http://washingtonindependent.com/41791/karzai-seeks-civilian-surge-likely-beyond-us-capacity National News in Context Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:34:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://washingtonindependent.com/41791/karzai-seeks-civilian-surge-likely-beyond-us-capacity/comment-page-1#comment-30238 Eating Soup With A Knife | jonathan krohn Fri, 08 May 2009 19:34:05 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=41791#comment-30238 [...] political reco&#110&#99&#105liation. Obviously, this is something that both si&#100&#101&#115 understand, but is also unquestionably the most a&#114&#100&#117ous part of the mission, and indeed, might be [...] [...] political reco&#110&#99&#105liation. Obviously, this is something that both si&#100&#101&#115 understand, but is also unquestionably the most a&#114&#100&#117ous part of the mission, and indeed, might be [...]

]]> http://washingtonindependent.com/41791/karzai-seeks-civilian-surge-likely-beyond-us-capacity/comment-page-1#comment-34403 Will Tue, 05 May 2009 19:08:34 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=41791#comment-34403 How are those advocating this massive expansion of civilian personnel in an active combat zone proposing to maintain the security of these individuals particularly if they are spread out in elements of one and two per location?<br> There is a well-heeled saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I strongly recommend that those advocating this course of action both within the current administration and other organizations vet their proposals based primarily on a concern for the safety of the individuals they intend to deploy into a situation that poses mortal danger to their lives. <br> All mission requirements are secondary to security. No one will agree to undertake a 'suicide mission'. Additionally, deploying an asset, be it an individual, group or military hardware, is pointless if that asset is not, at a minimum, afforded the security necessary to accomplish the key objectives it has been assigned.<br> Speaking from a position of dearly earned experience, having lost a friend in the employ of USAID in Afghanistan, civilians who are not afforded significant protection are targets. They represent a low risk / high reward opportunity for the Taliban and other anti-progressive forces to strike a blow against those who threaten their hold on the traditional reins of power in this region. A clear demonstration of this point is the premium placed on damaging the Provencial Reconstruction Teams by the insurgent and criminal forces. This is a thinking enemy who clearly understands that increased Afghan Governmental capacity poses a far more significant threat to their objectives than do the entirety of our military forces. <br> Members of the administration, Congress, and the media would be well advised to thoroughly examine the very real necessity to provide security for the brave men and women who will answer this call to service. All of us who serve understand that our lives may be in peril from time to time, all we ask from our civilian leadership and the public is that those of us who are called upon to sacrifice not make the sacrifice in vain. How are those advocating this massive expansion of civilian personnel in an active combat zone proposing to maintain the security of these individuals particularly if they are spread out in elements of one and two per location?
There is a well-heeled saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I strongly recommend that those advocating this course of action both within the current administration and other organizations vet their proposals based primarily on a concern for the safety of the individuals they intend to deploy into a situation that poses mortal danger to their lives.
All mission requirements are secondary to security. No one will agree to undertake a 'suicide mission'. Additionally, deploying an asset, be it an individual, group or military hardware, is pointless if that asset is not, at a minimum, afforded the security necessary to accomplish the key objectives it has been assigned.
Speaking from a position of dearly earned experience, having lost a friend in the employ of USAID in Afghanistan, civilians who are not afforded significant protection are targets. They represent a low risk / high reward opportunity for the Taliban and other anti-progressive forces to strike a blow against those who threaten their hold on the traditional reins of power in this region. A clear demonstration of this point is the premium placed on damaging the Provencial Reconstruction Teams by the insurgent and criminal forces. This is a thinking enemy who clearly understands that increased Afghan Governmental capacity poses a far more significant threat to their objectives than do the entirety of our military forces.
Members of the administration, Congress, and the media would be well advised to thoroughly examine the very real necessity to provide security for the brave men and women who will answer this call to service. All of us who serve understand that our lives may be in peril from time to time, all we ask from our civilian leadership and the public is that those of us who are called upon to sacrifice not make the sacrifice in vain.

]]> http://washingtonindependent.com/41791/karzai-seeks-civilian-surge-likely-beyond-us-capacity/comment-page-1#comment-29700 Will Tue, 05 May 2009 12:08:34 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=41791#comment-29700 How are those advocating this massive expansion of civilian personnel in an active combat zone proposing to maintain the security of these individuals particularly if they are spread out in elements of one and two per location?<br> There is a well-heeled saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I strongly recommend that those advocating this course of action both within the current administration and other organizations vet their proposals based primarily on a concern for the safety of the individuals they intend to deploy into a situation that poses mortal danger to their lives. <br> All mission requirements are secondary to security. No one will agree to undertake a 'suicide mission'. Additionally, deploying an asset, be it an individual, group or military hardware, is pointless if that asset is not, at a minimum, afforded the security necessary to accomplish the key objectives it has been assigned.<br> Speaking from a position of dearly earned experience, having lost a friend in the employ of USAID in Afghanistan, civilians who are not afforded significant protection are targets. They represent a low risk / high reward opportunity for the Taliban and other anti-progressive forces to strike a blow against those who threaten their hold on the traditional reins of power in this region. A clear demonstration of this point is the premium placed on damaging the Provencial Reconstruction Teams by the insurgent and criminal forces. This is a thinking enemy who clearly understands that increased Afghan Governmental capacity poses a far more significant threat to their objectives than do the entirety of our military forces. <br> Members of the administration, Congress, and the media would be well advised to thoroughly examine the very real necessity to provide security for the brave men and women who will answer this call to service. All of us who serve understand that our lives may be in peril from time to time, all we ask from our civilian leadership and the public is that those of us who are called upon to sacrifice not make the sacrifice in vain. How are those advocating this massive expansion of civilian personnel in an active combat zone proposing to maintain the security of these individuals particularly if they are spread out in elements of one and two per location?
There is a well-heeled saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I strongly recommend that those advocating this course of action both within the current administration and other organizations vet their proposals based primarily on a concern for the safety of the individuals they intend to deploy into a situation that poses mortal danger to their lives.
All mission requirements are secondary to security. No one will agree to undertake a 'suicide mission'. Additionally, deploying an asset, be it an individual, group or military hardware, is pointless if that asset is not, at a minimum, afforded the security necessary to accomplish the key objectives it has been assigned.
Speaking from a position of dearly earned experience, having lost a friend in the employ of USAID in Afghanistan, civilians who are not afforded significant protection are targets. They represent a low risk / high reward opportunity for the Taliban and other anti-progressive forces to strike a blow against those who threaten their hold on the traditional reins of power in this region. A clear demonstration of this point is the premium placed on damaging the Provencial Reconstruction Teams by the insurgent and criminal forces. This is a thinking enemy who clearly understands that increased Afghan Governmental capacity poses a far more significant threat to their objectives than do the entirety of our military forces.
Members of the administration, Congress, and the media would be well advised to thoroughly examine the very real necessity to provide security for the brave men and women who will answer this call to service. All of us who serve understand that our lives may be in peril from time to time, all we ask from our civilian leadership and the public is that those of us who are called upon to sacrifice not make the sacrifice in vain.

]]> http://washingtonindependent.com/41791/karzai-seeks-civilian-surge-likely-beyond-us-capacity/comment-page-1#comment-29651 greg Mon, 04 May 2009 23:53:41 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=41791#comment-29651 Where are the War protesters now.If this was Bush the Media would want him Waterboarded.Just shows how bias the cut throat media and left are.Im a republican,and I would never vote for such a Statist,but I support him and any president during War.I quess thats the difference between left and right. Where are the War protesters now.If this was Bush the Media would want him Waterboarded.Just shows how bias the cut throat media and left are.Im a republican,and I would never vote for such a Statist,but I support him and any president during War.I quess thats the difference between left and right.

]]>