Afghanistan deadline

Rockstar · 02-23-21, 06:21 PM

Deadline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is May 1st. Taliban threatens all out war if it doesn't happen. Personally I think the threat is just Taliban blowing smoke, we'll see come May I guess. Currently there around 10,000 NATO forces most notably Turk, German, Italian Dane as well as including 2,500 U.S. troops. Additionally there are also approximately 6,000 civilian contractors though not sure if they will be part of the withdrawal.

Skybird · 02-23-21, 07:33 PM

Tja tja... He that will not hear must feel.

Trapped in the Afghan maze. Telling so since 2006. They cna stay another twenty years, and they will not achieve anything lasting. Its like squeezing a rubber ball. The moment you let go your grip, it bounces back into its former form.

Without US air transport and air support, the German contingent is screwed, their battlefield air mobility is zero. Hard to believe that they still are there. Even in the army, realism has moved in, and hope has been given up. The only ones still blowing into the trumpet, are reality-disconnected politicians who cannot bear that the mission has been lost - lost since beginning on.

I hope the Americans pull out. Then it will be seen what the Europeans do. If they are as smart as they think in their capitols, they are already gone before the Americans move out. Recent comments by the German foreign ministerial casper however are discouraging. I dont think they have learned anything from the past 17 years or how long it has been. the German military leaders have, and their enthusiasm to stay is very muted. Troops, so I heard, do not tlak much anymor elike years ago: "we stay as long as the msisioin is not accomplished", "we will only leave when the country has been stabilised", "we cannot go because then the losses and sacrifices would have been in vein". Realism has defeated naive idealism. Finally. I waited very long for this sobering. But the politicians have not learned.

The current desastrous EU commission president Super-Uschi with all her glorious remarks on vaccinations and programs and green deal policies, was the former German defence minister. Just as a reminder. Food for thought, isn't it...

I cant see the German contingent being able to face indeed a full out war aiming at them directly, but this is what could be coming if the American support is no longer there. Could easily end in a total catstrophe. And I do not talk about a political one for the parties and governments at home, but a REAL one.

Platapus · 02-23-21, 07:55 PM

Do we know what our mission is in AF any more?

Skybird · 02-23-21, 08:17 PM

To bring light into a land of darkness, ehem...

I do not know however how to translate that into a military mission objective that, once acchieved, marks the criterion for "mission end" and "begin pullout." In other words, to my best knowledge neither a clear military definition of objectives nor a criterion when said mission is considered to be achieved and thus pullout begins, have ever been given. It has all been war on terror, and plenty of wishy-washy.

It has been a bit like jumping out of the plane with the plan of thinking in mid-air and falling about how to get hands on a parachute. Dynamic process orientation, flexible mission design, you know. You have to go with the times, how gotta be flexible and solution-oriented. Sexy new language and creative terminology usage are key. The logic behind this political trick: to know that one cannot impact on the ground as long as one has not gotten a parachute. Thats why the fall to the ground could last forever, in these smart minds' thinking at least. Well, I have my ear-wax ready, to save my eardrum.

P.S.
Reminds me of an anecdote a US historian recently told on German TV, in a docu on the Japanese "defence forces". Formally, Japan has no army, the constitution prohibits that. When being confronted on some question on Japanese participation in international military scenarios, theoretically or real, the Japanese diplomat said, that where there are Japanese defence forces present there cannot be a military conflict existing and so it is harmless to be there - where Japanese soldiers-that-are-no-soldiers are present, there cannot be a warzone, becasue else the Japanese would not be there. The presence of the Japanese proves it that ther eis no war, because Japasnese forces are no "forces". According to Japanese diplomatic logic. - No joke, but real!

Germany for years and years refused to call the war in Afghanistan actually a war.

Rockstar · 02-23-21, 09:50 PM

NATO troops, U.S. included, are scheduled to leave Afghanistan 1 May. The major and most obvious difference between them is the U.S maintains direct control of U.S forces. NATO is the command center for the others involved. There has already been talk of extending that deadline though.

The mission has always been about regional stability. Import also is to establish political influence by propping up a western friendly Afghan government too. Which is also helpful by making it harder for ChiComs to establish relations and its belt and road initiative in the region.

Aktungbby · 02-23-21, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Do we know what our mission is in AF any more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

...The mission has always been about regional stability. Import also is to establish political influence by propping up a western friendly Afghan government too. Which is also helpful by making it harder for ChiComs to establish relations and its belt and road initiative in the region.

One wonders if the ChiComs, having observed the Russian and motor out across the bridge, and the DamnedYankees make a muck of the Middle East generally, incl. Iran Iraq and Syria, & Yemen would even care to try their greedy hand

..."two outta three" having been bad. Our stabilizing skill was gone way back in 'Nam!

Skybird · 02-24-21, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

NATO troops, U.S. included, are scheduled to leave Afghanistan 1 May. The major and most obvious difference between them is the U.S maintains direct control of U.S forces. NATO is the command center for the others involved. There has already been talk of extending that deadline though.

The mission has always been about regional stability. Import also is to establish political influence by propping up a western friendly Afghan government too. Which is also helpful by making it harder for ChiComs to establish relations and its belt and road initiative in the region.

That are politically defined objectives, no military ones, and that has always been the problem with that operation, from beginning on when the first Europeans unboarded there. For the Americans, it was about Osama, Al Kaida and all that.

A reminder: in tbe beginning, the Americans did not want the Europeans and rejected their offer to get involved. Not before their own task had kind of bogged down, they invited the Europeans into the swamp to share the mess.

mapuc · 02-24-21, 09:28 AM

As mentioned before.

We lost the peace in Afghanistan.

Markus

Skybird · 02-24-21, 10:32 AM

What peace, Markus? There hasn't been peace since before the Sovjet invasion. And even before that they had their tribal disputes and internal blood revenge things going.

Rockstar · 02-24-21, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

That are politically defined objectives, no military ones, and that has always been the problem with that operation, from beginning on when the first Europeans unboarded there. For the Americans, it was about Osama, Al Kaida and all that.

A reminder: in the beginning, the Americans did not want the Europeans and rejected their offer to get involved. Not before their own task had kind of bogged down, they invited the Europeans into the swamp to share the mess.

Military objectives have always been according to the UN mandate to overthrow the militant Taliban government and prevent Afghanistan from ever again being a safe haven for weaponized terrorist/radical religious zealots.

I'm not sure about the U.S. declining Europe's assistance. The U.S. got the green light from the U.N. to overthrow the Taliban government in 2001. We started bombing shortly afterwards and I'm sure there were small recon elements in country to assist with that. A year or so later in 2003 under operation 'Enduring Freedom' both NATO and U.S. forces participated in the so called invasion and have been there ever since.

Since all European forces are under command of NATO and the U.S. maintains direct control of its own. I'm thinking the major contribution of Europeans invasion forces under NATO command were initially delayed until recon got things stabilized. Reduces chances of friendly fire at the initial stages of the invasion process .

Jimbuna · 02-24-21, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

That are politically defined objectives, no military ones, and that has always been the problem with that operation, from beginning on when the first Europeans unboarded there. For the Americans, it was about Osama, Al Kaida and all that.

A reminder: in tbe beginning, the Americans did not want the Europeans and rejected their offer to get involved. Not before their own task had kind of bogged down, they invited the Europeans into the swamp to share the mess.

Only one answer for this then....form an EU Army then haggle with the Taliban over trade agreements.

Rockstar · 02-24-21, 02:31 PM

Our task was not bogged down we set the stage for the years ahead. Sure it may not be world peace and it may not be perfect but things have changed for the better in Afghanistan. The plan now is too keep that way.

"Afghanistan has changed," says Zekeria, a high-school graduate from the capital, Kabul. "We won’t let the Taliban force their ideas on us again."

https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-.../29892071.html

Skybird · 02-24-21, 03:52 PM

No, things are not that much improved at all. The early advancments have been totally reversed already. Civil rights. Woimen equality and freedoms. Girl schools. Anti-corruption. Training fo their army and security. It all is reversed, partially already back on the levels before 2001. Afghanistan is a giant drug producer, still.

And worst of it: whatever there is that you see as advances - it only lives under the protection of Western guns, and where these guns are present.

That now the US had negotiated already with the Taleban about US withdrawel shows how successful the mission was! The Taleban cannot be reformed. A pro Wetsenr givernment will live without Wetsenr protection for as long, probaly shorter than ther pro-Sovjet government did aftere the Sovjets pulled out.

I have always called Afghansitan and Iraq 2003 strategic defeats of the US. And I stick to that. And worst: you never have had a chance to "win", becasue the Us potlicians as well as the European potlicians enver have really udnerstood what they are dealing with, and what Afghanistan is.

Go on, stay for another generation if you want, create this beacon of dmeocracy that Bush already dreamed of. You will not succeed.

Thats not my bad wishing, or hoping for the worst. It simply is the reality of having bitten off more than one can chew.

The hunt for Osama - understandable, and all the war associated with it. I would have done the same, thogzu differently. But i would have pulled out once that objecitve had been acchieved. It was the only clearly defined objective in the whole Afghanistan mess ever: find and kill Osama Bin Laden.

Instead nation building. Faile din iraq. Failed in Afghanistan. Failed in some many other places.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-the-war-index

Quote:

The Russians were not aware that during a decade of conflict, Afghanistan’s already high war index had jumped from 4.65 to 6.53. Faced with that extreme drive of angry young men, it was the Communist superpower that gave up the fight.
(...)
When American troops went into battle in 2001, Afghanistan’s war index was higher than ever. No matter how many smart bombs America and NATO dropped, Afghan forces grew stronger. The West was still not aware it was battling demographics. With an average of seven to eight children being born to each woman, Afghan insurgents could easily replace their losses.
(...)
So President Trump has good reason to feel uneasy about Afghanistan. Today Afghanistan’s pool of warriors numbers above 5 million; the country’s war index is almost 6.0.

These are very reelevant considerations. So relevant that the author was asked to teach them until 2020 at NATO Defence College in Rome. Without an understanding of the logic behind the war index, you cannot make competent decisions about when to start a war - and when better not.

Aktungbby · 02-24-21, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

One wonders if the ChiComs, having observed the Russian and motor out across the bridge, and the DamnedYankees make a muck of the Middle East generally, incl. Iran Iraq and Syria, & Yemen would even care to try their greedy hand

..."two outta three" having been bad. Our stabilizing skill was gone way back in 'Nam!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

That now the US had negotiated already with the Taleban about US withdrawel shows how successful the mission was! The Taleban cannot be reformed. A pro Wetsenr givernment will live without Wetsenr protection for as long, probaly shorter than ther pro-Sovjet government did aftere the Sovjets pulled out.

I have always called Afghansitan and Iraq 2003 strategic defeats of the US. And I stick to that. And worst: you never have had a chance to "win", becasue the Us potlicians as well as the European potlicians enver have really udnerstood what they are dealing with, and what Afghanistan is.
The hunt for Osama - understandable, and all the war associated with it. I would have done the same, thogzu differently. But i would have pulled out once that objecitve had been acchieved. It was the only clearly defined objective...

PRECISELY! it was Mr Bin Laden who once stated

Quote:

American soldiers are 'paper Tigers'...

...perhaps he wasn't far off the mark.

and considerably kinder than "suckers and losers" as described by the Commander in Chief Trump!!??

Rockstar · 02-24-21, 05:09 PM

Only way we get rid of the Taliban is to round them up and start gassing. But ummm we don't do that. So, seeing as how the Taliban are there we have to negotiate, including the two leading Afghan political parties who at the time are not inclined to invite the Taliban to the table. Either they start working together or we stay past May 1st. By 'we' I mean NATO and U.S. forces as both Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have stated. Europe has just as much an interest in a stable Afghanistan as anyone else.

I want to add that its not just the U.S. which open to negotiation with the Taliban either.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/...ntra-afghan_en

02-23-21, 06:21 PM	#1
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,811 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Afghanistan deadline Deadline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is May 1st. Taliban threatens all out war if it doesn't happen. Personally I think the threat is just Taliban blowing smoke, we'll see come May I guess. Currently there around 10,000 NATO forces most notably Turk, German, Italian Dane as well as including 2,500 U.S. troops. Additionally there are also approximately 6,000 civilian contractors though not sure if they will be part of the withdrawal. __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.

02-23-21, 07:33 PM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,456 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Tja tja... He that will not hear must feel. Trapped in the Afghan maze. Telling so since 2006. They cna stay another twenty years, and they will not achieve anything lasting. Its like squeezing a rubber ball. The moment you let go your grip, it bounces back into its former form. Without US air transport and air support, the German contingent is screwed, their battlefield air mobility is zero. Hard to believe that they still are there. Even in the army, realism has moved in, and hope has been given up. The only ones still blowing into the trumpet, are reality-disconnected politicians who cannot bear that the mission has been lost - lost since beginning on. I hope the Americans pull out. Then it will be seen what the Europeans do. If they are as smart as they think in their capitols, they are already gone before the Americans move out. Recent comments by the German foreign ministerial casper however are discouraging. I dont think they have learned anything from the past 17 years or how long it has been. the German military leaders have, and their enthusiasm to stay is very muted. Troops, so I heard, do not tlak much anymor elike years ago: "we stay as long as the msisioin is not accomplished", "we will only leave when the country has been stabilised", "we cannot go because then the losses and sacrifices would have been in vein". Realism has defeated naive idealism. Finally. I waited very long for this sobering. But the politicians have not learned. The current desastrous EU commission president Super-Uschi with all her glorious remarks on vaccinations and programs and green deal policies, was the former German defence minister. Just as a reminder. Food for thought, isn't it... I cant see the German contingent being able to face indeed a full out war aiming at them directly, but this is what could be coming if the American support is no longer there. Could easily end in a total catstrophe. And I do not talk about a political one for the parties and governments at home, but a REAL one. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-23-21, 07:55 PM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 18,925 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Do we know what our mission is in AF any more? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

02-23-21, 08:17 PM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,456 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	To bring light into a land of darkness, ehem... I do not know however how to translate that into a military mission objective that, once acchieved, marks the criterion for "mission end" and "begin pullout." In other words, to my best knowledge neither a clear military definition of objectives nor a criterion when said mission is considered to be achieved and thus pullout begins, have ever been given. It has all been war on terror, and plenty of wishy-washy. It has been a bit like jumping out of the plane with the plan of thinking in mid-air and falling about how to get hands on a parachute. Dynamic process orientation, flexible mission design, you know. You have to go with the times, how gotta be flexible and solution-oriented. Sexy new language and creative terminology usage are key. The logic behind this political trick: to know that one cannot impact on the ground as long as one has not gotten a parachute. Thats why the fall to the ground could last forever, in these smart minds' thinking at least. Well, I have my ear-wax ready, to save my eardrum. P.S. Reminds me of an anecdote a US historian recently told on German TV, in a docu on the Japanese "defence forces". Formally, Japan has no army, the constitution prohibits that. When being confronted on some question on Japanese participation in international military scenarios, theoretically or real, the Japanese diplomat said, that where there are Japanese defence forces present there cannot be a military conflict existing and so it is harmless to be there - where Japanese soldiers-that-are-no-soldiers are present, there cannot be a warzone, becasue else the Japanese would not be there. The presence of the Japanese proves it that ther eis no war, because Japasnese forces are no "forces". According to Japanese diplomatic logic. - No joke, but real! Germany for years and years refused to call the war in Afghanistan actually a war. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 02-23-21 at 08:39 PM.

02-23-21, 09:50 PM	#5
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,811 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	NATO troops, U.S. included, are scheduled to leave Afghanistan 1 May. The major and most obvious difference between them is the U.S maintains direct control of U.S forces. NATO is the command center for the others involved. There has already been talk of extending that deadline though. The mission has always been about regional stability. Import also is to establish political influence by propping up a western friendly Afghan government too. Which is also helpful by making it harder for ChiComs to establish relations and its belt and road initiative in the region. __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time. Last edited by Rockstar; 02-23-21 at 10:08 PM.

02-24-21, 09:28 AM	#8
mapuc Fleet Admiral Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 17,827 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	As mentioned before. We lost the peace in Afghanistan. Markus __________________ My little lovely female cat

02-24-21, 10:32 AM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,456 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	What peace, Markus? There hasn't been peace since before the Sovjet invasion. And even before that they had their tribal disputes and internal blood revenge things going. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-24-21, 02:31 PM	#12
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,811 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Our task was not bogged down we set the stage for the years ahead. Sure it may not be world peace and it may not be perfect but things have changed for the better in Afghanistan. The plan now is too keep that way. "Afghanistan has changed," says Zekeria, a high-school graduate from the capital, Kabul. "We won’t let the Taliban force their ideas on us again." https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-.../29892071.html __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.

02-24-21, 05:09 PM	#15
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,811 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Only way we get rid of the Taliban is to round them up and start gassing. But ummm we don't do that. So, seeing as how the Taliban are there we have to negotiate, including the two leading Afghan political parties who at the time are not inclined to invite the Taliban to the table. Either they start working together or we stay past May 1st. By 'we' I mean NATO and U.S. forces as both Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have stated. Europe has just as much an interest in a stable Afghanistan as anyone else. I want to add that its not just the U.S. which open to negotiation with the Taliban either. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/...ntra-afghan_en __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time. Last edited by Rockstar; 02-24-21 at 08:36 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode