Jump to content

Finally done in Afghanistan?


FourFans130

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lockjaw said:

As I read in a well written piece by a former MARSOC operator, "We weren't in Afghanistan for 20 years. We were in Afghanistan 20 times for 1 year."

The same thing was said about Vietnam shortly afterwards but we didn't learn our lessons apparently.  Racking my brain, I can't think of single counterinsurgency that was successful against insurgents who had a sanctuary in a neighboring country. 

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

51 minutes ago, Lockjaw said:

Given that news, it makes PERFECT sense now. If I was a C-17 pilot, I too would be reluctant to put my gear down because the possibility of having to subsequently raise it and entrap some coward running away from his country may get trapped in it. Too soon?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the meantime, American citizens will separate into their usual camps and identify all of the obvious causes and culprits except for one: themselves."

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/

 

Of all the things the American public and our elected leaders in Congress regularly pontificate about, the discussion about one of our most fundamental and somber duties, the ability to wage war, is rarely debated.  In the past week its now on the forefront of the American mind, as if the Afghanistan conflict suddenly arose out of thin air.

The American public argues about mundane and irrelevant issues, and expects a Congressional inquiry into everything from steroids in the MLB (2004's hotbutton issue which had more time on the House floor than GWOT) to who can use what bathroom.

If only we maintained some semblance of "limited but well defined" in our federal government we'd have the attention span to discuss the more important issues while leaving irrelevant ones to individuals, or at least to the state gov's.

I usually hate the idea of raising taxes to fund central govt, but the concept of a wartime tax, as an additional line item on every tax paying American's weekly pay deduction (to include Social Security and welfare benefits) might possibly be enough to remind them there is a conflict being waged somewhere on their behalf.  Ideally people would engage with their elected leaders and hold them to their Constitutional duties to declare war (Art 1 Sec-8 ) while holding the executive accountable (War Powers Act) but that might be asking a bit much. Maybe a 1% War Tax as a fiscal constraint, would translate into moral inquiry or social responsibility.  As was said ~15 years ago, "America is not at war, America is at the mall" (exception to those serving or having a loved one in the military).  That quote remains true today, although Id update to reflect the decline of shopping malls in favor of online shopping...

The growth of the Executive Branch and an impotent Legislature, combined with an indifferent public is not only bad for National Security policy but governance in general.  That, and the Fed's ability to print money/buy up debts doesnt help.

 

Edited by Milton
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one commenter on a TPN thread stated (before some weak dick [facebook?] mod turned off comments)...."do I have safety privilege?  If not, no comment." 

Edited by SocialD
Potentially FB that turned off comments which is worse imho.
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RUMMIT is the C-17 Loadmasters on that RCH flight are being Q-3d for “Improper Floor Loading.”

You’ve got to be joking? I know at least one of the direct leadership was pretty damn proud of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OSI review will not only look at the decision to conduct the takeoff, but also at the release of video “and the source of social media posts” from inside the C-17 that showed a body violently flapping in the air at the wheel well.


I mean, there's no real investigation needed for the decision to takeoff. Either leave a strategic asset in a hostile environment, or have the Ravens start shooting to get people off the jet (which also would've played terribly in the media). Civilian casualties were unfortunate, but given the situation unavoidable.

As for the videos, what do you think you'd get with a bunch of passengers on board?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bode said:


You’ve got to be joking? I know at least one of the direct leadership was pretty damn proud of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was stationed at Altus when the -17 FTU Sq/CC crushed a -135 ice shield with a SOC student. The instructor boom was Q-3d and the -135 FTU Sq/CC said he’d pull the Q-3 of the safety report came back and exonerated the instructor boom.

The safety report came back and said the instructor boom wasn’t at fault, it was the -17 Sq/CC’s fault for climbing into the tanker during the breakaway. The -135 FTU Sq/CC went to remove the Q-3 and the OG/CC, a -17 driver, told him that he would put a Q-3 Form 8 with his name on it if the original one was removed.

How do I know? I was in Stan Eval at the time and begrudgingly typed up the original Q-3 for the -135 Sq/CC to sign, fully knowing this was political bullshit. Nothing surprises me about the idiots that run the MAF.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

As for the videos, what do you think you'd get with a bunch of passengers on board?

 

I obviously wasn’t there, but there are only a few people that should have been able to take that video… and they are all crew members.  Somehow that video subsequently ended up on the internet. The crew did an absolutely amazing job in a terrible situation… and then one of them acted like an idiot and shared a video with their buddies/the internet. If I were in their leadership chain I would want to kick their stupid ass as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

How do I know? I was in Stan Eval at the time and begrudgingly typed up the original Q-3 for the -135 Sq/CC to sign, fully knowing this was optician bullshit. Nothing surprises me about the idiots that run the MAF.

Speaking as a fellow enlisted aviator with years of OGV experience, I can say I’m glad I don’t work in a OGV section that would require me to write up the CDD Form 8 on a SQ/CC.  My boss would handle that one.  

The AF can do all the investigating they want on that C-17 crew.  They were put in a terrible situation and did the best they could with the information they had.  They made heartbreaking decisions that they will live with for the rest of their lives.  They will not be found at fault, nor should they, with all of the international attention on the incident.  Commanders know what will happen next if they hit that button.  It involves Congress and the media.  I’ll tell you who is more scared than the crew.  The commanders that put them there.  

A basic rule I learned as a young instructor and then evaluator some 16 years ago was to always ask yourself what the follow on training is if you hook someone.  What is the follow on training for this?   Are you going to take them out to the airplane to perform a exterior inspection or stowaway check????   They know their jobs and they did it well.  They got the jet home without injuring another American.  

Let the decorations start rolling in.  They deserve it.  

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Milton said:

If only we maintained some semblance of "limited but well defined" in our federal government we'd have the attention span to discuss the more important issues while leaving irrelevant ones to individuals, or at least to the state gov's.

The growth of the Executive Branch and an impotent Legislature, combined with an indifferent public is not only bad for National Security policy but governance in general.  That, and the Fed's ability to print money/buy up debts doesnt help.

The thing is, we do have a limited but well defined federal government.... in the Constitution, but the federal government has been allowed to keep growing farther from the Constitution and outright ignores it now. One example that shows the suck is how the federal government uses the carrot on a stick of federal highway funding to coerce states into doing what the federal government wants them to do. More states must, and are starting to, reassert their federal 10th amendment right. Remember, the federal government is subservient to the states; the federal government is only a consensually agreed to compact among the states. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. It's a shame the federal government has grown to lie about this though. This is probably the first post of yours I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

So the VA reaching out to veterans who may be distressed over current events is a joke to you? If you’ve been around for a while, I’d be willing to bet you’ve lost at least one or two squadron mates to suicide. If you’re new and you haven’t, steel yourself because you very likely will. Personally, I’ve seen my fair share, including a couple of friends for whom I never would’ve thought that would be an option. I’m all for ANYONE who reaches out & promotes veterans’ mental health. 

I do think it's a joke that all of a sudden the federal government pretends to care about military veterans after the most embarrassing display of our government's 20 year failure in Afghanistan occurs, and it potentially causes thousands of military veterans to go into a mental health crisis. I have lost mates to suicide. It's horrible, but continuing to put the blinders on and pretend the federal government cares about our mental health is cynically laughable to me. They just kept us there for twenty years getting ourselves IED'd and shot up on a pointless mission to secure poppy fields, rare Earth minerals, and billion dollar contracts for Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, et alia under the guise of "freedom" and "democracy". Completely disgrace everything we have worked for, then have the audacity to send out some email like it'll change twenty years of being lied to? No different than messing with Saddam, or Muammar. Again, my post is a cynical view of our federal government, not us mil. veterans and those who have supported us. Most of us, sans most congressionally appointed General officers, genuinely want to do good, but we've been lied to with smiles and flags by those who couldn't give two sh*ts about us behind closed board-of-directors/congressional doors. No rant towards you @Prozac, just the system that be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The thing is, we do have a limited but well defined federal government.... in the Constitution, but the federal government has been allowed to keep growing farther from the Constitution and outright ignores it now. One example that shows the suck is how the federal government uses the carrot on a stick of federal highway funding to coerce states into doing what the federal government wants them to do. More states must, and are starting to, reassert their federal 10th amendment right. Remember, the federal government is subservient to the states; the federal government is only a consensually agreed to compact among the states. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. It's a shame the federal government has grown to lie about this though. This is probably the first post of yours I agree with wholeheartedly.

We are supposed to have a federal gov whose power is limited and well defined.  We DO NOT have one in practice, and havent had one since the early 20th century.

The federal government is not completely subservient to the States.  By incorporation, the States cannot violate federal law, specifically the Constitution and its Ammendment.  Your statement seems to imply one or some of the States can ignore or suspend the Bill of Rights (eg California could eliminate free speech, due process, or the right to bear arms).  The federal gov would only be "subservient" to the States in these matters if, by Constitutional Convention, state legislatures voided the Constitution (I think...Im not a legal scholar).  Unless you meant something different.

Ive made a grand total of like 5 or 6 posts on this board, mostly regarding AFRC stuff. My only other was primarily about the cultural differences between the US and AFG.  

Edited by Milton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hansel said:

 If I were in their leadership chain I would want to kick their stupid ass as well. 

I'm conflicted. I get where you are coming from, but at the same time...I'm mightily tired of public being sanitized from this war.

The video/imagery should be available for every citizen to see what poorly executed war, and especially a poorly planned withdrawal, results in.

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

15 minutes ago, Milton said:

We are supposed to have a federal gov whose power is limited and well defined.  We DO NOT have one in practice, and havent had one since the early 20th century.

The federal government is not completely subservient to the States.  By incorporation, the States cannot violate federal law, specifically the Constitution and its Ammendment.  Your statement seems to imply one or some of the States can ignore or suspend the Bill of Rights (eg California could eliminate free speech, due process, or the right to bear arms).  The federal gov would only be "subservient" to the States in these matters if, by Constitutional Convention, state legislatures voided the Constitution (I think...Im not a legal scholar).  Unless you meant something different.

Ive made a grand total of like 5 or 6 posts on this board, mostly regarding AFRC stuff. My only other was primarily about the cultural differences between the US and AFG.  

Thanks for sharing. Correct, the federal government is not COMPLETELY subservient (as I didn't want to get too in the weeds initially in my post), but they, as well as the States, must follow laws that are Constitutional. Yes the states could meet, vote, and void the Constitution, as it's a legal contract. I'm unsure if a single state can do so on it's own, or if it has to include all states, if that single state wishes to either secede or retract from the federal government but remain in the nation as a state. Interesting legal brain twister.

The point of what I was getting at in my first post, but forgot to type, was the doctrine of nullification; which is addressed in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798. Nullification is immensely powerful, as it is the middle ground between trying to use a failed court system (assuming the federal government is acting unconstitionally) and outright warfare. If the States believe the federal government is failing to meet their end of the deal as the Constitution outlines, or the federal government is issuing unconstitutional "laws", those "laws" are null and void and thus have no effect; said states are also expected to actively resist said unconstitutional tyranny with force up to and including military action. We have been seeing this over the past 8 months with states passing Second Amendment Preservation Act bills into law, which is an amazing thing. The Constitution does not tell the people what we can do, it tells the federal government what IT can do, and it's not much. A movement has started nationally at the local and state level, and it can't be stopped.

Edited by dogfish78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 AF/CC: I am proud of our aircrew who made tough calls in uncharted circumstances.  You epitomized “mission type orders” and why empowered Airmen are so important.

OSI is involved because of the tragic deaths of foreign nationals.  This is normal anytime fatalities occur.  I am not aware of any Q-3s for the crews involved.

Thad Bibb

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SocialD said:

As one commenter on a TPN thread stated (before some weak dick [facebook?] mod turned off comments)...."do I have safety privilege?  If not, no comment." 

since this is AMC, you need to put safety privilege in quotes as well. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

c8ffeb746b69a1a1c1092563257e1348

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.

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...