Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan

[haldir]

WASHINGTON — Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan , the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.
The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who're trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.
Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington , are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan , not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.
In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan , and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."


The rest of the story. Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan - Yahoo! News

 

[ihateiraq]

to be fair, the bungling of these wars started a LONG time before obama took office. we toppled their governments. now were on stage 2. which is....protect the indigenous people? teach them to protect themselves? weve been in this stage for years with very little progress. sure iraq has calmed down, but look at the spike in violence in afghanistan. we need to commit to one thing. eradicating terrorism, or withdrawing. we cant continue to fight with one proverbial hand tied behind our back.

 

[Chefcook]

to be fair, the bungling of these wars started a LONG time before obama took office. we toppled their governments. now were on stage 2. which is....protect the indigenous people? teach them to protect themselves? weve been in this stage for years with very little progress. sure iraq has calmed down, but look at the spike in violence in afghanistan. we need to commit to one thing. eradicating terrorism, or withdrawing. we cant continue to fight with one proverbial hand tied behind our back.

You never should have had to in the first place...

 

[Mgderf]

What happened to the "Powell Doctrine"? The idea that you go in with overwhelming force?

 

[ihateiraq]

You never should have had to in the first place...

i can see it to an extent inside the cities. dropping bombs and calling in arty is detrimental to what were trying to do. but now, we have to call in to a joint coordination center to get an IP or IA escort through cities, we arent allowed to conduct operations without ISF support, so on and so forth. we detained a guy that was on a hvt list, and our squad leader got a brutal *** chewing from the sco because we didnt have any iraqis with us when we detained him.

 

[Chefcook]

i can see it to an extent inside the cities. dropping bombs and calling in arty is detrimental to what were trying to do. but now, we have to call in to a joint coordination center to get an IP or IA escort through cities, we arent allowed to conduct operations without ISF support, so on and so forth. we detained a guy that was on a hvt list, and our squad leader got a brutal *** chewing from the sco because we didnt have any iraqis with us when we detained him.

My meaning is that soldiers should be left alone to do their jobs, politics and the media do nothing but hinder this...

 

[ihateiraq]

My meaning is that soldiers should be left alone to do their jobs, politics and the media do nothing but hinder this...

that seems to have become the american way.

 

[Chefcook]

that seems to have become the american way.

The American way has gone so far to the wayside I am not sure that many even remember what it was...

 

[VN Vet]

We, the U.S.A. have not known what it means to go to War since WWII. We have the know how, the ability and the equipment to go in with overwelming power but have chosen not to do so. This happened to us in Vietnam and it will happen in the mid-east.

 

[ATF Consumer]

We, the U.S.A. have not known what it means to go to War since WWII. We have the know how, the ability and the equipment to go in with overwelming power but have chosen not to do so. This happened to us in Vietnam and it will happen in the mid-east.

It also happened in the beginning of the Korean war, when our troops were sent in to take out the tank forces driving south, but were given the same anti-tank weapons that had shown ineffective during the end of WWII. I'm not sure what they were thinking and why they would put our troops in such a failed situation.

 

[VN Vet]

Our Chickens WILL come home to roost and we will have War on our Soils.

However, I still Pray for the Good in Mankind, but plan for the Bad. Something is not right with the world. I just feel it.

 

[antsi]

What happened to the "Powell Doctrine"? The idea that you go in with overwhelming force?

There were other parts of the Powell Doctrine, too:
1) clear strategic objectives
2) genunie support from other nations, especially those in the region
3) support of the American people
4) plausible realistic exit strategy

In the beginning, we had 2 and 3 in Afghanistan. I don't think we ever had 1 or 4.

I don't think we met any of those conditions in Iraq.

Regarding the support of other nations and the American people - this is the one that is most frustrating. Sometimes you have to let the consequences get so bad and so obvious that even the pacifists see the need to fight. You may need a Pearl Harbor to shut up the "America First" people. I think Iraq's Kuwaiti invasion was a "Pearl Harbor" to a lot of the countries in that region - having Saddam invading their neighbors was enough to shut up their "America the Great Satan" morons. 9-11 was a bit of a Pearl Harbor in the case of the Afghanistan invasion. It's easy to say, "Who cares what the morons think, let's go do the right thing." But you cannot sustain a prolonged war effort without the support of the people.

My take on the Powell Doctrine as a whole - sure, it's correct as far as it goes. If you meet all those criteria - overwhelming force, clear strategy, realistic goals, support of the people and of everyone else everywhere, you are very likely to be successful. But it's a bit of a "well, duh" doctrine. Imagine a football coach, asked how do you intend to win this game, and he answers, "If we're superior on offense, superior on defense, superior on special teams, have good support from the fans, plus good luck and good officiating, we will probably win the game." Well, duh. What it doesn't answer is, what do you do if you have a need to fight and those conditions are not present?