President Obama

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

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.

We went into Afgh for a good reason. That was 9 years ago. Ther reason we're still there now is because Bush dicked around there for 8 years while he wasted our blood & treasure in Iraq to prove to his father that he was a better man, and to assuage his Oedipus complex.

As for your disdain of a free press to keep the citizens of a democratic republic informed: flush your own constitutional rights down the toilet if you like. Leave mine the fuck alone.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

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.

Having nearly walked the entire Afghan/Pakistan border looking for Bin Laden in 2003, I think I may know some of the challenges facing the guys over there right now. More troops also means being able to secure an area after its been cleared, giving aid and making friends in some of the villages, being able to resupply the troops when they need it, and having air support for the guys on the ground when called on.

With the current numbers, they are just walking around waiting to get shot at. A great way to find the enemy, but not win anything. Unless there are some changes, we might as well just pull out.

"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

[DanG 1]

Quote

And recall two weeks ago, when an undermanned post was overwhelmed, with great loss of life.

Do you have more info on this? I don't remember hearing about it, and a search turned up nothing other than the incident last July.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

If you were there in 2003 (as I was) you know that the troop levels are much, much higher now than they have ever been.

I never said I was against a troop increase. I'm against people saying that Obama is killing the troops by taking extra time to decide on a change in strategy.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

I met Eikenberry in 2003 when he was a two star. He brought a Deputy Ambassador to the PRT I was stationed at. They wanted to go on a walking tour of the Gardez bazaar. Frankly, we were aghast, as that was just not done. It was seen as way too dangerous. They also wanted to do it with minimal force protection and in civilian clothes. I ended up taking them down there and walking around for about an hour. The Ambassador managed to wander off with his own two-man security detail, creating quite a bit of corcern. I thought for sure there was a slaughter emminent. There wasn't, and after that we started to conduct more operations downtown, eventually learnng a lot more about the city and how it ran. It turned out to be a good thing, but I was pretty butt-clenched at the time.

Eikenberry is nothing if not his own man. He had the reputation as a loose cannon and free thinker even back then, but he was also passionate about the plan to rebuild Afghanistan. I think that his opinion on the subject is probably well thought out and may even be correct. I, for one, am glad that Obama is taking the time to hear all the different views from the subject matter experts.

Regarding his perspective versus McChrystal's, I agree that he probably has a broader view of the situation. I haven't had a chance to read too much on what he's said, but it seems like his primary concern is that without the potential for a stable and effective central government, no matter what we do it will all eventually fall apart. I certainly share his concerns, but I still think we need to try. Can we do it with the current troop levels? Probably, but it will take longer and may not be domestically tenable. Unfortunately, a lot of the "success" in Iraq seems to be due to our willingness to deal with people we otherwise find unsavory. We've been doing that in Afghanistan, too, but I think it's going to get worse. The people who are able to exert effective control in the countryside also happen to be drug dealers, warlords, and arms trafficers. We've dealth with some of them for a long time at arms length, but if we want to see an reduction in violence, we may have to really cozy up. That's not a long term strategy for success, but in an ideal world we could use it to take the pressure off long enough to get effective governance systems in place. I doubt that the American people have the patience for that.

I also wonder how much of Eikenberry's comment was directed to Obama, and how much to Karzai. The comment could easily be read as, "Shape up or we're leaving, Hamid."

Thanks for asking interesting questions. What are your thoughts on Eikenberry?

- Dan G

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the serious response. I’m on my way out of town for Thanksgiving, so my response is concise (for me ). There’s a great deal of what you wrote with which I don’t disagree, and you’d find a lot of concurrence in analysis, particularly w/r/t the differences btw Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ve posted here.

Still curious what you see as the role of the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq (& US policy decisions toward those entities) w/r/t the decrease in violence in Iraq since 2006?

And what, if anything, do you see that as suggesting, e.g., i.e., lessons learned, w/r/t operational needs for Afghanistan?

/Marg

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Unless there are some changes, we might as well just pull out.

Concur. President Obama has authorized the deployment of a larger number of troops to Afghanistan than have been deployed at any time since October 2001. President Obama has already authorized 34K additinal deployments in the first 8 months of his presidency. Those authorization bring the total number to more than 68k authorized deployments already and more than doubling the number a year ago. Is he not doing more to support the ground level effort in Afghanistan than done previously? Given that, why are you not championing him and his support of the effort in Afghanistan? He is doing what you've suugested.

/Marg

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks Dan. Appreciate the detailed response. As I wrote to Tom above, my response is short due to waiting on a plane. Much to think about tho’.

I don’t think that GEN McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry are that far afield in their overall analysis of the situation and the need to pursue population-centric COIN (rather than “offensive attack” mode), e.g., the comments I cited from the leaked COMISAF report that I cited last night. It’s the timing and ability/stability of the Afghan govt and how much the US/NATO can/should do w/r/t the Karzai govt and all those other internal Afghan governance problems on which they differ, imo.

/Marg

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

[bullin82 0]

Please dont give me that "free press" crap, only in America is it were you can show mutilated, dead, dieing people but heaven forbid you show a set of tits on TV. I mean really how dare you show tits on TV that will currupt young minds but keep showing dead people thats ok.

We have a different mindselt now days saldy, some people say its evolution and civility, but they way it turns out is just more and more people dont have the stomach to what needs to be done.

WWII we carpet bombed EVERYTHING and the public was fine about it, just because they really didnt see what all happened they only seen what was approved for disclosure. You can trend it ever since we allowedpublic media into war zones war became political and dosent allow the troops on the ground to make desisions that will end things.

You may not think so but thats what has happened though wars may not be fought for what YOU think is right doesnt mean we shouldnt see them through to the end.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

To bad we DO know the enemy ....

Serious, non-flippant question: who do you think is the enemy? While it may be completely obvious to you, what/who you consider "the enemy" is not clear to me ... and hence, why I'm asking (rather than assuming potentially incorrectly).

And how do you think what GEN McChrystal recommended says w/r/t dealing with those enemies?

What do you think about the idea of negotiating with the Taliban, and which Taliban?

/Marg

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Thanks for proving my point so thoroughly, I couldn't have done it without you
Exactly what I expected but hey, at least you're consistent

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

And, I'm supposed to care, why?

Mike - Because it makes it very difficult to communicate with you.
If you want to communicate only with those who share your exact views and who don't challenge your arguments, then no, you shouldn't care.

Have a happy Thanksgiving all!
/Marg

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

[bullin82 0]

Sadly enough you cant just limit the "enemy" to just Taliban. The middle east has ALWAYS been rip with war no matter whos here, if they cant fight foreigners they fight themselves thats the way its always been.

Now since were here we give them all a common enemy so Afgahn and Iraq is basicaly a terrorist's playground, not to mention people who just hate the US but not part of a group.

If i remember the Gen. viewed the entire country of Afgahnistan as "enemy" since he used there population to figure out the numbers, which is completley wrong there not ALL out to get us. He was going by the 3-1 theory the Army has had adopted for years which is 3 of our troops to fight 1 of theres. This is a good solid practise when you fight soldiers, but we are fighting a force that doesnt fight they just blow shit up and make sure there not around. So the 3-1 really doesnt work in the sense he was thinking. We do need more troops there to covor the vast open areas that remained for the "enemy" to roam free.

So to make a simple answer more comlicated, the "enemy" is whoever at that time is fighting with coalition forces. Sadly we cant put a face on them since they wear no uniform and dont really belong to any government.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

With the current numbers, they are just walking around waiting to get shot at. A great way to find the enemy, but not win anything. Unless there are some changes, we might as well just pull out.

I totally respect the fact that you have direct experience over there. To me this last statement illustrates why the decision whether or not to escalate is right. If we think our troops now are just walking around waiting to get shot at, then it's possible that sending more troops just means that we will have even more troops over there just walking around waiting to get shot at. Sending in more troops may also be a much more expensive way, in terms of money and lives, to find the enemy, but not win anything.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

DUUUUDE that is some funny chit right there

Personally I think we should have deployed the right forces at the start of the Afghan campaign (under King George II and the Grand Vizar Cheney) and followed the fuckers on into Pakistan or where ever else they want to live...yup a HUGE bleeding heart here.

Sun Tzu... says FAIL

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Thanks for proving my point so thoroughly, I couldn't have done it without you
Exactly what I expected but hey, at least you're consistent

Ian

You provided your own proof - I provided a vehicle for your to whine over.

Make sure you page me when you get around to doing the same when it's a liberal making the comments that so offend you, will you please? I want to see history in the making.

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

[bullin82 0]

Then theres something we can both agree on, we should have kept following the lil batards and destroyed every last one. Unfortunatly like i said before to many people would bitch about it.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Then theres something we can both agree on, we should have kept following the lil batards and destroyed every last one. Unfortunatly like i said before to many people would bitch about it.

that is excactly the problem we have here is that nobody can do anything because someone will argue, fight or get their lawyer.

Go to war the liberals yell, spend money the conservitives yell, don't go to war the reb's yell, cross into pakistan the united nations yell. it is a no win for any one so I say fuck them all and do what is best for america. this P.C. shit is really getting anoying.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Then theres something we can both agree on, we should have kept following the lil batards and destroyed every last one. Unfortunatly like i said before to many people would bitch about it.

that is excactly the problem we have here is that nobody can do anything because someone will argue, fight or get their lawyer.

Go to war the liberals yell, spend money the conservitives yell, don't go to war the reb's yell, cross into pakistan the united nations yell. it is a no win for any one so I say fuck them all and do what is best for america. this P.C. shit is really getting anoying.

Then don't be PC.. no one is making you.. if you wanna be a flaming homophobe, overtly show your racism, sexism or even your ignorantism I say go for it. Generations of americans have fought and died for your right to say whatever you want. But dont expect anyone other than your fellow travelers to ascribe to acceptance of your particular disgusting ism you wish to put on display.

[d16842 0]

Quote

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

I am not sure exactly what you are asking, but to a great extent we created the mess. First immediately after the initial war we "won", we disbanded their entire military, sending them home with literally no way to feed themselves. Then we were surprised when armed angry people, probably still carrying their issued AK47's attacked us, although they were the only ones. Regardless, we didn't have a force in place nearly large enough to maintain order, and sat by as it decayed into hell. When they formed the groups and that too became a mess, we paid them. I leave it to the reader to determine if we paid them to do a service for us, or we just paid them off, or both. Either way, I think hell is going to break loose the day they are not paid. Which must come sooner or later. I recomend that we keep paying them till the last American is out. It is a real mess in the making.

Quote

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

I don't know of an equivilent there, at least in the same maner, but we have all kinds of people on the payroll in Afghanistan, and I think the outcome is predictable when we stop the payroll. And, unlike Iraq, I think that Afghanistan will never achieve a real economy of their own. Opium is their largest export. They have no significant oil. And Iraq makes them look like the Mecca of educated societies.

Tom B

[ianmdrennan 2]

Oh Mike.....

Quote

Make sure you page me when you get around to doing the same when it's a liberal making the comments that so offend you, will you please?

Your comments don't offend me, they never have. It's a hard thing to do. Feel free to make this a right/left wing thing - but it really has nothing to do with your party affliations. I really enjoy reading Gawain (and a few others)....hell even rushmc from time to time, because even if I disagree with their deductions, I can at least see where they're coming from. I'd say this is true for a fair amount of posters here - of all political affiliations. That said I get just as irritated at Kallend when he does the same thing I'm calling you out on - to be fair Kallend does it a lot less and generally presents his thoughts well (again, even if I disagree with them).

Your posts, on the other hand, are almost always emotional in an attacking sense, and generally consist of "No, YOU prove it" or, "I'm rubber and you're glue". Neither of those make for a strong case.

But yeah, go ahead and label me in any way you need to so that you can avoid introspection. The only person it ultimately hurts is yourself - and people still don't understand where you're coming from.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Oh Mike.....

Quote

Make sure you page me when you get around to doing the same when it's a liberal making the comments that so offend you, will you please?

Your comments don't offend me, they never have. It's a hard thing to do.

Good - yours didn't offend me, either.

Quote

Feel free to make this a right/left wing thing - but it really has nothing to do with your party affliations. I really enjoy reading Gawain (and a few others)....hell even rushmc from time to time, because even if I disagree with their deductions, I can at least see where they're coming from. I'd say this is true for a fair amount of posters here - of all political affiliations.

You still don't get it. He called out someone who had served in the AOR as not knowing what they were talking about. I called HIM out on it.

Then, you came in...

Quote

That said I get just as irritated at Kallend when he does the same thing I'm calling you out on - to be fair Kallend does it a lot less and generally presents his thoughts well (again, even if I disagree with them).

And you've called him out like you did me, HOW many times?

Quote

Your posts, on the other hand, are almost always emotional in an attacking sense, and generally consist of "No, YOU prove it" or, "I'm rubber and you're glue". Neither of those make for a strong case.

I tend to post "your guys are no better" replies in the "OMG look how bad the Repubs/Bush are" threads. If that's "attacking" or "Prove it" or "I'm rubber", then you have a comprehension problem where my posts are concerned.

Quote

But yeah, go ahead and label me in any way you need to so that you can avoid introspection. The only person it ultimately hurts is yourself - and people still don't understand where you're coming from.

Ian

Like I said - when you call out a liberal poster for doing the same thing, let me know. Maybe some introspection of your own is warranted.

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

[nerdgirl 0]

I’m willing to answer the questions I ask.

The deployment of 30k additional troops was not the single most important factor for decreasing the violence in Iraq. Recognizing that is an important lessons learned for Afghanistan, imo.

The single biggest factor for decreasing violence in Iraq was the rise of The Awakening Councils. After the bombing of Sunni mosques (in retaliation for the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque (Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra), the Sunni tribes and insurgent groups (many of whom were members of the former Sunni government & the disbanded Iraqi Army) realized (awakened to the fact) that the Sunnis were not going to return to Hussayn-era minority rule of Iraq. The Awakening Councils manage payment for the …

… Sons of Iraq paramilitary groups. These were Sunni paramilitary groups paid for by our tax dollars. At ~$300 a month, it was a lot cheaper than the costs associated with US soldiers and the non-specific costs of US soldiers lives. Many of the same insurgents who previously had been fighting against the multi-national forces were paid to secure the areas that previously were major ‘hot spots’ like al Anbar province .

GEN Petraeus' comments on Sunni Awakening, Sons of Iraq, and increases in capabilities of Iraq security forces from Defenselink.mil here:

“‘Since the first Sunni ‘awakening’ in late 2006 [i.e., before the authorization of ~20k soldiers to Baghdad and extended the deployments of ~4000 Marines in al Anbar province – nerdgirl], Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena.’[... also realized they would be unlikely to participate in expected economic bounty - nerdgirl]

“More than 91,000 Sons of Iraq local security volunteers are under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads, Petraeus said. These [paid] volunteers have helped to reduce violence and contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons caches, he said. The Sons of Iraq have been directly responsible for many lives and vehicles saved, and their value far outweighs the cost of the contracts to pay them, he said.”

This type of support – direct and cooperative – between the US military and former Iraqi insurgents is part of …

… Counterinsurgency Theory, aka “COIN”. OIF started as a first attempt to demonstrate the power of defense transformation. SecDef Rumsfeld attempted to apply Transformation Theory to execute OIF … except the force was still (largely) trained/training, equipping, and preparing to fight under the doctrine of more traditional warfighting theory and, more importantly, Iraq was not a peer-competitor.

As part of COIN, the importance of changing the force structure of the insurgents (i.e., pay them to fight someone other than you) and the value of tacit support of the population is paramount, i.e., the population-centric counterinsurgency in GEN McChrystal’s leaked COMISAF Assessment. In order to get the tacit support of the population, one has to have basic security in areas of extreme conflict, like Anbar before …

… lastly the “The Surge”. If more members of the best military in the world along with lots of US tax payers dollars are sent to a conflict area, one would quite reasonably expect immediate security to increase. (It may be positive evidence for the aphorism that throwing more money at a problem *does* work, eh?) The introduction of more troops to targeted areas facilitated the immediate securing of those areas to allow stabilization so that transition (e.g.., the handover of previously kinetically-active provinces) could begin.

--- -- --- -- ---

The first order lesson for Afghanistan that I take from this – and that’s the more important part, imo – is focusing purely on troop deployment numbers is strategically and operationally wrong. I understand that some folks do and even why they do – if one’s training is to see a purely military solution then it makes sense. It is also is simplification that fits with 20-second sound bites. As Gen McCrystal wrote in the leaked COMISAF initial 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. Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.”

GEN McChrystal’s job is to think about force structure for Afghanistan, (among other things). He was requested by the President through the SecDef to do that. He did. It sucks that it was leaked. One can speculate on motives and interests behind the leaking but I see little utility in that. It was leaked is the reality of the situation. SecDef Gates has commented already.

If one is to make a simplified comparison, there is a need for a ‘Pashtun Awakening’ in Afghanistan. As at least one poster has noted, we are already paying some Afghani’s (possible Taliban) to not fight us. Article from April 2009. Paying off an Afghani is only $10-20 (versus the $300 for Sons of Iraq). And more recently through the Afghan government in Kandahar province. Just paying them off is not sufficient, however.

Indigenous anti-Taliban militias have arisen in eastern provinces and are being supported by the US-led Community Defense Initiative (CDI), which is strongly supported by GEN McChrystal. An interesting intersection, imo, is that many of these areas and provinces have had quite effective Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), e.g., Nangarhar, Paktia, and Khost. Unsure if that's correlation or causation.

/Marg

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