News Afghanistan OEF. Why wait to leave?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ongoing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, questioning the rationale for continued deployment given the high casualty rates and the limited achievements in nation-building. Recent reports indicate 2,113 U.S. military personnel have been killed and 18,886 wounded since the conflict began, raising concerns about the effectiveness of remaining forces. Some argue that while significant progress has been made, such as the weakening of Al-Qaeda and improvements in women's rights, the costs may outweigh the benefits. The logistical challenges of a rapid withdrawal are also highlighted, suggesting that a complete pullout by the end of the year may not be feasible. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a broader debate about U.S. military strategy and the implications of its presence in a geopolitically critical region.
  • #51
MarneMath said:
...Troops go into dangerous situations, it's pretty much their job.

Yes, but the US does not have armed forces simply to "go into dangerous situations" for no good reason. The authority to create and fund a military was included in the constitution to protect the security of the US. So seeing some US troops get shot up someplace in the news should not be met only with "well, that's their job", but also a recognition of why they were sent there, or remain there. Otherwise they're on a road to becoming mercenaries.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
“The United States will have been at war in Afghanistan for over a dozen years. With over 2,230 Americans dead, another 17,000 wounded and close to $700 Billion dollars of U. S. taxpayers money spent.
Joseph Dunford, a U.S. general nominated to oversee the drawdown of American troops next year, acknowledges that the war has not met its primary objective: rooting out al-Qaida and the militants who give sanctuary to terrorists.”
http://www.voanews.com/content/is-zero-really-an-option-for-us-in-afghanistan/1705498.html

Here are some facts from Wikipedia:
• Tens of thousands of s Afghan soldiers and civilians have lost their lives in the war; many more displaced as refugees.
• Drug trade: UN findings say an opium market worth $65 Billion dollars funds global terrorism, caters to 15 million addicts, and kills 100,000 people every year.
• Public education, some improvements (see article below)
• War crimes by Taliban, Northern Alliance, and U.S. massacres of civilians, bombings of civilian targets, terrorism, use of torture and the murder of prisoners of war. Additional common crimes include theft, arson, and the destruction of property.
• Human rights abuses have been committed by all sides, according to UN Human Rights Watch.
• Costs: The projected total cost relating to Afghanistan from inception to the fiscal year 2011 is expected to be $468 Billion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_war

“The Afghan Police Project has been a multi-billion-dollar exercise in disaster. Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported US taxpayers have spent $9 Billion dollars on a program that barely functions. Police are illiterate, are paid around $16 per month and demand bribes from citizens, often use drugs, and typically accept bribes, while their American instructors are paid six-figure salaries. According to SIGAR audits last year, billions of dollars have gone to hospitals and schools that were paid for, but never built, chiefly because the area was considered too vulnerable to Taliban guerrilla attacks. In a hearing last year, Congress disclosed that $22.4 Billion dollars in US taxpayer's money had disappeared from Afghan projects and was still unaccounted for.”
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15264-afghanistan-a-dark-and-fragile-future

So much for thanks:

“As the U.S. accelerates its exit from a decade-long $100 billion reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, American generosity is getting an unwelcome penalty in the form of taxes and fees imposed by President Hamid Karzai’s government on U.S. contractors supporting the rebuilding effort.
Everything from exiting military equipment and food for troops to new federal contract dollars are facing levies, customs fees and fines — a wave of taxation estimated to slice $1 billion or more off the top of aid that was supposed to go to the Afghan people. Instead, it’s going into the coffers of the Karzai government”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news..._source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2Za6kJI2L

“One of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's main religious advisers will not overturn a decree issued by clerics in the north reimposing Taliban-style curbs on women, in another sign of returning conservatism as NATO forces leave the country. Just days after the United States launched a $200 million programme to boost the role of women in Afghanistan, a senior member of the country's top religious leaders' panel said he would not intervene over a draconian edict issued by clerics in the Deh Salah region of Baghlan province.”
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/talibanstyle-edict-for-women-spreads-alarm-in-afghan-district/1144414/

While they have destroyed most of the Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, the US and its allies still have not won their war against the Taliban insurgency. We have failed to reach our stated objectives. When the Americans and its allies finally leave I expect that Afghanistan will convulse with tribal infighting, retribution killings, and chaos. The Taliban will, of course, return to power. Afghanistan will become one more failed state in many of the same ways Iraq has.

In my opinion all U.S. personnel should leave Afghanistan now. Any war material not yet removed should be destroyed in place. Already the costs in deaths and injuries on all sides are massive. Any further delay will only increase both and only delay the inevitable.
 
  • #53
mheslep said:
Yes, but the US does not have armed forces simply to "go into dangerous situations" for no good reason. The authority to create and fund a military was included in the constitution to protect the security of the US. So seeing some US troops get shot up someplace in the news should not be met only with "well, that's their job", but also a recognition of why they were sent there, or remain there. Otherwise they're on a road to becoming mercenaries.

Well, i'll be the last person in the world to not appreciate he sacrifice every fallen soldier makes; however, it is there job to be in harms way. We all volunteered for it at one point in our life for better or for worse. While, I whole agree completely that people should think extremely deeply before we send troops to a combat zone. Once we are there, the decision has been made, now it's time to do something. I was a big fan of delivering water to remote villages. Anyway, don't mind me this isn't extremely relevant to this line of discussion, just something I personally find odd.
 
  • #54
MarneMath said:
Once we are there, the decision has been made, now it's time to do something

The time to start doing something was back in 2001. Quite a lot has indeed been done since then, with regards to US security - AQ in Afghanistan wiped out, Taliban out of power, with an alternative if smelly government in place. When the mission is over (if it is) then its over. Time to leave. Now.
 
  • #55
I don't feel like going around in circles again. In a magical world of unicorns and snow elves, leaving now would be possible. However, in our world, where things don't move when we aren't looking, this isn't exactly feasible. Let the process work, the withdraw is currently taking place right now. I personally feel that it would be much more beneficial to take ones time in this process than rushing to fulfill the whim of one person here, no matter how good the intent the person may have. Anyway, I already understand why you want it to occur now, however, I don't understand how you actually intend for that to happen if you wish is suddenly granted. Can you please describe in detail how a withdraw within whatever timeline you wish can be done safely with current resources and partnerships?
 
  • #56
MarneMath said:
I don't feel like going around in circles again. In a magical world of unicorns and snow elves, leaving now would be possible. However, in our world, where things don't move when we aren't looking, this isn't exactly feasible.
Yes, so you keep asserting, so far with no evidence, not one reference.

... fulfill the whim of one person here, no matter how good the intent the person may have.

One person? What are you talking about? Do you imagine you speak for everyone else?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153260/half-say-speed-afghanistan-withdrawal.aspx

Can you please describe in detail how a withdraw within whatever timeline you wish can be done safely with current resources and partnerships?
As you say, we've already been there. I'm not an S4, nor need one be the S4 to note the much heavier brigades in Iraq came out fast enough to empty Afghanistan by 2014. Fly everything out if Bagram, though that's not necessary with the overland exits.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
I provided my arguments, which every article you have posted backs up. I'm not exactly sure what more information you could possibly want. You're the one that seems to think that it is physical possibly to move every unit out within an unspecific time line (less than a year I guess) but fail to explain how this would be possible in your world view. Not only that, but you bring up Iraq as an example but completely neglect the different geography between the two countries and the current established methods of transportation of equipment. We've been through this before. You cannot move personnel out of Afghanistan by land in the same way as you did for Iraq, what about this do you not understand? Therefore comparing military movements in Iraq is completely irrelevant!

Lastly, if you're going to use military jargon, please use the appropriate level of jargon. A movement of a theater level operation is a G-4 or in this case a CTF-J4 operation, so even if you were an S4 it's mute.

P.s. your last article says NOTHING about MRAP going into Afghanistan by land. In fact, it spells out the challenges of moving it by Air and Sea. I imagine that 'by land' part was an outdated reference to Iraq since at that time operation New Dawn was still in effect.
 
  • #58
Damn it.

USNews said:
Two targeted roadside bomb explosions left three Air Force troopers wounded this weekend, ...
 
  • #59
And a dear friend of mine was killed July 23rd by an IED. Let's not use deaths(injuries) of people you do not know to provoke some emotional argument.

But by your article

"Saturday night's attack was a complete and total failure," he added. That patrol insisted on completing its mission.

Because they are damn professionals.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
MarneMath said:
...

P.s. your last article says NOTHING about MRAP going into Afghanistan by land. ...
That is an MRAP shown disembarking an Army Roll-on/Roll-off "at the seaport of Karachi."
 
  • #61
Says nothing about it being flown or driven through.

Edit: Assuming that it is driven through, you weren't only solved one issue. Doubtful Pakistan will allow a staging area for US military to prepare for these vehicles to be moved back to the states. Unless your awesome plan is to drive non-stop from xxx fob to the ship with no staging area...
 
Last edited:
  • #62
MarneMath said:
Says nothing about it being flown or driven through...

US armored vehicles unloaded in the seaport of Karachi, Pakistan? Please, enough, you are derailing the this thread with tedious pedantry and sarcasm, all without references. Why not use your personal experiences to point out relevant public references that all can share.
 
  • #63
MarneMath said:
And a dear friend of mine was killed July 23rd by an IED.
I'm am sorry for your loss.
 
  • #64
MarneMath said:
...You cannot move personnel out of Afghanistan by land in the same way as you did for Iraq, what about this do you not understand? Therefore comparing military movements in Iraq is completely irrelevant!

Another straw man. Please, I've agreed they (Afghanistan and Iraq) are not the same. They have similarities in that both theaters have moved equipment in/out over land. While Iraq has had much more capable land access, it also had far, far more heavy equipment. The two situations are not the same, but they are relevant.
 
  • #65
mheslep said:
Another straw man. Please, I've agreed they (Afghanistan and Iraq) are not the same. They have similarities in that both theaters have moved equipment in/out over land. While Iraq has had much more capable land access, it also had far, far more heavy equipment. The two situations are not the same, but they are relevant.

That's like saying, traveling to California from Texas is the same as traveling from Texas to Mexico. You're both traveling, presumably driving, and probably taking clothes with it. Heck, because California is further, you end up taking more clothes, therefore you should be able to plan the trip the same. Of course not, you have to take initial steps, like gather a passport, maybe learn the language, and the general preparedness that comes with traveling to a different country.

Yes, Iraq had more tanks to move out, and had the ability to move it out. However, in every source you posted, the generals and leaders involved have argued that Afghanistan is a much more difficult problem. You seem to think that it is possible to move the same amount of material in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq. I don't disagree in principle that this is possible. However, I disagree vehemently that it can be done as smoothly and as safely as it was done in Iraq. You have failed to shown that Afghanistan has the ability to complete it's mission of retrograde in the timeline you wish in a safe and efficient matter.

If your goal is to save lives, then allow the timeline to go on as it is. A rush job only leaves to more needless destruction and stress on the troops.
 
  • #66
mheslep said:
US armored vehicles unloaded in the seaport of Karachi, Pakistan? Please, enough, you are derailing the this thread with tedious pedantry and sarcasm, all without references. Why not use your personal experiences to point out relevant public references that all can share.

Tedious pedantry, is what we can planning. I'm well aware that you want to simply say that since the military can do it then it should be done. I'm constantly reminding you that it isn't a simple operation that you seem to have rooted in your mind. There are a myriad of complex factors you are either unaware of or refuse to admit exist and until you can efficiently address these factors and show that a quicker withdraw is in fact a safer and more efficient thing for the troops then i'll keep on pointing out every possible thing that is wrong with your assumptions.

The simple fact that every reference you find, somewhere agrees with my assessment. You cherry pick a quote, and fail to grasp the full picture. It's quite sad to see.
 
  • #67
mheslep said:
I'm am sorry for your loss.

I don't need your damn pity. He died in infantryman and the Marne soldier he was, a freakin stud of a soldier.
 

Similar threads

Replies
384
Views
41K
Replies
49
Views
8K
Replies
144
Views
18K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Back
Top