Jump to content

18 Years of Lies About Afghanistan


Recommended Posts

On 12/11/2019 at 3:19 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 12/11/2019 at 10:29 AM, phillysailor said:

Given the power of our military and overwhelming resources combined with Proper understanding & application of John Boyd’s OODA loop, America can quickly reduce any standing army to isolated and demoralized units unable to sustain operational effectiveness.

Has that become our weakness?

Unable to see beyond the glory of violent mayhem, we misunderstand The true nature of victory and have failed to adequately fund those organs of our government which can create conditions in the countries whose politics we seek to change.

Wake up, Republicans. I am talking to you.

You have led our country to a state of perpetual warfare while simultaneously sabotaging our ability to succeed in such efforts.

Firing Yovanovitch, enriching the MIC at the expense of the State Department and NGOs are a recipe continued failure.

I blame Obama for not breaking this loop, but question how much freedom of movement he had, given systemic resistance to change.

The bold part of your comment is a good observation, but you weaken it in your attempt to assign responsibility for this phenomenon with only one side.   

No, I think you are a partisan warrior stuck fighting the wars of yesterday.

Progress is good, MAGA is bad. Democrats have it right and Republicans are fucking up a good thing.

Teaming up with oil barons to invade foreign countries on falsified evidence sucked as a foreign policy, and invading Afghanistan worked just fine, it was sticking around that led to mission creep. Democrats couldn't save you from that, because our political system is geared towards graft and the country had just been wounded, but if you leave Democrats alone, people of the world focus on climate change, treaties with Iran and same sex bathrooms.

I'd argue that progressive priorities are humane and erudite. Harmless. MAGA is breeding hatred in our society and our foreign policy. Bush and Cheney brought the Crusades back, complete with torture and massive expenditures. What was Osama soon to have his head in a bin's goal? To bleed the Americans and drain their coffers by getting them to commit to a war in Afghanistan. Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL who oversaw Afghanistan and Pakistan issues on the White House National Security Council during the Bush and Obama administrations said OBL is probably laughing in his grave at his success.

Get on board with firing Trump for maladministration, for treating the country as a punching bag and our allies as doormats, or client states as personal slaves like his administration. You've got to show some spine for America to get back on track. Republicans have to take responsibility for the massive fuck up that was the wars of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, for torture, for spending all our money and being defensive and pissy ever since. 

You've got to grow up and start to lead, follow, or recognize your incompetent leadership and stay home and study your navel. America is better without your moral vacuum masquerading as sanctimonious patriotism and religiosity.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 423
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm just glad we finally have a leader willing to take the political hit for doing the right thing. Might be too late with the country split in half but it's a start. 

Afghanistan has embarrassed world powers for 100+ years. Not just the US but England and Russia got their butts kicked by trying to make control that region. This is a tribal society that defies weste

we were done with the mission in Afganistan 3 weeks after we arrived and should have left and never have gone into Iraq biggest waste of human life and our tax dollars in my lifetime by far

Posted Images

10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

No, I think you are a partisan warrior stuck fighting the wars of yesterday.

Progress is good, MAGA is bad. Democrats have it right and Republicans are fucking up a good thing.

Teaming up with oil barons to invade foreign countries on falsified evidence sucked as a foreign policy, and invading Afghanistan worked just fine, it was sticking around that led to mission creep. Democrats couldn't save you from that, because our political system is geared towards graft and the country had just been wounded, but if you leave Democrats alone, people of the world focus on climate change, treaties with Iran and same sex bathrooms.

I'd argue that progressive priorities are humane and erudite. Harmless. MAGA is breeding hatred in our society and our foreign policy. Bush and Cheney brought the Crusades back, complete with torture and massive expenditures. What was Osama soon to have his head in a bin's goal? To bleed the Americans and drain their coffers by getting them to commit to a war in Afghanistan. Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL who oversaw Afghanistan and Pakistan issues on the White House National Security Council during the Bush and Obama administrations said OBL is probably laughing in his grave at his success.

Get on board with firing Trump for maladministration, for treating the country as a punching bag and our allies as doormats, or client states as personal slaves like his administration. You've got to show some spine for America to get back on track. Republicans have to take responsibility for the massive fuck up that was the wars of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, for torture, for spending all our money and being defensive and pissy ever since. 

You've got to grow up and start to lead, follow, or recognize your incompetent leadership and stay home and study your navel. America is better without your moral vacuum masquerading as sanctimonious patriotism and religiosity.

Good rant - your reasoning is based upon your own partisan rancor and willful ignorance, and you're full of shit but in your assignment of my position on anything, but, a good rant nonetheless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Good rant - your reasoning is based upon your own partisan rancor and willful ignorance, and you're full of shit but in your assignment of my position on anything, but, a good rant nonetheless. 

I will compare the Iran treaty, TPP and the Paris Agreement to Trump and Bush’s foreign policy legacy any day of the week. Obama nailed Osama, and that cannot be forgotten. 

The Iraq War and Afghanistan being Vainglorious money pits is not a partisan viewpoint, at this point it’s simply an after action review. They are the prime reason our debt has exploded and our MIC is full of chortling fat cats.

Republicans cannot stand the scientific method, negotiations and soft power. They suck at nation building and statecraft and are awesome at spending public dollars. 

None of this is even remotely controversial. You simply have to look at the last twenty years and subtract McCain and second term Bush. 

But, according to you and Trump, there are good people on both sides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I will compare the Iran treaty, TPP and the Paris Agreement to Trump and Bush’s foreign policy legacy any day of the week. Obama nailed Osama, and that cannot be forgotten. 

The Iraq War and Afghanistan being Vainglorious money pits is not a partisan viewpoint, at this point it’s simply an after action review. They are the prime reason our debt has exploded and our MIC is full of chortling fat cats.

Republicans cannot stand the scientific method, negotiations and soft power. They suck at nation building and statecraft and are awesome at spending public dollars. 

None of this is even remotely controversial. You simply have to look at the last twenty years and subtract McCain and second term Bush. 

But, according to you and Trump, there are good people on both sides. 

Who voted to go to Iraq?  Who DIDN'T?   Why did we go?   "Republicans suck at Nation Building"?  All the "nation building" was a partisan event?  

Seems like you want to ascribe all the blame for the things you dislike to team R - while claiming personal credit for everything that you like on behalf of Team D.   You are intentionally obtuse in your desire to castigate those who you don't think agree vociferously enough with your personal world view, who don't hate the same people you do as loudly as you want them to.  

If we're talking about R vs D as the sides? There ARE good people on both sides, and there are shitheads on both sides.   There must be some reason for refusing to recognize that, but the only thing I can come up with is partisan hatefulness.   You have fun with that - but, at least try to be intellectually honest enough in our interaction to address what I actually say, instead of projecting your hate for everything not emblazoned w/a Blue D onto me.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Who voted to go to Iraq?  Who DIDN'T?   Why did we go?   "Republicans suck at Nation Building"?  All the "nation building" was a partisan event?  

Seems like you want to ascribe all the blame for the things you dislike to team R - while claiming personal credit for everything that you like on behalf of Team D.   You are intentionally obtuse in your desire to castigate those who you don't think agree vociferously enough with your personal world view, who don't hate the same people you do as loudly as you want them to.  

If we're talking about R vs D as the sides? There ARE good people on both sides, and there are shitheads on both sides.   There must be some reason for refusing to recognize that, but the only thing I can come up with is partisan hatefulness.   You have fun with that - but, at least try to be intellectually honest enough in our interaction to address what I actually say, instead of projecting your hate for everything not emblazoned w/a Blue D onto me.   

Personally you are a good guy.

But politically I see you making no attempt to take responsibility for GOP mismanagement of the economy, our nations morals & race relations, foreign policy or environmental stewardship.

Your party is appointing judge after judge who fails independent evaluation in order to stick it to the libs, and all the “good guys” on your side fail to vote the bums out.

Sorry, but the evidence is against you on Iraq. They falsified info to get the war for oil and Haliburton that they wanted, then justified the use of torture and spying on you and me because “it saves lives”... even though studies on effectiveness of either strategy haven’t shown that to be the case.

And the cost of these unpaid-for wars? Just don’t count those costs until the next Democrat administration come along to take the blame him for being unable to balance the budget. Bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Personally you are a good guy.

But politically I see you making no attempt to take responsibility for GOP mismanagement of the economy, our nations morals & race relations, foreign policy or environmental stewardship.

Your party is appointing judge after judge who fails independent evaluation in order to stick it to the libs, and all the “good guys” on your side fail to vote the bums out.

Sorry, but the evidence is against you on Iraq. They falsified info to get the war for oil and Haliburton that they wanted, then justified the use of torture and spying on you and me because “it saves lives”... even though studies on effectiveness of either strategy haven’t shown that to be the case.

 And the cost of these unpaid-for wars? Just don’t count those costs until the next Democrat administration come along to take the blame him for being unable to balance the budget. Bullshit.

Ya see, you DON'T see what I'm doing politically, and still make assumptions and project your own ideas about what I'm doing or not doing.  If you want to know what I think about something, ask.  If you don't want to know, and don't ask - and assume the worst?  That's your projection, not reality.  

Just because I don't rail in here against every stupid comment the Rs make or every dumbass thing they do doesn't mean, as so many of you lovely inclusive considerate lefties like to suggest, that I'm agreeing with or supporting those things, and not working w/my own communications campaign to try to change those things.   

Where we have differences of opinion?  Those topics are fine fodder for name calling and questioning one's genetic completeness.  

To Iraq?   We thought he had WMD.  Hussein SAID he had WMDs.   I personally watched Predator feeds showing convoys of trucks leaving the compound where he stored the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, crossing the border to the east and in to Syria.   So, at the time, it looked like he had what he said he had, and decisions were made, and voted upon by both Ds and Rs.  IIRC - Pres Obama surged troops in Afg, yet everything that's happened over there lies solely w/the Rs?    

This idea that if we "just got rid of those evil stupid fuggers on the other side of the aisle" that everything would be magically better is BS.  There's a lot to change - and it's not all on the right.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

If Republicans would take ownership of problems and work to improve things, then I could believe “good people on both sides”.

But anytime a GOPer discovers the truth and speaks out of turn, he is primaried out or resigns.

Then your issue is with the controllers who are causing that, rather than the Rs en masse, wouldn't ya say?   Look - the behavior of most of the Republican leaders, and a large part of the R aligned public is terrible, wrong and damaging.   I want that changed - I don't think that "Vote D" absent any rational proposal for change is gonna do that.  I want to see those proposals, and I'll support whoever makes the best ones without regard to the letter behind their name.  I'm not going to categorically dismiss everyone who thinks differently.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of superficial thinking here - few of ya have gone beyond the propaganda. 

This is key to Afghanistan - the original sin was the Reagan admin decision in the 1980's (with the Saudi's) 

to back the most extreme fundie groups among the the mujahadeen organizing against the Soviet invasion. 

They had a choice: there were larger and more organized secular Afghan groups, but the the US boosted the extremists. 

Prior to that intervention, Afghanistan was substantially secular, with little history of Islamic fundamentalism.  

So OBL got involved, and the extremists quickly evolved into the Taliban 

And the blow-back is still going on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

AGITC I’m only partly talking about “you” as an individual. But I’m really talking about equal partners on the other side of the aisle who share my desire to return to rational discussions and serious Senate debate, honest brokers and slightly ugly back room deals.

The current morass is due to Republicans who deceive themselves in a similar way tolerating their party‘s actions and decisions despite the monumental disasters it has brought. 

Failing to demand accountability and accept Personal and party responsibility for party decisions needs to happen. Unless/until that happens,  will continue to rant and you (both personally and the more generic voter I’ve described) will continue to act, debate and vote defensively.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ya see, you DON'T see what I'm doing politically, and still make assumptions and project your own ideas about what I'm doing or not doing.  If you want to know what I think about something, ask.  If you don't want to know, and don't ask - and assume the worst?  That's your projection, not reality.  

Just because I don't rail in here against every stupid comment the Rs make or every dumbass thing they do doesn't mean, as so many of you lovely inclusive considerate lefties like to suggest, that I'm agreeing with or supporting those things, and not working w/my own communications campaign to try to change those things.   

Where we have differences of opinion?  Those topics are fine fodder for name calling and questioning one's genetic completeness.  

To Iraq?   We thought he had WMD.  Hussein SAID he had WMDs.   I personally watched Predator feeds showing convoys of trucks leaving the compound where he stored the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, crossing the border to the east and in to Syria.   So, at the time, it looked like he had what he said he had, and decisions were made, and voted upon by both Ds and Rs.  IIRC - Pres Obama surged troops in Afg, yet everything that's happened over there lies solely w/the Rs?    

This idea that if we "just got rid of those evil stupid fuggers on the other side of the aisle" that everything would be magically better is BS.  There's a lot to change - and it's not all on the right.  

It was pretty much an epic misunderstanding of the other side. Saddam was used to the fake war with President Clinton and loved everyone thinking he had WMDs because that made everyone in the area afraid of him. I am sure he had some, but nowhere close to what he pretended he had. He had 8 years of half-ass pinprick attacks and pretending to be hiding all kinds of shit when he didn't have the tenth part of it.

So Bush The Lesser shows up and Saddam thinks it will be same-same. He was tragically wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Personally you are a good guy.

But politically I see you making no attempt to take responsibility for GOP mismanagement of the economy, our nations morals & race relations, foreign policy or environmental stewardship.

Hey!  Don't I get any credit for wanting to BTBD* since 2016??? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The "bitch" primarily being the current GOP.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 10:51 AM, SloopJonB said:

The Bitch is the whole fucking country, with the rest of the world being collateral damage.

You fucking moron.

No.  The Bitch is what *I* say the Bitch is.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 9:08 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Who voted to go to Iraq?  Who DIDN'T?   Why did we go?   "Republicans suck at Nation Building"?  All the "nation building" was a partisan event?  

Seems like you want to ascribe all the blame for the things you dislike to team R - while claiming personal credit for everything that you like on behalf of Team D.   You are intentionally obtuse in your desire to castigate those who you don't think agree vociferously enough with your personal world view, who don't hate the same people you do as loudly as you want them to.  

If we're talking about R vs D as the sides? There ARE good people on both sides, and there are shitheads on both sides.   There must be some reason for refusing to recognize that, but the only thing I can come up with is partisan hatefulness.   You have fun with that - but, at least try to be intellectually honest enough in our interaction to address what I actually say, instead of projecting your hate for everything not emblazoned w/a Blue D onto me.   

 

Considering the current TeamR!! (actually it should be TeamT! but let's stay with tradition) circus shredding the Constitution and lying about everything BUT getting us into a war, you got a pretty piss-poor case that the blame should be equally spread.

Yep a lot of Democrats voted for the Iraq War, based on a systematic build-up of lies about the national situation from TeamR!

Pardon me, but I don't see this as equal blame.

I'd like to think there are "good people" on TeamTrump!! but quite honestly I don't see ANY with their foot on the brakes just now.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 2:51 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

It was pretty much an epic misunderstanding of the other side. Saddam was used to the fake war with President Clinton and loved everyone thinking he had WMDs because that made everyone in the area afraid of him. I am sure he had some, but nowhere close to what he pretended he had. He had 8 years of half-ass pinprick attacks and pretending to be hiding all kinds of shit when he didn't have the tenth part of it.

So Bush The Lesser shows up and Saddam thinks it will be same-same. He was tragically wrong.

This is total, complete and utter bullshit . .  

The Reich will say ANYTHING to justify its lies about Iraq WMD's. 

The UN and US intel had plenty of evidence that Saddam had disarmed. 

OK then, and once that lie is debunked, the Reich will claim that Saddam smuggled his WMD's into Syria 

Kent, you may not be totally of the Reich yourself, but you are for sure one of their fellow traveling tools. 

Footnote - back in 2003 I had my person and my job threatened by the Reich for getting this right. I'm still royally pissed. 

This is what I wrote that raised the Reich's ire - I stood by every single word, and still do.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3350402

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Iraq thing was getting it's legs I said they wouldn't find any WMD's - it was obvious they weren't there.

Several reasons:

They would have used them in the Gulf war if they had them - no-one loses a war if they still have powerful weapons at hand - even if it's a last gasp of a dying adversary.

All their farting about with Gerald Bull and the "superguns" - they were a childs attempt to build a threat.

Israel hadn't attacked anything in Iraq - and they would have if there had been a credible threat - which they would have known about.

All the precursor materiel would have been required in large quantities and the purchase and shipment of it could not all have stayed hidden, any more than the components of the superguns were. Bull was the only arms merchant who was assassinated by the Israelis so it was apparent no-one else was up to anything.

 

In other words it was obvious to me so to think it wasn't obvious to all the 3 letter agencies with all their incredible sources and facilities was simply absurd.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

When the Iraq thing was getting it's legs I said they wouldn't find any WMD's - it was obvious they weren't there.

Yeah, and I heard over and over again from the Neo-con Reich, "But don't you think president bush knows more about the WMD issue than you do?" 

Well. yes he did, but he was lying out his ass 

And this was of no small import, but rather the biggest strategic blunder in the history of the US. 

Not to mention the torture . . . 

All totally unpunished thanks to Obama - all of which has further empowered the blob. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

im not seeing much weakening of support for Republicans amongst you independapantywaists.

They never supported him or voted for him or even liked him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 6:56 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To Iraq?   We thought he had WMD.  Hussein SAID he had WMDs.   I personally watched Predator feeds showing convoys of trucks leaving the compound where he stored the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, crossing the border to the east and in to Syria.   So, at the time, it looked like he had what he said he had, and decisions were made, and voted upon by both Ds and Rs.  IIRC - Pres Obama surged troops in Afg, yet everything that's happened over there lies solely w/the Rs?    

 

Do really still believe that BS. It is well known across all intelligence communities and populations that there definetly were no WMD before the 2nd Iraq war. All the presented proof was fabricated. Starting with the Uranium from Africa (amount would have needed a huge train) and ending with wrong pipe types for enriching Uranium. I think Powell still bites his ass for that presentation especially the fanciful chemical labs on truck trailers.

Before the 1st Iraq the story was different but the 2nd time around it only had really purposes relating to oil and military. The military wanted to get rid of aging ammunition without paying for destruction, Haliburton and other defense contractors were in (and are still in) for the big payday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

They would have used them in the Gulf war if they had them - no-one loses a war if they still have powerful weapons at hand - even if it's a last gasp of a dying adversary.

Are you talking about GW1 or GW2??  If GW1, So Iraq had Chem weapons two years earlier in the Iran-Iraq war as well as the Kurd Massacre in Halabja attack.  But they suddenly ran out in 1990???  How does that happen?

You said that IF Saddam had had Chems in GW2, why wouldn't he use them as a "last gasp effort of a dying adversary".  If you concede that Saddam had chemical weapons prior to GW1 (which he most certainly did), why didn't he use them then?  You are contradicting yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Desert Storm was the Gulf war.

The next one was the Iraq war.

If he had them where were they after the invasion and takeover in Iraq? Could it be they were all used up?

Are you saying that the WMD excuse for invading was valid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

You have something against Capitalism?

And WTF is it with sane people referring to those scum as "defense contractors"?

They are mercenaries, pure and simple.

Call them what they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Bribery is against the law, and you know it. But it’s not against the law to make a profit, is it? So it can’t be against the law for me to bribe someone in order to make a fair profit, can it? No, of course not!” 
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Isn’t the modern definition of a defense contractor one that makes money by getting people to kill other people very far away so the other people can’t hurt anybody?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 10:38 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Lots of superficial thinking here - few of ya have gone beyond the propaganda. 

This is key to Afghanistan - the original sin was the Reagan admin decision in the 1980's (with the Saudi's) 

to back the most extreme fundie groups among the the mujahadeen organizing against the Soviet invasion. 

They had a choice: there were larger and more organized secular Afghan groups, but the the US boosted the extremists. 

Prior to that intervention, Afghanistan was substantially secular, with little history of Islamic fundamentalism.  

So OBL got involved, and the extremists quickly evolved into the Taliban 

And the blow-back is still going on. 

Have to push back on that a bit. It's wrong to conflate the Taliban with AQ. Two very different entities with different roots. All our aid in the Soviet war in Afghanistan went through the Pakis. The Saudis had their own very small game happening with OBL being yet a smaller part of that. The Pakis never supported OBL, that was all Saudi. 

 After the war the Paki intell services backed their boys, who became the Taliban, to stabilize the place and the Pakis's main interest in doing so was keeping India out. The Pakis had no real interest in the place outside of keeping India out if it, really. The Saudis backed out, they let the Pakis do what they wished. It was much later, when OBL went rogue on the al-Saud, that he used some of his old contacts in Afghanistan to get a place to hide out. It was and remains a mistake to conflate the Taliban with 911. Fact is OBL never let his Afghan Talib hosts in the loop for 911. He used nothing but non Afghans for that op. 

  We blamed Islamism for 911, as if it was a collective act of all Muslims. This was done to justify the PNAC idea of transforming the ME in our image. Iraq was picked because they considered it the greatest existential threat to Israel at that time. Unfortunately that notion also made it all but impossible to cut a deal with Islamists like the Talibs. Nope! They had to be wiped out and a new government that would forever keep Islamism out of Afghanistan established. Unfortunately again...we were too busy getting bogged down in Iraq to do anything close to that.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 10:38 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Lots of superficial thinking here - few of ya have gone beyond the propaganda. 

This is key to Afghanistan - the original sin was the Reagan admin decision in the 1980's (with the Saudi's) 

to back the most extreme fundie groups among the the mujahadeen organizing against the Soviet invasion

They had a choice: there were larger and more organized secular Afghan groups, but the the US boosted the extremists. 

Prior to that intervention, Afghanistan was substantially secular, with little history of Islamic fundamentalism.  

So OBL got involved, and the extremists quickly evolved into the Taliban 

And the blow-back is still going on. 

Actually, the original original sin is with Carter rather than Reagan. Operation Cyclone starts with a Carter Presidential Finding in 1979 to fund the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Worse, Brezninski worked to lure the Soviet invasion, envisioning a Russian Vietnam, not forseeing another American Vietnam.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kwLj_n3SAfQJ:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brzezinski-vision-to-lure_b_10511358+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And a number of scumbag regimes (China, Myanmar, modi lead India) have followed the Us lead to murder, intimidate and repress Muslims in their own country.

So all those countries, especially China, waited until the US did it first so they could justify their own behaviour. Hahahaha... Nice one MJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mark K said:

Have to push back on that a bit. It's wrong to conflate the Taliban with AQ. Two very different entities with different roots. All our aid in the Soviet war in Afghanistan went through the Pakis. The Saudis had their own very small game happening with OBL being yet a smaller part of that. The Pakis never supported OBL, that was all Saudi. 

 

17 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Actually, the original original sin is with Carter rather than Reagan. Operation Cyclone starts with a Carter Presidential Finding in 1979 to fund the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets.

You both make good points. Yes, the CIA worked through Pakistan to fund the Mujahadeen, and it was Pak that selected and groomed the islamists; but the CIA knew what was happening, and could have stopped it. And Carter too has some splainin' to do. 

Nice to have an exchange of views that is not deflected by Reichista stupidity. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the CIA was doing an effective job going after OBL after 911 but then the military was brought in and everything went to shit.

Why can't the military ever wake up to the fact that they don't work against guerrillas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

IIRC the CIA was doing an effective job going after OBL after 911 but then the military was brought in and everything went to shit.

Why can't the military ever wake up to the fact that they don't work against guerrillas?

To be fair, the CIA is no good against guerrillas either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 11:02 AM, AJ Oliver said:

 

You both make good points. Yes, the CIA worked through Pakistan to fund the Mujahadeen, and it was Pak that selected and groomed the islamists; but the CIA knew what was happening, and could have stopped it. And Carter too has some splainin' to do. 

Nice to have an exchange of views that is not deflected by Reichista stupidity. 

We can't judge people of a different time period with today's standards. Back then nobody gave a rip about "Islamism". Speak the term and get a look like "WTF is that??" Those were cold war times, and all that mattered was Communism and the Evil Empire of the USSR. Bear in mind we fought a war in 1990 right in the heart of the ME against Saddam Hoo-sane and at no time in our media was "Islamism" mentioned. Hardly 1 in 10 people following that war knew what a "Shia" or a "Sunni" even was, and that one would be hard pressed to come up with anything meaningful to say about either. Right through the whole conflict it was no considered a factor...and we had the biggest and baddest op happening...right there. 

 Nope. That shit becoming an issue would be 20 years down the road.  Pakistan feared the Commies more too. Almost as much as they feared India. The Pakis feared Hindus a lot more than Islamists, hell, Pakistan IS Islamist,  and there is simply no other unifying force among those hill tribes in Afghanistan to rally around. It's not like the place was ever a nation..not really. It was a concept dreamed up by some Gin and Tonic swilling British imperialists. Perfidious Albions who managed to play tribe against tribe all the way through, "Islam" or not.

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mark K said:

We can't judge people of a different time period with today's standards. Back then nobody gave a rip about "Islamism". Speak the term and get a look like "WTF is that??" Those were cold war times, and all that mattered was Communism and the Evil Empire of the USSR. Bear in mind we fought a war in 1990 right in the heart of the ME against Saddam Hoo-sane and at no time in our media was "Islamism" mentioned. 

 Nope. That shit becoming an issue would be 20 years down the road. 

Respectfully disagree, the US gummint and media were fully aware of radical Islam by the time of the World Trade Ctr bombing in 1993, and of course the intell agencies long before that. 

Enjoy and learn from your comments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

We can't judge people of a different time period with today's standards. Back then nobody gave a rip about "Islamism". Speak the term and get a look like "WTF is that??" Those were cold war times, and all that mattered was Communism and the Evil Empire of the USSR. Bear in mind we fought a war in 1990 right in the heart of the ME against Saddam Hoo-sane and at no time in our media was "Islamism" mentioned. Hardly 1 in 10 people following that war knew what a "Shia" or a "Sunni" even was, and that one would be hard pressed to come up with anything meaningful to say about either. Right through the whole conflict it was no considered a factor...and we had the biggest and baddest op happening...right there. 

The Israelis knew all about it.  The 90% of Americans who didn't have a passport back then didn't pay attention because they're mostly insular fucking idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2019 at 5:46 PM, Mark K said:

Have to push back on that a bit. It's wrong to conflate the Taliban with AQ. Two very different entities with different roots. All our aid in the Soviet war in Afghanistan went through the Pakis. The Saudis had their own very small game happening with OBL being yet a smaller part of that. The Pakis never supported OBL, that was all Saudi. 

 After the war the Paki intell services backed their boys, who became the Taliban, to stabilize the place and the Pakis's main interest in doing so was keeping India out. The Pakis had no real interest in the place outside of keeping India out if it, really. The Saudis backed out, they let the Pakis do what they wished. It was much later, when OBL went rogue on the al-Saud, that he used some of his old contacts in Afghanistan to get a place to hide out. It was and remains a mistake to conflate the Taliban with 911. Fact is OBL never let his Afghan Talib hosts in the loop for 911. He used nothing but non Afghans for that op. 

  We blamed Islamism for 911, as if it was a collective act of all Muslims. This was done to justify the PNAC idea of transforming the ME in our image. Iraq was picked because they considered it the greatest existential threat to Israel at that time. Unfortunately that notion also made it all but impossible to cut a deal with Islamists like the Talibs. Nope! They had to be wiped out and a new government that would forever keep Islamism out of Afghanistan established. Unfortunately again...we were too busy getting bogged down in Iraq to do anything close to that.  

I will add as well that not all of the Mujahiddeen that fought the soviets were all Paki or Saudi stooges.  There was a faction of Uzbeks, Tajiks and such that later became the Northern Alliance under Ahmed Shah Massoud that was Islamic but fiercely anti-AQ and Anti-taliban.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

We can't judge people of a different time period with today's standards. Back then nobody gave a rip about "Islamism". Speak the term and get a look like "WTF is that??" Those were cold war times, and all that mattered was Communism and the Evil Empire of the USSR. Bear in mind we fought a war in 1990 right in the heart of the ME against Saddam Hoo-sane and at no time in our media was "Islamism" mentioned. Hardly 1 in 10 people following that war knew what a "Shia" or a "Sunni" even was, and that one would be hard pressed to come up with anything meaningful to say about either. Right through the whole conflict it was no considered a factor...and we had the biggest and baddest op happening...right there. 

 Nope. That shit becoming an issue would be 20 years down the road.  Pakistan feared the Commies more too. Almost as much as they feared India. The Pakis feared Hindus a lot more than Islamists, hell, Pakistan IS Islamist,  and there is simply no other unifying force among those hill tribes in Afghanistan to rally around. It's not like the place was ever a nation..not really. It was a concept dreamed up by some Gin and Tonic swilling British imperialists. Perfidious Albions who managed to play tribe against tribe all the way through, "Islam" or not.   

There is a passage in Peggy Noonan's What I Saw At The Revolution that provides some context. Cluelessly neoconservative.

image.png.b804c41e19ff6030d081e046d45c2556.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I will add as well that not all of the Mujahiddeen that fought the soviets were all Paki or Saudi stooges.  There was a faction of Uzbeks, Tajiks and such that later became the Northern Alliance under Ahmed Shah Massoud that was Islamic but fiercely anti-AQ and Anti-taliban.  

The Taliban was a mainly Pashtun thang...and to those others the Pashtuns were just another tribe. Be about like the Hatfields meekly submitting to McCoys. NFW. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 1 month later...
On 12/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, badlatitude said:

Yes, and then we need to see peace for a change. We have spent more money than even our great-grandchildren will be able to repay on this debt in their lifetimes. We should all be ashamed.

Remind me again what Obama did to end this...  went for 30K troops to 100K troops in 2011.....  Kind of reminds ya of LBJ doesn't it?

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

Remind me again what Obama did to end this...  went for 30K troops to 100K troops in 2011.....  Kind of reminds ya of LBJ doesn't it?

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

In the end, the Afghani's couldn't hold up their end of the bargain and like Vietnam, we should have never gone there in the first place. 

"It is better to break a foolish promise than to keep it and make a situation worse." Max Boot 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ventucky Red said:
On 12/9/2019 at 5:32 PM, badlatitude said:

....   ...

Remind me again what Obama did to end this...  went for 30K troops to 100K troops in 2011.....  Kind of reminds ya of LBJ doesn't it?

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama

Ah yes, "whataboutism" right on cue. Obama withdrew unilaterally from Iraq and you elk call him a surrender monkey for doing so, even though he was following the deal negotiated by Bush/Cheney. If Obama had also pulled out of Afghanistan, would you say he made a bold & correct move?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

In the end, the Afghani's couldn't hold up their end of the bargain and like Vietnam, we should have never gone there in the first place. 

"It is better to break a foolish promise than to keep it and make a situation worse." Max Boot 

We did have a reason for going in there in the first place but W the Stupid fucked that reason up, and then being stupid, stayed. Obama it seems got sold a bill of good which he is responsible for buying by a military who prefers losing to lost. Still Obama really should have left the day after getting OBL dead. Shitstain was all over the map, increasing, decreasing promising to leave without, you know, leaving. Hi Tom!

We're gone now, this despite Jeff salivating over the prospect of long range precision bombing missions designed to make Afghans lives better.

I think the end of WWII, when the Japanese were completely utterly lost, and had been militarily lost for a year, teaches a lesson. The Allies said unconditional surrender and the Japanese said no; with their cities in flames, they wanted to protect the Imperial family. They preferred losing to lost. The Allies reiterated this and then dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6. They reiterated it again. Then the Soviets attacked. The Allies reiterated it again. Then dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Then they reiterated it again. It wasn't until August 15 that they finally surrendered and then there was an attempted coup by the military to prevent the surrender.

Military types prefer losing to lost.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

We did have a reason for going in there in the first place but W the Stupid fucked that reason up, and then being stupid, stayed. Obama it seems got sold a bill of good which he is responsible for buying by a military who prefers losing to lost. Still Obama really should have left the day after getting OBL dead. Shitstain was all over the map, increasing, decreasing promising to leave without, you know, leaving. Hi Tom!

We're gone now, this despite Jeff salivating over the prospect of long range precision bombing missions designed to make Afghans lives better.

I think the end of WWII, when the Japanese were completely utterly lost, and had been militarily lost for a year, teaches a lesson. The Allies said unconditional surrender and the Japanese said no; with their cities in flames, they wanted to protect the Imperial family. They preferred losing to lost. The Allies reiterated this and then dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6. They reiterated it again. Then the Soviets attacked. The Allies reiterated it again. Then dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Then they reiterated it again. It wasn't until August 15 that they finally surrendered and then there was an attempted coup by the military to prevent the surrender.

Military types prefer losing to lost.

BS.  Given the military is subordinate to the CINC, all the CINC had to do was pull the plug and they be gone.  Neither prez Shrub nor prez Kenyan wanted to be seen as loosers (sic).  I'm glad Joe had the balls to not care about his legacy and get them the hell out of there.  It was the right move.  

Also, what's lost in all of this is that Congress - AT ANY POINT - since 2001 could have ended both wars with the stroke of a pen.  Nancy and her boyz bitched mightily at the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan (mostly correctly), but she did nothing but clutch her pearls rather than use her power of the checkbook.  She and the Dems could easily have stopped the war at any point when they were in power by simply not funding it.  But they refused to do so - so I have zero sympathy for the howls from dRATs who wanted the war over sooner.  I wanted the wars over sooner, but the people who could end it were spineless cowards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

BS.  Given the military is subordinate to the CINC, all the CINC had to do was pull the plug and they be gone.  Neither prez Shrub nor prez Kenyan wanted to be seen as loosers (sic).  I'm glad Joe had the balls to not care about his legacy and get them the hell out of there.  It was the right move.  

Also, what's lost in all of this is that Congress - AT ANY POINT - since 2001 could have ended both wars with the stroke of a pen.  Nancy and her boyz bitched mightily at the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan (mostly correctly), but she did nothing but clutch her pearls rather than use her power of the checkbook.  She and the Dems could easily have stopped the war at any point when they were in power by simply not funding it.  But they refused to do so - so I have zero sympathy for the howls from dRATs who wanted the war over sooner.  I wanted the wars over sooner, but the people who could end it were spineless cowards.

Spoken like a pilot who never has to actually exert leadership over a group of people.

Just bark out the order, and it's done.

Sure, that's how it works!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Spoken like a pilot who never has to actually exert leadership over a group of people.

Just bark out the order, and it's done.

Sure, that's how it works!

- DSK

I actually am well aware of how leadership works.  And yes, if the CINC ordered the military to withdraw, it would be done.  Just as Joe did.  He said do it, and it happened in what......  5-6 months?  Yes, it does work that way - if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

BS.  Given the military is subordinate to the CINC, all the CINC had to do was pull the plug and they be gone.  Neither prez Shrub nor prez Kenyan wanted to be seen as loosers (sic).  I'm glad Joe had the balls to not care about his legacy and get them the hell out of there.  It was the right move.  

Also, what's lost in all of this is that Congress - AT ANY POINT - since 2001 could have ended both wars with the stroke of a pen.  Nancy and her boyz bitched mightily at the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan (mostly correctly), but she did nothing but clutch her pearls rather than use her power of the checkbook.  She and the Dems could easily have stopped the war at any point when they were in power by simply not funding it.  But they refused to do so - so I have zero sympathy for the howls from dRATs who wanted the war over sooner.  I wanted the wars over sooner, but the people who could end it were spineless cowards.

The Vietnam War was authorized by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. That was repealed by Congress in Jan 1971 and that repeal was even signed by Nixon who then proceeded to ignore it under his authority to 'protect the troops'.

Yeah, nah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

I actually am well aware of how leadership works.  And yes, if the CINC ordered the military to withdraw, it would be done.  Just as Joe did.  He said do it, and it happened in what......  5-6 months?  Yes, it does work that way - if necessary.

No, sorry.

I get that you aren't saying it's really that simple; and I think we probably agree that there was a lot of persuading/arguing behind closed doors that we will never know about.

But it really isn't that simple.... to refer back to an older discussion you and I have had, life is just not a fucking B&W cowboy movie.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, sorry.

I get that you aren't saying it's really that simple; and I think we probably agree that there was a lot of persuading/arguing behind closed doors that we will never know about.

But it really isn't that simple.... to refer back to an older discussion you and I have had, life is just not a fucking B&W cowboy movie.

- DSK

I'm sorry, but it REALLY is that simple.  If the President(s) wanted out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq..... that could literally happen with the snap of a finger or the stroke of a pen.  If Congress was REALLY against the war(s), they could cut off funding overnight.  The Dems had majorities of all branches several times over the past couple of decades and they failed to pull the plug.  The reality is that they all put politics and personal power ahead of the good of the country, as did the GOP.  Of course they might lose an election because of a decision like that.  But that means then that they didn't REALLY believe all that strongly in getting out of an unpopular war.  IF they REALLY believed that war is bad and that Americans dying was bad - they would put those lives over their political career.  None did.  And that speaks volumes about where their loyalty lies.  But they are politicians, so I know that's redundant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I'm sorry, but it REALLY is that simple.  If the President(s) wanted out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq..... that could literally happen with the snap of a finger or the stroke of a pen.  If Congress was REALLY against the war(s), they could cut off funding overnight.  The Dems had majorities of all branches several times over the past couple of decades and they failed to pull the plug.  The reality is that they all put politics and personal power ahead of the good of the country, as did the GOP.  Of course they might lose an election because of a decision like that.  But that means then that they didn't REALLY believe all that strongly in getting out of an unpopular war.  IF they REALLY believed that war is bad and that Americans dying was bad - they would put those lives over their political career.  None did.  And that speaks volumes about where their loyalty lies.  But they are politicians, so I know that's redundant.

All this time I thought you knew what the fuck you were talking about. I won't make that mistake again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2021 at 8:59 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Ah yes, "whataboutism" right on cue. Obama withdrew unilaterally from Iraq and you elk call him a surrender monkey for doing so, even though he was following the deal negotiated by Bush/Cheney. If Obama had also pulled out of , would you say he made a bold & correct move?

- DSK

No it is not "whataboutism" right on cue. Obama said he was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close Gitmo. I think the criticism on Obama was the way he pulled out of Iraq...  remember the military can win battles, but it cannot solve the problems and that was never addressed.

Yeupp - we had no business being there with the exception to get Bin Laden and get the "beep" out, and even then we screwed the pooch on that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

No it is not "whataboutism" right on cue. Obama said he was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close Gitmo. I think the criticism on Obama was the way he pulled out of Iraq...  remember the military can win battles, but it cannot solve the problems and that was never addressed.

Yeupp - we had no business being there with the exception to get Bin Laden and get the "beep" out, and even then we screwed the pooch on that.

 

 

OK, I think we are mostly in agreement.

I have read Obama's book on his first term, and his discussion of Afghanistan is a bit irritating... the issue kept coming up, he kept getting promises from the military that the situation was getting better and we could leave in the near future but not yet, etc etc; -plus- his main priority was domestic policy. Pulling out of Afghanistan under nebulous circumstances would have certainly been painted as a LOSS! by Team R! and hung around his neck (like not going into Syria).

Obama was very very conscious of what was politically feasible, domestic gains AND a bold move in Afghanistan was not in the hand he was dealt.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 3:47 PM, badlatitude said:

I guess we didn't learn a stinking thing from Vietnam.

Sure we did.  We learned we can hand billions to the defense contractors, who in turn "donate" some change to political campaigns, and in the process get enough Americans to get behind this corruption by believing the military is protecting the country.

Now please stand for the national anthem.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, I think we are mostly in agreement.

I have read Obama's book on his first term, and his discussion of Afghanistan is a bit irritating... the issue kept coming up, he kept getting promises from the military that the situation was getting better and we could leave in the near future but not yet, etc etc; -plus- his main priority was domestic policy. Pulling out of Afghanistan under nebulous circumstances would have certainly been painted as a LOSS! by Team R! and hung around his neck (like not going into Syria).

Obama was very very conscious of what was politically feasible, domestic gains AND a bold move in Afghanistan was not in the hand he was dealt.

- DSK

It is okay to say Obama fucked it up just as good as Dubbeya...   All he had to do is say... withdraw and do it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, badlatitude said:

All this time I thought you knew what the fuck you were talking about. I won't make that mistake again.

Well, man-splain it to me and tell me why I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

No one makes money on building schools, but war makes the 1%ers rich, ask Haliburton /D .Cheney

here's the end of Charlie's Wilson war encase you haven't seen it

(1) a famous scene from Charlie Wilson's war - YouTube

 

And not one person from Team D is vested in the defense industry, nor have taken a single campaign contribution dollar....  not a single soul right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of what happened isn't secret. We know all about it, at least the ones who paid close attention at the time do. 

 The COINesta generals (talkin' about you, Dave Petraeus) tried to limit Obama's choices by presenting only COINheavy, COINlite, and immediate cut and run. Obama told them to take several months to come up with more details on each. Obama smelled they were trying to frame his options. 

 They selected General Flynn, McChrystal's mavericky G2, to do a COINesta study, ala what was done by MACV in Nam. Flynn produced a report that showed all the contraindications for COIN in Afghanistan, like the COIN doctrine "must have a government worth supporting" not being the case in Afghanistan. That bit of ballsy action would earn him a promotion* to head of DIA. However at the end of the day Obama went with COIN heavy, as General Dave wanted him to do. I haven't read Obama's book but I would guess the tipping point was the knowledge that we had only half-assed the place, everybody was getting ready to go to Iraq when OBL wasn't even out of Tora Bora yet. We hadn't given it any real effort yet. 

 You pays your money you takes your chances. Snake eyes? So it goes.   

 

 

*tragic promotion, as things worked out

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Well, man-splain it to me and tell me why I'm wrong.

If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that president's have long promised voters the world, and ultimately found they were unable to deliver. 

George H.W. Bush: Read My Lips, No new taxes, except the Gramm, Rudman, Hollings, Act which called for a balanced budget, and ruined the Bush plan for no new taxes. He was a one term president because of that. Don't think he didn't try. The government worked for months to try and make his plan work only to fail.

How about Lyndon Johnson? He ran promising to stay out of Vietnam, only to involve us in a morass that killed any chance for reelection.

Bill Clinton promised robust health care, Conservatives blocked him and his plan failed.

Donald Trump promised to eliminate Obamacare, build a wall, and stick Hillary Clinton in jail. All failures and he tried repeatedly to fulfill those promises.

Obama tried to get us out of Guantanamo, The Pentagon didn't like his plan and neither did Congress. During Bush II In the beginning, Congress and the Republican party built fear among the public saying we would have terrorists living next door to us. The Pentagon did not want the Geneva Conventions interfering with our military operations and fought tooth and nail to defeat Obama's plan. Obama's own staffers called it his 'Field of Dreams' approach If I say it they will come. It didn't happen because no one wanted the responsibility of finding homes for those prisoners.

Shit happens and kills the best intentions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

The story of what happened isn't secret. We know all about it, at least the ones who paid close attention at the time do. 

 The COINesta generals (talkin' about you, Dave Petraeus) tried to limit Obama's choices by presenting only COINheavy, COINlite, and immediate cut and run. Obama told them to take several months to come up with more details on each. Obama smelled they were trying to frame his options. 

 They selected General Flynn, McChrystal's mavericky G2, to do a COINesta study, ala what was done by MACV in Nam. Flynn produced a report that showed all the contraindications for COIN in Afghanistan, like the COIN doctrine "must have a government worth supporting" not being the case in Afghanistan. That bit of ballsy action would earn him a promotion* to head of DIA. However at the end of the day Obama went with COIN heavy, as General Dave wanted him to do. I haven't read Obama's book but I would guess the tipping point was the knowledge that we had only half-assed the place, everybody was getting ready to go to Iraq when OBL wasn't even out of Tora Bora yet. We hadn't given it any real effort yet. 

 You pays your money you takes your chances. Snake eyes? So it goes.   

 

 

*tragic promotion, as things worked out

Robert Gates deserves a lot of blame as well. He was the holdover SecDef from W the Dumb's administration. Needless to say, he didn't find any fault with the previous administration's SecDef, and that despite a change in government, a change in course was unnecessary. He particularly liked Flynn's Fixing Intel report.

Tom Ricks on Fixing Intel:

I have reason to suspect Flynn may have had little role in actually writing the paper.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/did-help-create-monster-confession-150613786.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:

It is okay to say Obama fucked it up just as good as Dubbeya...   All he had to do is say... withdraw and do it now.

Except that he didn't, quite. Obama didn't lie us into another war at the same time, while not pursuing the first one.

If Dubya had pulled out of Afghanistan after getting the bad guys, and never invaded Iraq, yeah.

It's possible that if Obama had gotten the military on board with getting the bad guys and pulling out of Afghanistan in his first term, he'd have built more domestic support but he (and his consultants) did not think so, and put higher priority on his domestic agenda.  Not good, but not quite the same as launching a war for KBR/Halliburton contracts after launching prior war and not prosecuting it.

So no, I was mistaken, we don't agree so much

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ventucky Red said:

And not one person from Team D is vested in the defense industry, nor have taken a single campaign contribution dollar....  not a single soul right?

You really should try to not make every thing an absolute black-vs-white partisan issue.

Of course there are a lot of Democrat politicians in bed with defense contracting. How many aircraft carriers are named after Democrats who weren't even President?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ventucky Red said:

And not one person from Team D is vested in the defense industry, nor have taken a single campaign contribution dollar....  not a single soul right?

There use to be an saying " If you wear a tie , you probably lie" so There's plenty of blame to go around on all the sides  

We spent 6 times more in defense then all the top 10 countries, 8 of which are our allies, it's the only bipartisan issue the get full approval !

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Robert Gates deserves a lot of blame as well. He was the holdover SecDef from W the Dumb's administration. Needless to say, he didn't find any fault with the previous administration's SecDef, and that despite a change in government, a change in course was unnecessary. He particularly liked Flynn's Fixing Intel report.

Tom Ricks on Fixing Intel:

I have reason to suspect Flynn may have had little role in actually writing the paper.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/did-help-create-monster-confession-150613786.html

He was doing fine until he allowed himself to be promoted to positions where character matters. He was great at finding snakes because he is one.      

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2021 at 8:36 AM, Olsonist said:

It's dumb but Jeff will be happy.

Hard to know. We have to keep the airports open to get people out of there. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on the tactical situation, looking at the map of Talib controlled provinces indicates things could be snowballing quicker than expected, and land routes out from Kabul are already insecure.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

We really shouldn't have an embassy there right now. Then we wouldn't have an embassy to defend during a civil war. We could have an interest section in Islamabad, 300 miles and one very porous border away. In 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War, we closed our embassy in Saigon and then didn't reopen one until 1995 but instead in Hanoi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't want to rub it in too much, but Vets For Peace is on record 

as being spot-on correct about Afghanistan, Iraq and other conflicts since its founding in 1985 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

We really shouldn't have an embassy there right now. Then we wouldn't have an embassy to defend during a civil war. We could have an interest section in Islamabad, 300 miles and one very porous border away. In 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War, we closed our embassy in Saigon and then didn't reopen one until 1995 but instead in Hanoi.

 Probably the biggest worry going on right now in State Dept Security is how to get those people out of there, should this go bad in a hurry. Nevertheless it is probably being staffed because there needs to be somewhere to process the paperwork for the people who served with us and will be deader than shit if they fall into Talib hands. Yank the office, and that falls to someone else, and since the places we have mil personnel are locked down tight as a crab's ass... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Probably the biggest worry going on right now in State Dept Security is how to get those people out of there, should when this go goes bad in a hurry. Nevertheless it is probably being staffed because there needs to be somewhere to process the paperwork for the people who served with us and will be deader than shit if they fall into Talib hands. Yank the office, and that falls to someone else, and since the places we have mil personnel are locked down tight as a crab's ass... 

It's going to go bad. We're already saying that anybody in line for evacuation has to make it to Kabul. It's not much farther to Islamabad and that might be a safer trip. There are no products made by the Raytheon Corporation which will make life any better for anyone in Afghanistan. This needs to just end.

However, as I recall you have worked embassy security. So this is my humble opinion. I think yours is going to be better informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

It's going to go bad. We're already saying that anybody in line for evacuation has to make it to Kabul. It's not much farther to Islamabad and that might be a safer trip. There are no products made by the Raytheon Corporation which will make life any better for anyone in Afghanistan. This needs to just end.

However, as I recall you have worked embassy security. So this is my humble opinion. I think yours is going to be better informed.

 My guesses aren't based on that though. Those mountains are porous to the Taliban but no one else. Lotsa luck sneaking through the Pashtuns in their mountain passes without them noticing. Furthermore Islamabad is the Taliban's patron. If I had been a translator for the US I would not trust the Pakis, nosireebob. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2021 at 2:01 PM, Mark K said:

 My guesses aren't based on that though. Those mountains are porous to the Taliban but no one else. Lotsa luck sneaking through the Pashtuns in their mountain passes without them noticing. Furthermore Islamabad is the Taliban's patron. If I had been a translator for the US I would not trust the Pakis, nosireebob. 

I'm sure it's dangerous but staying is dangerous as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/world/asia/afghanistan-migration-taliban.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 7:39 PM, Not for nothing said:

Having done 2 tours of duty in Vietnam, and it wasn't till I got home and years later , I found out what a bullshit lie we were told. So now  seeing how badly we treat our vets. . . . .   We created a vacum in Iraqi and who filled it, ISIS!

Actually, it is worse than that. The leaders of what would become ISIS first met while being abused in prison by US forces. 

One tour in VN was more than enough for me - it radicalized me for life. 

There is a place for you in Vets For Peace. 

Sorry for the tardy response. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

Looking at the embassy site, check out this blind-deaf op-ed. The "future" has an asterisk which leads to a note which says they have to hide the "future's" ID. Says it all, doesn't it? 

 https://af.usembassy.gov/op-ed-the-future-of-afghanistan-depends-on-women-and-girls/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

One tour in VN was more than enough for me - it radicalized me for life. 

Yeah, that REMF life must have been absolute hell.  What?  Did they close down the enlisted club bar too early for you?  Swimming pool too cold?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, that REMF life must have been absolute hell. 

 

Yeah, those blast walls around the facility were just for decoration. 

And how is that AC holding out for you at Creech ?? 

I have not denigrated your service, why do you denigrate mine ?? 

Too bad you do not have Dan Hale's stones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites