Dig deeper and ask them maybe you'll get a reply.My question.
Why are you there?
Those soldiers and Marines were doing thier best, and multiple have died because you couldn't get out of there earlier.
What? Anyone that tries to rest will learn the hard way?Anyone that tries to rest ir will learn the hard way
Test*What? Anyone that tries to rest will learn the hard way?
Uh, you obviously haven't been watching foreign news outlets, and how they are viewing Biden and the US, US military included.The military will.
At least everyone below the pentagon
And every country that thinks otherwise, will learn first hand.Uh, you obviously haven't been watching foreign news outlets, and how they are viewing Biden and the US, US military included.
Even places like Australia, as much of a hellhole as it's become, are wondering if they can actually trust DC or the US anymore after this A-stan fuck up. Particularly after we gave that list to the Taliban, closed Bagram earlier than we should have, and now they see Biden openly checking his watch at the dignified transfer.
Changing leadership in DC and the Pentagon will no longer be enough to convince many countries and people that the US is a dependable or trustworthy partner anymore.
The US and US military are not coming out of this with it's rep intact, even if it's not the fault of the rank and file.
They won't call on US soldiers to defend them if they do not think they can trust the people in DC.And every country that thinks otherwise, will learn first hand.
Media is also heavily biased. Ask people in other country militaries how they feel about it. A US soldier is more trustworthy watching you back then damn near any other
No.They won't call on US soldiers to defend them if they do not think they can trust the people in DC.
Fucking...do you really not get it, or are you just saying that line as cope?No.
They still will. Because it is better to have a US Soldier then any other, because we will get the job done.
Our government is the issue. Yes, doesn't mean we will always listen
If a country trusts another's mikitaru over thir government. They will till request from those military, even if the government says no.Fucking...do you really not get it, or are you just saying that line as cope?
Dependability and trust in the politicians in DC, not US soldiers courage, is what nations make geopolitical calcs based off of.
Not like this; the past week has gone so far beyond the pale, I can't see how either our government or our military makes it out with their reputations intact. Not for nothing this is being compared unfavorably to what happened in Vietnam.
No.
They still will. Because it is better to have a US Soldier then any other, because we will get the job done.
Our government is the issue. Yes, doesn't mean we will always listen
IMO military as an institution reputation is basically invulnerable with Americans. It's a Support Our Troops thing. Any downturn in popular opinion is going to be on "the Pentagon" or on "the top brass" or on "the military-industrial complex" or some other category where you can say "oh, well I'm not talking about Our Troops." IDK if that's a good thing or a bad thing but it is a thing.
"International stage" might be different but it's fake and gay and doesn't matter.
If the only way we can help an ally is with off-the-books units, instead of through normal channels in DC and the Pentagon because said ally no longer trusts DC/the Pentagon, that does not make the situation any better.If a country trusts another's mikitaru over thir government. They will till request from those military, even if the government says no.
Off the book teams exist for a reason
Umm dude. No the US reputation is going to take a big hit for a while. For your next invasion you won’t have as many people willing to be collaborators and act as your interpreters when they saw how you abandoned them to get their tongues cut out by the Taliban. Now the thing that makes it look bad is that you said you’d take them in for betraying their home for America. If you pulled an Alexander and from the very start said that they were contemptible because they were betrayers and not worthy of respect since they were just willing to submit instead of having the self respect to not bow before invaders, yes you would have fewer interpreters, but the world would at least say well there is some honor there. But when you try to have your cake and eat it too it by making a promise for someone to defect but then don’t accept them in because you are worried by the risks or something that makes you untrustworthy.And every country that thinks otherwise, will learn first hand.
Media is also heavily biased. Ask people in other country militaries how they feel about it. A US soldier is more trustworthy watching you back then damn near any other
Third option - they were paid very good by Afghan standards money (from what i've found at least several times the average salary in Afghanistan) for being interpreters, for services rendered. Anything beyond that US provides is a bonus which they shouldn't count on or feel entitled to. Once the news of US started withdrawing, which wasn't a surprise, it was known for months, they should have used some of that money to make safe arrangements for themselves.Umm dude. No the US reputation is going to take a big hit for a while. For your next invasion you won’t have as many people willing to be collaborators and act as your interpreters when they saw how you abandoned them to get their tongues cut out by the Taliban. Now the thing that makes it look bad is that you said you’d take them in for betraying their home for America. If you pulled an Alexander and from the very start said that they were contemptible because they were betrayers and not worthy of respect since they were just willing to submit instead of having the self respect to not bow before invaders, yes you would have fewer interpreters, but the world would at least say well there is some honor there. But when you try to have your cake and eat it too it by making a promise for someone to defect but then don’t accept them in because you are worried by the risks or something that makes you untrustworthy.
The article said:One of McCollum's sisters, Roice, said she and her sister and her father joined McCollum's wife, Jiennah McCollum, on the trip. But when it came time to meet with the president, they left the room, because she said they did not want to speak with the man they held responsible for McCollum's death.
Only Jiennah, who is expecting the couple's child next month, stayed. But she left disappointed, Roice said. The president brought up his son, Beau, according to her account, describing his son's military service and subsequent death from cancer. It struck the family as scripted and shallow, a conversation that lasted only a couple of minutes in "total disregard to the loss of our Marine," Roice said.
"You can't f--- up as bad as he did and say you're sorry," Roice said of the president. "This did not need to happen, and every life is on his hands."
That would work if that is all that was promised. But what people fail to get is that, if you promise to give or do something, then fail to do it. It makes your credibility look bad. If the occupation of Afghanistan was run competently then besides many other things being differently, one other big difference would be only promising the collaborators money and maybe a higher position in the puppet government of Afghanistan and nothing else. But when people from other 3rd parties see you promise someone else the moon and the stars, and then you fall short, it makes them far less likely to trust you or actually decide they want to make an agreement with you unless it is absolutely necessary.Third option - they were paid very good by Afghan standards money (from what i've found at least several times the average salary in Afghanistan) for being interpreters, for services rendered. Anything beyond that US provides is a bonus which they shouldn't count on or feel entitled to. Once the news of US started withdrawing, which wasn't a surprise, it was known for months, they should have used some of that money to make safe arrangements for themselves.