‘This Is Not Saigon. This Is Worse Than Saigon.’

[AU9377 4,967]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Lots of inaccuracies starting at sentence one. 

And this: "The plan you speak of also did not assume that the Afghan military was made up of cowards unwilling to fight for the freedoms they enjoyed." Please share that intel. lol

The way a civilian controlled military works is that they are given a mission and told to present plans on how to achieve that mission's goals.  From those plans, a course of action is chosen and the military implements that course of action.

[autigeremt 6,644]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

I really don't care what the UK thinks. They're welcome to send the SAS to continue the war if they wish. We're done. 

So much for allies. 

[AU9377 4,967]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

I proved my worth ten fold. Scars to prove it and left blood along the desert sand and the central American jungles. Enough said 

His point remains as to the OP.  I lost a very close friend in Afghanistan.  I saw his mother yesterday and the last thing she said to me was "I'm just glad we aren't wasting any more lives helping people that don't want to be helped."  That sums up my feelings on the subject, but she literally had the loss of her youngest son on her mind when she made the comment.

[AU9377 4,967]

5 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

So much for allies. 

People in the U.K. have been against their involvement for years.

[autigeremt 6,644]

Just now, AU9377 said:

His point remains as to the OP.  I lost a very close friend in Afghanistan.  I saw his mother yesterday and the last thing she said to me was "I'm just glad we aren't wasting any more lives helping people that don't want to be helped."  That sums up my feelings on the subject, but she literally had the loss of her youngest son on her mind when she made the comment.

And I agree with her....should have been gone a long time ago, but my feelings about this concerns the soldier, airmen, aviator, sailor, marine, coastie (yes we have a few of them over there supporting the operations) that I know who think and feel differently. Including myself. I'm going to retreat on this topic now and go back to being a civilian. Godspeed everyone. I hope it all works out in the end. 

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

So much for allies. 

Just because they're obstinately our friends doesn't mean they aren't morons cynically trying to score points because we dropped the modern day colonialism.

Couldn't give a damn what the Boris Johnson's and Tony Blair's of the world think. 

[DKW 86 7,426]

Please note: I am not posting this because I agree with Blair, Failed NeoCon Schlockmeister if there ever was one. I am tired of ruling classes that are just so tone deaf they cant imagine there even being another side of any issue but theirs. Biden and trump, did the best thing and ended the bloodshed and the money wasting. Today is a great day in my book.

https://institute.global/tony-blair/tony-blair-why-we-must-not-abandon-people-afghanistan-their-sakes-and-ours

POLITICO Playbook: Tony Blair slams Biden’s ‘imbecilic’ Afghanistan policy

Former British PM Tony Blair called President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan pullout “imbecilic” in a 2,700-word (!) post published Saturday on his institute’s website. | Hollie Adams/Getty ImagesDRIVING THE DA

he abandonment of Afghanistan and its people is tragic, dangerous, unnecessary, not in their interests and not in ours. In the aftermath of the decision to return Afghanistan to the same group from which the carnage of 9/11 arose, and in a manner that seems almost designed to parade our humiliation, the question posed by allies and enemies alike is: has the West lost its strategic will? Meaning: is it able to learn from experience, think strategically, define our interests strategically and on that basis commit strategically? Is long term a concept we are still capable of grasping? Is the nature of our politics now inconsistent with the assertion of our traditional global leadership role? And do we care?

As the leader of our country when we took the decision to join the United States in removing the Taliban from power – and who saw the high hopes we had of what we could achieve for the people and the world subside under the weight of bitter reality – I know better than most how difficult the decisions of leadership are, and how easy it is to be critical and how hard to be constructive.

Almost 20 years ago, following the slaughter of 3,000 people on US soil on 11 September, the world was in turmoil. The attacks were organised out of Afghanistan by al-Qaeda, an Islamist terrorist group given protection and assistance by the Taliban. We forget this now, but the world was spinning on its axis. We feared further attacks, possibly worse. The Taliban were given an ultimatum: yield up the al-Qaeda leadership or be removed from power so that Afghanistan could not be used for further attacks. They refused. We felt there was no safer alternative for our security than keeping our word.

We held out the prospect, backed by substantial commitment, of turning Afghanistan from a failed terror state into a functioning democracy on the mend. It may have been a misplaced ambition, but it was not an ignoble one. There is no doubt that in the years that followed we made mistakes, some serious. But the reaction to our mistakes has been, unfortunately, further mistakes. Today we are in a mood that seems to regard the bringing of democracy as a utopian delusion and intervention, virtually of any sort, as a fool’s errand.

The world is now uncertain of where the West stands because it is so obvious that the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in this way was driven not by grand strategy but by politics.

We didn't need to do it. We chose to do it. We did it in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending “the forever wars”, as if our engagement in 2021 was remotely comparable to our commitment 20 or even ten years ago, and in circumstances in which troop numbers had declined to a minimum and no allied soldier had lost their life in combat for 18 months.

We did it in the knowledge that though worse than imperfect, and though immensely fragile, there were real gains over the past 20 years. And for anyone who disputes that, read the heartbreaking laments from every section of Afghan society as to what they fear will now be lost. Gains in living standards, education particularly of girls, gains in freedom. Not nearly what we hoped or wanted. But not nothing. Something worth defending. Worth protecting.

We did it when the sacrifices of our troops had made those fragile gains our duty to preserve.

We did it when the February 2020 agreement, itself replete with concessions to the Taliban, by which the US agreed to withdraw if the Taliban negotiated a broad-based government and protected civilians, had been violated daily and derisively.

We did it with every jihadist group around the world cheering.

Russia, China and Iran will see and take advantage. Anyone given commitments by Western leaders will understandably regard them as unstable currency.

We did it because our politics seemed to demand it. And that’s the worry of our allies and the source of rejoicing in those who wish us ill.

They think Western politics is broken.

Unsurprisingly therefore friends and foes ask: is this a moment when the West is in epoch-changing retreat?

I can't believe we are in such retreat, but we are going to have to give tangible demonstration that we are not.

This demands an immediate response in respect of Afghanistan. And then measured and clear articulation of where we stand for the future.

We must evacuate and give sanctuary to those to whom we have responsibility – those Afghans who helped us, stood by us and have a right to demand we stand by them. There must be no repetition of arbitrary deadlines. We have a moral obligation to keep at it until all those who need to be are evacuated. And we should do so not grudgingly but out of a deep sense of humanity and responsibility.

We need then to work out a means of dealing with the Taliban and exerting maximum pressure on them. This is not as empty as it seems. We have given up much of our leverage, but we retain some. The Taliban will face very difficult decisions and likely divide deeply over them. The country, its finances and public-sector workforce are significantly dependent on aid notably from the US, Japan, the UK and others. The average age of the population is 18. A majority of Afghans have known freedom and not known the Taliban regime. They will not all conform quietly.

The UK, as the current G7 chair, should convene a Contact Group of the G7 and other key nations, and commit to coordinating help to the Afghan people and holding the new regime to account. NATO – which has had 8,000 troops present in Afghanistan alongside the US – and Europe should be brought fully into cooperation under this grouping.

We need to draw up a list of incentives, sanctions and actions we can take, including to protect the civilian population so the Taliban understand their actions will have consequences.

This is urgent. The disarray of the past weeks needs to be replaced by something resembling coherence, and with a plan that is credible and realistic. 

But then we must answer that overarching question. What are our strategic interests and are we prepared any longer to commit to upholding them?

Compare the Western position with that of President Putin. When the Arab Spring convulsed the Middle East and North Africa toppling regime after regime, he perceived that Russia’s interests were at stake. In particular, in Syria, he believed that Russia needed Assad to stay in power. While the West hesitated and then finally achieved the worst of all worlds – refusing to negotiate with Assad, but not doing anything to remove him, even when he used chemical weapons against his own people – Putin committed. He has spent ten years in open-ended commitment. And though he was intervening to prop up a dictatorship and we were intervening to suppress one, he, along with the Iranians, secured his goal. Likewise, though we removed the Qaddafi government in Libya, it is Russia, not us, who has influence over the future.

Afghanistan was hard to govern all through the 20 years of our time there. And of course, there were mistakes and miscalculations. But we shouldn’t dupe ourselves into thinking it was ever going to be anything other than tough, when there was an internal insurgency combining with external support – in this case, Pakistan – to destabilise the country and thwart its progress.

The Afghan army didn’t hold up once US support was cancelled, but 60,000 Afghan soldiers gave their lives, and any army would have suffered a collapse in morale when effective air support vital for troops in the field was scuttled by the overnight withdrawal of maintenance.

There was endemic corruption in government, but there were also good people doing good work to the benefit of the people.

Read the excellent summary of what we got right and wrong from General Petraeus in his New Yorker interview.

It often dashed our hopes, but it was never hopeless.

Despite everything, if it mattered strategically, it was worth persevering provided that the cost was not inordinate and here it wasn't. 

If it matters, you go through the pain. Even when you are rightly disheartened, you can't lose heart completely. Your friends need to feel it and your foes need to know it.

“If it matters.”

So: does it? Is what is happening in Afghanistan part of a picture that concerns our strategic interests and engages them profoundly?

Some would say no. We have not had another attack on the scale of 9/11, though no-one knows whether that is because of what we did post 9/11 or despite it. You could say that terrorism remains a threat but not one that occupies the thoughts of a lot of our citizens, certainly not to the degree in the years following 9/11.

You could see different elements of jihadism as disconnected, with local causes and containable with modern intelligence.

I would still argue that even if this were right and the action in removing the Taliban in November 2001 was unnecessary, the decision to withdraw was wrong. But it wouldn’t make this a turning point in geopolitics.

But let me make the alternative case – that the Taliban is part of a bigger picture that should concern us strategically.

The 9/11 attack exploded into our consciousness because of its severity and horror. But the motivation for such an atrocity arose from an ideology many years in development. I will call it “Radical Islam” for want of a better term. As a research paper shortly to be published by my Institute shows, this ideology in different forms, and with varying degrees of extremism, has been almost 100 years in gestation.

Its essence is the belief that Muslim people are disrespected and disadvantaged because they are oppressed by outside powers and their own corrupt leadership, and that the answer lies in Islam returning to its roots, creating a state based not on nations but on religion, with society and politics governed by a strict and fundamentalist view of Islam.

It is the turning of the religion of Islam into a political ideology and, of necessity, an exclusionary and extreme one because in a multi-faith and multicultural world, it holds there is only one true faith and we should all conform to it.

Over the past decades and well before 9/11, it was gaining in strength. The 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution and its echo in the failed storming of the Grand Mosque in Mecca in late 1979 massively boosted the forces of this radicalism. The Muslim Brotherhood became a substantial movement. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan saw jihadism rise.

In time other groups have sprung up: Boko Haram, al-Shabab, al-Qaeda, ISIS and many others.

Some are violent. Some not. Sometimes they fight each other. But at other times, as with Iran and al-Qaeda, they cooperate. But all subscribe to basic elements of the same ideology.

Today, there is a vast process of destabilisation going on in the Sahel, the group of countries across the northern part of sub-Saharan Africa. This will be the next wave of extremism and immigration that will inevitably hit Europe.

My Institute works in many African countries. Barely a president I know does not think this is a huge problem for them and for some it is becoming THE problem.

Iran uses proxies like Hizbullah to undermine moderate Arab countries in the Middle East. Lebanon is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Turkey has moved increasingly down the Islamist path in recent years.

In the West, we have sections of our own Muslim communities radicalised.

Even more moderate Muslim nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia have, over a period of decades, seen their politics become more Islamic in practice and discourse.

Look no further than Pakistan’s prime minister congratulating the Taliban on their “victory” to see that although, of course, many of those espousing Islamism are opposed to violence, they share ideological characteristics with many of those who use it – and a world view that is constantly presenting Islam as under siege from the West.

Islamism is a long-term structural challenge because it is an ideology utterly inconsistent with modern societies based on tolerance and secular government.

Yet Western policymakers can't even agree to call it “Radical Islam”. We prefer to identify it as a set of disconnected challenges, each to be dealt with separately.

If we did define it as a strategic challenge, and saw it in whole and not as parts, we would never have taken the decision to pull out of Afghanistan.

We are in the wrong rhythm of thinking in relation to Radical Islam. With Revolutionary Communism, we recognised it as a threat of a strategic nature, which required us to confront it both ideologically and with security measures. It lasted more than 70 years. Throughout that time, we would never have dreamt of saying, “well, we have been at this for a long time, we should just give up.”

We knew we had to have the will, the capacity and the staying power to see it through. There were different arenas of conflict and engagement, different dimensions, varying volumes of anxiety as the threat ebbed and flowed.

But we understood it was a real menace and we combined across nations and parties to deal with it.

This is what we need to decide now with Radical Islam. Is it a strategic threat? If so, how do those opposed to it including within Islam, combine to defeat it?

We have learnt the perils of intervention in the way we intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq and indeed Libya. But non-intervention is also policy with consequence.

What is absurd is to believe the choice is between what we did in the first decade after 9/11 and the retreat we are witnessing now: to treat our full-scale military intervention of November 2001 as of the same nature as the secure and support mission in Afghanistan of recent times.  

Intervention can take many forms. We need to do it learning the proper lessons of the past 20 years according not to our short-term politics, but our long-term strategic interests.

But intervention requires commitment. Not time limited by political timetables but by obedience to goals.

For Britain and the US, these questions are acute. The absence of across-the-aisle consensus and collaboration and the deep politicisation of foreign policy and security issues is visibly atrophying US power. And for Britain, out of Europe and suffering the end of the Afghanistan mission by our greatest ally with little or no consultation, we have serious reflection to do. We don’t see it yet. But we are at risk of relegation to the second division of global powers. Maybe we don’t mind. But we should at least take the decision deliberatively.

There are of course many other important issues in geopolitics: Covid-19, climate, the rise of China, poverty, disease and development.

But sometimes an issue comes to mean something not only in its own right but as a metaphor, as a clue to the state of things and the state of peoples.

If the West wants to shape the 21st century, it will take commitment. Through thick and thin. When it’s rough as well as easy. Making sure allies have confidence and opponents caution. Accumulating a reputation for constancy and respect for the plan we have and the skill in its implementation.

It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating, and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values.

It requires us to learn lessons from the 20 years since 9/11 in a spirit of humility – and the respectful exchange of different points of view – but also with a sense of rediscovery that we in the West represent values and interests worth being proud of and defending.

And that commitment to those values and interests needs to define our politics and not our politics define our commitment.

This is the large strategic question posed by these last days of chaos in Afghanistan. And on the answer will depend the world’s view of us and our view of ourselves.   

Edited August 25, 2021 by DKW 86

[AUFAN78 3,911]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they're wrong without explaining why. 

Just getting back, but hope you see your inaccuracies by now. And for the record, I've told you small details of former plan and why you are wrong. 

Ironically, I've been with two veterans since 6am and took the brief break for lunch and to quibble with ignorance. When I shared with them the conversation, the one thing that always happens happened. Like me they knew immediately you had no idea what you were talking about. But hey, I tried to tell ya. 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Please note: I am not posting this because I agree with Blair, Failed NeoCon Schlockmeister if there ever was one. I am tired of ruling classes that are just so tone deaf they cant imagine there even being another side of any issue but theirs. Biden and trump, did the best thing and ended the bloodshed and the money wasting. Today is a great day in my book.

That's exactly why I brought up Blair. I've read this take.

I'll take anything he has to say with a huge grain of salt.

Edited August 25, 2021 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,153]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Just getting back, but hope you see your inaccuracies by now.

No because you won't ******* spell them out. Again, there should be some kind of rule for telling people they're wrong without explaining why. 

Quote

And for the record, I've told you small details of former plan and why you are wrong. 

And I literally showed that even Trump's own secdef knew it was all smoke and mirrors. 

Quote

Ironically, I've been with two veterans since 6am and took the brief break for lunch and to quibble with ignorance. When I shared with them the conversation, the one thing that always happens happened. Like me they knew immediately you had no idea what you were talking about. But hey, I tried to tell ya. 

Appealing to authority does you no favors. Hell, I very much dislike the "a veteran told me that..." argument. Individual veterans are probably not any more qualified to make broad statements than I am. 

And it's funny that you broadcast your conversations like this IRL seeking approval. That's a little weird lol.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

23 minutes ago, AUDub said:

No because you won't ******* spell them out. Again, there should be some kind of rule for telling people they're wrong without explaining why. I spelled out plenty over a couple threads. Don't think your pride will allow you to admit it.

And I literally showed that even Trump's own secdef knew it was all smoke and mirrors. No, you attempted and failed and I told you so. 

Appealing to authority does you no favors. Hell, I very much dislike the "a veteran told me that..." argument. Individual veterans are probably not any more qualified to make broad statements than I am. Appealing to reality does. One of my acquaintances today helped build BAFB. He knows a lot regarding that bases capability. The other joined in a similar capacity 10 years later. You've proven in short order you know little. Regurgitating Ken and Barbie earn you zero cred.

And it's funny that you broadcast your conversations like this IRL seeking approval. That's a little weird lol. , but so ? I just got off a tractor for lunch and logged in briefly. Pure coincidence I was with these guys. Their responses to your posts predictable and accurate.

 

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I spelled out plenty over a couple threads. Don't think your pride will allow you to admit it.

You're lying. You purposefully speak vaguely but don't bother spelling your rebuttals out before proclaiming victory. Not an unusual thing with you.

Spell it out. 

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No, you attempted and failed and I told you so. 

Again, you're lying. You said no such thing. You went with ham-handed dismissal.

Read the article. Esper is quoted therein. 

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Appealing to reality does. One of my acquaintances today helped build BAFB. He knows a lot regarding that bases capability. The other joined in a similar capacity 10 years later. You've proven in short order you know little. Regurgitating Ken and Barbie earn you zero cred.

It doesn't take an idiot to figure this out. It would be a good area from which to project force, but not much else. 

Again, what made Bagram a good airbase is what makes it a bad staging are for evacuation. It's quite literally in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by rugged terrain with little easy access. It's an hour and a half from Kabul by road, utilizing a highway that 20 years and a trillion dollars never saw secured.

There are 70000 people in that area. There are 5000000 in and around Kabul. Even with those extra runways, the problem isn't their capacity or capability. It's getting the people that need to get out to the airbase there in the first place.

We'd have to have convoys traveling up and down that highway non-stop to make a dent in the numbers in Kabul. Those would be incredibly difficult to defend. It could be the Iraqi Highway of Death all over again, so it was reasonably scratched as an evac zone. 

 

32 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I just got off a tractor for lunch and logged in briefly. Pure coincidence I was with these guys. Their responses to your posts predictable and accurate.

And your appeals to authority are tiresome. Find a new angle because this one is dumb. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You're lying. You purposefully speak vaguely but don't bother spelling your rebuttals out before proclaiming victory. Not an unusual thing with you.

Spell it out. 

Again, you're lying. You said no such thing. You went with ham-handed dismissal.

Read the article. Esper is quoted therein. 

It doesn't take an idiot to figure this out. It would be a good area from which to project force, but not much else. 

Again, what made Bagram a good airbase is what makes it a bad staging are for evacuation. It's quite literally in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by rugged terrain with little easy access. It's an hour and a half from Kabul by road, utilizing a highway that 20 years and a trillion dollars never saw secured.

There are 70000 people in that area. There are 5000000 in and around Kabul. Even with those extra runways, the problem isn't their capacity or capability. It's getting the people that need to get out to the airbase there in the first place.

We'd have to have convoys traveling up and down that highway non-stop to make a dent in the numbers in Kabul. Those would be incredibly difficult to defend. It could be the Iraqi Highway of Death all over again, so it was reasonably scratched as an evac zone. 

 

 

And your appeals to authority are tiresome. Find a new angle because this one is dumb. 

Look, I get it. I called you out for being clueless and you don't like it. I don't care really. You were wrong and I showed you where. Find a battle where you actually bring something to the table. Right now you are boring me.

[AUDub 11,153]

8 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Look, I get it. I called you out for being clueless and you don't like it. I don't care really. You were wrong and I showed you where. Find a battle where you actually bring something to the table. Right now you are boring me.

78, this is the serious forum. Argue like an adult or go away. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

78, this is the serious forum. Argue like an adult or go away. 

Right. What do you need to know Ben?

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Right. What do you need to know Ben?

Explain my "inaccuracies" in detail.

Explain the supposed "inaccuracies" with regard to why my appeal to Trump's SECDEF explains why they're meaningless.

Provide a cogent rebuttal to my point about Bagram and the fact that it would not be a good staging are for evacuation. 

Stop appealing to vague authorities like individual veterans, or explain their positions in more detail so I can offer a rebuttal. "They're vets and they think you're stupid!" doesn't cut it. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Just now, AUDub said:

Explain my "inaccuracies" in detail.

Explain the supposed "inaccuracies" with regard to why my appeal to Trump's SECDEF explains why they're meaningless.

Provide a cogent rebuttal to my point about Bagram and the fact that it would not be a good staging are for evacuation. 

Stop appealing to vague authorities like individual veterans, or explain their positions in more detail so I can offer a rebuttal. "They're vets and they think you're stupid!" doesn't cut it. 

Now that you've put down your boy scout knife, let me link to former Chief of Staff Kash Patel. I can't say it any better.

 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Wow...

 

[AUDub 11,153]

53 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

Wow...

 

That is not our plane. It is a charter, a private operator. Unless we seize it then we can't fill it. Paperwork is also an issue. We are processing people. 

Farnez there blocked comments for a reason. She's getting dunked on. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,153]

49 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Now that you've put down your boy scout knife, let me link to former Chief of Staff Kash Patel. I can't say it any better.

 

78 I don't care for videos. Use your words.

Part of this on on Patel as well. He was one of the guys that blocked the transition of power after the election, which is a major part of the reason the SIV system is still having to be brought up to snuff after Stephen Miller wrecked it. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

78 I don't care for videos. Use your words.

Part of this on on Patel as well. He was one of the guys that blocked the transition of power after the election, which is a major part of the reason the SIV system is still having to be brought up to snuff after Stephen Miller wrecked it. 

I'll give you another anyway. Choose the text if you like.

Collectively the two dispel your notions that this is going well, BAFB had to go, and I'm certain any other political claim you are making. The big takeaway is there was a plan and it was dumped by the new administration. Current efforts are a reaction and not the result of a plan. And finally it is embarrassing and we deserve better. 

Other than political jargon, these facts are not in dispute.

And on Patel and your other political claim: 

In a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “We continue to work closely with the DoD ART and other Agency Review Teams to schedule requested by-name interviews of DoD leadership, both political appointees and career civil servants. We have provided thousands of pages of documents, including classified materials, for their review and follow-on questions, in accordance with statute, policies, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the White House and the Biden-Harris Transition Team — and we will be providing more as appropriate.”

A senior defense official said the Pentagon’s transition team facilitated 21 interviews this week and has 47 more scheduled for next week, including meetings with the regional combatant commanders and the chiefs of the military services. The official said they had five meetings about Covid-19 this week, and had other meetings about personnel and readiness and other policy issues. The Pentagon has provided the Biden transition team with more than 1,500 pages of information via Microsoft tablets, the official said.

The Biden transition team declined to comment.

Now to the video/text   (BTW, I thought Miller was quite gracious)

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/afghanistan/2021/08/20/we-mishandled-this-so-dramatically-trump-acting-secdef-chris-miller-on-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

[AUDub 11,153]

 

43 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Collectively the two dispel your notions that this is going well, BAFB had to go, and I'm certain any other political claim you are making.

In what regard does it dispel my notions about Bagram? Once again, you aren't offering rebuttals. You are handwaving.

The point I've been hammering is that Bagram provides little to us strategically in the event of an evacuation. As I've said, it's not a good staging area because:

A. The people we need to evacuate aren't there.

B. Getting them there is dangerous and more trouble than it's worth.

If we still had Bagram, we would have the same situation as now, only with 10s of thousand of additional troops needed to guard Bagram and guard the road to Bagram or helicopter pickup sites in the city. And the Taliban would still be surrounding all those pickup sites, and we would still be relying on them to beat the malcontents away, unless we wanted our own troops to beat said malcontents away. Those roads we couldn't secure in 20 years would still be nigh unguardable, and we'd be exposing caravans loaded down with civvies to danger unnecessarily. Bagram would still be almost useless because there would be very few people there to evacuate. 

Now if the plan was to maintain it so we could project force, yeah, we could still have it manned, but those runways are useless for the situation we're in now either way.

43 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

The big takeaway is there was a plan and it was dumped by the new administration. 

As I said, there wasn't really a plan besides "everyone gone." Hell, Trump was still blasting Biden at his rallies recently for not adhering to his original May 1st date. 

Here's the accord, just so you can brush up on it.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

Blindingly few conditions, and none we can outright prove the Taliban were violating.

"You won't attack any Americans, and we won't attack you (whom we totally don't recognize as a state, bro), and if you agree not to support any kind of terrorism against the United States and not to allow terrorists into your country (not that it's "your" country, bro), the United States will take all of our forces out by May 1st."

Simple, see?

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Current efforts are a reaction and not the result of a plan. And finally it is embarrassing and we deserve better. 

Proper reactions are part of a plan, and this is no different. Again, they're called contingencies and any well thought out plan should have them built in. If you have a rigid plan that immediately falls apart due to an unaccounted for circumstance, then the plan was junk.

We can argue with how bad things look until we're blue in the face, but we are doing just fine from a results perspective. A contingency worked. The plan held up. If we're not at 6 figures total evacuated already, we will be very soon, and that has come with a big fat 0 with regard American casualties so far.

43 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

And on Patel and your other political claim: 

In a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “We continue to work closely with the DoD ART and other Agency Review Teams to schedule requested by-name interviews of DoD leadership, both political appointees and career civil servants. We have provided thousands of pages of documents, including classified materials, for their review and follow-on questions, in accordance with statute, policies, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the White House and the Biden-Harris Transition Team — and we will be providing more as appropriate.”

A senior defense official said the Pentagon’s transition team facilitated 21 interviews this week and has 47 more scheduled for next week, including meetings with the regional combatant commanders and the chiefs of the military services. The official said they had five meetings about Covid-19 this week, and had other meetings about personnel and readiness and other policy issues. The Pentagon has provided the Biden transition team with more than 1,500 pages of information via Microsoft tablets, the official said.

The Biden transition team declined to comment.

You need to cite your sources. This is an NBC article and you cut out some very important context. 

Quote

WASHINGTON — A Trump loyalist who was recently appointed as Pentagon chief of staff is controlling the Biden transition's team access to Pentagon officials, even blocking some career officials and experts from giving information about key defense issues to the transition team and telling political appointees to take the lead instead, say two current and two former U.S. officials.

In some instances, the chief of staff, Kash Patel, who was assigned to the Pentagon after last month's election, has recast policy descriptions to include content that reflects favorably on Trump's policies before the information is shared with the Biden transition, two of the officials said.

 

 

"He told everybody we're not going to cooperate with the transition team," one of the former officials said of Patel, and he has "put a lot of restrictions on it."

 

[AUDub 11,153]

Not good. Somebody set off a bomb at the airport. 

[DKW 86 7,426]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

That is not our plane. It is a charter, a private operator. Unless we seize it then we can't fill it. Paperwork is also an issue. We are processing people. 

Farnez there blocked comments for a reason. She's getting dunked on. 

ditto, not our plane 

[AUDub 11,153]

British intelligence is reporting it is ISIS Khorasan.

Makes sense. They hate the Taliban almost as much as they hate us and want to be a disruptive as possible while the Taliban is trying to present a more legitimate face.