I Sure Hope the Democrat's Taliban Security Force Can Do A Good Job For Stranded Americans Today (1 Viewer)

[Jredbaron96]

We have the largest, most capable military the world has ever seen. The idea that we could not have deployed sufficient force to withdraw these people safely is absurd.

American military might is, contrary to your assumptions, filled with very hard limits, especially when talking about supporting forces in an rugged, land locked country like Afghanistan.

We'd struggle right now to field 100,000 troops in Afghanistan simply because the supply lines couldn't handle any more. And that by itself surpasses our rapid reaction forces that would be immediately available.

 

[NatMorton]

So you're just complaining without offering an alternative solution then?

No, that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is reasonably accusing you of putting party politics above the physical safety of our troops in the field. Rather than hold the Biden administration to account, you are making manifestly absurd excuses for their poor planning.

 

[vegas giants]

No, that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is reasonably accusing you of putting party politics above the physical safety of our troops in the field. Rather than hold the Biden administration to account, you are making manifestly absurd excuses for their poor planning.

What would you do?

 

[NatMorton]

Putting more troops on the ground increases the number of people at risk of being blown up.

I stand by my earlier statement. The political left should be kept away from any military decision were human lives are at stake.

 

[VySky]

Putting more troops on the ground increases the number of people at risk of being blown up.

Actually no it doesn’t. We put the risk on the enemy

 

[vegas giants]

I stand by my earlier statement. The political left should be kept away from any military decision were human lives are at stake.

What would you do?

 

[vegas giants]

Actually no it doesn’t. We put the risk on the enemy

So you want to start shooting

 

[Irredentist]

No, that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is reasonably accusing you of putting party politics above the physical safety of our troops in the field. Rather than hold the Biden administration to account, you are making manifestly absurd excuses for their poor planning.

If you care about the physical safety of the troops, then keep them at home. They're in much more danger if they're deployed to Afghanistan, obviously.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is reasonably accusing you of putting party politics above the physical safety of our troops in the field. Rather than hold the Biden administration to account, you are making manifestly absurd excuses for their poor planning.

So, by defining a course of action believed to minimize the number of casualties (which is where the term "calculated risk" comes in), one is putting party above politics then?

You have a very strange position on this.

 

[NatMorton]

American military might is, contrary to your assumptions, filled with very hard limits, especially when talking about supporting forces in an rugged, land locked country like Afghanistan.

We'd struggle right now to field 100,000 troops in Afghanistan simply because the supply lines couldn't handle any more. And that by itself surpasses our rapid reaction forces that would be immediately available.

We are not discussing the folly of nation building here. We are talking about setting up and maintaining a secure perimeter where needed to facilitate an orderly withdrawal. That is well within our capabilities if we had chosen to do so -- we did not, and that is on Biden.

 

[Irredentist]

Actually no it doesn’t. We put the risk on the enemy

Deploying American troops to Afghanistan puts them in harms way. No way around it.

 

[NatMorton]

If you care about the physical safety of the troops, then keep them at home. They're in much more danger if they're deployed to Afghanistan, obviously.

Another clueless post.

Yes, let's abandon troops in the field because protecting them may risk lives. Seriously, where do you people come up with this nonsense?

 

[Jredbaron96]

We are not discussing the folly of nation building here. We are talking about setting up and maintaining a secure perimeter where needed to facilitate an orderly withdrawal.

A secure perimeter around what? The airport? We're doing that right now.

Kabul? What happens when the Taliban demand we withdraw to the airport, then down an evacuation aircraft to demonstrate their intentions? It's not like they wouldn't be capable of it.

That is well within our capabilities if we had chosen to do so -- we did not, and that is on Biden.

Well, it is Biden's fault that this offensive got underway since his administration okayed airstrikes against the Taliban, but I know what the response would have been had he not done so.

 

[NatMorton]

So, by defining a course of action believed to minimize the number of casualties (which is where the term "calculated risk" comes in), one is putting party above politics then?

You have a very strange position on this.

Yes, my position is very strange. Provide enough force in the field to protect those who are withdrawing from Afghanistan and not outsource guard duty to the Taliban.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, my position is very strange. Provide enough force in the field to protect those who are withdrawing from Afghanistan and not outsource guard duty to the Taliban.

What is your plan to secure the area around the airport that makes US troops immune to suicide bombers? I suspect the join chiefs would be very interested in your proposal.

 

[NatMorton]

A secure perimeter around what? The airport? We're doing that right now.

No, we are not. Because we lack the forces needed to protect ourselves we literally asked the Taliban to the guard the perimeter of the airport for us.

 

[joluoto]

Actually no it doesn’t. We put the risk on the enemy

I thought you were leaving. A little too late for a U-turn now.

 

[NatMorton]

What is your plan to secure the area around the airport that makes US Troops immune to suicide bombers? I suspect the join chiefs would be very interested in your proposal.

Properly deployed, yes, absolutely.

 

[911Sparky]

... and if Biden's defenders go any further up his ass the FDA will need to register them as suppositories.

That is funny, I will be stealing that line for future use, with minor modifications, of course.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, we are not. Because we lack the forces needed to protect ourselves we literally asked the Taliban to the guard the perimeter of the airport for us.

We asked them to man checkpoints, yes. We have plenty of troops to defend the airport.

It doesn't change the fact that as the weaker power in this dynamic, we are the ones who are going to have to conform more than the other. Its the downside of losing a war.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Properly deployed, yes, absolutely.

What do you consider properly deployed?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Properly deployed, yes, absolutely.

And how exactly would that "proper deployment" go?

Here is a map, please detail this "proper deployment" A good program to use would be placing dots using microsoft paint. All you have to do is download the image to your images folder and then, reupload it to imgur once you detail it out.

 

[Irredentist]

I stand by my earlier statement. The political left should be kept away from any military decision were human lives are at stake.

Based on what? Your own extensive military experience? Please, you're hardly an authority on these matters.

 

[vegas giants]

Based on what? Your own extensive military experience? Please, you're hardly an authority on these matters.

I want to hear this

 

[vegas giants]

And how exactly would that "proper deployment" go?

Here is a map, please detail this "proper deployment" A good program to use would be placing dots using microsoft paint. All you have to do is download the image to your images folder and then, reupload it to imgur once you detail it out.

This I have to see