PDA

View Full Version : Afghan strategy



Boater14
08-20-2017, 05:36 PM
Mattis says trump will announce the new strategy. Having lived through and in Vietnam let me hazard a wild guess.....more American soldiers to be fed into the meat grinder. Ever meet a general who didn't want just a few thousand more?

CWSmith
08-20-2017, 05:49 PM
Obama's fault?

Gerarddm
08-20-2017, 05:51 PM
^ That is how they will spin it, of course.

Do not forget that although Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly seem like adults compared to our current president, they are all dedicated to seeing his program ( whatever that is ) through. If they prevent him from launching a pre-emptive war then kudos to them, but other than that I don't have much use for them.

Canoeyawl
08-20-2017, 07:32 PM
"The Trump administration is, however, considering a plan proposed by Blackwater (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-deeper-look-into-blackwater/) founder Erik Prince to privatize a large portion of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. Prince's plan would send about 5,000 private military contractors to replace U.S. troops helping the Afghan army. Now executive director and chairman of Frontier Services Group, Prince said his plan would cut the annual cost of the war from an estimated $45 billion to less than $10 billion.
There are currently about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the Pentagon has proposed sending several thousand more to increase the number of trainers, advisers and special operations forces.
Asked Tuesday on "CBS This Morning" whether his role at Frontier Services Group, which offers global security services, could be a conflict of interest if his proposal were to be approved, Prince said, "Look, if it comes to a bid or whatever, if someone's able to come up with a solution that saves taxpayers $40 billion, I think anyone should compete and do that."
"But you would be profiting from the war?" CBS News' Vladimir Duthiers asked.
"Well, we're not there now. But any vendor, again, that solves the solution, that's capitalism. That's what it's about," Prince responded."

Gerarddm
08-20-2017, 07:38 PM
That is an asinine question, asking him if he would profit from the war. When have war contractors NOT profited? Jeesh.

CWSmith
08-20-2017, 07:45 PM
I find the claim of saving that much money to be absurd. Those contractors get paid well. The need the same weapons and protection and support. How do you save 78% of the price of American troops?

Jim Mahan
08-20-2017, 07:55 PM
It's the usual bs lie to close the deal. If it happens, the cost will go to eighty billion by the second fiscal year. And they'll want more for more 'contractors.'

Canoeyawl
08-20-2017, 08:09 PM
But if it means "jobs" they can keep the war going forever.

SMARTINSEN
08-20-2017, 08:49 PM
McMaster nixed the Blackwater scheme, yesterday at Camp David.

BrianW
08-20-2017, 09:20 PM
I find the claim of saving that much money to be absurd. Those contractors get paid well. The need the same weapons and protection and support. How do you save 78% of the price of American troops?,

Easily, because contractors don't need the same stuff.

How many servicemembers are mere Fobbits, who never engage with the enemy, or even the ANA (friendlies)? I'm guessing close to 90% of them. Could be wrong.

For the taxpayers, contractors come pre-trained (admittedly a lot from the military, no getting around that, but some of them are from other countries militaries), minimal medical care in country, no healthcare premiums, no retirement plan at 20 years, no medical retirements, no billion dollar fighter jets, no 30 ground support people per airframe, no row after row of multi-million dollar HMMV's sitting around rotting in the sun, no USO's, no MWR, no multi-million dollar command centers that never get used...I'm sure there's more.

Would they be able to do do what the military hasn't been able to do? That's the real question. I think the proposed tighter integration with the Afghan Army would be helpful, and the much smaller footprint would be good too.

But no, I don't think Afghanistan is going to change anytime soon.

LeeG
08-20-2017, 10:10 PM
How can there not be a military solution?!

skuthorp
08-20-2017, 10:21 PM
But if it means "jobs" they can keep the war going forever.

Got it in one, there will be no end as long as profits accrue, the 'Official' military casualty list will go way down, and the privatised casualty list can be hidden as commercially sensitive information.

But then you have a Private Army. Whose equipment? Air support, the drone program? The US militaries' or will Eric buy his own?
And the returned personnel, with all the traumas , mental and physical, that the present veterans display, who will look after them?
Will they be accorded the status of Veterans? Unlikely. But those problems will be there never the less.

skaraborgcraft
08-21-2017, 02:22 AM
How can there not be a military solution?!

If you care to sit down at this table, perhaps we can discuss that......

BrianW
08-21-2017, 02:42 AM
But then you have a Private Army. Whose equipment? Air support, the drone program? The US militaries' or will Eric buy his own?

Contractors who are required to have aircraft and vehicles provide their own. Often locally procured, which helps the local economy and are less intimidating than the monster truck vehicles our troops use to run errands.

Air support? Do we really need B1 Bombers and F15 fighters overhead 24hrs a day? Have drones been effective in improving the situation?

Just answering questions, not arguing for EP to take over.

Reynard38
08-21-2017, 06:28 AM
,

Easily, because contractors don't need the same stuff.

How many servicemembers are mere Fobbits, who never engage with the enemy, or even the ANA (friendlies)? I'm guessing close to 90% of them. Could be wrong.

For the taxpayers, contractors come pre-trained (admittedly a lot from the military, no getting around that, but some of them are from other countries militaries), minimal medical care in country, no healthcare premiums, no retirement plan at 20 years, no medical retirements, no billion dollar fighter jets, no 30 ground support people per airframe, no row after row of multi-million dollar HMMV's sitting around rotting in the sun, no USO's, no MWR, no multi-million dollar command centers that never get used...I'm sure there's more.

Would they be able to do do what the military hasn't been able to do? That's the real question. I think the proposed tighter integration with the Afghan Army would be helpful, and the much smaller footprint would be good too.

But no, I don't think Afghanistan is going to change anytime soon.

No ROE. No media coverage. But in the same vein no flag draped caskets coming back through Dover. I mean nobody is going to tie a yellow ribbon for a guy that joins up as a merc, so no public backlash.
It'll be truly black ops.

John Smith
08-21-2017, 07:26 AM
As one who was vehemently opposed to going into either Afghanistan or Iraq, all of this makes me ill.

I'm not sure what happens when/if we leave is different based on when. If we brought all our troops and contractors home tomorrow, would it result in anything different than if we did it ten years from now?

Jim Mahan
08-21-2017, 07:40 AM
Best Afghan strategies, in order.

One, stay out.

Two, get out.

Third best, and historically most common, invade with a huge powerful modern army, stay a decade or two building a lot of bases, destroy a lot of infrastructure, kill a lot of people who just want to be not invaded, lose a lot of troops and a lot of war machinery, and then get out.

Norman Bernstein
08-21-2017, 07:52 AM
When will we ever learn?

50 years ago, and earlier, 'war' had a different definition: it was an armed conflict between two nations, where each nation was culturally and attitudinally homogeneous... more or less one people, bound by a common culture and ethos (whether good or bad), fighting another culturally homogeneous nation with what was perceived as an alien culture.

Today, we engage in 'wars' unlike those in earlier history: synthetic nations, created in the vacuum of the collapse of colonial domination, and consisting of culturally adverse tribes incapable of sharing a common ethos and culture. Sunni v. Shia, or Shia v. Kurd, and so on.... utterly hopeless situations, for which NO amount of men, arms, and machines can EVER result in a stable national condition.

Tribal wars cannot be won... end of story.

You can blame the effects of colonialism, and be largely right, I think. National borders of 'traditional' nations occur as a result of a common language, a natural border, and a set of shared beliefs. None of the nations of the Middle East were created and sustained, in that fashion... more correctly, they were the remnants of European (or Turkish) domination, essentially abandoned, at the turn of the least century.

What to do? We could double down, and spend another 20 years in a completely hopeless quest to achieve the utterly impossible... and that, I suspect, is what Trump and his general are planning.... more troops, or more mercenaries, more fortune, more of the same, failing to recognize the cliche about trying the same thing multiple times and expecting different results.

An alternative: recognize that there is NOTHING we can do to end the conflicts.... and walk away, while offering refuge and support for the non-combatants.

Just my opinion.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-21-2017, 08:05 AM
Sounds like a great plan.....but skip Afghanistan this time Jerusalem or bust!



http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/26940376/images/1378008922575.jpg

Norman Bernstein
08-21-2017, 08:15 AM
Sounds like a great plan.....but skip Afghanistan this time Jerusalem or bust!


It seems to me that there is no greater proof of my contentions in post #18 than Israel/Palestine. We have a synthetic nation, completely dominating an alien population, without the slightest incentive to do anything but continue that domination... and a dominated people, without the means to secure their own freedom, without meaningful friends in the world, whose ONLY weapon is terrorism.

Reynard38
08-21-2017, 08:16 AM
Sounds like a great plan.....but skip Afghanistan this time Jerusalem or bust!



http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/26940376/images/1378008922575.jpg

Wrong gun.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-21-2017, 08:29 AM
It's the mercenaries' choice on firearms.

lots of 7.63 x 39mm ammo around in the Middle-east

Osborne Russell
08-22-2017, 11:43 AM
How can there not be a military solution?!

Spew !

Keith Wilson
08-22-2017, 11:51 AM
And where's Landrith, praising Mr Trump for extracting us from stupid imperialist military entanglements, so unlike Obama?