Politics and religion.

**Puckstop31** · 06-29-2010, 11:39 PM

As for the 'excellent' article.....

Who was it that said.... "Fight to WIN or go home."

I would dare any of you to ask my father about why we 'lost' in Vietnam. Either America has the guts to WIN or we don't. The losers of the world will always bitch about how the winners, won. 999,999 out of 1,000,000 our troops do the right thing. Yet, they still lose. WHY?

Because of politicians who are cowards and because of the self-righteous, history ignorant cowards who support them.

Before any of you lecture me... Be prepared to tell me why it was OK for me to bury a friend for nothing... When he could have lived, if only he was allowed to do what soldiers are trained to do.

The word 'coward', pretty much sums it up. "Do the right thing, even when its not popular."

**Bonny** · 06-30-2010, 09:21 AM

The Viet Nam War was lost because of the politicans back home here. You either let the military fight like they need to (& there will be civilian causalities) there always is. Kill or be killed! The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan. There is a message right there.

We should send these stupid politicans over to fight & follow their stupid laws & rules along with a bunch of lawyers too.

**Grace** · 06-30-2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Bonny

The Viet Nam War was lost because of the politicans back home here. You either let the military fight like they need to (& there will be civilian causalities) there always is. Kill or be killed! The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan. There is a message right there.

We should send these stupid politicans over to fight & follow their stupid laws & rules along with a bunch of lawyers too.

Don't forget, it is the politicians and their flights of fancy that get us into most of these so-called wars in the first place. I do agree with you - send THEM over and see how fast we have no more conflicts.

**lizbud** · 06-30-2010, 02:11 PM

Grace, yes I had never thought about the differences that a standing
army presents.

All I know is "this ain't your daddy's war" anymore & today's conflicts
are not "all out war" with uniformed foreign troops. The COIN thing requires
a different skill set than older "tradional" wars.

**Puckstop31** · 06-30-2010, 04:53 PM

COIN (or 'asymmetrical warfare' as it is also known) does indeed require additional skill sets. There will always be the need to fight and win kinetic engagements.

Further, our military, after a learning curve, now has the skills to win in asymmetrical environments. Its still a shame that we deploy them, only to not let them win.

The common factor in US failures in modern asymmetrical conflict is the lack of political will to let our best men and women do what they are trained to do. Once the decision is made to send them, don't tie their hands because your poll numbers might take a hit. Because more than anything else, America loves a winner. A fine example was the engagement at Tora Bora. We had, supposedly, OBL surrounded. But our politicians (in this case, the hated GWB) wanted to look like a 'team' player and wait for (unreliable at best) Afghan forces to get to the battlefield. In battle, when you have the enemy on the ropes, you stomp on him.

**Bonny** · 06-30-2010, 05:13 PM

What about the safety of your men/women? I have nephew that trains higher ups on survival skills & has been to Iraq. I guess some of the higher ups are so above him & everyone else he FLUNKS them & they have to take the training course over again. Can you imagine having to serve under someone that has your safety in his hands & he/she is so arrogant they care about only what looks good to & for them.