Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 14:05:59 GMT
Actually, the Taliban is active in Pakistan.
I think the NEO will not end well given they DoD says they don't know how many or where all American's are, the difficulties in getting to the airport, and some (many?) troops on the ground are doing what they want in spite of the official line by the Taliban leadership (unless of course they are lying because it is a dictum of Islam you can lie to infidels in order to advance Islam) that they are a kinder, more gentle Taliban and will let Westerners and Afghans who want to leave get to the airport and do so.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 21, 2021 21:06:49 GMT
Mike: If this deployment had ended in 2002 it would not have been the mess it is right now. Still a mess, but a manageable mess. Each year after 2002 any withdrawal would have become more complicated. and as the years progressed until finding ourselves in 2021 any withdrawal would have become exponentially more complicated. We lost this about ten seconds after some idiot decided we were going to make Afghanistan into something it was not, and never will be. It was the correct decision to pull out now, It would have been even more correct to pull out nineteen years ago. Three months from now the American public and the rest of the world will not even be able to find Afghanistan on a map, much less care about it.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 23, 2021 15:33:45 GMT
It is encouraging to hear that the Taliban says they will respect Women, not kill the men who helped the allies and also ban all terrorists groups from settling in their country. You are kidding right? AQ, is already there, some more were freed from prison, ISIS is there as well. And more will flock there as well. When we bailed on Bagram AFB, in he dark of the night, without telling anyone early last month we opened the door for all sorts of bad actors to come on stage and out of hiding. Real time air cover was off the board, easy egress was off the board. We left every hanging, including our allies who know are having to run a gauntlet to get their people out. With regard to women, again you jest. The whole US plan is a disgrace.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 23, 2021 15:42:54 GMT
I hope it backfires on them in the long term, as they do like to cosy up with nations whose leaders dislike the west, look at north Korea and Iran. You are alluding to China and Russia above and the first Chinese propaganda aimed at Taiwan and Hong Kong stated see how your benefactor and perceived ally treats their allies. Regards, Tom
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 23, 2021 16:36:31 GMT
I have no military experience, except 2 years of ROTC, similar to that of the icon “Keogh” that Deadwood, Ian, QC and myself revere for his vast military knowledge. But I have a couple of questions that you veterans might assist in answering for me if you would.
1) Why abandon Bagram Airbase with its secure facility and 2 runways?
2) Did the administration give the DOD the authority to handle this with drawl or was the DOD just playing catch up?
3) Should the US had designed and executed an organized plan to enable allies and Americans to be transported to the civilian airport before the withdrawl?
4) Should we had sent patrols outside the airfield to escort /rescue our people?
5) Is this a withdrawal or an abandonment?
6) Has this event caused great concern among our allies as to America's envolement in future world events?
7) Was this debacle inevitable with any withdrawl and not an error by the administration?
Not seeking a bashing or rehashing of politics just attempting to make my own judgment about this situation.
Regards
David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 23, 2021 18:22:51 GMT
Dave:
As I stated above had we done this 19 years ago it would have been less of a mess, but a mess nonetheless. Consider moving into a new house 20 years ago. Picking up and moving after a couple of months would be a heck of a lot easier than moving today, having collected twenty years of stuff in the those last 20 years. The longer you are in some place the harder it is to move.
1. We did not abandon Bagram. We turned it over to Afghanistan. They abandoned it.
2. Any time something happens along these lines it is a whole government issue, because we have more in Afghanistan than just DOD. In fact I cannot think of any U S Government agency that is not involved in Afghanistan in some way.
3. Had we done what you suggest in point 3, then we would have pre-broadcast to the entire world that we had absolutely no confidence in the Afghan government's stability. Not the kind of thing you want to advertise. You may think it. You may know it. You just don't say it with your actions.
4 Your Point 4 is closely related to your Point 3. What do you consider as being a sufficient size "patrol"? I doubt, highly doubt if we could have done this at any time during the last twenty years with any hope of success beyond the 50 percent level. At this stage of the game we are fortunate that our troop levels are sufficient to hold the Kabul airport.
5. Both, depending upon who is doing the saying. We are withdrawing our troops, and Americans serving in other government agencies, as well as getting as many Afghans that helped us out as we can. As we can is the operative phrase. It is an abandonment, at least temporarily, of the idea that we can change the world by our presence, anywhere, when they have no desire to change. As far as the abandonment portion of this answer goes, I hope it is a permanent change of U S policy.
6. When this country cuts a fart it is of great concern to our allies. but those same allies know that they cannot feel secure without the support of the United States, so they will make public statements, but in the same breath they will be ever so glad that they were not in our position. If you wish an historical example, just look at the great difficulty lasting forty years or more, when the European powers withdrew from their colonial empires. Exactly the same things happened as are happening today in Afghanistan.
7. I am not sure it is a debacle. History will decide that. Debacles are not something that can be decided in the moment. To directly address your question though, what is happening is an error on the part of the last four administrations, Clinton to Trump, in a direct sense. Biden will take the heat, but he is the only one who had the moral courage to do the right thing for our country, because it was right, knowing full well that the political repercussions would be great, and coming from both directions. Had he been listened to in 2009, when he told Obama we should withdraw instead of increase our presence, it would have been eleven years easier to move.
In a larger sense it goes back even further to every administration since 1945. We had great success in nation building in Germany and Japan. Both of those nations though had at least the underpinnings of democracy existing before World War II. With Germany and Japan, we took what lay dormant, revived it, then built upon it. The same could be said in the rest of Europe, in that the Marshall Plan allowed us to start the restoration of war torn countries, so as not to allow communism, which loves instability, to take hold. We took the wrong lessons from our success, and have used the same model in every situation since. We kept the wolf away from the door in Korea, but not by much, and have failed everyplace else since then. Someday we will learn the lesson that the United States government should not be in the business of nation building on foreign shores. If a nation cannot build itself, then it has no business being a nation. If they ask our help, and it is in our interests to help them, do so. That does not mean we build it for them, and the "in our interest" are the operative words.
Another lesson that should always be heeded by national leaders and the public alike. When generals tell you that victory is just around the corner - fire the sons of bitches, they are lying to you. The only thing around the corner is the enemy, and victory will be achieved ONLY when they decide to give up.
You said you were not interested in rehashing politics. OK then, I have stayed away from politics as much as possible in this answer. So do yourself a favor and don't listen to anyone, including myself, and make up your own mind. You must always remember though that Clausewitz tells us that war is politics by other means. That roughly translates as, you cannot separate the two. If you do as I suggest use your common sense and do a cost benefit analysis of each of your seven points. One example your Point 4: How many people are you willing to lose to effect the rescue of a few? If you think you can accomplish what you suggest with impunity, you are dead wrong.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 23, 2021 19:25:20 GMT
It is encouraging to hear that the Taliban says they will respect Women, not kill the men who helped the allies and also ban all terrorists groups from settling in their country. You are kidding right? AQ, is already there, some more were freed from prison, ISIS is there as well. And more will flock there as well. When we bailed on Bagram AFB, in he dark of the night, without telling anyone early last month we opened the door for all sorts of bad actors to come on stage and out of hiding. Real time air cover was off the board, easy egress was off the board. We left every hanging, including our allies who know are having to run a gauntlet to get their people out. With regard to women, again you jest. The whole US plan is a disgrace.
Regards, TomTo be honest with you Tom, I am totally not arsed about the whole place, I leave it to the people who we pay our taxes to and let them worry about it, nothing to do with me this lark, sick of these nations like the countries in Africa, who want us to fight their wars for them, sod em all! All these Islamic terroists groups all get their arms and ammo from somewhere, so why don't we shut down that avenue. Lets face it, do the Taliban have AK47 factories which churn out these weappons along with millions of rounds of 7.62mm ammo? Do the Taliban leaders go to the nearest cash machine a draw out money to pay for weapons? Some bastards are selling them this stuff.
I suggest we all forget about it because there is nothing we can do about it, I bet we all have more pressing things going on in our personel lives then that place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2021 20:09:13 GMT
/Rant ON I'm stealing parts from another program, era, and president, namely JFK's speech to Congress about the Apollo Program. I'm gonna cut out bunches of it, but the whole thing can be read here: www.space.com/11772-president-kennedy-historic-speech-moon-space.htmlIn my view, this is pretty much the last time a president actually came out with a national agenda, with a specified timeline, that was relatively successfully proposed, legislated, implement ed, and executed. It called for a small measure of shared sacrifice in the form of higher taxes to support the program, even so Kennedy started to have doubts about the expense and proposed to Khrushchev that we join together in the Lunar effort. Khrushchev reportedly was considering it, but was deposed after the Kennedy meeting. In 1965 NASA had a high of 5% of the federal budget, today it is usually between 0.5-1.0. Today the military gets about 15% of the budget, but 53% of the 'discretionary' funding. It seems to me, Presidents and Congress (and other nations similar bodies) should study this speech (the whole thing, not just my snippets) and internalize it. May 25, 1961: JFK's Moon Shot Speech to CongressThe other speech of note from the same Time Period is his Rice University speech on 12 SEP 1962. www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/rice-university-19620912. Here I will just list one paragraph:
From that time forward, this is pretty much what our leaders seem to say. RANT OFF/
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 23, 2021 21:27:51 GMT
I believe you are totally correct Mike. There is no national agenda, which to use other words, means no national strategy. Until one is developed, we will depend upon some crazy quilt of reaction, instead of pro-action. Reaction cannot sustain itself. The only thing that can be sustained is a clear cut lay down of what we are about, and not about.
The first line item on that strategic lay down is never fight for a country that is not willing to fight for itself. That should be the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth items as well.
The next clause in the strategic lay down must be never try to remake societies, cultures, and people. What they are now, is what they will be, until they decide to become something different. We are not in the deciding for others business.
The next clause should be simple - Trust no one. They do not care about you, so why should we care about them. You may share national interests, and while they are shared you may make common cause. When those interests no longer pertain, the caring is done. Always remember our first war as a nation was with France, who was also our first ally.
Never trust the American military to do the right thing, if they can get a bigger budget by doing the wrong thing, and trying to convince you it is right. Anyone who does not believe in what Eisenhower called, and told us to beware of, - The Military - Industrial - Political Complex, is a goddamned fool, who needs their head examined for the presence of brain cells.
The last thing is - Do The Right Thing For The Country, Even Though It May Be Unpopular, and, Never Do The Wrong Thing Because It Is Popular. Popularity fades, human beings die. As I recall there was one member of Congress, Barbara Lee, that voted against going into a prolonged war in Afghanistan. She looks a hell of a lot smarter today than she did twenty years ago.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 23, 2021 23:15:01 GMT
Chuck thank you for your response. I honetsly don't know what was or not done and sought info from those who knowledge in this matter exceedes mine.
I hav heard all the political views from everyone who has a microphone or pen and was seeking unbiased ideas. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 24, 2021 0:13:14 GMT
Well Dave anyone who tells you they are unbiased, including me, is lying to you. Everyone has a bias.
As of today, we have evacuated 50,000 people out of Afghanistan in eight days. That's pretty darned good by anyone's yardstick. We probably have a week or ten days to complete the job, no more. Then it is time for us to go, and say we are done. The thing that concerns me most, is that we will continue to make the same mistakes in thinking we can rebuild societies,and change nations to the image and likeness of ourselves. We can't. That leaves us with only one option for third world states governed by bad actors, or that harbor bad actors. We must wage an unconventional campaign against them, and not go for any wholesale commitment of large forces, that in the end only lead to where we are at today, a huge problem with no really good solution. I am no big Montrose fan, but one thing he said, more than once, stuck with me - History tells us that Unconventional Warfare is really the convention. We need to take that to heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 2:45:50 GMT
This is why I have this principle of "Don't invade a country without a seacoast." Afghanitsan doesn't have one and Pakistan in not really our ally, so that is a damn tough fight even if they were our friend. With a sea coast, at least the Navy could cover the final pocket of forces and we could sort of a do a Dunkirk to withdraw. (Like we did in Somalia, the last forces left over the beach as I recall). Iraq has a small seacoast but it is in the middle of a choke point and not very big. There we had Kuwait where we could go back in (but not Saudi Arabia).
The US Army fought unconventional war almost from its founding with some notable exceptions in the Revolution, then of course the Civil War. Afghanistan is not the longest war the Nation has fought, it's the Indian Wars. But every since the Civil War, we wanted to have "real" wars like Europe. Without a direct land threat to the country, we should focus on incursions, raids, strikes, pecuniary expeditions, sea control and denial. The only direct land threat we have comes through Mexico and at the moment it is a population migration versus a armed threat, but one could make a case to militarily fortify the southern border. Canada whupped us twice as I recall, so it is just as well we don't go up there. The threat from Russia to Alaska is minimal, but could bear some positioning there, just to keep them more honest.
Today I was musing that Sheridan's plan for Terry/Custer/Gibbon and Crook was marginally better than the plans we had in Afghanistan and Iraq II. But they both failed to properly resource it and Sheridan never specified and supported the main effort. Afghanistan should have been the main effort, been a strike/raid, and we should have just left, and never bothered with Iraq II. They weren't going anywhere and most likely were not aligned with AQ or the like at the time.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 24, 2021 14:40:01 GMT
From a geopolitical point of view, what is happening in Afghanistan today, is, or soon will be, of great benefit to the United States, and slightly less, but still great to the western world as a whole. A stable Afghanistan, even under harsh rulers will restore the balance of power in the region, a balance that was lost when we went into Iraq the second time. Iran now has to look at her back door. Pakistan their front. Neither of these two countries have a traditional ally in Afghanistan, but they do have a traditional enemy. The other Stans on Afghanistan's northern border have cause for concern as well.
What is in Afghanistan's interest is to establish economic ties, especially with China, China being their closest source of modern goods. Do not make the mistake that Afghanistan in 2021 and the near future years to come, is the same Afghanistan that the Taliban ran in the 1990's after Russia's departure. What will be there are rising expectations of the Afghan people - a redux of "How're you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree". China can provide Paree, but the price will be stability in Afghanistan, and stability does not mean that Afghanistan becomes a base for people who hate China and Russia, as much as they hate the west. It is my firm belief that the Taliban will in some fashion do a lot of our own work of anti-terrorism for us. It is in their national interest to do so. The area that we must all be concerned about as far as terrorism goes is Africa.
It is also well to remember that nations do not make policy. Human beings that run nations make policy, and they make that policy based upon their own interests, just like you and I do, in the policies that concern our daily lives. Those policy makers are just like us. They will not do anything that they believe to be knowingly harmful to themselves. They, despite what they say, don't look backward either. Only idiots look backward, when the thrust line of history is forward. So do not be so much concerned with what they may say, just be watchful of what they do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2021 0:13:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 25, 2021 1:46:37 GMT
Mike on 31 August we will have folded our tent and be out of there. By that time we will most likely have about a 120,000 people extracted from that place. There is no military on the face of this earth that could do what is being done on a daily basis in Afghanistan. We are not only going to get out of that hell hole, we are going to do it without one U S Casualty from enemy fire, I would predict.
Now you and I both know that most generals are where they are not because of their military prowess. In fact most of them would piss their pants in public rather that make a judgment call that may turn out to be a mistake. So they will be cautious, and error free. And those people breed. Goddamned shame isn't it?
|
|