[vundy33]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americ...8389200455

Are you for or against a troop surge in Afghanistan?

Remember this:
"Fifty-one US soldiers died in attacks across Afghanistan in August, making it the most deadly month for US troops in the country since they invaded in October 2001."

[vundy33]

I figured this would be a hot topic...I remember seeing a thread on here a while back about lack of coverage of Afghanistan. Here it is.

[Stardust]

I fully support the troops that we have there now. It would be in vain if we pulled those who are so committed out now.

[vundy33]

Well, from what I know about it we need more. My unit is going in November to replace Ft. Bragg's 82nd Airborne Division's 4th BCT. There deployment was extended from 12 months to 14 months. That shows how serious the situation over there is and how bad we need elite light infantry and cavalry units like mine there. Again, a big misconception of Americans is that the Taliban is like the insurgents in Iraq and they're not at all. They are organized and attack with good weapons and strategy. Unlike Iraq, a troop surge in Afghanistan would cause less U.S. deaths. A big argument about the troop surge in Iraq was that the more soldiers in Iraq the more targets they're would be. Well, Afghanistan is different. There is not near as many suicide bombers in cities that kill groups of soldiers like there was in Iraq. It's more of a traditional, man on man fight.

[Cardsftw2010]

If you're going to fight a war, fight to win the war. Trickling in soldiers is not the way to win. I guess we learned nothing from Vietnam.

[NEXT]

If you're going to fight a war, fight to win the war. Trickling in soldiers is not the way to win. I guess we learned nothing from Vietnam.

I agree 100%

[Joe Friday]

Well, from what I know about it we need more. My unit is going in November to replace Ft. Bragg's 82nd Airborne Division's 4th BCT. There deployment was extended from 12 months to 14 months. That shows how serious the situation over there is and how bad we need elite light infantry and cavalry units like mine there. Again, a big misconception of Americans is that the Taliban is like the insurgents in Iraq and they're not at all. They are organized and attack with good weapons and strategy. Unlike Iraq, a troop surge in Afghanistan would cause less U.S. deaths. A big argument about the troop surge in Iraq was that the more soldiers in Iraq the more targets they're would be. Well, Afghanistan is different. There is not near as many suicide bombers in cities that kill groups of soldiers like there was in Iraq. It's more of a traditional, man on man fight.

A troop surge is absolutely the way to go in Afghanistan. The safety of our soldiers should always be paramount. Keep your head down and stay safe. You are a true American hero !

[vundy33]

:Thumbs:

Thanks, but the real "hero's" are the guys who never get to come back and see there kids and families. Even the reporters are hero's in my eyes for going over there with no military whatsoever just to get the story out. The reporters are well aware of how often they get kidnapped yet they still go. Has anyone see the reporter on CNN with the British accent that is over in Afghanistan doing his own thing...he doesn't even run with the U.S. like the guy that hosts AC360. He is the best of the best IMO.

[Old School]

According the this article, U.S. Commanders and military leaders are becoming frustrated with the White House.

WASHINGTON — Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan , the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who're trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/200909...hy/3315192

[vundy33]

That sounds an awful like the situation our CIA, JSOC, and SF guys were in through the months of 0ct.-Dec. of 2001 when they were asking for actual regular Army troops to stop Bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan.

[CatDawg]

Well, from what I know about it we need more. My unit is going in November to replace Ft. Bragg's 82nd Airborne Division's 4th BCT. There deployment was extended from 12 months to 14 months. That shows how serious the situation over there is and how bad we need elite light infantry and cavalry units like mine there. Again, a big misconception of Americans is that the Taliban is like the insurgents in Iraq and they're not at all. They are organized and attack with good weapons and strategy. Unlike Iraq, a troop surge in Afghanistan would cause less U.S. deaths. A big argument about the troop surge in Iraq was that the more soldiers in Iraq the more targets they're would be. Well, Afghanistan is different. There is not near as many suicide bombers in cities that kill groups of soldiers like there was in Iraq. It's more of a traditional, man on man fight.

I've long thought that we needed more feet on the ground but isn't the major reason that we had so many casualties in July and August due to the new offensive and the additional numbers on the ground. I would agree that overall the lose would be less but I feel in the short time that we need to expect those umbers to be high until we gain full control of areas in the south especially.

[CatDawg]

:Thumbs:

Thanks, but the real "hero's" are the guys who never get to come back and see there kids and families. Even the reporters are hero's in my eyes for going over there with no military whatsoever just to get the story out. The reporters are well aware of how often they get kidnapped yet they still go. Has anyone see the reporter on CNN with the British accent that is over in Afghanistan doing his own thing...he doesn't even run with the U.S. like the guy that hosts AC360. He is the best of the best IMO.

I know whom your speaking of but I can't remember his name for some reason. Just last week the vehicle that he was in was hit by an IED.

[vundy33]

I've long thought that we needed more feet on the ground but isn't the major reason that we had so many casualties in July and August due to the new offensive and the additional numbers on the ground. I would agree that overall the lose would be less but I feel in the short time that we need to expect those umbers to be high until we gain full control of areas in the south especially.

I don't think so. I think it is because we're are fighting a badass organized force. Don't get me wrong, they are nothing compared to us. They just know that territory so much better and it's easy for them to get one or two of us every day. Just remember, for every one of us they kill we kill about 10 of them.

[CatDawg]

I agree with you on that and if we are going to gain full control we need more boots on the ground. I just think that once we started adding those boots it gave them more targets and brought our loses up.