Well, Bye….

| July 5, 2021

US troops have left Afghanistan. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/fighter-jets-leave-afghanistan-us-departs-bagram/183068/

While we are withdrawing after 20 years of occupying the base we built at Bagram, and the original reason for going there (the 9/11/2001 attacks) have faded from the memories of most people, we will still have a small presence there in Kabul. And yes, al Qaeda are still active in the region.

From the article:  Departing U.S. forces turned over Bagram Airfield, a massive base that had been at the center of military operations there since 2001. But questions remain about how the United States will support its post-war military and diplomatic presence in the country.

U.S. force presence now will be centered around Kabul. The few remaining U.S. military aircraft will be located there, as will other U.S. forces, to secure the primary transit point for U.S. personnel and potentially thousands of Afghan translators who worked with the U.S. military over the last two decades and who are seeking to flee the country.

“Security at the airport is still a concern,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said at a briefing Friday.

“There are some aviation elements that we retained at [Kabul] airport, but in terms of the kinds of the strike capabilities I think  you are talking about, those are no longer in Afghanistan,” Kirby said, responding to a question on whether the aircraft that had been based at Bagram were still in the country. – article

Meanwhile, the Taliban (seeing this as a triumph, no doubt) have announced that all foreign troops must be gone from Afghanistan.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57714808

From the article:  Any foreign troops left in Afghanistan after NATO’s September withdrawal deadline will be at risk as occupiers, the Taliban has told the BBC.

It comes amid reports that 1,000 mainly US troops could remain on the ground to protect diplomatic missions and Kabul’s international airport.

NATO’s 20-year military mission in Afghanistan has all but ended.

But violence in the country continues to rise, with the Taliban taking more territory.

Under a deal with the militant group, the US and its Nato allies agreed to withdraw all troops in return for a commitment by the Taliban not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control.

President Joe Biden set a deadline of 11 September – the 20-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the US – for American troops to fully withdraw, but reports suggest the pullout may be complete within days. – article

Fine by me. 20 years of babysitting, and losing good troops to mines and ambushes and bullets over there, while the Taliban see it as their turf to re-establish their “supremacy”, have resulted in – well, withdrawal. NATO wanted the US military there.

We went, we saw, we engaged, and we are now going home. We need to focus on whether or not Xi Jinping wants a dustup over Taiwan. Nothing has changed over in that place since long before Rome was founded. In fact, nothing has changed since the beginning of the Bronze Age started in 2000BC.

Anyone besides me wondering how many military retirees will be leaving AD now?

Category: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda

Comments (73)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SFC D says:

    I’m starting to wonder if I really accomplished anything in my career. Everything I worked on belongs to the bad guys now. Every day I have a better understanding of that Viet of the Nam veteran’s saying: “We were winning when I left.”

    • Anonymous says:

      Same here– Afghan gov’t was kicking ass and our guys didn’t face much resistance when I left, too. More déjà vu to follow.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I don’t know why people insist on mislabeling that building in Saigon, but it is a hotel, still standing, and NOT the US embassy.

        • Anonymous says:

          Pittman Apartments, 22 Gia Long Street– USAID folk and the CIA station chief lived there– but it was photogenic and ignorant news people said it was the embassy.

          Watch, they’ll do it again.

      • Sapper3307 says:

        • Anonymous says:

          “The video you requested is TV-14… ” so sign-in as an adult (18+) to see.

          YouTube is becoming so p*ssy.

    • thebesig says:

      Militarily, we won in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The overall war was lost in the court of public opinion in the United States as well as in Washington DC.

      We turned over our patrol bases over to the Iraqis. The Iraqi military and security forces were kicking terrorist/insurgent ass and taking names. The unit I was deployed with was among the last of the combat units in Iraq that left before the operation was changed to “Operation New Dawn”.

      Then we had Washington DC sabotaging a chance to get a follow-on Status of Force Agreement. The military was not able to keep the numbers they needed in the Green Zone to cycle the Iraqis through refresher training and to provide support.

      As with the case of the South Vietnamese government, we had corrupt Iraqi officials in Baghdad, specifically their Prime Minister who started sacking the Iraqi military.

      Result?

      When ISIS expanded their territory at the expense of the Syrian and Iraqi governments, we veterans of the Iraq War looked with disappointment as our gains were erased. Though, there was a “silver lining”.

      The Iraqi units that we worked with when I was there stopped ISIS’s advance cold right before they could get to where our platoon patrol base was at.

      The US military did its job. Unfortunately, there’s no political will to not only allow the military to do what it needs to do to win most effectively, but to win on the political front.

      • Anonymous says:

        Can’t make the locals give a crap about their own war, too.

        “Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.” –T.E. Lawrence (which people quoted about ‘Nam, too)

        • thebesig says:

          Our ultimate objective was to stand up a government and security force that would be able to mange their own security. We managed to do that in Iraq. Lack of political will in the United State (mainly from the White House), and the corrupt government in place in Baghdad, influenced how they would ultimately turn out.

          Despite a series of set backs, the government in Baghdad is back on track accomplishing in practice what we set up during the Iraq War.

          When the locals saw that we were not going to be there forever, and then later when crap hit the fan under ISIS, they gave a crap about this war… Where the Sunnis once again stood up and sided with their federal troops against the threat.

          The recent years saw the Iraqi people stand up against Iranian influence in Iraq. We were not the only ones that were happy when Qasem Soleimani was taken out. Not only were his forces responsible for American deaths, they were also responsible for Iraqi deaths.

          As for “it’s their war”, the meme in my post below gives an indication of what the ultimate objective is in their war. The entire world being under the banner of Islam. That’s their war.

        • Penguinman000 says:

          I swear none of the brainiacs that came up with COIN had ever read his book.

          • Anonymous says:

            Probably right.

          • timactual says:

            Which brainiacs? There were lots of them around in the ’60s, too. You couldn’t read a magazine or newspaper without seeing an article on Counter-Insurgency strategy. The Rand Corp. made a name for itself and big bucks working with McNamara et al. to develop the optimal strategy for VN. We adopted several.

            I remember the name Thompson and the Malayan Emergency, Grivas and Cyprus, Magsaysay and the Philippines, and others. But I and others seem to have overlooked Lawrence.

            I heartily recommend the book “The Centurions”, by Jean Larteguy. It’s a very readable novel about the French “COIN” operations in Indochina and Algeria from the viewpoint of French Paratroop officers. I would like to emphasize that it was first published in 1960; plenty of time to inform anyone interested (including me) about COIN in an easy to swallow form. Don’t watch the movie, though.

      • timactual says:

        “Militarily, we won in Vietnam,”

        Nope. Obviously not.

        • thebesig says:

          Wrong. We won the Vietnam War militarily. We lost it in the streets of America and in the halls of Congress. Even the Vietnamese know that we won in their battlefields. If you read details of how each battle went, the US military kicked ass and took names.

          In fact, here’s a short video explaining this reality:

          • timactual says:

            You need to define “win”. Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh city because that defeated NVA captured it and the rest of S. Vietnam. Not bad for a defeated army.

            https://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

            You might also want to consider your definition of “war”. The one we have been using doesn’t seem to be working too well.

            • thebesig says:

              timeactual: You need to define “win”.

              What part of the following statement did not you not understand?

              “We won the Vietnam War militarily. We lost it in the streets of America and in the halls of Congress.” – thebesig

              We pulled our combat units out of Vietnam in early 1973. Before that, we won every major battle in Vietnam, and the majority of the battles that mattered.

              That one sentence, that I quoted here, should have informed you on what I meant by win. Simple reading comprehension would’ve told you that there were battles that we won (won the Vietnam War militarily) and, as the video accurately pointed out, we actually won the Vietnam War.

              The Peace Treaty ended the Vietnam War effective 1973, for the United States, when our combat units pulled out. That was a requirement of the peace treaty that we signed ending the Vietnam War. Now, that may have been extended for VA and military operation purposes, to 1975, but an international treaty supersedes that as far as where the actual end was.

              No, I do not need to define “win” as it is obvious what I was talking about. You’re trying to advance an inductive fallacy to validate your erroneous statement that “we did not” win militarily. Even our enemies in Vietnam knew that we won militarily. They had officers right were the troops were being loaded, counting each service member boarding for redeployment, because they wanted to make sure that we had left.

              timeactual: Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh city because that defeated NVA captured it and the rest of S. Vietnam. Not bad for a defeated army.

              What part of the following statement did you not understand?

              “We won the Vietnam War militarily. We lost it in the streets of America and in the halls of Congress.” – thebesig

              You should have gathered that we lost it politically. As the above video argued, from 1973 to 1975, it was South Vietnam’s war to fight. However, the US side failed to carry its part of the treaty for after the US pulled out, courtesy of the Democrats. All we had to do was to provide material and financial support. Instead, Congress defunded our support role.

              Do I need to explain things a little further? Pardon me for assuming that people on a blog related to the veteran community would see what I was talking about. Most veterans that I’ve talked to about this understood precisely what I was talking about.

              timeactual: {snip: Biased link}

              Your link is biased and would naturally craft a one sided narrative to support a conspiracy theory (American Empire). Need I define for you what an empire is? Etymology and history are key, I don’t think that the writer of your link understands what empire means.

              However, a more balanced list of battles and events could be found here:

              https://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index1.html

              timeactual: You might also want to consider your definition of “war”.

              No, I don’t. You need to read what I post with the intention of understanding what I’m saying. Quit trying to play around with words and meaning, deal with the actual argument instead. You were clearly wrong when you disagreed with my statement that we won the Vietnam War militarily.

              My statement, that we won the Vietnam War militarily, is fact, even the Vietnamese acknowledge that.

              “That may be so. But it is also irrelevant” – North Vietnamese Colonel Tu in response to the statement that the Vietnamese never defeated the United States on the battlefield.

              timeactual: The one we have been using doesn’t seem to be working too well.

              Wrong. The one that I’m using is fine, and fits historical context. You need to come to deal with the argument being presented instead of trying to build strawmen arguments (addressing an argument not being made).

              I stand by my argument and look forward to giving your future replies the same treatment I just gave your recent reply.

              • timactual says:

                “Your link is biased ”

                LOL

                Of course it is. I consider that guy’s videos to be garbage. Yours isn’t? Hell, most of the world is biased. The trick is to separate the facts from the bias. Did you even bother to try? Judging by the link you supplied you don’t seem to be able to differentiate a list of battles from a historical timeline.

                Perhaps you can supply me with a definition of military victory where the defeated army ends up winning the war?

                “You should have gathered that we lost it politically.”

                Do you actually believe that politics is not part of war? War *is* a political act to achieve political ends.

                • thebesig says:

                  timeactual: Of course it is.

                  Your link was biased, despite your sarcasm. The author runs this conspiracy theory about an American Empire, then selectively reports battles and talks about them out of context. After seeing more detailed accounts, about both the Vietnam War and about the individual battles, the difference between that detailed information and your referenced link becomes colossal.

                  timeactual: I consider that guy’s videos to be garbage.

                  If you’re talking about the videos of the person you referenced, then even you know that your link is nothing but garbage and propaganda.

                  Timeactual: Yours isn’t?

                  The short video that I presented is not biased. He explained, in a few minutes, as much detail as needed for those five minutes to explain that indeed we won the Vietnam War militarily. This is consistent with other Vietnam related articles that I’ve read.

                  Timeactual: Hell, most of the world is biased. [STRAWMAN]

                  You’re attempting to hint at some sort of “equal standing” or “near equal standing” with our arguments. There is none. I don’t engage in debate with someone unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

                  1. I have extensive knowledge gained through first hand experience and/or extensive/exhaustive study/research on the topic…

                  2. The opposition that I’m arguing against has little to no command of the topic that they are arguing.

                  Both conditions have been met in our argument.

                  This is what is happening, not the “the whole world is biased” nonsense that you’re trying to portray.

                  timeactual: The trick is to separate the facts from the bias. Did you even bother to try? [SELF-PROJECTION]

                  Yes, I’ve successfully separated fact from fiction. The problem is that you’ve colossally failed to separate fact from fiction… Don’t mistake your pulling crap out of your rear end as your doing such, and don’t dismiss facts as “bias” or “inability to separate fact from fiction”.

                  That’s just you trying to massage your ego.

                  What I presented to you, in our argument, is cold hard fact. Not once, in any of your replies to me, have you proven me “wrong”, or yourself “correct”. All you’ve done was denigrate the information that I provided without arguing against them… And engage in inductive fallacies. This is the tactic used by the side that does not know what they’re talking about… Just ranting out of their butts driven by ego to make up for the fact that they don’t have a valid argument.

                  timeactual: Judging by the link you supplied you don’t seem to be able to differentiate a list of battles from a historical timeline.

                  FALSE! Judging by this statement, you don’t seem to be able to read a rebuttal without your emotions raging through you to the point of clogging your judgment… Negatively impacting your reading comprehension abilities.

                  The link that I supplied was a comprehensive timeline of events that provided a different picture from what your biased links provided. Your link selectively reported events to paint a completely different picture from the Vietnam war that is not matched by both observations… My Vietnam Veteran father and his Vietnam Veteran friends argued that we won militarily… Comprehensive reading of the individual battles of the Vietnam War show that we won every major battle and most battles that mattered…

                  timeactual: Perhaps you can supply me with a definition of military victory where the defeated army ends up winning the war? [REPEAT POINT]

                  What part of the following statement did not you not understand?

                  “We won the Vietnam War militarily. We lost it in the streets of America and in the halls of Congress.” — thebesig

                  “We pulled our combat units out of Vietnam in early 1973. Before that, we won every major battle in Vietnam, and the majority of the battles that mattered.

                  “That one sentence, that I quoted here, should have informed you on what I meant by win. Simple reading comprehension would’ve told you that there were battles that we won (won the Vietnam War militarily) and, as the video accurately pointed out, we actually won the Vietnam War.

                  “The Peace Treaty ended the Vietnam War effective 1973, for the United States, when our combat units pulled out. That was a requirement of the peace treaty that we signed ending the Vietnam War. Now, that may have been extended for VA and military operation purposes, to 1975, but an international treaty supersedes that as far as where the actual end was.

                  “No, I do not need to define ‘win’ as it is obvious what I was talking about. You’re trying to advance an inductive fallacy to validate your erroneous statement that “we did not” win militarily. Even our enemies in Vietnam knew that we won militarily. They had officers right were the troops were being loaded, counting each service member boarding for redeployment, because they wanted to make sure that we had left.” – thebesig

                  timeactual: Do you actually believe that politics is not part of war? War *is* a political act to achieve political ends. [STRAWMAN]

                  Go back and thoroughly watch the video, the one you are dismissive of, but failed to prove “wrong”. His statement is backed by what I’ve read regarding both the long range sequence of events as well as individual battles.

              • borderbill says:

                I served in USMC ’59-’73-RVN ’66-’67, then ’68-’69. We lost a lot of Americans because of LBJ and the other fuckers in DC. Once committed, we’ll win. The US gov’t didn’t commit. God damn those bastards (and bastardettes) to hell.

    • timactual says:

      “We were winning when I left.”

      I never said that. On the contrary, I gave it five years when I left. I was off by a year. Having read considerably about the French adventures in Indochina and others’ adventures in the Philippines, Malaya, Cyprus, etc. before I had my turn in the barrel, my mantra was “Deja vu”.

      I never heard that line before, but it does go well with the ever popular “We won every battle” myth.

      • SFC D says:

        In the early days in Afghanistan and Iraq, I had one thought: How do we know when we’re done here? What’s our desired end state? I still don’t know.

        • timactual says:

          Alas, neither do/did the gold-braided wizards who attended all those spiffy War Colleges & Universities, or the intellekshual giants who study things like International Relations and Political Science at pinnacles of learning like Yale or Harvard.

          But I do, because South Park
          1) Send in the military!
          2) ?????
          3) Success!

      • Anonymous says:

        Meanwhile, we’re out of A’stan at our convenience and the Afghans are pissed where leaving behind only unusable junk. (Haha, mo’fos! Salsa Night at Kohle DFAC at Bagram was da bomb, though.)

        • timactual says:

          I notice that video was produced by France 24. Why aren’t American media covering an American withdrawal? Not that I am surprised.

          Couldn’t watch the whole thing. Disgusting and infuriating. I will bet an entire data center could have been built with all the routers, cables, etc. that were destroyed and abandoned.

          “Swimming pools, cinemas, and fast-food restaurants”. Real hardship duty. Unlike stateside posts. That’s sarcasm, BTW. My age is showing.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Back to the locals killing each other again.

  3. Steve 1371 says:

    I believe if we are leaving we should get every one out. I would not want to be among those left behind. It make no sense too me to leave anyone there. It is just not worth the risk especially for the current administration.
    That have already demonstrated how they would handle an embassy crisis.

  4. George V says:

    Afghanistan isn’t known as the Graveyard of Empires for nothing. Plenty of articles on the internet describe outsiders trying to rule the place and getting nothing but bodies for the effort. While we were trying to remove a regime and build a nation there, not add to an empire, the results are the same.

    My heart is heavy for those lost and for their families.

    • Anonymous says:

      We’ve gotten off very lightly and were the most successful of any conquering nation there, too.

    • thebesig says:

      The US military was handicapped, by Washington DC policies as well as that of the government of Afghanistan.

      In the past, abandoning that area had no immediate consequences to the long-term survival of the country that was there.

      Unfortunately, this is not the case here. Many dismiss this as “people killing each other”, this is not just the case of people killing each other.

      This meme is a reflection of the mindset of the radical Islamists throughout the Middle East:

      • Anonymous says:

        Got a “vision” going… definitely working on it.

        • thebesig says:

          They’ve been working on that vision since the Medieval Period.

          • Martinjmpr says:

            (Dr. Phil Voice): “And how’s that workin’ out for them?”

            At this rate we’ll have colonies on other planets by the time the Muslims get around to conquering “Rome.”

            • thebesig says:

              You have to see it from their (Asiatic) perspective rather than from yours. Military conquest is not the only way that they plan on spreading.

              Muammar Gaddafi was reported to have said that they (Muslims) will conquer Europe through migration and childbirth alone and not with a sword.

              Their birthrates are higher than that of the nations that they’re headed to. I’ve even seen a video of one of the Muslim migrants bragging about how they (Europeans) had a declining birthrate while they (Muslims) had a higher birthrate and that their (European) sons and daughters would be marrying Muslim men and women.

              They are a small fraction of the European populations, yet they are able to “wreck havoc” to get some semblance of what they want. Wait till their population grows relative to that of the western population.

              This is but a small sample of their strategy to carry out their objectives. As it was during the Medieval Period, it was not just all conquest, it was also colonization… Hence a big reason to why many of them come to the west but refuse to adopt to the nation that takes them… Insisting that they be accommodated instead. They didn’t come to assimilate but to colonize and eventually conquer.

              We need to see this from a Far East/Middle East perspective rather than a Western perspective if we are to prevail in the long run… A tall order given that many in the West have a microwave oven sort of attention span.

              Having lived in an Asian country for five years when I was growing up, I could easily see this from their (Chinese +Southwest Asia) perspective and see where they are headed with their long-term strategy.

              This video was made circa 2009, predicting what 2029 would be like for Europe. The video makes a projection on the sequence of events that would happen after 2009 but before 2029. Some of these projections have already happened in both Europe and North America. “Nationalist” is the video’s mention of the European counterparts to the America First movement here.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      “Afghanistan isn’t known as the Graveyard of Empires for nothing.”

      True, just ask the British, French and the Russians. Now China is trying the same and they’ll get their asses handed to them!

      • Anonymous says:

        Tag, Chicoms, you’re it! (Enjoy being mauled by the Afghans.)

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          I couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch, Chicom Contractor outfits were a pain in our asses more than once when I was there, so SCREW ‘EM!

  5. Mason says:

    We’ll be back. Joe will probably start sending troops back right around mid-terms.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      ONLY as long as the right politicians and connected families are making dump truck loads of money off of it!

  6. CplMajor Mike says:

    And the Taliban are not considered extremists?

    • Black Bart says:

      No, last I checked they were in our Con-Op process. No missions authorized unless you can demonstrate that your target isn’t Taliban (happened after the Peace Agreement), which they get to say is Taliban or not. DD214 here I come!

  7. rgr1480 says:

    “The international community came here 20 years ago with this clear objective of fighting extremism and bringing stability … but extremism is at the highest point today. So they have failed,…”
    Hamid Karzai

    Sorry former Mr. President, but if your own people cannot protect themselves by themselves after twenty years of US & NATO oversight …. then it’s YOUR fault.

    He goes on to say (correctly!),
    “We will be better off without their military presence,” he said. “I think we should defend our own country and look after our own lives. … Their presence (has given us) what we have now. … We don’t want to continue with this misery and indignity that we are facing. It is better for Afghanistan that they leave….”

    Now THAT’S what you should have been doing from the beginning.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/20/us-afghanistan-hamid-karzai-495275

    • rgr1480 says:

      Scratch “NATO;” add “International Community.” I forgot that Japan had sent some Self-Defense Force members.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I honestly wonder just how much Karzai has squirreled away in Swiss bank Accounts?

    • timactual says:

      I read that Karzai statement, too, with a similar reaction. I did not, however, have the stomach to finish it so that second paragraph is new to me. I heartily endorse it, and sincerely hope that Karzai chokes on large sums he no doubt socked away in foreign banks when he was in office.

      • SFC D says:

        Karazai’s bank account was the true winner of this adventure.

        • timactual says:

          And of course we will welcome him and those like him($) with open arms so he can make even more money giving speeches blaming the US for the loss of his beloved homeland.

  8. Berliner says:

    Just saw this headline:

    “China makes its move on Afghanistan: Beijing prepares to fill the vacuum left by Biden’s premature military exit from the nation with $62B investment plan for its ‘Belt and Road’ program”

    bullet points:

    * Program would see a direct land corridor between Afghanistan and China through northwest Pakistan constructed

    * Deal could give China strategic foothold in the region for trade with the country acting as a central hub connecting the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      The real reason, which China does not discuss, is that China wants access to the wealth of rare earths in Southwest Asia and will do whatever is necessary to acquire that access.

      The Chinese government views its population as disposable, so military action in that area is as nothing to them.

      • Penguinman000 says:

        The only point I disagree with is military action. The Chinese will simply pay off the major war lords and use them to wipe out anyone else not in the payroll.

        Wouldn’t want to be a Hazara right now.

    • Penguinman000 says:

      Wonder how that will work out with the Uyghur problem they are having? Probably betting on their genocide to be complete to mitigate the issue.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      The Chicoms will soon find out that as soon as they build it, the Afghans will blow it up!

  9. Skippy says:

    This mission ended when we killed
    Bin Ladin. It never made sense
    Why we stayed this long

  10. Martinjmpr says:

    The problem in Afghanistan (as in Vietnam) is that if the goal is to create a functioning, stable civil society, the military is just not the right tool to accomplish that.

    A government that is propped up by a foreign military power is never going to have the legitimacy that all governments need in order to function.

    I can’t help but wonder: If we had left Afghanistan in 2004 or 2005, might they have sorted themselves out by now? Even if not, Afghanistan no longer sits in the kind of strategic crossroad that, for example, Iraq does. A failed state in Afghanistan would be a disaster for the Afghan people but it wouldn’t really have much effect on the rest of the world as long as it didn’t become a base for terrorists.

    And that goal would be pretty easy to accomplish by the simple expedient of bombing terrorist camps flat every time they popped up – something we didn’t have the resolve to do prior to 9/11 but which has pretty much become SOP today.)

    • SFC D says:

      Most of the Afghan people give zero fucks about a central government. They’re very happy in their tribal organizations and want to be left alone.

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        That’s what I saw when I was there, you can’t take someone from a tribe near Kandahar and make him give a flying fuck about anything outside of where he grew up!

        • timactual says:

          I’ve met a few New Yorkers like that. And Bostonians. A notch or two above the rest of us nekulturny rubes, dontcha know.

    • timactual says:

      ” the military is just not the right tool to accomplish that.”

      There ought to be a place where military officers are taught things like that, and the opportunity to tell these things to the President, Congress, and the American people such things. Obviously the present system of staff colleges & universities, the JCS, and Congressional hearings just aren’t enough.

  11. Sparks says:

    I’ve heard discussion about this being happily handed over to the Chicoms now. The difference will be, their ROE will be much worse than the Russkies. Shoot and kill, maim and slaughter anything that moves. Except with no help from a western power with stingers.

    Unless, UNLESS, the US decides to backhand the Chinese with support to the Afghans as we did in the’80s.