Do you support sending more troops to Afghanistan?

MikeinAR · #1 10-07-2009, 06:57 PM

I'm interested in what the opinions are on this. I'm not certain what I support as of now. I've thought and read a lot on the subject, but I'm not sure that it's worth the investment of 40K troops.

Is capturing or killing the Taliban the same or as important as capturing or killing Al-qaeda?

Do you believe we can be successful given other's past military endeavors there?

Is "boots on the ground" the very best way to fight al-qaeda in Afghanistan?

Interested to hear thoughts....

RevDWW · #2 10-07-2009, 07:05 PM

What is unfortunate for the "boots on the ground" is that politics will get some killed unnecessarily. Turn the military loose and let them do their job, otherwise bring them home.

We must have a clear objective there, and the military must be weapons free to do what needs to be done. Let the military leaders dictate the troop numbers and how best to get the task accomplished. Enough of the stupid rules of engagement. Enough of politicians posturing for position.

Turn'm loose or bring'm home!

pelathais · #3 10-07-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW

What is unfortunate for the "boots on the ground" is that politics will get some killed unnecessarily. Turn the military loose and let them do their job, otherwise bring them home.

We must have a clear objective there, and the military must be weapons free to do what needs to be done. Let the military leaders dictate the troop numbers and how best to get the task accomplished. Enough of the stupid rules of engagement. Enough of politicians posturing for position.

Turn'm loose or bring'm home!

You're right. But we still need to be better than the Taliban and the "Flesh Eating Saracens." Keep our principles, but don't second guess every decision made under fire.

And use air power to it's fullest advantage. Like the Germans asked us to do a couple of weeks ago. I'm sorry, but I just don't really see a lot of "innocent civilians" out with buckets collecting "free gasoline" at 2:00 in the morning right after a fierce fire fight had taken place to capture the tanker.

I think the Germans made the correct call. They probably saved most of their own people from the ravages of having that tanker turned into a bomb and sent right into their compound gates.

Mistakes happen, there will always be "collateral damage." Why do you think the roads of Europe were choked with refugees during both World Wars? Those folks had the sense to get as far from the fighting as they could. We shouldn't be "wanton" - and we won't be. But our troops should NOT be second guessed every time some Talib drags a civilian into a fight as a human shield.

coadie · #4 10-07-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

I'm interested in what the opinions are on this. I'm not certain what I support as of now. I've thought and read a lot on the subject, but I'm not sure that it's worth the investment of 40K troops.

Is capturing or killing the Taliban the same or as important as capturing or killing Al-qaeda?

Do you believe we can be successful given other's past military endeavors there?

Is "boots on the ground" the very best way to fight al-qaeda in Afghanistan?

Interested to hear thoughts....

Obama lied mike. The democrats can't explain why he lied. he was going to bring the troops home from Iraq. Home is in the states and not Afghanistan.
He was totaslly against the surge in Iraq. it worked very well.

The Democrats have no strateguy. They have no objective and no way to measure if they are reaching an objective they can't describe.

MikeinAR · #5 10-07-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW

What is unfortunate for the "boots on the ground" is that politics will get some killed unnecessarily. Turn the military loose and let them do their job, otherwise bring them home.

We must have a clear objective there, and the military must be weapons free to do what needs to be done. Let the military leaders dictate the troop numbers and how best to get the task accomplished. Enough of the stupid rules of engagement. Enough of politicians posturing for position.

Turn'm loose or bring'm home!

I agree with politicians allowing the military to make the decisions, BUT we have to clearly define our "task" or or mission there. That's what concerns me the most right now. What's the goal? Is it to destroy the entire Taliban as well as al-qaeda? Are we going to be successful fighting against al-qaeda as long as the Northern portions of Pakistan are a safe haven for them? Is the mission accomplishable and well defined?

MikeinAR · #6 10-07-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

Obama lied mike. The democrats can't explain why he lied. he was going to bring the troops home from Iraq. Home is in the states and not Afghanistan.
He was totaslly against the surge in Iraq. it worked very well.

The Democrats have no strateguy. They have no objective and no way to measure if they are reaching an objective they can't describe.

I took you off ignore after your absence to see if you could have a civil discussion, but alas, you can't. This IS NOT a Democrat, Republican thread coadie. I could pontificate on and on about 8 years of failings of the Bush administration, but that doesn't do anything to solve the problem we're faced with now.

I'm discussing solutions and the way forward. This is MUCH MORE important than silly political gotcha's coadie. Either talk about the situation sensibly or back to ignore you go.

deacon blues · #7 10-07-2009, 10:36 PM

The experience in Iraq w the surge proved to be correct. Obama needs to listen to the military leaders on the ground, not moveon.org or the dailykos and huffington post people. The strategy should be: a well trained, well disciplined Afghan miitary, destruction of the poppy crops which funds the terrorists, cooperation with Pakistan to oust AQ from its northern regions and the elimination of the Taliban from Afghan. Plan a 10 year strategy cause that's how long it will take. Pulling out wout the job completed wud be disasterous.

Jason B · #8 10-07-2009, 10:51 PM

Mike,

are you ever going to lose the Obama-colored glasses and start dealing with reality?

Esther · #9 10-07-2009, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The experience in Iraq w the surge proved to be correct. Obama needs to listen to the military leaders on the ground, not moveon.org or the dailykos and huffington post people. The strategy should be: a well trained, well disciplined Afghan miitary, destruction of the poppy crops which funds the terrorists, cooperation with Pakistan to oust AQ from its northern regions and the elimination of the Taliban from Afghan. Plan a 10 year strategy cause that's how long it will take. Pulling out wout the job completed wud be disasterous.

Nitehawk013 · #10 10-08-2009, 05:09 AM

When the generals say they need mor etroops....you give them more troops. This is the problem with having an anti-military community organizer in charge.

Politics should be ignored when it comes to the militay. Tell the politicians to shut up and let the military guys make the decisions. If we would let the militry do what they do best, this thing would have been over already.