Jump to content

Finally done in Afghanistan?


FourFans130

Recommended Posts

I’m cautiously optimistic. Apparently the framework is a Taliban brain child originally so maybe they’ll be more open to abide by it. The part that makes me nervous was Haqqani put in his NYT op-ed about how they’re willing to do things IAW Islamic law. We’re all aware of their interpretation of that so we’ll see how that goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

And? As long as there aren’t training camps

 

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

In August 2001 there were, which is probably what he’s on about. 

Not sure how much that will happen, but I'm thinking they'll go back to civil war with the Taliban controlling most of the country. 

Not sure there is any other realistic outcome at a price we are willing to pay...just kind of sad that it will likely return to status quo ante after 20 years of effort/thousands of lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, raimius said:

 

Not sure how much that will happen, but I'm thinking they'll go back to civil war with the Taliban controlling most of the country. 

Not sure there is any other realistic outcome at a price we are willing to pay...just kind of sad that it will likely return to status quo ante after 20 years of effort/thousands of lives.

True,  quite the task to change the entire culture of a place, especially when the literacy rate is so low. Trying to use the military as a nation building force was always questionable at best, and not sure we ever had an end state in mind, past fall 2011. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, raimius said:

Not sure how much that will happen, but I'm thinking they'll go back to civil war with the Taliban controlling most of the country. 

Not sure there is any other realistic outcome at a price we are willing to pay...just kind of sad that it will likely return to status quo ante after 20 years of effort/thousands of lives.

 

Honestly, did anyone ever really believe that this wouldn't be the case?  It's like the battered wife that goes back to her abusive husband....no no, it will be different this time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is ISIS, AQ, etc. will always be a transnational problem. It’s never going to work to simply leave somewhere and trust the locals to keep a lid on Islamic terrorist group’s unquenchable thirst for total world domination. So, we’ll be killing these fucks for the rest of our existence, with varying levels of manning and materiel commitments. Don’t worry boys, that RipIt stock will never tank. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we just deploy, Kill the resistance, then come home and not try to perpetually nation build. Then when they fvck up again, we deploy, kill the resistance, then come home again. Just my opinion, but I’m sick of that whole freaking area.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we take a “total destruction” mindset like WW2, it could work. Aside from OGA/HVI targeting missions, it needs to be all out death and destruction for decisive action, to the end that it’s so bad for our enemies they choose not to step out of line against the western world again. Anything less and we end up in the same cycle of constant deployed ops.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brabus said:

As long as we take a “total destruction” mindset like WW2, it could work. Aside from OGA/HVI targeting missions, it needs to be all out death and destruction for decisive action, to the end that it’s so bad for our enemies they choose not to step out of line against the western world again. Anything less and we end up in the same cycle of constant deployed ops.

“Total destruction” only works for people and things, not ideas. As long as the enemy is “XX extremism” in the Information Age, total destruction is not going to play. 

Do you think it was the atomic bombs that prevented further wars with Japan or the fact that they’ve been essentially integrated into the “western world”?

Not a popular idea, but we need to decide what the acceptable level of risk to civilians through acts of terror is and expend minimal resources to maintain that. Then talk about it. Then we focus the military on more existential threats. We can’t continue to live in a societal fantasy of zero risk from terrorism at any price... anyway, back to texting and driving on my way to Dunkies.

Edited by jice
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or we embrace the fact that we have an opportunity to maintain operations in an “unconquerable” land and let the geography work in our favor while looking west and East while committing to an expensive 100 year presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I’m cautiously optimistic. Apparently the framework is a Taliban brain child originally so maybe they’ll be more open to abide by it. The part that makes me nervous was Haqqani put in his NYT op-ed about how they’re willing to do things IAW Islamic law. We’re all aware of their interpretation of that so we’ll see how that goes.

Let them run their $h:thole country as they see fit.  As long as they aren’t a threat to Americans.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit hasn’t worked well in the last 20 years because we’ve been targeting HVIs. “Chopping the head off the snake” is a terrible analogy that makes it seem like everyone else will quit when their leader dies. If you keep killing the guys who have the authority to surrender, there will never be a way out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Started going to AFG in 2002. Was last there in 2018.

I visited most, if not all, C-130 capable airfields in the country. In addition to the most important/worst part, the human cost, we watched the bases go from old Soviet buildings, to tents, to B-huts, to shipping containers, to hard billets, and then abandoned. Buckets to port-a-pots, to cadillacs, to proper shitters, then abandoned. The continuous pouring of square miles of concrete at every airfield. Giant bases created in the open desert and then bulldozed. The contractors everywhere. We looked down on the continuous train of supply trucks stretching halfway across the country from Pakistan. Watched the 24/7 arrival of equipment, MRAPs, M-ATVs, earthmovers, construction equipment, trucks for years on end. All used up and now rotting in giant graveyards.

Trillions of dollars disposed of in that wasteland. No point, just don't know what to think of it all.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 3
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2020 at 1:42 PM, torqued said:

Started going to AFG in 2002. Was last there in 2018.

I visited most, if not all, C-130 capable airfields in the country. In addition to the most important/worst part, the human cost, we watched the bases go from old Soviet buildings, to tents, to B-huts, to shipping containers, to hard billets, and then abandoned. Buckets to port-a-pots, to cadillacs, to proper shitters, then abandoned. The continuous pouring of square miles of concrete at every airfield. Giant bases created in the open desert and then bulldozed. The contractors everywhere. We looked down on the continuous train of supply trucks stretching halfway across the country from Pakistan. Watched the 24/7 arrival of equipment, MRAPs, M-ATVs, earthmovers, construction equipment, trucks for years on end. All used up and now rotting in giant graveyards.

Trillions of dollars disposed of in that wasteland. No point, just don't know what to think of it all.

My impression has always been that the Air Force, and the DoD as a whole, has three overarching goals:

1.) Spend the money to support the economy.

2.) Promote Diversity and "Social Justice."

3.) Defense of the country.

Everything seems to make a lot more sense when looking through that lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long overdue for a pullout (sts).  Our NCA is speaking out of two sides of their mouth when they say the priority is training for a near peer adversary in a contested environment yet we deploy our entire squadron to Afghanistan where the most lethal threat is Mustafa with his Ak-47.  Kind of hard to convince commanders to train for the high end threat when Afghanistan is what they’ll get graded on...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Did you guys actually read the article? They just put in stipulations for the withdrawal, which for the most part appear to be reasonable. Always set performance gates, if you hit them you get a cookie. If you don’t, then you hook the ride. Aside from the partisan headline not sure what the issue is here. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...