• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Afghan "train, advise and assist" 1984 style

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,204
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Well it seems we didn't quite get to the 1 year anniversary of our non-combat role (minus of course those unique times when air assistance is needed to destroy a hospital). It seems the Taliban has had a busy year taking over about 10% of the Afghan districts. This could get fun by the time we get to next November, after another Taliban summer offensive. Just imagine the bloviating politicos going on about yet another Pres. Obama foreign policy failure. Maybe Hillary will feel compelled to promise to be there until infinity and beyond...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/asia/afghan-province-teetering-to-the-taliban-draws-in-extra-us-forces.html?_r=0
A Western diplomat said last week that United States Special Operations forces had been engaged in combat in Helmand for weeks, and that there were more American forces fighting there than at any time since President Obama last year announced a formal end to combat operations in Afghanistan.

The extent of the American role has been kept largely secret, with senior Afghan officials in the area saying they are under orders not to divulge the level of cooperation, especially by Special Operations forces on the ground. The secrecy reflects the Pentagon’s concern that the involvement may suggest that the American combat role, which was supposed to have ended in December 2014, is still far beyond the official “train, advise and assist” mission.

The elite ground units in Helmand include both Special Operations troops and the United States Air Force’s Special Tactics Squadron, according to the Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering his colleagues.

The American intervention in Helmand is accelerating amid growing reports of demoralized or trapped Afghan security forces and alarm at the amount of territory the Taliban have been able to seize in Helmand this year. If the insurgents are able to sweep away the tenuous government presence in district centers and the capital, Lashkar Gah, it would be a dire setback for the Afghan government, and would give the Taliban a strong foothold in southern Afghanistan.
 
Well, the problem seems to be that you forgot about finishing this war so that you could go off and fight ISIS. Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.
 
Well, the problem seems to be that you forgot about finishing this war so that you could go off and fight ISIS. Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.

https://www.google.com/search?newwi....0....0...1c.1.64.hp..3.18.2301.0.KagyfXhfD4w

Afghanistan seems to have been suited to war. Back in 1990 the population was about 11 million. Today it is about 32 million. Don't you think NOTHING TODAY IN AFGHANISTAN IS 1984 STYLE? Nothing is the same in Afghanistan. There are three times as many people living there today as there were in 1984 and their land is littered with the residue of two major invasions (Russian and American), yet these people are so fecund their population just grows by leaps and bounds and a lot of them appear to be of Taliban persuasion. Nobody has been able to impose a democratic or any other modern idea of government on these people, but all our killing and wasted violence seems to have gotten these people into the breeding mode. So we have a few troops there...so what? I think it is high time that the foreigners leave this country and, because they have involved Afghani people, they should take their refugees with them...and THERE WILL BE REFUGEES.

Despite the Russian and American casualties in Afghanistan, there have always been huge Afghani casualties in these conflicts. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in 2001, there were about 20 million of Afghanis. Now there are 12 million more, the increase during (official) American involvement and we seem to think sending more military people there will somehow fix something? We just don't learn anything do we? U.S. operations there have been every bit as inhumane as anything the Taliban did. We had to leave and expect there was going to be upheaval and a contest for power in the country. We can't accept the conditions we have created with our war and are now attempting to fix things in the same way we originally attempted but the hill we have to climb is a lot steeper and there are a lot more enemies in that swollen population. We need to allow this issue to settle and this could be done, but it will still involve a lot of bloodshed and a lot of attempted repression by the Taliban. That is why I say we should take the refugees we are responsible for and GET OUT. Once we are completely out then we can define only humane conditions for our future involvement in the country...something we should have done in the first place. We really have to understand we cannot kill or neutralize our "enemies" in this country. They are breeding faster than we can kill them and what we are doing is just plain wrong.

Forget all this anti Muslim talk. It is a country full of Muslims of all stripes. They need a chance to settle their own affairs. We still owe refugees shelter.:eek:
 
Last edited:
Don't you think NOTHING TODAY IN AFGHANISTAN IS 1984 STYLE? Nothing is the same in Afghanistan.
Meh...the '1984 style' phrase was supposed to be in reference to the previous "train, advise and assist" phrase, where double speak has been fully mastered in a way that would make George Orwell proud.

Dec 28, 2014:
http://time.com/3648055/united-states-afghanistan-war-end/
The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan ended its combat mission Sunday, marking the formal—if not real—end to the longest war in American history.
<snip>
“For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan,” President Obama said in a statement. “Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.”
...or irresponsible and simply taking a short nap...

Kind of reminds me of some previous buffoon that said "mission accomplished", just more eloquent...
 
Meh...the '1984 style' phrase was supposed to be in reference to the previous "train, advise and assist" phrase, where double speak has been fully mastered in a way that would make George Orwell proud.

Dec 28, 2014:
http://time.com/3648055/united-states-afghanistan-war-end/
The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan ended its combat mission Sunday, marking the formal—if not real—end to the longest war in American history.
<snip>
“For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan,” President Obama said in a statement. “Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.”
...or irresponsible and simply taking a short nap...

Kind of reminds me of some previous buffoon that said "mission accomplished", just more eloquent...

Actually, what it looks like to me is we can't seem to find leadership that knows how to quit taking a path that does not work. We kill kill kill and they jump their population 12 million. It is kind of like Nature is trying to tell us something about trying to murder your competition with instruments of mass destruction...jet fighters, bombers etc. Obama keeps bragging about how we are killing their leaders and soon we will somehow swoop down and knock them apart. That is clearly a pipe dream. There are more Afghans for the Taliban to recruit every day no matter how many we kill, but our knuckle head presidents just haven't gotten it yet.
 
Here's a really good article on Afghanistan:
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/

“In the spring and summer of last year, a coalition of Syrian rebel groups calling itself Jaish al-Fatah — the Army of Conquest — swept through the northwestern province of Idlib, posing a serious threat to the Assad regime. Leading the charge was Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch, known locally as Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front). The other major component of the coalition was Ahrar al-Sham, a group that had formed early in the anti-Assad uprising and looked for inspiration to none other than Abdullah Azzam. Following the victory, Nusra massacred twenty members of the Druze faith, considered heretical by fundamentalists, and forced the remaining Druze to convert to Sunni Islam. (The Christian population of the area had wisely fled.)... This potent alliance of jihadi militias had been formed under the auspices of the rebellion’s major backers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar. But it also enjoyed the endorsement of two other major players. At the beginning of the year, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had ordered his followers to cooperate with other groups. In March, according to several sources, a U.S.-Turkish-Saudi “coordination room” in southern Turkey had also ordered the rebel groups it was supplying to cooperate with Jaish al-Fatah. The groups, in other words, would be embedded within the Al Qaeda coalition.

A few months before the Idlib offensive, a member of one CIA-backed group had explained the true nature of its relationship to the Al Qaeda franchise. Nusra, he told the New York Times, allowed militias vetted by the United States to appear independent, so that they would continue to receive American supplies. When I asked a former White House official involved in Syria policy if this was not a de facto alliance, he put it this way: “I would not say that Al Qaeda is our ally, but a turnover of weapons is probably unavoidable. I’m fatalistic about that. It’s going to happen.”

Earlier in the Syrian war, U.S. officials had at least maintained the pretense that weapons were being funneled only to so-called moderate opposition groups. But in 2014, in a speech at Harvard, Vice President Joe Biden confirmed that we were arming extremists once again, although he was careful to pin the blame on America’s allies in the region… Biden’s explanation was entirely reminiscent of official excuses for the arming of fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the 1980s, which maintained that the Pakistanis had total control of the distribution of U.S.-supplied weapons and that the CIA was incapable of intervening… Asked why the United States of America was supposedly powerless to stop nations like Qatar, population 2.19 million, from pouring arms into the arsenals of Nusra and similar groups, a former adviser to one of the Gulf States replied softly: “They didn’t want to.”

...

“Anxious as they might have been to obscure the true nature of their relationship with unappealing Afghans like Hekmatyar, U.S. officials were even more careful when it came to the Arab fundamentalists who flocked to the war in Afghanistan and later embarked on global jihad as Al Qaeda. No one could deny that they had been there, but their possible connection to the CIA became an increasingly delicate subject as Al Qaeda made its presence felt in the 1990s. The official line — that the United States had kept its distance from the Arab mujahedeen — was best expressed by Robert Gates, who became director of the CIA in 1991. When the agency first learned of the jihadi recruits pouring into Afghanistan from across the Arab world, he later wrote, “We examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of ‘international brigade,’ but nothing came of it.” The reality was otherwise. The United States was intimately involved in the enlistment of these volunteers — indeed, many of them were signed up through a network of recruiting offices in this country. The guiding light in this effort was a charismatic Palestinian cleric, Abdullah Azzam, who founded Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as the Afghan Services Bureau, in 1984, to raise money and recruits for jihad. He was assisted by a wealthy young Saudi, Osama bin Laden. The headquarters for the U.S. arm of the operation was in Brooklyn, at the Al-Kifah Refugee Center on Atlantic Avenue, which Azzam invariably visited when touring mosques and universities across the country.

"You have to put it in context,” argued Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and counterterrorism expert who has done much to expose the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program. “Throughout most of the 1980s, the jihad in Afghanistan was something supported by this country. The recruitment among Muslims here in America was in the open. Azzam officially visited the United States, and he went from mosque to mosque — they recruited many people to fight in Afghanistan under that banner.”…

According to El-Baz, MAK had been maintained after the Afghan conflict for future deployment against Iran. Its funding, he insisted, came from the Saudis and the CIA. A portion of that money had been parked at the Al-Kifah office in Brooklyn, under the supervision of one of Azzam’s acolytes — until the custodian was himself murdered, possibly by adherents of a rival jihadi…. American involvement with Azzam’s organization went well beyond laissez-faire indulgence. “We encouraged the recruitment of not only Saudis but Palestinians and Lebanese and a great variety of combatants, who would basically go to Afghanistan to perform jihad,” McWilliams insisted. “This was part of the CIA plan. This was part of the game.”

From a realpolitik perspective, the history of American intervention in the region stretching very far back and continuing unabated until today has been a history of bumbling errors born out of an egregious myopia and a downright ignorant understanding of the culture that continues to blow up in our face. The worst part is that I bet you could find plenty of people at the CIA and State department who could have clearly predicted this. Perhaps even worse still, no one is held accountable for these failures and the exact same idiotic strategies keep being used over and over.

From a moral perspective, it has been a century of horrible crimes against humanity committed one after another.
 
Yep, that is a decent summary of US support of terror over the decades....
 
Instead of starting another thread in the war that will never end...I thought I'd just update this one. 2016 seems to be continuing last years trend, with the Afghan government loosing about another 5% of territory, down to just 2/3s of the country.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...ritory-afghanistan-sigar-160729053011049.html
Published on Friday by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the report says the area under Afghan government "control or influence" decreased to 65.6 percent by the end of May from 70.5 percent last year, based on data provided by US forces in Afghanistan.

That accounts to a loss of 19 of the country's approximately 400 governing districts.

A 6th US soldier has recently died in our "train, advise, & assist" roll, due to a road side bomb, while on the way to again train Afghans on how to defend the Helmand provincial capital yet again. At least the US death toll is remaining very small in this forgotten war. I'm not sure what part of bombing again with B-52 bombers (yeah they were brought back to a couple months ago as part of our continuing non-combat operations) is part of "train, advise, & assist", but its good to know that B-52's are now capable of handling "counterterrorism operations". I guess we shouldn't complain about the militarization of US police...

This is the war that doesn't end
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started killing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue killing it forever just because...
 
Well, the problem seems to be that you forgot about finishing this war so that you could go off and fight ISIS. Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.

Please do not blame the people fighting (the actual US military) for the idiocy of our "leaders," most of whom have never worn a uniform.
 
Happy 15th – a sleeper B-day came and went

Alas, we have crossed the 2nd year, as combat operations in Afghanistan ended in December 2014 (or maybe it will officially be Dec 31st...)

Now that the presidential race is formally over, it’s good to know that our longest war (15 years as of October) wasn’t a topic for those that wanted to be our president. What will Trump do? The easiest thing would be to just let the pot continue to simmer for another 4 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/afghanistan-war-taliban_us_581cb5aee4b0d9ce6fbb71ff
The 15th anniversary of the start of the war passed last month almost without notice. The stark choices facing President-elect Donald Trump ― more troops? more money? withdrawal? ― received no attention in the presidential campaign, an ill omen for the months ahead when careful and considered action will be needed.
<snip>
But a new independent analysis found worse news: The Taliban actually controls or influences 97 districts, up from 70 a year ago.


The Taliban is strong enough to lure us into a trap:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-u-s-front-in-afghanistan-1479489075
On the night of Nov. 3, U.S. and Afghan Special Forces in helicopters landed in a village on the outskirts of Kunduz, Afghanistan, hoping to kill or capture local Taliban leaders planning another major attack on the city, the capital of Kunduz province in the country’s north. Instead, the militants led them into a trap.

An hourslong battle erupted. By the time it was over, two U.S. and three Afghan soldiers had been killed, nine had been wounded, and some 30 civilians lay dead in the rubble.
But hey the good news is that we might end the year with only 13 dead US soldiers (the 15,000 dead Afghan soldiers don’t count).


Note: (1) None of this criticism is directed towards the men and women serving in our armed forces. (2) Alas, I will probably have to post an update in 12 months, repeating that little has changed, though probably Afghanistan will have slid a little further down into the abyss...
 
Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.
 
Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.

Could become problematic, as more and more countries learn what US "training, advice and assistance" really means. :rolleyes:
 
This is the war that never ends…

As the 2nd US soldier (yes ignoring the thousands of Afghans dead for every foreign one) has died this year, in our "concluded combat operations", I thought an update would be useful with generals seeing nails needing hammering. The FY17 cost is coming in at $55 billion. And the generals think they need a few thousand more pieces of fodder to toy with. And El Cheato has pretty much ignored our longest war/occupation to date…so after asking what the new president might do back in early December 2016, we still have no clue as to the new Administration’s direction here.

But the Generals know what they want. WTF, do they teach insanity at West Point? Afghanistan slips further into the abyss with the government retaining ever less control of the districts. The General have no end game, just more of the same...
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/15...-war-a-mess-his-generals-want-to-escalate-it/
Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to ask for a “few thousand” more U.S. troops. Last week, his boss, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, echoed Nicholson’s request, telling senators that a new “strategy” for Afghanistan had to “involve additional forces.” And this week, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who never met a Muslim-majority nation they did not want to bomb, invade, or occupy, used a Washington Post op-ed to call for — surprise, surprise — “additional U.S. and coalition forces” in Afghanistan, including “special operations forces and close air support.”

“It is imperative that we see our mission through to success,” they declaimed.

What was that definition of insanity again?
<snip>
During his Senate testimony, Nicholson was asked by McCain whether the U.S. was winning or losing in Afghanistan. “I believe we are in a stalemate,” replied the general.
<snip>
Defeating the Taliban? The insurgents have been on the offensive over the past year or so and now hold more Afghan territory than in any year since 2001. As Politico reported, “The Afghan government controlled 57 percent of the country’s districts in November, … which is a 6 percent loss since August and a 15 percent drop compared with November 2015.”

Does any of that sound like a draw to you? Nicholson and Votel might be of the view that neither side has the upper hand (hence “stalemate”) yet as Henry Kissinger once remarked, “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.” (Yes, I hate agreeing with Kissinger, too.)

And with all eyes on Syria, could Russia be considering ratcheting up the heat in Afghanistan? Asymmetrical warfare anyone? And El Cheato hasn’t bothered to yet name a new ambassador to Afghanistan.
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-afghanistan-russia-taliban-2017-story.html
Reports have swirled for months across northern Afghanistan that Russia is increasing its support for the Taliban, providing weapons and financing to the militant group that has battled U.S. and international forces since 2001.
<snip>
U.S. and Afghan officials have reacted with alarm since Alexander Mantytskiy, the Russian ambassador to Kabul, acknowledged in December that Moscow maintained contact with the Taliban. Earlier this month, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, told Congress that it was “fair to assume” Russia was supporting the Taliban, although he did not disclose details.

Russia denies supplying the Taliban with weapons and insists its contacts are solely aimed at bringing the insurgents to the negotiating table.
<snip>
But an official with the National Directorate of Security, the Afghan intelligence agency, said Russian intelligence agents were providing the Taliban with strategic advice, money and arms, including old anti-aircraft rockets.
 
Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.
 
And in a new chapter of Training, Advising, and Assisting we got to test for the first time in a real barrel shoot situation the Air forces cool newish and biggest non-nuclear Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB). The MOAB (GBU-43/B) is a 21,600 lb bomb only costing about $14 million. Stimulus or Infrastructure spending...I'm not sure which.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html
The bomb was dropped by an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, according to the military sources.
They said the target was an ISIS tunnel and cave complex as well as personnel in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province.
 
Well, it seems that something big hit in Yemen in 2015, but it may not have been the GBU-43/B. I found even rumors of a tactical nuke being used. Of course our military would never hide the use of a weapon...so it couldn't be it. This MOAB is delivered via a MC-130 its so frickin big. So the Saudi's couldn't have used it even if we had secretly sold them some... Anywho, that is one nasty explosion in Yemen either way.
 
The 2016 ignored campaign issue is now quietly seeing some mission creep. And 2 more US soldiers died as the Taliban spring offensive has now begun.

300 Marines were announced to be heading out to help stop the full collapse of the infamous Helmand Province to the Taliban:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...o-southern-afghanistan-taliban-see-gains.html

Now 1,500 Army soldiers are going to also be heading out for maybe just another rotation, depending on just the meaning of 'largely':
http://www.newsweek.com/us-army-send-troops-afghanistan-summer-2017-591313
uccino said the soldiers, who were due to head out in approximately five weeks, would largely be replacing personnel of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, which deployed around 1,400 troops to Afghanistan last year, and other units.
 
Well, the problem seems to be that you forgot about finishing this war so that you could go off and fight ISIS. Poor Afghanistan, it always gets neglected because the US military finds someone new to fight.

Hey now. Don't blame us, we go where we are sent, and frequently have no idea why. Even more frequently, we wish we were never there.

:)
 
Will El Cheato, or won't he, up the Afghan war/occupation? I'm sure this is what he meant about America first, tossing an extra $5-10 billion down this toilet, will help US infrastructure...

My guess is that the neocons are warning El Cheato that if he doesn't do as they argue, that the Afghan government will collapse before his 4 years are up. So I think the odds are high that he will give the military something like the extra 3-5k soldiers they are asking for, in addition to the freer reign to engage in direct combat. US soldier deaths and injuries will climb modestly, and the Afghan body count should go up much more. And the freer reign will make this all messier again... Hopefully, NATO has had enough and won't give the US more soldiers. I say this about NATO, as I figure that the more this looks like just an American adventure, the higher the odds are that this won't go on for another decade.

La-la-la-la...too bad the real enemy we fight in Afghanistan is the Taliban...
https://www.voanews.com/a/mattis-us-afghanistan/3844695.html
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that American forces in Afghanistan face “a determined enemy” but are dealing significant blows to the enemy.

Speaking at a news conference in Copenhagen alongside his Danish counterpart, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, Mattis said both the Islamic State group and al-Qaida are losing ground and power in Afghanistan as the government, under President Ashraf Ghani, “ wins the affection, the respect and the support” of the people.

The neocons have never seen a hole they don't want to stick it into...and still blaming Obama. And now that an R is in the White House, they can go back to full support of any/all combat operations.
http://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com...ideal-of-more-troops-in-afghanistan/710823763
Members of the Senate Armed Services committee are waiting to hear from President Donald Trump about how he and his military want to handle the situation in Afghanistan, but lawmakers appear open to the idea of sending additional forces to the region.

Republicans used the renewed attention on the region to sharply criticize the previous administration. Sen. Tom Cotton said former President Barack Obama's handling of Afghanistan has been "muddling along" in the region, but deferred to Trump's adviser and the commander-in-chief to reach a final decision.

Meanwhile the Afghan government yet again lost control of Kunduz (the 5th largest city) to the Taliban. That is the city where the US accidentally bombed the Doctors w/o Borders hospital. Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, pretends that we are at a stalemate with the Taliban, even though the Afghan government has been steadily loosing territory to the Taliban for the last 2 years. When your generals blatantly lie, it is not a good sign...
 
Back
Top Bottom