# Afghans to Govern Night Raids?



## TH15 (Apr 8, 2012)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/08/us-afghanistan-agree-to-crucial-deal-on-night-raids/



> KABUL –  ​The Afghan government and the U.S. signed a deal Sunday governing night raids by American troops, resolving an issue that had threatened to derail a larger pact governing a U.S. presence in the country for decades to come.​​The raids were a constant source of tension between Kabul and Washington. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called repeatedly to stop the raids, saying that they are provocative when carried out by foreign troops. The U.S. military has said such operations are essential for capturing Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders.​
> ​Read more:​​http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/08/us-afghanistan-agree-to-crucial-deal-on-night-raids/#ixzz1rSJQpxh8​


This can't be a good thing...
As an outsider, when I read something like this it gives me the inclination that we are looking for a way out of AF. Is that the case here?


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 8, 2012)

Wow


----------



## pardus (Apr 8, 2012)

I'll be very interested to see if the number of HVTs rolled up n these ops decreases or the amount of ambushes/contacts on our guys conducting these raids increasing.


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2012)

TH15 said:


> As an outsider, when I read something like this it gives me the inclination that we are looking for a way out of AF. Is that the case here?


 
What do you mean by "out?" Totally out of the country? Leaving behind a small training cell past 2014? A greatly reduced footprint?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 8, 2012)

This isn't really much different from the way I saw business done in Afghanistan when I was last out there.  There are plusses and minuses to having Afghan involvement/"supervision" in night raids, but with the strategic implications of fallout from night raids, I don't see this as too big a thing to get worked up about, especially since:



> More than 97 percent of night operations are combined operations involving Afghan forces and almost 40 percent of night operations are now Afghan-led, according to the Pentagon. Also, 89 percent of night operations occur without a shot fired and fewer than 1 percent result in civilian casualties, the Pentagon says


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 8, 2012)

so wait, from what I read it basically says that the afghan govt has the say on if/when raids go or not, basically operational control of em. am I reading that right? cause personally with the amount of corruption/taliban sympathy and infiltration in that govt that sounds like a terrible idea.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 8, 2012)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> so wait, from what I read it basically says that the afghan govt has the say on if/when raids go or not, basically operational control of em. am I reading that right? cause personally with the amount of corruption/taliban sympathy and infiltration in that govt that sounds like a terrible idea.


That's my take.
We need to declare victory and come home.


----------



## mike_cos (Apr 8, 2012)

SOWT said:


> That's my take.
> We need to declare victory and come home.


And you must do that soon.. my 1c Eur (LOL)


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 8, 2012)

SOWT said:


> That's my take.
> We need to declare victory and come home.


 
I think this every time a young life is lost over there. Why are we still there?


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 8, 2012)

I'm a patriot always, and while I may not even like our current govt I will always love and support the ideas and principles it was founded on. Having said that I'm never one to speak against war if it's necessary, but let's face it, Afghan isn't gonna improve that much no matter how much time and effort we put in, not with how ingrained things are in their culture OR our constant propping up of the Pak govt that clearly has no love for us and wants to under cut us at every turn. Let's save what little capital we have left and quit wasting lives there, save it all for the next war.


----------



## TH15 (Apr 8, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> What do you mean by "out?" Totally out of the country? Leaving behind a small training cell past 2014? A greatly reduced footprint?


Personally, I would love to see us totally out of there. I don't know enough about the situation to play armchair general as to what should be done with the force. I was looking at this at a comparative standpoint with Iraq when there was the debate over whether or not US soldiers would have immunity in the country.


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2012)

TH15 said:


> Personally, I would love to see us totally out of there. I don't know enough about the situation to play armchair general as to what should be done with the force. I was looking at this at a comparative standpoint with Iraq when there was the debate over whether or not US soldiers would have immunity in the country.


 
Gotcha.

I brought up the point because everyone seems to have a different definition of "out."


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 8, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> I brought up the point because everyone seems to have a different definition of "out."


100% out, then we can say "fuck you" to Pakistan and cut their aid off too.


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2012)

SOWT said:


> 100% out,


 
That could happen though I'm skeptical it will. The 2014 "deadline" and the budget cuts have seen some projects cancelled or modified, but it has also caused some to shift to the left a little. The sheer amount of heavy equipment on Bagram alone is staggering. Hundreds and hundreds of brand new MRAPs and M-ATVs, hardened facilities, buildings..and then there's Shindand...

I see a big drawdown, but I think we're going to hang onto BAF and Shindand. The Afghan AF will still be in the toilet in 2014, especially since the light attack program was delayed/ cancelled or whatever, so I see us keeping Bagram and a squadron of A-10's and -130's in the game, plus the usual cast of support airframes. Unless there's some massive shift at home or here in country, I don't see us walking away like we did in Iraq.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 8, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> That could happen though I'm skeptical it will. The 2014 "deadline" and the budget cuts have seen some projects cancelled or modified, but it has also caused some to shift to the left a little. The sheer amount of heavy equipment on Bagram alone is staggering. Hundreds and hundreds of brand new MRAPs and M-ATVs, hardened facilities, buildings..and then there's Shindand...
> 
> I see a big drawdown, but I think we're going to hang onto BAF and Shindand. The Afghan AF will still be in the toilet in 2014, especially since the light attack program was delayed/ cancelled or whatever, so I see us keeping Bagram and a squadron of A-10's and -130's in the game, plus the usual cast of support airframes. Unless there's some massive shift at home or here in country, I don't see us walking away like we did in Iraq.


Obama re-elected' Bye Bye Karzai.
Romney will think he's being tough and will keep us here.
The General's will fight to stay because it's the only Conventional War they have.


----------



## pardus (Apr 9, 2012)

Conventional?


----------



## mike_cos (Apr 9, 2012)

SOWT said:


> Obama re-elected' Bye Bye Karzai.


Uhm... interesting POV... I agree with you but, admitted that obama wins the election, which is very unlikely, remember that in his previous election campaign he promised to reduce the number of troops and then when elected he added 30,000, can you trust him? And IMO after saying Bye-Bye Karzai, the next sentence will be: "Mr Ahmadinejad I suppose...."


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 9, 2012)

pardus said:


> Conventional?


SOF Guys 'aint running it.
So yes, it's the only war the Conventional (or GPF as they now call themselves) have.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 9, 2012)

I'd absolutely love to see us straight up say fuck Pakistan and cut off their aid, but sadly the geopolitical implications of that govt no matter how shitty it is falling are almost too crappy to really wanna ponder on. God forbid something happening like the Pak govt falling and their nukes falling into the hands of the ISI and them doing anything with them, including handing em off to the Taliban. Not to mention the Pak govt begins to fall they feel they gotta use it or loose it and just decided to toss all the chips into the pot in a all out war with India. Sigh.....we should never have gotten so deeply involved with that shit country.


----------



## pardus (Apr 9, 2012)

SOWT said:


> SOF Guys 'aint running it.
> So yes, it's the only war the Conventional (or GPF as they now call themselves) have.


 
I disagree, just because SOF doesn't own it doesn't change the type of conflict it is.


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2012)

pardus said:


> I disagree, just because SOF doesn't own it doesn't change the type of conflict it is.


 
Perception is truth and the conventional side/ our military leadership se this as a conventional mission. I totally agree with you that this isn't a conventional mission, but it is the only show in town which is why Big Army co-opted it into the behemoth it is today. We're using an 18 wheeler to run to the corner store for a gallon of milk.


----------



## pardus (Apr 9, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Perception is truth and the conventional side/ our military leadership se this as a conventional mission. I totally agree with you that this isn't a conventional mission, but it is the only show in town which is why Big Army co-opted it into the behemoth it is today. We're using an 18 wheeler to run to the corner store for a gallon of milk.


 
Yes I agree absolutely.


----------

