I just got back from Afghanistan

[THEDUDEofDestiny]

Well not "just back", I've been home for two weeks. I don't want to depress anyone but the war isn't going well.

 

[nudeyorker]

Are you in the military? Or were you there for other reasons? I was just thinking about you the other day. I would love to hear your experiences and impressions of your experience there.

 

[Music91]

It'll only get worse. Armageddon is on our doorstep. I'm starting to believe biblical prophecies. Look at the middle east, dead birds and fish and disasters. It's getting more frequent. Still, I praise soldiers for trying to protect freedom. It are the men on top that are to be held accountable.

 

[Drifterwood]

Glad you're home, Dude. Trust you are in one piece.

In the UK, I think we very much respect what our troops are doing there, but would probably prefer that they were home.

 

[B_RedDude]

Do you think the U.S. should just get the hell out?

Well not "just back", I've been home for two weeks. I don't want to depress anyone but the war isn't going well.

 

[At.your.cervix]

Glad your back in one piece. I think pretty much most americans are aware that Afghanistan isn't going to ever be "winnable," whatever that means, outside of decimating the AlQ'aida strongholds which once existed over there. I thought Vietnam might have taught us something about nation building, but I guess we never really learned that lesson. It's a national shame that we've had to lose so many of our young men in an effort which was hopeless from the start.

 

[helgaleena]

Nobody in a thousand years has ever 'won' in Afghanistan. It's only ever mopping up after whatever regime was meddling there last.

Glad you are back, Dude.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I read today that 97 percent of the current GDP comes from military spending by the "occupiers," to use Karzai's word.
They ain't gonna achieve jack.
Once they leave, everything will fall apart.
It will be the stone age again.

Helgaleena hit it:

Nobody in a thousand years has ever 'won' in Afghanistan. It's only ever mopping up after whatever regime was meddling there last. .

 

[deleted15807]

What? Another un-winning war that's cost how much? Another trillion dollar blunder but no money for Medicare or Social Security.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Welcome back...........:smile:

 

[TomCat84]

Welcome back.

 

[FuzzyKen]

First and most importantly welcome home.

I only wish that I had accurate information on what really was taking place over there because it would make decision making next year easier. I have many friends who have and are serving in the middle east with various National Guard units.

The problem I see is that many are wondering what it is we are defending or fighting for.

I don't think that the expenditure in human lives and taxpayers finances has been sufficiently explained to the American People. The cost in dollars and lives has been heavy and to me I don't see what we have as a real "goal". That has never been made clear either.

All I can do is to hope that people with all of the information start deciding to share it before the next election.

 

[luka82]

Welcome back!

 

[MarkLondon]

Glad you got home safely, Dude.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

Welcome home, THEDUDEofDESTINY and thanks for your service. Don't worry about being a 'Debbie Downer' on the subject of Afghanistan. As you probably read, Leon Panetta was sitting for his Senate confirmation hearings yesterday and he "demurred" as the New York Times put it, from talking about troop drawdowns in Afghanistan.

I suspect a shift is afoot in the DoD with regard to Afghanistan policy and strategy and we'll see that after Panetta is confirmed. It can't be a mystery to anyone that things aren't "going well", as you put it. Between OBL's death, Pakistan's internal strife between the military and the government, shifting American opinion, and reports like yours, I think you can pretty much bet on a much more aggressive withdrawal plan to be unveiled in the near future.

 

[B_crackoff]

I read today that 97 percent of the current GDP comes from military spending by the "occupiers,":

Surely they can't be spending that much on smack & opium!

 

[yoursgetsmine]

Thanks for your service if you're a military man, and welcome back.

 

[arkfarmbear]

I think many of us on here were piqued by your comment. Please share details with us. It will be nice to hear it unfiltered by the mainstream press.

 

[dandelion]

american defence secretary robert gates was in the news this week because he made a speech to nato countries complaining that they were not spending enough on defence. he said ""The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources . . . to be serious and capable partners in their own defense." I presume he was referring to European unwillingness or inability to launch its own military adventures around the world or act in full partnership with the US. European homeland is not seriously threatened by anyone. My own reaction was that he was making a mistake to presume that europe might be grateful for US assistance, rather than resenting it just as much as do iraqis, Libyans or afghans. The US is suffering from post-Imperial withdrawal.

It was the trooping of the colour last saturday in London with guardsmen marching up and down looking pretty, which is what hopefully they will be mainly called on to do. Some nice camera closeups on some very young looking faces. As mentioned by the commentators, recently back from wherever where there has been a steady trickle of deaths and a larger flow of casualties for some years now. For what, exactly?

100 years ago britain would have been leading the invasion of Iraq (well, we did). Because we wanted it as part of our empire.... I'm sure we asked others to help but the russians who had troops available declined. 20,000 odd british and indian troops were defeated so we sent 50,000 more. At that point the us federal army was 120,000 and national guard 180,000. The indian army (british controlled) was about 150,000 prior to ww1 rising to 500,000 during the war. Before ww1 the british army was 250,000 regulars plus 400,000 reservists, the french army 1.6 million and German 1.8 million. The british though also maintained the worlds largest fleet which had its own marines and was intended to support wars abroad.

Currently the british army is about 100,000 regular troops and 40,000 reservists. US 550,000 regulars, 350,000 national guard and 200,000 reservists. The british army is too big. The more soldiers you have, the more you need them to do something to justify their existence.

The british imperial army was designed to be expanded at need. The French and German were 'ready to go'. Which would best describe the US now?

 

[PowayWolfman]

WElcome home man....... and we know.... trust me. we know