• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US, NATO Outta Afghanistan 2021

I heard a similar story from a guy I know that was working for the UN in Mali. UN aid convoys kept getting held up at gun point by “terrorists” but was really local warlords being paid off by the UN who were trying to control who really got the aid. Apparently the UN was aware but didn’t do much about it.
The UN was paying local warlords to not hold up their convoys at gunpoint? Or the UN would pay them once held up, to help ensure some of the aid went to who it was meant for? (Sorry about needing clarification on such a random story, just genuinely curious! Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest...)

A good friend of mine left the Forces for this very reason. He was in Cambodia with the UN in the early 90's as an Engineer, and they had to bribe the local warlord to allow a bridge, over a major route, to be re-built. The UN did so, and about a week later, the bridge was blown up. The local warlord again agreed to allow the bridge to be re-built, but for an even more exorbitant fee. Cue explosion about a week later. This happened several more times. Int definitely pointed to warlords involvement , UN said "Meh"

My friend recently retired as a senior officer with the RCMP. CAF loss.
That sucks, and goes to show that the UN seems to have a vested interest in the status-quo in some areas rather than be working towards any real improvement. They say they are there to rebuild a country, assist the people, etc - yet put up with crap like that.

The warlord, in all fairness, has a pretty good business plan. Allow the UN to build a project, probably employing locals and some of how own people - while the UN also pays him not to attack it. Wait a little while, blow it up, and repeat - getting the UN to pay him each time. It sucks and it's shady, but he clearly figured out the UN would rather just plug away at it rather than eliminate/solve the problem so it could move onto the next.
 
The UN was paying local warlords to not hold up their convoys at gunpoint? Or the UN would pay them once held up, to help ensure some of the aid went to who it was meant for? (Sorry about needing clarification on such a random story, just genuinely curious! Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest...)


That sucks, and goes to show that the UN seems to have a vested interest in the status-quo in some areas rather than be working towards any real improvement. They say they are there to rebuild a country, assist the people, etc - yet put up with crap like that.

The warlord, in all fairness, has a pretty good business plan. Allow the UN to build a project, probably employing locals and some of how own people - while the UN also pays him not to attack it. Wait a little while, blow it up, and repeat - getting the UN to pay him each time. It sucks and it's shady, but he clearly figured out the UN would rather just plug away at it rather than eliminate/solve the problem so it could move onto the next.
The UN, in my opinion, is for the most part, useless. The Security Council, with five permanent members with veto votes, only aggregates the dysfunction.

Add to that exorbitant salaries (tax free) and lavish expense accounts, and one can see why certain people would be attracted to that lifestyle, all the while spouting pretentious gob about how they are saving the world.

A pox on their houses.
 
Last edited:
Live by the "boom" ....
The US military says it believes it has killed a planner for the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group in a drone strike in the east of the country.

The suspected member of the IS-K group was targeted in Nangarhar province.

IS-K said it had carried out an attack outside Kabul airport on Thursday that may have killed as many as 170 people, including 13 US troops ...
 
Suspected member, wonder what that evidence looked like.

The US was (allegedly) blindsided by the Taliban's ability to take the country over in a week and undo 20 years of work (contrary to what their president was apparently informed), but they managed to track down and nail a IS-K "planner" in a couple days. Okay.
 

US left Afghan airfield at night, didn’t tell new commander​



View attachment 66224

Not laughing.

On July 2 came the big vacancy. Bagram, the sprawling air base 40 miles north of Kabul that for two decades had served as the operational heartbeat, was abandoned in the dead of night. Afghans complained that the commander never said goodbye.

A defense official familiar with the planning told The Washington Times that military commanders had always intended to close Bagram before the American withdrawal was complete.

The official rejected the idea that it was practical to keep Bagram operational until Mr. Biden’s deadline or shortly before. The source said it would have been a logistical nightmare to attempt to transport thousands of U.S. personnel from Kabul or from other more distant cities.


So it was always the Biden plan to abandon everyone not in Kabul to their own resources because: "Logistical Nightmare".

I guess nobody knows how to collapse a perimeter in contact in an orderly manner.
 
Not laughing.




So it was always the Biden plan to abandon everyone not in Kabul to their own resources because: "Logistical Nightmare".

I guess nobody knows how to collapse a perimeter in contact in an orderly manner.
He set a very unrealistic troop level - and refused to budge from it when confronted with the requirements from US MIL personnel.

Instead of saying Mr. President, that is utterly contemptible, if you go forward, I will need to resign, SecDef Austin, CJCS Milley and Gen Miller just saluted and went to accomplish a task they knew was impossible.

Biden is an idiot - but the other three are morally bankrupt.
 
Not laughing.




So it was always the Biden plan to abandon everyone not in Kabul to their own resources because: "Logistical Nightmare".

I guess nobody knows how to collapse a perimeter in contact in an orderly manner.
Unfortunately all of those left from Dunkirk are all pretty much gone or unable to explain, properly, how it should happen….
 
Alternate solutions



 
Well done that man!


He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch
To win or lose it all.


The Marquis of Montrose to his wife on the eve of his execution in 1650 for having followed his conscience.
 
The UN
Well done that man!





The Marquis of Montrose to his wife on the eve of his execution in 1650 for having followed his conscience.
They still don’t get it, do they? The senior personnel in most companies, government agencies, militaries, etc.

Time and time again, they make similar decisions & behave in similar ways. And time and time again, they look like pricks who then need to back peddle. 🤦🏼‍♂️


The public will always side with a more junior person who gets thrown under a bus or dismissed by their seniors, whose only real ‘crime’ was demanding accountability, or professionalism, or who exposes a lie - as the public should.
 
And when your enemies perceive you as weak? What is the appropriate response? Why you become aggressive. What could possibly go wrong?


I know the US sails ships through the straight on a routine basis to exercise freedom of the seas, show resolve to Taiwan, send a message to China when need be, etc.

But the timing of this one does kind of hint at a ‘compensating for something?’ decision 😅🤷🏼‍♂️
 
Am I cynical thinking this could become Srebrenica 2.0?
France and Britain will on Monday urge the UN to create a "safe zone" in Afghanistan's capital, to protect humanitarian operations, French President Emmanuel Macron said.

"This is very important," Mr Macron was quoted as telling the French Sunday newspaper Journal du Dimanche. "This would provide a framework for the United Nations to act in an emergency."

Such a safe zone in Kabul would allow the international community to maintain pressure on the Taliban, he said ...
 
place a bet? Will it be China or Russia that either vetos outright or procrastinates until it is too late?
 
place a bet? Will it be China or Russia that either vetos outright or procrastinates until it is too late?
China has been getting pretty buddy buddy with the taliban, if their goal is resources, which I bet it is. The they will want the capital secure to allow them to do their work.
 
China has been getting pretty buddy buddy with the taliban, if their goal is resources, which I bet it is. The they will want the capital secure to allow them to do their work.
They don't care what happens in the capital -- one could argue they would prefer instability at this point - as it won't interfere with their operations - which would have a significant security ring -
 
Back
Top