tac airlifter

Appreciate the analysis in this thread so far. A lot of news is hyper partisan and has already censored videos I saw yesterday of atrocities against civilians. The scale of this attack is impressive. That it could be developed while intel agencies were unaware is mind boggling. I understood 9/11 escaping notice of CIA; a small savvy force of disciplined folks is hard to track/assess. In this case they missed an entire army assembling! Holy shit. And the Iran financial connection is out in the open, as is weapons from the AFG withdrawal. Hamas is proud of it. Not sure KJP can spin her way out of our bad decisions directly enabling these actors.

What does "join the invasion" mean? I thought Hezbollah was more West Bank and wasn't even in the Gaza Strip. But as I said, I'm certainly not an expert in the region.

I sort of agree, but would add couple things. First the phrase "wag the dog" implies the incident being responded to is false. Great movie by the way. In this case the incident is obviously true and Israel is surrounded on all sides by fanatics who want them dead. And I'm not a fan of what Netanyahu is doing regarding internal politics; but we are hardly in a position to judge after own politics jumped the shark these past few years. The Israel/Palestine conflict has always been messy with dirty hands on both sides. But supporting Israel is the only ethical option. interesting that this is a Hamas action not Hezbollah; I'm curious what kind of cross-pollination might exists between those two since I'd guess Iran pushing this more than Arab states. Anyone know if Hamas has previously aligned with Shia Iran for anti-Israel actions? Seems strange, but I am not a regional expert.

That’s actually genius bro. Interesting story relayed to me by NWC Dean: when the USSR fell a brief period of candor existed between our militaries and we sent various folks to Moscow who, among other things, got to read Soviet war plans. Anyway, they assessed certain NATO (non-US) fighter units as particularly troublesome in the event of a Fulda Gap scenario so the Soviets developed an unconventional solution: send Spetsnaz pre-invasion to murder them. Small commando teams burning down apartment buildings full of SQ pilots and families would neuter their combat effectiveness without jeopardizing the lesser skilled Soviet Air Forces. so yea, for OPSEC you should stay in a random AirBnB on every TDY. It’s worth a shot 🇺🇸

CH is 100% correct here. If the idea of religious right supporting Trump doesn’t make sense to you, you don’t understand their beliefs or the depth of betrayal they feel by decades of Republicans who have moved none of their issues forward once in office. He doesn’t pretend to be one of them, he clearly does not share all of their moral values. That’s OK for them. Like Trump or not, he delivered on core promises to his constituencies. That’s why he is so popular while Kevin McCarthy (who made promises he failed to honor) is out on his ass. I’m not arguing merits here, but it’s important to understand why people think the way they do if you’re interacting with them.

“Impactful on partner nation real world operations” is a great way to answer my question. Well stated. Your next sentence is equally as true. You’re right they employed like an ODA. Except Army ODAs were doing the Lords work in AFG and accepting huge risk to help ANASOC commandos increase lethality. If the CAAs had been helping the US Military do things we needed and asked them to do, they’d still exist today. Instead they did one off GCC requests and DOS partnerships. Ok, that’s not nothing, but in the world of finite resources they lacked a convincing articulation of benefits provided to those paying the bill. Combine that with some odd cultural idiosyncrasies and their fate was unsurprising.

Define "meaningful work."

I agree with you 99%, my only input is I wonder if the combatant commander model (with its boundaries) should be revisited as our adversaries cross those boundaries without our level of bureaucratic thrash. Regardless, 100% CJCS should not be involved tactically... which Milley was. He was deeply involved with O6 level decisions in the AFG withdrawal. The full depth of his personal touch on that disaster is not widely known.

He is a dishonorable man and disgrace to the uniform. The worst CJCS perhaps ever. I’m hopeful I can eventually say it to his fat face.

This is exactly how an F35 sounds.

Anyone know what he’s referring to here?

Wrong again, lol.

Quite a bit if the alternative was my family dying, and I would deeply resent a foreign power meddling in my business. I’d bide my time and wage an insurgency when I felt I had the upper hand. But I wouldn’t bleed my neighbors against an adversary so much larger than me, I’d play it smart like the Taliban and eventually gain my land back. What were witnessing is just bad tactics. It is astounding to me how the warmonger crowd acknowledges they are sending kids into the meat grinder with no hope of victory yet they claim moral superiority for their stance. All the while advocating for somebody else’s family die with the guns we give them. I do enjoy war and I don’t mind killing Russians, but what is happening right now is just foolish. Brought to you by the same people who lost Afghanistan and gave Iraq to the Iranians, lol.

Boots on the ground = not required to start WW3. also, I'm a pilot and therefore unfamiliar with your odd numbers and symbols above.

Great question. No, but let me explain: the current level of support is escalating not remaining static. From types of weapons (cluster bombs, F-16s) to amount of funding to real-time tactical intelligence used for lethal targeting, it’s continued up up up with no end in sight or coherent vision of an upper limit. I would answer yes if anyone had a cogent articulated strategy with self-imposed limitations (example: containment, MAD, etc.), but we don’t. I’ve had GOs summarize our strategy as “continuing to dial it up as the Ukrainians need, to bleed Russia dry.” This seems open-ended and risky, but my question is how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?

You missed the point, which isn't surprising. I'll try once more and see if you can stay on target: in the USA the opinion of the people is supposed to impact government policy. Polls show the people do not support further escalation in Ukraine. Question: Do you think we should continue supporting the war despite our population mostly opposing it? Yes yes, Russia bad, got it. I don't want a moral lecture, I'm curious if you think we should be doing things that get us closer to an actual war when the population doesn't want it. Please be smarter than implying we're just giving them weapons.... there's literally a post on the last page about how close the UK came to exchanging blows, which would drag us in. Don't even reply if you can't control your emotions enough to engage maturely.

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

It will take years to get there, if ever, and too bad for anyone arrested in the meantime (loss of security clearance is a real possibility for our bros in ABQ). Not to mention anyone killed by a criminal who has lost the official right to defend themselves. There will never be any personal consequences for the tyrant democrats issuing anti-constitutional dictates. There’s a school of thought that the constitution is our unifying philosophy and any changes/limits should be addressed via legislative branch in a manner the constitution itself allows for. There’s a competing school of thought that once we have power we should just do what we want and see if anyone is willing & able to pushback. Might makes right, if you will. If you want to sue to stop it, go ahead and try… but expect the FBI to interview extended family, the NSA to search your browsing history and share with The NY Times, the IRS to audit you with a fine tooth comb, etc. All of those things have happened to those who push back (what happened to Tea Party members 10-12 years ago was criminal). If you follow this to its logical conclusion, the next step will be separating families for teaching hate speech. Already happening in Canada. We do not live in a free country anymore.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/governor-bans-carrying-guns-in-albuquerque-after-11-year-old-killed/article_a02a0b24-4e59-11ee-85ee-db977338b047.html NM Governor bans legal carrying of weapons to prevent criminals from committing illegal shootings. Of course she herself enjoys armed protective guards, but you aren't allowed the same privileges. The order cites Gun violence as a public health emergency, and is only for 30 days to flatten to curve. Can't make this up, democrats are the party of tyrants.

Cuba has resisted us well after the USSR fell. Like them or not (I don't) they've earned it. and I'm not saying it's "fine" that Russia invaded, I'm saying there's a limit to how much I'm willing to help the Ukrainians. A financial limit but certainly I'm unwilling to send my son to die there (which is not unthinkable). Sure sovereignty matters, but why is the US always doing heavy lifting while making ourselves broke? this is more nuanced than your characterization implies, and that's what's frustrating about this (and many) political debates nowadays.

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country? If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no. Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question. The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully. Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits. As a practical matter, I do not think we should continue supporting Ukraine financially at the scale we are because I believe it is a bad investment. Germany is the richest country in Europe, why are we doing so much more than them despite them being closer to the threat? The simple answer is they don't feel threatened by Putin which should cause us to reconsider our own conclusions. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is terrible. It has created massive human suffering and death. They are brutal. However, I am personally unconvinced it is more than a regional dispute, and I don't think it's good policy for us to get involved in every regional dispute. Also, there is value in being able to understand your adversaries position. 99% of people blathering about Russian misinformation every time grown-ups try have a serious discussion are simply retarded. "The first casualty in war is truth" is an ancient concept. I get it, there's bullshit on every side, words are weapons, etc. But if you cannot hear a different perspective because you are convinced it is acidic enemy propaganda that will poison your resolve, you are an idiot and your opinion is unworthy of further consideration. We have those people posting here, who claim a self-righteous halo for their willful blindness. People who don't question their own assumptions while being sure other positions are wrong, who insist there's a morale obligation to act regardless of consequences because it's worth the risk even though we don't fully understand the risk, certainly we don't owe citizens a COA analysis but of course we're doing this for democracy, and if it doesn't appear to be working just shut up and keep doing it! Eerily similar to what our country saw during Covid, BLM, climate "crisis" .... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not an indication we are being manipulated for political reasons.

In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them. Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine. you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions. Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq. my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine. It would involve Ukraine giving up territory. That sucks. However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.