The longer U.S. forces stay, the more mounting casualties. 
Marines of B Company, 1st BN, 5th MEU @ Nawa district, Helmand province, Afghanistan.
Posted on 10/05/2009 8:09:39 PM PDT by myknowledge
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates appealed Monday for calm amid intense administration debate over the flagging war in Afghanistan, asking for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision — an apparent message to the commanding U.S. general there who has pressed publicly for more American troops.
Gates' careful remarks appeared to stand as an implicit rebuke of the man he helped install as the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for his lobbying as President Barack Obama faced a critical week of decision over whether to escalate the Afghan war.
In two separate appearances Monday, Gates made the point that Obama needs elbow room to make strategy decisions about the war — as the internal White House debate went increasingly public.
"It is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right," Gates said at an Army conference. "In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."
Later, speaking alongside Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Gates praised McChrystal and said no matter what Obama decides the general will execute it faithfully.
The fierce Taliban attack that killed eight American soldiers over the weekend added to the pressure. The assault overwhelmed a remote U.S. outpost where American forces have been stretched thin in battling insurgents, underscoring the appeal from the top Afghanistan commander for as many as 40,000 additional forces — and at the same time reminding the nation of the costs of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
The longer U.S. forces stay, the more mounting casualties. Marines of B Company, 1st BN, 5th MEU @ Nawa district, Helmand province, Afghanistan.
Why would he pull out and minimize the damage he can do to the US military?
Well, not this week.
Afghanistan = Vietnam II
Loose the dogs of war Obama, OR BRING THEM HOME!
Hey Bob. Our guys who are spilling their guts over there are 'appealing' for air and artillery cover. Until you give it to them shut the F*** up with your pansy ass 'appeals'.
He’ll do what is in our worst interests as part of his agenda to wreck the country.
It’s more and more clear with every passing day.
What exactly has obama been doing for the past nine months? How many times has he had meeting with his top generals in the Joint Chiefs? Yes there are other things to consider, being the president, but foreign wars seem to take precedent ... at least in my opinion.
Eight or nine months, it would seem to me, is a fair amount of time to devise a military strategy in a specific theater of war ... FDR (the bad Roosevelt) and Marshal seemed to have no trouble devising and executing military strategy in the same time period.
The President is obviously neglecting his duty as CINC. Men are dying and he is spending all this time grabbing power for his party.
Funny, I don't see them anywhere? That has to mean we have no troops in Iraq either, right?
You have the Left wing talking point down.
This is not nam II.
We had more stupid decisions by Franklin Roosevelt that caused tens of thousands of deaths and the turn over of
countries to then Communist Russia.
Americans were being short changed weapons, etc. in the Pacific because Roosevelt was sending them to Joseph Stalin.
There are many situations that could be listed but did that mean we should have pulled out of the Pacific and the European theater in WWII
More people were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941.
There are too many Paulites and other left wing trolls who
keep it up with the anti war crap.
Do you miss seeing people jumping from the 80th story of the world trade center and people running for their life.
We walk away from this war that was declared on America
and there will be more 9/11s
You can’t use WWII tactics in this situation.
Another difference, There are several countries who have weapons that would take mins. to reach us and take out major cities.
Also in WWII the enemy was isolated in a certain radius.
There are mega millions of Muslims in Western Europe.
Millions in the U.S.
And millions all over the world period.
But it's starting to look like Vietnam II, judging by how long U.S. lied coalition forces have been there in Afghanistan.
We had more stupid decisions by Franklin Roosevelt that caused tens of thousands of deaths and the turn over of countries to the Soviet Union.
When FDR, Churchill and Stalin met at the Yalta Conference, they discussed about the future of postwar Europe. That was part of the plan, to carve up Europe into two camps and pit the two superpowers against each other.
More people were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941.
True. It only served to drive the United States into war.
...and there will be more 9/11s.
The next 9/11 would be setting off a nuke in NYC.
The reason why Muslims are now in the Western World, is by the time Israel destroys the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Muzzies will wreak unspeakable havoc on a massive scale, starting massive street fighting between us and them. Us vs them only, while out troops are stuck in the hellholes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
My many relatives who are fighting in this war and some right now in Afghanistan thankfully don’t agree with you.
Your Left Wing talking points are wearing thin.
My ancestors have been in America since the 1620s and
helped build and fight for it.
You wouldn’t understand that.
*by the time Israel destroys the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,*
Another Nazi for peace I see. Only after the Jew are taken out.
FR has way to many Nazi and Left Wing supporters trashing it up
That's like, 14, 15 generations. Wow, it seems you come from a family of patriots who are distant descendants of the Mayflower crew.
If he wasn't so self-absorbed and totally inexperienced he would have been prepared for any direction his field commander recommended. There are only a limited number of possibilities Gen. McChrystal might have gone.
As the de facto Commander in Chief it was 0bowdown's responsibility to be ready for it. Instead he has been sitting on the report for over a month and still doesn't have a clue what he wants to do.
He’s giving the Taliban the upper hand. Wait until the generals decide to take matters into their own hands for the welfare of their troops.
Obama had enough time to approve the new Rules of Engagement that tie the hands of our military in Afghanistan and protect civilians. Last night I found this article about the Afghans and it looks like the regular Afghan people don’t like the new ROEs.
Afghans Protest New Rules of Engagement
September 28, 2009: The U.S. is increasingly encountering angry Afghan civilians, who demand that the Americans act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman. Even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk. This is an unexpected side effect of a change, three months ago, of the U.S. rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan.
This was in response to popular (or at least media) anger at civilians killed by American smart bombs. As a result of the new ROE, it became much more difficult to get permission drop a smart bomb when there might be civilians nearby. Now American commanders have to decide who they shall respond too; Afghan civilians asking for relief from Taliban oppression, or Taliban influenced media condemning the U.S. for any Afghan civilians killed, or thought to be killed, by American firepower. What to do?
(snip)
Under the new ROE, you must, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer, before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there’s some small risk of harming civilians.
The Taliban are aware of the ROE, and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time, has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.
The U.S. Air Force has managed to reduce civilian casualties, from deliberate air attack, to near zero. Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions, the ROE is much more flexible, but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this, and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can’t have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.
Excerpt: See Full Article at http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20090928.aspx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.