Pentagon worried about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan

[bobdina]

* Posted on Monday, August 31, 2009

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama's administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.

On Monday, McChrystal sent his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to the Pentagon, the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO. Although the assessment didn't include any request for more troops, senior military officials said they expect McChrystal later in September to seek between 21,000 and 45,000 more troops. There currently are 62,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can't make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida. Biden's office declined to comment.

"I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier," a senior Pentagon official said. "We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war."

Monday's assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later, advisers to McChrystal said. Although the White House took a hands-off approach toward Afghanistan earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said they're now getting more questions about how many troops might be needed and for how long.

Some White House officials said the administration feels it was pressured to send the additional 17,500 combat troops and 4,000 trainers earlier this year, before the administration was comfortable with its plan for Afghanistan, because of the country's election in August.

Obama now feels that McChrystal and his superior, Army Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the Central Command, are pressuring him to commit still more troops to Afghanistan, a senior military official said. The official said that retired Marine Gen. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, told McChrystal last month not to ask for more troops, but that McChrystal went ahead anyway and indicated in interviews that he may need more.

McChrystal's new assessment is the fifth one ordered since Obama's inauguration. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that no details of the assessment would be released. Other officials called it a "political hot potato."

Advisers to McChrystal, who spoke to McClatchy on the condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, said the document is just over 10 pages and broadly spells out McChrystal's assessment of conditions on the ground:

"It says that this could get much worse unless we invest ourselves in this now," one adviser said. "Then it says, 'This is what we propose to do.'"

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Obama administration inherited an under-resourced war in Afghanistan, but he stopped short of promising more troops.

Administration officials said that the White House is planning a series of "quiet discussions" among top advisers over the next six weeks or so about the way ahead.

"What the president is going to want to do is review the report and then discuss and talk with all of those that have equities in it to get their viewpoints and to ensure that each and every person is heard on this, and that's what the president intends to do," Gibbs said Monday.

McChrystal's latest assessment calls for redistributing troops to focus more on protecting population centers and less on chasing Taliban fighters. It also says it will take several years to build a more professional and capable Afghan security force, without saying how large that force should be.

The assessment also calls for more U.S. government civilians to be sent to Afghanistan and for the streamlining of the military's command structure, saying that too much bureaucracy is making it difficult for commanders to make decisions on the ground.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement Monday.

Since Obama's inauguration, when the war was hailed as a just cause, the administration has been bombarded by signs of a deteriorating situation.

The deaths of 304 U.S. and NATO forces, including 179 Americans, so far this year makes 2009 the deadliest year for both U.S. and NATO forces since the war began eight years ago — and there are still four months to go.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released in August found that for the first time since the war began, a majority of Americans don't think the war is worth fighting.

Pentagon officials said that White House officials have told them they fear that McChrystal's expected request for more troops won't be his last.

The additional troops are "only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that," said another senior military official, who said that's true in part because estimates of what the Afghan forces can do and when they'll be fully capable of handling security threats are being downgraded.

Meanwhile, U.S. military commanders in Kabul feel the political clock ticking, saying they think they have no more than 18 months to show some kind of progress, even as most agree that they don't have enough troops.

Success could mean as little as making the levels of violence plateau, two military officials told McClatchy.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said any discussion about what the Pentagon is proposing and the White House response is premature.

"We are not there yet," Morrell said. "Let's see what Gen. McChrystal comes back and asks for."

[nastyleg]

Well you have one Sargent waiting to go right here

[Reactor-Axe-Man]

I'd be worried too. It's not like he doesn't need the cash to pay for all of his domestic boondoggles or something...

[Toki]

Wasn't Obama the person who pushed for more troops in Afghanistan? Why would the Pentagon be worried?

[bobdina]

Wasn't Obama the person who pushed for more troops in Afghanistan? Why would the Pentagon be worried?

You are kidding right? Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted to ask for at least 24,000 more troops with the assessment he just gave but was pressured by the White House not to ask for more

Monday's assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later, advisers to McChrystal said. Although the White House took a hands-off approach toward Afghanistan earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said they're now getting more questions about how many troops might be needed and for how long.
Some White House officials said the administration feels it was pressured to send the additional 17,500 combat troops and 4,000 trainers earlier this year, before the administration was comfortable with its plan for Afghanistan, because of the country's election in August. It appears he's going to try to run this war from the White House instead of letting the Generals fight it,that's how you lose.

[ghost]

I'm afraid you can't really win this war with politics. The only way you're going to get things done is with boots on the ground and hearts & minds.

[nastyleg]

You are kidding right? Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted to ask for at least 24,000 more troops with the assessment he just gave but was pressured by the White House not to ask for more
It appears he's going to try to run this war from the White House instead of letting the Generals fight it,that's how you lose.

Isn't this what led to the stalling tactics in Vietnam? Correct me if I am wrong please.

[dajini]

Complete bullshit that we had 200k+ troops in Iraq, but can't even get 100k to Afghanistan... should have finished up the Afghanistan deal before thinking about Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. =/

[Reactor-Axe-Man]

Afghanistan was always going to be the long war. Iraq at least had some semblance of an educated middle class, oil wealth, and was a relatively cosmopolitan secular state (as far as the Middle East goes). We could work with Iraq as far as nation-building.

Afghanistan has just about nothing for economic resources but opium poppies, and an uneducated, primitive, and very tribal population. I honestly don't see that place ever getting any better, but if we leave, the cockroaches will just return and set up shop again.

[jnv255]

Isn't this what led to the stalling tactics in Vietnam? Correct me if I am wrong please.

ding, ding, ding.... I did all i could, i voted for McCain.

[ghost]

ding, ding, ding.... I did all i could, i voted for McCain.


As did I.

[JayTac]

Well if McCain was in office we'd probably be at war with North Korea right now, or Iran for that matter, making it impossible to put more effort towards Afghanistan. Nonetheless it's a tricky situation, too many American boots on the ground could actually turn the citizens against us, especially with the recent event there. It's a tough balancing act. The #1 priority right now is building their economy, we need more civilians in Afghanistan actually, and building up their own forces.

Obama has already increased our presence there and pulled more support from our international allies. To argue that he isn't trying to ramp things up is pretty fatuous.

[bobdina]

Well if McCain was in office we'd probably be at war with North Korea right now, or Iran for that matter, making it impossible to put more effort towards Afghanistan. Nonetheless it's a tricky situation, too many American boots on the ground could actually turn the citizens against us, especially with the recent event there. It's a tough balancing act. The #1 priority right now is building their economy, we need more civilians in Afghanistan actually, and building up their own forces.

Obama has already increased our presence there and pulled more support from our international allies. To argue that he isn't trying to ramp things up is pretty fatuous.

I guess you are not paying much attention to the military news out there. The administration has already forced Gen. McChrystal to stall his troop request when he was going to ask for additional troops the R.O.E. have been heavily modified taking a lot of support away from the troops in the field and my god I could go on for a few days.
How in the Hell can you say we would have already been at war with North Korea or Iran. You obviously have no idea about the U.S. ground forces that would be needed to fight those wars. Where do they come from? Let alone the airpower needed, no not just fighters and bombers, but you cannot do those types of operations without tanker support,ISR support, ground support. Where would these come from?
You want NATO to build the Afghan forces? well you need more troops to do that with which was going to be the request till he was forced to hold off on asking for more troops. Who is going to guard all these civilians you want to send over there? Pulled more support from our International partners? The U.K. said a while ago they were sending 900 more troops , however those were to be to replacements until their Prime Minister started catching hell from the people in U.K. for not having enough troops or weapons in country now he is starting to send a little more stuff over there. Pres Obama did not have shit to do with that, again you need to do a little of your own research instead of the exact points politicians with no balls are trying to make. More international support, so why is NATO still short on helo's in country. Real international support is more troops, more assets, more money, not we stand behind you Mr. President . And I am not talking about the U.K. here except for their political cock-ups, there troops are outstanding. As are Australia's and everyone else over there fighting.
Almost every single thread in these Military forums are based on facts that are in all the Military newspapers around the world, not from the mainstream media as they have failed miserably in supporting coalition forces with their bullshit reporting .
How are we going to build up there economy without security? You seem to make a lot of statements but you have brought nothing to the table in terms of real answers.

[bobdina]

By the way what recent event are you talking about? The 2 tankers where the Taliban beheaded the drivers and stole the gas trucks? Tell me something since you are obviously a military genius, where are the official reports that say how many civilians were killed in that attack? Why do I ask that? because there are none. One can only take guesses which is not factual reporting. SO I'm assuming If you were the German commander on the ground you would have just let the trucks leave? Then in the very near future they are used in major suicide attacks were many many more people could be killed, what would you say then, the Germans have no balls because they didn't destroy the trucks when they had the chance? What if they had been drivin straight into a NATO compound?
Another thing about these trucks and all the civilians that were supposedly killed ,and yes I will continue to say supposed until I see an official military report detailing who were civilians and who weren't not some BS reporters word. Why were they all there getting gas? The majority of Afghans in the mountainous/countryside regions have neither gas generators or vehicles . This did not occur in the city where there are some generators and vehicles. Once again another case of you not having facts just spewing almost exactly what Pelosi said when she said she does not support any more troops being deployed.
If you are going to come in here and make these statements please have some real facts to support them not some bullshit we would already have been at war with other countries and know something about the military before you spew that shit as well . A great many people in here have been there done that and know what we are talking about.

[JayTac]

I guess you are not paying much attention to the military news out there. The administration has already forced Gen. McChrystal to stall his troop request when he was going to ask for additional troops the R.O.E. have been heavily modified taking a lot of support away from the troops in the field and my god I could go on for a few days.
How in the Hell can you say we would have already been at war with North Korea or Iran. You obviously have no idea about the U.S. ground forces that would be needed to fight those wars. Where do they come from? Let alone the airpower needed, no not just fighters and bombers, but you cannot do those types of operations without tanker support,ISR support, ground support. Where would these come from?
You want NATO to build the Afghan forces? well you need more troops to do that with which was going to be the request till he was forced to hold off on asking for more troops. Who is going to guard all these civilians you want to send over there? Pulled more support from our International partners? The U.K. said a while ago they were sending 900 more troops , however those were to be to replacements until their Prime Minister started catching hell from the people in U.K. for not having enough troops or weapons in country now he is starting to send a little more stuff over there. Pres Obama did not have shit to do with that, again you need to do a little of your own research instead of the exact points politicians with no balls are trying to make. More international support, so why is NATO still short on helo's in country. Real international support is more troops, more assets, more money, not we stand behind you Mr. President . And I am not talking about the U.K. here except for their political cock-ups, there troops are outstanding. As are Australia's and everyone else over there fighting.
Almost every single thread in these Military forums are based on facts that are in all the Military newspapers around the world, not from the mainstream media as they have failed miserably in supporting coalition forces with their bullshit reporting .
How are we going to build up there economy without security? You seem to make a lot of statements but you have brought nothing to the table in terms of real answers.

Let’s not make false accusations for no reason. Various nations have committed more resources to Afghanistan after being urged to do so by Obama. We’ve also upped our presence as well and have adopted a more aggressive, yet refined strategy. I’m not going to go digging through a bunch of old links, but here’s a few recent ones.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/07/07/23951-russia-allows-transit-for-afghanistan-bound-us-troops/?ref=news-home-title8

http://www.defencetalk.com/us-marines-storm-south-in-major-afghan-offensive-20261/

It was the Marines' first major operation since they deployed recently as part of 21,000 US reinforcements pledged by Obama in an aggressive US strategy to turn the tide on the dragging conflict with the Taliban.


http://www.defencetalk.com/stakes-high-as-obama-shifts-from-iraq-to-afghan-war-18180/



Not having the resources to take on another war was basically what I was getting at. We would have been stretched thin, but it would not have been impossible, Gates discussed this when the North Korean situation was heating up. At any rate it’s a hypothetical so there’s no point in debating about it. My point is I don’t see how anyone could argue that Obama is not committed to doing what’s necessary to win in Afghanistan given his track record in that regard thus far.

Also, you’re right we could talk for days about the ROE, nation building, and the Afghan government, but that wasn’t really what I was getting at here.

[JayTac]

By the way what recent event are you talking about? The 2 tankers where the Taliban beheaded the drivers and stole the gas trucks? Tell me something since you are obviously a military genius, where are the official reports that say how many civilians were killed in that attack? Why do I ask that? because there are none. One can only take guesses which is not factual reporting. SO I'm assuming If you were the German commander on the ground you would have just let the trucks leave? Then in the very near future they are used in major suicide attacks were many many more people could be killed, what would you say then, the Germans have no balls because they didn't destroy the trucks when they had the chance? What if they had been drivin straight into a NATO compound?
Another thing about these trucks and all the civilians that were supposedly killed ,and yes I will continue to say supposed until I see an official military report detailing who were civilians and who weren't not some BS reporters word. Why were they all there getting gas? The majority of Afghans in the mountainous/countryside regions have neither gas generators or vehicles . This did not occur in the city where there are some generators and vehicles. Once again another case of you not having facts just spewing almost exactly what Pelosi said when she said she does not support any more troops being deployed.
If you are going to come in here and make these statements please have some real facts to support them not some bullshit we would already have been at war with other countries and know something about the military before you spew that shit as well . A great many people in here have been there done that and know what we are talking about.

Why so personal simply because I may have a different train of thought? lol @ me being a genius for simply stating my opinion. If you want to discuss things and see where we stand I'm all for it, but not this mud slinging stuff. I agree with everything you're saying right there, but regardless of what actually went down with this attack I believe my point still remains. Right now the civilians are going to believe what's being fed to them and we have to play to that until we're able to prove otherwise. At any rate not imposing a lot of troops on the Afghan civilians is something that has been talked about since the start of the war. For better or worse the civilians simply won't respond well to that.

[bobdina]

What mud slinging you have no facts to back up of any of what you said, you come in here saying if someone else had been President we would be in at least another war. No where does it say Mccain would have attacked anyone if he were elected, you read what other people say and almost word for word reprint it here. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I don't mind at all to have intelligent debates with people when they are speaking from their mind and have some sort of experience not coming in here and saying if Mccain had won we would have at least have been in a war with either North Korea or Iran. Why don't you take out your imaginary crystal ball and pick the lotto winners . Again I ask you who is going to protect these civilians you want to send in. Imposing troops on civilians I cannot believe you have actually printed that , again you are showing you do not have a clue as to what is going on over there. Why don't you do a little of your own research and come back here when you have some facts. A little research would show you in at least 2 villages so far where there had been no NATO forces till this last baby surge, when NATO arrived the villages turned against the taliban and turned in roadside bomb makers and showed the troops where the bombs were planted why? because they finally had security. Impose troops on civilians that is truly a winner I think we are going to have to start a DWIFTI award in here as well.

[nastyleg]

From the onset of the war in Afghanistan we should have went balls to the wall, third knuckle deep on Osama Bin "gay for Michael Jackson" Ladin. Civilians will never stand for thier troops getting hurt, maimed, or killed. They would how ever support an all out fuck the politics behind the curtains attack on the fucking jawa's. In the history of mankind you would be extremely hard pressed to find a single war that did not have civilian casualties. The more people watch, read, hear the major news medias the more they regurgitate the lack of common sense and knowledge of war that is learned the hard way. You would never read or hear about stories like this http://www.apacheclips.com/boards/showthread.php?t=3730 or this http://www.apacheclips.com/boards/showthread.php?t=3551. There are shitload of stories like these. Politics and War go together like oil and water.
Obama does not want his approval rating to go any lower. That is one of the reasons for him pulling this bullshit on Gen McChrystal. Truth is Taliban is losing it fights and battles. In order to finish them off fast we need to bring more guns to bear down on them. No one in the press will say it.

[JayTac]

What mud slinging you have no facts to back up of any of what you said, you come in here saying if someone else had been President we would be in at least another war. No where does it say Mccain would have attacked anyone if he were elected, you read what other people say and almost word for word reprint it here. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I don't mind at all to have intelligent debates with people when they are speaking from their mind and have some sort of experience not coming in here and saying if Mccain had won we would have at least have been in a war with either North Korea or Iran. Why don't you take out your imaginary crystal ball and pick the lotto winners . Again I ask you who is going to protect these civilians you want to send in. Imposing troops on civilians I cannot believe you have actually printed that , again you are showing you do not have a clue as to what is going on over there. Why don't you do a little of your own research and come back here when you have some facts. A little research would show you in at least 2 villages so far where there had been no NATO forces till this last baby surge, when NATO arrived the villages turned against the taliban and turned in roadside bomb makers and showed the troops where the bombs were planted why? because they finally had security. Impose troops on civilians that is truly a winner I think we are going to have to start a DWIFTI award in here as well.


lol. Again, whatever wars McCain would or would not have gotten us into was beside the point. I just disagreed with their implied notion that Obama somehow isn't focused, or whatever way you want to put it, on Afghanistan. That's the central issue there and what sparked my response. So, with that said I do have the facts and I posted examples of the facts.

& I guess all of our top Commanders since the onset of the war don't have a clue either, since that's something that they've always been cautious about. You're looking at it very linear. All your example proves is that our presence helps, but there's still a difference between that and what may be viewed as too large of a presence. What that specific number is I don't know, but it's something that plays in the mind whenever more troops are asked for ontop of the political implications back home. So, I don't think it's as clear cut and dry as you make it out to be.

I do find it funny though how I don't read and need to do research, yet at the same time I do read and simply reprint what I read. Anyway I'm glad you know so much about me in just a few short posts. Take care.

[bobdina]

It is not besides the point, when you open your comments with a dumb ass statement like that you lose any respect you have in this kind of a forum and discussion. We deal with the military and facts in here not spewing of some bullshit if someone else got elected we would have been in at least one more war . Utter and complete bullshit so you should be prepared to face what's coming . Pres. Obama in not focused on this war the war he should b, that is an indisputable fact , he is much more focused on the health care issue. And the top commander's are cautious? Again show me some proof instead of rattling off stuff from your computer. If you are man enough to take your foot out of your mouth from that first post about if Sen. Mccain would have been elected we would have been in at least one more war and start giving me some facts you did not hear at the kitchen table I would gladly speak to you.
Read and research are 2 different things , again place that with the idiotic statement that we would be in another war and the fact your first post in this forum was looking for someone to play realistic military video games with tells me all I need to know about you. By the way dude, there is no such thing as a realistic military game. They may be fun to PLAY and look at but they are no where near realistic .

[JayTac]

Wow, now we’re going to start arguing about videogames. Well you can, but I’m not I’ll just make note that these games are NOT realistic, and I’ll be sure to pass that on to the former tactics instructor of the US Army Command and General Staff college, that he should stop calling his game realistic (bobdina said so) and should no longer be used as one of the Army’s training simulators. Does any game compare to the real thing? No shit of course it doesn’t, but you’re above arguing semantics aren’t you?

Now, back on topic if you’re unaware of what our strategy is in Afghanistan and how it was formulated then I suggest you purchase Lt. Gen Michael DeLong’s book A General Speaks Out, or do some reading at RAND, you’ll quickly and easily find your answers there.

As far as McCain goes it’s just my opinion that he may not have handled the NK or Iran situation very well. Obviously it’s nothing that I’m going or even trying to pass off as fact, but if you want to blow up over an opinion then it is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, the same way people slammed Obama’s commitment to the military prior to election it was their opinion based only off of his rhetoric. There's no difference, when you vote for someone you are making a prediction or projection on how he'll handle certain issues and McCain lost the election partly because people disagreed with his take on certain foreign affairs.

[bobdina]

Wow, now we’re going to start arguing about videogames. Well you can, but I’m not I’ll just make note that these games are NOT realistic, and I’ll be sure to pass that on to the former tactics instructor of the US Army Command and General Staff college, that he should stop calling his game realistic (bobdina said so) and should no longer be used as one of the Army’s training simulators. Does any game compare to the real thing? No shit of course it doesn’t, but you’re above arguing semantics aren’t you?

Now, back on topic if you’re unaware of what our strategy is in Afghanistan and how it was formulated then I suggest you purchase Lt. Gen Michael DeLong’s book A General Speaks Out, or do some reading at RAND, you’ll quickly and easily find your answers there.

As far as McCain goes it’s just my opinion that he may not have handled the NK or Iran situation very well. Obviously it’s nothing that I’m going or even trying to pass off as fact, but if you want to blow up over an opinion then it is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, the same way people slammed Obama’s commitment to the military prior to election it was their opinion based only off of his rhetoric. There's no difference, when you vote for someone you are making a prediction or projection on how he'll handle certain issues and McCain lost the election partly because people disagreed with his take on certain foreign affairs.

Dude I am done with your high school rhetoric, we both know what kind of games you were talking about and to put realistic in any military video game is the utmost in ignorance, especially to computer games played by the public which you asked for anyone playing realistic military sims again no such thing exists in the civilian/military world. The models you are talking about are the same computer models that said there were no more then 150 Al Queda/Taliban before Anaconda and look what happened.And if you knew anything about the military you would now there is a giant debate going on that they are using video tools/simulators too much instead of real life training , simulators can never replace a weapon in your hand when it malfunctions, simulators cannot show your friends of 2 years getting blown up next to you ,simulators cannot simulate the burn in your legs after humping 5 clicks with a full ruck and weapon and they sure as hell cannot simulate the feeling in your stomach after being shot at repeatably don't come in here and give me that shit about simulators you are fucking clueless about that and yes you just hit a big sore point point so do not expect politeness when you make fucking ignorant remarks like that , and I am not the one arguing about video games, I stated a fact based on your 3 comments I know all I need to know about you.
As for the Sen. Mccain thing you should have said in my opinion not spouting it out here like it was true, I told you once I will tell you again in the Military boards we base our discussions on facts and the Military, the general discussion area is for your non fact based opinions research(means looking at more then one point of view and researching the comments that are made not just reading books)
And in case you did not know I had very high hopes for Pres. Obama he has let me down in 2 areas the military and health care. And I do agree with him health care needs to be reformed however I do not need to pay for that as even though the V.A. pays for me ,my children both need medications Tri-care does not cover , plus one of them has a serious illness that needs special care and thank god there is a good civilian doctor real close. So I also have to pay for insurance out of my own pocket for them and because my disability pay is no where near where it should be (100%) still doesn't cut it . If my kids were in good health it would but not now, just having to pay for them is a burden and I cannot afford any increases, hopefully they will modify whats going on and I will. , as I am paying enough already for some of the other endeavors(little or no COLA increases). As for you thinking I am a big Sen. Mccain supporter well I hate to break your bubble on that one, I respect the hell out of the man and what he's done for the country but I am in no way a big time Sen. Mccain supporter when it came to the presidential race.
And again by quoting 1 book by a general is not research I can quote 20 former generals you were against the surge in Iraq but that worked, I can quote another 2 or 3 who said we need a massive amount of troops on the ground in Afghanistan are needed(i don't think so but more are needed). I don't though because I make up my own mind based on experience, talking to recently re-deployed vet's and their families. Those are the people who are not being listened to and have a hell of a lot more experience in up to date events on the ground then some former Generals out to make a buck by being a media whore and trying to make money off of books.
And dude I will take the Pentagons opinion any day of the week over a think tanks, I may not agree with everything the Pentagon does but after 8 years of war there are real warriors in there now as opposed to the past, especially the higher up NCO's.
Until you have poured out YOUR own sweat and blood do not come in here telling me I do not know what our strategy is I fucking know I have and many people in here have as well, s but don't come in here saying simulators are realistic(been there done that no there not) or I don't know strategy. I am now done with your ignorant little ass so do not expect me to answer any more of your bullshit because with every post you make it more and more clear how little you know. I read a book(one mans opinion)and a RAND report I should be running the war. You my friend are one big joke.

[bobdina]

Ok after rereading my comments I may have come off just a little harsh and for that I apologize in public not by PM. right now is not a good time for me to be having serious discussions on anything,but just 2 things please say in my opinion next time If Sen. Mccain was elected, and don't say there are realistic simulators/computer games. There just aren't dude trust me on that one ok, as a matter of fact I would never have replied to you if you had typed in my opinion , Bob

[JayTac]

edit

[JayTac]

Ok after rereading my comments I may have come off just a little harsh and for that I apologize in public not by PM. right now is not a good time for me to be having serious discussions on anything,but just 2 things please say in my opinion next time If Sen. Mccain was elected, and don't say there are realistic simulators/computer games. There just aren't dude trust me on that one ok, as a matter of fact I would never have replied to you if you had typed in my opinion , Bob

I apologize if any of my comments rubbed you the wrong way and looking back I could see how some of them could have. No, I'll never know exactly what it's like to be a soldier, and I don't play videogames pretending to be some virtual commando. I have had various family members serve and I hold all of our service members in the highest regard. I've never looked up to sports stars, instead I've admired guys like Patton and Adm Mullen. I have hours upon hours of military documentaries, reports, etc, various books, and I do visit military news sites daily. So, while I've never been there and will never debate what it's like to be on the ground, I don't think that diminishes my overall opinion on the grand scheme of things.

edit:

Also, me calling a computer game realistic in a videogame forum is not meant to diminish the real thing at all. I know and agree with you that no game will ever remotely compare to the real thing and the two shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. I realize that they're two distinctive things and I've never brought the two together. But, understand where I'm coming from in that all of the games I mentioned, aside from one were developed by retired soldiers/commanders and are in use by the Army. IMO those type of games deserve a different classification than your typical Command & Conquer style of game. Me calling it realistic is simply realistic in a videogame sense only.

[bobdina]

I apologize if any of my comments rubbed you the wrong way and looking back I could see how some of them could have. No, I'll never know exactly what it's like to be a soldier, and I don't play videogames pretending to be some virtual commando. I have had various family members serve and I hold all of our service members in the highest regard. I've never looked up to sports stars, instead I've admired guys like Patton and Adm Mullen. I have hours upon hours of military documentaries, reports, etc, various books, and I do visit military news sites daily. So, while I've never been there and will never debate what it's like to be on the ground, I don't think that diminishes my overall opinion on the grand scheme of things.

edit:

Also, me calling a computer game realistic in a videogame forum is not meant to diminish the real thing at all. I know and agree with you that no game will ever remotely compare to the real thing and the two shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. I realize that they're two distinctive things and I've never brought the two together. But, understand where I'm coming from in that all of the games I mentioned, aside from one were developed by retired soldiers/commanders and are in use by the Army. IMO those type of games deserve a different classification than your typical Command & Conquer style of game. Me calling it realistic is simply realistic in a videogame sense only.

First off this is a good start and I do admire a young person admiring the REAL hero's.If you haven't when you have a free hour go to the hero's section, young kids in there following orders ,they are my real hero's thus the thread. But the one thing you have to remember some, not all of use are not big into those kind of games for whatever reason so seeing someone type realistic video game that's what I think of . These games claiming to be realistic to me is saying it's just like your there, thus my rant.
Please continue to be part of this community just when stating an opinion say in my opinion because then this would have never happened, and thank you for your apology .
Bob