Comments on: US Can Handle Afghan Surge

By: Colonial-Marine

Colonial-Marine — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:04:00 +0000

I don’t support a draft for this type of counterinsurgency warfare but are you saying we didn’t deserve to win World War I and World War II?

By: Wolf

Wolf — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:23:08 +0000

As the great Robert Heinlein put it: A country that has to resort to a draft doesn’t deserve to win.

By: thomas prentice

thomas prentice — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:21:17 +0000

bring back the draft if we are truly at war

By: Colonial-Marine

Colonial-Marine — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:55:45 +0000

When (if) we deploy more troops we need to stop tying our hands around our back with insane rules of engagement and politically maneuvering. Our Pakistani “ally” has proven incapable of driving the Taliban out, and yet doesn’t allow any US support other than UAV strikes. Unless they step up their game and allow some of our forces to strike the heart of the Taliban, we should cut all of the funding we give them.

The quicker we crush them and stop spending billions in that wasteland, the better. At least we might get something beneficial to us out of Iraq, but there isn’t much worth fighting for other than some ungrateful people in Afghanistan.

By: Thomas Carney

Thomas Carney — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:29:35 +0000

Who says the troops can handle it?? This “limited two-war” so-called “strategy” has warts all over it, especially the goofball way it’s being executed right now.

There are Guard and Reserve units going over for their FOURTH and FIFTH tours, and these people are just plain worn out.

The Rules Of Engagement are a flustercuck extraordinaire… no way our guys can win in either one… especially the corrupt regimes in both countries.

By: skiloypet

skiloypet — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:12:06 +0000

Several years ago, during the Cheney regime, a question was posed to General Shinseki, regarding the number of ground troops he thought necessary to “win” in Iraq. His answer was somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000 troops, and went over like a lead balloon with Rumsfeld…and Rumsfeld had him fired.

The admiral is quick to support the surge, for obvious reasons. There should be more discussion regarding troop deployments and CONUS “down time”, i.e., with the 120,000 in Iraq, can the rotation cycle be better managed to AVOID Marines and soldiers making multiple deployments to theater? It has been established that PTSD is a factor impacting more of our military than had been thought originally.

Politicians start war; politicians end wars; generals and admirals follow orders. That’s what it boils down to.

The thought that Americans have to be in Afghanistan to keep us safe on Main Street USA is ludicrous… it would be laughable if it were not for the unnecessary deaths such decisions cause among our armed forces. There is nothing about Afghanistan that is worth the life of a single American…nothing.

Signed, a Marine Veteran

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:36:49 +0000

An argument regarding why the United States CAN'T win in Afghanistan. It's about our morals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_t3yfAhNb4