Posted on 08/21/2021 4:51:41 AM PDT by nuconvert
Pressure is building to send American military forces outside of Kabul's airport in order to extricate U.S. citizens and Afghan allies from elsewhere in the city.
I understand the concern to get as many at-risk allies to safety as soon as possible. Still, the risks entailed in operations outside of the airport are underestimated. Yes, there are unconfirmed reports that British and French special forces are recovering personnel from the city. But I strongly suspect this activity is far more limited than is assumed. These movements likely involve the recovery of only the very highest-value or at-risk assets, such as former intelligence agents.
Regardless, a U.S. military recovery effort outside the airport would carry a number of considerable risks.
First off, there's the capability challenge.
While the United States now has approximately 7,000 Marines, paratroopers, and special operations forces at Hamid Karzai International Airport, those forces do not have anywhere near a commensurate armor or ground transport capability. Moving forces around Kabul would not be easy. It would mean navigating narrow, poorly maintained roads. It would mean tense encounters with Taliban checkpoints.
U.S. forces would also face a considerably higher threat than British or French forces. That's because of the Taliban's particular animus for America and the higher symbolic value of an attack against America. Either at senior command or local command levels, Taliban officers would be tempted to see U.S. operations outside of the airport as an intolerable challenge to their victory.
In turn, any outside-the-wire endeavors would necessarily entail a very significant force protection effort. That would mean diverting helicopter gunships, drones, and strike aircraft away from the airport, increasing the airport's vulnerability. And just as U.S. ground convoys would risk ambush, isolation, and annihilation, gunships would risk engagement from Taliban ground forces. What if a convoy became lost or stuck? What if a gunship was shot down?
Welcome to the Battle of Mogadishu, part two.
Air cover for a mobile ground force is also much more complicated than the defense of a static position such as Kabul airport. The ground force couldn't simply rely on persistent air cover as it passed through Kabul's streets. It would need air controllers to direct air cover with a high degree of speed and accuracy. Slow-moving drones could do some of this work, but their number is limited.
Operating above crowded streets is very different from patrolling an airfield perimeter. One miscalculation or mistake might result in a civilian residence being blown up instead of an al Qaeda ambush team. On that point, even if the Taliban assessed the risks of engaging U.S. forces as excessive, it might decide to use proxy forces to achieve the same effect, albeit with a pretense of deniability. (This is already a rising U.S. concern at Kabul airport.)
There's another risk to consider. What if the convoys were swarmed with civilians?
Considering the desperate scenes at the airport, it seems plausible that many of Kabul's 4.5 million population might take any opportunity to escape the Taliban's rule. What happens if a convoy becomes surrounded and stuck amid a crowd of thousands? How does the U.S. military recover its personnel without using force against those civilians? Again, would the Taliban, al Qaeda, or the Islamic State seek advantage from the situation?
Top line: While some extractions of high-value personnel have likely been secretly carried out by U.S. special operations forces, significant risks attach to larger-scale operations outside the airport. The better alternative is for President Joe Biden to offer the Taliban a binary choice : allow access to the airport to all U.S. and Afghan persons eligible for evacuation, or face a persistent U.S. military presence at the airport beyond Aug. 31. The airport can be defended.
Well, we can't have that!
SO WHY DON’T U.S. FORCES LEAVE KABUL AIRPORT TO RESCUE AMERICANS?
The only logical reason for our dilemma is that we made a deal with the Taliban: they’ll let the airport operate, and let Americans in to fly home, but U.S. forces don’t leave the airport perimeter.
Clearly, our forces are being held to this deal by our side, while the Taliban laughs at our naivete and only permits a trickle of Americans through. And our Afghan allies don’t dare go near the airport, where they will be grabbed and murdered by the Taliban.
This was a fool’s deal. We are in a trap, and the Taliban can close the trap at any moment they choose, simply by dropping mortar shells on the runway. We are in check, with no moves. If we retake Bagram, for example, the Taliban shell the airport and all of the Americans in Kabul, citizens and military, are hostages.
Leaving Bagram Air Base before all our citizens were taken out was the worst military decision I can think of. With Bagram, we’d have Apaches flying over Kabul on patrol, helos would be taking our people from the Embassy and the airport to Bagram, and they’d be getting out of the country on a non-stop military airlift under our control.
Instead, we put all our eggs in the Kabul airport basket, under 100% Taliban control.
A few minutes ago FoxNewsChannel reported that US citizens in Kabul have been now notified to NOT go to the Kabul airport. If true, it’s evidence that this is about to become an even bigger CF.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Is it feasible to extract using special force helicopter teams??
Here's a thought: Drop high explosives and napalm along a path that will be used to extricate our people. Destroy everything with no thought as to Who or What is being destroyed. We're leaving -- who cares what we leave behind? Then explain that it gets much, much worse if they don't let our people go. Extract the people, and be prepared to firebomb residential areas if we run into trouble.
If we retake Bagram, the Taliban shuts the airport permanently with a few mortar shells, and it's a bloodbath leading to Teheran 1979 times a hundred.
Our U.S. citizens are scattered all over a city of 5 million, under Taliban control block by block.
There is no way to “clear a path” that Americans can get to. Once we leave the airport (breaking “the deal”) the Taliban will shut the airport, game over.
Biden is still POTUS, not some imaginary Reagan/Trump/Rambo.
This is going to turn from an implicit into an overt hostage situation.
And our Afghan allies are all going to be hunted, grabbed, tortured and murdered.
That last sentence. The airport can be defended? Seriously?Who wrote that? George Armstrong Custer?
“Taliban officers would be tempted to see U.S. operations outside of the airport as an intolerable challenge to their victory.”
You need to continue reading. What he’s saying is, recognizing that, here’s what we would need to do & deal with because the animus toward Brits & French isn’t what it is toward Americans
I’m no military expert but that seems like an utterly incompetent move to abandon that air base.
“The only logical reason for our dilemma is that we made a deal with the Taliban: they’ll let the airport operate, and let Americans in to fly home, but U.S. forces don’t leave the airport perimeter.”
Yes, I think that’s probably the case
(It's also possible that they don't have a shred of brains between them. I don't need to be an expert on military strategy to know that chaining closed and locking the fire exits isn't a very smart thing to do.)
I assume Mr. Rogan does not have any loved ones stuck in Afghanistan...
Actually, they are scattered all over the country. We have people 300 miles away, as reported by Jennifer Griffin yesterday. and they’re trapped too
If your criteria for hiring is the wokest candidate for a job, and not the most capable candidate for the job, that's exactly what you will get.
You know, the nice thing about being the US is that we can fly the “commensurate armor and ground transport capability” into theater. No need to make excuses for Biden’s timidity here.
We have 10,000 Americans trapped in hostile territory. If we have to reopen Bagram, fly in a couple infantry divisions, and commence offensive operations to get them out, then that’s what we need to do.
But we won’t as long as Biden is President. His demented mind is too obsessed with getting out of Afghanistan. That’s why Lindsay Graham is wrong: Biden needs to be impeached now, not later.
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.
