Petraeus: We Won't Repeat Russia's Mistakes In Afghanistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/petraeus-we-wont-repeat-r_n_306745.html

IMHO, we already have. I just hope we won't repeat all of them.

Why does America listen to Betrayus?

"Dont worry, I wont make the same mistake"

......famous last words

Please do share with us how, General. Are we not going to repeat the same mistakes by supplying the Taliban with rocket launchers to shoot down our own planes?

and the US will still end up getting out of Afghanistan with

our tail between our legs.

soldiers killed will be President Obama. Generals Petraeus and McChrystal will follow the orders issued to them by the President. If President Obama decides to to continue with the current strategic plan, all of those killed will have died because of his decision and his decision alone. Just as Westmorland carried out the orders of President Johnson.

That's great.

Since the Taliban don't have a supply of anti-tank and anti-armor missiles it is basically a draw.

We can fly around and attack them at will. We can also move on the roads, although with some danger from IEDs.

They can deny us most of the countryside which is too rugged for wheeled armored vehicles and too vast for tracked armored vehicles. They can also harrass our supply lines from the south and the east, especially the tanker truck convoys bringing in fuel.

Logistics limit the number of US troops that we can deploy, since it is both expensive and hazardous to supply a large force that far inland on the Asian continent.

The game changer would be if someone supplies the Taliban with late-model Stinger equivalents or anti-tank missils with large, two-stage warheads. The us electorate would not stand for significant helicopeter and armored vehicle losses. But it is not in the interest of any supplier to give these to the Taliban -- not yet, at least.

As long as the Taliban can't bridge the technology gap we can somewhat keep the upper hand.
If some way they start to bridge it, as they always have in the past, we are screwed.

:wtf:

They had a hundred and fifty thousand troops there and were in partnership with Afghanistan's two hundred and fifty thousand troops and were up against about forty million. They were unable to defeat the millions that just kept a coming and were wise enough to end it. I am not sure America is that wise.

We need to impart to the Afghan people that it is up to them to win and secure their own country if they want it more badly than the Taliban wants to take it from them. We can arm and support them, but they must do the actual fighting. They should have the advantage since the Taliban is not being backed by a world superpower.

Afghanistan is just a shithole to throw bodies into. How many other countries have learned that lesson in the last several thousand Years?

:-)

Clue... nobody since Alexander the Great has been able to hold that area of the world down... what makes you think you are better than oh Alexander or Atila the Hun?

We will have to stay there until the end of time. I don't care what technological advances are made. It is a horrible place to fight, and do we really want to lose a lot of lives.

They have proven in the last year that they are much more effective attacking Al Qaeda because they are managing to get human intelligence for once. They have much more accurate info on where they are. It needs to be refined even more, but it is the right track.

Our purpose was to go after Al Qaeda not the whole bloody country.

into your game of Civ.

Keep Pakistani nukes secured, destroy any organized terrorist threats, and that's about it.

“The guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog’s disadvantages: too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous and agile an enemy to come to grips with. In the end, exhausted, the dog dies or gives up the fight." From the book, "The War of the Flea"

Guess who's the dying dog?