winning war on terror ...

[symbiosis 0]

And, how long will it be before they're back in Iraq?

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Even after an extra U.S. Army brigade

joins the fight against the insurgency here in January, three times

that many reinforcements will be needed shortly thereafter, the

highest-ranking U.S. general here said Tuesday.

Gen. David McKiernan, commander of NATO-led international forces

in Afghanistan, told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary

Robert Gates that the brigade arriving in January is an urgent

requirement based on an assessment that fighting in eastern

Afghanistan is tougher than believed six months ago.

"There are an additional three brigade combat teams" that have

been validated by the Pentagon as a requirement, McKiernan said. He

would not say exactly how many extra soldiers that entails, but

said that it was more than 10,000 - beyond the roughly 3,700 in

reinforcements that are scheduled to arrive in January.

There currently are about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and

about 146,000 in Iraq.

Gates arrived in the Afghan capital Tuesday evening after

presiding at a ceremony in Baghdad where Gen. Ray Odierno took over

for Gen. David Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Gates

was meeting over dinner in Kabul with McKiernan and was to hold

talks with senior Afghan officials on Wednesday.

More U.S. forces have been killed in Afghanistan so far this

year than in all of 2007 as a resurgent Taliban-led insurgency has

adopted bolder and often deadlier tactics. U.S. officials say the

insurgency cannot win a conventional war, but its persistence has

left U.S. and NATO leaders seeking reinforcements and has eroded

the credibility of Afghanistan's fragile elected government.

McKiernan said he had no doubt that the insurgency could not win

in Afghanistan, but he did not say U.S. forces are assured of

victory, either.

"We are not losing, but we are winning slower in some places

than others," he said.

In the interview, McKiernan also disclosed that he recently

issued a revised order meant to govern the tactics and procedures

followed by U.S. forces when engaging in air and ground fights

against the insurgents. The revision, issued Sept. 2, was in

response to a series of attacks that resulted in civilian deaths -

most notably the highly publicized allegations that a U.S. attack

on an Afghan village compound on Aug. 22 killed as many as 90

Afghan civilians, including women and children. The U.S. military

has disputed the allegation but also has launched a new

investigation in light of emerging evidence.

McKiernan said 90 percent of his new directive is meant to

re-emphasize existing procedures.

"We've put an increased focus on partnering with Afghan

security forces," he said in explaining the main change. "In

other words, we want to run more and more operations that are

combined operations with the Afghan army and/or the Afghan police.

That's probably a new emphasis on this tactical directive."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its what happens when you bite off more than you can chew..

[alienlovechild 75]

I wonder how Obama supporters will enlist after Obama is elected? I mean heard several young people claim they would fight but not in Bush's illegal war in Iraq so in how many months we can expect to see lines of youthful and eager Obama followers at recruiting offices?

I posed a same question at the beginning of the war on terror in 2001 but never heard about a big surge in volunteers. I wasn't in the U.S. and couldn't find anything about it at the time or later. Just anecdotal stories.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wouldn't enlist. I don't believe in the cause.

[symbiosis 0]

I wonder how Obama supporters will enlist after Obama is elected? I mean heard several young people claim they would fight but not in Bush's illegal war in Iraq so in how many months we can expect to see lines of youthful and eager Obama followers at recruiting offices?

I posed a same question at the beginning of the war on terror in 2001 but never heard about a big surge in volunteers. I wasn't in the U.S. and couldn't find anything about it at the time or later. Just anecdotal stories.

And off topic. So, you're a veteran of which campaign?

[alienlovechild 75]

And off topic. So, you're a veteran of which campaign?

Off-topic? Have been following what Obama wants to do in Afghanistan or cross-border raids in Pakistan? It was only in Obama's snoozer of an acceptance speech before 75,000 people so it's not a state secret.

Operation Joint Guard, how about you?

I wouldn't enlist. I don't believe in the cause.

Oh, come on 6, don't you want to get a taste of the British experience in the Afghan Wars? Made for some great writing by Kipling. I'll be if they had some pubs to defend, you'd man the ramparts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And off topic. So, you're a veteran of which campaign?

Off-topic? Have been following what Obama wants to do in Afghanistan or cross-border raids in Pakistan? It was only in Obama's snoozer of an acceptance speech before 75,000 people so it's not a state secret.

Operation Joint Guard, how about you?

I wouldn't enlist. I don't believe in the cause.

Oh, come on 6, don't you want to get a taste of the British experience in the Afghan Wars? Made for some great writing by Kipling. I'll be if they had some pubs to defend, you'd man the ramparts.

No - not particularly.

[alienlovechild 75]

No - not particularly.

I guess Prince Harry will have to find another chap to cover his royal azz should he get another Afghan tour. There goes your knighthood for good now. No Sir 6.

[symbiosis 0]

And off topic. So, you're a veteran of which campaign?

Off-topic? Have been following what Obama wants to do in Afghanistan or cross-border raids in Pakistan? It was only in Obama's snoozer of an acceptance speech before 75,000 people so it's not a state secret.

Operation Joint Guard, how about you?

The you know about a successful (Clinton era) military operation. It must pain you to look at what a mess the GOP has made of Iraq.

I wouldn't enlist. I don't believe in the cause.

Army NG '84-90

Oh, come on 6, don't you want to get a taste of the British experience in the Afghan Wars? Made for some great writing by Kipling. I'll be if they had some pubs to defend, you'd man the ramparts.

[alienlovechild 75]

And off topic. So, you're a veteran of which campaign?

Off-topic? Have been following what Obama wants to do in Afghanistan or cross-border raids in Pakistan? It was only in Obama's snoozer of an acceptance speech before 75,000 people so it's not a state secret.

Operation Joint Guard, how about you?

The you know about a successful (Clinton era) military operation. It must pain you to look at what a mess the GOP has made of Iraq.

I wouldn't enlist. I don't believe in the cause.

Army NG '84-90

Oh, come on 6, don't you want to get a taste of the British experience in the Afghan Wars? Made for some great writing by Kipling. I'll be if they had some pubs to defend, you'd man the ramparts.

I thought you'd at least get on topic by talking about Pakistan but apparently you don't know or care what Obama thinks about the region.

I was RA '92-99 so our experiences don't overlap but remember Bosnia was low key because the UN and NATO did nothing for nearly four years leading to wholesale slaughter in the region. By the time the U.S. stepped in most of the fight was taken out of the combatants. We helped save European Muslims and got little thanks in return from Muslims or Europeans. In hindsight, the mission was low risk but I wish the Euros would do something even in Europe instead of expecting the U.S. to deal with the entire planet. I rather some local pro-U.S. SOB do the job than use our troops.

Unfortunately, I ended up spending some my time on guard duty in Germany after Bin Laden blew up our embassies in Africa and Clinton didn't bother pressuring the Saudis about the with bombings of U.S. bases in Saudi or the Cole bombing. I still remember when Clinton finally reacted by bombing empty Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan on the day Monica testified. The troops on guard duty were laughing and saying "Wag the Dog" after that movie about a phony war to make the more president more popular.

I would have passed on an invasion of Iraq because it's a counterweight to Iran but since our troops are there we have to leave the country with some degree of stability and the situation is far from a stalemate now. In my estimation, Obama will do nothing for Iraq and waste lives in Afghanistan just to prove he's a tough guy.

It bothers me that a vet like yourself can do an AAR on Bush but not question where we're going with Obama.

Edited September 17, 2008 by alienlovechild

[symbiosis 0]

That should take nothing away from the fact that the Clinton administration successfully negotiated the Dayton Accord. Foreign policy types from both parties consider it THE major success in U.S. foreign policy in the last few decades (though, admittedly, there have been so few).

...

I too remember the callous GOP "Wag the Dog" talk, which of course ended up being nothing of the sort. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and he was at the very camps hit by cruise missiles just a few hours before they slammed into tents.

Of course, all of that is a far cry from lying about causus belli and misappropriating troops to the wrong theater. Nothing has done more to damage the war on terror than Iraq has. This isn't partisan talk here, there is broad and general agreement on this score except within the walls of the White House.

[alienlovechild 75]

That should take nothing away from the fact that the Clinton administration successfully negotiated the Dayton Accord. Foreign policy types from both parties consider it THE major success in U.S. foreign policy in the last few decades (though, admittedly, there have been so few).

Most of U.S. foreign policy has been successful in that at the very least a bipartisan Cold War policy brought down the USSR and most of its allies without WWIII. By contrast, Bosnia was almost nothing.

I too remember the callous GOP "Wag the Dog" talk, which of course ended up being nothing of the sort. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and he was at the very camps hit by cruise missiles just a few hours before they slammed into tents.

Yeah, it was just a coincidence that Clinton found Obama on the day Monica testified. I supported the cruise missile attack hoping it do something but it was purely a political act to grab headlines. Of course if Bush found Bin Laden this October we wouldn't hear you complaining. You aren't that callous.

Of course, all of that is a far cry from lying about causus belli and misappropriating troops to the wrong theater. Nothing has done more to damage the war on terror than Iraq has. This isn't partisan talk here, there is broad and general agreement on this score except within the walls of the White House.

It's not 2003 so I rather hear about where we go from here but you're struck the past. I hope you weren't in charge of many troops because having a plan for good for five years ago isn't going to impress soldiers looking for some leadership in the future. It's scary how you avoid any thought about what Pres. Obama would do. We both know Obama's options are limited by his base of support. If things turn bad in Iraq, it will be route because Obama already is stuck with his withdraw policy regardless what happens. The Saudis will be next on the hit list so I hope you don't use much gas and are fairly well-off financially because America is in for a bumpy ride ahead.

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

That should take nothing away from the fact that the Clinton administration successfully negotiated the Dayton Accord. Foreign policy types from both parties consider it THE major success in U.S. foreign policy in the last few decades (though, admittedly, there have been so few).

amazing how you totally forget the coalition that comprised desert shield and desert storm.....

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I wonder how Obama supporters will enlist after Obama is elected? I mean heard several young people claim they would fight but not in Bush's illegal war in Iraq so in how many months we can expect to see lines of youthful and eager Obama followers at recruiting offices?

I posed a same question at the beginning of the war on terror in 2001 but never heard about a big surge in volunteers. I wasn't in the U.S. and couldn't find anything about it at the time or later. Just anecdotal stories.

That would take courage they don't have.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder how Obama supporters will enlist after Obama is elected? I mean heard several young people claim they would fight but not in Bush's illegal war in Iraq so in how many months we can expect to see lines of youthful and eager Obama followers at recruiting offices?

I posed a same question at the beginning of the war on terror in 2001 but never heard about a big surge in volunteers. I wasn't in the U.S. and couldn't find anything about it at the time or later. Just anecdotal stories.

That would take courage they don't have.

Seems Wilde wasn't far off when he wrote that patriotism was a virtue of the vicious.

Yes Sirree, I sure want to get my head blown off in some B/S war that totally doesn't protect my democratic freedoms