Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2021 0:23:55 GMT
Being just a former enlisted bumpkin, I probably don't see the world the way you do. I for instance don't see air drops, maybe a C-17 or C-5A transports landing troops in Kabul. Both give a fine ride, not as goo as the C-141, but I never complained about the C-130, all of my tickets were priced right. The fuel and air cover for this junket will doubtless be costly. Kuwait is paying us back the favor again, he'll my youngest son was there in 2008&09, good people, so I hear. Plus a a leisurely 3hr and 10 min flight from Kuwait City to Kabul. I am certain you know how many troops and operators can rid each one of those birds. Never wasted my time on Star Wars. Regards, Tom I'm not so worried about flying them there. They can fly around Iran, who might not like us flying thrugh the airspace to get to Afghanistan. I am worried about as the troops leave, who is going to cover them getting back on the airplanes? It was one thing for the Soviets to march out in armored columns; Russia was right next door when they left. I am more worried it will be more like Dunkirk then say, leaving Sauid Arabia where the Iraqi's were not trying to come after us and the airfields were secured.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 14, 2021 0:46:50 GMT
This should be a rather routine operation. It is a non-combatant evacuation, something that we practice with frequency. That is especially true with Marine Corps Expeditionary Units, and Airborne forces. The force level seems quite sufficient, and air cover is available. I do not think it will be interfered with, unless the Taliban wants to get a very bloody nose, because with these types of operations the rules of engagement gloves are off. We will not be worried about anyone who gets in the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2021 17:22:32 GMT
I think I need to clarify my position. I am not worried about getting the diplomats out with 3,000-4,000 US troops on the ground. I'm not worried about getting Afghans out if they get to Kabul or wherever people are being evacuated from while the troops are there. I am talking about getting the troops out once everyone else is gone. Disengaging and displacing/retrograding/evacuating the rear guard after everyone else is on the plane is the problem. Yes, fixed wing air can help covering fire for the final rush to and take of of the transports, but at some point the rear guard has to stop shooting and run.
While the raid attempting the rescue our Iranian hostages was not destroyed by enemy action, that is a small example of what can occur.
Yes, I know its a tough life. It's even our job. Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, the Baltics, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and maybe even Israel and some other places are not worth the bones of a single American Grenadier. I used to think Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were worth some US blood, not anymore. Afghanistan was a Just War since that is where the 9/11 attack was launched from and the Taliban decided not to give up AQ and bin Laden. We should have left as soon as we defeated the Taliban and whacked AQ or at the latest, after we got bin Laden.
Again, we need to first ask, "Should we do anything?" and then follow with "What should we do?" Among other factors is the US should not go to war to rescue repressive hereditary monarchies and mitigating tragedy is not the primary mission of the US Military (less domestically the National Guard).
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 14, 2021 19:24:54 GMT
I don't think it would be in the Taliban's favour to attack the last remains of US troops, if they did massacre the rear guard, then the US will make them pay for years and years with air attacks, so it would be rather dumb, not saying that this stupid act is not beyond them, but they have got some level headed guys at the top, so they should see the mistake such an act would do to their long-term goal. I reckon that after Kabul falls and the Taliban starts to form some kind of leadership to run the country, we will see a civil war as is the norm in these situations. As we know, they still fight in large bands which has its own warlord, rather like the Indians at BLBH. Imagine if the Indians drove the whites out of the states and planned to form a leadership, it would be the strongest tribe who would try to lead, and the others would argue this and eventually turn on them, this will happen here, the strongest band will want to control Kabul.
Another point is, how the taliban will feed and shelter all the misplaced people, there are masses of refugees fleeing there advance. So what will happen when this is all over, who is going to help these Afghans, the Taliban?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 14, 2021 19:53:45 GMT
There is more to be concerned about than the mechanics of getting our troops out of one enclave in the anal orifice of planet earth. I fully agree with Mike that all those places he listed, as well as a few more are not worth one drop of American blood. Hell, Mexico is not worth one drop of American blood. Canada is, and thereby hangs the tale. American combat power and the sacrifice of her citizens should only be used and undertaken when the outcome will have positive results to restore status quo anti bellum. It should never be used to prop up pettyfogers, and potentates, peoples who underlying moral fiber is someone lower than a Mongolian goat herd. In other words if your not restoring a democratic society, and there are damned few of them being invaded these days, then stay the hell out of conflicts that are none of our goddamned business.
Rome at the height of its power occupied a tribal Britannia for plus or minus four hundred years. They built two rather substantial for the day walls to hold back the barbarians while they attempted to change a Britannic society that did not particularly want to be changed at the moment. In the end they left, pulled up stakes, left Dodge, and within seconds of their departure it was like they were never there. That would be bad enough. Rome failing, a great power screwing up, but that is not all that was happening. While Rome was screwing around in Britain, Gaul, and Palestine, they were being drained from within, and the draining from within is what led to their fall from a great power to a purveyor of pizza.
Never trust Israel, Never trust any middle eastern country. Never depend upon France. The only real friends the United States has are the major nations of the British Commonwealth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 12:07:42 GMT
Just as a historical note, here is the fate of the last Western army to attempt to withdraw from Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires. www.thoughtco.com/britains-disastrous-retreat-from-kabul-1773762Note: Other British forces withdrew and the British did go back and kept Russia out of Afghanistan for the rest of the 19th Century.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2021 14:37:33 GMT
Well Mike I am certainly not trying to imply that the whole thing could not turn upside down real quick. It could. I just don't think it will this time. In their own way, and in this age, they are just as casualty adverse as the Indians here were in the 18th and 19th centuries. That, and they know the eyes of the world are on them.
They have Afghanistan locked up right now. As I write this, they are in the suburbs of Kabul. There is no overriding reason for them to create a bloodbath at this stage of the game. The bloodbath will come, and it will be followed by a civil war that has the potential to last a couple of centuries. That is Afghan business, and none of ours. Hard to say. Hard to watch, but the limitations on our power should be quite evident. Not one thing has changed for our twenty years in that hell hole. It will change, but it will be the Afghans that drive that change, for good or ill, and not people from Pueblo, Colorado, or Bradenton, Florida,
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 15, 2021 18:49:09 GMT
The Taliban have halted outside Kabul and agreed to talks, they promise to not harm the civilians. Other reports say that they have murdered men and boys which they say have helped the western armies, this could mean either acting as guides or selling them pizza. They have also said that they will let women go to school and keep open social media. They must be going soft because they said it was now up to the courts to decide if you get stoned to death or not.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Aug 15, 2021 19:29:06 GMT
The Taliban have halted outside Kabul and agreed to talks, they promise to not harm the civilians. Other reports say that they have murdered men and boys which they say have helped the western armies, this could mean either acting as guides or selling them pizza. They have also said that they will let women go to school and keep open social media. They must be going soft because they said it was now up to the courts to decide if you get stoned to death or not. Ian, Some how my friend, I have this picture of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving this piece of paper containing the Munich agreement assuring peace in our time. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2021 19:43:01 GMT
Courts before stoning to death, that's progress. Twenty years ago they just stoned you to death.
According to my son in law, selling Afghan pizza should be a capital crime.
Dan: What is your solution? We could do as the Romans did in Britannia and stay four hundred years. The only difference then would be that you would not be around when we eventually left the place which would mean you could not refer to Chamberlain. When you play in a ball game, and the home team beats you (and make no mistake they did here about nineteen and a half years ago) it is best to clear the dugout, get on the bus, and return to your home town. There is no shame in being beaten. The shame is when you do not admit and/or realize it, say you were not, and keep the same idiotic policies in place so you will inevitably be beaten again.
With reference to Chamberlain. He was a wimp whose actions sold Britain down the river and directly led to war. The Taliban are nasty pieces of work, but they are not Adolph Hitler. Hitler threatened Western Europe. The Taliban directly threaten no one except within their own borders. Within their own borders is the key phrase here. It is Afghan business how they are governed. It is their business if they chose to fight a civil war until the Second Coming of Christ. If they cause bad actions beyond their borders as they did, then punish them severely, don't try to occupy them and remake their society. If we had not been so intent at the time of creating a democracy where no democracy can currently exist, and contented ourselves with going in killing every son of a bitch that even looked cross eyed at us, and when that was done leave, this present discussion and its cause would not be taking place. When you try to create a democracy in a place like Afghanistan that does not have the underpinnings of modern democracy like the Magna Carta, The Age of Enlightenment, and smugglers in Boston, it is like making bread without yeast, eating fruit cocktail without Jello, or a picnic without a basket of cold fried chicken.
We were successful in establishing solid working democracies in Germany and Japan because the idea of democracy was there before Hitler and Tojo. We even helped create a democracy in Korea, that while being less strong, are still functioning well with a thriving economy. Afghanistan is not Germany, Japan, or Korea, and the same model will not work. The same model will never work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 20:32:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2021 20:41:00 GMT
Waging war should be limited to those times when your own country or that of your allies is directly threatened. Punishing bad actors should not be a cause for unlimited commitment to endless conflict. Severe punishment should be inflicted on each occasion of transgression, and when the level of hurt inflicted is commensurate with the level of transgression, then punishment should then cease. We would not be concerned with the safety of indigenous people who helped us, if we would stick to this principle. There would be none. When you do not stick to the principle outlined above and people do decide to help you, then you are honor bound as a nation to secure their safety, in the same manner you secure the safety of your own forces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 20:49:32 GMT
Again, my principles for American War.
1. Speak softly and carry a big stick. (We seem to shout and our stick is broken.)
2. Let’s you and him fight. (or maybe, pay them not to mess with us.)
3. Go big early. Get there fustest with the mostest.
4. Tragedy is not the business of the American Military.
5. The US should not go to war to protect repressionist dictators, hereditary monarchies, or corrupt regimes.
6. Don’t get involved in civil or in inter-religious wars; let the old colonial powers deal with it.
7. Don’t get involved in a land war in Asia or Africa. (Our record is not so hot when fighting on the continent: Korea: Tie, Viet Nam [we might have been winning when we left, but the South couldn’t use the victory], Iraq 1: Tactical Victory, strategic defeat, Afghanistan: Initial Tactical Victory, but ultimately a Tactical and Strategic defeat, Iraq 2, Tie (Initial Tactical Victory, Strategic Defeat.) so 0-2-2 there.
8.If you must violate rule 6 and 7, make sure the country has a seacoast.
9. If you violate rule 6, 7, and 8, make sure a good ally with a seacoast is adjacent to the country you are fighting (hint: Pakistan <> Good Ally.)
10. Remember, we fight on external lines of communication.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2021 20:58:37 GMT
In addition to you principles Mike, principles that should, in my opinion, evolve into policy, everyone must remember that war, like any human undertaking must have an attainable objective. In war there should never be open ended objectives, and the first time someone suggests moving the objective goal post further away, get rid of them, for no good ever comes of it.
PLEASE ADD NUMBER ELEVEN - Never enter a prolonged conflict with an adversary that can out wait you.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 15, 2021 23:05:45 GMT
There is more to be concerned about than the mechanics of getting our troops out of one enclave in the anal orifice of planet earth. I fully agree with Mike that all those places he listed, as well as a few more are not worth one drop of American blood. Hell, Mexico is not worth one drop of American blood. Canada is, and thereby hangs the tale. American combat power and the sacrifice of her citizens should only be used and undertaken when the outcome will have positive results to restore status quo anti bellum. It should never be used to prop up pettyfogers, and potentates, peoples who underlying moral fiber is someone lower than a Mongolian goat herd. In other words if your not restoring a democratic society, and there are damned few of them being invaded these days, then stay the hell out of conflicts that are none of our goddamned business. Rome at the height of its power occupied a tribal Britainnia for plus or minus four hundred years. They built two rather substantial for the day walls to hold back the barbarians while they attempted to change a Britainnic society that did not particularly want to be changed at the moment. In the end they left, pulled up stakes, left Dodge, and within seconds of their departure it was like they were never there. That would be bad enough. Rome failing, a great power screwing up, but that is not all that was happening. While Rome was screwing around in Britain, Gaul, and Palestine, they were being drained from within, and the draining from within is what led to their fall from a great power to a purveyor of pizza. Never trust Israel, Never trust any middle eastern country. Never depend upon France. The only real friends the United States has are the major nations of the British Commonwealth. Hi QC, I thought i'd contradict your take on Rome in Britain and feed it into the broader thrust. Rome was here to stay. It's core was bi-partisan which is strength and weakness in equal measure. The strengths brought organisation and productivity. It's weaknesses (internal conflicts) brought dissipation of will and purpose. Outward lookin profiteering and inward squabling the spoils. A living breathing excellence which managed what..... 1500 years in some form or other. The military aspect involved the basic tactic of fortification. Sprinkling occupied territory with garrisoned fortresses and quick reaction forces playing whack a mole. Arguably, the only victory this century was 2003 in overwhelming a conventional army. 21st Century, army are caught in politics and politics doing army. Reality has not changed and the game is always whack a mole, from your castle on the hills. Your mantra, I believe - holding the high ground has nothing to do with defence, does it?
|
|