TB & WT,

Nice last posts. Despite my last two, I feel the same general way and always have believed we were closer to agreement than miles apart, but the format does invite sniping, frustration, assumptions, etc.

Merry Christams All!

WT,

Again, please learn to read!!

I recommended you talk to actual warriors to get a feel for the violence --- not support from over there OR from over here!

Now, stick that and smoke it!

There you go again, WT!

Parsing and attacking, attacking and parsing.

Grow up! You can't have it both ways ---- either you think they are professionals, or you don't. Your posted words, to date, show a high bias against the armed forces. Your left-handed comments, etc. are demeaning, and your attacks on the rest of us are uncalled for.

Have another sip of chardonnay and tell us again how inferior we are and how superior you are ---- go on, keep saying it. Like Carville teaches, if you say it 100 times it becomes the truth!

T.B.:

"So we both agree that there’s stress related to the work our armed forces does, but disagree about whether it’s decreasing our troops fighting capability. Sounds fair to me. I was also happy to see you implicitly agree that there is an acceptable level of stress, we just disagree as to where that line gets drawn."

Yes on both counts. Finally we understand each other!

"As for the 15 year comment, I think that we will be in Afghanistan (and Iraq) for many, many years in a support and training mission. I have no problem with this if (as stated earlier) Afghans and Iraqis take the lead in the fight and relieve the burden from our forces. You seem to have glossed over that part. I’ve never advocated for 15 years of the status quo.

I think too we will be in Afghanistan and probably Iraq for many years to come. My fear is that it will be in the same role. I acknowledged the fact that you didn't advocate for 15 years of the status quo. My statment was, "that people who support having our troops in places like Afghanistan for 15-20 years, which you have previously said is ok with you UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS," The "under certain conditions" is what I meant for this.

I'll try to watch the condescending comments in the future. I know I tend to do this when I get frustrated. :}

Anon ONE:

No kidding! The Foot Hood shooting really is the height of irony, isn't it?

Suicidal feelings still hold a stigma tho, especially in traditionally macho organizations such as the military. It's hard for male soldiers to admit the hopeless and helpless emotions that accompany suicidal thoughts, considering it a sign of weakness. Females do too, just less so and they're more likely to seek treatment.

There's a lot of reasons why a comparison between the two conflicts wouldn't be relevant, and you just raised another one. There's too many factors that would muddy the results--volunteer vs. conscript troops, women in combat roles now that weren't present in the past, the recognition of PTSD and improvements in the diagnosis of depression post-1973, and as you added, improvements in forensics that can identify cases that would have previously gone undetected.

My understanding is that the military has kept much better records following this stuff since the draft ended, so most comparisons I've seen encompass the last 30 years or so. There is info of this kind on Vietnam, Korea, etc., but I don't think it would be very useful to us today.

What the? on December 16, 2009 9:16 AM
Post traumatic stress disorder wasn't officially recognized by the APA until sometime in the 1980s, and this alone is one root cause of suicides or suicidal attempts. It stands to reason better detection would lead to better reporting.

T.B. on December 16, 2009 10:20 AM I also wonder if cultural changes play a part. For instance, was the military more willing in the past to report suicides as KIA for the sake of the family?

_________________________

WT, and TB. I think it is going to be very difficult to compare suicide rates throughout the most recent conflicts due to the factors you point out. With increased medical capabilities I would have also thought there would be increased capabilities to help evaluate, determine, and diagnose those soldiers on the brink of suicide so they could be prevented. Of course one of those psychiatrists charged with this type of evaluation is the guy who shot the soldiers at Fort Hood!

What The ? –

So we both agree that there’s stress related to the work our armed forces does, but disagree about whether it’s decreasing our troops fighting capability. Sounds fair to me. I was also happy to see you implicitly agree that there is an acceptable level of stress, we just disagree as to where that line gets drawn. In your past remarks you seemed to imply that any level was unacceptable.

I think there’s been ample discussion above about how the US needs our allies to more fully support the Afghan mission. Also, I and others pointed out how we have tens of thousands of troops sitting in places like Korea, Germany, Kosovo, etc which could be put to better use in places like Afghanistan to lesson the burden on our troops there. Again, we need NATO and the UN to accept more of the work we’ve been doing for 50 years or more. The drawdown in Iraq should also help lesson the burden on our military.

As for the 15 year comment, I think that we will be in Afghanistan (and Iraq) for many, many years in a support and training mission. I have no problem with this if (as stated earlier) Afghans and Iraqis take the lead in the fight and relieve the burden from our forces. You seem to have glossed over that part. I’ve never advocated for 15 years of the status quo.

I don’t think I attacked you or was being defensive. I think your comments were (at the least) condescending in that Anon and I needed to be “educated” to your POV, as if there was only one correct opinion. You could have said that you have some links which we may find interesting on this topic. Instead you said that we should check them out “if you're interested in educating yourself”, implying that we were uneducated on the matter because we disagreed with you. Maybe that’s not what you intended. I think as I’ve shown above we can agree on some points and perhaps better communication would have brought us to this point earlier.

**********

Anon One –

Interesting point. Perhaps the shear number of casualties in wars such as WWII also deterred the military from examining the cause of death more closely? I also wonder if cultural changes play a part. For instance, was the military more willing in the past to report suicides as KIA for the sake of the family?

I think this attitude played a (very) small part in the Pat Tilman incident. Mostly the military didn’t want to admit the friendly fire error and they wanted the hero status for propaganda and recruitment, but I have to think in a small way they also wanted to spare the family further pain in their time of loss and grief.

Just a thought.

T.B.

Anonymous ONE:

It's very possible that forensic techniques used today are catching suicides that previously went undetected or were attributed to enemy fire. Post traumatic stress disorder wasn't officially recognized by the APA until sometime in the 1980s, and this alone is one root cause of suicides or suicidal attempts. It stands to reason better detection would lead to better reporting.

Forgot to mention this:

I'm aware that a volunteer force is referred to as a "professional" force, but I think you're applying the term literally; I am not. I've always seen the terms "volunteer" and "professional" used interchangeably. My understanding is that the term "professional" is used to differentiate volunteers from conscripts. A "professional" force is a standing army that trains all the time, even in times of peace whereas conscripts are trained in times of need. Just because an army is called professional doesn't mean they're better; there have been times when conscript armies have triumphed over "professional" troops.

This is why I don't consider an army "professional" just by virtue of being volunteers. It seems to me you are using the term "professional" as a way of declaring, hey, our troops may be stressed and overwhelmed, but they're professionals, they can handle it! I'm saying no, the strain is taking it's toll. Just because they're a volunteer force doesn't make them impervious to this. Moot point now, but maybe this explains the confusion. Or maybe it's just "Clintonesque parsing" that's hiding my "real agenda". Whatever.

Anon:

You and T.B. are really going off the deep end over this. You're bringing out a lot of strange accusations that have nothing at all to do with the discussion--first "real agenda", "disingenuous comments" and "elitist attitude" from T.B. and now "Clintonesque" and "parsing" from you. Is this what you guys typically do when someone doesn't fall into lockstep--attack and defect? Like I've said before, believe what you want. Your beliefs are in the minority and thank God they are, or our troops would be in a hell of a lot of trouble.

And I have said multiple times (can YOU read?) that I do consider our troops to be professionals/experts. I just don't consider them to be professionals "via the fact that they are volunteers"--YOUR exact words. I've asked you twice to explain your POV on this and you either won't or can't, so further discussion is a waste of time.

And FYI, I DO have an extended family member in the military--the nurse in Texas. She has never seen active combat but has treated MANY of the returning service men that have for the past few years. Our families shared a beach house in Florida this past summer for a week and we spent a lot of time talking about this very subject. Part of my opinions on this are formed by what I hear in the media, the other part was formed by what I heard from her. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Clintonesque on your parsing of words --- next we will be debating what is the meaning of the word “is”.

Under any sane definition of the word professional”, we have a professional armed forces, For some reason, you cannot or will not grasp this --- your bad, not mine. Parse all you want, but we have the best, MOST TRAINED, professional fighting force ever. If you cannot understand the difference twixt volunteers versus a draft, and the idea that a volunteer force is identified worldwide as a professional force, then I really don’t know what the next step is for you.

Simply put, our armed forces are volunteers who, by free choice, are engaging in training and activities as an occupation (whether it be just for money, or money and training, or those plus schooling ---- hmmm, sounds just like an accountant to me) as a means of livelihood or gain that others tend to engage in as a hobby, pastime, or by force (ie draft). I see our armed forces as experts, you don’t.

Nothing really left to argue about, is there?

[last note: I highly encourage you, as I do others, to try and find a person who has engaged on battle in the ME (not army corps of engineers, not buildng schools, etc) and ask tem if they can even attempt to describe the violence of it all. If you are lucky enough to find someone who does, you will understand completely why suicides, etc. go up during a war and especially after multiple deployments.]

T.B.:

"After eight years of war I don’t think there’s anyone on the planet who doubts there’s a higher level of stress in our current military; however, that doesn’t mean the level is not within acceptable limits or that the stress level is decreasing our military’s fighting capability."

I think the current stress level IS decreasing our military's fighting capability. Anything that takes a heavy toll emotionally and psychologically is going to decrease performance. I don't know if the military considers the stress levels within acceptable limits or not, but my point is even if stress levels were NOT within acceptable limits there is not much the army can do about it. They cannot cut back on the number of deployments soldiers are being required to make because there are not enough volunteers joining the army to make this an option. The only thing the military can do is provide awareness programs about suicide and PTSD before a deployment and follow up with appropriate mental health care after a deployment. What would be optimal is having a lot more soldiers so the burden could be spread out over a larger population and thus cutting the deployment demands on each individual. But since our military is dependent on volunteers, we have to make do with what we have. We can't just pull out some draft numbers when we need more soldiers like in the old days.

If Afghanistan and Iraq were short and quick conflicts then this wouldn't be an issue. But when these things drag on for YEARS like these have, that's when the strain really begins to show. Iraq was suppose to be a quick in-and-out shock-and-awe that has dragged on for over 6 years now. Afghanistan has become endless. It's a lot easier getting into these countries than getting out, obviously. The military knows the troop strain is showing, there's just not much more they can do about it that they're not already doing. These situations are what they are.

I'm going to pass on your comments about my "real agenda" and "disingenuous comments" and "elitist attitude" as it's apparent you've become defensive and are looking to find fault. Plus I really don't care. I do think, tho, that people who support having our troops in places like Afghanistan for 15-20 years, which you have previously said is ok with you under certain conditions, are minimizing the harm these kind of prolonged commitments do when we only have a small pool of volunteers on which to draw. Sure, our troops are better trained than any in the past, but they're still human, not avatars. They can't take lickings and keep on ticking indefinitely no matter how well trained and educated they are. And I think a lot of Americans expect them to do just that.

I'm just catching up on this chain and was wondering if there is a number that represents suicide rates per 1000 soldiers? This would lead to a more accurate comparison between the various conflicts. (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afgh.)

I also have no basis for this next question other than curiosity, but I am wondering if the current forensic techniques in place (2009)now are inflating the differences that may be found in suicide deaths? Currently (2009) I believe full autopsies are performed on any soldier killed. The techniques in place today, for the most part, tell us exactly how someone died. I do not believe these forensic techniques were in place during WWII, Korea or Vietnam? The result "could" be that suicide went unreported or unknown and simply classified as enemy attack? I understand that this can probably never be determined, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss. I truly don't have any hidden agenda, or am not trying to make a case one way or another, but was just curious.

What The ? –

I don’t know if you can’t comprehend my point or if you’re purposely twisting things for your own enjoyment.

After eight years of war I don’t think there’s anyone on the planet who doubts there’s a higher level of stress in our current military; however, that doesn’t mean the level is not within acceptable limits or that the stress level is decreasing our military’s fighting capability. Does it mean they may need more help or support in the field and when they return home? Definitely, I believe they do.

But I have some real news for you – if you send troops into combat there are going to be casualties of both the battlefield and psychological kind. It’s unavoidable. Yes, it’s sad but the only way to reduce casualties (of all kinds) to the level you apparently deem acceptable is to bring all the troops home now and confine them to their barracks. But maybe that’s your real agenda?

“I'm not comparing the current suicide rate to the other wars of the past 30 years, the military is.”

This statement is disingenuous, What The?. If you weren’t making this comparison, then why did you bring up that statistic? The fact is you sited this because it fit your agenda and when Anon and I pointed out how it may not be valid to what’s going on now you backed off and said you weren’t making the comparison, the military was. Please.

“To compare suicide rates in the military when we had the draft against when we don't would be fundamentally flawed”

I don’t think it would be fundamentally flawed at all. I think it would be very valid to compare the current suicide rate to that of WWII, Korea, or Vietnam when our military had similar sustained (and multiple) deployments. I think it’s vital that we understand what’s happened in the past so we can apply those lessons now.

I also don’t think that disagreeing with you is “denial”, as you stated to Anon, but this statement fits with your previous elitist attitude that those who disagree with you need to educate themselves. You’re right and everyone else is uneducated, huh?

T.B.

O.J.:

True, Obama doesn't agree with you on that. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Anon:

I really did not intend to irritate you so, but I am really confused on where you stand on this.

You made previous statements saying, I thought, pretty definitively that our armed forces were professionals by virtue of being volunteers. Is that not what you meant when you stated:

"There is a major difference between a professional (ie volunteer)armed forces and a draft"? and "our fighting force is made up of professionals via the fact that they are volunteers"?

I'm not denying our military are professionals, I'm saying I don't believe they're "professionals via the fact that they are volunteers". Are you now saying "professionals" and "volunteers" are two different things? I can read just fine but your comments appear contradictory. I'm not denying your POV. I just can't figure out what the hell it is.

And I agree our forces are better trained now than in the past. But this is due to advances in combat technology; it's not attributable to the fact that our military is made of volunteers.

Here is T.B.'s denial--look at his last post above. "I don’t believe the current level of stress is adversely affecting the fighting capability of our armed services." This is the crux of our disagreement. You kept aligning your comments with T.B.'s so I thought you were agreeing with this.

You have cited domestic violence statistics from a group called the Miles Foundation. I don't know what these figures mean because there is no baseline for comparison or any data beyond 2001. Afghanistan began in 2001, Iraq in 2003. The period of time I'm referring to is 2001-present, so this data isn't relevant to our discussion.

The points you mention on suicide are relevant, however:

>In 2009, for the first time the Army has a suicide rate that probably equals or exceeds that of the general population (Army only)

FOR THE FIRST TIME? PROBABLY equals or exceeds? These are broad and generalized statements, but I think you're on the right track. And yes, it does apply to the army only.

>1/3 of those who submit to suicide have ZERO deployment history (this shocked me)

I noticed this also and it surprised me as well. Troubled individuals exist everywhere and they don't have to be under combat stress to go off their nut. Look at the history of postal workers for an example.

>The suicide rate in the Army is ALMOST, but not quite, at the levels that we had during teh Viet Nam era.

ALMOST is bad enough, considering that during Vietnam most recruits were drafted. I can see suicide rates being high among individuals who didn't want to be there in the first place, but among those who thought they knew what they were getting into and volunteered for it? I think this is the most damning statement of all. What does this say to you?

Regarding your last question: "Without a doubt war, and the multiple deployments, HAS to have a negative effect on the psyche of the individuals involved with a result of higher instances of irrational, sometimes violent behavior against self and others."

Yes, I agree. And since this war has a higher than normal number of multiple deployments, it stands to reason that the negative effects of these are multiplied as well. T.B., what say you?

P.S. Regarding the NYT piece, I didn't say it was gospel, it was just an op-ed that appeared in that paper on the same day we were discussing it, so I linked it. Being in the NYT doesn't make something gospel, but it shouldn't make it irrelevant, either.

To " What the? on December 14, 2009 12:03 PM"

The difference being, I wanted us back home in early 2002. Looks like Obama doesn't agree with me on that one.

T.B.:

"However, I don’t believe the current level of stress is adversely affecting the fighting capability of our armed services. The question then becomes a matter of how much is too much and this is really where I think we differ."

Yes, this is definitely where we differ. All the info and numbers I'm talking about come directly from the military itself. These are studies THEY have done on their own recruits, and the military has been following these stats for the past 30 years. The media isn't making this stuff up, they're getting it directly from the armed forces.

If the military is reporting our troops are under a higher than usual amount of stress, which they determine by following the number of suicides, cases of PTSD, domestic and other violence, reported cases of depression, etc., and they determine that there is a causality between length of service and multiple deployments and these problems, then I tend to believe them. If the military reports there have been more suicides among enlisted men this year than were killed in action in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the same time period, I believe them. Why in the world would they possibly make this up? Don't argue it with me, argue it with the military.

"You’re comparing the current suicide rate to the other wars of the past 30 years? Really? Do you think eight years of war can really be compared to Grenada, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War (where ground combat lasted 100 hours)? Perhaps you’d do better to compare the current suicide rate to Vietnam, Korea, and WWII. Those stats, as well as the current re-enlistment rate, would be more telling."

Like I said, I'm not comparing the current suicide rate to the other wars of the past 30 years, the military is. They compared Iraq and Afghanistan to Grenada, Kosovo and the Gulf War. During Vietnam, Korea and WWII we had the draft. Conscription ended in 1973 when Vietnam did. The military is only comparing the stats of conflicts that have occurred since we've had a volunteer force. To compare suicide rates in the military when we had the draft against when we don't would be fundamentally flawed. You'd have to control for this variable to have the data mean anything. I'm sure this is why the military isn't bringing conscription data into the current equation.

"The all volunteer force is better educated than the average citizen of the same age and better educated than the draftees we had during the Vietnam War. This goes back to my belief that a volunteer is going to be a better soldier than a draftee."

I still don't know about this; draftees were high school graduates too. Kids were drafted fresh out of high school for Vietnam. I do agree that volunteers are more motivated, they're not content to work a window at McDonald's and prefer to do something with their lives, even if it involves risk. I'm sure that's a trait most of our volunteers share. So it makes sense that motivated people are more likely to complete their education than unmotivated ones.

I thought the military required a high school diploma, however, or a GED or equivalency certificate, up until recently when they were required to lower standards to keep army ranks filled. Look at this:

January 2008: Army recruits with diplomas hit 25-year low:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/23/army_recruits_with_diplomas_hit_25_year_low/

And this is interesting:

Minimum Required ASVAB Scores and Education Level:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm

This site says that it is virtually impossible to get into the marines, navy or air force without a high school diploma, but the army will accept non-graduates. These are the guys who see ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and these are the positions the military is having more trouble filling.

So I'm not sure that just comparing the number of high school diplomas in our military to that of the general population is accurate. If a high school diploma is required to get into three out of the four branches, this explains why more of our military have high school diplomas. Our military is not more educated because they're volunteers, they're more educated because most of the military will only accept them that way. It seems to me you're putting the cart before the horse here.

OJ:

"There's room enough to let some have their way, their destiny in their own lands, while protecting our own."

It looks like you and Obama agree. This sounds like the strategy he talked about in his West Point speech.

You have me so irritated that I am clicking away on this little 8 sq inch piece of technology that I can barely see to get data on teh run.

To wit:

Domestic violence occurences in the Military:
>1990 = 18.9 per 1000
>1996 = 25.6 per 1000
>1998 = 29.1 per 1000
>2001 = 24.6 per 1000
(1996 & 1990 from the Miles Foundation, 1998 & 2001 from in2uract, a therapist journal)

I could find no info for current years. My gut would tell me it is probably at the higher of the range, but having this data allows me to see the gauge any data on current rates 9ie relativity)

Suicide rates in the military:
>In 2009, for the first time the Army has a suicide rate that probably equals or exceed that of the general population (Army only)
>1/3 of those who submit to suicide have ZERO deployment history (this shocked me)
>The suicide rate in the Army is ALMOST, but not quite, at the levels that we had during teh Viet Nam era.

As TB states, "I don’t doubt that more members of the military committed suicide in 2009 than in the past 28 years. We’re at war. Have you noticed?". We both agree with him, yet I found no need to be insulting!

One last time: Without a doubt war, and the multiple deployments, HAS to have a negative effect on the psyche of the individuals involved with a result of higher instances of irrational, sometimes violent behavior against self and others.

Are the three of us agreed on this or not?

I just caught up on your post to TB ----Can you even read WT?

Did either of us, anywhere, deny the stress of war? Really, come on now ---- show us all where we wrote that, okay? In fact, I asked for specifics and a "relativity index" (hard to decipher info without having a context), and TB wrote "I don’t doubt that more members of the military committed suicide in 2009 than in the past 28 years. We’re at war. Have you noticed?"

So again, where is the denial here?

It is with YOU, WT ----- you deny the POV of anyone else. You are an idealogue who appears, at this point, to be incapable of a decent discussion. When a real discussion starts, you resort to catty comments, go on the attack, and insult. You should be ashamed. I am sorry I tried to even have a decent discussion with you.

Congratulations (almost)! You at first seem to be applying yourself toward the POV of someone besides yourself. Then BAM! You miss it by only reading/quoting part of that other person's POV! See below two statements I wrote:

1)Let me turn up the volume: THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS, THEY ARE PROFESSIONSLS, THEY ARE BETTER TRAINED, AND BETTER AT THEIR JOB, THAN ANY DRAFTED ARMY WE HAVE EVER HAD.
2)the professional forces do a superior job! They are bettwr trained, smarter, and committed.

Even a brief review of them shows I am pretty acute to point out training, smarts, and committment as clear differentiators between a professional armed forces and an all-volunteer force. There is no mention of the volunteer forces not having professionals (one big misconception of past forces is that there were no or little volunteers back then ---- there were.)

Now, I say they are better trained now (and back in 2001) because of a simple fact: They are. They have better equipment, better training, and better educations (this is all researchable AND you can simply walk up and talk to any 20 year vet you may know) I do agree that experience counts for an awful lot, and they are getting experience in spades. I think we BOTH agree they are getting too much.

I never dismissed the NYT piece ----- just pointing out being in the NYT does NOT make it gospel. By the way, a "relativity" factor would be a comparision of all the issues you posted versus SOMETHING (say, 10 year averages, other similar financal times, etc). Why you are shocked that someone trying to analyze something would want a comparative is beyond me.

Your short temper and bad attitude and nasty innuendos on the "proof" is uncalled for --- I was asking for it. Get over yourself, please. This is supposed to be a blog, not an idealogue war! As I wrote earlier, Thanks for the links and I will look at them. I could do without youre nasty attitude toward asking for it, though.

What The ? –

“the longer the war, the more extended the time in service, the more deployments the higher the suicide rate--and divorces and other psychological problems.”

I happen to agree. It’s kind of like saying that if we lower the speed limit less people will die in car crashes. But the speed limit you find acceptable, others may not.

I don’t think anyone here is a "military stress denier" (your words) so I don’t know if you don’t understand my point or are purposefully distorting it. A certain amount of stress is inherent in the work our military does and it’s absolutely inevitable in combat. However, I don’t believe the current level of stress is adversely affecting the fighting capability of our armed services. The question then becomes a matter of how much is too much and this is really where I think we differ.

You’re comparing the current suicide rate to the other wars of the past 30 years? Really? Do you think eight years of war can really be compared to Grenada, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War (where ground combat lasted 100 hours)? Perhaps you’d do better to compare the current suicide rate to Vietnam, Korea, and WWII. Those stats, as well as the current re-enlistment rate, would be more telling.

“So more recruits have high school diplomas now. Good for them, but what's your point?”

The all volunteer force is better educated than the average citizen of the same age and better educated than the draftees we had during the Vietnam War. This goes back to my belief that a volunteer is going to be a better soldier than a draftee.

The education stats I provided were from 2006, well before the economy tanked yet well after we’d been at war. The economy was still doing well in 2006 and the unemployment rate was between 4.4 and 4.8%. This is a time period that recruits could hardly be said to have been “flocking” to the military for lack of other options. Also, we’d been at war for years at the time so the recruits knew there was definitely the possibility of being deployed (and multiple deployments) yet these motivated people still chose the military.

Please spare me your elitist “if you're interested in educating yourself” comments. Tell me, What The ?, do you think an educated person can come to a different conclusion than you, or is someone who disagrees with you just ignorant and in need of being educated?

T.B.

The only reason we are still 'at war' is because we choose to be. The people who had anything to do with 9/11 are long dead and gone, save for one who is not worth the billions of dollars and thousands of lives being spent to 'hunt them down'. This has spilled over to a war of ideology where we want to kill every last living soul who thinks that spreading 'their form' of governance is the answer to making peace in the world because it goes against OUR idea that spreading our form of governance is the ideal way to make peace on earth. Please, brush up on your history and take a moment to understand ' the enemy ' beyond what Fox news, Cnn, ABC, NBC, and the rest spoon feed you.

Your service people deserve people. There's room enough to let some have their way, their destiny in their own lands, while protecting our own.

This has grown beyond stupid and a waste of time. In the meantime, enjoy the debt hole it has created and enjoy the sinking economy that will continue regardless of whatever short-term propping up dumb stimulus program comes from the white house. We repeated the same economic mistake of the Soviets in the 80's... we're just too 'proud' to admit it at the moment.

I hope you personally have an exit strategy.

T.B.:

The jobless are flocking to the military because we're currently in the worst recession since the Great one and unemployment is hovering at around 10%. Haven't you noticed?

So more recruits have high school diplomas now. Good for them, but what's your point? It takes far more than a high school diploma to command a livable wage. The construction, factory and other blue collar jobs that high school graduates used to go directly into are disappearing. We're not manufacturing much anymore, and what manufacturing we still do is being outsourced to other countries. So a high school diploma doesn't get one very far, higher education is needed to earn a decent living. And many recruits join the military to get this.

The only thing your data tells me about recruits is that they're not content to spend their lives asking "do you want fries with that?" and they're willing to do military service as a way to continue their education and learn marketable skills. This has nothing to do with the fact that many individuals who only have a high school diploma and can't find work are turning to military service as a viable option to earn a living at this time.

Read the links I posted above, the CNN one discusses this very issue. And look at the graphs in the "army suicide report 2009" link. The U.S. has been involved in shorter "wars" of the non-declared type in the past 30 years or so and the graphs compare the suicide rates of these conflicts to the current ones. The graphs are clear: the longer the war, the more extended the time in service, the more deployments the higher the suicide rate--and divorces and other psychological problems.

To tell you the truth, I'm really surprised to find two "military stress deniers". I've never heard anyone deny this problem before, it's been openly admitted by the military and discussed in the media for so long it's common knowledge, or at least I thought it was. You guys are the first people I've ever come across that seem to think this isn't a problem in our military.

Like I told Anon, if you're interested in educating yourself about this it's extremely easy to do because there is so much out there about it, you don't need me giving you links to find it. If it makes you feel better to believe this isn't happening, then go right ahead. All that matters is that the military acknowledges it and is taking steps to deal with it and give our troops the help they need. But I feel silly arguing this; to me it's like a flat earth discussion. I know the earth is round. Believe what you want.

What The? –

I don’t doubt that more members of the military committed suicide in 2009 than in the past 28 years. We’re at war. Have you noticed?

I believe this is something that is to be expected unless you want to confine our troops to their barracks. War causes stress and some people react negatively to that stress. But does this necessarily mean that the troops are strained to the breaking point, or is this normal given combat situations? There were suicides during non-war years, weren’t there? What caused that?

According to the Congressional Budget Office in July 2007, the all-volunteer military “…has attracted a greater proportion of recruits with high school diplomas or with [Armed Forces Qualification Test] scores at or above the median than in the youth population as a whole or than the services obtained through the draft during the Vietnam War. In 2006, 91 percent of recruits were high school graduates, compared with 80 percent of U.S. residents ages 18 to 24. Moreover, 69 percent of recruits scored at or above the 50th percentile (relative to the overall U.S. youth population) on the qualification test.” (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8313&type=0&sequence=1)

So it appears that after 9/11 and before the economy soured the military was attracting recruits who were better educated than the general population. How does this fit with your thoughts that the jobless are “flocking” to the military?

Yes, I disregarded the NY Times op-ed. The Times is biased crap. I treat news and opinions like the Olympics judge some sports—throw out the highest and the lowest scores. Or in this case, throw out what the NY Times (and possibly CBS) has to say and throw out what Fox has to say and you may get the truth. I said “may”….

T.B.

To Anonymous on December 13, 2009 12:14 PM:

What have you guys got against the New York Times? The issue the op-ed discusses would be the same no matter what publication it appeared in.

Sure I consider another person's POV, I'm doing so right now in discussing it. I agree that our troops are professionals in what they do. I disagree that they are professionals simply by virtue of being volunteers. Isn't this what you meant when you said "There is a major difference between a professional (ie volunteer)armed forces and a draft"? and "our fighting force is made up of professionals via the fact that they are volunteers"? The training they receive makes them professionals, not their enlistment status. Draftees can be professionals as well. I would be very interested in hearing why you believe volunteers are professionals but draftees are not.

I also agree that our military right now is more seasoned and better at their job than in the past, but I think this is in large part a result of increased length of time in service and multiple deployments, not their volunteer status. If you disagree with this as well, I would be very interested in hearing why.

No, you did not mention our troops were super heroes, but you did give me that impression. Just like you say I gave the impression that our troops are "down on their luck SOBs with nowhere else to turn" when I said nothing of the kind. These were T.B.'s words, not mine. My quote was "MANY of our citizens have joined the military as a last resort. Military enlistments have increased far above normal levels since the economy crashed last fall. Workers who saw construction and manufacturing jobs evaporate with the crash have joined the military in order to feed their families. There are more of these kind of enlistments now than ever before." What I said is a far cry from "down on their luck SOBs".

And you need a "relativity index" to prove that soldiers suffer from divorce, PTSD, domestic violence, suicide? Seriously? How could you possibly have missed all this? Look, this stuff is really easy to substantiate online. Google "military suicides" and you'll get a whole bunch of stuff like this:

http://current.com/items/91663788_u-s-marine-suicide-rates-01-09.htm

Google "Obama military suicides" and you'll get this quote from the campaign back in '08 when it was being discussed then:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/obama_cites_mil.html

Google "army suicide report 2009" and you'll tons of links showing that more members of the military committed suicide in 2009 than in the previous 28 years. The army is conducting in-service training programs to combat it. There are lots of graphs, you may even find a relativity index. I see no reason why the army would make this up.

Do the same for military PTSD, military divorce rates, military domestic violence, military murders, etc. etc.

And as far as the jobless flocking to enlist in the military, here's a sample:

Jobless flock to sign up for the military

The anemic job market, an increase in sign-on bonuses and new attitudes towards military service are proving to be a winning combination for recruiting.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/16/news/economy/military_jobs/index.htm

Or this:

High unemployment means high military recruitment

http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11498925

It has been my experience with blogging that when someone who disagrees with me asks for "proof" and I provide it, they then summarily dismiss it, just like you and T.B. dismissed the New York Times piece, because they don't like the source, or the author, or whatever. So I've linked to a wide array of sources. You can dismiss them all if you like, but what I have provided is just the tip of a very abundant iceberg on these subjects. Acknowledge it or not, it's up to you.

TB is right --- you must get your source material is the NY Times, and we'll never see eye-to-eye on this subject!

Really --- romanticize? Do you ever even consider another person's POV? I have simply stated that they are trained professionals, justlike accountants, doctors, mailmen, nurses, etc. Did any of us ever mention superheroes? No, but YOU have given the impression that they are "down on their luck SOBs with nowhere else to turn", or TB would not have posted that!

I think we all agree that the severity of the deployment issue is paramount and needs to be addressed by the government immediately. The best way to burn out professionals is through overuse and abuse (again, just like any other professional).

Since you stress all of these higher rates of bad things, could you follow through with some specifics with a relativity index so we can see if it is indeed true or is an inconvenient truth like the CO2 issue and the theory of global warming?

Thanks.

T.B.:

Ok, I get your point with the comparison to the French resistance. It's impossible to know what Karzai knows and doesn't want to deal with vs. what he realistically can be expected to do. And he has to choose his battles as well. I think Karzai is just another corrupt, self-serving ruler and I'm more pessimistic than you about what I think can be accomplished in Afghanistan, and Iraq too, for that matter, and this influences my outlook.

As for the military issue, I think I definitely give our troops enough credit, but it seems to me that you (and especially Anon) are romanticizing military service far too much. Anon talks as if our volunteers are these awesomely professional-bordering-on-super-hero soldiers just by virtue of having volunteered. The only difference between volunteers and draftees is a willingness to be there, the rest remains the same. And multiple deployments do make for a seasoned fighting force, but our troops don't volunteer for 4, 5, 6 deployments, in this they do NOT have a choice. The stress of this is shown in their higher rates of suicide, PTSD, divorce, domestic violence, etc. Our rah-rah support of our troops also allows us to ignore their misery.

And you're going to dismiss this problem just because an article about it appeared in the New York Times? If the exact same op-ed had appeared in the Washington Post then it would be valid? The NYT article is just the latest in a stream of articles written on this; it has been going on in the media for MONTHS, even Obama acknowledged it in his Afghan decision speech. Like I said, google it, I'm sure you'll find articles on it from sources you approve of. But by ignoring it, you're doing our troops a huge disservice.

What the? –

To say that Karzai has “allowed” pockets of the insurgency near Kabul is, I believe, erroneous. I think a better statement would be to say that he’s been unable to completely eradicate the insurgency in some areas near Kabul. To say that Karzai is allowing the insurgents to operate near Kabul is like saying the Nazis “allowed” the French resistance to operate near Paris when in reality they just couldn’t stop it from happening.

But, really, that’s the nature of an insurgency. There aren’t hard and fast battle lines like in WWI. The insurgents move into areas vacated by the allied forces for as long as possible. They’re opportunists. That’s why more forces are needed there to take land, hold it, and try to prevent the insurgency from returning. Only then will the locals feel free and safe enough to help us and stand on their own two feet.

As for the troop deployments issue and our volunteer military, I just don’t think you give our men and women enough credit and I stand by my previous post. They’re not all down on their luck SOBs with nowhere else to turn. I think that if your source material is the NY Times, we'll never see eye-to-eye on this subject.

T.B.

T.B.:

I think we're both combining issues. The SEALS are an elite fighting force with highly specialized skills that are called upon in certain circumstances. They are not the average soldiers that are on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq for months on end; that's who I'm referring to here.

Take a look at this op-ed piece in today's New York Times which discusses the problem. I happen to agree with the author. Some poignant excerpts:

"The idea that fewer than 1 percent of Americans are being called on to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we’re sending them into combat again and again and again — for three tours, four tours, five tours, six tours — is obscene. All decent people should object.

The air is filled with obsessive self-satisfied rhetoric about supporting the troops, giving them everything they need and not letting them down. But that rhetoric is as hollow as a jazzman’s drum because the overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire at all to share in the sacrifices that the service members and their families are making. Most Americans do not want to serve in the wars, do not want to give up their precious time to do volunteer work that would aid the nation’s warriors and their families, do not even want to fork over the taxes that are needed to pay for the wars.

The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. We’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than we fought in World Wars I and II combined. If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08herbert.html

And yes, MANY of our citizens have joined the military as a last resort. Military enlistments have increased far above normal levels since the economy crashed last fall. Workers who saw construction and manufacturing jobs evaporate with the crash have joined the military in order to feed their families. There are more of these kind of enlistments now than ever before.

True, I misspoke about saying Karzai "allowed" the Taliban into the Swat Valley. What I was referring to was his indifference to this event. He has allowed pockets of insurgency to exist around Kabul for quite some time, which is a stone's throw from the Swat Valley region. The U.S. feared the Taliban was going to "connect the dots" from Pakistan right into the heart of Kabul. Hillary Clinton had to pay Karzai a visit to get him to actually give a damn, remember?

What the? –

“I do see the Taliban coming back like they did previously. Look at how quickly they took over the Swat Valley and beyond when Karzai allowed it.”

Karzai didn’t allow the Taliban back into the Swat valley because the Swat valley is in Pakistan--not Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, I think the Afghans are going to have to include the Taliban (in some form) in a future government. At least, I think they’re going to have to try.

“They both [volunteer and draftee] would have chosen something else if they could have”

I disagree with your premise that our military volunteers are there as a last resort. I’m sure this happens on occasion, but I think it’s more the exception than the rule.

“many have been kept in the military way past what is considered a reasonable commitment because the military doesn't have enough volunteers to let them go.”

You seem to be combining issues like individual ready reserve (IRR) and extended or multiple deployments. Yes, extended and multiple deployments can take a toll on the men and women in harms way. That’s why we try to get them back to the states for extended periods, too.

However, the multiple deployments and being on the IRR is what they signed up for--it's part of their committment. We’ve been at war for 8 years, so there’s nobody in the military now who didn’t know what they were getting into when they signed up. This isn’t like in 2001 when we started calling up reservists and guardsmen who only joined for the monthly checks and never expected to actually be asked to fight (which was a dumb assumption by them, by the way).

And contrary to your thinking, there are those that join the military to be professional soldiers and don’t care to use the military solely to acquire skills for another job. There are many career non-commissioned officers who take pride in leading and training our men. And the people who love to fight on our behalf that you think have a screw loose, I think there’s a word for that—SEALS.

T.B.

T.B.and Anon:

True, T.B., and that's what I said above--"I do agree that a volunteer would make a better soldier than a draftee dragged in kicking and screaming and that multiple deployments make for very experienced and seasoned troops".

Anon stated "A pro has made a life choice, a commitment just like everyone else to a job." I guess I took the phrase "life choice" to mean "choice for life", like one would choose soldiering as their life work, like medicine or another profession which requires years of training (and yes, Anon, the same bad puns occurred to me but I showed restraint and did not go there!) Aside from the issue of choice, I don't see how a new recruit who volunteers would be considered more of a "professional" than one who was drafted. Both come in knowing nothing about soldiering, both are trained to do their jobs, both serve committed time and then (hopefully) return to civilian life. So why is, say, someone who joins the military because they need a job considered a professional soldier while a draftee is not? They both would have chosen something else if they could have, they both do the same job while there. I don't see the difference.

And I know committed time is fungible, but since we have a volunteer force, turnover during times of conflict is not as rapid as it would be under a draft. I have been aware of all the reports over the past several months about the stress these multiple deployments put on troops. Members of the military are showing extraordinarily high rates of divorce and suicide; Obama mentioned the current high suicide rate among enlisted men during his Afghanistan decision speech. This is what is meant when it is said our prolonged military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is stressing our troops to the breaking point. I have even read of lawsuits being filed by soldiers against the military because of multiple deployments, many have been kept in the military way past what is considered a reasonable commitment because the military doesn't have enough volunteers to let them go. You guys really need to google this and look into it, I'm really surprised you're not aware of how big a problem this has become.

And there might be 2 million enlisted folks, but not all of them are combat troops. My guess is a lot of them are doing jobs that are combat-related but don't actually see combat. A member of my extended family is a nurse in the military stationed in Texas. She's been in for a couple of years and has never been close to any kind of combat situation. Aside from lifers like McCrystal, most folks join the military as a means to another end, it is not considered an end in itself (bad pun alert). My husband has been a professional chemist for 23 years. I can't imagine there is anyone in the military who plans to be a professional foot soldier risking life and limb in Afghanistan for 23 years, unless they have a lot of loose screws.

So you've talked to all of them and you know this? Yo have an intimate knowledge of their life and you know all of this!

Let me turn up the volume: THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS, THEY ARE PROFESSIONSLS, THEY ARE BETTER TRAINED, AND BETTER AT THEIR JOB, THAN ANY DRAFTED ARMY WE HAVE EVER HAD.

Please don't put words in my mouth: I NEVER said professional soldiers intended to be ones for life (and please, no out of taste puns here). Being a professional does NOT mean you have committed for life. Many DO want their 20 years to get a pension, though. I also think you might want to look at the "re-up" rates in teh services --- you might be surprised.

There are many reasons to be a professional, soldier included. I, for instance, became a pro to pay for schooling, food, cool cars, lifestyle, savings, charitable donations ---- all made possible because I became a pro at something. See how that works? It is a means to an end, an answer to wants & needs, etc.

I am well aware of the issue with multiple deployments and I think it is wrong. I also wonder why the same 150,000 need to be redeployed when there are almost 2 mil in the services. I also wonder why YOU think they can't be let out --- once you serve your committed time ("committed" time is fungible, especially in the case of reserves) you are out of the service. It is basic contract law. Remember, slavery was abolished a long time ago.

What The ? –

While I may not agree with everything Anon posted, I do happen to believe that a volunteer (even not a “lifer”) will make a better soldier than a draftee. I think there are allot of very dedicated troops who chose to join without the intention to be a lifer. Lifers aren’t the only very dedicated soldiers.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at with the statement that the gov won’t let them go…if they still have time on their commitment (even if on individual ready reserve), why should they be let go?

T.B.

T.B.:

So it looks like Karzai is announcing to the U.S. that 18 months won't cut it; he wants a minimum U.S. presence of 5 more years and up to 20 years of financial assistance after that? This sounds like a nightmare we can't wake up and get out of.

I think the U.S. is being played by Karzai big time. Some of the things I've heard going on there are astounding--that about half the money collected in taxes goes directly into the pockets of Karzai and his associates, that Afghans are fighting for the Taliban simply because they will pay them more than the Americans, that the U.S. military has to pay bribes to the Taliban to get supplies to where the troops are stationed, so our troops can then use these supplies to fight the Taliban. Seriously, WTF?! Karzai knows he's got a cash cow and I think he'll milk it for all he can get for as long as we allow it.

I can see 5 years turning into 10, 20 turning into 40, us losing troops and resources while Karzai gets fat and stays in power. I am not ok with this. I wouldn't expect the Afghans to shoulder the lion's share of their own defense for many, many years if at all. As in Iraq, they certainly won't as long as someone else is willing to do it for them.

I do see the Taliban coming back like they did previously. Look at how quickly they took over the Swat Valley and beyond when Karzai allowed it. I'm obviously more pessimistic about Afghanistan than you. I think the whole mess is an exercise in futility and that Karzai is using U.S. fear of the Taliban for his own gain. 18 months is more than enough for a graceful exit.

Anon:

Again, what?

All the folks in the military right are not lifers nor have any intention of being. A lot of them joined the military because it's the only job they could get in this recession. Many people join to get the educational benefits. They would love to get out but the military won't let them go because they don't have other volunteers to fill their boots. That's why they keep getting returned for multiple tours. Don't you know that this is a big problem within the military right now? So I strongly disagree that most have made a life choice to be professional soldiers and make the military their permanent job. Most join with the intent of only serving a few years.

I do agree that a volunteer would make a better soldier than a draftee dragged in kicking and screaming and that multiple deployments make for very experienced and seasoned troops, but I don't know where you got the idea that all of them intend to be soldiers for life because they love the hardship, the sacrifice, the violence of war and the threat of being killed or maimed on a daily basis. They are staying in the military longer than intended because the gov won't let them go, not because they have made it a life choice.

Like the old philosophy test, we are all looking into a square room from 4 different windows when it comes to Afgan!

There is a major difference between a professional (ie volunteer)armed forces and a draft --- talk to someone else who has been there, please. Training alone (uh, what, 6 weeks of boot camp right after being swept awat from your home/high school with no say in it?) does NOT make a professional soldier. A pro has made a life choice, a commitment just like everyone else to a job. The results are loud and clear: the professional forces do a superior job! They are bettwr trained, smarter, and committed.

Now, to your final statement, I agree that if we ever declare an old fashioned war against another COUNTRY and we run out of soldiers (and I personally only agree that this would be the right thing after we make use of the existing entire current forces of close to 2 million), then a draft of some sort would be enacted because, as you say, you don't let a nation fail for a lack of volunteers.

To this point, the only ones I have heard talking of a draft (and has been for about 4 years) are Rangel and a few others in the house who are trying to make a point.

What the ? –

The Trib today references the 15 and 5 year marks we’ve been discussing. It was reported today that Karzai said it’ll take 5 years before Afghan forces can assume responsibility for security throughout the country and 15 to 20 years before they can operate without heavy US financial and technical help.

Either way, it looks like we’ll have a presence there for a long time to come. I’m fine with that, as long as the Afghans start to shoulder the burden of their own defense and lead the way against the extremists.

T.B.

What the ? –

I don’t know about the inevitability of the return of the Taliban, at least not as we knew them. I think eventually they’ll be allowed back in a power sharing deal to try and bring peace, but I don’t know if this is a good way to moderate them or if it’s just an “in” for them to slowly take over again.

I saw the 15 year quote, but also saw where Karzai said they wouldn’t have the necessary military for 5 years. So which is it? Is it 5 years to get a valid military to stand up and 15 years to be able to pay for it themselves? I don’t know.

What I do know is that the Taliban won’t come to a negotiated peace or power sharing agreement if they think they can win by force. Maybe that’s the true goal here.

T.B.

T.B.:

Just saw a news clip of Karzai saying Afghanistan will not have the resources for the type of military effort the U.S. is providing for another 15-20 years. This is being interpreted as Karzai asking for a U.S. presence for this long. What do you think?

Anonymous on December 8, 2009 12:29 PM:

Sometimes it's just easier to respond in this format:

"Okay, I get it: 18 deaths due to BHO cutting political deals is okay for whatthe, but, say, 50 isn't? Is that your price?"

This is clearly what I'm NOT saying, but see how easy it is to play politics with the numbers? I clearly stated my point in the last post, and this wasn't it. Read it again.

"My issue isn't surge or not to surge, it is to do whatever it is right. If we decided to not surge, then we should have gotten out. if we deiced to surge, we should do it right. According to the news yesterday, the surge troops have already started deploying. They will be there in force way before July."

And McChrystal alone does not decide what is "doing it right", there's more to it, that's my point. According to the news yesterday, 1,500 troops will go within the next several days. That's only 1,500 out of 30,000, a drop in the bucket. I heard July was the target date chosen for having all 30,000 there.

"You mention above that McCrystal only has to focus on military needs. This shows that you have not yet developed an understanding of the strategies he has his expertise in. They reach military goals by going beyond direct military needs, such as becoming part of the community."

Yes, I know this. I watch the reports on CNN about it. See my response to T.B. above. Good luck with that.

"To your question, I am against a draft for the simple reason that professionals are always better at something then amateurs, and our fighting force is made up of professionals via the fact that they are volunteers."

Uh, what? Those volunteers are TRAINED to be professionals, they're not professionals BECAUSE they're volunteers. Draftees can be trained into professionals as well.

You may be against reinstating the draft, but if an official state of war ever developed between the U.S. and another country, I have no doubt this will be done if needed. You don't let a nation fall for lack of volunteers.

T.B.:

I don't think a military decision has ever been made that was totally free from politics. It's a question of to what extent politics is playing a part that matters. Here I think some but not a lot. The Afghan situation is so overwhelming and complex and our resources so strained that I can't see decisions being dictated by mere politics.

You're right about Afghans being afraid of reprisals from the Taliban once troops leave and this being at the heart of their reluctance to get involved. Sometimes it seems like apathy but it probably really is fear. The only solution to this is to stay many more years, maybe a decade or two. Unless the U.S. is going to have a large number of troops there indefinitely and do some serious nation building over a long period of time, I think the Taliban taking over again is inevitable. I don't blame the Afghans for just wanting to survive either, but if they really hated living under Taliban control so much you'd think they'd be more concerned about it, and they don't seem to be. They seem ready to accept whichever way things go. Do you think the U.S. should have a somewhat permanent presence there? That's really the only way to guarantee their safety for the long term.

The next presidential election is in 3 years, so any end date that O sets within this time frame is going to be seen as political. He could have said 2 or 2.5 years and still been clear of Afghanistan before the next election. So why 18 months? I think the 18 month time frame is an attempt at a prolonged cut and run, so to speak. We're trying to bow out gracefully. Throw more troops and resources at them, let the Afghans know this is their window of opportunity so they'd better grab it now if they want it. And if things are relatively stable in 18 months, we're outta there. If not, then we won't be. But given the futility of the Afghan situation, this is what I'd be trying to do.

"I believe we will absolutely be successful," McChrystal told lawmakers. "By this time next year ... it will be clear to us that the insurgency has lost the momentum."

"And by the summer of 2011, it will be clear to the Afghan people that the insurgency will not win, giving them the chance to side with their government."

This is exactly what’s needed. We need to show the Afghan people that the Taliban won’t be returning. Only then will they support our mission completely.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091208/pl_nm/us_afghanistan_usa

T.B.

Okay, I get it: 18 deaths due to BHO cutting political deals is okay for whatthe, but, say, 50 isn't? Is that your price?

My issue isn't surge or not to surge, it is to do whatever it is right. If we decided to not surge, then we should have gotten out. if we deiced to surge, we should do it right. According to the news yesterday, the surge troops have already started deploying. They will be there in force way before July. You also need to recheck your history on Nam a bit.

You mention above that McCrystal only has to focus on military needs. This shows that you have not yet developed an understanding of the strategies he has his expertise in. They reach military goals by going beyond direct military needs, such as becoming part of the community. I think TB summarized it well above.

To your question, I am against a draft for the simple reason that professionals are always better at something then amateurs, and our fighting force is made up of professionals via the fact that they are volunteers.

What the? –

We’re never going to lift Afghanistan out of poverty, nor are we trying. Hell, we can’t even lift much of the U.S. out of poverty but that doesn’t stop us from having a stable government here, does it? Nor does it appear that a stable government is required to be free of corruption (just ask our former governors).

My point is that we don’t have to install the perfect government there, nor do we have to install a government that looks like our own. We just have to install one that will be stable. I’ve stated earlier here that perhaps a decentralized government would be best for Afghanistan because they don’t seem interested in taking their marching orders from Kabul.

I don’t know if the Afghan people really prefer a “safe” Taliban to a “terrorist” Taliban. But I think the Afghan people have a reluctance to fight the Taliban because they know we’re leaving and they don’t want to end up on the “losing” side of this fight. It’s not apathy, its survival and I can’t say I blame them. If the Taliban wins when we leave (like in Vietnam), who’s going to step in and stop the reprisal killings? How many of our allies there will we be willing to take in as refugees?

The point of the surge in Iraq and again now in Afghanistan was to take land and hold it. Don’t take or clear a village and then leave it to the Taliban again. Take it for good and show the people there that you’re going to stay and keep them safe. That’s the way to win their support. But how safe are they ever going to feel knowing we already have a pre-determined exit date (before the next presidential election)?

Yes, BHO is a politician and politics at home played a part in his decision. My problem with this is that he’s also the commander in chief and the troops he leads need him to make a military decision free from politics. Their lives depend on it.

T.B.

Original Joe:

I whole-heartedly agree!

T.B.:

I think there is much more to be considered in Afghanistan than just the military. The fact that we don't have an infinite number of troops to dedicate to Afghanistan and that many of those going have done several tours already and are being strained to a breaking point was a big factor in O's decision also. And the Afghan situation has so many problems that the military can't fix--it's poverty, corrupt gov., the apathy of it's own people toward fighting the Taliban, their disinterest in democracy, their mistrust of foreigners, the fact that much of the population would rather be "safe" under the Taliban than be terrorized by them, etc. etc. McCrystal only has to focus on military needs; all these other issues play a part in success or failure there and O cannot ignore them.

And I'm sure the politics of the issue at home also played a part in O's decision. He's a politician, after all, no president would be indifferent to this. But I don't think it was THE factor. The Afghan situation is too complicated to be reduced to just politics. If one is looking to find fault with O's decision, then it is convenient to claim that politics played the biggest part. But if one is trying to understand his decision, then the bigger picture comes into view. I'm sure you can tell which one I prefer.

Anonymous on December 6, 2009 12:51 PM:

And there were 25 in June, which was more than the 18 in Nov, and 3 so far for Dec. So it looks like the spike in casualties was waning even before O announced his decision. The casualties during this time were not a result of O's decision-making period, or "dithering" in Cheney-speak, or "pandering" either. They would have occurred anyway as a surge could not have been deployed fast enough to prevent it even if a decision had been made within weeks. As it is now, it's going to take until next July to get the full 30,000 new troops on the ground there. So I think it's incorrect to link a causality between the deaths during this five-month period and O's decision period, but I understand it works well politically for the opposition to do so. Heck, I'd probably use it this way too.

The reason I bring up Vietnam is because Vietnam was not lost due to not having enough troops on the ground. Remember, we had the draft at that time, and whenever the commanders on the ground wanted more troops, they got them. Surge after surge was sent there and the bodies just piled up. We lost anyway. This is the mistake that the U.S. does not want to repeat again.

We no longer have a draft and an unlimited supply of bodies to throw into a conflict, so we now have to be more judicious in our use of troops. It's a different landscape now, Anon, and our troops are already under enormous strain. I know the knee-jerk shoot-first-and-let's-kick-some-butt approach is a very satisfying position emotionally for some folks, but realistically we don't have this luxury. And we can't just cut and run, either. The U.S. has done this in other situations where promises were made and the result damaged U.S. credibility and had disastrous consequences for the people left behind.

Besides, Afghanistan does not have a military solution, it cannot be "won" militarily. Isn't it Karl Rove who is so fond of saying that the Bush administration kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan in 58 days, but omits the fact that the Taliban returned in full force as soon as the troops left? It is a no-win situation, but an all or nothing approach would be self-defeating.

If you believe Afghanistan can be "won" with enough troops, would you support reinstating the draft to do this?

What the? –

You’re right, BHO is commander in chief and McCrystal is not; however, given the general’s years of experience in the field of warfare, I would think any commander in chief without a military background would defer greatly to his opinion.

Also, how do you think this latest “surge” will be portrayed one or two years from now? I happen to this it’ll be BHO’s great stroke of genius if it succeeds and the general’s fault if it fails.

The whole problem is that while BHO does have to consider the “big picture” (your words), the big picture that factored into this decision were politics at home (not in Afghanistan) and BHO’s reelection.

T.B.

What's wrong is that hundreds of our kids died while BHO took his sweet time pandering to his political left:

July - 45
August -51
Sept - 40
Oct -59
Nov - 18

If that's not enough for you to wonder why, then you are beyond hope.

If BHO cared so much more than others about our kids, he would not have initiated ROEs that include non-military actions such as miranda rights and he would not "partially commit" to the effort itself. He was loud and clear in his statement that losing is now an option.

You refer to Nam --- I, for one, believe we should either go in to win or get out now. That is one of the many mistakes we made there (an dlook at the aftermath of carnage that resulted from our inconvenient lack of leadership there).

Anonymous on December 5, 2009 12:50 PM:

McChrystal is not the commander-in-chief, BHO is. The military does not take final responsibility for Afghanistan, BHO does. The military does not run the government, the government runs the military. BHO said he would listen to McChrystal. Listening is not doing whatever McChrystal recommends without question. There is more to be considered in Afghanistan than just the number of troops and money we can throw into it. McChrystal only has to consider the military side of things; BHO has to consider the entire picture. Big difference.

Afghanistan will not be "won" militarily. This has never been done--ask the Russians, they've had recent experience--and I'm sure BHO and others in his administration know this as well.

BHO never said he would do whatever McChrystal wanted--why did you expect this? I sure didn't. And who cares that O took "forever" to make a decision? What's wrong with taking the time that matters of this importance deserve? Nothing was lost or jeopardized during this time, so why do you care?

A complete reliance on the military as a solution in Afghanistan is short-sighted; it's far more complicated than that. To just focus on this to the exclusion of all else would be a mistake. I think BHO's decision reflects this. I don't think he's playing politics so much as trying to balance so many conflicting needs and problems. I think he cares very much about the lives of our troops, much more so than previous presidents. Need we rehash the meat grinder that was Vietnam? The best way I know of to protect our troops is to not put them unnecessarily in harm's way. Wouldn't sending 60,000 more troops to Afghanistan without question be playing politics with their lives also?

whatthe, are you dense or just dogmatic?

As you are hopefully aware, McChrystal is one of the small handful of experts in the entire world on this type of warfare. I prefer to believe he got his nukbers from careful analysis of the situation, the goals, and the local needs (and not from any political
perspective).

BHO said, early on, that he would listen to his generals. In fact, he personally selected McChrystal as his general! He told McChrystal to go out, develp THE plan, and get back to him --- which he did. BHO then took forever to respond and "approve" and when he did, it was not what was asked for.

Your dismissal of commanders on the ground is condescending and dismissive. Do you have a military past to speak from? Do you have some inside knowledge on McChrystal we should be made aware of so the rest of us can, like you, NOT trust him?

Does BHO, with his extensive military past and extensive experience in running a country, have some such knowledge that forced him to essentially ignore him? Will BHO somehow get NATO to actually add 10,000 more troops (when they said this week they will try for 5000) that actualy are allowed to fight (unlike most of the troops over there now, which are mainly, but not all, administrative)

Or, as is often the case in life, is the answer found in "horses and not zebras", and is BHO just playing the politics of it all?

If so, it is my complaint that he is playing politics with the lives of our children, period!

What the?

You bring some very key things to the table worth going back over:

"Bush and his administration was very naive in thinking ancient cultures would embrace democracy so readily; that was an incredibly uneducated and ethnocentric belief. It's not impossible, but the country and it's inhabitants have to WANT democracy for themselves for this to occur. "

BINGO times a million.

This is a 'war' of ideology, not a war of force or numbers. We want to spread Democracy and the Islamic militants want to spread their strict conservative ideals of Islam (but a more extreme interpretation than the majority practice) and each believe that by doing so, it will bring peace to the regions where it is implemented. Both believe that each place will suddenly 'Wake Up' and see the 'truth' that their way is the one true right way to move forward in the world.

The problem is that the Islamic extremists forget that during the Golden Age of Islam, they actually embraced cultural differences from other areas, took the 'good' and embraced it and got along pretty decently with the world. The ignorant Americans forget that it is our own differences that add value to our culture and that we were born from people not wanting another entity projecting its way of life and laws upon us against our will.

Both sides are blind and round and round we go.

Anon 5678:

"Shoot first, ask questions later". Now I see why you liked Bush 43's cowboy diplomacy so much. If someone with your attitude were at the helm of the U.S., we'd be in World War III right now rapidly approaching Armegeddon. Of course, Bush 43 thought Gog and Magog were already in Iraq, so this fits right in.

What you say about the Middle East also applies to most of the countries on the African continent and God-knows-where-else on the face of the earth. Bush and his administration was very naive in thinking ancient cultures would embrace democracy so readily; that was an incredibly uneducated and ethnocentric belief. It's not impossible, but the country and it's inhabitants have to WANT democracy for themselves for this to occur. It happened in Kuwait. This is an Islamic democratic country where even women have the vote. But the people have to see it's value and want it, and in Iraq and Afghanistan they simply don't. Bush forced it on them, so now we're stuck having to follow through even tho it seems doomed to fail. To just cut and run at this point would harm the Afghan people and the U.S.'s credibility even more. We're stuck in a no-win situation.

There is no answer to the Afghanistan problem. We're in a shade of gray right now and I agree it probably won't work. But your scorched earth approach would be disastrous for the U.S. BHO and even Bush realized this, which is why it wasn't and will never be done. So we really need to dump this kind of testosterone-infused wishful thinking and use the intelligence God gave us to solve our problems. This is what BHO is attempting to do.

Also, the Taliban did NOT wait patiently for 8 years to get another shot at the WTC. They were very busy terrorizing other countries with attacks and planning 9/11. The Taliban will not sit in caves and patiently wait for the U.S. to leave. They're too emotionally stunted and irrational. And they have nothing else to do.

Anonymous on December 4, 2009 11:13 AM:

Where did McChrystal get HIS number of 60,000? The exact same place where you think BHO got his!

No matter how many troops are deployed, commanders "on the ground" always ask for more. You give 'em 60,000, they'll want 30,000 more later, then another 30 on top of that, and on and on. It's a bottomless pit. Listening to McChrystal does not mean allowing him to make the decisions. It means listening, and that's what BHO did. If other nations throw in another 10,000, which is what BHO is trying to get, then McChrystal will have the minimum 40,000 troops that he asked for. What will be your complaint then?

Yes. That is what I am referring to by doing it right. Shoot first, figure it out later.

You could say the same thing about not just about Afghan but Iraq, Syria, Iran, any of those countries. They are all the same. Different shades of poor is the only difference. There is and never will be democracy there. There will always be the haves and have nots, the rulers who leave their people with nothing. You have said many times, it is up to the Afghans and they just might not want to do anything about it. They can't do anything about it. That is why we are there. They don't have the education, will, might or arms to deal with it. And you might be right. They might now know that they should be upset.

What middle ground do you propose? We are doing that right now. We have been fighting two wars in middle ground (minus the first few months of this Iraq war) for close to 8 years. It doesn't work.

Have I learned nothing from Iraq? Absolutely I learned a lot from Iraq. We don't know how to fight a war anymore is what I learned.

John Q. Public:

I think what Anon 5678 is saying is that "doing it right" means not caring who is a combatant and who is a civilian. Just mow them all down and sort it out afterwards.

Anon 5678:

I disagree that the only two choices in a conflict is to either obliterate your opponent or do nothing at all. I think this kind of black and white, all or nothing thinking is outdated in today's world. There are many shades of gray in between that can lead to an effective resolution of differences. I just don't think any of them will work in Afghanistan because the Afghans don't care. If the Afghan gov. and/or people were as intent on keeping out the Taliban as the U.S. is, it would be an entirely different situation. Unless that happens, I think a U.S. presence there is just postponing the inevitable, but I understand that we have to at least make the effort.

I also disagree that "suckering" a couple of these countries into an actual state of war with us is a good idea. The only ones who would be the suckers in such a conflict would be US. Have you learned nothing from Iraq?

...and yet, BHO could not bring himself to do the real "right" thing!

He says he will listen to the leaders "on the ground", yet despite being asked for 60,000 troops (and a minimum of 40,000), BHO approves 30,000.

Where did he get that number? Out of his rump?

Possibly, but since he is in continual campaign mode he did pull 30k out of his rump so he can suck up to both the left and the right.

In other words, BHO wants to be a "little bit pregnant".

Bad speech, bad decision, but 10 months for BHO!

"The point is the U.S. is NOT at war with the people the Taliban is hiding behind or the country they live in. Because the enemy we seek is hiding there is not reason enough to destroy that country and its people, nor would doing so even guarantee we would "get" the Taliban. If I'm pointing out the obvious, then it should be obvious to you that the actions you propose would not be acts of war but crimes against humanity. I think such draconian actions would all but guarantee an actual state of war between the U.S. and the countries in that region, and that is what we are trying to avoid."

All I am proposing is do it right or get out. We haven't and will never do it right for the exact reasons you state. So, lets just get out.

I'm not sure if that would be a bad idea or not suckering a couple of those other countries into a war. If we did, then we could get nasty in a hurry. And for some reason I don't think the rest of the world would be that upset with us.

Anonymous5678 wrote:

True. And that is completely our fault for bring a knife to a gun fight. The only way to stop that is cripple them. That is it.

This would be a good option if the suicide bombers had some kind of identifying marks like, say, tattoos on their foreheads. Then we could just shoot them all. But they don't. So how do we figure out whom to turn the guns on?

-JQP

Anon 5678:

The point is the U.S. is NOT at war with the people the Taliban is hiding behind or the country they live in. Because the enemy we seek is hiding there is not reason enough to destroy that country and its people, nor would doing so even guarantee we would "get" the Taliban. If I'm pointing out the obvious, then it should be obvious to you that the actions you propose would not be acts of war but crimes against humanity. I think such draconian actions would all but guarantee an actual state of war between the U.S. and the countries in that region, and that is what we are trying to avoid.

I do agree, however, that I don't think BHO's approach will work. I think it's an honorable effort, but nothing is going to work in Afghanistan until the Afghan people WANT to make it work, and they don't care enough to get involved. U.S. forces can leave in 18 months, but the Taliban will just come back again like they did after forces under Bush left. If the Afghan gov. and people choose to just sit passively around and let the Taliban take over, there's really nothing any other country can do about it. I really think this is what will eventually happen no matter what we do.

"Will the Taliban use this to lay low for 18 months until the Americans leave? That's being argued, but I doubt it. Zealots are too emotionally irrational to play it cool. I can't see the Taliban sitting around twiddling their thumbs for two years."

Not true. They patiently waited eight years to get at the WTC again. If they can wait eight years, they can easily sit in a cave for 18 months.

" It seems every time the U.S. media announces that violence is down in Iraq, we see another round of suicide bombings."

True. And that is completely our fault for bring a knife to a gun fight. The only way to stop that is cripple them. That is it. Everytime we shoot a few bad guys, next thing you see on TV is the US troops helping out Iraquis or Afghans, which is great and all. But then two days later, some idiot with a bomb strapped to his back stops by a marketplace.

What the?

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I get that. I'll say it again. This isn't and won't work. Especially now that we have a very convenient political timeline for BHO to rally his dwindling amount of supporters. We have no mission or goal other than to "stop the taliban".

To answer your question or point - if we are not going to destory places like Tora Bora, make the crests of the mountains on the Pakistan/Afghan border less high, strap Karzai his brother to the back of a truck and drag them through the streets of Kabul (or at least the brother), we may as well come home right now. In 18 months, we are going ot be in the same exact position we have been for eight years.

If our mission is to stop the taliban, install democracy and turn over security to Afgan troops, then do that. You can't go out with intent to shoot someone, have that person hide behind a human shield and say, "excuse me. Can you move your head real quick so I can shoot the guy behind you?". This is a nasty, nasty business. Either be nasty or come home. Innocent people always die in war, just like 3000 people died here. That is the way war is.

It seems the right is happy about the troop surge but unhappy about the exit date, and the left is unhappy about the surge but happy about the exit date . . . *sigh*

I expected BHO to send in more troops, he made his position on Afghanistan clear during the campaign and his actions now are consistant with that. I don't like it, but I fully expected it and understand the rational behind it.

McCain discussed the predetermined withdrawal date with BHO prior to his speech and O clarified for him that this date was dependent on conditions on the ground. Hillary Clinton reiterated this afterwards. An exit date is being used to let Americans and Afghans know that this will not be an indefinite deployment and that Afghans have 18 months to get their act together.

Will the Taliban use this to lay low for 18 months until the Americans leave? That's being argued, but I doubt it. Zealots are too emotionally irrational to play it cool. I can't see the Taliban sitting around twiddling their thumbs for two years. The insurgents could have done this in Iraq and gotten foreign troops out of there quickly, but they didn't and still aren't. It seems every time the U.S. media announces that violence is down in Iraq, we see another round of suicide bombings. So I doubt an exit date will empower the enemy like some critics are claiming.

But I'm also doubtful that the U.S. can lay a firm enough foundation in Afghanistan in 18 months so they can defend themselves. In order for this to happen, the Afghan government and people first have to give a damn, and I really don't think they do. Plus, the Taliban isn't like the Russians, they'll never pack up and go home. They ARE home, many of them live there and therefore will always be a problem. I'm not hopeful we'll see any long term stability in that region any time soon.

I was happy to hear we’re sending in more troops, but I’m a bit dismayed over the artificial timeline for withdrawal. Is it just a coincidence that the timetable for withdrawal comes as the next presidential election cycle is starting? Though I understand that BHO needs to appease his base, doing so with the lives of the troops is irresponsible.

Let me ask this…if the Taliban and al-Qaeda announced that they were going to pack up, go home, and stop fighting in 18 months…wouldn’t we view that as a victory?

T.B.

Now that we have all heard the plan, what does everyone think?

I think someone just put our troops in more harms way than they were yesterday and told the Taliban to go hide, come back in 18 months and destroy whatever you want. Maybe we can leave some weapons for Karzai too so he can give them to his brother and help him strengthen his drug cartel.

If this is the best he could come up with, why not bring them home today? Talk about fighting for nothing. Very sad day for our troops. I think this surpasses Viet Nam in that category.

Anon 5678:

No, the U.S. cannot treat Afghanistan like it did Japan and Germany during WWII. In that conflict, an actual state of war existed between Japan, Germany and the U.S. No state of war exists with Afghanistan. The U.S. is fighting rogue individuals that take refuge within that country, not the country itself.

So you really think it would be wise to terrorize and attempt to obliterate a country of over 28 million people in order to root out a couple of thousand Taliban?

Chris Magee, moderator on November 30, 2009 8:24 PM
I don't think you can really compare the tactics in Iraq or Afghanistan to those used in WWII against Japan and Germany. In those conflicts, we were fighting the entire nation. It was one national war effort vs. the other. Therefore, when you bombed factories and cities, you were reducing the nation's ability to make war.
______________

What a great point. In WWII there was no real question who the enemy was: it was Japan and Germany (along with all of its inhabitants). Starting with Vietnam and now into the middle east the enemy is not the entire country, but the faction of people within these countries. I wonder what the response would have been if present day Baghdad was reversed and treated like Tokyo was in the 40's? Most likely we would have leveled it and then gone in.

What I think the biggest difference now is that the entire war is basically captured on film. If one missile strikes a mosque we know in real time just how many were injured - without this capability in the 40's this was never really known.

Chris –

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but that was exactly my point—we can’t use the tactics of WWII in today’s conflicts. I was pointing out a different political landscape as opposed to the different tactical one you referred to.

But even if we were to compare the current conflict to Vietnam we’d find that we can’t use those tactics, either. No carpet bombing, no deforestation of the battlefield, etc. The only place the comparison is valid is that we’re not allowed (openly at least) to cross an imaginary line on a map in search or our prey.

I’m glad to hear the Pres is going to send in substantial troops to try and get the job done. Overwhelming force is the only way to go if we’re going to be there at all. Let’s hope the Pakistanis can put pressure on the other end of the border to assist.

T.B.

I was just pointing out in my opinion that we have two options. Either get really mean and dirty or get out. What we are doing right now doesn't work and never will work. We are dealing with parts of the world that understand one thing and one thing only. And that is force. So, if we are going to continue doing what we are doing right now (and even adding 30k troops), we might as well leave. We will be there forever with this strategy.

Can I imagine the outcry? Sure. There already is an outcry. But if we are going to do it right, lets make sure there really is an outcry like we have never heard before.

I do think it is a stretch to say that we have their governments on our side. Maybe on the surface but that is about it. If we had those governments on our side, there would be a lot more of the strongholds being destroyed. There would be a lot more loose lips. We are offering substantial cash rewards for information and those people are dirt poor.

As far as Afghan or Iraq rallying against us. I would take that risk any day of the week. They are always going to be against us no matter what we do. We are not a Muslim country (yet) and therefore don't quite meet up to their standards.

Obviously this war is not like WWII and much more like Viet Nam. We are fighting an enemy who is not uniformed and never will be.

As far as the negative press, that is my point. Do we have backbone enough to do it right or do what we are doing? We obviously don't have the backbone to do it right. So, I think we should get out and let them worry about their own stuff.

War is a very nasty business. Innocent civilians die. Just like 3000 people died in NYC. That was an act of war (terrorism).

If one looks at German and Japan's socialized health insurance programs; some might claim that's an evil thing to go spreading around the world. We helped them build towards that.

Should we really be doing that again since people say it's so bad and evil and contrary to a Capitalistic free market place and true democracy ?

Anonymous ONE,

From what I've read, one of the reasons the Japanese surpassed us in production quality is that they considered Deming a guru long anyone in the U.S. paid attention to him.

-JQP

T.B. and Anon 5678 either wrote, or were discussing the following: By blowing Japan and Germany to “smithereens and basically…[leaving]…them with nothing”, didn’t we then nation-build to bring them back to where they are today?

____________________

I agree. I have read quite a bit about W. Edwards Deming who is known as one of the founders of the "Quality" movement. This U.S. born guru is credited for his quality initiatives that were widely implemented throughout Japan, and is often credited as one of the main reasons Japanese products are manufactured with such quality today. Pre WWII, Japan made extremely poor quality products.

Overseeing the Japanese political front was important, but the U.S. was also responsible for teaching them how to build and produce quality products. (Unfortunately something that has at least partially resulted in the loss of U.S. jobs - not unfairly I might add, but because other countries began producing products of better quality than we were producing here - for an example just look at the auto industry).

Deming is the founder of what many of us have been taught about quality, TQM, Continuous Improvement, Lean Manufacturing, and six sigma. It's pretty good stuff.

Anon 5678 –

One more thing:

“Isn't the whole idea of war to put the fear of God in the people we are at war with so they think twice about never ever ever screwing with us or our allies again.”

Isn’t that what the Japanese thought about the Pearl Harbor attack, too (with the exception of Admiral Yamamoto)? That the attack would be so devastating that we’d just role over and allow their conquest of the Pacific?

But, in fact, the attack rallied the nation into action (and revenge).

T.B.

Anon 5678 –

By blowing Japan and Germany to “smithereens and basically…[leaving]…them with nothing”, didn’t we then nation-build to bring them back to where they are today? As Chris pointed out, we “kept troops in the country, we wrote them a constitution, we tried the worst offenders for war crimes, and we stayed until they had developed a democracy”. Isn’t this what we’re attempting in Afghanistan?

It seems that what you’re calling for is something akin to a nationwide “shock and awe” campaign in Afghanistan; however, times have changed since WWII and something like what we did to Germany and Japan just isn’t possible now. Just look at the negative press regarding civilian casualties even though we’re fighting a foe that has no qualms about using human shields.

Can you imagine what the outcry would be like if we carpet-bombed cities like was done during WWII? Did you know that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo then were killed in the nuclear attack on Nagasaki? Maybe even the fire bombings of Dresden. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if the US were to use a nuclear weapon, even a tactical one, to destroy a target like Tora Bora?

Also different from the WWII and Cold War era is our willingness to forge long-term ties with unsavory regimes. While it may be easier to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and turn it over to some regional and “friendly” warlord, that’s not the climate we currently live in and we’d also be settling up the next Shah-type situation.

T.B.

Chris:

Try again with Anon 5678, please.

Chris. I don't think I said my point right. I agree with you. What we did differently in Japan and Germany is we blew them to smithereens and basically left them with nothing, no dignity, not a thing. We didn't do that in this case. Heck, they had nothing to begin with. All we did was blow up some key things here and there. And then we went in all chummy with them to try to help them rebuild, yet there were a boatload of bad guys still out there.

You are not always going to get rid of the bad for sure. But we could have gone a lot more ape crap from the beginning. That would have allowed for us to "nation build" without as many terrorist attacks since. I agree, if we are going to do it, it is nice to see these countries go down a path of democracy (although that is and never will be the middle east). Right now we are trying to nation build with one hand tied behind our back still. Bush did this surge in 2006. We need more than a surge. We need a typhoon to do some serious damage. Otherwise it is going to be the same ole same ole. If we are not going to do it right, the troops should come home.

I've been thinking about this lately. And although none of us have any say into what goes on in war, it is very maddening and perplexing the way our country has gone to war ever since WWII. In WWII, it was pretty clear that we were going to go in, kick some serious rear end and ask questions later. The whole goal or mission was to stop Hitler and his allies from taking over the world.

Now we come to all the wars we have been in since. Chris's question is what to do about Afghan. Not necessarily what has been done. Or how completely wrong of an approach we took in the first place.

Here is my question. Isn't the whole idea of war to put the fear of God in the people we are at war with so they think twice about never ever ever screwing with us or our allies again. I go back to my point earlier. We haven't heard from Japan in over 60 years. We had a mission to scare the living daylights out of them and it worked. Why we did not do that from the beginning in both Afghan and Iraq is so maddening. We don't go to war to nation build, yet we are nation building 8 plus years later. We shouldn't be nation building. We shouldn't even be over there. What we did wrong in the first place was not go all in. This whole thing could have very easily been taken care of in the first year or so. Why we are not blowing every conceivable target over there to smithereens is uncomphensible especially when both Bush and now Obama are putting our soldiers in harms way with no real objective. Objectives in war should be very simple. In this example, rid the Taliban. And the tactics behind it need to be real simple - DO WHATEVER IT TAKES.

Now to present day. What do we do. I think that is the answer. Either take a serious approach and do whatever it takes or get out. If we don't do whatever it takes and stay there, things are going to remain just the way they are for a very very long time.

I'm patriotic and all but I don't know if I would feel comfortable sending a relative to war knowing the way we fight wars nowadays. I'll always shake every one of their hands and thank them for defending the freedoms we enjoy. But I feel like they have no support from our spineless, PC government. We have the most powerful weapons in the world. Use them when needed. And we need them now and have over the past eight years.

JQP:

Completely agree with your comments on the EU. Europe has come a long way in forming the EU, but because the EU is comprised of different countries with their own languages, cultures and national identities, it doesn't carry the same weight globally as the U.S. so an American presence there, whether physical or by treaty, is still necessary. If the EU were one country, then THAT would be power.

Germany's contribution to Operation Desert Storm was financial rather than military. I believe German troops were legally restricted to remain within German borders up until the mid-90's. Since then, they have deployed troops to numerous foreign hot spots, including Afghanistan. I believe they are still subject to self-imposed restrictions on what kind of engagements they are allowed to take part in.

T.B is correct about the draw-down of U.S. forces in Germany. Through most of the Cold War there were usually about 250,000 American military personnel stationed in Germany. Now, there are, I believe, about 1/4 that many. I suspect that their purpose in remaining there has less to do with protecting Western Europe from aggression than with fulfilling other strategic objectives of the U.S. For example, many of the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan are flown to, I believe, Ramstein Airbase in Germany and treated in the hospital there before they are sent back to the U.S.

In regard to South Korea, I think both the presence and size of the U.S. forces there are designed to send a message to Kim Il Sung that the United States will defend South Korea should he decide to a make a power play with his way-too-big army. I don’t think the prospect of war with France, Britain or Germany would make him hesitate quite as long.

As to the EU's role in the world, when you consider that the E.U. is comprised of many countries and peoples that have been fighting amongst themselves practically since the fall of the Roman Empire, and that were, in the last century, on opposite sides of the two most destructive wars in human history, it is remarkable how much commonality of action they have been able to achieve so far. However, barriers of language and culture continue to keep the E.U. from having the kind of political and military influence that a similarly-sized, more homogeneous geo-political entity might have; human nature being what it is, it’s hard to imagine that this will ever change.

-JQP

Great comments. 30,000 to 50,000 troops in Germany. 40,000 in South Korea.

I think the missle shield and no troops would have been cheaper in the long run.

I say keep the basis, make them combat ready for a stopping off point, we don't pay for them, the Germans gave them to us as part of the reparations. Same for Japan and South Korea.

We have enough troops from just these two locations to finish Afghanistan with no additional people. It is amazing how government always finds the most inefficient way of doing things. The answer is right under their noses.

Agreed.

“European Union leaders named Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, who is little known outside his own country, as the bloc's first president on Thursday to lead efforts to make it more influential on the world stage.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091119/ts_nm/us_eu_president_6

T.B.

Psyche –

I’m not sure of the current level of troops in Germany, but we still have troops in Kosovo and also 38,500 in South Korea (a UN operation). All of these troops could and should be made available for use in Afghanistan. We have plenty of “allies” who can replace troops we currently have stationed in these areas, right?

T.B.

To Psyche on November 19, 2009 5:51 PM

"We do need "access" points for teh rest of the world, and we should pay for them"

We need less now than the old way of doing things. I'll say that much.

I was merely referencing a previous post @@@:)

As recently as 2005, I think, the U.S. had 57,000 troops in Germany. As a guess, it is probably down just a little bit with some of them considered Iraq/Afghan troops, so I am willing to go out on a limb and say there are still about 30,000 non-Iraq/Afgan troops in Germany. This makes Germany the largest U.S. base outside the U.S. If you recall a few years back, there was a lot of alleged effort put into closing bases around the world. the German government had a loud reaction to the proposal to close the bases there and economics was listed as the number one reason.

Chris is accurate with his description of the armed forces in both Japan & Germany (close ebough for horseshoes, anyway).

A point of argument is that we need ALL of those forces there for presence alone. NATO can easily replace much of ours IF they were willing to take the same fiscal and physical risks & responsibilities the U.S. and it's taxpayers have taken for 6 decades. We do need "access" points for teh rest of the world, and we should pay for them ------ just not for everything for everyone!

I could be wrong but I think many of the U.S. forces in Germany left after the first gulf war. I think they repainted for the desert, went to Desert Storm and pretty much never really went back to Germany (at least not in the numbers we used to have there).

As Chris said, Germany was re-armed during the cold war, participated in Desert Storm, and also has a presence in Afghanistan. I don’t believe they have restrictions on their armed forces, but they’re leery about seeming too militaristic (I think the French and Poles are still leery, too).

Japan has a pacifist constitution which we basically wrote for them so we have no one to blame but ourselves for their lack of participation anywhere militarily. They have been contributing refueling ships to the naval presence supporting the Afghan war (BHO just thanked them for their help) and even this has caused consternation in Japan.

While the bases are economic benefits to Japan and Germany, I don’t think they necessarily like them there any more (especially Japan) and it does help us project our power further (especially after the loss of Clark AFB in the Philippines).

As for the united states of Europe comment, what the ?, I understand that the EU is very different from the U.S. However, the EU wants to be seen as an equal (rival) to the U.S. economically without the world responsibility this brings. They are a collection of separate states (technically so are we), but they’re working through the struggles of forming one united foreign policy and possibly also an integrated military (I think they’re forming a joint brigade – admittedly small for now). As Psyche pointed out, if you’re going to be an economic powerhouse, there are other responsibilities that come with it.

T.B.

Psyche:

I let the "United States of Europe" comment go the first time, but since it's catching on I feel the need to stress that the European Union does NOT make Europe like the United States, nowhere close. This is a common misperception by Americans. Europe is still comprised of individual countries with their own governments, cultures, histories and languages, not states within the same country. The EU is a geopolitical and economic construct, not a patriotic one. All European countries are still very individually nationalistic. In fact, given how ethnocentric European countries are, it is an amazing feat that they were able to cooperate enough to form the EU in the first place, but this doesn't make them like the U.S. There really is no equivalent to the U.S. anywhere else.

Also, The U.S. doesn't have the military presence in Germany that it used to, this has been scaled back enormously in the last two decades. Chris may have an idea how many troops remain, I've lost track, but it's very scant compared to what it used to be. I don't think Germany is getting much of an economic boost from what remains. Also, weren't Japan and Germany forbidden to have armed military forces after the second World War, because they were the aggressors in that conflict, and still can't have a military? Isn't that why U.S. military personnel were stationed there?

Chris -

I don't think the issue is whether or not we should "worry" about the rest of the world.

The current issue, or question if you will, is whether we, the U.S., shold carry ALL of the water for the issues and problems of the world.China, Russia, Brazil, India ---- these are all rising economic powers. China has, by far, the fastest growing and expanding large economy in the world. No one is even close. The Euro has created, as stated earlier by a post, the "United States of Europe". The economic power concentrated in just these few places dwarfs the U.S..

As such, many, myself included, believe it is indeed a new world order and EVERYONE must contribute to it, not just the taxpayers of the U.S. We all need to ask the questions:

->Why does Japan and the U.S. pay for 44% of the total United Nations budget (plus ALL the costs of land usage and operations in Ney York), when all of these other economies are growing and doing so well (or as well as us)?

->Why does the U.S. have to provide military support (and, more importantly, economic stimulus for other countries via our bases and the economics they bring) to many of these very same countries who can both afford it and who have a healthy citizenry to do it themselves? We read that we have a shortage of soldiers so we extend them mercilessly in the ME, yet we have tens of thousands in Germany mainly because they provide a great economic boom there!

If, indeed, China, India, and Brazil represent the future economic power and growth of the world, let's ensure they carry a demonstrative and equal responsibility for the costs of maintaining a safe world. Let's make sure WE are not dumb enough to sign on to crazy treaties like Kyoto, still bankroll the "operating costs" of the world, and allow these others to NOT have to comply and contribute. The only way for tis to happen is to begin the weening process. I am not endorsing abandoning the world, just training teh rest of it to contribute as equally as their ecnomics allow.

It is not about isolationism, Chris, it is about economics and fairness! Why do these other countries, specifically Europe, continue to have us pay their way? Well, why does a dog lick himself---- because he can!

I agree with TB 100%. We should be phasing out our troops overseas. Let these other countries protect themselves. If we could cut our military budget (almost $600 billion) by a third, that would go a long way to helping OUR economy. The other countries would have to fill that void, let them spend more on military operations.

And as for isolationism. I am all for it. I live in the USA, not Poland or Estonia etc. The waging wars and conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebonon, and West Bank/Isreal should be these people's problem. Why do we spend $5 billion to rebuild Lebonon when they destroy their country? Instead, let the Hezbollah have the dump (after they blow it up) and let the Christians emigrate to the US. Let terrorists live with terrorists, humanitarians live with the US.

And while I enjoy traveling overseas, I would never go to Isreal or Lebenon right now. Even Egypt is questionable. Let these people kill each other, soon we would not have to worry about them.

“Given the limits of U.S. control on the ground and the expectation that, sooner or later, like the Russians, the Americans will leave, many ordinary Afghans see little incentive to risk their lives in supporting the U.S. mission.

The calculations of ordinary Afghans could change, of course, if they believed the U.S. was there to stay and had the will and capability to prevail.”

By Tony Karon of Time on 11/16/09

I think this is a good summary of the situation. The US is going to need a surge to show the Afghan people we’re not going to run out on them. This will hopefully give us the time and local support to build an effective Afghan force so we could eventually leave.

T.B.

Chris –

Perhaps the reasons you just gave are the very reasons we should be more focused on what’s going on in our own back yard and not be so Euro-centric. Maybe we wouldn’t have such problems with illegal immigration if we assisted central and south America climb out of poverty.

The major European members in NATO (France & Germany most prominently) want to be seen as big players on the world stage, but yet remain dependent on the U.S. for their defense. Does this make sense?

T.B.

Chris –

While I don’t completely disagree, how many times do we have to save them even as they disdain us? At some point enough is enough. If Europe erupts again, I say let them fight. We could always support one side or the other without much direct involvement (think modern day lend-lease), but they need to shoulder any burden of their own defense.

**********

OJ –

I don’t think we have to install a government like our own. We just have to install one strong enough to keep the Taliban at bay. Even a decentralized government with the varying tribal elders in charge of large areas would be OK if they at least didn’t want to cede power to some religious fanatics.

My point is we just can’t up and leave without making an even larger (and lasting) negative impact on the country.

T.B.

TB,

There is no 'righting' of the ship that all of the Afghans insist or agree upon. The longer we stay the more problems we create to deal with later. If China overthrew our government would you want them to stay until they remolded one for us the way they like it? I know I sure wouldn't. I'd simply want them to go back home and declare 'victory'. Sure, we might go back and kick their butt later, but we also have the choice not to as well and it would at that time be OUR choice, our destiny.

Chris –

I don’t see a substantial role for the U.S. in NATO. If the Europeans envision themselves as something like the united states of Europe, then they should start acting like it. Europe should devote more of their GDP to their defenses. They should stand up for their own defense. They should stop Russian aggression--not the U.S.

Hell, they couldn’t even bring themselves to stop the killing in Kosovo without us and it’s in their back yards.

T.B.

OJ –

The point isn’t just that we have to fix Afghanistan to the original point we found it in (Powell’s Pottery Barn rule – your break it, you buy it). That can’t be done. You can’t un-ring the bell. I don’t believe the US can morally overthrow any government and then just walk out, no matter what the consequences.

Our mere presence there has changed the country (for better or worse) and pulling out without the necessary government (democratic or not) in place would leave thousands of people subject to reprisals from the returning regime. Not to mention the reprisals the returning regime would be planning against the US.

So the question then becomes do we stay and try to right the ship? Or do we flee? And if we flee, would we accept thousands or tens of thousands of refugees? Or leave them behind to be persecuted or executed?

T.B.

In the past in interviews Powell has talked to the 2 million SE Asians who were slaughtered when the U.S. bailed on Viet Nam after promising to make sure we would create an orderly pullout.

Based on this,I think that Powell was referring to the human cost of movng into a country, not the dollar cost, and then leaving it NOT in an orderly fashion.

The time and dollar cost? I would have no idea or guess. From an ethics viewpoint, I do believe Powell had a very acute point.

To Psyche on November 13, 2009 3:38 PM

RE: "Let's remember the wise words (some of his only ones) of Colin Powell: You break it, you pay for it!"

We did pay for it. There was not much there to break in the first place. What is left to 'rebuild' to get it back to the same condition before we got there?

It's a serious question. What did we break that we need to rebuild and how much money and time will it take?

Let's remember the wise words (some of his only ones) of Colin Powell: You break it, you pay for it!

"We can enter into a military treaty with the EU, support them if they need our help . . ."

Isn't this what NATO is?

Good points from both of you and I hope you guys are right. It might be illogical for Russia to want to expand, but logic often takes a back seat to testosterone-driven (no offense) ambitions such as maintaining national pride and reclaiming world power status. The fact that Russia still puts it's military arsenal on display in showy parades indicates to me that it still has that old "might makes right" mentality. What's the purpose otherwise of this kind of posturing? I don't think it's all to make them feel better about themselves, tho I think some of it is. Add to this that Russia feels humiliated by NATO expanding right up to its borders and has stated they would not stand for this, and the government's call to Russian citizens that their population needed to grow so they could build a strong military again and the whole thing in Georgia that other EU countries didn't want to get involved in, etc., well, I guess I'm just getting different vibes. I don't trust them yet to behave logically.

I also do not think we need to worry about the Russian expansion as Chris has stated. Their former European sattelites required subsidies. Now they can extract money from them for oil. Why would they ever want to take over Ukraine? It would be like New York taxing Illinois with no control.

More importantly, let the Europeans fend for themselves. US Military protection in Europe most cost us at least $50 billion, probably $100 billion. Let them upgrade their defenses to keep Russia out.

Right now, they get a free ride and resent us at the same time. WE should keep a couple of strategic military posts to protect our mainland and let the world fend for itself. Japan, the Phillipines, and India should be next to go on their own.

We can enter into a military treaty with the EU, support them if they need our help to either fight a Russian advancement or a rebellion from within (such as Germany). I bet the dollar would gain dramatically when these socialists have to fund their costs.

Chris:

Maybe Soviet expansion isn't a concern today, but what about Russian expansion? Didn't Russia just assert itself in Georgia? And didn't they just make a comment warning that they would not allow any more of it's old satellite countries to join NATO? I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard this. And doesn't Russia still retain a lot of it's old Soviet mentality? They still roll tanks and missiles down the main street during parades like North Korea does; this display of military might is something that communist countries still do. Don't you think Russia would try a land grab if NATO was disbanded?

Chris Magee wrote:

History has shown that a large measure of stability, education, history of democratic institutions and low tolerance for corruption are necessary for democracy to flourish.

And:

The U.S. always feels it has to be idealistic and try to spread freedom everywhere, but many nations just aren't ready for our style of government, and if they try and it doesn't work, it could set them back from ever having a true democracy. That's the way Russia seems to be heading.

I think we Americans tend to naively assume that representative democracy can and will take root anywhere with just the right amount of nurturing. I agree that the conditions need to be right for democratic government to succeed, and that a history of democratic institutions certainly helps the process along. But I think a history of failed attempts at democracy can also help pave the way for democracy's future success.

France is a case in point. France was one of the most autocratic countries in Europe in 1789. The French Revolution ultimately failed to establish democracy. And there were several subsequent efforts to establish constitutional monarchies and republics in the next eight decades before the Third Republic, shaky as it was, ultimately succeeded (sort of).

-JQP

T.B. wrote:

JQP, I think you give the non-US NATO forces in Afghanistan too much credit. I also don’t think they’re going to stay long, pulling out when the Taliban targets them for additional casualties.

They've comprised about 1/2 of the force for most of the time that we've been in Afghanistan, and they've suffered more than 40% of the deaths. Their activity in hot areas has been increasing since 2006, rather than decreasing. Again, I'm not saying that they are doing enough; I'm just saying that we shouldn't pretend that they've done next to nothing. It's been far more of an international effort than the Iraq war, even if we are still, far and away, the largest partner.

-JQP

I never heard of Final Solution. Just looked it up. I take back my kind of. Not at all what I meant. I'm talking more Nagasaki/Hiroshima.

Chris –

I mostly agree with your assessment of the situation. I also disagree with OJ when he says that we could leave and things would go back to the way they were. They can never go back. Our presence there has changed things. The Afghan people who’ve helped us would be targets of any returning regime.

Maybe our biggest mistake is trying to establish a strong central government? Maybe we should use the tribal system and be content with a decentralized government with many smaller “states”? Anything is better than a return of the Taliban.

Unfortunately, I think the best prospects for victory right now are in the hands of the Pakistani army and their offensive against the tribal areas containing the Taliban and al-Qaeda. If they can kill or capture large numbers of Taliban and al-Qaeda, then we can declare victory and pave the way for a withdrawal.

As for NATO, I don’t really see much use for it any more. NATO was conceived to help stop one part of Europe from blowing up the other. Personally, I don’t care any more and if they started another war there I wouldn’t want to see us get involved. Twice is enough. Let the Western Europeans defend themselves for a change.

JQP, I think you give the non-US NATO forces in Afghanistan too much credit. I also don’t think they’re going to stay long, pulling out when the Taliban targets them for additional casualties.

Look, the bottom line is that BHO needs to 1) stop dawdling 2) make a decision and 3) not let his decision be defined by the political agendas of people like Pelosi and Reid. If BHO lets politics dictate the direction of the war, then we should get out now because any serviceman’s life lost from that point on would shamefully be solely for someone’s re-election.

T.B.

Chris,

As I said in my post, I think some of our allies should do more to help. But the contributions they have made so far are not insignificant. Some of the countries do have their soldiers operating with their hands tied behind their backs. But the non-Americans have been getting more involved in the hot spots in recent years, and about 40% of the NATO troops killed there overall have been non-American.

I agree with you about the political dynamic of many of the European countries in regard to the war. Unfortunately, I think Afghanistan has taken a back seat to Iraq since 2003, and has not received the kind of attention it's needed. People both here and abroad are growing tired of the war, a development which, in a democracy, makes it difficult to talk about increasing the number of troops deployed. It remains to be seen whether increased commitments of troops and financial aid at this point will be too little, too late. If that proves to be the case, we also have to allow for the possibility that such increased "attention" would ever have been effective. In the end, though, I agree with you that we have a moral obligation there, and it is important to at least try.

-JQP

OJ,

Kind of. We haven't heard from the Japanese in 65 years. It's not going to happen. My only point on that scenario is it has worked before. It would have to me on a much bigger scale that Japan. These people undstand one thing and one thing only. Force.

It is still a much bigger problem than that though. Look at all the Muslim/Arabic/Muslim symathisers we have let into this country who want to kill Americans. Look at Europe. They embrace letting these people into their countries. That place is a cess pool. I know. The Europeans are more "tolerant". Good for them. Time for the US to be much less tolerant. And evidently it needs to start right in our own military.

And I agree. The Afghans are poor and probably would be very confused if we were to supply them weapons. But the country has roughly 50 million people give or take. There has to be some group that stands out amongst their peers who has leadership qualities who can lead a charge given guidance. And that is if they even want to. Maybe they are perfectly happy being poor and helpless and being left alone.

I know there is more to the European stance than what I mentioned, I've heard the points Anonymous brought up--perhaps excuses?--made also. Yes, European nations have much higher Arabic and Muslim populations that make it difficult for their governments to take a harder stance against Iraq or Afghanistan. But conversely, couldn't the argument be made that these higher Arabic and Muslim populations are exactly why these European nations SHOULD be taking a harder stance rather than shrinking from it? And France and Germany may be economically connected to the oil producing countries in the middle east--but couldn't that be MORE of a reason for them to be involved in that region rather than using this as an excuse not to get involved? Arguments could be made both ways, I think these countries are choosing to take the path with the least conflict.

On the other hand, Chris has a valid point about the way European governments work as a reason for their inaction. They are a lot more responsive to the mood of their citizens, and the mood is generally not to go out on a limb themselves but to let the U.S. do the fighting and take the heat for it.

I do not believe NATO should be disbanded; this would be disasterous. The Russians would love the opportunity to reclaim some of their previous satellite countries--didn't they make a statement to this effect recently that they would not tolerate any more of their former satellite countries joining NATO? And NATO also keeps these countries from fighting among themselves. I'm sure Chris could offer a lot more reasons why NATO is necessary. Even if there was a EU military, the U.S. would still be drawn into any conflict there, just like in the previous world wars. As annoying as the inequality is, we're just going to have to live with it. Parenting is often a thankless job.

And in Vietnam, the enemy was NOT always wearing uniforms. Civilians were most often caught in the middle of the conflict but they also sabotaged U.S. efforts and fought against our soldiers there. I've heard the horror stories from veterans; generally the civilians could not be trusted.

I think Chris is right about the Afghans not really caring what government is in power as long as they are left alone. But does the Taliban really leave them alone? Evidently enough for them not to really care if they're in power or not. I remember awhile ago, my bro from Germany and I were having a discussion about Iraq, about how foolish it was for W. Bush to think all he had to do was remove Saddam and the Iraqis would embrace democracy. The Iraqi people don't see any benefit in democracy, it's not in their culture or history, they didn't necessarily want it. My brother asked, "What do YOU think the Iraqis want?" I said, "I think they just want to be safe." I still do.

Anon5678,

"That is why I think we either need to get out, put a big fence around our country and step our internal profiling of people coming in and out of this country or go all out and start doing away with mass amounts of people in that whole region. The later is not a popular suggestion, I know, but it may be our only solution."

Kind of like a "Final Solution" ?

that was me at 825

OJ,

I don't know if what I said is the right solution, it was just a suggestion. That being said it worked better than what is going on right now. We need a constant surge bigger than anything that came about in 2006. And we just don't have the manpower for that.

And on top of that, this war is so difficult because we don't know who we are fighting. Our servicemen and women could get hurt/killed at any given time by a whack job suicide bomber who is not in uniform. At least in Vietnam, they were wearing uniforms. No one has a uniform in the Iraq or Afghan.

That is why I think we either need to get out, put a big fence around our country and step our internal profiling of people coming in and out of this country or go all out and start doing away with mass amounts of people in that whole region. The later is not a popular suggestion, I know, but it may be our only solution.

I want to express my appreciation and admiration for my son, stepson, step daughter-in-law and all the members of our military, past and present on this special day of recognition.

I cover my heart with my hand and say "thank you" to all of you for your service and sacrifice.

We do live in a great country!

Anonymous 5678,

If we start giving them weapons to fight and teaching them to fight we are right back in the circle of conflict we've been in. We did this a lot during the 60s, 70s and 80s and even did so in Afghanistan teaching some how to fight the Soviets. That didn't work out too well, IMO.

While I think our allies certainly should increase their commitments to Afghanistan, it's not fair to pretend that they have left us to shoulder the burden. Non-Americans have comprised about half of the NATO troops in Afghanistan for most of the time that the US has been involved there.

Chris,

Heroin is being exported at will because the US Troops have not destroyed the fields and have turned the other way to ALLOW the heroin to be exported. We are facilitating due to inaction.

What the?

Good point about the Europeans. Imagine how much stronger our economy would be if defense spending were cut in half!!!! (Not the same as the Naperville Firefighters). I think NATO needs to be abolished and replaced with a EU military. Let them guard their continent, not us. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are closer to Paris than New York!!!

The European nations also have much higher - significantly higher Arabic and Muslim populations with in their borders than does the United States. Spain, Germany, France and Great Britain have political problems internally that makes it difficult for these governments to take a hard stance regarding Iraq or Afghanistan. France and Germany are also very much economically connected to Iraq and other oil producing countries in the middle east. Given the combination of internal politics and financial interests, it is no surprise that much of Europe does not want to take part in a meaningful way.

Wow What the? We are agreeing. Common Ground. Building Blocks.

The whole world except China and Russia look to the US to fight for them. I think it is time for us to worry about what happens in our own borders as well. As I mentioned earlier, this stuff has been going on for thousands of years and it isn't changing just becasue we want them to change. Religion stands in the way of that.

The Afghan thing doesn't make sense to me either. I would have to think we have given them all the weapons and then some to fight back. I think you are right. They have to want to fight back to fight back. Same thing in Iraq. What is that saying about teaching a man to fish?

I think one policy that screws the US time and time again is our genorosity. We have to stop giving aid to all these places with no accountability. Look what Somalia has done with our aid. Look what any backward country has done with our aid. It kind of goes right along with us being members of NATO. It doesn't benefit us one bit. It is just the "humanitarian" thing to do. If we are going to aid these countries, aid the people who want to rise up against their dictatorships and teach them how to fight and overthrow. Give them bigger and badder weapons than their dictators have to give them a fighting chance. And then keep it very quiet. We don't need to know everytime our government gets dirty.

What is the end Play,

I would use the term barbarian. That is perfetly fitting.

I've been following this discussion but have no opinions, no suggestions for this or the Iraq mess. I've found the whole Iraq/Afghan situations so demoralizing that I try to not spend too much time focusing on them. However, I may have a clue as to why the Europeans don't seem to care about what happens in those regions. As I've mentioned before, I have connections.

The attitude of many European countries is that NATO was formed strictly for their benefit, to protect them from aggressors. It's like a parent/adolescent relationship, with the U.S. as the parent. NATO members know they need this pact with the U.S. for protection, but they resent this dependency just the same. And like adolescents, they want the security this pact provides without wanting the responsibility that goes along with it. They seriously believe that as the parent, the U.S. should fight it's own battles and theirs too if they get attacked, but they resent being called upon to help the U.S. It's the parent's job to protect the child, not vice versa. This is why it's like pulling teeth to get them to help out and why they eventually do so grudgingly. They don't worry about what happens beyond their borders because they know the U.S. is obligated to come to their defense if it reaches them. Unless that happens, they feel the U.S. is on its own.

As far as Afghanistan goes, perhaps someone here can clarify this for me: if the Afghan people really don't want the Taliban running their country, why don't they organize to fight them? They seem at times to shrug off this threat, like the government did by allowing the Taliban to have the Swat Valley for a period of time. It seems the U.S. is more committed to keeping the Taliban out than the Afghans are. They've been controlled by the Taliban before, they give lip service to not wanting them to return, yet they don't seem all that concerned about it or the fact that the U.S. is debating pulling out altogether. What goes?

Chris,

You note that the overthrow of Sadaam and the Taliban as objectives of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those objectives had been met.

What America had not anticipated that the remaining people in these two countries would not stand up and create a meaningful form of government. In Iraq, groups from both Shiates and the Suunis Muslim factions instigated insurgency to prevent a meaningful government. In Afghanistan, the tribal war lords fought organized government and allowed the Taliban to return. And Iran is agitating as well.

The resulting anarchy in both countries make it impossible to create stability in the Middle East. It is possbile that the previous dictatorial governments should have been retained as long as they stopped Al Quida and conflict! Going forward, specific standards need to be set and if these governments do not work toward them, then we need to abandom them. This would also result in confining this barbarian culture to these areas similar to actions taken in the African continent where mass genocide has been rampant. Most significant, a blockade of Afghanistan (and any supporting country) to prevent the shipment of heroin would need to be established.

We cannot change barbarians to refined humans.

This is why I support a full and complete pull out, without supporting or propping up anyone left behind. Let them figure it out on their own. Our problems that came back to haunt us was for propping up forces/governments and having them be our puppets in the region.

There's consequences for pulling out, there are consequences for staying. At the end of the day and off into the distance I still say pulling out now and not going back will be the better road for us.

Chris,

A lot of innocent people suffer all over the globe on a daily basis and we do nothing about it. The 'Afghan' Government has always been a system of local warlords in territories. If we leave, it goes right back to that which it was before we got there, before the Soviets got there, etc.

If you can define the job as 'DONE' then define it. IMO, there is no definition other than us being there treating it like an American Colony. If I recall history correctly England tried to control what is now the United States as a 'Colony'. How did that work out for them? Not too good, I imagine.

You are right. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. SO if we don't we are damned either way but we are damned a lot less money and American Lives in the process of being damned.

Sounds like a good deal to me. What says you? How much money and lives is 'worth it' to be there forever at the current loss rate and money burn rate?

Guys. They have been fighting over there long before any of us were born. Our choices are either to stay and nation build which isn't going to happen unless we institute a draft. We don't have enough troops. We need about 1 mil people over there killing a heck of a lot more people than we are right now. And that isn't going to happen.

Or pull out and let them figure it out. There will never be peace there as long as there as an Israel. And as long as there is oil and religion there is no hope for peace amongst the Muslims. It is a lose/lose situation for Americans. If we can follow the Pickens Plan which seems dead in the water right now, we could easily walk away from the whole disaster in a heartbeat. All we need from that area is oil/energy. That's it. There is nothing else our country needs period. Let them figure their own problems out. Lobbyists of course will never let this happen as there is too much money in oil.

The other choice is to drop the bomb. Although it worked before and worked well, that's not going to happen either.

Chris,

The Afghan war helped bankrupt the Soviet Union. Have you taken a look at our country's financial outlook lately? Pride goeth before a fall.

It really is hard for me to decide what I think. After my original post, I thought...well now perhaps we should get out, how many years can we go and try to train a nation to take care of itself? This is what my stepson goes back to do...train Afghan police. He has also done this in Iraq.

And then I'm reminded of how Afghans that have worked toward change over there would be treated by the next oppressive gov't if we leave. And yet, can we be there forever? And can we do it without help from NATO? Are we losing strength and credibility throughout the world and here at home because we are working alone?

I am no closer to an opinion.

I don't know what the answer is, I really don't. Of course my gut says to get out. There has been tribal fighting since before Christianity in this part of the world. We don't understand them, they don't understand us. Unfortunately some of those that don't understand us now want to obliterate us.

My son is now out of the navy and off the Persian Gulf. I am very very glad about this Don't get me wrong, I do care about those still involved. My stepson has done two tours in Irag as an officer and was "out". Now he has a family, two little children and is being sent to Afghanistan for another tour. He's better with it than we are.

How does it end? We can't keep all off our land, we can't control the world...I agree with OJ, no one has ever "won" over there. This does not even address the financial issues of ongoing war. How are we to assimilate ancient cultures and get them to agree that what we want is what they should want? And yet, the violence against peoples is also what we try to protect this world against. But, how do we pick and choose our battles to protect people. Darfur? Anyone?

I must say, it's very pleasant to post here, without some of the mayhem on other topics. Even if it is "slower" :-)

The whole middle east should just be left alone. Put a big fence around it and let them all kill each other off. Keep a few bases and some CIA operatives over there in case we need to get dirty and that is it. Stop all the PC stuff about how the CIA operates. Let them go nuts and start wiping mass amounts of important terrorist figures and mass amounts of jihad spreaders. It is hard to fight a war when it is bound by political correctness. Sometimes the things we would never imagine need to happen. We just don't need to know about them. That is why they call it war.

They won't get it until they stop fighting for religious regions. Allowing women to go to school and be seen in public is not a bad thing. Freedom is not a bad thing.

Anyone seen The Watchmen? You know how Dr. Manhattan gets all huge and puts an end to the Vietnam war? We just need to send the Napergate Man over to Afghanistan. If he truly is as powerful as his legendary status held by some of the loons around here, the Taliban should be waving the white flag in no time.

No one to my knowledge has ever 'won' a war in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires.

Just declare mission objectives over and bring our people home with a Hero's welcome. No more need to die.