Comments on: Perspective on Afghanistan

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:01:18 +0000

Considering that your post above says you’re currently in Afghanistan and you didn’t specify any other group you were with. Ah well. Good luck, Top.

By: nessa

nessa — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:39:50 +0000

Keep ‘em coming. God Bless!

By: TNJim

TNJim — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:44:24 +0000

We’re glad to have our military and I hope you all stay safe as possible and return home victorious. As you noted, “victory” may be defined differently by this current CinC but deep down we still know what it really means and that kind of victory is what I hope for, with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda routed and no longer a threat to the Afghans os anyone else.

I still prefer GWOT to what ever the o-ministration calls it now. Much more accurate.

By: 1SGinTN

1SGinTN — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:52:19 +0000

and their allies – the various versions of Al Qaeda. Although the term “GWOT” has been kicked to the curb, I prefer to say we have a Global War on Terrorists rather than Terror.

There are havens for Al Qaeda all over the globe. The priorities of effort lie in the places where the stability of governments are at risk. Where no government exists, such as Somalia, the emphasis is lower on the scale.

By: 1SGinTN

1SGinTN — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:40:08 +0000

retired servicmembers are still subject to the UCMJ. My boss in the District at home tries to call me a civilian, but my ID card still says 1SG.

By: 1SGinTN

1SGinTN — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:37:17 +0000

feel free to use my comments as you see fit.

By: 1SGinTN

1SGinTN — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:34:05 +0000

And keep updating the priorities, as well. In WWII the decision was made to defeat Nazi Germany first, for example. The decision to neutralize the potential of Saddam to undermine the GWOT first will continue to be debated throughout the ages. Just as we can debate GEN Eisenhower’s decision to place his emphasis on GEN Bradley’s efforts versus GEN Hodges’ in crossing the Rhine. History would have turned out a little differently.

With regard to your guide to the three tier method to use of the US military, my cursory opinion is that it all hinges on number 1, and number 2 is so closely related to 1 as to be inseperable. It is in our best interest in terms of survival and defense for as many nations as possible to be free-market democracies, IMO. Those that are not will chose to be our adversaries in some way, as history shows. Economic rivalries are one thing, but ideological rivalries eventually lead to bloodshed.

I wish work load and time zones allowed a more detailed and reasoned response to your and everyone ‘s comments. Thanks for your response.

By: tankertodd

tankertodd — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:38:28 +0000

I was glad to read your assessment, as someone who has been cynical of the Afghanistan mission, whatever that is. I’m concerned that we’re sucked into trying to elevate Afghanistan out of the 6th Century, We perhaps succeeded to get Iraq out of the 15th Century, but 900 years could spell the difference between success and failure!

Are the tasks you have all aligned to the specific mission of destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban, or just simply setting conditions to prevent Afghanistan into becoming a haven again? Could permanently stationing a sizeable QRF deny the enemy that option? Do we need to build and maintain a spectacular HUMINT capability in-country?

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:26:18 +0000

Be mindful of commo updates. We don’t want you getting in trouble because of this.

By: roscopico

roscopico — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:23:35 +0000

And with 1SGinTN as well. May God Bless our military, and may those of us stateside support the kids doing the heavy lifting overseas. There is no better way than liberty, and the children of any people visited by our brave warriors are better for meeting our military.
We are blessed as a nation as we fight not to enslave, but to set people free.

Thank you for your service, 1SG. May God Bless you and your family.

By: seesalrun

seesalrun — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:11:10 +0000

It is our job here to make sure that these worries do not manifest into reality through our continued support of the war effort and of course, our beloved troops.

I hope you don’t mid if I cut and paste and perhaps publish.
Bravo.

By: seesalrun

seesalrun — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:06:24 +0000

God Speed and you and your Brothers Come home safe.
I read your perspective with due diligence and appreciate it.

By: Kenny Solomon

Kenny Solomon — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:15:21 +0000

We’ll hammer ‘em over here, no worries.

If that Jihadi-Communist in The White House and his Fascistic/Communist/Socialist brethren toss you and those who serve over the side, ‘hell to pay’ will have an entirely new meaning.

By: archer52

archer52 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:45:00 +0000

I just don’t think the new generation of politicians have the same sense of duty and honor earlier generations possessed. The urge to use moral relativism as an excuse for lacking the guts to do the right thing is a powerful one. Most cannot resist it, as they live only for themselves.

Stay the course, keep your head down. Maybe our “leaders” will see the wisdom of keeping a presence in both countries. The alternative is they lie, we pull out, suffer another attack, and some other future President, probably a Republican, will have to go in and clean up the mess, again.

By: BooBooKitty

BooBooKitty — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:37:03 +0000

you even have to contemplate that elements of your own country (press, politicians, and whackos) potentially pose a more serious long term threat than the immediate shooting enemy – but here we are… again.

It is our job here to make sure that these worries do not manifest into reality through our continued support of the war effort and of course, our beloved troops.

God speed and come home safe.

By: NeoKong

NeoKong — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:32:54 +0000

Good luck 1SG.
God bless you.

By: NeoKong

NeoKong — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:29:58 +0000

They only need to beat Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama and the heads of some T.V. networks and newspapers.
To them a sympathetic reporter or media organization is worth a thousand fighters. Weak politicians are their greatest allies.
Democrats almost threw away victory in Iraq but George Bush stood in their way.
This Barack fellow however isn’t exactly giving me confidence.He will do what is best for his career first. He looks down on the military. He looks down on the CIA. He wants to prosecute those who kept us safe.
He lets terrorists go free.
He doesn’t have the stomach for war.
Everybody knows it…even in Afghanistan.

By: Old_Crow

Old_Crow — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:19:25 +0000

and remembers we are a country at war.
It’s hard to forget you’re at war when you’re over there livin’ it, but that’s not the case for the DCcrats. He rarely speaks of the war. Hopefully, there’s more going on under the hood of his administration, but I have my doubts.

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:18:31 +0000

And I would appreciate your response to my framing of the decision-making below.

Let me first start by saying that the invasion of Iraq was absolute genious. I believe that as long as the Obama administration does not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, freeing 50 million Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam will pay dividends for years.

Let’s start w/ a simple truism. The American govt decision-making in regards to choosing military action should be guided by, in order,

1. American interests
2. Freedom (if for no other reason that support will be short-lived in the absence of American interests
3. Cost/benefit analysis

Having Obama as CINC really complicates the analysis, as we have to consider what is possible/probable under Obama decision-making, as opposed to maximizing the above three points.

IMO, Afghanistan is different from Iraq due to its poverty. It has a poorly educated populace, a lack of natural resources, and a mountainous terrain unconducive to trade and business. IMO, these conditions means that individual Afghan sects will always be vunerable to being bought off on the cheap.

Acknowledging the complicating factor of the Obama administration, I will attempt to view policy view two lenses, “What would Cheney do?”, and “What is the most we can expect from an Obama administration?”

What would Cheney do?
As you state, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been largely defeated in Afghanistan. And moved elsewhere. Unlike Iraq, IMO, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are a chronic problem that will just shift as the conditions change in Afghanistan. (Iraq could be “cured”.) That doesn’t mean that we pull out, it just means that we need to shift as the position shifts.

Furthermore, if Cheney were calling the shots, I believe resources would have been redirected from Afghanistan to take the opportunity that presented itself in Iran this summer. Maximize the impact of your troops! General MacArthur did it in WWII with his island-hopping strategy.

What is the most we can expect from an Obama administration?
Obviously, we’re not going to maximize the impact of our troops. But having them closer to the problem we are trying to solve is better than having them completely removed.

Call me a skeptic to Obama’s fortitude. I think the shaping of the his views on Afghanistan were forged mostly by “it’s the opposite of the priority chosen by Bush, so for political argument let’s call Afghanistan ‘the Good War’ .”

I hope George Will’s column turns out to be a Clouseau success, by raising the right questions, garnering attention through a eyebrow-raising conclusion, forcing a public discussion of the matter, which conservatives will hopefully direct to the maximization of

1. American interests
2. Freedom
3. Cost/benefit analysis

I just wish I felt confident of a policy prescription under Obama.