US, NATO Outta Afghanistan 2021

[Kirkhill]

I'm no airport security expert, but I'm guessing that they didn't want the bad guys to be able to sneak in a few suicide bombers with the refugees.

It makes sense to build a big 'ante room' and screen people there first before letting them anywhere near aircraft etc.

Which, paradoxically of course, makes these crowds an excellent target for suicide bombers.

So they created an "ante room" in a sewage ditch, in the sun, outside the walls, with no screening, and a suicide bomber got into the "ante room".

 

[FJAG]

... and a suicide bomber got into the "ante room".

Yup. Past the Taliban outer cordon.

 

[KevinB]

I see what you mean, and I can understand the train of thought going through Biden's team about those two options. The US was in the process of fully withdrawing all of their troops, had that as a goal they were progressing towards with some momentum, before current events unfolded.

It was already know what the ANSF was capable of due to the government reshuffling, and the fact that withdrawing air support, and contract maintenance and other support would gut them like a fish.

I imagine the option that sounded like 'the least amount of work, and the shortest timeframe' was probably picked pretty quickly - before anybody really gave it any hard thought.

It is pretty clear that Sec Def Austin and CJCS Gen Milley explained to the administration very clearly what would likely occur.
All of then knowingly entered into an agreement to hide that from the public it appears.

If they had thought about it, this would have made more sense. The US was withdrawing regardless, but the 6000 US troops + coalition SOF, plus ANSF - they could have kept the city running in a way that was more or less normal. Especially if the Taliban had agreed (in secret) to stay out of the city and allow the US to maintain control for a while longer.

Logic would have said that Kabul should have been administrated by the Coalition - and Bagram used as well as both a staging ground - and a support structure -- it is a slew more defensible than HKIA.

Politicians also care about optics. (In theory anyway, our shining star seems like a notable exception.) Deploying 6000 troops to secure the airport & immediate areas around the airport - while at the same time withdrawing troops as per the peace agreement and a big part of what he was elected on - would be confusing optics. There aren't many examples of where a country has had to deploy 6000 troops in order to withdraw the much smaller number that were present, unless in a combat situation.

Optics -- deploying 6k+ Troops and sitting around looking like an assclown to the rest of the world did way worse - and could only expected to be worse for people leaving, the troops on the ground -- everyone.

The whole situation happened so quickly, and so much more swiftly than anybody thought it would - or even could - I imagine there were quite a few decisions that were made on the fly, with zero long term thought put into them. Most of those decisions probably made sense, or at least sounded like they made sense, with the information they had at the time. (Did anybody in the Biden admin know that ANA and other ANSF units had quietly been told to stand down and disappear? Did anybody have any solid intel that plenty of Taliban fighters were already in the city, waiting out their time?)

All of that info was readily known,

I think we are forgetting just how connected all of these events were, and how so much happened in such a short period of time. Personally, regardless of how it was handled, it seems like it was destined to be a shitshow. Especially with the information that continues to leak out, such as this.

Colossal Fuck UP I think is the best wording for it.
Anyone who had been paying half an ear to Afghanistan should have know as soon as Gen Miller saluted the stupider order about bailing out of Bagram and dropping US Mil to 700 what was going to happen.

I think we should remember though:

- Without the colossal mess that erupted around HKIA, the west probably would never have evacuated the people that we did.

(The only reason we had 2 C-17's, at least 1 C-130, and a Polaris flying people out of there was because everything went to total s**t. We've had 10 years to relocate our interpreters and their families, and our embassy staff + contractors were still in place despite the Taliban making a very public and violent comeback over a month ago.)

Yes about when Gen Miller and the US Support left...
Shocker couldn't have thought that might happen /sarcasm

- The fear of the Taliban, especially when they entered the city almost magically fast, actually helped the Afghans finally get out of the country. The ones who were able to leave were very lucky, but they would still be waiting if the Taliban hadn't scared the international community into action. It's pathetic on our part, but it's been their reality as they have waited this entire time. The ones who had to stay behind, it does genuinely suck.

There are a LOT of people left - scores of US Citizens who wanted to get out got left...

But - not to sound cold or harsh - we can't evacuate the entire country, and not everybody was promised a special visa or had immigrant status elsewhere. A vast majority of Afghans were going to have to stay in Afghanistan, regardless of how many planes were available.

We made a pact with the Afghans -- we just chose to ignore it and bail because the majority of the Western Voters are oxygen thieves.

- The airport itself was the biggest limiting factor in the number of aircraft that could be used for evacuating embassy staff + contractors, interpreters and their families, and NGO staff if that NGO was perhaps requested/contracted to be there. One runway, with how many aircraft using it to take off AND land?

Yes what sort of incompetent or moronic security team leaves a larger airbase to go to a much smaller, less defensible one in the heart of a city...

- Even if US and coalition troops had spread out and occupied Kabul for a few weeks, there is no guarantee that a VBIED wouldn't have been used against us. Maybe it would have slipped through, and made it into the city? Maybe it would have detonated at a checkpoint further out from the airport, or a major entryway into the city? Maybe the VBIED had been in the city for quite some time, and this was the time it seemed to be of best use?

Absolutely not - but the difference would have been there would have been layers of security and no mass crowds.

Whether the Taliban set up checkpoints, or us - or they controlled the city for 30 days, or us - it doesn't guarantee that VBIED (or another) wouldn't have still happened.


Where am I going with all of this? No idea. It was a world class s**tshow, no doubt about it.

If you had asked me to design the worst possible exit plan for Afghanistan - President Biden picked it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm sorry but is the argument really that the bug-out was justified because an IED might have been detonated?

THE SLANG OF “THE FORGOTTEN WAR” as the Korean conflict from 1950 to 1953 is often called, has not been forgotten. Much of it originated in World War II, because many of the American troops in Korea were World War II veterans.

One such term was to bug out, or simply to bug, meaning to run away and hence play the coward. Its origin is unknown, but it may have come from the sense of being obsessed or desperate. The term was first employed during World War II, but it did not gain wide usage until the Korean War.

It had multiple but related meanings. In noun form, often hyphenated (bug-out), it denoted a hasty retreat, an escape route, and the person beating such a retreat. A 1951 New York Herald Tribune article had: “Men talked of ‘bug-out gas’ and ‘bug-out jeeps’ and ‘bug-out routes’.” The military film D.I. (1957) used it denoting a person: “We’ve got a bug-out, Owen.”

The term gained further currency with “I’m Movin’ On,” a popular song of 1950 by Hank Snow that aired on the Armed Services Radio Network. Some soldier—it is not remembered who—changed the words to commemorate a major U.S. retreat.

It was supposedly first sung by black soldiers of the 24th Infantry Regiment, and one line went, “When them Chinese mortars begin to thud, the old Deuce-Four begin to bug.” There were numerous other versions of the song, but many had the refrain, “We’re buggin’ out, We’re movin’ on.” It was renamed “Bugout Boogie” and officially forbidden but nevertheless became the unofficial anthem of the Korean conflict. From it also came the expression to pull a Hank Snow, meaning to bug out. In time, bug out entered the civilian vocabulary with the similar meaning of quitting or abandoning some enterprise.

Fighting Words: From the World Wars to Korea

Many words and phrases used in the Korean War were first used in the World Wars

www.historynet.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yup. Past the Taliban outer cordon.

They'd get a 'red chit' at NITAT

 

[Kirkhill]

In Islamabad people will point in the direction of the British High Commission as the most important Western diplomatic mission, even more significant than the American.

This is totally believable. Given that the American are not too eager to talk or even make phone, zoom or any other calls, the British are a good available alternative for Pakistan’s power elite. British Chief of Defence Staff General Nicolas Carter is a frequent visitor to Rawalpindi and the British High Commission is the largest diplomatic mission that the UK has anywhere in the world.

What is the UK-Pakistan relationship?

In Islamabad people will point in the direction of the British High Commission as the most important Western diplomatic mission, even more significant than the American.This is totally believable....

www.thenews.com.pk

RAF ready to launch fresh IS strikes in Afghanistan​

Head of the Air Force says Britain will continue to take the fight to Islamic State wherever necessary

ByDominic Nicholls, DEFENCE AND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT ; Lucy Fisher, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR and Nick Allen IN WASHINGTON30 August 2021 • 9:30pm


The RAF is prepared to launch fresh air strikes against Islamic State in Afghanistan, the chief of the air staff signalled in the wake of rocket attacks by the terror network.
Just three days after the British military presence in Afghanistan ended after 20 years of conflict, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, head of the Royal Air Force, told The Telegraph: "Ultimately, what this boils down to is that we've got to be able to play a global role in the global coalition to defeat Daesh [IS] – whether it's strike or whether it's moving troops or equipment into a particular country at scale and at speed."
His comments come after Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, said on Monday that Britain was willing to use "all means necessary" to combat IS amid warnings that the chaos in Afghanistan has increased the terror threat to the UK.
Mr Raab signed a joint statement issued by the US-led coalition that previously targeted IS in Syria and Iraq, vowing to "draw on all elements of national power – military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, law enforcement" to crush the terror group.
He said: "The UK stands united with our coalition partners in mourning those killed by Daesh's horrific attack at Kabul airport and in our unwavering collective resolve to combat Daesh networks by all means available, wherever they operate."
Sir Mike said: "If there's an opportunity for us to contribute, I am in no doubt that we will be ready to. That will be anywhere where violent extremism raises its head and is a direct or indirect threat to the UK and our allies. Afghanistan is probably one of the most inaccessible parts of the world, and we're able to operate there."

The Telegraph understands that government officials have examined logistics for air strikes raising questions about where RAF jets would be based, how they would refuel and how targets would be identified on the ground.

Sir Mike said he was in discussion with his international counterparts about long-term plans to base more RAF units overseas, including the Protector drone which is due to come into service in 2024.

Britain's potential launch points: India and Oman? Overflight options over Pakistan?

Another reason to pick up funding for ANSF SOF types?


PS

WRT my Bug Out comment. This is no reflection on the US troops on the ground. It is, however a heart felt comment about their command structure.

 

[MilEME09]

Where's HMS Queen Elizabeth right now? Park her in the gulf, csn a F35 make the round trip?

 

[CBH99]

It was already know what the ANSF was capable of due to the government reshuffling, and the fact that withdrawing air support, and contract maintenance and other support would gut them like a fish.


It is pretty clear that Sec Def Austin and CJCS Gen Milley explained to the administration very clearly what would likely occur.
All of then knowingly entered into an agreement to hide that from the public it appears.

Logic would have said that Kabul should have been administrated by the Coalition - and Bagram used as well as both a staging ground - and a support structure -- it is a slew more defensible than HKIA.

Optics -- deploying 6k+ Troops and sitting around looking like an assclown to the rest of the world did way worse - and could only expected to be worse for people leaving, the troops on the ground -- everyone.

All of that info was readily known,

Colossal Fuck UP I think is the best wording for it.
Anyone who had been paying half an ear to Afghanistan should have know as soon as Gen Miller saluted the stupider order about bailing out of Bagram and dropping US Mil to 700 what was going to happen.

Yes about when Gen Miller and the US Support left...
Shocker couldn't have thought that might happen /sarcasm

There are a LOT of people left - scores of US Citizens who wanted to get out got left...


We made a pact with the Afghans -- we just chose to ignore it and bail because the majority of the Western Voters are oxygen thieves.


Yes what sort of incompetent or moronic security team leaves a larger airbase to go to a much smaller, less defensible one in the heart of a city...


Absolutely not - but the difference would have been there would have been layers of security and no mass crowds.


If you had asked me to design the worst possible exit plan for Afghanistan - President Biden picked it.

I agree with everything you said. Literally everything.

Coalition forces knew what would happen once we left.

Our intelligence agencies not only knew the speed the Taliban was retaking key districts (which was openly available to anyone listening to the news or who bothered to look into it) - but they also had what seems to be pretty consistent communication & dialogue with them.

I agree. This could not have been a worse plan (or lack of plan) that made the west look like the ass-clowns we are when it comes to strategic thinking, honouring our agreements, etc.


I didn’t really have a single point I was trying to make, other than so many f**k-ups on so many levels converged together into one massive jaw-dropper. More thinking out loud with my fingers.


I do find it pathetic and sad that so many of our interpreters & contracted staff were left there for 10yrs + now, and the ONLY reasons they finally got out now was because their situation was the focus of the media, and in our case because there is an election. If the events of recent hadn’t happened, the ones that got out would still be there

That’s it. Not because we were honouring our word, or because it was the right thing to do. If that was the case, it would have been done ages ago. We were pressured into honouring our word because the world has seen that we didn’t.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suppose people stayed because they wanted to stay in their home country, Afghanistan, as long as it wasn't taken over by Taliban again. The problem is that the contingency plans for rapid massive evacuation - if they even were created as part of diligence - weren't up to the crisis. Or the people responsible for executing them weren't.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From the "where are they now?" file (links to archived version of TASS story to avoid linking directly to RUS servers) ...

Afghanistan’s former President Hamid Karzai, head of the country’s High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah and leader of the Islamic Party Gulbuddin Hekmatyar will join a council to rule Afghanistan that the the Taliban (outlawed in Russia) leadership intends to establish, Afghanistan’s Ariana News TV channel reported on Wednesday ...

We'll see ...

 

[KevinB]

From the "where are they now?" file (links to archived version of TASS story to avoid linking directly to RUS servers) ...

We'll see ...

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - F that guy, he's legitimately worse than the Taliban --
He used to be on the Kill Dont Capture list - he's also got one foot in the grave, so I doubt he will last long on the council
No one trusts that guy - I don't think he hasn't betrayed anyone who's dealt with him.

HK may as he's a Pushtun, and while he rallied Pashtun's to defect from the TB when we arrived in Oct '01 - he's been much more open to dealing with the Taliban - plus he gives them a face of legitimacy.

Which when you are towing former ANSF folks and former Afghan Government folks by the neck under a Blackhawk - you may want to think about trying to look legitimate

 

[daftandbarmy]

Short, sweet, to the point....

 

[Weinie]

Short, sweet, to the point....


View attachment 66283

I think he has some ":adverse material" on his file now.

 

[Karel Doorman]

I'm a Dutchie,as some of you here may know,but that doesn't take away that it's sickening to see what a mayor cl*sterf*ck this all was.

20 years after going into Afghanistan,to eradicate the taliban,they (US')have now armed them and worse they are trusting the taliban to help them get the remaing citizens out,yeah right.

What's even more baffling is that the Biden government is selling this disaster as a mayor win,i mean you really must be crazy or live in some fairytail land to believe that.

And when you ask questions about americans who are litterly stranded there,you'll get the Bill Clinton discussions"what the meaning of the word "is",is;(in this case "stranded",really?

Everyone who has a brain knows,yhat if you are ending your operations somewhere,you first get civilians out,then your millitary(and equipment,or destroy it),but hey i'm be getting too old,to think that loggically.

In short ;worst operation ever(in my lifetime),sold as a victory and we all have to believe/accept that,the world is run by idiots.(and it will cost us all);

ps,i'm not taking away my respect for all the servicemen and women who did an excellent job there,i have a problem with the upper echelon who did make these decissions.(and now not taking accountebillety for it)

 

[Karel Doorman]

Btw,and not in the least "R.I.P For those who lost their lives there"and fought to keep everyone safe.

I hope that they will never be forgotten.


As for the rest of the administration,whenever there's a screw up,just blame Trump(i mean wtf,that man has been out of office for 8 months now,time to take responsibillity for your own actions)

 

[OldSolduer]

Btw,and not in the least "R.I.P For those who lost their lives there"and fought to keep everyone safe.

I hope that they will never be forgotten.


As for the rest of the administration,whenever there's a screw up,just blame Trump(i mean wtf,that man has been out of office for 8 months now,time to take responsibillity for your own actions)

Why? It works well for the nice haired handsy pretend PM to blame Harper.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm a Dutchie,as some of you here may know,but that doesn't take away that it's sickening to see what a mayor cl*sterf*ck this all was.

20 years after going into Afghanistan,to eradicate the taliban,they (US')have now armed them and worse they are trusting the taliban to help them get the remaing citizens out,yeah right.

What's even more baffling is that the Biden government is selling this disaster as a mayor win,i mean you really must be crazy or live in some fairytail land to believe that.

And when you ask questions about americans who are litterly stranded there,you'll get the Bill Clinton discussions"what the meaning of the word "is",is;(in this case "stranded",really?

Everyone who has a brain knows,yhat if you are ending your operations somewhere,you first get civilians out,then your millitary(and equipment,or destroy it),but hey i'm be getting too old,to think that loggically.

In short ;worst operation ever(in my lifetime),sold as a victory and we all have to believe/accept that,the world is run by idiots.(and it will cost us all);

ps,i'm not taking away my respect for all the servicemen and women who did an excellent job there,i have a problem with the upper echelon who did make these decissions.(and now not taking accountebillety for it)

I think the principal problem I have with your statement is your working assumption that "the world is run". The world happens. Anybody thinking they run the place is fooling themselves. Anybody believing them is being fooled.

 

[Karel Doorman]

I think the principal problem I have with your statement is your working assumption that "the world is run". The world happens. Anybody thinking they run the place is fooling themselves. Anybody believing them is being fooled.

Ok,but the world didn't make these decisions,they(clowns)did that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ok,but the world didn't make these decisions,they(clowns)did that.

There we agree.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Just finished watching the 1st episode of the new series, 'Turning Point' on Netflix. At rush of old emotions rushed over me while watching it. I can close my eyes and still run through everything from about 8:45am straight through to finally finding my wife just after Noon that day.