(Checks my screen name, slinks into the shadows)
Bloated SOF in Afghanistan doesn't remotely compare to almost any any conventional presence in Afghanistan. That was my point about conventional troops, but you do you.
The Afghanistan and Pakistan Thread
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
(Checks my screen name, slinks into the shadows)
Bloated SOF in Afghanistan doesn't remotely compare to almost any any conventional presence in Afghanistan. That was my point about conventional troops, but you do you.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
The guys who did these simulations are the same people that thought 8 helicopters was enough to evacuate the US Embassy in Tehran. Not sure you could do the surgical strike to really degrade AQ and Bin Laden.
Topkick
Verified Military
You could ask the same about Saddam Hussein.
Last edited:
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,781
I'd argue that part of the problem with Afghanistan was the very belief that "we" needed to take and hold ground in either of those theaters. I'll never quite understand why we needed to go into Iraq - but hey - fuck em...
You see, Iraq is a country in the middle east. It exists on the same planet as another country called the USA. The USA is a bigger country. The USA decided to invade a smaller country called Iraq, so basically that’s wrong except that it allowed Box to score a 150,000 dollar tax exempt critical skilz retention bonus...
...so, I am OK with the Iraq war - for whatever reason we used to go there.
Afghanistan made a little more sense because of a man named Alfred Kayduh. Al Kayduh tried to fuck us, so we decided to fuck him right back - with interest...
...compounded by more interest that required us to take retribution.
We didn't need to "take and hold ground" - but that is just my opinion. We needed to TAKE retribution. "We" needed to whip some ass for plotting against us. "We" should have showed up, broke some windows, kicked some sheep, knocked over some tea kettles, demolished some ammunition depots, destroyed a bunch of crew served weapons, and set a bunch of vehicles on fire...
...then we should have sat around and ate pulled pork sandwiches while waiting for the fires to burn out.
Once we installed Karzai, taking and hiolding wasn't our business anyway - Afghanistan became good guys over night - and you dont take and hold ground from your allies. Even more to the point - we didn't just start "holding" ground that wasn't ours to hold - We started zealously developing ground. Holding ground in Afghanistan should have NEVER been any more complicated than setting up a patrol base.
Salsa night - pizza joints - burger king - those arent taking and holding territory - those are vehicles for driving profit.
...but it was fun while it lasted.
You see, Iraq is a country in the middle east. It exists on the same planet as another country called the USA. The USA is a bigger country. The USA decided to invade a smaller country called Iraq, so basically that’s wrong except that it allowed Box to score a 150,000 dollar tax exempt critical skilz retention bonus...
...so, I am OK with the Iraq war - for whatever reason we used to go there.
Afghanistan made a little more sense because of a man named Alfred Kayduh. Al Kayduh tried to fuck us, so we decided to fuck him right back - with interest...
...compounded by more interest that required us to take retribution.
We didn't need to "take and hold ground" - but that is just my opinion. We needed to TAKE retribution. "We" needed to whip some ass for plotting against us. "We" should have showed up, broke some windows, kicked some sheep, knocked over some tea kettles, demolished some ammunition depots, destroyed a bunch of crew served weapons, and set a bunch of vehicles on fire...
...then we should have sat around and ate pulled pork sandwiches while waiting for the fires to burn out.
Once we installed Karzai, taking and hiolding wasn't our business anyway - Afghanistan became good guys over night - and you dont take and hold ground from your allies. Even more to the point - we didn't just start "holding" ground that wasn't ours to hold - We started zealously developing ground. Holding ground in Afghanistan should have NEVER been any more complicated than setting up a patrol base.
Salsa night - pizza joints - burger king - those arent taking and holding territory - those are vehicles for driving profit.
...but it was fun while it lasted.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I understand your point, but they weren't the same people, and a thing or two changed between 1979 and 2001.
The famous "horse soldiers" didn't need thousands of conventional troops to support. They did ok without a Green Beans and Subway. I imagine if we stuck with SOF-centric operations with minimal footprint of conventional support we could have done what we needed to do, especially with air power and using the Kitty Hawk as a SOF staging ground.
One of my favorite conversations from early 2002 was with a Marine lieutenant who went ashore with the first wave. He said he wanted to shoot booger-eaters as much as the next guy, but where was the "marine" element that makes the Corps so unique? He said they didn't need to go other than to say they were there. But we all know how those political discussions go.
Kraut783
SOF Support
"I’ve been meaning to ask this question for a while. Could we have gone in after 9/11 with the limited objectives of finding and killing UBL, destroying AQ (as much as it was possible to do so), and killing anybody (i.e. Taliban) who offered resistance, without all the nation-building, civic action, drug interdiction, and political intrigues in Kabul?"
Yes, absolutely. Keep the warlords in power, give no shits to their drug program, no nation building...all good.
Yes, absolutely. Keep the warlords in power, give no shits to their drug program, no nation building...all good.
Good. Fuck em all.
"I’ve been meaning to ask this question for a while. Could we have gone in after 9/11 with the limited objectives of finding and killing UBL, destroying AQ (as much as it was possible to do so), and killing anybody (i.e. Taliban) who offered resistance, without all the nation-building, civic action, drug interdiction, and political intrigues in Kabul?"
If the mission was 1) wreck Al Qaeda, and 2) make sure Afghanistan couldn't be used as a base to attack us again, then IMO the answer is "no." We would have had to go in heavy, and in for the duration, because part 2) means not only wrecking what's in place now, but creating conditions for the future.
So if we were going to go in without all of the Powell Doctrine and Democratic Peace Theory nonsense, then we would have had to limit the scope of the original mission to 1).
I would have been OK with that.
If the mission was 1) wreck Al Qaeda, and 2) make sure Afghanistan couldn't be used as a base to attack us again, then IMO the answer is "no." We would have had to go in heavy, and in for the duration, because part 2) means not only wrecking what's in place now, but creating conditions for the future.
So if we were going to go in without all of the Powell Doctrine and Democratic Peace Theory nonsense, then we would have had to limit the scope of the original mission to 1).
I would have been OK with that.
This is on the verge of giving me a perma-boner. The delicious irony of the Taliban and PK killing each other after PK's loooonnnnggggggg and well documented history of supporting the Taliban. The Taliban would be a footnote in history without PK military support from the late 90's until a few years ago.
Neither side can be successful enough fighting this war. Besides, if PK runs out of bombs, we'll just give them an aid package like every third country on the planet right now.
Kill until the score is paid, boys!
Neither side can be successful enough fighting this war. Besides, if PK runs out of bombs, we'll just give them an aid package like every third country on the planet right now.
Kill until the score is paid, boys!
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 618
I agree, and 9/11 was the one major event where our diplomatic standing as exemplars of democratic progress would have remained the most intact if we had focused on that primary objective. It some ways it might have improved, since there would have been less time and opportunity for several of our brothers and sisters to make some of the bad decisions (re: international incidents) they made while posted in support of those follow-on objectives.
Applying the Powell Doctrine could have actually helped us avoid both invading Iraq and sticking around in Afghanistan, because unlike in our response to Al-Qaeda's attack, the other two military actions didn't meet the Doctrine's threshold for activation since the targets (Iraq and the Afghan infrastructure) did not represent vital threats to national security with clear attainable objectives and viable exit strategies.
All of which doesn't matter if the acting administration has pre-set goals that are curbed by applying those guidelines. Politics in practice makes it very rare for any sitting president not to have them.
With regard to OIF: They had pre-set goals, all right…and the wrong plan.
Last edited:
COULD we? Sure.
But we had no chance of that. Ever.
I don't know if it began with the Balkans or what, but world pressure and our hubris wouldn't allow us to fly in, break stuff, and leave. The "solution" was seen as "humane": replace the Taliban with some old fashioned Democracy. Easy peasy, the best way to avoid these things in the future. A national level execution of "give a man to fish, teach a man to fish".
Pivoting a bit, one could make the argument the rapid SOF campaign which brought down the country contributed greatly to our view on Afghanistan. We thought the country a pushover and after years of oppressive Taliban rule, how hard could it be to rebuild a country? I seriously think sometimes the Bush admin thought they would have a Northern Ireland type of situation on hand: limited violence along the way to a peaceful resolution.
Yeah, Western pressure/ beliefs wouldn't allow us to even consider breaking stuff and leaving. The best option didn't stand a chance.
If we do a surface-level examination we see that it made sense to go into Afghanistan like we did. If the goals were, as several people have mentioned in this thread, to 1) defeat AQ and 2) make sure AFG couldn't be used as a base to attack us again... well, to quote T.R. Fehrenbach, you're going to have to put your young men in the mud.
Going heavy into Afghanistan made sense strategically. The Taliban were bad people and were helping facilitate disruption around the world by allowing various terrorist organizations free reign inside their territory. And if there's one thing that a global hegemon dislikes more than anything else, it's disruption. We were never going to fully defeat AQ unless we went in on the ground. We could shoot all the missiles we want, we can drop bombs to our heart's content, but we all know that in the way we fight today, decisive ops happen on the ground. And if we were going to make sure the Taliban weren't going to allow AQ to reconstitute, or other terrorist groups use their territory to attack us, then we had to invade.
Moreover, Afghanistan is super-strategically positioned. Landlocked and with bad neighbors, Afghanistan borders Iran (whom we don't like), three of the former parts of the Soviet Union (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan), China (whom we don't like) and Pakistan (whom we... well, it's complicated). So having a US presence there, at say, Bagram airbase, would be great strategic positioning for us. If nuclear-armed Pakistan falls apart... we're right there. If Iran wants to get froggy... we now can threaten their east flank. If Russia starts breaking bad... we have a major air base super-close to their soft underbelly. Plus, yeah-yeah Al Qaeda blahblahblah.
So it makes sense... unless you start thinking it through. Afghans have a culture built around austerity and warfare. People like to say Afghanistan has never been conquered, but that's bullshit. Just about anyone who wanted to rolled over the country, from Alexander the Great onward. But no one wanted to keep it, because the Afghans are ungovernable. They can't even govern themselves. There was no way that we were going to make the generations-long commitment to doing what it took to make Afghanistan functional. Plus, the Taliban never saw themselves as defeated, and Afghanistan as only temporarily occupied. "The Americans have the watches, but we have the time." Plus, with our erstwhile "allies," Pakistan, not only allowing the insurgency to rest, train, and grow inside their FATA, but also directing Taliban proxies against us (looking at you, ISI and HQN), we never had a chance of being successful.
We also tried to foist a whole bunch of other people's pet projects onto to an Afghanistan that was not ready for it. We were trying to give "democracy" and centralized government to people who don't even listen to their local tribal chiefs. We did infrastructure improvement projects that the locals didn't want, and weren't willing to maintain. We gave the Afghans equipment like Blackhawk helicopters that were super expensive and costly & complicated to maintain. We were trying to build girls' schools in a country where women were cloistered and pederasty was not only accepted, but encouraged.
Going in on the ground made sense, but what also made sense was to go all Gulf War 1 on them and then go home. Maybe fund a little Northern Alliance for a while. Something. Anything other than this.
Going heavy into Afghanistan made sense strategically. The Taliban were bad people and were helping facilitate disruption around the world by allowing various terrorist organizations free reign inside their territory. And if there's one thing that a global hegemon dislikes more than anything else, it's disruption. We were never going to fully defeat AQ unless we went in on the ground. We could shoot all the missiles we want, we can drop bombs to our heart's content, but we all know that in the way we fight today, decisive ops happen on the ground. And if we were going to make sure the Taliban weren't going to allow AQ to reconstitute, or other terrorist groups use their territory to attack us, then we had to invade.
Moreover, Afghanistan is super-strategically positioned. Landlocked and with bad neighbors, Afghanistan borders Iran (whom we don't like), three of the former parts of the Soviet Union (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan), China (whom we don't like) and Pakistan (whom we... well, it's complicated). So having a US presence there, at say, Bagram airbase, would be great strategic positioning for us. If nuclear-armed Pakistan falls apart... we're right there. If Iran wants to get froggy... we now can threaten their east flank. If Russia starts breaking bad... we have a major air base super-close to their soft underbelly. Plus, yeah-yeah Al Qaeda blahblahblah.
So it makes sense... unless you start thinking it through. Afghans have a culture built around austerity and warfare. People like to say Afghanistan has never been conquered, but that's bullshit. Just about anyone who wanted to rolled over the country, from Alexander the Great onward. But no one wanted to keep it, because the Afghans are ungovernable. They can't even govern themselves. There was no way that we were going to make the generations-long commitment to doing what it took to make Afghanistan functional. Plus, the Taliban never saw themselves as defeated, and Afghanistan as only temporarily occupied. "The Americans have the watches, but we have the time." Plus, with our erstwhile "allies," Pakistan, not only allowing the insurgency to rest, train, and grow inside their FATA, but also directing Taliban proxies against us (looking at you, ISI and HQN), we never had a chance of being successful.
We also tried to foist a whole bunch of other people's pet projects onto to an Afghanistan that was not ready for it. We were trying to give "democracy" and centralized government to people who don't even listen to their local tribal chiefs. We did infrastructure improvement projects that the locals didn't want, and weren't willing to maintain. We gave the Afghans equipment like Blackhawk helicopters that were super expensive and costly & complicated to maintain. We were trying to build girls' schools in a country where women were cloistered and pederasty was not only accepted, but encouraged.
Going in on the ground made sense, but what also made sense was to go all Gulf War 1 on them and then go home. Maybe fund a little Northern Alliance for a while. Something. Anything other than this.
Topkick
Verified Military
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Oh, Really Mark? But you won't be accountable?
Topkick
Verified Military
It's just what they do after they retire to get invites to podcasts and CNN. My guess its a very lucrative gig.
Is his book out yet?
Last edited:
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,781
That fat fuck sounding off about someone owing "American families answers about Afghanistan" is one of the most unbelievably arrogant social media posts I have ever seen.
There is no way that is a real statement.
There is no way that the former holder of the title of 'fattest green beret on active duty' said something like that.
There is no way that anyone thinks that is anything but some kind of a poorly timed joke.
May his god reward him with the full measure that he is due for his fine service to our nation during such difficult times.
There is no way that is a real statement.
There is no way that the former holder of the title of 'fattest green beret on active duty' said something like that.
There is no way that anyone thinks that is anything but some kind of a poorly timed joke.
May his god reward him with the full measure that he is due for his fine service to our nation during such difficult times.
Similar threads
