Article

2008-07-31 Afghanistan

A top general says more troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-07-31 18:12|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Listen to expert McCaffery, here. Heh. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Difference between managers and leaders.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-07-31 20:09|| 2008-07-31 20:09|| Front Page Top

#2 We can't afford to fail in Afghanistan

Why?

As far as I can see there is no point in winning.

Posted by phil_b 2008-07-31 21:33|| 2008-07-31 21:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Actually went to the article. I agree with P2k that this is a lot of bitchin' with no solutions. The only thing he actually recommended was some Combat Engineers w/ Stryker infantry backup. I could have come up with that one.

For a man formerly carrying 4 stars this is pretty poor.

Posted by tipover 2008-07-31 21:37|| 2008-07-31 21:37|| Front Page Top

#4 A ~~top~~ ex- general says more troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan

Posted by Pappy 2008-07-31 22:13|| 2008-07-31 22:13|| Front Page Top

#5 My comments from DoDBuzz:

RAND has missed the point in that that lawfare only works in a society that believes in the rule of law. Since there are many in the world that do not follow that premise, lawfare did not and will not work. That the police and the courts will take care of it attitude at places like RAND and the halls of government is the primary reason our troops have had to be used to address the problem after the failure of lawfare policys.

The use of modern police techniques by the military does not negate the need for military presence to make it work. Passing some laws and telling the police and courts to take care of it will not address terrorism or radical Islam.

Posted by tipover 2008-07-31 22:33|| 2008-07-31 22:33|| Front Page Top

#6 Oops!! Dropped this into the wrong article; Sorry.

Posted by tipover 2008-07-31 22:35|| 2008-07-31 22:35|| Front Page Top

#7 i agree... more troops in a-stan is not the answer.

more HE in pak-land is.

Posted by Abu do you love 2008-07-31 23:36|| 2008-07-31 23:36|| Front Page Top

#8 HMMMMM, massive US-Allied investment aside IMO I don't think getting Afghani-Paki farmers to switch to FLORIDA ORANGES ala 1980's WAR ON DRUGS is gonna work in this region. This region has basic been a NO-MAN'S LAND for 00's of yarns as per EAST-WEST TRADE, and will likely remain so for decades to come.

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES > ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT/RECONSTRUX > in absence of anything else, perhaps its time for the US-Allies to consider turning Afghani-Paki into a major, LEGIT Regional-Global source of CHEAP PHARMACEUTICALS AND DRUGS. THE PRIORITY RIGHT NOW IS TO FIND SOMETHING THAT IS BOTH EMPOWERING AS WELL AS PROFITABLE FOR LOCALS, WHILE ALSO BEING LOW-COST AMAP FOR AMERICA.

The lack of substantive local development is another reason. among others, why THERE CAN BE NO "STALEMATE" IN THE WOT BWTN THE USA + RADICAL ISLAM, AS PER UNIPOLAR DOMINATION OF OWG-NWO.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-07-31 23:44|| 2008-07-31 23:44|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:54 Barbara Skolaut
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:38 Abu do you love
23:36 Abu do you love
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:40 tipover
22:35 tipover
22:33 tipover
22:18 Sheba Sheamble5056
22:16 Chief
22:13 Pappy
22:08 Pappy
22:03 Pappy
21:56 Frank G
21:46 Hellfish
21:44 Bright Pebbles
21:43 Bright Pebbles
21:40 Frank G
21:37 tipover
21:33 phil_b
21:31 Grunter in Denver