.
I've got zero to say about this story, it tells itself. And this is a story from the SFGate, not exactly a right wing rag.
.
Feinstein wants more troops in Afghanistan
.
The U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in "serious jeopardy" and needs more troops to turn the tide against an increasingly potent Taliban insurgency, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday, putting her at odds with an influential Democratic colleague on military matters.
.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's views are more closely aligned with those of key Republicans than members of her own party. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged a more methodical approach that begins with crafting a new, comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan.
"I'm saying at this time, don't send more combat troops," said Levin, D-Mich., who wants the emphasis to be on strengthening Afghanistan's own security forces so they can bear a greater share of the security burden.
But Feinstein, whose post gives her access to sensitive information about the war's progress, said delaying the reinforcements also puts the forces already in Afghanistan at greater risk. She pointed to an Oct. 3 battle in northeastern Afghanistan in which eight U.S. soldiers were killed during an enemy attack on their remote outpost.
"We didn't have the ability to defend them, and now the base is closing, and effectively we're retreating away from it," she said.
.
.
Scteveo
7 comments:
Now, THIS is starting to look like Viet Nam
I've got news for you Bill. This may end up being worse than Nam. At least in Nam we won the battles, in spite of what Leftists Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and the rest of the commie MSM were telling the American people. In Afghanistan, we will not win! Why?
1. The bulk of our brave and dedicated military forces are not trained, nor do they have the mentality to fight a guerrilla war. No, Nam was not a guerrilla war.
2. The same liberal political philosophy, "(just go and fight, but don't win, and don't hurt anybody") that hampered our troops in Nam, is present in Afghanistan, as it was in the 2nd Iraq war. It was not present in the 1st Gulf war. Compare the results.
3. As is almost always the case, our warriors are tasked with "rebuilding" Afghanistan while trying to fight a war. This is a place and a people that are happy living in the 10th century. In fact, there is no real country to rebuild! Our focus there should be aimed at destroying Al-Q, and the poppy fields, and nothing else. And most of that could be done from the air.
Of course, one could say, why not take all our troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan? That would give the generals more than enough. True, but that's exactly what Iran is hoping for, since they would immediately reintroduce Al-Q into Iraq.
IMO, our ground forces should be pulled out of Afghanistan. They should also be pulled from Iraq, and everywhere else around the world where they're stationed. We can do more damage to Al-Q and the Taliban from over head and off shore, by simply pressing buttons. "Well, won't we be seen as losing and running away?" It really doesn't matter since, if after 20 years of war there, (1) terrorist is left alive, the world media will still make it seem as if we accomplished nothing and lost.
An Italian walked into a bank in New York City and asked to meet with the loan officer. He told the loan officer that he was going to Italy on business for two weeks, needed to borrow $5,000, and was not a depositor of the bank.
The bank officer told him that the bank would need some form of security for the loan. So the Italian handed over the keys to a new Ferrari. The car was parked on the street in front of the bank. The Italian produced the title and everything checked out. The loan officer agreed to hold the car as collateral for the loan, and apologized for having to charge 12% interest.
Later, the bank's president and its officers all enjoyed a good laugh at the Italian's expense for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drove the Ferrari into the bank's underground garage and parked it.
Two weeks later, the Italian returned to the bank. He repaid the $5,000 and the interest of $23.07. The loan officer said to the Italian, 'Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely. But, we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we ran a credit check on you and found that you are a multimillionaire. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?'
The Italian replied: 'where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there when I return?'
Question: Doesn't this make you wonder that just maybe the Italians should be running our government?
I hate this situation from the stand point of the guys in the field. But if President BOHICA screws this up in Afghanistan, he will I'm bettting, and the Surge in Iraq DID work, it will make GWB look like a freakin' military genius.
Now granted, GWB ONLY took his general's suggestions and then acted appropriately. Isn't that why we have the Joint Chiefs, to feed the President information? Anyway, if that's ALL he did, then compared to the current Commander in Goofiness, then Bush is indeed Xerxes, the Caesars, Ghengis Khan, Napolean, Eisenhower, Patton and Norm Schwarzkopf all rolled into one.
That ain't news for what it might turn out to be....like Obama actually deserving he Nobel, or even a twinkie. It' just history sort of repeating and the mantra that Iraq was Bush's Viet Nam, when this is what is really happening, right here, right now.
OK, I'll bite, how is Iraq Bush's Nam?
Obviously, it was GWB's war because he's the one that started it! Iraq didn't attack us, we attacked them.
Perhaps he also means that Iraq, like Nam, was an unnecessary war. We always seem to end up fighting the surrigate instead of the true enemy. In Nam, we fought the Viet Cong instead of the ChiComs. (although we did clash with them a few times, "unofficially") In Iraq, we're fighting the Iraqi's instead of Iran. The result is that we spend Trillions of dollars, and waste tens-of-thousands of valuable lives, and in the end, the real enemy is still standing. Unscathed.
Remember JFK's speech when they found Ruski missiles in Cuba? He told the world that, "any attack from Cuba will be seen as an attack on the US from the USSR and we will respond based on that". (paraphrase) What he was saying was, if we are attacked by the snakes tail, we'll cut off it's head! It's plain talk, and obviously, very effective. And it would be even more effective today if someone had the balls to say it, and mean it.
But that was America then, when we were a true superpower. Those days are gone. With the leftist nitwits running this country today, the prevailing attitude is that it's better to be loved than feared. And when dealing with radical Mooselambs, that's a formula for disaster.
Post a Comment