I guess we lost the Afghanistan War

[byco42]

I think it's obviously first and foremost, a failure of the intelligence agencies that were supposed to inform him of the reality on the ground. Biden will take the blame for it though, because those people are above reproach.

All the accounts I have read indicate that IAs were warning Biden of the imminent collapse of the Afghanistan Military. But I give them little credence one way or the other. What we are being spoon fed by the media is tightly controlled and vetted. The IAs could be track-covering. Or maybe it's accurate. I have no idea.

It's kinda surprising to me how there was almost no media coverage of this whatsoever, and then all the sudden it became almost constant, and obviously slanted to a narrative about how this was "botched." Our "foreign policy establishment" - ie the defense contractors making money off this farce - apparently were caught unaware it would actually end some day.

Even I know that the last persons to leave Afghanistan should have been the officers in command. And there clearly was no plan to extract the equipment and weapons left behind.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think it's obviously first and foremost, a failure of the intelligence agencies that were supposed to inform him of the reality on the ground. Biden will take the blame for it though, because those people are above reproach.

It's kinda surprising to me how there was almost no media coverage of this whatsoever, and then all the sudden it became almost constant, and obviously slanted to a narrative about how this was "botched." Our "foreign policy establishment" - ie the defense contractors making money off this farce - apparently were caught unaware it would actually end some day.

Here we go again - it's not really a mess or at least not a newsworthy mess, it's just that the likes of Haliburton and Boeing want to make it look bad so the US will stay longer and buy more bombs.

Tell us, what exactly was there to cover before the administration completely botched the withdrawal and it became an unmitigated disaster? Why would the withdrawal get 24 hour coverage before it happened? It happened and immediately was a complete cluster f*** and immediately dominated the news.

 

[Michchamp]

Here we go again - it's not the government's fault, it's Haliburton and Boeing that screwed this thing up, they're the ones who should have planned for these contingencies.

Tell us, what exactly was there to cover before the administration completely botched the withdrawal and it became an unmitigated disaster? ...

20 years of corruption and waste? pointless death and suffering? those aren't newsworthy? they could have had reporters on the ground reporting that the Taliban were in widespread control of much of the country, contradicting our "official" state narrative on that. I guess actually reporting news is no longer a realistic option in America.

and nice try, again standing up a straw man... not pinning this on defense contractors, just pointing out that they're pissed their gravy train stopped. not sure why you'd be upset about that. I thought you didn't like government waste and welfare?

 

[Spartanmack]

20 years of corruption and waste? pointless death and suffering? those aren't newsworthy? they could have had reporters on the ground reporting that the Taliban were in widespread control of much of the country, contradicting our "official" state narrative on that. I guess actually reporting news is no longer a realistic option in America.

so you were unaware of Afghanistan for 20 years? That's on you, not the media, or the defense contractors. The Taliban wasn't in control of much of the country, they were waiting for the US to leave and they quickly took control - I assume you're aware of the coverage around that.

and nice try, again standing up a straw man... not pinning this on defense contractors, just pointing out that they're pissed their gravy train stopped. not sure why you'd be upset about that. I thought you didn't like government waste and welfare?

Reread the post, I changed that at least 5 minutes before you quoted that post. I'm not saying you're pinning the withdrawal on defense contractors. I clearly and sarcastically said the reason it's in the news must be because defense contractors are grasping at straws to save their gravy train. That's what you said. That's not a straw man. And I'm not the least bit upset about any of the stupid things you post, in fact I often find them rather amusing.

 

[Michchamp]

I guess we lost the Afghan war

ftfy

the part about Biden is wrong too. at least there's much hyperbole there, as it doesn't seem Biden has changed the trajectory we were already on.

but tigermud is prone to flights of fantasy like that.

Actually, in staring down the military industrial complex & actually withdrawing from Afghanistan, Biden has demonstrated more grit than I thought he had. And done an unquestionably good thing. People can complain about the withdrawal, but they're stupid; it was always going to be messy, because the military and the contractors were never going to prepare for a withdrawal they didn't want, and were opposed to.

Biden has more spine than we've seen from a president since... I don't even know. JFK?

The narrative seems to be that Trump had some, because he spoke out against this... but he didn't have the depth to actually fight for it. Pompeo and the chickenhawks in his administration sunk him.

 

[Spartanmack]

the part about Biden is wrong too. at least there's much hyperbole there, as it doesn't seem Biden has changed the trajectory we were already on.

but tigermud is prone to flights of fantasy like that.

Actually, in staring down the military industrial complex & actually withdrawing from Afghanistan, Biden has demonstrated more grit than I thought he had. And done an unquestionably good thing. People can complain about the withdrawal, but they're stupid; it was always going to be messy, because the military and the contractors were never going to prepare for a withdrawal they didn't want, and were opposed to.

Biden has more spine than we've seen from a president since... I don't even know. JFK?

The narrative seems to be that Trump had some, because he spoke out against this... but he didn't have the depth to actually fight for it. Pompeo and the chickenhawks in his administration sunk him.

That's funny as is the rest of this "the ends justify the means" nonsense.

 

[tinselwolverine]

the part about Biden is wrong too. at least there's much hyperbole there, as it doesn't seem Biden has changed the trajectory we were already on.

but tigermud is prone to flights of fantasy like that.

Actually, in staring down the military industrial complex & actually withdrawing from Afghanistan, Biden has demonstrated more grit than I thought he had. And done an unquestionably good thing. People can complain about the withdrawal, but they're stupid; it was always going to be messy, because the military and the contractors were never going to prepare for a withdrawal they didn't want, and were opposed to.

Biden has more spine than we've seen from a president since... I don't even know. JFK?

The narrative seems to be that Trump had some, because he spoke out against this... but he didn't have the depth to actually fight for it. Pompeo and the chickenhawks in his administration sunk him.

Well, it was always going to be messy the way it was done, that?s for sure.

Let me provide an illustration.

Let?s say I?m driving, and instead of keeping my eyes open and on the road, I close them and keep them closed. Pretty much, I?m always going to crash. So how do I avoid that? Instead of driving with my eyes closed, I drive with them open instead.

So let?s say, instead of pulling out the forces that had been keeping the Taliban at bay, and then scrambling to try to get as many others out as you can on a deadline with zero leverage to change that as the Taliban had just waltzed into Kabul, you get everybody you want out first, and then you withdraw the forces that had been keeping the Taliban at bay after that.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, it was always going to be messy the way it was done, that?s for sure.

Let me provide an illustration.

Let?s say I?m driving, and instead of keeping my eyes open and on the road, I close them and keep them closed. Pretty much, I?m always going to crash. So how do I avoid that? Instead of driving with my eyes closed, I drive with them open instead.

So let?s say, instead of pulling out the forces that had been keeping the Taliban at bay, and then scrambling to try to get as many others out as you can on a deadline with zero leverage to change that as the Taliban had just waltzed into Kabul, you get everybody you want out first, and then you withdraw the forces that had been keeping the Taliban at bay after that.

but the forces weren't keeping the Taliban at bay; they weren't shooting at eachother anymore. You think we would've been flying all those airliners in and out of Kabul if the Taliban were hostile?

the problem as I've seen it laid out is: we drank our own Kool Aid and actually believed the Afghanistan government we propped up was legitamate and would try maintain itself for some decent interval, so we could leave. Instead, they collapsed as soon as anyone breathed on them, and their leaders grabbed whatever cash they could and fled before we even started evacuating.

We should've arranged the evacuation with the assumption that the Afghan government was less than worthless, and allowed the Taliban to take over Kabul before we even left. But that would've required we admit that 20 years of "nation building" was all for naught, which we couldn't do. So we left the way we did.

Which was unquestionably better than staying there indefinitely and spending hundreds of billion more dollars propping up sleazy warlords.

 

[tinselwolverine]

That?s true, the Taliban wasn?t hostile; they only waltzed into Kabul and overthrew the government the minute they could.

We?re talking about two different things here. I?m talking about the disorderliness of the withdrawal. You?re talking about remaining in Afghanistan indefinitely; I?m not talking about that.

 

[byco42]

I guess we lost all the posts in this thread, too.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I guess we lost all the posts in this thread, too.

No I?m trying to move the threads From the election aftermath thread to the Afghan war thread. I have been unsuccessful the first time out trying to do that but manage to figure out how to fix it eventually.

EDIT: Not the threads, I meant the posts.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think I got it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

but the forces weren't keeping the Taliban at bay; they weren't shooting at eachother anymore. You think we would've been flying all those airliners in and out of Kabul if the Taliban were hostile?

the problem as I've seen it laid out is: we drank our own Kool Aid and actually believed the Afghanistan government we propped up was legitamate and would try maintain itself for some decent interval, so we could leave. Instead, they collapsed as soon as anyone breathed on them, and their leaders grabbed whatever cash they could and fled before we even started evacuating.

We should've arranged the evacuation with the assumption that the Afghan government was less than worthless and allowed the Taliban to take over Kabul before we even left. But that would've required we admit that 20 years of "nation building" was all for naught, which we couldn't do. So we left the way we did.

Which was unquestionably better than staying there indefinitely and spending hundreds of billion more dollars propping up sleazy warlords.

That.

But no, don?t let the Taliban waltz in; keep the forces holding them at bay in place until we get everyone we want out out, then get those forces out.

And don?t let the Taliban dictate the timeline. So what if doing it the right way takes a little longer? We?ve already been there 20 years; a few more days or weeks won?t make much difference.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, it was always going to be messy the way it was done, that?s for sure.

Let me provide an illustration.

Let?s say I?m driving, and instead of keeping my eyes open and on the road, I close them and keep them closed. Pretty much, I?m always going to crash. So how do I avoid that? Instead of driving with my eyes closed, I drive with them open instead.

So let?s say, instead of pulling out the forces that had been keeping the Taliban at bay, and then scrambling to try to get as many others out as you can on a deadline with zero leverage to change that as the Taliban had just waltzed into Kabul, you get everybody you want out first, and then you withdraw the forces that had been keeping the Taliban at bay after that.

You could try driving with a seeing eye dog?

 

[tinselwolverine]

You could try driving with a seeing eye dog?

I think one actually has to be able to document the medical condition of blindness or at least severe visual impairment to be eligible to get that specific service dog.

I don?t think a person can just walk into a seeing eye dog outlet and say ?can I get a dog so I can safely drive with my eyes closed??

 

[Spartanmack]

I think one actually has to be able to document the medical condition of blindness or at least severe visual impairment to be eligible to get that specific service dog.

I don?t think a person can just walk into a seeing eye dog outlet and say ?can I get a dog so I can safely drive with my eyes closed??

Yeah, I was thinking you'd just want to borrow one to see if it works. If you time it right, you could probably borrow one and return before the owner even knows it's missing. If if they do realize it's missing, it's not like they could pick you out of a lineup - I don't see a down side to this scenario.

 

[byco42]

?Tally-ban? upset and betrayed that US left selected choppers and aircraft in non-operational condition.US troops disabled 27 humvees and 78 aircraft. Allegedly there are 48 aircraft operational.

? According to a report in Al Jazeera, the Taliban have said that they "feel betrayed" because Americans disabled military helicopters and planes before their departure from Kabul.
The fighters said they expected the Americans to leave helicopters in one piece for their use, according to Al Jazeera report. ?We believe it is a national asset and we are the government now and this could have come to great use for us,? the report added.?

You can?t make this shit up anymore.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I doubt helicopters can be flown for long without proper maintenance even if they aren't disabled (and they are designed for easy disabling). There are parts that need to be replaced regularly.

In 1991, Army aircraft required upwards of 10 man-hours of maintenance time for every flight hour (McClellan, 1991, p. 31), while today the average is over 16 man-hours for every flight hour.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I doubt helicopters can be flown for long without proper maintenance even if they aren't disabled (and they are designed for easy disabling). There are parts that need to be replaced regularly.

In 1991, Army aircraft required upwards of 10 man-hours of maintenance time for every flight hour (McClellan, 1991, p. 31), while today the average is over 16 man-hours for every flight hour.

Yeah, we pretty much pissed off everybody by the end of the day in this thing?

We pissed off the British?

We pissed off the French?

We pissed off the Taliban?

 

[tomdalton22]

?Tally-ban? upset and betrayed that US left selected choppers and aircraft in non-operational condition.US troops disabled 27 humvees and 78 aircraft. Allegedly there are 48 aircraft operational.

? According to a report in Al Jazeera, the Taliban have said that they "feel betrayed" because Americans disabled military helicopters and planes before their departure from Kabul.
The fighters said they expected the Americans to leave helicopters in one piece for their use, according to Al Jazeera report. ?We believe it is a national asset and we are the government now and this could have come to great use for us,? the report added.?

You can?t make this shit up anymore.

lol

they should have left them but booby trapped. Once they fly for 10 hours they just turn off and fall to the ground. :cheers: