Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

soupslam1

Afghanistan Troop Withdrawals

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

What? Oh my god, no way. They said they were reformed. They promised, no take backsies!

 

Is this the kinder gentler Taliban @Akkula was telling us about?  He assured me these guys were changed and we should free up hundreds of millions for them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I read a rationale about why leaving Bagram.  @Nevada Convert what do you think?  Does this change your thinking? Read below:

 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged in Capitol Hill hearings last week that the Pentagon was surprised by the collapse of the Afghan military within 11 days. But in his opening statements in the hearings, Austin defended the decision to leave Bagram.

"Retaining Bagram would have required putting as many as five thousand U.S. troops in harm's way, just to operate and defend it. And it would have contributed little to the mission that we had been assigned, and that was to protect and defend our embassy which was some 30 miles away," he said. "Staying at Bagram -- even for counter- terrorism purposes -- meant staying at war in Afghanistan, something that the President made clear that he would not do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 415hawaiiboy said:

This is the first time I read a rationale about why leaving Bagram.  @Nevada Convert what do you think?  Does this change your thinking? Read below:

 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged in Capitol Hill hearings last week that the Pentagon was surprised by the collapse of the Afghan military within 11 days. But in his opening statements in the hearings, Austin defended the decision to leave Bagram.

"Retaining Bagram would have required putting as many as five thousand U.S. troops in harm's way, just to operate and defend it. And it would have contributed little to the mission that we had been assigned, and that was to protect and defend our embassy which was some 30 miles away," he said. "Staying at Bagram -- even for counter- terrorism purposes -- meant staying at war in Afghanistan, something that the President made clear that he would not do."

Didn't we have to put 5,000 to 6,000 troops back in to defend half the Kabul airport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

Didn't we have to put 5,000 to 6,000 troops back in to defend half the Kabul airport?

I think we did.  Anyways, I got that quote about Bagram from this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/kabul-airport-attacker-prison/index.html

Protecting Kabul Airport and not to mention defending Bagram located 30 miles away from the diplomatic missions, but also in close proximity to the prisons that housed the terrorists.  Unless we defend the prisons forever or move the prisoners to Gitmo, those guys will get out eventually.  We could have done some kind of war crime and blow up the prisons, but I don’t think that would look too good for the US.  Therefore, leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 415hawaiiboy said:

I think we did.  Anyways, I got that quote about Bagram from this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/kabul-airport-attacker-prison/index.html

Protecting Kabul Airport and not to mention defending Bagram located 30 miles away from the diplomatic missions, but also in close proximity to the prisons that housed the terrorists.  Unless we defend the prisons forever or move the prisoners to Gitmo, those guys will get out eventually.  We could have done some kind of war crime and blow up the prisons, but I don’t think that would look too good for the US.  Therefore, leave.

 

I get there's lots of Monday morning quarterbacking going on with this whole thing.  The withdrawal was a disaster and we probably should have waited to pull everyone out after the fighting season.  The frustrating part coming out now is how many advisors told Biden not to pull all the troops out even if we were to just keep them there till the winter snow fell, and he ignored them all and went ahead with it.  Afghanistan was going to fall regardless, but atleast do it when the taliban is hindered from moving rapidly, buy yourself some time to evacuate people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 9:43 AM, 415hawaiiboy said:

I think we did.  Anyways, I got that quote about Bagram from this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/kabul-airport-attacker-prison/index.html

Protecting Kabul Airport and not to mention defending Bagram located 30 miles away from the diplomatic missions, but also in close proximity to the prisons that housed the terrorists.  Unless we defend the prisons forever or move the prisoners to Gitmo, those guys will get out eventually.  We could have done some kind of war crime and blow up the prisons, but I don’t think that would look too good for the US.  Therefore, leave.

 

There were numerous generals that had the opposite opinion as Austin. Due to location Bagram was more easily defended than the airport in the middle of Kabul. Plus we already had a military contingent there. The country may not have also fallen so fast as we could have provided air support out of Bagram. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 7:05 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Didn’t get past the sub wall. Tragic, no doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...