"Does ANYONE think this was a good idea?" Topic

link

"U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter of the city's airport, a choice that's prompted outrage behind the scenes from lawmakers and military officials.

The move, detailed to POLITICO by three U.S. and congressional officials, was designed to expedite the evacuation of tens of thousands of people from Afghanistan as chaos erupted in Afghanistan's capital city last week after the Taliban seized control of the country. It also came as the Biden administration has been relying on the Taliban for security outside the airport.

"Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list," said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. "It's just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean."

"A spokesperson for U.S. Central Command declined to comment."

The people in charge are fools.

I hope a Congressional committee calls the specific officials who did this to testify. But there will be no accountability.

Doc +1

There are some questions as to whether this reporting is accurate.

Does anyone know if this is true?

"congressional officials"? Really?

It all depends on where these rules originated from.
Not specifically, but "This is the only way I can make what They want work".

one thing is clear: We can't trust the Taliban with Americans' security."

duh.

There are some questions as to whether this reporting is accurate.

That can be said for about 80% of the reporting out there on either side of any subject you care to mention.

A bad idea.

This is the classic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" environment.
ISIS-K and the Taliban hate each other.
For all intents and purposes, the Taliban is now the legitimate government of an anarchic map drawn by drunken diplomats.
And the present administration has decided that we can leave with our tails between our legs with Honor.
ISIS-K has embarrassed the legitimate government of Afghanistan. (Which we kicked out 20 years ago, but hey…)

So, suck it up and deal with reality. If you want to play the Great Game in its cockpit, we'll, then deal with reality.
Read "Flashman" and "The Far Pavilions". I don't recall any great novels from the Russian occupation.

As Mark Twain remarked, "History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes."
Heck, even Mr Clemens would acknowledge that this is more than rhyme.
Play the Game or go home. I would prefer we go home, because The Great Game is not worth playing. (See the 0th Law…)

103 dead in the Kabul blast, including 13 US soldiers, in an attack that should not have been able to happen except for the murderous incompetence of the present POTUS and team.

Biden confirmed it is/was accurate, personally.

A great idea for the radical jihadis, giving them a "kill list" to help them in their searches for opponents.

I'm reminded of the Keystone Cops in these recent events, given ALL the bungling in Afghanistan, e.g. pulling out in the dark of the night without notifying our allies; closing Bagram; an American general berating his British counterpart for going out of the wire of the defenses to rescue British citizens and others, making American troops look bad by them not doing the same for our citizens; trusting the Taliban for "security" – look how that worked out today; giving a "kill list" to the enemy; sticking to an 8/31/21 pullout, instead of remaining to do what it takes to get ALL our people out; AND the CIC aka WIC saying "we'll get out as many Americans as we can" by the 8/31/21 deadline, instead of insisting that we get everyone out, as we should and must.

This IS Benghazi 2.0 on steroids, AND far more Americans will die or be tortured due to the ineptitude of those in charge from the CIC/WIC on down – Sec. Def., generals in charge, Sec. of State, etc., etc., etc..

The same people in charge back then are some/many of those in charge once again, with predictable results.

Others involved are dancing at parties, advocating for $3.5 USD/$5.5 TRILLION in new spending, etc., etc., instead of working hard to bring our American citizens home. Even the guy in charge led with that in one of his speeches to Americans this week, instead of being most concerned over the welfare of those stranded in Afghanistan with virtually no aid from our government to get them out.

If Bagram had been kept open, this wouldn't have happened, since it is far more defendable.

Apparently, a plan by the 82md Airborne to reopen it was presented, and rejected, sadly.

Joe gota go….

How is this not political? There is no documentation that this happened. Of course comment by commanders is declined. They are professionals.

No sources, the premise makes no sense, and it does not help the guys in the field pulling off this evac one bit.

If Bagram had been kept open, this wouldn't have happened, since it is far more defendable.

Roads from Kabul to Bagram are not defensible. It's at least an hour's drive depending on conditions.

Didn't surprise me at all. We have been fighting the Tali's for 20 years and CENTCOM commander is leaving their security up to the enemy!

Joe admitted it on national TV in his speech today – nice try at spin though Tortorella.

We have helos, and the roads don't need to be defensible, just the airbase there.

"And, hey, don't worry about those tactical nukes we left behind at Bagram…!"

:-o

We have helos,

You would need a helluva lot of helos to ferry over 100,000 people to Bagram (that's current number flown out).

It's a case of simple mathematics:

CH-47/53 – 55 passengers (1,818 sorties)
MV-22 – 32 passengers (3,125 sorties)
UH-60 – 11 passengers (9,090 sorties)

That's assuming full loads too and no US personnel onboard save basic crew.

You're also risking having helos shot down by ISIS-K or Taliban who didn't get the memo.

---

Also you still need a landing zone in Kabul to collect people from with the helicopters. People would still congregate around those points in their thousands. You still risk an attack at those points.

Logic's a wonderful thing eh?

At least our military leaders are focused like a laser on the crisis in Afghanistan – just look at what the Sgt Major of the US Army tweeted today!!

Tweet
SMA Michael Grinston
@16thSMA
·
15h
Diversity is a number – do you have people that don't look or think like you in the room? Inclusion is listening and valuing those people.

#WomensEqualityDay reminds us we're smarter and more lethal when we come together as an inclusive, cohesive team. Our values demand it.

link

Sometimes, I wonder…
Keeping Bagram operational, 'Would' have helped evac… but Political decision… and Afghan Gov't not expected to fall… not so fast, anyway.
Many 'Did not want' evac, anyway…until collapse.

Absolutely no way US could 'RETAKE' Bagram… AND be able to utilise it for evac. Taliban COULD not allow…. would 'blow the top off' any 'agreements' and Bagram would become a mini Stalingrad / Dien Ben Phu. Utterly useless for evac. I have no doubt that 'potential' ops planning will have been tasked to forces… who will have complied… but probably, with a horror of anyone sanctioning.

As for giving the Taliban a 'Kill List'… pretty sure that they may have their own already… and THEIR 'Possibles' might include people who may be 'innocent' of involvement… who 'MAY' be taken OFF, THEIR list… given more intel… though doubtful. At the moment, Taliban seem to be playing 'Nice Guy'. Future… no way to tell… BUT Do Not Bug Them… when they are playing 'nice'. And, They DON'T like ISIS… threat to THEIR Regime.

I hope that this does not sound 'trite', given the casualties in the attacks. (Given the circumstances,,, so feel for relatives. ).
BUT UK, HAS been there before… with Afghan 'Command'… at least 'professing' to have little control over the 'Crazies'. And then, it was 'loot' and 'mayhem', not 'Jihad'. Think Taliban, just 'MAY' exercise more cotrol… just hope.

I worry that this does might escalate into a 'feeding frenzy' for ISIS… THEY WILL BE THINKING ABOUT IT. Just, maybe, the Taliban might not be happy about that.

Thoughts to All There.

It happened, with servitude.

When asked about this alleged list, President Biden did not deny its existence while explaining that the U.S. military would sometimes inform the Taliban about a certain group of people traveling to the airport in Kabul:

"There have been occasions where our military has contacted their military counterparts in the Taliban and said, for example, "This bus is coming through with X number of people on it made up of the following group of people. We want you to let that bus or that group through."

So yes there have been occasions like that, and to the best of my knowledge, in those cases, when the bulk of that has occurred, they have been let through. But I can't tell you with any servitude that there has actually been a list of names. There may have been, but I know of no circumstance. That doesn't mean it didn't exist."

Following the attack, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) tacitly criticized the Biden administration for trusting the Taliban to help secure Americans. "As we wait for more details to come in, one thing is clear: We can't trust the Taliban with Americans' security," he said.

Biden also blamed his generals for recommending to abandon Bagram.

As I understand, Pres indicated the size of the force he wanted to remain, and the military could not defend Bagram and Kabul with that number, so they recommended Bagram closure. Kind of bass ackwards way to plan, and it gives Uncle Joe the ability to wash his hands and blame the generals.

"Logic's a wonderful thing eh?".

It is indeed, as is common sense. A real pity some don't use either.

There is NO need to evacuate 100,000 people by helos.

I'm talking about rescuing remaining American citizens, who could number anywhere between 1,500 – 10,000, or so.

Aircraft, attack helos, drones, and artillery on the ground could provide a lot of protection for any and all flights, if and when needed.

We don't have to evacuate Kabul airport, unless we want to, so two pickup points would work well. Also, helos can land anywhere, so Americans could be directed to other points in country in order to try to evade the Talis, ISIS, AQ, and others.

Our US armed forces could re-take Bagram, if/when desired.

My understanding is there is a lot of open ground around it, which could become a major kill zone for radical jihadis trying to attack it.

As mentioned, our aircraft and helos could defend and protect it for the brief period needed to get the rest of our American citizens out. AC-130 gunships, A-10 Warthogs, Apaches, B-52s, attack drones, etc., etc. could "neutralize" any forces that try to attack, or defend it.

ISIS, AQ, and the Talis ALL seem to be working with one another, since otherwise I suspect a lot of the prisoners in Afghanistan would have remained in prison, instead of being released.

Yep, supposedly Joe chose 600 troops out of thin air as a nice round number, and they said they couldn't hold Bagram with that.

Politicians should not be permitted to make military decisions. They should set general directions and goals, but leave the military decision-making to the experts, in order to prevent crap like this from occurring.

Politicians should not be permitted to make military decisions. They should set general directions and goals, but leave the military decision-making to the experts, in order to prevent crap like this from occurring.

That's exactly right. I couldn't believe what I was hearing from the current occupant of the Oval Office yesterday talk about how he makes tactical military decisions. What?!?. It's reminds me of President Johnson picking air strike targets during Vietnam. Be like President Lincoln, tell US Grant the goal and let him do the rest.

If Bagram had been kept open, this wouldn't have happened, since it is far more defendable.

Agree totally …

Aircraft, attack helos, drones, and artillery on the ground could provide a lot of protection for any and all flights, if and when needed.

Yes … agree …

Roads from Kabul to Bagram are not defensible. It's at least an hour's drive depending on conditions.

As I have said before, CH-47s, etc. were used to take people to the Kabul Airport & Bagram. I don't think there was a plan to use the roads very much.

You would need a helluva lot of helos to ferry over 100,000 people to Bagram (that's current number flown out).

It's a case of simple mathematics:

CH-47/53 – 55 passengers (1,818 sorties)
MV-22 – 32 passengers (3,125 sorties)
UH-60 – 11 passengers (9,090 sorties)

That's assuming full loads too and no US personnel onboard save basic crew.

You're also risking having helos shot down by ISIS-K oor Taliban who didn't get the memo.

This was to be a phased withdrawal … not the cluster we see here. You don't try to do this all in 10 days …

BTW I don't think the ACL of CH-47 is 55 … closer to 30 … back when I was a PL & S3 Air in the 101.

From the net[can't find my FMs!?] :

The CH-47D can operate at night and in nearly all weather conditions. The CH-47D is equipped with an air-to-air refueling probe. The Chinook can accommodate a wide variety of internal payloads, including vehicles, artillery pieces, 33 to 44 troops, or 24 litters plus two medical attendants.

IMO 44 people would be sitting on the floor and each others laps to get this ACL. The CH-47 has the power to lift 44 though …

I've worked a little with CH-53s when in the 101, they were USAF. The Army does not has 53s. But here too 55 PAX seems to be too many.

From the Net[wish I knew where my FM are !!!!?] :

The CH-53A carries a crew of four; pilot, copilot, crew chief, and an aerial observer. It can carry various payloads, including up to 38 fully-equipped troops, 24 litters with medical attendants

Again 55 would be sitting on the floor and each others laps, etc., …

In either case it would unsafe to load up 55 PAX.

"It's a case of simple mathematics"

Also along with the Lift Ships there would have to be gunships and maybe CAS, flying with the serials, etc. That how it is done. Or should be … As well as SEADS – Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Systems. Known or suspected … Again that is how it is done. Use different air routes as well ..

Bagram was a fortified position in a sea of jihadis etc. We would not be where we are today with this option, IMO. And other former military of all ranks up to COLs & GENs have said similar … So I'm going with their opinions and in turn mine.

Absolutely no way US could 'RETAKE' Bagram… AND be able to utilise it for evac. Taliban COULD not allow…. would 'blow the top off' any 'agreements'

True that is why it won't happen … it is too late now. It should never have been abandoned in the first place. Bad political decision among many others. Starting with not listening to the intel months/weeks before.

and Bagram would become a mini Stalingrad / Dien Ben Phu. Utterly useless for evac.

Had it not been abandoned this would not have been the case … For the Taliban to do full out attack on Bagram, they'd have to concentrate a very larger number of bodies with all the supporting fires they could muster. They'd be in the open per se and be very good targets. Anyone ever wonder why Bagram was not attacked ? What I just posted is why … Also the Vietminh took horrendous losses at DBP. link Would the Taliban/AQ risk that ?

Good job Heedless, I agree. Condolences to all for yesterday…. very sad.

However this turns out, this evacuation, well over 100,000 now, is a tribute our troops and our those of our allies. No one else could have pulled this historic operation off. This whole thing started out a mess, but I am tired of not hearing any praise for our troops, and yes, our commanders. We totally blew it on trusting the Afghan government and army. But now we embarrass ourselves by politicizing everything about this.

President Lincoln gave specific military advice to his commanders all the time. A lot of them needed it, though not Grant – for which Lincoln was no doubt grateful. I believe Truman may have had a word with MacArthur, the President commands.

"Supposedly, Joe chose 600 troops" All by himself, won't listen to anyone, is solely responsible?

The Taliban and Isis are sworn enemies of each other. The US tactical work on extraction with the Taliban (the so-called list) is based on this and the massive economic leverage that US and Germany, Britain, etc have over them. Don't expect commanders to tell you how they are doing this or how they will deal with 2000 Isis K fanatics down the road, especially while this operation continues.

The only kill list is the one the Taliban has already been making for years. The Isis kill list reads "Everybody".

The Chinese are not coming, they have enough to deal with and they have seen Britain, Russia and the US take turns getting beat up there.

The Chinese are not coming,

… they are pretty much there. And they are not going to fight the Taliban … they made a "deal" …

link

link

link

I'm afraid this is all going to end badly. The Taliban are united against us but are a fractured group who will plunge into a protracted civil war once we leave. There will be Americans who are left behind because they can't get to the airport. They will be hostages used to extort concessions from America. Afghan women who in the last two decades rose to be teachers, lawyers, judges will have death sentences over their heads. Aircraft departing Kabul have already taken fire. I predict that the last airlift flight out will be shot down. What a National disgrace; I'm completely disgusted. And just think, the Taliban took over an entire country in the midst of a global pandemic without practicing any social distancing, lockdowns, face masks or vaccines. 🤮🤮🤮

I agree with you USAF. No way this goes well for them down the road. Was there every to win this? What would that look like?

But I sure hope you are wrong about that last flight…. or this really will be a forever war.

I predict that the last airlift flight out will be shot down.

I'd think they'd be covered by F/A-18s, etc.

They have to know once we are out … they are nothing but a big target.

Dispersed Helicopter landing sites would be …'dispersed'.
'May' be happening in small instances… but a 'MASS' evac just not practical. Each would need dissemination of info PRIOR to the evac and/or teams/agents sent in as guides.
Each would need insertion of troops for security/control… and anyone on ground in area would be 'sitting ducks'.
Air cover / Gunships? Against who? Taliban… start another shooting war? ISIS…in amongst any civilians who would turn up.

Just keep on with established evac. It may well take more losses.Just 'possible' that Taliban may extend deadline to 'show nice'… but unlikely… they will have 'been seen', to have made their concessions, already. Taliban will not have 'stabilised' their control yet, and won't want to get into a full scale fight with ISIS… yet.

Sad to say, but once evac deadline up, anyone left will have to be LEFT to their own resources.
My Father was a WW2 'refugee'in group attempting to reach Switzerland, away fron Commie Partisans. First try failed… but they made it later.

"We Don't Leave Anyone Behind!" sounds good! BUT…MASSIVE operations, without prior planning… could do more harm than good.
Let things stabilise, then see what can, realistically, be achieved.

Dispersed Helicopter landing sites would be …'dispersed'.
'May' be happening in small instances… but a 'MASS' evac just not practical. Each would need dissemination of info PRIOR to the evac and/or teams/agents sent in as guides.
Each would need insertion of troops for security/control… and anyone on ground in area would be 'sitting ducks'.
Air cover / Gunships? Against who? Taliban… start another shooting war? ISIS…in amongst any civilians who would turn up.

It is too late now. With Bagram being abandoned … But small insertions/extractions have happened regardless.

Gunships would provide cover for the flights, it is SOP … Anyone shooting or trying to fire on/at our aircraft must know, they will suffer return fire. Scout ships go out first to look for "bad guys". Again it's SOP. The sight of gunships alone may stop some from shooting at the flight(s).

The shooting war won't be over until we are all gone. That was shown yesterday at the airport.

And again as I said this would have been a phased withdrawal, not trying to do everything in 10 days …

But again it is to late, now.

Legion 4, didn't we cut our own deal with the Taliban under the previous administration? And did not include the Afghan government? Excluding them and their military surely was a factor in their quick collapse against the Taliban this year.

That deal was conditional on what was happening on the ground. The deal included working with both the Afghan Gov't & the Taliban. The previous admin made it clear to the Taliban/AQ, etc., any attacks would dealt with by our massive firepower.

What changed, was the Taliban saw as many others the weakness in out current leadership. They went on a general offensive. The Afghan Gov't collapsed, many of the ANA/ANP troops routed, etc.

The only deal that I know of with the previous admin was don't attack out troops or they will suffer the consequences. The past admin was trying to get a coalition gov't. But you can't have that when fanatics like the Taliban what to live in the 15th Century. They savages, terrorists, etc.

Watching the news right now another Vet in Congress who was at Bagram, said it was a mistake to abandon Bagram.
He just said what we all know … Academics can't run a war. That is what happened here.

Actually, as I recall, the Taliban were invited to Camp David for talks around 9/11, but it was cancelled after a bomb went off in Kabul.

If I do not have this right, someone please enlighten me.

Yes, IIRC that is true. We were talking to the Taliban leadership in Qatar and that did include the Afghan Gov't too. At least for a time … IIRC …

link

link

Legion 4: The Afghan army casualties went way up in in 2018, record highs in 2019-20. The Taliban was all over them once those talks began, I think soon after the 2016 election.

I think the Taliban already saw the writing on the wall, they were not intimidated by the previous occupant of the WH or his advisors except maybe Bolton. They knew the US was taking a reputation hit in foreign affairs, especially from our own allies. They played us, we undercut the Afghan government for them and the government troops got ready to switch sides.

I think that could very well be the history. This in no way excuses this botched withdrawal operation which is on the current WH occupant. Maybe the time to get out was after we got Bin Laden. It was the closest thing to a win. I think conventional armies are the wrong weapon for guerilla terrorist irregulars.

That's exactly right. I couldn't believe what I was hearing from the current occupant of the Oval Office yesterday talk about how he makes tactical military decisions. What?!?. It's reminds me of President Johnson picking air strike targets during Vietnam. Be like President Lincoln, tell US Grant the goal and let him do the rest.

Roosevelt acted like Lincoln too. As I said on another thread, Hitler, Churchill and Stalin micromanaged to disastrous results. Roosevelt's military experience was purely bureaucratic, and he knew it. (Am I calling Roosevelt humble???) Like a good manager, he left good men in place to do what needed to be done.

Yes John, I recently saw a documentary on Hitler (a former corporal) and how he fired generals who were not in agreement with his military strategy. He elevated "yes" men. Hitler went against the advice of his best generals and put himself in direct charge of the army; the results were disastrous. (Thankfully)