Thoughts? Looks like 8k. Not many, but I think it's a good move. We learned a hard lesson in letting Iraq get overrun with nutters.
keeping Soldiers in Afghanistan
- Thread starter TopSecretBoiler
- Start date
Yep. I give the President credit for learning that real world realities trump campaign promises. That's a tough thing to do.
And I say the opposite that he should have stuck to his guns because at some point we have to leave and that point things will be just as f-up in Afghanistan as they have for going on centuries now.
At this point, I do not see how the USA(it should really be NATO and financed by UN and ME countries) do not leave a sizable contingent in both Afghanistan, Iraq/Syrai area, and will be needed in Libya and Yemen as well. Not sure how active they need to be daily, but they need to be there to squash an ISIS uprising before it gets to big in the future, need to root out Taliban when they ok organizations such as Al Qaeda to train and plan, and as for Libya/Yemen really not even sure how to work things there.
Look at past history when nothing was done to interfere with these organizations that had no other goals but to spread terror. Have to learn from the mistakes. Do not let them get up and running.
Need to be heavy in combat arms, counter intelligence, and cyber warfare dominated task forces.
lol so you want combat arms in five different middle eastern countries? How many combat units do you think we have? Do you realize (of course you don't) the fact that for every combat unit you need even more support units to keep it going?
He probably does, actually, understand that as well as you and me. While I agree with your point and disagree with having combat arms all over the ME, I believe in following through on commitments we've made and we made them in Iraq (and bailed) and Afghanistan.
I understand your point that there is no hope and it'll be a shit show when we leave regardless, I just don't think I agree with it.
then he's talking about actually a larger contingent of Soldiers on the ground then we had in Iraq at the height to want to put combat units of any usable size in five ME countries.
That's crazy.
That is why I mentioned NATO supplying troops, and I also mentioned the UN and the ME countries helping finance operations. You either skipped or ignored that part of the post. I think a lot of those countries need to start pulling their own weight. JMO
Also, while you are correct that I did mention five countries, I am not an advocate of a hundred thousand in each. That was not implied.
The issues I have are:
-I think it is obvious at this point that the USA/Allies simply cannot let governments(Taliban) or extreme religous movements(ISIS) gain footholds, gain momentum, sell that they are 'winning', and allow them to spread their message without resistance either through personal recruiting or by media. Or allow militant/terror groups to train unfettered in these places.
-Look at Obama's strategy and how it has not worked. Throughout his Admin he touted ending the wars and used it to get re elected. Ok-great. Now in his last 6 months, he has decided that the security issue in Afghnaistan is bad enough(in reality it always was) that he will not draw down troops anymore there there. Also, the 82nd Airborne is now deploying to Iraq in December. Defense contracting work is going through the roof in those countries judged by the amount of offers and amount of money that is being offered. Seems to be admitting his strategy did not work for anything but re election.
I would be more of an advocate of keeping and maintaining a presence, keeping these radical groups in check/eliminating them, rather than what we have to deal with now. Sure combat is a part of that, as is electronic surveillance/warfare, and being able to counter the idea of radical jihad. To do that, the number of soldiers that were in Iraq are not needed.
So, if you have any ideas or counterpoints to this I would like to hear it. The status quo of the last eight years did not work and that is largely being admitted to by troop increases/withdrawl stopping. The next President still has a large issue on their hands just as Obama did.
Here is a good read. In no way does this sound like 180,000 plus are needed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/26/us-troop-withdrawal-let-islamic-state-enter-iraq-m/
Last edited:
lol yes, Europe is brimming with combat troops and the UN is sure to buy off on a generation of extended combat deployments to the middle east.
yes it's so simple, just a handful of troops and we can solve terrorist attacks that only need a video on the internet to be inspired by.
Brilliant!
Not sure what to say. Never said it would be easy or simple. Going to need some great politicians/leaders to guide the world through this-and unfortunately, not sure any are out there. And I believe I did address the electronic surveillance/warfare part.
Again, I just think it is time for other countries to step up to the plate with participation and financing. Two things I actually agree with Clinton on-it is time some of the ME countries 1)help fund operations 2) start coming down on wealthy individuals in their own country that fund these radical groups/individuals
Not saying this is the end all that would prevent all terror attacks either. That is a pipe dream IMO. Just believe that this is the better option than letting these groups grow and operate without challenge.
We're not going into syria as long as clinton is in the picture. She loves isis. That's her baby. She "armed the moderates", remember? We won't even cut off their oil sales. imo, if we made a best effort to shut down their propaganda and funding, they would wilt. But we don't do either...things that make you go hmmm. Now Turkey will turn into a wahhabi shit show and isis oil will continue to move freely into the country.
Senator Cotton said it perfectly. Without mentioning Obama by name said we need a Leader who will Win wars, not end them. In spite of all of the early debacles and wrong decisions we were in a position to leave Iraq with a Democratic government and Afganistan without the Taliban.
what's hilarious is that you actually believe that. that 10K troops would have been the solution to the fact that the Shiites are now the dominant force in Iraq and that the Sunnis are getting a taste of the reversal and they don't like it. There would have been all the same issues and problems in Iraq with 10K troops or not. 10K troops wouldn't have stopped ISIS in the western desert or in Syria, and 10K troops wouldn't have made the Shiite majority act better towards the Sunni minority. It wouldn't solve the conflict between the Taliban and the Afghan government either. These are centuries-long, religious, cultural and tribal issues that aren't going to be solved in a few years by some troops.
Oh, then why is Barack sending more in? Leaving them longer? The deal was that when we pulled out without a plan we left a half trained military led by people who were still learning how a democracy worked. Our military leaders were meeting daily with Iraqi leadership teaching and pushing them to be inclusive, etc. we also gave up out intelligence network that provided info on what was going on. Finally, by leaving the way we did basically armed the radicals with our equipment. There nothing hilarious about this.
It could have stopped them going down the Euphrates picking up town after town after town. That was the issue. Your little opeds posted as material fact are lacking.
Because he has to do something politically. Politicians do all sorts of pointless things because of political expectations. Even Barack Obama.
Is a democratic government your ideal goal?
Would you be OK with whoever their citizens choose to vote for?
Here it is again.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/26/us-troop-withdrawal-let-islamic-state-enter-iraq-m/
And nobody ever said it would be easy as you put it earlier in thread. Nobody said these issues are going to be solved by some troops in a few years. To put more simply, just that the situation would be better now and in the future with a presence there. Your posts in this thread have been little more than straw man or ad hominem.
1. Not surprising that military folks say if we had more troops we could have made it better. What else are they going to say? It's what military folks say. Doesn't make it true.
2. The plan was for 10K troops. Those quoted people don't talk about that plan but nebulously about "if we were still there." If we were still there with 100K+ troops maybe, 10K no way in hell.
3. The military is worried with cost, they are worried about mission accomplishment. The cost of keeping troops spread throughout the ME for decades or even a decade is economy-wrecking.
4. The article quotes how "we left them with a stable government" by those same folks you are so favorably citing. If it's such a stable government, then how did things fall apart in the space of a few years? Iraq is not a stable government. Wasn't before, isn't now, won't be anytime soon because it isn't a real country. Afghanistan has NEVER been stable. It wasn't stable in the 1800s when England was trying to do what we are trying to do now, and failed, just like the Soviets did.
All for what? To prevent this or that group from temporarily seizing some land space? Space that it is rapidly losing? What about Libya? Syria? Egypt? Are we putting troops there too? Or do you think ISIS and other groups will just give up and not simply move to some other country? Do we then send troops there too?
Fair enough.
Do I think 10,000 troops, along with constant training of the Iraqi Army could have made a difference? Yes. Would it have been a cure all? No. Likely depends on how quickly/aggressively they acted when ISIS was originally a threat would determine how much of a success they would be.
Having been there in that time period, I would not quite stay the govt was stable but it was a fledgling functioning government that needed support. That would be more accurate. The major cities were fairly safe IMO. I think the article addresses this some as it was stated that the US was acting as a middle person between Shiites and Sunni.
I think I mentioned in previous posts how this has to be more of an international operation rather than mainly US, in terms of money and troops.
I used to be an advocate of not intervening and letting the tribes, Sunni, and Shiites figure it out for themselves-especially with ISIS and Syria. That said, in short, I just think that was a mistake as I look at the current state of affairs in the world and 1) Do not think it is right to leave a situation that the West made worse 2) Do not think it is right to let these groups gain momentum, legitimacy by letting them operate and grow without impunity
No easy answer really. I do think we can help alleviate the problem to afford the chance for some of these younger and less developed countries to be able to defend themselves and prevent groups like ISIS from growing there. And yes, I think that makes the world a better/safer place.
"land space"? really "land space"? Or oil wells where they can get enough money to constantly fund their little terror campaign. Go look at the territory they control. It's all along highways. 8k troops can keep them and the oil off the highways.
