View Full Version : Time-Line Leading Up To The Collapse of Afghanistan
On this 20th Anniversary of 9/11, I give you all this.
I felt like this was important enough to have it's own thread. It's the most concise and detailed intel dump I have read which outlines precisely what went wrong, where, and why, and most importantly, by whom. It outlines what we all knew was the rational/logical idea, the plan, according to Blaber, was to keep the airbase, with 2.5k troops, support Af mil, with CAS and advisors to assist them onward. It was a plan that likely would have worked well.
Q: Is it actually possible the hatred for the orange man runs so deep that allowing 20 years of efforts, thousands of US lives, trillions of dollars, and our national security, was the motive for what happened? That making sure T could not claim a win with the original plan was the motive? I'm at a loss to explain otherwise.
B admin is trying to claim they inherited a bad plan, and or, the generals let him down with bad advice. Both are bold faced lies. Article is written a legend in SOF, Pete Blaber, Former Special Mission Unit Commander, who wrote "The Mission, the Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander" which is highly recommended if you have not read it. Had some limited coms with him, RE, supplements related as he's an FB "friend."
Read This:
Time-Line Leading Up To The Collapse of Afghanistan
https://www.sentinelsoffreedom.us/2021/09/08/time-line-leading-up-to-the-collapse-of-afghanistan/
Will,
Thank you for sharing. I’ve read Peter’s books and gather he is the type of leader that most strive to be. How everything went down this year still makes me sick.
Inkslinger
09-11-21, 12:25
This is another good read on the topic.
“Ghost wars : the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001” By Steve Coll
legumeofterror
09-11-21, 15:21
This is another good read on the topic.
“Ghost wars : the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001” By Steve Coll
Where is it documented there was a plan to leave 2,500 US personnel in country? The terms of the Feb. 2020 treaty make it clear there was no intent to leave any forces behind.
The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States,
its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security
contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) monthsfollowing
announcement of this agreement, and will take the following measures in this regard:
. II
A. The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will take the following measures in the first one
hundred thirty-five (135) days:
1) They will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred
(8,600) and proportionally bring reduction in the number of its allies and Coalition
forces.
2) The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will withdraw all their forces from five
(5) military bases.
B. With the commitment and action on the obligations of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which
is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban in Part Two of this
agreement, the United States, its allies, and the Coalition will execute the following:
1) The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will complete withdrawal of all remaining
forces from Afghanistan within the remaining nine and a half (9.5) months.
2) The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will withdraw all their forces from
remaining bases.
Inkslinger
09-11-21, 15:42
Where is it documented there was a plan to leave 2,500 US personnel in country? The terms of the Feb. 2020 treaty make it clear there was no intent to leave any forces behind.
Not sure why you quoted me, but the book doesn’t cover anything past September 11th.
On this 20th Anniversary of 9/11, I give you all this.
I felt like this was important enough to have it's own thread. It's the most concise and detailed intel dump I have read which outlines precisely what went wrong, where, and why, and most importantly, by whom. It outlines what we all knew was the rational/logical idea, the plan, according to Blaber, was to keep the airbase, with 2.5k troops, support Af mil, with CAS and advisors to assist them onward. It was a plan that likely would have worked well.
Q: Is it actually possible the hatred for the orange man runs so deep that allowing 20 years of efforts, thousands of US lives, trillions of dollars, and our national security, was the motive for what happened? That making sure T could not claim a win with the original plan was the motive? I'm at a loss to explain otherwise.
B admin is trying to claim they inherited a bad plan, and or, the generals let him down with bad advice. Both are bold faced lies. Article is written a legend in SOF, Pete Blaber, Former Special Mission Unit Commander, who wrote "The Mission, the Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander" which is highly recommended if you have not read it. Had some limited coms with him, RE, supplements related as he's an FB "friend."
Read This:
Time-Line Leading Up To The Collapse of Afghanistan
https://www.sentinelsoffreedom.us/2021/09/08/time-line-leading-up-to-the-collapse-of-afghanistan/
Unfortunately the media has sold the failure as Trump's fault to all their liberal sponges that sop up the untruth.
legumeofterror
09-11-21, 17:22
Not sure why you quoted me, but the book doesn’t cover anything past September 11th.
I meant to quote the OP.
Averageman
09-11-21, 17:30
Leadership matters. The time-line of the decisions leading up to the collapse of Afghanistan reveal that the key leaders involved lack some of the most important qualities needed by those who lead and govern: discernment, wisdom, prudence, the ability to listen to their people and anticipate unfolding events, the capacity to make the right decision based on incomplete information, and the flexibility and willingness to change their mind based on “the adaptive stimulus of what’s going on around them.” To summarize, Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and General Mark Milley lack common sense and the ability to make coherent decisions and solve complex problems.
Yeah that about sums it up.
Leadership matters. The time-line of the decisions leading up to the collapse of Afghanistan reveal that the key leaders involved lack some of the most important qualities needed by those who lead and govern: discernment, wisdom, prudence, the ability to listen to their people and anticipate unfolding events, the capacity to make the right decision based on incomplete information, and the flexibility and willingness to change their mind based on “the adaptive stimulus of what’s going on around them.” To summarize, Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and General Mark Milley lack common sense and the ability to make coherent decisions and solve complex problems.
Yeah that about sums it up.
Considering how systematic and methodical they were about, I'm having difficulty with fully accepting it as simple ineptitude and lack of common sense there. I could be seeing shadows where none exists too and they're just morons.
USMC_Anglico
09-11-21, 18:07
Where is it documented there was a plan to leave 2,500 US personnel in country? The terms of the Feb. 2020 treaty make it clear there was no intent to leave any forces behind.
Pretty easy to find:
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2473337/statement-by-acting-defense-secretary-christopher-miller-on-force-levels-in-afg/
Statement by Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Force Levels in Afghanistan
JAN. 15, 2021
Today, U.S. force levels in Afghanistan have reached 2,500. Directed by President Trump, and as I announced on November 17, this drawdown brings U.S. forces in the country to their lowest levels since 2001. Today, the United States is closer than ever to ending nearly two decades of war and welcoming in an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led peace process to achieve a political settlement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.
With a force of 2,500, commanders have what they need to keep America, our people and our interests safe. Working alongside our NATO allies and partners, the United States will continue to execute both our counterterrorism mission and the train, advise and assist mission in support of Afghan Security Forces working to secure peace in their country. Continued fulfillment of these two complementary missions seeks to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used to harbor those who seek to bring harm to the United States of America.
This force reduction is an indication of the United States’ continued support towards the Afghan peace process and our adherence to commitments made in both the U.S.-Taliban agreement and the U.S.-Afghanistan Joint Declaration. Moving forward, while the Department continues with planning capable of further reducing U.S. troop levels to zero by May of 2021, any such future drawdowns remain conditions-based. All sides must demonstrate their commitment to advancing the peace process. Further, the United States will continue to take any action necessary to ensure protection of our homeland, our citizens and our interests.
legumeofterror
09-11-21, 20:22
Pretty easy to find:
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2473337/statement-by-acting-defense-secretary-christopher-miller-on-force-levels-in-afg/
Statement by Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Force Levels in Afghanistan
JAN. 15, 2021
Today, U.S. force levels in Afghanistan have reached 2,500. Directed by President Trump, and as I announced on November 17, this drawdown brings U.S. forces in the country to their lowest levels since 2001. Today, the United States is closer than ever to ending nearly two decades of war and welcoming in an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led peace process to achieve a political settlement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.
With a force of 2,500, commanders have what they need to keep America, our people and our interests safe. Working alongside our NATO allies and partners, the United States will continue to execute both our counterterrorism mission and the train, advise and assist mission in support of Afghan Security Forces working to secure peace in their country. Continued fulfillment of these two complementary missions seeks to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used to harbor those who seek to bring harm to the United States of America.
This force reduction is an indication of the United States’ continued support towards the Afghan peace process and our adherence to commitments made in both the U.S.-Taliban agreement and the U.S.-Afghanistan Joint Declaration. Moving forward, while the Department continues with planning capable of further reducing U.S. troop levels to zero by May of 2021, any such future drawdowns remain conditions-based. All sides must demonstrate their commitment to advancing the peace process. Further, the United States will continue to take any action necessary to ensure protection of our homeland, our citizens and our interests.
It says right there the intent is to completely withdraw from the country by the target date, with an aside that it will be "condition based" which is meaningless. The Afghanistan of today was an inevitability given the actions laid out and executed per the treaty. This administration certainly ****ed up the withdrawal, but if you think Trump was going to maintain a presence there indefinitely or would have somehow prevented the collapse of government there I can't agree.
ViniVidivici
09-11-21, 21:15
You're right, he wouldn't have.
But he wouldn't have done things retarded ass-backwards like these useless cuunts have done (which was most likely purposefull), and left so many people, and so much shit behind...
This is what I've been looking for:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/afghan-pilots-to-be-transferred-to-us-base-after-fleeing-to-uzbekistan-wsj/ar-AAOllhE?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
As history repeats itself 46 years after the fall of Southeast Asia to communism, these Afghan pilots did the right thing when they knew their country was going to fall. They took as many of their people, family and friends and escaped in their aircrafts to a neighboring country. Just like the South Vietnamese and Cambodian air force planes and helicopters that flew to US Aircraft carriers and US Air Force bases in Thailand did in 1975. Those Afghan air force pilots will and should be brought to the US and given their green cards just like the Southeast Asians pilots.
Another point and the result of this is, the tallybaaans don't have as much donated American aircrafts left as some thinks they do.
It says right there the intent is to completely withdraw from the country by the target date, with an aside that it will be "condition based" which is meaningless.
Maybe in normal political talk it is meaningless, but Trump was not a normal politician.
Trump had four years to pull out like this, but he didn’t. Biden did.
legumeofterror
09-12-21, 15:10
Maybe in normal political talk it is meaningless, but Trump was not a normal politician.
Trump had four years to pull out like this, but he didn’t. Biden did.
So was his word when he signed the treaty meaningless, or...? This is exactly what Trump agreed to, a total withdrawal (that was supposed to be months earlier per his timeline). Save for the absolute disaster that was the withdrawal itself, which may or may not have been handled better. You sure put a lot of stock in the word of a guy who lied and denied reality on a regular basis.
We could speculate on what he may or may not have done, but the fact is the terms of the treaty negotiated with the Taliban, with no input from or protections for the Afghan government, that released thousands of their members, unfroze their assets/lifted sanctions, and ensured they could begin operating as normal without any interference from the US basically assured the result we are seeing today. The SIGAR reports for years repeatedly indicated that the majority of the aid being sent to the Afghan military was being stolen and sold, and that the entire military structure was corrupt and incapable of providing any meaningful resistance to a Taliban take over. Neither Obama, Trump, or Biden acted in any meaningful fashion to prevent the disaster we witnessed that undid 20 years of fighting in a few months, but I am supposed to believe that Trump would have magically prevented it because he said so? in a few month undo decades of corruption, mismanagement, and lack of planning? No way.
The Trump agreement was indeed “condition based” but your position is BOTH:
That the conditional part is “meaningless”, as in unlikely to be enforced.
And Trump’s word would be “meaningless” if he had enforced the conditions in the agreement.
I don’t think everything was ever going to be rainbows... but it’s entirely possible that we could have gotten out with a reasonable chance the Afghan gov survives long enough to have a chance.
legumeofterror
09-13-21, 21:55
Have you read the agreement? The Taliban never violated thier part. They actually had very little to do on thier part to be compliant. That is why I say thier statements are meaningless. Either they lied when they signed the treaty or they lied (not really lied i guess, made a very missleading statement moreso) when they said they were going to leave troops. Can't have it both ways. The "conditional" nature of the later commitment speaks to that. They knew there was no way the taliban wasn't going to uphold thier end of the deal.
Its also telling that the document offers no protections to the Afghan government whatsoever. Just a vague statement to promote dialog. Its like the didn't care that what we are seeing now would happen...
Have you read the agreement? The Taliban never violated thier part. They actually had very little to do on thier part to be compliant. That is why I say thier statements are meaningless. Either they lied when they signed the treaty or they lied (not really lied i guess, made a very missleading statement moreso) when they said they were going to leave troops. Can't have it both ways. The "conditional" nature of the later commitment speaks to that. They knew there was no way the taliban wasn't going to uphold thier end of the deal.
Its also telling that the document offers no protections to the Afghan government whatsoever. Just a vague statement to promote dialog. Its like the didn't care that what we are seeing now would happen...
All I can say is your boy got elected (?) and had the opportunity to draft a better agreement, but failed miserably. Lets be honest, Hunter Biden is a pretty good indicator of how well Uncle Joe handles pull outs.
Andy
This is another good read on the topic.
“Ghost wars : the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001” By Steve Coll
^^^Great book
Have you read the agreement? The Taliban never violated thier part. They actually had very little to do on thier part to be compliant. That is why I say thier statements are meaningless. Either they lied when they signed the treaty or they lied (not really lied i guess, made a very missleading statement moreso) when they said they were going to leave troops. Can't have it both ways. The "conditional" nature of the later commitment speaks to that. They knew there was no way the taliban wasn't going to uphold thier end of the deal.
Its also telling that the document offers no protections to the Afghan government whatsoever. Just a vague statement to promote dialog. Its like the didn't care that what we are seeing now would happen...
Have you read the article in the OP? Assuming it's accurate (and I personally trust that author's integrity and sources bigly...) it would appear as far as Trump was concerned, there were conditions, and and I suspect had he not felt the Taliban keeping up their end of it, both in spirit and as written, would have told them the deal was off, and Bagram would remain along with the required troops to secure it, etc. as long as required. I also think the Taliban aware Trump able and willing to tell them to blow out their ass being who he is, and knew Biden admin was utterly without backbone and would leave no matter what, and they could do what ever they pleased, which they did:
7 September 2019: Trump cancels US-Taliban peace talks after the group claimed responsibility for a car bomb that killed an American soldier. President Trump then calls the head of the Taliban and warns him that if he continues to kill American troops, he will meet the same fate as Iranian General Qasem Soleimani
29 February 2020: Trump announces a signed peace deal between the US and Nato allies, and the Taliban.
17 November 2020: In the final days of the Trump administration, the Pentagon announces plans to reduce troop numbers in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500, which was to be completed by January 2021.
Note: What’s the logic of why they chose 2,500? It’s the minimum number of troops required to conduct what the military on the ground in Afghanistan determined was needed to prevent the vacuum-effect that President Trump was warned about in 2017. What were those tasks: first and foremost: to operate and secure Bagram Air Base (an air base as big as many US Air Force bases in the US). Bagram would become the sole remaining “base of operations” for US Forces from which they would provide air support during and after the transition. In addition to operating and securing Bagram as an Air Base, it would also provide support to the small agile special operations liaison teams so they could deploy throughout the country to support and advise Afghan Special Forces at their bases and outposts around the country. Why did the Afghans still need US military liaison teams? Courage is contagious and so is common sense. Although the Afghan Special Forces had already proven themselves to their American Special Mission Unit advisers in battle, the Afghan military was a new army that hadn’t operated by itself (meaning without US units or other govt agency advisers). A key lesson learned from our all at once pull-out in Viet Nam was that we should have conducted a slower more adaptive draw-down. The Afghans did not have any experience or frame of reference for how to command and control themselves as an independent organization. These liaison teams were an integral part of the draw-down because they would allow for a gradual transition that would enable the Afghan military and its Political leaders to withstand what everyone predicted would be a full-scale attack by the Taliban as soon as the American main-body pulled out. If the Afghan military could hold the Taliban off during this period they would learn that they are strong enough to defeat the Taliban in battle, while also gaining confidence and experience to operate on their own.
Next date is Biden is sworn in, and it all goes to complete chit after that. Far as I'm concerned, that's 100% on Biden. He owns that.
Averageman
09-14-21, 13:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3da1F9ytSs
this is pretty good and very relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3da1F9ytSs
this is pretty good and very relevant.
If you read the OP, it's in line with the vid. I really dislike assuming intent as it can go tin foil hat real fast, but I simply can't believe this was just incompetence, but intentional. To follow the existing plan, may have left orange guy with a win and a lasting legacy, and that was something they could not allow. To dump a nation into complete darkness, throw 20 years of work away, thousands of US lives, trillions of dollars, and our national security, all to deny orange guy a win of any kind, is what happened in my view. The OP article suggests such if one reads between the lines also.
was to keep the airbase, with 2.5k troops, support Af mil
While 2.5k troops is better than nothing this number is laughable. If you consider non-combat and command personnel that would mean you have about 1500-2000 troops max. If you take into account 12-hour shifts without weekends/breaks/sick - that's 1000 available troops available best case scenario at any given time.
Just for the reference: I read somewhere that when Soviets had 100k troops (without local forces) in Afghanistan, by their own admission they controlled at most 15% of the country.
If you consider that our forces are 50 to 100 times more effective than the Soviets at the time (which very well might be), we would still have control of about 15% area with 1000-2000 active troops.
I admittedly have zero military knowledge and operate with just the reference numbers. I suspect if we had 5-12 major bases around the country, with 1500-2500 troops on each with the total number of around 15-25k soldiers, we could have had a good grip with that presence in AF.
We have 28k soldiers in Korea - in a country with a strong military and no active combat. Why we couldn't or should't keep at least 14k (half of what is in Korea) in AF from a peacekeeping or anti-terrorist perspective is puzzling.
While 2.5k troops is better than nothing this number is laughable. If you consider non-combat and command personnel that would mean you have about 1500-2000 troops max. If you take into account 12-hour shifts without weekends/breaks/sick - that's 1000 available troops available best case scenario at any given time.
Just for the reference: I read somewhere that when Soviets had 100k troops (without local forces) in Afghanistan, by their own admission they controlled at most 15% of the country.
If you consider that our forces are 50 to 100 times more effective than the Soviets at the time (which very well might be), we would still have control of about 15% area with 1000-2000 active troops.
I admittedly have zero military knowledge and operate with just the reference numbers. I suspect if we had 5-12 major bases around the country, with 1500-2500 troops on each with the total number of around 15-25k soldiers, we could have had a good grip with that presence in AF.
We have 28k soldiers in Korea - in a country with a strong military and no active combat. Why we couldn't or should't keep at least 14k (half of what is in Korea) in AF from a peacekeeping or anti-terrorist perspective is puzzling.
Did you read OP article or #20? 2.5k is explained and the person explaining it is SME squared.
The_War_Wagon
09-14-21, 19:45
1) The election is stolen on behalf of SlowJoe
2) https://i.ibb.co/7S2Y5ht/poop-hits-the-fan.gif
Does that pretty much sum it up?
Have you read the article in the OP? Assuming it's accurate (and I personally trust that author's integrity and sources bigly...) it would appear as far as Trump was concerned, there were conditions, and and I suspect had he not felt the Taliban keeping up their end of it, both in spirit and as written, would have told them the deal was off, and Bagram would remain along with the required troops to secure it, etc. as long as required. I also think the Taliban aware Trump able and willing to tell them to blow out their ass being who he is, and knew Biden admin was utterly without backbone and would leave no matter what, and they could do what ever they pleased, which they did:
7 September 2019: Trump cancels US-Taliban peace talks after the group claimed responsibility for a car bomb that killed an American soldier. President Trump then calls the head of the Taliban and warns him that if he continues to kill American troops, he will meet the same fate as Iranian General Qasem Soleimani
29 February 2020: Trump announces a signed peace deal between the US and Nato allies, and the Taliban.
17 November 2020: In the final days of the Trump administration, the Pentagon announces plans to reduce troop numbers in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500, which was to be completed by January 2021.
Note: What’s the logic of why they chose 2,500? It’s the minimum number of troops required to conduct what the military on the ground in Afghanistan determined was needed to prevent the vacuum-effect that President Trump was warned about in 2017. What were those tasks: first and foremost: to operate and secure Bagram Air Base (an air base as big as many US Air Force bases in the US). Bagram would become the sole remaining “base of operations” for US Forces from which they would provide air support during and after the transition. In addition to operating and securing Bagram as an Air Base, it would also provide support to the small agile special operations liaison teams so they could deploy throughout the country to support and advise Afghan Special Forces at their bases and outposts around the country. Why did the Afghans still need US military liaison teams? Courage is contagious and so is common sense. Although the Afghan Special Forces had already proven themselves to their American Special Mission Unit advisers in battle, the Afghan military was a new army that hadn’t operated by itself (meaning without US units or other govt agency advisers). A key lesson learned from our all at once pull-out in Viet Nam was that we should have conducted a slower more adaptive draw-down. The Afghans did not have any experience or frame of reference for how to command and control themselves as an independent organization. These liaison teams were an integral part of the draw-down because they would allow for a gradual transition that would enable the Afghan military and its Political leaders to withstand what everyone predicted would be a full-scale attack by the Taliban as soon as the American main-body pulled out. If the Afghan military could hold the Taliban off during this period they would learn that they are strong enough to defeat the Taliban in battle, while also gaining confidence and experience to operate on their own.
Next date is Biden is sworn in, and it all goes to complete chit after that. Far as I'm concerned, that's 100% on Biden. He owns that.
Will, you nailed it. Completely agree.
Did you read OP article or #20? 2.5k is explained and the person explaining it is SME squared.
Yes, I did read the original article, Will.
According to this article: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/how-obamas-civilian-surge-led-to-political-defeat-in-afghanistan/
General Stanley McChrystal planned for 80,000 troops to launch a counteroffensive in Afghanistan in the summer of 2009.
Your source is saying that 33x (thirty three times) less force would have been sufficient vs what U.S. command thought was needed 10 years ago when Taliban was much weaker.
No offense to you or the author of the original article. I respectfully disagree with him just based on the numbers. He provided a lot of interesting insight and viewpoints, but I think he's justifying things he wants to see rather than being objective based on the historical data.
Saying that 2.5k support troops operating out of one airfield would have addressed an issue of dysfunctional military for the whole country (as large as AF) is a very, very significant exaggeration.
In a large scheme of things it does not really matter if you have 2.5k or 25k troops in the country. From the size perspective of U.S. military it's almost the same number.
Yes, I did read the original article, Will.
According to this article: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/how-obamas-civilian-surge-led-to-political-defeat-in-afghanistan/
Your source is saying that 33x (thirty three times) less force would have been sufficient vs what U.S. command thought was needed 10 years ago when Taliban was much weaker.
No offense to you or the author of the original article. I respectfully disagree with him just based on the numbers. He provided a lot of interesting insight and viewpoints, but I think he's justifying things he wants to see rather than being objective based on the historical data.
Saying that 2.5k support troops operating out of one airfield would have addressed an issue of dysfunctional military for the whole country (as large as AF) is a very, very significant exaggeration.
In a large scheme of things it does not really matter if you have 2.5k or 25k troops in the country. From the size perspective of U.S. military it's almost the same number.
Blaber more than sufficiently explained it in my view. Obviously we will never know at this point whether the approach would have been successful.
If anyone has the experience, creds, quals, to offer that opinion, who worked in far smaller numbers with air support and the locals, to kick the snot out of the Taliban early on, who planned Operation Anaconda and the bombing of Tora Bora, it's retired Col. Blaber.
Add to what Blaber said about Milley and where his focus was, to undermine Trump, it does not come as a surprise he may have committed treason in addition to intentionally making sure Afg went down that way to prevent any possible win for Trump:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?232002-Has-General-Milley-has-committed-treason&p=2977992#post2977992
legumeofterror
09-15-21, 17:01
Have you read the article in the OP? Assuming it's accurate (and I personally trust that author's integrity and sources bigly...) it would appear as far as Trump was concerned, there were conditions, and and I suspect had he not felt the Taliban keeping up their end of it, both in spirit and as written, would have told them the deal was off, and Bagram would remain along with the required troops to secure it, etc. as long as required. I also think the Taliban aware Trump able and willing to tell them to blow out their ass being who he is, and knew Biden admin was utterly without backbone and would leave no matter what, and they could do what ever they pleased, which they did:
7 September 2019: Trump cancels US-Taliban peace talks after the group claimed responsibility for a car bomb that killed an American soldier. President Trump then calls the head of the Taliban and warns him that if he continues to kill American troops, he will meet the same fate as Iranian General Qasem Soleimani
29 February 2020: Trump announces a signed peace deal between the US and Nato allies, and the Taliban.
17 November 2020: In the final days of the Trump administration, the Pentagon announces plans to reduce troop numbers in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500, which was to be completed by January 2021.
Note: What’s the logic of why they chose 2,500? It’s the minimum number of troops required to conduct what the military on the ground in Afghanistan determined was needed to prevent the vacuum-effect that President Trump was warned about in 2017. What were those tasks: first and foremost: to operate and secure Bagram Air Base (an air base as big as many US Air Force bases in the US). Bagram would become the sole remaining “base of operations” for US Forces from which they would provide air support during and after the transition. In addition to operating and securing Bagram as an Air Base, it would also provide support to the small agile special operations liaison teams so they could deploy throughout the country to support and advise Afghan Special Forces at their bases and outposts around the country. Why did the Afghans still need US military liaison teams? Courage is contagious and so is common sense. Although the Afghan Special Forces had already proven themselves to their American Special Mission Unit advisers in battle, the Afghan military was a new army that hadn’t operated by itself (meaning without US units or other govt agency advisers). A key lesson learned from our all at once pull-out in Viet Nam was that we should have conducted a slower more adaptive draw-down. The Afghans did not have any experience or frame of reference for how to command and control themselves as an independent organization. These liaison teams were an integral part of the draw-down because they would allow for a gradual transition that would enable the Afghan military and its Political leaders to withstand what everyone predicted would be a full-scale attack by the Taliban as soon as the American main-body pulled out. If the Afghan military could hold the Taliban off during this period they would learn that they are strong enough to defeat the Taliban in battle, while also gaining confidence and experience to operate on their own.
Next date is Biden is sworn in, and it all goes to complete chit after that. Far as I'm concerned, that's 100% on Biden. He owns that.
I did read the article and my point stands. Either Trump and Co. were lying when hey signed the treaty or your assertions that they intended to leave troops in country to assist the Afghan government is nonsense. The Taliban held up thier end, which was very little and by design because we wanted to ensure we got out, and we were definitely leaving. These claims of a "different plan" don't line up with reality. They were going to leave the Afghan government high and dry, allowing it to collapse. If they had any actual intention of ensuring thier success what was no effort at all made to adress the problems layer out in the SIGAR reports? Why were there zero provisions in place in the treaty to compel the Taliban to respect and integrate into the existing government? Or any protection at all for the Afghan government or people other than vague requirements for "talks"? Why were they not included or consulted in the negotiations? They planned to **** them over from the start. To think otherwise is foolishness, IMO.
I did read the article and my point stands. Either Trump and Co. were lying when hey signed the treaty or your assertions that they intended to leave troops in country to assist the Afghan government is nonsense. The Taliban held up thier end, which was very little and by design because we wanted to ensure we got out, and we were definitely leaving. These claims of a "different plan" don't line up with reality. They were going to leave the Afghan government high and dry, allowing it to collapse. If they had any actual intention of ensuring thier success what was no effort at all made to adress the problems layer out in the SIGAR reports? Why were there zero provisions in place in the treaty to compel the Taliban to respect and integrate into the existing government? Or any protection at all for the Afghan government or people other than vague requirements for "talks"? Why were they not included or consulted in the negotiations? They planned to **** them over from the start. To think otherwise is foolishness, IMO.
As does mine. I have no reason to believe Blaber is not in the know to a level and extent few others are, and regardless, the plan to at least use Bagram as the obvious staging location for that final and total withdrawal was obvious to anyone with two working neurons. I personally feel the way it went was not mere incompetence but intentional for reasons outlined.
Yes, I did read the original article, Will.
According to this article: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/how-obamas-civilian-surge-led-to-political-defeat-in-afghanistan/
Your source is saying that 33x (thirty three times) less force would have been sufficient vs what U.S. command thought was needed 10 years ago when Taliban was much weaker.
No offense to you or the author of the original article. I respectfully disagree with him just based on the numbers. He provided a lot of interesting insight and viewpoints, but I think he's justifying things he wants to see rather than being objective based on the historical data.
Saying that 2.5k support troops operating out of one airfield would have addressed an issue of dysfunctional military for the whole country (as large as AF) is a very, very significant exaggeration.
In a large scheme of things it does not really matter if you have 2.5k or 25k troops in the country. From the size perspective of U.S. military it's almost the same number.
You respectfully disagree with the author? Based on what, your experience in Afghanistan? Do you understand his background? When guys like Peter Blaber talk, smart folks take the opportunity to shut up and listen, especially when it comes to fighting in places like Afghanistan.
When I first showed up at Bagram in March of ‘02 there were less than 1,000 U.S. “troops” there. That included all of the SOCOM ground and air assets as well as a squadron of AH64s, a squadron of A-10s, about 300 10th Mount Div soldiers plus the support for all of the above. 2,500 are more than enough to run Bagram AB, provide base security, and give logistical support as well as USSOCOM assistance to the Afghan Air Force & Special Forces.
You respectfully disagree with the author? Based on what, your experience in Afghanistan? Do you understand his background? When guys like Peter Blaber talk, smart folks take the opportunity to shut up and listen, especially when it comes to fighting in places like Afghanistan.
When I first showed up at Bagram in March of ‘02 there were less than 1,000 U.S. “troops” there. That included all of the SOCOM ground and air assets as well as a squadron of AH64s, a squadron of A-10s, about 300 10th Mount Div soldiers plus the support for all of the above. 2,500 are more than enough to run Bagram AB, provide base security, and give logistical support as well as USSOCOM assistance to the Afghan Air Force & Special Forces.
Regardless, if anyone knows what they're talking about on that topic it would be Blaber, and everyone from armchair dummy like me to Blaber and co know not using Bagram as the obvious staging point for permanent withdrawal was complete fail, and came as a surprise to no one but Biden and his TDS crew apparently as their excuse for it.
From what we now know about Milley et al, it's beyond difficult to conclude the way it went down to "mere" incompetence.
Update from everyone’s favorite LtCol. He breaks down his current legal situation and is apparently bringing ucmj charges against Gen McKenzie.
https://youtu.be/TOrjiUnsaiw
Update from everyone’s favorite LtCol. He breaks down his current legal situation and is apparently bringing ucmj charges against Gen McKenzie.
https://youtu.be/TOrjiUnsaiw
Fixed...Now that's someone who gives a damn about what happens to the mil, Const. and his country and putting it all on the line.
Fixed...Now that's someone who gives a damn about what happens to the mil, Const. and his country and putting it all on the line.
Yea - you can see from his body language he’s been through the wringer over the past weeks. But he’s sticking to it.
And like he said - he’s the only officer that’s been fired after what happened in Afghanistan. For demanding accountability no less.
titsonritz
10-15-21, 13:59
Scheller pleads guilty, awaits sentencing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lDHxKXGwRM
Scheller pleads guilty, awaits sentencing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lDHxKXGwRM
They went easy on him. Letter of Reprimand and $5K forfeited. Throwing the book at him would've been fratricide to the Officer Corps.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10095983/Defiant-Lt-Colonel-Stuart-Scheller-learn-fate-court-martial-today.html
They went easy on him. Letter of Reprimand and $5K forfeited. Throwing the book at him would've been fratricide to the Officer Corps.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10095983/Defiant-Lt-Colonel-Stuart-Scheller-learn-fate-court-martial-today.html
Should've received a promotion and a medal.
Punch Drunk Joe's administration is going to investigate themselves to see if they did anything wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-ig-probe-biden-admin-afghanistan-withdrawal
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.