President Obama

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ya, I guess not sending an asked for 40K troops, or making any decision for 4 months would not hurt anybody.

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them?

If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but,

In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths?

Go from there my friend......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ya, I guess not sending an asked for 40K troops, or making any decision for 4 months would not hurt anybody.

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them?

If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but,

In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths?

Go from there my friend......

All thing being equal, more men = more deaths.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ya, I guess not sending an asked for 40K troops, or making any decision for 4 months would not hurt anybody.

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them?

If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but,

In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths?

Go from there my friend......

All thing being equal, more men = more deaths.

OoooooooooooK

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ya, I guess not sending an asked for 40K troops, or making any decision for 4 months would not hurt anybody.

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them?

If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but,

In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths?

Go from there my friend......

All thing being equal, more men = more deaths.

The Idea of sending more people is to make things less equal. Why do you think cops call for back up? I feel that much more stuupid for having to state the obvious.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[d16842 0]

Quote

OK, here's my wild, unscientific guess. He hasn't been president long enough yet, (snop) to visibly age age him much in 11 months.

I don't know if you have ever had a REALLY stressful job, but it can age one a hell of a lot faster than 11 months. Hint - Never take a job where they have showers and cots there at the workplace, unless you are a fireman.

Not to mention Obama's facing that he can't keep even half of the campaign promises he made. That must age him, asuming he meant them when it made them.

Tom B

[DanG 1]

Ironically, ChangoLanzao is exactly right. I expect more combat injuries and fatalities if even more soldiers are sent downrange. There will also be more enemy casualties, but that's not what you seem concerned about.

Don't try to pretend to be knowledgable regarding things you have no clue about. It makes you look dumb.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Don't try to pretend to be knowledgable regarding things you have no clue about. It makes you look dumb.

Like you just did, by implying that nobody else can have a valid opinion but you and chango?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

I never said, or implied, that no one else can have a valid opinion. Project much?

The correspondence between troop levels and number of fatalities is not an opinion. If there are more people around to die, more of them will die. It is simple math.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I never said, or implied, that no one else can have a valid opinion. Project much?

Nice try - who made you the arbiter of whether jgoose is correct or not?

Quote

The correspondence between troop levels and number of fatalities is not an opinion. If there are more people around to die, more of them will die. It is simple math.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Quote

Nice try - who made you the arbiter of whether jgoose is correct or not?

I guess the same person who made rushmc the arbiter.

Quote

Correlation does not equal causation.

No, but causation can produce correlation.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

WhatEEEEEEEEver you say, Dan - after all, you ARE the self-appointed expert.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ya, I guess not sending an asked for 40K troops, or making any decision for 4 months would not hurt anybody.

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them?

If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but,

In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths?

Go from there my friend......

All thing being equal, more men = more deaths.

Oh yes. For we all know that was the results of the Iraq Surge, as Obama predicted, and Reid declared, it failed and resulted in increased American deaths.... NOT

Have you ever heard of an undermaned outpost being overrun.... say as recently as last week?

Tom B

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The Idea of sending more people is to make things less equal. Why do you think cops call for back up? I feel that much more stuupid for having to state the obvious.....

I thought the call for more troops was to execute population-centric counterinsurgency operations.
Or, in another's assessment:

"Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.

"This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex. Three regional insurgencies have intersected with a dynamic blend of local power struggles in a country damaged by 30 years of conflict. This makes for a situation that defies simple solutions or quick fixes. Success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign.

(Alternatively, another has expressed the concept noting that “a whole of government approach is required, one that integrates all tools available international and interagency partners.”)

"Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.

“Hard-earned credibility and face-to-face relationships, rather than close combat, will achieve success."

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[d16842 0]

Quote

The correspondence between troop levels and number of fatalities is not an opinion. If there are more people around to die, more of them will die. It is simple math.

Since it is a FACT, you can document it with credible references, right? It is simple math? Then you are a stark example of why our nation is trailing in math.

If it weren't so tragic, I would laugh. The frightening part is that it is likely that Obama agrees with you. Guess what... He was dead wrong on it last time, you know the surge? And the left's other hero, Senate Majority Leader Reide even claimed it had failed, and the war was lost. Were they your FACT source?

You know, the SURGE? Adding 30K soldiers to the war, the action that drastically reduced losses, because it killed the bad guys before they could kill us, and convinced the population that to support them was very very bad?

Were it not for the surge, Obama would have inheirited a losing war, with horrible troop losses, and having to pull out of Iraq like we did Vietnam, where we were the laughing stock of the world, being pushed around by a third world country. The main thing I fault Bush for is not doing it years sooner. McCain was about the only politician right on that one. Far from Bush II.

Someone else tried to say that police call backups, to even the odds. Sorry, but not even close. Police and Military try very hard to fight uneven battles, because numbers help win, in both places.

Only in a stupid defensive battle, one our good military leaders know better than to fight, unless they are constrained by stupid political leaders, like Rumsfield, Senator Reid, and and then Senator Obama. Our entire force is designed to win in the attack mode.

Tom B

[DanG 1]

Why do you feel the need to always make it so personal?

Do you have nothing constructive to add?

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why do you feel the need to always make it so personal?

Yeah, because:

"Don't try to pretend to be knowledgable regarding things you have no clue about. It makes you look dumb. "

was JUST so impartial.

Quote

Do you have nothing constructive to add?

Do you? BESIDES the snippet above, that is?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

The success of the surge had little or nothing to do with increased troop levels. The surge was a change in strategy, not just pushing more little green men into the box. Obama faces a similar change in stragety in Afghanistan, but it is a much more complex situation.

I believe Marg posted a graph earlier that showed how troop levels in Afghanistan have increased dramatically under Obama. Deaths have also gone up. Without a strategic refocusing, adding more troops will result in the same.

You are also assuming I am against an increase in troops in Afghanistan. You are wrong. I am for an increase so long as the troops are properly employed. As I've posted elsewhere on this forum, just kicking in more doors is not going to win this war. It's going to be more difficult than that.

- Dan G

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

You know, the SURGE? Adding 30K soldiers to the war, the action that drastically reduced losses, because it killed the bad guys before they could kill us, and convinced the population that to support them was very very bad?

Serious question: where do you place the role of the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq?

Alternatively, what does that suggest w/r/t operational needs in Afghanistan?

My (short) analysis.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DanG 1]

Quote

Do you? BESIDES the snippet above, that is?

I'll admit to a bit of snarkyness in that post. All of my other posts have been substantive. This happens to be a topic that is near and dear to my heart, and it pisses me off when people use it as a tool to get a couple of partisan digs in.

- Dan G

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The success of the surge had little or nothing to do with increased troop levels. The surge was a change in strategy, not just pushing more little green men into the box. Obama faces a similar change in stragety in Afghanistan, but it is a much more complex situation.

I find it interesting that there has been so little discussion or mention of LTG Karl Eikenberry, USA (retired), who served two tours in Afghanistan and is the current Ambassador to Afghanistan. He reportedly opposes a significant increase in troops. While GEN McChrystal is more likely to have more focused military perspective today, it seems that Ambassador Eikenberry has a more comprehensive perspective. Arguments to the counter?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

You know, the SURGE? Adding 30K soldiers to the war, the action that drastically reduced losses, because it killed the bad guys before they could kill us, and convinced the population that to support them was very very bad?

Serious question: where do you place the role of the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq?

Alternatively, what does that suggest w/r/t operational needs in Afghanistan?

Serious answer...

Be prepared, as I am a conservative and this really hurts me... but I don't think we can ultimately prevail in Afghanistan, no matter what we do there, and to a lesser extent I feel this true for Iraq too. That is not based on our ability to project military power and thus enforce our will at any time, but instead on how long the US will put up with us being at war before we pull out. The Taliban is driven by their very religion, and is thus far more motivated to persist long term than we are. They will emerge whenever we get weaker or pull out.

Obama's and others' argument that Afghanistan was the "important" war, was false. It was based on the premise that it was necessary to keep Al-Qaeda from reforming, when the reality was they had then re-located their efforts to Iraq. Further, if we win both wars, that does not stop Al-Qaeda. This is because attacks like the WTC can be planned and ordered in a single hotel room in Dayton, OH. They can get their agents here on legal visa's, as was proven. Why they hell do they need a nation? Besides, they have MANY others they can use for that, and we can't invade all of them.

Afghanistan is a tribal population. While it's President is being condemned with charges of corruption, the fact is that this is endemic to all aspects of the nation. A example of that? They are an Islamic nation, yet their number one crop is opium. They are narcotics traffickers. Go figure.

They live primitive lives there, and thus are far more prone to accept the dictates of extreme religious zealous, just as Europe did in the middle ages. I don't think we can win there. But if we pull out of Afghanistan, the world can't laugh at us for doing so, because so many other leading nations are invested there with us.

Iraq's is a comparatively very literate and worldly population. Thus what we see as logical and worldly argument had some weight there. If we lost that war, we were the laughing stock of the world, and for that reason all by itself, it was important to win. Sadam was evil to be sure, a real hazard to our oil supply, and despite claims from the left, Iraq was found to have WMD materials, the 550 tons of enriched uranium found there. And despite Iraq or Iran's claims, an oil rich nation making such great efforts to get such large amounts of uranium can have only one purpose. All of these were solid reasons to take Sadam out. But Sadam is dead, we are in a winning position now, and in my view we should get the hell out of Iraq while we are.

I don't pretend to have total knowledge of all things military and political, and I could be wrong on all of this, I admit. But one thing is sure: If we can't win long term in either war, even if because we choose not to long term, we should get the hell out tomorrow.

Tom B

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

Do you have nothing constructive to add?

Do you? BESIDES the snippet above, that is?

WOW, another "im rubber and you're glue". Typical response I've come to expect from you.

I do have to wonder, though, why it is that you're rarely capable of discussing an actual issue.?

You're certainly one of the most vocal, but also one of those who contribute the least in a discussion.

It's getting old fast.

But hey, it's a free world, I'm just hear to read what people think.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you have nothing constructive to add?

Do you? BESIDES the snippet above, that is?

WOW, another "im rubber and you're glue". Typical response I've come to expect from you.

Isn't that exactly what you just did, here?

Quote

I do have to wonder, though, why it is that you're rarely capable of discussing an actual issue.?

You're certainly one of the most vocal, but also one of those who contribute the least in a discussion.

Yeah, you're adding SO much to this thread by coming in and chiding me for doing exactly what you're doing now.

Quote

It's getting old fast.

And, I'm supposed to care, why?

Quote

But hey, it's a free world, I'm just hear to read what people think.

Ian

Yeah, I can see that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[d16842 0]

Quote

The success of the surge had little or nothing to do with increased troop levels. The surge was a change in strategy, not just pushing more little green men into the box. Obama faces a similar change in stragety in Afghanistan, but it is a much more complex situation.

You seem to presume more knowledge than the leaders who have spent an entire career being a soldier. How many generals, or ex-generals argue that more troops are not needed?

I don't suppose you bothered to pick up that the change in Iraq strategy REQUIRED a troop increase to implement? Specifically it required a combat troop increase, even as we maintained the largely existing defensive support structure existing there. It was not "moving" troops to a different box. It needed more combat arms soldiers.

It was far from a new Army invention. It was proposed before, and rejected so many times the Army quit trying, because Rumsfield always refused the troop increase to make it happen. About as soon as he was gone, shazam they got the troop increase, and the "new" strategy worked.

Want an example? The military hasn't been able to duplicate it in Afghanistan. And they damn sure don't want to have to deploy more there. Our soldiers and our equipment is very worn and depleted.

The fact is that running combat operations via that strategy simply require more troops in the field than the largely defensive ones we now employ in Afghanistan, BECAUSE you have to defend all the ground you have today, AND take the offensive at the same time. And recall two weeks ago, when an undermanned post was overwhelmed, with great loss of life.

I agree the situation is more difficult in Afghanistan than Iraq. In fact, as illustrated in my post above, I don't think we can win there at all. But if our political leaders demand we stay, give the military the force it requested.

Tom B

[bullin82 0]

Quote

Quote

You do realize its the winter season in a country that is mostly mountainous. Most fighting in regions like that start with the spring offensives...

im not sure you know this but the military these days doesnt rely on "fair" weather to do anything so the thought of waiting for spring is ridiculous. So maybe its YOU who has no idea what your "yacking" about.


SUUUUURE right..... and while the "enemy" dissapears till spring.... you can waste lots and lots of time and effort trying to find and kill him in places where he is not

The fun part of fighting an insurgency.. is knowing the enemy

To bad we DO know the enemy the only thing holding us back is the "bleeding hearts" of America that wont let us do our real job. All they do is cry when they see bad shit, hense the reason why media doesnt belong in the war zone.