Afghanistan

[DadSmith]

Thought I'd take a peek, but man nothing has improved and it raises my blood pressure. So I'm out of this thread for a few more days.

Totally disgusted with what is happening there, and how it all went down. Joe is a Chinese puppet.

 

[KG1]

Trump admin blows up Soliemani. Biden admin blows up an aid worker.

 

[Tombs]

Trump admin blows up Soliemani. Biden admin blows up an aid worker.

Right back into the Obama years already.

Remember when he droned a Yemeni wedding?

 

[BigRed]

Right back into the Obama years already.

Remember when he droned a Yemeni wedding?

Incompetence is in the progressive dna

 

[ditcherman]

Stuart Sheller’s latest vid

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This isnt good. We knew who the bomber was, where he was going to strike, and even had a drone lock on him, but the brass refused to authorize the shot. Now 13 soldiers are dead because of that inaction. like that is why we didnt win this war.

Bombshell Report Claims US Knew About Kabul Bomber, Had Drone Lock, but Didn't Take the Shot

redstate.com

Well...this didn't age well. Sounds like that denied permission was the right call if the current reports it was the wrong dude are true.

I did remark that I thought it odd we didn't know who the guy was in time to stop anything but did know who he was so quickly afterward for a retaliatory strike. Not that I've got a crystal ball or anything and there certainly are plausible scenarios were that version was true. Just given our history in Afghanistan of taking someone's word that "that guy is your enemy" I was skeptical.

But you can't complain both ways. If you want "unrestricted war" you're going to kill more non-combatants. If you want 100% verification of targets you're going to have very restrictive RoE.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well...this didn't age well. Sounds like that denied permission was the right call if the current reports it was the wrong dude are true.

I did remark that I thought it odd we didn't know who the guy was in time to stop anything but did know who he was so quickly afterward for a retaliatory strike. Not that I've got a crystal ball or anything and there certainly are plausible scenarios were that version was true. Just given our history in Afghanistan of taking someone's word that "that guy is your enemy" I was skeptical.

But you can't complain both ways. If you want "unrestricted war" you're going to kill more non-combatants. If you want 100% verification of targets you're going to have very restrictive RoE.

So something I am honestly curious about. So they say we hit the wrong car now. So was the original report of a secondary explosion indicating they had the right car, a lie? I distinctly remember the presser saying that they suspected it was the guy, but after the missle set off explosives in the car, they knew it was the correct one. So was that a lie? Or was that family carrying explosives because....? Is carrying explosives in your car normal over there? (assuming you arent a terrorist) So does that mean it wasnt the right target, but another bad guy? I mean who carries explosives around in the family truckster with the whole family on board?

Or are the Afghanis lying? Or covering for the bad guy who was using his family as a shield? We know those clowns like to hide with innocents.

I honestly dont have an answer. But I know SOMEBODY is lying. I can either chalk it up to incompetence, lies, or both. On bot sides.

 

[ditcherman]

I mean who carries explosives around in the family truckster with the whole family on board?

Just kidding.
Just kidding.
No really.

 

[ditcherman]

Well...this didn't age well. Sounds like that denied permission was the right call if the current reports it was the wrong dude are true.

I did remark that I thought it odd we didn't know who the guy was in time to stop anything but did know who he was so quickly afterward for a retaliatory strike. Not that I've got a crystal ball or anything and there certainly are plausible scenarios were that version was true. Just given our history in Afghanistan of taking someone's word that "that guy is your enemy" I was skeptical.

But you can't complain both ways. If you want "unrestricted war" you're going to kill more non-combatants. If you want 100% verification of targets you're going to have very restrictive RoE.

Confused. ( goes without saying but you know)
So is the aid worker with the water bottles in the Camry the one that the brass wanted to hold off on hitting but then did?
Or is this unrelated, earlier?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So something I am honestly curious about. So they say we hit the wrong car now. So was the original report of a secondary explosion indicating they had the right car, a lie? I distinctly remember the presser saying that they suspected it was the guy, but after the missle set off explosives in the car, they knew it was the correct one. So was that a lie?

Cars don't typically explode, but they do have a gas tank and I would suppose it's possible with the right series of events to get a secondary explosion out of that. Or tires blowing could fool people into thinking there was a secondary explosion. I'm *assuming* reports of secondary explosions were from either video or ear witnesses or both, not actual eyes on. NYT is reporting that they looked at the wreckage and saw no signs of second "more powerful" explosion upon two examinations. The full article is behind a pay wall so I don't know what expertise the examining team has in post-blast forensics.

I think it's early to say which version is true and if earlier reporting was a lie or an honest mistake in fact.

Confused. ( goes without saying but you know)
So is the aid worker with the water bottles in the Camry the one that the brass wanted to hold off on hitting but then did?
Or is this unrelated, earlier?

Initial reporting & initial intel is often confusing, so I'm sure you aren't the only one. It seems likely it's the same, but perhaps not.

 

[KG1]

So it was either an intentional lie from the get go or the Biden administration was in a rush to put out a favorable narrative that Biden took swift action in retaliation that took out some bad actors without actual intel confirmation.

Whatever happened, whether it was an intentional lie or not the initial reports were designed to shine a favorable light on Biden because he was taking a lot of heat.

But in reality something like this has happened with previous administrations before with initial reporting when it turned out not to be what actually occurred and an innocent target was hit instead.

If it was an intentional lie and the Biden administration put it out there anyway then that takes it to a whole 'nuther level if they knew it was.

Like I said before in the end it was a rush to put out a favorable narrative to try and take some of the heat off of Biden.

 

[Alpo]

Obama was the worst of the bunch when it came to collateral damage and the use of attack drones. Trump wasn't without sin, especially in Somalia.

I find drones to be abhorrent, except in cases of an active battle field where the belligerents face each other.

I don't support Biden's decision here, but the entire military-industrial complex needs to be kicked in the ass for the widespread escalation of drone warfare.

 

[KG1]

The question is will the Biden administration have the guts to admit that the target was a mistake after all if it turns out to be true even if it would risk making them look even more incompetent?

At this point it's either deny and continue with initial reports that it was indeed a legit strike that took out some bad actors or acknowledge recent reports that it was a mistake and innocents were killed.

 

[Tombs]

Obama was the worst of the bunch when it came to collateral damage and the use of attack drones. Trump wasn't without sin, especially in Somalia.

I find drones to be abhorrent, except in cases of an active battle field where the beligerents face each other.

I don't support Biden's decision here, but the entire military-industrial complex needs to be kicked in the ass for the widespread escalation of drone warfare.

It's only going to get worse.

I doubt we're even a decade away from AI making kill/don't kill choices and picking their own targets through an algorithm.

The cat is out of the bag since this was allowed to become an acceptable form of combat.

 

[Alpo]

It seems the Taliban (and Viet Cong) have proved that asymmetric warfare doesn't work forever. Political will in America is about as flighty as a 5 year old with ADD.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It seems the Taliban (and Viet Cong) have proved that asymmetric warfare doesn't work forever. Political will in America is about as flighty as a 5 year old with ADD.

How so? It seems like they've proved the opposite. Their guerilla tactics have brought down the most powerful militaries in the world in both cases.

 

[Tombs]

It seems the Taliban (and Viet Cong) have proved that asymmetric warfare doesn't work forever. Political will in America is about as flighty as a 5 year old with ADD.

It never started with any significant goal in mind that was remotely achievable.

Vietnam is an example of a war that could have been won, with goals that could have been met. Trying to make Afghanistan into a democratic, US allied state was completely insane, and I'm certain that everyone at the top of the decision making process knew that from day 1.

 

[Alpo]

How so? It seems like they've proved the opposite. Their guerilla tactics have brought down the most powerful militaries in the world in both cases.

POV. I was looking at it from the US side. See the last sentence.

 

[Alpo]

It never started with any significant goal in mind that was remotely achievable.

Vietnam is an example of a war that could have been won, with goals that could have been met. Trying to make Afghanistan into a democratic, US allied state was completely insane, and I'm certain that everyone at the top of the decision making process knew that from day 1.

I agree with your first paragraph.

As to Vietnam, I disagree. We involved ourselves in a civil war. I don't believe we could have even fought to a Korea-like standstill. We were imperialist aggressors of the post-colonial era.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

POV. I was looking at it from the US side. See the last sentence.

I don't know that it's flighty. It's been consistent in that they allow politicians to control the ROE, which is to say, "don't kill too many people" "Be as nice as you can to your enemy", etc..

To my way of thinking, WWII tactics should be observed with any warfare, whether it's a couple of terrorists, a single country harboring terrorists, whatever. Kill as many as it takes until they give up. Break as much stuff as you can in the process. Meet aggression with overwhelming aggression. It worked through 2 World Wars. I think it would work today.