51 dead in september. 55 so far this month. 8 of the 55 just today in one attack.....

[bodecea]

Fact is, HE SET HIS STRATEGY MONTHS AGO.

Point out the DIFFERENCES between the current Obama strategy and the Bush/Cheney strategy for Afghanistan in the last year of their (p)Residency. Then, maybe we can work out where the current problems are.

He's failing his generals, he's failing those troops, period!

No he is not....you are just a partisan hack. A partisan hack that can't even count.

The difference is in the rules of engagement. Our troops are under his orders to fall back, even if receiving fire, from a Mosque or if there are civilians present.

This is getting some of our troops killed, It has a lot to do with the increase in Casualties.[/QUOTE]

I have read about the troops killed in the last week or so. Most killed in helo crashes (mid-air) and in I.E.D. attacks on vehicles. So, how has an altered ROE about mosques killed more soldiers?

 

[saveliberty]

Agreed to a point Bodecea. The NBC News last night talked about stronger IED's. Helicopter crashes were a big problem too. A change in engagement rules will be a problem too though.

 

[bodecea]

C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership - Overall Ranking - C-SPAN

Reagan was 10th.

That'll drop when the generation of worshippers go away. Remember, these are the people who wanted his face on Mount Rushmore.

He is UP one place from 2000.

What I say still stands.

 

[saveliberty]

Where you stand is location, location, location.

 

[bodecea]

Agreed to a point Bodecea. The NBC News last night talked about stronger IED's. Helicopter crashes were a big problem too. A change in engagement rules will be a problem too though.

ROE's vs. trying to win the hearts and minds of the general population has ALWAYS been a problem when the enemy doesn't give a rat's ass who they hide behind. It was a problem in Nam, it was a problem in Iraq, it is a problem in Afghanistan.

What IS our goal? That is what is something that definitely needs to be CAREFULLY mulled over. You do not win hearts and minds by "kill them all and let god sort them out".

 

[bodecea]

Where you stand is location, location, location.

In time, my friend, in time.

Distance in time clarifies the true quality of our Presidents.

 

[manu1959]

Agreed to a point Bodecea. The NBC News last night talked about stronger IED's. Helicopter crashes were a big problem too. A change in engagement rules will be a problem too though.

ROE's vs. trying to win the hearts and minds of the general population has ALWAYS been a problem when the enemy doesn't give a rat's ass who they hide behind. It was a problem in Nam, it was a problem in Iraq, it is a problem in Afghanistan.

What IS our goal? That is what is something that definitely needs to be CAREFULLY mulled over. You do not win hearts and minds by "kill them all and let god sort them out".

in my opinion you can not win a hearts and minds war......people fundmentally do not want to be won.....they want to be left alone to do as they please....

 

[saveliberty]

Where you stand is location, location, location.

In time, my friend, in time.

Distance in time clarifies the true quality of our Presidents.

How true, why just this week some Liberal was trashing Lincoln and Jefferson here. I can see Reagan staying in the top 15 pretty easily. Who knows, future presidents may deserve a top spot. I am more and more confident Obama will not grace the top 25.

 

[bodecea]

Agreed to a point Bodecea. The NBC News last night talked about stronger IED's. Helicopter crashes were a big problem too. A change in engagement rules will be a problem too though.

ROE's vs. trying to win the hearts and minds of the general population has ALWAYS been a problem when the enemy doesn't give a rat's ass who they hide behind. It was a problem in Nam, it was a problem in Iraq, it is a problem in Afghanistan.

What IS our goal? That is what is something that definitely needs to be CAREFULLY mulled over. You do not win hearts and minds by "kill them all and let god sort them out".

in my opinion you can not win a hearts and minds war......people fundmentally do not want to be won.....they want to be left alone to do as they please....

Well, then you are saying the goal is NOT to stabilize Afghanistan as a friendly and civilized nation for the future. What do you think our goal should be?

 

[bodecea]

Where you stand is location, location, location.

In time, my friend, in time.

Distance in time clarifies the true quality of our Presidents.

How true, why just this week some Liberal was trashing Lincoln and Jefferson here. I can see Reagan staying in the top 15 pretty easily. Who knows, future presidents may deserve a top spot. I am more and more confident Obama will not grace the top 25.

I've not seen Liberals bashing Lincoln...I've seen LOTS of Conservatives bash him...especially in those silly secession threads.


I'm pretty sure Obama's place isn't even close to being established yet.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Agreed to a point Bodecea. The NBC News last night talked about stronger IED's. Helicopter crashes were a big problem too. A change in engagement rules will be a problem too though.

ROE's vs. trying to win the hearts and minds of the general population has ALWAYS been a problem when the enemy doesn't give a rat's ass who they hide behind. It was a problem in Nam, it was a problem in Iraq, it is a problem in Afghanistan.

What IS our goal? That is what is something that definitely needs to be CAREFULLY mulled over. You do not win hearts and minds by "kill them all and let god sort them out".

First you saturate the cities and towns. You secure the citizens. When bombs and IED'S aren't killing civilians, they have a tendency to get behind you. Iraq is the case in point. That was never done in vietnam. It was finally done in Iraq, and we see the success it was.

Secondly, you secure the Pakistan border. Seal it off. You give the bogies no place to run.

Third, overwhelming force in the mountain regions. Aggressive use of air power. cut 'em off and kill 'em.

Fourth, aggressive intellligence measures. Let the CIA and military interrogators do their damn jobs. Enough with the witch hunt bullshit.

Fifth, effectively train civilian police forces. Effectively train Afghan military forces.

Sixth, Government and infrastructure.

 

[Article 15]

Wicked Jester, I'm curious, were you anywhere near this critical of BOOOOSH when we were getting hammered in Iraq and he flat out said that he wasn't going to change policy?

 

[Ame®icano]

and Obama continues to mull it over.

Continues to play politics with our troops lives.

Christ, we have a SOD and a top ground commander having to use the media to argue their case.

Unfuckingbelievable!

God help this great country if we are attacked again under this sham of a Presidents leadership.

Interesting thing is there are no anti-war protests. Where is the Code Pink?

 

[Wicked Jester]

The difference is in the rules of engagement. Our troops are under his orders to fall back, even if receiving fire, from a Mosque or if there are civilians present.

This is getting some of our troops killed, It has a lot to do with the increase in Casualties.

Pardon me, but it seems you have pointed out the difference in strategy. That change is getting troops killed by your own admission. Please explain how that is not a failure by Obama to his generals and troops.

No shit!

Combine this with his statement that he would listen to his generals, and the fact that he's NOT LISTENING TO HIS GENERALS, and the differences become very clear.

So, what we have now is our SOD and Top Commander admitting that he's NOT LISTENING TO THEM.

Either he commits, or he runs. Either way, he can't continue to sit on his hands while playing politics on this issue.

 

[Article 15]

and Obama continues to mull it over.

Continues to play politics with our troops lives.

Christ, we have a SOD and a top ground commander having to use the media to argue their case.

Unfuckingbelievable!

God help this great country if we are attacked again under this sham of a Presidents leadership.

Interesting thing is there are no anti-war protests. Where is the Code Pink?

They are still around, here's a press release that I found:

CODEPINK Stands Firm Against Military Escalation in Afghanistan
Stop the surge. Start responsible withdrawal. Convert to humanitarian aid.
Afghan women want focus on economic needs, not war.

(October 8, Washington, DC)—The United States has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars in 8 years of military action in Afghanistan: what have we achieved? According to the United Nations, Afghanistan is 181 out of 182 countries in the world ranked for human development indices. Life expectancy has fallen to 43 years since the U.S. invasion. 40% of the population is unemployed and 42% live on less than $1/day.

CODEPINK leaders went to Afghanistan to see for themselves. Co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans were in Kabul for ten days, and spoke with journalists, doctors, activists, NGOs, members of government and average Afghan women. Most of the women do not want more troops: they want to improve their lives. They want the U.S. investment to reflect what is needed to bring peace. They want investment in the people of Afghanistan. Dr. H.B. Ghazanfar, Women's Affairs Minister, told them, "To fight is not the solution. We have a mouth and a brain, we should talk."

CODEPINK : CODEPINK Stands Firm Against Military Escalation in Afghanistan

The protests still go down but they are much smaller likely due to Obama's pledge to get out of Iraq and the left's general support of the operations in Afghanistan.

If Obama welches on the plan to get out of Iraq expect to see a huge backlash.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Wicked Jester, I'm curious, were you anywhere near this critical of BOOOOSH when we were getting hammered in Iraq and he flat out said that he wasn't going to change policy?

Sure was.

Unlike these Obamabot clowns, I had the balls to question the one I voted for.

I was pissed when Rumsfeld took the mission out of the generals hands, and placed it in his own. It was a friggin' disaster. Bush put too much faith in civilians like Rumsfelds stupid ass, and diplomacy. Rumsfeld too changed the ROE's. Thankfully, Bush started listening to his generals. Tossed Rumsfelds ass to the curb. Gave them what they needed, and we see the success.

Unfortunately, it appears this administration is mirroring the same policy. You can't let civilians run a war. You can't let politics get in the way of the missions, and that is EXACTLY what is happening here.

Obama would win major points with me, and a lot of repubs if he shows the balls to tell Pelosi and Biden to get the fuck out of his face, and commits to the troops and this mission.

Otherwise, he needs to bring them home.

 

[Article 15]

Wicked Jester, I'm curious, were you anywhere near this critical of BOOOOSH when we were getting hammered in Iraq and he flat out said that he wasn't going to change policy?

Sure was.

Unlike these Obamabot clowns, I had the balls to question the one I voted for.

I was pissed when Rumsfeld took the mission out of the generals hands, and placed it in his own. It was a friggin' disaster. Bush put too much faith in civilians like Rumsfelds stupid ass, and diplomacy. Rumsfeld too changed the ROE's. Thankfully, Bush started listening to his generals. Tossed Rumsfelds ass to the curb. Gave them what they needed, and we see the success.

Unfortunately, it appears this administration is mirroring the same policy. You can't let civilians run a war. You can't let politics get in the way of the missions, and that is EXACTLY what is happening here.

Obama would win major points with me, and a lot of repubs if he shows the balls to tell Pelosi and Biden to get the fuck out of his face, and commits to the troops and this mission.

Otherwise, he needs to bring them home.

Thanks for the response. I, too, voted for Bush in 2000 and years later when it became very clear that he was fucking up Iraq I became very critical of him.

I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt for now just like I did Bush.

Personally, I want us out of A-Stan but I know he campaigned on refocusing there so I find it hard to bang on that drum.

 

[bodecea]

Agreed to a point Bodecea. The NBC News last night talked about stronger IED's. Helicopter crashes were a big problem too. A change in engagement rules will be a problem too though.

ROE's vs. trying to win the hearts and minds of the general population has ALWAYS been a problem when the enemy doesn't give a rat's ass who they hide behind. It was a problem in Nam, it was a problem in Iraq, it is a problem in Afghanistan.

What IS our goal? That is what is something that definitely needs to be CAREFULLY mulled over. You do not win hearts and minds by "kill them all and let god sort them out".

First you saturate the cities and towns. You secure the citizens. When bombs and IUD'S aren't killing civilians, they have a tendency to get behind you. Iraq is the case in point. That was never done in vietnam. It was finally done in Iraq, and we see the success it was.

Secondly, you secure the Pakistan border. Seal it off. You give the bogies no place to run.

Third, overwhelming force in the mountain regions. Aggressive use of air power. cut 'em off and kill 'em.

Fourth, aggressive intellligence measures. Let the CIA and military interrogators do their damn jobs. Enough with the witch hunt bullshit.

Fifth, effectively train civilian police forces. Effectively train Afghan military forces.

Sixth, Government and infrastructure.

How to seal off a border that even the countries involved cannot do?

I'm all ears. Enlighten us.

 

[bodecea]

Wicked Jester, I'm curious, were you anywhere near this critical of BOOOOSH when we were getting hammered in Iraq and he flat out said that he wasn't going to change policy?

My guess. No.

 

[bodecea]

and Obama continues to mull it over.

Continues to play politics with our troops lives.

Christ, we have a SOD and a top ground commander having to use the media to argue their case.

Unfuckingbelievable!

God help this great country if we are attacked again under this sham of a Presidents leadership.

Interesting thing is there are no anti-war protests. Where is the Code Pink?

There most certainly are...and Code Pink is still quite active. Aren't you paying attention? Google it.