Probably the local ISIS subgroup that was said to have been plotting bombings. I’m guessing it’s unrelated to the Taliban (though that is speculation)
Afghanistan 2021...
- Thread starter noble cane
- Start date
Speculation is that ISIS-K is responsible. ISIS-K is a splinter group of the Taliban which has even more hardline views than their regular Taliban brothers.
At least 4 US marines now confirmed dead. Biden promised a swift and harsh response for any attack on the airport a few days back. Curious to see what that military response will be?
Last edited:
This is a giant Sh*t show that keeps getting worse. Whatever military response there will be is exponentially more dangerous now that our haste and negligence to get out of country has modernized the weaponry. Training is the advantage we now have, but the short sightedness of leaving all of our military hardware for the local terror groups to enjoy is going to result in a much higher casualty rate amongst our men and women that are tasked with cleaning this mess up.
I agree, but it is apparent they were just playing nice until they felt the timing to make there point was right. When you show weakness your most vulnerable, and that is what has been on display.
My guess is an air assault. Probably one after we leave so we don’t risk getting the remaining people out.
Problem with that is there is almost a certainty we will still have people stranded there we need to get out. Can’t see us bombing the city under those circumstances.
They could hit the airport all day if they wanted to. The location, inability to bomb the area, and our unwillingness to create some space make it pretty much impossible to secure.
‘Creating space’ just means more people (probably innocents and soldiers on both sides) dying. We can do it. But what is the real worth?
We can always reach out and touch someone after this is all over. It’s an incredibly unfortunate situation, but not something we have to respond immediately to. I would be worried about someone getting something in the base / near a cargo plane.
Why does this upset you. This is either (a) the Taliban breaking a white flag peace deal in which case we will hold it against them and wreak havoc at some point or b) an Isis attack and we will hold the Taliban AND Isis accountable not defending the peace / attacking Americans. This is a lose lose situation for the Taliban, and if they want to mitigate the military / economic / political after effects they will cooperate.
Big mistake using the airport and not the air base for the evacuation. Airport is in the middle of town and there is no way to secure the perimeter with the troops we have on location. The farce of relying on the Taliban to handle perimeter security on our behalf speaks for itself. The airbase is outside of town and has open areas around it. Making for a much easier defensive perimeter. A little further travel for those needing to get there but a much better defensive position. There have obviously been too many miscalculations to count at this point. Attacks continue. Hoping we can get everyone out we need to get out with no more loss of life. Although those prospects appear bleak.
I’m sure there are other contingencies to consider in using the air base instead. It’s probably easier for the Taliban to block traffic to. If things did go south with the Taliban, it would mean much more difficulty getting Americans out. You can second guess things all you want. This was always going to be a messy fiasco.
If you're an American depending on the Taliban for protection you're ****ed.
This is naive and it's how we exposed ourselves. We have leaders expecting the taliban to not only abide by an agreement (an agreement they've already broken multiple times), but also actively protect Americans. "political after effects?" The taliban cares about none of that shIt. The chances that they had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen are high. They're more than happy to let us get bloodied and embarrassed on the way out and they know we're too far along to re-establish a presence in the country. They are loving this.
Lol no. There are so many things that are not just being second guessed now, but were called out at the time.
Last edited:
All I see on this thread is a whole bunch of vengeful and emotion laden backseat driving. I attribute most of it to a feeling of disparity that the things that we were told we would succeed at fighting for, we didn’t succeed at, because they were impossible.
We should have done this or that… you think you are the only person to think of that option in all of the pentagon in the last 12 months? Really? Really? Decisions were made. They might not have always been the correct decisions. But at least we have a directive that’s achievable. Get the F out. No more training tribesmen who don’t want to be soldiers. No more chasing after ghosts in mountain caves. Just get out.
We should have done this or that… you think you are the only person to think of that option in all of the pentagon in the last 12 months? Really? Really? Decisions were made. They might not have always been the correct decisions. But at least we have a directive that’s achievable. Get the F out. No more training tribesmen who don’t want to be soldiers. No more chasing after ghosts in mountain caves. Just get out.
Like our friends in the middle east.. im thinking generationally and gonna wait till you get bored and quit.
We’re being told we are working with the Taliban as far as access and checkpoints. Hell…we have apparently provided them with the names of everyone we want to give access to the airport. Why would we be concerned about them blocking access? Makes zero sense.
No. I just prefer to think logically rather than emotionally. Given the variety of semi-random outcomes in each scenario, you can only plan on certain things. We might say they should have done XYZ given a certain event, but that is an opinion given with knowledge that a certain event happened. They might have been planning for 10 other contingencies which they considered equally as likely if not more likely.
Bgawk!
Also, war is famously, nothing like chess. In chess you can see your pieces but you can also see all of your opponents pieces and all of their available moves and strategies. Eisenhower played bridge and said it was more comparable.
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
A more accessible link https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/c31ffe52/files/uploaded/ACBL - Eisenhower Bridge.pdf
Last edited:
Oh there's definitely some emotion here. Making excuses for inexcusable things done by people on the "right team" is a security blanket. Coming out and saying "this was executed poorly in nearly every way and much of it was foreseeable" is alienating because then there's no where to go to be part of the good smart team. It's what happens when people's self-esteem is tied to a political party.
Most of this stuff, like leaving Bagram in the dead of night, raised eyebrows the day it happened. We'll see all kinds of memos and security assessments leaked in the coming months that will show red flags being raised all over the place. Strategic decisions are beyond my level of expertise. I can have opinions, but yes the smart set at the pentagon knows way more than me. Tactical decisions though? Most of them only know what they’ve read in books.
Forgive me for the asshole-ish reply. I’m just responding in kind
Last edited:
Similar threads
