The big man gave Afghanistan to China. We lost to China.
When The Going Gets Weird, the Weird Turn Pro -HST
Thoughts of an Afghan vet
28,852 Views |
196 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by CREAg87
First I really do thank the OP for their service.
That said
We either should have taken over Afghanistan as a US territory, where we could implement our laws and invest in the country as we saw fit; or left the Afghanis to themselves. Our current policy was not sustainable and frankly as recent weeks have proven, fruitless.
Did Biden implement the pull out stupidly, yes. But good grief what have we been doing their for 20 years that the ANA got overrun in a month? I get the Taliban have support from Pakistan and probably Iran as well, but its not like Pakistani F-16s are providing air support. Fact of the matter is the ANA on paper should have been better equipped and at least as trained as the Taliban and the Taliban just rolled them over. Either the ANA didn't want to fight or was so inept they were of no consequence. That's not Biden or Trump's fault that's 20 years of wasting our soldier's blood, money, and time.
What you seem to be saying is the only way the ANA knew how to fight is not be learning how to shoot, but to flip on the radio and ask an American drone to do it for them. If that really was our military and training policy, it was doomed to fail.
I disagree with your belief another 9/11 is bound to happen. Terrorist had plenty of other places they can plan from (Pakistan, Iran, etc). Another 9/11 may happen, but that will be due to groups slipping through intelligence watches and/or security failures, not the Taliban coming back to power in Afghanistan.
I don't like the fact the Taliban is back in power, and I do feel bad for the Afghani people. But we can't keep fighting that battle for them and I will disagree with your more expert knowledge, but I think a lack of will to fight is a big part of it.
That said
We either should have taken over Afghanistan as a US territory, where we could implement our laws and invest in the country as we saw fit; or left the Afghanis to themselves. Our current policy was not sustainable and frankly as recent weeks have proven, fruitless.
Did Biden implement the pull out stupidly, yes. But good grief what have we been doing their for 20 years that the ANA got overrun in a month? I get the Taliban have support from Pakistan and probably Iran as well, but its not like Pakistani F-16s are providing air support. Fact of the matter is the ANA on paper should have been better equipped and at least as trained as the Taliban and the Taliban just rolled them over. Either the ANA didn't want to fight or was so inept they were of no consequence. That's not Biden or Trump's fault that's 20 years of wasting our soldier's blood, money, and time.
What you seem to be saying is the only way the ANA knew how to fight is not be learning how to shoot, but to flip on the radio and ask an American drone to do it for them. If that really was our military and training policy, it was doomed to fail.
I disagree with your belief another 9/11 is bound to happen. Terrorist had plenty of other places they can plan from (Pakistan, Iran, etc). Another 9/11 may happen, but that will be due to groups slipping through intelligence watches and/or security failures, not the Taliban coming back to power in Afghanistan.
I don't like the fact the Taliban is back in power, and I do feel bad for the Afghani people. But we can't keep fighting that battle for them and I will disagree with your more expert knowledge, but I think a lack of will to fight is a big part of it.
_______________________________________________________
O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis,
semper crescis, aut decrescis;
I don't know that it is fair to say its a lack of will to fight, don't quote me on the exact numbers but I believe over 50k ANA soldiers have died since they took over combat operations in Afghanistan. That said, I think criticism of how good a fighting force they are is legitimate, but to say they lack the will to fight is, in my opinion, unfairQuote:
I don't like the fact the Taliban is back in power, and I do feel bad for the Afghani people. But we can't keep fighting that battle for them and I will disagree with your more expert knowledge, but I think a lack of will to fight is a big part of it.
I hear the same number from Marc Theisman this morning. Somewhere between 50-54k.MapGuy said:I don't know that it is fair to say its a lack of will to fight, don't quote me on the exact numbers but I believe over 50k ANA soldiers have died since they took over combat operations in Afghanistan. That said, I think criticism of how good a fighting force they are is legitimate, but to say they have lack the will to fight is, in my opinion, unfairQuote:
I don't like the fact the Taliban is back in power, and I do feel bad for the Afghani people. But we can't keep fighting that battle for them and I will disagree with your more expert knowledge, but I think a lack of will to fight is a big part of it.
aalan94
Thank you for your response. The most complete I have seen.
Thank you for your response. The most complete I have seen.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
MapGuy said:Korea is very different than Afghanistan and plays a large part in our national defense because of their proximity to our greatest near peer adversary, China. Our troops in Afghanistan has been by far more of a benefit to Afghanistan for at least the last 7 years but the relationship with S. Korea is mutually beneficial.Salute The Marines said:Quote:
$45 billion and 20,000 troops was a damn small price to pay to keep our boot on the neck of the snake. Keep in mind, that's FEWER than the 28,000 troops we keep in South Korea SEVENTY YEARS after that war ended.
It absolutely is too much. And we should leave Korea too.
If your worry is China then the airbase at Bagram was a strategic jewel. Instead we scuttled off in the dark of night and left thousands of hardened ISIS jihadists to roam free.
It's inexplicable.
As previously pointed out, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Not even remotely close even accounting for the time factor.
Korea is a relatively simple issue. We know the players and what they want. The vast majority of time they coexist in peace and relatively few lives are lost. We don't count dead American bodies every week.
Afghanistan takes a PhD just to understand their history. So many ethnic groups. So much internal strife between those groups. And the relationship between the US (state department, CIA, etc) and the Afghanistan people is complex all on it's own. The precursor of the Taliban, the Pashtun, were once loved by the CIA when they were fighting the Soviets. Now we're enemies. All starting with something Charlie Wilson warned us about 40 years ago.
So then, you had a nation full of people who didn't trust the US. So when we go in there to throw out the Taliban, even our allies in Afghanistan didn't fully trust us. And our enemies engaged in full scale terrorism. Dead servicemen kept mounting. The comparison fails on that alone. But the government in Afghanistan never remotely was as stable and competent as the South Koreans. It was all smoke and mirrors as we have just found out. The dynamics in Afghanistan never would have allowed it to achieve a stability as in Korea.
Besides, are we going to occupy every F ing country that fosters terrorism?
Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, where the hell does it end?
We can't keep championing failed foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia. It's too expensive.
Korea is a relatively simple issue. We know the players and what they want. The vast majority of time they coexist in peace and relatively few lives are lost. We don't count dead American bodies every week.
Afghanistan takes a PhD just to understand their history. So many ethnic groups. So much internal strife between those groups. And the relationship between the US (state department, CIA, etc) and the Afghanistan people is complex all on it's own. The precursor of the Taliban, the Pashtun, were once loved by the CIA when they were fighting the Soviets. Now we're enemies. All starting with something Charlie Wilson warned us about 40 years ago.
So then, you had a nation full of people who didn't trust the US. So when we go in there to throw out the Taliban, even our allies in Afghanistan didn't fully trust us. And our enemies engaged in full scale terrorism. Dead servicemen kept mounting. The comparison fails on that alone. But the government in Afghanistan never remotely was as stable and competent as the South Koreans. It was all smoke and mirrors as we have just found out. The dynamics in Afghanistan never would have allowed it to achieve a stability as in Korea.
Besides, are we going to occupy every F ing country that fosters terrorism?
Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, where the hell does it end?
We can't keep championing failed foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia. It's too expensive.
aggiedent said:
As previously pointed out, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Not even remotely close even accounting for the time factor.
Korea is a relatively simple issue. We know the players and what they want. The vast majority of time they coexist in peace and relatively few lives are lost. We don't count dead American bodies every week.
Afghanistan takes a PhD just to understand their history. So many ethnic groups. So much internal strife between those groups. And the relationship between the US (state department, CIA, etc) and the Afghanistan people is complex all on it's own. The precursor of the Taliban, the Pashtun, were once loved by the CIA when they were fighting the Soviets. Now we're enemies. All starting with something Charlie Wilson warned us about 40 years ago.
So then, you had a nation full of people who didn't trust the US. So when we go in there to throw out the Taliban, even our allies in Afghanistan didn't fully trust us. And our enemies engaged in full scale terrorism. Dead servicemen kept mounting. The comparison fails on that alone. But the government in Afghanistan never remotely was as stable and competent as the South Koreans. It was all smoke and mirrors as we have just found out. The dynamics in Afghanistan never would have allowed it to achieve a stability as in Korea.
Besides, are we going to occupy every F ing country that fosters terrorism?
Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, where the hell does it end?
We can't keep championing failed foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia. It's too expensive.
Isn't the casualty count over the last 1.5 years like 9 dead? Not to diminish those 9, but that's a pretty miniscule casualty rate. Hell, I imagine the commanders of Hood/Pendleton/etc. would be reasonably okay with that rate.
This is such a simple, yet stupid and condescending, question. The ONLY way we could have killed ALL of the taliban would be killing EVERY Afghani; and yet, that wouldn't have worked because of how easy it is for them to slip across the border into Pakistan.bmks270 said:
After 20 years, why didn't we kill off all of the Taliban?
Even if we COULD have Killed every taliban, the US, as a nation, is not willing to do everything it would require to achieve that goal.
I am a combat veteran who did 4 tours in Iraq. I never deployed to Afghanistan, but have lost several buddies over there. It breaks my heart that all of the suffering and sacrifices of American servicemen and servicewomen in Afghanistan was for nothing.
- The West needs to make jihad appear as unpleasant as possible. The West needs to wreak swift, brutal and thorough destruction on jihadists wherever they dare to raise their heads.
- Osama bin Laden knew this. He said that people will always follow "the strong horse." He wanted al Quaeda to look like the strong horse.
- The more we kill and humiliate jihadists, the less appealing jihad will be.
- For deterrence to work, we must win. Swiftly. Decisively. We must humiliate the jihadists, and the next time they expose themselves, we must respond with equal rapidity and overwhelming force.
- Ideas cannot be killed. Salafism will always be lurking in the shadows. We must do our best to make it afraid to step out into the light.
The flip side of these truths is that when we give jihadists propaganda victories, we create more jihadists.
Our disastrous end in Afghanistan will result in jihadi attacks on the USA and US citizens. No question.
Thank you, OP, for your service.
Thank you aalan for the post and for your service.
To 1,000,000 touchdowns ...and beyond
I appreciate your analysis, OP. Thank you.
Of all the things in my post, you cherry pick that point? OK. You're right, not a lot of deaths. Which would be acceptable if we were actually achieving something important.
We were not. All those years there. All the influx of money, arms, and training; and the government and armed services folded like a cheap deck of cards.
The withdrawal was inept and Biden should have his feet to the fire for the mess he caused. That said, another 20 or even 50 years there would not have changed anything.
We were not. All those years there. All the influx of money, arms, and training; and the government and armed services folded like a cheap deck of cards.
The withdrawal was inept and Biden should have his feet to the fire for the mess he caused. That said, another 20 or even 50 years there would not have changed anything.
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
Jsimonds58 said:
As a fellow vet my overwhelming feeling besides anger is, what was the point of it all. How many friends came back ****ed up or didn't come back at all and for what? So some idiot could run back the same script he helped but in place in '75 that screwed another ally of ours? I agree we needed to pull back but keep a presence in country to support the ANA so all of this American blood wouldn't be in vain.
That right there is the actual choice. Literally leave or stay forever. It's very sad and we should never have gone in there in the first place.
You better pray that's what happens.Pumpkinhead said:Maybe. But probably the average American won't be giving a second of thought to Afganistan 2021 this time next year, bcause the 24-hour news cycle will have moved on and Domestic issues primarily drive politics.wbt5845 said:
My nephew did three tours - one Iraq, two Afghanistan - and his thoughts pretty much jive with yours.
And there will be another 9/11 - might not be for 20-30 years, but there will be. And no liberal will blame Joe Biden for it.
But we'll all get some Mark Bowden books and probably a Hollywood movie or two about this in the next few years.
Thats the American way.
A lot of people who voted for this are going to take serious heat if something truly terrible happens.
Because Bush and Orange Man bad!Tanya 93 said:why is that not the optimal option if fighting has to be done?Salute The Marines said:aalan94 said:Let's visit again when the dirty nuke goes off in Dallas.Quote:It absolutely is too much. And we should leave Korea too.Quote:
$45 billion and 20,000 troops was a damn small price to pay to keep our boot on the neck of the snake. Keep in mind, that's FEWER than the 28,000 troops we keep in South Korea SEVENTY YEARS after that war ended.
Ah yes, the "let's fight them there so we don't have to here defense".
I would rather have the military drop bombs over there and than have to fight in the streets here
I wouldn't call myself an isolationist by any means, I do however consider how long we've been there and how long we can possibly stay and expect any different outcome. That said, I appreciate this perspective (along with the rest of your post), definitely something to consider.aalan94 said:
"But we couldn't stay there forever"
For all of the isolationists, who were repeating the endless trope that Afghanistan was horribly bloody and expensive for America, and we couldn't sustain it forever...
We were successfully holding back the best-funded insurgency in the history of the world with 10,000 American and 10,000 NATO troops who weren't even doing actual fighting, they were just backing up the Afghans. 20,000 troops. That is it. That is 1/5 the seating capacity of Kyle Field.
In 2020, the US military lost a grand total of just 9 soldiers for the entire year, since our role was overwhelmingly support of the Afghan National Army. We lose more soldiers than that a month due to drunk driving. In terms of cost, it was less ($45 billion) than the budget of the US federal Department of Education, which doesn't have a single school or directly educate a single child.
$45 billion and 20,000 troops was a damn small price to pay to keep our boot on the neck of the snake. Keep in mind, that's FEWER than the 28,000 troops we keep in South Korea SEVENTY YEARS after that war ended.
Because our ROE wouldn't allow itbmks270 said:
After 20 years, why didn't we kill off all of the Taliban?
Insightful take; way more knowledge and experience than I have that's for sure. I respect everyone's opinions and thoughts here. That being said, I am personally glad we are getting out of that damn mess finally. I served two tours to Fallujah, Iraq. I knew and served with guys who had been over to Afghanistan; had family members go too, some multiple times. A lot of young men and women made the ultimate sacrifice; heard plenty of stories you don't get to hear about on the news. They did what they were told with honor and without question by politicians on both sides who, a lot of them, had never been in the military, yet alone stepped outside the wire wondering if they would get home to see their families again on a daily basis. Things look real good on paper sometimes, until you're on the other side of it all. But what do I know, I'm just some old former enlisted grunt. just my two cheap pennies.
chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Thank you, OP. Well stated.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
schmellba99 said:Because our ROE wouldn't allow itbmks270 said:
After 20 years, why didn't we kill off all of the Taliban?
Do the Taliban wear uniforms that make them easy to spot?
Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Guys, our FlexSeal and window screen boat sank; this is obviously proof that boats aren't possible.
what a great post, OP. The last part is scary.
Unfortunately, Americans have been programmed for the past 8 months that the biggest risk is actually domestic terror from fellow Americans who have a different view of what the role of the federal government should be. The Marxist tactics are dividing and destroying us from the inside, making us even more vulnerable.Quote:
Terrorism
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER 9/11.
Resign yourself to it. Afghanistan was home to 29 of the 32 Violent Extremist Organizations worldwide.
chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Guys, our FlexSeal and window screen boat sank; this is obviously proof that boats aren't possible.
When all you use (and seem only capable of using) is flex seal and window screening as a boat, yes. Yes, those boats are impossible. I'm glad we agree.
Thank you OP for your service and for a thoughtful post.
aalan94,
Impressive, illuminating, hard-hitting and heart-felt post.
Every vet I know that was over there is livid now. This is criminal negligence and stupidity. And it is because there is never a consequence, not even forced retirements of policy makers. We absolutely need the tradition of atonement by those in command for failure. LBJ should have shot himself after the Viet Nam War.
Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Guys, our FlexSeal and window screen boat sank; this is obviously proof that boats aren't possible.
When all you use (and seem only capable of using) is flex seal and window screening as a boat, yes. Yes, those boats are impossible. I'm glad we agree.
Ignore the point if you wish but you're intelligent enough to have understood it.
chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Guys, our FlexSeal and window screen boat sank; this is obviously proof that boats aren't possible.
When all you use (and seem only capable of using) is flex seal and window screening as a boat, yes. Yes, those boats are impossible. I'm glad we agree.
Ignore the point if you wish but you're intelligent enough to have understood it.
Honestly, I thought the exact same thing of your snarkiness.
Maybe something is getting lost in translation between us. I'm willing to chalk it up to that that get into a pointless tit for tat. Plus I'm on a phone in a waiting room and long drawn out replies is a PITA.
Draw?
Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Guys, our FlexSeal and window screen boat sank; this is obviously proof that boats aren't possible.
When all you use (and seem only capable of using) is flex seal and window screening as a boat, yes. Yes, those boats are impossible. I'm glad we agree.
Ignore the point if you wish but you're intelligent enough to have understood it.
Honestly, I thought the exact same thing of your snarkiness.
Maybe something is getting lost in translation between us. I'm willing to chalk it up to that that get into a pointless tit for tat. Plus I'm on a phone in a waiting room and long drawn out replies is a PITA.
Draw?
Fair enough. I imagine that if we sat down together, we would find out that we agree on much more than we disagree.
Quote:
Broader implications.
If anyone who thinks this is just about Afghanistan, think again. NO NATION IN THE WORLD would consider allying with the United States now after we betrayed the Afghan people. So you can put the Philippines in the Chinese orbit already, ditto Indonesia. Putin can probably absorb more former Soviet states into his.
Surely you don't believe such an absolute statement.
chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:Eliminatus said:chickencoupe16 said:
I'm not trying to argue that it was worth staying another 20-50 years. But to leave like we are could only lead to this. To use the collapse of the ANA under these circumstances as proof that the ANA never stood a chance is bizarre. Maybe they didn't or maybe they did but nothing about this situation should be used to prove it either way.
No, it absolutely should be used to prove it. Let's boil it down more. What happened here? In going into three generations of warfighters, they collapsed in a manner seen very rarely in history. The points of why are moot right now. The events that led to this is what they are and we are not living in a fantasy world. Their fault, our fault, fair, unfair. It doesn't matter. It HAPPENED and no drastic changes in culture or policies was going to change any time soon that would have skewed the result we see right now. That is our reality and is proof it was not going to work. Even if we go along with the thought of we set them up for failure....well ok. We have been doing this for 20 years on every scale possible. Fight everything directly or step back and let them fight and literally every step in between. What different approach was going to be used in the next generation to prevent what happened, from happening?
Maybe in an ideal world and situation they may have had a chance. But again, this is reality. That ideal world and situation was not, is not, and will not be the reality in the foreseeable future. So why bank on a whatifs when we have the real result blowing up in our faces right now.
Guys, our FlexSeal and window screen boat sank; this is obviously proof that boats aren't possible.
When all you use (and seem only capable of using) is flex seal and window screening as a boat, yes. Yes, those boats are impossible. I'm glad we agree.
Ignore the point if you wish but you're intelligent enough to have understood it.
Honestly, I thought the exact same thing of your snarkiness.
Maybe something is getting lost in translation between us. I'm willing to chalk it up to that that get into a pointless tit for tat. Plus I'm on a phone in a waiting room and long drawn out replies is a PITA.
Draw?
Fair enough. I imagine that if we sat down together, we would find out that we agree on much more than we disagree.
For sure. My response to you initially was kinda all over the place as I fat fingered it out on my phone. I'M not even sure it conveys exactly what I want it to after rereading it.
Thank you for taking the time to share this insight and thank you for your service.
I'll never understand how people can't understand a simple concept - nature abhors a vacuum.
I'll never understand how people can't understand a simple concept - nature abhors a vacuum.
Featured Stories
See All
Potential of a 300-yard three-peat would be a Texas A&M first
by Olin Buchanan
46:01
9h ago
5.7k
6:32
5h ago
1.1k
12:32
10h ago
3.5k
DeangeloVickers
Dan Campbell has to sell his home due to fan harassment
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
143