For starters we leave that shithole to the natives and start worrying about fixing internal issues. And should training camps open again we shouldn't hesitate to level them with aircraft, drones, and sf.
Should have tried that plan about a decade ago. I've been saying it since 2001, the US should never have gone in there at all. Issuing measured threats then would have worked. Now, when you are retreating from the battlefield, not so much.
Threats didn't "work" then either, or we wouldn't have gone in. The post occupation bombing is just a fact, not a threat.
Well if the USA government would listen to you then Osama would still be chilling in his House under Pakistan protection. And since you are a Taliban fanboy it surprises no-one that you would love those ********ers in charge running around executing women for not covering up or trying to go to school and shit. But hey is not like the new government respects women that much more than the Taliban, so once we pull out then you may get your wish and Taliban like government will probably rule the country. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/28/afghanistan-hundreds-women-girls-jailed-moral-crimes http://feminist.org/afghan/taliban_women.asp
No going in was correct. The method w chose to use was wrong. He never should have relied on the northern alliance, instead he should have utilized his sf forces better, gone in with the 10th mountain and plenty of airborne support from the 101 and 82nd to capture obl and company right away. Once that was done and the Taliban hit very hard we should have left.
Good idea. But then again, hindsight is 20/20. When such a big terrorist attack occurs, you want to end the threat quickly. We should feel lucky he didn't decide to blindly nuke Afghanistan on September 12, or however quickly the AQ link was definitively made. But if we had taken more time to plan, just what would they have accomplished in late 2001 or 2002? They did the best they could with what they had, though not going off on the Iraq disambiguation likely would've helped. What I have to wonder is why we keep trying to train Afghan troops when these infiltrator attacks keep happening? Just how bad is the vetting of new troops going that it keeps happening like this?
It's not all happening in training. These last 4 US soldiers killed were responding to an attack on a police checkpoint, when some police turned their guns on them. Confusing at the moment.
I don't think going in was correct. This should never have gone past simply conducting an air campaign against any known Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and anywhere else where we could do damage without starting a full war with another sovereign country. Any terrorists that successfully avoid those air raids then have to be dealt with by international law enforcement agencies. Pitting a military against a group like Al Qaeda never made sense for so many reasons. A military is ineffective in rooting out these people that live in shadows. The military also offers them a clear easy target. And the military helps their ideology which is partly based on the premise that Western militaries want to occupy Muslim lands.
Going in was correct, however the method W chose was wrong. An air campain, kinda like the cruise missles that Clinton fired into Afghanistan would have done nothing. As for international law enforcement agencies, you're kidding right? Tell me who would have gone in there? Interpol? Do you think they would have been well enough armed to go after these people? I don't think you understand the capability of AQ. They are well armed and more then a match for a "police" or any non-military group. Well actually the Military has groups that can easily fight aq and groups like them. That is what they are trained for. Had we gone into Afghanistan correctly we would have surrounded OBL and mullah omar right from the get go. But W screwed that up. The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq is that they decided to "rebuild" them, but in reality it was nothing more then a money grab by W and his cronies with their no bid contracts where they made billions off the US Taxpayer and skyrocketed our debt.
Not Interpol ... but the CIA and military intelligence. When targets were found we should of used a combination drone and air strikes, and beyond that a mixture of covert spies, assassins and Navy Seal teams like the one that went into Pakistan. Look at what the US has accomplished in fighting Al Qaeda in Pakistan without ever having boots on the ground. All I'm saying is that a surgical process would of been my preference over occupying a country the size of Texas in some of the most rugged terrain on the planet.
I understand what you are saying, my take is that had W not relied on the Northern Alliance and instead sent in SF, and SEAL teams with air support and support from the 101st, 82nd, and 10th Mountain we would have sealed off obl, omar, and many of their top guys and captured or killed them at the start of the war. Then the need to send in more forces would not have been needed. You also need to remember that Drones were not at a point yet to use the way they are used now. They were mainly UAV's now we have UCAV's and they work the way they do based on actual combat useage.
From various reports it appears that five royal marines have been charged with murder for killing a captured and wounded insurgent. They allegedly did it last year in Helmand, and kept it quiet until video was found on one of the marines' laptops. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19940138 Question to the proponents of the drone programme - why is the killing of a confirmed militant when he is not a threat charged as murder, but the killing of suspected militants and bystanders when they are not a threat is viewed as a good policy?
Do you have links or a source for this? Not busting your balls or saying you're lying, I'm just intrigued by this.
I don't think this is accurate. Rumsfeld himself confirmed the Pentagon had no capability or operational plan for large scale deployment on the ground. That would need to be worked up and takes time. The CIA had deployable capability and a plan that could be operational immediately. Hence W authorised the CIA plan - as it was that or wait on the Pentagon. Of course Rumsfeld (correctly in my view) had no great desire to see the US military embroiled in Afghanistan
Its this type of indiscriminate murder taking place that has the people of afghanistan living in terror 24/7 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20001200
I agree, however the 101st and 82nd are paratroopers and could have been put in place rather quickly. Rapid deployments are one of their specialties. Not sure how long it would have taken to get the 10th Mountain in place. But there would have been no need for any armor as the NA didn't employ any.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-afghanistan-bombbre89p09o-20121026,0,5697023.story Gee such nice people those taliban are, increase the drone strikes.
Right! No way it was the Taliban.. After all, there are very religious and would never sully one of the most important days of their religious calendar! They were all at a different mosque, deeply engrossed on prayer. Except for those making the haj.