THIS is the war that should have been fought not the one in Iraq.

One thing does not preclude the other, Bob. If Bush had done the right thing in 2001, the "war" in Afghanistan would have been over six years ago. We would still be losing personnel there every now and again, but that is life.

Adler,

Gay rights organizations are up in arms......

The Taliban are up in arms too. And their arms are killing Americans in record numbers.

Afghanistan is going badly. The offensive has bogged down. High command has been fractured and replaced. Troop morale has been effected by the politically correct ROE.

And at a time where the monthly averaged loss rate under this administration is 5 times the averaged monthly loss rate under the previous administration, we are doing THIS - "how do you feel" polls about social issues.

When an average of 2.44 (July 2010) Americans are dying every day in Afghanistan, I would hope that President Obama would be more focused and concerned about winning the war than advancing his social agenda.

Well said Bob!!! Why did MSNBC put a daily death count everyday under Bush and now they rarely report any news about the War? The ROE is a joke and it's killing our boys and girls.

Hi Paul-977,

one thing does not preclude the other

You're right, but why do it now. Consider:

January 2009 was the deadliest January of the war (until January 2010 doubled the record set in 2009). February 2009 was the deadliest February of the war (until February 2010 doubled the record set in 2009). March 2009 was the deadliest March of the war (until March 2010 doubled the record set in 2009). See a pattern developing? July 2009 set the record as the single deadliest month of the war. August 2009 broke that record. September 2009 fell in behind the two previous months as the third single deadliest month of the war. October 2009 passed the 3 previous record months and became the new single deadliest month of the war. November was the deadliest November of the war. December 2009 was the deadliest December of the war. 2009 was the deadliest year of the war, doubling the previous high.

Obama announced his plan/strategy in December 2009 and it should be noted these losses were pre-surge.

So, why the dramatic change beginning in January 2009? The only real change was the CIC, and his ROE.

Were the Taliban emboldened by a new president, a liberal, politically correct president who ran on "Hope and Change", a president who campaigned on "extending a open hand - not a clinched fist", a president whose first act was to order the closing of GITMO, a president who originally refused to use the word terrorist, a president who still will not allow the word extremist, or radical to be used in conjunction with Islamist, ................ a president whose politically correct ROE are more concerned about protecting civilian lives than executing/winning the war - ROE that directly result in more casualties to his own forces?

And now the Taliban see us doing THIS?

Our Soldiers and Marines are fighting, and carrying their wounded buddies to MEDEVAC, and putting way to many in body bags and grieving......... and Obama/Pentagon want them to fill out surveys about how they feel about showers! Why not do it now? Really?

Maybe it's just me.

PS I'm not sure what you meant about Bush doing the right thing in 2001, but he did remove the Taliban from power and push Bin Laden/Al Quada out of Afghanistan in a few months with the loss of less lives than we have lost in the first 10 days of this month.

The job, was to kill or capture Osama bin-laden. Bush failed. Why now? This is always the most disengenuous of questions. If not now, when? There is always an excuse in the present to not do something right now. Gays already serve, most twenty year olds are cool with it, knowing that the guy who is guarding your back is gay shouldn't bother you in the least , not any more than if a woman were looking out for your life. For the next generation it really is a non-issue, the brass should get over themselves.

And that is exactly the crux of the matter. It may be the higer ups, who are older that have more difficulty with this change than the younger recruits do.

Paul-977,

Bin-laden ran for his life and got away into Pakistan. You know that. You also know Bush couldn't go into Pakistan to get him at that time. You also know that Bush's primary goal was to protect Americans from future attacks like the 6 terrorist attacks where Americans were killed under Cinton. He accomplished that.

I think my earlier post laid the reasonable case for the "Why now" question and few, but the emotionally blind, or willfully stupid would characterize my question as disingenuous.

I know gays serve and give their lives. I appreciate and thank them for their service and sacrifice.

I also feel and know they, like all service members (except a slight minority), they are among America's finest and do not deserve the insult of the last sentence from the pathetic, self absorbed jackass who posted #2.4.

Being misinformed and ignorant is the state we all are in, Bob. It doesn't insult me to be told I am ignorant, so long as the accuser has information that informs me. Misinformed? Hell, we are all misinformed every minute of every day.

Bush let Osama escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan. By his own declaration, the Bush doctrine, he told the world that we, our military might and forces, would go wherever the enemy hid. If you think we went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and the NRO and the NSA and the geospacials couldn't track everything that went on with the Northern Alliance and our troops in real time, you ain't living in the twentyfirst century. Jackass yourself.

Bob

The reason that the death toll has climbed in Afghanistan is that the soldiers there are ACTUALLY PROSECUTING THE WAR, instead of sitting on their butts in bases like they did under Bush. Under Bush they were shorted of manpower and equipment as Bush diverted everything to Iraq for his illegal war of choice. Now that Obama is in office, he is taking the war to the Taliban and Al Qaida, not only is our death toll higher, but the numbers of Taliban and Al Qaida are higher than they were any time after the first year there, when we actually Fought. Yes, the ROE is hard to work under, and is being reviewed, and part of that is due to McChrystal's incompetence as a General in the conflict, he is a go and get them type, and was working under a strategy (COIN) that he did not know how to effectively implement and thus was losing his men, the men were mad at HIM for not being clear enough with all levels of his command on how to implement this strategy and still conduct combat ops. It was HIS orders that was getting more men killed.

Bush/Cheney INTENTIONALLY let Bin Laden go, that way he would still "Have an enemy out there" as an excuse to continue their highly lucrative war. He Wanted us to be in a long term conflict as that makes TONS of money for his buddies, and of course, for himself once he got out of office and received his payoffs. This is one of the MANY reasons why Bush and Cheney should be tried for treason: giving aid and comfort to the enemy!!!!!

You might want to step back a bit and quit showing off your ignorance Bob, you will probably be a lot happier in the long run, and not feel quite so inferior because someone points out that ignorance!

Paul-977,

Nice try Grasshopper, but I still take exception to your comment in #2.4 [no offense intended].

Paul, you are a interesting guy and I know you are not ignorant. The weakness of some of your arguments is more the product of your contravention, not your intelligence. That's fine.

Bush's incredible early success was owed to the CIA, Special forces and the Northern Alliance. Whether it was the ruse of surrender or the last minute turn by key anti-Taliban forces, Bin-laden escaped during the fighting for the last cave cave complex in the White Mountains of Tora Bora. The back door blocking force from Pakistan also failed - Bin-laden was gone. It should also be noted that before his escape, Bin-laden had pretty much caught on to our intelligence capabilities (he was not a stupid man) and was even baiting/decoying to divert and confuse our intelligence. (if you find this implausible, or feel our capabilities are absolute and infallible-you are probably living in the twenty-second century)

With regard to "Jackass yourself", I mentioned last week that only a fool would knowingly argue with a fool. I recall your fondness for adages, so in that vein of disposition, I would like to offer that it probably takes a jackass to call someone a jackass. Your retort is fair enough.

I enjoy the exchange, though i did misspell geospatial

Talk to you later Paul.

???? What? When you were in the military is was never an issue? How is this a Repubican issue? I knew Soldiers that voted Democrate didn't like it either. Funny, you served but yet slam the military. One more thing, when you deploy, you carry a weapon no matter what job you do in the military. I guess you forgot about that eh?

He was talking about the enemy "for the most part not having weapons". Hence your confusion.

at war with.......at war against would have been more clear.

Paul,

What would you concider a weapon? Here's a question for you, what's the number one weapon that's killing our men and women?

I knew what he was saying, I'm saying you don't have to carry a "weapon" hence a rifle/gun. refer to the question above.

Do the Rules of Engagement stop you from getting blown up by an IED or an EFP, or make it any more likely?

It's pretty clear that you misunderstood his reference to an enemy that didn't have a full compliment of weapons.

The number one cause of the death of our service people is misinformation and ignorance; that is how they ended up in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

No the ROE doesn't stop you from getting hit, but it does stop you from shooting the person in placing it, that's a fact. Hopefully that will change here real soon.

It's pretty clear I understood what he was saying. We can agree to disagree. Just what he posted, keepingitreal probably doesn't understand how the military works, but that's my opinion.

So you would agree an IED is a weapon? Just to let you know an EFP is an IED. The two are the same.......

Not all explosively formed projectiles are improvised explosive devices. Our own military has explosively formed projectiles which are not improvised. The projectiles from an explosion are reformed by the blast but not all are turned into a molten projectile, that requires specially chosen materials. We're not going to agree to disagree, the text is right there for everyone to read. How does ROE stop you from shooting someone that you know is implacing an IED?

Paul,

You are confusing Shape Charges with EFP's. There's a BIG difference. But being in EOD and Intructing EOD for 20 years what would I know?

You answer to my question makes no sense whats so ever. Do you even know the current ROE right now?

When they instituted the draft in Nam... Did they turn away gays?

HELL NO - they took EVERY young man possible as fresh meat for the Viet Cong grinder!

I was in during the Vietnam years and in one overseas assignment one of my roomates was very likely gay. If not gay, he sure seemed to be. Anyway, he never tried to involve me or our other roommate in anything nor did we try to involve anyone. It simply wasn't done. Whether heterosexual or homosexual if someone came onto me I probably would have decked him. We had other things to do and to concern ourselves with.

I doubt things have changed that much. Therefore the issue of one's sexual orientation should not be an issue unless someone tries something and that would be unacceptable regardless of genders. There is a time and place for everything.

Hey Feisty Redhead, (or perhaps I should say neighbor as you are in the next town over from me)!

I was assigned to recruiting duty when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was initiated and people really overreacted to it at first. However, I really wish the Armed Forces/President wouldn't revisit this issue right now as this is sure to cause more problems and heated debate than it is worth.

The present policy is working fine, or at least it has suspended the issue into a compromise that is partially satisfactory for all sides concerned.

Servicemembers are recruited from all walks of life and represent a cross-section of the varied beliefs and values throughout the United States. This creates a very difficult circumstance for the Military when it comes to integrating openly gay servicemembers.

With our forces hard pressed and engaged in two conflicts, it is probably not the best time to come to grips with this issue.

Thanks for your input Acronym2 (I like neighbor better)! And thanks for confirming that gays are already serving in the military... I guess one of my frustrations with the issue is - people think it's ONLY now that they're serving. History shows that's been the case since the begininning of conflict & war.

In a sense I agree on the timing thing - but like everything else... this issue keeps getting 'kicked down the road'!

Acronym2

Since GLBTs have been serving in the military continuously ever since it began, and there have been nearly continuous conflicts, when is there ever going to be a time that it is 'appropriate?' It is time to stop delaying Justice for these people. You are just using another excuse, and since you are a recruiter, you are far from the field and most likely out of touch with the common soldiery. There can be no more delays, it is time for for the Brass in the military to stop lying to themselves and the rest of us.

The policy of DADT is a travesty of justice and must be repealed, too many of our fine military personnel are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation NOW. Why make these people suffer any longer?? Is it Homophobia amongst the high brass, or are the brass high?? Obviously, you are one of those that will look for any excuse possible to keep GLBTs from serving openly, even if they do excellently in their jobs and the question of sexuality never comes up. How would YOU like it if you were told that you could not tell anyone who your lover was nor what sex they were, even though you are heterosexual, lest you be fired from your position, no matter what your military performance was.

The military will adapt to this change just like it adapted, against their wills, to having Blacks and other races integrated into the military and the same with women in the military. Your excuses are falling on deaf ears because the policy of DADT and the excuses to keep it in place are just as meaningless as all of the historical arguments about blacks and women serving.

Since the GLBTs are already serving, in positions throughout the military, it is well past time to repeal DADT and give those people the freedom that they deserve and have well beyond earned. It should have never been instituted in the first place as it is bringing RELIGION into a position of control within the military and government, and that is a BIG no no!

Either repeal DADT or make it so NO ONE can tell anyone else within the military, not even let it be known outside of the military what their sexuality is, lest They be fired as well. Anything less is adding insult to injury. These vital soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deserve better than to be thought of as an enemy by their own side. After all, if you cannot tell the difference now, why do you expect there to be any real change in that after DADT is repealed??

Can you say Homophobia? See there, I knew you could!

I don't want to hear all that garbage! Whenever someone has a viewpoint that is not in complete agreement, they get labeled homophobic.

Actually, I was a combat soldier and veteran. My three year recruiting tour was 1991-1994. Just to bring you up to speed; the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was initiated in 1993. The issue is not about homosexuals/lesbians serving in the military, but rather about being able to openly reveal their sexual orientation while serving in the military.

Acronym2

You don't want to hear it, you don't want to deal with it, you want it to stay safely swept under the rug. Well, too bad, the world is changing and the military HAS to change with it.

You are right, it is about whether the GLBTs being able to openly reveal their sexual preference, and since, you, and a heterosexual can, why can't they?? Why do you deny them the same freedom that you enjoy? Why should they have to lie to everybody just to keep their job. You just want them to shut up so you can ignore that they are there..well, they ARE there, so why the h@ll can't they openly be the people that they are?? Are they not Americans also, and supposedly able to enjoy the same freedoms that the rest of us enjoy, like free speech for one, and not to be persecuted for their sexuality?? The military will just HAVE to adapt, and I think it will be a LOT easier than you think, most Real Americans don't care about one's sexuality, they care more about the integrity and honor of the individual.

You don't want to hear it, fine, but they hear it and live it every day of their enlistment. It is time to change that because anything less is dishonorable to them, and to our Military, whether you believe that or not!

Exactly right, B.Honest.

Dani: how do you rationalize your post with the fact that gays have always served in the military? You have heard of Alexander the Great? He conquered his known world, and guess what...he was gay. It was also said the the Marquis de La Fayette who came to America and helped win the Revolutionary war was gay. Gay people have served in the military since, well, forever, and it is only the neanderthals who don't want to understand that.

The Greeks and Romans had heavy shock troops that were made up entirely of gays, they were some of the fiercest fighters that they had. They were much honored for this. Gays have been a part of any and all societies for thousands of years, and it has only been in the past 25 years or so since the Republicans here made a big deal issue of it in our military. Before this it was simply ignored as a personal quirk and people were more polite than to pry into what one did in one's own bedroom with the door shut, that was just extremely impolite.

The Repubs only brought it up as a hate/wedge issue to divide the country further for political gains, that is the ONLY real reason for it. Before then it was a Non-Issue!

Floie,

Anyone who entered after DADT was initiated did so in order to serve their Country. Any GLBTs that joined during this period were braver than most enlistees because they chose to serve KNOWING that they could get fired for their sexual preference, and joined anyways. They are MUCH more Honorable than those telling them to just shut up and go with the flow.

They are Americans, GLBT or no, and should receive the same freedoms as the rest of us.