Nikki Haley gets it right
-
The word on the street is that:
- If the U.S. had left 2500 combat troops, mostly trainers and advisors, and...
- Allowed U.S. contractors to function as they had been, with access to spare parts, especially for the air assets...
The Taliban could have been told to piss up a rope. Indefinitely.
wrote on 17 Aug 2021, 23:53 last edited by@jolly said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
The word on the street is that:
- If the U.S. had left 2500 combat troops, mostly trainers and advisors, and...
- Allowed U.S. contractors to function as they had been, with access to spare parts, especially for the air assets...
The Taliban could have been told to piss up a rope. Indefinitely.
Yeah - the economist wrote a piece about staying there in April with a small force:
But, to be fair, it was bad politics.
-
wrote on 17 Aug 2021, 23:58 last edited by
It's interesting to read the comments about how a "small force" could have prevented this.
I have to wonder how much non-governmental "contractor" support would have been required to achieve this goal.
Am I the only one concerned by the blurring of the line between official "military" status and contractual personnel?
In another thread I commented that the Afghan air force was crippled because "contractors" were stopped from providing supplies and support.
I find this quite disturbing. Hiring mercenaries (is there a better word) to do the work of the US government strikes me as being beyond distasteful.
-
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 00:00 last edited by xenon
I don't know if this is right - but I think the most important effect of the U.S. presence was propping up senior Afghan military ranks and government officials.
When we left, they folded, then the front-lines didn't give a shit anymore.
In the past, the front-line Afghan fighters did fight... so what changed?
-
It's interesting to read the comments about how a "small force" could have prevented this.
I have to wonder how much non-governmental "contractor" support would have been required to achieve this goal.
Am I the only one concerned by the blurring of the line between official "military" status and contractual personnel?
In another thread I commented that the Afghan air force was crippled because "contractors" were stopped from providing supplies and support.
I find this quite disturbing. Hiring mercenaries (is there a better word) to do the work of the US government strikes me as being beyond distasteful.
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 00:01 last edited by@george-k said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
It's interesting to read the comments about how a "small force" could have prevented this.
I have to wonder how much non-governmental "contractor" support would have been required to achieve this goal.
Am I the only one concerned by the blurring of the line between official "military" status and contractual personnel?
In another thread I commented that the Afghan air force was crippled because "contractors" were stopped from providing supplies and support.
I find this quite disturbing. Hiring mercenaries (is there a better word) to do the work of the US government strikes me as being beyond distasteful.
Been going on for awhile. From food to housing, some contractor is doing the work.
-
@george-k said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
It's interesting to read the comments about how a "small force" could have prevented this.
I have to wonder how much non-governmental "contractor" support would have been required to achieve this goal.
Am I the only one concerned by the blurring of the line between official "military" status and contractual personnel?
In another thread I commented that the Afghan air force was crippled because "contractors" were stopped from providing supplies and support.
I find this quite disturbing. Hiring mercenaries (is there a better word) to do the work of the US government strikes me as being beyond distasteful.
Been going on for awhile. From food to housing, some contractor is doing the work.
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 00:04 last edited by@jolly said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
Been going on for awhile. From food to housing, some contractor is doing the work.
When did this start?
Iraq?
This wasn't the MO of the DoD until fairly recently, was it?
-
It's interesting to read the comments about how a "small force" could have prevented this.
I have to wonder how much non-governmental "contractor" support would have been required to achieve this goal.
Am I the only one concerned by the blurring of the line between official "military" status and contractual personnel?
In another thread I commented that the Afghan air force was crippled because "contractors" were stopped from providing supplies and support.
I find this quite disturbing. Hiring mercenaries (is there a better word) to do the work of the US government strikes me as being beyond distasteful.
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 00:22 last edited by@george-k said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
I find this quite disturbing. Hiring mercenaries (is there a better word) to do the work of the US government strikes me as being beyond distasteful.
Count on the left to find it righteous.
-
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 00:36 last edited by
Dick Cheney and Halliburton got a lot of press for its profiting from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a career path for ex-military - and some distance and deniability for the government. President Trump's criticism of these conflicts and the manner in which they were conducted seems on point. Eisenhower would have not been surprised.
-
@xenon said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
@doctor-phibes That is a legitimate point of view. The Korean or Japanese model.
And Germany, for that matter… We have permanent bases in Europe, the South Pacific, Eastern Asia, etc… There’s no reason to not have a large permanent base in Afghanistan…
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 01:29 last edited by Doctor Phibes@lufins-dad said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
@xenon said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
@doctor-phibes That is a legitimate point of view. The Korean or Japanese model.
And Germany, for that matter… We have permanent bases in Europe, the South Pacific, Eastern Asia, etc… There’s no reason to not have a large permanent base in Afghanistan…
I agree it's a legitimate view, however Afghanistan is nothing like these countries. If the US had pulled out of Germany in 1965 the Nazis wouldn't have re-taken the country in a week, or a year, or even a decade. Also the corruption in these countries is nothing like that in US-friendly Afghanistan. I don't think using these countries as comparison points is a valid thing to do.
-
@jolly said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
Been going on for awhile. From food to housing, some contractor is doing the work.
When did this start?
Iraq?
This wasn't the MO of the DoD until fairly recently, was it?
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 01:47 last edited by Copper@george-k said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
@jolly said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
Been going on for awhile. From food to housing, some contractor is doing the work.
When did this start?
Iraq?
This wasn't the MO of the DoD until fairly recently, was it?
It probably started during the Revolutionary War, maybe before.
Guys with fancy college degrees and expensive skills don't join the Army, well, maybe some do.
I worked with the Army, Navy, Air Force, State Department and more government agencies as a contractor. And so do millions of others.
-
I don't know if this is right - but I think the most important effect of the U.S. presence was propping up senior Afghan military ranks and government officials.
When we left, they folded, then the front-lines didn't give a shit anymore.
In the past, the front-line Afghan fighters did fight... so what changed?
wrote on 18 Aug 2021, 02:20 last edited by Loki@xenon said in Nikki Haley gets it right:
I don't know if this is right - but I think the most important effect of the U.S. presence was propping up senior Afghan military ranks and government officials.
When we left, they folded, then the front-lines didn't give a shit anymore.
In the past, the front-line Afghan fighters did fight... so what changed?
They knew we were leaving and they wanted to live.
Our own prognosis was weeks or months.