daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 minute ago, Doc said: Yes, OPERATIONAL as in poor leadership from the top. Not hard to understand. You think the president has operational control over the troops?? LOL Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 30 minutes ago, daz28 said: Sounds more like a GQP hearing blows up in their face once again: "I was the overall commander and I and I alone bear full military responsibility for what happened at Abbey Gate," said former Retired Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., who served as commander of U.S. Central Command from 2019 to 2022, during a congressional hearing. For those who watch Fox, and love to misinterpret everything, that means it was an OPERATIONAL failure. The generals were all over the place, saying it was too slow and too late, but also saying that we should have kept 2,500 troops there, while also admitting that would have been a, "significant risk on U.S. forces. But is worth that risk." Also saying that the takeover by the Taliban wouldn't have been "as swift" if we would have kept those 2,500 troops there under "moderate to significant risk'. So iow, keep some forces there, in imminent danger, because it would have taken longer for the Taliban to take over. Brilliant general, brilliant. It was not an operational failure, it was a strategic failure that was ordered from Washington. 2500 troops positioned at Bagram would have likely prevented the debacle. 2500 is not a small number in this context. Instead, the Washington decision resulted in the disastrous embarrassment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 5 minutes ago, daz28 said: You think the president has operational control over the troops?? LOL Try again. You mean the Commander in Chief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 4 minutes ago, daz28 said: You think the president has operational control over the troops?? LOL Try again. You are dead wrong. Of course he has operational control if he so chooses. See Operation Eagle Claw, the Carter thing, and Rolling Thunder, ( as well as other Viet Nam failures) as evidence. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 10 minutes ago, sherpa said: It was not an operational failure, it was a strategic failure that was ordered from Washington. 2500 troops positioned at Bagram would have likely prevented the debacle. 2500 is not a small number in this context. Instead, the Washington decision resulted in the disastrous embarrassment. One general took responsibility, the other did not. At the strategic level, we got out of Afghanistan. On the operational level, they failed, but Milley is misusing words, and pointing fingers at the state department. He literally said the 2.500 troops would have only stopped the "swift" takeover. The inevitable takeover happened swiftly, because their president cut and ran. He said those 2,500 troops would have been at "significant risk" of harm. I'd rather not risk those 2,500 troops lives to merely prevent an inevitable takeover. The disaster was Abbey Gate, and the general took FULL responsibility. The SGT had a chance to take a shot, but his OPERATIONAL commander bungled it. Edited March 19 by daz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Couldn't disagree more. Complete blame deserves to be on the Biden Administration. Bagram could have been easily defended with 2500 US troops with their defenses, against the street thugs. Didn't happen, and that is on the Administration. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 Sorry guys: The operational level of war is the level of command situated between the tactical and the strategic, between the company or battalion commander in the field and the president in the White House. It is in the exercise of operational art that today’s senior generals, like McChrystal, hope to reach the acme of their professional careers. 5 minutes ago, sherpa said: Couldn't disagree more. Complete blame deserves to be on the Biden Administration. Bagram could have been easily defended with 2500 US troops with their defenses, against the street thugs. Didn't happen, and that is on the Administration. Those 2,500 troops weren't to be there for that. They were to be there to prevent the Taliban from taking over Afghani government, not to protect Bagram AB. That was inevitable. The general said those troops would have been at significant risk of harm. I'm glad they didn't remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 The 2500 troops could have been used for any purpose. A proposal was submitted by JCS and SecDef to have such a contingent remain in order to support an orderly withdrawal. The President rejected that, and later denied, in spite of testimony from those two appointees, that such an option was presented. On a tactical note, rules of engagement are promulgated to operators from Washington. Specific weapons free decisions are made by individuals or on scene commanders, if time permits, based on the situation. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, sherpa said: The 2500 troops could have been used for any purpose. A proposal was submitted by JCS and SecDef to have such a contingent remain in order to support an orderly withdrawal. The President rejected that, and later denied, in spite of testimony from those two appointees, that such an option was presented. On a tactical note, rules of engagement are promulgated to operators from Washington. Specific weapons free decisions are made by individuals or on scene commanders, if time permits, based on the situation. They said that they had already been allowed to fire shots recently, so the bungle of the SGT not taking the shot was his commander not knowing what the current orders were. He literally said, "I don't know", but I guess that was Biden not being a good operational commander's fault, right? Heck, why not put Biden right behind a few sandbags at Bagram, so he can give the fire order directly to the sniper when he spots a random suicide bomber? If the sniper's commander hadn't bungled that request to fire, there isn't even an issue. Well, Fox would have found a way to make it look bad, but.... I don' think you're understanding the 2,500 troops thing. They were to remain behind in a deteriorating situation. Milley said the main problem was our allied Afghani troops were poorly trained, and "melted away". They were meant to stay and protect the government. trump reduced troops levels to 2,500 in January, so it's basically saying NO troops would be leaving. I hope you're not trying to say we evacuated all the troops and then civilians after with no protection? Edited March 20 by daz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Biden is not responsible for handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban and releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Biden is not responsible for handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban and releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners. For a deal that they were not upholding one single part of the entire time it was negotiated, and before even one single prisoner was released. The Afghan president was coming out and saying that the terms trump were offering were lies. Then after the prisoners were released, they continued to not honor any of the deal, which made the May 1st "deal" one that couldn't be believed to be honored. Anyone can google the withdrawal timeline unless they don't want to spoil their inaccurate narratives. The art of the deal. Edited March 20 by daz28 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 8 hours ago, BillStime said: Excuses. The terms negotiated by the previous administration were conditional based on the Taliban's adherence to the conditions at the time of the withdrawal. As they were not in compliance execution of the withdrawal in any form should not have occurred. But the administration was in a rush so they proceeded with Biden's "plan", even disregarding the input from military commanders. Biden was not bound by any previous agreement. And demonstrated that in other areas which I will mention. What went on in the aftermath and what we're seeing in Haiti is this administration's policy towards Americans caught in foreign conflict areas is a policy of abandonment. Private and citizen group efforts rescued more Americans and our allies in Afghanistan than Biden did and the same is true in Haiti right now. You can't depend on Biden's crew for any help. You need to take the loss here and move on. Even so, the Biden administration was not bound by the previous terms. And demonstrated they had no hesitation reversing course when they desired. They had no trouble scuttling the set of executive orders that secured the border during Trump's term and replacing them with the current chaos and claims the most powerful country in the world had no ability to stop an invasion of illegals from streaming across the border. Simply pathetic excuses. Nobody is falling for these lies either. They had no trouble scuttling the Keystone pipeline which was getting close to operational capabilities. Oil from Keystone would have mitigated much of the inflation and price surge caused by the sanctions that disrupted to worldwide flow of oil and would also have eliminated the need for the administration to kiss the ass of the repressive regime in Caracas begging them to supply more oil to the market. When it comes to big picture thinking Biden and his clown show cast of misfits and idiots are a giant clusterfuk. The damage another 4 years these malevolent idiots could cause is incalculable. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Excuses. The terms negotiated by the previous administration were conditional based on the Taliban's adherence to the conditions at the time of the withdrawal. As they were not in compliance execution of the withdrawal in any form should not have occurred. But the administration was in a rush so they proceeded with Biden's "plan", even disregarding the input from military commanders. Biden was not bound by any previous agreement. And demonstrated that in other areas which I will mention. What went on in the aftermath and what we're seeing in Haiti is this administration's policy towards Americans caught in foreign conflict areas is a policy of abandonment. Private and citizen group efforts rescued more Americans and our allies in Afghanistan than Biden did and the same is true in Haiti right now. You can't depend on Biden's crew for any help. You need to take the loss here and move on. Even so, the Biden administration was not bound by the previous terms. And demonstrated they had no hesitation reversing course when they desired. They had no trouble scuttling the set of executive orders that secured the border during Trump's term and replacing them with the current chaos and claims the most powerful country in the world had no ability to stop an invasion of illegals from streaming across the border. Simply pathetic excuses. Nobody is falling for these lies either. They had no trouble scuttling the Keystone pipeline which was getting close to operational capabilities. Oil from Keystone would have mitigated much of the inflation and price surge caused by the sanctions that disrupted to worldwide flow of oil and would also have eliminated the need for the administration to kiss the ass of the repressive regime in Caracas begging them to supply more oil to the market. When it comes to big picture thinking Biden and his clown show cast of misfits and idiots are a giant clusterfuk. The damage another 4 years these malevolent idiots could cause is incalculable. I have no military experience, but the notion that the Afghanistan debacle was pre-ordained by the actions of the Trump admin is absurd. Daz name-dropping Fox every 5th paragraph is compelling, of course, but ultimately nonsense. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Blaming Trump for their debacles? Shocker! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Excuses. The terms negotiated by the previous administration were conditional based on the Taliban's adherence to the conditions at the time of the withdrawal. As they were not in compliance execution of the withdrawal in any form should not have occurred. But the administration was in a rush so they proceeded with Biden's "plan", even disregarding the input from military commanders. This is exactly true, and I have pointed it out here, more than once. The Trump plan had an out, if noncompliance. It was not used. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is exactly true, and I have pointed it out here, more than once. The Trump plan had an out, if noncompliance. It was not used. I don’t think you were here at the time but many of us were saying the same thing back when it happened. Tibs and BS were trying to claim Joke had no choice and still haven’t budged from that wrong/mendacious belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 My God, these leftists idiots defending Bi-dumb and making excuses that he had NOTHING to do with the hideous withdrawal are beyond disgusting. And, of course, the Bi-dumb/dumb lefties are blaming Trump. BIG SHOCK. Absolutely disgusting mor0ns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Bigger picture: I found this interview fascinating (courtesy of the marginalrevolution blog): https://www.statecraft.pub/p/how-to-run-a-cia-base-in-afghanistan?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7b960&triedRedirect=true It's with a former CIA Chief of Base in Afghanistan. Excellent discussion of what the CIA does, and also of why the ultimate mission was doomed to failure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts