Afghan War ending, foretold by The Onion 10 years Ago [DT thread ruined by politics]

[Js1 85310]

16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

After about 2004, it was always going to end this way.  Biden was just the first President to nut up and take the L. 
 

I think he could have handled the withdrawal more effectively, but regardless, it was going to be Saigon in 75, no matter what we did.  It could have been 2007, 2010, 2019, whatever.  But us abandoning the embassy and leaving our allies behind was the guaranteed part.

Pretty much.  Someone had to do fucking do it.  

[InkaUtexas 25904]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Agreed. It’s entirely fucked up, and it makes it so much harder for us to get local allies in the future. Not like everyone in Afghanistan is on Twitter, but it’s not the olden days where stories only got around by word of mouth and nobody knew if they were true. Now it’s clearly out there that we won’t ensure your safety when we leave. On the other hand, I don’t know what those folks were incentivized by. Did they help us because they were told they’d receive US citizenship? Or were they doing it because they wanted us to win, and they intended to remain in Afghanistan? Maybe Inka can shed some light on that based on the relationship with his interpreter. The government officials were surely doing it to make their country better, and a lot of them are going to die, but we don’t have an obligation to get them out. We spent a long time training them for this, and they basically fell within weeks. We either really suck as teachers, or the Afghan people just don’t want to be changed.

Alim since he hated the Taliban. He came from an academic family in Helmand and they had a hard time under their rule. One thing about the Talibs is unless you were one of them you were not going to get a good job, etc. He never thought he would be a US Citizen and when we finally got him and his wife out he was shocked. Now he drives a big rig on long hauls across the US and is saving up his pennies to buy his own. Our other interpreter was a Hazara who spent his life living in refugee camps in Iran. For him it was a job and he took the first chance to get to Australia that he could. He is now a prison guard there. 

One thing we did very wrong was think equipping the ANA to look like us was the way to win. We taught a lot of tactics we brought over from Iraq and this tied them to a strict supply chain. Hummers use a lot more fuel than motor bikes. Another thing we did was advocate for soldiers from the north to be sent to teh south. This caused a lot of issues across the tribal boundaries. The people in Helmand never were going to trust someone from Mazar or Kunduz. So when the fighting started again soldiers did defect and head back to their homes and joined up with militias. 

[Brothahorn 10087]

Fuck Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz.

[crash_davis 23107]

not making this political. just funny and interesting how politics changes after a few years. 

we are dealing with and "loss" to folks who wear sandals to meetings with heads of state. all of those advanced weapons couldn't defeat dogma. how do you save a people for whom the majority don't want to be saved, at least not our definition of saved.

[InkaUtexas 25904]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

I was

I was also in the same area. We were on FOB Gereshk, based out of the British base in Lash Ka Gar. HQ was in Kandahar though. So we patrolled all up and down the same roads probably. I was there in 2007, we were the ones who retook Musa Qala with the Brits.

Looks like my hope that the women and children who experienced some measure of freedom the past 2 decades would stand up was unfounded. They're being re-subjugated pretty easily. So now I expect the government will be surrounded and fall pretty quickly. A lot of people will die, the Islamic Fundamentalists will regain control, the international community will levy sanctions against them, they'll essentially be North Korea number 2 in about 5 years, and the rest of us will move on.

Afghan forces just appointed a new army chief and a new head of the special operations command. O'Donnell said it's difficult to know now what will come from these appointments.

I was there about the same time and remember it well. We got stuck in the Brit perimeter in Sanguin for a few days. So yeah, we definitely have seen some of the same roads. 

Fun times.

I would go to the PRT about 3-4 times a week to brief the Brits. We lived 4 houses down from the Govenors place but our primary operation was out at the Development farm in Bost. 

[NoRagrets 1125]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Pretty much.  Someone had to do fucking do it.  

Nonsense. We had 3,000 troops there keeping the peace with very limited hostile interactions at this point. This also kept the country from falling into the hands of the barbaric Taliban again where terrorism and cruelty will fostered. In addition, we had a great strategic military position between Iran and Pakistan.

This is a failure politically, diplomatically, and strategically (militarily). Biden took the L for no reason. It’s not an issue here domestically and now we are weaker internationally.

Why don’t we just close all of our foreign bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.? Because it’s stupid strategy, that’s why!

[Brisketexan 105095]

5 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

Nonsense. We had 3,000 troops there keeping the peace with very limited hostile interactions at this point. This also kept the country from falling into the hands of the barbaric Taliban again where terrorism and cruelty will fostered. In addition, we had a great strategic military position between Iran and Pakistan.

This is a failure politically, diplomatically, and strategically (militarily). Biden took the L for no reason. It’s not an issue here domestically and now we are weaker internationally.

Why don’t we just close all of our foreign bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.? Because it’s stupid strategy, that’s why!

Well....there's also the small matter of those bases and the troops stationed there not suffering an enemy attack like.....ever.  So, the "cost" of keeping them open is just a TEENSY bit lower than our presence in Afghanistan.

Would it be nifty to have a nice, peaceful base of operations in the region?  Sure.  It it worth the trillion bucks and oceans of blood we spent to get it, and the continued expenditure of same to hold it?  No fucking way.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Brisketexan

[NoRagrets 1125]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well....there's also the small matter of those bases and the troops stationed there not suffering an enemy attack like.....ever.  So, the "cost" of keeping them open is just a TEENSY bit lower than our presence in Afghanistan.

Would it be nifty to have a nice, peaceful base of operations in the region?  Sure.  It it worth the trillion bucks and oceans of blood we spent to get it, and the continued expenditure of same to hold it?  No fucking way.

The sunk costs suck but they are sunk. But our current and future military presence was going to be minimal to keep our strategic goals mostly secure. 

No doubt we will be less safe as a country when the Taliban inevitably takes over and ISIS and Al Quaeda flourish.

I think we as Americans have taken for granted how safe and insulated our nation has been for 20 years from international terrorism. That might change pretty soon literally because of this hasty withdrawal.

Edited August 13, 2021 by NoRagrets

[Brisketexan 105095]

13 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

The sunk costs suck but they are sunk. But our current and future military presence was going to be minimal to keep our strategic goals mostly secure. 

No doubt we will be less safe as a country when the Taliban inevitably takes over and ISIS and Al Quaeda flourish.

I think we as Americans have taken for granted how safe and insulated our nation has been for 20 years from international terrorism. That might change pretty soon literally because of this hasty withdrawal.

If you think we won't be monitoring the shit out of the region from satellite, air, and paid local intel (we'll still have spooks and assets), you are dead wrong.  And if we see AQ development that could contribute to terrorist attacks, we'll damn well blow them the hell up.

All of that said....we can't stop all terrorism.  We made Afghanistan a not-optimal base for AQ for the past 20 years.  There are plenty of other places for AQ and ISIS to do their work.

[HRSchenker 2268]

I wish we'd come home tonight from that shithole country. Thousands of lives lost, trillions spent in weapons and training, and the Afghans are going to lose their country to the Taliban. Well guess what fuckers, we're leaving and hopefully never coming back. 

[InkaUtexas 25904]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If you think we won't be monitoring the shit out of the region from satellite, air, and paid local intel (we'll still have spooks and assets), you are dead wrong.  And if we see AQ development that could contribute to terrorist attacks, we'll damn well blow them the hell up.

All of that said....we can't stop all terrorism.  We made Afghanistan a not-optimal base for AQ for the past 20 years.  There are plenty of other places for AQ and ISIS to do their work.

So why are we not now? Why are we not hammering the Taliban columns?

Air power can only do so much. To truly deny space to an enemy you have to have daily interaction with your partners. It is why we have not been able to keep up with Al Shabbab in Somalia or Mozambique. Drones do not win wars. They punish targets. And if you were an Afghan would you want to work with our spooks after this? 

Just wondering your thoughts on this. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

So why are we not now? Why are we not hammering the Taliban columns?

Air power can only do so much. To truly deny space to an enemy you have to have daily interaction with your partners. It is why we have not been able to keep up with Al Shabbab in Somalia or Mozambique. Drones do not win wars. They punish targets. And if you were an Afghan would you want to work with our spooks after this? 

Just wondering your thoughts on this. 

Ummm...we are hitting the Taliban columns, and have been.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/08/12/from-kobani-to-kabul-can-us-bombers-halt-taliban-advances-in-afghanistan/?sh=2120f6161d53

And it isn't about whether people want to work with our spooks.  We will pay for intel.  Not about what their neighbors are doing in their local tribal spat, or what the Taliban is doing against the gov't, but about the thing that interests us: whether they are providing a training ground and launching points for attacks against the US.

When it comes to maintaining a material military presence in Afghanistan, the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and hasn't been for a long-ass time.

[InkaUtexas 25904]

having big army was not worth it. SF Teams, analysts, mechanic advisors (Afghan AF) was not a big foot print. 

And nah, we are not. I talk to Afghans daily. Whereas we would hammer the shit out of a sniper position with A-10's is done, our B-52 flights are more for our media than to support them on the ground. 

Concerning intel gathering, sure worked great learning all about that about 21 years ago. 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105095]

4 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

having big army was not worth it. SF Teams, analysts, mechanic advisors (Afghan AF) was not a big foot print. 

And nah, we are not. I talk to Afghans daily. Whereas we would hammer the shit out of a sniper position with A-10's is done, our B-52 flights are more for our media than to support them on the ground. 

Concerning intel gathering, sure worked great learning all about that about 21 years ago. 

 

 

We functionally didn't HAVE intel in the area 21 years ago.  That was a pretty foundational problem.

And we can't go back in time and do this right.  We can't keep SF teams and a small presence there now (we'd have to bring in more troops to defend them and their positions, and then more troops to defend THOSE troops' positions, etc.).  Afghanistan, collectively, doesn't want us there.  Some of them do.  But not enough.  

Some wars can't be won.  It sucks.  But it's still true.

[elfenix 34230]

8 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

A fun example of this is how Llamas and Alpacas can be, but their close cousin, Vicunas, says fuck you, I am not carrying a god damn thing.

Quote

Vicuñas are relatives of the llama, and are now believed to be the wild ancestor of domesticated alpacas, which are raised for their coats.

🤔

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

8 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah it can get a little tedious,

This. I thought it was a good read but I’m not sure I needed the specifics on how certain ancient grains germinate

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This. I thought it was a good read but I’m not sure I needed the specifics on how certain ancient grains germinate

Yes, the tedious part ^^^

[RomaVicta 29905]

6 hours ago, Mole said:

A few unrelated thoughts:

1. My military service was very insulated from most of the dangers of these stupid wars. The wars were obviously pointless and ill-conceived for so long, yet seeing the news of the past few weeks has been a bit of an existential kick in the pants. We try to conjure up some bigger meaning to a sacrifice, but seeing the plain futility is a lot to wrestle with.

2. I have friends who are recently retired or nearing retirement. They were junior enlisted when 9/11 happened or joined in the patriotic fervor of the era. The war took up pretty much their entire military career. Again, a lot to take in.

3. So much suffering: deaths, lifetimes of pain, suicides, and addiction. I tend to comprehend global issues in personal terms, so I can’t help but think of a few friends whose lives went totally off the rails thanks to their service in the war on terror. The scale of American suffering as well as all of those living in the middle of all of this is beyond my comprehension.

4.Democracy requires consent of the governed. Consent and foreign military actions seem to be in a bit of a conflict.

Great post. I've never served, but I do try to get as much perspective as I can because war policy is so important. It's also fascinating because of the inherent drama.

I first started thinking about American soldiers fighting for an empty cause after Viet Nam. People hate to say somebody died for nothing. Those who wanted us there believed (made themselves believe) that it was a show of will against communism. Most everybody agreed in the mid 60s. 

When those who were to be drafted to fight or those who cared about them raised questions about the war, you had the horrifying response that "if we leave now, all of those guys who've already died died for nothing." We must respect their sacrifice by adding yours (not mine) to it. 

That is absolutely mortifying. And it repeats in all of these needless wars. It delays putting an end or stopping a bad fucking idea.

But we were discussing the soldiers. I hope you can give your opinion about this:

In the field, soldiers do not think of the Constitution, patriotic rhetoric, or all the other cheap theater for the viewers at home. I read over and over that soldiers fight for their comrades who, in turn, fight for them. "We're all in this world of shit together. Right now, this world of shit is all there is. Let's try to stay alive and kill them so they won't kill us."

I believe this. It makes sense.

But when it's all over, and the soldier reviews the damage and injury he's caused and received, then comes the why. Why?

Soldiers don't get much say in what they're ordered to do. They have a duty to execute orders derived from policies made by government. Duty. Duty to their arm of the military. Duty to the country. Duty to each other.

As individuals, I felt that satisfaction in executing their duty would help to offset the horrible answer to why. In this context of duty, soldiers who honorably serve are equal whether they fought their way through Omaha Beach, held on at Khe Sahn, or conducted helicopter strike after helicopter strike invading Iraq. (I recall a story as that war wore on that some (many?) helicopter pilots were getting emotionally fucked up because the enemy was so helpless against them most of the time. It was a slaughter.)

Do soldiers take satisfaction in that? Is that aspect of military service focused on enough? Do you agree that all honorably serving military persons are equal no matter the war?

Maybe it all seems obvious, but I can't tell for sure because I've never walked in those boots. I'd be grateful of your opinion or the opinion of any other veterans.

[InkaUtexas 25904]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We functionally didn't HAVE intel in the area 21 years ago.  That was a pretty foundational problem.

And we can't go back in time and do this right.  We can't keep SF teams and a small presence there now (we'd have to bring in more troops to defend them and their positions, and then more troops to defend THOSE troops' positions, etc.).  Afghanistan, collectively, doesn't want us there.  Some of them do.  But not enough.  

Some wars can't be won.  It sucks.  But it's still true.

Yeah, you can. We do it all over the world without big army. We did not have the 82nd guarding the 300-500 SOCOM Operators in Somalia. We do not have the marines guarding the A-teams in Mozambique. We could have kept a reaction/advisor force in Kabul, Bagram, KAF, handing them over to the Afghans to run the bases. We do this all over the world. It is about confidence and trust. 

The majority of Afghans do want us there. They did not want us to be running Iraq style. 

Concerning the intel. We spent the 1980's building a network and directing it to fuck up the Soviets. Yeah, we did have a regional network, but it has to be constantly active my man. So now I guess we are just going to listen to Pakistan and trust them. 

Not trying to argue with you, but having spent about 4 years of my life in Afghanistan, over 20 years of my professional career, maybe I just see certain things could have been done. The Surge was a joke and made us look like an occupation force. Our non-Afghan Allies, except the Canadians, Brits and French, were happy to cruise around Kabul and the North and just stay out of harms way. 

My tomorrow starts with a crisis call with a US NGO operating in Afghanistan. There are Americans across the country, not supporting military actions, and we have to figure out how to get them and as many Afghans who worked with us out. 

[RomaVicta 29905]

3 hours ago, NoRagrets said:

The sunk costs suck but they are sunk. But our current and future military presence was going to be minimal to keep our strategic goals mostly secure. 

No doubt we will be less safe as a country when the Taliban inevitably takes over and ISIS and Al Quaeda flourish.

I think we as Americans have taken for granted how safe and insulated our nation has been for 20 years from international terrorism. That might change pretty soon literally because of this hasty withdrawal.

Number one, removing special forces from a job they are specifically trained for spelled the end of a chance at a good outcome.

Number two, I wanted out as soon as we were through fucking up Al Quaeda there. But they'll come back! So then we'll come back and kick the shit out of them again.

Number three, following a pattern of number two above would mean the military would have specific military missions.  I also think it would have been less bloody for us and less costly than going old style Army and setting up camps and trying to control Indian Country.

Number four, do the above and you can actually claim victories here and there. Real victories.

We are not liberating France or Belgium with these wars. We're not rebuilding something familiar. It's not true that inside every gook there's an American trying to get out. 

Maintaining bases, in my opinion, galvanized opposition to anything we supported. We. Are. An. Invader. 

Develop the capability to move large forces of Delta or SEALs anywhere in the world with supply, air support, and means of rapid extraction. It's the way the idioticall named "War on Terror" should have been carried out all along. I urged that a million years ago on Hornfans.

It's not an abstract war against whatever "terror" is supposed to mean. It's a war on the people who mean this country harm. Period. We have ways to conduct that kind of a war with specific tactical and strategic goals.

Okay, I may publish my posts on this thread in a three volume set. Roma's Roaming Rants.

[Bateshorn 9927]

27 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This. I thought it was a good read but I’m not sure I needed the specifics on how certain ancient grains germinate

My comment on it was: I get it, you’ve convinced me Diamond.  Jesus, I still have another 200 pages?

[NoRagrets 1125]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Number one, removing special forces from a job they are specifically trained for spelled the end of a chance at a good outcome.

Number two, I wanted out as soon as we were through fucking up Al Quaeda there. But they'll come back! So then we'll come back and kick the shit out of them again.

Number three, following a pattern of number two above would mean the military would have specific military missions.  I also think it would have been less bloody for us and less costly than going old style Army and setting up camps and trying to control Indian Country.

Number four, do the above and you can actually claim victories here and there. Real victories.

We are not liberating France or Belgium with these wars. We're not rebuilding something familiar. It's not true that inside every gook there's an American trying to get out. 

Maintaining bases, in my opinion, galvanized opposition to anything we supported. We. Are. An. Invader. 

Develop the capability to move large forces of Delta or SEALs anywhere in the world with supply, air support, and means of rapid extraction. It's the way the idioticall named "War on Terror" should have been carried out all along. I urged that a million years ago on Hornfans.

It's not an abstract war against whatever "terror" is supposed to mean. It's a war on the people who mean this country harm. Period. We have ways to conduct that kind of a war with specific tactical and strategic goals.

Okay, I may publish my posts on this thread in a three volume set. Roma's Roaming Rants.

It’s a good argument. However, would you change your opinion knowing we haven’t had a military casualty since February 2020?

[Bateshorn 9927]

15 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Number one, removing special forces from a job they are specifically trained for spelled the end of a chance at a good outcome.

Number two, I wanted out as soon as we were through fucking up Al Quaeda there. But they'll come back! So then we'll come back and kick the shit out of them again.

Number three, following a pattern of number two above would mean the military would have specific military missions.  I also think it would have been less bloody for us and less costly than going old style Army and setting up camps and trying to control Indian Country.

Number four, do the above and you can actually claim victories here and there. Real victories.

We are not liberating France or Belgium with these wars. We're not rebuilding something familiar. It's not true that inside every gook there's an American trying to get out. 

Maintaining bases, in my opinion, galvanized opposition to anything we supported. We. Are. An. Invader. 

Develop the capability to move large forces of Delta or SEALs anywhere in the world with supply, air support, and means of rapid extraction. It's the way the idioticall named "War on Terror" should have been carried out all along. I urged that a million years ago on Hornfans.

It's not an abstract war against whatever "terror" is supposed to mean. It's a war on the people who mean this country harm. Period. We have ways to conduct that kind of a war with specific tactical and strategic goals.

Okay, I may publish my posts on this thread in a three volume set. Roma's Roaming Rants.

I hate Ron Paul.  HATE.  I worked in Congress when he was a member of our delegation.  De. Spies.

 

but to paraphrase him: They don’t hate us because we love freedom, capitalism, and titties.  They hate us because we are over there. 
 

For all you pro occupation cucks: you are arguing we should occupy a country indefinitely to protect our nation.  This isnt fucking German, they aren’t an ally.  The only people who like us in Afghanistan are the elite who rely on us to be muscle for their klepto state. 
 

we’ve spent Close to 3 trillion in that country.  You could replace America’s highways from coast  to coast, harden all our ports and airports, and still have cash for Medicare or school improvement with that kind of coin. 

We lost.  You can either wallow in your shit or get on with the future.  There is no victory, just an endless occupation, while the Taliban shadow controls the country side and we live in denial of the human and treasure cost of our folly and debacle. 
 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Bateshorn

[RomaVicta 29905]

9 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

It’s a good argument. However, would you change your opinion knowing we haven’t had a military casualty since February 2020?

No.

Our presence there is a polarizing negative. We didn't go their to kill the Taliban. We went there attack the terrorists who attacked us. Defeating the Taliban was a strategic necessity but not the strategic goal at least until  it became the strategic goal as we decided to indulge our freedom/democracy fantasy.

Do we know if the Taliban received increase support from locals and foreign support because we were there? I honestly don't have proof, but it seems like a likely series of events. Our presence may actually have made the Taliban stronger.

Just as in South Vietnam, if they won't fight to keep out this enemy, why should we? As others have written, our interest is killing people who want to kill us. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

We should have gone in there, routed the taliban, killed osama, and the told the Afghan government you have 5-10 years to get your shit together or else we’re leaving. We will help in that endeavor. Unless you harbor terrorists again who attack America again and then, we’re coming back again. It was pointless to do what we did unless you’re Erik prince and Halliburton making a ton of bucks. 
 

Iraq was even worse.

[Pods 7552]

1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

My tomorrow starts with a crisis call with a US NGO operating in Afghanistan. There are Americans across the country, not supporting military actions, and we have to figure out how to get them and as many Afghans who worked with us out. 

 

Those are our allies and they are dead if they stay. Is there anything we can do to help? 

[InkaUtexas 25904]

6 minutes ago, Pods said:

 

Those are our allies and they are dead if they stay. Is there anything we can do to help? 

Nope, not really. Trying to find third party countries we can get them into. Those who went to school in India are one thing, but a lot are stuck in Herat or Helmand. 

Like I posted earlier, it is the support staff that are fucked. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

This. I thought it was a good read but I’m not sure I needed the specifics on how certain ancient grains germinate

Mmmmm…..grain porn.

Don’t judge me.

Yeah, you can. We do it all over the world without big army. We did not have the 82nd guarding the 300-500 SOCOM Operators in Somalia. We do not have the marines guarding the A-teams in Mozambique. We could have kept a reaction/advisor force in Kabul, Bagram, KAF, handing them over to the Afghans to run the bases. We do this all over the world. It is about confidence and trust. 
The majority of Afghans do want us there. They did not want us to be running Iraq style. 
Concerning the intel. We spent the 1980's building a network and directing it to fuck up the Soviets. Yeah, we did have a regional network, but it has to be constantly active my man. So now I guess we are just going to listen to Pakistan and trust them. 
Not trying to argue with you, but having spent about 4 years of my life in Afghanistan, over 20 years of my professional career, maybe I just see certain things could have been done. The Surge was a joke and made us look like an occupation force. Our non-Afghan Allies, except the Canadians, Brits and French, were happy to cruise around Kabul and the North and just stay out of harms way. 
My tomorrow starts with a crisis call with a US NGO operating in Afghanistan. There are Americans across the country, not supporting military actions, and we have to figure out how to get them and as many Afghans who worked with us out. 

Appreciate your experienced perspective. Please continue to share it.

I just can’t get past the juice not being with the squeeze. 3 trillion, for not much benefit. We routed AQ. Cool. We could have done that for 1/5th the money, and maybe 5% of the American casualties. The rest….was wasted. And our continued presence would have been a huge monument of “the occupied infidel” for the entire Muslim world. Even with what you’re sharif here, I can’t come up with a way that it’s worth it.

That said….we have a non-negotiable duty to protect those who served us over there, and to get them the hell out if that’s what they need. That is written in stone to me.

My comment on it was: I get it, you’ve convinced me Diamond.  Jesus, I still have another 200 pages?

Well, I’m a really fast reader (read Lonesome Dove in one sitting), so that didn’t bother me. And, you know….sexy germinating grain porn….

[Pods 7552]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Nope, not really. Trying to find third party countries we can get them into. Those who went to school in India are one thing, but a lot are stuck in Herat or Helmand. 

Like I posted earlier, it is the support staff that are fucked. 

If there is, please don't hesitate to ask. This board may be filled with assholes, but they are assholes with heart. 

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

After about 2004, it was always going to end this way.  Biden was just the first President to nut up and take the L.

Don’t forget that this was Trump’s policy and if he had been re-elected then U.S. troops would’ve been pulled out in May. Fuck any of the Republicans like Lindsey Graham criticizing Biden for pulling out because a few months ago they were criticizing him for delaying the pullout.

It’s a lot like how George W. Bush failed to reach a status of forces agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq so we agreed to leave and then everyone blamed Obama for following Dubya’s policy by leaving. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were responsible to train a new Iraqi army after they fired the old one (but let them keep their weaponry and join up with ISIS) and they totally failed.

It’s also a little bit like how George H.W. Bush sent U.S: troops into Somalia after losing the election in ‘92 and stuck Bill Clinton with Black Hawk Down.

Anyone else starting to notice a pattern here?

 

 

 

[Mole 4330]

 

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Great post. I've never served, but I do try to get as much perspective as I can because war policy is so important. It's also fascinating because of the inherent drama.

I first started thinking about American soldiers fighting for an empty cause after Viet Nam. People hate to say somebody died for nothing. Those who wanted us there believed (made themselves believe) that it was a show of will against communism. Most everybody agreed in the mid 60s. 

When those who were to be drafted to fight or those who cared about them raised questions about the war, you had the horrifying response that "if we leave now, all of those guys who've already died died for nothing." We must respect their sacrifice by adding yours (not mine) to it. 

That is absolutely mortifying. And it repeats in all of these needless wars. It delays putting an end or stopping a bad fucking idea.

But we were discussing the soldiers. I hope you can give your opinion about this:

In the field, soldiers do not think of the Constitution, patriotic rhetoric, or all the other cheap theater for the viewers at home. I read over and over that soldiers fight for their comrades who, in turn, fight for them. "We're all in this world of shit together. Right now, this world of shit is all there is. Let's try to stay alive and kill them so they won't kill us."

I believe this. It makes sense.

But when it's all over, and the soldier reviews the damage and injury he's caused and received, then comes the why. Why?

Soldiers don't get much say in what they're ordered to do. They have a duty to execute orders derived from policies made by government. Duty. Duty to their arm of the military. Duty to the country. Duty to each other.

As individuals, I felt that satisfaction in executing their duty would help to offset the horrible answer to why. In this context of duty, soldiers who honorably serve are equal whether they fought their way through Omaha Beach, held on at Khe Sahn, or conducted helicopter strike after helicopter strike invading Iraq. (I recall a story as that war wore on that some (many?) helicopter pilots were getting emotionally fucked up because the enemy was so helpless against them most of the time. It was a slaughter.)

Do soldiers take satisfaction in that? Is that aspect of military service focused on enough? Do you agree that all honorably serving military persons are equal no matter the war?

Maybe it all seems obvious, but I can't tell for sure because I've never walked in those boots. I'd be grateful of your opinion or the opinion of any other veterans.

I have no idea. My service was as cushy as military service could be. My experience was so far from the things we imagine as military service, so I'm not even sure if I'm qualified to answer those questions. I suspect you'd get 1000 different answers if you polled 1000 service members. I remember a conversation I had with another soldier on the way to a funeral mission. He had a more typical Army experience than me. We were talking about why we joined. I talked about practical things like the details of the job I had, the excitement over learning new things, supporting my family, ect. I didn't mention any of the Army value stuff they pound into you. I guess all of these things can help provide meaning to the inherent stupidity. The Army values are fine values, but I joined for "selfish" reasons rather than all that patriotic stuff.

This soldier was a bit baffled that all that stuff didn't play into my service. He was all about the romance of military service and couldn't comprehend my mindset. I just wanted to do my job well and learn new things and couldn't wrap my brain around his way of thinking. We both did our jobs well, so I guess the difference didn't really matter. I'm not sure if there's a coherent way to find meaning in an organization that is so absurd while taking part in actions that are so absurd. So much of it is so dumb, but it has a real human cost.

We spent the past 20 years -- an entire military career -- fighting "terror" with so little tangible good to show for it and a lot of really bad stuff; and now leaving is hurting people like InkaUTexas' friends. I don't know how meaning, value, or honorableness can be assessed in such a messed up situation.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

8 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

Fuck Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz.

And Perle, Feith, Bremmer, Libby, Tenet, Rice, Card, and a host of others. It’s a long list.

Powell was respected and that’s why the administration used him to sell their phony evidence at the UN. At least he made Tenet sit behind him but what he should’ve done was refuse to peddle their bullshit or resign. And Rice never had much real power and never followed the example set by her mentor Brent Scowcroft. Neither of them were ever part of the inner circle of the GWB White House. Care to take a guess why that was?

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

6 hours ago, NoRagrets said:

This is a failure politically, diplomatically, and strategically (militarily). Biden took the L for no reason. It’s not an issue here domestically and now we are weaker internationally.

Why don’t we just close all of our foreign bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.? Because it’s stupid strategy, that’s why!

Again, if Trump had been re-elected then we would’ve pulled out months ago. Let me guess. You would’ve been fine with that. 

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

*Bremer

One of the greatest failures in history. 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

12 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That concept was covered in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond I believe.  Some animals are just not domesticable, Zebras, Water buffaloes, etc.

This should be required reading for all humans. Or make an easily digestible tv version or something because Diamond is super dry if you aren’t committed. Fucking incredible though. 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

dp

Edited August 14, 2021 by Biff Tannen

[Brothahorn 10087]

36 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And Perle, Feith, Bremmer, Libby, Tenet, Rice, Card, and a host of others. It’s a long list.

Powell was respected and that’s why the administration used him to sell their phony evidence at the UN. At least he made Tenet sit behind him but what he should’ve done was refuse to peddle their bullshit or resign. And Rice never had much real power and never followed the example set by her mentor Brent Scowcroft. Neither of them were ever part of the inner circle of the GWB White House. Care to take a guess why that was?

Vehemently disagree. I know it plays well politically but let's stick to reality.

Powell was Deputy NSA then NSA for Reagan , JCOS  for daddy, and finally SOS for junior. Before that he was running with Weinberger and had a fellowship under Nixon. He was very much party of the inner circle. Dude was no dummy and knew how to play the game just like the rest. He wasn't some useful idiot plucked from the back office. Colin Powell knew damn well what he was selling. And he did it willingly. To say otherwise is insulting his intelligence.

As for Condi, she carried the water for Bush multiple times. Especially on the enhanced interrogation technique debate. Care to guess why that was?

Other than that, I agree with your Fuck you list.

[berlinerbaer 678]

In a visit with a friend in 2012, I had a long chat with a young active duty marine who her younger sister had recently eloped with. The dude was kind of a bum and a weirdo for sure, but what he said about his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan have since been prophetic to me. He swore that the Iraqis would fight alongside the Americans when they came under attack, while the Afghans would drop their weapons and retreat when things got too hot. Fast forward almost a decade and the Iraqis have since driven ISIS out of their country, admittedly under cover of US airstrikes and special forces, but the Afghan army is now literally melting away despite there still being a few thousand US troops there and the same degree of air support.

The fact is that the 20 years of nation building we've payed billions for haven't convinced Afghans to risk their skin to protect it. A soldier deserting their post in the middle of the night doesn't feel compelled to fight for the generation of girls who have been able to go to school, to speak nothing of their government. There isn't much inspiration in defending what an occupying force has constructed. Let's look at morale. While one side is deserting, the other is sending suicide bombers. 

 

Quote

This thinking extends to ordinary Afghans as well, many of whom do not subscribe to the Taliban’s extremist political vision but are sympathetic to their invocation of Islamic principles against foreign occupiers. The 2012 Asia Foundation survey, the most respected survey of the Afghan people, found that of those Afghans who strongly sympathized with the Taliban, 77 percent said they did so because the Taliban were Afghans, Muslims, and waging jihad.

Quote

The largest popular upheaval I witnessed firsthand in Afghanistan was not over the government’s mistreatment of the people or Pakistani perfidy. It was hundreds of angry villagers marching miles to the dusty bazaars of Garmser, protesting a rumor that an American had damaged a Koran.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/06/afghanistan-war-malkasian-book-excerpt-497843

[InkaUtexas 25904]

That is my Point @Brisketexan, we did not need Big Army then or now. Yeah, and fuck the corrupt Afghan leadership. They will all be fine escaping to their homes in Dubai. 

USSOCCOM was created for special missions. Small teams, specialized, joint action. They should have remained. Add to them the development teams who would be allowed to do their jobs. The fucking stories I ran across. 

Head of development project for USAID in Helmand was a 28 year old whose only management experience was running the GAP on M Street. Did we need contracting officers assigned to KAF? Nope. Did we need Submariners assigned to the NATO Fusion Cell? Nope.

Something to keep in mind is combat tours mean a lot on the promotion board. We can blame KBR all we want, but I watched NGO's waste cash. I watched Military personnel with no reason to be in country sent there. 

We should have fought an insurgency. Instead we brought in Bradleys and acted like turtles. Oh, and for the most part we treated the Afghans like shit. That is for another story. 

[Bullneck 19078]

On 8/12/2021 at 2:07 PM, DonkeyCigars said:

This.

You're still around?  Damn.

[InkaUtexas 25904]

2 hours ago, Pods said:

If there is, please don't hesitate to ask. This board may be filled with assholes, but they are assholes with heart. 

Thanks man. Best bet right now is get the professionals to India. We are barely clearing visas for our direct support (READ FUCK YOU DOD AND STATE) personnel. My terps could get out since they went to work direct for SF after free ranging with me. Their families have no chance. Since they are in Helmand their best bet is wait for a week or two, make a run for Iran. 

But I do appreciate it. I will update after the call tomorrow. Right now I am going to say fuck the Taliban, have a beer with a chaser. 

 

[Nivek 16923]

This should be required reading for all humans. Or make an easily digestible tv version or something because Diamond is super dry if you aren’t committed. Fucking incredible though. 

Um, he did a PBS show.

[Bateshorn 9927]

It took less than 6 weeks for Afghanistan to collapse. Congress literally banned US military involvement in Vietnam with the Case-Church amendment and the ARVN managed to make a go of it for 2 more years. The Afghanistan that we propped up is literally nothing.  It doesn’t exist. 
 

I appreciate we have allies on the ground and US troops are scrambling to secure our embassy, the airfield, and extricate people. @InkaUtexas is seeing friends left behind, and that is absolutely on the Biden administration because this was entirely foreseeable, but I’m not sure there is a more crystal clear illustration of how little we’ve accomplished that the government we backed couldn’t make it from July 4 to Labor Day. 

[Nivek 16923]

Kind of seemed to me that we were never serious about fighting the Taliban and instead it seems we were focused on trying to make a man’s hopes come true instead of facing reality.

Yes we should have attacked Afghanistan. Not dicked around and tried to build a modern society there. If they wanted it, they would have built it themselves. Our attacks should have been with a goal in mind that was based on reality.

How is the Taliban getting food, gas, ammo, and money?

[Bateshorn 9927]

Pakistan. Unless I’m mistaken. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Bateshorn

[InkaUtexas 25904]

12 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

In a visit with a friend in 2012, I had a long chat with a young active duty marine who her younger sister had recently eloped with. The dude was kind of a bum and a weirdo for sure, but what he said about his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan have since been prophetic to me. He swore that the Iraqis would fight alongside the Americans when they came under attack, while the Afghans would drop their weapons and retreat when things got too hot. Fast forward almost a decade and the Iraqis have since driven ISIS out of their country, admittedly under cover of US airstrikes and special forces, but the Afghan army is now literally melting away despite there still being a few thousand US troops there and the same degree of air support.

The fact is that the 20 years of nation building we've payed billions for haven't convinced Afghans to risk their skin to protect it. A soldier deserting their post in the middle of the night doesn't feel compelled to fight for the generation of girls who have been able to go to school, to speak nothing of their government. There isn't much inspiration in defending what an occupying force has constructed. Let's look at morale. While one side is deserting, the other is sending suicide bombers. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/06/afghanistan-war-malkasian-book-excerpt-497843

well we all have our own perspectives. I operated around the country and was always cool with the ANA. I had them lead me through mine fields, give my group ammo when we did not have enough, and let me into their compounds when we shit was rough. 

Maybe we should have focused on the tribal concept. 

[InkaUtexas 25904]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Pakistan. Unless I’m mistaken. 

Yes, in some areas. In Helmand its Iran. The first IED that hit us was chemical signature tracked back to Iran. 

What gets me is where was the ammo coming from in the North. Are the insurgents in Tajikistan that strong? 

[Starfleet Command 441]

44 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

In a visit with a friend in 2012, I had a long chat with a young active duty marine who her younger sister had recently eloped with. The dude was kind of a bum and a weirdo for sure, but what he said about his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan have since been prophetic to me. He swore that the Iraqis would fight alongside the Americans when they came under attack, while the Afghans would drop their weapons and retreat when things got too hot. Fast forward almost a decade and the Iraqis have since driven ISIS out of their country, admittedly under cover of US airstrikes and special forces, but the Afghan army is now literally melting away despite there still being a few thousand US troops there and the same degree of air support.

The fact is that the 20 years of nation building we've payed billions for haven't convinced Afghans to risk their skin to protect it. A soldier deserting their post in the middle of the night doesn't feel compelled to fight for the generation of girls who have been able to go to school, to speak nothing of their government. There isn't much inspiration in defending what an occupying force has constructed. Let's look at morale. While one side is deserting, the other is sending suicide bombers. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/06/afghanistan-war-malkasian-book-excerpt-497843

Can’t believe Afghans wouldn’t risk their skin  helping prop up a bunch of child raping heroin traffickers. 

[Starfleet Command 441]

12 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Kind of seemed to me that we were never serious about fighting the Taliban and instead it seems we were focused on trying to make a man’s hopes come true instead of facing reality.

Yes we should have attacked Afghanistan. Not dicked around and tried to build a modern society there. If they wanted it, they would have built it themselves. Our attacks should have been with a goal in mind that was based on reality.

How is the Taliban getting food, gas, ammo, and money?

The Taliban wanted nothing to do with OBL and were willing to give him over to a third party but we refused. I think our invasion of Afghanistan, besides feeding the war machine, had more to do with the Taliban’s crack down on poppy production in 2000 than anything with respect to keeping america safe or any of that twaddle. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

20 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes, in some areas. In Helmand its Iran. The first IED that hit us was chemical signature tracked back to Iran. 

What gets me is where was the ammo coming from in the North. Are the insurgents in Tajikistan that strong? 

I would assume the Russians.