The War in Afghanistan

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
He is enlisted.
He can do that and get away with it easier then an officer...
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
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.
And there we get into the territory of ordinary diplomatic bullshittery, where if someone is promising the moon and the stars, there's probably some kind of trap or bullshit hidden in there. Everyone knows it, business as usual, the few who don't are getting a learning experience soon.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
We are seeing that right now. Soldiers and operatives went around having to bypass the brass and pretty much go AWOL to rescue americans and allies in Afghanistan because the tabletop generals in D.C. refused to let them do it. It is already happening. The people blame the deaths of the 13 service members as much on D.C. as they do on the Taliban, if not more. If anything I have seen more hatred thrown towards D.C. than the Taliban on social media, because in a way they expected the Taliban to do what they have done but what the government has done is unexcusable and unbelievable.

EDIT: A further show of how disconnected the higher ups are to reality and even basic optics

As I said earlier, I think there's a pretty high chance the "soldiers and operatives bypassing the brass to rescue Americans and Allies!" is actually spooks (CIA etc.) getting their allies out. You can take that as a positive thing or a negative thing, but "our allies" in afghanistan were corrupt trash, who I do not think should be taken in, (although perhaps there's merit to settling them in third countries). Apparently we need interpreters for the interpreters now. The "americans" in afghanistan are in large part likely not actually Americans, they're afghanis who think of themselves as afghanis and have substantial ties to afghanistan who happen to have a piece of paper saying they're an American. Probably some of them are even Taliban or ISIS-K who went there to fight, as many did for ISIS.

I very much dislike any propaganda / framing that says we should have more troops in Afghanistan. If America had a healthy and sane state and government, it could easily have more troops in the capitol than it does in Afghanistan - because although a healthy and sane state and government would not find it necessary to deploy as many troops to the capitol to defend the politicians against the American people as ours has, if it deploys any troops to the capitol at all that's more than the number of troops that should be in Afghanistan.

From your other posts I think you're hearts in the right place here, but I don't think you're being cynical enough about what is being sold by the establishment-right media right now: the same failed neocon-neolib foreign policy that gave us the War in Afghanistan in the first place but To Own Biden.
 
Last edited:

LindyAF

Well-known member
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.

So you're saying that if we don't open the floodgates to people who, with the backing of the most powerful empire in the world, billions of dollars in equipment and training, and a numerical advantage that was at one point like 3-1, could not hold a single city on their own for longer than a week, retarded foreign wars will be less viable in the future?

Don't threaten us with a good time.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
If we left american citizens behind and something happens to those people, the repercussions here are going to be....ugly.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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
Except the job almost always seems to be at odds with what's actually good for American citizens; and thus far, most of you guys have proven to be unwilling to disobey the orders of the establishment. Even when it orders you to abandon American citizens, allow women to be carted off to be executed, and murder children.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Except the job almost always seems to be at odds with what's actually good for American citizens; and thus far, most of you guys have proven to be unwilling to disobey the orders of the establishment. Even when it orders you to abandon American citizens, allow women to be carted off to be executed, and murder children.
So. Start a war while completely surrounded and the State department has a gun to your head basically? Because they were doing most of who gets to leave and not.
Man, I wonder why....

The point I am getting at is.
This whole situation was a shit show, and risking a firefight and breaking orders are not worth it in that situation.
But of course, gotta try and let those who are probably Afghan nationals on refugee status wanting back to the US because they truly are refugees now.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
So. Start a war while completely surrounded and the State department has a gun to your head basically? Because they were doing most of who gets to leave and not.
Man, I wonder why....

The point I am getting at is.
This whole situation was a shit show, and risking a firefight and breaking orders are not worth it in that situation.
But of course, gotta try and let those who are probably Afghan nationals on refugee status wanting back to the US because they truly are refugees now.
When is it worth it to disobey orders then? Because it seems like it never is.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Except the job almost always seems to be at odds with what's actually good for American citizens; and thus far, most of you guys have proven to be unwilling to disobey the orders of the establishment. Even when it orders you to abandon American citizens, allow women to be carted off to be executed, and murder children.

Leaving Afghanistan are one of the times when the orders the military has received are positive for the American people though. Like what did you want here? Another surge so that no afghani who may or may not be technically a citizen is "abandoned" even if they don't even want to leave? Because that's going to involve more collateral damage, not less.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
So, not when the government orders you into that position? Or when they order you to murder innocent children?
So you want then to push out, potentially making things worse for many others, to save people who should have left earlier?
More Americans should die for those that decided to not pay attention to what was going on?
Do I feel bad for those left? Holy hell yes.
Do I wish we got them? Yes.
Do I want us to get more troops killed just to save those who were not paying attention? Potentially keeping us there? No
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
So you want then to push out, potentially making things worse for many others, to save people who should have left earlier?
More Americans should die for those that decided to not pay attention to what was going on?
Do I feel bad for those left? Holy hell yes.
Do I wish we got them? Yes.
Do I want us to get more troops killed just to save those who were not paying attention? Potentially keeping us there? No
Maybe start with small steps, like not leaving a bunch of service dogs behind for the Afghans.

 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
That may be something the AF said no too, because that is something the Army definitely wouldn't want to do
Do not try to foist this off on inter-service bullshit, own it as another military/gov fuck up under the Biden regime.

They could have let the dogs sit on soldiers laps on flights out if the people in charge of the evac actually cared enough to allow it.

They are leaving behind hundreds or thousands of Americans, and these ones you cannot even claim 'well, they should have gotten out beforehand'.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Do not try to foist this off on inter-service bullshit, own it as another military/gov fuck up under the Biden regime.

They could have let the dogs sit on soldiers laps on flights out if the people in charge of the evac actually cared enough to allow it.

They are leaving behind hundreds or thousands of Americans, and these ones you cannot even claim 'well, they should have gotten out beforehand'.
Do you know how easy it is for "A dog to sit on a soldiers lap?" In most likely VERY packed planes, for a VERY long flight?
Not easy
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top