Thread: The U.S. "Cannot Win Militarily" In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Inte

My opinion obviously won't be popular on here, but either you fight them on their own turf or we standby twiddling our thumbs while waiting for them to get strong enough to carry out another terrorist act here on American soil. Do we really want another 9/11?

I don't have all the answer but ignoring terrorist is not really an option (IMO). We either deal with them there or we will eventually be dealing with them here again.

Originally Posted by MW

My opinion obviously won't be popular on here, but either you fight them on their own turf or we standby twiddling our thumbs while waiting for them to get strong enough to carry out another terrorist act here on American soil. Do we really want another 9/11?

I don't have all the answer but ignoring terrorist is not really an option (IMO). We either deal with them there or we will eventually be dealing with them here again.

Fight them on their turf? LOL!

Put me in charge...carpet bomb the place and get it OVER with!

You cannot trust their military officers, you cannot trust their civilians!

#ITISNOTWORKING!

I do not want to fight them on their turf for another 100 years!!!

I do not want to spend another 8 trillion dollars either!

Get it done in 48 hours, then get out!

US Has Spent $5,900,000,000,000 On War Since 2001



"It is only when one considers the cost of medical and disability care for soldiers, and future such costs, along with things like the interest on the extra money borrowed for the wars, that the true cost becomes clear."

Thu, 11/15/2018 - 15:05
813 SHARES
Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

A new report from Brown University is aiming to provide a close estimate of the cost of the overall cost to the US government of its myriad post-9/11 wars and assorted global wars on terror. The estimate is that $5.933 trillion has been spent through fiscal year 2019.



This is, of course, vastly higher than official figures, owing to the Pentagon trying to oversimplify the costs into simply overseas contingency operations. It is only when one considers the cost of medical and disability care for soldiers, and future such costs, along with things like the interest on the extra money borrowed for the wars, that the true cost becomes clear.


That sort of vast expenditure is only the costs and obligations of the wars so far, and with little sign of them ending, they are only going to grow. In particular, a generation of wars is going to further add to the medical costs for veterans’ being consistently deployed abroad.



Starting in late 2001, the US has engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere around the world. Many of those wars have become more or less permanent operations, with no consideration of ending them under any circumstances.



Those wishing to read the report can find it here.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...00000-war-2001

More from the 'ThEy HaTe Us FoR oUr FrEeDoM' file... - Wolf

The United States has spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 people since the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs published its annual "Costs of War" report Wednesday, taking into consideration the Pentagon's spending and its Overseas Contingency Operations account, as well as "war-related spending by the Department of State, past and obligated spending for war veterans’ care, interest on the debt incurred to pay for the wars, and the prevention of and response to terrorism by the Department of Homeland Security."
The final count revealed, "The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post 9/11 war veterans."
"In sum, high costs in war and war-related spending pose a national security concern because they are unsustainable," the report concluded. "The public would be better served by increased transparency and by the development of a comprehensive strategy to end the wars and deal with other urgent national security priorities."

U.S. Has Spent Six Trillion Dollars on Wars That Killed Half a Million People Since 9/11, Report Says

By Tom O'Connor On 11/14/18 at 2:13 PM

Video at the page link

How Strong Is The U.S. Military?

World International Affairs
The United States has spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 peoplesince the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs published its annual "Costs of War" report Wednesday, taking into consideration the Pentagon's spending andits Overseas Contingency Operations account, as well as "war-related spending by the Department of State, past and obligated spending for war veterans’ care, interest on the debt incurred to pay for the wars, and the prevention of and response to terrorism by the Department of Homeland Security."
The final count revealed, "The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post 9/11 war veterans."
"In sum, high costs in war and war-related spending pose a national security concern because they are unsustainable," the report concluded. "The public would be better served by increased transparency and by the development of a comprehensive strategy to end the wars and deal with other urgent national security priorities."
U.S. Marines with Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, attached to Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, Crisis Response-Central Command fire 120-millimeter mortars in support of coalition efforts to defeat the Islamic State militant group at an undisclosed location in Syria, on September 10. Corporal Gabino Perez/U.S. Marine Corps/Defense Department
The U.S. embarked on a global war on terror following the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 and were orchestrated by Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda. Weeks later, the U.S. led an invasion of Afghanistan, which at the time was controlled by Al-Qaeda ally the Taliban. In March 2003, Washington overthrew Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accusing him of developing weapons of mass destruction and harboring U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.
Despite initial quick victories there, the U.S. military has been plagued by ongoing insurgencies these two countries and expanded counterterrorism operations across the region, including Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. In 2014, the U.S. gathered an international coalition to face the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), which arose out of a post-invasion Sunni Muslim insurgency in Iraq and spread to neighboring Syria and beyond.
Wednesday's report found that the "US military is conducting counterterror activities in 76 countries, or about 39 percent of the world's nations, vastly expanding [its mission] across the globe." In addition, these operations "have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad."
Overall, researchers estimated that "between 480,000 and 507,000 people have been killed in the United States’ post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." This toll "does not include the more than 500,000 deaths from the war in Syria, raging since 2011" when a West-backed rebel and jihadi uprising challenged the government, an ally of Russia and Iran. That same year, the U.S.-led NATO Western military alliance intervened in Libya and helped insurgents overthrow longtime leader Muammar el-Qaddafi, leaving the nation in an ongoing state of civil war.
A chart details the financial and human cost of the "War on Terror" since the deadly events of September 11, 2001. The toll of deaths may be much higher and is also compounded by hundreds of thousands killed by the side effects of such conflicts. Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs/Brown University/Statista/Newsweek
The combined human cost for the U.S. throughout its actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan was 6,951 troops, 21 civilians and 7,820 contractors.
"While we often know how many US soldiers die, most other numbers are to a degree uncertain. Indeed, we may never know the total direct death toll in these wars. For example, tens of thousands of civilians may have died in retaking Mosul and other cities from ISIS but their bodies have likely not been recovered," the report noted.
"In addition, this tally does not include 'indirect deaths.' Indirect harm occurs when wars' destruction leads to long term, 'indirect,' consequences for people’s health in war zones, for example because of loss of access to food, water, health facilities, electricity or other infrastructure," it added.
In February, President Donald Trump estimated that "we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East," saying "what a mistake" it was. Weeks later, he reportedly told his military advisers to prepare a plan to withdraw from Syria as the war against ISIS entered its final phases, though senior Washington officials have since expanded the U.S. mission— considered illegal by the Syrian government and its allies—to include countering Iran and its allies.
This article has been updated to include a Statista chart detailing the findings of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs' study.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-spent-si...LWrNdgQy8AxkuI

The US Military is going to have a lot of explaining to do one of these days.

GET OUR KIDS THE FK OUT OF THERE

Navy SEAL accused of ISIS execution allegedly sent pic: ‘I got him with my hunting knife’

Ka Bar knife (twintiger007/Flickr)
November 16, 2018 Laura Widener

Share13K
Tweet
+1
13K Shares

New evidence has been exposed in the case of the U.S. Navy SEAL accused of stabbing an ISIS prisoner to death.
Navy SEAL Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher, 39, appeared before Navy Judge Advocate Capt. Arthur Record during an Article 32 hearing on Wednesday where evidence was presented to determine whether or not to proceed with a full trial, Task & Purpose first reported Thursday.
Gallagher, a 19-year Navy veteran, allegedly executed a wounded ISIS detainee with his knife in May 2017.

Jared Keller ✔ @jaredbkeller

Navy SEALs were administering medical aid to a wounded 15-year-old ISIS fighter when one SEAL allegedly stabbed the prisoner to death and then posed for photos next to the body.

The rules of engagement matter. Full stop. https://taskandpurpose.com/seal-chief-gallagher-isis-execution/ …
164
12:46 PM - Nov 15, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy



'I Got Him With My Hunting Knife': SEAL Allegedly Texted Photo Holding ISIS Fighter's Head

Gallagher, a 19-year veteran of the Navy, has been charged with four counts of violating military law, the most serious of which is premeditated murder
taskandpurpose.com

131 people are talking about this


Before the evidence was released, Gallagher maintained that the fighter succumbed to combat wounds obtained earlier. His attorney, Phillip Stackhouse, even said, “What we’ve learned in our independent investigation into these allegations is that a crime simply didn’t happen.”
However, the evidence released this week included several videos, some of which were obtained from helmet cameras worn by the ISIS fighter and Navy SEALs. Video was also released of Gallagher’s re-enlistment ceremony, which reportedly corroborated witness testimony.
Text messages were also obtained from several of the SEALs’ phones, one of which revealed a message from Gallagher boasting, “I got him with my hunting knife,” accompanied by a photo of himself with the dead ISIS fighter.

View image on Twitter

Newsweek ✔ @Newsweek

A Navy SEAL texted a photo holding an ISIS fighter's head and bragged about killing him with a knife http://bit.ly/2DKn8yS
11
2:00 AM - Nov 16, 2018

Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Special Agent Joe Warpinski was called as a witness and delivered the testimony from nine SEALs from Gallagher’s unit, testimony he had gathered since April during his investigation.
Several members of SEAL Team 7 Alpha Platoon were providing medical treatment to a 15-year-old ISIS fighter who suffered a leg injury from shrapnel derived from a nearby Iraqi airstrike. Iraqi forces had captured the fighter, then turned him over to the SEAL team.
Gallagher wasn’t present as the other SEALs treated the fighter. However, once the fighter was stabilized, Gallagher allegedly “walked up without saying anything at all” and began to stab the fighter.
Three SEAL members witnessed the killing. One said the act left him in “complete disbelief.” Another “couldn’t believe what had happened,” saying the fighter “was just a brainwashed kid.”
Shortly after, Gallagher posed for photos with fighter’s body, cradling the fighter’s head in one hand and holding his knife in the other hand. He even completed his re-enlistment ceremony in a similar pose.
Gallagher has been charged with 14 charges, including “murder, aggravated assault, obstructing justice and drug charges tied to alleged pain reliever and anabolic steroid abuse,” according to the Navy Times.
His aggravated assault charges stem from incidents involving a male and female civilian during the same deployment. From a sniper post in a tower near the Tigris river, Gallagher allegedly shot and wounded an elderly Iraqi citizen in June 2017, then shot and wounded a young girl in July 2017.
Other SEALs in his unit told investigators that Gallagher’s rifle was “off” but reportedly “felt that he was targeting civilians.”
Gallager was arrested on Sept. 11 at the Camp Pendleton Intrepid Spirit Center where he was receiving treatment for head injuries incurred from his overseas combat duty.
Authorities then detained him in the Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar in San Diego, where he has remained thus far.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...FNcxBFj4ZMeU-A

Soldier of Fortune Magazine

END GAME IN AFGHANISTAN: “There is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford. ....”End Game...Other than a “presence” in Afghanistan, the United States has no strategic cards to play.. There is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Lawrence Sellin | Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve


Spc. John Blake Asher, an artilleryman with 4th Infantry Division's 2nd Battalion, 12th Field Artillery Regiment, pulls the lanyard to fire an M777 Howitzer during a terrain denial mission to deter enemy rockets at Camp Dahlke, Afghanistan, Sept. 21, 2018. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by Sean Kimmons)

End game in Afghanistan: There is no military solution

November 18, 2018 Comments Off on End game in Afghanistan: There is no military solution 231 Views

Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meets with Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., commander, Resolute Support Mission and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, before visiting Train Advise Assist Command – North in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan March 20, 2018. The senior leaders discussed the current security environment in Afghanistan, the progress of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, and the re-posturing of U.S. forces as part of the new South Asia strategy. (DoD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro) Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford said that reconciliation is the only way forward in Afghanistan and that political, economic, religious and military pressure must be maintained on the group, with DOD reporting.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan and that the struggle in that country will require all aspects of government.
Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is interviewed by BBC World News Presenter Yalda Hakim during the Halifax International Security Forum Nov. 17, 2018. Dunford provided insights on the shift towards great power competition in the most recent US National Defense Strategy and the steps the US military is taking to maintain its technological competitive advantage. He also fielded questions from the plenary, covering a variety of topics, including the US South-Asia Strategy, the importance of regional partnerships for countering global terrorism, and the US role in NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe. (DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro/Released) “Success in Afghanistan is an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led reconciliation process,” Dunford said. “That requires us to have political pressure, social pressure and military pressure. In the military dimension, our task is to make sure the Taliban realize that they cannot win on the battlefield.”
All this pressure will combine to convince Taliban leaders that their future lies with reconciliation, the general said.
“But the key to success is to combine all of that pressure to incentivize the Taliban for, again, that Afghan-owned, Afghan-led reconciliation process,” he said.
Undergirding everything in Afghanistan is the South Asia Strategy. A key provision in that is its conditions-based approach. The Afghan government and Afghan people know that the world is with them in trying to move through this constant state of war. “And I would also say that the decision by NATO and partner nations to support the Afghan national defense security forces through 2024 absolutely affects the Taliban’s calculus,” Dunford said.
Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, right, and Army Command Sgt. Maj. John W. Troxell, senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, have a conversation aboard a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter after a visit to Train Advise Assist Command East at Forward Operating Base Gamberi, Afghanistan, March 21, 2018. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro
End game in Afghanistan
Lawrence Sellin | Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve
China and Pakistan have plainly stated their plans for Afghanistan and South Asia.
According to a press release from the November 12 conference held at Islamabad’s Pakistan-China Institute, “Pakistan-Afghanistan-China Trilateral Dialogue supports the CPEC [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor] as key to peace and regional cooperation.”
Pakistani news outlets emphasized the point, one stating, “Pakistan and China on Monday urged Afghanistan to join the Belt & Road Initiative as well as the CPEC.”
Is it a coincidence that such plain speaking occurs in parallel with an uptick in the frequency and intensity of Taliban attacks inside Afghanistan?
Within a span of a few days, Jaghori — long considered a safe district — was being overrunby 1,000 Taliban, while other Taliban killed at least twelve Afghan soldiers and four tribal elders during an attack on a military base in Afghanistan’s northern Baghlan province. And bombs continue to explode in Kabul.
In an effort to lure the Taliban to the bargaining table, the Trump administration may askthe Afghan government to postpone presidential elections — a move the Taliban will undoubtedly construe as a sign of American weakness because they have always claimed the Kabul regime as illegitimate.
In that respect, the Taliban are correct. Other than a “presence” in Afghanistan, the United States has no strategic cards to play.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan, at least from the standpoint of the manner in which we have conducted the war.
After an initial small-footprint victory in late 2001, driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the U.S. chose to mount an exhaustive and expensive counterinsurgency campaign with its nation-building component.
At the same time, Pakistan, sustaining the Taliban, waged a proxy war in Afghanistan, much like Pakistan’s and, indirectly, China’s reported support and use of the Islamic extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba and its affiliates against India.
Pakistan has always controlled the operation tempo of the war as well as the supply of our troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
U.S. inability or unwillingness to attack Taliban safe havens in Pakistan or forcing Islamabad to withdraw its support, essentially rendered a counterinsurgency victory unachievable. It is an obvious deduction the Pentagon should have made long ago, except for its blind love affair with Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency.
After 17 years of strategic mismanagement, the Trump administration is left only with bad options. Getting out of Afghanistan is inevitable. Given the current trends, we couldn’t stay even if we wished to do so.
We should let Pakistan and China “win” and then help them ruin their victory.
Clearly, CPEC is the foundation upon which China and Pakistan intend to exploit their triumph, which is highly vulnerable to the very instability they were inciting in Afghanistan.
Forty years ago, Pakistani President Zia ul Haq said that to control Afghanistan, the country should be kept “boiling at the right temperature.”
Like a frog, CPEC will be slowly boiled in South Asia’s pot of instability. CPEC is the flagship of the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s blueprint for global domination. As the maxim, widely attributed to Napoleon, says “Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”
That is, by harnessing the potential power of ideological fissures, ethnic fault lines and differing national interests, in essence, the ability to manage instability, the U.S. can transform an untenable “presence” into longer-term regional leverage.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, an IT command and control subject matter expert, trained in Arabic and Kurdish, and a veteran of Afghanistan, northern Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa.




https://www.sofmag.com/end-game-in-a...GG7Lmej409bdxI

In my opinion, most military generals do not have the life experience to make political decisions.

In Afghanistan, one question needs to be posed to the military, can you kill all the Taliban and wipe them off the face of the earth? If yes, then the President needs to decide if he wants to do that or not. If no, then you lost the war you campaigned to fight and have cost American lives and a tremendous amount of money for little or nothing.

Originally Posted by Judy

In my opinion, most military generals do not have the life experience to make political decisions.

In Afghanistan, one question needs to be posed to the military, can you kill all the Taliban and wipe them off the face of the earth? If yes, then the President needs to decide if he wants to do that or not. If no, then you lost the war you campaigned to fight and have cost American lives and a tremendous amount of money for little or nothing.

YEP, EITHER CARPET BOMB AND GET IT OVER WITH OR GET OUT!

NO MORE PC WARS COSTING US LIVES AND TRILLIONS OF OUR MONEY.

KEEP THEM OFF OUR SOIL AND LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER!

Originally Posted by Beezer

YEP, EITHER CARPET BOMB AND GET IT OVER WITH OR GET OUT!

NO MORE PC WARS COSTING US LIVES AND TRILLIONS OF OUR MONEY.

KEEP THEM OFF OUR SOIL AND LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER!

Exactly. 17 years of "fighting the Taliban" and we're losing? Really? No, the whole thing has gone corrupt. This is no longer an honest war for an honest purpose and hasn't been for a long time. Get out and let the cards fall where they may. If the Afghan people want to be controlled by the Taliban, their choice.