Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McConnell warns Trump against troop drawdown in Afghanistan
The Hill ^ | 11/16/2020 | Jordain Carney

Posted on 11/16/2020 1:35:42 PM PST by lodi90

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: caver

Defund the Military EDUCATIONAL Industrial Complex.

61 posted on 11/16/2020 4:46:42 PM PST by newfreep (The Communist/DNC VOTER FRAUD is Trump's ONLY opponent in 2020 election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: flamberge

[There is no deterrent from an outnumbered group hunkered down in defensive positions waiting to be slaughtered. Ask the Brits how well that worked out when they were there previously. ]


Actually, that’s pretty ideal, given that we have command of the air. The Taliban is losing dozens of men a day. That can’t continue indefinitely. Just yesterday:

https://www.khaama.com/taliban-battered-in-kandahar-60-killed-786876876/

The Brits were financed by loot and/or taxes from conquered lands. Afghanistan is a wasteland. There was no benefit to had from it. So they crushed the Afghans and left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War

Afghanistan has been repeatedly conquered in the past, typically as a way station to some other destination. Most left because it wasn’t really strategic other than as a way station, and the costs were high, due to its remoteness.

The Taliban spit in our faces by helping to attack our financial and political capitals. It still exists. The Taliban will need to die of old age or despair before we leave. Or such attacks will recur.


62 posted on 11/16/2020 4:54:25 PM PST by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Because $27,000,000,000,000 in debt isn’t enough.


63 posted on 11/16/2020 4:58:21 PM PST by Trumpisourlastchance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Thanks again!


64 posted on 11/16/2020 5:01:39 PM PST by ImpBill (The GOP, will thankfully, be a political party out in the darkness for a long time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

[Trump is POTUS. Every moment he spends taking coupist knives out of his back is a moment he is not defending this country.]


Trump isn’t personally involved in comically-implausible Mission Impossible type actions against the enemy. An executive defends his country by resource allocation. Trump has sent lethal aid to Ukraine. He has withdrawn from arms control treaties being flouted by Russia (open skies, nuclear weapons treaties, et al). He has ordered Russian mercs shelled for firing at US troops in Syria. He can chew gum and walk at the same time. Would it be better if McConnell had rendered more aid to Trump? Sure. It would also be better if Trump had toned down the WWE kayfabe. It might have given him a clear victory. I understand Trump is who he is - it’s a package deal. But so is McConnell.


65 posted on 11/16/2020 5:02:06 PM PST by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dsrtsage

President Trump values our men and women in the military. He tasked Gen. Mattis to find a winning solution in Afghanistan. Unfortunately the General was unable to do so. Thus President Trump has a choice to make.
The Generals have no solutions. Out of respect for our troops in Afghanistan our President will bring them home. Thank you President Trump.


66 posted on 11/16/2020 5:05:09 PM PST by Yolanda (Jussie Smollett hoax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

In other words:

We Need the Opium and the military is the only entity capable of ensuring the free flow of Opium out of Afghanistan to our distributors.


67 posted on 11/16/2020 5:24:27 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Words for McConnell, “Shut your F’n mouth.”


68 posted on 11/16/2020 5:25:23 PM PST by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Actually, that’s pretty ideal, given that we have command of the air. The Taliban is losing dozens of men a day. That can’t continue indefinitely.

Neither can we.

Fuel for those aircraft costs well over $400 per gallon to deliver to our forward air bases. All types of supplies have similar exorbitant costs. And much of that money goes into the pockets of our enemies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Wars of attrition are won by superior logistics. We don't have them. We will run out of money long before the Taliban runs out of fighters. We have been there long enough to see a whole new generation of fighters raised to adulthood. They can breed them almost as fast as we can kill them.

Besides, defensive wars of attrition are an extremely stupid idea that almost always fails with useless sacrifice of good men.

It's time for us to leave.

69 posted on 11/16/2020 5:26:51 PM PST by flamberge (The wheels keep turning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: flamberge

[Neither can we.

Fuel for those aircraft costs well over $400 per gallon to deliver to our forward air bases. All types of supplies have similar exorbitant costs. And much of that money goes into the pockets of our enemies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Wars of attrition are won by superior logistics. We don’t have them. We will run out of money long before the Taliban runs out of fighters.]


If we had similar-sized economies, sure. But we don’t have similar-sized economies. Our spending on Afghanistan is maybe $10b a year. That’s equal to the entire Pakistani defense budget.

Plenty of people are born every day as they were in centuries past. They don’t all become revolutionaries. It depends on the incentives at hand. Colombia fought a 50+-year civil war. It finally came to a close in 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_conflict

But even someone as charismatic as the self-proclaimed Mahdi of Sudan had his movement die out after an interval of 20 years, and his followers were absolute fanatics who charged into machine gun fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

The thing that stands out is none of the rebels helped someone else attack some random foreign power in their financial and political capitals. This is what must be punished severely. Again, since a final reckoning in the manner of a Carthaginian peace (where 10% of the entire population remained alive at war’s end and was promptly sold into slavery) isn’t possible, we must persist until the Taliban is gone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Carthage_(Third_Punic_War)


70 posted on 11/16/2020 5:49:16 PM PST by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

...this is what must be punished severely.

OK, I'm with you here.

Again, since a final reckoning in the manner of a Carthaginian peace (where 10% of the entire population remained alive at war’s end and was promptly sold into slavery)...

I find your proposal - acceptable.

...isn’t possible

Well- dang. I am sure you are correct on this point. How about a "Plan B" then.

..., we must persist until the Taliban is gone.

No.

We do not have the national will to "persist". That is an illusion and a certain route to failure. We are burning money and lives to no benefit. If we are not going to exterminate the Taliban quickly then we should be leaving quickly. That is "Plan B".

Preferably unannounced and in a 24-hour period. And kill any forces that get in the way.

71 posted on 11/16/2020 6:30:04 PM PST by flamberge (The wheels keep turning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: flamberge

[We do not have the national will to “persist”. That is an illusion and a certain route to failure. We are burning money and lives to no benefit. If we are not going to exterminate the Taliban quickly then we should be leaving quickly. That is “Plan B”.

Preferably unannounced and in a 24-hour period. And kill any forces that get in the way. ]


It’s a chimera. They’ll attack again, and we’ll lose many more men and huge amounts of money* getting back in and getting set up. Our rules of engagement are what they are. I wish they were otherwise, but that’s not really changeable.

* We lost thousands dead getting in and probably $500b in the first few years. To give that up for piddling savings ($10b per year) is penny wise and pound foolish. As long as the government is our ally, we have Afghans working to kill the Taliban. The moment the Taliban takes over, the entire Afghan population is at the Taliban’s disposal, to use for generating revenue or protecting al Qaeda. We’re helping the Afghans for the same reason we helped Allied governments during WWII. Every man they had fighting the Axis powers was a man not helping the Axis fight us.


72 posted on 11/16/2020 6:38:27 PM PST by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

...Our rules of engagement are what they are. I wish they were otherwise, but that’s not really changeable.

That is precisely why we fail.

Change the "rules". Or abandon the "game".

73 posted on 11/16/2020 6:50:00 PM PST by flamberge (The wheels keep turning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: flamberge

[That is precisely why we fail.

Change the “rules”. Or abandon the “game”.]


They hit us again and we spend $500b and lose thousands of KIA setting up anew, or we spend $10b and lose a few dozen KIA a year, until the Taliban is extinct, into the indeterminate future. Based on what we’ve seen, these movements can last for a while, but even decades is a long time for them.

You could argue one way or another, but I’d say the low risk option is to stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban is dead, whereas the high risk option is to leave. Trump enjoys excitement, so he’s taking the high-risk option. McConnell is more of a steady as she goes kind of guy, so he’d prefer to stay. We’ll see how it goes.

Either way, at least in the next few years, we’ll have enough firepower to respond if another 9/11 comes together. I’m risk averse, so I prefer staying.

The real problem with not staying is refugees. The Taliban will send millions fleeing, and we’ll be a prime destination. Republicans will reject them, but Democrats will open the door wide. The nice thing about a friendly Afghan government being in power is that wannabe Afghan refugees have far less cause to say they’re fleeing Taliban persecution.


74 posted on 11/16/2020 7:04:55 PM PST by Zhang Fei (My dad had a Delta 88. That was a car. It was like driving your living room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Sounds like McConnell knew all along about the guy lying to Trump about how many troops were there.


75 posted on 11/16/2020 7:47:16 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll eventually get what you deserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Read my tagline. Mcconnell and the GOP leadership are quislings.


76 posted on 12/15/2020 9:01:04 PM PST by Alt Right (McConnell IS the swamp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson