White House Afghanistan withdrawal memo responds to pending Republican report
A member of “Team Biden” wrote a memorandum defending Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. The memo presents points made criticizing the Afghanistan withdrawal, along with an explanation responding to each point. They dismissed the Republican report as being “cherry picked” with “false claims”.
From the memorandum:
* This partisan report is riddled with inaccurate characterizations, cherry-picked information, and false claims. It advocates for endless war and for sending even more American troops to Afghanistan. And it ignores the impacts of the flawed deal that former President Trump struck with the Taliban.
* When President Biden took office, he was faced with a choice: ramp up the war and put even more American troops at risk, or finally end the United States’ longest war after two decades of American presidents sending U.S. troops to fight and die in Afghanistan and $2 trillion spent. The President refused to send another generation of Americans to fight a war that should have ended long ago — and we fundamentally disagree with those who advocated for miring the United States’ fighting men and women in an indefinite war with no exit strategy.
* Bringing our troops home strengthened our national security by better positioning us to confront the challenges of the future and put the United States in a stronger place to lead the world. It freed up critical military, intelligence, and other resources to ensure we are better poised to respond to today’s threats to international peace and stability — whether that be Russia’s brutal and unprovoked assault on Ukraine, China’s increasingly assertive moves in the Indo-Pacific and around the world, or a persistent terrorist threat that’s gone global and not constrained to Afghanistan.
* The United States does not need a permanent troop presence on the ground in harm’s way to remain vigilant against terrorism threats or to remove the world’s most wanted terrorist from the battlefield. We just demonstrated unequivocally in the recent Zawahiri strike to take out the leader of Al Qaeda.
Fox News has the article, and memorandum, at this link.
Category: Afghanistan, Biden, Democrats, Dumbass Bullshit
More spin than an old school 78 rpm record player. “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to f*ck things up.” BHO
Not debating that we shoulda GTFO of “The Graveyard of Empires” loooong before this. The entire fiasco of the withdrawal is on prezzy sniffy creepy and his minions/handlers.
A pack of drunken Cub Scouts could have planned a better OP. A pair of drunken LCPLs would have looked like Chesty Puller at the Chosin in comparison.
The first two points literally make the same claim twice: that Republicans were promoting endless war.
If I’m not mistaken, that push for extra troops wasn’t to extend the war; it was to get all our hardware and people out safely. America, as a whole, is tired of sending our boys and girls overseas, regardless of political persuasion, and especially for a war that had no goals.
Al Qaeda is a shattered husk of its former glory. Killing Zawahiri, while important for keeping them from regaining strength, isn’t terribly impressive, nor does it have anything at all to do with what boots on the ground represent.
This memo is a joke. Their spin doctor seems to be stuck on repeat. Maybe some percussion maintenance will fix that.
Diego Garcia literally has a fleet anchored in its lagoon — a class of ships that can each handle 8 football fields worth of cargo. If they wanted to get out hardware out the equipment with which to do it was right nearby.
No effort made, no thought given. Biden and his handlers own the full weight of this entire mess including the civilian and military deaths.
I think those ships are already loaded with AF and Army cargo.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship//sealift-lps.htm
They could have probably discharged elsewhere in advance and returned empty for emergency relief (sealift.)
Or they could have turbo-activated RRF vessels from the west coast.
Also, Afghanistan has no access to the sea. Everything was either flown in or transported by road through Pakistan or maybe by rail through one of the other ‘stans.
Checked in with some buddies in the gray fleet and they said the last massive turbo activation went pretty poorly anyway in terms of meeting the rapid manning requirements and getting vessels ready to put to sea.
That’s always reassuring.
We all know who’s fault it was.
The dumbasses are too busy defending this clusterfuck to realize that’s it’s the method of withdrawal that people are pissed about.
I don’t know about how we should have extricated ourselves from Afghanistan, but I’m pretty sure we fucked it up badly. We gave it back to the same medieval scumbags that where terrorizing the population and threatening the western world. We gave people especially women and girls a sense of hope and optimism and then left them to become slaves treated worse than livestock Where is all the progressive and feminist outrage? Seriously no pussy hat and stupid ass costumes, no performance art protest!! I don’t think I can ever take the woman’s movement seriously again. The people in power talk about American values and yet don’t seem to mind fucking over an entire country of women. I won’t even get into leaving billions of dollars of equipment that will make its way to places all around the world supporting the worst people in the world. Oh and by the way nice job winning the Iran Iraq war for Iran. WTF we have screwed every ally since south Vietnam and then wonder why no one trusts us.
We gave the Afghans 20 years of american blood and money to enable them to get their shit together. They didn’t. Not our fault.
I’m confused yet again.
It was Trump’s idea to leave Afghanistan, not Brandon’s. The fallacy that Brandon had a false choice to ramp up the war or leave is just that, a lie…
Brandon said it was OK to leave because AlQueda wasn’t coming back. But then he proved this wasn’t a problem by killing an old AQ leader in Afghanistan?
Team Brandon says that they needed the troops to counter Russia. But Brandon said it was OK to invade the Ukraine in a limited way, which is exactly what happened. Also to counter China. So who went from Afghanistan to the South China Sea to counter China?
It’s ridiculously convoluted. Trump’s withdrawal had benchmarks to be met. Biden said everyone out and against our own allies wishes and that of his own military leadership created a situation akin to abandoning a sinking ship without talking to damage control or even making sure the life boats were adequate. No one expected us to stay forever but what did we accomplish? Nothing. The Taliban is back to killing anyone who they want, enslaving women and girls, and aiding international Islamic terrorism. Between this and the Iraq mess plus the new progressive woke military they can’t make recruiting goals, and apparently standards and training are in the shitter. Now we are going to deal with China? Please, we are going to get more kids killed in a shorter time than anything we’ve seen in quite a while. Well this ain’t WW2 and not worth American kids lives, besides we’ll just quit when the politicians lose interest.
Biden only finished what Trump started. The Doha Accords, created in Feb., 2020,had a deadline of May, 2021 for total US withdrawal.Biden delayed it by a couple of months. The military and State Department had over a year to make plans and notify everyone who needed to be notified. Obviously they didn’t. It was not Biden who chose the airfield at Kabul, within walking distance of 4 million potential refugees, as the sole point of evacuation and didn’t adequately secure it. It was the generals. You know, the guys who told us for over a decade that we were winning and the Taliban/Al Qaeda were beaten and the Afghan Army could hold its own.
Biden adjusted the plan that Trump handed to him. The plan dependent on conditions on the ground. The Taliban tried in 2020 what they succeeded in doing in 2021. They failed then, because the plan in place back then, which was turned over to Biden, was effective.
The agreement called for our having another airbase for continued use beyond US pullout date, something the Taliban agreed to. They even offered that other base for use by the United States to pull people out. Team Biden refused. The top brass did not agree with Biden’s change of plans but went along with it.
Yes, the Taliban/Al Qaeda were beaten. If they were not beaten, they would have pushed the United States out before the first decade of the war, regardless of whether we went into Iraq or not.
It was incompetence in Washinton D.C. that pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory in Afghanistan.
“The agreement called for our having another airbase for continued use beyond US pullout date”
Show me.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
“pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory in Afghanistan.”
You actually think the Taliban et al. were losing?
“…the first decade of the war”
I think that says it all.
timeactual: I think that says it all.
No it doesn’t. My statement was conditional and depended on the assumption, that the Taliban were “winning” to be true. If the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, were winning, they would have won the war and had us out of there early on. However, they were not winning any more than a boxer, who has stopped throwing punches, hoping that the winning boxer gets tired and stops boxing. Militarily, they did not win against us. The video and statement accounts that I’ve seen did not show a trend showing that the Taliban/Al Qaeda were winning.
Whoever gets to sit in the chair when the music stops wins. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
timeactual: Whoever gets to sit in the chair when the music stops wins.
That’s not the definition of victory. When you claimed that the Taliban won against us, that implied their fighters pushing the US military out, through direct confrontation, of additional territory until they physically, through a series of direct confrontation, pushed the US military out.
Since the Taliban’s ultimate objective is the whole world being subjugated to Islam, your definition of victory argues that they are winning that struggle against the world as well.
timeactual: The rest is smoke and mirrors.
“Smoke and mirrors” is claiming that the victory is the one who is sitting on the chair when the music stops. If you understood this war from their perspective, you’d see that your analogy falls short of reality.
“That’s not the definition of victory.”
That may not be YOUR definition, bu I ill go along with Merriam-Webster;
“Definition of victory1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist
2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties ”
“that implied their fighters pushing the US military out, th…”
No, it didn’t. It stated clearly that the winner is the one in power at the end of the war. Wiggle all you want, the Taliban won.
“your definition of victory argues…”
No, it doesn’t. The discussion is about Afghanistan, and that is where the Taliban won.
But, if you want to discuss ultimate objectives, I would agree that the Islamists are winning.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 1A
timctual: That may not be YOUR definition,
My definition of victory is based on my reading about it in history related topics in over 40+ years of reading history, as well as on 40 years of reading current events related topics.
timactual: bu I ill go along with Merriam-Webster;
You need to understand what you are reading beyond what you want to interpret out of it. You’re going along with Merriam-Webster because you think it supports your definition, but it doesn’t.
timactual: “Definition of victory1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist
Which goes back to what I said regarding battlefield victories. The Taliban did not directly, physically, remove US forces from Afghanistan. The US did that based on decisions in Washington D.C. based on conditions on the ground that facilitated those moves. The Taliban did not overcome the United States Military.
I see your 40+ years and raise you 20.
“The Taliban did not overcome the United States Military.”
True, but irrelevant.
timactual: I see your 40+ years and raise you 20.
Your arguments on this thread, and elsewhere, do not reflect the knowledge that would be gained over decades. Over those 40 years, I’ve detected a pattern and trend among the facts, I’ve argued based on these facts. If you’ve been doing this for 60 years, you would be advancing a very similar argument to what I’m arguing.
Instead, your arguments reflect the arguments advanced by those who follow the mainstream media.
timactual: True, but irrelevant.
Wrong! True, and very relevant. When most people talk about the Taliban winning, they’re not talking about what you argued here. They’re talking about them overwhelming and forcing the US military out, directly.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 2A
RE: 2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties ”
Which goes back to my previous statement. The Taliban did not achieve mastery or success, in a struggle or endeavor, against the US military. In the vast majority of instances, the Taliban got their rear ends handed to them.
timactual: No, it didn’t.
Yes it did. What you stated earlier, and what you later pulled from the dictionary, supported my argument. The Taliban did not master the United States Military in the battlefield.
timactual: It stated clearly that the winner is the one in power at the end of the war.
Wrong, go back and re-read what you pulled from the dictionary, this time without your ego driving your actions. It clearly describes a direct struggle, one on one, rather than something accomplished at the end. It describes the process leading to the end.
Speaking of process, you confuse process with product. Military action is only a process, one of several tools used to produce a product–political objective(s). The Taliban achieved their objective, the US did not. Brag about your process all you want, the prize went to the Taliban.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 1C
timactual: Speaking of process, you confuse process with product. [STRAWMAN]
Wrong, I did no such thing. Go back and read my posts, this time with the intention of understanding what you are reading. By talking about unrestricted warfare addresses both the product and the process.
timactual: Military action is only a process, one of several tools used to produce a product–political objective(s). [STRAWMAN]
Again, when someone argues that the Taliban defeated the United States, they’re implying that the Taliban defeated the US militarily. Your statement above implied such.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 2C
timactual: The Taliban achieved their objective, the US did not. Brag about your process all you want, the prize went to the Taliban. [STRAWMAN]
What part of “pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory” did you not understand? My statement above, indicating that we defeated them militarily, but lost it politically, addresses both product and process.
The way you framed it does not reflect reality. The reality is that we won every major battle, and the majority of battles that mattered, in Afghanistan. The war was lost in Washington DC before Kabul fell.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 3A
timactual: Wiggle all you want,
Both the way you stated that the Taliban “won”, and your definition, clearly support my argument and not yours. Both talk about a one on one, direct, contest. Not the end result obtained without direct struggle/confrontation.
timactual: the Taliban won. [REPEAT POINT]
Again, the US military won every major battle, and the vast majority of the battles fought against the Taliban.
timactual: No, it doesn’t.
Yes it does. When you argue that the Taliban won against the United States, you’re arguing that they won in direct military confrontation against the United States.
timactual: The discussion
This is not a discussion, but an argument/debate, given that we are disagreeing with each other.
“you’re arguing that they won in direct military confrontation against the United States”
Now that is complete Bullshit. I never said or implied any such thing; that is YOUR strawman, not my opinion.
“Definition of discussion1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate a heated political discussion ”
Merriam-Webster again.
I also suggest you look up the word “synonym” or the list of synonyms that accompany many definitions in a dictionary.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 1D
timactual: Now that is complete Bullshit. [SELF PROJECTION]
Wrong! The only thing that is complete bullshit are your arguments against me.
timactual: I never said or implied any such thing; that is YOUR strawman, not my opinion. [BACK PEDALING]
Again, wrong! What you said: “the guys who told us for over a decade that we were winning and the Taliban/Al Qaeda were beaten”, “You actually think the Taliban et al. were losing?”, “I think that says it all.”
Now, pay careful attention to those three chosen statements. You implied that the Taliban/Al Qaeda were “not beaten”, by extension they had “defeated” the United States military in the battlefield.
Nope, not a strawman, not an opinion, but a valid argument based on your own statements.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 2D
timeactual: “Definition of discussion1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate a heated political discussion ” Merriam-Webster again.
You forgot part 2: “2: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing/A discussion on the topic is included in the first chapter.”
A discussion, based on the entire definition from Mariam-Webster, is broad and includes non-arguments. Mariam-Webster also defines an argument, which more accurately applies to what we are doing.
timeactual: I also suggest you look up the word “synonym” or the list of synonyms that accompany many definitions in a dictionary.
I will do no such thing. I will use the word that more accurately describes what we are doing.
Response to timeactual, August 19, 2022, Part 4A
timactual: is about Afghanistan,
No s* this is about Afghanistan, my responses are framed that way. The difference is that where you zero in on Afghanistan, I zero in on the Taliban’s global objectives, of which Afghanistan is a part. You see something different, the Taliban see the bigger game the way I’m arguing here.
timactual: and that is where the Taliban won.
But not on the battlefield against the US military. My statement above, about Team Biden pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory, was saying that the Taliban won… Via Washington D.C.’s dropping the ball. Not via direct confrontation against the US military. This is similar to what happened in Vietnam.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 5A
timactual: But, if you want to discuss ultimate objectives,
Our argument (not discussion) about Afghanistan has to be made from the perspectives of the radical Islamist viewpoint. Not from a western one. The fight in any individual region or country in that area is only a part of the bigger story… Their bigger objective.
timactual: I would agree that the Islamists are winning.
If a critical mass of the Western and global population think the way you do, yes, this would be an eventuality. Their ultimate objective is for the whole world, with the vast majority of the population, to be Islam abiding by a strict form of Islamic law that makes the Taliban’s government look secular in comparison.
No, the discussion doesn’t “have to be” from some alleged viewpoint that you define. You seem to want to define every word and concept, and even *my* opinions*,according to your own idiosyncratic definitions.
Homey don’t play dat. End of discussion.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 1E
timactual: No, the discussion doesn’t “have to be” from some alleged viewpoint that you define.
False. Not alleged, but applicable definition. An argument/debate more accurately describes what we are doing. A discussion does not solely contain a debate, a discussion also contains agreement. In the case of debate, it includes friendly one that does not describe what you and I are doing here. Argument more closely describes what we are doing.
timactual: You seem to want to define every word and concept, and even *my* opinions*,according to your own idiosyncratic definitions.
Wrong. What I’m doing is using the accurate and applicable terms/words to describe what is occurring. No, I’m not trying to redefine your opinion, I’m identifying your opinion for what it is. Not idiosyncrasies, but from the standpoint of my doing something like identifying a red fire hydrant as a red fire hydrant.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 2E
timactual: Homey don’t play dat.
If that were the case, you would not be projecting your traits onto me. What you accuse me of doing here, I see you doing.
timactual: End of discussion.
You and I are not involved in a discussion but in a heated argument. We are not sharing ideas, or expanding each other’s viewpoints, with what we are doing. We are involved in a heated argument where neither side intends to change their positions.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 6A
I have every intention of dismantling every single last one of your responses, and every one of your future responses, for the rest of my natural life.
Part 263Z
Lay on, Macduff…
timactual: Part 263Z
My longest rebuttals were single posts that were 75+ pages, single spaced, Microsoft Word pages long. Had there been a limitation in words per post back then, like what we have here, I could very well have reached that point, as I’ve had several of these single posts of that length on that one thread.
That was an argument that took place 16 years ago over which word was the proper word to use. I stand by the argument I made back then, just as I stand by the argument that I’m making on this thread.
timactual: Lay on, Macduff…
I’ve been doing this for almost 19 years, what’s another 19 years? I have every intention of continuing to hammer your arguments for as long as you advance them. I take sadistic pleasure in doing this.
Part I
I take that back, regarding the presence on the airbase. The information source that I read last year said that we were going to have a presence beyond the pullout date. However, a breach of the agreement, without the other side having the opportunity to protest and have it fixed, resulted in that agreement being null and void. We had every right to take action on our end that would have prevented the Taliban from taking over last year.
Part II
timactual: You actually think the Taliban et al. were losing?
I know that for a fact, the trend of information that I read, and videos watched, about their performance on the battlefield indicated tactics that the disadvantaged side would use. It was not until we were fully involved with the pullout, with the expectation that the Afghan army would hold up, that they succeeded. The fact of the matter is that we won every major battle in Afghanistan, and the majority of the battles that mattered.
“we won every major battle in Afghanistan,”
Jeez, that old BS again? Who is in charge in Kabul? And who is crying in their beer making excuses and looking for someone to blame?
Part 1
timactual: Jeez, that old BS again?
Not “BS” but cold hard fact. They would not have resorted to relying on terrorist attacks as their main way to attacking our side, or attempting to bring a vastly numerically advantaged force, if they were winning the direct military confrontations with the US and its Western allies.
timactual: Who is in charge in Kabul?
First, this does not address the argument regarding whether the Taliban defeated the US military or not. It didn’t.
Second, I’ve read accounts where tribes outside of Kabul have ignored Taliban edicts in favor of going by their own tribal law and local cultures. Even by this definition, your claims are questionable.
Part II
timactual: And who is crying in their beer making excuses and looking for someone to blame?
Don’t mistake accurately pointing out who dropped the ball as “crying in beer and making excuses”. The cold hard reality is that after that “agreement”, Trump’s military policy in Afghanistan punished the Taliban when they attempted to make gains against the Afghan government. Biden had different plans after he took over. A discussion of this difference is relevant to rebutting the initial post of yours that I rebutted. On a side note, I haven’t drunk alcoholic drinks in ages.
This war wasn’t lost by our military personnel fighting and supporting the mission, it was lost by our political leadership. Joe pulled out with a time table and no plan. Our senior military leadership that are basically politicians anyway made a few minor protestations and just went along. Our country has a history of abandoning people that throw in with us, and also not finishing what we start. Bottom line neither Afghanistan or Iraq are better off now than when we got there and it’s our leadership’s fault not the people who sacrificed years, limbs, and lives for American values which our leadership could care less about.
“This war wasn’t lost by our military personnel”
Who said it was? First, define “military personnel”.
“and no plan”
The President does not make the plans to carry out his orders; that is the function of the military and state department. Why do you think we have a Pentagon, JCS, etc?
“Our country has a history of abandoning people that throw in with us,”
I believe we were throwing in with them. It was/is their fight, not ours.
There wasn’t much of a fight until we came in Taliban ruled the country pretty much unopposed, we invaded and organized the tribes, we gave them hope for a better future, we abandoned them with no regard, we knew their army was incompetent. Stop being an apologist for the dip shit that ordered a complete pull out knowing full well what was going to happen. The immediate pullout against military advice and the wishes of our coalition partners was completely on Biden and sorry as Truman said” the buck stops here”. The man in charge is responsible. No but, but, Trump, get over the TDS us and the world was better off with him.
They didn’t have to win. They just had to wait. Our long term strategies are maybe a decade. Theirs are millennia.
Part I
This is a reason to why I’ve argued, for almost two decades, that we had to stay and fight no matter how long it took. The idea that the fight and danger would remain in the Middle East, after we leave, is foolishness and ignorance.
Our enemies and adversaries cast a vote in our foreign policies. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are no different. Completely wiping out one or the other would not make a difference, the ones who escape being killed, captured, etc., would reconstitute with different groups while pursuing their ultimate objective… Global Islamic Law with the vast majority of our descendants being Islam. The United States, and its Constitution, are incompatible with Islam and would be liquidated.
“that we had to stay and fight”
You don’t win that kind of war with military action alone. For one thing, Ranger school or the SEALs do not teach counter-insurgency or ideological warfare. Nor will military action confine the danger to the Middle East.
Communism was NOT defeated by military action, and “militant Islam” won’t be either.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 1B
timactual: You don’t win that kind of war with military action alone. [STRAWMAN]
Where, in any of my statements, do I say that we only do this with military action alone? Where? Deal with what I’m actually arguing rather than what you think I’m arguing. I accurately stated that we have to keep fighting them, for how long it takes, as long as they’re willing to keep fighting against us.
The Islamic struggle against the West did not begin in the 21st Century, it did not begin in the 20th Century. It began during the Medieval Period. They were willing to keep fighting, and they’re willing to continue to fight.
However, I’ve argued on this site, and elsewhere, unrestricted warfare, which consists of concepts that could be weaponized that have nothing to do with military tactics. Your assumption that I was arguing that we should use the military alone is nothing but a strawman argument.
“…do I say that we only do this with military action alone?”
The only thing you talk about is military action; that seems to be your stock reply; ex. “The fact of the matter is that we won every major battle in Afghanistan, and the majority of the battles that mattered”
To which I have repeatedly replied–IRRELEVANT.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 1F
timactual: The only thing you talk about is military action; that seems to be your stock reply; ex.
Again, what part of the following statement did you not understand? “It was incompetence in Washington D.C. that pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory in Afghanistan.” Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, when I talk about what is happening in Washington DC, I’m talking about something else other than military action?
The reality is that you are backpedaling. Your initial statements suggested that the Taliban overpowered the US military in the battlefield and physically forced them off. My mentioning military action was aimed to counter that.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 2F
timactual: To which I have repeatedly replied–IRRELEVANT. [REPEAT POINT]
Wrong! VERY RELEVANT. When most people talk about the Taliban winning, they’re not talking about what you argued here. They’re talking about them overwhelming and forcing the US military out, directly.
Hint: your repeat points would get my repeat rebuttals.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 3F
In almost 19 years of debating against others online, the folks that I’ve argued against have slotted themselves into apparent psychological profiles. You’ve done the same here. You’ve responded to me enough times for me to see that you have anger issues, control issues, and excessive ego issues.
I’ve since used that to use the right words, sentences, and paragraphs, to get you to react a specific way. One of the main reasons to why I’ve been arguing against folk like you, online, for almost 19 years, is that I take pleasure in getting people to react and respond a certain way. You’re reacting exactly as I’ve anticipated too. Coming back to the internet to see what you said in response to my last batch of posts is like being a kid on Christmas morning.
And you’re helping me boost the post count on this thread in the process to. 😀
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 2B
timactual: For one thing, Ranger school or the SEALs do not teach counter-insurgency or ideological warfare. [STRAWMAN]
But they’re taught tactics that have allowed them to defeat the Taliban and other radical Islamists in the battlefield in Afghanistan and elsewhere in GWOT. I was both Infantry and PSYOP. We learned the tactics used to defeat the terrorists in the battlefield in the Infantry, and we learned the concepts used to defeat the terrorists in the psychological warfare arena in PSYOP. Both, individually and collectively, trained for counterinsurgency, the later trained for ideological warfare.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 3B
timactual: Nor will military action confine the danger to the Middle East. [STRAWMAN]
Where, in my posts, do I argue that it would? However, it would focus a lot of the enemies efforts to the Middle East, including finances and manpower that they would much rather use elsewhere around the world. When I was an Operations Specialist in the Navy, we utilized a concept called “Defense in Depth”. Included in this concept is the idea that if we forced the enemy to focus their attacking power in a certain area, or defuse it, the less effort they would be able to apply to their intended target. The concepts that I’m arguing on this thread are a part of an overall effort that forces the radical Islamists to do the same thing.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 4B
timactual: Communism was NOT defeated by military action, and “militant Islam” won’t be either. [STRAWMAN]
First, again, you’re assuming that I’m arguing military action alone, when my track record of debating here, and in almost 19 years of arguing against others online, is unrestricted warfare/asymmetric warfare. In unrestricted warfare, the military element is only a part of the overall strategy.
Second, without a military element, the advantage goes to those who are willing to use the military element.
Third, keeping the fight in the radical Islamists “home turf” forces them to focus their resources fighting in the defense rather than using those resources to further their global objectives in other parts of the world.
Fourth, we may not have fought the Soviets directly during the Cold War, but we did it through proxy… Efforts that accelerated their weakening.
Response to timactual, August 19, 2022, Part 5B
timactual: So how is that military action against Jihad going in Europe? Or Africa? Or even here in the US? I’d say that “prevail against them over there” part has already failed. [STRAWMAN]
Where, in any of my posts above, have I argued that military action alone is what is needed? Where?
I’ve argued on this website, as well as on others over the almost 19 years I’ve debated with people online, that the War on Terror is an unrestricted war/asymmetrical war. Military action is only a part of what is needed to be done. However, you can’t do without military action when the other side is willing to engage in military/militia action.
My argument on this thread is consistent with what I argued on this link:
https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=112562
Part II
I’ve advanced this concept for almost two decades and anticipate saying this for the rest of my natural life… Either we prevail against them over there, or they prevail over us in the United States and elsewhere that’s not currently majority Muslim. There is no third or other option, we either fight indefinitely, or assume that things would go back to normal while the radical Islamists continue on the manifest destiny that they’ve been on since the Medieval Period.
“Either we prevail against them over there, or they prevail over us in the United States and elsewhere that’s not currently majority Muslim.”
So how is that military action against Jihad going in Europe? Or Africa? Or even here in the US? I’d say that “prevail against them over there” part has already failed.
timactual: So how is that military action against Jihad going in Europe? Or Africa? Or even here in the US? I’d say that “prevail against them over there” part has already failed. [STRAWMAN]
Again, where, in any of my posts, do I argue that we should only fight militarily? What part of “we either fight indefinitely” did you not understand? On this website, and elsewhere in almost 19 years of debating this topic online, I’ve argued that this is unrestricted/asymmetrical warfare. The military element is only a part of unrestricted warfare; however, it can’t be dismissed all together and has to be used when the other side is using military/militant elements in their fight.
Again, read my responses on this link to get what I’ve been arguing on this thread:
https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=112562
Already failed? False, the contest continues. Failure is what would happen if your concepts are embraced by a critical mass of the non-Muslim population.
Yep. Call it “waiting” if you want. That’s why they won. They achieved their objectives, we failed to achieve ours (whatever they were).
The Taliban is still there, we are not. Yep. They won.
“They just had to wait”
It requires something a little more active than passively waiting.
Stupid to announce ahead of time a “hard date” to leave. More stupid to hold to said date when indications of issues with ORDERLY withdrawal reared up. Even more stupid to allow it to descend to a total cluster F and leave friends, citizens and billions of dollars in weapons behind rather than say the date is being extended. Oh and lets not forget dropping all means of securing the area so that a bomb could kill troops and civilians.
Gross incompetence. There is no way I can tell a kid join the military. We are not engaged in some great fight between good and evil and in case no one has noticed the same people talking about fighting for freedom are stealing ours.
You think we were somehow going to suddenly sneak out?
No. But I’m pretty certain we could’ve done much better.
That’s a pretty low bar.
Higher than what was executed.
Heh!