A big problem I see with this is that it can never be a complete pullout- we will likely maintain an embassy with the requisite military protection, and sadly still probably have civilians with nation building duties scattered about with security elements, meaning risk to Americans will be a constant. We need to pull everyone otherwise we will be constantly sending QRF in to rescue people and defend the embassy

"Peace Treaties" are like rain puddles on the road. As soon as the major element is diminished or gone the puddle is no longer!

Well it looks like the treaty is off due to the Afghani President not releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners according to Breitbart.

Didn't last long...

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
Well it looks like the treaty is off due to the Afghani President not releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners according to Breitbart.

Didn't last long...

I can't really fault him for that. Adding 5,000 fighters to the Taliban doesn't seem like a good move. What the hell did anyone think would happen?

Jim

And they are back to fighting

“After he had lost his son Robert in Afghanistan, my friend and colleague in arms, General John Kelly, said, ‘I think the one thing [the parents of the fallen] would ask is that the cause for which their son or daughter fell be carried through to a successful end, whatever that means, as opposed to “This is getting too costly,” or “Too much of a pain in the ass,” or “Let’s just walk away from it.” They were willing to go where the nation’s leaders told them to go and in many cases gave their lives for the mission. They were willing to see it through literally to their ends. Can we do less?’”

— James N. Mattis [General, U.S. Marine Corps and former Secretary of Defense], Call Sign Chaos (New York: Random House, 2019), 249.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“After he had lost his son Robert in Afghanistan, my friend and colleague in arms, General John Kelly, said, ‘I think the one thing [the parents of the fallen] would ask is that the cause for which their son or daughter fell be carried through to a successful end, whatever that means, as opposed to “This is getting too costly,” or “Too much of a pain in the ass,” or “Let’s just walk away from it.” They were willing to go where the nation’s leaders told them to go and in many cases gave their lives for the mission. They were willing to see it through literally to their ends. Can we do less?’”

— James N. Mattis [General, U.S. Marine Corps], Call Sign Chaos (New York: Random House, 2019), 249.

Yeah, I'll disagree with sending more blood into the machine just to make a Gold Star family feel better.

Or if they want to see it carried through to completion, they can join up and fight like their children, if it really means that much to them. Or ensure all their other children / grandchildren fight.

But I don't think you'd see that desire, at all.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“After he had lost his son Robert in Afghanistan, my friend and colleague in arms, General John Kelly, said, ‘I think the one thing [the parents of the fallen] would ask is that the cause for which their son or daughter fell be carried through to a successful end, whatever that means, as opposed to “This is getting too costly,” or “Too much of a pain in the ass,” or “Let’s just walk away from it.” They were willing to go where the nation’s leaders told them to go and in many cases gave their lives for the mission. They were willing to see it through literally to their ends. Can we do less?’”

— James N. Mattis [General, U.S. Marine Corps], Call Sign Chaos (New York: Random House, 2019), 249.

Yeah, I'll disagree with sending more blood into the machine just to make a Gold Star family feel better.

Or if they want to see it carried through to completion, they can join up and fight like their children, if it really means that much to them. Or ensure all their other children / grandchildren fight.

But I don't think you'd see that desire, at all.

My response is somewhat similar to yours. I agree that we shouldn’t keep sending our blood over to that shithole, but I do wish we would end up with more of a resolution. My belief is to come closer to meeting our objectives but with a scorched earth policy not by sending more people over. We need mass, indiscriminate bombings and complete destruction of as much infrastructure and as many people as possible. No more strategic targets of interest or fear of collateral damage. Either we commit to eliminating every resident of that shithole if that’s what it takes to eliminate the threat or keep destroying until an unequivocal surrender or we just leave there and send a few tactical strikes (bombings only, no boots on the ground) every once in a while to keep them on their toes.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Sometimes, the best thing to do is cut our losses and bring our boys home. The alternative is to continue hemorrhaging blood and treasure for an unattainable goal.

That, I think right there is the blind-spot that the military brass aren't able to comprehend thus, where we are at. Not sure what is being taught at the graduate level war colleges but, formulating strategic war time objectives and creating a plan around them, seems to be a missing course. Layer in a National Command Authority that changes every 4-8 years with various political ideas or, not being able to hold 4-star CoCom's feet to the fire, is a recipe for NOT winning a war but allowing inertia to take over. Here we are going on 20-years, sure airplanes can land in Kabul, a few malls/market squares have been developed and the road in/out to Pakistan have improved but...not much else has.

Squashing AQ and toppling the Taliban occurred within 18-months of the first boots on the ground. The jointness orgy took over and massive bases pop'd up with everyone eager to get their theater box checked on their way to a 20-yr pension.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“After he had lost his son Robert in Afghanistan, my friend and colleague in arms, General John Kelly, said, ‘I think the one thing [the parents of the fallen] would ask is that the cause for which their son or daughter fell be carried through to a successful end, whatever that means, as opposed to “This is getting too costly,” or “Too much of a pain in the ass,” or “Let’s just walk away from it.” They were willing to go where the nation’s leaders told them to go and in many cases gave their lives for the mission. They were willing to see it through literally to their ends. Can we do less?’”

— James N. Mattis [General, U.S. Marine Corps and former Secretary of Defense], Call Sign Chaos (New York: Random House, 2019), 249.

Interesting that a famed GO would appeal to sentimentalism rather than logic to justify continuing a campaign he cannot win. Pathetic. I’ve come to be utterly disgusted by the famous generals from these wars. Mattis, Patreaus, McRaven... all had these huge reputations but couldn’t deliver victory and couldn’t admit they couldn’t deliver victory. So they’ve dressed up their failures in emotions and nuanced Op Eds..pathetic.

I might feel differently if military leadership was truly doing all in their power to win. But we aren’t. Make no mistake, Mattis wants to continue sending young people into the meat grinder without the ROE or political will to enable victory. He increases our physical risk to decrease risk to his reputation.

Bottom line, all these wars are winnable. The enemy is not invincible. We simply remain politically unwilling to use the degree of violence required to motivate their surrender or attrit them into defeat. And it would be severe: think about how we won the Indian wars.

If you are unable or unwilling to do what is required to win, continuing is irresponsible folly. That is the type of logic I expect from a general officer. Dispense with emotional rhetoric.