Airstrip One
Completely Effed
It's what Trump wants, so, get on board.
More Troops to Afghan
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
It's what Trump wants, so, get on board.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Maybe he will send all those women that want to serve on the front line as infantry?
you keep confusing "escalation" which this is not - it's filing in existing roles- to "interventionism".
i have answered you 4 times regarding this same thing on this thread now. you are stuck on stupid.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That's his default setting.
repetitive idiocy
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
This is absolutely unreal.
Cypress is 100% spot on - if this was Hillary, you'd be all over it.
You have lost your tether to reality.
once again you prefer hyperbolic rhetoric rather then addressing the differing points
of escalation/intervention/ and simply filling in existing roles
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
That is such a hairsplit.
More young Americans are going to die as a result of this action. The end.
war strategy is "hairsplitting"..uh huh..I get you are "anti-war"and that's fine.
But one thing I've learned over the years is that you have to understand war if you are going to
effectively oppose it. It's why I oppose Cold War 2 in the face of Russiaphobic NATO escalation.
There are valid reasons to oppose even a small increase, but if you are going to make that argument-
be prepared for reasoned debate why letting Afghan descend back into a terrorist state is undesirable too
Officially, there are supposed to be around 8,500, but with Special Operations forces and other units constantly rotating in and out of the country, that number is likely somewhere around 10,000 to 11,000. There are also about 5,000 troops from other NATO and coalition countries.
More troops will reinforce the two existing missions — Operation Resolute Support and Operation Freedom Sentinel. The former is a joint U.S.-NATO operation to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces, including the army, air force and special operations units. The latter is a U.S.-run counterterrorism mission focused primarily on al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
“More than 95 to 98 percent of what we’ve asked for is the [train, advise, assist] mission,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss planning.
The extra troops, the official said, would give U.S. forces the resources to advise below the higher echelons of Afghan Army corps. In 2011, when there were more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Americans were advising at the squad level — meaning that for every 12 Afghan troops, there were 12 American troops alongside them.
By adding, say, 3,900 troops to the war effort, U.S. forces will be able to move down toward brigade (4,000 troops) and battalion (670 troops) levels.
Advising at smaller units means U.S. troops will get closer to the fighting in which Afghan forces have been experiencing significant losses. The U.S. military will also need additional resources, such as aircraft and fire support, to ensure that American troops have the resources to fight and survive if needed. Those additional air and artillery units, while helping American ground forces, will also likely be used to help Afghan troops fight off the Taliban. In the first six months of 2017, U.S. aircraft had provided roughly the same amount of airstrikes as they had in 2012, according to Air Force data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-heres-what-theyll-do/?utm_term=.b5fe8515e0de
More troops will reinforce the two existing missions — Operation Resolute Support and Operation Freedom Sentinel. The former is a joint U.S.-NATO operation to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces, including the army, air force and special operations units. The latter is a U.S.-run counterterrorism mission focused primarily on al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
“More than 95 to 98 percent of what we’ve asked for is the [train, advise, assist] mission,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss planning.
The extra troops, the official said, would give U.S. forces the resources to advise below the higher echelons of Afghan Army corps. In 2011, when there were more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Americans were advising at the squad level — meaning that for every 12 Afghan troops, there were 12 American troops alongside them.
By adding, say, 3,900 troops to the war effort, U.S. forces will be able to move down toward brigade (4,000 troops) and battalion (670 troops) levels.
Advising at smaller units means U.S. troops will get closer to the fighting in which Afghan forces have been experiencing significant losses. The U.S. military will also need additional resources, such as aircraft and fire support, to ensure that American troops have the resources to fight and survive if needed. Those additional air and artillery units, while helping American ground forces, will also likely be used to help Afghan troops fight off the Taliban. In the first six months of 2017, U.S. aircraft had provided roughly the same amount of airstrikes as they had in 2012, according to Air Force data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-heres-what-theyll-do/?utm_term=.b5fe8515e0de
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You spend over 700 billion dollars on the military, is it just there as an expensive sop against unemployment?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The UK is sending SAS and SBS special forces along with drones and intelligence gathering assets.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/8...tan-military-commitment-Taliban-ISIS-al-Qaeda
It says SAS "to return", but then says this-
I can't find out exactly what US Special Forces are doing differently then US armed forces either.
Do you have any understanding of the Brits SAS specific roles in Afghan?
I did find an article that shows the US is becoming more reliant on special forces as an expeditionary role with other armies worldwide
I get the usual train/advise as well as combat support roles as well..
Darth Omar
Russian asset
My understanding is our role will be train/advise.
Which is bad enough, since I chafe at the idea of being in Afghanistan but walking away will bring a predictable result. Afghan will still be a dangerous place for troops to be, but it ranks as a low grade war [on our part] since the Afghanis will be doing the fighting.
yes. but also combat support. while the ANAF take the lead role we'll be bringing in US air.
And don't kid yourself about advisors; we'll be doing fighting too -but again not leading ops.
I think the Special Forces are more used to being autonomous -so they have no other specific role -
but im not sure
I always thought the "sudden" conversion from Iraq War-loving Bush voters, to flower-waving Trumpkin peacenik hippies was totally suspect.
Everyone knows if Hillary Clinton had been elected and did this, jpp.com's Trumpkin phony peaceniks would have been hollering and bellowing about what a war monger Hillary is.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I always thought the "sudden" conversion from Iraq War-loving Bush voters, to flower-waving Trumpkin peacenik hippies was totally suspect.
Everyone knows if Hillary Clinton had been elected and did this, jpp.com's Trumpkin phony peaceniks would have been hollering and bellowing about what a war monger Hillary is.
They still are. Even though she's totally out of the picture we still get the occasional "if Hillary/then war."
^completely off tangent discussion.
I always thought the "sudden" conversion from Iraq War-loving Bush voters, to flower-waving Trumpkin peacenik hippies was totally suspect.
Everyone knows if Hillary Clinton had been elected and did this, jpp.com's Trumpkin phony peaceniks would have been hollering and bellowing about what a war monger Hillary is.
What you can be sure of is Hillary's "no fly" in Syria would also take ground troops to support that
"humanitarian corridor".
Instead we have a lasting and growing cease-fire negotiated by Trump and Putin
This is my impression I get from your "sudden" appreciation for increasing the US military footprint in Afghanistan, aka escalating the Afghan War.
