Trump Considers Afghanistan Army Surge

you're the military commander in Afghanistan and have 3,000 troops in harms way. The bad guys know where your camp is, so do the govt. troops you're training. What do you do, depend on the govt. trainees to give you cover, knowing that 25 of them could kill you in your sleep. Do you ask for reinforcements from central command or just get the hell out of that sh!thole? Some of the diehards are going for Plan A. The obvious answer is the latter.
 
I am getting really tired of having my stolen (tax) money being spent on these goat fornicators that don't present a clear and imminent threat to us here. We need to make it know what sort of terribly atrocious things will happen to these "people", their clan, their village, their tribe, their whatever should they ever decide to commit one of their "terrorism" acts again, and then get the hell out of there and let them kill each other, smoke their hashish, and screw their goats.
 
I want to know what we are fighting for now over there. What is our objective? And finally, how does being in Afghanistan promote the interests/security of Americans? If you can't answer those questions clearly, we should leave.
 
noway2 said:
I am getting really tired of having my stolen (tax) money being spent on these goat fornicators that don't present a clear and imminent threat to us here. We need to make it know what sort of terribly atrocious things will happen to these "people", their clan, their village, their tribe, their whatever should they ever decide to commit one of their "terrorism" acts again, and then get the hell out of there and let them kill each other, smoke their hashish, and screw their goats.
Click to expand...

Your tax money is going to contractors to build mini-cities and empty gyms and fill suitcases w cash to buy favor w these animals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We have enough problems here. We don't need to be over there..... for any reason.
 
If you look at military expenditures as a percentage of government spending and at government spending as a percentage of GDP since WWII you will see a very very clear reason for fighting these wars. Hint, it's a booming business.

The companies that provide these services have been smart, they spread domestic jobs and production as widely as possible, so any cutback will result in pain for the legislators that supported it.
 
JimB said:
If you look at military expenditures as a percentage of government spending and at government spending as a percentage of GDP since WWII you will see a very very clear reason for fighting these wars. Hint, it's a booming business.

The companies that provide these services have been smart, they spread domestic jobs and production as widely as possible, so any cutback will result in pain for the legislators that supported it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The military industrial complex is booming. As long as our military is deployed, it doesn't matter what region, or for what reason, we will always need to purchase arms,bullets, MREs, vehicles, etc...
 
325rto said:
Agreed. The military industrial complex is booming. As long as our military is deployed, it doesn't matter what region, or for what reason, we will always need to purchase arms,bullets, MREs, vehicles, etc...
Click to expand...
Yup. I have no idea what it costs to keep a helicopter flight-ready, my guess is a lot. Same for the cost of intelligence gathering, base security, r&d, and on and on. It's like any government spending, it gets out of hand and needs to be trimmed back from time to time.

There is also the cost of lives issue. We're at a point where we will spend almost unlimited dollars to reduce the risk of a single casualty, it wasn't always that way. In a way this has not just made our engagements more expensive, it has made them more politically tolerable. It's hard to grasp the concept of billions of dollars, it's easy to understand when 5 kids that went to your HS were killed in the past year.
 
Take a knee and drink some water...I get to see this from a different angle than you do. Let me see if I can contribute to the discussion without straying into the dark side.

SECDEF Mattis's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 13 June this week included this: “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible. I believe by mid-July we will be able to brief you in detail.”

The administration leaked the 4k plus up, not the Pentagon.

POTUS delegated troop levels in Afghanistan this week to the SECDEF...that is new, and very important.

SECDEF Mattis is not going to surge troops without a plan that defines what "winning" is...the end game. In making the SECDEF responsible for troop levels, the success or failure of what occurs in Afghanistan under the current administration will fall squarely on the SECDEF (the blame game)...lets wait until mid-late July and see what the plan is he presents to Congress and POTUS and then see exactly how many troops we send back into harms way. Now, also remember we are getting ready to rotate a another BCT to Afghanistan...so don't be surprised when they are deploying this summer for the media to make it out as part of a new surge.

I think we are going to get a plan that defines "winning" as reducing the threat level (via a surge where our troops are put back into the direct fight) to the point that Afghan Security Forces can maintain it without significant U.S. & NATO assistance, but a constant U.S. advise & assist presence will be necessary for, potentially, decades. Winning will not be a pure military victory...that is not possible in AFG without enveloping Pakistan and Iran. The VC had Cambodia & Laos...the TB/AQ/ISIS all have safe havens in Pakistan and to some extent in Iran.
Personally, I don't think we will stay "long-term" (more than 4-8 more years), that we will eventually pull completely out and AFG will immediately collapse back into its 5th century standard of living after another short civil war that no one really wins. Let em kill each other.

Anyone ever heard of MFO? We have been in the Sinai since 1981. How about KFOR? We have been in Kosovo since 1999. There is plenty of precedence for us to stay long term...willing to bet majority of Americans have no idea we are still in those two places. Related: I heard on the radio the other morning that 7% of adults in the USA think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Really? Are people THAT dumb?

Several months ago, GEN Nicholson stated that he needed "several thousand" more troops...I will tell you that after he made that statement he was asked by the new SECDEF what he would do with them...he did not have a well thought out answer, and I don't think Mattis thinks much of him. Nicholson is one of our current crop of young GOs, raised through the ranks during the GWOT, that wants their name in the history books, written in blood as the savior of that shit hole and hero to us all back home.
 
HMP said:
What was it that Ike said?...
Click to expand...

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Or how about Smedley Butler

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Long_Hunter said:
Take a knee and drink some water...I get to see this from a different angle than you do. Let me see if I can contribute to the discussion without straying into the dark side.

SECDEF Mattis's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 13 June this week included this: “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible. I believe by mid-July we will be able to brief you in detail.”

The administration leaked the 4k plus up, not the Pentagon.

POTUS delegated troop levels in Afghanistan this week to the SECDEF...that is new, and very important.

SECDEF Mattis is not going to surge troops without a plan that defines what "winning" is...the end game. In making the SECDEF responsible for troop levels, the success or failure of what occurs in Afghanistan under the current administration will fall squarely on the SECDEF (the blame game)...lets wait until mid-late July and see what the plan is he presents to Congress and POTUS and then see exactly how many troops we send back into harms way. Now, also remember we are getting ready to rotate a another BCT to Afghanistan...so don't be surprised when they are deploying this summer for the media to make it out as part of a new surge.

I think we are going to get a plan that defines "winning" as reducing the threat level (via a surge where our troops are put back into the direct fight) to the point that Afghan Security Forces can maintain it without significant U.S. & NATO assistance, but a constant U.S. advise & assist presence will be necessary for, potentially, decades. Winning will not be a pure military victory...that is not possible in AFG without enveloping Pakistan and Iran. The VC had Cambodia & Laos...the TB/AQ/ISIS all have safe havens in Pakistan and to some extent in Iran.
Personally, I don't think we will stay "long-term" (more than 4-8 more years), that we will eventually pull completely out and AFG will immediately collapse back into its 5th century standard of living after another short civil war that no one really wins. Let em kill each other.

Anyone ever heard of MFO? We have been in the Sinai since 1981. How about KFOR? We have been in Kosovo since 1999. There is plenty of precedence for us to stay long term...willing to bet majority of Americans have no idea we are still in those two places. Related: I heard on the radio the other morning that 7% of adults in the USA think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Really? Are people THAT dumb?

Several months ago, GEN Nicholson stated that he needed "several thousand" more troops...I will tell you that after he made that statement he was asked by the new SECDEF what he would do with them...he did not have a well thought out answer, and I don't think Mattis thinks much of him. Nicholson is one of our current crop of young GOs, raised through the ranks during the GWOT, that wants their name in the history books, written in blood as the savior of that shit hole and hero to us all back home.
Click to expand...
I don't know Nicholson personally, but were in the same battalion, 2/325, back in 1982/1983 timeframe.
 
Long_Hunter said:
Personally, I don't think we will stay "long-term" (more than 4-8 more years), that we will eventually pull completely out and AFG will immediately collapse back into its 5th century standard of living after another short civil war that no one really wins.
Click to expand...
So what would be the point of staying another 4-8 years, spending billions of taxpayer dollars, having more soldiers killed or wounded, and radicalizing/weaponizing countless more Muslims if the end result is essentially the same as pulling out now?

I see the point from US.gov's perspective (more of a police state at home, bribes and campaign contributions from contractors) and MIC's perspective (lots of gov contracts), but not seeing how this helps ordinary Americans.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
So what would be the point of staying another 4-8 years, spending billions of taxpayer dollars, having more soldiers killed or wounded, and radicalizing/weaponizing countless more Muslims if the end result is essentially the same as pulling out now?
Click to expand...

Great question. I try to look at the geo-political view of things. I think we originally stayed in AFG to keep pressure on the Paks across the border. General Keane says that the Paks are providing safe haven for the Taliban and have training bases for the Tali's in Pak. The Russians are training them as well. So when AFG implodes (for the 24th time, Alexander said I told you) how much of AFG, Iraq, Syria, north Africa fall in the hands of Iran? I guess we could say who cares. But you could have the training ground for millions of Muslims to conquer all of Europe and the West using their stealth attack style. Interesting times, and maybe good fodder for authors to write another thousand books.
 
Last edited:
Meckmeister said:
Great question. I try to look at the geo-political view of things. I think we originally stayed in AFG to keep pressure on the Paks across the border. General Keane says that the Paks are providing safe haven for the Taliban and have training bases for the Tali's in Pak. The Russians are training them as well. So when AFG implodes (for the 24th time, Romans say I told you) how much of AFG, Iraq, Syria, north Africa fall in the hands of Iran? I guess we could say who cares. But you could have the training ground for millions of Muslims to conquer all of Europe and the West using their stealth attack style. Interesting times, and maybe good fodder for authors to write another thousand books.
Click to expand...
Except Iran is predominately Shia. The jihadists we are seeing in the US, Western Europe and most parts of South and East Asia and North Africa are Sunni - almost all from a particular branch of Sunnis, the Wahhabists/Salafists.

So why is Iran public enemy #1 when Wahhabism/Salafism is rooted in and funded by Sunni governments, the first and foremost of which is Saudi Arabia?

US.gov's Iran agenda sure makes it seem like we are an attack dog at the beck and call of Israel.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
Except Iran is predominately Shia. The jihadists we are seeing in the US, Western Europe and most parts of South and East Asia and North Africa are Sunni - almost all from a particular branch of Sunnis, the Wahhabists/Salafists.

So why is Iran public enemy #1 when Wahhabism/Salafism is rooted in and funded by Sunni governments, the first and foremost of which is Saudi Arabia?

US.gov's Iran agenda sure makes it seem like we are the attack dog at the beck and call of Israel.
Click to expand...

Iran for whatever reason provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda wanderers. The AQ guys are for the most part Sunnis. I think the Iranians, with the help of Bush, have given the power structure in Iraq to the Shias. The Russians seem to be aligning with Shia countries. Hopefully Iran does not use their new weaponry on the Saudis, which along with Turkey and Eqypt are the balance in that region. On and on it goes.
 
This thread came to mind while browsing this MSN jewel this morning: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-warning-after-us-downs-syrian-jet/ar-BBCSZcj?li=BBnb7Kz

Looks like a formula for a proxy war, or even WW-III
Russia has warned the US-led coalition fighting in Syria that it will view its aircraft as targets, after a Syrian military plane was shot down.

The coalition said it had shot down the Syrian SU-22 after it bombed US-backed rebels in Raqqa province on Sunday.

Russia, Syria's main ally, said it was also halting communication with the US aimed at preventing air incidents.
Click to expand...
 
drypowder said:
US.gov's Iran agenda sure makes it seem like we are an attack dog at the beck and call of Israel.
Click to expand...

I think Israel would have a rather different opinion, specially with the "you have to give most of your country to the Palestinians, which other Arab coutnries do not want and shoot for sport, and free money to them on the top of it" attitude US politicians have had when talking, er make it telling the Israelis.

drypowder said:
So what would be the point of staying another 4-8 years, spending billions of taxpayer dollars, having more soldiers killed or wounded, and radicalizing/weaponizing countless more Muslims if the end result is essentially the same as pulling out now?

I see the point from US.gov's perspective (more of a police state at home, bribes and campaign contributions from contractors) and MIC's perspective (lots of gov contracts), but not seeing how this helps ordinary Americans.
Click to expand...

Also, leaving would be saying the US armed forces are no better than the Russians, who also were not successful there. Yes they were against the Brave and Gallant Freedom Fighters led by Rambo 3 and without any external support but the point remains. Remember our president told his son-in-law that 'If you can't bring Middle East peace, nobody can.' So, if the US leaves Afghanistan without a victory, everyone will think it has a small penis; can you leave with that?

Can you?
 
Last edited:
The Latest Attempt To Win The Afghan War: Replace The Soldiers With Mercenaries

Fast forward to today, and now Blackwater’s founder, former Navy Seal Erik Prince, is pushing for a plan to win the war in Afghanistan by replacing the soldiers with defense contractors. Prince first suggested the plan last May in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, where he described this idea in colonial terms. The private military units would be based on units that were deployed by the British East India Company, and would be lead by a single person who he referred to as an “American Viceroy,” that would report directly to the president.

As strange as it may sound, Trump appears to be taking the idea seriously. It’s hard to blame him. Afghanistan is now America’s longest running war, and no matter how many soldiers, generals, aid, or money we throw at the country, nothing seems to bring stability.
 
And to think we used to laugh at the soviets for getting bogged down in that shithole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom