Obama on the Vice video said:We must end this war responsibility
So, again, why continue to sacrifice US troops there?
Last time I checked Americans are preparing to leave, but it isn't just a matter of "ok pack your bags and hop on the bird out of here." You have to inventory bases, transfer the authority, move units from smaller COPS to larger FOBS, and arrange for local forces to take over security. Heck, we TOA FOB Apache within this month, which is a rather large FOB in RC-S.
*Unless you want to just JDAM the bases all at once and call it good.
Edit: Posted a bit early. The fact is I don't think it's truly feasible to simply pull out before 2014 or at the end of this year. That would give 4th ID in the South, and 101st in the East 6 months to close all remaining COPS and FOBS, remove all firing assets (mortars, artillery) and Fighter Jets from KAF and BAF. Not include packing tricons and transporting them to Kuwait, along with gathering the cargo flights to remove any MAXPRO or MRAP that need to return home or Bradley's for that matter. While, I don't think it's impossible to get all this done in 6 months, I think unless you're willing to scorch Earth the process, it won't happen.
Glossary:
TOA: Transfer of Authoriy
KAF: Kandahar Airfield
BAF: Bagram Airfield
FOB: Forward operation base
COP: Combat outpost
RC-S/E: Regional Command - South/East
MAXPRO/MRAP-Large military patrol vehicles.
JDAM: Joint direct attack munition (GBU - 31)
The US pulled out of Iraq, with much more heavy equipment, slowly at 1-2 brigades per month, ( roughly 5,000 troops per brigade). If there are http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-afghanistan-usa-troops-idUSBRE96801H20130709, then six months could easily see all the troops home if logistics were the bottleneck.Edit: Posted a bit early. The fact is I don't think it's truly feasible to simply pull out before 2014 or at the end of this year.
The US pulled out of Iraq, with much more heavy equipment, slowly at 1-2 brigades per month, ( roughly 5,000 troops per brigade). If there are http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-afghanistan-usa-troops-idUSBRE96801H20130709, then six months could easily see all the troops home if logistics were the bottleneck.
In any case, the 2014 deadline was set several years ago. It is not a logistics driven problem.
References on peace agreement with Taliban in 2002
Aljazeera news from Doha last month had a two episode documentary on Afghanistan :
The Price of Revenge.
Also Fox news contributor , former CIA officer Mike Baker said independently on Fox news
that the U.S. should have been out of Afghanistan in 2002.
With a search you may find this documentary available.
...I don't believe the 2014 deadline was set 'years' ago. In fact, at most 2 years ago, but more like just a year ago. In fact, RDOF was set in February for an increase in speed...
...But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.
nine-year conflict from July, adding though that the drawdown will “conclude in 2014.
The key difference is that you can DRIVE out of Iraq, you need to FLY out of Afghanistan. No. ...
I base my statement mainly on the deployment of M1s and Bradleys; apparently 1100 M1s went to Iraq. By contrast, according to this source (for instance), the first US tanks were not deployed to Afghanistan until 2010, a total of 16 originally. US armor was involved in the beginning of the major operations ground war in Iraq, including the taking of Baghdad....Furthermore, I don't see how you can say Iraq has more heavy equipment than Afghanistan.
My comments were in reference to personnel movement. Yes, supplies do travel from bordering countries but personnel have always only moved from Manas or Kuwait. We have never driven military personnel from any military base in Afghanistan to an operational base in Pakistan for Staging, unlike what we did for Iraq.*Only fly? NATO does not supply overland through Pakistan? And does not supply via Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan? What's your basis for that comment?
Yes, well aware that more Abrams deployed to Iraq than to Afghanistan for obvious reason. Nevertheless, you can drive an M1 or BFIST back to kuwait, and then onto a ship. You have to fly in a MRAP in a cargo plane that only takes 2 at a time. Again, completely different situation requires a completely different method.I base my statement mainly on the deployment of M1s and Bradleys; apparently 1100 M1s went to Iraq. By contrast, according to this source (for instance), the first US tanks were not deployed to Afghanistan until 2010, a total of 16 originally. US armor was involved in the beginning of the major operations ground war in Iraq, including the taking of Baghdad.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan
December 2010
I really don't see what you're trying to get at.
...do it slowly and responsibly with less strain on the forces currently deployed? To save lives? Every soldier who wore the uniform understood what it meant when they swore that oath. Let them end the mission the right and reasonable way, not haphazardly.
I've already said that that would be possible, just highly irresponsible.
The question at hand is the logistics load in Iraq versus Afghanistan. Afghanistan's load is trivial by comparison, bad roads and all....
Yes, well aware that more Abrams deployed to Iraq than to Afghanistan for obvious reason. Nevertheless, you can drive an M1 or BFIST back to kuwait, and then onto a ship. You have to fly in a MRAP in a cargo plane that only takes 2 at a time. Again, completely different situation requires a completely different method.
The key point to take away from this is Iraq is not Afghanistan. For example, in Iraq you had multiple high ways out of Iraq, in Afghanistan, you have highway 1, end of story.
The facts. US leadership stated nearly four years ago that it had already had decided on a withdrawal time. The idea that leaving now in six months is rushing things based on logistic reasons alone is nonsense.
Which they will do if directed to do so and is beside the point, which is whether they should be so directed.
I suggest US troops seriously risk their lives to defend the security of the US, not to insure a proper inventory or base closure, nor even to provide "less strain" on the force.
I feel like we're going in circles. You can move a far greater load from Iraq to Kuwait, because you can drive there. Nearly all major equipment flown into Afghanistan came from Kuwait and from Kuwait via ships. Are you aware that the initial air drop to Afghanistan was the 3rd largest in history? That's a lot of material that has to be moved via air, because I can promise you that no containers carrying heavy weapon systems or sensitive items will go through Pakistan ever.But not explained why it would be irresponsible, given 60,000 troops were moved out Iraq in six months with a far greater load of heavy equipment.
The question at hand is the logistics load in Iraq versus Afghanistan. Afghanistan's load is trivial by comparison, bad roads and all.
uh Trivial? how? In RC-E, nearly every route has been labeled black since 2007!
Of what consequence to this topic is the point of origin of flown in equipment?Nearly all major equipment flown into Afghanistan came from Kuwait...
Whether or not it does, it should. I insist on it.... nor do I expect the government to give honest answers about why we are there,
The origin not so much of great importance, but rather the fact that the origin is also where the equipment will be returning to so that it may ship back to the states. As I've kept informing you, the military simply had to convoy to Kuwait to move their gear in Iraq, thus you can move a greater volume in a shorter amount of time. In Afghanistan, you have to load cargo planes to move the equipment which is a much slower process. Not including the fact that nearly every FOB in RC-E is not accessible by roads and thus even the process of moving equipment from FOB in RC-E to KAF OR BAF is an airlift operation.Of what consequence to this topic is the point of origin of flown in equipment?
I'm sorry how silly of me to forget that the only heavy equipment needed to be move from a country after a war are tanks. Yes, now I see how trivial military movements are.
"only" is your term attributed to me, not mine. My point: 70 ton M1s plus their fuel plus their amo plus their specialized service vehicles plus their specialized heavy spares plus Bradleys (where the tanks go, so do Bradleys in the Army) make most everything else on the battlefield look small by comparison. And a great deal of heavy equipment like generators, fuel, can be, was, and is driven out of Afghanistan.
Not "have to". No, the fact that Pakistan closed the border for a moment does not mean no equipment goes through Pakistan or across the northern border. No, a border road restriction on weapons does not mean no heavy lift (fuel, generators, bulldozers) goes over border roads. I've provided sources. If you have some to the contrary, please provide them.In Afghanistan, you have to load cargo planes to move the equipment which is a much slower process.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...esistant-ambush-protected-sustainment-command
Until a few months ago, the military flew out the vast majority of the equipment it was sending back to the United States.
In recent months, after Pakistan, a neighbor of landlocked Afghanistan, agreed to let the U.S. military use its roads to ship materiel out through its ports, most containers that don’t include sensitive materials or weapons are being trucked out by land. Shipping through Pakistan is by no means trouble-free — and officials recognize that the route could get shut down in the event of a new spat between Islamabad and Washington.
“We continue to get delays. There’s still corruption, taxes, tariffs,” Stein said. “But our equipment is getting through.”