Yes or no...
Troop surge in Afghanistan, worth it?
Yes or no...
Nope. Never should have went in the first place.
So you believe in the Clinton philosophy? Ignore it and hope it goes away?Originally Posted by alpine_aw11
Back on topic.
Yes we should do it. It worked in Iraq against this type of enemy it will work in Asscrackistan also. Use the troops to cut off as much of the border as possible to work in conjunction with the Pakistani offensive.
So we should have stood back and said its ok you killed a couple of thousand people on our soil? Like Mike said the Generals on the ground are going to be smarter than any of us over here who arent sitting in the war room everyday. I say do it.
I'd like to see anyone who says no to the surge come up with a reason not to that ISN'T political.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
na
we are there now doesn't matter if we should have went in the first place with that said I say yes.
The University of Florida Gators 2008 Football National CHOMPions.
I tend to think the generals on the ground know more than we do. If he requests more troops it's because we need it to win.
The dems were against Iraq because it was the popular thing to do. They wanted Afghanistan well now they got it. They should follow the advice of the military if they truly want success
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Obviously I rank on the low end but here is my view;
I understand what we're trying to do over there but on the flip side you have to understand the nature of Afghanistan. It is not a wealthy country, the primary source of income is poppy seed.. I mean the residents of the country harvest it to make a living. We come in and threaten their way of life and when we leave what will be accomplished? We might have won the battle but the war is far from over because again, the nature of Afghanistan is so much more than just securing regions of the country.
What has to be done is something ongoing that does not deplete the resources we currently have to defend this country. An ongoing battle in Afghanistan, I'm sorry but the ends just do not justify the means to have this engagement. We should continue to go after those who pose a threat but it will require cooperation from Afghan forces and Pakistan and they are not stepping up like they should. We have the technology to make this initiative one of precision rather than blunt force and I believe we are headed in that direction, I'm just not sure throwing more troops at it is the answer.
Then again I am not out there pounding the ground, my opinion is one to take with a grain of salt. Regardless of what happens I am anxious to do my job wherever they send me.
People keep comparing AFGH to IRAQ and imo its nowhere near the same battle. Like i have always said, Iraq we had an enemy, AFGH we really dont. they have no govt, no army, etc.
It depends on what the definition of "victory" means. Does that mean a country setup similar to iraq or a govt like the USA that can function on its own legally, does that mean keeping the terrorist cells at bay (youll never completely wipe them out), etc.
Right now the objective is to take out all terrorist cells and organizations, under that guise if air strikes or more "precision" based methods were better than "blunt force" Mchrystal would know that. If he says he needs more troops to finish the job, then that means he needs more troops.
What if PAkistan and AFGH forces/govt dont step up and never will. What then?
Its a tough situation with no clear way to go. Thats why when the dems were screaming about "we should be in AFGH" over iraq i kinda shook my head. They have no idea what they are dealing with, ask the Russians.
We pull out now, we are seen as a failure and that will give some "attaboys" to the terrorists that dislike us. We stay, and we may be in for a war that lasts longer than Iraq.
I would rather try the Surge than tuck tail and run
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I believe the opposite. After my time over there in those mountains, I believe the only way to defeat the taliban is to do it the low tech way. Drones and satellites have serious shortcomings that are mode more obvious in that type of terrain. Troops on the ground sending lead down range is the only way to defeat a low tech army.
Honestly im with Jimmy on this one. All that technology will not help us. Those mountains suck and when we are humping with 80+ lbs of gear it doesnt get any better. Its pretty much push back the rags who are in each town and keep those towns free of taliban influence so that it does not end up being another fallujah. Ground Pounders are going to lead the way in this war. Thats what they train us for and thats what we do. I could give a 2 shits where they send me. Im going to perform to the training they gave me either way.
PIC TOO BIG
I really don't think Afghanistan can be "won" in the conventional sense of the term. Culturally, the Afghans have a strong resistance to foreign occupation. I really think that most of the people fighting us aren't fighting us because they are "terrorists" or because they have some grand hatred of America as they are fighting us just to get us to leave.
Whether or not you agree with Obama, you probably wouldn't like it if Canada invaded and tried to re-fuckulate the government to their liking.
Agreed totally.
so in your opinion what should be done
That's the problem with this country. Oh they don't like us, they must be terrorists then, lets go attack! Same as Iran right now. They keep putting Iran on the front page news and it seems that they same fate of Iraq might happen to Iran. I say we don't belong in the middle east. Waste of time. If we really cared about protecting this country we would close the borders and put up motion sensored automatic weapons to shoot anything that moves. And we have enough intellegence to keep these people from coming here. They were fine before without us and will be fine after us. SO I say NO.
Last edited by F8d2Blk; 10-12-2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason: addition
In most cases I would agree but the Taliban wasn't wanted there either. The Taliban was only in power to begin with because of foreign influance, mainlu Iran, Syria, and Jordan.
I will agree that they might not have been wanted, but they weren't viewed as "foreign infidel invaders" either.
Whatever the solution is, something will have to be done about the rural farmers who grow opium poppies, perhaps some sort of arrangement that allows them to legally trade with drug companies. Since the Taliban were overthrown, poppy production (and the opium and heroin that comes with it) have skyrocketed. This is being felt with a vengeance in Russia and eastern Europe. Russia now leads the world in heroin consumption. Methadone therapy is also illegal in Russia, so addicts usually stay hooked since the only treatment is going cold turkey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7935527.stm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
