Skip to comments.U.S. officials concede American lives were sacrificed in rush to implement Obama's Afghan strategy
Posted on 09/03/2012 2:49:29 PM PDT by Frankusa
U.S. and NATO officials have acknowledged that, in the rush to implement the President's politically calculated troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Afghan troops were not properly vetted, which resulted in the deaths of 45 coalition members - most of them Americans - at the hands of their supposed Afghan allies.
Hence, in an extremely belated response, the senior commander of U.S. special forces in Afghanistan has finally decided to suspend training for all new Afghan recruits until they can be re-vetted...
The spike in green-on-blue attacks has forced NATO officials to concede the 'painful truth': Many of the attacks might have been prevented "if existing security measures had been applied correctly,"...
Numerous military guidelines were not adhered to by either Afghans or Americans because of concerns that they might impede the growth of the Afghan army and police...
Requirements that Afghan soldiers produce proper credentials while on base were also ignored.
One U.S. official said there was a lot of pressure to increase the size of the Afghan forces. Consequently, the vetting process was "was cast aside" because it was viewed as an impediment to accomplishing this goal.
But why was there was a lot of pressure to increase the size of the Afghan forces?
Because President Obama is exerting this pressure.
Mr. Obama [the Politician-in-Chief] insists on handing over primary responsibility for Afghanistans security to Afghan forces by the middle of 2013 and to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That requires developing a sizable Afghan force in a short period of time, which is why stringent security measures and a thorough vetting process have not been properly implemented. And sadly, this has led to a huge spike in green-on-blue attacks, which has resulted in the deaths of U.S. and coalition troops....
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareport.blogspot.com ...
Please someone run these as ads against the muslim in chief. PLease get this out there on the tv. If we could have all ads discussing exactly what Barry’s done and hasn’t done as much as those idiot shyster lawyer ambulance chasers do, from now to the election, we’d reach a hell of a lot of people and really make a dent in their perception of this commie foreign bastard.
look, you might all disagree with me on this. i disagreed with bush.
i would not have sent no one over to the middle east. I would have just bombed the hell out of them and told them if they caused any more trouble, we would bomb them again.
that was and is my major problem with our military actions. no rebuilding, screw them. blow them back into the stone age and do it again if necessary. I would not have allowed one American soldier to step foot over on that ungodly soil.
we haven’t done very well with nation rebuilding, and the obamanation has completely destroyed the middle east situation.
we need to destroy iran and back up the Israeli’s.
The destruction of islam is necessary for the free world and it is time that people that can actually think will do so.
you cannot put up with savages in a free world.
i am conservartive and i agree with you. saddam was a buffer between iran and the rest of the middle east. we could have taken out any nuclear facilities with missiles. afghanastan is a wasteland but it was good killing the tailiban.
IMO the military needs to get involved politically when the issue is an existential threat against our country -- or Washington chaos exposes the military needlessly and individually.
Much has been written about "no more Viet Nams". I cannot find it but I remember reading a strong statement about just that by Wesley Clark back when he was a field grade officer -- IIRC he stated that the military must never allow themselves to be put into that situation ever again.
In fact a paper by another field grade officer in 1992 restated it in the form of a short story, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In that case the military had been put into a position of tending to civilian chores (Washington had gone totally corrupt and citizens no longer trusted the civilians); the military had little time for military matters; as a result it suffered horrendous defeat after being ordered into battle in the Middle East.
Islamists (political Islam, sharia law advocates) are definitely a threat and IMO the military needs to have a bigger say.
Well there's a more immediate though not so obvious threat and with the help of someone who described the threat 150 years ago -- goes by the name of Abe Lincoln I heard -- I attempt to define it:
We initiated a policy to tolerate the Marxist-Alinsky radicals and let them rant; not only has it not ceased but was constantly augmented by decades of infiltration and indoctrination. We now have two Americas. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half statist and half free; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Why should our military be obligated to follow civilians of the Marxist-Alinsky radicals variety who have worked for decades to "bring it all down, man"?
What can we do with Dims? Given a choice, they would return us all to the Stone Age, in some blurry attempt to "get Right with Gaia..."
They are too mentally challenged to to be trusted with modern technology, and the GOP is way too civilized to consider the option of a Eugenic Solution.
I personally prefer the concept of taking everything they own and leaving them on a mountainside. They can thrive, or perish, with their understanding of nature and environmental science.
(I estimate three to five days before extinction...)
yea, i agree, i would not have sent troops, just missiles. would do the same right now with Iran.
of course, i think that islam is the greatest curse on the planet and to civilization as a whole.
it needs to be exterminated, so free people can live. been going on for 6,000 years. time to end this nonsense.
Huh? Islam isn’t 6,000 years old.
i talking about islam. 6000 years of nonsense. they won’t change, it’s a religious war. kill their stupid god
bring them into the stone age. let them rebuild. screw them.
tear down every mosque in america. America was founded on religious freedom, but that was for christian liberty, not for muslims, buddists or anyone else.
hell, these are clearly written in the documents of the founding fathers, which no one reads. the constitution was written for a Christian nation.
Not for ragheads.
The dems are fascists , marxists and socialists. any president has to swear on the BIBLE that he will defend the Constitution.
the obamanation should be impeached for that reason alone, along with a large portion of the senate and the house.
They are enemies of the Constitution of The United States, and i doubt that a lot have them have bothered to read it.
I know that pelosi, read, whathername shultz has bothered to do it.
politics should not be a game in America. it should be sober, honest, and in the best interest as defined by our Constitution;.
most people do not deserve to vote. you cannot give an oath to the constitution if you do not know or understand what it says.
and the founding fathers, who were much smarter than I, knew that if you don’t have any skin in the game, you had no business with a vote.
You are right in a way. but this is an argument between Issac and Ishmael, which does go back that long ago.
the bible prophesies foretold it, and that is the way that it is today.
muslims declare themselves to be the offspring of Ishmael.
that is 6000 years ago.
“Forty five dead in Afghanistan!”
Wonder if Neil Young will sing this version.
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.