-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Leaving Vietnam vs AFG
- Thread starter jmcquate
- Start date
I was a new eighth grader when we began our occupation in Afghanistan...there came a point where I forgot what our mission even was over there. You say the word stability enough times and it starts to sound funny.
I didn't know how we would ever exit that place, given our presence resembled a gauze bandage crudely wrapped over an arterial wound. I am still waiting to read an alternative to the last few days that gives me something to think about. How many years more would've constituted a sufficiently gradual reduction? What does the proposed alternative history of "stepping up diplomatic efforts" actually mean (I hear this one a lot, but I am not sure who diplomacy would be conducted with to change the outcome of this week). And if the manpower/funding to train the Afghans resulted in gestures all this, what benefit would there have been to a reduced but continuing engagement with their armed forces?
I'm looking forward to some post-shellshock analyses of this situation.
I didn't know how we would ever exit that place, given our presence resembled a gauze bandage crudely wrapped over an arterial wound. I am still waiting to read an alternative to the last few days that gives me something to think about. How many years more would've constituted a sufficiently gradual reduction? What does the proposed alternative history of "stepping up diplomatic efforts" actually mean (I hear this one a lot, but I am not sure who diplomacy would be conducted with to change the outcome of this week). And if the manpower/funding to train the Afghans resulted in gestures all this, what benefit would there have been to a reduced but continuing engagement with their armed forces?
I'm looking forward to some post-shellshock analyses of this situation.
I wonder if the Crew Chief had to rerun the W&B after three clinging to the outside fell off…sadly, there are worse ways to die in Afghanistan.
There are videos…
I don't know. We've been talking the talk of pivoting to the Pacific, one less diversion now.
The Taliban are Sunnis, as are the Uyghurs that the Chinese have been persecuting. I've wondered for a long time about when the Islamic fundamentalists in general would react to it.
Good questions.
First I lay most of the blame on the State Department. Sadly we have long lost any real capacity and vision in the State Department. Indeed, I consider it our worst (important) federal agency. For too long they have recruited a kind of new age "white-shoe" Ivy League types who think international diplomacy should reach no further than a glass of wine in some Euro-Centric embassy. We have gone back to making critical ambassadorship decisions based on the spoils system and really don;t expact anything from State. I was in Afghanistan at the very begining and the land forces were crying less for a "Let's build a democracy" approach than a State centered "let's build an economy" approach. Instead of sending their nest and brightest, state sent their lowest and dimmest - people clinging to the idea that if they suffer a year or two in Afghanistan they'll get that European posting. Once we did start the democracy project we assumed they would figure it out...a losing proposition from the start. We should have handed them a Constitution, a bicameral legislation, and a set number of agencies to coordinate a central government effort. It should have been handed tho them not as a gift, but as a requirement.
Next I lay it on the total lack of vision from a military planning point of view. We needed to build a regional-based, tribal focused militia along the loose lines of our early National Guard long before we started building an Afghan National Army. The army we created had nothing to bond it beyond a pay check. As there was no "nation" there was no "patriotism," and yes, that shit is important. In terms of tectics and how we did things, that was all dione well. The Taliban simply could not stand up to the US and when they tried they got slaughtered. Our presence there should have been more like the Indian Wars here in the US rather than the pathetic idea that all insurgencies are the same (Vietnam idea). A constant presence, constant patroling, and constant helping. Yes, we lost good people but take that to scale. From 2001 to 2018 (a little less than our war) more than 10,000 people were murdered in Chicago. That makes service in Afghanistan a rather safe duty. Some how we the people have convinced ourselves that victory is measured by the signing of some document on the deck of a major warship when in truth it is measured in decades. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that if we can't totally destroy an enemy in four years we can't win.
Lastly I lay the blame on the idiotic American voter who used Afghanistan as a ping-pong ball to "blame the other side." Depending on who was in office we were either saving the world or (a most dispised phrase for me) wasting "blood and treasure" in Afghanistan.
The greatest loss we (the US) suffered was the death of Massoud in the opening days. He was the glue that might have bonded the nation. Still, I'll be honest, the war there isn't over. The simple fact that heroin is a major crop there indicates the US will be back in some form. Future terror attacks will come from there. If the horrors of a Taliban are bad enough (and displayed enough) we may be back sooner rather than later. Even the Chinese are going to be dissapointed thinking they have "won" a bloodless victory and easy access to their belt-and road dreams as the Taliban doesn't care who the enemy might be.
Saw those…they were in the Twitter thread.
amazing to consider the irony
20 years ago, people were falling from the towers
20 years ago, people were falling from the towers
Here's the list of Ambassadors to Afghanistan, including since 2002. They aren't big campaign donors, they are all career FSO or similar.
List of ambassadors of the United States to Afghanistan - Wikipedia
Wouldn't that have flown in the face of a thousand years of culture and history?
With reference to your first question I think I made my point poorly (and you called me out rightly) by referencing "ambassadors" so losely - I should have referenced senior State appointees. But it does go to my point in that NO ONE from any of the administrations was willing to pick up that hard job and make it work - they were assigned.Here's the list of Ambassadors to Afghanistan, including since 2002. They aren't big campaign donors, they are all career FSO or similar.
List of ambassadors of the United States to Afghanistan - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Wouldn't that have flown in the face of a thousand years of culture and history?
With reference to your second question - No. It is beyond pointless to imagine that somehow only people born west of the Volga, north of the Mediterranean, and east of the Pacific International Date Line are capable of grasping the fundamentals of democracy (can you tell I hate that argument?). Our problem is that as post-modern liberals (in the true sense of the word, not the political version) we expect others to suffer through the process as "we the people" did. We could have made their tribal system fit within a democratic system but we imagined they were all "Afghans" when in fact they are Aimaq, Baloc, Hazara, Pastun and so on. We failed in not gining them time, space, and a system from which to become "Afghans."
I may have an error in fact here. I thought K2 (Karshi Kanabad) was closed. If it is still operational then my first point above is moot. K2 would allow us a gateway into Afghanistan.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I have it on good authority from the Twitter machine that they were " thrown " from the jet.
I am sure that will gain traction in certain quarters.
I saw the conflict in your post and I don't agree that what we are seeing now had to be the outcome. Yes, we had to leave but not how we did it.
So no, it didn't need to be done, this way. Which was my point in the first place.
Well, this is an interesting prediction...not likely in an obvious sense...but interesting.
Taliban, Pakistan, China will attack India in a year: Subramanian Swamy - The Week
Taliban, Pakistan, China will attack India in a year: Subramanian Swamy - The Week
Our Department of State is in good hands. We will make sure the Taliban don’t oppress women or harbor terrorists:
American Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a CNN interview on Sunday that the administration of President Joe Biden “can work with and recognize” a Taliban government in Afghanistan that respects women and “doesn’t harbor terrorists.”