‘We Should Just Leave:’ Trump Takes A Look At Pulling Troops Out Of Afghanistan

Which assumes that it was in the interest of the US to free Kuwait.

 

Yep. What's lost in all this is the number of career employees that have quit. It's not reported but the buzz is real. Search it, amazing!

 

Trump might just as well pull us out, we have no reputation or trust left anyway thanks to him.

 

FYI, if you leave the armor out of the equation, those front troops are sitting ducks to any type of armor and artillery. That is not how warfare works, one needs a blend of men and equipment.

 

That decision was made by our civilian leaders. I don't know if it was or wasn't. I do know we were sharing intel with Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. That Saddam was looking for closer ties with us. Then there was at famous or infamous meeting with April Glaspie where she said, "We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait."

From what I read Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait if we or Glaspie told him not to. Or even if she told him we wouldn't like it. Reading the transcripts, It looks like Saddam was almost asking permission. That when the meeting was over, Saddam thought he had U.S. approval or at least didn't care one way or the other. How accurate are those transcripts, I don't know. But many sources has Glaspie saying basically the same thing or coming across as saying that the Kuwait situation was a problem between Iraq and Kuwait.

So was it a misunderstanding or was it that we didn't really care until Saddam invaded Kuwait and captured it? Then we cared after the fact, but not before.

My point was Desert Storm was the correct way to fight a war. Not the way we fought all others since WWII. My view has always been if we go into a war, we go in to win, to use whatever is necessary, to get it over quickly and then get the heck out.

 

Gen. Patton, if I may; "you sir are insane."

A blend of men and equipment. You mean combined arms?

I'll finish here by saying, on your proximal position I can place 20,000 combat ready men in 6 (six) hours.

Do you pray?

 

Without any armor, a single battery round, wound take out at 1%, marshalling that many troops takes time. One can make a bomb out of a car. You forget food, bathroom, sleep, toilet paper, et al. Assaults can go about 250 miles on the ground before they would need to regroup, and they would need transport to do it.

Go read a military book, instead of quoting GI Joe episodes.

 

Gotta keep those poppy fields going. They were about gone until we invaded. Now they are under guard to keep Taliban from destroying them. Afterall, we depend upon these fields for our herion addicts, expecially now that we are waging war on doctors who give pain pills to their chronic pain patients, including cancer patients. So people using pain pills will be driven to heroin which is cheaper to buy and that comes from afganistan.

 

Afghanistan supplies all of our opium. Gotta keep it.

 

No it doesn't. Actually none of the west's pain meds are derived from Afghan opium.

Australia.

Even at that we synthesize it.

I'm so tired of ignorance on this subject.

 

Edit for too much personal information.

 

And what president is it that you think comes up with plans for the military.

 

And what exactly do you think the US military has been doing over there for the 15+ years. A large portion of what the US military is doing is trying to create a stronger Afghan military. It takes a lot of time and is not easy. Expecially in a place like Afghanistan

 

Basing your opinion of a people off something you saw in a movie is a recipe for disaster

 

IOW, Glaspie, and our savvy foreign policy wizards, instigated the invasion of Kuwait, and thus Gulf War I, and eventually Gulf War II. All this started, according to your narrative, with the crafty Glaspie/DOS betrayal of a US ally/proxy - Saddam Hussein. Was this just an isolated example of USG stupidity or has such stupidity became a hallmark of a sustained US foreign policy? 1. Saddam 2. Khadaffi 3. Mubarak 4. Assad

There is no question that the US military defeated the Iraqi military efficiently in GWI and GW II. Neither of those battlefield successes appear to have served any long term interest of the US.

The conquest and occupation of Japan and Germany were the last examples of America winning a decisive final lasting victory over an enemy.

 

I guess you have it all figured out !!!

 

We have the capability to achieve lasting and complete victory like over Germany and Japan, but no will or want to do so. We would rather screw around and create long lasting wars which because of their length bring about more casualties and destruction than a short decisive war even if casualties are very heavy at the time.

Yes, indeed Saddam was a proxy ally, Khadaffi was trying for closer relations with the U.S, Mubarak was indeed a valuable ally. All done away by us, perhaps it doesn't pay to become an ally of ours. Assad, he's probably the best Syria can get. Neither friend or enemy, why try to take him out? With our air power and his troops, ill equipped and un-trained as they are, were. ISIS could have been wiped off the map in Syria in a month. All it took was the will on our part. That we don't have.

Actually GW II fought a smart war in Afghanistan in the beginning. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power and the 14 tribe Northern Alliance providing the ground forces did succeed nicely in driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Granted, no UBL then. Then nation building began and a 100,000 or more troops poured in. To what end? To force a type of government upon the Afghans that they don't want?

 

Good analysis.

 

America gave them all those spiffy green forest camouflage uniforms and we buy their opium.

Isn't that enough - help?

 

...and into their safe havens in Pakistan. Therein lies the problem...

Why Pakistan Supports the Taliban
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/25/why-pakistan-supports-taliban.html

I agree that we should have maintained as minimal a presence as possible in Afghanistan, but as you pointed out...

One of our biggest problems going into Afghanistan, in my opinion, was our apparent inability to understand who an what we were getting ourselves into.

War correspondent Michael Yon, who has spent a considerable amount of time in Afghanistan with our troops, wrote a poetic little piece about that country and our expectations that has always stuck in my head, and there's some wisdom in there that our leaders would do well to understand:

 

Most of the 14 tribe Northern Alliance once the Taliban was driven out just wanted to go back to their tribal homelands and let their own tribal chief and elders rule over them. Not someone from another tribe in Kabul. That we never recognized.

Yeah, we could have let those tribes have their wish. Left a few SF and paramilitary on the ground for when the Taliban returned. Then once the Taliban did so, go back to our air power with the Afghans once again providing the ground forces. We may have had to do this many times. Forcing our form of government on the Afghans isn't going to work.

 

No, all

They don't care about loss of lives, even if they're innocent. They love little wars here and there (even big ones), especially the banks. If Obama didn't send all those troops, drop all those bombs, and use the military as he did, the economy would be nasty. This is why they go to war, it not only helps the economy, but those involved in the war/wars all go into debt with the banks. The banks just love it, they can't get enough.

Then you have people who don't believe in God, and they vote, try to change policy, bring in what is considered abominations. And then they have the nerve to complain that innocent people are being killed, the poor need healthcare, our veterans need taken care of, education, lower taxes, the list goes on and on. And their complaining to politicians/leaders who literally don't give a f()()k about them.
Look if you don't believe in God, and there is no judgment after death. Then all your living in is a jungle. So don't complain when somebody rules that jungle even if it's with tyranny. For all their doing is being king of the jungle. Others who don't believe in God, are just to weak to do as they do, so they complain (I need you to take care of me because I can't). Of course the lion is going to say, "sure thing dumba()()".

That should tell you that indeed there is a God, who will give judgment to all.

Just thought I'd throw that last bit in there.

 

Exactly, and I credit our failure to fully understand the dynamics of tribalistic societies and the history of Afghanistan for our failure to recognize that. Instead, we went in there with our own biases and preconceived notions and arrogantly presumed that we could establish a Western-style nation and centralized government in that country.

It's almost laughable...

I agree - it's not going to work. We really do need to reassess our expectations, options and commitments in Afghanistan.

As for the role of our military, I'm more inclined to support your suggestion than the unsustainable, unwinnable course we're on right now. Given Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan and its support for jihadist groups I think we need to do something about Islamabad, as well.

 

Even those who do not believe in God often manage to avoid having intercourse with the devil unless they gain power in Washington.

“Of all the quaint maxims of Obama 08, the notion that the same old players would be sidelined in his fresh-scrubbed Washington was particularly rich. So was the pledge from the candidate that “lobbyists will not run my White House.” That little keepsake from 08 popped up a lot whenever an exception made its way through the revolving door.

One of the most decorated lobbyist in town, Steve Ricchetti, became the latest exception when he joined Biden’s office as senior advisor in early 2012. The Ricchetti’s lobbying clients have included Fannie Mae, Eli Lilly, and the American Hospital Association, among others. Loopholes, loopholes. It seemed Ricchetti had deregistered as a lobbyist after Obama was elected, so it was all good, even though Ricchetti remained president of a lobbying firm.” Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, pp 261, 262.

Which may explain why lot of Godless Democrats voted for an apparently born again Donald Trump.