Trump Considers Afghanistan Army Surge
- Thread starter drypowder
- Start date
- Replies 99
- Views 6,054
Burt Gummer
May Have Shorter Meme Posting Times Than U Normies
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Supporting Member
Salesman of the Year
Multi-Factor Enabled
Your topic sucks. I changed it.
Alright back on topic you. Stop irritating pawpaw
Last edited:
BurnedOutGeek
What's this button do?
Staff member
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
There's kids today that can enlist that have been born while this quagmire has been going on and don't know a time when we were not at war.
That's pretty sad.
Russia finally did.
Come to think of it they probably pissed themselves with laughter when we went in there.
Studentofthegun
From the Land of White Pine and Moonshine
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
OP
drypowder
Les Deplorables
The U.S. "Cannot Win Militarily" In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Interview
Seems the US military is starting to accept what many of us have been saying for a long time - the Taliban ran Afghanistan before we invaded, and they will be running Afghanistan when we leave.
Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban — the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001.
"This is not going to be won militarily," Gen. Miller said. "This is going to a political solution."
What will the American citizenry have gained from the blood and treasure spent in the nearly 2 decades we've been there? Will we have learned enough to know that the current war in Syria and the next planned war (Iran) are bad ideas (for the American citizenry) and resolve to resist the neocon/neoliberal agenda that will surely keep us sending soldiers and wealth to be sacrificed in the desert halfway around the world?
Seems the US military is starting to accept what many of us have been saying for a long time - the Taliban ran Afghanistan before we invaded, and they will be running Afghanistan when we leave.
Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban — the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001.
"This is not going to be won militarily," Gen. Miller said. "This is going to a political solution."
What will the American citizenry have gained from the blood and treasure spent in the nearly 2 decades we've been there? Will we have learned enough to know that the current war in Syria and the next planned war (Iran) are bad ideas (for the American citizenry) and resolve to resist the neocon/neoliberal agenda that will surely keep us sending soldiers and wealth to be sacrificed in the desert halfway around the world?
Last edited:
jmccracken1214
Well-Known Member
I'd be on the first plane back over there.!
Last edited:
RedneckFur
Smith & Wesson is a religion of peace.
There's no reason for us to be there. There's no reason for us to be involved in any foreign war. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they told us specifically not to do that.
Our military spending has been a hole we dump truckloads of money into since WW2.
Our military spending has been a hole we dump truckloads of money into since WW2.
I've been watching Vietnam in HD recently, and see a lot of the same mistakes made there, being made here.
One cannot defeat an enemy that hides within the populace, especially when the people we're supposed to be helping doesn't want to defeat their enemy on their own. I don't see anyway to effectively destroy this enemy but by making ourselves the enemy of many other states by wholesale liquidation of life in that region.
This evil ideology/religion we are at war with, will not be defeated by anything less than a greater application of evil, however, most people are not ok with doing what would be necessary to defeat this adversary.
I can only think of one war of insurgency that was defeated successfully by the US, and that is of the wars against the native Americans.
One cannot defeat an enemy that hides within the populace, especially when the people we're supposed to be helping doesn't want to defeat their enemy on their own. I don't see anyway to effectively destroy this enemy but by making ourselves the enemy of many other states by wholesale liquidation of life in that region.
This evil ideology/religion we are at war with, will not be defeated by anything less than a greater application of evil, however, most people are not ok with doing what would be necessary to defeat this adversary.
I can only think of one war of insurgency that was defeated successfully by the US, and that is of the wars against the native Americans.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
While I don't disagree that we don't need to be involved in these shitholes there is some merit to involvement in foreign wars as well as merit to no involvement.
The supporters of complete isolationism think that if we just simply mind our own business then we will be left alone and if we aren't and we get attacked then we should react then and only then.
The people who support foreign involvement will simply point to WWII and that we kept out of it until we were attacked, almost costing us a port and our lack of earlier engagement led to a prolonged war and far more lost American lives.
The answer lies in the middle. That middle would be keeping an eye on foreign developments and when a global threat (or a threat to our sovereignty or our nation) arises we declare war and smite the hell out of it.
We are not in the middle and never have been. We do not declare war, we do not smite the arising threats. Instead we are fed a line of bullshit by those that profit from war. We could have turned any of these countries to parking lots a hundred times over with conventional weaponry. But instead we linger and we fiddle fart because the longer they can maintain the illusion of a threat the longer the American tax payer can be billed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I need to see if I can find it. I posted it awhile back but don't remember the title. One of my fathers Air America buddies who was one of the last to leave Saigon wrote a very detailed piece about the similarities awhile back.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
My father was one of the last to return.
Air America, military or embassy? Wait, is your dad the POW?
Edit: I was talking about one of the last pilots to leave Saigon after evacuating everyone they could. Having the navy shove their helicopters off of the carriers into the ocean instead of refueling them because they were told to stand down.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Yeah as soon as I typed it I remembered the pistol you're working on and watching his interview. Sometimes it takes a minute to place call signs.
One good reason for the involvements in these wars: proficiency. Our tactics and our equipment was outdated as hell. Improvements come via first hand testing and feedback from the end user. Can’t do that stateside. Sure, a lot of it is reactive...don’t know what the new threats are (for example) til that 5 pound boiling copper plate comes flying at you at 2200fps.
And it has been a great cost, a great expense.
But like Chad said, a complete isolation policy without our GWOT learning experiences and show of force would, without a doubt, have cost us far more in the long run.
Russia has been sharpening their steel against Chechens (and now the Ukrainians) for quite some time.
I do think Afghanistan has now gone far beyond the point of any logic, but there was never a time where the Taliban was going to surrender like the uniformed Germans of yesteryear. The goals and timetables should’ve been more clearly defined and held to based on how it was going
I’ll be paying for my involvement for the rest of my life. But I gladly “paid” that for many reasons, and all the guys I served with I know would lace back up in a heart beat and do it all over again.
And it has been a great cost, a great expense.
But like Chad said, a complete isolation policy without our GWOT learning experiences and show of force would, without a doubt, have cost us far more in the long run.
Russia has been sharpening their steel against Chechens (and now the Ukrainians) for quite some time.
I do think Afghanistan has now gone far beyond the point of any logic, but there was never a time where the Taliban was going to surrender like the uniformed Germans of yesteryear. The goals and timetables should’ve been more clearly defined and held to based on how it was going
I’ll be paying for my involvement for the rest of my life. But I gladly “paid” that for many reasons, and all the guys I served with I know would lace back up in a heart beat and do it all over again.