Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was the mission in Afghanistan after twenty years of military presence? It was never clarified very well. What became clear to me is that the Afghan Army had no will to fight. It collapsed within hours after an American withdrawal was announced. There was very little fighting. Some Afghan officials obviously were in contact with the Taliban and simply told them to come and take possession of government buildings.
Many Americans feel as I do that once Bin Laden was killed, the mission was fulfilled and it was time to go home.
The exit was bound to be difficult under any circumstances. We wanted to take Afghans with us--many who were highly skilled and educated--and the Taliban wasn't crazy about those people leaving. There was also an inevitable situation of some wanting revenge against opposing countrymen.
Our presence in Afghanistan was costing this country billions of dollars and no one could clearly define a good reason to be there.
Thirteen dead marines? Ever figured how many might be dead today if we hadn't withdrawn? The reason attacks had ceased on American forces prior to the withdrawal is because we had told the Taliban we were withdrawing. Any fool knows that if this agreement had been violated that hostilities would have resumed.
I am grateful the former President is no longer president, but that is another topic.
Typical talking points to defend the current leadership, that’s all this is.
The cost to move 100,000+ Afghans to the other side of the world, not to mention housing, feeding, medical treatment, processing, plus putting them all on assistance in the USA for years to come is an absolute staggering amount of money that nobody wants to bring up. We weren’t spending all that much anymore in Afghanistan because we had already spent hundreds of billions years before.
So now, not only did we waste every bit of capital in Afghanistan by pulling out, we also added hundreds of billions of cost due to creating 100,000+ refugees.
As far as military members dying in Afghanistan, they weren’t dying anymore. Look it up if you don’t believe me. So for you to gloss over the 13 deaths, which were absolutely unnecessary, is pretty sickening to me and it just shows you will overlook anything in order to carry water for the Commander In Chief and his SECDEF and top Generals.
But to get back on topic here, the US Military has lost their way. It’s not their fault they’ve lost their way, they are being forced into ridiculous policies that do not make them a stronger force.
Diversity and inclusion have replaced duty and honor. Climate change policies have replaced defending national interests.
Typical talking points to defend the current leadership, that’s all this is.
The cost to move 100,000+ Afghans to the other side of the world, not to mention housing, feeding, medical treatment, processing, plus putting them all on assistance in the USA for years to come is an absolute staggering amount of money that nobody wants to bring up. We weren’t spending all that much anymore in Afghanistan because we had already spent hundreds of billions years before.
So now, not only did we waste every bit of capital in Afghanistan by pulling out, we also added hundreds of billions of cost due to creating 100,000+ refugees.
As far as military members dying in Afghanistan, they weren’t dying anymore. Look it up if you don’t believe me. So for you to gloss over the 13 deaths, which were absolutely unnecessary, is pretty sickening to me and it just shows you will overlook anything in order to carry water for the Commander In Chief and his SECDEF and top Generals.
But to get back on topic here, the US Military has lost their way. It’s not their fault they’ve lost their way, they are being forced into ridiculous policies that do not make them a stronger force.
Diversity and inclusion have replaced duty and honor. Climate change policies have replaced defending national interests.
I could say a lot here, but to keep it short just how many years do you think we would have had to stay in Afghanistan? How would we know when to leave?
I could say a lot here, but to keep it short just how many years do you think we would have had to stay in Afghanistan? How would we know when to leave?
We’ve been in Korea, Germany, and Japan for 70+ years and have spent trillions of dollars in those countries to maintain a presence there.
We are also in Bahrain, Qatar, KSA, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey. We are in numerous countries in Africa, too.
In fact, we are in over 70 countries right now.
But Afghanistan is the one place where we just can’t be? You know, because it costs too much, right? I mean, we have enough money to conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air. But who cares, Bagram must be closed!
If you want to make a case that we never should’ve nation built in the first place back in the Bush years, I agree. But since we’ve been there for 20 years, and sunk all that capital into the place, we should’ve stayed the course.
Anyway, the Afghanistan withdrawal has cost the US a lot of respect around the globe.
Then when you add in wasting all that money and effort on useless base green projects, and the diversity and inclusion nonsense, it’s just shows our adversaries that we aren’t serious anymore.
I’m sure in your mind everything is great right now.
Look at Stars and Stripes today, front cover. China shooting missiles into the Taiwan strait, and Russia advancing in Ukraine.
We’ve been in Korea, Germany, and Japan for 70+ years and have spent trillions of dollars in those countries to maintain a presence there.
We are also in Bahrain, Qatar, KSA, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey. We are in numerous countries in Africa, too.
In fact, we are in over 70 countries right now.
But Afghanistan is the one place where we just can’t be? You know, because it costs too much, right? I mean, we have enough money to conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air. But who cares, Bagram must be closed!
If you want to make a case that we never should’ve nation built in the first place back in the Bush years, I agree. But since we’ve been there for 20 years, and sunk all that capital into the place, we should’ve stayed the course.
Anyway, the Afghanistan withdrawal has cost the US a lot of respect around the globe.
Then when you add in wasting all that money and effort on useless base green projects, and the diversity and inclusion nonsense, it’s just shows our adversaries that we aren’t serious anymore.
I’m sure in your mind everything is great right now.
Look at Stars and Stripes today, front cover. China shooting missiles into the Taiwan strait, and Russia advancing in Ukraine.
The USAF use to have 1000 Minuteman ICBMs located at four different bases. Now it has about half that number at two bases. It use to have tons of nuclear capable bombers. Now it has 20, all at one base and at any given time only 5 or so are ready to launch with nukes on board. If it were not for the US Navy boomers we would not have a credible strategic response. In the meantime we have had a Navy go down and down in ship numbers to the point we have less ships now than we did at the start of WW ONE. Many of the new ships have bugs such as combing gears that do not work, catapults that will not cat, etc. And we refuse to see that carriers are big slow moving easily found radar targets that can not hide. They will be the first to go in a major war. They are the "battleships" of WW III. What we need is a lot more subs and they all do not have to be nuclear. Knock off the carriers by half and build subs.
I spent many years in PACAF and I always try to keep abreast as to what is going on in the Pacific Theater, even though I have exclusively worked in the Middle East the last 6 years.
But someone please explain, or try to defend, this latest nonsense:
“PACAF senior leadership published guidance recently to stop using gender pronouns as this will improve the fighting force’s lethality.”
I’m not making this up and I’m not taking anything out of context. What I just wrote is exactly what they published. Not using gender pronouns will improve our fighting force.
I feel like I’m living in a world run by imbeciles.
But yet, I’m somehow the bad guy on this thread because I think this is complete nonsense?
The USAF use to have 1000 Minuteman ICBMs located at four different bases. Now it has about half that number at two bases. It use to have tons of nuclear capable bombers. Now it has 20, all at one base and at any given time only 5 or so are ready to launch with nukes on board. If it were not for the US Navy boomers we would not have a credible strategic response. In the meantime we have had a Navy go down and down in ship numbers to the point we have less ships now than we did at the start of WW ONE. Many of the new ships have bugs such as combing gears that do not work, catapults that will not cat, etc. And we refuse to see that carriers are big slow moving easily found radar targets that can not hide. They will be the first to go in a major war. They are the "battleships" of WW III. What we need is a lot more subs and they all do not have to be nuclear. Knock off the carriers by half and build subs.
Agree with all this. Carriers are just bomb and missile magnets. I'd sell some off and get to work double-time on making the sub fleet our deterrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
It just keeps getting more ridiculous by the day.
I spent many years in PACAF and I always try to keep abreast as to what is going on in the Pacific Theater, even though I have exclusively worked in the Middle East the last 6 years.
But someone please explain, or try to defend, this latest nonsense:
“PACAF senior leadership published guidance recently to stop using gender pronouns as this will improve the fighting force’s lethality.”
I’m not making this up and I’m not taking anything out of context. What I just wrote is exactly what they published. Not using gender pronouns will improve our fighting force.
I feel like I’m living in a world run by imbeciles.
But yet, I’m somehow the bad guy on this thread because I think this is complete nonsense?
Insane imbeciles. I can't imagine our most deadly enemies awaken every morning without slapping themselves to make sure that they're awake, and that they live in a world where their #1 target/opponent/enemy has gone hopelessly insane. It is truly hard to believe.
Add to that our NATO chumps I mean allies who don't want to spend for their own defense. Two percent. Oh my that is SOOOO much. If China and Russia jump, we'll be occupied in the Pacific and the Euros will need to clean their own house.
I doubt Russia has much offense left, and they're not the threat they were in the '70s-'90s or '00s. And unlike the US and some of our allies, Ivan and Mao have not been on the warfare practice fields for a long long time. The evidence is in Ukraine. So what looks good on paper may not size up so hefty on the battlefield. I for one don't care to see the answer to that question.
And then multiple NATO chumps decide it's a good idea to depend on the nation that NATO exists to defend against for their energy. Future historians, if there are any, will find this hard to believe.
I wonder how the SoKo, Japan, and Vietnam defense budgets are doing.
One of the worst side effects of long periods of peace and prosperity--Pax Americana in our current case--is that everyone gets fat, happy, and lazy. Peace and prosperity are NOT the norm in this world. Far from it.
When a major power turns inward and thinks pronouns are more important than kicking ass, Houston, we have a Problem.
This gender issue is, I agree, being overblown in the government in general and in the military in particular.
I am sympathetic to people who have true gender dysphoria, but:
1. The percentage of the population with diagnosable gender dysphoria is half the number of people born with six fingers. IOW, extremely small. The vast majority of that very small percentage of people with true gender dysphoria will go to great lengths to present as either male or female, and want to be called by the gender they present. Frankly, if I have to look under the skirt or open the fly to be sure, I'm fine with "callin' 'em as I see 'em."
2. The percentage of the extremely small percentage of people who have true gender dysphoria that isn't willing to choose a gender and commit to it is an even small percentage.
3. The percentage of that small percentage of an extremely small percentage that is willing and able to join the military is vanishingly small.
This is not like racial integration--dealing with a full 10 percent or more of the military. It's not even like the woman's issue (which has been overblown compared to the racial issue...you never saw, for instance, any celebrations of the first all-black male air crews of every type of aircraft).
The crux of the pronoun issue for the military is pandering, essentially, to men who want to wear beards and dresses and be called a man one day and a woman the next. There is no need for the military to pander to that.
This gender issue is, I agree, being overblown in the government in general and in the military in particular.
I am sympathetic to people who have true gender dysphoria, but:
1. The percentage of the population with diagnosable gender dysphoria is half the number of people born with six fingers. IOW, extremely small. The vast majority of that very small percentage of people with true gender dysphoria will go to great lengths to present as either male or female, and want to be called by the gender they present. Frankly, if I have to look under the skirt or open the fly to be sure, I'm fine with "callin' 'em as I see 'em."
2. The percentage of the extremely small percentage of people who have true gender dysphoria that isn't willing to choose a gender and commit to it is an even small percentage.
3. The percentage of that small percentage of an extremely small percentage that is willing and able to join the military is vanishingly small.
This is not like racial integration--dealing with a full 10 percent or more of the military. It's not even like the woman's issue (which has been overblown compared to the racial issue...you never saw, for instance, any celebrations of the first all-black male air crews of every type of aircraft).
The crux of the pronoun issue for the military is pandering, essentially, to men who want to wear beards and dresses and be called a man one day and a woman the next. There is no need for the military to pander to that.
My question is where is Milley and Austin on all of this? Why won’t they step up and say enough is enough and let’s get back to serious business?
Are they that worried that whoever is running the Executive Branch will ask for their resignation? Or do they actually agree with all of this nonsense? If I was in charge, I would speak out against this, but of course, I would’ve been weeded out long ago like so many conservative thinking officers have been over the last few years.
There is no way that diversity, inclusion, and equity is making us a better force. It’s just not, and the people in power need to speak up before it’s too late.
I feel that this issue, along with Afghanistan, is directly related to the recent recruiting failures.
My question is where is Milley and Austin on all of this? Why won’t they step up and say enough is enough and let’s get back to serious business?
Are they that worried that whoever is running the Executive Branch will ask for their resignation? Or do they actually agree with all of this nonsense? If I was in charge, I would speak out against this, but of course, I would’ve been weeded out long ago like so many conservative thinking officers have been over the last few years.
There is no way that diversity, inclusion, and equity is making us a better force. It’s just not, and the people in power need to speak up before it’s too late.
I feel that this issue, along with Afghanistan, is directly related to the recent recruiting failures.
What? You’re questioning the SECDEF and the CJCS? They both outrank any CENTCOM CDR and CENTCOM CDR’s are infallible. At least according to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Future historians, if there are any, will find this hard to believe.
