What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The war in Afghanistan is over: we lost. (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
"In particular, Washington must finally find a way to persuade Pakistan that the continued ability of the Taliban and the Haqqani network to operate in and from Pakistan is no longer acceptable to the international community."

Without this "persuasion" there will never be peace in Afghanistan. The Pakistani were a necessary evil when the war started, I don't know if logistically we could pull off Afghanistan now without them or not but I would certainly consider it as an option. The Pak's have always viewed Afghanistan as a vassal state and will continue to do so as long as the weak ### government in Kabul is in place. See below...

"Some thirty thousand Afghans staged a gathering in Kabul on Friday to urge President Hamid Karzai to approve a bill that calls for blank amnesty for the country's twenty-five years of war criminals."

 
*****************************************************

Trump Isn’t Being a CEO. He’s Just AWOL.

The president’s delegation of determining troop levels in Afghanistan to the Pentagon is unprecedented and dangerous.

Presidents often say that the hardest thing they have to do, and their most sacred responsibility, is to decide to send troops into harm’s way. Presidential candidate Donald Trump declared two months before the 2016 U.S. election that this is “the most difficult decision you can possibly ever make” and that “there is no greater burden that anybody could have.” Apparently, the decision is so difficult and burdensome that President Trump has now opted to avoid it altogether.

***************************************************************************************
Saw this the other night...Brinkley's statement should not be forgotten  

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/19/series-the-seventies-peace-with-honor-vietnam-trailer-arlington.cnn-creative-marketing

 
ISIS and Taliban join forces in deadly village attack, Afghan officials claim

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN)Taliban and ISIS forces launched a joint attack on a village in northern Afghanistan, killing 50 people including women and children, local officials claimed.

The village, in the Mirzawalang area of Sar-e-Pul province, came under attack by militants from the two groups, Mohammad Noor Rahmani, the head of Sar-e-Pul provincial council said.

Zabiullah Amani, a provincial spokesman, said that the joint force attacked the area Thursday afternoon and had secured the area in 48 hours. He said 10 militants were killed in the attack, and a further 12 injured.

They beheaded some of the 50 victims, and shot others, he said.

A Taliban spokesman denied that the two groups had joined forces.

"it is completely wrong, it is propaganda of our enemy, ISIS is our enemy, there is no ISIS in Sar-e-Pul. Our commander in Sar-e-Pul is called Ghazanfar, who is not an ISIS," Zabiullah Mojahid, a Taliban spokesman, told CNN.

Another Taliban representative, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, denied killing the civilians, also saying it was "propaganda" from the group's enemies.

In the statement he said "only 28 local militia were killed", adding that their bodies were given to local elders.

Najib Danish, a spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, said that the government is planning an operation to retake the area from militants.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/asia/taliban-isis-joint-afghanistan-village-attack/index.html

- Disturbing development - Taliban and Isis have joined forces, at least in one raid.

 
Top Trump aides clashing over direction of US foreign policy

WASHINGTON (AP) — A long-simmering dispute between two top White House aides has boiled into a public battle over the direction of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, with a cadre of conservative groups pushing for the ouster of national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

In recent days, conservative groups and a website tied to Trump adviser Steve Bannon have targeted McMaster as insufficiently supportive of Israel and insufficiently tough toward Iran. They’ve expressed outrage about the firings of several aides regarded as sympathetic to their views. An online campaign — under the hashtag #FireMcMaster — prompted Trump to declare his support for his adviser.

The dispute reflects the tensions at the heart of Trump’s foreign policy coalition. McMaster is one of several powerful generals in Trump’s orbit who hail from the Republican foreign policy establishment. But Trump is equally sympathetic to the views of firebrands like Bannon, who are trying to push the party in a new, isolationist direction embodied by his “America First” doctrine.

McMaster and Bannon have clashed loudly and repeatedly during recent White House discussions over Afghanistan war strategy, according to four administration officials and outside advisers. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss private conversations.

Afghanistan, however, represents only the latest dispute between McMaster and Bannon, who’ve also fought over White House personnel.

McMaster, an Army general, recently purged three National Security Council officials who were viewed as close to Bannon or to Michael Flynn, Trump’s previous national security adviser. For people close to Bannon, the moves were seen as telling. The former chief of Breitbart News, who wants Trump to upend the Washington foreign policy establishment, has bitterly argued against further U.S. entanglement in global conflicts and believes McMaster is adhering to holdover Obama administration policies.

Breitbart, which holds significant influence in Trump’s White House, has promoted a series of anti-McMaster headlines on its website. The Zionist Organization of America on Monday announced it has undertaken a review of McMaster’s views on Israel. Dozens of conservative and alt-right social media stars have hammered the national security adviser on Twitter.

The outcry grew so loud that Trump responded Friday: “General McMaster and I are working very well together. He is a good man and very pro-Israel. I am grateful for the work he continues to do serving our country.”

Months earlier, Trump also defended his adviser, taking a printout of a story suggesting he might fire McMaster and scrawling on it with a Sharpie pen, “This is bull----. You’re doing a great job,” along with his signature. He had it delivered to McMaster, according to someone who speaks regularly with officials in the Trump administration.

But privately, Trump has at times expressed some dissatisfaction with McMaster and rued losing Flynn, according to people who have spoken with the president. The White House has said Flynn was dismissed because he did not tell White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the full extent of his contacts with Russian officials.

Trump often vents about aides without making changes. And McMaster’s position was strengthened by the recent appointment of ret. Gen. John Kelly as Trump’s chief of staff.

Bannon’s allies say the recent dismissals are evidence that McMaster is ridding the National Security Council of Trump supporters while deferring to career officials left over from former President Barack Obama’s tenure. They also chafe at McMaster’s involvement in removing Bannon from a prominent role on the NSC earlier this year.

Among those fired: White House intelligence adviser Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a Flynn protégé who previously clashed with CIA leaders.

The Iran nuclear deal also has been a source of disagreement. That Obama-era pact is opposed by Israel and prominent GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, who backs the Zionist Organization of America group that attacked McMaster. Trump has repeatedly denounced the accord, even as he has granted Iran continued relief from U.S. sanctions under the arrangement. McMaster was among the Trump aides advocating for that course.
https://apnews.com/b9fc7a61a32e42e482e587ee623260d1/Top-Trump-aides-clashing-over-direction-of-US-foreign-policy?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

- Bannon and McMaster appear to be in a clash and struggle for Trump's attention in which way to go in the Afghan War. Trump had previously approved a plan to send more troops... but apparently they have not gone yet.

 
Spencer Ackerman‏Verified account @attackerman

Erik Prince on MSNBC, asked for precedent for his give-mercs-Afghanistan proposal: "East India Co, not that I'm advocating colonization..."

8:24 AM - 8 Aug 2017

 
Pentagon to Bannon’s Blackwater Buddy Erik Prince: GTFO

The world’s most notorious mercenary chief is trying to sell the Trump administration on a plan to privatize America’s longest war. But the Pentagon brass are not having it.

Erik Prince made a windfall convincing the State Department, military and CIA to hire his mercenary firm, Blackwater. But this time, his plan to win Afghanistan through a new infusion of guns-for-hire has few customers.

At the Pentagon, according to a knowledgeable former senior official, opposition to Prince’s proposal—details of which were first reported by USA Today—for a “viceroy” to run Afghanistan through a paid army runs high.

The Pentagon is not interested in privatizing the war in Afghanistan,” the former official told The Daily Beast.

Several current and former Trump administration officials said that despite Prince’s recent reemergence on cable news—the venue of choice when attempting to persuade President Donald Trump—Prince has no significant internal support. That is, with one big exception: Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and an avowed bureaucratic enemy of the national security adviser, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Bannon is very friendly with Prince, having hosted the former Blackwater honcho on his onetime Breitbart radio show to discuss how to battle “Islamic fascism.” The two maintain a mutual respect and admiration. By contrast, Bannon and McMaster’s antagonism has sometimes escalated to actual yelling, as one White House adviser previously told The Daily Beast, in “palpably uncomfortable” meetings.

Other senior staffers, such as Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who previously advocated preparing contractor options for the president, hasn’t warmed to these ideas. Kushner is “not gung-ho at all” about them in the way Bannon is, one senior Trump administration official said.

The military prefers a troop increase of several thousand U.S. troops for what is essentially a status-quo mission: continuing to train Afghan forces and using special operators to hunt Islamic State and al-Qaeda fighters. The only significant departure from Barack Obama’s approach is to make the U.S. presence indefinite, since the military, backed by McMaster, blames drawdown timetables for blunting any tactical achievements made by Obama’s troop surge.

Prince, now the owner of a new mercenary firm called Frontier Services Group, have an alternative. A U.S. viceroy, whom Prince frames as reminiscent of Trump’s favorite general Douglas MacArthur, would consolidate decisionmaking and be backed by a hired army that trains Afghan forces. Prince claims his plan would cost $10 billion annually without explaining his math. On multiple occasions, he has cited as a model the notorious East India Company that ravaged, plundered and slaughteredacross the subcontinent. (“Not that I’m advocating a colonization of Afghanistan,” he noted to MSNBC.)

At the Pentagon, during the past six months of internal debate, Prince’s offering has never been taken seriously, according to the ex-defense official. A considerable amount of gridlock has occurred from Trump’s insistence on sharply distinguishing a new strategy from anything Obama pursued in Afghanistan, despite military advice that features more continuity than change. But the ex-official dismissed Prince’s approach as something geared more for media attention than credible policymaking.

...

According to several sources in and out of the administration who are close to Trump’s chief strategist, Bannon is sympathetic to Prince’s proposals in part because he does not trust foreign groups the United States is supporting—particularly in conflicts in Muslim-majority countries—and wants the president to do everything possible to reduce the American military presence in what he considers failed adventurism in Afghanistan.

Bannon, according to those who’ve known him for years, sees a mercenary force as an attractive alternative to the U.S. military working with “untrustworthy” allies abroad and putting more troops into theaters of war.

...

Blackwater in Afghanistan: Stolen Guns, Slain Civilians

The last time a Prince company—Blackwater—operated in Afghanistan, it had a similar mandate as Prince’s latest proposal. And it did not go smoothly.

In 2008, Blackwater won a $20 million subcontract from Raytheon to train Afghan security forces. The company, still reeling from its 2007 Nisour Square shooting that killed 17 Iraqi citizens, created a shell firm, called Paravant, to hide its involvement.

Paravant employees, according to a 2010 Senate Armed Services Committee report, essentially stole hundreds of weapons intended for the Afghan police. At a storage depot the U.S. maintained, Bunker 22, Paravant’s mercenaries signed out 500 AK-47s for which they were not authorized to carry. By September 2008, mere months after Paravant won the contract, about 200 Bunker 22 Kalashnikovs were signed over to a Blackwater employee who gave his name as South Park’s Eric Cartman.

Disaster struck the following May. Two off-duty Blackwater guards were part of a U.S. convoy in Kabul that got into a traffic accident. The guards shot and killed an Afghan civilian in a car that passed by the scene and grievously wounding a passenger. Another bystander, out walking his dog, was killed as well. Richard Formica, then the U.S. general in charge of training Afghan troops, found that the guards had “violated alcohol consumption policies, were not authorized to possess weapons, violated use of force rules, and violated movement control policies.” In 2011, a federal jury in Virginia convicted both guards of involuntary manslaughter.

“The opportunities for fraud, waste and abuse are high and there are a lot of hidden costs with contracting, and a lot of contingency costs,” said McFate, who on Tuesday published a mercenary-themed novel, Deep Black.

“There’s a good likelihood that the viceroy will lose control of the mercenary army—at which point you’ll have to send the 82nd Airborne back in to rescue it. This ‘blue-sky plan’ is a salesman’s smokescreen… A cheap contractor company that fixes your home ultimately costs you double.”

 
Frustrated with Trump, McCain promotes his own Afghan plan

In a rebuke of President Donald Trump, Republican Sen. John McCain declared Thursday that “America is adrift in Afghanistan” as he promoted a war strategy that would expand the U.S. counterterrorism effort and provide greater support to Afghan security forces.

McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. needs to put strict conditions on continued assistance to Afghanistan, and require the Kabul government to demonstrate “measurable progress” in curbing corruption, strengthening the rule of law and improving financial transparency.

“Nearly seven months into President Trump’s administration, we’ve had no strategy at all as conditions on the ground have steadily worsened,” said McCain, a leading voice in Congress on national security matters. “The thousands of Americans putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan deserve better from their commander in chief.”

McCain said bluntly, “We are losing in Afghanistan and time is of the essence if we intend to turn the tide.”

The Arizona lawmaker said he’ll seek a vote on his “strategy for success” in Afghanistan when the Senate returns in September and takes up the annual defense policy bill.

His plan calls for sending in more U.S. combat forces, although he doesn’t say how many. But McCain wants them to be less constrained in carrying out missions against the Taliban, al-Qaida, a growing Islamic State affiliate and other extremists.

The plan, McCain said, is to “deny, disrupt, degrade, and destroy the ability of terrorist groups to conduct attacks against the United States, its allies, or its core interests.”

...

During a committee hearing in June, he told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that he had been confident the administration would deliver a plan for Afghanistan within a month or two after taking office.

“So all I can tell you is that unless we get a strategy from you, you’re going to get a strategy from us,” McCain said at the time.

Mattis said he understood the urgency and acknowledged, “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now.”

The amendment he plans to propose adding to the defense policy bill calls for a “long-term, open-ended” U.S.-Afghanistan partnership that includes an “enduring U.S. counterterrorism presence.”

He also recommends expanding U.S. training assistance to the Afghan security forces so they can capably fight the Taliban and other militant groups. McCain proposes longer-term support that will allow the Afghans to develop and expand their own intelligence, logistics, special forces and airlift operations.

McCain’s approach envisions better harnessing U.S. military and civil strengths in pursuit of a negotiated peace process that leads to Afghan political reconciliation and eventual diplomatic resolution to the war.

He also proposes to punish neighboring Pakistan with graduated diplomatic, military and economic costs “as long as it continues to provide support and sanctuary to terrorist and insurgent groups, including the Taliban and the Haqqani network.”

Among the Taliban’s factions, the strongest is the Haqqani network, which has deep ties to Pakistan and its intelligence agency. The relationship dates to the 1980s Afghan war against the Soviet Union, which had sent in more than 100,000 soldiers to support the pro-communist Afghan government.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Erik Prince was interviewed on CNN and was apparently quite frank, also suggesting among other things that Bannon supports his plan for Afghanistan.

- Just a reminder or in case do not know - Prince has advocated an explicitly imperialist concept for Afghanistan, in which the US would use private mercenaries, appoint a sort of viceroy to govern, and for teh US to exploit and remove Afghan national resources.
Betsy DeVos' brother and Blackwater founder. smh.

 
I don't think the numbers matter as much as the mission.  What are the troops doing there and how will the increase help achieve that?

The US has been fighting in Afghanistan since my son was 5 years old.  He's 21 now and in the military.

 
I don't think the numbers matter as much as the mission.  What are the troops doing there and how will the increase help achieve that?

The US has been fighting in Afghanistan since my son was 5 years old.  He's 21 now and in the military.
I agree. Why are we there? What is the goal?

 
There is no solution in Afghanistan, any more than there was in Iraq. The second we leave, the cauldron boils over again. These places have been a mess for a thousand years or more, and will likely be a mess long after we're all gone. Amazing how we learn literally nothing from history, no matter who is in the White House.

 
There is no solution in Afghanistan, any more than there was in Iraq. The second we leave, the cauldron boils over again. These places have been a mess for a thousand years or more, and will likely be a mess long after we're all gone. Amazing how we learn literally nothing from history, no matter who is in the White House.
Well all politicians think they're different and their advisors are essentially hammers. Every problem to a general is a nail. 

 
Don't think that this speech is going to play well in Pakistan...
New military partnership with India. That's something. Supposedly one reason that Pakistan has always treated Afghanistan the way they have is because they have been afraid of Indian influence there. They'd rather it be a wreck and destroyed rather than it becomes an Indian vassal as they see it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry said:
what are the specific things that we are doing currently that are considered "nation-building" that we will no longer be doing?
I think that would be the part where we try to make Afghanistan a lasting, peaceful quasi-democracy so that the ground is not fertile for democracy and so that we feel like we can leave. Develop schools, provide security, support democracy, encourage the creation of something like a middle class.

In other words make Afghanistan not Afghanistan. However at one point Afghanistan was "ok."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree, but this is a defensible decision in an area of strategic interest. But, we can't police the world and should close other bases to reduce our military spending and to reduce an even bigger threat to our national security, the budget deficit.
I think I and almost everyone would be fine with anything at this point.

Pull back and send our troops home and say mission accomplished, or stay there and try to build a nation that will not be a harbor for global terrorism.

Either way it's a goal or a plan we can debate. I didn't hear any kind of long term strategy, goal or plan for what we are doing there right now.

 
Pentagon Report: https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/15/2001856979/-1/-1/1/1225-REPORT-DEC-2017-FINAL-UNCLASS-BASE.PDF

The U.S. CT mission complements the NATO TAA mission. Limited U.S. direct action, coupled with a stronger and increasingly capable ANDSF, will help preserve the security gains to date and contribute to a robust, enduring U.S.-Afghan CT partnership. The Special Operations Joint Task Force – Afghanistan (SOJTF-A) supports U.S. CT efforts through TAA with the ASSF and accompanying the ASFF on certain operations. The ASSF will continue to conduct countrywide operations using its growing organic capabilities to address both insurgent and transnational threats. The SOJTF-A TAA efforts remain focused on building the ASSF’s capacity in logistics, command and control, fire support, intelligence analysis and sharing, aviation, and ASSF/conventional force interoperability.

From June 1, 2017, to November 24, 2017, SOJTF-A components conducted 2175 ground operations and 261 kinetic strikes in which they enabled or advised ASSF units. These operations included 420 ground operations and 214 air strikes against ISIS-K, resulting in more than 174 ISIS-K killed-in-action (KIA); 1644 ground operations and 181 air strikes against the Taliban, resulting in 220 Taliban KIA; 68 ground operations and 28 air strikes against members of the Haqqani Network, resulting in 34 Haqqani KIA; and 43 ground operations against other insurgent networks, resulting in 36 enemy KIA.

The ASSF have demonstrated continued improvement in counterterrorism and counternarcotics operations. Between June 1, 2017, and November 24, 2017, ASSF progress in intelligence, aviation, mission command, logistics, and institutional systems and processes contributed to the execution of 2,628 operations. Of these operations, 453 were independent, 2172 were ground operations, 821 were advised, 154 were enabled, and 456 were air strikes. In addition, these operations contributed to 450 insurgent and terrorist KIA and the apprehension of 313 detainees.

 
Looks like we reached an "agreement" with taliban.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49559493

In exchange for the US troop withdrawal, the Taliban would ensure that Afghanistan would never again be used as a base for militant groups seeking to attack the US and its allies.

Yeah, I have complete trust in them keeping their end of the bargain.  This is vietnam 3.0 (2.0 being iraq).  Every rebel group knows that they can't defeat us, but they can outlast us.

 
Looks like we reached an "agreement" with taliban.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49559493

In exchange for the US troop withdrawal, the Taliban would ensure that Afghanistan would never again be used as a base for militant groups seeking to attack the US and its allies.

Yeah, I have complete trust in them keeping their end of the bargain.  This is vietnam 3.0 (2.0 being iraq).  Every rebel group knows that they can't defeat us, but they can outlast us.
Unless we plan on staying for eternity that statement is very true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like we reached an "agreement" with taliban.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49559493

In exchange for the US troop withdrawal, the Taliban would ensure that Afghanistan would never again be used as a base for militant groups seeking to attack the US and its allies.

Yeah, I have complete trust in them keeping their end of the bargain.  This is vietnam 3.0 (2.0 being iraq).  Every rebel group knows that they can't defeat us, but they can outlast us.
So the problem is that Taliban fighters will defect to other groups like ISIL or Al-Qaeda.  Not all Taliban fighters will honor/recognize the agreement and we might see a small dip in operations and reduce some troops, but we aren't going anywhere any time soon. 

 
And to add the Taliban is already testing the agreement with attacks.
This is one area that I feel some empathy for President Trump. This may go very badly and if it does he will be blamed. But it’s such a terrible no win situation. I have no idea what should be done. 

Trump would be wise to refrain from his usual bragging

 
This is one area that I feel some empathy for President Trump. This may go very badly and if it does he will be blamed. But it’s such a terrible no win situation. I have no idea what should be done. 

Trump would be wise to refrain from his usual bragging
It really is a no win. Pressure needs to be kept on terrorist groups where they live, train and recruit. It means we're going to have to keep a presence in the middle east actively targeting these people.  We can debate numbers and methods out there, but I don't see a finish line yet.  

 
It really is a no win. Pressure needs to be kept on terrorist groups where they live, train and recruit. It means we're going to have to keep a presence in the middle east actively targeting these people.  We can debate numbers and methods out there, but I don't see a finish line yet.  
Precisely why we shouldn't have gone there to begin with

 
This is one area that I feel some empathy for President Trump. This may go very badly and if it does he will be blamed. But it’s such a terrible no win situation. I have no idea what should be done. 

Trump would be wise to refrain from his usual bragging
It's the same two options it's always been....leave and be reactionary when we get attacked again (not if, but when) or keep a presence there forever basically by building yet another base and do our best to contain things proactively.  That's it...those are the options.  Always have been, always will be.

 
Precisely why we shouldn't have gone there to begin with
I disagree with this. We should have gone into Afghanistan...and finished the job. Going to Iraq and pulling the resources we had in place was the mistake. We had the momentum, we could have obliterated the Taliban & Al-Qaeda but we averted our focus and let them regroup, both in Afghanistan & Pakistan. There will never be a solution until we address the Pakistan issue. You can fight for the next 500 generations in Afghanistan but if you continue to allow the enemy to cross the border, lick their wounds, get re-supplied & then come back in the Spring you're just chasing your tail.

That said, I'd walk. Perpetual war has drained this country and will continue to for years to come because of all the injured that have come back from the wars. There is no clear strategy for victory, containment doesn't work, most all of our allies pulled out years ago and the Afghan's are unwilling or unable to step and fight for themselves. Sending our troops into a grinder year after year is pointless. We've reached a stalemate, accept it and come home.

 
I disagree with this. We should have gone into Afghanistan...and finished the job. Going to Iraq and pulling the resources we had in place was the mistake. We had the momentum, we could have obliterated the Taliban & Al-Qaeda but we averted our focus and let them regroup, both in Afghanistan & Pakistan. There will never be a solution until we address the Pakistan issue. You can fight for the next 500 generations in Afghanistan but if you continue to allow the enemy to cross the border, lick their wounds, get re-supplied & then come back in the Spring you're just chasing your tail.

That said, I'd walk. Perpetual war has drained this country and will continue to for years to come because of all the injured that have come back from the wars. There is no clear strategy for victory, containment doesn't work, most all of our allies pulled out years ago and the Afghan's are unwilling or unable to step and fight for themselves. Sending our troops into a grinder year after year is pointless. We've reached a stalemate, accept it and come home.
I'm sort of with you on this.  I agree we needed to go over there and we are currently stuck in an endless cycle.  There will never be a declared victory in Afghanistan in our lifetime. 

I don't think sending troops over there year after year is totally pointless.  There is some good that comes from us being there for the locals.  They can at least try to get their country back in order.  I think there is also something to gain in our military getting a small taste of live combat training.  We execute primary low threat operations where every aspect of our forces get to hone their skills.  Should something kick off again, we aren't back in the position of having senior military leaders will no combat experience driving the bus.

 
Max Power said:
I'm sort of with you on this.  I agree we needed to go over there and we are currently stuck in an endless cycle.  There will never be a declared victory in Afghanistan in our lifetime. 

I don't think sending troops over there year after year is totally pointless.  There is some good that comes from us being there for the locals.  They can at least try to get their country back in order.  I think there is also something to gain in our military getting a small taste of live combat training.  We execute primary low threat operations where every aspect of our forces get to hone their skills.  Should something kick off again, we aren't back in the position of having senior military leaders will no combat experience driving the bus.
Sounds like a perfect job for NATO to handle. No reason we should shoulder the entire burden to keep these nuts contained in Afghanistan. If we walk, these guys bring their bag of tricks to Europe & Great Britain. They all bailed years ago.

I don’t like playing war with our troops but I agree not having combat experienced troops is a detriment. I just got done listening to a podcast that featured Sean Parnell who was on an extended deployment in Afghanistan. The enemy he described will never not stop fighting, it’s all they know.

 
Sounds like a perfect job for NATO to handle. No reason we should shoulder the entire burden to keep these nuts contained in Afghanistan. If we walk, these guys bring their bag of tricks to Europe & Great Britain. They all bailed years ago.

I don’t like playing war with our troops but I agree not having combat experienced troops is a detriment. I just got done listening to a podcast that featured Sean Parnell who was on an extended deployment in Afghanistan. The enemy he described will never not stop fighting, it’s all they know.
I agree the situation is Afghanistan is more of a continuous security matter than a traditional war with an enemy you can defeat.  It is should be handled through NATO or some other coalition because it truly is in the best interest of everyone to keep the terrorist groups in check.   The USA should not be doing this alone.

 
CIA-backed death squads in Afghanistan have committed a number of human rights violations over the last year, a Human Rights Watch report found Thursday, and the militant groups are likely to be the lasting legacy of the U.S. war in the country. 

"These are not isolated cases."
—Patricia Grossman, Human Rights Watch


"They do counterinsurgency the old-fashioned way," tweeted Daily Beast national security reporter Spencer Ackerman, "terrorizing the populace." 

The HRW report reviewed cases of abuse from late 2017 to the middle of 2019 in Afghanistan, interviewing 39 Afghans and a number of rights groups in the country. The group found a pattern of extreme violence from the CIA-trained and backed death squads:

These strike forces have unlawfully killed civilians during night raids, forcibly disappeared detainees, and attacked healthcare facilities for allegedly treating insurgent fighters. Civilian casualties from these raids and air operations have dramatically increased in the last two years.

In a statement, HRW associate Asia director Patricia Grossman—who was the report's lead author—saidthat the CIA, through backing the militant groups, had "consigned entire communities to the terror of abusive night raids and indiscriminate airstrikes."

"These are not isolated cases but illustrative of a larger pattern of serious laws-of-war violations—and even war crimes—by these paramilitary forces," Grossman added.

'Terrorizing the Populace': Report Finds CIA-Backed Death Squads in Afghanistan Committing War Crimes, Atrocities

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top