The attack at Ft. Hood

[callmeslick]

thanks for the info, Darkhorse.
Now, I'll ask you another, as you seem to be the only person in this thread with the experience to answer it:
Do you feel that our military is overstretched by the current levels of deployment? And, as a follow-up, can we expand the troop levels in Afghanistan without(in your opinion) risking vulnerability to the nation?

[callmeslick]

oh, and ruggie, FYI, the swing vote on that New London eminent domain ruling was Kennedy, a Reagan appointee. Nonetheless, Dem appointees did go along, and for the life of me, I cannot understand that ruling.
It should put a chill into any private landowner.

[Darkhorse]

Do you feel that our military is overstretched by the current levels of deployment?

No I do not!

And, as a follow-up, can we expand the troop levels in Afghanistan without(in your opinion) risking vulnerability to the nation?

If the troop levels are expanded in Afghanistan and the binders are removed from the Field Commander so that the job can get done quickly, not a problem.

[callmeslick]

what is the 'job' that needs to be done quickly, in your view? To be fair, here's mine. The job WAS, back in
2001/2002, to blast the bejeezus out of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, and to sufficiently convince(frighten?) the Afghans as a whole to never,ever, consider harboring those that would plot against us. However, at this point, we have dithered around as a smallish occupying force for so long that we have worn out any welcome we might have had within Afghanistan. Thus, we have the core elements of the enemy scattered about the whole region, the populace sick to death of us(and thus, highly uncooperative) and our allies losing interest. IMHO, we should have never taken our focus off Afghanistan, nor pissed away resources in Iraq. With this all in mind, I am not sure there is a viable 'job' left for us there, and, to boot, it seems that the US population has utterly no stomach for either the casualties or the expense of it.


oh, and by the way, Darkhorse.....thanks for demonstrating that an exchange of views can be handled without resorting to stupidity, insults or lies. Whether the slower members of the class get it or not, exchanges like this can be informative, if one values the fact that others see things from a different perspective and set of experiences.

[Darkhorse]

what is the 'job' that needs to be done quickly, in your view?

We need to remove any threat from the Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters in the east. A full scale assault (surge) by us from the west and Pakistan from the east. Other Nations must help out here with security and infrastructure rebuilding in the interior. We will not be able to do this alone, if we stick to the status quo there will be no end in site.

IMHO, we should have never taken our focus off Afghanistan, nor pissed away resources in Iraq.

100% in agreement here with you!!

With this all in mind, I am not sure there is a viable 'job' left for us there, and, to boot, it seems that the US population has utterly no stomach for either the casualties or the expense of it.

There is a viable 'job' left for us there, the same one that was there in the first place. The US population is too fat, happy and complacent to grasp the seriousness of what is going on around them, past, present and future. I am sad to say it but most Americans don't have a clue what is going on around them beyond their arms reach, but that is another subject for different day.

oh, and by the way, Darkhorse.....thanks for demonstrating that an exchange of views can be handled without resorting to stupidity, insults or lies.

I blame it on old age creeping upon me

Edit: Slick read this, it might help with some of your questions,

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1454

[Pudfark]

The two posts above are a ray of sun shine....Intelligent questions and honest forthright answers....an outstanding example of a meaningful exchange....

Thank You Callmeslick and Darkhorse....

Question for Darkhorse? Do you also have an informed opinion on the leadership in the Army? and has it been corrupted by Political Correctness? As much as I historically dislike FDR/Truman, at least they let the American Military "fight" WWII...and that war was won in less than four years...and I believe that the following events markedly shortened that war...Dresden, Tokyo and even Hiroshima....and as I am sure you well know....each, with a high density civilian population........ I am well aware that the term "collateral damage" is often used by the folks.....that lost nothing... Your opinion on current matters is meaningful...and your opinion on matters in the past, I believe, would be too......

Pudfark....

[callmeslick]

There is a viable 'job' left for us there, the same one that was there in the first place.

let me re-phrase it. My fear is that, having overstayed our welcome and doing a mix of military missions, civilian projects, drug eradication and nation-building, we are in a poor position to suddenly refocus to a solely military mission. Further, our top command(Petreaus and down) seem to want to follow the 'counterinsurgency' playbook, which will take a lot of troops and a lot of time. That strategy, IMO, will not work with the Afghans. Their tribal warrior-culture has very little tolerance of outsiders, be they British,
Russian or American. They, I suspect, simply will not join forces with any non-Afghans, even if the purpose of the cooperation makes complete sense.

The US population is too fat, happy and complacent to grasp the seriousness of what is going on around them, past, present and future. I am sad to say it but most Americans don't have a clue what is going on around them beyond their arms reach, but that is another subject for different day.

agree completely, and it goes WAY beyond this issue and extends into economics, politics, education, you name it.

[callmeslick]

As much as I historically dislike FDR/Truman, at least they let the American Military "fight" WWII...and that war was won in less than four years...and I believe that the following events markedly shortened that war...Dresden, Tokyo and even Hiroshima....and as I am sure you well know....each, with a high density civilian population

this will probably shock some, who make facile judgements about what I think, but I said this here a long time ago: IMHO it would have been completely legitimate for Bush to have ordered the destruction of Afghanistan on a massive scale, as soon as possible after 9/11 had been figured out. My reasoning?
First, it would let the region and the world get a basic message: do whatever silly-ass stuff you wish within your boundries, but foster violence against the US at your own peril. Second, it would have, and I am only speculating here, probably kept us from starting down the road of some never-ending project of engagement with a part of the world's population that neither understands us or wishes to leave the 17th century. And, as Pudfark states with WWII, it would have shortened, vastly, the at-risk time for US soldiers and civilians.

[Daiichidoku]

I believe that the following events markedly shortened that war...Dresden, Tokyo and even Hiroshima

Hiroshima, without a doubt
Tokyo, debatable
Dresden, absolutlely not

[ruggbutt]

FYI, the swing vote on that New London eminent domain ruling was Kennedy, a Reagan appointee. Nonetheless, Dem appointees did go along, and for the life of me, I cannot understand that ruling.
It should put a chill into any private landowner.

They can come confiscate my stuff if they dare. I'll drop a whole shit load of 'em just cuz it's what Washington, Jefferson and Revere would have done.