Should the U.S. send additional troops to Afghanistan?
Sorry I have been gone for a while but I thought this would be a good time to come back.
We have no choice but to send more troops to Afghanistan.The tribal situation and impeding geography make Afghanistan a very difficult theater of operation.Success depends on the Afghan people supporting our efforts.
The US supported the Taliban in thier battle with the Russians.It is understandable that Afghans(Taliban) do not want foriegn fighters in thier country,the US or others.
Alexander the Great went for the Persian King and he won the battle.
We need to go after the al qaeda leaders.
Pakistan is a greater problem than Afghanistan with it’s nuclear weapons,tribal strife and unsteady government.We need help from other countries to address the Pakistan situation.
The US needs a well thought out strategy for the region.
On the other hand
They don’t call The Afghan “the graveyard of empires” for nothing. We need enough troops to hold what we must while we train an army for the central government.
To train the Afghan Army US advisors should begin training grunts and non-coms on the ground in Afghanistan. We should bring officer candidates HERE in small units for a 12 month’s crash course in leading men, combat operations, quartermaster & supply etc.
(Sort of a mini West Point)
Build up a competent officers corps of 3,000 or so who then return home to take over training the enlisted men themselves. Then we pack up, leaving them a few tons of heavy ordnance as a parting gift, wave bye-bye, and get the H-E double outa there!
We have no choice but to send more troops to Afghanistan.The tribal situation and impeding geography make Afghanistan a very difficult theater of operation.Success depends on the Afghan people supporting our efforts.
The US supported the Taliban in thier battle with the Russians.It is understandable that Afghans(Taliban) do not want foriegn fighters in thier country,the US or others.
Alexander the Great went for the Persian King and he won the battle.
We need to go after the al qaeda leaders.
Pakistan is a greater problem than Afghanistan with it’s nuclear weapons,tribal strife and unsteady government.We need help from other countries to address the Pakistan situation.
The US needs a well thought out strategy for the region.
On the other hand
They don’t call The Afghan “the graveyard of empires” for nothing. We need enough troops to hold what we must while we train an army for the central government.
To train the Afghan Army US advisors should begin training grunts and non-coms on the ground in Afghanistan. We should bring officer candidates HERE in small units for a 12 month’s crash course in leading men, combat operations, quartermaster & supply etc.
(Sort of a mini West Point)
Build up a competent officers corps of 3,000 or so who then return home to take over training the enlisted men themselves. Then we pack up, leaving them a few tons of heavy ordnance as a parting gift, wave bye-bye, and get the H-E double outa there!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rev. James Thomas Hicks, D.D. on -
Awww, Obama can't keep a campaign promise once again. How shockin'.
I don't think we should send more troops. Even after we train their population to try to keep control, any number of things can happen & we can't always be there to fix it all. No matter what we do, the population will do as they see fit. Whether it be to keep the current regime or install another.
-
Permalink Reply by Rev. James Thomas Hicks, D.D. on
-
See, 3 promises broken. I, for one, listened to his campaign commercials.
-
Permalink Reply by a7 on -
if we take the advice of rev poops it will just be a matter of time before another 9/11 of londona nd glasow bombing. HAVE WE NOT LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THESE PAST ATROCITIES. come on man.
geoerge
xx
-
Permalink Reply by Rev. James Thomas Hicks, D.D. on
-
They have the tactical position of usin' cells. Not matter how small (or eliminate) their fightin' force, they'll just spring up again. Only peace can be the outcome to stop 'em. We can't stop 'em no matter how hard we try. Even when it's all over, there's still the human rights violations that we overlook today against their women. What are we fightin' for? The protection of ourselves or the protection of everyone?
-
Permalink Reply by a7 on
-
we first need to make sure the talaban are no longer a fighting force, we cannot leave , even with a fully trained afghan national army in place. we cannot leave the talabin in any way a force in afghan or pakistan. One more thing, if needs be we must act inside pakistan, again and again if we must. thhis we i talk about is US and UK, the liberal nato states will not act, not in the way we need them to act.
maybee we should let these liberal nato states know of natos moto once again. an attact on one of us is an attact on us all.
george
xx
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew on -
i agree with Kennedy that we need to train thier officer corps then let them fail or stand by themselves and it should be the same way with Iraq as well.
It is up to the moderates and liberals in thier countries to fight the religious conservatives and all the graft for themselves. But I am thinking its going to be like most Islamic countries. Barely hanging in there and/or a maybe failed state all together.
I hope thier imaginary friend treats them well and and good luck!
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Mann on -
First, who is "we." I'm Canadian. This is not the American Atheist website. It's a webspace for Atheists everywhere.
In 1914 there were 4 democracies: Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and the United States.
Today, half the world's populations lives under governments that are democracies. Admittedly, the quality of the electoral system in many of these countries needs to be improved. But the infrastructure is in place.
Over the next century it will be impossible for democrats to protect those democracies that now exist and add to their number without resort to force. And it will not end in our lifetime. There will always be some country that requires assistance. The United States cannot and should not shoulder the burden of waging this struggle for democracy alone. So yes, send to Afghanistan whatever is necessary to defeat the Taliban. And then we can move on to Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Palestine/Israel.
Peace with tyranny = the end of freedom. I believe this and I am too Leftist to be in the Democratic Party. Christopher Hitchens rocks.
-
Permalink Reply by Frink on -
It's going to take a social revolution, which is not going to be forced by any country anywhere in the world. You know what they say--one convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on -
Goats for guns deal!
Security for female education!
Bingo Halls!
A television and American cable programming in every home!
Seriously. If we eradicate the problem of viral terror, who cares what they do in their own country?
Make firearms less valuable than farming and self sustenance. Educate the women, you educate the country (and if not, a huge majority of women will start marrying men outside of their own country that will treat them like a human and provide for their family much better. The in-laws won't complain if they are given ten times what they'd make off of her by marrying her to a local, which a foreigner will if she's educated enough to work. Look at China, Japan and India! Pretty soon they won't have anymore young men with a linage-honor bound to violent acts.)
Provide stupid entertainment for people to spend their money on instead of funding terror cells.
Then give them something to rot their brains and become pleasantly obese on! They won't have the energy or desire to do anything after a few episodes of The Simpsons.
Problem solved!
What's new today
Forum
Does every living animal have a consciousness?
Started by Holo Gram in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Ray R. 20 minutes ago. 5 Replies 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
