Chuckles spends 24 hours in Afghanistan with O-bama and has a new strategery all figured out.
What’s his strategery when we roll into Afghanistan in force and look like the Soviets did in the 1980s?
What’s our exit strategery for Afghanistan?
And what happens when all those “live to fight another day” jihadis melt away and show up in caves in northern Iraq?
The Obamilitary - where diversity and defeat go hand-in-hand.
Hagel smokes loco weed.
This is just a pathetic “Suck up” by Hagel because he wants a job in a BO admin.
You rebuild it with Obama’s new National Civilian Security Force (brown shirts?). Now he has “Obama Camp.” http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/25/camp-obama-eager-to-%e2%80%9cempower-you%e2%80%9d/#more-3780
Given the fact that just about every major european country has suffered a terror attack and the weenies continue to resist sending troops to Iraq or Afghanistan I wonder how Hagel plans on getting any of these cowards to send troops anywhere.
I doubt they could repel an invasion of their own sorry country.
Result: Budget cuts, ammalgamation, promotions based on ethnicity and "bilingualism." AND a completely gutted military.
Chuck, take a pill and go home.
Obama IS NOT the messiah.
Obama is a totalitarian prig who wants to denude the US military and supplant it with his own civilian service corps.( SS style.).
how did a state like nebraska
elect sucha twit?
I can’t stand it when they refer to my army as a “broken” army.
The United States Army is leading two wars at the same time.
Stressed? Heavily tasked? Challenged?
Hell yes.
But definitely not “broken”.
When Hagel refers to a “reoriented” forein policy, what he means is “screw Israel”.
I love how all of a sudden everybody is jumping on the Afghanistan surge bandwagon, given that most of them are simultaneously stoutly denying that the surge in Iraq accomplished anything. Somebody really needs to get in touch with the CrackerJack people to get them to stop putting General’s stars in the packages they’re selling in DC.
Is Hagel still alive?
Our military was over-stressed in 1945. Tours of duty were for the duration
Iraq is not Afganistan -
geographically (the terrain - Iraq has few mountains and its valleys are related to broad river plains, while most of the Afghan terrain is very mountainous and most of the population lives in the mountainous regions with vilage settlements among hundreds of peaks and valleys);
demographically (ethnicity, and population size as well as population density) - Iraqis more often than Afghans live in cities, while most Afghans are rural farmers);
culturally and socially (Afghan’s are very much more religiously conservative and less secular than Iraqis);
militarily (Iraqi “military” experience - of Iraqis WITH military experience - is predominately from Iraq’s large standing armies (past and present) and fresh urban counter-insurgency experience with the current U.S. coalition, while Afghan experience - of Afghan’s on “our side” with military experience - is predominately in rural insurgency (past) and rural counter-insurgency - present.
Therefore, the military requirements and combat priorities of the two theaters are not the same nor equal. The Soviets learned, too late, that simply placing large concentrations of tens of thousands of troops into the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan made those troops simply much bigger targets without those troops achieving an equal or better level of “flushing out” the enemy. The training and experience of a brigade that has been rotated in and out of, and back into, Iraq over the last five years does not provide the knowledge and experience to be deployed, combat ready, from Iraq to Afghanistan. It is not that simple.
The units sent home from Iraq will most likely not be the
units needed in Afghanistan; and just because we might be able to send home, 10,000 or 30, 0000 or 100,000 or more troops from Iraq does not mean that sending an equal number to Afghanistan will produce a result that mere math could suggest. Whatever number of additional troops that might actually help in Afghanistan is what it is and it bears no relationship to what comes home from Iraq.
I think that the facts are that until Pakistan is willing to actually take-on the militancy and Taliban-aid climate in its northwest provinces, or that Pakistan proves either unwilling or unable to do so - and we must intercede there, pouring more U.S. troops into Afghanistan is by itself not a beneficial policy, but, in fact, will be no more helpful than it was to the Soviets; because, the financial and military resources of the Afghan insurgency is now in, and very safely in, Pakistan. Unless the battle is engaged there, one way or another, the problem in Afghanistan will continue, regardless of how many troops we send there.