News Afghanistan OEF. Why wait to leave?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #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
42K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · 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
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
10K