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

[DonkeyCigars 144]

17 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You don't think 19 years of futility have sort of taken the sting out of that threat?

Have you never read or observed how these things work?

We'll see what criticism may be due the Biden Administration regarding the Americans still in Afghanistan. My response is more to your insecure, adolescent posture that seems to guide your desire for vicarious bad-assedness. 

The Taliban held to an agreement not to harrass our retreat from Afghanistan. There was no Khyber Pass slaughter. No soldier was abandoned and the US got a staggering number of people out in a short time.

Details remain. Maybe we should look into them before shrieking about the whole thing is a terrible failure so we can get in some punches before the truth comes out.

And please, no "if it was [likely sic] Trump, you'd be screaming about the orange bad man!"

Trump gave us some comparisons such as leaving the Kurds to their fate in Syria, allowing Turkish bodyguards to attack Americans in NYC, covering for the Saudi murder of a journalist, and unilaterally ending an agreement with Iraq. Base on those policy decisions, how doies anyone pro-Trump think Trump would have improved on this operation?

I'm coming around on you! Good report.

[TwiceHorn 31449]

I think another blind spot for Biden may have been commitment to GTFO.

I think many or any of the plausible "better" withdrawal scenarios would have been more "gradual" and would have involved the presence of more troops, both of which are associated with prolonging the whole thing and maybe even sticking around a little longer, but don't necessarily have to be.  And also associated possibly with provoking hostilities in the midst of it.

Biden may have been overcommitted to just ripping off the band-aid and GTFO and letting the chips fall where they may.

[sidis 9825]

27 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

And please, no "if it was [likely sic] Trump, you'd be screaming about the orange bad man!"

 

Trump gave us some comparisons such as leaving the Kurds to their fate in Syria, allowing Turkish bodyguards to attack Americans in NYC, covering for the Saudi murder of a journalist, and unilaterally ending an agreement with Iraq. Base on those policy decisions, how doies anyone pro-Trump think Trump would have improved on this operation?

a little pedantry is warranted here...

• whenever idiots want to make partisan attacks in which trump creates an inconvenient context for doing so, they try and absolve years of incompetence and contempt for anything resembling integrity and decency by using the preferred term "orange man bad," not "orange bad man."
• turkish bodyguards attacked americans in washington d.c. with absolutely no word from erdogan's biggest fan, not new york city.
• trump tore up the nuclear deal with iran, not iraq.

[sidis 9825]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think another blind spot for Biden may have been commitment to GTFO.

I think many or any of the plausible "better" withdrawal scenarios would have been more "gradual" and would have involved the presence of more troops, both of which are associated with prolonging the whole thing and maybe even sticking around a little longer, but don't necessarily have to be.  And also associated possibly with provoking hostilities in the midst of it.

Biden may have been overcommitted to just ripping off the band-aid and GTFO and letting the chips fall where they may.

i agree.  things should have been communicated with much greater urgency in the spring if the date was so hard and fast.

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think another blind spot for Biden may have been commitment to GTFO.

I think many or any of the plausible "better" withdrawal scenarios would have been more "gradual" and would have involved the presence of more troops, both of which are associated with prolonging the whole thing and maybe even sticking around a little longer, but don't necessarily have to be.  And also associated possibly with provoking hostilities in the midst of it.

Biden may have been overcommitted to just ripping off the band-aid and GTFO and letting the chips fall where they may.

In the scenario where we bring in more troops (IMO a provocation that would have led to more hostilities, read US soldier deaths), the same folks screaming BIDEN LIED TROOPS DIED!!! would be screaming YOU PROMISED TO END THIS WAR NOT ESCALATE IT!!!

['stache 21802]

Found some live footage of the Taliban learning to use our helicopters.

 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

You know, the Taliban leadership are not idiots and if they had a sophisticated weapons platform they wanted to use that required lots of maintenance and care that isn’t coming, they would not be using it for stupid shit like hanging dissidents publicly and flying them around. They’d be saving every flight hour possible, deploying when absolutely necessary, and I guarantee the high value shit is under the control of their most trustworthy field commanders. 
 

On the other hand, if they knew it had a limited shelf life and was never going to be fielding it operationally, they might conclude that the major value was to terrorize the local population and humiliate the superpower and the defeated government. And they’d want to capitalize on that while the world still cared about what’s going on and while they still needed to cow potential future opposition fighters into believing resistance is hopeless. 
 

So good job to all of you who are sharing and spreading Taliban propaganda designed to humiliate your own country. I’m sure the Deep State and libs feel Owned. 

[RomaVicta 29905]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

You're right.  The Muje back in the 80's were able to effectively use and field advanced Stinger surface to air missiles, but probably can't figure out how to maintain simple coms gear and nods that many, many ANA soldiers that defected were trained on how to use and operate.  

 

That's an odd standard for techinical proficiency. Stingers were a brilliant weapon because they could be deployed with common infantry. Their entire design is for simplicity of use and portability by foot. I could probably pick up a Stinger and figure out how to use it in under an hour. I'd be hopeless figuring out maintaining simple coms gear or how to maintain an armored vehicle.

The Afghans weren't building Stingers; they were using them as they were meant to be used. Your use of this example demonstrates just how out of your depth you're willing to go in desperate bids to claim victory in argument.

Not negged for lying. I won't neg for simple ignorance.

[956 Worldwide 34705]

6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

That's an odd standard for techinical proficiency. Stingers were a brilliant weapon because they could be deployed with common infantry. Their entire design is for simplicity of use and portability by foot. I could probably pick up a Stinger and figure out how to use it in under an hour. I'd be hopeless figuring out maintaining simple coms gear or how to maintain an armored vehicle.

The Afghans weren't building Stingers; they were using them as they were meant to be used. Your use of this example demonstrates just how out of your depth you're willing to go in desperate bids to claim victory in argument.

Not negged for lying. I won't neg for simple ignorance.

Well, and there’s the tiny fact that we supplied the damn things to them via Pakistan and made sure they knew how to operate them. 

[BabaYaga 15290]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

That's an odd standard for techinical proficiency. Stingers were a brilliant weapon because they could be deployed with common infantry. Their entire design is for simplicity of use and portability by foot. I could probably pick up a Stinger and figure out how to use it in under an hour. I'd be hopeless figuring out maintaining simple coms gear or how to maintain an armored vehicle.

The Afghans weren't building Stingers; they were using them as they were meant to be used. Your use of this example demonstrates just how out of your depth you're willing to go in desperate bids to claim victory in argument.

Not negged for lying. I won't neg for simple ignorance.

Are you saying coms gear and nods can't be deployed by common infantry?  Or machine guns, mortars and artillery?  That their simplicity is overstated?  Especially by tens of thousands of ANA soldiers specifically TRAINED on how to use and maintain them? 

And who the hell said they were building them?  Quite the left turn out of nowhere sprinkled with anecdotal nonsense.  

[BabaYaga 15290]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, and there’s the tiny fact that we supplied the damn things to them via Pakistan and made sure they knew how to operate them. 

And there's that....

[DonkeyCigars 144]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think another blind spot for Biden may have been commitment to GTFO.

I think many or any of the plausible "better" withdrawal scenarios would have been more "gradual" and would have involved the presence of more troops, both of which are associated with prolonging the whole thing and maybe even sticking around a little longer, but don't necessarily have to be.  And also associated possibly with provoking hostilities in the midst of it.

Biden may have been overcommitted to just ripping off the band-aid and GTFO and letting the chips fall where they may.

To your point, and I ask because I've only heard it here in these pages, how veracious is Biden's insistence or importance of a 9/11 deadline for the eponymous photo op and PR and political pomp and circumstance? If it is true, then putting bare and obvious politics in front of something like this seems like a bad thing. If it's a figment of the opposition party's imagination, then maybe not malpractice as much as a miscarriage, if you are so inclined (and I am not).

I am inclined to think that President Biden passed this test. I hope some stupid politics doesn't come out to taint that.

And the last week and this thread has made me feel very liberal and kinda gross -- or maybe Biden's handling of all this has been very centrist which appeals to me deeply. I wish @bad_teammate would opine so I know where I stand on the litmus test.

Edited August 31, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[RomaVicta 29905]

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Are you saying coms gear and nods can't be deployed by common infantry?  Or machine guns, mortars and artillery?  That their simplicity is overstated?  Especially by tens of thousands of ANA soldiers specifically TRAINED on how to use and maintain them? 

And who the hell said they were building them?  Quite the left turn out of nowhere sprinkled with anecdotal nonsense.  

That's straight projection, buddy.

You read my post without reading the quote of your own post where you use the operation of a Stinger missile as some sort of high mark of technical proficiency know-how (better?).  By this standard, you suggest that the technical tasks demanded by the equipment you listed is even easier. 

It's not. You chose a poor standard that proves nothing. Again:

Quote

The Muje back in the 80's were able to effectively use and field advanced Stinger surface to air missiles, but probably can't figure out how to maintain simple coms gear and nods that many, many ANA soldiers that defected were trained on how to use and operate.  

I guess you get points for adding authentic language such as muje, coms, and nods. Your point is still poorly made. Maybe getting more exasperated at having that explained to you will suddenly raise your arguments to validity.

If that fails, call us a Cabal of libs treating righteous rightists as less than human.

Added for your further gratification:

Quote

Light to carry and easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger is a passive surface-to-air missile that can be shoulder-fired by a single operator (although standard military procedure calls for two operators, team chief and gunner). 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by RomaVicta

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

23 minutes ago, sidis said:

i agree.  things should have been communicated with much greater urgency in the spring if the date was so hard and fast.

Trump’s date was May 1 and everyone knew it last year. Biden delayed the exit. Trumpublicans bitched about that. Eventually you have to leave or otherwise you never actually leave. I wonder if all the bitching about how we left are just people basically saying we should never have left. 

[Willfully Horn 8006]

27 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

hanging dissidents publicly and flying them around.

Dude was in a harness, waving at folks, according to snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taliban-hanging-black-hawk/

Edited August 31, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Image

[Sawbonz 27546]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump’s date was May 1 and everyone knew it last year. Biden delayed the exit. Trumpublicans bitched about that. Eventually you have to leave or otherwise you never actually leave. I wonder if all the bitching about how we left are just people basically saying we should never have left. 

Fight em over there so we don’t have to fight em over here

[bad_teammate 13194]

The war is over and thta's great anyone who isn't happy about is a warmongering dork

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

would one of our resident military strategists walk me through the scenario where we disarmed our afghan allies prior to troop withdrawal.

i'm eager to hear more about that. 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Dude was in a harness, waving at folks, according to snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taliban-hanging-black-hawk/

That’s…something. So yeah, a total propaganda use (hanging a flag via helicopter)and a US trained pilot and it all adds up that these things are being used for show because the Taliban is never intending to get any go out of them. First world, NATO Allies who fly these things depend on us to keep them flying. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

kinda debunks that whole narrative about leaving people behind:

 

[RomaVicta 29905]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump’s date was May 1 and everyone knew it last year. Biden delayed the exit. Trumpublicans bitched about that. Eventually you have to leave or otherwise you never actually leave. I wonder if all the bitching about how we left are just people basically saying we should never have left. 

This is where honest, moderately informed people are thrown into conflict about this news. They get two stories:

• Afghanistan is our longest war. It's cost trillions of dollars and cost life and limb. No good end is in sight. Solution: Get out.
• Bad things will happen if the US gets out Afghan women will be set back, Taliban rule, and terrorists return. Maybe don't get out.

Wait a minute! I thought everything was clear cut good versus evil! How do I process this?

All the opinion panel shows just talk along these two lines without applying any worthwhile intellectual exploration of the fact that neither action will make flowers grow and people happy. TV news media can't get out of election coverage mode every day of every week, so they often want to talk about the optics' impact on politicians instead of doing the work of uncovering what may be beyond the optics.

"People are dying during this evacuation. It's not going as well as planned. What does this mean for Joe Biden? We'll talk to our panel of political operatives after this message from Crotchtastic, a new medication that treats the taint issues from taking other medications."

The story becomes, "how does this look for President Whomever?" They prefer lazy political analysis that I really don't need them for to actually presenting information to inform such opinions.

I'm critical of the electorate, but a sizable portion are ill-served by the talking heads on the TV.

Edited August 31, 2021 by RomaVicta

[HenryJames 66041]

11 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Dude was in a harness, waving at folks, according to snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taliban-hanging-black-hawk/

Taliban has been watching Jackass.

[Brothahorn 10087]

To your point, and I ask because I've only heard it here in these pages, how veracious is Biden's insistence or importance of a 9/11 deadline for the eponymous photo op and PR and political pomp and circumstance? If it is true, then putting bare and obvious politics in front of something like this seems like a bad thing. If it's a figment of the opposition party's imagination, then maybe not malpractice as much as a miscarriage, if you are so inclined (and I am not).
I am inclined to think that President Biden passed this test. I hope some stupid politics doesn't come out to taint that.
And the last week and this thread has made me feel very liberal and kinda gross -- or maybe Biden's handling of all this has been very centrist which appeals to me deeply. I wish [mention=880]bad_teammate[/mention] would opine so I know where I stand on the litmus test.

Son,

If you are standing with BT, then you are standing in chicken shit.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The war is over and thta's great anyone who isn't happy about is a warmongering dork

Your pragmatism is shocking and refreshing. I'm with you that good enough has to be good enough here. It's not a perfect world.

I read this today:

Quote

 

On Monday, the final flight of American troops left Kabul, ending a twenty-year mission and fulfilling Joe Biden’s promise to withdraw all U.S. forces by the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In a statement, Biden touted the evacuation of more than a hundred and twenty thousand people from Kabul, the majority of them Afghan citizens. For months, refugee organizations and military officials had urged the Administration to begin evacuating Afghans who had backed the U.S. effort. The White House demurred, worried that such a move would signal a lack of faith in the Afghan government. As a result, the operation, crammed into the span of a few weeks, was unnecessarily rushed and poorly planned. An estimated two hundred thousand Afghans who were unable to get out now face retaliation from the Taliban. To many critics inside and outside of government, the conflict appears to be ending as it began—with individual acts of courage carried out amid a chaotic, politically driven U.S. government response. “We’re heroic as individuals,” a former national-security official said. “We don’t get heroic as a nation.”

The departure of U.S. troops will largely end a frantic effort by scores of military veterans, aid workers, and journalists to save Afghan lives. For the past two weeks, WhatsApp and Signal channels have erupted with tips about Taliban checkpoints, crowd sizes, and, most important, which airport gates were open. A call, text, or e-mail to the right person could save a life. At one point, Jane Ferguson, a PBS NewsHour correspondent reporting in Kabul—who also contributes to The New Yorker—messaged instructions as she tried to guide a family onto a British base near the airport. “They must push forward to the front,” she wrote. “The back gate is shut.” Later, as the family fought their way through the crowd, she added, “I know it seems scary out there but this is the calmest it has been in days.”

Racing against the U.S. deadline, Ferguson ultimately got two dozen Afghans into the British base. She watched thousands of others try. Those with ties to U.S. passport holders sometimes made it. But the vast majority did not. “There is no system. The system has collapsed,” she said. “It’s hard to describe how utterly ad hoc it was. It’s placed me and my colleagues in this bizarre position of having this odd, misplaced power.” 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/bidens-chaotic-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-is-complete

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

Hide you children, drone strikes a comin'

[aggie08 21496]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

Stop, DonkeyCigars can only get so hard thinking about conflicting drone strike casualty reports.

['stache 21802]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

I'm still not into a "war on terror" because that is not a war you can win or lose. Maybe its just terminology that's the problem. We obviously have an obligation to preclude terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere if we are working in cooperation with ally intelligence. It was my criticism of Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning (2001 at least). Go after OBL and Al Queda wherever you find them, but don't call it a "war on terror" call it a counterterrorism mission with a limited scope. I truly believe we could have caught OBL much earlier if that had been the focus. Instead, W wanted to be a "wartime president" so started unnecessary wars in other countries.

Edited August 31, 2021 by 'stache

[Js1 85310]

15 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

kinda debunks that whole narrative about leaving people behind:

 

Why not 20? WHERE WAS THE URGENCY?!?!?!?!

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm still not into a "war on terror" because that is not a war you can win or lose. Maybe its just terminology that's the problem. We obviously have an obligation to preclude terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere if we are working in cooperation with ally intelligence. It was my criticism of Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning (2001 at least). Go after OBL and Al Queda wherever you find them, but don't call it a "war on terror" call it a counterterrorism mission with a limited scope. I truly believe we could have caught OBL much earlier if that had been the focus. Instead, W wanted to be a "wartime president" so started unnecessary wars in other countries.

can the bald eagle still fly in from the top right of the screen while an american flag flies during this segue into your 'Counterterrorism mission with limited scope' segment? if so, i'm good with your suggestion.

[RomaVicta 29905]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Hide you children, drone strikes a comin'

 

When you're, you're right.

I'd much prefer using special forces. We should see who we are killing whenever possible.

Drones take the political risk out of decisive action. No soldiers at risk. The operation gives the immediate look of success on video which isn't easily refuted by non-visual reports.

Using human fighters not only lends more certainty, but, in my opinion, is more unsettling to an enemy. 

And blowing up weddings and cars full of children is probably a bad thing.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

pretty striking image, if accurate:

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'd much prefer using special forces. We should see who we are killing whenever possible.

Truth. It'd too damn clinical having some kid in Arlington using a joystick. If it's worth doing, it's worth risking lives and being held accountable for risking those lives.

Fuck these wars. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think another blind spot for Biden may have been commitment to GTFO.

I think many or any of the plausible "better" withdrawal scenarios would have been more "gradual" and would have involved the presence of more troops, both of which are associated with prolonging the whole thing and maybe even sticking around a little longer, but don't necessarily have to be.  And also associated possibly with provoking hostilities in the midst of it.

Biden may have been overcommitted to just ripping off the band-aid and GTFO and letting the chips fall where they may.

I'd generally agree. The last week has been playing catch up to match the mood of the country.  They didn't plan early enough, thought the gov't would hold out longer, but when it started to fall we bolted instead of ramping up evacuations right then, and there.  I think they did say fuck it let's cut our losses, and get out before we lose more service men, and women.

I do appreciate that he's addressed the issue 3 times now ?  I think a lot of what he's said had been cover your ass lies, but he has come out, and talked to the public.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

pretty striking image, if accurate:

 

I mentioned up thread I had met General Donahue at a training exercise at Ft Polk a while back. The exercise was a full combat jump. I don't remember how many troopers, but it was 16 airplanes, and they returned to the airstrip, reloaded and jumped in even more guys and a full compliment of vehicles so I feel confident in saying it was several hundred troopers and vehicles. General Donahue was the first guy out of the first plane, so I have no doubt he would be the last one to leave. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I mentioned up thread I had met General Donahue at a training exercise at Ft Polk a while back. The exercise was a full combat jump. I don't remember how many troopers, but it was 16 airplanes, and they returned to the airstrip, reloaded and jumped in even more guys and a full compliment of vehicles so I feel confident in saying it was several hundred troopers and vehicles. General Donahue was the first guy out of the first plane, so I have no doubt he would be the last one to leave. 

so all-around badass, then? awesome

[The Ace of Aces 5181]

Not sure if I've ever heard a president spell out as bluntly the cost of war to soldiers. That was something. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so all-around badass, then? awesome

Seriously, read his wiki bio. Very impressive guy. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

30 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Stop, DonkeyCigars can only get so hard thinking about conflicting drone strike casualty reports.

Are you mad at me or Biden? I didn’t say anything. Lol

[DonkeyCigars 144]

25 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 

When you're, you're right.

I'd much prefer using special forces. We should see who we are killing whenever possible.

Drones take the political risk out of decisive action. No soldiers at risk. The operation gives the immediate look of success on video which isn't easily refuted by non-visual reports.

Using human fighters not only lends more certainty, but, in my opinion, is more unsettling to an enemy. 

And blowing up weddings and cars full of children is probably a bad thing.

The thing about the drone strikes too, is that it seems to open you up to disinformation, he said/she said, type allegations. You can have killed a dozen, grizzled old gray haired leaders and then have their Taliban PR team claim you killed 9 babies and 17 puppies and a crippled old lady. Much easier to verify and re-verify the truth versus lies, when you are in person, but then also, you aren’t putting an American life in peril, so 🤷‍♂️

Edited August 31, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[sidis 9825]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump’s date was May 1 and everyone knew it last year. Biden delayed the exit. Trumpublicans bitched about that. Eventually you have to leave or otherwise you never actually leave. I wonder if all the bitching about how we left are just people basically saying we should never have left. 

i don't disagree with that either, buck.  particularly, as it relates to americans.  the minute doha was signed last february, your ass was on notice to gtfo and you had 18 months to do so and americans that are not out of there really need to look inward as to their own culpability.

however, as it relates to the afghans that needed to be relocated...such as u.s. military assets, translators, etc..., the state department really did a poor job executing that process under both administrations and dragged their feet on the approval process.  hell, even john oliver ran an entire episode of his show in late spring warning this shit show was coming down the pipe...interviewing frustrated afghans whose efforts on relocation were seemingly falling into a bureaucratic black hole.  no matter what, there was going to be an inevitably chaotic ending to this whole thing once the taliban retook the country but a year and a half was really wasted by state and dhs on moving afghani assets efficiently.

[pyrohornIII 4814]

I'd like to think we took some of that extra time to put in different control boards in a lot of that gear.   Everything works fine until they press the trigger, then the missile goes about 500 ft and then does a 180 and homes back to the launcher.   

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think another blind spot for Biden may have been commitment to GTFO.

I think many or any of the plausible "better" withdrawal scenarios would have been more "gradual" and would have involved the presence of more troops, both of which are associated with prolonging the whole thing and maybe even sticking around a little longer, but don't necessarily have to be.  And also associated possibly with provoking hostilities in the midst of it.

Biden may have been overcommitted to just ripping off the band-aid and GTFO and letting the chips fall where they may.

This is probably pretty close to the truth.  It was a commander-in-chief call, and he made it.  I am relatively confident that there were no "good" options out there.  And he may not have picked the best one.  But he made a decision, and executed.  That's what a leader does.  If there were failures and consequences of those, they will be his to own.  That's also what leaders do.

57 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

pretty striking image, if accurate:

 

Setting aside the politics, when it comes to people in uniform who we've asked to perform a mission, my expectation is that they do so adhering to duty and honor.  By all accounts, our mission in Afghanistan LARGELY did that (not perfectly, not always, but generally).  And the actions and achievements of the military when it got down to crunch time.....well, I'm suspecting that when the book is written on that, we'll see that it was among the most impressive seat-of-your-pants get-shit-done operations since the Berlin airlift.

And you're goddamned right that the commanding general is the last man out.  Leaders do that shit.  Captain of the ship and all that.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

We'll talk to our panel of political operatives after this message from Crotchtastic, a new medication that treats the taint issues from taking other medications."

Tell me more about Crotchtastic. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

20 minutes ago, sidis said:

i don't disagree with that either, buck.  particularly, as it relates to americans.  the minute doha was signed last february, your ass was on notice to gtfo and you had 18 months to do so and americans that are not out of there really need to look inward as to their own culpability.

however, as it relates to the afghans that needed to be relocated...such as u.s. military assets, translators, etc..., the state department really did a poor job executing that process under both administrations and dragged their feet on the approval process.  hell, even john oliver ran an entire episode of his show in late spring warning this shit show was coming down the pipe...interviewing frustrated afghans whose efforts on relocation were seemingly falling into a bureaucratic black hole.  no matter what, there was going to be an inevitably chaotic ending to this whole thing once the taliban retook the country but a year and a half was really wasted by state and dhs on moving afghani assets efficiently.

Also true.  The Trump admin epically and cruelly fucked that whole process.  And the Biden admin sat on their hands when they could have been unfucking it.  Other than the mad scramble at the end, we didn't do right by those who did right by us.  That is to our shame, and it will cost us next time we need to call upon locals for help.

[Brisketexan 105095]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Tell me more about Crotchtastic. 

Do not take Crotchtastic if you're allergic to Crotchtastic.

[Captainant 27653]

40 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The thing about the drone strikes too, is that it seems to open you up to disinformation, he said/she said, type allegations. You can have killed a dozen, grizzled old gray haired leaders and then have their Taliban PR team claim you killed 9 babies and 17 puppies and a crippled old lady. Much easier to verify and re-verify the truth versus lies, when you are in person, but then also, you aren’t putting an American life in peril, so 🤷‍♂️

on the other hand, trump and his admin went out of their way to expand the US drone strike policy, making it easier to activate those missions while removing the reporting requirements that enabled the public to at least be aware of what their government was doing in their name. Much like everything else, trump took a bush/obama policy, removed the safeguards, and cranked it up to 11.

[BabaYaga 15290]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

That's straight projection, buddy.

You read my post without reading the quote of your own post where you use the operation of a Stinger missile as some sort of high mark of technical proficiency know-how (better?).  By this standard, you suggest that the technical tasks demanded by the equipment you listed is even easier. 

It's not. You chose a poor standard that proves nothing. Again:

I guess you get points for adding authentic language such as muje, coms, and nods. Your point is still poorly made. Maybe getting more exasperated at having that explained to you will suddenly raise your arguments to validity.

If that fails, call us a Cabal of libs treating righteous rightists as less than human.

Added for your further gratification:

 

LOL, I'm not the one saying I could "figure out" in around and hour how to fully operate a Stinger missile but a diesel engine and a radio are baffling.

Firing a stinger is not hard - once taught.  Neither is making a radio call , operating artillery, or walking in the dark with nods....once taught.  The point everyone is making here is that it's no big deal and that in a few months they will no longer work.  You could at least try to make this simplistic argument were there not tens of thousands of ANA forces specifically trained on how to operate and maintain the gear they were given.  

We trained them how to use missiles years back and they learned and operated them perfectly.  Now they have their own training with their own ANA people.  The staggering hubris that all this gear isn't worth worrying about is laughable.  

Edited August 31, 2021 by BabaYaga

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We trained them how to use missiles years back and they learned and operated them perfectly.  Now they have their own training with their own ANA people. 

So, how would you have solved that problem?  We didn't "abandon" most of this hardware -- it was the ANA's hardware that we gave to them to perform the mission we wanted them to perform (at which they failed miserably, and in record time).

So....

- when we saw the ANA starting to fold, go in there and blow up all their gear?

- kill all the ANA who know how to use the gear?

- say "nevermind, we're staying, and we're upping our troop strength" so the ANA doesn't fold?

 

Do tell.

[Nivek 16923]

I'm still not into a "war on terror" because that is not a war you can win or lose. Maybe its just terminology that's the problem. We obviously have an obligation to preclude terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere if we are working in cooperation with ally intelligence. It was my criticism of Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning (2001 at least). Go after OBL and Al Queda wherever you find them, but don't call it a "war on terror" call it a counterterrorism mission with a limited scope. I truly believe we could have caught OBL much earlier if that had been the focus. Instead, W wanted to be a "wartime president" so started unnecessary wars in other countries.

You are thinking like a citizen. Think like a defense contractor and you always win.