompetence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/magazine/24afghanistan-t.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The only incompetence is by people like you.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Naturally, alleged GunnySarge didn't read it, and has nothing of substance to add.

Rayboy, that was the best damn article I've ever read on the Afghanistan War. Thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Naturally, alleged GunnySarge didn't read it, and has nothing of substance to add.

Rayboy, that was the best damn article I've ever read on the Afghanistan War. Thanks.

We were never going to send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan. The whole point was NOT to send large numbers so as to NOT piss off the locals. Further the types of troops we needed for the terrain involved were not and still are not available.

Afghanistan is a NATO mission. Any failure there is the fault of NATO. To be more specific the fault of the lackadasical approach taken by Countries that refuse to allow their troops to fight anyone. The French and German come to mind.

Any heavy handed action we took or take in Afghanistan is counter productive.

 

[maineman]

Any heavy handed action we took or take in Afghanistan is counter productive.

and the heavy handed action we took and take in Iraq ISN'T?????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and the heavy handed action we took and take in Iraq ISN'T?????

Neither here nor there in this thread. Or are you trolling?

 

[DeadCanDance]

and the heavy handed action we took and take in Iraq ISN'T?????

LOL

So keeping a small footprint in afghanistan to not piss the locals off, but surging more troops into Iraq will help.

LOL

The gyrations Bush lovers have to jump through to justify their hero's incompetence

 

[maineman]

LOL

So keeping a small footprint in afghanistan to not piss the locals off, but surging more troops into Iraq will help.

LOL

The gyrations Bush lovers have to jump through to justify their hero's incompetence

bingo

 

[DeadCanDance]

We were never going to send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan. The whole point was NOT to send large numbers so as to NOT piss off the locals.

This post was so funny, I had to address it point by point.

You say we need a small footprint in afghanistan to not piss off the locals. But, you were in favor of surging more and more troops into Iraq. That's hilarious.

Further the types of troops we needed for the terrain involved were not and still are not available.

Given that you were COMPLETELY misinformed about current US military posture in the Balkans, I give your knowledge of the state of the american military a grade of F minus. Sorry, I'm not taking your word for anything on military matters.

Afghanistan is a NATO mission. Any failure there is the fault of NATO.

I see. When it looked like Bush had achieved a glorious victory in afganistan in December 2001, Bush got all the credit from you, not NATO. Seven years later, as Bush loses a second war, it's NATO's fault. Defending Bush to the last day, I see.

To be more specific the fault of the lackadasical approach taken by Countries that refuse to allow their troops to fight anyone. The French and German come to mind.

Sorry, blaming germany and france for your president's failure won't cut it. If anyone's been lackadaisical and taken their eye off the ball, it's your president. Who diverted us into invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. If he'd focused on Afghanistan, we might have salvaged something. He's the Leader of NATO by default. And we were the one's who were attacked, NATO was just along for the ride.

Any heavy handed action we took or take in Afghanistan is counter productive.

This is the most hilarious statement in the post. You think occupying Iraq with 150,000 troops doesn't piss people off?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This post was so funny, I had to address it point by point.

You say we need a small footprint in afghanistan to not piss off the locals. But, you were in favor of surging more and more troops into Iraq. That's hilarious.



Given that you were COMPLETELY misinformed about current US military posture in the Balkans, I give your knowledge of the state of the american military a grade of F minus. Sorry, I'm not taking your word for anything on military matters.



I see. When it looked like Bush had achieved a glorious victory in afganistan in December 2001, Bush got all the credit from you, not NATO. Seven years later, as Bush loses a second war, it's NATO's fault. Defending Bush to the last day, I see.



Sorry, blaming germany and france for your president's failure won't cut it. If anyone's been lackadaisical and taken their eye off the ball, it's your president. Who diverted us into invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. If he'd focused on Afghanistan, we might have salvaged something. He's the Leader of NATO by default. And we were the one's who were attacked, NATO was just along for the ride.



This is the most hilarious statement in the post. You think occupying Iraq with 150,000 troops doesn't piss people off?

Your knowledge of military and foreign affairs could be inscribed on the head of a pin. Your insistance that Iraq and Afghanistan are one and the same are the hillarious part.

The simple fact , one that Maineman knows full well, is that there NEVER would have been a large presence of American troops in Afghanistan regardless of Iraq or any other war or non war.

Our mechanized military is totally unsuited to fight in that terrain to begin with and our special troops are small. Further these troops are hampered by political decisions imposed by all sides of the political spectrum. We lost all but one member of a crack Seal Team because of political arrangements.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The only incompetence is by people like you

Fukking right, Gunny. When you don't have data attack the person.


The War in Afghanistan (2001–present), which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States of America and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the Bush Administration's War on Terrorism. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

The U.S. and the U.K. led the aerial bombing campaign, with ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, U.S., British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations. Later, NATO troops were added. The U.S. military calls the conflict Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

The initial attack removed the Taliban from power, but Taliban forces have since regained some strength.[11] The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting al-Qaeda's movement.[12] Since 2006, Afghanistan has seen threats to its stability from increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.


If you want a detailed explanation of what has happened, read on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

 

[Gunny]

Fukking right, Gunny. When you don't have data attack the person.


The War in Afghanistan (2001–present), which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States of America and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the Bush Administration's War on Terrorism. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

The U.S. and the U.K. led the aerial bombing campaign, with ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, U.S., British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations. Later, NATO troops were added. The U.S. military calls the conflict Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

The initial attack removed the Taliban from power, but Taliban forces have since regained some strength.[11] The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting al-Qaeda's movement.[12] Since 2006, Afghanistan has seen threats to its stability from increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.


If you want a detailed explanation of what has happened, read on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

The entire premise of this thread is stupid, and obviously so. And I see the usual bleeting Bush-bashers are talking out their asses, as usual.

I suppose we should have just said "fuck it" and not bothered going after bin Laden or al Qaeda or the Taliban?

And now you want to blame Bush for not completely destroying the Taliban. Are you suggesting that you would support invading a sovereign nation (Pakistan) in order to do so like your favorite lefty candidate has?

Why does that just sound SO hypocritical?

 

[rayboyusmc]

You are twisting the words more and more.

Never said we shouldn't have gone after Ossama and the Taliban. I said we should have done it right and finished it. We had the chance to harm them seriously.

We didn't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are twisting the words more and more.

Never said we shouldn't have gone after Ossama and the Taliban. I said we should have done it right and finished it. We had the chance to harm them seriously.

We didn't.

Yes we did. And we continue to do so.

 

[maineman]

Yes we did. And we continue to do so.

outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords at Tora Bora was a bad idea.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Bullshit, Gunny. They moved into Iraq without attempting to finish up in Afghanistan. That is shit poor planning and we are seeing the results in both Wars.

PANJWAI DISTRICT, Afghanistan — In their biggest show of strength in nearly five years, pro-Taliban fighters are terrorizing southern Afghanistan — ambushing military patrols, assassinating opponents and even enforcing the law in remote villages where they operate with near impunity.
"We are faced with a full-blown insurgency," says Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia.

Four and a half years after they overthrew the Islamic militia that had controlled much of Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces have been forced to ramp up the battle to stabilize this impoverished, shattered country. More than 10,000 U.S., Canadian, British and Afghan government troops are scouring southern and eastern Afghanistan in a campaign called Operation Mountain Thrust.

Afghanistan has witnessed renewed violence over recent months, prompting questions on the progress of U.S. forces in bringing security to the war-torn country, and whether the Taliban are staging a campaign for permanent resurgence. On September 28, in one of the bloodiest attacks since the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001, a suicide bomber in Kabul rammed a motorcycle into a convoy of buses carrying Afghan military personnel. At least 12 people were killed. The attack, only 10 days after Afghanistan's landmark parliamentary elections, sent a strong signal not only of the limitations of security in the country, but also of what is being seen as the importation of mujahideen tactics from Iraq, as suicide attacks feature increasingly in the Taliban arsenal. The largest suicide blast occurred on June 1 at the funeral of a Muslim cleric in Kandahar who was critical of the Taliban, which killed 20 people and wounding twice that number. More recently on October 9, an attempt was made against a British Embassy convoy near the city of Kandahar, leaving four security guards injured. Afghan intelligence officials warn of further suicide attacks.

The strength of the Taliban remains difficult to gauge accurately. On several occasions since their fall in 2001 the Taliban have appeared to be on their last legs, with estimates putting their number of active militants at around the 800, mostly hiding out along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The peaceful passing of the September 18 elections appeared to demonstrate that the Taliban remain disorganized and weak. Yet overall, this year has seen an intensification of militancy and a surge in militant violence in the south and east of Afghanistan where the rebel militants are most active. There have been over 1,000 deaths this year since the Taliban stepped up their tactics. The increased sophistication of their methods--including the use of remote-control detonation--accounts for the over 80 U.S. troop fatalities during this period and has prompted warnings in a UN report that the Taliban may be receiving advanced training in tactics from Iraqi veterans, as well as renewed funding given the stockpile of equipment found through captured Taliban. The funding is linked to narcotics production in Afghanistan--the chief world producer of opium, which according to the latest UN report has only shown mixed signs of being reduced (www.unis.unvienna.org). Indeed, the UN report notes how Afghanistan has in the past year moved into actual heroin production (www.paktribune.com).

Morning Edition, January 16, 2008 · Defense Secretary Robert Gates is sending more than 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan to guard against a possible Taliban offensive in the spring. This comes after the U.S. was unsuccessful in getting NATO to boost its own forces there. With the steadily rising violence in Afghanistan, there are deeper questions about the alliance itself.

More than six years after they were toppled in Afghanistan, Taliban forces are resurgent. An average of 400 attacks occurred each month in 2006. That number rose to more than 500 a month in 2007.

"It appears to be a much more capable Taliban, a stronger Taliban than when I was there," says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who was the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 through 2005. "Just the size of engagements, the casualties reflected in the Taliban [attacks] show a stronger force."

This one is the most current.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18125911

— Islamic insurgents are expanding their numbers and reach in Afghanistan and Pakistan, spreading violence and disarray over a vast cross-border zone where al-Qaida has rebuilt the sanctuary it lost when the United States invaded Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.

There is little in the short term that the Bush administration or its allies can do to halt the bloodshed, which is spreading toward Pakistan's heartland and threatening to destabilize the U.S.-backed governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO forces are facing "a classic growing insurgency," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday.

But the U.S. military, stretched thin by the Iraq war, is hard-pressed to send more than the 3,200 additional Marines the Bush administration is dispatching to Afghanistan. The growing insurgency there is fueling rifts within the NATO alliance as Germany and other nations refuse to allow their troops to participate in offensive operations in Afghanistan. The Afghan army is making progress but cannot operate independently.

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," an Atlantic Council of the United States report warned last week. The report was directed by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, the former top NATO commander. "What is happening in Afghanistan and beyond its borders can have even greater strategic long-term consequences than the struggle in Iraq."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004161140_insurgents030.html