Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Training foreign troops is taking way too long
Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009 | 2:02 a.m.
Does anyone think it strange that we have been training the police and army in Iraq for six years and in Afghanistan eight years and they are not ready to fight? The Iraq army fought an eight-year war with Iran (which we are scared of) and it ended in a draw. The same people in Afghanistan fought and defeated Russia, yet we continue to train them.
When the Korean War broke, out I was in high school, and I and four others enlisted in the Marine Corps. We were sent to San Diego for 12 weeks of boot camp and then to Camp Pendleton for 13 weeks of combat training.
We then left San Diego on a troop ship to Korea, where four of us spent a year in combat. Green high school children are trainable in 25 weeks and our current wars have dragged on almost a decade. I saw a news program that said it would be at least three more years until their troops are ready. Anyone see a real discrepancy here?
The U.S. has not won a war since World War II. Korea was a draw, Vietnam a loss. Remember what we were told: If communism takes over Vietnam, our way of life would never be the same. The communists took over, and now we are friends and trading partners.
Recently there was a story about a Marine patrol caught in an ambush that called for air and artillery support, which were denied because they might kill civilians. In World War II, Germany was carpet bombed, killing untold thousands. Japan was bombed with waves of bombers dropping incendiary bombs that killed 100,000 in one night, then two atomic bombs that killed more than 100,000 more.
We lost 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983 because the sentries could not have loaded weapons. Unless the handcuff restrictions are removed, we will not ever win a war again. Our troops are in a losing situation until they are allowed to fight to win. Civilian deaths in war are inevitable and should not be a reason to handicap our troops.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- New York mayor has the right idea
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Different time, different era, different enemies. I think I'm gonna rename the writer; Foghorn Kleghorn. That sounds a lot better.
Great letter. Sums it up just right.
"Does anyone think it strange that we have been training the police and army in Iraq for six years and in Afghanistan eight years and they are not ready to fight?"
No
What is not clear is why Obama is laying the blame on "failure" in Afghanistan on President Hamid Karzai and the Afghanistan central government.
Afghanistan never signed up for duty. U.S. officials were particularly irritated by a interview in which a defiant Karzai said that the West has little interest in Afghanistan and that its troops are there only for self-serving reasons. "The West is not here primarily for the sake of Afghanistan," Karzai told PBS's "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" program. "It is here to fight terrorism.
There was no strong central government in Afghanistan when the USA went in to rout the Taliban, which harbored the Al-Qaida.
Afghanistan still does not want a strong central government.
Now Obama is demanding that Afghanistan develop an "adequate" government, an army, and a police force. Why should Afghanistan?
Obama needs to have a strategy to win without Hamid Karzai and a strong central government.
------------------------
We should not be there for nation building, but just be in the shadows doing our thing with as few people as possible.
Bush understood this hence his containment strategy of using Spooks and Drones to attack whenever and wherever the Taliban and Al-Qaida popped up.
After setting the Afghan strategy in March of 2009, Obama has had eight (8) majors meetings to decide how to change that strategy.
But Obama appears to be unable to communicate what he wants to do because at the 8th meeting he again rejected his war council's advise.
What seem to be missing is a bigger community service organizer role in 10 major Afghan cities.
Of course the military does not do that so it will fall to the Hillary Clinton State Department.
It is hard to understand why Obama cannot get across to his staff what he wants.
Obama's handpick U.S. ambassador in Kabul Karl W. Eikenberry, is feeding the anti afghan policy.
"The Obama strategy depends on the ability to work with, and hand off to, a competent Afghan government and army -- yet the U.S. is stuck with an ineffectual leader, a corrupt government and a weak Afghan security force."
Biden is saying conditions have changed since March when Obama put his strategy in place.
In March Obama sent thinly spread out unsupported troops expanding out into the Afghanistan wilderness settlements exposing them to local attacks. Unfortunately Obama also placed new restrictive rules of engagement on our troops and gave the enemy many civilian civil liberties. Now with the 2009 summer offense nearly over the military is saying they need more troops to fight under Obama's rules.
Mr. Burritto for brains,you'd probably fall apart and out of your flour tortilla exoskeleton if you ever tried to accomplish what Willy C. has. William C. I want to thank you and all the soldiers that have ever served enlistment in the military for proudly serving our country. Sadly enough I have to agree with you. Our government and the military industrial complex does not want our soldiers to win quickly. They want these occupations to go on as long as possible. It was after WW2 our military Industrial Complex realized that in order for their industries to be paid for all the wartime weapons and troops that were used they couldn't go to the impovershed countries that were destroyed by the war, they had no money and had to worry about rebuilding their country much less paying back the U.S. for services rendered. So they turn to the only resource that they can control, the American tax payer. They can control the taxes divied out amongst the citizens easier than trying to force the foreign contries we saved to pay any money back at all. As William has stated then there was Korea, then Viet Nam.
We were told by the Administrations at that time, that if we left Viet Nam to soon without finishing the job the communist North Vietnamese would follow our troops back into the U.S. and we'd have to then fight the war here, in our own country. We were told that it would be better to fight them over there. The same B.S and lies our administrations have been telling us throughout these occupations in the mideast.
Does anyone remember what Gen. Swarzkophf told our Administration before he lead our troops into the Gulf war? He told them that the only way he would lead our troops was if he had the only say-so and total control over the troops and what they did. That fight didn't take long at all, did it?
Since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq our Generals have been told by Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Gates what to do and when to do it with no military expertice what-so-ever. All the years these occupations are taking to win the fight and train their armies and police, provide these foriegn warriors with weapons and uniforms, is costing the Americam Taxpayers trillions of dollars, which you may have heard, our children will be paying for. The defense contractors don't want the occupations to end, they want it to take years to train the mideasts' military.
I have been hopeful that Pres. Obamas' delay in sending more troops over to Afghanistan, is because he is understanding this conflict will never end and he promised the American people "Change". Hopefully the kind of change that will benefit our soldiers. It is past time for us to leave the mideast.
If you think that six to eight years is a long time to have an ongoing program to train police and army officers ..
How about the time that Obama is taking trying to decide how he can desert our troops in the field and pull out of Afghanistan?
During the Soviet Union's ten year war in Afghanistan over 1 million Afghans were killed and 3 million civilians were maimed or wounded.
A total of 620,000 Soviet soldiers served in Afghanistan (although there were only as many as 104,000 serving at one time). 14,453 Soviet soldiers were killed during the war. Tens of thousands of their troops were maimed and permanently disabled. There were also 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 cases of typhoid fever, and 140,665 cases of other diseases.
This is the future America faces if we continue in this losing battle. Our troops should fight for our interests. They don't deserve being tasked with this undefinable and un-winnable mission. Can somebody tell me why we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq without using that stupid excuse that, "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here?" I don't recall that there were any Afghans or Iraqis on the list of 9/11 hijackers. Why the hell are we there? Let's get out and use the money and personnel to fight terrorism where it will occur, at home.
To answer the question posed by the letter writer--NO, it's not "strange" at all. The neo-con strategy has always been to have a permanent occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a secret. It's a calculated strategy to secure oil fields and pipelines for our corporations. Holding this territory forever is also seen as good leverage against OPEC and Russia.
This nonsense about not letting our boys "win" because we aren't killing enough civilians is not helpful to the debate. It's just the same war baiting BS propagated by neo-con elites for benefit of the Rambo crowd. It shifts the debate from its economic origins to a knee-jerk, patriotic, "we can't stab our boys in the back" proposition.
Furthermore, counter terrorism theory, as explained by Gen. Mc Chrystal, says that to win the peace we need the majority of the people to be sympathetic to us. As sad as it may be for some to realize, we will never get there with the "kill em all" strategy.
That's why it is entirely appropriate to ask ouselves, What exactly does winning mean?
Willer Tanner....you hit the nail on the head when you said:
"Can somebody tell me why we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq without using that stupid excuse that, "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here?" I don't recall that there were any Afghans or Iraqis on the list of 9/11 hijackers. Why the hell are we there? Let's get out and use the money and personnel to fight terrorism where it will occur, at home."
It's hard to argue with that logic....
Cleghorn -- your real point is how proficient our leaders have become in milking the cows.
Sorry to hear that Wolfy...
If you two birds can't figure out why we are in Afghanistan, then nobody is going to be able to convince you of the reason. So, I won't even try.
we condone violence, we condemn certain types of people for being predisposed to violence, we condemn certain parts of town, we punish siblings for fighting, we blame the parents for their children's violent acts, we protested rap lyrics, we tell children to solve problems without violence, and we have anger management classes... yet we condone as adults solving conflicts with other nations (strangers) using war.
I can click on any other story on this site people will be outraged at some violent act across town but not against using violence across the globe to solve conflicts with strangers. we will condemn a second grader for using violence yet all he sees on the news is adults doing the same. How can we progress as humans if we cannot use other means to solve conflicts, how long have we been on this earth?
Type "pipelines through Afghanistan" in your address bar". I've said this before I'll say it again. U.S. oil companies want pipelines from the Caspian sea area from Turkministan, through Afghanistan, Paskistan out to oil tankers in the Arabian Sea. They were working with the Taliban on a price to pay the Taliban to protect the construction of the project as it proceded through Afghanistan. I've read that the Taliban was asking a large amount of money to protect the project. Ultimately, after 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan, we relieved them of their power.
Afghanistan is just the latest example of America
thinking it can succeed where others have historically failed. It's a logistical nightmare.
It's like sticking your finger in a blender, believing that you can stop the blades from going around, because you are strong. We're in some deep doo-doo over there.
Taking over a country is easy. Getting the natives to fall in line is another matter entirely.
fremmamind, have you ever served in US military? I have 25 years CMSGT US AIR FORCE. I like how arm chair quarterbacks are experts on the military on overseass operations!!!!!
Hey Burritto...
As you can tell, there are quite a few posters at this site who do not believe in the military. They are sort of like Dorothy. They close their eyes, click their heals together and think that all will be well.
And these are the same people who walk around with blinders on, purposely ignoring other countries who are building up their military to subject their neighbors to their ideological, religious and political ideas.
We did not take action with Iran or North Korea and I am afraid that the world will pay a great price for our inaction...
Just because this training has lasted 6 to 8 years doesn't mean that they are training the same officers for 6 - 8 years.
They can not be trained all at once, so if they have classes that last 16 weeks, and depending on class sizes, it will take years to get a sizable amount of officers trained.
Of course, it might take a little over 6 - 8 years to get some of you posters trained...
Burrito bandit , may I be the first to thank you for serving our country. My father served 30 yrs in the Army and retired a LtCol. He served in Korea and Viet Nam. I've always been proud of my dad. RIP. Before I graduated from H.S. in 72 I in enlisted with 5 of my friends into the navy. I passed every test with flying colors and my dream was to serve on a nuclear sub. You know how dreams work, 2 weeks before I was to leave for boot camp I was called down to the recruting office and told that since I had seizures as a child the Navy could not accept my enlistment. Life goes on.
So you are impressed with my arm chair Qb'ing? I read alot. I will always respect our military because that is where I came from. I find it very hard at times to accept what our government does which not only puts our military in harms way, but also endangers our citizens. As you can read I do believe in freedom of speech and the laws that have been written for our citizens to live by. I can't stand politicians who break our laws and who don't uphold our laws. I can't stand politicians who pass bill only to better their lives and the lives of big CEO's while pushing our middleclass faces into the dirt. We have got a great country, we just need to remind our elected officials of this. I hope you enjoy your retirement.
This is the second letter in the same amount of days bemoaning the fact that we aren't killing enough civilians. Seriously? Does anyone actually believe that this somehow achieves our foreign policy goals or our national security objectives?
News flash for wingnuts: temper tantrums about perceived "political correctness" and hopes for more casualties does not add up to a rational course of action. So please try to grow up. Please try to step out of your fearful and insecure little minds before you spout off about matters of such importance.
Rhooster: I went to high school with a kid like you. He wasn't very bright and had trouble getting girls, or for that matter any of the other kids to like him. Soon he began to act up a lot, spouting off all kinds of racist and crack-pot ideas to anyone who would listen. I don't know if he was just a jerk or really that delusional, but I suspect that, to him, any attention at all was worth it. Sound familiar?
okra I believe William stated that civilian casualties are a part of war. It seems with these occupations civilians are getting killed because there is no national army fighting. No uniforms are worn. Civilians are trying to protect their families and what little they own, and of course the Taliban, Fighting because they were taken out of power in 2001.
okra, even when you stand on that oversized soapbox, you're not that tall.
Besides being smug your comment makes no sense at all.
The letter writer states that "...Unless the handcuff restrictions are removed, we will not ever win a war again. Our troops are in a losing situation until they are allowed to fight to win. Civilian deaths in war are inevitable and should not be a reason to handicap our troops." He does not merely say that civilian casualties are a part of the war. What are the restrictions and handicaps he's talking about and how are we to win? It's pretty clear that he wants to kill more civilians, no?
let's be honest shall we...
we are fighting over there because aipac (american israel public affairs committee) has way too much influence in washington...
because they want america to fight israel's battle...
with american blood and treasure...
let's take a moment to keep score shall we...
who won the iraq war...
america...
please...
over 4,000 americans killed...
over $2 trillion will be wasted when all is said and done...
america lost big time...
iraq...
over 100,000 innocent civilians killed...
nuff said...
iraq lost big time...
israel...
bingo...
israel has had one of it's neighbors and arch enemies removed...
for free...
no casualties...
no money spent...
boy what a deal...
bingo...
israel won the iraq war...
and america paid for it...
okra, I believe one of the restrictions they are talking about is now our ground troops can't get back-up from air support because too many civilians are getting killed because of it.
Regardless if our troops are going to attack a hideout where the enemy may be hiding our troops won't be able to complete their mission with air support as backup. Our troops have already walked into traps and we have suffered casualties when air support could have helped. If our troops can't get air support to accomplish a mission and we will be losing more troops because of it why send more soldiers over there if they're only going to get killed.I don't believe that civilians should get killed because that would be defeating our mission and I don't believe our soldiers should be killed because of a lack of protection. Why did we ever go over there? Why have we not left? Is this occupation worth it?
Har, har, rooster. It's dark now, shouldn't you be out burning crosses or something? Or isn't there a really cool hate site that you'd rather be trolling at till your mommy makes you go to bed?
@fremmasmind: For what it's worth, I read an interesting article @ http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6571 It makes sense to me. Sooner or later we're going to have to negotiate a withdrawal, but nobody likes to admit it.
From another article @ http://www.tnr.com/article/world/stalema...
General Petraeus's own "Counterinsurgency Field Manual," while noting that force size calculations depend on the situation, acknowledges that "[t]wenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective [counterinsurgency] operations." Afghanistan, with a population estimated at 28.4 million, would require 568,000 troops under that model. Even more modest estimates suggest that a force sufficient to defeat the insurgency would require hundreds of thousands of troops. Retired General Dan McNeill, former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently suggested that Afghanistan would need a force of at least 400,000 to win. The idea that adding 40,000 troops to the roughly 100,000 American and NATO troops there now will produce a military victory over the insurgency is simply delusional, and does not reflect classic counterinsurgency doctrine.
In okra previous posts, he mentions two information sites. Both lean extremely to the left like most of okra postings...
FPIF (Foreigh Policy In Focus)aims to amplify the voice of progressives and to build links with social movements in the U.S.
The New Republic (TNR) magazine magazine generally supports liberal social and social democratic economic policies.
It appears that okra is no more that a left wing, Bush hating, anti-war, pink shirt wearing progressive bent on selling out this country...
At least he's right at many points. Why would you want to be Bush loving, pro-war, red shirt wearing instead of ACTUALLY selling our country?
We shouldn't be in this stupid war, it's a loss for everyone except contractors and all those defense companies and for what? to spread "freedom"? that's all a bunch of bs.
we never spread freedom, we only spread hate towards us and we breed more enemies. We never spread democracy, that's bs too. We have put many dictators into power (Pinochet) that have killed thousands of people. How about we let other States be sovereign? yeah, that would be nice.
Hi Larry:
Nice to see you responding to the facts presented rather than resorting to silly name calling. Also, keep up the good work pointing out who the genuine Americans are. Wonder if Generals Petraeus and McNeil know that they're selling out the country? Maybe you should drop them a line and let them know.
Young Marines with six months of training were successful in combat in Korea because the Corps had experienced officers and noncoms to direct them. The Corps also had a history of success in combat and an operational and logistical structure that ensured efficiency. None of these factors is as yet present in Afghanistan. Whether this is our fight or not is another question.
So okra, what are you trying to say? Are you taking a cheap shot at General's Petraeus and McNeil?
Time to teach you guys a lesson. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJj6d5QSY...
American can't fight against terrorists and these kids of guerilla style forces, we will fail, sadly.
new type of combat has to be done...or lets just leave
Come on man, it's safe/funny. I promise.
just wee bit didactic.
Click and read article below.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6571
Rhooster: Ok, ok. Might have gone overboard with the race card post. Guess I didn't like the way you macked on Commander Dingo. Even if his posts are a little, how can I put it, single minded? The guy says he's a vet, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt. Besides, his posts are more fun to read than most.
About the youtube link: It's a harmless joke. Cnet has virus and malware protection for free if you're worried.