How long before troops out of Afghanistan

[anonymously]

After the statements by the Italian PM after their losses I guess they will not be long before they pull out.

As for UK, if Brown goes into the next election due in a few months, with no promise of troop withdrawal and a continuing alignment with the US he will certainly lose and an incoming Tory government will get them out pretty quick, IMO.

[Advertise]

Had Patton or McArthur been alive today the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been prolonged... I say listen to the General... send the 40 thousand troops he's asking for and flatten these idiots once and for all. You can not enter a conflict with a handful of troops and expect to win the battle. Have we not learned anything from Vietnam? Bomb rush them and squish their insurgent and extremist beliefs out of them at once!!! We can not give these jerks the chance to uprise and gain any sort of momentum. Our military is far superior and has far superior weapons... Let's prove IT!!!

[Kasey1]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh,I feel the same too

[Allen Farlow]

advertise, I agree with you, but keep in mind the terrain we are dealing with over there. It is mountainous, with steep hillsides, very tough to navigate. That's one thing that is slowing the progress of eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaida extremists.

If it was flat as a football field, I imagine we would've been done a few years ago, via heavy equipment and firepower.

One reason we got our behinds kicked in Vietnam was this:

Originally Posted by The prison warden in Cool Hand Luke

"What we have is a failure to communicate."

The commanders on the front lines would tell the commanders back at base that we need 50,000 more soldiers immediately.

The commander back at base tells his people in the Pentagon he needs 10,000 soldiers in about two weeks.

The people in the Pentagon tells the Commander in Chief everything is fine and we don't need any more soldiers.

Meanwhile, the soldiers already on the front lines are getting slaughtered, as the commander back at base sends more in a handful at a time, thinking we can win this thing.

Let's hope and pray we don't do that in Afghanistan. If we do it may take a long-term campaign of carpet bombing from B-52's on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border near the Kashmir region to give us the upper hand.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

If we do it may take a long-term campaign of carpet bombing from B-52's on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border near the Kashmir region to give us the upper hand.

and more 9/11's

Europe certainly will not be in this fight much longer, it has no objectives and no way that it can be won. The pressure here to withdraw troops is mounting and as I said I don't believe we shall be in there for many more months.

[Advertise]

Allen I have to agree with you on that quote. And as proof that there is lack of communication here as well, General McCleary (I believe that is the name of the commanding officer in Afghanistan) was sent there by President Obama and told to assess the situation and ask for what he needed. He is asking for 40 thousand troops now the President says he has to think about it.

As for Vietnam, Robert McNamara said in his book "In Retrospect" which he published more than ten years ago that part of the failure of Vietnam was not only the lack of communication or the miscommunication there may have been, but also that our commander in Chief (Pres. Johnson) did not like to hear the truth whether it was good or bad. Many things had to be sugar coated and many of his advisers just told him what he wanted to hear and not what the field commanders were informing, asking or needing. Not to mention that history has proven that Johnson was a very stubborn man, which means that if they did tell him the truth of what was needed he would probably have brushed it off. Who knows, with Vietnam noone wants to take responsibility for a failure.

Also, our men and women in Vietnam were also at odds like they are in Afghanistan. In 'nam the conditions were just as perilous; swamps, jungles, and diseases like malaria, were just some of the things our brave soldiers faced. Now it is mountains, and deserts, but in the military our men and women learn that a good soldier wins not on friendly and familiar territory but rather a good warrior proves superior in hostile and unknown land. They must use their skills, strength and intelligence and WE must support them with everything they need.

[Hades]

As for Vietnam, Robert McNamara said in his book "In Retrospect" which he published more than ten years ago that part of the failure of Vietnam was not only the lack of communication or the miscommunication there may have been, but also that our commander in Chief (Pres. Johnson) did not like to hear the truth whether it was good or bad. Many things had to be sugar coated and many of his advisers just told him what he wanted to hear and not what the field commanders were informing, asking or needing. Not to mention that history has proven that Johnson was a very stubborn man, which means that if they did tell him the truth of what was needed he would probably have brushed it off. Who knows, with Vietnam noone wants to take responsibility for a failure

McNamara also said a few interesting truths about Vietnam in the documentary Fog of War, which I recommend everyone to watch. I think the guy nailed a few very interesting facts about Vietnam, WW2 and Communism in that interview.

Trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVvQsnbEgx8

[Advertise]

General McCleary (I believe that is the name of the commanding officer in Afghanistan) was sent there by President Obama and told to assess the situation and ask for what he needed.

Just wanted to correct myself and the name of the General commanding our troops in Afghanistan, his name is Gen. McChrystal, and again today CNN was mentioning him and stating what he was requesting from the president. There was a huge debate between some analysts who accused Obama of being afraid of what some of his party members might think if he game McChrystal what he wants.

I stand by my belief that the President should always listen to the commanding officers and let them decide what should be done in the front lines. That was what our historical generals did, Patton, McArthur, Eisenhower, etc. and the last war we won was WWII. (Aren't they the heroes?) In my opinion, Oh yes they are...

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Advertise

and the last war we won was WWII. (Aren't they the heroes?) In my opinion, Oh yes they are...

Just to correct that statement, you did not win WW2 you were on the winning side.

[Advertise]

Being on the winning side is the same thing as winning the war. The allies WON, so we won... Gen. Eisenhower was the Supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe, McArhthur was the commander in the Pacific (actually USA pretty much fought alone on that front). So this being said you tell me who won WWII? THe Nazis? The Emperor of Japan? Please illustrate...

[jamehanna]

The president isn't sending a very clear message. Is he for the war in Afghanistan, or not. He says yes, but his actions say no.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Advertise

Being on the winning side is the same thing as winning the war. The allies WON, so we won... Gen. Eisenhower was the Supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe, McArhthur was the commander in the Pacific (actually USA pretty much fought alone on that front). So this being said you tell me who won WWII? THe Nazis? The Emperor of Japan? Please illustrate...

You have been watching the holiwood movies too much, How the US won the war.

YOU did not win it the allies did, that's different, but not usually popular in the states.

The president isn't sending a very clear message. Is he for the war in Afghanistan, or not. He says yes, but his actions say no.

He's got more sense than Bush, he knows the war is unwinnable. It will not be long before the US are the only force fighting there, because teh British public know its unwinnable and they are not going to stand for the loss of life that is being sustained to prop up a corrupt government little better than was there before.

The only strategy the British people want to see is the exit one and quickly. I think that is sort of catching on in the states now.

[Advertise]

Originally Posted by Advertise
Being on the winning side is the same thing as winning the war. The allies WON, so we won... Gen. Eisenhower was the Supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe, McArhthur was the commander in the Pacific (actually USA pretty much fought alone on that front). So this being said you tell me who won WWII? THe Nazis? The Emperor of Japan? Please illustrate...

You have been watching the holiwood movies too much, How the US won the war.

YOU did not win it the allies did, that's different, but not usually popular in the states.

It's not Hollywood movies that taught me that; it was HISTORY BOOKS!!! Actually there is a very good DVD collection with all the REAL footage from WWII, you should consider getting it. It will teach you a thing or two. As I said before, the Supreme Commander of the allied forces in Europe was Gen. Eisenhower (later Pres. Eisenhower) and the allied forces obeyed his orders. He called the shots in Europe. MacArhthur called the shots in the pacific.

I repeat it was not the movies that taught me, it was HISTORY. And again the allied forces commanded by a US General WON the war, so therefore if we want to interpret it as winning the war then by all means WE WON the WAR.

As for President Obama, I see him as a flip flopper. He first agreed with concentrating the war in Afghanistan, and sent Gen. McChrystall to assess the situation and let him know what he needed. Now he knows what its needed is 40 thousand troops to win the war but because he does NOT know how to accept criticism or even deal with the belligerent people in his party he is having a change of heart.

This country NEEDS a strong leader! And he is only demonstrating weakness. Even during the UN speeches Gadhafi, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez stole the spolight from him. The networks were talking more about their speeches than Obama's. He is sending all the wrong messages with his actions or lack there of.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Advertise

It's not Hollywood movies that taught me that; it was HISTORY BOOKS!!! Actually there is a very good DVD collection with all the REAL footage from WWII, you should consider getting it. It will teach you a thing or two. As I said before, the Supreme Commander of the allied forces in Europe was Gen. Eisenhower (later Pres. Eisenhower) and the allied forces obeyed his orders. He called the shots in Europe. MacArhthur called the shots in the pacific.

I repeat it was not the movies that taught me, it was HISTORY. And again the allied forces commanded by a US General WON the war, so therefore if we want to interpret it as winning the war then by all means WE WON the WAR.

As for President Obama, I see him as a flip flopper. He first agreed with concentrating the war in Afghanistan, and sent Gen. McChrystall to assess the situation and let him know what he needed. Now he knows what its needed is 40 thousand troops to win the war but because he does NOT know how to accept criticism or even deal with the belligerent people in his party he is having a change of heart.

This country NEEDS a strong leader! And he is only demonstrating weakness. Even during the UN speeches Gadhafi, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez stole the spolight from him. The networks were talking more about their speeches than Obama's. He is sending all the wrong messages with his actions or lack there of.

After reading your comments in this thread and knowing the contributions of the many non-Americans who fought in Europe during WWII, long before the US ever entered into it, I'm really hoping all other nations pull their troops out of Afghanistan immediately so that you can "win" that war too.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Advertise

It will teach you a thing or two.

I don't need to read about it I remember it.

[Mr. Gill]

Definitely not before what Obama projected

[anonymously]

Yes, you may be stuck with just US troops out there before long, and then they won't be there for long either. The opinion this side of the pond is definitely moving to get out ASAP.

[Advertise]

Originally Posted by Zap

After reading your comments in this thread and knowing the contributions of the many non-Americans who fought in Europe during WWII, long before the US ever entered into it, I'm really hoping all other nations pull their troops out of Afghanistan immediately so that you can "win" that war too.

Winston Churchill was begging the US to join WWII because the ALLIES were losing the war. Hitler had taken over Europe, and he already had invasion plans for taking over England. And Japan dominated Asia. The USA was the only country fully engaged on two fronts. I am not trying to underestimate the contribution other nations and their soldiers made to the war, HOWEVER, you, are undermining the important role America played in helping Europe turn around a definite defeat into victory. Without US involvement, disaster was imminent, and today the Nazis would have been the owners of Europe.

[anonymously]

That overestimates what the Americans did. Without any of the allies the war would probably have been lost. The Americans also entered the war when many of the allies had already been fighting for a considerable length of time. They really were only in the war for half its length.

[Brave7]

Originally Posted by anonymously

That overestimates what the Americans did. Without any of the allies the war would probably have been lost. The Americans also entered the war when many of the allies had already been fighting for a considerable length of time. They really were only in the war for half its length.

Overestimates what the American did? Do you home work, 75% of weaponry sent to the allies were made in USA before and after the Americans were into WW2