| Author | Post |
|---|
insidedge
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:04 am |
|
A Marine's Family Says
It's time to make a decision on Afghanistan.
by Kyle W. Nevins Joseph R. Nevins
10/23/2009 6:00:00 PM, Printed in The Weekly Standard
As family members of a Marine deployed in Afghanistan, we know the importance of timely decisions in the heat of battle--indecision in the field puts troops at risk and leads to casualties. Likewise, the president's indecision about the next steps in Afghanistan is placing the overall mission and the troops on the ground at risk.
Announcing his counter-insurgency strategy for Afghanistan this past March, President Obama said, "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." This commitment was clearly re-affirmed by the president in an August speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Yet, the president and his advisers are now engaged in a prolonged process of re-thinking America's Afghanistan strategy. What has changed?
According to the White House, it would be irresponsible to act until a credible resolution to the presidential elections in Afghanistan emerges. But we fear, as many have reported, that the real reason for delay is anxiety amongst civilian White House aides that an escalation in Afghanistan will derail the president's domestic agenda. On the latter, let us be clear--considerations of political expediency have no place in the president's war room.
Yes, there are challenges of a corrupt government and an unsure election in Afghanistan. And yes, we have other important challenges at home, including health-care reform. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of choosing the ideal time to act. We are
in Afghanistan because of a real threat posed to our national security and no electoral outcome will change that fact. Instead, we must do the best we can under the circumstances. The Marines do this every day and they deserve the same level of leadership from their commander-in-chief.
Yet, it has now been nearly two months since General Stanley McChrystal submitted his assessment on the situation in Afghanistan. In the midst of the indecisive deliberations in Washington, NATO members are suggesting a reluctance to commit additional forces and American troops are losing their grip on the situation. Repeatedly we have heard of the frustration of Marines, hampered not by a lack of firepower but manpower.
On this, General McChrystal has given unequivocal advice to the president--a successful strategy must include a substantial increase of troops on the ground. Others, including Vice President Joseph Biden, reportedly argue for a strategy that promotes minimal commitment. With our brother and son in harm's way, who should we believe--the general whose motivation is success in Afghanistan, or the politician whose motivations include success in Washington?
General McChrystal further tells us that the key to a successful counterinsurgency mission is ensuring lasting security for the Afghan population. We hear more evidence for that theory, than we do for the vice president's. In fact, we hear it from our brother and son. As reported by Dexter Filkins in an article published in the New York Times immediately prior to the August presidential elections, the local population expressed concern about their vulnerability in the event of an American withdrawal:
"We're afraid you're going to leave this place after a few months," an elderly Afghan man told First Lt. Patrick Nevins, an officer from Chapel Hill, N.C., who led the Marine unit into Tarakai. "I promise you," Lieutenant Nevins said, "we will be here when the weather gets cold, and when it gets hot again."
Given the current climate in Washington, we wonder if Patrick will be able to keep his promise. A failure to do so will not only spell disaster for Afghans, but will demoralize our dedicated troops.
The Marines know full well the importance of leadership, providing clear direction, critical motivation, and timely decisions to accomplish missions under the most difficult of circumstances. As the family of a Marine, and as American citizens, we have a right to expect the same in Washington. Mr. President, it's time to decide.
Kyle Nevins is director of floor operations for the House Republican whip. Joseph Nevins is the Barbara Levine professor of breast cancer genomics and director of the Center for Applied Genomics and Technology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. They are, respectively, the brother and father of 1st Lieutenant Patrick Nevins, a Marine infantry platoon officer currently serving in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Last edited on Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:05 am by insidedge
|
Oldsalt
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:29 am |
|
Our oldest son, a Proud Marine...and always our son. Will be deploying to Afghanistan in Mid-November.
As we all wait for that dreaded day to arrive when we say goodbye again. We remember how we felt while he served in Iraq, and how we looked forward to him coming home again.
It is never easy for the family...not to mention how difficult it always is for our son every time he deploys. As his father who deployed nearly 100 times over the many years I served at sea duty billets. Those days of getting underway, watching the family on the pier as we left was never easy for anyone.
All we want now. As members of the military family is to have a CIC who isn't playing political games with our Loved-ones who never question their duties...yet have many reservations about the person who will send them to defend this nation. Will he play politics, or be a real, honest, concerned individual who places the safety of OUR SON, and other SON'S, and DAUGHTER'S first...rather than depending on what daily polls suggest...other NON-Military people insist must be his decsion.
This president has a very difficult job to do. Nobody denies that. But if he is so easily convinced to place his career, and the demands of other political power junkies ahead of our Military. He will forever be remembered as the Coward WE Dependents/Relatives of our military are seeing him portray.
Either Obama makes a decision that benefits our Military, or he will make a decision that only benefits his historic background. If he makes the second. The blood of American men and women WILL be on his hands because he made it so.
Naturally. No family member wants their Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Guardsman to deploy into harms way. But since the safety of our nation MUST be the first reason to do so. The least we need is someone acting, or pretending to be the President who's only interest is HOW many people will vote for me....if I do the Right thing for our Military. We all know the answer to that question and only hope...the President is thinking the same thing.
|
insidedge
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:42 am |
|
The indignity of the WH response to these military concerns are to inaccurately and untruthfully state that Bush sat on requests for 8 months:
One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."
I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.
"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."
When Obama took office, he ordered an Afghanistan review of his own. Led by former CIA official Bruce Riedel, the Obama review team looked at Afghanistan and made its recommendations. On March 27, the president announced his new Afghanistan strategy--one that included many of the recommendations of the Bush administration's review. And that is another indignity. Not only did the Obama administration understand full well that the Bush administration had conducted a comprehensive assessment of Afghanistan, and not only had Jim Jones asked that the Bush review be withheld from the public--but Obama's "new" strategy bore an uncanny resemblance to that prescribed by the Lute review.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/120ekabc.asp
|
Oldsalt
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 12:12 pm |
|
insidedge wrote: The indignity of the WH response to these military concerns are to inaccurately and untruthfully state that Bush sat on requests for 8 months:
One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."
I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.
"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."
When Obama took office, he ordered an Afghanistan review of his own. Led by former CIA official Bruce Riedel, the Obama review team looked at Afghanistan and made its recommendations. On March 27, the president announced his new Afghanistan strategy--one that included many of the recommendations of the Bush administration's review. And that is another indignity. Not only did the Obama administration understand full well that the Bush administration had conducted a comprehensive assessment of Afghanistan, and not only had Jim Jones asked that the Bush review be withheld from the public--but Obama's "new" strategy bore an uncanny resemblance to that prescribed by the Lute review.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/120ekabc.asp
Even if THERE WAS a request. The obvious reasons Bush didn't push the issue was due to the fact that a Presidential campaign was underway, and he didn't want to appear as if he was using Increased troop strength in Afghan... as a bargaining chip PRO or CON for Obama, or any other Democrat candidate to worry about.
Bush knew...no matter who was elected. They would probably disagree with, or change anything he started when it came to Increased Troop strength in Afghan, or even Iraq.
So this is just another case of the CRYBABIES whining about something they had no control over. But now..if they can blame Bush...rather than allow Obama to be held responsible...THEY WILL, AND DO. Every day since January 20th, 2009.
|
cloudman
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 6th, 2004 |
| Location: | Lone Star State |
| Posts: | 14830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 09:51 pm |
|
It's past time.
Way past time.
The undecider is playing politics with the lives of our troops.
|
rebelwthcz
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
|
insidedge
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 10:48 am |
|
cloudman wrote: It's past time.
Way past time.
The undecider is playing politics with the lives of our troops.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31725083/ns/news-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1
|
mb
S. Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 02:21 pm |
|
| OldSalt: Good post. Your family and especially your son will be in my prayers as he deploys. Most of all, I pray for peace. Blessings.
|
IronBob2004
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 09:09 am |
|
mb wrote: Most of all, I pray for peace. Blessings.
Most of all, I pray that our enemies are ground into pulp.
People will wake up I hope soon and realize that the decision on Afghanistan has already been made. The decision will be to lose all our gains and blame that on George Bush.
Wars are easy. You kill people. That is how you win them. Does anyone really think this pansy we have as CiC is up to that?? No the plan is to slowly handcuff our troops then let the enemy bleed us until Americans won't accept it any more. The fact that Obama picked John Kerry to go over there should tell you everything you need to know about what this guy intends to do.
|
Philly Rabbit
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Middle Class, USA |
| Posts: | 4124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 10:47 am |
|
The God that's in the old testament is the same God that's in the new testament.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
or .. get those kids out of that hell hole once and for all.
|
Montesquieu
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 267 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 02:51 pm |
|
This is the best article I've read on Afghanistan:
http://www.atherden.com/Politics/taliban.html
And it was written by a politician. And in the Daily Mail of all things....
|
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:13 am |
|
Philly Rabbit wrote: The God that's in the old testament is the same God that's in the new testament.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
or .. get those kids out of that hell hole once and for all.
I am one damn firm believer in that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^-![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif) -Tyr
Freaking go all out to win or get the hell out! If any war must be fought it must be fought all out. To do less is not only stupid but cowardly and dishonorable as well.
|
insidedge
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 1305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 01:08 am |
|
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot wrote: Philly Rabbit wrote: The God that's in the old testament is the same God that's in the new testament.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
or .. get those kids out of that hell hole once and for all.
I am one damn firm believer in that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^--Tyr
Freaking go all out to win or get the hell out! If any war must be fought it must be fought all out. To do less is not only stupid but cowardly and dishonorable as well.
![[cheers]](/forums/themes/default/cheers2.gif)
|
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 01:37 am |
|
insidedge wrote: Tyr-Ziu Saxnot wrote: Philly Rabbit wrote: The God that's in the old testament is the same God that's in the new testament.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
or .. get those kids out of that hell hole once and for all.
I am one damn firm believer in that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^--Tyr
Freaking go all out to win or get the hell out! If any war must be fought it must be fought all out. To do less is not only stupid but cowardly and dishonorable as well.
-------------------Tyr
|
IronBob2004
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:50 am |
|
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot wrote: Philly Rabbit wrote: The God that's in the old testament is the same God that's in the new testament.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
or .. get those kids out of that hell hole once and for all.
I am one damn firm believer in that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^--Tyr
Freaking go all out to win or get the hell out! If any war must be fought it must be fought all out. To do less is not only stupid but cowardly and dishonorable as well.
Where the enemy is concerned, there is only one motto that I adhere to...
"Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."
|
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:15 pm |
|
IronBob2004 wrote: Tyr-Ziu Saxnot wrote: Philly Rabbit wrote: The God that's in the old testament is the same God that's in the new testament.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
or .. get those kids out of that hell hole once and for all.
I am one damn firm believer in that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^--Tyr
Freaking go all out to win or get the hell out! If any war must be fought it must be fought all out. To do less is not only stupid but cowardly and dishonorable as well.
Where the enemy is concerned, there is only one motto that I adhere to...
"Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."
That is the correct one when the subject is war. As in -ALL- meaning the enemy!kill them until they either all die,surrender and/or sue for peace! You can bet your last dime that they believe in the first one-all die!
Even more so with the type of fanatical brutal enemy we fight there. Some people (lib/dem) fail to properly understand that war is all about killing people and breaking things! That is why war should be considered the last resort to resolve any dispute. First resort when one is already being attacked= Pearl Harbor!----TZS
|
nNeo
Moderator/DJ
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
Right you are. How quickly the lessons of history are forgotten.
Once started, a war can only be won or lost. Half measures are not an option.
|
valiant76
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1024 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:10 pm |
|
| Posting on both partisan boards is not permitted Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:42 pm by nNeo
|
Montesquieu
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 267 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
Certain people have met their expiry date, and their lack of civilization means that they cannot partake of civilizations' benefits.
|
IronBob2004
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 05:55 am |
|
I could solve the entire terrorism problem over night. Turn it over to the Hell's Angels.
|
Current time is 02:29 pm | |
|
