MOAB

[bluecoconuts]

I reject your theory that Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, and they provided safe harbor to Al Queda, ... they are just as accountable. The Saudi hijackers that piloted the planes came from one of only two nations which recognized the Taliban regime. America reacted in defense of our country when going after the Taliban & Al Queda, this was a popular decision at the time following 9-11.

I mean, it's not really a theory, it's more of a fact... Afghanistan didn't fund the attack, the Taliban didn't fund the attack, so it wasn't state sponsored terrorism. Afghanistan didn't send their own people to attack, so it's not Afghanistan attacking us. After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan a civil war broke out as various factions were vying for power, including the Taliban, which was the largest and thus began taking major territories in the country. They weren't really controlling them as they were just a safe place for them to be as the government had zero power there (as opposed to the little power they had otherwise)... In late 1996 with help from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the Taliban was able to take Kabul and declare that the country was there's, but it really wasn't. They were able to impose strict laws in major cities where they were, but the majority of the country, the tribal areas, remained the same (other than Taliban kidnapping boys to indoctrinate, and demanding money from the tribes)... After Kabul fell the Northern Alliance was formed (which we assisted when we kicked off Operation Enduring Freedom) which was an alliance between the two major forces, including the original 'government'... After 9/11 we demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden, and they refused so we went in to push the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We joined Afghani forces to fight the Taliban, not to fight Afghanistan. It took us about a month to remove the Taliban government that was installed and Karzai was put in charge. The Taliban was not considered the legitimate government of Afghanistan, just as Nazi Germany wasn't the legitimate government of France during WWII, we weren't fighting Afghanistan just as we weren't fighting France. We were fighting in Afghanistan to push out an occupying government just as we were fighting in France to do the same. Obviously the invasion was popular, it was the correct choice at the time.

The problem was that Bush 2 went completely off the rails by attacking Iraq, which sucked popular support away from the 'war on terror' in Afghanistan. The time, money, material & manpower siphoned away from Afghanistan created two unpopular wars rather than one popular war, that along with the near 10 year hunt for Bin Laden.

Support for the war on Afghanistan was bound to slip away regardless of Iraq. There was no clear mission objective (especially as Bush was saying that Bin Laden was no longer his focus by early 2002), and we were trying to do something (set up a government) in a land where it can't be done. The struggles would have made Americans frustrated and wanting to leave eventually.

Had the U.S. withdrawn from Afghanistan earlier, the country would have been overrun and today would once again be a center for Islamic terrorist activity, they would be ISIS with another, albeit larger caliphate outside of Syria/Iraq. Iraq has cost nearly 5000 American lives while the war engaging those who actually attacked us in Afghanistan has cost half that figure. The war in Iraq is approaching $3 Trillion Dollars while Afghanistan is closer to $1 Trillion.
Sure, we could have bailed on Afghanistan after a few months and Bush could have announced another "Mission Accomplished" lie, but Afghanistan might easily be a far worse menace today than at the time of 9-11 had they been given time to 'mature' as a state.
The U.S. is an oligarchy, the only reason we are in the middle-east is because of oil, they have nothing else of use and many reject our western values. The U.S. plays an expensive game of brinkmanship with Russia, vying for everything that isn't tied down, we worry that if it isn't us influencing the world, they would occupy that vacuum. If you don't like the system, throw out the plutocrats and support those that value freedom, liberty & human dignity above quick profit.

Whenever we leave Afghanistan it'll go back to be a third world country that can't control much of its territory, meaning it'll be a safe haven for terrorist groups. Just as parts of Pakistan, Iraq, and many others are. That's what happens when you have difficult terrain (mountains and caves) and a weak government. If we wanted to install a strong government capable of controlling the territory we'd need to spend hundreds of years there in order to change their very culture. We'd need to be spending time in every village and city with every tribal leader, and figure out a way to make them want to work together. It's an impossible task, we're expecting a government to form and then control a land that we can't control? The Soviet Union or UK couldn't control? If the three most powerful states in world history couldn't do it, why would a brand new state be able to? There's better things to focus on, it's time to shut the door on Afghanistan, we're not accomplishing anything there and haven't been for many years. The two things we accomplished was remove the Taliban from power (accomplished in December 2001) and kill Bin Laden (May 2011).. There's nothing left to accomplish, we can leave tomorrow, we can leave next year, we can leave 50 years from now. It wont matter, as soon as we do some group (Taliban or not) will attempt to seize power and it'll go back to being what it was before.

 

[Corbin]

Afghanistan is not land that can be ruled, by anyone. Not us, not the Taliban, not the Soviet Union, not the UK... Nobody. It's ruled by various tribes in the outer region, and a small, weak, government in some of the major cities. It's a waste of time to be there now, we're trying to rebuild a nation that never existed.

Those people don't want our ideals, they want to do what they do and be left alone. You'll never be able to stop the country from harboring various groups because of the terrain... Again, it's a waste of time and money.

Also ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qadea don't want to rule the world, they want to rule the middle East, and in the case of ISIS and Al Qadea, set up an Islamic state across traditionally Muslim lands (which includes Spain)... Obviously we can't let them take large chunks of land, and we can't negotiate with them, so the only option is to kill stop their advance and slowly suffocate them until they die. We did that to Al Qadea central, and we're doing it to ISIS. We can never kill an ideology, but we can significantly reduce their risk to us. Getting out of the Middle East is a good way to reduce risk to us, combined with other ways of course.



U.S. refuses aid from other nations because we think it makes us look weak.



Afghanistan didn't attack us, none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. It just happened to be that Al Qaeda was there, so we went to go and get them. The original mission was nothing about nation building, the original mission was to beat back the Taliban, and the extreme sect that was Al Qaeda that was attached to them. We did that and then got involved in Iraq so we allowed them to return, which is why Afghanistan flared up again. The idea of nation building in Afghanistan came after we were doing it in Iraq and the war on terror shifted into a "install Democracy in the middle east and watch it spread" which has thus-far backfired horribly.

Again these people don't want us there, they don't want us in Iraq, they don't want us in Afghanistan, they don't want us in Syria. They want the wars to end and to go back to farming and whatever else they were doing before we decided to get involved. Mission creep freaked us in the Korean war and it's doing it again in the Middle East. We should have taken our opportunity to bail after we killed Bin Laden.

Finally someone who understands what the hell is actually happening (happened) than some liberal that thinks he knows everything especially about foreign policy and people.

Sometimes it takes being there to understand a people or a nation. Afgans are totally different people than Iraqis for instance.

Just because they are Muslims doesn't mean they are all the same. Afghanistan historically is a fractured country and people and tribal based. Trying to unite them in a classic country format isn't going to happen.

Religion radicalism always has lead to oppression and genocide historically. ISIS, Taliban etc. is a modern example of this which in the past has been also fulfilled by christians.

 

[Riverumbbq]

I mean, it's not really a theory, it's more of a fact... Afghanistan didn't fund the attack, the Taliban didn't fund the attack, so it wasn't state sponsored terrorism. Afghanistan didn't send their own people to attack, so it's not

Using your explanation, I should assume the getaway driver in a bank heist has no responsibility for the robbery.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Using your explanation, I should assume the getaway driver in a bank heist has no responsibility for the robbery.

If he's being forced into being the getaway driver no.

 

[Riverumbbq]

Whenever we leave Afghanistan it'll go back to be a third world country that can't control much of its territory, meaning it'll be a safe haven for terrorist groups. Just as parts of Pakistan, Iraq, and many others are. That's what happens when you have difficult terrain (mountains and caves) and a weak government. If we wanted to install a strong government capable of controlling the territory we'd need to spend hundreds of years there in order to change their very culture. We'd need to be spending time in every village and city with every tribal leader, and figure out a way to make them want to work together. It's an impossible task, we're expecting a government to form and then control a land that we can't control? The Soviet Union or UK couldn't control? If the three most powerful states in world history couldn't do it, why would a brand new state be able to? There's better things to focus on, it's time to shut the door on Afghanistan, we're not accomplishing anything there and haven't been for many years. The two things we accomplished was remove the Taliban from power (accomplished in December 2001) and kill Bin Laden (May 2011).. There's nothing left to accomplish, we can leave tomorrow, we can leave next year, we can leave 50 years from now. It wont matter, as soon as we do some group (Taliban or not) will attempt to seize power and it'll go back to being what it was before.

Being that i'm not Karnak the Magnificent, I won't attempt 50 year predictions, but without intervention by foreign jihadists like we've witnessed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria & Iraq, I actually believe Afghanistan can eventually achieve that 'strong government capable of controlling their territory'. Afghanis are already doing 95% of the boots on ground fighting, along with U.S. air support, training & supervision, I doubt it will be all that long before they are handling it all on there own. As mentioned earlier, fewer American lives are being lost now than ever before, so i'd call Afghanistan at this point an incomplete success story that could have a very good ending if we are willing to persevere just a little longer. Had we not chosen to intervene in Iraq, the Afghanistan issue might well have been completed by now.
Most Americans that follow what is happening in Afghanistan understand the terrain and our objectives, ... and that without the zealous Pakistani & other foreign religious fanatics, the Taliban would likely fold in no time. In fact, it is the terrain which pertains to the subject matter of this thread, about the MOAB. As you have mentioned how mountains, caves & tunnels benefit the enemy, the U.S. has upped the ante by building a bomb and using it, which destroys an enemy in its hiding place below the surface. The Taliban and their supporters in Afghanistan have had a very bad year, not that this signifies immediate victory, but they are finding it more and more difficult to succeed with their endeavors, and this wouldn't be possible without the help of locals. Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas with a somewhat larger population, so while they are mostly a rural & tribal society, they have enough in common to have preserved their nation under very harsh conditions & treatment for centuries. The Taliban need to be defeated, Afghanis need a right to self-determination, and the U.S. needs a success story, ... this is no time to abandon those seeking liberty & freedom. jmo.

 

[Riverumbbq]

If he's being forced into being the getaway driver no.

So are you now suggesting Al Queda held a gun to the Taliban's head in their own country and 'forced' the Taliban to allow Al Queda the use of training bases ? The Taliban is now some misunderstood yet innocent bystander ?

 

[jrry32]

Finally someone who understands what the hell is actually happening (happened) than some liberal that thinks he knows everything especially about foreign policy and people.

Sometimes it takes being there to understand a people or a nation. Afgans are totally different people than Iraqis for instance.

Just because they are Muslims doesn't mean they are all the same. Afghanistan historically is a fractured country and people and tribal based. Trying to unite them in a classic country format isn't going to happen.

Religion radicalism always has lead to oppression and genocide historically. ISIS, Taliban etc. is a modern example of this which in the past has been also fulfilled by christians.

I hope you're not referring to me because:
1. I'm not a liberal. My foreign policy leanings are actually libertarian in nature.
2. @bluecoconuts is taking the same stance I did. Get out of Afghanistan.

 

[bnw]

15 1/2 years and counting, $$$Trillions$$$ spent, 7000 US military deaths (2500 Afhg, 4500 Iraq), 1,500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, US street price of heroin falls by 90%.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Being that i'm not Karnak the Magnificent, I won't attempt 50 year predictions, but without intervention by foreign jihadists like we've witnessed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria & Iraq, I actually believe Afghanistan can eventually achieve that 'strong government capable of controlling their territory'. Afghanis are already doing 95% of the boots on ground fighting, along with U.S. air support, training & supervision, I doubt it will be all that long before they are handling it all on there own.

That wont last long, look at what happened in Iraq, as soon as ISIS came in, the Iraqi Army ditched their gear and ran. The ANA are pretty much the same, when Americans aren't holding their hands they are typically extremely undisciplined and vulnerable to a more determined enemy. American forces have to spend days going over the most basic parts of being a soldier, such as using the safety on a rifle, or checking behind you when shooting an RPG, and they end up forgetting it a day later.

As mentioned earlier, fewer American lives are being lost now than ever before, so i'd call Afghanistan at this point an incomplete success story that could have a very good ending if we are willing to persevere just a little longer. Had we not chosen to intervene in Iraq, the Afghanistan issue might well have been completed by now.

That's because there's a different threat that is occupying much of the attention, ISIS, as well as we have beaten them back after renewed efforts as we wound Iraq down. We'd probably be done with Afghanistan in the sense that we would have withdrawn, but Afghanistan wouldn't be some stable strong democracy.

Most Americans that follow what is happening in Afghanistan understand the terrain and our objectives, ... and that without the zealous Pakistani & other foreign religious fanatics, the Taliban would likely fold in no time. In fact, it is the terrain which pertains to the subject matter of this thread, about the MOAB. As you have mentioned how mountains, caves & tunnels benefit the enemy, the U.S. has upped the ante by building a bomb and using it, which destroys an enemy in its hiding place below the surface.

I know and understand what is happening in Afghanistan and our objectives there. I also know that the Taliban can be beaten back but they'll likely come back. It's already happened before, twice in fact. I also know how the MOAB works.. And again, I'm pretty familiar with the terrain.

The Taliban and their supporters in Afghanistan have had a very bad year, not that this signifies immediate victory, but they are finding it more and more difficult to succeed with their endeavors, and this wouldn't be possible without the help of locals. Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas with a somewhat larger population, so while they are mostly a rural & tribal society, they have enough in common to have preserved their nation under very harsh conditions & treatment for centuries. The Taliban need to be defeated, Afghanis need a right to self-determination, and the U.S. needs a success story, ... this is no time to abandon those seeking liberty & freedom. jmo.

I know they've had bad years, again we've upped our efforts there, and that works. The locals will happily worth with Americans, and then turn around and happily worth with the Taliban. That's how it works, the tribes look out for themselves, and they'll work with everyone as long as they get helped by it. They'll report American positions, numbers, routes, to the Taliban more than they'll report Taliban positions to the Americans though. The tribes in Afghanistan mostly don't give a shit about the country as a whole, just the area where they live. That's the problem, most of them don't give a shit other than their local tribe/area, so they'll work with the Taliban as long as they get left alone. The tribes don't even care about the countries boarders, let alone what's going on in other parts of the country. It's not going to be a success story for us, we're going to leave and it's not going to be a stable democratic nation. It's never been that and it never will. The people just don't care about making it that way.

So are you now suggesting Al Queda held a gun to the Taliban's head in their own country and 'forced' the Taliban to allow Al Queda the use of training bases ? The Taliban is now some misunderstood yet innocent bystander ?

No, the Taliban held a gun to Afghanistan and made them harbor Al Qaeda. You said we were fighting Afghanistan, I said we were not, we were fighting a different group within Afghanistan. The reason why Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda was because the Taliban controlled enough territory that they had no power to remove him.

 

[Riverumbbq]

That wont last long, look at what happened in Iraq, as soon as ISIS came in, the Iraqi Army ditched their gear and ran. The ANA are pretty much the same, when Americans aren't holding their hands they are typically extremely undisciplined and vulnerable to a more determined enemy. American forces have to spend days going over the most basic parts of being a soldier, such as using the safety on a rifle, or checking behind you when shooting an RPG, and they end up forgetting it a day later.



That's because there's a different threat that is occupying much of the attention, ISIS, as well as we have beaten them back after renewed efforts as we wound Iraq down. We'd probably be done with Afghanistan in the sense that we would have withdrawn, but Afghanistan wouldn't be some stable strong democracy.



I know and understand what is happening in Afghanistan and our objectives there. I also know that the Taliban can be beaten back but they'll likely come back. It's already happened before, twice in fact. I also know how the MOAB works.. And again, I'm pretty familiar with the terrain.



I know they've had bad years, again we've upped our efforts there, and that works. The locals will happily worth with Americans, and then turn around and happily worth with the Taliban. That's how it works, the tribes look out for themselves, and they'll work with everyone as long as they get helped by it. They'll report American positions, numbers, routes, to the Taliban more than they'll report Taliban positions to the Americans though. The tribes in Afghanistan mostly don't give a crap about the country as a whole, just the area where they live. That's the problem, most of them don't give a crap other than their local tribe/area, so they'll work with the Taliban as long as they get left alone. The tribes don't even care about the countries boarders, let alone what's going on in other parts of the country. It's not going to be a success story for us, we're going to leave and it's not going to be a stable democratic nation. It's never been that and it never will. The people just don't care about making it that way.



No, the Taliban held a gun to Afghanistan and made them harbor Al Qaeda. You said we were fighting Afghanistan, I said we were not, we were fighting a different group within Afghanistan. The reason why Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda was because the Taliban controlled enough territory that they had no power to remove him.

You seem to be under the impression that the U.S. will be leaving rather soon. I don't believe that will be the case unless there is a serious break in relations between the U.S. & Afghanistan. Obviously, Afghanistan needs us more than we need them, at least presently, but fledgling governments often collapse under the weight of their own corruption way before they are ousted by foreign sources. The Afghans depend on foreign aid from countries like the U.S., Britain, India & a couple others to keep government afloat, something to the effect of 60% of their budget. Besides having American troops in a support mission, Afghanistan has discovered a wealth of minerals which once producing will allow the country to become far more than just self-supporting. Huge Lithium deposits, the largest known, have been discovered, if they can manage to mine these and other newly found minerals while avoiding the often accompanying corruption, Afghanistan has a real shot at long-term survival. Oil likely saved the Royals in Saudi Arabia, Lithium may allow a democratic Afghanistan to have a viable economy, ... for decades. Jobs, security, clean water, electricity and infrastructure will do more to make that country unified than the government can all on their own, hopefully they come sooner than later.

Iraqi troops threw away weapons and ran after their leaders abandoned them. These were largely untrained, undisciplined troops. Saddam Hussein had a professional army when the U.S. invaded and destroyed them, and this army was completely disbanded once we took over. Rather than put together elements of the old military which was originally constructed with minority (Sunni) leadership under Saddam, the new Iraq tried assembling an army based also on politics, what was a mostly Sunni army at the leadership level now became an untrained army using majority Shiite enlistments. Hussein violently suppressed the Shiites, and now you had a new and undisciplined army looking for retribution. The U.S. got itself into the middle of a civil war. Elements of the fleeing old professional army of Saddam joined with ultra-conservative Sunni jihadists and ISIS became a household name for terrorism in and out of Iraq. Just like in Afghanistan, it took quite awhile before the U.S. could train a halfway reliable army in Iraq, and now they too are providing a good portion of the 'boots on the ground' against ISIS.

As you say, the Taliban keeps coming back. They hibernate in the mountains during winter or temporarily escape to Pakistan and usually provide a springtime offensive, but every season with fewer home grown and more foreign recruits which doesn't go over well with the locals. The big battles are getting less intense and their seasons are getting shorter. The war isn't over, although the government is clearly winning, ... all while they increase there own numbers with better training and weapons. With some minor support, time is on the side of Afghanistan, not the Taliban. And like it or not, the MOAB makes hiding in the mountains a little more frightening for terrorists ill prepared for immediate entombment.

Sorry, but your final paragraph doesn't make sense to me. The Taliban was essentially the government of Afghanistan during 9-11 and when we retaliated. jmo.

 

[Mackeyser]

15 1/2 years and counting, $$$Trillions$$$ spent, 7000 US military deaths (2500 Afhg, 4500 Iraq), 1,500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, US street price of heroin falls by 90%.

Sorry, it's another long one... couldn't help myself...

That part regarding the price of heroin can't be understated.

Especially because nimrods who don't understand science continue to put cannabis on the same level medicinally as heroin which is to say both are Schedule 1 drugs which by definition has NO medicinal value.

Of course, that's hogwash.

What people miss is that in the past, people just didn't mitigate pain and often died early as a result or partially as a result of poor pain management including alcoholism, depression and other factors. Now, there is an expectation that medicine is available to all (or should be in some form). The problem is that while Big Pharma went on a massive binge to wrongly sell doctors that opiates were a panacea for pain mitigation and weren't addictive, we ended up with a populace that a) began to insist on pain mitigation in order to live longer and more productive lives and b) became MASSIVELY addicted.

Unfortunately, the overly simplistic answer to the addiction of pharmaceutical grade heroin, namely Oxycodone and other opiates was to simply disallow their long term use in most cases.

And rather than have a MUCH better alternative for mild to moderate pain as well as chronic pain, a dependent population sought and seeks still illegal relief.

Couple that with the destabilization of the very place where 90% of the world's illegal opioids come from and everything was in place for what we see now.

In my county, Manatee county in FL, as of the beginning of April, we'd ALREADY had 600 opioid overdoses when all of last year, we had a record 1200 for the county.

What is also missed is that while addiction is bad, it's actually GREAT for "legit Pharma" because they can simply rebrand the very opiates that addicted people, preach moderation and keep selling it by the truckload.

To be clear, I'm NOT saying that all opiates are bad in every situation. Heck, when I had my last kidney stone, they gave me Dilaudid... holy crap, it was strong, but it was what was medically necessary.

If we as a society could get over the puritanism (AG Jeff Sessions saying that "good people don't use marijuana is beyond ignorant. Pretty sure cancer patients who need it during chemo aren't bad people) and support of corporate malfeasance and just embrace the mindset of "use the best tool for the job", we wouldn't have SO MANY of these problems, especially when it comes to the opioid crisis. I mean with all the advances that has the death rate lowering for just about everyone, two Princeton economists published a study that showed white men ages 45-55 actually saw their death rates go UP, in large part because of this crisis.

I'll wrap up with this: I'm former military and I've seen how systemically Vets (and in parallel, so many average Americans) were pushed into taking opiates and many alternatives were either discouraged or not discussed. I know in my own personal experience, the Chief of Neurology for the VA Hospital in West Los Angeles who was also the Head of Neurology for UCLA threatened to go after my benefits when I refused to take opiates. I saw dozens of vets lose everything to being addicted to the very substance they were pushed to take... only to be branded as an "addict" and a bad person and have to fight through that personal hell after losing benefits and access to medical care just to get clean and sober and back into the very system that sabotaged them. And that happens everywhere.

Couple of things to learn from this: 1) there's no way to "simplify" a super complicated historical dilemma like Afghanistan's governance, 2) we have to remember to treat humans as humans...not numbers or "others", and 3) we have to understand that we simply can't foresee the implications of some of these bad self-interested moves. I mean, it's quite reasonable to make the argument that we wouldn't have radical Islamic terrorism if it weren't for the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh by the British and American Intelligence Agencies and the installation of the Shah of Iran, one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. People forget or don't know that Tehran was called the "Paris of the Middle East" and was a VERY cosmopolitan city where women had more rights then than they do NOW and the country was a bastion of stable democracy.

We bring so much of this on ourselves by being dumb, selfish or arrogant.

And none of what I'm saying has any ideology beyond treating people as human beings in every situation.

 

[LesBaker]

All you're doing is justifying denying the people who live in Afghanistan the right to make the sort of self-determinations inherent in the status of a sovereign country. You think that's right because of your ethnocentrism.

Mostly the people didn't choose the Taliban though, they forced themselves on the area.

How did America become the country it is today? We created our own system of governance, allowed it to evolve, and fought to keep it. Let them govern themselves. I wouldn't want them to be governing us. I am sure they don't want us governing them.

I'm all for letting the Middle East sort itself out, but understand that it WILL mean Israel will be at war eventually.

Afghanistan is not land that can be ruled, by anyone. Not us, not the Taliban, not the Soviet Union, not the UK... Nobody. It's ruled by various tribes in the outer region, and a small, weak, government in some of the major cities. It's a waste of time to be there now, we're trying to rebuild a nation that never existed.

I've talked to a few people, actually about a dozen or so give or take, who like you are familiar and that seems to be the overarching feeling. Meaning they all say the same thing, it's a waste of time, resources, life and it's a territory that has been tribal for many, many generations so trying to make it into a cohesive nation is foolish. I was all for getting Bin Laden and costing him his life and in the process pushing the Taliban out of power. As soon as that was done and there was an election in 2014 the US should have left.

Getting out of the Middle East is a good way to reduce risk to us, combined with other ways of course.

Risk aside, and I happen to think that it will reduce the risk only slightly. The benefit of not squandering resources at this point now outweighs any good being done IMO. I was all for toppling Saddam and the Taliban but once those two things were done it was time to leave.

"install Democracy in the middle east and watch it spread"

It could work in many places, and in some it won't ever work for example as discussed Afghanistan. But in other nations it could easily work and as we know in the past it has. At least there have been nations without brutal despots or regimes run by zealots.

We should have taken our opportunity to bail after we killed Bin Laden.

Yup, and Hussien too. I don't know how long it would have taken to get out, you probably have a good idea, but I can't see it being more than 60 days.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You seem to be under the impression that the U.S. will be leaving rather soon. I don't believe that will be the case unless there is a serious break in relations between the U.S. & Afghanistan. Obviously, Afghanistan needs us more than we need them, at least presently, but fledgling governments often collapse under the weight of their own corruption way before they are ousted by foreign sources. The Afghans depend on foreign aid from countries like the U.S., Britain, India & a couple others to keep government afloat, something to the effect of 60% of their budget. Besides having American troops in a support mission, Afghanistan has discovered a wealth of minerals which once producing will allow the country to become far more than just self-supporting. Huge Lithium deposits, the largest known, have been discovered, if they can manage to mine these and other newly found minerals while avoiding the often accompanying corruption, Afghanistan has a real shot at long-term survival. Oil likely saved the Royals in Saudi Arabia, Lithium may allow a democratic Afghanistan to have a viable economy, ... for decades. Jobs, security, clean water, electricity and infrastructure will do more to make that country unified than the government can all on their own, hopefully they come sooner than later.

I don't know if we're leaving soon or not, I do know that we have reduced the number of troops and scaled back the mission, but what will happen I don't know. I just think we should leave.. I know about the mines and stuff, which is why I think we're still there personally.. The problem with Afghanistan is that they're not Saudi Arabia, they don't give a shit about those mines, other than those who are right there and will benefit from it. The majority of the country in the tribe lands don't care one bit. You may be able to make a richer central government, but it's unlikely they'll be able to have any more control over the tribes than they do now.

Iraqi troops threw away weapons and ran after their leaders abandoned them. These were largely untrained, undisciplined troops. Saddam Hussein had a professional army when the U.S. invaded and destroyed them, and this army was completely disbanded once we took over. Rather than put together elements of the old military which was originally constructed with minority (Sunni) leadership under Saddam, the new Iraq tried assembling an army based also on politics, what was a mostly Sunni army at the leadership level now became an untrained army using majority Shiite enlistments. Hussein violently suppressed the Shiites, and now you had a new and undisciplined army looking for retribution. The U.S. got itself into the middle of a civil war. Elements of the fleeing old professional army of Saddam joined with ultra-conservative Sunni jihadists and ISIS became a household name for terrorism in and out of Iraq. Just like in Afghanistan, it took quite awhile before the U.S. could train a halfway reliable army in Iraq, and now they too are providing a good portion of the 'boots on the ground' against ISIS.

The Iraqi Army spent years training and conducting missions alongside the U.S. Army. The problems that they had included leadership and resolve, very few felt a reason to really die for their country, hence why they decided to run. It's was a good way to get money during the insurgency and American occupation, but as soon as they lost the support and direction from the American military they were lost. This was something we knew about as well, in Mosul a smaller operation was left to the Iraqi Army to lead the way in a test and they failed. Several small 4 man American teams had to be inserted to assist and carry most of the load. Even with the American support they couldn't push through ambush points to complete the mission by themselves. The Afghan Army is the same way, without direct American supervision they're largely incompetent, and against a much more determined force could find themselves having trouble. Again they have issues with resolve, there's not a lot of national pride in Afghanistan due to the demographics there. It would take a serious effort spanning hundreds of years to complete a total cultural change for them to be a stable democracy.

As you say, the Taliban keeps coming back. They hibernate in the mountains during winter or temporarily escape to Pakistan and usually provide a springtime offensive, but every season with fewer home grown and more foreign recruits which doesn't go over well with the locals. The big battles are getting less intense and their seasons are getting shorter. The war isn't over, although the government is clearly winning, ... all while they increase there own numbers with better training and weapons. With some minor support, time is on the side of Afghanistan, not the Taliban. And like it or not, the MOAB makes hiding in the mountains a little more frightening for terrorists ill prepared for immediate entombment.

We've largely pushed Al Qaeda Central into hiding, incapable of really completing any terrorist attacks, and the Taliban has basically left to regroup once we withdraw. They are also fighting ISIS since the groups don't like each other, so they're distracted. The government is winning because we're carrying them to the finish line. We can't carry them across that finish line every time someone challenges them though. I have no issue with the MOAB being dropped, I'm sure it scared the hell out of anyone that was near it, but they always seem to come back, like cockroaches. They have a nasty habit of doing things like that, one of the reasons why the fighting is so tough in some of the mountainous regions.

Sorry, but your final paragraph doesn't make sense to me. The Taliban was essentially the government of Afghanistan during 9-11 and when we retaliated. jmo.

There was no real government in Afghanistan during 9/11, the Taliban was an occupying force that had pushed the former government out of the capitol, but were still fighting them in the north as they hadn't completely occupied the country yet, it was in the middle of a very long civil war. Afghanistan was a country being largely occupied by the Taliban against their wishes. Afghanistan didn't hide Bin Laden because they wanted to, they hid him because they had no choice. The Taliban was trying to be the government of Afghanistan but they weren't, they were still fighting the Northern Alliance for control, they just happened to be winning.

 

[Merlin]

Frankly, it's a tad hypocritical for us to judge countries harshly for the sort of things that America did as a young nation. Maybe if we allowed these nations to grow and evolve, they'd end up evolving like America did.

Nobody ever convinces anyone else in arguments like this, but I will add one thing here that is centric to my take on this issue: these are extremists whose actions as a group include murder of women and children for deviating from the most extreme doctrine.

I've been there six times working airfields and launching aircraft out of remote bases, and have attended dinners with families who took us in and were happy to see some stabilization in their area. It's a tough deal out there man, a whole different world from our cushy environment here in the US. Entire villages get ransacked, rape and murder and other sick acts run rampant to include women and young children, all under the flag of religion. So I personally don't consider anyone who even signs up for an organization like that to be human, and I'm not going to feel sorry for them when they get the reckoning they deserve.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not good at photoshop, but if someone could put Trump on a MOB missile ala 'Slim Pickens' in Dr. Strangelove, but aimed at No. Korea's dictator, that would be epic.

My son's unit loads the A10s and F17s headed for Mosul. They named several bombs with the Trump family and called them the "Making Mosul great again" series.

 

[RAMBUSH]

Nice to see it get some use. Let's do it again!

Right on ! I ok with the moves so far ... hope we don't get troops involved ... or even get much more involved ... if we do kick ass fast and hard.

 

[bnw]

Nothing like another war distraction to bury the truth that Obama got the UK to spy on president elect Trump. Not a peep since.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Well the thread was interesting while it lasted.

 

[LesBaker]

Well the thread was interesting while it lasted.

Parts of it were..........briefly.

 

[fearsomefour]

Regime change doesn't go well historically.....and we have tried a bunch of times.
Democracy will never take in places that have no concept (or societal interest) of rights and individual freedoms. Womens, childrens ect.
War with Iran is unavoidable unless Iran's leadership changes. May be directly with us or a proxy with Israel, but, it will happen.
Is it true American troops were guarding poppy fields in Afghan? Just sayin.