[Sioux-san]

I despise the tool that Petraeus has become - Code Pink was right - He is General Betrayus - but where are these anti-war zealots now when we need them??? A war without end is not acceptable -- our soldiers used as cannon fodder and for absolutely no good reason that matters to the survival of America. I am voting for the one who says bring our boys home now and actually will do it....if such a creature exists.

[icwhatudo]

In Afghanistan, its looking more and more like small scale involvement by special forces backed by drone attacks, and letting the northern alliance fight the bad guys, was the better strategy. Rumsfeld was right.

[Iris7]

The ROE our people have to put up with is intolerable. Fix it or leave immediately.

Don’t know what I would do in their boondockers. Haven’t seen war up close and personal for over forty years now. I can see why they won’t let us old guys into the services, because I would probably just tell my superiors in the chain of command to get stuffed.

Also the kids aren’t trained properly. They need a leavening of experienced hands. People who, if the guys are being wasted, will simply say “no”.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Come October, this war will have lasted a decade. Last month, the Iraq war passed the eight-year mark. During the Vietnam War, the question was whether there was any “light at the end of the tunnel.” In these wars, we have to wonder whether there is any tunnel. If so, no one seems to be in any hurry to get out. Why? Why is it that we have come to accept war without end – not to mention, I would (and do) argue, war without benefit? And why does it actually seem as though our leaders want it this way?”

Because walking away from a country after a military invasion doesn't work out is not as easy as it sounds. We will end up abandoning those that took our side as with Vietnam. Obama is not in this to win, just to pull a Johnson. and I never predicted Obama would start a third war. How could anyone?

That being said it is time we decided to use our military for our own benefit for a change. We are broke, worse than broke, and the endless costly wars just encourage more welfare government spending here. Let's drop the Bush-Obama-McCain-Graham doctrine that we are the world's police. Let's be a little more like China and less like the end of Rome.

[oyez]

Obama needs the troops back home for 2012. However, The Constitution prohibits him from using the Army against the American public, but we all know what Obama thinks about The Constitution.

I think we all know what the troops think about Obama. Fat chance, Barry.

[Dapper 26]

If we are not in this war to win it and have ROEs more stupid each day than I say bring our troops home. Let’s bring the best trained, best equipped military, fighting terrorism on their turf, home. Than, defund them, reduce their numbers and scrap their equipment. That’ll make everyone happy. We’ll fight terrorism in America - because you know they will be coming - in our towns and streets with civilians. The libs are unarmed because they hate weapons and that’s fine with me but I’m prepared to defend my self and my family. If you have never been to war, it’s a plan you’ll like. If you have experienced war, buy more ammo.

[robowombat]

Diana West article poses the question of operationally what is being accomplished by the current attempt at counter insurgency. All three articles implicitly ask what is the strategic goal the US is attempting. Unfortunately I would be hard pressed to answer that. In Iraq it seems to me it is to keep the weak parliamentary regime in place. That actually does serve our interests in the Gulf which is containment of Iran and non-interruption of the movement of oil. There are clear and compelling US national interests in and about the Persian Gulf. In Afghanistan it is a different story. I am not persuaded that reducing the US and NATO footprint to a strong SF presence and using SOF and drones to kill as many AQ and Taliban leaders in conjunction with directly strengthening the Northern Alliance forces doesn't serve our interest best. Those interests are not nation building but keeping the AQ and Taliban off balance and killing as many of them as possible.

The Northern Alliance represents one of the groups that are our natural allies as they are surrounded by enemies. The Kurds and Assyrian Christian communities in Iraq are also. Supporting through crypto-diplomacy the parliamentary regime and with enough bribes and muscle keeping Iranian proxies from taking over is in our interest. But boosting communities that are pro-American by necessity and are good fighters such as both the Kurds and the Assyrians are natural pillars to any long term US presence. Israel, the ethnic hostage communities , US and maybe some other SOF types such as British SAS and our technology (and the Israelis) are the tools to work our will as best we can in that screwed up region. This is a sustainable way to fight a war that is not going to end for a long long time. Infantry patrols and ‘hearts and minds’ ops are just ways to create casualties. Some sort of combat modus-vivendi has to be evolved. The war with the Islamacists will go on and on. If we fold and leave they will be greatly heartened and move to fill the power gap and work hard to give us more 9-11 events. At the same time the armed forces cannot sustain a literally endless war that requires perpetual large scale deployments and many casualties among people in line units.

From what I can determine from the Internet the command in Afghanistan expects really significant fighting in the spring-summer period. The US forces are near their peak strength and operational planning has been in full swing and the Taliban have managed to rebuild their organization to the point they are planning their own summer offensive.
Beyond this campaigning season and the next one as well some more productive operational matrix is required. These articles point to the non-productivity of what is currently being done. The big question is what are the national interests of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and how do we go about putting the pieces in place to serve those interests. The cartoonish way many US political leaders actually consider such questions is a major impediment to such things ever being addressed. Politicians are perpetually ensnared by the short term media driven event cycle so it is hard for them to ever think beyond the next few days. That is pretty much why Bush2 put VP Cheney in charge of running the global anti-terror war on a day to day basis. While he was swept up in the bust trivia of the Washington event cycle. However, without this sort of cool eyed sifting of the national interest the end will be a sloppy near retreat with pro-US communities left cut off and our enemies convinced they won a strategic victory.

The Islamacist leaders do indeed think in strategic terms. They are often mislead by the closed circle mentality of Islam that makes it hard for them to understand how any regime where the secular and sacred are separate functions. However they do try to visualize their strategic roadmap in an almost Clausewitzian manner. That is what makes the long duel we are in so dangerous for us.

[pacific_waters]

Like Rome in its latter days, we are over extended militarily with troop commitments of one sort or another on over 130 nations. We h ave become a military nation. Even our police have become militarized.

[Allegra]

Last month, the Iraq war passed the eight-year mark.

That combat mission ended August 31, 2010. It's technically not a "war" anymore.

And really, it's not.

It's nothing like the wild days bewteen '04 and mid- '07 and then the resurgence in the spring of '08.

It is a training, advise & assist mission now.