"HOLLYWOODGATE: film about US Afghanistan retreat" Topic

"HOLLYWOODGATE

director Ibrahim Nash'at and producer Shane Boris moderated by Joe McGovern from the Wrap (Fri) and film critic Tomris Laffly (Sat)

When the United States withdrew from its twenty-year "forever war" in Afghanistan, the Taliban retook control of the ravaged country and immediately found an American base loaded with weaponry—a portion of the over $7 USD billion in U.S. armaments still in the country. Unprecedented and audacious, director Ibrahim Nash'at's HOLLYWOODGATE spends a year inside Afghanistan following the Taliban as they take possession of the cache America left behind—and transform from a fundamentalist militia into a heavily armed military regime."

Subject: HOLLYWOODGATE | In Cinemas 16 August – YouTube


YouTube link

Yesterday in Afghanistan

Subject: Collin Rugg on X: "NEW: The Taliban held a military parade at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan with the US military equipment they stole after the disastrous withdrawal. The Taliban was celebrating the third anniversary of taking over the former US air base as they trolled the US with t.co/UUuANxX4UO / X


link

Don't think it will get an Oscar for best foreign film …

With all the "1984" going on currently with the MSM, I would not be surprised to see it banned as "misinformation". 😔

Not banned, reviewed in MSM quite a bit. Apparently, Taliban controlled the images very careful y, an exercise in jihad propaganda, per reviewers, no real insights into actual conditions there. It sounds like maybe it should be banned as misinformation…unless you are one of them. Probably will not watch in any case. Very hard to watch them posing as real leaders.

Can we get our $7 USD billion tax dollars back? My part comes to around $20. USD It sure would help my mini addictions!

Ahh but it looks like, in the 2.5 minute preview elsewhere that a lot of what we so freely gave them in military equipment, food, medicines, money and more, is shown. Would love to see that as a special on all major networks, so many who are not familiar, can finally see what we threw away so willingly.

Just as the original version of what happened on 9/11 should be required viewing in schools, including the people throwing themselves to their deaths as opposed to being burnt alive.

But alas rainbows and unicorns is more the style today. 🌈 🦄 🧚

Maybe they will end up using it all against Iran?

I think the stuff is not the point of the movie…but it is very hard to see it ending up in their hands. At least they are fighting the rival ISKP with it.

The F-35 program has cost us 400 billion dollars. Just one example. Maybe the failed LCS program is a better example, since the ships were crap, and some members of Congress forced its continuation knowing it was a failure. 7 billion is pocket influence money in DC. It's not the cost, it's the image that hurts with the Taliban and our stuff.

Trying to figure out the title. Hollywoodgate. What does that have to do with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. How is that dealing with Hollywood?

"Immediately after the US withdraws from Afghanistan, the Taliban occupied the "Hollywood Gate" complex, claimed to be a former CIA base in Kabul. The Taliban finds countless aircrafts, weapons and pieces of military equipment. Over one year, HOLLYWOODGATE shows the transformation of an extremist militia into a military regime."

It's the name of the base. Hollywoodgate.

The Orange Man said he wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan. Yet, somehow he never managed to.
Then Sleepy Joe did. Disastrously.
Somehow the Orange Man tries to claim that he would have "done it better". 🤷
Yet he had 4 years to do it.
Does anyone seriously think he would have done it better if he ever got around to doing it?
Both are buffoons. It's just a matter of speculating whether someone could have done a better job than one who screwed up massively. Be serious please.

I will be voting for Taylor Swift, if she's old enough by the time of the election. If she isn't, then I'll vote for Loretta Lynn. Is she still alive? Willie Nelson is still alive.

EDIT. Sadly Loretta has passed. So, I'll vote for Willie.

I seriously doubt there would have been much difference in whet happened whoever was in the White House.

PS: I live in the UK so have no vested interest.

HB,

What do you base that assumption on? Curious. Is this based on personal dislike of the previous occupant, or do you have information that a lot of us have not seen?

The previous President has said he never would have done it the way it was done (horribly). Also he had not done anything as bad in his 4 years of office.
I believe he would have handled a withdrawal much, much better. I base that on other things during his administration. No war in Ukraine, as opposed to both Biden's and Obama's administration. No war with Israel vs ME adversaries. Little Rocket Man controlled. The Abraham accords. Etc.

But you don't abandon defensible airbases, you don't send your troops out before getting all your own people and those who supported you out first. You don't rely on your enemy for security. You don't kill a father and children and lie to the public that you killed the terrorists bomber. You don't run with your tail between your legs.

Yes Afghans were dying still under Trump, but not US soldiers. Fighting the Taliban by that time, should have been the Afghans job. I don't think their heart was ever in that fight. The Mountain Afghans have always dominated the City Afghans.

35th, I think the 'snip' removed a lot of my argument. My point really pointed out how many posts on TMP get politicised by blaming military decisions completely on politicians.
I am quite aware how media presentations create belief, on both sides of the pond, so opinions will be subjective on current and relatively recent events.
It seemed to us in the UK that the withdrawal from Kabul was a mix of poor planning and coordination between the nations involved, and an unexpected collapse by the Afghan army, so it seemed to me, to be a bit wrong to suggest it was the sole responsibility of your President.
I noticed that part of your original post got 'Snipped' too!

Ah, thanks guys, now I get the title.

Can we get our $7 USD USD billion tax dollars back? My part comes to around $20. USD USD It sure would help my mini addictions!

I have read the total cost of hastily abandoned equipment and bases is $80 USD Billion.

HB thanks for the response. 🙂

Gratten welcome

SB that was probably just the cost of military equipment. Sadly does not I believe account for food, ammo, medicines, office equipment, cost of the airfield deserted, petroleum, school supplies, etc.

Oh! and the lives of the 13 servicemen and women killed in the rout at the end. Also any of citizens or allies who died after the rout. 😔

Remember it took many years to get all that equipment on the ground for the ANA and ANP. No way could we have evac'd much of it. Plus, the plan(?) was to leave and not let the ANA/ANP/Gov't know we were leaving. Hell didn't even tell our NATO partners there either. [Great plan!!] Either way … there was no way to load up all the vehicles, etc. at Bagram. And fly it out. It would take a very, very, long time. So it was a write off for the US Gov't. Like it has been many times before in war.

E.g. we left a huge amount of equipment at Cam Rhon Bay. When we evac'd from Vietnam. But that operation was nowhere the Cluster ^$#%&*(! that A'stan was.

FWIW, when we had the DMZ mission in the ROK. The Imjin River was behind our FOB in that sector. That is where the war stopped in '53. We'd practice evac'ing the Guard Posts and FOB a few times. If the North's attacks could not be stemmed. Which would be one of our missions if Div Cdr ordered it.

If the ROKs blew the bridges before our rolling stock could cross. And or the US CE Bridging unit didn't get it across the river in time.

Well, the M113s could swim. But the Jeeps, trucks, trailers, etc. couldn't. We'd have to spike all of those, and the drivers, etc. would have to swim [or get/find some rubber boats or make rafts, etc.!?!?] the Imjin to get back to friendly lines. That would have been a lot of rolling stock left burning so the North wouldn't get it. I and my
Log Section and Spt Plt would be in charge this mission. As much of the rolling stock was in my Support Plt, etc. Good times !

Herkybird, my experience – and I spent twenty years in DC, six of them in the Pentagon- is that, while the military does a lot of the logistical work, the reality (regardless of administration) is that the political appointees who run the departments and key agencies like the NSC make a lot of the strategic decisions. Since Goldwater-Nichols, the chain-of-command runs directly from the President and Secretary (advised by the Chairman of the JCS) to the combatant commanders- but not through the service chiefs. The individual service staffs are heavily focused on training, preparedness, planning, programming and budgeting, rather than exercising direct command over forces overseas.

Will this flik be like Bollywood…lotsa singing and dancing ? ?

Ok I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just did not "remember" we had lots of military equipment in Afghanistan. 😉

I am a Martyr to my own generosity. 😉

Honestly what is more interesting to me and possibly others about Afghanistan and potential future military decisions for the US.

Listen and read what she says about the President, as opposed to how he was portrayed more recently by the MSM, prominent Democrats and his VP, before the takeover of the election by the VP.

(Kamala Harris)

"She boasted on CNN, shortly after the president ordered troops withdrawn in April, that she was the last one in the room before Biden made his decision, and felt comfortable with the plan."

"Harris said during the 2020 primary that she supported a pullout from Afghanistan, and she voted for an unsuccessful 2017 effort in the Senate that would have rescinded the 2001 authorization to use force throughout the region."

(This will say Facebook but you can get to the video. It was hard for me to get to this video via Google and DuckDuckGo searches. Just hit ok and the X if you get that, because like me, you don't have Facebook)

Subject: Vice President Harris says she was the last person in the room with President Biden when he made the Afghanistan troop withdrawal decision: "I have seen… | By ‏‎CNN Politics‎‏Facebook


link

Subject: Kamala Harris' central role in U.S. Afghanistan withdrawal – Los Angeles Times


link

Frankly regardless of what the VP said or did, etc. Made no difference. The VP was not up to the job, etc. And the A'stan debacle was planned by the admin's civilian appointees … Not the US Military … The VP and probably the POTUS had little to nothing to do with this or much else … But nod and say OK …

'nuff said …

Legion, I humbly disagree. The President made the decision for the pullout. He said he was forced to because of Trumps agreement. But we know he turned over every other executive order Trump had made. Why this one was different? He also wanted out so he could say he got the troops out of Afghanistan and had them out close to 9/11 (symbolic).

He also, at least some " Anonymous sources" have said, overruled his military advisors on how the withdrawal was to take place, including abandoning Bagram airbase and relying on the Taliban for security. His VP and current Presidential candidate, in her own words, agreed with him and was "the last person in the room". So therefore IMO, is just as complicit and would make the same bad decisions as President.

Since no military leaders or top advisers have been fired for the debacle. I have to assume he accepts the responsibility, as does his VP. To me, that makes them both responsible. IMHO

I also am not sure how much it matters. I think there is consensus that civilians in the administration made poor decisions that resulted in a disaster. Trump owns a piece of this, the Taliban treaty was worthless.

But from all we seem to know, the evacuation is really Team Biden's lack of military competence and apparently failure to delegate decisions effectively. Harris as VP was not likely the primary input on decisions.

I would agree with 35th OVI. This was Biden's baby. He was hot to pull out. The military advised him to go slower and leave some troops in country. Biden refused. He was getting out no matter what. Now, how much influence or say the VP has in this decision can be debated but usually the VP is there to agree with the president. Still, she is comes out a says how she supported it and agreed with the decision. Now, she has something she has to defend.

Bottom line … the CinC & VP did not listen to Military and intel sources …

We have discussed all the errors made by the POTUS and his civilian advisors … As I said whether the VP had any input would not have made any difference …

Commander Salamander says it best: they all failed:

link

Nine lb

Good article

"A first step is to tell our remaining friends that the United States knows failure and rot when it sees it, and is confident enough to excise it and move forward.

We need accountability. The honorable thing to do is to resign. If not, the proper thing is for the President to fire those who advised him so horribly. If not the President, then Congress should have hearings with a pair of pliers in one hand and a blow torch in another and humiliate people in to resigning.

If neither happens, then bad on the American people for allowing a political system to function in such a way that people such as these are the ones who rise to the top of both parties."

But…

I would say a good chunk.. possibly around 50% have NO to LITTLE knowledge about what happened there. The MSM(TV Media) just do no cover it, or covered it only as much as necessary. They sure don't bring it up much since andfor sure do not assign blame. These are also the ones who voted the current administration in that then appointed those who were responsible for this debacle.

These people could get the information if they wanted to, but most don't seem to have the inclination. The ones I know for sure don't have that inclination or interest in knowing what is happening.

So not all the American people are responsible. But short of voting those responsible out, what options do these people have? Other than what we are doing here, complaining to our politicians who are part of that party and don't care, or of the other party and don't have the power, or too don't care?

Thoughts?

Like Vietnam many in the US couldn't find A'stan on a map. It seems those Americans that do vote, are more concerned about personality. Not so much about capabilities … Or they vote not for someone so much as against someone. Lesser of two evils some might say.

The US political system is broken. Many of those elected shouldn't be. Money talks … the Constitution is ignored or bypassed.

Th US media is more opinion than facts. But it is good for ratings. Which in turn means more $. USD

Legion +1

My thoughts- Most people have little knowledge about policy, history, world affairs, geography, civics.The education system is broken.

Legion and 35th, IMO your concerns could represent either side. The media news has no standards for honesty…it's broken. Being replaced by social media, the Wild West of misinformation.

Yes we need accountability. From both sides. But this involves telling the truth. This is broken also. Reagan did not resign. Neither did his team. They were responsible for hundreds of US casualties in the botched intervention in Lebanon. But he was man enough to take responsibility. A leader, with flaws, but also with character. Have we once heard our recent presidents admit a mistake?

35th,

It's certainly the case that the average American didn't make the bad decisions that led to the fall of Kabul. His leaders did. To the extent that he pulled the lever for one or the other, he bears some indirect responsibility. But the bigger problem, frankly, is societal and cultural, and the responsibility for that spans generations (starting, I would argue, with the WWII generation, which planted the seeds of decay during the baby boom, albeit unintentionally).

A problem of this complexity could fill a book- but reduced to its essentials, the governance of the country has separated itself from the actual functions that run and sustain it over at least a fifty year period. Government's responsibilities have also grown, so that it's involved in every facet of public life; there's no longer a narrowly defined sphere of Federal responsibility. A lot of consequences flow from those two trends.

First, government is so complex that most of the people running it know far more about its official and unofficial mechanics than they do about the things they're funding or regulating. A Congressional staffer doesn't understand how the programs in the FYDP really affect the Army or Navy: his skill set is knowing who to call if someone wants to change something, and how to get it done. What he can't tell you from visceral experience is how that looks at ground level: the impact program X makes on the troops: for that, he's wholly dependent on very short briefings given by people who might have more experience themselves, but have sacrificed the opportunity to gain more so they can learn how to navigate the ecosystem I am describing. I spent ten years doing this; I know of what I speak.

The people who are doing this are typically straight out of college. Some of them might put in five years in the military (if so, they tend to gravitate toward the intelligence functions), but those are few and far between. If they get private sector experience, it will be as a government affairs or corporate communications person for a big firm that lobbies heavily (ironically, they will probably learn more about whatever they're doing there than they would in government). Most of them studied political science, some are lawyers- but you do not find many people with sophisticated math skills or hard science backgrounds except in specialized areas- and much of their work is distilling their knowledge so that those who lack their skills can understand it.

I could write more- much more- about the deficiencies the educational system leaves them with, but I do want to answer your question about "what can we do?"

I think there are really two things you can do, and you can do both right now. One, you can seriously educate yourself on just who the heck you're voting for. They'll inundate you with mail trash: just use it to identify them, and do your own research. Start by what you want to eliminate: stay away from people with long DC careers, especially former Hill staffers. Look for their backgrounds: what did they really DO? If they're a vet, were they in a branch of service that invoked personal risk and personal leadership of systems of complex moving parts, or were they a staff officer (avoid intelligence like the plague- it's a magnet for professional BSers). Above all, look for someone whose contacts with the world at ground level were real, and habituated them to what higher-level decisions translate into- so you would want to avoid people with careers as, say, town or county execs (who move decisions through bureaucracies), but look for people who sat on local councils- they're certainly politicians, but they're so close to the ground that the problems show up every Tuesday night. Avoid unionized government employees (teachers, police especially- firefighters seem to me like a different bag, especially volunteers, although they are not easy to predict). For that matter, avoid anyone who wraps themself in some form of the proverbial bloody shirt: self-esteem is not the armature of character.

The other thing you can do is to teach everyone- your children, your employees- that they need to see and understand the real world before they aspire to speak confidently about it, and make decisions. There is a lot of uninformed BS flying around (as a glance at pretty much any thread on the Modern Warfare board will demonstrate), and no shortage of people (often quite elderly people) who are willing to pronounce confidently on matters that they've only ever read about. If you teach people to seek wisdom on topics that interest them through close acquaintance and personal experience, I can't promise you that it will improve our country, but you will at least remove a few iotas of your own responsibility for whatever comes next.

9 thanks for the response.

Many times those I would have preferred, do not make it through the primary. At that point I vote for the one who best espouses my personal views. As will be the case in this election.

At least this year I can compare 4 years of administrations of both candidates and it makes it much easier for me.

35th,

That will often be the case. It's not 100% clear to me that the current trend will reverse itself before disaster hits. Indeed, the elected representatives of both parties over the last two decades have only reinforced my growing belief that "democracy" in this age is the term for "government by sociopath."

One of my personal strategies for this has been advocacy for withdrawal from overseas commitments. I do this in part because my time in DoD and the Army (and it's not even six degrees of separation from me to most of the men who lost the last two wars) left me with little confidence that our governing class will get it right, quite apart from the issues with our allies. The other one has been to minimize my personal exposure to the risk of war (financial and otherwise). I'm well past mobilization age, but I managed to keep my son from applying to West Point, something I would have dearly loved to share with him; I am not making another trip to Arlington because our ruling class has lost touch with reality. He ultimately chose to go to an outstanding school close to home, and I find that comforting: the odds of catastrophic attack seem to me higher now than at any time since 9/11, maybe since 1989, and if I can get nothing else, I want my family close at hand.

I mostly agree with Nine, although he may be suggesting that I am to among those to avoid. I am not running, will not serve!

No, I wasn't thinking about you at all, until you posted. I would not have imagined that was a plausible scenario.

Nine pound round +1

Legion and 35th, IMO your concerns could represent either side. The media news has no standards for honesty…it's broken. Being replaced by social media, the Wild West of misinformation.

Well … yeah ! $ and ratings talk …

I have two other related thoughts. The government routinely hires people from the areas it wants to control or regulate in a revolving door system of influence. I defer to Nine's expertise on the military's system, but I think this is true in many areas.
Example… I believe that taxes codes are often written by relatively short term hires from private large financial advisor businesses. These people then filter back into their industry to provide expertise on the same matters to their clients. There are likely many variations on this. This does nothing for the average citizen footing the bill for most of the spending.

My other point is that, while it feels like we are approaching a flashpoint, I still think it may be sometime before it comes. This is because our position relative to the various bad guys and trouble spots is still pretty good – for now. But our internal issues are also the biggest threat and it seems to me that we are unable to maintain a basic level of awareness, education, and engagement across a broad segment of the population. This, I think, is key to keeping an honest, functioning representative government, and we are not doing well in this.

Or after the election there may be ACW 2.0. But beside the North[GOP] and South[Dems] there will be millions of illegal alien in the mix.