I can see the point in the argument that anything already issued to the ANSF would be difficult to take back and destroy, to a degree.

But any asset, whether an M4 or an MRAP, under US control, should have been easily destroyed or made inoperable. Chop saws, reciprocating saws, a bunch of thermite grenades, and diesel drums would easily handle this.

We're talking about the Taliban here, not Top Gear or Diesel Brothers. Yank the electrical harnesses. Cut the steering veins. Put a thermite on the engine block, transmission, or rear end. You can blaze through a lower receiver in seconds with a chop saw. Or just stack it up, turn a drum over, and light it.

Bottom line is that just about anything under US control could have been easily left unable to be ever used again.

Urban Ag said:

---

I can see the point in the argument that anything already issued to the ANSF would be difficult to take back and destroy, to a degree.

But any asset, whether an M4 or an MRAP, under US control, should have been easily destroyed or made inoperable. Chop saws, reciprocating saws, a bunch of thermite grenades, and diesel drums would easily handle this.

We're talking about the Taliban here, not Top Gear or Diesel Brothers. Yank the electrical harnesses. Cut the steering veins. Put a thermite on the engine block, transmission, or rear end. You can blaze through a lower receiver in seconds with a chop saw. Or just stack it up, turn a drum over, and light it.

Bottom line is that just about anything under US control could have been easily left unable to be ever used again.

---

EDIT: We did...the guys remaining at KAIA were literally destroying anything they could before they got on the plane.

InfantryAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

not 100% of it belonged to ANSF and shouldn't we have a duty to keep it out of sworn enemy hands anyway?

---

Cool. Now how would you propose we have done that?

I mean I would have loved for the muj not to get that stuff, but I can also wish in one hand and crap in the other.

---

Line everything up and let some aircraft practice straffing. Place ecerything close together and drop some jdams or an emp. Remove key components of technical equipment such as helicopters (break rotors in half). Drain oil in engines and turn on till...

Let the northern alliance take everything and move the seat of the afghan govt north. Destroy anything they dob't take.

All goes back to a piss poor plan.

---

So you want to line up a bunch of stuff spread over a country the size of Texas and California combined, in the middle of a shooting war, where one side willingly gives up the thing they are using to defend themselves, and do this with a just a few dozen troops?


Sure. Sounds doable.

---

You don't have to line them all up in the same spot, airplanes can travel.

And not with a few dozen troops, pay the afghan army to do it when you figure out you're going to leave.

This isn't a rocket science operation. Your can't do attitude is weak.

Meanwhile...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48895.htm
"NATO actively contributes to effective and verifiable arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation efforts through its policies, activities and the efforts of Allied countries."

---

Ok, Inf, let's do some proper COA Analysis here:

1. Airplanes can travel - So, you want to use the USAF to fly around the country and drop 30,000 bombs into a bunch of MRAPS?

How many aircraft does it take to do that? how much fuel do you burn, how many JSTARS, tankers, airlift assets? Let alone munitions.


2. Option 2 - You pay the Afghans to do it.

Interesting, the ANSF was a functioning force until it collapsed in July. So...somehow in those weeks when they were collapsing in on themselves you would have somehow convinced them to stop fighting, turn over their weapons, and pay them.

Remember...11Bs can barely PMCS a MAT-V but you expect Muj to?

I live in the world of what's realistically possible, I am sorry facts dont care about your feelings.

deddog said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It wasn't that we left. It is that it was done in a hasty rush without a good plan. We would have left some equipment because some bases and arsenals in remote areas were overrun or surrendered towards the end. Why we did not arrange security or destruction of others while we still could is an issue.

I guess the hope was weapons "way over there" can't easily hurt us once we leave.

---

Remember, it was "Trump's plan"

---

Wrong
The Taliban had violated the agreement so we will never know if the agreement would have been tossed out if Trump had won.
Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
At the time of the withdrawal US forces had been drawn down to ~2,500. In the 18 months prior to the disastrous withdrawal I believe there were 11 service men lost but if memory serves 4 were non combat deaths in a rollover accident. There were 13 deaths during the withdrawal due to the unmitigated idiocy of the Biden administration.

The U.S. was providing air support for Afghan troops but when we left in the middle of the night many Afghan troops lost any confidence in their abilities and gave up.

Urban Ag said:

---

I can see the point in the argument that anything already issued to the ANSF would be difficult to take back and destroy, to a degree.

But any asset, whether an M4 or an MRAP, under US control, should have been easily destroyed or made inoperable. Chop saws, reciprocating saws, a bunch of thermite grenades, and diesel drums would easily handle this.

We're talking about the Taliban here, not Top Gear or Diesel Brothers. Yank the electrical harnesses. Cut the steering veins. Put a thermite on the engine block, transmission, or rear end. You can blaze through a lower receiver in seconds with a chop saw. Or just stack it up, turn a drum over, and light it.

Bottom line is that just about anything under US control could have been easily left unable to be ever used again.

---

About a year ago I was talking about this with the Colonels and they all said we pulled every operating system from anything that had one. I am sure a ton of dumb items are being used, but no planes, helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers, etc were in a usable condition.

We pretty much left behind a junkyard.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

And how would you destroy it?

---

Thermite, WP, HE, JP8; take your pick.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And no - saying you like Nikki Hailey isn't a play at being reasonable; it just means you're gullible and naive.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

We had been issuing weapons and equipment to the ANSF long before the Taliban came back in 2008.

Again, based off your analogy…our friend only survived as long as we kept on giving him weapons.

At what point do we say enough is enough?

---

I'm not arguing we stay there forever. But at the point it was decided that we are going to pull out, it was clear that the Taliban were going to take over the country and that any weapons left behind were going to belong to them. We should have then "ungiven" those weapons and start bringing them back. Then we pull out once we were comfortable with what was left behind.

---

And how would you have proposed we do that?


"Yo, ANA, I get that your currently fighting the Taliban and we negotiated on behalf of your legitimately elected government, but I'm gonna need you to drive up to Kabul and drop off all your kit.

Thanks. Bye."


I'm sure that would have gone over real well.

---

Oh, I see your point.

Much better to just pack up and abandon them - and our Afghani allies who are sure to be murdered shortly.

So the Taliban gets tens of thousands of weapons to sell on the terrorist marketplace... or use on said Afghani allies. But at least we didn't have to make that call to ANA.

Are even listening to yourself? Even the French had the presence of mind to spike their cannons before abandoning their posts. They weren't too worried about upsetting the locals. They were worried about aiding the enemy.

---

Can you tell me what indications that the Afghans were improving to the point they could defend themselves?


If so, how long would you say we should have stayed there until they did display such competency?


I'll hang up and listen.

---

Question #1: None. And that should have been recognized before we abandoned our equipment.
Question #2: You seem to be attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.

I never said we should stay until the Afghans displayed competency.

I'm saying we should have stayed long enough to ensure we didn't gift the Taliban thousands of operable weapons, gear and vehicles. And - in the process - get our people, and the people who truly helped us out safely under guard.

You should be able to admit that didn't happen.

---

And how would you destroy it?

---

Thermite, WP, HE, JP8; take your pick.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And no - saying you like Nikki Hailey isn't a play at being reasonable; it just means you're gullible and naive.

---

Cool...now how do you place it?

You need to destroy hundreds of thousands of weapons systems, tens of thousands of vehicles...you have only a few weeks to do it, with a few dozen troops available to do it (remember, everyone else is off trying to get people out of Afghanistan)...and only a few weeks to do it in.

Oh btw...you need to get to those places across a country the size of Texas.

Are you going to fly? So you need more aircraft...where are you going to put them? So you need more crews to fly the aircraft? Where do you put them?

And that still doesn't solve the problem of how you get the ANSF to willingly give up the thing they are using to defend themselves.

Come on man, you need to be specific here.

There is a reason amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics...this is logistics

I don 't expect much in a couple of weeks. You keep saying biden was following Trumps timeline, so he had more than a couple of weeks notice. People are paid to develop COAs and OPLANS, this really isn't as complicated as you keep making it out to be, as many other posters have confirmed with simple concepts done on a forum without a lot of time.

We paid afghan trucks to transport equipment all around the country. There are so many ways to skin this cat.

And spending money on aircraft and bombs is better than allowing an army's worth of equipment end up on the world market.

InfantryAg said:

---

I don 't expect much in a couple of weeks. You keep saying biden was following Trumps timeline, so he had more than a couple of weeks notice. People are paid to develop COAs and OPLANS, this really isn't as complicated as you keep making it out to be, as many other posters have confirmed with simple concepts done on a forum without a lot of time.

We paid afghan trucks to transport equipment all around the country. There are so many ways to skin this cat.

And spending money on aircraft and bombs is better than allowing an army's worth of equipment end up on the world market.

---

And lets not forget the commander Gen. Scotty Miller, was basically sacked by the Biden admin for disagreeing with them about the withdrawal.

I am confident that was one of many f ups in the whole boondoggle.

And I've done logistics successfully - both military and private sector.

You start by identifying the mission and then resourcing it appropriately. Something all of our elected officials punted for over a decade, but your imbecile in chief FAILED HARD at the "end."

You start by not gifting equipment to those who don't deserve it. Then you task the Marine Corps with identifying and destroying at-risk equipment. You give 'em 3 months to plan + execute, untie their hands, and stand by.

Fair criticism of Biden does not mean Trump would've been perfect at it either, but Biden took the job which assigned him responsibility for the Afghan withdrawal… and it went TERRIBLY.

InfantryAg said:

---

I don 't expect much in a couple of weeks. You keep saying biden was following Trumps timeline, so he had more than a couple of weeks notice. People are paid to develop COAs and OPLANS, this really isn't as complicated as you keep making it out to be, as many other posters have confirmed with simple concepts done on a forum without a lot of time.

We paid afghan trucks to transport equipment all around the country. There are so many ways to skin this cat.

And spending money on aircraft and bombs is better than allowing an army's worth of equipment end up on the world market.

---

And…Trump had certain criteria that had to be met first. Biden failed and the libs just keep covering for the idiot.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

And how would you destroy it?

---

Thermite, WP, HE, JP8; take your pick.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And no - saying you like Nikki Hailey isn't a play at being reasonable; it just means you're gullible and naive.

---

How about mixing exploding bullets into each cartage box. After they have fired say a hundred rounds the 101 round would explode destroying the gun and wounding the operator. WIn Win ... Two birds with one stone...

So I guess all those MRAPs the taliban are cruising around in are just power wheels, right?
And to think this guy was the spokesperson for the DoD at one point in time.

doubledog said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

And how would you destroy it?

---

Thermite, WP, HE, JP8; take your pick.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And no - saying you like Nikki Hailey isn't a play at being reasonable; it just means you're gullible and naive.

---

How about mixing exploding bullets into each cartage box. After they have fired say a hundred rounds the 101 round would explode destroying the gun and wounding the operator. WIn Win ... Two birds with one stone...

---

…generally best to distrust the NYT… however…

https://archive.nytimes.com/atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/dirty-tricks-of-government-forces-where-deception-and-deadliness-meet-inside-a-gun/

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Well that took about 10 seconds to disprove.

Weapons the US left in Afghanistan

Quote:

---

After the military exit in the summer of 2021, SIGAR quoted a Taliban official as saying, "The group took possession of more than 300,000 light arms, 26,000 heavy weapons, and about 61,000 military vehicles." That's on top of what they already had.

---

---

Again...those were ANSF assets.

---

Later in this thread, you argued that we couldn't have bombed them, because they were scattered all over the country,

He emailed the ANSF saying not to give the terrorists ANY of the 100BB store of weapons.

lol, case closed.