fire4effect
-
Posts
475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by fire4effect
-
-
7 minutes ago, DUNBAR said:
Nice. Of course, we could have 10,000 B-1 bombers dropping 1,000,000 GBU-39s, and our political class would still lose the war to a psychotic band of illiterate, fanatical goat herders.
I wish I had an argument against our political buffoons.
I will say this. The Taliban are now trying to hold an entire country with some flashes of resistance from the former Northern Alliance. I'm curious what is their long term logistical sustainment plan is now for say feeding/paying/and transporting fighters as long as we have an albeit small footprint in the country. What we effectively have is a ******* standoff (though I'm sure Kabul International would be re-named the Alamo by some troops at the moment) and beyond stealing from the locals can they stay reasonably sustained? They can't really relax their force posture any more than we can at the moment. I'm certainly not on the ground over there now but this is my take.
-
All military operations are defined in one of two ways. An operational success if it goes right or an intelligence failure if it goes wrong.
-
3 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:
When's the last time the Bone's did some show of force passes over Kabul? We wouldn't even have to drop ordinance on them. Just a few round-robins to get these dudes back in their momma's basements.
Add this to your show of force
-
4 minutes ago, slc said:
Makes me cringe to see all the M4s w/ ACOGS in the hands of the Taliban. Hell, looking at various news clips/pics the M4s outnumber the AKs
Especially when I think of the ass pain that went into the investigation when ONE ACOG went missing from the arms room several years back. Wonder if the Taliban will sell any cheap on E-Bay
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, jazzdude said:
To what strategic end does this help? Sure, it'd feel good from the tactical operator perspective. But that's expensive (cost of weapons, flight time, basing and associated support and logistics infrastructure).
On top of all of that, Pakistan has been friendly towards the Taliban, so how long does it take for Pakistan to close of overflight rights to deny airstrikes in Afghanistan?Frankly my strategic goal is to show to the world that even if you bloody our nose we don't completely cut and run though that's admittedly probably a hard sell at this point. Second to degrade the Taliban and at least keep them somewhat looking over their shoulder so they aren't as free to start training terrorist wholesale and brutalizing their own people.
As for Pakistan they've always had the ability to shut down overflights and I'm surprised if they really wanted why they hadn't a long time ago. I also think we need to make it abundantly clear to Pakistan that we aren't playing any more and to that end reach out and strengthen our ties with India. On a side note India as I recall in the past was sending a not insignificant amount of aid to Afghanistan. Which touches on something else. I think that something like 70-80 percent of the Afghan Government budget is foreign donation an along with the freezing of assets has slowed money flow to trickle. Obviously a LOT more could be added to this discussion but and I would add one last think targeting the transport of fuel into will degrade the Taliban's mobility IMHO. All part of the effort to squeeze the Taliban.
-
14 minutes ago, slc said:
We should've thrown a Hellfire into the Presidential Palace when all those Talibs were gathered around the desk (I know, before you counter, you can't chop the head off this snake).
It is written into the Koran that is not verbotten to "lie" to one's adversary in order to advance jihad. In fact, it's encouraged! They're gonna tell us/the world what we want to here and then do the exact opposite in a few days/weeks.
If and when we get everyone we want/realistically can out of there no reason we can't make life very miserable from the air for them. Assuming 38 million Afghans and a high estimate of 100,000 Taliban that's 380 to 1. I don't get the feeling they have the hearts and minds of the locals as much as they like based on the videos we've seen and as we all know taking territory is a lot easier than holding it. Crank out GBU-39s (minimize collateral damage) by the truckload and go to town. Effectively were airmailing IEDs to them and they can endure the psychology of being hit with no way to shoot back. Basically if it has a crew served weapon/humvee etc. and 3-4 pax it gets hit and anything else we ID as worth going after. In the 90s they ran amok largely because no one was really looking hard but now we most certainly are. My .02
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, DUNBAR said:
Why am I getting the feeling that, regarding American humiliation, the next few weeks are going to be worse than 9/11, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and Saigon '75 combined? x10?
And one strategic E-4 or Taliban fighter with an itchy trigger finger away from a free-for-all that neither side will be able to control.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Springer said:Long, but worth a read.Posted at Instapundit.com
I ask that you not use my name. I am a currently serving General Officer and what I have to say is highly critical of our current military leadership. But it must be said.
I don’t blame President Biden for the catastrophe in Afghanistan. It was the right decision to leave, the proof of which is how quickly the country collapsed without US support. Twenty years of training and equipping the Afghan army and all that they were capable of was a few hours of delay in a country the size of Texas. As for his predecessor, the only blame I place on President Trump was that he didn’t withdraw sooner.
We should blame President Bush, not for the decision to attack into Afghanistan following 9-11, but for his decision to “shift the goalposts” and attempt to reform Afghanistan society. That was a fool’s errand any student of history would have recognized. And yes, we should place blame on President Obama for his decision to double down on failure when he “surged” in Afghanistan, rather than to withdraw.
However, most of the blame belongs to the leadership of the US military, and the Army in particular. The Washington Post’s “Afghanistan Papers” detailed years of US officials failing to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan, “making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” That report was two years ago, and the stories within it began more than a decade before that. Afghanistan was, and always will be, “unwinnable”.
Of course, I blame President Biden for the disastrous retrograde operation still unfolding. But let us not allow that to deflect us from heaping even more blame on military leaders. They stonewalled President Trump rather than beginning deliberate preparations to exit the country when he told them to. They thought that they could outlast him and then talk sense to his successor. Then after the inauguration, they pressed the new president to reverse course. He wisely chose withdrawal. Then and only then did the generals begin their preparations in earnest. But it was too late to do it well.
The war in Afghanistan lasted more than twice as long as the Vietnam War. Although the cost in terms of American blood was thankfully far smaller, the mistakes are the same: America got involved in a long land war in Asia, in a peripheral region, in order to prop up a floundering and unreliable government, and at a time when there was a much bigger looming threat. In fact, Afghanistan was worse than Vietnam in that at least the Vietnam War was tangentially related to the effort to stop the global spread of communism during the Cold War. Afghanistan was worse than Vietnam in another respect: the military’s leaders of the Vietnam era had no precedent to dissuade them from a disastrous path. Today’s military leadership has the precedent of not just Vietnam, but also Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. That much obtuseness must be punished and removed from the system.
General Milley must resign. Not only is he the Chairman of the Joint Staff, prior to that he was the Chief of Staff of the Army. While all services share the blame, the Army is the land domain proponent. The 20 years of failure in Afghanistan is an Army failure. Scores of other generals also deserve a thorough evaluation; many of them are complicit in the lies to protect a decades-long failed strategy.
Secretary of Defense Austin also must be fired. The recently retired Army general and former CENTCOM commander was, and still is, part of the culture that is impervious to the fact that 20 years of trying it their way did not work.
Just as it did after Vietnam, the military, and especially the Army, must conduct a comprehensive review of why it exists. The purpose of the Army is to visit profound violence on our nation’s enemies; it is not to rebuild failed states. We have decades of experience: counter-insurgencies and nation-building does not work for America. We do not have the stomach for long wars of occupation—and that is a good thing. We are a nation of commerce, not conflict. A constellation of retired stars will tell you that the two can coexist. They are wrong. Retired Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General Jack Keane said only two months ago that because Afghanistan consumes just a small portion of the force, America “can afford the cost of fighting” there. What he does not see is that for 20 years, that “small portion” was the most important portion of the military. Everything else necessarily is subservient to the portion of the force in conflict. It has altered who the Army is and how it thinks. There exists only a handful of officers below the general officer ranks who served during the Cold War and who have lived through an era of great power conflict. From private through brigade commander, virtually every Army Soldier serving today has experienced little other than counterinsurgencies or nation-building while operating out of secure FOBs. Large scale combat operations and insurgencies require different cultures and mindsets. In a resource constrained environment, the same service cannot do both well. The Army today could not win a major war. Yet, winning a major war, is the number one reason why an Army exists. It will take a generation to break bad habits, to think in terms of closing with and destroying the enemy versus winning hearts and minds. Keane sees raw numbers (and ignores the stark evidence that there was no progress over 20 years) and thinks that America’s Army can sustain that level of commitment. It cannot, and the opportunity cost to the culture of the force is much too great. Ignore him. Ignore Petraeus, McMaster, Stavridis, and the rest of their ilk.
Concurrent with its review of purpose, the Army must reevaluate its size and how it is organized. The active component is much too large. That makes it too eager to get involved in irrelevant theaters where failure is likely or even preordained. It should be very difficult for an American president to deploy the Army without the National Guard performing most combat operations. You argue that that takes time? Yes, that’s the point: it should take time to make the case to the American people that war is worth it.
The Marine Corps must provide the nation’s rapid response forces. It is a self-contained deployable multi-domain force. Some would argue that the service has both insufficient combat power and staying power. However, that is a feature, and not a flaw, as it forces the nation to rely on its Army—and hence its reserve components—before engaging in heavy combat or lengthy operations. The current Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Berger, already seems to recognize his service’s role—hence his decision to eliminate armor from the Corps.
Congress must reevaluate the authorities contained within Sections 12301 through 12304 of Title X. The president has too much latitude to, on his own authority, mobilize tens or even hundreds of thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists without congressional approval. It must be the policy of the United States that we do not place our service members in harm’s way without first making the case to the American people. This also means ending the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force as well as strengthening Congress’ role in the War Powers Act such that, absent an actual declaration of war, there can be no war.
Some would argue that such a constraint would limit the nation’s ability to respond to a Russian incursion in the Baltics or a Chinese attack on Taiwan. However, recent open-source studies conclude that the US military already is unable to defend against either attack. Pretending otherwise while not having the means to back up our assurances unnecessarily emboldens our partners and allies, making such an attack more likely. We lose nothing by making the law match the reality.
Let us not forget the intelligence agencies. They reported that Kabul was at risk of falling in as little as 90 days. That report was from last Thursday! The capital fell in less than 90 hours. Failure must be punished. And punishment in a bureaucracy means mass firings and a smaller budget—not more money so that they might be better the next time. Congress must consolidate and collapse our intelligence agencies. And when its reorganization is done, if the overall size of the nation’s intelligence apparatus is a quarter of what it is now, that still is too large.
And while we are on the topic of “too large,” DoD must be halved. There are too many flag officers, too many agencies, departments, and directorates. It is the only secretariat with independent but supposedly subordinate secretaries. There are too many Geographic Component Commands—each led by a 4-star virtual proconsul whose budget dwarfs what the Department of State spends in their regions. The result is a foreign policy that is overly military and underly diplomatic, informational, and economic. Congress must revisit the 1947 National Security Act and the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act. Both were good for their times, but after decades of experience, there clearly are new reforms necessary.
Unreformed, DoD is an inscrutable labyrinth which invites fraud, waste, and abuse. The excess attracts unscrupulous camp followers. Amazon did not choose Crystal City to locate its new headquarters because of low rents and ease of transportation access for its 25,000 employees. It chose the Arlington, Virginia neighborhood because it is two blocks from the Pentagon. That building controls the distribution of three-quarters of a trillion dollars every year. Most of it is wasted. The excess is apparent in the scores of class-A high rises housing defense contractors just blocks from the Pentagon. To end that waste, nothing so concentrates the senses as austerity.
Let me conclude with one last thought: the generals, the intelligence analysts, the defense contractors, and the pundits all leveraged America’s rarest resource: the American serviceman and woman. They are the ones who fought, and sweat, and bled, and died for what is now clearly a failed strategy and a doomed mission. Even after its failure was apparent to their leaders, they continued to enlist and reenlist, largely because their superiors—the experts—assured them that success was possible. It was not. It never was. Absent American support, Afghanistan collapsed over the length of a long weekend. That is proof enough that the last 20 years were in vain, and proof enough that the system is broken from within.
A lot I agree with but some I don't but still written by someone who benefited from the system and will likely retire with a GO pension.
-
1
-
-
I wonder if these guys had time to get there Covid shot hiding out in the mountains. It would be an almost biblical justice if they all got taken out by the Delta or some other variant. I know a lot of these 3rd world Sh!t holes tend to have lung issues from Tuberculosis. This whole FUBAR mess has to be a super-spreader event of epic proportions.
-
1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:
why don't we just keep pouring in those thousands of troops and assault the taliban leadership right down the street!?
talk about taking the enemy off guard and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat! i'll never happen but its a cool idea to think about...instantly capture all the taliban HVIs and "end the war"
And Linebacker 3 on targets starting along the Pakistan Border when the SOBs start running
-
11 hours ago, FLEA said:
Dude I understand this experience makes you jaded and bitter, but I have good friends who are Afghan officers, still fighting, and they will likely be executed in the next 2-3 months. Don't generalize them. Noone went to Afghanistan for 3-4 months and suddenly understands their culture and politics.
Yes, this is what hits me personally the most.
-
23 minutes ago, arg said:
Your statement would also apply to Viet Nam.
Interesting point you make as I was just recalling a close family relative who's a Viet Nam Vet and how
he recalled how it hit him every time he saw the famous picture of the helicopter on the embassy roof in Saigon
-
1 minute ago, FLEA said:
We only half assed it though. I don't think the Taliban can be defeated if we don't snuff the root which is the materiel support they're getting from Pakistan.
THIS!
-
I guess I had an epiphany of sorts when I realized in my mind that those who were willing to join the Afghan Military/Police as patriotic as they were could never be completely combat effective for one big reason. Namely because the Taliban was always embedded in the fabric of society and would always be able threaten family members somewhere in the country. I mean how effective would we be if we knew that our families would be under constant real threats at home every day. That said the Taliban are now in the open sts and taking over government building/police stations etc. If you ask me they're more concentrated and easier to kill wholesale even on our way out the door.
You'd think after seeing what happened in Iraq after the first withdrawal we'd have learned our lesson.
-
On 4/13/2021 at 1:36 PM, SurelySerious said:
*than the government is willing to pay for
Auto thrust reduction would 100% solve the problem, works with the C-130J, too. Whether the AF is willing to fork over money to have the FADECs do their thing is another matter.
And that’s also why they’re keeping 8 engines. Changing to 4 would be a TON of engineering work for the pylons and subsystems etc they’re not interested in. They’re barely interested in doing the work to make the engineering for a nearly similarly sized engine work.I'm hearing the Rolls is by far the best. Engines aren't "handed" and can be used on the right side or left side with minimal modification.
-
On 10/9/2020 at 10:27 PM, FourFans130 said:
The Herc is probably doing 180-220 in this turn, which isn't "concerning" to a J pilot, but it is on the fringe of 'something bad could happen' especially at that bank angle and g.
That's interesting. Wasn't thinking that way but with two obviously very dissimilar aircraft and one or both get into a stall situation I could see it get ugly quick. I wonder what stall prevention/recovery protocols are baked into the F135 software.
-
This is a random photo I found. Had no idea they did this with the gear down.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html
Sometimes removing a couple of malignant tumors require the right scalpel.
Our military is ultimately here for two things. 1)Deter war if possible 2) Win the war if necessary.
Good Luck OP
-
2
-
-
On 5/2/2020 at 11:12 AM, Prosuper said:
Never never ever speak to a FBI agent without your lawyer in the room and never never ever hire a law firm where Eric Holder is a partner if you work for a Republican President. Spent 5 years in DC , I hated every second of it. Disbarments and indictments for everyone. But will not hold my breath to see perp walks of key members of the last administration. Two tiered justice system, if you think this would never happen to you but they went after a retired 3 star General our country and Constitution is doomed.
Interaction with law enforcement in general. How often do we interact with law enforcement that doesn't have the potential to cost us at least a couple hundred bucks with a ticket? Honestly the only time I want to interact with law enforcement is if I'm engaging more than 1-2 active shooters. Up until that point I'm pretty good at protecting myself. Like with the AME and your medical. No one comes out having a better day than when they went in.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Prosuper said:
Just noticing today in OKC that roads are getting busier and busier as the days pass. Some restaurant employees have been called back before they got their first unemployment checks and the OCALC depot is fully open with cautions and restrictions. We sent 3 jets back to Fairchild on the same day. 24 hour grocery stores and Walmart still have reduced hours and probably always will. My oil patch neighbors are hoping the recently signed agreement between Russia and KSA will hold but filling up my gas guzzler Bronco 32 gallon tank for a 1.31 avg is nice. I see a bunch of states especially blue ones will be the hardest hit, their budgets are blown to hell and tax revenue shortfalls. Lots of Governor's will be bending a knee to POTUS. Amazon seems to be normal again, got a package in only 3 days . My conclusion is local economies will open up not caring what any hack politician says, most peoples kitchens are only stocked for 2 weeks if that and they still have bills to pay.
There's a lot to be said for living in the Midwest where we don't live on top of each other or have to depend on a subway or other mass transit (and the pathogens they can harbor) to get to work.
-
3
-
-
I remember the talk of the stealthy Predator-C a long time ago and I would think it would be effective in some roles. That said I'll leave it to the 100lb brain types to determine how stealthy it would be with the external stores shown in the picture.
-
I'd say our greatest vulnerability is our decidedly non stealthy tanker fleet.
As for Musk I would say put your (Musk's) money where your mouth is and develop something you think can beat the F35 and if its as good as you say it is we'll buy it.
-
37 minutes ago, arg said:
So the Iranians have killed almost 200 (if you count the 63 Canadians citizens) Iranians. After we killed one.
We complain about our government/military but need look no farther than Iran or a multitude of other foreign sh!tholes for what truly effed up looks like.
On a side note never under estimate the effect of paranoia in the minds of the Quds/ Shiite militias (and its effect on their combat effectiveness) now that a high level target was taken out so unexpectedly, precisely and publicly. Do ya feel lucky?
-
Can't get the link in here but you can Google Col Gavin Marks firearms policy at Offutt Afb to see a step back from common sense on this subject.
Finally done in Afghanistan?
in General Discussion
Posted
Yep, you went ahead and said what I was thinking the last 4 days or so couldn't bring myself to put it out there. Even if we dropped everything and ran now eventually we would have to go back and this problems not going away. As shitty as it is we are actually in probably the best position militarily (as opposed to when we still had Bagram and earlier etc.) than if we try again from scratch weeks or months from now when the Taliban have had time to dig in. This is going to get WAY uglier.