No further comments! http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-the-taliban-are-not-our-enemies-and-we-dont-want-to-fight-them/
Does this surprise you? The US President fired General Mattis for questioning and warning him about military actions proposed by his beltway lawyer, National Security advisors: He's purged the ranks of senior commanders that have made comments about his inaction in Bengazi. He tried to hide the Al Queda involvement in the Bengazi attacks. He tried to intervene in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the rebels that are now comprised of a majority of Al Queda that have flowed into the country to fight. They've focused on alleged mis-deeds by the government and ignored the large scale massacres by the rebels. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/obama-administration-now-downplays-al-qaedas-stren/?page=all They've so eroded the combat capabilities of US military ground forces in Afghanistan that the US Army is deploying troops there, for at least the last six months, without the pre-deployment combat training that has been the standard since the War on Terror started. They have justified this by saying they don't have the money and that troops in Afghanistan should be conducting training and mentoring instead of engaging in combat. Yet the Army spends money on developing a new, female friendly uniform. The Army came out a while back and stated that they only have two combat ready brigades, so stated by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno.
No sir, the US Army recently fielded the Combat Uniform-Alternate, designed specifically to fit female soldiers. The ACU was a unisex uniform and was supposed to fit everyone. Female soldiers complained about the way it fit. So the Army made a new version. It's funny that none of the other services have had the same level of complaints and all use the same standard sizes for utility uniforms. One of the complaints, beleive it or not, was that the uniform made their butts look too big. The new cammies are larger in the seat and the jacket has a longer skirt to cover those embarrasing problems. PT could be used to correct it, but that's too hard for "Chairborne" types. On the plus side if they do manage to come up with universal, gender neutral PT standards, more males will need to wear them to hide their extra LB's.
Brit serving females of my day...wore same wooley pullies as men....pullovers...the term for females in forces over here would forever now be knownas...lumpies
Let us all quote "hearsay" journalism and go to a source that is of questionable loyalty to the goals of our efforts. Nuff said.
Victor I see your point, but Usmc's post was about much more than just the article in question and he for one raises some pertinant points.
We're now arming the terrorists, not fighting them. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/
I love Patton's comment "I don't like paying for the same real estate twice". A war should be fought to the end. Because of that, it should make leaders think twice before committing to war. Today, they just send in the troops to wreck havoc with no real set objectives or to have a planned way out. After a while, they declare victory and pull out and have to go back (in the case of Iraq) and die for the same real estate all over again. The fight against Obama.....oh I mean Osama ( :S! ) and the Al Qaeda leadership should have been fought unconventionally. Infiltrate the organization and assassinate them. That would have them looking over their shoulders, killing some of their own due to paranoia and saving soldier's lives. If we go in conventionally, then too bad for the civilian casualties as long as it was unintentional. It's too bad if their leadership will hide behind civilians but war is war. They don't seem to consider the political correctness in their targets. Look at 9/11. This will get worse as more leaders who have not served get into the white house or 10 Downing. I'm just sick of these a**h***** messing us up. Off my soapbox now
The war on terror is not about real estate. It's about the perfect enemy. They are led by no one. They are based nowhere. There may be thousands or there may be 42. They can strike at any time. A select person can be killed and proclaimed "a major leader in the terrorist organization has been removed". A great victory has been won. Then, 20 minutes later, a new leader has emerged who is even more stinkier than the last. We must deal with him. We cannot allow him to harm the freedom loving minions of the Earth. No matter how long it takes or how much it costs we will fight in your bedrooms, on the internet, over your cell phones to stop this mad beast. We may need to amass alot of data though to be able to fight this threat. But don't worry, they are from the government and they are here to help us. Now about you lot who insult our great leader. This is getting close to treason. Perhaps it is time to go after those who think the Obama is not doing all he can for all Americans. After all, during war is not a time to tolerate dissent, is it? They may even be in league with the terrorists. That's it, those tea party bastards are a 5th column.
Sometimes, here, I just find politics....anti Black president, anti women, anti minority....all things that take down respect for a page I would rather see building respect for those who have served.
I haven't noticed any anti-black, anti-women or anti-minority posts, though I do notice a tendency for some to turn everything into a racial issue. If anyone criticizes Obama it's all about race, why is that? Isn't that just a way to shut down discussion? Is that your intention with this post? I'll point out that Obama has white Republican support for arming terrorists, namely John McCain and his RINO pals. It isn't about race, it's about a foreign policy of appeasement vs a policy of strength. I'm against arming Islamic terrorists. I don't see how that is anti-black, anti-women or anti-minority.
I think though...the insurgents are far more of a threat than the terrorists...Especially the elite form of insurgents..the cowardly insurgents....terrorists too can be cowardly, but the cowardly insurgent far surpasses the cowardly or everyday terrorist...Of course one may meet an every day insurgent...One would know the difference because this sort of insurgent wears a yellow stripe on their trousers. Insurgents unlike the lowly terrorist can come from multiple backgrounds. And can even in most cases come from the country they insurge....And they make take issue with other folk from other countries who arrive in their country to stop these insurgents surging through their own country, many born there. The folk from other countries who come to rescue the locals but not the home born insurgents are never to be known as insurgents even though they unlike most insurgents are not foreign to the insurgenst country. The whole problem of insurgents is often met by a surge of none insurgents in the insurgents country. This can prove effective if enough foreign folk with guns and stuff can come into the foreign country with its home born insurgents. Having insurgents...usually as stated born in the insurgent country makes the need to refer to terrorists in most cases a redundant action. Terrorists of course can be insurgents at times...depending on where they originate. If operating in own country they can still be insurgents though...you must not get confused by this. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, unless an insurgent or cowardly insurgent or Irish in which case raise money for em and send it to buy them arms and try to ignore the fact that supporting terrorists as long as you like them is not forgotten by locals in the country you do this for...God save Ireland by the way...Freedom fighters all...No terrorists there eh...and certainly no insurgents...Guerillas are a totally different animal...but lets stop monkeying around here...Send em all on their way...except the freedom fighters of course...they are after all our guys...or even Irish to some.
Terrorism is a complex issue and nearly impossible to counter by purely military means, when the treat is a "previously harmless" individual or small group deciding killing a few US citizens is "the rightful thing to do", the solution has a lot more to do with preventing them arriving to that conclusion than with stopping them after they have. Using preventive force is as likely to turn a relative/friend of the target into an active terrorist as it is to defeat the threat. Add to the mix an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mind-set, stir a little, put in internal public opinion considerations (always near the top of any politician thoughts in a democracy) and you will get .... the current schizophrenic US policy, the BIG problem with that is that it does little towards creating the sort of goodwill that will lead to "drying the pond in which the guerrilla thrives" (to paraphrase someone who knew a lot about successful insurgency operations) and globalization and the internet has made the pond a worldwide affair, old stile colonialism where what happened in the "colonies" was unlikely to have any consequences home are over. I do not envy those that try to find a solution, they have a huge mess on their hands where any decision is likely to end up having "unexpected consequences", but my opinions of the people who allowed it to escalate to where we are by inventing the "war on terror" slogan is very very low, the current administration while not particularly effective (and IMHO wasted a big chance with the mishandling of Bin Laden affair) haven't done anything that stupid .... yet.
I don't differentiate between an insurgent and a terrorist in the middle east. They're all Islamic extremists - terrorists.
When we never build up anything, but are quick and sure about tearing down something.....well....it is the sum total of all our posts that tell the whole story even if we have couched our views carefully in any one single post. Rather than fight this item by item I choose to admire and thank those who rose above all their personal interests to serve us the American people with their services for so long in these conflicts. I submit that despite your comments, many of you have served in that manner during your term of service. No doubt many are better than me and most deserving of admiration and praise for their long service......I am so talking about veterans and veterans of recent conflicts that have returned over and over to the danger zones to do a job for all of the rest of us. God bless them and be aware there is a new group now having to go forth and serve that have not had the best of training, money for their supplies, but rather are a reflection of our poor economy that must now be sent forth to serve....and I am filled with admiration for what they do in performance without the advantages others have had. I am seeing National Guard's men and women leave their established professions to go and serve which will wreck their personal career to answer the call the nation makes for them. Some guard groups never before called upon are being called upon. Be aware that "some of" the old ways have not provided leadership with good solutions so why not accept some "new direction" to try to solve some unsolved problems..... It will be easy to be critical of the results this condition may bring upon us but I would rather choose to admire how they step forth to serve....despite the conditions.
The war on terror...A never ending war that some will die for and will be forgotten no matter what any of us say...A never ending war that some will be horrendously wounded physically and mentally that are already being forgotten no matter what any of us say. The war on terror, a never ending war that actually does profit some. Best keep it going then.
What do we build here? This is a discussion forum and that's what we come here to do. Discuss things. Sure politics and personal beliefs are brought out, but those things happen. Just because the Army, the President, the government, Oprah or whomever does or says something we all don't have to become "yes men" then drink the kool aid go "sieg heil" do we?
