Afghanistan OEF. Why wait to leave?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ongoing military presence of the United States in Afghanistan, questioning the rationale for continued involvement and the logistics of withdrawal. Participants explore various perspectives on the implications of staying versus leaving, touching on historical agreements, military strategy, and the political landscape.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the purpose of remaining U.S. forces in Afghanistan, citing high casualty numbers and the lack of clear objectives.
  • Others argue that strategic interests, such as regional stability and resource control, justify a continued military presence.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the feasibility of a rapid withdrawal, emphasizing the logistical challenges involved in transferring authority and securing bases.
  • Historical context is provided, with references to a potential peace agreement in 2002 that could have facilitated an earlier withdrawal, though this is contested by another participant.
  • Some participants express mixed feelings about negotiating with the Taliban, viewing it as a necessary step despite their designation as terrorists.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of U.S. withdrawal on local security and governance, particularly regarding the Afghan military's capabilities.
  • Logistical comparisons are made between the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the situation in Afghanistan, suggesting that similar strategies could apply.
  • Speculation exists about the timing of withdrawal in relation to military equipment and training for Afghan forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the justification for continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan or the feasibility of withdrawal timelines. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the strategic, logistical, and political dimensions of the situation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include differing interpretations of historical agreements, varying assessments of military logistics, and the complexity of local governance and security dynamics. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the implications of U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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 ·
13
Replies
384
Views
43K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
9K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
18K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
10K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K