How Afghanistan should have been handled .

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

originally posted by: putnam6
All I know is seeing some Afghanis climb up flagpoles and replace the Taliban flag

Under penalty of beheading for their entire family.

Impressive.

Heroic.

Non violent protest in a place where none is tolerated.



Yet MSM, democrats, and many of their brainwashed on ATS are still trying to convince people that Afghanis actually WANT the taliban in charge.

In effort to defend what joe just did.

Absurd.



They aren't having much luck with that narrative.

And appear a little surprised by it's ineffectiveness.

It's a start.

Right. I think the people demonstrated that they didn't want the U.S. to leave pretty well by dying on the wings and landing gear on the U.S. planes taking off. It's their cowardice military that failed them and by the way biden was told this would happen if he exited this way, transcripts available. biden even left 15,000 American civilians there, can you believe that? That is insane.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
If you were after a conventional adversary I would say it would be a picture perfect combined arms op. It would succeed in a matter of days of not hours.

But we aren't the second we show a heavy force. (We both know the troops there are more than a few but by US standards small.) The Taliban will take of their traditional garb and throw the ANA uniforms back on and wait another 20 years to rinse and repeat this little debacle. Nation building doesnt work. Spreading freedom, democracy and equal rights via bullets and bombs is not only counter productive, but doomed to fail.

Our response(modern military/political/media) to guerilla troops hasn't worked since Vietnam. Not too sound crass you can use combat troops as quasi police. Which what counter insurgency is essentially. If we want to(and I know the PTB don't) win a war, it's going to be ugly, messy, destructive and a lot of folks that aren't involved are going to get hurt or die. Throughout history "real" war violence has always bled into the civilian population to an u fair degree. It's not right by any stretch. But it doesnt change that fact.

Our goverment has left alot of people(regardless of national orgin) out to dry. It's not a good look by any stretch. And it might bite our behinds in ways we haven't begun to imagine.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Right. I think the people demonstrated that they didn't want the U.S. to leave pretty well by dying on the wings and landing gear on the U.S. planes taking off.

It's their cowardice military that failed them

and by the way biden was told this would happen if he exited this way, transcripts available. biden even left 15,000 American civilians there, can you believe that? That is insane.

Agree 100% with the first and last parts.

Thank you for adding your voice to the conversation.



I'm not so sure there was any (or much) ANA cowardice though.

All the vets I know here and IRL say this is 100% BS invented to defend what joe just did.

Look through a few threads from yesterday, you'll find folks far more qualified than me saying the same thing.

Sometimes with a good deal of detail and personal passion.

Wow, what a bunch of blatant as*hats we have running this goverment. I am running a bit slow today. This is the first I'm hearing if this. Bengahzi 2.0 anyone?
Disgusting
a reply to: infolurker

originally posted by: SwampFox999
Wow, what a bunch of blatant as*hats we have running this goverment. I am running a bit slow today. This is the first I'm hearing if this. Bengahzi 2.0 anyone?
Disgusting
a reply to: infolurker

2.0 × 20,000

You are in for some shocks as you catch up.

Yes, perhaps another monster or two? What's king Kong up to these dats?a reply to: Brotherman

a reply to: SwampFox999


"it might bite our behinds in ways we haven't begun to imagine."



Most important part of your excellent post IMO.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit
Thank you, and yes I'm in for a few more I'm sure of it. I do gotta hand it to the Brits, they are trying to do the right thing under some terrible circumstances. Makes me a bit proud of my ancestry.

There are a few CTs surrounding this debacle, photoshopped passengers, possible cgi planes. Back alley gold drops and pick ups. A few other out there ones I saw this whole thing stinks.

As to our butts, and them being bitten. I Wonder if this pull out has anything to do with the recent update on terrorism in this country as well.

originally posted by: SwampFox999
a reply to: Nunyabizisit
Thank you, and yes I'm in for a few more I'm sure of it. I do gotta hand it to the Brits, they are trying to do the right thing under some terrible circumstances. Makes me a bit proud of my ancestry.

There are a few CTs surrounding this debacle, photoshopped passengers, possible cgi planes. Back alley gold drops and pick ups. A few other out there ones I saw this whole thing stinks.

As to our butts, and them being bitten. I Wonder if this pull out has anything to do with the recent update on terrorism in this country as well.

CTs, general fakery, flat out BOLD lying in press.

All kinds of craziness, and most of it appears to be intended to defend joe.

All out effort underway.




Spot on about the Brits.

Can't express how grateful I am.

It won't be forgotten.

And it might not be the last time we need to beg for their assistance before joe is done.

I personally swore off ever making another British joke for the rest of my life yesterday.

And I had some good ones.

It's the best I can offer in return.

Eternal gratitude.




As for terror warnings, they've turned them so political that I don't even pay attention anymore.

Doubt many do.

Was there a recent warning?

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I'm not so sure there was any (or much) ANA cowardice though.

So the Afghanistan military (non U.S. military) numbering in around 300,000 well equipped with advanced armor, air-power and gadgets that could EASILY squash the 80k Taliban like a bug but instead ruining away isn't cowardice?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I'm not so sure there was any (or much) ANA cowardice though.

So the Afghanistan military (non U.S. military) numbering in around 300,000 well equipped with advanced armor, air-power and gadgets that could EASILY squash the 80k Taliban like a bug but instead ruining away isn't cowardice?

Less than half that number were actual fighters.

The rest were admin and more like police.

That smaller number was divided up into small groups to protect around 1000 important locations in the country of 65 million 24x7, which means that force number gets cut in half again.

They had equipment and training to hold off large attacking forces at each location for a short time.

Long enough for air support to destroy the attacking force.

joe cancelled the promised air support in April.

Those small groups of ANA had no chance against groups of 5,000 - 10,000 taliban fighters surprise attacking the ANA locations of their choice, at the time of their choice.

BTW: joe also stopped providing the promised satellite imagery, blinding the ANA.

ANA got slaughtered.

And some probably raced home to protect their family from beheading.

Doesn't really matter, they had zero chance of survival without the promised air support.



You are buying into completely false propaganda being pushed by democrats in effort to defend joe.

Ask any recent vet.

Many have said same right here.

Democrats are lying again.

Are you surprised?

Remember their russia hoax?

How should it have been handled? Simple, really.

1. Get every single American out of the country.

2. Get every single Allied nation person out of the country.

3. Get every single allied Afghan out of the country.

4. Glass it and move on.

the way i see it, once the decision was made to overthrow the taliban and help them start their own democratic government regardless of what ever the initial plan was we should have done it the way japan and germany were.

granted afghanistan is far different place than those two were, the closest would have been japan seeing how they were basically still a feudal society, but the primise is the same.

the occupation forces (Allied) were not just in charge of securing the country, they authorized the plans that the counties government came up with. if it didn't fit, their plan it didn't happen.

first thing that should have happened is karzai should have been kicked to the curb along with all the other people that had role in the feuding between the tribes. then all others that ran for a office should have been vetted as best as possible, to weed out corruption. i know that is a hard thing to watch out for, the U.S. government has many a corrupt politician, at least they try to hide theirs.

if the hard headed japanese could change who were just as fanatical in their pursuit of honor and chaste system, it could have worked else where if done right.

originally posted by: Moon68
How should it have been handled? Simple, really.

1. Get every single American out of the country.

2. Get every single Allied nation person out of the country.

3. Get every single allied Afghan out of the country.

4. Glass it and move on.

You had me until #4.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie


I'm not sure that 'should' have been done.

But would be far more likely to succeed if we did.

We have a pretty good track record when doing things that way.

Pretty unpleasant though.

Probably illegal nowadays.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I'm not sure that 'should' have been done. But would be far more likely to succeed if we did. We have a pretty good track record when doing things that way. Pretty unpleasant though. Probably illegal nowadays.

many people say the war on terror was illegal. i see no problem with going for broke.
i truly believe the outcome would have been far better.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I'm not sure that 'should' have been done. But would be far more likely to succeed if we did. We have a pretty good track record when doing things that way. Pretty unpleasant though. Probably illegal nowadays.

many people say the war on terror was illegal. i see no problem with going for broke.
i truly believe the outcome would have been far better.

You may be correct on both.

Still not going to agree with nuking anyone.

We are better than that.

We have to be.

Or nobody else will.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Still not going to agree with nuking anyone.

wasn't talking about nuking them, was talking about running the country when i said going for broke.

but i'm not totally against using nukes, depending on the situation. as of now with the advancement of technology and turning dumb bombs into smart bombs there's not really much need to go with nukes. but no matter how many bombs are dropped, personal on the ground will always be needed to secure the areas.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Still not going to agree with nuking anyone.

wasn't talking about nuking them, was talking about running the country when i said going for broke.

but i'm not totally against using nukes, depending on the situation. as of now with the advancement of technology and turning dumb bombs into smart bombs there's not really much need to go with nukes. but no matter how many bombs are dropped, personal on the ground will always be needed to secure the areas.

Sorry, I must have mixed you up with another recent poster.

Been extra busy with the absurdity and not doing my best work.



Agree with this post 100%.

And there are a couple more situations where I'd be ok with using them, but this isn't it. Or even close.