Terrible mistake in Afghanistan.

[jimcav]

that new yorker article hits some of the corruption and false-flag type of intel identification on the "enemy" targets that I heard originally in late 2002 into early 2003, and later more directly from NSW guys who'd been there 2007-2010. It was depressing then, and depressing now. I wish there had been more/better documenting and leaking of this sort of thing in real time, although it would have likely been spun and not changed anything, ala Abu Ghraib prison.

I remember one story from a fleet marine force corpsman (medic) describing how his commander threw an Afghani out of the command bldg's 2nd or 3rd story window. Why? believing he was lying. I assume cell phones could have captured that.

It's sad how such things are all-too-often tolerated until it becomes known publicly. That sort of thing is just too common--ethics and values compromised/power abused in pursuit of some goal--sexual assault by clergy, in sports & cheerleading (just saw the most recent Real Sports on HBO, yuck), policing, OEF.

[BBB]

It's sad how such things are all-too-often tolerated until it becomes known publicly. That sort of thing is just too common--ethics and values compromised/power abused in pursuit of some goal--sexual assault by clergy, in sports & cheerleading (just saw the most recent Real Sports on HBO, yuck), policing, OEF.

But, it was known, at least to a certain degree. The pictures of Abu Ghraib were splashed all over the world's media for example. Guantanamo Bay was debated openly as a human rights and legal debacle at the time. Some of the human rights abuses committed by troops on the ground came out later in the piece.

In any event, you are right as far too often people in power abuse that power to stay in power, or to preserve reputation. Lance Armstrong. Donald Trump. The Catholic Church. Just for example.

[Chik]

Any examples you can think of? Generals who've been hired to actually run a corporation - not just be a figurehead and phonebook - and have improved the stature of the corporation financially and paid good returns on shareholder investments?

I don't know of any generals who were successful having full and direct P&L responsibility in the corporate world.

However, I do know of a few who succeeded in a cost centre role, namely, as a head of logistics / distribution / supply chain management. At least some of those examples, if I recall correctly, were also put in charge of HR and even ICT because they had made the case that they needed oversight in those functional areas to be able to design and implement their strategy most effectively. And they did. That, in turn, increased shareholder value by making the organisation run more efficiently and effectively on the back end. But yeah, not sure about putting one of them as front of house except in very niche trades like mercenaries.

[jclay]

It was a viable option because the US troops had air cover. Your "Fact" isn't backed up by the actual numbers from the last five years. It didn't matter if the Taliban has superior numbers, they had no close air support. I don't know how to explain this to you if you've never been involved in a military campaign, but a few dozen aircraft are equal to tens of thousands of boots on the ground. Biden owns this, the withdrawal was a colossal clusterfuck that alienated our allies and devastated our world standing. Next year the Democrats will lose both houses because of his actions.

1) Isn't your CAS comment a bit of an optimistic over simplification? CAS isn't a silver bullet and can be pretty messy in terms of collateral damage against this sort of enemy; we're not fighting on fronts against a uniformed military that's willing to step into the ring and go toe to toe in our sanitary Western tradition; we should have learned that lesson by the early '70s. I suppose it would play better at home, even if we lost more peeps, but that's not convincing to me.

2) Dems losing: You might well be right but I wonder. Dyed in the wool Trumpers will still support Trump and his ilk; never dems. Dyed in the wool dems will still support dems. The bulk of the malleable peeps in between? I dunno....not sure I see this particular situation swaying them. The gerrymandering and voter suppression....that could certainly win it for the Rs; I won't bet against that!

3) Let's assume the withdrawal planning, the methodology was a CF. At the end of the day was the bulk result? I mean that politically (and we did get a whole bunch of peeps out); the deaths are awful, as they always are but will it cause peeps who woulda voted dem, to vote R?

4) I can certainly imagine cleaner withdrawals, better (apparently...we, I don't know the back office details) coordinated with allies, but any withdrawal lacking victory....don't we sorta guarantee the alienation and degradation of world standing when we over extend into unwinnable wars (and elect Trump, and let our infrastructure deteriorate/don't go full speed in configuring for a resource limited future, and, and, and)? I certainly wish it had gone off vastly better, like to think that it coulda, but isn't that sort of thing, and the resultant USA world standing results, guaranteed to be pretty messy and devaluing....particularly given the reality of an economically and militarily, ascendant China? The world ain't our oyster anymore. And we (the US and everybody else) will figure out how to settle things peacefully, how to coexist, or we will surely destroy life on this planet. My money is on destruction; the speed of which is really my only question. Hell, barring destruction via military action, I firmly believe we're gonna wreck the planet for higher order life. Well....I don't "firmly believe it", we're fucking doing it. I just don't know when the last sentence on human life will be written, or by whom.

And with those happy thoughts I think I'll splurge on another coffee....decaf.

[suspectdevice]

There is no way to take the spin on a 20 year colonial occupation and make it “about the democrats”. If The Democratic party loses its slim majority it will be because enough americans are pro fascism and xenophobia to make it so, not because of the end of a pointless and unwinnable occupation.

Whatever arguments “win” republican primaries in a few months, they will be the insane arguments with no basis in reality.
If the Insanity prevails wholesale, welp, that’s on every american that has been of voting age or older for the last 20+ years.

[j44ke]

I don't know of any generals who were successful having full and direct P&L responsibility in the corporate world.

However, I do know of a few who succeeded in a cost centre role, namely, as a head of logistics / distribution / supply chain management. At least some of those examples, if I recall correctly, were also put in charge of HR and even ICT because they had made the case that they needed oversight in those functional areas to be able to design and implement their strategy most effectively. And they did. That, in turn, increased shareholder value by making the organisation run more efficiently and effectively on the back end. But yeah, not sure about putting one of them as front of house except in very niche trades like mercenaries.

Those seem like better job fits for someone with military management experience.

[Saab2000]

At the very least the withdrawal was a PR nightmare for the current president. Looked like a rushed clown show. I don't know the reasons for this but it was a terrible optic in addition to the awful deaths. It will absolutely hurt the administration politically because it gives huge ammunition to the opposition.

As to the next election, if things don't turn around (admittedly it's over 13 months away) on a number of fronts, the Democrats are in trouble. Their majority is slim and I think many were elected not on their own merit but because they represented the "Anyone but DJT" wing of politics. They need to produce results, not just hot air, to get reelected.

[Chik]

Those seem like better job fits for someone with military management experience.

Yes, many of them know rather a lot about getting stuff and people from A to B.

As far as bringing in contracts or opening doors, I don't understand why any of them needed to be brought in as the CEO. They can be made a non-executive board director or even just members of the advisory board. I know one specialist defence contractor who retains 3 retired generals, one of whom is a very famous one, on the advisory board, and they have been useful in that regard.

[gregl]

As far as bringing in contracts or opening doors, I don't understand why any of them needed to be brought in as the CEO. They can be made a non-executive board director or even just members of the advisory board. I know one specialist defence contractor who retains 3 retired generals, one of whom is a very famous one, on the advisory board, and they have been useful in that regard.

Many companies in the defense sector hire retired general officers as consultants. That way, they aren't on the full-time payroll and work off a retainer at an hourly rate. One of my previous employers used a highly-regarded, former USMC commandant in this role. He had a very down-to-earth demeanor and was a pleasure to work with.

Greg

[jclay]

I found it interesting if not terribly surprising: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...k%20-%20112017

[bigbill]

Many companies in the defense sector hire retired general officers as consultants. That way, they aren't on the full-time payroll and work off a retainer at an hourly rate. One of my previous employers used a highly-regarded, former USMC commandant in this role. He had a very down-to-earth demeanor and was a pleasure to work with.

Greg

My employer had a former submarine officer as CEO until he resigned last year. When I met up with him for the first time (all manager level people have to have a one on one), he said he wanted to relate what he had learned during his submarine time. I was up front about my 15 years on submarines, while his was only 2.5 years. I was underwhelmed with his advice, and in the end, he was no different than many CEOs, sexual harassment occurred on his watch and he failed to take action and was shown the door by the board.

[Marvinlungwitz]

Attachment 119604

Attachment 119605

Attachment 119606

Regarding 2500 troops maintaining peace: The Taliban was emboldened by the deal with Trump, and stepped up terrorist activity after its prisoners were released by Trump (note the dramatic increase in violence in Kabul alone post signing). 2500 US troops weren’t maintaining peace, they simply avoiding direct conflict between themselves and the Taliban until it was time to go. Likewise, the Taliban was mostly playing a waiting game, knowing they’d have control again soon.

[classtimesailer]

This is another "mistake" in Afghanistan. Or maybe just an "oops". Cigars were lit and glasses klinked on the day of
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/w...stan-isis.html

[guido]

More details on the dark underbelly of nation building...

The War on Terror Was Corrupt From the Start | New York Times