Biden stands by decision to withdraw troops, says no leaving without ‘chaos ensuing’

[Craig]

I agree.  Regardless of who is in charge, there would always be chaos when leaving that place.  I’m guessing those who think we should stay are the same ones saying we should have stayed in VN.  We can’t win someone else’s war.  If they can’t fight for their country, why should we do their work???  The spread of communism back in the 60’s is today’s 9/11.  And today’s 9/11 is present whether we stay in that crap hole or not.  

[9S_]

5 hours ago, PBS said:

trump spent 285 days visiting golf venues which cost the US tax payer approx $115,000,000, plus numerous visits to his place in Florida, also costing the tax payer many millions of dollars. trump abused use of tax payers funds for an extraordinary number of days on self indulgent activities.

trump used the power of his Office to abuse and insult members of the public who disagreed with him. In summary whatever goodness trump managed to achieve, his overall behaviour and actions utterly drowned them.

Soooo orange man bad and his mean tweets got to you huh?

 

[Fester]

8 hours ago, Stonker said:

IIRC it's only been used by civilian cargo flights, not passenger flights, but it also has minefields within 500 metres of the runway which an aircraft could end up in if it overshoots which isn't acceptable for civilians, particularly if the pilots aren't familiar with it.

This is an emergency. Life or death. I think any risk would be quite acceptable for any of the poor buggers waiting to get out now and I bet there are enough pilots with the balls to fly them out.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Fester

[Stonker]

8 minutes ago, Fester said:

This is an emergency. Life or death. I think any risk would be quite acceptable for any of the poor buggers waiting to get out now and I bet there are enough pilots with the balls to fly them out.

Its not up to whether the pilots have "the balls to fly them out or not" unless the aircraft they're flying are theirs!

Even if you overlook everything else, the biggest problem with Bagram is simply that the Taliban can seal it off far more easily than Kabul so none of "the poor buggers waiting to get out now" would get within 10 or 20 kms of it so at best you'd have a lot of pilots with balls sitting waiting with empty planes.

The only option would have been to start this process with an urgency at least two years ago, if not way back at the end of 2014.

Nobody did, Democrat or Republican.

[Fester]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

Just to elaborate a bit now I've finished my morning constitutional, and maybe pre-empt a question, the minefield issue isn't insurmountable as like anything else it could be addressed given enough forethought and planning, and the minefields cleared, but that would lead on to more issues.

First, unless already cleared that would take time and lead into winter, which makes the runway that much more difficult for civilian aircrews unfamiliar with it.

Secondly, and more importantly, the minefields are part of the base security so if cleared they'd have to be replaced with construction and further manpower which would negate any benefits.

Most importantly, though, while Bagram is more secure that's a double-edged sword and if the Taliban wanted to block civilian access from would-be departing Afghans and Westerners alike, as they've reportedly started to do, they could do so far more easily around Bagram, from 10 or 20 kms away, than they could around Kabul airport, and you'd be playing right into their hands.

You could assemble what one poster suggested should be the biggest fleet of C-17s the world's ever seen, but if there's no one to get on them as they can't get there you may as well send a bicycle.

TBH, I'm a bit surprised others here with allegedly more recent on the ground military knowledge haven't pointed this out as it has to be common knowledge, but I suppose if you don't know the difference between "ops" (operations) and "OPs" (observation posts) that shouldn't have come as a surprise.

All this could have been organized within the last 6 months. Bagram could have also based air cover to keep the Taliban at a far distance from there and Kabul, while a stable evacuation was carried out from both airfields, over whatever time-frame was necessary. Had more assets been retained at Bagram, then real military knowledge and cooperation could have enabled all of this.

The big missing factor is leadership from the US C-in-C. This has resulted in the total panic we can see now. Hail to the Chief? What a cretin!   

[Fester]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Its not up to whether the pilots have "the balls to fly them out or not" unless the aircraft they're flying are theirs!

Even if you overlook everything else, the biggest problem with Bagram is simply that the Taliban can seal it off far more easily than Kabul so none of "the poor buggers waiting to get out now" would get within 10 or 20 kms of it so at best you'd have a lot of pilots with balls sitting waiting with empty planes.

The only option would have been to start this process with an urgency at least two years ago, if not way back at the end of 2014.

Nobody did, Democrat or Republican.

Of course I disagree. See my recent post.

[King Cotton]

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Even if you overlook everything else, the biggest problem with Bagram is simply that the Taliban can seal it off far more easily than Kabul so none of "the poor buggers waiting to get out now" would get within 10 or 20 kms of it so at best you'd have a lot of pilots with balls sitting waiting with empty planes.

Hi @Stonker! When you say 'the biggest problem with Bagram is simply that the Taliban can seal it off far more easily than Kabul', is it known whether the Taliban have done this or if they're even likely to? Surely this question would determine which airbase to use.

[Fester]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

In hindsight, I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been reported more in the US / UK press as it was reported on DW that a German was shot trying to get to the airport, as it was on France 24, and that access was being blocked.

A cynic might think that the US and UK are trying to downplay it to get a positive spin ... or even that they're happy to evacuate less refugees ...

That cynic would be you then? The gutter press is not the UK or US. 

[Fester]

Just now, King Cotton said:

Hi @Stonker! When you say 'the biggest problem with Bagram is simply that the Taliban can seal it off far more easily than Kabul', is it known whether the Taliban have done this or if they're even likely to? Surely this question would determine which airbase to use.

The Yanks gave it up recently. Insane.

[Stonker]

6 minutes ago, King Cotton said:

Hi @Stonker! When you say 'the biggest problem with Bagram is simply that the Taliban can seal it off far more easily than Kabul', is it known whether the Taliban have done this or if they're even likely to? Surely this question would determine which airbase to use.

Not really, as there's little left worth sealing.

The Americans left at night on 2 July, with the last man turning off the electricity, but somehow they overlooked telling the ANA who were supposed to take it over so by the time the ANA knew the next day the locals had already looted it.

It wasn't / isn't a case of "either / or", but even if it had been and the Americans had held on to Bagram for another month the Taliban could have sealed it off very easily if they wanted to - far more easily and securely than Kabul. 

[Poolie]

5 hours ago, Craig said:

I agree.  Regardless of who is in charge, there would always be chaos when leaving that place.  I’m guessing those who think we should stay are the same ones saying we should have stayed in VN.  We can’t win someone else’s war.  If they can’t fight for their country, why should we do their work???  The spread of communism back in the 60’s is today’s 9/11.  And today’s 9/11 is present whether we stay in that crap hole or not.  

I largely agree with this.

Apart from the 1960's communism thing. That hasnt turned out too bad overall has it?

America should stay at home. Play bluegrass or something.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

Of course I disagree. See my recent post.

 

1 hour ago, Fester said:

All this could have been organized within the last 6 months. Bagram could have also based air cover to keep the Taliban at a far distance from there and Kabul, while a stable evacuation was carried out from both airfields, over whatever time-frame was necessary. Had more assets been retained at Bagram, then real military knowledge and cooperation could have enabled all of this.

The big missing factor is leadership from the US C-in-C. This has resulted in the total panic we can see now. Hail to the Chief? What a cretin!   

I now see why you disagree.

The problem is that you can't use "air cover" on it's own to hold and control ground so that a "stable evacuation can be carried out". It's simply impossible without having troops on the ground to hold the ground - it's just impossible and can't be done.

In simple terms, it'd be like trying to control the crowds at a football match without having any police on the ground, and thinking you can do so by flying drones / fast jets / hels / whatever over the top to keep the two groups apart.

All you can do with air cover on it's own is to deny the ground and "keep the Taliban at a far distance from there and Kabul"  by stopping movement, which would be self-defeating as then nobody could get to Bagram or Kabul to be evacuated.  If the Taliban went around with big day-glo panels on top of their vehicles, wearing bright orange romper suits, out in the open, it would have been a possibility - but they don't.

Yes, fair enough, "had more assets been retained at Bagram, then real military knowledge and cooperation could have enabled all of this" but you wouldn't have needed just the air assets but ground forces too, in numbers, prepared to return to pre-December 2014 status and to take on the Taliban by themselves.

The US hadn't done that for six years, and neither had any of the coalition forces, and they'd given most of the equipment assets they could have used and would have needed away to the ANA or back-loaded them to the US (and UK, etc) and all the troops they had left were capable of doing apart from special ops was minimal training and force protection (local and perimeter security / self-protection).

It would have been impossible with the troops and assets they've had in country for the last 6 months, so what you're suggesting wouldn't have been just "retaining" assets for 6 months but returning to the troop and equipment levels they'd had more than six years before.

I don't think I need to say why that wasn't an option.

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

That cynic would be you then? The gutter press is not the UK or US. 

I'd hardly call DW and France 24 "the gutter press"!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

All this could have been organized within the last 6 months. Bagram could have also based air cover to keep the Taliban at a far distance from there and Kabul, while a stable evacuation was carried out from both airfields, over whatever time-frame was necessary. Had more assets been retained at Bagram, then real military knowledge and cooperation could have enabled all of this.

The big missing factor is leadership from the US C-in-C. This has resulted in the total panic we can see now. Hail to the Chief? What a cretin!   

Excellent post Fester mate the logical sequence would have been to keep hold of Bagram until the evacuation of all relevant civilians had taken place they could have been moved by HELO from Kabul to Bagram and then to a 3rd Country by Military aircraft.

It would have also served as a pick up point for Coalition troops exiting out of theatre during an organized exfiltration.

I blame the 2 Obama shills Generals Austin and Miley for this disaster they were to busy talking about White rage and CRT and lacked moral courage to do the right thing.

And talking about Bagram Airbase I bet Pakistani ISI and other nefarious actors are doing a forensic deep dive on the place as we talk.

[Fester]

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

I now see why you disagree.

The problem is that you can't use "air cover" on it's own to hold and control ground so that a "stable evacuation can be carried out". It's simply impossible without having troops on the ground to hold the ground - it's just impossible and can't be done.

In simple terms, it'd be like trying to control the crowds at a football match without having any police on the ground, and thinking you can do so by flying drones / fast jets / hels / whatever over the top to keep the two groups apart.

All you can do with air cover on it's own is to deny the ground and "keep the Taliban at a far distance from there and Kabul"  by stopping movement, which would be self-defeating as then nobody could get to Bagram or Kabul to be evacuated.  If the Taliban went around with big day-glo panels on top of their vehicles, wearing bright orange romper suits, out in the open, it would have been a possibility - but they don't.

Yes, fair enough, "had more assets been retained at Bagram, then real military knowledge and cooperation could have enabled all of this" but you wouldn't have needed just the air assets but ground forces too, in numbers, prepared to return to pre-December 2014 status and to take on the Taliban by themselves.

The US hadn't done that for six years, and neither had any of the coalition forces, and they'd given most of the equipment assets they could have used and would have needed away to the ANA or back-loaded them to the US (and UK, etc) and all the troops they had left were capable of doing apart from special ops was minimal training and force protection (local and perimeter security / self-protection).

It would have been impossible with the troops and assets they've had in country for the last 6 months, so what you're suggesting wouldn't have been just "retaining" assets for 6 months but returning to the troop and equipment levels they'd had more than six years before.

I don't think I need to say why that wasn't an option.

With air cover the Afghan forces plus extra inserted US/NATO tropos could have held the enemy well away from the Kabul area (loss of air support is one of the reasons for the rapid collapse of the ANA). I already mentioned that a temporary increase in US/Nato troops would likely have been necessary. Troop numbers would not need to have been at 2014 levels to achieve a controlled exit - which should have been the final mission - of course it was an option.

[riclag]

6 hours ago, Fester said:

This is an emergency. Life or death. I think any risk would be quite acceptable for any of the poor buggers waiting to get out now and I bet there are enough pilots with the balls to fly them out.

Hopefully it won't be the same idiot pilots that took off, out of that airport with passengers hanging on the plane without parachutes !

I can just hear it now imop !

Ground ,hey you have civilians hanging on the plane , as he's taxiing!

Pilot ,I can't read you ,say again!

Edited August 22, 2021 by riclag

[Stonker]

Just now, Fester said:

plus extra inserted US/NATO tropos 

"extra inserted US/NATO troops" for at least 6 months, plus PDT, to work independently of the ANA, policing and patrolling Kabul and the surrounding area, after a 6 year break, during which all the US and coalition military had been doing was force protection, nothing else, apart from SF ops?

32 minutes ago, Fester said:

Troop numbers would not need to have been at 2014 levels to achieve a controlled exit - which should have been the final mission.

So what numbers do you think would have been required to provide force protection for Bagram, the route and surrounding area through the mountains from Kabul, Kabul itself, and the surrounding area, and to sustain and support them for at least six months against a Taliban that was unopposed in most of the rest of the country, all without ANA support?

 

..... simple question .....

 

It's one thing to deploy a limited number of troops to do limited force protection for a fortnight, as they're doing now, and a totally different thing to return to policing and patrolling a city, combat ops, and taking casualties, when you've said six years beforehand that combat ops are over. 

You're in la-la land - that was never an option.

9 minutes ago, Fester said:

(loss of air support is one of the reasons for the rapid collapse of the ANA)

No it isn't.

They'd passed that stage long ago.

They simply had no further interest in doing the job without the pay and promised perks, in return for knowing that once the Americans left they'd immediately lose that support and be back to square one, facing the Taliban on their own.

What incentive did they have for making a rod for their own backs protecting the Americans until they were all safely out of the country, knowing what they'd be facing as soon as they were on their own?

- None. Absolutely none.

Do you seriously think they'd risk their lives any longer to make sure the Coalition could get out safely once they said they were going?

Seriously?

[Stonker]

43 minutes ago, riclag said:

Hopefully it won't be the same idiot pilots that took off, out of that airport with passengers hanging on the plane without parachutes !

I can just hear it now imop !

Ground ,hey you have civilians hanging on the plane , as he's taxiing!

Pilot ,I can't read you ,say again!

So what do you think the "idiot pilots" should have done?

Stopped, got out, and asked them nicely to get off and to wait for the next bus?

[Fester]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

So what do you think the "idiot pilots" should have done?

Stopped, got out, and asked them nicely to get off and to wait for the next bus?

You sound more and more like the president. Sad.

[Stonker]

10 hours ago, Fester said:

You sound more and more like the president. Sad.

"What do you think the "idiot pilots" should have done?"

is about as simple a question as it gets.

What's "sad" is that while you're criticising those who are risking their lives to save thousands of  people they don't even know, calling them"idiots" from the safety of your armchair, you're unable to answer it.

[Dancbmac]

On 8/20/2021 at 1:39 PM, Stonker said:

TBF, @Dancbmac, I do think there was another option that would have solved all these problems, including the "chaos", relatively easily but I don't think it would ever have been acceptable to the US even if it had been to the rest of the coalition.

All they needed to do was to speed up and broaden the visa process, and early on (a year ago) to start taking out big numbers of not just those directly promised visas (interpreters, etc) but their families as well, as well as "normal" visa applicants who wanted to leave and were likely to be targeted by the Taliban, so that all that were left at this stage were a bare minimum of pre-approved visa holders.

At the same time, in parallel, contractors could have been drawn down and replaced by coalition troops where possible, and those with families there told that their families must leave early on rather than at the last minute or they would be given no help.

Job jobbed, problem solved, no "chaos" and a bit of dignity  -  but the US and others would have had to accept large numbers of refugees, which doesn't seem to be an option.

Agreed about this. The SIV visas are an extremely long process.  When I was working over there, it took approximately two years for some of my Afghan coworkers to get their SIV visas for them and their families.  Lots of paperwork for vetting and letters of recommendation with several trips to Kabul to the Embassy for interviews.  One of my close Afghan friends said his wife had to hide all their documents under her burka to get past some roadblock checkpoints that the Taliban set up, as they didn’t search his wife at these stops.  On one of his trips to the embassy he told me that the car in front of his, they pulled the husband and wife out of the car and shot them in the ditch along the side of the road and one of them took the car.  He was with his pregnant wife and four kids, and they were all extremely frightened. He had to tell them that his wife was having medical complications due to pregnancy and had to go to Kabul doctors and they let them go.  They were worried on their trip coming back to Jalalabad, but they didn’t have a check point setup.  This was a couple years ago and now safely living in California.

[Fester]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

"What do you think the "idiot pilots" should have done?"

is about as simple a question as it gets.

What's "sad" is that while you're criticising those who are risking their lives to save thousands of  people they don't even know, calling them"idiots" from the safety of your armchair, you're unable to answer it.

Not said by me. Like Biden, you're losing it.

[Guest]

NEWSFLASH

Gun battle a few hours ago at the northern gate of Kabul Airport involving US Bundeswehr ANSF and unknown assailants (another example of the Biden administrations failure in the Afghanistan drawdown).

In other news Afghan SIV  (special immigrant visas) recipients to the US are already refusing resettlement in Democrat run Cities in The US citing their concerns of high crime lawlessness and the high risk of being shot in the crossfire in Democrat controlled Cities.    

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Dancbmac said:

Agreed about this. The SIV visas are an extremely long process.  When I was working over there, it took approximately two years for some of my Afghan coworkers to get their SIV visas for them and their families.  Lots of paperwork for vetting and letters of recommendation with several trips to Kabul to the Embassy for interviews.  One of my close Afghan friends said his wife had to hide all their documents under her burka to get past some roadblock checkpoints that the Taliban set up, as they didn’t search his wife at these stops.  On one of his trips to the embassy he told me that the car in front of his, they pulled the husband and wife out of the car and shot them in the ditch along the side of the road and one of them took the car.  He was with his pregnant wife and four kids, and they were all extremely frightened. He had to tell them that his wife was having medical complications due to pregnancy and had to go to Kabul doctors and they let them go.  They were worried on their trip coming back to Jalalabad, but they didn’t have a check point setup.  This was a couple years ago and now safely living in California.

Informative and very much on point, thank you - that's why I said the process should have started two years ago, not at the last minute or six months ago.

 

The problem isn't airport security or the number of aircraft - that has never been, nor has it ever been likely to be the problem.

 

The problem has always been, and has always been going to be, access to the airport not just from Kabul but from across Afghanistan.

 

So far the Taliban don't seem to have co-ordinated limiting or allowing access so it's a matter of luck - or bad luck.

 

This has always been going to be the case, as has been obvious for a decade and unavoidably obvious since 2014 and at least the last two years, which is why trying to pin the failure to do anything to avert it down to Republicans or Democrats is so stupid, petty and puerile.

 

It isn't a Republican or a Democrat failure, as both parties failed to do anything.  It's an American failure, just as Vietnam and Iraq were, but that doesn't absolve anyone else, particularly the UK, from equal responsibility and blame.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

Not said by me. Like Biden, you're losing it.

Actually it was said by @riclag, who I quoted and addressed the question to.