Thank God

Yes, I saw a similar thing....God Bless our troops! And may they have a welcome homecoming! :shake:

:jump1:
 
I wouldn't say that to your admissions officer or in your official essay:thumb:

Oh, I'd be fine with that.

Of course, I'd ask: "Okay...that's your opinion, now please explain it?"

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Oh, I'd be fine with that.

Of course, I'd ask: "Okay...that's your opinion, now please explain it?"

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
I have been versed with the War on Terror and many efforts have not paid off. Global terrrorist rates have increased since the beginning of the war, somehow the US has not been able to train the native military over an 11 year span :confused: as well. The natives do not want the US in their country. Illegal drug production (specifically opium) has exponentially increased since the invasion. The same service members who are sincerely trying to help the natives are being stabbed in the back by the natives who they are trying to help. We should have learned from the Russians and their "vietnam."

Do not get me wrong, I honor the military and plan on serving in it (kinda obvious, I want to go to an SA). I just believe that the war has been pointless and the $1.373 trillion+ spent on the war so far could have gone to reinforcing the US's infrastructure :redface:.
 
I just believe that the war has been pointless and the $1.373 trillion+ spent on the war so far could have gone to reinforcing the US's infrastructure :redface:.

Or perhaps instead of spending it.... the U.S. could pay down its $16,000,000,000,000.00+ debt... just a thought.
 
From today's ForeignPolicy Magazine "FPSituation report". Dlee- I can assure you that Anthony Cordesman is also "versed in the war on terror".

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke about the "milestone" that is the end of the surge in Afghanistan. On the last leg of his Asian trip, Panetta said the last of the surge troops left Afghanistan this week and there are now 68,000 troops left in the country. The surge "accomplished its objective" of reversing the Taliban's effect on the battlefield and allowed Afghan security forces to grow in numbers and strength. "This growth has allowed us and our ISAF coalition partners to begin the process of transition to Afghan security lead, which will soon extend across every province and more than 75 percent of the Afghan population," he said in a statement released by the Pentagon. During the surge, the U.S. and coalition partners were also able to strike "enormous blows" against al-Qaeda's leadership. Panetta used the moment as a reminder that there is still a robust fighting force in Afghanistan that needs the nation's support. "We are a nation at war," he said.

CSIS' Anthony Cordesman said yesterday that wavering public support for the war will not be reversed by sugarcoating success there, arguing that there are six conditions that must be met for an effective security transition. Among them, "functional security presence" across key population centers. "This means sustaining the ANA development effort at least through 2017, not rushing it according to today's unworkable schedule," he said. Coalition leaders have to get real, he added. "You do not persuade people that you can turn bull**** into chocolate by constantly praising your progress in dealing with its color and the texture," he said. "You do it by showing them you can deal with its smell and its taste."
 
From today's ForeignPolicy Magazine "FPSituation report". Dlee- I can assure you that Anthony Cordesman is also "versed in the war on terror".
I'm not sure what Anthony has to do with my post :confused:. I mean, i've read numerous articles (from well-known news companies:CNN,Fox,NY Times, etc) about the War on Terror and I've compiled what I believe is true.

EDIT: I don't think Anthony would actually say that the fighting force is not robust :cool:, I mean he would support the war of course
Just look around, the stats add up
 
I got ripped one time for using "Native Military" in a discussion regarding NOFORN on classified material. I meant indigenous allied forces but we all must be PC.
 
I'm not sure what Anthony has to do with my post :confused:. I mean, i've read numerous articles (from well-known news companies:CNN,Fox,NY Times, etc) about the War on Terror and I've compiled what I believe is true.

EDIT: I don't think Anthony would actually say that the fighting force is not robust :cool:, I mean he would support the war of course
Just look around, the stats add up

Dlee,

I think what Bruno is pointing out to you is that people who have actually "been there and done that" (i.e. Mr. Cordesman) might have a different point of view than you do. Thus your refrain that you have read a lot and came to your own conclusions might not be a particularly convincing argument when more accomplished or recognizable voices might differ from you.

This matter of the troops coming home is emotionally satisfying, but it can be argued that a timeline for withdrawal based on political sentiment rather than events on the ground are a mistake and allows your enemy to make your withdrawal as painful as they can possibly make it so that they can ultimately claim victory.

Keep in mind that one possible reason that Green on Blue attacks have been so prevalent is that the schedule appears to have taken precedence over the security of our troops. It is daunting to have people you do not trust, who may have only been partially vetted at best, standing next to you in your bunker or standing behind you in a patrol.

So when it comes time for you to explain your enthusiasm for the political time table regarding the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and how this would allow for more spending for domestic infrastructure, you should be prepared to provide a well reasoned argument for the validity of your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
I got ripped one time for using "Native Military" in a discussion regarding NOFORN on classified material. I meant indigenous allied forces but we all must be PC.

I think the terms "Native Military" or "Native Forces" are considered to be archaic rather than non-PC. "Indigenous forces" has been a more commonly used term for quite a long time.
 
DLee, it is good that you are reading about the war in Afghanistan and foreign policy generally, and good to be questioning, but it seems that you may not have focused much on why we got involved in Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda during the time period in which Al Qaeda planned and implemented numerous attacks on U.S. interests, culminating in 9/11.

During several difficult deployments in Afghanistan, more than once I had to remind myself of the war's origin; I generally feel that with all the very well-reported difficulties with our presence in Afghanistan, at least countries know that if they harbor terrorist presences that attack the U.S., they have to factor in possible regime change/invasion before they throw open their doors to organized terror groups.
 
I mean, i've read numerous articles (from well-known news companies:CNN,Fox,NY Times, etc) about the War on Terror and I've compiled what I believe is true.

You've just referenced news organizations that frequently misreport information for the sake of being the first to report it, or just plain get their facts wrong. That said, I haven't seen CNN blatantly edit material to fit their political agenda, like MSNBC, but they still screw up a lot.
 
That said, I haven't seen CNN blatantly edit material to fit their political agenda, like MSNBC, but they still screw up a lot.


Ha! I have. In fact I've had a few co-workers who had to work through that mess. It happens. MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, E!, BBC.... blah blah blah.... and all they have to do to get around it is refer to everyone else "CNN is reporting...." BOOM, don't even have to varify.

Yes, I agree, you can have a general idea after watch a number of different stations. I trust print more. Each morning I walk out my front door and pick up the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. I read them, check the news, and look at websites. I trust the internet the least (even sites connected to "reputable news outlets). I trust very little of what I hear on the news on TV or the radio. I like print, but I still like multiple sources there as well.

I don't give much weight to direct releases, whether they be government or military, it's nice to have a filter (the media) even if you don't always trust exactly what the filter gives you.

That's not me putting down my fellow PR pros.... for the most part they know what they're doing, but everyone should show some scepticism.
 
With CNN, I've noticed them give one side of a controversy way more credibility than it was due. I almost had to laugh when they called a pump-action .22 rifle an "AK-47."
 
Oh, I'd be fine with that.

Of course, I'd ask: "Okay...that's your opinion, now please explain it?"

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

"Fruitless" is a loaded word, not one that would go over well in an SA admission committee, I imagine. He does a better job when explaining it later.
 
Do not get me wrong, I honor the military and plan on serving in it (kinda obvious, I want to go to an SA). I just believe that the war has been pointless and the $1.373 trillion+ spent on the war so far could have gone to reinforcing the US's infrastructure :redface:.

By using the figure "$1.373 trillion+" you are also critiquing OIF. I believe OEF has been about $500-$600 billion (a ridiculously large sum, I agree). Your criticism of OEF do not fit OIF, so you probably want to use the smaller figure or include why you think OIF was "pointless." (I am not saying that there are not criticisms of OIF to be made, but the ones you list do not fit for OIF.)
 
Ha! I have. In fact I've had a few co-workers who had to work through that mess. It happens. MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, E!, BBC.... blah blah blah.... and all they have to do to get around it is refer to everyone else "CNN is reporting...." BOOM, don't even have to varify.

I find that I prefer different channels for different specialties. I prefer CNN/ABC for political coverage (Blitzer can be a putz, but he knows his beat and will ask tough questions. Nothing beats Jake Tapper, though). NBC/ESPN is good for Sports. Fox has good international reporting. Their Domestic/Political can be populistic generally. CNBC for Business (much better than Fox Business). CBS is good for Army and SEC football:thumb: CSPAN's coverage of the actual political PROCESS is unmatched.
 
Back
Top