Russia intelligence paying bounty on U.S. troops

[ABNAK]

History was a guide. Nobody has ever "won" in Afghanistan and pacified that country. Largely (IMO) because the population is so regionalized and tribalized it's hard to pacify the whole country. Basically, you make a deal with one tribe/family and you piss off another.

I disagree on the Russians partially, namely on the "firmly" comment. I think the Afghans were going to fight with whatever they had available. I mean, they started the fighting with Enfields and Martini-Henry rifles on horseback fighting against mechanized troops. The Russians may very well have stayed, but the casualty rates still would have been high and international condemnation would have set in eventually. But just like we are doing, the Soviets controlled the cities, the Afghans controlled the country where most of the fighting took place.

The Afghans aren't invincible in battle, they're ungovernable.

We actually had many FOB's and COP's all over the place to try and keep a presence in the countryside. Then with the draw-down of our forces they closed up shop in those places (weren't going to be nearly enough troops to man them).

[Grand58742]

The Afghans aren't invincible in battle, they're ungovernable.

We actually had many FOB's and COP's all over the place to try and keep a presence in the countryside. Then with the draw-down of our forces they closed up shop in those places (weren't going to be nearly enough troops to man them).

Oh, I recognize they aren't invincible. I won't call them ungovernable, I'd call it unrelenting.

[SteyrAUG]

History was a guide. Nobody has ever "won" in Afghanistan and pacified that country. Largely (IMO) because the population is so regionalized and tribalized it's hard to pacify the whole country. Basically, you make a deal with one tribe/family and you piss off another.

I disagree on the Russians partially, namely on the "firmly" comment. I think the Afghans were going to fight with whatever they had available. I mean, they started the fighting with Enfields and Martini-Henry rifles on horseback fighting against mechanized troops. The Russians may very well have stayed, but the casualty rates still would have been high and international condemnation would have set in eventually. But just like we are doing, the Soviets controlled the cities, the Afghans controlled the country where most of the fighting took place.

Remember Tito.

The Balkans were the flashpoint for WWI, then after WWII they got Tito and he brought every single person to heel. Then Tito died, the wall came down and Yugoslavia came apart at the seams and restarted divisions that were a hundred years old.

[Renegade]

No soldier has been killed in A-stan since March, not even in training.

[JediGuy]

It's time to go. Let the Chinese have a whirl at it.

They would win.

[glocktogo]

They would win.

Yes they would, because they don't fight by the rules. I always find it amusing that hand wringers believe wars should be fought "by the rules". They of course never fight themselves. That's a huge reason why I don't support expeditionary actions and undeclared wars. They're too easy to get into and too hard to get out of. A war should never be started without complete surrender of the enemy as the goal. Once started, they should be total, unrelenting and nothing spared until the enemy is vanquished completely and sues for peace.

All this hand wringing over Russia paying bounties to the Taliban is just more hand wringing nonsense. As if the Taliban need another reason to shoot Americans invading their country.

[JediGuy]

I generally agree with what you wrote.
My experience (mostly observation) with Chinese in Africa and general reading of history and current policy gives them an easy win. This assumes India doesn’t take the opportunity to start WWIII.

[glocktogo]

IF Vlad is paying bounties on US troops KIA, perhaps we should point how badly that's going for him under Trump. Under Bush we lost 864 troops in Afghanistan, which is 108 per year. Prez Mac Daddy lost 1,729 on his watch, so he's at 216 per year. Trump? Well he's piddling along at 63, which is 18 per year average.

If the Russians are paying bounty on US troops KIA, they should save their money because it isn't working. Trump should say they are and failing HUGELY at it on his watch.

[yoni]

This story pisses me off so much.

The American people, of course not on this forum are just so damn stupid and naive.

The USA, was screwing with the Soviets when they were in A-stan. Great love it.

The Russians are screwing with the USA in A-stan. That is the game.

When Israel was in Lebanon, we didn't pay the Christians and help them of course we did.

It is part of the grand game.

Not unlike billionaires in the USA, paying off BLM. Which is so much worse than anything the Russians have done in A-stan.

American military in a war zone are in danger, that is the nature of the beast.

If I were in the GRU in the same rank I carry now and my men weren't trying to EFF the Americans. We would have a major ass reaming of the troops.

[utahjeepr]

What I don't understand here is the media and the left say we should all be outraged that maybe the Russians were offering bounties and the the President didn't do ... what exactly? On the other hand Soleimani was directly responsible for killing our troops and wanted to do more of it but taking him out was an outrage.

Literally damned if you do damned if you don't.