You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
Yes, they should have left, but you're stepping on your own message when you keep telling everyone everything is fine and the country wont fall, while at the same time you're sneaking out without telling your allies what you're doing.
If we're ignoring that abandoning airfields, pulling out intelligence and air strikes they depended on BEFORE you pulled out Americans didn't matter, I just don't know, man. They could have started evacuating people in April telling them, "no, you need to go now." Especially when you're being told this exact thing will happen.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
And he was 5 hours late for that speech.... not looking good
The consequence of having a media that steps over itself to provide you with good press and positive spin. This is the first time Joe Biden has faced a media asking him tough questions.
Starts with the nonsense the House went through today, then blames Trump for his botched withdrawal.
No questions taken.
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
As much shit as I've given the media, I have to say a lot of them are not giving Biden a pass and are really hammering him. The administration clearly was taken off guard and doesn't know how to handle this. Which is why he isn't taking questions.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
This is going to be made into a movie one day… but what will be the ending. Jen is admitting some folks could get left. But also some are saying Joe still has a plan to get all Americans out, but we all have to be our by 8/31. Hoping for the best.
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
The Taliban lacked air coverage completely, and were significantly outarmed and outnumbered by the Afghan military. Saying the Afghan Army fell because they lacked mechanics to keep their airforce operating is ignoring that countless Afghan pilots have flown out (deserted) of the country in that aircraft during the last week. I'm not defending Biden's withdrawal plan, but if you outnumber and outarm the enemy, and lose without a significant fight, you don't get to blame that on anyone but the Army who failed to setup a simple perimeter defense. Riddle me this, how many Taliban and Afghani soldiers died in the preceding 11 days before the fall of Kabul?
80k Taliban versus 300k Afghani Soldiers. And the Taliban had a decisive victory without a formal military structure and intelligence support from NATO nations.
As you are someone who has served I would actually like to hear your insight on how important the aerial reconnaissance and air strikes to how the Afghan forces were trained to fight the Taliban? Was reading this article this morning and from what I've been able to read over the past few weeks it really seems like they were setup to fail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/opin … -army.html
Like if they know they've been sold down the river and that their government has been as well, is it not understandable that they fold as the cause they're fighting feels hopeless?
Either way all aspects of this - from the terms of the withdrawal, the extent of it and the final evac operation - seem like they've been botched.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
Randall Flagg wrote:The Taliban lacked air coverage completely, and were significantly outarmed and outnumbered by the Afghan military. Saying the Afghan Army fell because they lacked mechanics to keep their airforce operating is ignoring that countless Afghan pilots have flown out (deserted) of the country in that aircraft during the last week. I'm not defending Biden's withdrawal plan, but if you outnumber and outarm the enemy, and lose without a significant fight, you don't get to blame that on anyone but the Army who failed to setup a simple perimeter defense. Riddle me this, how many Taliban and Afghani soldiers died in the preceding 11 days before the fall of Kabul?
80k Taliban versus 300k Afghani Soldiers. And the Taliban had a decisive victory without a formal military structure and intelligence support from NATO nations.
As you are someone who has served I would actually like to hear your insight on how important the aerial reconnaissance and air strikes to how the Afghan forces were trained to fight the Taliban? Was reading this article this morning and from what I've been able to read over the past few weeks it really seems like they were setup to fail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/opin … -army.html
Like if they know they've been sold down the river and that their government has been as well, is it not understandable that they fold as the cause they're fighting feels hopeless?
Either way all aspects of this - from the terms of the withdrawal, the extent of it and the final evac operation - seem like they've been botched.
It's a complicated issue, and I'm by no means an expert on air support or the terrain and tactics used by Taliban fighters. But I am very well versed in COIN and supply chain support, as well as the C&C systems used to monitor vehicle movement and personnel location.
The systems we use to manage our C&C and supply chain are almost exclusively manufactured by General Dynamics. I don't know who they're currently allowed to sell to outside of the US, but when I was in it was essentially limited to UK and Australian forces. Those are the guys I worked with the most, and I have the utmost respect for British and Aussie soldiers.
I provide that context because there wasn't an option to leave US Military equipment with our classified systems in them. If those systems fall into Chinese or Russian hands, you've created the potential for them to find an exploit and completely compromise or negate our C&C systems.
So the idea that the US would ever leave those systems to the Afghani's is preposterous and isn't something anyone in any administration would have considered. Here's a big secret, the US's military is awesome because we have the best supply chain in the world. An Army isn't worth the weapons it has if their soldiers aren't fed and protected from the elements. The same issue Afghanistan had is the same issue the Iraqi Army had. Corruption runs deep in these nations, and their entire perception about teamwork and national unity is fundamentally different than our own. When I was in Iraq, we had to keep Americans at major fuel sites, because the Iraqis would steal and barter with their fellow soldiers for resources. It didn't matter that this Iraqi convoy had orders to move from Irbil to Mosul, and needed to refuel at mid point. The Iraqi officer in charge of the fuel site wanted something for himself in order to turn on the pumps to fuel the trucks of their own military. The same issue is evident in Afghanistan. They lack a central command structure and their entire government and military structure is corrupt. So yes, the Americans leaving removed the only control in place to keep the Afghani's from fucking themselves over with their own corruption and greed. But there's never going to be a time in the next 20 years where that wouldn't be the case.
This general and people discussing it are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Trump is bad because he gave a date for withdrawal, and that emboldened the Taliban he says. Biden is bad because he left in the middle of night with no warning, and that sudden departure emboldened the Taliban he says. The reality is the Afghan Army was never capable of functioning like a 1st world military. Think of the difference in soldier competency. Every American enlisted man has a high school degree, and every Officer has at minimum, a bachelor's degree. Contrasted with Afghanistan which has an overall literacy rate of 38%. Helicopter pilot training in the US Army lasts a year, and you need around 300 flight hours after graduation to qualify as a primary pilot. My last 2.5 years in, I was a Cyber Defense Officer and spent 10 months being trained on that. I had many "allied" Middle Eastern officers in my class, and it was a running joke how incompetent these "allies" were. They didn't care, often didn't even come to class, and they didn't need to pass anything because their presence was nonsense pushed from State about building up our allies so a flag officer or secretary could brief that the US Army was training allies in Cyber Defense. Contrast that with the Russian Officer who attended the Basic Officer course with me, and that guy was a fucking rock star. He was more educated and trained on military tactics than any of our West Pointers.
So yea, the US stepping away revealed the Afghani Army for what it truly was; a broken, unorganized, undisciplined, corrupt boondoggle. But the notion the US would ever leave its primary C&C systems there for Afghani use is a non-starter. And yes, the US removing its logistical liasions with the Afghan Army forced the Afghani's to coordinate supply movements on their own. But since 2011, the primary mission of US forces was to train the Afghani Army for this moment, and they collapsed in less than 2 weeks. They still had more bodies, more weapons, and better training than all but the few remaining Taliban leaders who were trained by the CIA in the 80s.
So I disagree with the notion that were setup to fail. They were setup for success for the past 10 years, but you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Any assertions that a lack of US logistical support is the primary reason for the Afghani's failure completely ignores that Afghanistan by its own societal issues was completely inept and unwilling to defend their nation. We can all pat ourselves on the back for living in western democracies that preach egalitarian values, but the Afghanistan people didn't grow up in an environment where that was reinforced through 12 years of state sponsored education. 2/3 of the country can't even read. Most Afghani soldiers were "volunteers" from the same villages that Taliban rules from. They joined the Army for a guaranteed meal and chance at some kind of income. They don't really care who leads from Kabul, because it's as abstract to them as who sits in the seat of power in Sri Lanka to all of us. Same shit, different day.
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
Seems like it was a case of either hunker down and commit to however long it takes to get Afghanistan to a sort of Pakistan level of stable (anyone who ever thought it would be like a mini America level of stable was out of their minds) or to cut losses. Seems like Trump and then Biden went for the 2nd option.
Still a clusterfuck in the execution though.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
Seems like it was a case of either hunker down and commit to however long it takes to get Afghanistan to a sort of Pakistan level of stable (anyone who ever thought it would be like a mini America level of stable was out of their minds) or to cut losses. Seems like Trump and then Biden went for the 2nd option.
Still a clusterfuck in the execution though.
I think that's exactly right. My friends who are still in the Army and have been to Afghanistan in the past couple years are upset by this. Not necessarily at Biden (or Trump), but because they spent years of their lives in this nation dodging bombs and bullets to train and support the Afghani's, and from their point of view, the Afghani Army didn't uphold their end of the deal. We can all go Thomas Aquinas and try to find a single event as the root of everything, but western powers have known for years that the Afghani government wasn't ever going to stand on its own. Trump brokered a cease fire, but that cease fire was completely based on the notion the US would leave. The moment that commitment appeared untrue, American (and British) soldiers would have been killed. That would have forced further deployments which just start the cycle all over again.
I hate that people think they can reinvent the wheel and what has been true for millennia. No Army has ever come into a hostile nation, put in a new form of government, and everyone went back to being happy. They had to keep boots on the ground to display their supremacy. It's what all the empires of Europe have done, as well as every other corner of the globe. The only exception to that rule might be post WW2 Germany, and there's a lot of considerations and exceptions that need to be given to make that true. American forces are still in Germany 70 years later. And Germany wasn't a backwards illiterate society before 33, so reversing 12 years of Nazi rule wasn't as challenging as overturning centuries of culture and way of life.
Re: Taliban control of Afghanistan on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11
Afghanistan: Avoid Kabul airport due to terror threat, Foreign Office warns
People in Afghanistan should stay away from Kabul airport due to a "high threat of a terrorist attack", the UK Foreign Office has warned.
In new advice, the FCDO told anyone in the area to "move away to a safe location and await further advice".
US President Joe Biden has warned of a group linked to Islamic State that is seeking to target the airport.
It comes amid a race to evacuate thousands from Kabul ahead of the 31 August deadline when troops will leave.
In the update issued on Wednesday evening, the FCDO warned Britons there was "an ongoing and high threat of terrorist attack", and that travelling by road was "extremely dangerous", with people alleged to have been "mistreated" on their way to the airport.
The government has said the UK's aim to complete the operation ahead of 31 August is moving at "significant pace", with more than 11,000 people evacuated with the help of UK troops, according to the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
On Tuesday, President Biden rejected calls from Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other allies to delay the withdrawal date for remaining American soldiers beyond the end of the month.
Kabul airport is currently being defended by 5,800 US and 1,000 British troops.
Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has told MPs that Afghans wanting to flee to Britain may be better off trying to reach one of Afghanistan's borders instead.
The MoD said that since 13 August, when the evacuation mission started, a total of 11,474 people had left Afghanistan. That includes almost 7,000 Afghan nationals and their families.
The total also includes British embassy staff, British nationals, those eligible under the UK government's relocation programme - Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) - and some evacuees from allied countries.
About 2,000 people eligible for ARAP remain in Afghanistan, but the plan is to evacuate more in the coming days, the BBC was told earlier ahead of the new FCDO advice.
Since the Taliban takeover, more than 82,000 people have been airlifted out of Kabul airport, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said. About 10,000 are waiting to be evacuated by the US.
Mr Blinken said the Taliban have promised to allow foreigners and Afghans to leave beyond the end of August, adding that the US and its allies had "a responsibility to hold [the Taliban] to that commitment".
Concern over suicide attacks
The Foreign Office has previously warned against all travel to Afghanistan, and cited the possibility of terrorist attacks.
But the new advice is very specific. Do not travel to Kabul airport. If you're in the area, move away to a safe location and wait for further advice.
Officials won't elaborate on the nature of the threat, but this change comes just 24 hours after President Biden warned of the danger posed by extremists linked to the group calling itself Islamic State.
Commanders dealing with vast crowds around the airport are increasingly concerned about the possibility of suicide attacks.
What the new advice means for the British evacuation operation is not clear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58337632
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1430650139828445186?s=20
