# Afghanistan's president has suggested that the U.S. "re-examine" its plan to withdraw...



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 5, 2015)

I swear I didn't see 'this' coming.  ... sigh ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...e/?intcmp=latestnews

_"Afghanistan's president has suggested that the U.S. "re-examine" its plan to withdraw all of the American-led coalition troops from the country by the end of 2016. "Deadlines concentrate the mind. But deadlines should not be dogmas," Ashraf Ghani told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview that aired Sunday evening. "If both parties, or, in this case, multiple partners, have done their best to achieve the objectives and progress is very real, then there should be willingness to re-examine a deadline," he added. When asked if he had made his view clear to President Barack Obama, Ghani said "President Obama knows me. We don't need to tell each other." 

There was no immediate response from the White House, State Department, or Pentagon to Ghani's remarks Sunday night. The U.S. and its NATO allies marked the formal end of the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan last week. On Thursday, 13,500 soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force, almost 11,000 of them American, transitioned to a supporting role for Afghanistan's military. The handover of primary responsibility for battling the Taliban represents the ultimate test for the 350,000 strong Afghan army. 

Critics have long questioned the local troops' morale, discipline, and competence in the face of Taliban attacks. According to a United Nations report, 2014 was the deadliest year on record for non-combatants in Afghanistan, with at least 3,188 civilians killed in the intensifying war. By comparison, at least 4,600 members of the Afghan security forces were killed by fighting last year. 

Ghani also told CBS that he was concerned about the possibility that Islamic State fighters could make their way to Afghanistan. However, that concern was refuted by ISAF commander Gen. John Campbell, who said that "This is not Iraq. I don't see [Islamic State] coming into Afghanistan like they did into Iraq. The Afghan Security Forces would not allow that." Campbell also described the Afghan National Army as "the number one respected institution in Afghanistan. Couple years ago, I probably wouldn't have said that, but today it is."_


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2015)

The Afghan Security Forces won't allow ISIS to roost, but they can't beat the Taliban without our help? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ghani knows he'll end up like Najibullah and it won't take 4 years. These people can rot and reap the whirlwind. When the TB come in they will massacre anyone and everyone not devoted to the cause. Then the HQN will turn on the TB and we'll some hot Pashtun on Pashtun action while the "United Front" leftovers (Tajik, Uzbek, etc.) will once again make a conclave in the north. The PK's have supplied the TB and HQN, so they'll either support the TB or sit back and wait for one group to oust the other. PK will embrace the new leaders like they did the TB in the 90's....and we'll be right back to the same state, more or less, as in 1999-2000. The only thing 10k in troops does until 2016 is leave our foot in the door if we need to return. Our decisions regarding Afghanistan were broken in 2002, so why start now?

We've had two presidents botch this war, so I'm looking forward to 2016.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 5, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> The Afghan Security Forces won't allow ISIS to roost, but they can't beat the Taliban without our help? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ghani knows he'll end up like Najibullah and it won't take 4 years. These people can rot and reap the whirlwind. When the TB come in they will massacre anyone and everyone not devoted to the cause. Then the HQN will turn on the TB and we'll some hot Pashtun on Pashtun action while the "United Front" leftovers (Tajik, Uzbek, etc.) will once again make a conclave in the north. The PK's have supplied the TB and HQN, so they'll either support the TB or sit back and wait for one group to oust the other. PK will embrace the new leaders like they did the TB in the 90's....and we'll be right back to the same state, more or less, as in 1999-2000. The only thing 10k in troops does until 2016 is leave our foot in the door if we need to return. Our decisions regarding Afghanistan were broken in 2002, so why start now?
> 
> We've had two presidents botch this war, so I'm looking forward to 2016.


Slightly disagree, I think the initial push (2002) was good, but Rumsfeld handcuffed the TF Commanders, which allowed UBL to get away.
That created the "need" for a big Army footprint, and then it became a holding action when OIF kicked off.


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2015)

SOWT said:


> Slightly disagree, I think the initial push (2002) was good, but Rumsfeld handcuffed the TF Commanders, which allowed UBL to get away.
> That created the "need" for a big Army footprint, and then it became a holding action when OIF kicked off.


 
I put 2002 in for a reason. SOF and the CIA brilliantly ran the war until the "need" for large units was "discovered" and 18th Airborne took over in 2002. All through the 90's "low intensity conflict" was a great buzz phrase and indeed many of our efforts fell along those models. I don't think we learned anything and I don't think we had leadership even remotely prepared for Afghanistan and a sustained COIN campaign. By late 2002 we'd lost the war, but we've kept the patient on life support since then.

Not only was our thinking flawed and our leadership out of its depth, but we also had Iraq. Iraq guaranteed this war would be lost, but even without it I think it was hopeless by late 2002.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 5, 2015)

I think the beginning of the end was the Loya jirga in 2003 and the "election" in 2004.  We should have just carved up the country then.  The whole ME and Northern Africa need new borders drawn.  Start by nuking it and put radiation warning signs.  Fuck them.


----------



## Flagg (Jan 5, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I put 2002 in for a reason. SOF and the CIA brilliantly ran the war until the "need" for large units was "discovered" and 18th Airborne took over in 2002. All through the 90's "low intensity conflict" was a great buzz phrase and indeed many of our efforts fell along those models. I don't think we learned anything and I don't think we had leadership even remotely prepared for Afghanistan and a sustained COIN campaign. By late 2002 we'd lost the war, but we've kept the patient on life support since then.
> 
> Not only was our thinking flawed and our leadership out of its depth, but we also had Iraq. Iraq guaranteed this war would be lost, but even without it I think it was hopeless by late 2002.



I've always wondered what the outcome could have been if restrictions were placed on Afghan deployments, much like El Salvador in the 1980's?

Instead of a mandated headcount ceiling of 55, maybe somewhere between 550-5500 total SF/SOF/support.

Although it probably would not have changed the fact that while Pakistan can't guarantee Afghanistan's success, it has certainly guaranteed it's failure.


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2015)

Flagg said:


> I've always wondered what the outcome could have been if restrictions were placed on Afghan deployments, much like El Salvador in the 1980's?
> 
> Instead of a mandated headcount ceiling of 55, maybe somewhere between 550-5500 total SF/SOF/support.
> 
> Although it probably would not have changed the fact that while Pakistan can't guarantee Afghanistan's success, it has certainly guaranteed it's failure.


 
A cap wouldn't matter. If we don't use our tools effectively then we fail large or we fail small, but we still fail.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 5, 2015)

SecDef also capped what we could bomb, he thought rebuilding shit would be too expensive.
We could have bombed, rebuilt, and redeployed cheaper then his master plan.
I hate Rumsfeld.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jan 6, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I put 2002 in for a reason. SOF and the CIA brilliantly ran the war until the "need" for large units was "discovered" and 18th Airborne took over in 2002. All through the 90's "low intensity conflict" was a great buzz phrase and indeed many of our efforts fell along those models. I don't think we learned anything and I don't think we had leadership even remotely prepared for Afghanistan and a sustained COIN campaign. By late 2002 we'd lost the war, but we've kept the patient on life support since then.


 
I recall when 18th Airborne took over in 2002 and was sitting in a briefing following a meeting of the minds with 18th Airborne and SOF folks.  When it was requested that we use their air assets for local recce missions and other stuff the exact words were: "...our aircraft aren't here for your men to galavant around the countryside."



RackMaster said:


> I think the beginning of the end was the Loya jirga in 2003 and the "election" in 2004.


 
During the first loya jirga in 2002 there was a supposed dusk till dawn curfew where we were located.  I was sitting on a gun truck along with an SF dude relieving one of my dudes, watching a truck full of military age males come from the direction of the Pakistan border at sunset.  Yeah, we were told to let them go...and off they went. 

Just a couple examples of why I decided that after 6.5 years in the Army that it just wasn't worth it anymore.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 6, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I put 2002 in for a reason. SOF and the CIA brilliantly ran the war until the "need" for large units was "discovered" and 18th Airborne took over in 2002. All through the 90's "low intensity conflict" was a great buzz phrase and indeed many of our efforts fell along those models. I don't think we learned anything and I don't think we had leadership even remotely prepared for Afghanistan and a sustained COIN campaign. By late 2002 we'd lost the war, but we've kept the patient on life support since then.
> 
> Not only was our thinking flawed and our leadership out of its depth, but we also had Iraq. Iraq guaranteed this war would be lost, but even without it I think it was hopeless by late 2002.



Too many people trying to do state building when they needed to be nation building... or better yet, not building anything at all.


----------



## AWP (Jan 11, 2015)

The irony of Democrats eating their own regarding our Afghan "retrograde"...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/07/top-dems-warn-obama-not-to-stick-to-afghan-timeline/



> Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Wednesday voiced deep concern about any plan to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan too quickly.
> “If we haven’t learned about too fast a withdrawal from what’s happened in Iraq and the dissolution of the Iraqi forces in the face of an attack by [the Islamic State], that would be of serious concern,” she told the _Washington Examiner_.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 11, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> The irony of Democrats eating their own regarding our Afghan "retrograde"...
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/07/top-dems-warn-obama-not-to-stick-to-afghan-timeline/



I think the dems have realized he doesn't care about the party, and he only cares about himself.

Iraq is going on His (and Hillary's) shoulders in the run up to 2016.  Too bad the Republican's will run a doofus like Jeb Bush as their Presidential Candidate in 2016.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 1, 2015)

Apparently the Army has discovered how to hide graft, corruption and incompetence in Afghanistan.
Make it NATO-Secret, and investigators can't get to the documents.
I hope the Senate screws the Gen (in charge)  over this.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-pentagons-new-afghanistan-policy-way-more-secrecy-584ee6ea09c4


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2015)

...and people think I'm being sarcastic when I call OEF-A one giant case of fraud, waste, and abuse.


----------

