Russ Feingold moves to block troop surge in Afghanistan
Nobody knows what the president is going to do in Afghanistan, not even the president. He is too busy golfing and playing basketball to make a decision concerning Afghanistan, but Russ Feingold is making preparations just in case Obama does decide to heed General McChrystal’s warning that we need more troops over there or the mission is lost.
Russ Feingold is moving towards blocking a troop surge in Afghanistan if that is what Obama decides to do. I have to give him credit for one thing, at least he is consistent. He opposed the troop surge in Iraq when Bush was president and now he opposes a troop surge in Afghanistan. He was wrong about the Iraq troop surge, that surge secured victory in Iraq. And if General McChrystal is correct, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, that the only way to secure victory in Afghanistan is with more troops than Russ Feingold will be wrong again.
But the bottom line here is still the fact that the general in charge of the troops on the ground has declared that he needs more troop or we will lose. If Russ Feingold and others decide that they will block the troop surge that is needed to attain victory and to protect the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan than there is no sence fighting a war that the general said is unwinnable. If we are not going to do what it takes to win than it is time to leave.
America's Watchtower 
I am going to say this in the most least offensive way I can, Russ Feingold is a F*CKING MORON… 👿
LikeLike
I think that sums it up well!
LikeLike
I agree, Mr. Pink Eyes. If they expect General McChrystal to win this war, they need to give him what he is requesting. If they insist on micromanaging the war, as if they know better than the General, then they to just call it quits and let our soldiers come home. Doing anything less is a great disservice to the men and women in our Armed Forces.
LikeLike
Agreed! I support sending in the troops if that is what the general believes we need in order to win. I would never advocate pulling out except for the fact that the general said he can’t we without addition troops, if we won’t give him the troops and that means we cant win than I see no other alternative but to leave.
LikeLike
I heard John Kerry blathering the same thing regarding a surge. Feingold has company.
LikeLike
Kerry has also joined the fray, at least he and Feingold are holding the same positions they had when Bush was in office. That is the most gredit that I can give to these two.
LikeLike
“He(Feingold) was wrong about the Iraq troop surge, that surge secured victory in Iraq. ”
-Did it? I didn’t know we won (Bush’s pronouncement of May 1, 2003,
“Mission Accomplished” not withstanding……) yet. This is especially baffling considering the recent bombings of the Justice Ministry, and the nearby Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works.
I still remember Gen. William Childs Westmoreland’s call for more troops in Vietnam, and “the light at the end of the tunnel”. This ex-paratrooper (1Bn ABN/ 508th Inf) knows that generals make mistakes.
LikeLike
First let me thank you for your service, it is becasue of people like you that we remain free.
When I wrote about victory in Iraq I was reffering to the fact that major operations are over and the fact that we have handed control back over to Iraqis in 90% of the country. We are beginning a withdrawal in Iraq based on these gains. There will always be some attacks over there, whether we remain or not. It is a fact of life in the middle east, there will never be complete peace over there.
If Obama acts on McCrystal’s advise and sends more troops I will support him, if he decides that no more troops are to be sent over there and that it is time to start withdrawing I will support that also. What I can not support is Obama deciding to leave troop levels where they are currently knowing that the general has said we can not win with current troop levels.
LikeLike
We did have a limited victory in Iraq, one that may or may not hold. However if we fail to send the troops asked for to Afghanistan then we should leave and be prepared to take whatever future attacks planned from there will bring and that blame should those attacks come must be placed squarely on those like Fiengold and those who support withdrawl at all cost. These people need to answer when they are wrong.
LikeLike
Ron, no disrespect intended, but there is no such thing as a limited victory. Read Carl von Clausewitz’s book “On War” It’s kinda like being almost pregnant.
As for future attacks, the planning for such attacks could come from anywhere. What i do find interesting about the situation in Afghanistan is the Pakistani military’s offensive against the Taliban. Pakistan is and always has been the key player with respect to events in Afghanistan. It is common knowledge that the ISI has indirectly helped the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the past. What has brought about this offensive is something i’d like to know.
General McChrystal has made recommendations to Obama from a purely military standpoint. Retired Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s national security adviser makes recommendations based upon geo-political factors in addition to purely military considerations. Considerations such as the viability and standing of the Karzi government in Kabul must be included in any decision about our commitment to Afghanistan. Remember, our failure in Vietnam stems largely from the lack of popular support of the Nguyen Van Thieu government.
I have stated before that there was a window of opportunity to succeed in Afghanistan and that it has passed on. I hate to get into the blame game, but suffice to say, we expended our efforts elsewhere at the expense of placing our resources into nation building. And it is too late in the game to do that now.
LikeLike
Iraq in still a work in progress and the outcome remains in doubt. Afghanistan is a totally different animal. Yes,we did meet initial success, and we did move on to Iraq—maybe a wrong move. But enough of this looking back. The Taliban were bound to regroup given the sancuary they have in Pakistan and that took time. As long as the safe havens continue to exist in Pakistan the road in Afghanistan will continue to difficult if not impossible. The recent moves by Pakistan’s army will meet with initial success, but they will quickly leave those mountainous areas declaring victory and nothing, absolutely nothing will be gain. As for the Karzi government being viable and having wide spread support—we don’t even have such a thing here in this country. Vietnam was lost, because we failed to close the sanctuaries that existed in North Vietnam—american troops never entered the north in force and the major port of North Vietnam was never closed. Millions and millions of tons of war materials flowed thru the port of Hai Phong. We never lost a major battle, but the politicians lost the war by allowing the enemy to be re-supplied from safe havens and this is again happening in Afghanistan. 9-11 made this Americans war and not the war of the Afghans so let us fight it. We never waited for moderate German to form a government to help us out in WWII—such talk is foolish and simply an excuse for failure. Nuff said!!
LikeLike
I agree Ron, wainting for a government to be formed in the middle of a war before taking action is just an excuse for the Obama administration to put off making a tough decision.
LikeLike
“Vietnam was lost, because we failed to close the sanctuaries that existed in North Vietnam—american troops never entered the north in force and the major port of North Vietnam was never closed. Millions and millions of tons of war materials flowed thru the port of Hai Phong.”-Ron Russell
-If only it were so simple. How many troops would that have taken? We had 560,000 troops in country at the height of the conflict. Even with 1 million troops, i doubt we could have prevailed…..
No force in the world can stand toe to toe with the U.S. military in a conventional conflict. Vietnam was not a conventional conflict. Neither is Afghanistan. “The only way a great power loses a small war is if it runs out of public support at home, and we didn’t learn fast enough in Vietnam. We then decided as a nation that counterinsurgency wars were bad wars, and we weren’t going to fight them anymore. We focused exclusively on the conventional military, and we built the best conventional military in the world. …” -Lt. Col. (Ret.) John A Nagl
These wars are counterinsurgencies. Concerning counterinsurgency, there are two names i suggest should be researched:
Lt. Col. (Ret.) John A Nagl
A week ago, i watched with great interest, retired Army Lt.Col. John Nagl interviewed on “FRONTLINE:Obama’s War”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/interviews/nagl.html
Well worth the watch. Very informative without the politics that swirl about this topic. This man knows his subject. Listen and learn. I watched it with a young vet from Ft. Bragg. having just returned from Afghanistan, he voiced his opinion that Lt.Col. Nagl was on the mark with his assessments. It is also worth noting that Lt. Col. Nagl was co-author of the US Army’s counterinsurgency field manual (FM 3-24) with Gen. David Petraus
Just as important is to read Lt. Col. Paul Yingling’s comments, for example:
“It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.” – arguing that the US generalship suffers from conformity, lack of vision, and lack of creativity.”-ARMED FORCES JOURNAL-May 2007
We have blundered along for 8 yrs. in Afghanistan. I am angered at the lack of concern shown to this conflict until now. In spite of Lt. Col. Nagl’s assessment of the war, i fear we have lost the window of opportunity. Not that we are unable to prosecute the war successfully, but that the Afghan people have lost the will to fight. My dad returned from Vietnam as an S.F. adviser in 1966. My older brother was of draft age, and dad told us the war was lost:
“Those SOB’s(ARVN) are scared to fight, and they expect us to do it form ’em!” He retired after that. The Taliban is tenacious just as the NVA was.
LikeLike