The Pentagon gave Biden severe warnings, about the possibility of the Taliban overrunning the Afghan army

[Stonker]

7 minutes ago, Fester said:

To say "simply and very obviously wrong" is not proof that you are right.

Well, as it's more than ample proof that you're wrong, that's good enough for me!

10 minutes ago, Fester said:

"What do you think the coalition troops were doing before, that required so many of them - having a picnic"? Your condecension is endless. I said a total of 25k and that the mission was new. 

Well, all condescension aside, it doesn't really matter what you said if that's how many troops it took - unless they were having a picnic, of course.

12 minutes ago, Fester said:

"The Afghan forces weren't interested once they saw the writing on the wall". Probably largely correct but again this is your unproven view.

Well, no  - it's actually very well proven as it's a very easily verifiable fact.

13 minutes ago, Fester said:

There were obviously element that did fight and still are fighting.

Not "to put their lives on the line for the Americans who were deserting them" there weren't!

 

17 minutes ago, Fester said:

There were "trainers" in country" (RSM) and other troops this year but NATO planned to move most out from May (over a few months).

Maybe you need a visit to SpecSavers, or a calendar.  May was "months before the withdrawal"!

20 minutes ago, Fester said:

Simple maths will tell you that 18,000 would have been just the US contingent.

No it won't!

It's double the coalition forces that were in country!

22 minutes ago, Fester said:

If enough strategic territory plus Bagram had been secure by existing forces (snip) ...

But it couldn't!

The existing forces were force protection, as I've tried to explain, plus a few SF, whose job was already taken up with ... well ... force protection.

If you'd taken them away from that role / TAOR to secure other "strategic territory" then they couldn't have been doing their original job in their origional TAOR. Unless they were on holiday, they couldn't do both jobs - it's not physically possible.

27 minutes ago, Fester said:

... , yes,  another "ten or twenty thousand" troops could have been inserted.

Yes, they could, but it wouldn't have been enough - it would have gone nowhere - unless those there before were on holiday.

28 minutes ago, Fester said:

The US, UK and Australia managed to put 4,000 into Kabul in just a couple of days in August!  

Yes, for a fortnight!  And it took all 4,000 just to secure the airfield, nowhere else, with no opposition at all and the Taliban's active support!

 

31 minutes ago, Fester said:

I have never thought that our troops there were on a holiday, before or after.

Well, since you think they could do the same job with you running the show with a quarter of the manpower I don't know what else you think they were doing!

[Stonker]

31 minutes ago, Fester said:

OK so I suppose we're down to: who broke the agreement first? Well I suppose this has been such a cluster flock it doesn't really matter now. 

No, once the Agreement's been broken (in this case by the Americans), it's void. That was written into it.

No moving to step Four until steps One and Two were complete.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, you can be "irritated" as much as you want but it won't change the facts.

The US had neutralised the Taliban by the end of 2001, after a couple of months, with less than 10,000 troops and the loss of only 12 American lives.  They "won" that war. 

By the end of 2003 they'd finished mopping up the last of the Taliban, with the loss of 109 American lives and 3 British. They "won" that war.

After that they lost track of what they were supposed to be doing, shifted their attention to the war in Iraq, and there was no "mission" or clear "orders" in Afghanistan any more and they were just Fig 11 targets with no war to win but a lot of money to be made by some who weren't putting their lives on the line.

No, "the US (and allies)"  had their arses kicked, and kicked badly. That isn't "an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job" but simple reality.

What's an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job is pretending that they could have "won", as the war, whatever it had become after 2001 / 03, wasn't winnable.

Keep up that pretence and all you do is encourage it to happen again at a cost of yet more blood, tears and lives for no justifiable reason and it doesn't get much more insulting than that.

They won the war 2001-2003. After that there wasn't a war to win - just lives to be lost.

The "Afghan government" didn't "lose the war" - they were never in any position to win it.

The military lost it just as much as the politicians  - and by that I mean all the military commanders that agreed to continue a war without a mission, who didn't have the courage to ask "what the feck are we supposed to be doing here", and all the politicians from every country that contributed to the coalition and facilitated it who didn't ask the same question.

So we should have invaded Pakistan in order to prosecute the war against them?

Thats where they all went, well most of them. I do recall the British forces having a very torrid time in Helmand long after you claim the war was won.

[Stonker]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

But my point is the armed forces of those countries were not defeated. They were highly successful.

Name anything the military were successful at post 2004.

Anything at all, from training to mentoring to keeping the Taliban out.

Anything at all.

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

They obtained the goals they were set. 

Really?

Weren't the two goals they were set post 2014 to i) support the ANSF in defeating the Taliban and ii) train and prepare the ANSF to protect the elected government?

I may be wrong, but I don't think they quite managed either of those goals!

Neither were obtainable, to be fair, however much support they could have been given, but that's hardly the point you're making.

13 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

The politicians from many countries lost what had been gained.

After 2004, what was gained?

Plenty of lives were lost, but what was gained?

[Stonker]

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So we should have invaded Pakistan in order to prosecute the war against them?

That's why it was a war that couldn't have been won, FFS!

It doesn't achieve anything to say that the military "won" when they didn't as winning wasn't an option, only losing.  All it does is make it easier for exactly the same thing to happen again, except throwing away even more lives for no reason.

12 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I do recall the British forces having a very torrid time in Helmand long after you claim the war was won.

Thank you, exactly my point  - "LONG AFTER" they'd achieved everything that could be achieved and "won"!

The intervening years, the "very torrid time in Helmand", and the years and lives lost since then, made absolutely no difference at all.  They didn't "win" after that because there was nothing more that was winnable.

[Poolie]

28 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Well given the armed forces in Afghanistan was a coalition of countries your point is valid.

But my point is the armed forces of those countries were not defeated. They were highly successful. They obtained the goals they were set. 

The politicians from many countries lost what had been gained.

Quite. Which was a coalition led by the Americans. Remember 'you're either with us or against us.' GW Bush.

Have a pleasant night.

[Fester]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, as it's more than ample proof that you're wrong, that's good enough for me!

Well, all condescension aside, it doesn't really matter what you said if that's how many troops it took - unless they were having a picnic, of course.

Well, no  - it's actually very well proven as it's a very easily verifiable fact.

Not "to put their lives on the line for the Americans who were deserting them" there weren't!

Maybe you need a visit to SpecSavers, or a calendar.  May was "months before the withdrawal"!

No it won't!

It's double the coalition forces that were in country!

But it couldn't!

The existing forces were force protection, as I've tried to explain, plus a few SF, whose job was already taken up with ... well ... force protection.

If you'd taken them away from that role / TAOR to secure other "strategic territory" then they couldn't have been doing their original job in their origional TAOR. Unless they were on holiday, they couldn't do both jobs - it's not physically possible.

Yes, they could, but it wouldn't have been enough - it would have gone nowhere - unless those there before were on holiday.

Yes, for a fortnight!  And it took all 4,000 just to secure the airfield, nowhere else, with no opposition at all and the Taliban's active support!

Well, since you think they could do the same job with you running the show with a quarter of the manpower I don't know what else you think they were doing!

All your say-so without any factual evidence but with the usual tone, jibes and guesswork. Thanks.    

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Fester

[AussieBob]

10 hours ago, Poolie said:

Quite. Which was a coalition led by the Americans. Remember 'you're either with us or against us.' GW Bush.

Have a pleasant night.

Do you know that you have what some people would call a 'nasty' style and some would call 'confrontational'.

Example:  "You/what you said... is stupid and/or ridiculous - and have a lovely day/night."

Do you know what 'passive aggressive' means? Some people get really annoyed at that - not me though. Hope you had a great sleep and that your life is wonderful today 

 

 

[Convert54]

11 hours ago, Fester said:

OK so I suppose we're down to: who broke the agreement first? Well I suppose this has been such a cluster flock it doesn't really matter now. 

From beginning to inglorious end !

 

[Convert54]

If, as I have seen stated , the US won the war back in 2003 against the Taliban I am left to wonder how the supposed defeated remnants so rapidly over ran so much territory ? Obviously they were never actually "defeated" but had merged . The debacle of the panic evacuation is an embarrassment to all involved.

Biden has taken the flack for the mistakes of the Pentagon in inadequate intelligence provision which woefully underestimated the readiness and capacity of Taliban forces. Even so I also wonder why so many foreign civilians remained in a heavily militarized situation given evacuation was impending anyway?

While people in general live in the belief that the US and "allies" invaded Afghanistan as a direct result of the predominantly Saudi group blamed for the 9/11 attack the on again /off again history of US / Soviet intervention goes well back to the  days of the "Cold War". Historians accredit the events of those times with the empowerment if not the creation of the "Taliban".

Reap what you sow?

[birdman]

I just read in a foreign newspaper that members of the Taliban have started to

fight among each other,nothing has changed.

Rival tribes will take up weapons and keep fighting,just like since forever.

 

[Stonker]

10 hours ago, Fester said:

All your say-so without any factual evidence but with the usual tone, jibes and guesswork. Thanks.    

The "factual evidence", such as a direct link to the Doha Agreement and full quotes from it, have been given ad nauseam.

You simply choose to either ignore them and to continue as if it hadn't happened, or to say that you can't understand them as they're not "clear" enough for you.

That makes the whole exercise of taking the time to post "factual evidence"  rather than suggest that the troops on the ground could work five times more effectively if under your command rather pointless.

[AussieBob]

37 minutes ago, birdman said:

I just read in a foreign newspaper that members of the Taliban have started to

fight among each other,nothing has changed.

Rival tribes will take up weapons and keep fighting,just like since forever.

And my real Care Factor about the whole situation over there ???

 

 

[Fester]

12 minutes ago, Stonker said:

The "factual evidence", such as a direct link to the Doha Agreement and full quotes from it, have been given ad nauseam.

You simply choose to either ignore them and to continue as if it hadn't happened, or to say that you can't understand them as they're not "clear" enough for you.

That makes the whole exercise of taking the time to post "factual evidence"  rather than suggest that the troops on the ground could work five times more effectively if under your command rather pointless.

Your repeated quotings and postings of the Doha Agreement, which I have told you I already have, is the only thing you have provided (definitelty ad nauseam) and it's not even particularly relevant to the subject of the topic, which is Biden's apparent ignorance and stupidity, leading to the fouled-up exit from Afghanistan.  

[Poolie]

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Do you know that you have what some people would call a 'nasty' style and some would call 'confrontational'.

Example:  "You/what you said... is stupid and/or ridiculous - and have a lovely day/night."

Do you know what 'passive aggressive' means? Some people get really annoyed at that - not me though. Hope you had a great sleep and that your life is wonderful today 

No, I don't know. I'm fick, me. Dull as dishwater.

Happy teaching.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Convert54 said:

If, as I have seen stated , the US won the war back in 2003 against the Taliban I am left to wonder how the supposed defeated remnants so rapidly over ran so much territory ? Obviously they were never actually "defeated" but had merged .

"Wonder" no more! 

2003 was eighteen years ago, so that's plenty of time to not so much "merge" as to be united by a common enemy who'd invaded your country.

1 hour ago, Convert54 said:

... the mistakes of the Pentagon in inadequate intelligence provision which woefully underestimated the readiness and capacity of Taliban forces. 

That can certainly be blamed very fairly on the intelligence community - again.

The blame for woefully overestimating the readiness and capacity of the Afghan forces (ANSF), however, which is equally important, lies strictly with the military who were directly responsible for not only ensuring it but for reporting it.

The military failed dismally on both counts.

1 hour ago, Convert54 said:

I also wonder why so many foreign civilians remained in a heavily militarized situation given evacuation was impending anyway?

Because they trusted the Americans.

1 hour ago, Convert54 said:

Historians accredit the events of those times with the empowerment if not the creation of the "Taliban".

Really?

That's a new one on me, so while it may be veering off-topic I'd be very interested to know what events and how.

[AussieBob]

19 minutes ago, Poolie said:

No, I don't know. I'm fick, me. Dull as dishwater.

Happy teaching.

Not a Teacher - I am a Coach.  Teaching is the giving the same lesson to everyone and at the same time. Coaching is individual for each specific person - because we are all different - and some are more 'special' than others - like you.

Have a great day.     

[Stonker]

49 minutes ago, Fester said:

Your repeated quotings and postings of the Doha Agreement, which I have told you I already have, is the only thing you have provided (definitelty ad nauseam) and it's not even particularly relevant to the subject of the topic, ... (snip)

Well, despite your having told me you already have it you've kept on bringing it up and making uninformed claims about it which are clearly and demonstrably wrong. That alone would suggest it's rather pointless wasting time giving you any more.

The numbers of troops in Afghanistan over the last eighteen years is very easy to check, but if you're unable to do so i can give you a link for that, and I would have thought the comparable effectiveness and capacity of the Taliban vs the ANSF is so well established that it wouldn't need any verification unless someone's been living on another planet recently.

That only leaves your idea that you could get the US and coalition troops to work five times more efficiently than they have for the last two decades, and there's not really any source I can give for or against that.

 

Edit:

 

49 minutes ago, Fester said:

... the topic, which is Biden's apparent ignorance and stupidity, leading to the fouled-up exit from Afghanistan. 

... and FWIW, the topic  was "The Pentagon gave Biden severe warnings, about the possibility of the Taliban overrunning the Afghan army", so rather broader than tyour interpretation of it.

[Poolie]

1 hour ago, AussieBob said:

Not a Teacher - I am a Coach.  Teaching is the giving the same lesson to everyone and at the same time. Coaching is individual for each specific person - because we are all different - and some are more 'special' than others - like you.

Have a great day.     

Well, to us Brits a coach is a mode of transport for a lot of people, all at the same time. No so specific, even for the gifted among us. Like you. 

Enjoy your Thursday.

[Convert54]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

"Wonder" no more! 

2003 was eighteen years ago, so that's plenty of time to not so much "merge" as to be united by a common enemy who'd invaded your country.

That can certainly be blamed very fairly on the intelligence community - again.

The blame for woefully overestimating the readiness and capacity of the Afghan forces (ANSF), however, which is equally important, lies strictly with the military who were directly responsible for not only ensuring it but for reporting it.

The military failed dismally on both counts.

Because they trusted the Americans.

Really?

That's a new one on me, so while it may be veering off-topic I'd be very interested to know what events and how.

Perhaps I am in error by saying "Historians" rather than historical retrospect. IMO one reasonable overview is:

https://www.vox.com/world/22634008/us-troops-afghanistan-cold-war-bush-bin-laden

 

[Fester]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Well, despite your having told me you already have it you've kept on bringing it up and making uninformed claims about it which are clearly and demonstrably wrong. That alone would suggest it's rather pointless wasting time giving you any more.

The numbers of troops in Afghanistan over the last eighteen years is very easy to check, but if you're unable to do so i can give you a link for that, and I would have thought the comparable effectiveness and capacity of the Taliban vs the ANSF is so well established that it wouldn't need any verification unless someone's been living on another planet recently.

That only leaves your idea that you could get the US and coalition troops to work five times more efficiently than they have for the last two decades, and there's not really any source I can give for or against that.

Edit:

... and FWIW, the topic  was "The Pentagon gave Biden severe warnings, about the possibility of the Taliban overrunning the Afghan army", so rather broader than tyour interpretation of it.

Check back and see who's so keen on  "bringing it up". I know the US troop numbers, the other coalition countries are harder to source. And this 5x idea is also yours.

I think my "interpretation' of the topic line is close enough. How could such a bonehead become the C-in-C of such a powerful military?

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Fester said:

Check back and see who's so keen on  "bringing it up"

I did. You. I've only ever responded to you and others raising it incorrectly.

6 hours ago, Fester said:

I know the US troop numbers, the other coalition countries are harder to source. 

So you just made them up?

6 hours ago, Fester said:

And this 5x idea is also yours.

You said you could control the area (Kabul, Bagram, and the surrounding provinces) with a fifth of the troops it took to do that  between 2004 and 2014.

If you "know the US troop numbers", as you say, you can probably do the maths yourself.

Probably.

6 hours ago, Fester said:

How could such a bonehead become the C-in-C of such a powerful military?

Seriously???

 Sorry, ping-pong's over.

[Fester]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

I did. You. I've only ever responded to you and others raising it incorrectly.

So you just made them up?

You said you could control the area (Kabul, Bagram, and the surrounding provinces) with a fifth of the troops it took to do that  between 2004 and 2014.

If you "know the US troop numbers", as you say, you can probably do the maths yourself.

Probably.

Seriously???

 Sorry, ping-pong's over.

The usual false, misquoted or misinterpreted condecending rubbish.  

But you are eligible to reapply next year.

[AussieBob]

16 hours ago, Poolie said:

Well, to us Brits a coach is a mode of transport for a lot of people, all at the same time. No so specific, even for the gifted among us. Like you. 

Enjoy your Thursday.

No wonder the Brits cant win at Football - they have no 'gifted' Coaches (only the 'special one').

Yes I did thanks - you have a great Friday.

[Poolie]

6 hours ago, AussieBob said:

No wonder the Brits cant win at Football - they have no 'gifted' Coaches (only the 'special one').

Yes I did thanks - you have a great Friday.

We do ok for a little rock in the middle of the north sea. Call it living down to expectations.

Have a wonderful day.