"President Obama- Wars don't end, They are Won or Lost"

kozanne

Inactive
Sounds like the military doesn't exactly trust 0bama, either:


http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/02/president-obama.html#more


Posted By Uncle Jimbo


My biggest fear about a President Obama was that he has a totally flawed view of what to do about our two ongoing wars. He was spectacularly clueless about what to do in Iraq and had we followed his bad advice we would have lost there. His continual demand that we "end" that war is symptomatic of his misunderstanding of the gravity of having US troops on a battlefield.

It is just this simple Mr. Wannabe Commander in Chief, and I say wannabe because while you hold the title you haven't earned it or the trust of the troops yet.

The first SF team room I walked into had a sign over the Captain's desk that said "Shut up sir, we'll throw you a pen when we need you to sign something". That sign stayed up for every new Captain assigned to a team of seasoned NCOs to serve as their Detachment Commander, and it only came down when he had gained the trust and became the Team Leader.

Well so far Mr. Obama you can hang onto your pen for a while yet. You have a choice to make about your BS 16 month withdrawal from Iraq campaign promise. It was BS when you first came up with it and it's BS now. Your military leaders came to you and told you this and we'll see if you listen to them or play politics. You, Reid, Murtha and the rest of the defeatocrats did your level best to lose that war and if President Bush wasn't a real leader you might have prevailed. I hope you have learned from that but you still seem to be lost as far as what the job of CinC entails. Well as a courtesy from this NCO to a new Commander, I will give you a very important lesson.

You can't end a war, you either win it or lose it.

Did you hear me sir? There is no endgame, no exit strategy, there is victory or defeat. President Bush knew that when he sent our troops into both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. He also had the intestinal fortitude to stay and win in Iraq, when you were counseling retreat.

You also made a lot of noise during the campaign about how tough you would be in the "right" war Afghanistan. You claimed you'd invade Pakistan if you could find bin Laden and you talked about how Iraq was a distraction from the real battle against al Qaeda. You now face a choice about those promises and you have blown the first step. You brought in your military leadership and then asked them what the end game and exit strategy was. I don't know if anyone left a manual on your desk, but that is your job. You see Mr. President you are the one in charge and you are supposed to tell them what the goal is and what constitutes victory. Then they tell you how to make that happen. It's called civilian control of the military and you are the civilian in control.

So back to my lesson sir, you have to decide if you want to win or lose in Afghanistan. I know a bunch of folks have told you how hard it is to do anything there and they are right. Like many of your campaign promises things are a bit tougher to actually implement. The problem is that to win in Afghanistan will take time and you would have to actually stand on principle.

You have yet to show any inclination toward doing that, so I worry you will make a token gesture and then cut and run when you catch some heat from your left. They cut you some slack while you were running about all the tough talk on Afghanistan. They knew that with your defeatist attitude on Iraq you needed the cover so you wouldn't come off like a pacifist. Well now you are the decider and the question is victory or defeat. If you choose defeat it will be yours to own, and if you choose victory it will take guts and the ability to ignore the howls to pull out.

Our military is not a tool to be used to further your political goals. I assume that is starting to sink in, and you still have to make the tough decisions. So man up sir, make the call and then prepare to stand by it. We'll see if the sign over your desk comes down.
 

Steel Cowboy

Contributing Member
War is Hell...but sometimes you just gotta do it. But, we can't continue to put our service-folks in harm's way by sending them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

If you go to war, its got to be about killing folks and breaking things...not pussyfooting around so you don't damage some religious site, mosque or hurt by-standers.

Victory is only acheved by either destroying your enemy or pummeling them to the point where they lose the will to fight.

Go back to the day of Fat Man and Little Boy...we need to take the attitude of...losing is not an option.

I don't imagine we'll win anything with PrezBo in charge. In fact, I think its going to cost us much until he leaves office.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Sounds like an old time SFer to me. When I first came to SWC in the early 1980s, senior SF NCO's regularly referred to officers as 'signature apes.' That was before the days of Goldwater-Nichols, before SOCOM, before USASOC. That was while SF was still really unpopular with the rest of the Army, when NCOs had to WANT to be there, really bad. That was the only-combat-arms-to-the Q-course days, the 110 GT score required days- it was before the fill-the-force days, before the go-from-AIT-to-jump school-to-Assessment and Selection days. It was a loooong time ago.

Things have changed... and not for the better. The Pretender In Chief is a good example of that.

dd
 
Quote from above article:

Our military is not a tool to be used to further your political goals.

Au contraire, mon petit chu.

There WAS NO FORMAL Declaration of War, as proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. You and your brethren have been played as pawns by the power brokers, in their illegal pursuit of political goals.


War is Hell...but sometimes you just gotta do it. But, we can't continue to put our service-folks in harm's way by sending them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

If you go to war, its got to be about killing folks and breaking things...not pussyfooting around so you don't damage some religious site, mosque or hurt by-standers.

Victory is only acheved by either destroying your enemy or pummeling them to the point where they lose the will to fight.

Correct.


intothegoodnight
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
intothatgoodnight Quote from above article:

Quote:
Our military is not a tool to be used to further your political goals.
Au contraire, mon petit chu.

There WAS NO FORMAL Declaration of War, as proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. You and your brethren have been played as pawns by the power brokers, in their illegal pursuit of political goals.

I think in order to properly analyze the meaning of "Our" and "your".

There WAS NO FORMAL Declaration of War, as proscribed by the U.S. Constitution. You and your brethren have been played as pawns by the power brokers, in their illegal pursuit of political goals.

In the case of both administrations and the Congress, elections have consequences. The voters hired these people to take care of the shop. It is the voters' duty to hire and fire as performance dictates. That requires an informed and educated electorate. Hence the problem. Bread and games v. actively searching out information that does and does not agree with your preconceived notions of reality.
 

zoose

Inactive
Many mistakes were made right from the get go when we invaded Iraq.

We didn't understand the culture of the people we were trying to liberate.

It took them a couple years to figure out that mistake.

Our military can certainly 'Lay Waste with Shock and Awe' but they really suck at taking the first steps at nation building once the dust settles.
 
the

guy who wrote the article sounds like an idiot. Another one falling for the concept of 'total' war. Sure, lets stay there until we kill about 3 million Pushtans, spend another 11 trillion dollars (that obviously we don't have - obvious except to the brain dead and those lost in the space between their ears) and lose who knows how many more dead and maimed, and of course all that material too.


"Did you hear me sir? There is no endgame, no exit strategy, there is victory or defeat. President Bush knew that when he sent our troops into both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. He also had the intestinal fortitude to stay and win in Iraq, when you were counseling retreat."


Yeah, there BETTER be an end game AND a strategy to get there. Read Stormin' Norman's book. At the END of THAT war the post Vietnam generals decided they DID want a strategy WITH and end game before they got caught up and embroiled in another quagmire. Which they are now.


Read B H Liddel Hart's book Strategy and Tactics. He lists a couple of dozen 'wars' in western history that bankrupted and ruined the countries waging them and also argues against the stupid fallacy of 'total' victory which as often as not bankrupts and ruins the victor as well as the fallen.


WAR is an extention of STATE POLICY by other means. It is NOT a means to itself.
 

kozanne

Inactive
I'll believe boots on the ground before I'll listen to some metrosexual pu**y-boy in an Armani suit telling us what's what in a war. Go intellectualize yourself, I'll believe the words of someone who has been there, done that.
 

Utopianwar

A Loon With A Capgun
I'll believe boots on the ground before I'll listen to some metrosexual pu**y-boy in an Armani suit telling us what's what in a war. Go intellectualize yourself, I'll believe the words of someone who has been there, done that.

I do love your way with words! So well said!
 
"President Obama- Wars don't end, They are Won or Lost"


We clearly elected a genius to be POTUS.

That's almost certain to give some newscasters additional tingles.

4, 8 or 10 years of The One's 'rule' in all 57 states.
 

NC Susan

Deceased
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]................."...........I am reminded today, after watching the Super Bowl, of former Cardinal Pat Tillman’s decision to trade a professional football career for a tour of duty in the mountains of Afghanistan. That decision cost him his life. When asked why he walked away from the NFL to fight for his nation, Tillman responded, "My great-grandfather fought in Pearl Harbor, my family has fought in five wars, and I haven't done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that."[/FONT]​
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"........Pat Tillman understood duty............."....quotes from Coach Dave

article at link:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave143.htm
[/FONT]​
[/FONT]
 

Josie

Has No Life - Lives on TB
If you have a leaking water line in your house, who do you call? An auto mechanic? A pastry chef? No. You call a plumber. Now if you want to fight a war, who are you going to call? The correct answer is the military. If we would have let the military fight the war instead of the pee cee, arm chair generals in Dee Cee, this war would have been over a long time ago.

Like Steel Cowboy said, war is hell. Either you go in and do the job or you don't. Once the decision is made to go in, hit 'em hard and hit 'em fast and don't stop hitting till someone cries "uncle". When you pussy foot around you end up in the quagmire like Korea. Nothing is settled there, both countries are still on alert and we are still there.
 
guy who wrote the article sounds like an idiot. Another one falling for the concept of 'total' war. Sure, lets stay there until we kill about 3 million Pushtans, spend another 11 trillion dollars (that obviously we don't have - obvious except to the brain dead and those lost in the space between their ears) and lose who knows how many more dead and maimed, and of course all that material too.


"Did you hear me sir? There is no endgame, no exit strategy, there is victory or defeat. President Bush knew that when he sent our troops into both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. He also had the intestinal fortitude to stay and win in Iraq, when you were counseling retreat."


Yeah, there BETTER be an end game AND a strategy to get there. Read Stormin' Norman's book. At the END of THAT war the post Vietnam generals decided they DID want a strategy WITH and end game before they got caught up and embroiled in another quagmire. Which they are now.


Read B H Liddel Hart's book Strategy and Tactics. He lists a couple of dozen 'wars' in western history that bankrupted and ruined the countries waging them and also argues against the stupid fallacy of 'total' victory which as often as not bankrupts and ruins the victor as well as the fallen.


WAR is an extention of STATE POLICY by other means. It is NOT a means to itself.


What the 'generals' and Stormin' Norman said was directed at Congress, don't get us into a war you (congress) don't intend to win. Our enemy's know too well, that our resolve isn't there. If they can drag out a 'conflict' they can and will win, because Defeat-o-crats will 'forget' why they have us fighting or decide: "It just isn't worth the cost."
:sht:
 
We

WON the 'war' in Afghanistan in the first year. Sticking around forever was the mistake.

It is now 7 years in and things are worse than ever plus we are broke 'la plus grande'.


How much of a losing proposition is it going to take to sink in to some of you?

There are tens of millions of stupid stubborn hill folk in the Pushtan that even Pakistan haven't been able to bring to heel for generations. It is far more than just killing people and breaking things. Like the Vietnamese they won't lose the will to fight. And every family member like wives and children you kill creates BLOOD FEUD. Got any real clue what that means?

Now, as I predicted long ago, our supply lines have been cut, and have proven very vulnerable. So much so they are looking to Iran for supply lines!


AND IT IS THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND WHO HAVE OK'D FOR NATO ALLIES TO GET SUPPLIES IN THAT WAY.

Some of you are lost in your own little worlds of unreality. Thankfully there are a lot more people with at least a modicum of common sense who know it is time to leave soon.

SEVEN YEARS IN AND NO END IN SIGHT - AND IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T FROM LACK OF KILLING PEOPLE.
 

almost ready

Inactive
Uncle Jimbo is wrong

many, many wars in history simply ended, usually because revenue or some other necessity ran out. The warring factions went home to regroup. The creation of credit "money" seemed to stall out that natural effect, until now we are running into actual limits on resources.

Uncle Jimbo to a study of history. THis is ridiculous, and unworthy of any further discussion.
 
Top