Posted on 08/20/2017 2:59:51 PM PDT by springwater13
President Trump has decided on a strategy for Afghanistan that also takes a broad approach toward tackling competing interests in South Asia, CBS News' Margaret Brennan reports.
The White House released a statement on Sunday saying that Mr. Trump will address the nation's troops and the American people on Monday evening from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, "to provide an update on the path forward for America's engagement in Afghanistan and South Asia."
Officials expect Mr. Trump to announce a strategy that meets the requests of commanders in the field, allows for the deployment of around 4,000 more U.S. troops, and aggressively pushes Pakistan to stop acting as a safe haven for terrorists.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
MOST EXCELLENT POINT
This is a BS term for mercenaries.
Its like calling illegal aliens undocumented immigrants. What are these people being contracted for? Security that proactively attack threats? These contractors are mercenaries - why is the United States of America employing mercenaries? Seems wrong - seems like you do that if the public doesn't support the war that "must" be fought.
I'll listen tonight but further involvement in Afghanistan seems brain dead.
One of the things I was liking about the Trump presidency was how few servicemen and women were dying while he at the helm.
Let the throat cutters cut their own throats
He ran on being smarter. Staying in Afghanistan isn't smart.
The point being made was that the Trump family (like the Bushes, Obamas, Clintons etc.) have no skin in the game when they send others off to risk their lives and die. That makes it more likely we get into nonsense causes like neocon nation-building where victory can never be obtained.
Oh, and my kid’s contracting for four years. Although I’m proud of him, I’m disgusted with leaders who treat our armed forces like some global Hessian merc army that dies for people who hate us and are too cowardly to defend their own interests (e.g. Saudi “royal” family).
“have no skin in the game “
That’s a BS argument. Every president has something to lose, maybe not a son, but a lot of hard work they put into being a politician. To claim they go to war so easily without an offspring in the mix is ignorant shortsightedness. Many parents with children in the military also vote to go to war, so to claim a child in the service means they won’t support war is nonsense too.
I hope he has. Assume that would be big news. . or maybe they would keep it quiet. Either way, I hope he gets rid of the poppy fields.
Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Nuff said?
>thousands of contractors
>>This is a BS term for mercenaries.
>>Its like calling illegal aliens undocumented immigrants. What are these people being contracted for? Security that proactively attack threats?
Contractors is a perfectly legitimate term for Mercenaries, as all Mercenaries are contractors. You’re objection to the idea of Mercenaries smacks of leftist hatred of private capitalist armies.
>These contractors are mercenaries - why is the United States of America employing mercenaries? Seems wrong - seems like you do that if the public doesn’t support the war that “must” be fought.
Why shouldn’t we? Most major world powers have employed them from time to time and frankly we’re better off having people paid to protect the Afghan goverment than to waste US troops there. Paid Mercenary currently keep most African nations from descending into Chaos because they’re able to do the deeds required in war that professional armies would get bad press over.
A simple case of too many cooks in the kitchen.
The number isn’t as significant as the choice of direction. In for a penny in for a pound, all too often, with this sort of thing.
“Every president has something to lose, maybe not a son, but a lot of hard work they put into being a politician.”
*****
I can lose my son. However, Trump can lose some of his “hard work” at “being a politician.”
You consider that to be equivalent? What a warped sense of values.
Unless it’s mine yes I am opposed to private armies, I have a similar view on monarchy. as to why no contractors... We already are paying lots of money for a top of the line military to do with these missions. So let’s hire private soldiers too at many times the cost to skirt, for, ucmj or whatever doesnt make sense to me and it hasn’t worked either in terms of us winning anything military. Just seems to be political cover for what’s the word... quagmire
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.