Losing the war in Afghanistan

[AVIATOR]

Obama in Afghanistan: Losing a War to Reassure his Re-Election

 Last week on Oct. 3, Taliban fighters in northern Afghanistan launched a  mini-Tet Offensive against American troop bases. Over 300 terrorists and their  allies stormed the bases in an attack that started in a nearby mosque, which had  been used to store weapons and ammunition. While the American soldiers repelled  the invaders, they suffered heavy casualties: eight deaths, plus two Afghan Army  officers killed and 12 missing Afghan National Policemen. It was one of the  deadliest days of fighting since the start of the war.

For the last several weeks, high-ranking members of the military  establishment have called for a troop "surge" in Afghanistan similar to the  surge in Iraq.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that "time  is not on our side." Gen. David Petraeus has shed light on the Obama  administration's slow movement."Because of our inability and the inability,  frankly, of our allies, (for putting) enough troops into Afghanistan, the  Taliban do have the momentum right now, it seems."
President Obama's response has been anger. He has not even addressed  McChrystal's or Mullen's or Gates' concerns; instead, he has focused on  targeting McChrystal personally for his temerity in going public with his  suggestions.

There is a reason for Obama's anger: He is more interested in winning the  public relations battle than winning the war in Afghanistan, particularly since  his possible presidential opposition in 2012 includes both Petraeus and  McChrystal. McChrystal has reportedly discussed quitting if he does not receive  the troops he needs; Petraeus, if he continues to be marginalized by the Obama  administration, may follow the same path.  Two days after a New York Times article suggested Petraeus' presidential  ambitions in 2012, the Times somehow got wind of Petraeus' treatments for  prostate cancer — treatments only the White House knew about. The Times then  solicited confirmation from Petraeus' office. This sudden revelation has the  Obama team's fingerprints all over it. Instead of focusing on his 2012 rivals, Obama should be focused on victory.  Instead of focusing on winning the political battles, Obama should focus on  winning the very real war — a war in which our soldiers are fighting and dying  as we speak. But President Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he  cares less about American victory on the world stage than he does about his  personal prestige and power. Obama has no grand strategy to win the war in Afghanistan, nor even a  strategy to achieve a peace-with-honor pullout. He has only his Chicago tactics,  which he will use to destroy any military man or woman who so much as hints to  the American public that Obama's Afghan plan is flawed. Under the Obama administration America and the West will continue on a  downward slide to the disastrous prospect of a terrorist victory in Afghanistan and the resultant world anarchy that will follow. .

[AVIATOR]

October 9. In news just in.

Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall in Oslo yesterday as Barack Obama was  unveiled as the winner of the 2009 Peace Prize, sparking a global outpouring  of incredulity.

Will someone that views this forum like to tell me how the President of the United States and leader of the US armed forces who are currently fighting a war, can get the Nobel Peace Prize?

What absolute socialist moronic crap!

I rest my case.

[Webmaster]

Well, I'm not sure what to make of your first post. I heard what Petraeus said, but I think he exaggerated to get more troops from both Obama and the allies, PR yeah, but I didn't think of it as for 2012. I'm not saying that the nations shouldn't put more troops in.

That other stuff is political games perhaps, comes with the territory. I don't really care.

Now about that Nobel price. I thought somebody must have done something for peace, instead of just laying the foundations for talks and making promises about a better world. Perhaps he got the price for sending Mitchell to the Middle East to talk peace, as if there's now really peace in the Gaza, or preventing another Cold War with Russia? I can't think of much more? Maybe he got the price for what he didn't do, which Bush would have... N.Korea / Iran...

I guess the only conclusion is that they didn't have anyone better to receive the price today...

It's remarkable, but socialist, moronic? You can call it socialism when Chavez gets it, okay? But what's socialist about an individual getting a price for peace anyway!?

[afterburnerlover]

I didn't read the rest of the replys bcuz of time,but i will shortly.I write stream of conscience,so bare with me.Oh and the spelling is horrible.Always been a bad speller.But i have to comment on the material in the topic.
1st;more people have died in Afghanistan under Obama's rule,than Bush's.Look at his Nobel Peace Prize-like the topic,he DOES care more about his popularity than winning a fcking WAR!!! Where people die,and are maimed for life.And will continue to be until 2012 no doubt.
It's just funny that he won it,and has achieved,or done NOTHING of any importance since he was sworn in.Nothing.He still excepted it.The Nobel Piece Prize has been dumbed down.People like Einstien,and Martin Luther King got it.Obama has never held a regular job,until he got into the Government.Even there,he has accomplished nothing-just a space hog in a chair.He wants to get rid of all nukes.G,great !@&king idea,when Iran now has thousands of centrifues(misspelled)spinning right now.
Iraq,and Iran need more troops.As many as possible.But civilians know nothing about how to win a war,or anything about combat for that matter,and they seem to pull Obama's strings-which is how the government should be ran;the PEOPLE decide.But when it comes to war,you do anything,and send anything to win the war quickly.Get it done quickly and efficiently,with  everything in our  arsenal we have.It saves time,and lifes.
You must ask the question-why are the 2 wars being fought this way?
It just reminds me of a "Vietnam"style of thinking,where we lifted the embargo on Russia's supply to Vietnam days before the Gulf of Tonka?-spelling.But people do nothing until it directly effects them.We know how to win these wars,trust me.They could end in 5 months-done,goals accomplished.Then pull back what we can,and "fortify" our boarders,letting no one end.In that time,we would strengthen our military to be ready for anything that comes our way.
Now i forgot what my main point was going to be...dangit! sorry
 

[RecceJet]

...Now about that Nobel price. I thought somebody must have done something for peace, instead of just laying the foundations for talks and making promises about a better world. Perhaps he got the price for sending Mitchell to the Middle East to talk peace, as if there's now really peace in the Gaza, or preventing another Cold War with Russia? I can't think of much more? Maybe he got the price for what he didn't do, which Bush would have... N.Korea / Iran...

Rabin and Arafat got the Nobel Piece Prize back in the early 90s and there's still no peace in that part of the world. It would seem like that prize is given out just on the basis of proposed scenarios. I'm sure anyone else can come up with a good Utopian idea for this world, even if it is an unlikely event. Giving a Nobel prize for people like these under those conditions simply removes the prestige it once held.

[RecceJet]

I didn't read the rest of the replys bcuz of time,but i will shortly.I write stream of conscience,so bare with me.Oh and the spelling is horrible.Always been a bad speller.But i have to comment on the material in the topic.
1st;more people have died in Afghanistan under Obama's rule,than Bush's.Look at his Nobel Peace Prize-like the topic,he DOES care more about his popularity than winning a fcking WAR!!! Where people die,and are maimed for life.And will continue to be until 2012 no doubt.
It's just funny that he won it,and has achieved,or done NOTHING of any importance since he was sworn in.Nothing.He still excepted it.The Nobel Piece Prize has been dumbed down.People like Einstien,and Martin Luther King got it.Obama has never held a regular job,until he got into the Government.Even there,he has accomplished nothing-just a space hog in a chair.He wants to get rid of all nukes.G,great !@&king idea,when Iran now has thousands of centrifues(misspelled)spinning right now.
Iraq,and Iran need more troops.As many as possible.But civilians know nothing about how to win a war,or anything about combat for that matter,and they seem to pull Obama's strings-which is how the government should be ran;the PEOPLE decide.But when it comes to war,you do anything,and send anything to win the war quickly.Get it done quickly and efficiently,with  everything in our  arsenal we have.It saves time,and lifes.
You must ask the question-why are the 2 wars being fought this way?
It just reminds me of a "Vietnam"style of thinking,where we lifted the embargo on Russia's supply to Vietnam days before the Gulf of Tonka?-spelling.But people do nothing until it directly effects them.We know how to win these wars,trust me.They could end in 5 months-done,goals accomplished.Then pull back what we can,and "fortify" our boarders,letting no one end.In that time,we would strengthen our military to be ready for anything that comes our way.
Now i forgot what my main point was going to be...dangit! sorry

I fully agree where you say civilians no nothing about how to win a war. This one is seemingly being fought in the newsrooms where a story is sensationalised and aligned to whatever message the media wants the public to absorb. The public then decide what the best strategy is, but they don't have the complete picture!

Everyone talks about how the whole campaign is doomed, and they all cite various times in history and talk about learning from the past. It always strikes me as being so short-sighted! Many Western armed forces have reasonably good training facilities where their officers are taught military history and the strategies and tactics that caused one side's loss or the other's win. The feats of Alexander are all noted, and the experiences of the Soviet Russians in Afghanistan are published and studied the world over.

It's easy to sit in the comfort of a lounge and comment on how someone else is doing something wrong - especially when it's based off media reports you are taught to treat as truth. How objective is the media really? And these days it's even worse because our society now expects instant results with no casualties.

I think the Coalition Forces have done a bloody good job so far! They've adapted to asymmetric warfare and they are learning how to fight an aggressive organisation that hides amongst a population. Back in his day, Alexander would raze a city and massacre its inhabitants just to ensure the local population complies with his wishes. Even the Russians punished an entire inhabited region by bombing the irrigation systems and rendering the land unusable. Regardless of what the media claims, the tactics employed by the Coalition Forces today are more aligned to helping the population whilst weeding out the trouble makers. This is a complex and dangerous campaign that is being fought better each day. If a leading general on the battlefield then calls for more troops, that is what he should get! The campaign is hard enough without having to fight the media and misguided public calls to pull out.

[shawn a]

"An attack that started in a nearby mosque"
Need I say more?

[RecceJet]

"An attack that started in a nearby mosque"
Need I say more?

And that's just it! The mosque in Afghanistan is a community focal point, similar to our shopping centres. The guys would go there and get fired up and go out looking for trouble. I guess the only thing different is lack of alcohol there, but they'll probably have had a few puffs of the local crop.

With all this media frenzy and political correctness, western forces are now bound to avoiding mosques and other such "protected" places. The insurgents know full well that we can't just go and grab them while they're there. They're using limitations that the western public imposes on our own troops.

Do you think they'd apply the same protected treatment to our medical or religious places? They don't even do it to their own! If some Afghan farmer decided he's happier with western forces helping rebuild his village, but the insurgents don't like that, would they really avoid the village mosque if they know he's there?

Again, considering the double standards imposed on our troops by ourselves (political correctness or whatever), I believe the guys doing it tough out there are doing a fine job!

[shawn a]

Yes, no feces, they are doing  more than a fine job. I'd like to see all of our bases there set up to surround mosques and controlling access to them. I'd also like to see more supression of cell phones, and satellite phones until the situation is brought under control, and let's cut out the idiotic (but politically correct) "show of force passes" by our aircraft that allow the ****** ***** (expletive deleted) to determine what aircraft is supporting our people, and by simple use of binoculars, to determine how well it is armed. THIS IS POLITICAL CRETINISM, but that's America these days. What really burns my ass is that THEY can attack mosques of the "opposite sect", and somehow it is OK, but if we hit the very same mosque, it somehow becomes "ONE OF ISLAM'S HOLIEST SITES" yeah, right.
You don't want to know the rest of my opinions on this.