PDA

View Full Version : Obama What is the commander in chief gonna do now?


HonestChieffan
09-17-2012, 08:25 PM
Cluster fuck, sir

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57514546/u.s-military-suspends-joint-patrols-with-afghans/

CBS News) —*The strategy for getting U.S. forces out of Afghanistan depends on training Afghan soldiers and police to protect the country themselves, but on Monday the U.S. military suspended most joint field operations with Afghan forces because so many Americans are being killed by the men they are training.

Afghan government troops — our allies — have turned their guns on NATO forces 36 times this year, killing 51, most of them Americans. That is more attacks than the last two years combined.

The order effectively suspends “until further notice” most of the operations which U.S. and Afghan troops conduct side by side. At higher headquarters, Afghans and Americans will still work together, but in the field small unit operations putting Afghan soldiers alongside Americans — the guts of the U.S. strategy to turn the fighting over to Afghans — will be suspended unless an exception is granted by a commanding general.

The order was issued after a long weekend in which four American and two British troops were killed by so-called “insider attacks” — Afghans turning their guns on their supposed allies.

oldandslow
09-17-2012, 08:27 PM
Should not have been there to begin with...Nation building in the ME is a fool's errand. That Obama followed the Bush Doctrine is one reason I would not give him another vote.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 08:44 PM
Here is a recent interview on CNN that is troubling as SHIT...


In a small house in a Taliban-controlled village is a man who claims to be responsible for a green on blue attack.

With his face covered to hide his identity, he pulls out his police uniform, something he has not worn since the attack on the second of October, 2009.

On patrol with U.S. forces in Wardak province in central Afghanistan, this father of two says he waited for an opportunity to launch his premeditated attack.

The Americans went inside the nearby school for a break, he explains. They took off their body armor and put their weapons down. At that moment I thought it was the right time so I took my gun and shot them. Two soldiers were killed. 25-year-old sergeant Aaron Smith, and 20- year-old private first class, Brandon Owens. Three other soldiers were injured including a captain (INAUDIBLE).

When asked why he turned his gun on the U.S. soldiers training him, he said because Americans were burning copies of the holy Quran and disrespecting it.

Having escaped from the scene, he was captured by the Taliban who thought he was a policeman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): When I told him I killed Americans, he took me to a safe place and gave me new clothes, then, they drove me to Pakistan with the Taliban welcomed me very warmly like a hero. COREN: He says he later moved to Iran for three years. Returning to Afghanistan only recently after being told it was safe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They said Americans were not everywhere they like used to be. The Taliban brought security and I should return home. I am happy to be back in my country.

So, it appears that the Taliban is pretty much back in charge and gaining ground as we depart.

There has to be a better solution than keeping a constant war over there OR leaving the area and waiting for 911 part 2 to happen.

Brainiac
09-17-2012, 08:46 PM
Should not have been there to begin with...Nation building in the ME is a fool's errand. That Obama followed the Bush Doctrine is one reason I would not give him another vote.
What's that Bush Doctrine again? Oh wait, I'll just ask Sarah Palin. Surely she knows by now. :shake:

petegz28
09-17-2012, 09:01 PM
Should not have been there to begin with...Nation building in the ME is a fool's errand. That Obama followed the Bush Doctrine is one reason I would not give him another vote.

Wrong. We should have went in a leveled the fucking place instead of trying to play this "good guys, bad guys, cops and robbers" bullshit.

If you're going to go to war, go to war. Otherwise save a lot of families a lot of heartache and keep the troops home.

oldandslow
09-17-2012, 09:04 PM
Wrong. We should have went in a leveled the ****ing place instead of trying to play this "good guys, bad guys, cops and robbers" bullshit.

If you're going to go to war, go to war. Otherwise save a lot of families a lot of heartache and keep the troops home.

You are right. We should have stayed home.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 09:06 PM
You are right. We should have stayed home.

And wait for 911 part 2? Staying home and giving the Taliban free reign is not an answer. It just gives them a safe haven to train and empower terrorists.

We need a different solution and I'm afraid it's probably going to have to be far more drastic than we've had the stomach for so far.

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 09:07 PM
Wrong. We should have went in a leveled the fucking place instead of trying to play this "good guys, bad guys, cops and robbers" bullshit.

If you're going to go to war, go to war. Otherwise save a lot of families a lot of heartache and keep the troops home.

I agree so you should go down to the nearest recruiting station and sign up. Let us know when you do.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 09:10 PM
I agree so you should go down to the nearest recruiting station and sign up. Let us know when you do.

I know that isn't addressed to me.. but I am in the camp that thinks more needs to be done... but I don't see any workable solution that puts more boots on the ground. That is something we know doesn't work unless you want to commit to massive numbers and decades of occupation.

petegz28
09-17-2012, 09:10 PM
I agree so you should go down to the nearest recruiting station and sign up. Let us know when you do.

This makes no sense to what I said but ok

HonestChieffan
09-17-2012, 09:12 PM
Obama said the taliban is not the enemy. Good lord

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 09:15 PM
but I don't see any workable solution that puts more boots on the ground. That is something we know doesn't work unless you want to commit to massive numbers and decades of occupation.

I tend to agree.

This makes no sense to what I said but ok

Because it is easy to sit at home and say we should go to all out war when there is no sacrifice on your end

petegz28
09-17-2012, 09:19 PM
I tend to agree.



Because it is easy to sit at home and say we should go to all out war when there is no sacrifice on your end

No, tool, that's not what I said. I said if you're going to go to war, go to war like you mean it, otherwise sit down and shut up.

headsnap
09-17-2012, 09:23 PM
Because it is easy to sit at home and say we should go to all out war when there is no sacrifice on your end

all or nothing!




half-assed war is what the Chiefs did on Sunday...

tiptap
09-17-2012, 09:24 PM
That means you control production and pay for the action in waging war. I don't hear that being the wish. No you back off and start supporting the natural antagonism between Iran (shia) and Saudi Arabia (sunni). It predates Islam.

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 09:28 PM
No, tool, that's not what I said. I said if you're going to go to war, go to war like you mean it, otherwise sit down and shut up.

Well if you go to war like you mean it that means committing a very large contingent of ground troops.

petegz28
09-17-2012, 09:30 PM
Well if you go to war like you mean it that means committing a very large contingent of ground troops.

WTF? Have you been hiding under a rock or something? We could take that entire country off the map in a matter of hours without putting 1 boot on the ground.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 09:35 PM
Well if you go to war like you mean it that means committing a very large contingent of ground troops.

Not necessarily. You could go all out on a proxy war (as tiptap just mentioned) or you could go all out on an almost genocidal death from above aerial war.

One thing I do know. Apologizing for things like the stupid video is an EMPOWERMENT of their ideas. We admit the video is wrong and they say "yeah well duh! now die for it!" We need an entirely different approach. I think we should use this thread to spitball possible solutions.

Just off the cuff.. what about the "caught smoking" approach? Dad catches a kid smoking and makes him smoke a carton of cigarettes. This video comes out and they riot. We release a different offensive video every day for the next month. You want something to riot about? Sure, we'll keep you busy until the thought of rioting makes you sick.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 09:36 PM
WTF? Have you been hiding under a rock or something? We could take that entire country off the map in a matter of hours without putting 1 boot on the ground.

You kinda deflated your argument with your own post. Lot's of them WILL hide under rocks or in Pakistan. You REALLY need to take all gloves off and suspend the rules to be effective. Not saying that would be the wrong choice, but I doubt many would have the stomach for it.

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 09:44 PM
WTF? Have you been hiding under a rock or something? We could take that entire country off the map in a matter of hours without putting 1 boot on the ground.

We are talking about Afghanistan right? the same country we have been fighting in for over 10 years?

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 09:48 PM
We are talking about Afghanistan right? the same country we have been fighting in for over 10 years?

With strict rules of engagement with JAG oversight all over the place. I think he is talking about suspending that.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2012, 09:51 PM
And wait for 911 part 2? Staying home and giving the Taliban free reign is not an answer. It just gives them a safe haven to train and empower terrorists.

We need a different solution and I'm afraid it's probably going to have to be far more drastic than we've had the stomach for so far.

With all these security measures in place surely another 9/11 couldn't happen right?

You and Pete do realize that if we were to nuke that place most of the world would turn against us?

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 09:57 PM
With strict rules of engagement with JAG oversight all over the place. I think he is talking about suspending that.

While I agree they probably need looser ROE's that is really not going to do much.

The only way to win in Afghanistan is to nuke them or commit 200,000-500,000 US troops to go through every hole and root out the enemy like we did in the Pacific in WWII. Other than that we have tried everything. They have tried massive bombings and using bunker busters and while they have killed some you are not going to be able to kill them all.

LiveSteam
09-17-2012, 09:58 PM
With all these security measures in place surely another 9/11 couldn't happen right?

You and Pete do realize that if we were to nuke that place most of the world would turn against us?

Everyone put a ICBM in the pot. Then no one can point finger's. Everyone can split the resources in 1000 years :evil:

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 09:59 PM
With all these security measures in place surely another 9/11 couldn't happen right?

You and Pete do realize that if we were to nuke that place most of the world would turn against us?

I'm not advocating nuking the place. Nor do I know for a fact that increased aerial attacks will do any good. At this point I am saying that we have a serious future problem (at least short to middle run future) that we need to address. The current "plan" isn't working.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 10:02 PM
While I agree they probably need looser ROE's that is really not going to do much.

The only way to win in Afghanistan is to nuke them or commit 200,000-500,000 US troops to go through every hole and root out the enemy like we did in the Pacific in WWII. Other than that we have tried everything. They have tried massive bombings and using bomb busters and while they have killed some you are not going to be able to kill them all.

True but you could do A LOT more damage with MUCH looser ROE. I'm not saying it's the right path to take, but if you go that route... you are talking about full on aerial commitment that is borderless. You run to Pakistan? We kill you. You run to Iran.. sorry, gonna kill ya there too. As I said before, it would be an almost genocidal tactic that very few would be able to stomach.

petegz28
09-17-2012, 10:08 PM
We are talking about Afghanistan right? the same country we have been fighting in for over 10 years?

It's how we are fighting there that's the problem.

petegz28
09-17-2012, 10:09 PM
With all these security measures in place surely another 9/11 couldn't happen right?

You and Pete do realize that if we were to nuke that place most of the world would turn against us?

I never said one word about a nuke.

petegz28
09-17-2012, 10:11 PM
True but you could do A LOT more damage with MUCH looser ROE. I'm not saying it's the right path to take, but if you go that route... you are talking about full on aerial commitment that is borderless. You run to Pakistan? We kill you. You run to Iran.. sorry, gonna kill ya there too. As I said before, it would be an almost genocidal tactic that very few would be able to stomach.

This fighting by the rules crap is what is drawing this shit out longer than need be and getting a lot of our people killed unncecessarily.


I am no fan of war but if we are going to go to war then do it full force, not this half-assed shit.

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 10:11 PM
True but you could do A LOT more damage with MUCH looser ROE. I'm not saying it's the right path to take, but if you go that route... you are talking about full on aerial commitment that is borderless. You run to Pakistan? We kill you. You run to Iran.. sorry, gonna kill ya there too. As I said before, it would be an almost genocidal tactic that very few would be able to stomach.

The problem with that is you are talking about a very mountainous region so you would need eyes on all the targets or you are just wasting your time.

That is why you would need massive ground troops starting at the border of Pakistan to make it impassable.

petegz28
09-17-2012, 10:12 PM
You kinda deflated your argument with your own post. Lot's of them WILL hide under rocks or in Pakistan. You REALLY need to take all gloves off and suspend the rules to be effective. Not saying that would be the wrong choice, but I doubt many would have the stomach for it.

Good, let them hide under rocks and keep them there. If they show their face blow it the fuck up.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 10:19 PM
The problem with that is you are talking about a very mountainous region so you would need eyes on all the targets or you are just wasting your time.

That is why you would need massive ground troops starting at the border of Pakistan to make it impassable.

Sorry but you are wrong here. We could do this at only slightly higher cost than boots on the ground. (without the loss of American lives)

BUT you are talking about dedicating a ton of tech and aerial assets to the problem.

The issue really hasn't been about finding targets or tracking them. It has been an issue with stopping at the border AND being extra careful to avoid collateral damage. Throw those out the window, commit a ton of tech and you are off to the races. Of course, you're going to get a shit ton of grief on the world stage and probably start a war with Iran and Pakistan while you are at it.

dirk digler
09-17-2012, 10:50 PM
Sorry but you are wrong here. We could do this at only slightly higher cost than boots on the ground. (without the loss of American lives)

BUT you are talking about dedicating a ton of tech and aerial assets to the problem.

The issue really hasn't been about finding targets or tracking them. It has been an issue with stopping at the border AND being extra careful to avoid collateral damage. Throw those out the window, commit a ton of tech and you are off to the races. Of course, you're going to get a shit ton of grief on the world stage and probably start a war with Iran and Pakistan while you are at it.

I am sure CENTCOM would love to hear from you. The border is almost 2000 miles all mountainous while some tech would be needed you actually need grunts on the ground to make it all work.

AustinChief
09-17-2012, 10:58 PM
I am sure CENTCOM would love to hear from you. The border is almost 2000 miles all mountainous while some tech would be needed you actually need grunts on the ground to make it all work.

CENTCOM has done a fabulous job given the extreme limits they are working under. They have limited resources and severely tied hands. I am not trying to pretend I know "better". These are the same things anyone in the military will tell you.

Again, I'm not advocating this course, just saying what we would need to do if we took it, and it would NOT require a massive troop deployment. (well, depends on your objective.. here we are talking about a complete shift in priorities. You need troops to nation build, I am not talking about that)

And there is simply no way to "secure" the borders of Afghanistan I am saying you ignore them. Something we BARELY do with Pakistan but not even close to what I am talking about.. which is why it's likely impossible to take this course of action.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2012, 11:25 PM
I'm not advocating nuking the place. Nor do I know for a fact that increased aerial attacks will do any good. At this point I am saying that we have a serious future problem (at least short to middle run future) that we need to address. The current "plan" isn't working.

I agree completely there.

Comrade Crapski
09-18-2012, 12:05 AM
If you end this thing, the unemployment rate would go up at least 2%. From all the reservists on active duty here who would go home to no job, to the contractors with do nothing jobs on the federal tit--- most of them couldn't run a grill for McDonalds. From what I see, this place is carpetbagger heaven.

Setsuna
09-18-2012, 11:07 AM
If you end this thing, the unemployment rate would go up at least 2%. From all the reservists on active duty here who would go home to no job, to the contractors with do nothing jobs on the federal tit--- most of them couldn't run a grill for McDonalds. From what I see, this place is carpetbagger heaven.

Don't care about them coming home, we can deal with all that internally as we've always done.

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 06:39 PM
CENTCOM has done a fabulous job given the extreme limits they are working under. They have limited resources and severely tied hands.http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/5/0/4/5/8/9/Your-welcome-1268189302.gif

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 06:41 PM
I am sure CENTCOM would love to hear from you. The border is almost 2000 miles all mountainous while some tech would be needed you actually need grunts on the ground to make it all work.I've seen public estimates that it would take 250,000 troops and pakistani coroperation to seal the border.

AustinChief
09-18-2012, 06:56 PM
I've seen public estimates that it would take 250,000 troops and pakistani coroperation to seal the border.

And that doesn't count the border with Iran... which is why you simply IGNORE the border. Wouldn't be very popular but securing the borders isn't going to work.

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 07:24 PM
And that doesn't count the border with Iran... which is why you simply IGNORE the border. Wouldn't be very popular but securing the borders isn't going to work.We cant even secure our own backs without our "friends" shooting us in the back.

AustinChief
09-18-2012, 07:30 PM
We cant even secure our own backs without our "friends" shooting us in the back.

Exactly, I don't see any viable solution that involves a significant amount of troops on the ground in that entire region. That doesn't mean we crawl into a shell though.