View Full Version : Are we taking bets on when Afghanistan falls?
I give it 6 months. Most people more focused on what sex is using what bathroom and such, while the US leaves Afghanistan after 20 years. Anyone who was there/boots on the ground have an opinion as to what will happen? I pinged a recently retired Col who spent a long time there, said 3-6 months before they fall, but he also said we'd reach the objectives 10 years ago and it was time to leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8s06OC8plU
The towel head taliban are already sweeping across the country. If they want freedom, let them free themselves. We have our own issues to resolve and they are growing daily.
How long before China, Iran or Russia invades to help secure "peace"
Or Harris/Biden gets us in another war because of a terrorist attack....
P2Vaircrewman
07-03-21, 10:55
Falls? when has it ever risen.
How long before China, Iran or Russia invades to help secure "peace"
Or Harris/Biden gets us in another war because of a terrorist attack....
Russia already tried that and it didn't go to well. Doubt there's anything that would get them to go back. Iran or China can have it if they too want to learn the hard way about that country.
Falls? when has it ever risen.
Re taken by the Taliban. Semantics really.
We ousted the Taliban from power in less than 30 days. It will take less than that for them to reclaim the government.
I wasted 3 years of my life in that country for no tangible reason. It will go back to exactly the way it was before we invaded in 2001, and that's Afghanistan's problem.
Russia already tried that and it didn't go to well. Doubt there's anything that would get them to go back. Iran or China can have it if they too want to learn the hard way about that country.
Russian would not do full conventional forces...they would do PMCs and little green men to secure a 20 to 30 mile buffer zone.
Russian would not do full conventional forces...they would do PMCs and little green men to secure a 20 to 30 mile buffer zone.
To what end? Are they worried about invasion from that direction? What natural resources are there to take? I suspect they are as likley to that as we are to return to Nam at this point.
I encourage China to settle some soldiers there.
Less Muslims, less Chinese soldiers.
What natural resources are there to take?
Lithium, and control of a massive opium supply.
Lithium, and control of a massive opium supply.
I can see those as motivators, sure. Not sure the juice worth the squeeze for them on that one however. They can do that by usual routes too.
I encourage China to settle some soldiers there.
Less Muslims, less Chinese soldiers.
How much do you know about islam in china? Or Afghanistan, for that matter?
The_War_Wagon
07-03-21, 12:46
When are we leaving?
THAT night. :rolleyes:
We ousted the Taliban from power in less than 30 days. It will take less than that for them to reclaim the government.
I agree (though if I recall correctly it took us around 4-6 months to get Afghanistan)
Daily reports both official and unofficial indicate that Taliban takes new towns, villages, and bases every day. Most often without any resistance from Afghan forces. Border with Tajikistan (North) is almost under Taliban's control. Those who remember - Taliban didn't have a presence in Northern Afghanistan before the 2001. Eastern and Southern border is being contested actively.
Regular army forces simply join Taliban with all their weapons, communication equipment, supplies, and most importantly maps and mil. documents/plans - giving the Taliban full intelligence information and insight.
Recent report indicated 300 members of Afghan army joined Taliban. That is in addition to daily reports of dozens who simply lay down their weapons and join Taliban simply when they arrive.
Afghan special forces, considered elite and trained by U.S., are no exception. Dozens not just retreat, but surrender to Taliban almost on a daily basis.
Afghan Air force is doing precision strikes quite effectively against Taliban targets, but how beneficial would it be in terms of containment is a big question. I suspect that Taliban will target pilots and Air Force members for assassinations in attrition game.
I read a brief excerpt from memoirs of a Russian soldier (don't remember if he was an officer or not) who basically said they could never rely on local Afghans to do anything combat related. He said they would never fight the opposing side - it was either a prayer time, or they were complaining that they didn't get food on time, or it was getting dark (or too early in the morning), or they thought they need more armor support, or they needed to rest, or simply because somebody was shooting at them from the opposing hillside.
Are we taking bets on when Afghanistan falls?To whom? The Taliban are Afghans, too.
Afghanistan will return to pre-invasion normal and equilibrium in a few weeks.
vicious_cb
07-03-21, 15:14
To what end? Are they worried about invasion from that direction? What natural resources are there to take? I suspect they are as likley to that as we are to return to Nam at this point.
Or did you think we were there for the Afghan people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9pOQioOEGg
I encourage China to settle some soldiers there.
Less Muslims, less Chinese soldiers.
No, you wouldnt because they would actually win the war since they have no qualms about killing or enslaving every hostile muslim in Afghanistan. Then they would have all of the above for themselves which would make them even more of an economic powerhouse.
crusader377
07-03-21, 15:18
I served in Afghanistan in 2002. My bet is three to five years. The Afghanistan government will lose the outlying areas fairly quickly but I think the Afghanistan government will hold its core areas for quite awhile.
We pulled all ground troops out of South Vietnam in 1973 and the country fell to North Vietnam in 1975. I don't expect the current Afghan regime to last half that long.
No, you wouldnt because they would actually win the war since they have no qualms about killing or enslaving every hostile muslim in Afghanistan. Then they would have all of the above for themselves which would make them even more of an economic powerhouse.
Why would China be any different than any of the other countries that tried to subjugate it? Granted we weren't trying to kill all of them, only a select few, but other empires tried to wipe them off the map or subjugate them into submissiveness, and it never worked.
I don't think the Chinese are interested. They are many things, they're not stupid. They can't afford to extend their army there into an army of occupation.
But how long until it falls, again? Days, weeks?
It did not take long for Afghanistan to fall to the religious zealots in the seventies, and although the Soviet Union was over them on paper, they never really did have control of them. But the Taliban seems to have the equation figured out, they never were "out of control."
Or did you think we were there for the Afghan people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9pOQioOEGg
No, you wouldnt because they would actually win the war since they have no qualms about killing or enslaving every hostile muslim in Afghanistan. Then they would have all of the above for themselves which would make them even more of an economic powerhouse.
Neither did the Russians, and we'd make sure it was a total quagmire for them as we did the Russians, as they did to us in a Nam. I don't think the Chinese are even close to dumb enough to try it and the Russians will want no part of it either.
Falls? when has it ever risen.
This. The Soviet Union never restored it. The United States never restored it. We managed to engage in a turf war where we held our block and they had theirs. Both managed to install a government, but that government never really controlled anything beyond our own block and most remote tribal regions probably didn't even know there was a president.
I understand we had to go, our enemies attacked us from there and even if we fought something more than a "peacekeeping mission" we still probably wouldn't have accomplished much more than we did.
We should have invited Russia to "joint coalition" with us but I suspect Putin would have been too smart for that. I guess it's China's turn next to go over extend themselves.
1_click_off
07-03-21, 18:28
Reports out the base is already being looted.
agree when were they able to fall ? they had to rise to fall !
so you could say when a snake trips !
To what end? Are they worried about invasion from that direction? What natural resources are there to take? I suspect they are as likley to that as we are to return to Nam at this point.
It is about control for them...they don't want the Islamic radicals to spread more than it has to and a show of strength...
I agree (though if I recall correctly it took us around 4-6 months to get Afghanistan)
Daily reports both official and unofficial indicate that Taliban takes new towns, villages, and bases every day. Most often without any resistance from Afghan forces. Border with Tajikistan (North) is almost under Taliban's control. Those who remember - Taliban didn't have a presence in Northern Afghanistan before the 2001. Eastern and Southern border is being contested actively.
Regular army forces simply join Taliban with all their weapons, communication equipment, supplies, and most importantly maps and mil. documents/plans - giving the Taliban full intelligence information and insight.
Recent report indicated 300 members of Afghan army joined Taliban. That is in addition to daily reports of dozens who simply lay down their weapons and join Taliban simply when they arrive.
Afghan special forces, considered elite and trained by U.S., are no exception. Dozens not just retreat, but surrender to Taliban almost on a daily basis.
Afghan Air force is doing precision strikes quite effectively against Taliban targets, but how beneficial would it be in terms of containment is a big question. I suspect that Taliban will target pilots and Air Force members for assassinations in attrition game.
I read a brief excerpt from memoirs of a Russian soldier (don't remember if he was an officer or not) who basically said they could never rely on local Afghans to do anything combat related. He said they would never fight the opposing side - it was either a prayer time, or they were complaining that they didn't get food on time, or it was getting dark (or too early in the morning), or they thought they need more armor support, or they needed to rest, or simply because somebody was shooting at them from the opposing hillside.
Great...the Taliban with special forces and at some point an Air Force...
Daisy Cutter the whole country...
How much do you know about islam in china? Or Afghanistan, for that matter?
I know the Chinese government is about as excited with their Uyghur population as the Russian are with their Chechnyan population. Given what China is willing to do in Hong Kong, there is probably nothing they wouldn't be able to do in Afghanistan, especially given the Chinese see "live organ donors" as a natural resource.
BoringGuy45
07-03-21, 20:37
I just finished the book Surprise, Kill, Vanish which I highly recommend. The last quarter of the book is all about OEF, and the picture it paints of Afghanistan, according to the SOF and CIA operators the author interviewed, is that it's a hopeless hellhole. Now, all of my info about life in Afghanistan is secondhand, but I've consistently heard the same thing from everyone I know who served over there. Anyone here who served there and has a rosier, more positive view of the country, feel free to correction any misinformation I have.
Afghanistan in the book was referred to as "The Moral Twilight Zone." When we sided with the Northern Alliance, we didn't side with the "good guys" or even the "lesser of two evils". We sided with "the equal of two evils that happened to have a common enemy with us." It's the same as the Soviet Union was to us in WWII. That got me thinking: How can one think that we could stabilize a country where molesting children is considered literally encouraged, and having consensual sex with a woman for anything except procreation is considered disgusting? Also, apparently, the biggest problem SF and CIA SOG had in working with the Afghans is that they constantly gang raped each other! One guy in the book also said you can't buy an Afghan's loyalty because there's no loyalty to buy; they were undisciplined, unreliable, and would turn on you at the drop of a hat. The warlords we sided with were just as brutal and murderous as the Taliban. It was a lateral move when the Taliban got knocked out of power. When they come back, it will be another lateral move.
The U.S. government was playing the Cold War game after 9/11: Knock out the unfriendly government and build a U.S. friendly government. The problem was, to what end?? We didn't need a regime to buffer against the USSR anymore. They had no resources we needed. We didn't need a stable Afghanistan for anything! We shouldn't have tried to build the nation in the first place. After 9/11, our work with the Northern Allience should have only been to dismantle al Qaeda and get bin Laden, then get out of there and tell them to clean up the mess.
I know the Chinese government is about as excited with their Uyghur population as the Russian are with their Chechnyan population. Given what China is willing to do in Hong Kong, there is probably nothing they wouldn't be able to do in Afghanistan, especially given the Chinese see "live organ donors" as a natural resource.
True, but the Soviets were just as brutal and they left having accomplished nothing. The Chinese might be willing to do things we wouldn't do, but it would be a pointless endeavor to go in there. The Afghans can't be controlled, and they're so used to brutality that I don't think any kind of threats can scare them enough to cooperate.
Business_Casual
07-03-21, 21:09
I tell you what, C-17s taking off regularly near here.
I give it 6 months. Most people more focused on what sex is using what bathroom and such, while the US leaves Afghanistan after 20 years. Anyone who was there/boots on the ground have an opinion as to what will happen? I pinged a recently retired Col who spent a long time there, said 3-6 months before they fall, but he also said we'd reach the objectives 10 years ago and it was time to leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8s06OC8plU
Already lost.
True, but the Soviets were just as brutal and they left having accomplished nothing. The Chinese might be willing to do things we wouldn't do, but it would be a pointless endeavor to go in there. The Afghans can't be controlled, and they're so used to brutality that I don't think any kind of threats can scare them enough to cooperate.
I wasn't suggesting China was going to win or anything. Even if they establish a monolithic military force, they still need to go find all those assholes in all those caves and that is literally without end. The Afghans have more caves and assholes than the Chinese possess ammunition to shoot.
vicious_cb
07-03-21, 23:02
I wasn't suggesting China was going to win or anything. Even if they establish a monolithic military force, they still need to go find all those assholes in all those caves and that is literally without end. The Afghans have more caves and assholes than the Chinese possess ammunition to shoot.
Unlike the other great powers the PLA have manpower to spare. If they thought the mineral deposits important enough they could turn over every rock in the country and ensure every military aged male was dead or in a concentration camp within a few years.
Unlike the other great powers the PLA have manpower to spare. If they thought the mineral deposits important enough they could turn over every rock in the country and ensure every military aged male was dead or in a concentration camp within a few years.
Sorta wish they would, sorta hope they don't. If they did sure as shit some dickhead will decide the US needs to go rescue Afghanistan to prove to the world once and for all that we, the United States don't hate muslims.
We lost Afghanistan by staying in a day beyond killing Bin Laden. There is no "winning" or nation building a place like Afghanistan and the US was just another invading force to be fought off like the Soviets and the British before them.
They never wanted us there and frankly we were there waaayy too long. As has been mentioned, the Afghans have no loyalty beyond who can bring them food and water. They don't care about roads, schools, hospitals, police stations or any of that feel good shit we tried to push on them. They can't maintain any of it outside the major cities and even then, it's falling apart or being neglected. Afghanistan is a nation of "I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, my brother and I and out cousin agains the outsiders". It is a nation ruled by warlords, religious zealots, and strongmen.
We were there too long, lost too much wealth and too many lives. The mission objectives and mission creep was always difficult to track, similar to nailing jello to a wall. Bagram is already being looted, we lost. Bomb it all and GTFO already.
brushy bill
07-04-21, 07:10
Bagram is already being looted, we lost.
Can't be...they don't have nukes and F-15s.
A-Stan is less like a country and more like a tribal wasteland. They give zero fux about our mission, the taliban, or anything else. The taliban is the devil they know, and if they want to pretend to be in charge the warlords and tribal leaders will let them. In truth they were and will be no more "in charge" than we were.
Those f'ing mooks don't even think in terms of a country. It's about "my valley", "my brother", "my goat". The whole damned place is like the 1800's Ozark hillbilly clans gone pro.
IMO, we should have left in June 2011.
BinLaden died? Great, mission accomplished! AMF, YOYO!
Grab your 3 day pack and rifle, sortie to BAF, KAF or Bastion and start bringing them out. B-52 the bases the next morning.
We should have checked out of Afghanistan in 2002. Instead we pissed away another 19 years of blood and treasure.
The afgan people will get what they deserve. It sounds like an insufferable place. Who cares what governnt falls and which one takes over. What difference does it make. It’s all the same clowns under a different flag.
Wasting so much time in Afghanistan is no reason to keep going.
From what I have been reading we are not really 'leaving'. A drawdown yes, but will still be a bunch of troops left behind. Embassy security or some such garbage.
Even Airwolf couldn't save that place.
I doubt any county will try and invade Afghanistan unless something happens that forces their hand, like 9/11 did. But if the Taliban does take over, I would not be surprised at all to see them pursue relationships with other countries that would benefit them.
That said, I think American air power can probably keep them from fully taking over the country by force. I would love to see the country succeed, there’s some really unique and compelling things about the place. It’s going to be an interesting time, for sure.
Already lost.
I will submit this: the ACF (Anti-Coalition Forces, more than just the ethnic Taliban but generically called that) as well as the North Vietnamese Army before them could not take over either country while we were still there. While I certainly would stop short of saying we "succeeded" or "won" in the last 20 years or 50 years ago, to label us as "defeated" isn't quite accurate. We walked away from both places, having attempted to turn each one over to their indigenous armed forces we help create, and Vietnam fell as will the Afghan government. But we were not driven out, i.e. militarily defeated on the battlefield to the point we acquiesced. That occurred in neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan. Sure, small battles where units were overrun happened, but it is war after all; talking "big picture" here.
Did we "win"? Nope. Were we "defeated"? That is a semantic argument, depending on your definition of that term. Were we driven out of either place militarily? Nope. Could either enemy have taken their respective countries while the U.S. military was heavily involved? Nope to that one too.
Sucks all around because we lost 58,000 lives in SE Asia and ~ 2,500 in Afghanistan, all for naught in either case. That said, both the NVA as well as the "Taliban" were/are thanking their lucky stars we walked away.
From what I have been reading we are not really 'leaving'. A drawdown yes, but will still be a bunch of troops left behind. Embassy security or some such garbage.
Someone needs to watch some education films on Embassies in Vietnam post 1972 and Iran after the revolution. Unlike VN we can't do a carrier shuttle of personal until the last hour and we'd do well to remember that Eagle Claw was our first Delta mission and it didn't go down so well. No Marine should have to guard Camp Custer, seems to me all embassy / diplomatic issues could be a Zoom meeting between us and out counterparts.
Someone needs to watch some education films on Embassies in Vietnam post 1972 and Iran after the revolution. Unlike VN we can't do a carrier shuttle of personal until the last hour and we'd do well to remember that Eagle Claw was our first Delta mission and it didn't go down so well. No Marine should have to guard Camp Custer, seems to me all embassy / diplomatic issues could be a Zoom meeting between us and out counterparts.
Oh yeah, if you're going to GTFO then GTFO completely instead of creating a future rescue/hostage situation.
SomeOtherGuy
07-04-21, 19:36
A couple of weeks, maybe. Not sure that it will be anything more than a formality anyway.
Would love to see China get bogged down in the Graveyard Of Empires... but I think they are smarter than to do that.
Even Airwolf couldn't save that place.
Need to send Chuck Norris.
Oh yeah, if you're going to GTFO then GTFO completely instead of creating a future rescue/hostage situation.
Exactly.
According to UK media, at least some British SAS will remain as advisors.
Oh yeah, if you're going to GTFO then GTFO completely instead of creating a future rescue/hostage situation.
Yep, it's not like it isn't a terrorist state and they are above it. Also if we piss off the current acting government, who gives a shit. Oh darn now they are mad at us and won't like us? Whoever decided to leave a security element in place should have to camp out with that security element.
According to UK media, at least some British SAS will remain as advisors.
Brits are famous for sending their guys on dead end missions. B2Z anyone? The Afgan army that we support has learned everything they are capable of learning. No amount of "last minute" coaching from and special anything group is going to make any difference except for how many friendlies we deliberately leave behind the lines.
I understand there are intelligence gathering operations being run by the CIA and whoever and that they really do produce valuable intelligence. But two problems exist, first the US government is world famous for not acting on intel that might have prevented serious terrorist actions (you can ask Chris Stevens about that, oh wait you can't) and second those preventable terrorists actions include hostage taking and executions of embassy personnel and embassy security. So right off the bat we can save THOSE people because the are automatically first on the list, most accessible targets for our enemies in the region.
We need to view Afghanistan as a completely hostile enemy held area similar to North Korea and conduct intelligence gathering in the same manner that we do with places like that. Given that the US can apparently harvest just about anything from any US citizen, seems we should be able to employ a lot of that remote capacity in places like Afghanistan.
Give it the Ripley.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Voodoochild
07-05-21, 08:03
Afghanistan has been calling for a long time now. Even while we were dropping billions to prop it up. Afghan army doesn't want to fight even after all the training, weapons, and equipment we gave them. Then pull the plug and let it circle the drain.
Grand58742
07-05-21, 08:21
Afghanistan has been calling for a long time now. Even while we were dropping billions to prop it up. Afghan army doesn't want to fight even after all the training, weapons, and equipment we gave them. Then pull the plug and let it circle the drain.
Well, there's a historical reference there...
Give it the Ripley.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Nah, nukes cost money. Leaving and saying Phuket is probably best. Seems unlikely, though.
P2Vaircrewman
07-05-21, 09:18
From what I have been reading we are not really 'leaving'. A drawdown yes, but will still be a bunch of troops left behind. Embassy security or some such garbage.
Those are merely excuses to go back when they are attacked.
Those are merely excuses to go back when they are attacked.
Saigon embassy has entered the chat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grand58742
07-05-21, 10:58
I'll say the same thing I've said for years even when I was AD (though quietly to myself)...
We should never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Spec Ops raids, airstrikes and the like, by all means. But history has shown Afghanistan is not a country that will ever be "pacified" by any external military. You can't nation build in a place that doesn't want to be built.
I was all about going in and kicking Al-Qaeda in the balls on their front porch after 9/11 and killing Bin Laden. I did not think we needed to add our name to the history books of "failed military occupations of Afghanistan in history."
Afghanistan has been calling for a long time now. Even while we were dropping billions to prop it up. Afghan army doesn't want to fight even after all the training, weapons, and equipment we gave them. Then pull the plug and let it circle the drain.
About 3,000 years, give or take.
I'll say the same thing I've said for years even when I was AD (though quietly to myself)...
We should never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Spec Ops raids, airstrikes and the like, by all means. But history has shown Afghanistan is not a country that will ever be "pacified" by any external military. You can't nation build in a place that doesn't want to be built.
I was all about going in and kicking Al-Qaeda in the balls on their front porch after 9/11 and killing Bin Laden. I did not think we needed to add our name to the history books of "failed military occupations of Afghanistan in history."
Can you imagine if we'd followed the above and not gone to Iraq at all in terms of success with terrorism, lives lost, $ saved, etc? It boggles the mind. Of course we can "speculate" that some benefited by those actions and there was a much larger geo political strategy at work to keep the entire region destabilized and so forth, but I choose not to go down that rabbit hole if possible.
Grand58742
07-05-21, 11:33
Can you imagine if we'd followed the above and not gone to Iraq at all in terms of success with terrorism, lives lost, $ saved, etc? It boggles the mind. Of course we can "speculate" that some benefited by those actions and there was a much larger geo political strategy at work to keep the entire region destabilized and so forth, but I choose not to go down that rabbit hole if possible.
I won't thread drift, but my thoughts on Iraq was we should have finished the job in 91 when we had the support of everyone save the Saudis who wanted the "buffer" zone of Iraq in regards to Iran.
Had we taken Saddam's ass out of power back then and said screw the UN resolutions before finishing the job, we would have had a lot easier go of any occupation we might have done.
But the three factors that hurt us the most in 2003:
1) Allowing 10+ years of resentment to build in the Iraqi population from the sanctions the world put in place.
2) Giving Iran 10+ years to rebuild both politically and militarily that helped fuel the insurgency.
3) Keeping with the Sykes-Picot Agreement from a century before and not allowing for three separate States (Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd) to be founded in the aftermath. Part of that was Turkey not wanting a Kurdish State on their border which would have fueled their own domestic problems, but screw Turkey.
Anyway...
I think if we took care of business in 91, things would have been a lot different these days.
Averageman
07-05-21, 12:29
Burn their crops and salt the soil as you leave.
BoringGuy45
07-05-21, 13:03
Burn their crops and salt the soil as you leave.
Couldn't make it any worse...
I'll say the same thing I've said for years even when I was AD (though quietly to myself)...
We should never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Spec Ops raids, airstrikes and the like, by all means. But history has shown Afghanistan is not a country that will ever be "pacified" by any external military. You can't nation build in a place that doesn't want to be built.
I was all about going in and kicking Al-Qaeda in the balls on their front porch after 9/11 and killing Bin Laden. I did not think we needed to add our name to the history books of "failed military occupations of Afghanistan in history."
This is 100% correct. The USMC and Big Army should have never have entered Afghanistan in the amounts that they did. It turned to shit in 2009 when we started to beef up the amount of conventional forces on the ground. If you look at the operations from 2001 to 2009 and then after there is a huge difference in the way operations went and objectives. It went on a down hill slide when we started to pump conventional troops into the country. What to take a bet on how many conventional troops were utilized in Pakistan to get OBL?
This is 100% correct. The USMC and Big Army should have never have entered Afghanistan in the amounts that they did. It turned to shit in 2009 when we started to beef up the amount of conventional forces on the ground. If you look at the operations from 2001 to 2009 and then after there is a huge difference in the way operations went and objectives. It went on a down hill slide when we started to pump conventional troops into the country. What to take a bet on how many conventional troops were utilized in Pakistan to get OBL?
I mean hey, it's not like we had historic precedent to look at as to why that's not always a smart approach. Oh wait...
The U.S. military left Bagram without telling the new tenants.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2021-07-05/us-leaves-bagram-night-afghan-military-2058138.html#:~:text=BAGRAM%2C%20Afghanistan%20%E2%80%94%20The%20U.S.%20left,left%2C%20Afghan%20military%20officials%20said.
vicious_cb
07-05-21, 19:10
The U.S. military left Bagram without telling the new tenants.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2021-07-05/us-leaves-bagram-night-afghan-military-2058138.html#:~:text=BAGRAM%2C%20Afghanistan%20%E2%80%94%20The%20U.S.%20left,left%2C%20Afghan%20military%20officials%20said.
Good job on the opsec then. Those ANA twats can't be trusted.
I won't thread drift, but my thoughts on Iraq was we should have finished the job in 91 when we had the support of everyone save the Saudis who wanted the "buffer" zone of Iraq in regards to Iran.
Had we taken Saddam's ass out of power back then and said screw the UN resolutions before finishing the job, we would have had a lot easier go of any occupation we might have done.
But the three factors that hurt us the most in 2003:
1) Allowing 10+ years of resentment to build in the Iraqi population from the sanctions the world put in place.
2) Giving Iran 10+ years to rebuild both politically and militarily that helped fuel the insurgency.
3) Keeping with the Sykes-Picot Agreement from a century before and not allowing for three separate States (Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd) to be founded in the aftermath. Part of that was Turkey not wanting a Kurdish State on their border which would have fueled their own domestic problems, but screw Turkey.
Anyway...
I think if we took care of business in 91, things would have been a lot different these days.
When I was over there in 91 we said let’s finish this now. If not we will be back in ten years. How right we were.
Dan
Russia failed . The U.S failed, Afghan cost both nations trillions of dollars /rubles and the militaries didn't return a profit to the taxpayers. China will go in and buy the politicians .Kill or disease the Muslims as neither Russia nor the U.S could do, then rape the nation as it has never been raped before. Mark my words. lets give China five years to do their deed.
Russia failed . The U.S failed, Afghan cost both nations trillions of dollars /rubles and the militaries didn't return a profit to the taxpayers. China will go in and buy the politicians .Kill or disease the Muslims as neither Russia nor the U.S could do, then rape the nation as it has never been raped before. Mark my words. lets give China five years to do their deed.
My money is on the Afghans. They will bleed China.
Grand58742
07-05-21, 23:39
Russia failed . The U.S failed, Afghan cost both nations trillions of dollars /rubles and the militaries didn't return a profit to the taxpayers. China will go in and buy the politicians .Kill or disease the Muslims as neither Russia nor the U.S could do, then rape the nation as it has never been raped before. Mark my words. lets give China five years to do their deed.
The Soviets during the 80s weren't exactly the model of human decency towards the Afghani people. I'll give the Chinese credit for probably being smart enough not to get involved.
The U.S. military left Bagram without telling the new tenants.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2021-07-05/us-leaves-bagram-night-afghan-military-2058138.html#:~:text=BAGRAM%2C%20Afghanistan%20%E2%80%94%20The%20U.S.%20left,left%2C%20Afghan%20military%20officials%20said.
Does this mean we forfeit our security deposit?
I think if we took care of business in 91, things would have been a lot different these days.
Or if we just stayed out of in in 91 and let the UN mediate the challenges between Kuwait and Iraq we could have retained Iraq as and ally and not tried to play "world police." The only real benefit we got was the opportunity to beta test a lot of stealth tech, smart bombs and GPS based tech.
Given that Iraq had fought what they considered a proxy war against Iran for our benefit Saddam probably expected that we would compensate him by purchasing Iraqi oil for a couple bucks above market value as a thank you.
Persian Gulf War 91 caused a lot of down the road issues. Our staging out of Saudi is one of the key things that got OBL's panties in a twist. Had we left the UN to solve the problems of UN members we might never have seen 9-11. Had Saddam maintained a mostly stable, secular Arab state we "might" have avoided a lot of shit down the road.
The only other tangible benefit from Persian Gulf I was FINALLY people supported the troops and nobody was at airports spitting on returning servicemen, so a lot of middle age hippies were able to put a nicer face on the things they had done 20 years prior.
Does this mean we forfeit our security deposit?
Did you read the article? or at least look at the pictures? all those vehicles including MRAPs, small arms, buildings, etc. Soon all those will be used by the talibans. I think the towelbans should send us a thank you note. Uhhh on the second thought, maybe not.
Did you read the article? or at least look at the pictures? all those vehicles including MRAPs, small arms, buildings, etc. Soon all those will be used by the talibans. I think the towelbans should send us a thank you note. Uhhh on the second thought, maybe not.
Can't wait to see pics of stripped out MRAPS being used as donkey wagons.
Can't wait to see pics of stripped out MRAPS being used as donkey wagons.
They can keep the MRAPS. I just want a Hilux. With an attached crew-served weapon.
Grand58742
07-06-21, 12:09
Or if we just stayed out of in in 91 and let the UN mediate the challenges between Kuwait and Iraq we could have retained Iraq as and ally and not tried to play "world police." The only real benefit we got was the opportunity to beta test a lot of stealth tech, smart bombs and GPS based tech.
Given that Iraq had fought what they considered a proxy war against Iran for our benefit Saddam probably expected that we would compensate him by purchasing Iraqi oil for a couple bucks above market value as a thank you.
Persian Gulf War 91 caused a lot of down the road issues. Our staging out of Saudi is one of the key things that got OBL's panties in a twist. Had we left the UN to solve the problems of UN members we might never have seen 9-11. Had Saddam maintained a mostly stable, secular Arab state we "might" have avoided a lot of shit down the road.
The only other tangible benefit from Persian Gulf I was FINALLY people supported the troops and nobody was at airports spitting on returning servicemen, so a lot of middle age hippies were able to put a nicer face on the things they had done 20 years prior.
Probably best for another thread, but OBL's panties were going to get in a wad regardless. We had people over there in the 80s well prior to Desert Shield/Storm. We were also there at the request of the Saudi Royalty; so, his issues were with them as well as us.
I honestly feel Desert Storm was far more justified than OIF. I don't buy into the "we gave Iraq the green light to invade" nonsense. Saddam, much like us, had a huge military sitting around doing nothing. He was going to fight with someone and picking on the little kid in Kuwait was easier than going after Iran again.
I'll say the same thing I've said for years even when I was AD (though quietly to myself)...
We should never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Spec Ops raids, airstrikes and the like, by all means. But history has shown Afghanistan is not a country that will ever be "pacified" by any external military. You can't nation build in a place that doesn't want to be built.
I was all about going in and kicking Al-Qaeda in the balls on their front porch after 9/11 and killing Bin Laden. I did not think we needed to add our name to the history books of "failed military occupations of Afghanistan in history."
What we should've done is not take sides in the Iran-Iraq war or the Iraq-Kuwait war. That would've meant we weren't using Saudi Arabia as a military staging ground, so 9/11 might've never happened.
Had 9/11 still happened, we should've read our history and detonated a nuke over bin Laden's territory in Afghanistan, then blockaded Saudi Arabia until they paid reparations for the attacks and beheaded bin Laden's entire friends and family list.
We'd be trillions of dollars ahead and not lost another drop of American blood. :mad:
All you guys mentioning nukes know damn well that was never, and is never, going to happen. 9-11 or not, we ain't gonna nuke any-damn-body.
They can keep the MRAPS. I just want a Hilux. With an attached crew-served weapon.
Oddly enough SOCOM was shipping US Tacomas to Afghanistan for use as technicals cause they couldn't source enough locally. There are a lot of US/Mexican Toyotas in Astan now.
Besides, I've already seen plenty of hilux turned into donkey wagons.:p
I wanna see a tactical, mine resistant, donkey wagon.:cool:
All you guys mentioning nukes know damn well that was never, and is never, going to happen. 9-11 or not, we ain't gonna nuke any-damn-body.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Well that wasn't really my point, but I won't disagree. That said, we can't just go willy-nilly tossing canned sunshine around.
The Soviets during the 80s weren't exactly the model of human decency towards the Afghani people. I'll give the Chinese credit for probably being smart enough not to get involved.
Supposedly AFG has huge deposits of lithium that have gone untapped. They say lithium may be the new oil of the 21st century.
If that turns out to be true, you can bet your bottom dollar China will want in on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Supposedly AFG has huge deposits of lithium that have gone untapped. They say lithium may be the new oil of the 21st century.
If that turns out to be true, you can bet your bottom dollar China will want in on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
China is already working that.
Well that wasn't really my point, but I won't disagree. That said, we can't just go willy-nilly tossing canned sunshine around.
Not willy-nilly, but we're no different than any other great empire littering the history of man. We reach a tipping point where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. That begins our end. I'm not even sure America will go down as one of the greatest, great empires. We may not last long enough to make the cut. :(
Not willy-nilly, but we're no different than any other great empire littering the history of man. We reach a tipping point where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. That begins our end. I'm not even sure America will go down as one of the greatest, great empires. We may not last long enough to make the cut. :(
Yeah I get the "crucial-to-our-future" history we are living now. I don't have a really uplifting feeling about it though.....
The nuke thing goes both ways with the big boys. Sure we could glass over a significant portion of The Sandbox without a similar response against us. But [muh] Russia and of course the ever-present ChiComs could smack back. We opened Pandora's Box in 1945.....and for the American lives alone that it saved it was worth it. That said, we remain the only country on Earth to have ever actually used one. It no doubt has a certain stigma to it, but we have humbly stepped back from that firing-line a long time ago. I hope it stays that way.
EDIT: of course we keep that gun "loaded", and it leaves our options open, but I'd rather not go there if we didn't absolutely have to
Well that wasn't really my point, but I won't disagree. That said, we can't just go willy-nilly tossing canned sunshine around.
There is that stuff called 'fallout' which travels... And if it was to land on the wrong neighbors territory we may just get a surprise launched back at us.
There is good reason we have not screwed with any countries that could stand a chance of fighting back since WW2.
My money is on the Afghans. They will bleed China.
The world would owe them a big thank you card if this happens. China needs to be taken down a notch and it’d be awesome if we didn’t have to use US lives to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The world would owe them a big thank you card if this happens. China needs to be taken down a notch and it’d be awesome if we didn’t have to use US lives to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree. Let them pour their treasure into that pit.
There is that stuff called 'fallout' which travels... And if it was to land on the wrong neighbors territory we may just get a surprise launched back at us.
There is good reason we have not screwed with any countries that could stand a chance of fighting back since WW2.
And why every country wants nukes. Join the MAD club, and you're left alone. That will not end well...
Only way that ends well is if we develop tech that makes nukes obsolete to the point it's not worth investing the $ in, such as space based weapons that prevent ICBMs from getting past the borders of the country they originated, and so forth. Nukes as a possible option will never go away, but if our enemies know tech exists that not a missile will make it via some combo of tech that makes launching nukes a fail and leaving them open to it, it loses it's value. But, just having a few on hand, especially by those countries that could go national level suicide cult vs ever have infidels and such on their soil, will make sure the quest to have them will never go away.
China will buy the rights, and will include they will need to protect their interests. That will start China building bases around mines or areas of interest. There is a large difference in how China will deal with the Taliban, mainly that they will wage actual war and will have learned from everything (right or wrong) that we have done over the last 20 years.
No one actually wants Afghanistan. Maybe they want to prop up the A-GOV, or maybe they want the minerals, but the Afghans themselves aren't exactly a desired commodity.
China will buy the rights, and will include they will need to protect their interests. That will start China building bases around mines or areas of interest. There is a large difference in how China will deal with the Taliban, mainly that they will wage actual war and will have learned from everything (right or wrong) that we have done over the last 20 years.
No one actually wants Afghanistan. Maybe they want to prop up the A-GOV, or maybe they want the minerals, but the Afghans themselves aren't exactly a desired commodity.
I agree, except I can see China paying the Taliban as security forces, not fighting them.
Andy
I agree, except I can see China paying the Taliban as security forces, not fighting them.
Andy
I was going to post that, but I'm not sure that would work long term for them. Who knows, it would be the easy way to do it.
I was going to post that, but I'm not sure that would work long term for them. Who knows, it would be the easy way to do it.
I'd be curious if the Taliban flavor of Islam aligns with what the Uigars practice.
I could see the Uigars situation blurring the lines of they get together.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was going to post that, but I'm not sure that would work long term for them. Who knows, it would be the easy way to do it.
It won’t work. They’ll accept payment and equipment, sell it, pass on intel to freedom fighters, use proceeds to fund their brothers’ tiny fiefdoms, fight on both sides, not fight for either side, start a third side to fight for, etc.
If we really wanted to make a difference in Astan we would have started encouraging investment and local control of exploiting their resources 20 years ago.
Just another example of the Pols completely wasting, if not actively undermining, the sacrifices of the troops in the field.
Guys in the field have to apply their own reasons for their hard work. Been that way for a long time now. Whatever ones personal motivation (your fellow troops, "that's the job", ...) you can't let the political bullshit demean what have done.
Guys in the field have to apply their own reasons for their hard work. Been that way for a long time now. Whatever ones personal motivation (your fellow troops, "that's the job", ...) you can't let the political bullshit demean what have done.
Spot on. I don't know that I was in one crap-hole in any deployment that was worth a damn, but that didn't matter to me. All that mattered was ending the deployment with the same number with which we started.
vicious_cb
07-07-21, 13:47
I agree, except I can see China paying the Taliban as security forces, not fighting them.
Andy
No, thats what America does. China puts a gun to your head and makes you take out a "loan" that if you dont pay back effectively signs away any control you have and thats if they are actually following international law. If they think they can get away with it, they'll just do 1940 levels of genocide and film Disney movies next to the concentration camps.
If we really wanted to make a difference in Astan we would have started encouraging investment and local control of exploiting their resources 20 years ago.
That was always the end goal, except you cant build infrastructure and exploit resources if your roads and rails are constantly getting blown up or your mining sites are getting raided.
No, thats what America does. China puts a gun to your head and makes you take out a "loan" that if you dont pay back effectively signs away any control you have and thats if they are actually following international law. If they think they can get away with it, they'll just do 1940 levels of genocide and film Disney movies next to the concentration camps.
You’re right, but I don’t see them gaining that level of control prior to the hillbillies kicking off hostilities. And I don’t think China can do any better than the Soviets if that happens. Worse, probably. Just my opinion.
vicious_cb
07-07-21, 14:01
You’re right, but I don’t see them gaining that level of control prior to the hillbillies kicking off hostilities. And I don’t think China can do any better than the Soviets if that happens. Worse, probably. Just my opinion.
Thats the rub. No one in their organization has ANY fighting experience besides throwing rocks and clubbing some Rajjis in the mountains next to India. They'll have to learn lessons in blood before they gain the competency to "pacify" Afghanistan.
Thats the rub. No one in their organization has ANY fighting experience besides throwing rocks and clubbing some Rajjis in the mountains next to India. They'll have to learn lessons in blood before they gain the competency to "pacify" Afghanistan.
Indeed. And their cyber and economic manipulation skills won’t help them there.
Thats the rub. No one in their organization has ANY fighting experience besides throwing rocks and clubbing some Rajjis in the mountains next to India. They'll have to learn lessons in blood before they gain the competency to "pacify" Afghanistan.
They got a taste of real fighting in the 70s when they thought they had Vietnam in their back pocket. It did not work out the way they thought it would. But how many of those cats are still around? Probably not enough.
Just saw a news brief that confirmed reports that Taliban executed at least a dozen of Afghan soldiers who surrendered to them. :(
Obvious war crimes. Bad news for Afghan people
El Pistolero
07-07-21, 18:28
Part of me feels saddened by the closure of Bagram. And angry at the way we left. Thanks Biden.
Just saw a news brief that confirmed reports that Taliban executed at least a dozen of Afghan soldiers who surrendered to them. :(
Obvious war crimes. Bad news for Afghan people
An excellent motivator to actually fight vs surrender.
An excellent motivator to actually fight vs surrender.
I thought by now everyone knew you can't surrender to anyone in Afghanistan. They only take hostages if you have some monetary or political value, they don't take prisoners.
Report yesterday of hundreds of Afghan troops fleeing across the border into neighboring Tajikistan as Taliban forces approached.
Within a few months or even weeks, Afghanistan will be right back where it was 20 years ago.
What a waste. It brings back memories of Nam, and the American blood that was shed, and several personal friends of mine that were blown to bits, only to turn it over to the commies at the end. I think of the thousands of soldiers struggling with PTSD, families shattered, sons and fathers lost, and huge numbers of the wounded. There was a news story a while back of an American Marine who was hit by an IED. The picture showed him lying flat on his back, permanently paralyzed from the eyes down. He couldn't even talk; they were developing some kind of code where he could communicate by moving his eyes. He was surrounded by his wife and 3 or 4 kids, all of whom faithfully stood by him. This is the price we pay for...... what?
I thought by now everyone knew you can't surrender to anyone in Afghanistan. They only take hostages if you have some monetary or political value, they don't take prisoners.
If anyone was aware of that, you'd think it would be those guys. I have known some smart successful people from Afghanistan, and as explained to me, the country has had such a total brain drain over the decades - anyone with any brains at all gets the hell out of there and never looks back - the country is mostly "inhabited by morons" to quote the person. Any chance they had to work their way out of the stone age tribal thinking via education, industry, etc, all lost to the massive brain drain. If the country ever reached any semblance of stability, perhaps some would return to invest and rebuild and such, but that's not even in the cards now.
We pursued, yet another, complete failure of a policy in attempting nation building in yet another country incapable of it happening.
Unlike many past ventures, that one was not about preventing/stemming the spread of communism either.
If anyone was aware of that, you'd think it would be those guys. I have known some smart successful people from Afghanistan, and as explained to me, the country has had such a total brain drain over the decades - anyone with any brains at all gets the hell out of there and never looks back - the country is mostly "inhabited by morons" to quote the person. Any chance they had to work their way out of the stone age tribal thinking via education, industry, etc, all lost to the massive brain drain. If the country ever reached any semblance of stability, perhaps some would return to invest and rebuild and such, but that's not even in the cards now.
I know an Afghani woman, came to the US with her family in the 80s, she was about 8 when she came. Her dad is a very successful businessman here; her uncle, a physician. She showed me pictures of the pre-Islamization of Astan, up to the mid-70s. Super modern cities, great shopping, very western. Then the fundamentalists showed up. As an aside, she is also beautiful and unfortunately for me never made it out of the friend zone.
I know an Afghani woman, came to the US with her family in the 80s, she was about 8 when she came. Her dad is a very successful businessman here; her uncle, a physician. She showed me pictures of the pre-Islamization of Astan, up to the mid-70s. Super modern cities, great shopping, very western. Then the fundamentalists showed up.
Iran used to be the same way, back in the days of the Shah in the early 70s. It had a great economy, universities, basic freedoms, etc. before he was run off and the ragheads took over and dragged the country down to what it is today. Sad.
Iran used to be the same way, back in the days of the Shah in the early 70s. It had a great economy, universities, basic freedoms, etc. before he was run off and the ragheads took over and dragged the country down to what it is today. Sad.
My dad was a career Marine, 21 years, almost all of it intel (started off 0300). He had pics of him on TAD in Beirut and Tehran in the 60s. Beautiful, vibrant, thriving, open cities.
A good friend of mine fled Iran under the Shah.
The Shah's secret police were frightening. I guess that part never changed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A good friend of mine fled Iran under the Shah.
The Shah's secret police were frightening. I guess that part never changed.
I knew a guy who had done the same thing. The rationale I heard was that the Islamist lunatics required harsh suppression to keep them in control. And indeed, we see what happened when the Shah was removed...
BoringGuy45
07-08-21, 13:03
I know an Afghani woman, came to the US with her family in the 80s, she was about 8 when she came. Her dad is a very successful businessman here; her uncle, a physician. She showed me pictures of the pre-Islamization of Astan, up to the mid-70s. Super modern cities, great shopping, very western. Then the fundamentalists showed up. As an aside, she is also beautiful and unfortunately for me never made it out of the friend zone.
I worked with an Afghan woman this past winter. She spoke perfect English without much trace of an accent, dressed very stylish and Western, and never wore a head covering so I’m guessing she was either born here or moved here very young (she’s in her mid-20s). Same deal: Stunningly beautiful. I’m a sucker for women with dark hair and blue or green eyes. However, I’m happily married, so I didn’t do anything except acknowledge her beauty and carry on a professional relationship.
BoringGuy45
07-08-21, 13:19
I knew a guy who had done the same thing. The rationale I heard was that the Islamist lunatics required harsh suppression to keep them in control. And indeed, we see what happened when the Shah was removed...
The Shah was a brutal dictator and a complete piece of shit. While he needed to have a heavy hand against the Islamist hardliners, our support for his regime bit us in the ass. The CIA strategy of installing dictators to “protect democracy” was hypocritical, created a lot of terrorists, and gave people a lot of pause in wondering if Western capitalist democracy really was that much better than communism. If I get dragged away to get tortured by the secret police, I don’t give a damn if the regime torturing me is USSR backed communist or US backed fascist. If I get out alive, I’m not gonna have a good opinion of whatever ideology led to my getting thrown in prison.
The Shah was a brutal dictator and a complete piece of shit. While he needed to have a heavy hand against the Islamist hardliners, our support for his regime bit us in the ass. The CIA strategy of installing dictators to “protect democracy” was hypocritical, created a lot of terrorists, and gave people a lot of pause in wondering if Western capitalist democracy really was that much better than communism. If I get dragged away to get tortured by the secret police, I don’t give a damn if the regime torturing me is USSR backed communist or US backed fascist. If I get out alive, I’m not gonna have a good opinion of whatever ideology led to my getting thrown in prison.
Our backing the shah was one of many examples of the US backing the wrong horse. Unintended consequences and all. What's that old saying? "Yes, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator." :rolleyes:
The Shah was a brutal dictator and a complete piece of shit. While he needed to have a heavy hand against the Islamist hardliners, our support for his regime bit us in the ass. The CIA strategy of installing dictators to “protect democracy” was hypocritical, created a lot of terrorists, and gave people a lot of pause in wondering if Western capitalist democracy really was that much better than communism. If I get dragged away to get tortured by the secret police, I don’t give a damn if the regime torturing me is USSR backed communist or US backed fascist. If I get out alive, I’m not gonna have a good opinion of whatever ideology led to my getting thrown in prison.
I think in the future that might be a better solution than staying forever while trying to foment a Western-style democracy in a society that is not compatible with it. We had a damn good reason to go into Afghanistan, but should have cleaned house of Al Qaeda there (which we did) and unseat the Taliban as punishment for letting AQ operate from there (which we also did). Then we should have installed a strongman friendly to us and GTFO. Maybe a year tops, certainly not twenty.
A good friend of mine fled Iran under the Shah.
The Shah's secret police were frightening. I guess that part never changed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That part of the world, you get the choice of a monster who at least holds the place together with an iron fist, or worse monsters (plural) who take the entire place down the chitter with them. The western countries refuse to acknowledge that reality and keep trying, and to date, only made things worse in the region. Saddam was one of the more benevolent tyrant chit heads in the region and rejected the Muslim extremist types outright and was secular tyrant chit head.
It used to grate on me like nails on a chalkboard when GWB would speak of promoting/spreading "democracy". Simply put, some civilizations aren't advanced enough to work within the framework of a democracy. Afghanistan is the poster child for that example.
Now I know some people are upset about how we're leaving, and I agree with them. But the tl;dr is that we're leaving, which should've been the primary goal since 2001. As ABNAK pointed out, we can't go around tossing canned sunshine willy nilly at every problem. But we SHOULD have learned some hard lessons when we let OBL slip from our fingers at the onset. We should've gone in with overwhelming force and put every "local" so far in the rear echelon, they'd have needed to learn what happened via couriers on donkeys days or weeks later. That was the only way we were going to kill OBL and Mohammed Omar and GTFO in a reasonable time.
Biden held a presser today and sure he told a bunch of lies about what's gonna happen there, but he said one thing I flatly agree with. We should've withdrawn a decade ago after we killed OBL. There was absolutely nothing to gain after that event and yet neither Obama nor Trump pulled us out. I don't care if Biden has some ulterior motive for withdrawal now, we're leaving and that's all that matters in the end. There was never going to be a fairytale ending in the craphole and I'm weary of anyone saying there ever could be.
P.S. Kipling knew the score all along:
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
It used to grate on me like nails on a chalkboard when GWB would speak of promoting/spreading "democracy". Simply put, some civilizations aren't advanced enough to work within the framework of a democracy. Afghanistan is the poster child for that example.
Now I know some people are upset about how we're leaving, and I agree with them. But the tl;dr is that we're leaving, which should've been the primary goal since 2001. As ABNAK pointed out, we can't go around tossing canned sunshine willy nilly at every problem. But we SHOULD have learned some hard lessons when we let OBL slip from our fingers at the onset. We should've gone in with overwhelming force and put every "local" so far in the rear echelon, they'd have needed to learn what happened via couriers on donkeys days or weeks later. That was the only way we were going to kill OBL and Mohammed Omar and GTFO in a reasonable time.
Biden held a presser today and sure he told a bunch of lies about what's gonna happen there, but he said one thing I flatly agree with. We should've withdrawn a decade ago after we killed OBL. There was absolutely nothing to gain after that event and yet neither Obama nor Trump pulled us out. I don't care if Biden has some ulterior motive for withdrawal now, we're leaving and that's all that matters in the end. There was never going to be a fairytale ending in the craphole and I'm weary of anyone saying there ever could be.
P.S. Kipling knew the score all along:
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
First, every empire that stepped a leather boot, moccasin, sandal, whatever, in Afghanistan learned what the deal was. Kipling spoke for a multitude of generations past, present, and future.
Second, the initial small footprint to capture/kill OBL and terminate the AQ camps was the mission. The mission creep that followed on, the experiment in democracy, should have never, ever happened. We should have told the tribal leaders "this is what we're here for. You and your beef with the Taliban, that's on you."
China will buy the rights, and will include they will need to protect their interests. That will start China building bases around mines or areas of interest. There is a large difference in how China will deal with the Taliban, mainly that they will wage actual war and will have learned from everything (right or wrong) that we have done over the last 20 years.
No one actually wants Afghanistan. Maybe they want to prop up the A-GOV, or maybe they want the minerals, but the Afghans themselves aren't exactly a desired commodity.
well they will not buy them as we think :) they have not done this they conquer and take over by deception
davidjinks
07-08-21, 17:09
The mission should have been straight forward, kill every ****ing Tali and AQ in your AO. Once that was accomplished we should have indexed and went home. Once OBL was killed all troops should have been pulled. **** the afghanis! They want democracy let them make it themselves.
We are not and have never been nation builders. It never works how we think it works.
Kill the ****ing enemy and move out. Done. End of mission.
I’ve got friends who came back in bags because of that place and I’ve got friends who came back with half their body parts. ****ing waste!
EOD Warrior foundation, contribute to them if you can. I’m not affiliated in anyway other then being a Tech.
It used to grate on me like nails on a chalkboard when GWB would speak of promoting/spreading "democracy". Simply put, some civilizations aren't advanced enough to work within the framework of a democracy. Afghanistan is the poster child for that example.
Western democracy has existed for 2,000 years. If they wanted it, they'd have it already. Kinda like christianity, everyone knows it's there if they are actually interested. It's not like it's a secret.
But also like religion, they have to go get it if they want it. Western democracy is also somewhat culturally incompatible with the values in that region of the world, it would fly about as well as modern Islam in Kentucky. Best you would get is isolated pockets just like we have moslems in Michigan and there are small groups of christians on some parts of islamic states.
Even if you put democracy in place, they simply vote in the muslim brotherhood just like we saw in Egypt and Iraq.
The mission should have been straight forward, kill every ****ing Tali and AQ in your AO. Once that was accomplished we should have indexed and went home. Once OBL was killed all troops should have been pulled. **** the afghanis! They want democracy let them make it themselves.
We are not and have never been nation builders. It never works how we think it works.
Kill the ****ing enemy and move out. Done. End of mission.
I’ve got friends who came back in bags because of that place and I’ve got friends who came back with half their body parts. ****ing waste!
EOD Warrior foundation, contribute to them if you can. I’m not affiliated in anyway other then being a Tech.
^^^THIS!!!
The military is NOT the flippin "peace, love, democracy brigade".
Go in kill who needs killing, bust the damn place up, and GTFO. F Colin Powell and his "you break it you bought it" philosophy.
I've always believed that the US military should be treated and utilized like a monster ass pit bull with rabies. Try to talk it out first, but if you let the dog off the chain shit gets F'd the hell up,... with a capital F! Your whole world goes sideways in the worst possible way. Then after your busted up ass cries uncle, the diplomats and the business/democracy interests can make their pitch and try to help you to make positive changes and not get your ass kicked again in the future.
^^^THIS!!!
The military is NOT the flippin "peace, love, democracy brigade".
Go in kill who needs killing, bust the damn place up, and GTFO. F Colin Powell and his "you break it you bought it" philosophy.
I've always believed that the US military should be treated and utilized like a monster ass pit bull with rabies. Try to talk it out first, but if you let the dog off the chain shit gets F'd the hell up,... with a capital F! Your whole world goes sideways in the worst possible way. Then after your busted up ass cries uncle, the diplomats and the business/democracy interests can make their pitch and try to help you to make positive changes and not get your ass kicked again in the future.
But that is MEAN and nobody elects guys who do MEAN things. We had a "opportunity" to start squaring ****ers away after 9-11 but Bush 43 was an amazing pussy. When Putin offered assistance and a desire to get on the same page with us regarding islamic terrorism, Bush called him out on human rights violations. When we went into Iraq Bush constantly sandbagged everyone to the point that the ROE became "march Marines in the open as bait and then return fire IF you are fired upon."
That really was our last opportunity to conduct something more meaningful than half assed, peacekeeping nonsense. I can only think of two positive things to say about Bush 43 and they are "Gore would have made it even worse" and "Kerry definitely would have made it worse." But honestly, I'm not even 100% certain about Gore.
teufelhund1918
07-09-21, 05:08
Thats the rub. No one in their organization has ANY fighting experience besides throwing rocks and clubbing some Rajjis in the mountains next to India. They'll have to learn lessons in blood before they gain the competency to "pacify" Afghanistan.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is saying that the Chinese have been working with, paying off the Taliban and looking to "help" rebuild Afghanistan. He is saying that Komarad Biden got a payoff from the Chinese to have US troops pulled out of Afghanistan quickly and early so that the Taliban can overrun, take control of Afghanistan and in the long run, have China come out the economic winner in the region. Makes sense when you look at what China is doing in Africa and South America with all their investments in those economies.
Iran Border crossing - 1/3 fallen...Biden's presser bs.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/key-crossing-falls-taliban-opens-direct-access-iran-one-third-afghanistan-now-insurgent-hands/
davidjinks
07-09-21, 08:21
We should have never been in Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia should be a barren ****ing wasteland of melted glass.
**** the Middle East!
But that is MEAN and nobody elects guys who do MEAN things. We had a "opportunity" to start squaring ****ers away after 9-11 but Bush 43 was an amazing pussy. When Putin offered assistance and a desire to get on the same page with us regarding islamic terrorism, Bush called him out on human rights violations. When we went into Iraq Bush constantly sandbagged everyone to the point that the ROE became "march Marines in the open as bait and then return fire IF you are fired upon."
That really was our last opportunity to conduct something more meaningful than half assed, peacekeeping nonsense. I can only think of two positive things to say about Bush 43 and they are "Gore would have made it even worse" and "Kerry definitely would have made it worse." But honestly, I'm not even 100% certain about Gore.
We should have never been in Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia should be a barren ****ing wasteland of melted glass.
**** the Middle East!
Until we get off that black gold tit, we will be playing those games forever. One reason and one only we tolerate the Saudi's and the other derpa derps in the region. The #1 thing we could do for NS would be to focus on being energy independent. Way too much $ involved to ever make that a reality it seems.
Until we get off that black gold tit, we will be playing those games forever. One reason and one only we tolerate the Saudi's and the other derpa derps in the region. The #1 thing we could do for NS would be to focus on being energy independent. Way too much $ involved to ever make that a reality it seems.
We only get about 10% of our POL from Saudi.
Honestly, there is no need for us to do anything in that region, and about the only reason we do is because if those countries (including Saudi) jerk around other countries, it could create worldwide economic issues.
But that is MEAN and nobody elects guys who do MEAN things. We had a "opportunity" to start squaring ****ers away after 9-11 but Bush 43 was an amazing pussy. When Putin offered assistance and a desire to get on the same page with us regarding islamic terrorism, Bush called him out on human rights violations. When we went into Iraq Bush constantly sandbagged everyone to the point that the ROE became "march Marines in the open as bait and then return fire IF you are fired upon."
That really was our last opportunity to conduct something more meaningful than half assed, peacekeeping nonsense. I can only think of two positive things to say about Bush 43 and they are "Gore would have made it even worse" and "Kerry definitely would have made it worse." But honestly, I'm not even 100% certain about Gore.
And far more before 9-11, we know where he was to the square meter at all times, and Clinton refused to do anything about it. There's a fairly well supported report that at one time there were some face shooters inbound to do the deed, and were turned back last minute in favor of sending the cruise missiles due Clinton losing his nerve, missing OBL by a wide margin, and alerting him that we were targeting him, and of course the NYT let it "slip" we were tracking his phone. Then he went dark, and the rest is F up history. He and his group attacked us how many times before 9-11 and we didn't do chit about it?
Finally, the Black Hawk Down event was an al Qaeda op to test the resolve and response of the US, and we failed miserably, leading to the planning for larger ops.
I'm feeling 43 was a war monger compared to Clinton, who in my view holds a good portion of blame for 9-11.
Finally, the Black Hawk Down event was an al Qaeda op to test the resolve and response of the US, and we failed miserably, leading to the planning for larger ops.
Curious. How do you figure?
NickySantoro
07-09-21, 09:25
Good that you said "when", because "if" is a non-starter.
davidjinks
07-09-21, 09:52
We are energy independent, the propagandists just like to tell a different story. We export our oil, fuel, LPG etc. all over the world.
**** the rest of the world. Close our borders, pull out of every failed nation pact, pull all of our troops back home, and build/maintain this country. **** with us, we eradicate your DNA from the face of the earth.
Until we get off that black gold tit, we will be playing those games forever. One reason and one only we tolerate the Saudi's and the other derpa derps in the region. The #1 thing we could do for NS would be to focus on being energy independent. Way too much $ involved to ever make that a reality it seems.
We are energy independent, the propagandists just like to tell a different story. We export our oil, fuel, LPG etc. all over the world.
**** the rest of the world. Close our borders, pull out of every failed nation pact, pull all of our troops back home, and build/maintain this country. **** with us, we eradicate your DNA from the face of the earth.
Correction, we were 6 months ago. Elections have consequences.
Curious. How do you figure?
My understanding is al-Qaeda was directly involved in the training, funding, and planning of Aidid's men and the op. Some intel suggests the very concept of setting up the birds and taking them out to cause us to converge on it to save the pilots, and get us in the middle of the chit storm, all developed by al-Qaeda. Some intel suggests members of al-Qaeda were on the ground in the fight, and perhaps even one of them pulled the trigger on the RPG that took out the first helo. Some felt it was unlikely Aidid and his people had the capability to plan and orchestrate such an op. No doubt, there's a lot more we are not privy to.
Master Cheif, Rick Kaiser, Director of the UDT-SEAL museum, one of handful of SEALs from S6 in that event who won a Silver Star there, was also clear about it being viewed an al-Qaeda op to kill Americans and test US resolve. He discusses that briefly in a vid. Will post if I can find it.
My understanding is al-Qaeda was directly involved in the training, funding, and planning of Aidid's men and the op. Some intel suggests the very concept of setting up the birds and taking them out to cause us to converge on it to save the pilots, and get us in the middle of the chit storm, all developed by al-Qaeda. Some intel suggests members of al-Qaeda were on the ground in the fight, and perhaps even one of them pulled the trigger on the RPG that took out the first helo. Some felt it was unlikely Aidid and his people had the capability to plan and orchestrate such an op. No doubt, there's a lot more we are not privy to.
Master Cheif, Rick Kaiser, Director of the UDT-SEAL museum, one of handful of SEALs from S6 in that event who won a Silver Star there, was also clear about it being viewed an al-Qaeda op to kill Americans and test US resolve. He discusses that briefly in a vid. Will post if I can find it.
Interesting. There's evidence that other clans were also participating, I'd be curious to know if they were also backed by AQ. But planning it wasn't particularly advanced, but I can see that orchestrating it could have required other actors.
But if AQ wants Somalia, they can have it.
Interesting. There's evidence that other clans were also participating, I'd be curious to know if they were also backed by AQ. But planning it wasn't particularly advanced, but I can see that orchestrating it could have required other actors.
But if AQ wants Somalia, they can have it.
My understanding is to varying degrees, AQ assisted/trained, etc various clans as proxy war thing to kill Americans and drive us out. Kaiser talking about the event and AQ starts at 1:06. That's the vid that plays at the museum theater and it's all around great vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cKvC8kDVH0
vicious_cb
07-09-21, 17:52
An exclusive look at a fresh and extremely clean FN M16A4 purchased from #Afghanistan recently.
This former ANA gun was sold on by the Taliban to the BLA and cost just over $2400. Lots of people not mentioning 2nd & 3rd order effects as regards proliferation.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4WHelbXMAEKaE4?format=jpg&name=large
https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1406679441451925514/photo/2
https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1406679441451925514
Afghan fire sale on 240s going on right now. Get em while its hot!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5MR8v8WQAQo_g3?format=jpg&name=medium
https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1410659985260961796
Fake news- those ANA weapons don't have stripes of red, black, and green tape, not do they have the requisite First Strike bar stickers all over them.
I don’t see one sawed off buttstock among them. Can't be legit.
ffhounddog
07-12-21, 07:20
My Guard unit was crying when they saw all that good gear left at Bagram. The good old Biden Admin has my Brigade not getting back to MTOE strength until FY2023 for some of the same assets as we saw on the news.
IRAN! of all countries - Iran gave Taliban an ultimatum to return Islam Qala border crossing (in Herat province) after it was captured by taliban a few days ago (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57773120)
Iran is reportedly pulling in heavy artillery and equipment to the border of AF.
Politics and alliances in this region are truly fluid and quick changing.
Did we expect Iran to do something different?
What is so fluid and quick changing?
Did we expect Iran to do something different?
What is so fluid and quick changing?
I always expect Iran to exploit any conflict or instability in the region. Always.
I always expect Iran to exploit any conflict or instability in the region. Always.
Indeed.
There is no love lost between Iran and the Taliban. Neither with the Afghan government. They cracked down hard on Afghani asylum seekers, hanged a bunch, too.
All of that said, nothing talks like money, and Iran has spent a ton of dough in Afghanistan after the Taliban was toppled...the Mashhad-Herat rail line, agriculture, health care, infrastructure; oh, and opium, trafficking it through Iran to Europe.
It'll be interesting to see how the relationship changes with the Taliban.
Did we expect Iran to do something different?
What is so fluid and quick changing?
I would think that Iran would be happy to see US-backed government fall. Especially if that someone who supports radical you know what.
Iran was not exactly helping us fight Taliban, but now somehow becomes a leading government to openly and actively fight it.
This is meanwhile Russians are having Taliban representatives over in Moscow for negotiations. I would be curious to learn the topics and discussions taking place during those negotiations.
Russia at the same time, while not exactly a staunch supporter, but definitely aligned with Iran in Syria.
I would think that Iran would be happy to see US-backed government fall. Especially if that someone who supports radical you know what.
Iran was not exactly helping us fight Taliban, but now somehow becomes a leading government to openly and actively fight it.
This is meanwhile Russians are having Taliban representatives over in Moscow for negotiations. I would be curious to learn the topics and discussions taking place during those negotiations.
Russia at the same time, while not exactly a staunch supporter, but definitely aligned with Iran in Syria.
It's not as simple as we'd think. Iran did not like the Taliban. They had different ideas about Islam for one; for two, Iran had a better commercial relationship with the post-Taliban government who allowed opium sales. It was also an easier government for them to manage (read 'manipulate') than the Taliban. Iran does not like the US for certain; they absolutely want us gone, that is true.
What Chuckman said. Also, it will get interesting with less buffer between Iran and Pakistan. But, not really news, either.
Not all muslims automatically like each other. Not to mention the differences between persians and pashtuns, among others. And the taliban is largely thought of as a pashtun movement (by pakistan and iran), hence the paki complications.
I’m not saying anyone in here thinks this way, but a lot of people seem to think a muslim is a muslim, a muslim is an arab, an arab is a muslim, and an arab is an arab. These aren’t even arabs, generally, and are also split shia vs sunni. There is no post-WWII “arab nationalism” tie to make them friends. Frenemies, due to a common enemy perhaps, but friends, no.
To wrap your head around muslims “flipping sides”, think of this like Christian Europe from the dark ages through like 75 years ago. Its not a perfect analogy, but its the first one that pops into my mind. France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy, have a long history that doesn’t always equate to Christian/Anglo-European=peace. Iran isn’t flipping sides, they will simply return to the regional games as western influence drops. Iran is on the side of Iran; mostly always has been.
Speaking of muslims, china probably has as many as Afghanistan, maybe more. And they’ve (chy-na) been working on getting minerals for a hot minute. I’m reeeeally hoping they get weakened by getting sucked into Afg.
^^^ Lotta truth up there. Especially Chuckman and 1168.
Iran is in it for the benefit of the Iranian regime. No more, no less. Russia and Iran are affiliated for one reason and one reason only, to encourage one another to be thorns in the foot of America. Not much love between the two. Muslims united? That'll be the freaking day. The only things many of them hate more than each other is America and Israel. They have got a serious "hate thy neighbor" thing going on over there. That whole "me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousins, all of us against an outsider" thing is absolute fact.
IRAN! of all countries - Iran gave Taliban an ultimatum to return Islam Qala border crossing (in Herat province) after it was captured by taliban a few days ago (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57773120)
Iran is reportedly pulling in heavy artillery and equipment to the border of AF.
Politics and alliances in this region are truly fluid and quick changing.
I would truly love it if Iran went heavy against Afghanistan. The only good thing about the entire middle east is the Sunni / Shia conflicts that they immediately revert to when the US leaves.
vicious_cb
08-04-21, 18:43
I called it. Justifying going into Afghanistan over Uyghur terrorist concerns, right out of our play book. Now lets hope they squander tons of money and military forces and fail just like we did.
Xi Jinping Urges China to Prep for 'Military Struggle' Amid Afghanistan Security Concerns
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW ON 7/31/21 AT 11:58 AM EDT
Chinese President Xi Jinping called on China's military leadership to strengthen its solidarity with the Communist Party as he warned of potential armed conflict and security concerns at the country's border with Afghanistan.
Xi on Friday said China should be prepared for "military struggle" as the United States is set to withdraw from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year. Xi made the remarks about strengthening the country's military prowess ahead of the 94th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) formation. Beijing officials have for months expressed concerns that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is stirring up a Taliban resurgence and inviting regional instability.
Xi and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi this week said the U.S. pullout could provide Uyghur separatists with a base of terror operations in which they could conduct attacks against the CCP in the Western region of Xinjiang.
And on China's eastern borders, British and American naval warships have stepped up their presence in the South China Sea and challenged Beijing's claim to the international trade waters.
https://www.newsweek.com/xi-jinping-urges-china-prep-military-struggle-amid-afghanistan-security-concerns-1614931
Honestly I sorta wish them well.
I know China ain't our friend but Afghanistan really ain't our friend. So "Get some."
I called it. Justifying going into Afghanistan over Uyghur terrorist concerns, right out of our play book. Now lets hope they squander tons of money and military forces and fail just like we did.
https://www.newsweek.com/xi-jinping-urges-china-prep-military-struggle-amid-afghanistan-security-concerns-1614931
I hope they get more than a bloody nose if they invade..... Let the Muslims do some IEDs in Beijing for once....
SomeOtherGuy
08-04-21, 19:47
I called it. Justifying going into Afghanistan over Uyghur terrorist concerns, right out of our play book. Now lets hope they squander tons of money and military forces and fail just like we did.
They can't possibly be THAT stupid?!?!?!?!
I hope they are... but that would be extraordinary. This could be empire-ending for the CCP.
I hope they get more than a bloody nose if they invade..... Let the Muslims do some IEDs in Beijing for once....
Hadjis will find exported terrorism isn't nearly as effective in an actual communist police state. But I hope that doesn't stop them from trying. Sounds like there is going to be a LOT of Chinese 7.62x39 expended no matter what from both sides.
I recently received an email saying a PMC was interested in hiring me for a gig in Afghanistan, I replied that I am a student of history and I have absolutely no desire to take part in the 2021 repeat of the fall of Saigon, I don’t want to be pulled off the embassy roof in Kabul via helicopter as the Taliban seize the building.
I called it. Justifying going into Afghanistan over Uyghur terrorist concerns, right out of our play book. Now lets hope they squander tons of money and military forces and fail just like we did.
https://www.newsweek.com/xi-jinping-urges-china-prep-military-struggle-amid-afghanistan-security-concerns-1614931
We "failed" because we allowed a fvcked-up strategy to become policy and followed it 'til the cows (goats?) came home. Even handicapping ourselves like we did it will still take us being gone for the Taliban to achieve final success. They couldn't do it with us still there in force.
That said, I despise China and it's nationalistic fervor. I hope the worst for them and their people. I hope to see umpteen thousands of dead ChiComs in Afghanistan if they choose to go that route. I'd even be willing to send beaucoup MANPADS and other such goodies to kill as many ChiComs as possible. We did it once against the Soviets, let's do it again.
We "failed" because we allowed a fvcked-up strategy to become policy and followed it 'til the cows (goats?) came home. Even handicapping ourselves like we did it will still take us being gone for the Taliban to achieve final success. They couldn't do it with us still there in force.
That said, I despise China and it's nationalistic fervor. I hope the worst for them and their people. I hope to see umpteen thousands of dead ChiComs in Afghanistan if they choose to go that route. I'd even be willing to send beaucoup MANPADS and other such goodies to kill as many ChiComs as possible. We did it once against the Soviets, let's do it again.
So we failed because there really isn't a civilization there that we can come to terms with. People in one part of the country don't even know what is going on 10 miles away unless they happen to be having a tribal war with people 10 miles away.
We were also trying to do the "friendly guy" game which only works on people capable of being friendly. The Soviets almost certainly could have passified the entire region had we not intervened with covert shipment of advanced weapons. But we were paying them back for Vietnam and we didn't realize the threat that Afghanistan would become one day.
We went in, we got some bad guys. Presumably our efforts led to finding Osama Bin Laden and from the intel gathered we presumably went after some other bad people. And having accomplished as much as was reasonably possible it sounds like we packed our shit and went home.
Perhaps they will learns something from having their country occupied for 20 years, maybe they won't. One thing for sure, we didn't lose.
Numbers for entire coalition forces, not counting friendly Afgans is 3,562. Afghan security forces lost something like 65,000 and I hope their country honors that sacrifice. Taliban forces lost 51,000 and Al Quida lost 2,000.
I'm not completely sure the effort was worth the lives of 2,400 Americans, but we certainly didn't lose. We kicked their asses and maintained a presence for 20+ years.
So we failed because there really isn't a civilization there that we can come to terms with. People in one part of the country don't even know what is going on 10 miles away unless they happen to be having a tribal war with people 10 miles away.
We were also trying to do the "friendly guy" game which only works on people capable of being friendly. The Soviets almost certainly could have passified the entire region had we not intervened with covert shipment of advanced weapons. But we were paying them back for Vietnam and we didn't realize the threat that Afghanistan would become one day.
We went in, we got some bad guys. Presumably our efforts led to finding Osama Bin Laden and from the intel gathered we presumably went after some other bad people. And having accomplished as much as was reasonably possible it sounds like we packed our shit and went home.
Perhaps they will learns something from having their country occupied for 20 years, maybe they won't. One thing for sure, we didn't lose.
Numbers for entire coalition forces, not counting friendly Afgans is 3,562. Afghan security forces lost something like 65,000 and I hope their country honors that sacrifice. Taliban forces lost 51,000 and Al Quida lost 2,000.
I'm not completely sure the effort was worth the lives of 2,400 Americans, but we certainly didn't lose. We kicked their asses and maintained a presence for 20+ years.
^^^ Pretty much this.
Can we justify decisions made then as "worth it" for what we are looking at having now? We had a damned good reason to go into Afghanistan, but staying for two decades trying to "nation build" a land not fit for governing was a mistake. A couple thousand U.S. fighting men and women died attempting to instill Western-style "democracy" on a country firmly sitting in medieval times. We put on the smackdown, and pretty much kept it until we left. Once we exited those Taliban were thanking Allah we finally booked because I'm sure after 20 years (and no end in sight for them winning) they were a little crusty. Everyone in the MSM always focuses on the U.S. behemoth and what rattles it's cage. Very few ask the enemy what they truly thought. Sure, they'll woof shit and talk big, but they know damn well us leaving rolled out the red carpet for them......but only then.
And we only spent $144.98 billion to date in AFG in (re)construction to improve booger-eaters' and pederasts' quality of life. While stateside troops and dependents lived in mold- and vermin-infested housing with substandard underfunded medical care, troops used worn out gear, etc... Hooyah.
https://www.sigar.mil/
^^^ Pretty much this.
Can we justify decisions made then as "worth it" for what we are looking at having now? We had a damned good reason to go into Afghanistan, but staying for two decades trying to "nation build" a land not fit for governing was a mistake. A couple thousand U.S. fighting men and women died attempting to instill Western-style "democracy" on a country firmly sitting in medieval times. We put on the smackdown, and pretty much kept it until we left. Once we exited those Taliban were thanking Allah we finally booked because I'm sure after 20 years (and no end in sight for them winning) they were a little crusty. Everyone in the MSM always focuses on the U.S. behemoth and what rattles it's cage. Very few ask the enemy what they truly thought. Sure, they'll woof shit and talk big, but they know damn well us leaving rolled out the red carpet for them......but only then.
So "nation building" is usually a fools errand. I'm aware of it working twice, in Germany and Japan and that is because 1. we didn't want to leave them devastated with nothing to lose (that worked bad the first time with Germany and 2. even though both people engaged in some of the most barbaric atrocities of the modern world (assembly line murder at death camps throughout Poland and Eastern Europe, Nanking, Unit 731, Bataan Death March, etc.) both populations were capable of civilization IF we gave them Marshall Plans and made sure they didn't have lots of other opportunities.
Afghanistan in contrast seems to be content to live Neolithic level of civilization complete with ancient tribal beliefs and practices. Not all of them obviously, plenty of people died trying to bring their country into the 20th century at least but when you get into rural areas which is most areas they are all about believing in witchcraft and assorted stupidity.
As for "worth it", it's hard to say because other people did the actual fighting. But when I think of that day on 9-11 and I think of the people who had to decide between jumping to their death or burning to death...I hope we at least avenged them to an acceptable level.
And we only spent $144.98 billion to date in AFG in (re)construction to improve booger-eaters' and pederasts' quality of life. While stateside troops and dependents lived in mold- and vermin-infested housing with substandard underfunded medical care, troops used worn out gear, etc... Hooyah.
https://www.sigar.mil/
Totally legit criticism. Reality is maybe we had to pretend we were gonna play Oprah and free cars for everyone while we hunted and killed shitbags. And maybe we did actually play Oprah and hand out bundles of cash, but if it let us hunt and kill those responsible for 9-11 what is that worth?
Personally I'd have rather partnered up with Russia and we invade from the west and they invade from the east and we hunt and kill shitbags without regard for collateral damage, but that was unlikely to happen in the modern world where everyone thinks about their political image.
So "nation building" is usually a fools errand. I'm aware of it working twice, in Germany and Japan and that is because 1. we didn't want to leave them devastated with nothing to lose (that worked bad the first time with Germany and 2. even though both people engaged in some of the most barbaric atrocities of the modern world (assembly line murder at death camps throughout Poland and Eastern Europe, Nanking, Unit 731, Bataan Death March, etc.) both populations were capable of civilization IF we gave them Marshall Plans and made sure they didn't have lots of other opportunities.
Afghanistan in contrast seems to be content to live Neolithic level of civilization complete with ancient tribal beliefs and practices. Not all of them obviously, plenty of people died trying to bring their country into the 20th century at least but when you get into rural areas which is most areas they are all about believing in witchcraft and assorted stupidity.
As for "worth it", it's hard to say because other people did the actual fighting. But when I think of that day on 9-11 and I think of the people who had to decide between jumping to their death or burning to death...I hope we at least avenged them to an acceptable level.
I think you made some excellent points there.
And then when we compare Japan and Germany, both of those nations started out with solid more or less unified civilizations before being turn down and rebuilt. AFG was starting from below zero.
So, in a sense, the only time nation building worked was when there was a solid foundation of a sense of nation to begin with.
Neither Iraq not AFG had that solid base to build on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you made some excellent points there.
And then when we compare Japan and Germany, both of those nations started out with solid more or less unified civilizations before being turn down and rebuilt. AFG was starting from below zero.
So, in a sense, the only time nation building worked was when there was a solid foundation of a sense of nation to begin with.
Neither Iraq not AFG had that solid base to build on.
I would say Iraq > Afghanistan as far as having something to work with, as Iraq had some semblance of a functioning society beforehand. However, it was held together by a dictator, kind of like Yugoslavia was under Tito. Once Tito was gone look at all the ethnic shit that went down in the former Yugoslavia, which is now three different countries IIRC. Same with Iraq; once Saddam was gone they took to their petty tribal and religious spats. Even given that Iraq is still an order of magnitude more functional in the aftermath than Afghanistan is going to be. Trashcanistan is destined to remain a medieval, tribal, back-ass excuse for a nation.....and they like it that way! SMH
Afghanistan and Iraq are more different than alike, IMO.
[emoji849]
https://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
malstew123
08-08-21, 14:18
Afghanistan and Iraq are more different than alike, IMO.
But neither were worth a drop of American blood or a single penny of debt which I will carry and my children will carry and so on until there is no more USA( or Globalist American Empire which pushes usury and Globohomo onto every country it interaction with).
AFG and Iraq were opportunities for the .mil industrial complex fat cats to get rich and for the neocons/oligarchs to put a foothold of control into society.
Seriously ... it already has..... the whistleblowers have already gone, game over !
SomeOtherGuy
08-08-21, 21:44
US State Department tells all remaining Americans to leave immediately:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/second-provincial-capital-falls-talban-us-embassy-alerts-all-americans-depart
Looks like Saigon '75 to me.
I'm happy we pulled troops out, finally, but should have done it c. 2003.
ffhounddog
08-08-21, 21:51
Shit thanks woke up and I'm here for Saigon 2.
Shit thanks woke up and I'm here for Saigon 2.
Get out safely....
I wonder if those afghan air force jets be flown out of country or be destroyed by the US..
Shit thanks woke up and I'm here for Saigon 2.
WPS ?
Coal Dragger
08-09-21, 04:25
I hope they get more than a bloody nose if they invade..... Let the Muslims do some IEDs in Beijing for once....
Yeah, let’s be real. The United States doesn’t have the will to win anymore.
China on the other hand will just set about exterminating the Afghans if they go in there. Because they don’t give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks.
But neither were worth a drop of American blood or a single penny of debt which I will carry and my children will carry and so on until there is no more USA( or Globalist American Empire which pushes usury and Globohomo onto every country it interaction with).
Seriously? ****ing over Al Quida and the Taliban weren't worth the effort? Just ignore them and hope they stop sending us pressure cooker bombers?
I'm all for not putting guys downrange and maxing out tax dollars, but 9-11 was a BFD that needed to be answered for.
Grand58742
08-09-21, 07:33
Seriously? ****ing over Al Quida and the Taliban weren't worth the effort? Just ignore them and hope they stop sending us pressure cooker bombers?
I'm all for not putting guys downrange and maxing out tax dollars, but 9-11 was a BFD that needed to be answered for.
As I've said for a long time, I'm all about going to someone's front yard, punching in their teeth then crotch stomping them before they have a chance to recover.
But we do NOT need to be occupying a nation (or nations) that history has shown to resist occupiers extremely well and try to install western style democracy. Nor do I agree with bringing in tens or hundreds of thousands of third country contractors to rebuild. Afghanistan is a case of liberalism even in conservative circles. The hopeless thought to have to "fix their lives because they can't fix it themselves" because we went in and moved the rubble around from the last conflict they went through. Not even stopping to think maybe they liked the rubble right where it was at.
I was all about striking back after 9/11 as well. But you keep it at a low level with airstrikes and sending in SOF to do what they do best in killing those that need killing and breaking their toys. You do not try to occupy and pacify a country that, again, has not been successfully occupied and pacified by two majors empires in the last 100 years alone and practically has insurgency written into their DNA.
As I've said for a long time, I'm all about going to someone's front yard, punching in their teeth then crotch stomping them before they have a chance to recover.
But we do NOT need to be occupying a nation (or nations) that history has shown to resist occupiers extremely well and try to install western style democracy. Nor do I agree with bringing in tens or hundreds of thousands of third country contractors to rebuild. Afghanistan is a case of liberalism even in conservative circles. The hopeless thought to have to "fix their lives because they can't fix it themselves" because we went in and moved the rubble around from the last conflict they went through. Not even stopping to think maybe they liked the rubble right where it was at.
I was all about striking back after 9/11 as well. But you keep it at a low level with airstrikes and sending in SOF to do what they do best in killing those that need killing and breaking their toys. You do not try to occupy and pacify a country that, again, has not been successfully occupied and pacified by two majors empires in the last 100 years alone and practically has insurgency written into their DNA.
Agreed. I was not talking about the stupid nation building effort which I've addressed previously.
Averageman
08-12-21, 15:36
Kandahar has been taken by the Taliban.
Game over.
P2Vaircrewman
08-12-21, 16:19
I believed it was just announced they are sending 3000 troops back.
I believed it was just announced they are sending 3000 troops back.
Just listened to the press conference. The troops are only to provide security during removal of the remaining US folks and asylum seekers (interpreters, etc).
The US will have an embassy and less than 1000 uniform personnel in AFG after Sept.
Andy
I hope there's not a picture of an Osprey or helicopter on the embassy roof while panicked civilians try to force their way on board. Then you can cut-and-paste the whole Vietnam ending.
Grand58742
08-12-21, 20:52
Kandahar has been taken by the Taliban.
Game over.
They were just biding their time...
Just listened to the press conference. The troops are only to provide security during removal of the remaining US folks and asylum seekers (interpreters, etc).
The US will have an embassy and less than 1000 uniform personnel in AFG after Sept.
Andy
We need to bail on that embassy and have zoom conferences with Afghan leaders.
Grand58742
08-12-21, 21:20
We need to bail on that embassy and have zoom conferences with Afghan leaders.
I do kinda feel sorry for the terps and their families since we bailed pretty quickly. Some plan or way of getting them out after they supported us should have been put in place as part of the withdrawal.
I do kinda feel sorry for the terps and their families since we bailed pretty quickly. Some plan or way of getting them out after they supported us should have been put in place as part of the withdrawal.
Been 20 years, a plan should have existed 10 year ago. But sometimes this is the kind of shit we pull. Change presidents and change policy on a dime.
CIA spook crew and some Marines are gonna be primary embassy residents and I wish them good luck as it could become Fort Apache with zero warning. I can't imagine outside response would be any better than Benghazi and pretty sure everyone knows it.
I hope there's not a picture of an Osprey or helicopter on the embassy roof while panicked civilians try to force their way on board. Then you can cut-and-paste the whole Vietnam ending.
Biden and ComDem wet dream.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-12-21, 23:20
I see on the CNN website that were sending 3000 troops to Afghanistan? Isn’t that the wrong way if you’re doing a withdrawal?
vicious_cb
08-12-21, 23:25
Just listened to the press conference. The troops are only to provide security during removal of the remaining US folks and asylum seekers (interpreters, etc).
The US will have an embassy and less than 1000 uniform personnel in AFG after Sept.
Andy
Thats a good one. Thinking the US embassy will actually be able to hold out until September.
I see on the CNN website that were sending 3000 troops to Afghanistan? Isn’t that the wrong way if you’re doing a withdrawal?
NEO. Not just the embassy but some other places, too.
Grand58742
08-13-21, 08:06
The comparison to the fall of South Vietnam is somewhat accurate, though it took the North Vietnamese five months to overrun the South and get them to capitulate.
I don't think anyone saw this happening in a matter of weeks.
The comparison to the fall of South Vietnam is somewhat accurate, though it took the North Vietnamese five months to overrun the South and get them to capitulate.
I don't think anyone saw this happening in a matter of weeks.
It was actually over two years after our troops left Vietnam that the North took over (from January of '73 until April of '75). Yes, the final NVA offensive was relatively quick but the South held out for over two years without our support. Afghanistan, not so much.
BoringGuy45
08-13-21, 09:08
Agreed. I was not talking about the stupid nation building effort which I've addressed previously.
What we need to do is stop assuming that every nation and culture wants, or can sustain democracy. Some places are just too hopelessly corrupt, or their religious or cultural practices don't allow for power of the people, and their values demand authoritarian leadership. It also doesn't help that the CIA's MO for a long time has been to prop up and support "asshole but he's our asshole" types of dictators and warlords, and it's backfired pretty much every time.
I wonder if they're getting ready to play Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" in Kabul soon.
Change presidents and change policy on a dime.
That’s what peculiar about the Afghanistan policy. We changed presidents and basically kept the same approach in terms of the withdrawal. While at the same time committing to a long term, small footprint presence in Iraq.
What we need to do is stop assuming that every nation and culture wants, or can sustain democracy. Some places are just too hopelessly corrupt, or their religious or cultural practices don't allow for power of the people, and their values demand authoritarian leadership. It also doesn't help that the CIA's MO for a long time has been to prop up and support "asshole but he's our asshole" types of dictators and warlords, and it's backfired pretty much every time.
Seems a mixed bag to me, but in a twisted sorta way, it does seem their major focus on blocking the commies from spreading worked for the most part. Would seem in some cases, what ended up there hates us - some times for legit reasons - but they're not commies at least!
I don't count places like Vietnam or Korea and such as that was not nation building as much as attempts at nation protecting.
Regardless, we need to stay out of the nation building biz, especially in places they didn't ask or want it.
P2Vaircrewman
08-13-21, 13:26
The only way we get everybody out of Kabul is if the Taliban let us, if they decide to play hardball it will be Custer's last stand. Right now it looks like time is running out.
I do kinda feel sorry for the terps and their families since we bailed pretty quickly. Some plan or way of getting them out after they supported us should have been put in place as part of the withdrawal.
To be blunt, we rarely ever take care of the indigenous people who took care of our troops in war zones like Afghanistan. U.S. history is littered with examples.
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would ever help us when we invade their country with arms. :confused:
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-13-21, 15:16
To be blunt, we rarely ever take care of the indigenous people who took care of our troops in war zones like Afghanistan. U.S. history is littered with examples.
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would ever help us when we invade their country with arms. :confused:
Get our cash, and GTF out of Dodge. Or just so idealistic that they don’t care that they are going to get screwed in the end.
Set before and I’ll say it again here. If Poland isn’t working on a nuclear bomb they’re idiots.
What we need to do is stop assuming that every nation and culture wants, or can sustain democracy. Some places are just too hopelessly corrupt, or their religious or cultural practices don't allow for power of the people, and their values demand authoritarian leadership. It also doesn't help that the CIA's MO for a long time has been to prop up and support "asshole but he's our asshole" types of dictators and warlords, and it's backfired pretty much every time.
The problem is the pulled it off ONCE way back in 1954 in Guatemala and they've been trying to make the formula work again ever since.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-13-21, 16:42
Part of me wonders is this is just a ruse to get the Taliban/AQ to light up their networks and come out from under the rocks and we are detailing everything. That way we can come back in, whack all the 'good guys' that ended up being bad guys. Then just keep rinsing and repeating until they get the idea that we are going to bleed them out.
There is no way that POTUS or the Pentagon is smart enough to do that.
We have been at this how long ? 20 years no ruse just a stupid administration filled with generals that want to know why white supremacy amongst conservatives is so bad deciding they hate trump so much they are going to dismantle what he did without caring about the consequences they are also so woke they are blind to reality
Imams are gladly giving up children to be raped those are not taliban ones the problem is some people who voted for trump are bad and muslims who want this across the world are good ideology is being pushed we are to worried about islamaphobia and white supremacy as the danger and 20 years of this its turn the blind eye
Upside is you know whats coming when they get control of our country or Europe ! And yet the elite seem to go along with it ? They think OH it wont happen to me I am supporting them helping them
Part of me wonders is this is just a ruse to get the Taliban/AQ to light up their networks and come out from under the rocks and we are detailing everything. That way we can come back in, whack all the 'good guys' that ended up being bad guys. Then just keep rinsing and repeating until they get the idea that we are going to bleed them out.
There is no way that POTUS or the Pentagon is smart enough to do that.
What we need to do is stop assuming that every nation and culture wants, or can sustain democracy. Some places are just too hopelessly corrupt, or their religious or cultural practices don't allow for power of the people, and their values demand authoritarian leadership. It also doesn't help that the CIA's MO for a long time has been to prop up and support "asshole but he's our asshole" types of dictators and warlords, and it's backfired pretty much every time.
Maybe the plans didn't backfire
That place is known as the grave yard of empires. Let them stay in the stone age....
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Part of me wonders is this is just a ruse to get the Taliban/AQ to light up their networks and come out from under the rocks and we are detailing everything. That way we can come back in, whack all the 'good guys' that ended up being bad guys. Then just keep rinsing and repeating until they get the idea that we are going to bleed them out.
There is no way that POTUS or the Pentagon is smart enough to do that.
Part of me hopes that is the case..let all the Taliban with their phones out announcing where and who they are and we have a large country wide missile and drone strike....
Nope not with our leadership right now..
But those 3000 troops aren't just there for escort duty..
Okay you military types chime in here, and answer this question (w/o violating OPSEC of course): How would YOU plan the evacuation of U.S. personnel from Kabul?
Now it's quite possible that the Taliban, knowing it's only because we're gone that they are in the position they are in now, might exercise a little restraint to avoid the potential ass-whooping they could face (with Potato Head fraudulently in the Oval Office who the hell knows what we'd do). The Mujahideen didn't attack the Russkies when they di di mau'd outa there.
Bagram is kaput. To my knowledge the only way in/out is the Kabul airport. The Taliban know that too. They said on the radio that 3.000 would be sent to the Stan, so one would suppose primarily in the Kabul AO. What caught my attention was some Pentagon spokesman supposedly mentioned "It was about three battalions worth". I guess in a "round it off" kinda way that may be true, but U.S. Army and Marine infantry BN's aren't that heavy anymore---like < 1K each---for over 30 years. Yeah, I'm splitting hairs I know....
You secure Kabul airport and then move the rest of the grunts out into a perimeter focusing primarily on the airport, embassy, and the ingress/egress routes to it. Leave a company behind as a sort of QRF. Choppers moving people, but a couple sitting and doing nothing until and unless they are needed for the QRF. Yes, to have a few birds just "hanging out" sounds like a pipedream but if I was gonna do it I'd give them ALL the support they needed. That would include a continuously circling CAS of many jets, all with JDAMs and such cool stuff. Throw a few Predators in with Hellfires just for kicks. Keep them on station until the relief arrives---and not until, barring an in-flight emergency. No gaps in CAS coverage.
What I suggest would assume that the powers-that-be will err on the side of our troops and make a major logistical/hardware effort for a very short period of time. Maybe 3-4 days tops as opposed to 20 years. We are talking a relatively "small" area, not holding a country the size of Texas. If the end goal is being gone from Afghanistan then we should at least dedicate the "resources" available to cleanly split, with zero American blood spilled in the process.
Okay you military types chime in here, and answer this question (w/o violating OPSEC of course): How would YOU plan the evacuation of U.S. personnel from Kabul?
Now it's quite possible that the Taliban, knowing it's only because we're gone that they are in the position they are in now, might exercise a little restraint to avoid the potential ass-whooping they could face (with Potato Head fraudulently in the Oval Office who the hell knows what we'd do). The Mujahideen didn't attack the Russkies when they di di mau'd outa there.
Bagram is kaput. To my knowledge the only way in/out is the Kabul airport. The Taliban know that too. They said on the radio that 3.000 would be sent to the Stan, so one would suppose primarily in the Kabul AO. What caught my attention was some Pentagon spokesman supposedly mentioned "It was about three battalions worth". I guess in a "round it off" kinda way that may be true, but U.S. Army and Marine infantry BN's aren't that heavy anymore---like < 1K each---for over 30 years. Yeah, I'm splitting hairs I know....
You secure Kabul airport and then move the rest of the grunts out into a perimeter focusing primarily on the airport, embassy, and the ingress/egress routes to it. Leave a company behind as a sort of QRF. Choppers moving people, but a couple sitting and doing nothing until and unless they are needed for the QRF. Yes, to have a few birds just "hanging out" sounds like a pipedream but if I was gonna do it I'd give them ALL the support they needed. That would include a continuously circling CAS of many jets, all with JDAMs and such cool stuff. Throw a few Predators in with Hellfires just for kicks. Keep them on station until the relief arrives---and not until, barring an in-flight emergency. No gaps in CAS coverage.
What I suggest would assume that the powers-that-be will err on the side of our troops and make a major logistical/hardware effort for a very short period of time. Maybe 3-4 days tops as opposed to 20 years. We are talking a relatively "small" area, not holding a country the size of Texas. If the end goal is being gone from Afghanistan then we should at least dedicate the "resources" available to cleanly split, with zero American blood spilled in the process.
Sounds like a great opportunity to test drive those new AC-130 variants.
Most important thing is correctly estimating the stand off capability of a Tali attack. Assuming it is going to be some half assed banzai charge with AKs and RPGs could be fatal. We know they have mortars which lets them set back quite a bit.
We better know if any armor or arty recently came into their possession and be prepared accordingly. That's how ISIS got a jump off point into the game.
If I were the Taliban I would be preparing a country wide anti-aircraft welcoming mat for us, they know how we fight.
Splash a few aircraft and we will go crazy responding to emergency calls, I personally don't think we will be prepared
for the possible response the Taliban and all the other disparate forces that have access to state of art ground to air
missles.
vicious_cb
08-13-21, 23:16
Okay you military types chime in here, and answer this question (w/o violating OPSEC of course): How would YOU plan the evacuation of U.S. personnel from Kabul?
Now it's quite possible that the Taliban, knowing it's only because we're gone that they are in the position they are in now, might exercise a little restraint to avoid the potential ass-whooping they could face (with Potato Head fraudulently in the Oval Office who the hell knows what we'd do). The Mujahideen didn't attack the Russkies when they di di mau'd outa there.
Bagram is kaput. To my knowledge the only way in/out is the Kabul airport. The Taliban know that too. They said on the radio that 3.000 would be sent to the Stan, so one would suppose primarily in the Kabul AO. What caught my attention was some Pentagon spokesman supposedly mentioned "It was about three battalions worth". I guess in a "round it off" kinda way that may be true, but U.S. Army and Marine infantry BN's aren't that heavy anymore---like < 1K each---for over 30 years. Yeah, I'm splitting hairs I know....
You secure Kabul airport and then move the rest of the grunts out into a perimeter focusing primarily on the airport, embassy, and the ingress/egress routes to it. Leave a company behind as a sort of QRF. Choppers moving people, but a couple sitting and doing nothing until and unless they are needed for the QRF. Yes, to have a few birds just "hanging out" sounds like a pipedream but if I was gonna do it I'd give them ALL the support they needed. That would include a continuously circling CAS of many jets, all with JDAMs and such cool stuff. Throw a few Predators in with Hellfires just for kicks. Keep them on station until the relief arrives---and not until, barring an in-flight emergency. No gaps in CAS coverage.
What I suggest would assume that the powers-that-be will err on the side of our troops and make a major logistical/hardware effort for a very short period of time. Maybe 3-4 days tops as opposed to 20 years. We are talking a relatively "small" area, not holding a country the size of Texas. If the end goal is being gone from Afghanistan then we should at least dedicate the "resources" available to cleanly split, with zero American blood spilled in the process.
Conversely pretend you are Taliban commander. You have the opportunity to make this another Dien Bien Phu. If Kabul airport is the only way in or out of the country how difficult would be to make the runways unusable or keep it under mortar and rocket fire 24/7?
How effective is American CAS going be when the airport is surrounded by urban sprawl and mountains on one side?
Make no mistake this is a potential massacre in the making.
Conversely pretend you are Taliban commander. You have the opportunity to make this another Dien Bien Phu. If Kabul airport is the only way in or out of the country how difficult would be to make the runways unusable or keep it under mortar and rocket fire 24/7?
How effective is American CAS going be when the airport is surrounded by urban sprawl and mountains on one side?
Make no mistake this is a potential massacre in the making.
Guess that depends on how fast we can get there, or how fast they can get there. If we dick around and take 5 days to do it, well......
I feel fairly confident that if we are willing to lay a smackdown and do it SOON, we will extract our people. Of course I do think maybe the Taliban want to just see us go once and for all and (if they are smart) will let us police up our peeps and GTFO.
Grand58742
08-14-21, 00:15
Okay you military types chime in here, and answer this question (w/o violating OPSEC of course): How would YOU plan the evacuation of U.S. personnel from Kabul?
Now it's quite possible that the Taliban, knowing it's only because we're gone that they are in the position they are in now, might exercise a little restraint to avoid the potential ass-whooping they could face (with Potato Head fraudulently in the Oval Office who the hell knows what we'd do). The Mujahideen didn't attack the Russkies when they di di mau'd outa there.
Bagram is kaput. To my knowledge the only way in/out is the Kabul airport. The Taliban know that too. They said on the radio that 3.000 would be sent to the Stan, so one would suppose primarily in the Kabul AO. What caught my attention was some Pentagon spokesman supposedly mentioned "It was about three battalions worth". I guess in a "round it off" kinda way that may be true, but U.S. Army and Marine infantry BN's aren't that heavy anymore---like < 1K each---for over 30 years. Yeah, I'm splitting hairs I know....
You secure Kabul airport and then move the rest of the grunts out into a perimeter focusing primarily on the airport, embassy, and the ingress/egress routes to it. Leave a company behind as a sort of QRF. Choppers moving people, but a couple sitting and doing nothing until and unless they are needed for the QRF. Yes, to have a few birds just "hanging out" sounds like a pipedream but if I was gonna do it I'd give them ALL the support they needed. That would include a continuously circling CAS of many jets, all with JDAMs and such cool stuff. Throw a few Predators in with Hellfires just for kicks. Keep them on station until the relief arrives---and not until, barring an in-flight emergency. No gaps in CAS coverage.
What I suggest would assume that the powers-that-be will err on the side of our troops and make a major logistical/hardware effort for a very short period of time. Maybe 3-4 days tops as opposed to 20 years. We are talking a relatively "small" area, not holding a country the size of Texas. If the end goal is being gone from Afghanistan then we should at least dedicate the "resources" available to cleanly split, with zero American blood spilled in the process.
It's very simple and something this Admin won't do nor do we have the willpower to do things like that.
But you very nicely say "We're evacuating. You don't need to bother us while we're doing it. Or else."
If they ask what the "else" is, you drop a MOAB in an uninhabited area and make sure you have enough airpower nearby to delivery each Taliban fighter advancing on Kabul their very own personal JDAM. You let it be known we want to leave peacefully enough, but are not afraid to use overwhelming force if needed.
The problem is, nobody in the world takes the moron in chief seriously; so, this won't ever work.
Grand58742
08-14-21, 00:17
Of course I do think maybe the Taliban want to just see us go once and for all and (if they are smart) will let us police up our peeps and GTFO.
This. They've waited 20 years for us to be gone so they can get back to fighting each other like they were before we arrived.
There is no reason nor any purpose in trying to take Americans hostage or slaughter those trying to evacuate.
vicious_cb
08-14-21, 04:21
There is no reason nor any purpose in trying to take Americans hostage or slaughter those trying to evacuate.
It would be a mistake to assume they would think like an American. Probably the reason we are in this whole mess.
https://i.imgur.com/GHuGyv1.jpeg
Does this look like an enemy that would let us retreat peacefully?
thepatriot2705
08-14-21, 04:49
It would be a mistake to assume they would think like an American. Probably the reason we are in this whole mess.
https://i.imgur.com/GHuGyv1.jpeg
Does this look like an enemy that would let us retreat peacefully?
Nuke em if they try something dumb.
This. They've waited 20 years for us to be gone so they can get back to fighting each other like they were before we arrived.
There is no reason nor any purpose in trying to take Americans hostage or slaughter those trying to evacuate.
Well right off the top of my head killing Americans is seen as more prestigious than killing locals. Killing foreign invaders is seen as more patriotic and infinitely more challenging, which provides even greater prestige, than killing locals.
And finally if you can defeat them in a final battle, which won't be seen as attacking a withdraw but will be viewed locally as having finally driven out the invaders after decades of battle you will go down in the history books as the last liberators of your country.
They have every reason to want to kill Americans.
Well right off the top of my head killing Americans is seen as more prestigious than killing locals. Killing foreign invaders is seen as more patriotic and infinitely more challenging, which provides even greater prestige, than killing locals.
And finally if you can defeat them in a final battle, which won't be seen as attacking a withdraw but will be viewed locally as having finally driven out the invaders after decades of battle you will go down in the history books as the last liberators of your country.
They have every reason to want to kill Americans.
Completely agree...they have a social media presence and the mindset of jihad, makes it cult like to die in battle against the infidel... My concern is the hardware they acquired, if it includes MANPADS and armor we need to bring out the big guns. The Taliban may show some restraint...
Hopefully that general who was former Delta has a few tricks up his sleeve......if he is running the show
In my opinion, just drop a few daisy cutters in the area from the embassy to the airport to clear a path..
Not sure if this picture reflects current situation.
https://i.imgur.com/I3cto3N.jpg
I never served, so my commentary on these things is typically reserved. But heck.
Now that we leave, the same people hate us, they are more experienced, and (barring Chinese incursion) they have more means and the same base from which they launched 9/11 twenty years ago. It could only be more poetic if the embassy is evacuated in a rush four weeks from today.
They’ll do it again. There’s a reason we hung out there so long. We should low key start lighting things up remotely.
Not sure if this picture reflects current situation.
https://i.imgur.com/I3cto3N.jpg
I never served, so my commentary on these things is typically reserved. But heck.
Now that we leave, the same people hate us, they are more experienced, and (barring Chinese incursion) they have more means and the same base from which they launched 9/11 twenty years ago. It could only be more poetic if the embassy is evacuated in a rush four weeks from today.
They’ll do it again. There’s a reason we hung out there so long. We should low key start lighting things up remotely.
Should have dropped a MOAB on that compound when the Taliban seized it.... Unless they wanted the Talis to have the weapons....
Should have dropped a MOAB on that compound when the Taliban seized it.... Unless they wanted the Talis to have the weapons....
A quick satellite peak would let us know if it’s still there. If so…
It would be a mistake to assume they would think like an American. Probably the reason we are in this whole mess.
https://i.imgur.com/GHuGyv1.jpeg
Does this look like an enemy that would let us retreat peacefully?
What, is that supposed to be some Taliban Iwo Jima pic? Did the Haji version of Joe Rosenthal take it? lol
We could roll them back in short order, but for what? As soon as we split they'll just surge forward again. The ANA and ANP are worthless, worse than the ARVN 50 years ago.
Someone mentioned MANPADS......I would doubt we've ever given the ANA those things. Why would we? There were no Taliban aircraft to shoot down. Some of you may know otherwise and please chime in if you do. Now the ChiComs might have slid a few in, who knows. As far as a AAA threat goes providing CAS wouldn't be any more risky than it has been for the last 20 years. Not too mention that stand-off weapons like JDAMs and such pretty much remove the threat (shy of enemy fighter jets) of losing your fast-movers.
Tell the Taliban "We are picking up our people. Leave us alone or we will knock the shit out of you". Have CAS stacked up loaded to the teeth. Now that they are the ones on a major offensive I'm sure it is the biggest target-rich environment we've seen over there since October of 2011, maybe even more so. Kind of like the NVA in the Easter Offensive of '72.....they emerged from their jungle hideouts and got eaten alive by CAS (mind you this wasn't even the high-tech CAS we have now, and the NVA had a LOT more AAA and SAMs than the Taliban).
I strongly suspect that they will leave us be. I could be wrong, and would never assume that so be prepared for the smackdown.
We should have never been in Iraq. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia should be a barren ****ing wasteland of melted glass.
**** the Middle East!
That's something that always makes me shake my head on people expressing the desire to attack Afghanistan/Iraq to get revenge over the actions of Saudis.
Grand58742
08-14-21, 08:54
Well right off the top of my head killing Americans is seen as more prestigious than killing locals. Killing foreign invaders is seen as more patriotic and infinitely more challenging, which provides even greater prestige, than killing locals.
And finally if you can defeat them in a final battle, which won't be seen as attacking a withdraw but will be viewed locally as having finally driven out the invaders after decades of battle you will go down in the history books as the last liberators of your country.
They have every reason to want to kill Americans.
I don't disagree. But I also believe the Taliban are smart enough to realize they could really screw the situation up (and our withdrawal) if our forces and citizens are attacked on their way out. They know (or should know) there are plenty of military personnel and politicians eager to keep the occupation going which does provide them a convenient excuse for doing so if Americans are killed needlessly.
Even the Soviets withdrawing in 1988-89 did so mainly peacefully after negotiating with local Mujahedeen forces that allowed the Soviets to leave. Yeah, the Soviets struck one last time at the political opponents of the puppet regime they had in place, but even after that the Muj attacks against the Soviets decreased enough for them to escape with what little dignity they had left.
Here's the thing which many Americans don't know or haven't (won't be) been told. The Taliban, while being distasteful and barbaric, never really caused problems outside of Afghanistan. Yeah, they supported or were supported by groups like Al Qaeda, but the "political party" for lack of a better term was focused on gaining control of Afghanistan rather than trying to export extremism. But all Americans saw on the news were little girls in burqas and niquabs and heard about how draconian the religious measures were about growing beards and not watching the latest Disney flick that came out. While they weren't our friends, they certainly weren't our global enemies because they took a strict adherence to the Shari'a. I mean, if it's a case of a totalitarian regime forcing the Islamic Law on it's citizens and tolerating no dissent, we have a whole lot of other countries to invade...
The thing is, once we stopped treating the Taliban like a political party (which they technically are) and labeled them as terrorists while "liberating" the Afghan people, that's when the problems started. The Taliban are not unlike any other extremist political fashion. They can be negotiated with as long as they see it's in their best interests. It's our interests to leave Afghanistan, it's in their to see us leave and call it a victory over the invader. There is far more to lose by angering the invaders that are leaving and might just turn around than there is by letting us escape and claiming they chased us off.
Over on TOS someone posted an Instagram quote that the U.S. had carried out air strikes on the outskirts of Kabul.
I don't disagree. But I also believe the Taliban are smart enough to realize they could really screw the situation up (and our withdrawal) if our forces and citizens are attacked on their way out. They know (or should know) there are plenty of military personnel and politicians eager to keep the occupation going which does provide them a convenient excuse for doing so if Americans are killed needlessly.
Even the Soviets withdrawing in 1988-89 did so mainly peacefully after negotiating with local Mujahedeen forces that allowed the Soviets to leave. Yeah, the Soviets struck one last time at the political opponents of the puppet regime they had in place, but even after that the Muj attacks against the Soviets decreased enough for them to escape with what little dignity they had left.
Here's the thing which many Americans don't know or haven't (won't be) been told. The Taliban, while being distasteful and barbaric, never really caused problems outside of Afghanistan. Yeah, they supported or were supported by groups like Al Qaeda, but the "political party" for lack of a better term was focused on gaining control of Afghanistan rather than trying to export extremism. But all Americans saw on the news were little girls in burqas and niquabs and heard about how draconian the religious measures were about growing beards and not watching the latest Disney flick that came out. While they weren't our friends, they certainly weren't our global enemies because they took a strict adherence to the Shari'a. I mean, if it's a case of a totalitarian regime forcing the Islamic Law on it's citizens and tolerating no dissent, we have a whole lot of other countries to invade...
The thing is, once we stopped treating the Taliban like a political party (which they technically are) and labeled them as terrorists while "liberating" the Afghan people, that's when the problems started. The Taliban are not unlike any other extremist political fashion. They can be negotiated with as long as they see it's in their best interests. It's our interests to leave Afghanistan, it's in their to see us leave and call it a victory over the invader. There is far more to lose by angering the invaders that are leaving and might just turn around than there is by letting us escape and claiming they chased us off.
I can agree with much of this.
BoringGuy45
08-14-21, 10:51
I wonder though, will the country just revert to pre-2001 Afghanistan? Or will the Taliban be even more powerful than before, and actually take total control of the country?
I wonder though, will the country just revert to pre-2001 Afghanistan? Or will the Taliban be even more powerful than before, and actually take total control of the country?
If they go back to the 2001 operations there may be a lot of folks going through opiate withdrawal.
If they go back to the 2001 operations there may be a lot of folks going through opiate withdrawal.
This.
Big Pharma will never let that happen.
I wonder though, will the country just revert to pre-2001 Afghanistan? Or will the Taliban be even more powerful than before, and actually take total control of the country?
From what I’ve read, heard and know of they are still the same ruthless, child molesting, woman stoning savages that they were.
Anybody bought Ghani and party plane tickets yet? Or think he will wait to get strung from a light pole like Najibulla? TB will probably have control of Kabul before the next week is over.
Gotta be a reason we haven’t don’t more air strikes than we have. I’d bet money we already have an agreement in place with TB. From what I’ve been told regular ANA and ANP are vanishing. Just up and disappearing. Commandos and CRU are pretty much the only ANDSF left to hold the line. I knew a lot of AFG would fall after the withdrawal. I just didn’t think ANDSF would roll over the way they have and the entire country would fall in 2-3 weeks.
From what I’ve read, heard and know of they are still the same ruthless, child molesting, woman stoning savages that they were.
Anybody bought Ghani and party plane tickets yet? TB will probably have control of Kabul before the next week is over.
Gotta be a reason we haven’t don’t more air strikes than we have. I’d bet money we already have an agreement in place with TB. From what I’ve been told regular ANA and ANP are vanishing. Just up and disappearing. Commandos and CRU are pretty much the only ANDSF left to hold the line.
Will probably depend on how much the Taliban intend to interfere with us removing our people. The fact that we already have made some strikes tells me that perhaps the Taliban aren't living up to any "agreement" that was made. They smell blood but they should know how exposed they are right now.....they ain't hiding in mountain caves anymore. They of all people should know what can be brought down upon them.
I swear, the fvcking Democrats SUCK at national defense and war-related stuff. Bunch of flippin' pussies.
vicious_cb
08-14-21, 16:24
Will probably depend on how much the Taliban intend to interfere with us removing our people. The fact that we already have made some strikes tells me that perhaps the Taliban aren't living up to any "agreement" that was made. They smell blood but they should know how exposed they are right now.....they ain't hiding in mountain caves anymore. They of all people should know what can be brought down upon them.
I swear, the fvcking Democrats SUCK at national defense and war-related stuff. Bunch of flippin' pussies.
Understand its not the Taliban the broke the agreement, it was the US under Saigon Joe. Remember Trump brokered the deal for May 1st, Saigon Joe changed it September to sabotage Trumps success and try to make it his own. This was all the justification and propaganda the Taliban needed to say "look the American never intended to leave in the first place, we must remove them by force." Normally the provincial warlords that would have stayed neutral or even fought for government are letting the Taliban through without a fight or joining them. In more primitive parts of the world agreements actually mean s**t and Trump understood that. Democrats being democrats think they can alter deals, change dates on a whim and the parties would just acquiesce because of their arrogance. War justifications work both ways and Saigon Joe f***ed it up by changing the date.
And they know our leader the great bidet is weak and will not do anything to them but get on a knee for them
Understand its not the Taliban the broke the agreement, it was the US under Saigon Joe. Remember Trump brokered the deal for May 1st, Saigon Joe changed it September to sabotage Trumps success and try to make it his own. This was all the justification and propaganda the Taliban needed to say "look the American never intended to leave in the first place, we must remove them by force." Normally the provincial warlords that would have stayed neutral or even fought for government are letting the Taliban through without a fight or joining them. In more primitive parts of the world agreements actually mean s**t and Trump understood that. Democrats being democrats think they can alter deals, change dates on a whim and the parties would just acquiesce because of their arrogance. War justifications work both ways and Saigon Joe f***ed it up by changing the date.
thepatriot2705
08-14-21, 17:14
Per open intel sources on twitter, we have B52s en route and air assets are hitting taliban columns.
What a shit show.
vicious_cb
08-14-21, 17:17
Per open intel sources on twitter, we have B52s en route and air assets are hitting taliban columns.
What a shit show.
No amount of airpower is going to stop them. They spent the better part of 2 decades learning how to deal with it.
Shitzhizpantz is gonna throw just enough at it in the last moments to be able to throw up his hands and say he tried. Too little, too late in a nation building cause we shouldn't have started. But hey what's a little more blood in the name of political posturing.
I still say give it the Ripley!
At this rate, by September we should be calling it Talibanistan.
No amount of airpower is going to stop them. They spent the better part of 2 decades learning how to deal with it.
Stop them as in permanently? No, we'd have to continue doing it in perpetuity. But we CAN halt them while we di di mau out of there. They really didn't "deal with it" other than avoiding being bashed by it. Now they are out in the open, not hiding in caves in the mountains anymore. Almost conventional tactics being used. Support columns, etc. That makes them very vulnerable to our overwhelming air power (assuming of course that the pussy-ass Democrap administration actually uses it to it's full potential). Even in the contested areas there isn't any jungle to hide in either.
As I mentioned earlier, the Easter Offensive of 1972 is a good example of taking it to the next level with a foe that can bring massive aerial death. That was 50 years ago when the NVA had SAMs and considerable AAA, and our aerial weapons weren't nearly as accurate or standoff-ish as they are now; we lost quite a few aircraft then but pounded the shit out of them and the commie onslaught ground to a halt. In Afghanistan we just gotta buy ourselves a few days, and we have the ability to do just it.
Stop them as in permanently? No, we'd have to continue doing it in perpetuity. But we CAN halt them while we di di mau out of there. They really didn't "deal with it" other than avoiding being bashed by it. Now they are out in the open, not hiding in caves in the mountains anymore. Almost conventional tactics being used. Support columns, etc. That makes them very vulnerable to our overwhelming air power (assuming of course that the pussy-ass Democrap administration actually uses it to it's full potential). Even in the contested areas there isn't any jungle to hide in either.
As I mentioned earlier, the Easter Offensive of 1972 is a good example of taking it to the next level with a foe that can bring massive aerial death, and that was 50 years ago when the NVA had SAMs and considerable AAA; we lost quite a few aircraft then but pounded the shit out of them and the commie onslaught ground to a halt. In Afghanistan we just gotta buy ourselves a few days, and we have the ability to do it.
May be time for a proper Arclight op!
May be time for a proper Arclight op!
Funny you mention that because I read a little while ago (forget where) that BUFFs were heading that way. Now will they be a huge platform for "smart" munitions, or used in the traditional Arc Light role? Could be both. :sarcastic:
vicious_cb
08-14-21, 20:04
Funny you mention that because I read a little while ago (forget where) that BUFFs were heading that way. Now will they be a huge platform for "smart" munitions, or used in the traditional Arc Light role? Could be both. :sarcastic:
The chance to strike a strategic blow was when all our equipment like armored HUMVEEs and MRAPs were concentrated and being looted at the abandoned bases. Now everything is too dispersed to strike a major blow.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8yT30bXsAE49IS?format=jpg&name=medium
Its not like they werent prepared for this. Check the date on this article.
Funny you mention that because I read a little while ago (forget where) that BUFFs were heading that way. Now will they be a huge platform for "smart" munitions, or used in the traditional Arc Light role? Could be both. :sarcastic:
They’ll be using their targeting pod and precision bombs. There’s still plenty of civilians caught in all this, so dumping Mk82s isn’t the answer.
I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out how to kill Taliban from the air. The only tactic they ever had was to do their attacks and GTfO before we got there. Their defensive tactic was normally to blend in with civilian pattern of life. Their average fighters got smoked in huge numbers by failing to understand airpower. I killed 5 of them one day simply because they walked out of cover, thinking they were safe because they hadn’t heard or seen an airplane in a few hours—unfortunately for them we can fly high enough there is nothing to hear or see.
They’ll be using their targeting pod and precision bombs. There’s still plenty of civilians caught in all this, so dumping Mk82s isn’t the answer.
I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out how to kill Taliban from the air. The only tactic they ever had was to do their attacks and GTfO before we got there. Their defensive tactic was normally to blend in with civilian pattern of life. Their average fighters got smoked in huge numbers by failing to understand airpower. I killed 5 of them one day simply because they walked out of cover, thinking they were safe because they hadn’t heard or seen an airplane in a few hours—unfortunately for them we can fly high enough there is nothing to hear or see.
Kudos to you!
The B-52's are supposedly heading to Mazar E Shariff (and I'm sure that's not the only place) because the ANA abandoned an airbase there chocked full of fixed-wing and rotary assets. Want to deny the Taliban access.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8yT30bXsAE49IS?format=jpg&name=medium
Its not like they werent prepared for this. Check the date on this article.
That's why this needs to go down FAST, before the ChiComs send MANPADS and conduct the training, however rudimentary it may be. Like in the next couple of days tops.
thepatriot2705
08-14-21, 20:45
That's why this needs to go down FAST, before the ChiComs send MANPADS and conduct the training, however rudimentary it may be. Like in the next couple of days tops.
Just saying if the chicoms supply the taliban with AA that is used against us, couple rod of gods on the 3 gorges dam would be the appropriate response.
In all seriousness, why didn’t we evacuate everything at once. How did our intel drop the ball this bad? Begs the question: is this intentional to get us roped in more?
They’ll be using their targeting pod and precision bombs. There’s still plenty of civilians caught in all this, so dumping Mk82s isn’t the answer.
I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out how to kill Taliban from the air. The only tactic they ever had was to do their attacks and GTfO before we got there. Their defensive tactic was normally to blend in with civilian pattern of life. Their average fighters got smoked in huge numbers by failing to understand airpower. I killed 5 of them one day simply because they walked out of cover, thinking they were safe because they hadn’t heard or seen an airplane in a few hours—unfortunately for them we can fly high enough there is nothing to hear or see.
I hope now they are in open, it would be easier to eliminate large groups especially if they have vehicles or armor.
Just saying if the chicoms supply the taliban with AA that is used against us, couple rod of gods on the 3 gorges dam would be the appropriate response.
In all seriousness, why didn’t we evacuate everything at once. How did our intel drop the ball this bad? Begs the question: is this intentional to get us roped in more?
Probably....Bidet raised the number of troops from 3k to 5k....wanna bet 10k to help "humanitarian aid"
crusader377
08-14-21, 21:00
I already lost my bet. I was thinking 2 to 3 years but it looks like this will be over in 2 to 3 months.
Funny you mention that because I read a little while ago (forget where) that BUFFs were heading that way. Now will they be a huge platform for "smart" munitions, or used in the traditional Arc Light role? Could be both. :sarcastic:
Cuz 'Murica:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQyKArUAMRY
Just saying if the chicoms supply the taliban with AA that is used against us, couple rod of gods on the 3 gorges dam would be the appropriate response.
In all seriousness, why didn’t we evacuate everything at once. How did our intel drop the ball this bad? Begs the question: is this intentional to get us roped in more?
I have two different munitions ideas to target that dam, one is a roughly one ton kinetic kill vehicle traveling at hyper sonic speeds and the other is a cruise missile/torpedo. Just rattling around in my brain, maybe someday I’ll do the actual engineering to see if either one is even feasible.
Per open intel sources on twitter, we have B52s en route and air assets are hitting taliban columns.
What a shit show.
You have no idea. I have been talking to friends that are on the ground there right now. And they all say it’s a shit show.
In all seriousness, why didn’t we evacuate everything at once. How did our intel drop the ball this bad?
Doesn’t really work that way.
I hope there's not a picture of an Osprey or helicopter on the embassy roof while panicked civilians try to force their way on board. Then you can cut-and-paste the whole Vietnam ending.
Except the country is landlocked and you won't see helos getting dumped of the sides of the carriers. What a dumpster fire.
Dan
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.