The First Retreat

2009-10-09 19:28:21

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6526|Global Command

Obama has his first military retreat and humiliation.

I would not care to be a U.S. soldier right now.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091009/D9B7HP4G0.html

The withdrawal, however, had been planned well before the Oct. 3 battle and is part of a wider strategy outlined by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has said for months he plans to shut down such isolated strongholds to focus on more heavily populated areas in an effort to protect civilians.

The firefight in Kamdesh left eight Americans, three Afghans and an estimated 100 insurgents dead, according to NATO. Insurgents fought their way into the base during the battle, a rare breach of security that underscored how thinly manned the post was. It was the largest loss of U.S. life in a single skirmish in more than a year.

The Kamdesh base was largely burned down during the violence. But U.S. Master Sgt. Thomas Clementson said the damage did not affect the timing of the withdrawal and the U.S. was "just days" away from pulling out when the attack happened.

Clementson said coalition forces destroyed what was left of the outpost. The action was likely taken to prevent insurgents from using the base.

Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the U.S. bombarded the outpost with airstrikes after leaving, as well as the local police headquarters.

"This means they are not coming back," Mujahid said. "This is another victory for Taliban. We have control of another district in eastern Afghanistan."

If I were president and I was serious about winning that war I would have ordered a division to that area, built a massive forward fire base and sent special ops guys out to collect some " insurgents " and return their heads in a burlap bag.

This is a fucking repeat of the Soviets humiliation. Breaks my heart.

This is no failure of the men carrying guns but a surrender by the politicians, who imo are a much larger threat to American way of life than Al Queda.

2009-10-09 19:30:49

#2

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5355|London, England

Wait, so they're pulling back out of the countryside and going to entrench in the cities? Have they learned absolutely nothing from history!? The war is now lost. Fabulous.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-09 20:02:57

#3

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6339|California

*in@fterobamablaming*

How is this really obama's fault exactly? If any scapegoat should be found its the General. Withdrawal being "part of a wider strategy by the top US commander in Afghanistan...said for months be plans to to shut down such isolated strongholds to focus on more heavily populated areas in an effort to protect civilians."

He didn't act soon enough and most of the acts were the cause of a surprise insurgent attack that no one could entirely prevent.

2009-10-09 20:16:35

#4

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5355|London, England

xBlackPantherx wrote:
*in@fterobamablaming*

How is this really obama's fault exactly? If any scapegoat should be found its the General. Withdrawal being "part of a wider strategy by the top US commander in Afghanistan...said for months be plans to to shut down such isolated strongholds to focus on more heavily populated areas in an effort to protect civilians."

He didn't act soon enough and most of the acts were the cause of a surprise insurgent attack that no one could entirely prevent.

It's not Obamas fault. He's not trying to lead the troops or direct them from the rear. All of this blame falls squarely on incompetent American generals who are in way over their heads and don't have an understanding of history.

But, Obama is the head guy so he gets the credit or the blame either way even though he has little control over the outcome.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-09 20:17:36)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-09 21:17:17

#5

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6671|Canberra, AUS

ATG I think you're over your head if you think a president bothers with ordering specific divisions around.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-09 21:18:30

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6526|Global Command

I said what I would do.

Failbama can kiss my ass.

2009-10-09 21:24:58

#7

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6671|Canberra, AUS

ATG wrote:
I said what I would do.

Failbama can kiss my ass.

This has nothing to do with Obama. What you would do is rather irrelevant tbh... unless you think the president should also have the job of the generals.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-09 22:00:52

#8

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6545|San Diego, CA, USA

Since Obama isn't going to fight this war to win I say fuck it and lets get out of there. Afghanistan is going to then fall to the Taliban, Pakistan is going to be happy, the extremist Muslims around the world will be happy, and Obama will get another Nobel Peace prize next year.

2009-10-09 22:03:31

#9

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6515|Montucky

Harmor wrote:
Since Obama isn't going to fight this war to win I say fuck it and lets get out of there. Afghanistan is going to then fall to the Taliban, Pakistan is going to be happy, the extremist Muslims around the world will be happy, and Obama will get another Nobel Peace prize next year.

2009-10-09 22:03:46

#10

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6149|what

It's been a lost cause for a while now.

2009-10-09 22:12:07

#11

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6771|Noizyland

Instead of celebrating at another excuse to vent your spleens in Obama's direction what about a thought to the soldiers? These guys would have fought a battle against tremendous odds and given one Hell of a fight too.

October 3... never a good day for the modern US military.

It's all very well to say what you would do if you were President Alex but that wouldn't make any difference. A President, even though they are technically the head of the armed forces, does not have any input in tactics or strategy on the ground - that is left up to Officers. You know why? Because Presidents are politicians, they don't have military training that enables them to make tactical decisions.

Harmour you talk about fighting the war in Afghanistan to win it. Tell me; what do you propose constitutes a "win" in Afghanistan?

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2009-10-09 22:17:24

#12

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX

Bush didn't fight to win in Afghanistan, which is why we are where we are now.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2009-10-09 22:18:51

#13

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6515|Montucky

Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush didn't fight to win in Afghanistan, which is why we are where we are now.

Bush had no tactical input on fighting the War.

2009-10-09 22:20:05

#14

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5582

The Mongols held Afghanistan for a few hundred years, I believe they were the only group that was successful.

2009-10-09 22:20:31

#15

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5695

Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush didn't fight to win in Afghanistan, which is why we are where we are now.

lol, what did he fight for then?

2009-10-09 22:21:51

#16

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6588

The issue is a failure of understanding. The current US administration apparently has noone on staff with any real historical perspective on Afghanistan.

At the most fundamental level, there are two cultures in Afghanistan - City and Country.

If you retreat into the Afghan cities, you are in a viper's nest of lies, deceit, opportunists, and (in short) nothing but neutrals or enemies.
If you give up on the mountains, the tribal areas, and the non-city areas, you have just given up on your best allies.

There is nothing to be gained in Afghani cities, and everything to be lost in the mountain tribal areas.

2009-10-09 22:22:04

#17

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6671|Canberra, AUS

12/f/taiwan wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush didn't fight to win in Afghanistan, which is why we are where we are now.
lol, what did he fight for then?

Iraq

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-09 22:22:33

#18

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6545|San Diego, CA, USA

A "win" in Afghanistan would require the following:

1) We rebuild the country...will take ~35-40 years of having a significant presence.
A) Reason for this long is we need at least 2 generations of Afghans to grow up and run their country without us (Iraq which is like spaced-aged compared to the Afghans)
2) We make some kind of agreement with Pakistan to take out Warrisistan (the place where the al-Quaeda is at now inside of Pakistan's borders).
3) We keep ~100,000 troops there for at least another 4-6 years.
A) We may be able to have few troops as new drone technologies come online
4) We focus on keeping and holding territory (it worked in Iraq)
A) Use large blimps to scan large swaths of the battlefield continuously
5) We involve the Afghans more in rebuilding (right now we hire foreign contractors for pretty much everything)
A) This is mostly because they are no where near as educated as Iraqis

By 2015, perhaps we can start to draw down troops if the security situation there is good.

But since none of that is going to happen we might as well leave now because what Obama will do is do it half-assed (just like how we did it in Vietnam), and get alot of our G.I's killed in the process.

Oh, and if we leave then it'll be a repeat of the Killing Fields of Cambodia...

2009-10-09 22:24:07

#19

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6671|Canberra, AUS

Harmor wrote:
A "win" in Afghanistan would require the following:

1) We rebuild the country...will take ~35-40 years of having a significant presence.
A) Reason for this long is we need at least 2 generations of Afghans to grow up and run their country without us (Iraq which is like spaced-aged compared to the Afghans)
2) We make some kind of agreement with Pakistan to take out Warrisistan (the place where the al-Quaeda is at now inside of Pakistan's borders).
3) We keep ~100,000 troops there for at least another 4-6 years.
A) We may be able to have few troops as new drone technologies come online
4) We focus on keeping and holding territory (it worked in Iraq)
A) Use large blimps to scan large swaths of the battlefield continuously
5) We involve the Afghans more in rebuilding (right now we hire foreign contractors for pretty much everything)
A) This is mostly because they are no where near as educated as Iraqis

By 2015, perhaps we can start to draw down troops if the security situation there is good.

But since none of that is going to happen we might as well leave now because what Obama will do is do it half-assed (just like how we did it in Vietnam), and get alot of our G.I's killed in the process.

Oh, and if we leave then it'll be a repeat of the Killing Fields of Cambodia...

If that is what constitutes winning (is it really?) then the real question is whether winning is worth it.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-09 22:25:14

#20

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX

12/f/taiwan wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush didn't fight to win in Afghanistan, which is why we are where we are now.
lol, what did he fight for then?

To look tough on TV and keep the radical Islamic pot boiling, so he had an enemy to pull out and rattle whenever he needed it.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2009-10-09 22:27:58

#21

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6545|San Diego, CA, USA

Spark wrote:
If that is what constitutes winning (is it really?) then the real question is whether winning is worth it.

Its better than loosing. Do you realize how embolden terrorists around the world will be? Also in a few years Afghanistan will go back to what it was pre-9/11...a launching pad for terrorism around the world.

2009-10-09 22:32:20

#22

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6771|Noizyland

Harmor wrote:
A "win" in Afghanistan would require the following:

1) We rebuild the country...will take ~35-40 years of having a significant presence.
A) Reason for this long is we need at least 2 generations of Afghans to grow up and run their country without us (Iraq which is like spaced-aged compared to the Afghans)
2) We make some kind of agreement with Pakistan to take out Warrisistan (the place where the al-Quaeda is at now inside of Pakistan's borders).
3) We keep ~100,000 troops there for at least another 4-6 years.
A) We may be able to have few troops as new drone technologies come online
4) We focus on keeping and holding territory (it worked in Iraq)
A) Use large blimps to scan large swaths of the battlefield continuously
5) We involve the Afghans more in rebuilding (right now we hire foreign contractors for pretty much everything)
A) This is mostly because they are no where near as educated as Iraqis

By 2015, perhaps we can start to draw down troops if the security situation there is good.

Oh well that should be easy enough...

This is what you get when you're declaration of war reads something like "Hey there're Taliban there, let's get 'em!" Face it, no-one knows what the Hell the US, (and other nation's forces, our SAS are there at the moment as well as a few Army engineers,) are fighting for.

The situation in Vietnam arose because no-one knew what the were fighting for not because of anyone doing anything "half-assed". You'll find if you've got no direction than "half-assed" just becomes the natural state of mind.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2009-10-09 22:37:55

#23

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6515|Montucky

When I was in doubhebagistan our goal was to find bin laden and his buttbuddies and either a) eliminate them or b) capture them. ([a] being the main goal, atleast in my squad anyway)

2009-10-09 22:38:59

#24

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6545|San Diego, CA, USA

S3v3N wrote:
When I was in doubhebagistan our goal was to find bin laden and his buttbuddies and either a) eliminate them or b) capture them. ([a] being the main goal, atleast in my squad anyway)

Unless we get some kind of agreement with Pakistan to route them out of Warhereistan then it'll be a stalemate.

2009-10-09 22:40:34

#25

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6771|Noizyland

Bin Laden probably is in Pakistan but the US is smart enough not to invade a country with Nuclear weapons.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

BF2S Forums The First Retreat

xBlackPantherx wrote:

ATG wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Harmor wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Harmor wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Board footer