B 52S Bombing the Taliban?

[Statalyzer]

It's funny how in 20 years we've forgotten that it was Al Qaida and not the Taliban that attacked us in the first place.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's funny how in 20 years we've forgotten that it was Al Qaida and not the Taliban that attacked us in the first place.

Looking back, we've really accomplished the original goal. We've captured Bin Laden and greatly diminished/eliminated Al Queda in Afghanistan. Yes, ensuring that the change in government was lasting to eliminate the possibility of Al Queda's resurgence is admirable, that was impossible.

 

[bystander]

Looking back, we've really accomplished the original goal. We've captured Bin Laden and greatly diminished/eliminated Al Queda in Afghanistan. Yes, ensuring that the change in government was lasting to eliminate the possibility of Al Queda's resurgence is admirable, that was impossible.

What? Mission Accomplished?

To Statalyzer's comment: I remember.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What? Mission Accomplished?

To Statalyzer's comment: I remember.

Mission Accomplished. That banner was not a reference to Afghanistan but Iraq based on the timing. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier that was on it's way home from the Persian Gulf. We hadn't captured OBL yet. Let's not play revisionist history now.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Looking back, we've really accomplished the original goal. We've captured Bin Laden and greatly diminished/eliminated Al Queda in Afghanistan. Yes, ensuring that the change in government was lasting to eliminate the possibility of Al Queda's resurgence is admirable, that was impossible.

The talking points have gone out.

The theme will be that actually, we succeeded in Afghanistan, and that whatever happened over the weekend was entire Trump's fault, and has nothing to do with the current occupier of the Oval Office.

As I wrote in another post:
2. Slow Joe's handlers are desperately working the phones and Twitter direct messages to get everyone in the media-entertainment complex on the same talking points. You'll know it's been coordinated when you hear the same phrases over and over again

 

[bystander]

Mission Accomplished. That banner was not a reference to Afghanistan but Iraq based on the timing. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier that was on it's way home from the Persian Gulf. We hadn't captured OBL yet. Let's not play revisionist history now.

I'm not. I knew that. I was just pretending to be shocked at the reference of the goal being achieved.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The talking points have gone out.

I didn't need talking points to recognize that any goal past taking out Al Queda and capturing OBL was impossible.

Nation building has only worked in Japan, ever.

If you want to get technical, Bill Clinton had the right strategy in taking out camps with cruise missiles. Add in Special Ops missions and drone strikes and that's the extent of our realistic chances at keeping groups like Al Queda contained. Anything more than that is throwing $$ away.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Bill Clinton had the right strategy in taking out camps with cruise missiles

Yeah, not sure how well that worked. He fired a few off in 1999, I seem to remember something happening fall of 2001.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yeah, not sure how well that worked. He fired a few off in 1999, I seem to remember something happening fall of 2001.

So you support nation building?

 

[mchammer]

I got a great idea. Next time we invade a country, we outsource the nation building to the Taliban. We shouldn’t be fighting each other, but joining forces.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

So you support nation building?

No no no. Not in the least. I railed and railed at the TV in Oct - Nov of 2001 that we were not killing near enough people during the attack on Afgan, that we were letting the rats escape into Pakistan where they would be much harder to find and kill, and that we were slumping down into a Somalia circa 1993 situation.

My point was that Clinton's feeble fire off a few cruise missiles approach did nothing to degrade the capabilities of Al Quade, as evident by Sep 11.

 

[Seattle Husker]

My point was that Clinton's feeble fire off a few cruise missiles approach did nothing to degrade the capabilities of Al Quade, as evident by Sep 11.

Which is why it should be supplemented with greater CIA incursions and drone strikes. Not sure the latter were part of the toolkit in 1999. Troops on the ground moreso than special ops simply aren't an effective use of limited resources.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Yes and no. Special ops are great tools - but you need good intell, and that's often hard to get from sitting around in CIA headquarters eavesdropping on phone calls.

Plus some places like Afgan are hard to drop forces into - it's a long, long way to the ocean and you have to fly over Pakistan to get there, or work from the former Soviet Union stans to the north.

The thing to avoid is attempting to "inoculate", via schools / roads / bridges / polling stations / girls in school, a country from turning back into the same type of country it was a month before you invaded, and what it's been for decades if not centuries.

Afghanistan is exactly the country's it always has been, as over hundreds of years, they themselves killed off anyone who thought differently. There's a reason they are 99.9% Muslim, and not it's not so they get extra holiday time off from work.

There's a reason it's tribal based, male dominated, with no rights for women. As they have killed just about anyone who thought otherwise.

You're not going to change that mindset, no matter how many rainbow flags the US Embassy flies.

Somewhere, there's a good medium ground between firing off a few cruise missiles that GW Bush correctly said "I'm not going to order a 5 million dollar missle fired off to hit a camel in the butt", and trying to change the culture of an entire country via the single win (Malaysia with the Brits against the commies) concept of Heats and Minds.

The Syria - ISIS model has worked best. Get close enough to be able to use your manpower and equipment. Work with local forces against a common enemy. Hit them hard - and by hitting I mean killing them, in large numbers. They are not in uniform, are not representatives of any government, and so Geneva convention rules given as an enticement and reward for somewhat civilized war, don't apply. If they drop their guns and put their hands up - it just makes them easier to shoot.

Destroy their equipment and infrastructure. If they run off across a line on a map, continue to kill them - it's the other countries fault for not stopping them from getting in.

Then when you've come to a good stopping point, withdraw to a sustainable location of strength. Don't think you can change mindsets, no matter how many schools you build, or crayons you give out.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes and no. Special ops are great tools - but you need good intell, and that's often hard to get from sitting around in CIA headquarters eavesdropping on phone calls.

Plus some places like Afgan are hard to drop forces into - it's a long, long way to the ocean and you have to fly over Pakistan to get there, or work from the former Soviet Union stans to the north.

The thing to avoid is attempting to "inoculate", via schools / roads / bridges / polling stations / girls in school, a country from turning back into the same type of country it was a month before you invaded, and what it's been for decades if not centuries.

Afghanistan is exactly the country's it always has been, as over hundreds of years, they themselves killed off anyone who thought differently. There's a reason they are 99.9% Muslim, and not it's not so they get extra holiday time off from work.

There's a reason it's tribal based, male dominated, with no rights for women. As they have killed just about anyone who thought otherwise.

You're not going to change that mindset, no matter how many rainbow flags the US Embassy flies.

Somewhere, there's a good medium ground between firing off a few cruise missiles that GW Bush correctly said "I'm not going to order a 5 million dollar missle fired off to hit a camel in the butt", and trying to change the culture of an entire country via the single win (Malaysia with the Brits against the commies) concept of Heats and Minds.

The Syria - ISIS model has worked best. Get close enough to be able to use your manpower and equipment. Work with local forces against a common enemy. Hit them hard - and by hitting I mean killing them, in large numbers. They are not in uniform, are not representatives of any government, and so Geneva convention rules given as an enticement and reward for somewhat civilized war, don't apply. If they drop their guns and put their hands up - it just makes them easier to shoot.

Destroy their equipment and infrastructure. If they run off across a line on a map, continue to kill them - it's the other countries fault for not stopping them from getting in.

Then when you've come to a good stopping point, withdraw to a sustainable location of strength. Don't think you can change mindsets, no matter how many schools you build, or crayons you give out.

Some of this we agree. It's not possible to change a centuries old mindset, even over 20 years.

It the goal is to limit terrorist havens The Syria-ISIS model doesn't work for Afghanistan. In Syria you have 2 secular governments (Syria and Turkey) more than willing to fill the void from us leaving. In this case the Taliban is largely aligned ideologically to these jihadists. That's why we went there in the first place.

Still, the CIA wasn't active in Afghanistan between when the Soviets left until 9/11. Let's not make that mistake again. We need boots on the ground, throwing money around like we did with the Northern Alliance. We need to support groups aligned against the Taliban. Use them for intelligence then use drones/special ops for critical strikes. Yes, I'm also well aware that Pakistan is landlocked and a challenge operationally to reach for human-based missions.

 

[Seattle Husker]

FWIW- Any POTUS that pulled out of Afghanistan was going to experience what's happening right now. Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden or a future POTUS would see exactly what is occurring.

Don't listen to anyone trying to affix blame.

I'm talking about Pompeo:

Then...



Now...

 

[nashhorn]

Well according to brietbart 5 of those posing in the now widely circulated portrait of the Taliban leaders in the President's office were released from Gitmo by Obama. Sorry, no source except my wife told me she read it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Well according to brietbart 5 of those posing in the now widely circulated portrait of the Taliban leaders in the President's office were released from Gitmo by Obama. Sorry, no source except my wife told me she read it.

We know at least 1 of those was Abdul Ghandi Baradar who was captured in 2010 in a raid in Karachi, Pakistan by the Pakistani's but supposedly using US intelligence. Afghanistan wanted him extradited to them. The US pushed Pakistan to release him in 2018 as part of our negotiations with the Taliban. Now he's the favorite to lead the Taliban into their new government.

If you can tell me who the other 4 are I'll happily investigate their backgrounds.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

The problem wasn’t the divorce it was the settlement.

As I stated before, it was as if you had Joe Biden as your divorce lawyer, and lost the kids, house, cars, investments, savings, contents of your gun safe, and left court wearing just your drawers.

Then Biden or his gas huffers try to say “we’ll you filed. No one else could have done better”.

Unless Pompano’s plan included a live action enactment of the Thanksgiving turkey giveaway from WKRP in Cincinnati, only with people trying to cling onto C-17s, don’t try peddling the line that anyone would have screwed this up as bad as Slow Joe has.

“As God is my witness. I thought Afghans could fly”.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The problem wasn’t the divorce it was the settlement.

As I stated before, it was as if you had Joe Biden as your divorce lawyer, and lost the kids, house, cars, investments, savings, contents of your gun safe, and left court wearing just your drawers.

Then Biden or his gas huffers try to say “we’ll you filed. No one else could have done better”.

Unless Pompano’s plan included a live action enactment of the Thanksgiving turkey giveaway from WKRP in Cincinnati, only with people trying to cling onto C-17s, don’t try peddling the line that anyone would have screwed this up as bad as Slow Joe has.

“As God is my witness. I thought Afghans could fly”.

Clever writing that got a chuckle, especially because I loved WKRP but in the end is a fancy distraction.

What was missing from the "divorce settlement" that 20yrs of training the Afghan military didn't provide? In the end the Taliban knew what we didn't. They knew the ANA had no hope to stand up to the Mujahedeen, despite overwhelming numbers and armaments. Aside from 1 brigade, they all pissed down their leg and fought to surrender first the moment the Taliban showed up. It's as if the Battle of France was their war college training because they did their best to emulate the French. A few more months, more Taliban commitments nor more millions could have salvaged our pullout any better.

 

[Crockett]

My impression is that Afghan "leadership" was disappointed it took so long for them to begin a cushy life in exile. They were buying chalets back during the Bush Administration.

 

[mchammer]

Haha!

https://babylonbee.com/news/taliban...training-materials-left-behind-by-us-military

 

[mchammer]

 

[bystander]

Which is why it should be supplemented with greater CIA incursions and drone strikes. Not sure the latter were part of the toolkit in 1999. Troops on the ground moreso than special ops simply aren't an effective use of limited resources.

Are drones moral and Constitutional in the absence of a declaration of war?

Do Democrats support what Noam Chomsky considered to be war crimes? See below.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Are drones moral and Constitutional in the absence of a declaration of war?

Do Democrats support what Noam Chomsky considered to be war crimes? See below.

Is CIA activity moral and constitutional? You have to find an acceptable strategy to deal with external threats that often crosses the line of morality and legality. The alternative if is formal declarations of war and military occupation around the globe. The cost (treasure and human) is simply too great compared to the more limited scope of drones/CIA.

Absent that we setup security at our borders and take the isolationist approach. We tried that and landed with 9/11. Americans and business wouldn't accept the level of security (and reductions in freedoms) that would be required if we allowed terrorism to go unfettered internationally and tried to stop it at or within our borders.

 

[Chop]

You're not going to change that mindset, no matter how many rainbow flags the US Embassy flies.

I've got it!

Maybe if our glorious and highly-effective State Department could send them tens of thousands of Afghans (the blankets), knitted in rainbow colors, that would somehow transform their 1,000+ year old social structure. Of course, none of these problems would ever have happened if Hillary was still in charge of the State Dept.

 

[Chop]

Is CIA activity moral and constitutional? You have to find an acceptable strategy to deal with external threats that often crosses the line of morality and legality.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but morality ain't got nothing to do with it...

 

[Statalyzer]

When talking about Syria let's also not forget that we were intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda (and as justification for it, using an authorization of force against Al Qaeda).

Is CIA activity moral and constitutional?

Much of it is neither.

 

[iatrogenic]

Americans and business wouldn't accept the level of security (and reductions in freedoms) that would be required if we allowed terrorism to go unfettered internationally and tried to stop it at or within our borders.

Uh, yes they would. What an idiotic statement.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Much of it is neither.

Agreed, a necessary evil.

 

[Monahorns]

When talking about Syria let's also not forget that we were intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda (and as justification for it, using an authorization of force against Al Qaeda).

None of this evil was necessary. Neither was the evil in Afghanistan. I don't consider justice evil though so taking out Bin Laden and his crew doesn't count.