Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 3/27/2009 12:50:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 4:03:46 PM EDT by SilentType]
Well after months in office the White House today provided broad outlines of their plan for "victory" (that's a term I use and not the Executive) in Afghanistan and to say that I am disappointed would be an understatement.

The Obama Administration will continue a policy that withholds the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from the al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens throughout Western Pakistan along its border with Afghanistan allowing them to provide logistical and strategic support as well as command and control to insurgents fighting in Afghanistan. There has been no brokered deal between the governments of Pakistan and the United States of America or any ISAF member nation that would allow for ISAF ground forces to freely enter and conduct operations within Pakistan. Our Commander in Chief has choosen instead to opt for a lengthy war of attrition and has traded the original objective of destroying al Qaeda's ability to plan and carry out terrorist operations for "nation building" in Afghanistan.

The objective in Iraq was to replace the provactive dictator Saddam Hussein with a Democratic government that would pose less risk to the region, which contains the bulk of the world's crude oil supply. Hence, in Iraq nation building was the goal from the start. Whereas, in Afghanistan our goal for invasion was to kill or capture the leadership of al Qaeda and destroy that organization to the point where it would be incapable of carrying out terrorist attacks upon U.S. citizens and interests. Had the Taliban turned over the leadership of al Qaeda the invasion of Afghanistan would not had taken place, but instead the Taliban refused and the invasion began. Mission creep has now taken place where the original objective has been completely replaced by that of "nation building" in Afghanistan, which is a nation that hold no significant resources and no strategic significance to the U.S. beyond insuring that it not return to its status as a safe heaven for terrorists.

Our Commander in Chief has opted to fight elements of al Qaeda and the Taliban who operate within Western Paksitan by proxy through the military of Pakistan. This policy is assnine. The military of Pakistan would take billions of dollars, decades of training and development, as well as a total evolution of its military culture to be able to provide the same counter-insurgency capabilities of the United States of America and our ISAF partners. The assistance of air lift from ISAF, money, training, and equipment is a poor substitute for actual U.S. and ISAF forces being able to locate and engage the enemy themselves. Most likely the night vision equipment and other military resources allocated for the Pakistan Military and "Police" will find its way into the hands of the very members of the Taliban and al Qaeda we are trying to defeat.

This policy will contiue to provide a blocking "invisible wall" that will continue to serve as a serious disadvantage to our Commanders in theater. It will force the United States of America into a lengthy counter-insurgency which will weaken our ability to conduct other operations around the world while taking away from our financial ability to provide modern equipment and continued research and development.

The Goal of the United States of America and our ISAF partners should not be a modern Afghan democracy free from corruption and drug production, but instead a stable enough government that will allow the U.S. to mount pre-emptive strikes within it at our leisure. What the United States of America should do in Afghanistan is simple and that's to pursue those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and effectively destroy al Qaeda's ability to carry out future attacks by gaining through Diplomatic pressure acces into the ungoverned areas of Pakistan.

If and only if ISAF is allowed to conduct operations in Pakistan can real stability be achieved for Afghanistan and the risk of collapse of the Pakistan government be avoided. Unfortunately, rather than work toward this difficult to achieve goal our President has elected to continue to abandon our orginal mission and fight a war of attrition and a war with proxies.

Give Us Victory O' Lord & Save Us From Fools.


You can read the White House White Paper regarding their strategy for Afghanistan at the following length as a PDF.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Afghanistan-Pakistan_White_Paper.pdf



Link Posted: 3/27/2009 1:37:12 PM EDT
this is just gonna turn into another 'nam.

if you are going to fight a war then fight a war. you cant half ass this shit and allow the enemy to determine when and how they are going to fight. we need to be able to go after the enemy where they are. he is also only adding about half of the needed increase in troop levels to the afghan theater

and i remember not to long ago the pakistan govt made a peace deal with the extremists in this region because the govt was too unstable and they could not fight them. if they cant, we should.
it pains me to think of the brave men and women over there who are selflessly fighting for their country while their govt attempts to tie one hand behind their back and release the prisoners they have captured so far.

ive said this before, but if you want to lose a war, elect a democrat.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 1:55:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CELTICWARRIOR67:
this is just gonna turn into another 'nam.

if you are going to fight a war then fight a war. you cant half ass this shit and allow the enemy to determine when and how they are going to fight. we need to be able to go after the enemy where they are. he is also only adding about half of the needed increase in troop levels to the afghan theater

and i remember not to long ago the pakistan govt made a peace deal with the extremists in this region because the govt was too unstable and they could not fight them. if they cant, we should.
it pains me to think of the brave men and women over there who are selflessly fighting for their country while their govt attempts to tie one hand behind their back and release the prisoners they have captured so far.

ive said this before, but if you want to lose a war, elect a democrat.


That's the goddamned truth, all the way down to the Kennedy betrayal of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 2:16:10 PM EDT
i just saw on the news obama saying that if pakistan does not act against the terrorists in its mountain region then they will continue to use the uavs to attack high priority terrorist suspects.

sounds good and i hope he does and i hope i spoke prematurely in my last post, but ive learned that what he says and what he does are usually two different things. i hope in this case he does what is needed, and if so i will congratulate him. but well see how that goes
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 3:57:13 PM EDT
We're totally "REACTIIONARY" in our effort in Pakistan. We have to wait for intel to come in and then hope we get lucky.

We can't be "PROACTIVE" in taking them out without access to Pakistan.

Freaking Hillary Clinton needs to stop blaming America on her world wide tour and sit down and get us a pass into Pakistan for ISAF.

Otherwise we are wasting American Lives and Dollars.

UBL and the rest of al Qaeda is stiing over on their evil collective asses laughing their asses off that the most powerful Military on earth can't cross a line on a map.

Fucking sick of it. Let's do what has to be done and win this damn thing. We didn't go over there to build schools and highways. That was ALWAY secondary to taking out al Qaeda, but NOW it has become our sole mission.

I'd also like to point out that the Dutch are pulling out of Afghanistan. The Canadians are pulling out of Afghanistan. We're losing a LOT of key and STRONG players. I thought Obama was suppose to get more cooperation out of the international community NOT less. Obama hasn't been able to get Germany, Italy, or Spain to up their contribution either. Oh, but we're going to get more money from Japan...zippidy do dah.

The liberals in the media are making Obama's plan sound like some great grand strategy when it's a half assed effort at best.

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 4:12:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 4:14:07 PM EDT by SilentType]
Originally Posted By CELTICWARRIOR67:
i just saw on the news obama saying that if pakistan does not act against the terrorists in its mountain region then they will continue to use the uavs to attack high priority terrorist suspects.

sounds good and i hope he does and i hope i spoke prematurely in my last post, but ive learned that what he says and what he does are usually two different things. i hope in this case he does what is needed, and if so i will congratulate him. but well see how that goes


UAVs, special forces, and various intelligence agencies are undoubtly in play in Pakistan already.

The problem is that they are "REACTIONARY." We have to wait for breaks to react. We can't be "pro-active" and you can't be "reactive" to a counter insurgency that's already in place, because then you allow the enemy to dictate your operational tempo and duration of the war, which costs us far more than it costs them.

There is no susbstitute for boots on the ground for a counter-insurgency.

The other sad thing is that our Command-In-Chief instead of increasing spending during a war is decreasing DOD spending. The FCS program that would provide our troops with easy to field BCT's with more frontline infantry than logistical support troops giving us more boots on the ground in the fight is going to be gutted most likely by Obama in his 2010 budget. We've got a whole host of UAV and SGV's that are going to be rolled out this year that arent' controlled by a guy hundreds of miles or thousands of miles away, but by the NCO in the field that is in the fight.

It's also correct that the commanders asked for 30,000 to 35,000 and instead are going to get about half of that.

This is total political bullshit. Nothing in his plan is sound from a military standpoint. It's just him trying to look like he gives a shit without upsetting his anti-war base. More half-assed bullshit. We had Bush playing things this way to make nice with liberals and avoid the hard diplomacy work and now we've Obama doing the same thing.



Link Posted: 3/27/2009 4:35:22 PM EDT
Ironic isn't it?

Iraq was billed as our next Vietnam.
It's not.

If they tie the hands of the men on the ground and create enemy "safe zones" by virtue of a line on a map (ie: Cambodia) they risk doing it here.
The statement about the Pakistani's is right on the money, they've thrown in the towel on the border regions. So if Obamas plan is to have them speahead a proxy war in those areas...........
Well, that great sucking sound is our money going into a black hole.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 4:42:58 PM EDT
Obama = Total Failure
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 7:44:56 PM EDT
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1238175567

The Afghan Military makes the Iraqi Military look like an elite group by comparison.

What a mess.

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 7:58:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SilentType:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1238175567

The Afghan Military makes the Iraqi Military look like an elite group by comparison.

What a mess.



Holy fucknig shit!

This will not end well.

Set up to fail comes to mind.

Good luck to any of our troops over there.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 8:39:41 AM EDT
The U.S.’s minimum goals should be to ensure “an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda” and provide an unspecified degree of support for the Afghan government. While the U.S. could assist the Afghanistan government’s economic efforts, Gates warned, “If we set as the goal [creating] a Central Asian Valhalla, we will lose.”-Secretary Gates.


Gates is right.

The Obama Administration can't say they weren't warned. They have taken on a strategy of "nation building" that realistically can not be achieved without years of commitment, trillions of dollars, and much LARGER troop strength.

Better to kill the senior leadership of al Qaeda (you know the ones that read and write and have money) to block their ability to carry out terrorist operations with global reach, which was our initial goal and stated purpose for invasion and do as Gates suggested just get things in Afghanistan to the point where you can have access to the country and kill terrorist in the future that will certainly spring up.

Top Top