|
Just two more years, and we can ship over 18-year old soldiers who were born after the war began.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Maybe they know how unpopular it would be if they told people the number of troops really needed. COIN was a miserable failure despite Obama's troop surge. Those who still think COIN could work probably want an even larger increase in troop numbers than that. But this would be totally unpalatable to the American public, where the war is rarely discussed and seems almost forgotten. So instead we get small increases that don't have any effect, and the whole thing continues to drag on.Orange Devil posted:can anyone argue with a straight face another 4000 is going to do jack poo poo? Defense contractors and their lobbyists sure as hell can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:How does 4000 troops do anything for anyone at all? Well 4000 US troops isn't going to retake any territory but I don't think that is the expectation. What they can do is be paired with the Afghan army to stiffen their moral and increase their effectiveness. I think the objective is to prevent a large scale rout in which the Taliban can seize a large swath of territory including provincial capitals, as happened in Iraq during the rise of IS. It also improves US logistical and air support. The problem is while these troops make it less likely that a big defensible city center could fall, they still can't keep the Taliban from expanding control of the countryside. The strategy now just seems to be 'don't lose,' or at least don't lose until you're out of office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Tmgneff/status/875718082291011585
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKBN1980HJ Update on this: 7 US troops wounded, 1 Afghan soldier killed and 1 wounded. OhFunny fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well 4000 US troops isn't going to retake any territory but I don't think that is the expectation. What they can do is be paired with the Afghan army to stiffen their moral and increase their effectiveness. I think the objective is to prevent a large scale rout in which the Taliban can seize a large swath of territory including provincial capitals, as happened in Iraq during the rise of IS. It also improves US logistical and air support. OK so the plan right now is to lose slower. Real loving Sun Tzu level poo poo here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
They read up to "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence" and then got bored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKBN1980HJ How can US soldiers even work with these people knowing that they could possibly be the enemy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Same way people still somehow manage to work at the post office
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Wizgot posted:How can US soldiers even work with these people knowing that they could possibly be the enemy? Very angrily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Wizgot posted:How can US soldiers even work with these people knowing that they could possibly be the enemy? Welcome to every counter insurgency since forever
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:How does 4000 troops do anything for anyone at all? Well, what is the actual purpose: To defeat the insurgents, or to simply use minimum forces necessary to stem the tide for now so the current administration doesn't get the publicity hit from overseeing the destruction of a US appointed regime in a strategic country? I feel that may be the strategy for any foreseeable future, the Soviet style approach of just pouring money into missions that achieve nothing but keep the friendly government technically alive so Washington doesn't have to admit defeat. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Y'all should watch the very topical movie "War Machine" on Netflix.steinrokkan posted:Well, what is the actual purpose: To defeat the insurgents, or to simply use minimum forces necessary to stem the tide for now so the current administration doesn't get the publicity hit from overseeing the destruction of a US appointed regime in a strategic country? I feel that may be the strategy for any foreseeable future, the Soviet style approach of just pouring money into missions that achieve nothing but keep the friendly government technically alive so Washington doesn't have to admit defeat. And yeah, most likely, nobody in Washington has the stomach to make a firm commitment regarding Afghanistan, either for an actual occupation and rebuilding effort that will work involving like a hundred thousand troops for another twenty years or something, or for a full withdrawal after which Afghanistan getting taken over by Taliban for another thirty years would be the best case scenario (the worst case scenario being a forever civil war and half the population fleeing the country and destabilising the surrounding area). suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 15:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Y'all should watch the very topical movie "War Machine" on Netflix. War Machine is pretty good from a satirical point of view. I liked how when Pitt's character leaves, they basically bring in the same type of person to do his job. Anyway, I wanted to write about Afghanistan last night but was kind of drunk and high so I proofread it this morning. It's probably still poo poo and full of obvious things people already know so whatever. In fact, my main point in this spiel is from a relatively minor point in War Machine and that is that we're unwilling to change Afghanistan's opium production to cotton because MURICAN JERBS/MONEY! I spent little time in Afghanistan but there really is no end to this until someone finally admits the actuality of us still being there is due to the large amounts of grown and subsequently smuggled heroin and not the wholesale replacement of that crop with cotton. I'm not sure to the extent that it has exacerbated the opiate epidemic here in the US over the past 20 years but I'm sure it hasn't helped either. But really, the war on terror in Afghanistan has become less about the "revenge" of 9/11 (it never really was even though that's the line of reasoning our govt. has used) but more that we don't want to admit that we have been losing the hearts and minds of the people there and no one with power (military or civilian) wants to truthfully say that we will never secure the entire country. And there is just no capital to be made there except if the people are willing to be more open to Western companies coming in and tearing their country apart for its natural resources. A lot of the country is severely underdeveloped due to the remoteness and the political instability for the past four decades. But another factor is that most of the people have lived there for centuries as nomads or in simple farming/shepherding communities. Only about 6 million of the ~33 million living in the country live within the urban areas. Hell, Kabul makes up the majority of that at around 3.5 mil urban dwellers. And outside the cities is rough terrain. From the harsh deserts in the south up into the subarctic northern areas in the Hindu Kush, it is a very difficult place to live if you aren't around some of the rivers that come down from the mountains. Even then, there are still seasonal rivers that aren't always flowing and oases that turn into endorheic basins in the south. poo poo, I'd bet about 30-40% of the people living in tribal villages haven't even left their town's "borders" in their entire lives. I'd expect that number gets even higher in the mountainous villages. And there's no incentive for them to pack up their things and move into larger cities like Kabul, Herat or smaller places. They just don't give a poo poo about the Western World. A lot of them do in the urban areas but those are a small minority overall in the country's populace that wouldn't mind seeing us still there in Afghanistan. Essentially, we can't keep doing this quasi "settlement" strategy similar to Israel where we go into contested land, set up FOBs, firebases, etc., and expect the Afghans to think we're helping. Our presence is causing further extremist sentiment throughout their society. At this point, it is draining our budget and the funds could be spent elsewhere on things drastically needed like education, healthcare, and infrastructure development. I mean, we're going to have a lot of angry people still there wanting to hit us back when we finally leave for good. What's to stop them from trying more attacks like Manchester or London Bridge? Would they want to go back to their previous lifestyles and let the Taliban back into their culture or would they resist them? Would they want to change if we gave them a better cash crop like cotton instead of heroin? Someone much smarter than me will have to say whether it's good foreign policy/national security to continue this fight in a manner that further radicalizes people in distant countries. gently caress if I know, I'm just an idiot on a (dead) comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Didn't War Machine get really bad reviews?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Wizgot posted:Didn't War Machine get really bad reviews? It wasn't the greatest but it was more ironically humorous because of how close to real life military policy it seemed like constantly being hamstrung by politicians that only want to look good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:How does 4000 troops do anything for anyone at all? Gives a bit more flexibility to rapid response forces coming down hard on districts overrun by the Taliban. Also: tests the political waters for Vietnam style tiptoe incremental deployments at the sole discretion of the Pentagon during a highly unstable and disengaged and stupid presidency whose relationship to congress is dysfunctional-at-best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:OK so the plan right now is to lose slower. The Taliban want to kill a lot of americans and overthrow Ashraf Ghani's central government. By sending over frustratingly few targets, we deny them their objective. This avoids losing. This is the Art Of War Raylen posted:I spent little time in Afghanistan but there really is no end to this until someone finally admits the actuality of us still being there is due to the large amounts of grown and subsequently smuggled heroin and not the wholesale replacement of that crop with cotton. I'm not sure to the extent that it has exacerbated the opiate epidemic here in the US over the past 20 years but I'm sure it hasn't helped either. But really, the war on terror in Afghanistan has become less about the "revenge" of 9/11 (it never really was even though that's the line of reasoning our govt. has used) but more that we don't want to admit that we have been losing the hearts and minds of the people there and no one with power (military or civilian) wants to truthfully say that we will never secure the entire country. And there is just no capital to be made there except if the people are willing to be more open to Western companies coming in and tearing their country apart for its natural resources. A lot of the country is severely underdeveloped due to the remoteness and the political instability for the past four decades. The last time there were this many goddamned drugs in the USA it was crack from the American military/intel apparatus going balls deep in latin america and lubing up with drug money to do so, soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
I really liked war machine. The best part was at the very end when Russell Crow showed up to fix the war in the same "badass" shot as Brad Pitt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I liked War Machine, even if it wasn't perfect. Definitely a good military satire. If there's one fatal flaw in modern American foreign policy I think I'd pick hubris too.Raylen posted:I spent little time in Afghanistan but there really is no end to this until someone finally admits the actuality of us still being there is due to the large amounts of grown and subsequently smuggled heroin and not the wholesale replacement of that crop with cotton. I'm not sure to the extent that it has exacerbated the opiate epidemic here in the US over the past 20 years but I'm sure it hasn't helped either. But really, the war on terror in Afghanistan has become less about the "revenge" of 9/11 (it never really was even though that's the line of reasoning our govt. has used) but more that we don't want to admit that we have been losing the hearts and minds of the people there and no one with power (military or civilian) wants to truthfully say that we will never secure the entire country. I think the poppies are just the most glaring example of broad contradictions on the civilian side of the occupation and Afghan administration. Everyone understands heroin exports supports the Taliban, but any serious control exports are seen as too unpopular, or risky, or difficult to implement. So we keep on the present course as if in a trance, unable to take any action that might change the situation. It's obvious that corruption is one of the main issues making the Afghan government so unpopular and undermining political and civic participation. Yet about ten years ago it came out that every month the State Department handed over several suitcases of cash directly to Karzai, all to fund his patronage networks through which the country was actually run, rather than through the official legal channels. The question I want to ask is why would NATO help build and then prop up a government it had no confidence could actually function as designed? For a government to actually work most people need to look at it and say 'Yes, I can use this this to advance my interests, and working within the system is more effective than undermining it." For various reasons few people can say that about the present Afghan government. Like realistically, Afghans are not going to willingly switch to cotton or pomegranates from poppies. They'll never be able to make more money that way. Either you find a way to force them to give it up, let them do it legally, or most cynically, set it up so that it's government allies rather than enemies who collect the profits. If the country can't be run except by warlords I say make their role explicitly part of the government. When patronage networks undermine official mechanisms for running the provinces, integrate them into the explicit legal mechanisms of government, bring them into the light of day and let everyone see them for what they are. But maybe I just can't stand the hypocrisy of it all, and just want someone to pull back the curtain concealing this ugly sham.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
All the more irony that US wheat distribution efforts destroyed the native farmers' original business model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The last time there were this many goddamned drugs in the USA it was crack from the American military/intel apparatus going balls deep in latin america and lubing up with drug money to do so, soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... Yeah, it's completely hosed up. But the rise in opiate usage is also due to the amount of prescription drugs shelled out starting in the 90s and a bunch of other factors like our consumption culture. It's also definitely from a break down in accountability at the Department of Defense too. Or rather investigations leading to only suspensions, forced retirements, and change of commands. Why the gently caress does the DoD Office of the Inspector General only have a budget of .06% within a 500 billion defense budget? That's just going to cause so many problems. Especially with all of the supplemental spending for OEF/OIF operations that we are still paying interest on. Squalid posted:Like realistically, Afghans are not going to willingly switch to cotton or pomegranates from poppies. They'll never be able to make more money that way. Either you find a way to force them to give it up, let them do it legally, or most cynically, set it up so that it's government allies rather than enemies who collect the profits. If the country can't be run except by warlords I say make their role explicitly part of the government. When patronage networks undermine official mechanisms for running the provinces, integrate them into the explicit legal mechanisms of government, bring them into the light of day and let everyone see them for what they are. But maybe I just can't stand the hypocrisy of it all, and just want someone to pull back the curtain concealing this ugly sham. Not all of their farming is limited to opium of course but it's entire cash crop agriculture is that. Plus the amount of arable land is really small compared to other countries and not all of it is utilized too. I'd love for them to move away from opium because the heroin epidemic is a scourge on this country but I can't fault them for doing what they can to make money. Not to mention, American companies will lobby hard for that not to happen. I just don't believe there's not going to be any internal development of other capital producing industries except for the relatively easy production of poppies. Like Afghans don't really seem to care about land property rights like we do in America. Corruption there means whoever keeps a politician wealthy will be able to do whatever they want. China has started to make inroads to mining in Afghanistan as well. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the tribal chiefs are using Chinese investment money to ensure their mineral claims are uninterrupted by the Taliban. Which is funny because the Islamic State has been pushing into Afghanistan recently and does not like China at all due to the suppression of Muslims in Xinjiang Province. Anyway, that's a whole other topic on corruption, Chinese investment into the country, and the Uighurs and Islam in general in their country. The main thing is we need to get out of that country. Trump won't do it because he's too much of a coward to look like a weak president admitting defeat but we're going to have to leave eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
If you think heroin is an epidemic in the US, you should see Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
.... at least they don't have Fentanyl.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I liked War Machine, even if it wasn't perfect. Definitely a good military satire. If there's one fatal flaw in modern American foreign policy I think I'd pick hubris too. Yeah, as flawed an uneven as it is, they picked exactly the right point to hammer home. I've seen the reality distortion field leaders can put around them in non-military contexts, so seeing that whole cheer squad surrounding him calling him the Glenimal and backing up his decisions no matter what was pretty telling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
It was important that the film had no antagonist beyond the only war itself. At least I think there wasn't. I don't remember one anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Raylen posted:The main thing is we need to get out of that country. Trump won't do it because he's too much of a coward to look like a weak president admitting defeat but we're going to have to leave eventually. It's hard to come to any other conclusion, but everybody would rather just ignore the problem. And nobody is willing to do anything that might make a difference. Arglebargle III posted:All the more irony that US wheat distribution efforts destroyed the native farmers' original business model. There's actually a large body of research on how most common forms of foreign aid undermine recipient governments and can harm economies. Occupied nations like Iraq before American forces withdrew, Afghanistan, and Somalia exhibit many of the same symptoms of aid dependency but turbocharged. So normally for a government to do something, it has to collect taxes to pay for it, and justify the taxes somehow. Usually it does this by integrating stakeholders into the decision making process who also help set the agenda. When however money just gets dumped into the governments lap by foreign donors, there's much less pressure for leaders to justify and account for how it's used. its not the peoples money after all, so who would care if a little gets skimmed off the top? And the people then begin to expect the services to be delivered not by their government but the foreign donor, after all that's whose been doing it for years, resulting in even less accountability. Modern American western military occupations have come with absolutely gigantic sums dumped into the economy with absolutely no accountability and no integration into the local administration. It undermines the state building process from the very outset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
I think we should just let China occupy Afghanistan they would probably (brutally) pacify it maybe after splitting the country with Iran or something bizarre. Just spitballing here about what to do with this dumpster fire
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Lol if you think China is going to occupy Afghanistan. No one else is going to do anything, the US will eventually leave and the Taliban will just march back in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Raylen posted:
I think if he pulled out it would show immense strength. Unfortunately, I think the reason we aren't pulling out is because we still have a very deep interest in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:I think we should just let China occupy Afghanistan they would probably (brutally) pacify it maybe after splitting the country with Iran or something bizarre. nobody else is stupid enough to invade the graveyard of empires
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/877052171300347904 That's....not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/877052171300347904 Pakistan relations are one of those Afghan war issues where it really seems like every move is a losing play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
He should just send Kusher over there to work it all out after he's finished achieving peace between Israel and Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Pakistan relations are one of those Afghan war issues where it really seems like every move is a losing play. isnt pakistan "slowly" becoming another hosed up Wahhabi state? i know the only reason it hasnt been fully taken over is because the military either makes deals with them or kills them. most of the reformers are either out of country or dead. Squalid posted:
Honestly, reading this sorta reminds me of vietnam, a slowly losing war where our native allies are hated because they are corrupt as gently caress(though diem in my opinion is probaly worse then karzai) fighting a never ending war against enemie you can't see and wont stop until their enimies are expelled or dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:isnt pakistan "slowly" becoming another hosed up Wahhabi state? i know the only reason it hasnt been fully taken over is because the military either makes deals with them or kills them. most of the reformers are either out of country or dead. Deobandi instead of Wahhabi, but yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:isnt pakistan "slowly" becoming another hosed up Wahhabi state? i know the only reason it hasnt been fully taken over is because the military either makes deals with them or kills them. most of the reformers are either out of country or dead. And to think they have nukes...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Wizgot posted:And to think they have nukes... Plus their nuke program was funded by the Saudis and they have an agreement to ask for them and have them delivered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/asia/trump-obama-afghanistan-pakistan.htmlquote:WASHINGTON -- The State Department is winding down an Obama-era office responsible for developing long-range strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- just as the Trump administration conducts a major review of the future of America's longest war. Who needs long-range planning anyway? Eh, I'm sure the Pentagon can handle it anyway. In other news, the district of Darzab in Jawzjan province was overrun by Taliban following a failed assault by ISIS. The Taliban claimed five security posts simply surrendered to them rather than fight back. Afghan government forces claimed to have retaken the district center the next day however later reports and statements by the Taliban imply that Taliban are at least still present in the district center. Reports indicate fighting is still ongoing but as is often the case in Afghanistan, they are often contradictory. The Afghan Army also accidentally air-dropped a bunch of supplies into ISIS hands last week in the same province as well. Squalid fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Squalid posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/asia/trump-obama-afghanistan-pakistan.html You only need a long term strategy if you don't win in the short term! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:16
|
|