Link: US suspends most joint ops with Afghan forces

[JPT4Bama]

All I can say is thank God! I can only hope this will apply to the USMC as well.

My wife and I have been worried sick about the current trend in Afghan uniformed troops killing American/NATO troops these last few months. Our son is headed back to Helmand Province next month which is bad enough without having our alleged allies now responsible for the majority of US deaths in this God forsaken land.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tacks-on-troops-panetta-says/?test=latestnews

The U.S. military has suspended the bulk of joint field operations with Afghan troops amid a wave of so-called insider attacks and concern about protests over an anti-Islam film.
Fox News has learned that while U.S. troops are still patrolling, as are the Afghans, the two sides are not running operations together for the time being without special approval.

Until now, U.S. and NATO troops routinely conducted operations with their Afghan counterparts. But under the new order, such operations will now require the approval of a regional commander. Fox News was told the step is a temporary measure.
The move comes after Afghan police on Sunday killed four American soldiers, and a gunman in an Afghan militia uniform shot dead two British soldiers a day earlier. It also comes in the wake of the week-long wave of protests across the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

May God watch over your son and bring him home soon.

 

[JPT4Bama]

What's sad is how many of our men have died because they were forced by the misguided policys of a no nothing State Dept and Administration to try and integrate the former Taliban into the Afghan Army and police force.

Once again we see the results of faculty lounge foreign policy. Brave young men murdered by those they were trying to help. All in the name of Obama's "good war".

 

[Tidewater]

All I can say is thank God! I can only hope this will apply to the USMC as well.

The U.S. military has suspended the bulk of joint field operations with Afghan troops amid a wave of so-called insider attacks and concern about protests over an anti-Islam film.

I believe the USMC falls under the category "US military," so I think the Leathernecks are going to be included.

This sounds like a good idea and the start of a withdrawal policy.
Now, if we can just stop supporting those knuckleheads financially as well. My fear is that we will continue to sink money into that money pit to compensate for the lack of joint patrolling.

 

[Bamaro]

Our original goal was to destroy al Qaeda there. We did it so its now time to leave. Mission creep now has us going after the Taliban.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Now, if we can just stop supporting those knuckleheads financially as well. My fear is that we will continue to sink money into that money pit to compensate for the lack of joint patrolling.

I'd be interested in knowing what third world countries we DON'T support financially.

 

[Calvinwebster]

I'd be interested in knowing what third world countries we DON'T support financially.

If America stopped supporting 3 world countries their people would starve! Last year I called my Congressman about the US government sending 105 million dollars to Somalia. I received a letter saying that the US was the richest country in the world and we should help other countries bla, bla, bla.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

If America stopped supporting 3 world countries their people would starve! Last year I called my Congressman about the US government sending 105 million dollars to Somalia. I received a letter saying that the US was the richest country in the world and we should help other countries bla, bla, bla.

Maybe China can start supporting them instead or better yet Saudi Arabia. I mean, afterall, they need to take care of their fellow Muslim brothers right? Instead of driving around in Mercedes and jet setting all over the world, I'm sure they could spare a little change for the "starving" muslim brothers.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Our original goal was to destroy al Qaeda there. We did it so its now time to leave. Mission creep now has us going after the Taliban.

Since the Taliban was in cahoots with al qaeda we should have destroyed them both and gotten the hell out a long time ago.

 

[Bamaro]

Since the Taliban was in cahoots with al qaeda we should have destroyed them both and gotten the hell out a long time ago.

Thats what we are still trying to do (unsuccessfully).

 

[Bama4Ever831]

If America stopped supporting 3 world countries their people would starve! Last year I called my Congressman about the US government sending 105 million dollars to Somalia. I received a letter saying that the US was the richest country in the world and we should help other countries bla, bla, bla.

Are we one of the richest countries when we are borrowing money? Just because we have an American Express Black card doesn't mean we have unlimited money...

:frown:

Looks like my generation will have to pay for it.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Thats what we are still trying to do (unsuccessfully).

Nope. We've been playing Nation Builder™ for quite a while now with little emphasis on destroying anyone. At best we've focused on keeping them suppressed.

 

[Bamaro]

Nope. We've been playing Nation Builder™ for quite a while now with little emphasis on destroying anyone. At best we've focused on keeping them suppressed.

Yes we are attempting nation building but the primary mission of the military has been anti insurgency, aka kill the Taliban.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Yes we are attempting nation building but the primary mission of the military has been anti insurgency, aka kill the Taliban.

I would argue that "anti-insurgency" is a far cry from "kill the Taliban". Anti-insurgency is simply focused on keeping those up in arms suppressed to the point of no or minimal disruption of operations/loss of life on our side. That's a passive-agressive stance. Kill the Taliban would be much less passive and much more aggressive. If what you were saying were true we would not wait on them to attack before trying to repel them...we'd seek them out to obliterate them. I'm no military general but I did play Risk once.

 

[SavannahDare]

This is a decent start. It's many years late, but I hope it's the beginning of the end of our involvement there.

 

[Bamaro]

I would argue that "anti-insurgency" is a far cry from "kill the Taliban". Anti-insurgency is simply focused on keeping those up in arms suppressed to the point of no or minimal disruption of operations/loss of life on our side. That's a passive-agressive stance. Kill the Taliban would be much less passive and much more aggressive. If what you were saying were true we would not wait on them to attack before trying to repel them...we'd seek them out to obliterate them. I'm no military general but I did play Risk once.

We are not waiting on them to attack. We are actively seeking them out to obliterate them. We shouldn't be doing either. Its way past time to pack up and leave.

 

[jthomas666]

Nope. We've been playing Nation Builder™ for quite a while now with little emphasis on destroying anyone. At best we've focused on keeping them suppressed.

Sadly, nation building is the only way to address the Taliban--establish a power structure so that they can't assume power themselves. Remember, they came into power because we did NOT do any nation building when we left Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union.

There simply aren't many good options in that part of the world.

 

[JPT4Bama]

I believe the USMC falls under the category "US military," so I think the Leathernecks are going to be included.

This sounds like a good idea and the start of a withdrawal policy.
Now, if we can just stop supporting those knuckleheads financially as well. My fear is that we will continue to sink money into that money pit to compensate for the lack of joint patrolling.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Tidewater]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Sometimes, when supporting an allied country in the conduct of a counterinsurgency (called Foreign Internal Defense in military parlance), one realizes that the supported government is just not worthy of one's support.
There comes a time when it is appropriate to cut one's losses. The US may be at that point in Afghanistan.

 

[JPT4Bama]

Sometimes, when supporting an allied country in the conduct of a counterinsurgency (called Foreign Internal Defense in military parlance), one realizes that the supported government is just not worthy of one's support.
There comes a time when it is appropriate to cut one's losses. The US may be at that point in Afghanistan.

Yeah you know I was kidding. Right? I said what I did because in the past just because the DOD said something in regard to Afghan strategy it didn't always include the 3/9 Marines whom I personally am concerned with.

I understand completely the why's and such of our failed Afghan policy and have posted several times to that effect. This thread was about our administration finally deciding enough men had died at the hands of our so called allies to warrant putting an end to joint operations.

Somehow along the way it veered off into another "we need to get out asap" thread.
Probably due to some on here wanting to change the subject for obvous reasons since what has been happening with the green on blue killings reflects poorly on BO and his amateurish policys.

I'd say they succeeded. In fact as I just reviewed the thread not one person talked of green on blue killings which was the point.