The Aussie viewpoint
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20953986_1454679951278878_3546326602963171642_n.jpg?oh=dfc46631c0567f42d8eea2636d9a32dc&oe=5A17F2A2)
Too true. The garrison left behind by Alexander the Great deserted in masse when word arrived in Afghanistan he had died. None of them there wanted to be there, and nobody there wanted them to be there. Somethings don't change.
Whats the alternative.
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 10:33:22 AM
Whats the alternative.
leave.
when they fuck with us, go back and kill the guys that fucked with us, then leave again
You can't remake a medieval culture in a modern image without a multi-generational overhaul in education, equal rights, rule of law, ending of corruption and tribalism, and separation of church and state. Afghan culture has shown a remarkably strong resistance to every one of those for 15+ years, and I really don't have any desire to spend any more US lives in a multi-generational nation-building event when they don't even want us there.
Kill the people that need killing and leave. Go back and kill the next batch that'll inevitably need killing, then leave again. Staying just gives them a more convenient target.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 25, 2017, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 10:33:22 AM
Whats the alternative.
leave.
when they fuck with us, go back and kill the guys that fucked with us, then leave again
You can't remake a medieval culture in a modern image without a multi-generational overhaul in education, equal rights, rule of law, ending of corruption and tribalism, and separation of church and state. Afghan culture has shown a remarkably strong resistance to every one of those for 15+ years, and I really don't have any desire to spend any more US lives in a multi-generational nation-building event when they don't even want us there.
Kill the people that need killing and leave. Go back and kill the next batch that'll inevitably need killing, then leave again. Staying just gives them a more convenient target.
This. Only stay long enough to kill who needs killing then get the F out. Rinse and repeat until either 1) they leave use alone or 2) they are all gone.
Supposedly nation-building isn't on the schedule this time. Just killing the guys that need killing.
However, it's a lot easier to kill the guys that need killing if you have bases there to stage from, with the proper logistic support from and through those bases. Real counter-insurgent operations are somewhat more involved than Ghost Recon: Wildlands. ::)
Brant, that's fine as long as we have the political will to do that. There were a number of times we should have dealt with the cancer growing in Afghanistan in the 90's, but we didn't have the political will to do it.
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 11:03:55 AM
Brant, that's fine as long as we have the political will to do that. There were a number of times we should have dealt with the cancer growing in Afghanistan in the 90's, but we didn't have the political will to do it.
We should've gone in heavy in 2001, shot the living shit out of the place, said "fuckit" on trying to partner with the Afghan gov't, and once Bin Laden was dead, yelled "deuces!" and had a mad dash for the plane.
Failing that, we should've left in 2009 when we capped the bastard. We had our pretext and we fucking blew it.
Should of cleaned things out in the late 90's. But that's my point, we knew of the growing problem, but we didn't have the political will to take care of it.
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
Should of cleaned things out in the late 90's. But that's my point, we knew of the growing problem, but we didn't have the political will to take care of it.
In the mid- to late-90s, we had the Northern Alliance that was actually rolling up the Taliban quite well.
Ahmad Shah Massoud (name spelling I had to look up) was doing a really great job of whacking Taliban asshats, right up until he got whacked by the Taliban asshats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud
We didn't need to go in b/c there was a proxy doing it quite well.... :)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 25, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
Should of cleaned things out in the late 90's. But that's my point, we knew of the growing problem, but we didn't have the political will to take care of it.
In the mid- to late-90s, we had the Northern Alliance that was actually rolling up the Taliban quite well.
Ahmad Shah Massoud (name spelling I had to look up) was doing a really great job of whacking Taliban asshats, right up until he got whacked by the Taliban asshats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud
We didn't need to go in b/c there was a proxy doing it quite well.... :)
So well that the 9/11 attacks happened literally hours after he got whacked :).
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on August 25, 2017, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 25, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
Should of cleaned things out in the late 90's. But that's my point, we knew of the growing problem, but we didn't have the political will to take care of it.
In the mid- to late-90s, we had the Northern Alliance that was actually rolling up the Taliban quite well.
Ahmad Shah Massoud (name spelling I had to look up) was doing a really great job of whacking Taliban asshats, right up until he got whacked by the Taliban asshats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud
We didn't need to go in b/c there was a proxy doing it quite well.... :)
So well that the 9/11 attacks happened literally hours after he got whacked :).
Yes, the 9-11 attacks were planned in spite of him and his allies. But how much worse could it have been if he wasn't there for the previous several years?
We'd already been thru Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassy attacks, etc. and could've counterattacked earlier.
To OJsDad's point above - it wasn't just a "lack of political will". Every time Clinton took a shot a Bin Laden he was accused of "wagging the dog" to distract from the growing Lewinsky scandal. Moreover, after Somalia, who could blame the administration for being gun-shy about sending in ground troops? It wasn't just
his political will - you should read the quotes from folks like Tom Delay leading up to Kosovo, and that was just opposition to what was then an air-only mission.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 25, 2017, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on August 25, 2017, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 25, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
Should of cleaned things out in the late 90's. But that's my point, we knew of the growing problem, but we didn't have the political will to take care of it.
In the mid- to late-90s, we had the Northern Alliance that was actually rolling up the Taliban quite well.
Ahmad Shah Massoud (name spelling I had to look up) was doing a really great job of whacking Taliban asshats, right up until he got whacked by the Taliban asshats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud
We didn't need to go in b/c there was a proxy doing it quite well.... :)
So well that the 9/11 attacks happened literally hours after he got whacked :).
Yes, the 9-11 attacks were planned in spite of him and his allies. But how much worse could it have been if he wasn't there for the previous several years?
We'd already been thru Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassy attacks, etc. and could've counterattacked earlier.
To OJsDad's point above - it wasn't just a "lack of political will". Every time Clinton took a shot a Bin Laden he was accused of "wagging the dog" to distract from the growing Lewinsky scandal. Moreover, after Somalia, who could blame the administration for being gun-shy about sending in ground troops? It wasn't just his political will - you should read the quotes from folks like Tom Delay leading up to Kosovo, and that was just opposition to what was then an air-only mission.
Don't worry, I'm not disagreeing with, just giving you a hard time. On the other hand, if we are going to do this counterinsurgency/nation-building thing (whether or not we do it is a different question from whether or not we
should do it, right?), its going to take either a lot of violence (like the Philippines) or a very long time. It looks like we're on the "very long time" COA to me.
1. If Clinton has kept his pecker in his pants, do you believe he would have done anything different.
2. The political will isn't limited to just the president. The president, members of congress, and every citizen has to have the political will.
3. McMaster was at a press briefing a little while ago. He made a comment along the line of we've been fighting 16 one year wars. We're not going to do that anymore.
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 01:54:58 PM1. If Clinton has kept his pecker in his pants, do you believe he would have done anything different.
No, because we were still pretty scarred from Somalia - a mission initiated under Bush 41 (which everyone forgets...) There was no way ground troops were going into Afghanistan.
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 01:54:58 PM2. The political will isn't limited to just the president. The president, members of congress, and every citizen has to have the political will.
On that we agree, and there isn't a lot of it in the US pulling in the same direction anymore.
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 01:54:58 PM3. McMaster was at a press briefing a little while ago. He made a comment along the line of we've been fighting 16 one year wars. We're not going to do that anymore.
McMaster is a really smart guy, and his pacification of Mosul under 3rd ACR was a thing of beauty. But there's no way the US is going to commit to open-ended occupations of foreign countries whose populations don't really want us there. We're barely haolding on to 1-year rotations. There's no way we're sending 3 divisions to Afghanistan for a 5-year mission. Not a chance.
I think the economy did more to keep us out of Afghanistan in the late 90's than anything else. It was going so good no body believed it was eve going to end, except those of us that new the high tech side was build on a house of cards.
The way I see it, we have three options.
1. We stay there forever, in a perpetual cycle of killing the guys who need killing. Let's face it, in that country, in that terrain, with that tribal culture and religion, they basically have a limitless supply of recruits...unless;
2. We say fuck it, and just kill them all. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius..."; or
3. Just get the hell out, wash our hands of the bloody place and simply prepare to defend our shores.
well, now seriously
@JH
4) intimidate them,
and you are lucky atm to have the only president, who is considered 'crazy' enuf (by the chamberlain friends and the foes of the USA alike) to actually keep word when he threats and f$%*#ing act.
Kill those who have to be killed including those in Northern Pakistan safe heaven, and don't be all to shy with the MK82 rain. (and also take out silently some single "independent Gentlemen", in Qatar and such places, who sponsor terror as a hobby beside golf and falconry... punish one, educate hundred)
Then tell the local warlords / tribal chiefs there: This is your valley, do what you want to do, but if you harbor terrorist an we find out, we arclight your sorry little stretch of landscape from above, including you, your kids and your goats... your choice.
that whole area is stuck in medieval clan system time period and will ever be , they like it that way .
the clans only bow to strength nothing else. words, contracts, promises, honor and bribes only works for a time being. Alliances are made and broken and made again... that is in their tribal tradition, and it goes also down to a single sub/family inside a tribe or even down to the single man
(a local solider or guard can be a trustworthy follower of the installed government this month and a traitor tomorrow, it all
depends...)
I guess one tribe may will try to test the borderline and Donald has to follow his words, and annihilate a remote valley with a B52-fleet (no nukes needed), but the others will keep their turf clean from then on for good
Well, Donald would get über-bad press incountry (MSM will go apeshit, but who cares ...they already do on whatever he does atm or does not and how fast or how slow), and also from Europe and the UN will howl too, if he really acts. but that is the situation today already anyway, isn't it.
so where is the difference for him, and btw. it would be a strong message to Putin and China too.
That they better see the USA like its 1941
Quote from: OJsDad on August 25, 2017, 10:33:22 AM
Whats the alternative.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestanimations.com%2FMilitary%2FExplosions%2Fatomic-mushroom-cloud-explosion-2-2.gif&hash=1cad3c3de113ba8f280691cab32e1cbbc9faf8e5)
when Germans and Jews agree on nuking something it just needs to be nuked.
Who would know the difference if it was nuked or not?
We should leave. Have some kind of rapid reaction force ready to kill whoever's turn it is, but totally minimize our permanent presence there.
The rapid reaction force has to stage from somewhere. They can't nap in orbital deep freeze to land in drop pods and then teleport back out.
That's the point of the current... well, 'plan', for want of a better word. You put rapid response teams, like the military version of SWAT, in bases scattered around the country, properly supported, properly guarded.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 25, 2017, 10:47:58 AM
without a multi-generational overhaul in education, equal rights, rule of law, ending of corruption and tribalism, and separation of church and state.
Hell, we can't do any of that here in the States...why would it work in a culture that's thousands of years older and a billion times more stubborn?
https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/08/trump-taliban-afghanistan-strategy/
Quote"You will not win a battlefield victory," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday in a warning to the Taliban, the militant group currently winning in Afghanistan. "We may not win one but neither will you," he added (https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/900060739980767233/video/1), mistakenly disclosing the Pentagon's highly-classified Kick Can Down The Road operations plan.
The Pentagon plans to use a system for Afghanistan similar to the Bush administration's color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, which would soon allow Americans to track the level of winning in Afghanistan on a monthly basis.
Okay, that was too uncomfortably close to real! Winced while :2funny:
https://warisboring.com/when-it-comes-to-the-war-in-the-greater-middle-east-maybe-were-the-bad-guys/
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-us-military-still-doesnt-understand-about-afghanistan/