It's time for large # of troops to GTFO of Afghanistan.

[BigRedChief]

It's a no win situation for us. Brave Americans are fighting a war in which there is no hope of winning. In this type of war there will never be a "winner". All we are doing is providing easy targets for Taliban to kill.

We can't just ignore military history there and say our effort will be different.

We went into Afganistan with 1,300 troops. When the Taliban fell we had 2.500 troops on the ground. We now have 60,000 troops on the ground and the Taliban control 40-70% of the country's territory.

The new commander in Afghanistan says he sees no evidence of a large Al-Quaeda presense in Afghanistan. That is and will always be the only reason for us to be in Afghanistan. The only reason we are there in the first place. The only reason to sacrifice American lives.

I think we should hunt down and kill every single member of Al=Quaeda, no matter where they are hiding.

We shouldn't be sacrificing American lives to nation build in Afghanistan. Yeah, they want to go back to the 12th century but why should we sacrifice American lives to keep that from happening? Not worth it.

But if we leave the Taliban will take over swiftly and then provide a safe -haven for Al-Quaeda? We don't let that happen. We put cruise millsle up their azz. We send out the drones. We use special forces to take them out.

Edited:

I'm convinced that this is the right decision for these reasons.

• We can't nation build in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be using our resources and sacrificing our troops to help them. Thats not why we are there. $300 billion spent so far. 900 brave Americans dead. Entering it's 9th year. Just when will it be enough?
• The argument that the Taliban and Al-Quaeda will just come back may be true but there are several problems with that. Al-Quaeda can be anywhere in the world. So we keep them out of Afghanistan, they show up in Pakistan, Somalia, where ever. I read there is only 100 Al-Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are probably more than that in the USA. If we keep them out of Afghanistan. they will just go some other place. We need a 21st century approach. We won't be able to defeat Al-Quaeda with conventional weapons and strategy. We can always go back in with surgical strikes to take out prime targets and more large scale attacks to prevent Al-Quaeda from establishing bases again. We can't let 100,000 Americans become easy to reach targets for Al-Quaeda.
• The government is corrupt beyond repair. For those who want to nation build, how can you with a totally corrupt government that the people don't trust? Nation building won't work no matter how many troops or how much money you throw at the problem with a corrupt government distrusted by the people.
• Afghanistan has no resources. What exactly are they going to make money at, build their country with? It would be a transfer of wealth from us to them.
• The population outside of Kabul is run by drug overlords. The majority of the population works in the poppy fields because its the only way they can feed their family. How are we going to change that? Provide jobs for those people to feed their families? A lot of those poppy field profits are going right to the Taliban. Just how are you going to end this cycle without a major infusion of American money. Again, a transfer of wealth.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Originally it was. Because that was where Al-Quaeda was based. They are no longer based in Afghanistan.

So where ever they must go , we shall follow, right , or do we give them the win, an edge to show the world they can beat the USA at their game and have the right to do anything to anybody, ( including us ) at anytime.

Got it, perfect surrender. Hello, Yellow flag here.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Those dipshits will be killing each other instead of us if we get out of there. That was the point of that officers resigination. We can't win. And we should just GTFO and let them kill theirselfs , instead of us.

Isn't that the same thing we kept hearing about Iraq?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

So where ever they must go , we shall follow, right , or do we give them the win, an edge to show the world they can beat the USA at their game and have the right to do anything to anybody, ( including us ) at anytime.

Got it, perfect surrender. Hello, Yellow flag here.

We can't "win" in Afghanistan.

I'm all for hunting down every last Al-Quaeda member and killing them dead. Whereever they are, where ever they are hiding.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

So the POTUS was wrong all along and this is not a "War of Necessity"?

I think he said that just to get elected, because anyone who advocated anything but more war in the election cycle would have been marginalized by the establishment.

For that matter, I think any president who took over, whether McCain or Obama would have been in a no-win situation. The only way we can win in Afghanistan is with a WWII type of effort where we draft an army, line up some allies, and take and hold the place region by region. There simply is not the will in America to do that. It's just not there.

It could have happened, but Bush spent all of the national and international political will to do this on Iraq, a country that wasn't even involved in 911, while leaving our troops in Afghanistan to languish until the next guy came up with a solution.

It's really disgusting the way our government is operating, and that Congress isn't reeling this thing in. It's not suprising though. Congress has been significantly weakened since we took the Senators away from the States.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Those dipshits will be killing each other instead of us if we get out of there. That was the point of that officers resigination. We can't win. And we should just GTFO and let them kill theirselfs , instead of us.

So did the POTUS lie for five years now or was he ignorant and make a huge mistake in which he owes the entire nation an apology?
Posted via Mobile Device

[KC Dan]

My viewpoint: I wish that Obama would grow a set and become a leader. Go in and perform a WWII-style azz whoopin' and sweep every non-peaceful Taliban or AQ supporting person from the face of the earth (that would include those in Pakistan). Or, tuck tail and leave...

I don't think that Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery or Bradley would have fought this War this way. It is the President's job to lead and by wavering and utlizing this "thoughtful deliberation" methodology for delaying a troop surge and fight for victory OR a precipitous withdrawl starting immediately is a joke. Lead dammit!!! That is what the CIC is supposed to do, I am sorry but he has been deliberating about this for far too long. This is all political now.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by patteeu

As high as the cost is in men and women, it's not even close to the lives we lost in WW I and II and many of the other wars in our history.

I thought this was interesting in terms of putting cost in perspective:

Total US fatalities in the nearly 8 years of war in and around Afghanistan: 834

Total US fatalities on the morning of June 6, 1944 (D-Day): 2,499

And given that our total population has increased from 138 million to 305 million during that time period, there were 7 times more US fatalities per capita on that bloody morning than during the entire Afghanistan war. That's the equivalent of saying it would take over half a century of warfare in Afghanistan to lose the same fraction of our population as we lost in a single day during WWII.

[Taco John]

I find that kind of math to be pretty sick and twisted.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

So did the POTUS lie for five years now or was he ignorant and make a huge mistake in which he owes the entire nation an apology?
Posted via Mobile Device

As I've said in this thread and on this forum, the situation on the ground has changed, the political realities have changed, the tactics used in war should be changed etc. I have listed those changes and why I fell differently. Hopefully, he will see the same thing, but the talking heads are all saying Obama is going with the more troops option.

Like ScottFree said, the Afghanistan people and country are not worth the sacrifice of his son. We should focus on hunting down and killing Al-Quaeda.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I find that kind of math to be pretty sick and twisted.

Noted

I find math like that at least as acceptable as and significantly more rational than demagogic exaggerations of the cost of war.

[wild1]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I thought this was interesting in terms of putting cost in perspective:

Total US fatalities in the nearly 8 years of war in and around Afghanistan: 834

Total US fatalities on the morning of June 6, 1944 (D-Day): 2,499

And given that our total population has increased from 138 million to 305 million during that time period, there were 7 times more US fatalities per capita on that bloody morning than during the entire Afghanistan war. That's the equivalent of saying it would take over half a century of warfare in Afghanistan to lose the same fraction of our population as we lost in a single day during WWII.

I notice sometimes that people compare these conflicts to Vietnam, well, we lost almost 60,000 men in Vietnam. In terms of the cost it doesn't even hold a candle to that war.

That's no statement on whether this is worth the sacrifice, it's just a statement that the two are not even in the same ballpark.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

As I've said in this thread and on this forum, the situation on the ground has changed, the political realities have changed, the tactics used in war should be changed etc. I have listed those changes and why I fell differently. Hopefully, he will see the same thing, but the talking heads are all saying Obama is going with the more troops option.

Like ScottFree said, the Afghanistan people and country are not worth the sacrifice of his son. We should focus on hunting down and killing Al-Quaeda.

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Gosh, golly gee....seems to me a whole lot of folks said the same thing about Iraq 2-3 yrs ago.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

As I've said in this thread and on this forum, the situation on the ground has changed, the political realities have changed, the tactics used in war should be changed etc. I have listed those changes and why I fell differently. Hopefully, he will see the same thing, but the talking heads are all saying Obama is going with the more troops option.

Like ScottFree said, the Afghanistan people and country are not worth the sacrifice of his son. We should focus on hunting down and killing Al-Quaeda.

The situation changed so radically in 8 months vs the course of several years?

Not hardly.

He screwed up. He attempted to secure a position by comparing an engagement viewed in a negative public light to one viewed in a positive one during the election. Now that the time has passed and it is his decision not GWBs, he punks out. He is a coward and a liar, IMO.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

The situation changed so radically in 8 months vs the course of several years?

Not hardly.

He screwed up. He attempted to secure a position by comparing an engagement viewed in a negative public light to one viewed in a positive one during the election. Now that the time has passed and it is his decision not GWBs, he punks out...

Spot on...

Although, the coward and liar part....was over-the-top, AFAIC.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Spot on...

Although, the coward and liar part....was over-the-top, AFAIC.

My kid is going over there. It is not over the top at all.