ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, November 02, 2018

Go the hell home already

The ranking commander in Afghanistan has publicly conceded that the Afghan war cannot be won.
The Afghanistan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through a political resolution with the Taliban, the newly-appointed American general in charge of US and NATO operations has conceded.

In his first interview since taking command of NATO’s Resolute Support mission in September, Gen. Austin Scott Miller provided NBC News with a surprisingly candid assessment of the seemingly never-ending conflict, which began with the US invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001.

“This is not going to be won militarily. This is going to a political solution," Miller said. He mused that the Taliban is also tired of fighting and may be interested in starting to “work through the political piece” of the 17-year-old war.

But it’s not clear if the Taliban is open to negotiations. Last month, a top Taliban commander told RT, in a rare interview, that the group’s leaders had no desire to negotiate with the Americans.
Congratulations, it only took 17 years for the U.S. military to discover why Afghanistan is called "the graveyard of empires". That's some fine military intelligence at work there. Go the hell home. The invasion was bad enough, but the decision to try and occupy Afghanistan was reprehensibly stupid. No more wars without formal Congressional declaration.

Labels:

78 Comments:

Blogger Doug Cranmer November 02, 2018 1:10 PM  

What the hell does winning even mean?

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira November 02, 2018 1:12 PM  

From personal experience, there's nothing there to occupy. Unless you like opium and marijuana fields.

Blogger dvdivx November 02, 2018 1:15 PM  

Unless you go there as the Romans went into Carthage and just kill everyone and salt the earth no one can win there.

Blogger Richard Holmes November 02, 2018 1:22 PM  

No more wars without formal Congressional declaration. VD

I agree, but didn't Bush get a formal declaration of war after 9/11?

Blogger Silly but True November 02, 2018 1:23 PM  

@1:
In this case, it’s the career-ending, AIDS-afflicted, bankrupt, Tiger-blood Charlie Sheen kind of winning.

Blogger pyrrhus November 02, 2018 1:28 PM  

Several trillion dollars later, the winners were the MIC, the CIA drug runners, and the boy peddlers....

Blogger sykes.1 November 02, 2018 1:30 PM  

Add in the decade they fought the Soviets and communists, and that's more like 27 years of fighting. The Taliban are nowhere near tired of fighting.

Blogger Cetera November 02, 2018 1:33 PM  

Richard Holmes wrote: No more wars without formal Congressional declaration. VD

I agree, but didn't Bush get a formal declaration of war after 9/11?


Since there is no checklist or qualifications of what is or is not a formal declaration of war the argument goes back and forth with no clear winner. Congress didn't say, "We declare war..." but they did pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force against terrorists:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Does that count as a declaration of war? Some say yes, some say no. Some say it doesn't matter, Congress clearly authorized the use and authorized the funds, and at any time Congress could have stopped if they decided they no longer authorized it, so it is legal. It's a big mess.

Blogger Silly but True November 02, 2018 1:36 PM  

To its credit, Congress did pass on Sept. 14, 2001 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (against al Qaeda), aka “AUMF.”

Because we didn’t know who did it before we started bombing Afghanistan, language was left vague: “President is authorizes to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons...”

In his speech to Joint Session of Congress, Bush identified al Qaeda as the culprit planned from Afghanistan harbored by Taliban and then announced the start of the Global War on Terror.

US invaded Afghanistan 17 days later.

Blogger Doug Cranmer November 02, 2018 1:38 PM  

I made the same point 17 years ago and was denounced for bad think.

Don't pick a fight with someone who likes to fight is a good general principle in life.

Blogger OGRE November 02, 2018 1:42 PM  

something something land war in Asia

Blogger Resident Moron™ November 02, 2018 1:47 PM  

What the hell does winning even mean?

Raytheon stock goes up.

Blogger S1AL November 02, 2018 1:48 PM  

As someone wrote: "Afghanistan is not a country; it's a hole on the map where countries aren't."

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 02, 2018 1:50 PM  

Just imagine how much better off our country would be if we'd sent those troops to the Mexican border instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001.

Blogger Jeroth November 02, 2018 1:57 PM  

Quick somewhat off topic question for the regulars:

I remember Vox saying that the US has absorbed the greatest migration in human history. What I can't remember is if he added "since 1965" to that, or if it was over a longer period. Can anyone help me out? Thanks.

Blogger James Dixon November 02, 2018 1:58 PM  

> The invasion was bad enough, but the decision to try and occupy Afghanistan was reprehensibly stupid.

Yep. Backing and insurgency against the Taliban was all well and good. Once Karzai was in place and in control we should have left completely, with the simple note that if we had to come back we wouldn't be as nice.

The same thing was true in Iraq. Even if going in was the right thing, which was debatable, once the first elections were held and a government in place we should have pulled out.

Blogger Jeroth November 02, 2018 1:59 PM  

Never mind. Found it in a blogpost. The answer is yes.

Blogger Cloom Glue November 02, 2018 2:00 PM  

And why did few notice that America's Afghanistan Northern Alliance and occupation of Kabul was like being on the USSR side, opposite of Ronald Reagan's side during the 1980s war? We were told in the 1990s that Taliban was something new, virulent, that occupied Kabul after the USSR defeat, but I was skeptical.

Blogger David Ray Milton November 02, 2018 2:04 PM  

I have been saying this about Islamic countries for a while. Either leave them the hell alone or do scorched Earth.

"Well, scorched Earth is pretty extreme, that's like genocide."

Duh, and that's why we should leave them alone and let Afghanis take care of Afghanistan's problems. Without enforcing a military state on a region, you cannot force people to accept your authority if they do not want your authority.

Blogger Hammerli280 November 02, 2018 2:11 PM  

@1: Winning depends on your war objectives. Which got changed in mid-conflict. Once it became primarily an Afghan domestic political fight, "victory" is defined as either one side being annihilated or a political settlement being reached.

Blogger Damn Crackers November 02, 2018 2:16 PM  

Obviously, the solution is to have a Taliban caravan head to California.

Blogger Haxo Angmark November 02, 2018 2:26 PM  

Taliban's first act, when/if it re-takes Afghanistan, will be to burn down the CIA's poppy fields. This the 'Murkan (((deep state))) will not permit. So the occupation and sporadic fighting will go on indefinatly...or at least until the Jewbuck Empire collapses. As to this,

@16: "the same was true in Iraq". No, the actual purpose of 'Murka's invasion/occupation of Iraq was to put in power a New (Shi'a, as it happened) Regime that would get Iraq's oil exports back on the dollar after Sadaam attempted to sell oil for anything but dollars; which in turn prevents the domestic, debt-drowned, dollar-monetized ponzi'conomy from going to hyperinflation and collapse. Ditto the attack on Col. K and Libya. Both missions accomplished but, because putting the Iraqi Shi'a in power completed an anti-Israel Shi'a Crescent running from Tehran to Hezbollah in south Lebanon via Baghdad and Damascus, Isramerica then had to foment a new war (Syria) in a - so far failed - attempt to break the Crescent. Next up: ZOG will attack Iran, probably during the run-in to the 2020 election, and preceeded by a real nasty False Flag.

@

Blogger Salt November 02, 2018 2:27 PM  

What a waste of resources Afghanistan is.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer November 02, 2018 2:31 PM  

But we got pictures of special forces on horseback!

Blogger HMS Defiant November 02, 2018 2:39 PM  

It may come as a surprise to some but the US Military studies WAR. There was a grand total of no support out of the Pentagon for this war from the outset and as for entry and control? Fuck NO. We study war and its aftermath like nobody on this earth.

That said. Let us be thankful that our Army, our Military, follows the orders of its civilian Commander-in-Chief and the law as it exists.

There isn't one person I know who thought we could prevail in a religious insurgency war in Afghanistan of all places.
You can say the same about Iraq. Bush was right to destroy the Iraqi Army and leave with conditions. I found the no-fly campaign stupid beyond belief but we kept it up for a decade without losing an aircraft over Iraq. A testimony to the kind of people America had at the tip of the spear enforcing a stupid policy for 10 years.

Blogger English Tom November 02, 2018 2:41 PM  

@Daniel Paul Grech Pereira

An contraire Daniel. Afghanistan is strategically located for anyone who wants to interfere with the wider region.

Blogger English Tom November 02, 2018 2:44 PM  

@Pyrrhus

Re: the winners

You missed out ZOG that did 9/11 and has been busily deconstructing America since then. ZOG won.

Blogger David Ray Milton November 02, 2018 2:47 PM  

Pretty sure it's all human history. 30 million Mexicans since 1965. It's the equivalent of several small countries immigrating here.

Blogger English Tom November 02, 2018 2:48 PM  

@James Dixon

Re: Iraq

That war was fought entirely for the benefit of ZOG, and their Yinon plan to reshape the middle East. Iraq invasion was the first stage of the Kurdistan project, which has still to reach its culmination.

Blogger English Tom November 02, 2018 2:52 PM  

@Haxo

Good points but Iraq was all about Kurdistan. There were (((Neocon))) plans to take down Saddam well before he began charging for oil in Euro's not dollars. See: a Clean Break-a strategy for securing the realm by Richard Perle et al 1996 or 98. Note: the realm to be secured was Israel not America.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 02, 2018 2:56 PM  

WeaponsMan RIP wrote that the occupation was Big Army's idea and that the original plan post 9/11 was much more doable. He said that Big Army wanted a war that they could participate in

Blogger Steb November 02, 2018 3:24 PM  

I wonder if the Taliban really want the Americans to leave. After all, as long as they stay, no one else can invade. Keeping the war running is probably in their best interests.

Blogger Unknown November 02, 2018 3:30 PM  

If the goal was to no longer have Afghanistan to be a mecca for terrorist training camps and recruitment, there is a way to do it, but it requires measures no Western nation has the stomach for for over 100 years.

It requires a total erasure of the influence Islam has on the area, which means starting by teaching the very young our way, and killing anyone and everyone who resists.

It also requires a time frame measured in tens, if not hundreds, of years.

Homeland, oddly enough, got it, or at least someone did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct3BsyF64gM

Anything less is a fail before even starting.

--Unknownsailor--

Blogger James Dixon November 02, 2018 3:34 PM  

> the actual purpose of 'Murka's invasion/occupation of Iraq was to put in power a New (Shi'a, as it happened) Regime that would get Iraq's oil exports back on the dollar after Sadaam attempted to sell oil for anything but dollars

While probably true, I wasn't concerned with our real goals. Merely the way we should have done it.

Blogger Silly but True November 02, 2018 3:35 PM  

Efficacy of Iraq War aside, the full blame of the execution of the Iraq War and ensuing cluster can be laid sqarely at the feet of Gen. Tommy Franks.

It was Franks’ bright idea as a mechanized infantryman to run the land war as a sea war — blowing and going past the Sunni Iraq soldiers and weapons stockpiles on race to Baghdad facilitating them to take off their military uniform, take their weapons with them and swap for insurgency attire.

For that matter, it was specifically Franks’ decision not to send 800 Army Rangers to Tora Bora in Dec. 2001 to catch bin Laden as he escaped to Pakistan. So we can largely blame him for f’ing up early stage Afghanistan War too.

If we claimed bin Laden’s bullet-riddled body in Dec. 2001, the War on Terror largely might have been able to be unwound by New Year’s Day 2002.

Franks was one of those guys who fell up.

Blogger Lance E November 02, 2018 3:37 PM  

I tend to agree with those who say that America could absolutely have successfully occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, if our civilian rulers were competent and courageous rather than blubbering liberal idiots. Colonial empires of centuries past were very successful in these regions, but they understood the phrase "grasp the nettle" and were unafraid to use brutal force and scorched-earth reprisals when necessary.

It's not much different from the "civil rights" violence within America's borders just a few decades ago, and Antifa and other leftist violence today. If the government made 1/10th the effort to quash it that they make for "right-wing extremism", all that activism would disappear overnight.

The occupations failed because powerful entities wanted them to fail, or were too spineless to stand up to accusations of racism/white supremacy/neocolonialism/etc.

But none of that is to say the occupation ever should have happened in the first place. It still made a mockery of classical international law and set the stage for endless invade the world/invite the world nonsense. No one wanted these invasions and they produced no value for anyone other than a handful of elite. They were terrible decisions - but they also ended up much worse than they needed to, because of competing power factions within our own government.

Blogger Anthony November 02, 2018 3:40 PM  

There's no such thing as a political solution in Afghanistan, either, just temporary pauses before someone stabs someone else in the back and starts the war again.

This means we need to understand what's going on there, in case one backstabber or another is going to do something which will after the outside world. And that requires people on the ground there. But not a brigade or division, and not regular infantry.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey November 02, 2018 3:45 PM  

Cloom Glue wrote:We were told in the 1990s that Taliban was something new, virulent, that occupied Kabul after the USSR defeat, but I was skeptical.

Yep. Everybody got fed an obvious stream of lies at the time. Some strange fanatical sect had sprouted up and hijacked Islam. They had perverted the great religion of peace, we were told. Pundits and operatives coined a new term, the "Islamist", to give a name to these latter-day hijackers of a religion.


But that was never true. There's nothing new under the sun about these guys. They are not some strange and new heretics, rather they are in fact notable for their Islamic orthodoxy. They are closer to the ways of the Prophet Mohammed than anybody. The word "taliban" means "student", these are the guys coming back from the old-school madrassas where they have dedicated themselves to memorizing the Koran and so forth.


Even though the lies about this were painfully obvious to many including most here, these lies served their purpose. They sowed no small bit of confusion and dissonance in the public thinking. And these lies were doubled-down on every step of the way. Every time a terror attack happened, for a 15 year period there, officials and media handlers came screaming out warning don't jump the gun this may not be terrorism when, say, a Muslim guy shouting Allahu Akbar shoots up Ft. Hood.

Blogger Lazarus November 02, 2018 3:48 PM  

You have to come back.

Blogger Gen. Kong November 02, 2018 3:49 PM  

Daniel Paul Grech Pereira wrote:
From personal experience, there's nothing there to occupy. Unless you like opium and marijuana fields.

You don't think the (((Banksteins))) who own Big Pharma should to have to pay mercs to guard the plentiful poppyfields of Pashtoonistan, do you?? Who again is the commander in chief of the legion presently tasked to this gig?? This would be the same legion which relieves experienced officers of command for saying "faggot", correct? While their own country has been transformed into a third-world shithole, the folks who signed up for the Banana Empire's legion have been there so long now that the sons of the first wave could well be there doing the same job as their parents were doing 17 years ago.

This is nothing new in that part of the world any more than in this one. This particular pharma-racket has been going on since the glory days of the Opium Wars when the hapless legions of Queen Victoria were sent to try and capture the poppyfields from ancestors of today's goat-humpers for the glories of the Sassoon family 'The Rothschilds of the East', whose contributions to (((humanity))) are simply beyond the mathematical abilities of goyim to comprehend. The Judeo-Christ must be very pleased indeed. Someone should offer him a blunt to celebrate.

Blogger Gen. Kong November 02, 2018 3:58 PM  

I agree, but didn't Bush get a formal declaration of war after 9/11?

I seem to recall that formal declarations of war were done away with after the Banana Empire Senate ratified the UN Treaty back in the late 1940s. Treaties are much more toxic to the body politic that most realize.

Blogger Gen. Kong November 02, 2018 4:08 PM  

Obviously, the solution is to have a Taliban caravan head to California.

Absolutely! They can have some illegal-alien lawyers (yes, they are admitted to the Californistani bar) file suit to let them in. Ambulance-chasers have already filed them on behalf of Soros' latest invasion force from Honduras. Blackrobes are no doubt salivating in anticipation of giving the administration more orders.

Blogger Johnny November 02, 2018 4:23 PM  

Afghanistan would most naturally be governed by tribal leaders, people we choose to call warlords. I would think if we feel a need to stay, the cheapest and easiest way would be to buy off the warlords. They are not rich people so it wouldn't cost much, and we would not need much from them to create at least the illusion of stability.

Blogger Boorn Boorm November 02, 2018 4:47 PM  

I'm surprised no one had mentioned Pakistan. A huge reason why Afghanistan is ungovernable without warlords or a dictator is because the country is "fake." Pashtuns make the largest ethnic group, and they are split between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are also Tajiks coming in 2nd. Pakistan has an interest in keeping Pashtuns not having their own state, because then Pakistann will lose half their land.

Blogger Matrick November 02, 2018 4:58 PM  

"I wonder if the Taliban really want the Americans to leave. After all, as long as they stay, no one else can invade. Keeping the war running is probably in their best interests."

Who else would be stupid enough to want to invade?
Even back in 2001, it was clear enough to anyone with any sense that invading Afghanistan was a bad idea.

Blogger L November 02, 2018 4:59 PM  

17, eh? A good number on which to end this.

Blogger Mister Excitement November 02, 2018 5:02 PM  

@35

"Franks was one of those guys who fell up."


So you're saying that a Baby Boomer that somehow got 6 Valor awards for a one year tour in Vietnam as an artillery officer got promoted ahead of his competency?

We've never seen an entitled Baby Boomer at the highest levels of leadership before, have we?

Blogger Azimus November 02, 2018 5:12 PM  

I agree w/what someone else said, there is no solution for Afghanistan because there is no such thing as Afghanistan. The loyalties and principles are still run on tribal lines. Even the blood-soaked monolith of islam could not unite these people, Inseriously doubt "bribes for all and women vote" neocon democracy os going to appeal to anyone...

Blogger Silver Chief November 02, 2018 5:28 PM  

If Trump pulls out the Dems will put the stoning of women on live TV and blame Trump.

Blogger justaguy November 02, 2018 5:48 PM  

Hell, we won Afghanistan (hereafter " AF") by December 2001. Our Special Forces, helping direct airstrikes enabled a US allied force of AF tribes to oust all of the enemy tribes and the Taliban except for one big city. Then of course boy Bush screws everything up. Although he campaigned on no nation building overseas-- he decides we have to force a western style democracy on the Af people????

In comes the US Marines and bif Pentagon, lots of forces etc... Instead of bombing and letting the tribes win and declare victory and go home within months-- the boy wonder president decides to screw up the entire middle east. We could have declared victory and been gone by Feb. 2002. Now we finally admit what should have been obvious to any realist then-- just not a neo-con (meaning not a con, but someone who joined in to play with the world order.)

Blogger DJT November 02, 2018 6:32 PM  

Afghanistan is something even the God Emperor can't win.

Blogger Steve Samson November 02, 2018 6:49 PM  

The Kurds are a nation, we should approve of them having a homeland, no? Likewise the Pashtuns.
More on topic, I have wondered in the past if the point of the Afghan war is not to win, but to have some kind of self-contained hot war to rotate the troops to, so when the real war comes the soldiers have all really actually been in battle, like a whole country as a glorified live fire exercise?

Blogger James Dixon November 02, 2018 7:51 PM  

> ... but didn't Bush get a formal declaration of war after 9/11?

No. He got an authorization for military action, which is not the same thing, no matter who argues it is. Words have meaning.

Blogger English Tom November 02, 2018 8:00 PM  

@Johnny

Buying off the warlords was Britain's methodology of choice, especially the tribes controlling the mountain passes. Britain then got parsimonious and cut this stipend and we were forced to learn a painful lesson!

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey November 02, 2018 8:02 PM  

@30 English Tom

See: a Clean Break-a strategy for securing the realm by Richard Perle et al 1996 or 98.

1996. As an intermediate step, see also PNAC (founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan), in particular their 2000 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" plan -- best known for its "new Pearl Harbor" line.

But it wasn't just Perle. The role of other dual-citizen authors of "A Clean Break" in the W administration in promoting the Iraq invasion is often overlooked.

David Wurmser worked as Cheney's Mideast adviser and as an aide to Bolton in the State Dept.

Douglas Feith was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and (together with Wolfowitz) the creator of the Office of Special Plans -- an "intelligence" unit loosely attached to the Pentagon, but functionally near-independent, whose sole purpose was to generate "intelligence" to justify the invasion of Iraq (and to serve as a conduit for Israeli "intelligence" for the same purpose). It was disbanded a few months after the invasion.

So... these Israeli-American dual citizens authored a paper for the PM of Israel, advocating the overthrow of Sadam Hussein, and the destruction of several other ME countries (including Syria), because it would be good for Israel . Shortly afterwards, they occupied high positions in the US government, and advocated vigorously for war with Iraq -- because it would serve American interests.

Uh huh. Seems legit.

@40
The closest current year analogue to the Sassoons would be the Sacklers, owners of Purdue Pharma, which manufactures and markets Oxycontin.

Blogger allyn71 November 02, 2018 8:09 PM  

We are still in Afghanistan because no one wants to be labeled as the President that lost the war. Reality of the situation doesn't matter.

Blogger Nobody of Consequence November 02, 2018 8:11 PM  

No more wars that do not meet the exact conditions of "provide for the common Defense of the United States", i.e. direct invasions of states or territories.

Blogger Anchorman November 02, 2018 8:36 PM  

"rt.com"

Jeebus.

Russian fan bois

Blogger LP999-16 November 02, 2018 10:11 PM  

42 yes Gen Kong, I took noticed to that even the ACLU (I heard is helping along with Beto$$?)

Afghanistanis are strong enough to make their land great again for themselves but the men feel harmed and livid losing women and children in those wars which is why their temperament does not belong in America. It's all revenge immigration or revenge migration. Which is an invasion., It is why I read online the migrant boats totally disappeared without a trace and it was probably triangular Bur triangle.

This is nothing, I mean nothing like our dear one Beau, a wonderful pastor of God here safely and doing fine, Beau is the person to go to for prayer and for guidance.

Ship the likes of Jordan P, Ben Shap home too, they can make their own lands greater minus staying in America.

Blogger Azimus November 02, 2018 10:23 PM  

@ SteveSamson - Iran, Pakistan, and China all have a border w/Afghanistan. The point was to destabilize the regions which Obama dutifully followed by expanding into Pakistan and likely Uigher China. Who knows what they're doing with Iran. I don't know what the value is of battle-hardened troops in asymmetrical warfare against an opponent like a China or Russia, and the cost soaks up development funds and harms recruitment.

Blogger Ravin Mavin November 02, 2018 10:40 PM  

Also rich in rare earth minerals.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey November 02, 2018 10:57 PM  

@58
lol
Doesn't even reach NPC levels of reasoning.
Just encounters a crimestop trigger, and --beep boop -- the inchoate "thoughts" in its "mind" simply... evaporate.

The concepts of primary vs. secondary sources, or of narrative vs. independently-verifiable facts? They were never there in the first place, of course.

Blogger S. Thermite November 03, 2018 3:05 AM  

RE Iraq, Syria, Inan, ISIS etc. I’ve become cynical enough to wonder if “Force Multiplier” should be used exclusively to describe (((dual citizens))) redirecting the most powerful military on earth to enforce another nation’s war ambitions on the other side of the world. Zero sympathy for Islam, but I’m old enough to remember when Midwestern National Guard units wore woodland camo BDUs and polished black combat boots in the woods instead of desert pajamas and tan suade footwear. I guess the new garb works well enough in the concrete jungle too, which will be convenient for quelling urban uprisings used lessons learned in Fallujah if the Normies even get wise to how much they’ve been fleeced.

Blogger linesy November 03, 2018 3:38 AM  

Just leave and let Afghanistan fester, but first napalm the poppy fields then spread salt on them. Bring all the troops back and station them on the border. Given the hijackers nationality, carpet bombing Mecca and Medina would have been sufficient payback.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 4:49 AM  

@14

"Just imagine how much better off our country would be if we'd sent those troops to the Mexican border instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001."

Even in the midst of the Cold War, while I did and always have despised the Soviet Union government and everything it stood for, I always considered Mexico to be the bigger threat.

Who is more dangerous? The drunken bum who lives in an abandoned lot across the street, or some blue collar guy who lives on the other side of town?

Soviet Russia always had too much to lose by starting anything serious with us.

On the other hand, the drunken bum that is Mexico is going to be constantly stealing from whatever he can get out of the neighborhood. And since Mexico's neighbors to the south are ALSO a bunch of drunken bums... we are the only financially stable property on the street, other than Canada... but Canada is a long walk from Mexico's underpass abode.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 4:52 AM  

@18

"We were told in the 1990s that Taliban was something new, virulent, that occupied Kabul after the USSR defeat, but I was skeptical."

1994. The "Taliban takes Kabul" issue is the only copy of Soldier of Fortune I've ever even picked up and held in my hands, let alone purchase. Just came across it in a box a couple of years ago when I was moving. My immediate thought was "how prophetic" that I happened to decide to purchase that particular issue.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 5:28 AM  

@47

"So you're saying that a Baby Boomer that somehow got 6 Valor awards for a one year tour in Vietnam as an artillery officer got promoted ahead of his competency?"

I have no love for the idea of someone out of the Artillery Corps being put in charge of a maneuver war.

However, don't doubt that Franks would have had legitimate opportunity for 6 Valor awards as an artillery officer in Vietnam.

I have a friend who was a sniper in Vietnam.
This is what he said about fire bases (which is where the artillery was located)

"...they were called fire bases, because that's where you were most likely to get fired on and shot."

He told me he spent as little time as possible on a firebase -- just enough time to get weaponry, ammunition, take a shower, and grab some rations for the next patrol. It was far safer for his 8-12 man patrols to be in the jungle than to be on a firebase. Especially at night.

One time, he was drawing some equipment from some supply tent, and an attack commenced. His immediate reaction was to go to the door and start shooting at the guys overrunning the place, while a senior NCO (who, ironically, was under his command) was just standing around nonchalantly with the supply NCO. And he's thinkg, "What's wrong with you? Why don't you come over here and shoot something?" Then he realized, sure, there was a lot of light and noise going on, but it had nothing to do with him... so they completed the supply transaction, and then he and the rest of his group got out of there... exfiltrating from the base in the middle of the firefight.
It wasn't his fight. His mission was out in the hills and villages, knocking off OPFOR leaders, not blasting away at sappers crawling through the wire. That's what the base security battalion (infantry) was for [pulling security for a fire base was considered to be downtime from hiking through the hills and jungles on patrol]




Firebases were frequently over run. That's why the Beehive round was developed -- A shell which explodes about 30m after exiting the barrel, with a payload of thousands of steel flechettes (little nails with fins instead of a nail head), which spread out at supersonic speed in a 35 degree cone. Before firing, the entire base would be alerted, by yelling "Beehive! Beehive! Beehive! over the loudspeakers, a warning that to get below ground, or you will get turned into swiss cheese.

After an overrun attack was broken by the firing of beehive rounds, many of the VC bodies could be dragged to a Corpse Collection Point for mass burial, usually by just picking up the man's weapon, and dragging it because his hands would be securely nailed to the wooden stock and foregrip.

Vietnam was the one war in which artillerymen often faced greater danger than the infantry.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 5:31 AM  

@49

"If Trump pulls out the Dems will put the stoning of women on live TV and blame Trump."

At this point, nobody will care.
As long as they aren't American women being stoned, nobody will give a shit.

The feminists have already proven that they don't give two farts about the maltreatment of women in Moslem countries, because that has never offered an opportunity to demonize American men. So when they suddenly start crying about Afghanistani women now, after 17 years of silence, they wailing will be properly judged as the crocodile tears that they will truly be.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 5:34 AM  

@52

"The Kurds are a nation, we should approve of them having a homeland, no? Likewise the Pashtuns.
More on topic, I have wondered in the past if the point of the Afghan war is not to win, but to have some kind of self-contained hot war to rotate the troops to, so when the real war comes the soldiers have all really actually been in battle, like a whole country as a glorified live fire exercise?"

You would not be wrong.

Our involvement in Yugoslavia during the late 90's was for no other reason than to develop an army of occupation doctrine for use in Iraq. I have never seen ANY evidence to even hint that there was any other reason.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 5:49 AM  

#55

"The closest current year analogue to the Sassoons would be the Sacklers, owners of Purdue Pharma, which manufactures and markets Oxycontin."

and as usual, the Forward couldn't help but put their anti-civilization inclinations on full display

Top line on google search:
behind oxycontin site:forward.com

Sackler Family Makes Billions From Opioid Drugs – The Forward
https://forward.com/fast.../the-jewish-family-making-billions-from-the-opioid-crisis/
Oct 17, 2017 - The Jewish Family Making Billions From The Opioid Crisis. ... But many may not know that the family’s fortune comes from selling pharmaceuticals—most notably OxyContin, the addictive painkiller at the center of America’s opioid epidemic. A new profile in Esquire chronicles the ...


They're BRAGGING that a JEWISH FAMILY IS GETTING RICH OFF OF CREATING THE SUBSTANCE AT THE CENTER OF THE OPIOID ADDICTION EPIDEMIC.

I wonder if they've ever wondered, if they are God's Chosen People.... chosen for what, exactly? Because it seems that they have been chosen to serve as a bad example: "Don't be like these greedy, short-sighted, manipulative, misanthropic shit-heads!"



Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2018 6:05 AM  

@60

"I don't know what the value is of battle-hardened troops in asymmetrical warfare against an opponent like a China or Russia, and the cost soaks up development funds and harms recruitment. "

I can tell you.
They are a danger to themselves.

They don't understand the concept of light discipline (don't use a flashlight at night unless you ABSOLUTELY have to, and for God's sake, if you do, use a deep-blue or deep-red filter on it).

They don't understand radio discipline -- keep your messages short and sweet. Do NOT hold down the push-to-talk button for more than a couple of seconds -- if the sentence you are saying takes more than that, cut out with the word "break", unkey the hand mike for a second or so, and then resume transmission, likewise, in 3-5 seconds bursts, until you are done talking.... Or else Radio Direction Finder units will pinpoint your location, and within 2 minutes, you will find yourself in the middle of a 1 km x 1 km saturating artillery bombardment.

There's others, but that's for starters.

During asymmetrical warfare, those "traditional warfare" TTP's are let slide, because they don't fit the tactical situation. Now we have an entire army, from privates all the way up to 1-star generals who have never been trained intensely for anything other than low-level conflict asymmetrical warfare.

The regaining of skills is going to be like the Civil War leader's astonishment that entire divisioins of rifled muskets have an effective range that is MUCH farther than the 25-50 meters of those smoothbore muskets everyone on both sides were using in the Mexican War back in 1848 (The majority of the veterans, especially officers of that war were from the South. This is why the South lost so many battles. They were using tactics that, by their own experience, had worked wonderfully in 1848. They could not accept that hey-diddle-diddle right-up-the-middle bayonet charges were never going to work ever again. Pickett's Charge... 3 years into the war, is a perfect example of them just plain old not learning from their most recent experiences, but instead, falling back on the experiences from when they were lieutenants and captains, fighting the war in Mexico.)

Blogger God Emperor Memes November 03, 2018 6:22 AM  

Of course Afghanistan can be won *militarily*; the problem is that, just like Vietnam, the powers that be do not have the will to win and therefore will not take the steps necessary to do so.
In the case of Vietnam, nuking Hanoi would've settled their hash. In the case of Afghanistan, kill every male over the age of 5 and convert the rest to Christianity.

Blogger Silly but True November 03, 2018 10:17 AM  

Re: No one caring. Does anyone give af about Libya? Obama turned one of the most progressive (not saying much) North African nations with a leader who completely gave up nuke aspirations after we started killing his family members into terrorist hellhole tgat’s reinstated African slavery for the first time in a century.

And it’s been nothing but the crickets chirping from there.

Let the Afghani women get stoned by Afghani men. The ones who aren’t interested in buggering Afghani boys might finally step up.

Blogger Anchorman November 03, 2018 11:56 AM  

@62 Be sure to bookmark Dem and GOP press release websites, to cover all the apparatchik "news outlets."

Blogger PH November 04, 2018 12:54 AM  

100 million from the 3rd world since 1965.

Blogger Didas Kalos November 04, 2018 12:09 PM  

And more Americans uselessly giving their precious lives for what? https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/utah-mayor-killed-in-insider-attack-in-afghanistan-1518972/

Blogger JohnG November 04, 2018 7:21 PM  

I would have been interested to see what the result was had we actually tried to win. But we've known that Pakistan was materially supporting the Taliban from the get go and never did anything about it. That we're trying to "stop Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist refuge" is a joke - the entire country of Pakistan is a terrorist refuge, they harbor warlords and insurgent leaders just across the border. When we converted the mission in 2012 to Train, Advise & Assist and withdrew 90% of the troops, Taliban and ISIS-KP slipped into everywhere we weren't...the only things we hold now are Kabul, Bagram and Kandahar, everything else is Indian country. As far as this guy saying "there's no military solution in Afghanistan" - we've been trying to cut a deal with the Taliban so we could leave for well over 10 years. The Taliban isn't interested, they know the whole sh*t-show collapses the second we're gone.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 04, 2018 11:08 PM  

It's just another example of using the Fabian strategy (named after a Roman named Fabius): We don't care how many men you send here, or for how long -- the moment you leave, we have won.

Other notable uses of the Fabian strategy:
General George Washington vs. King George III's armies.

General Vo Nguyen Giap vs. President Lyndon Johnson's & allied armies.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts