What's new

US Weighs Possibility of Airstrikes If afghan forces face crisis

Path-Finder

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 7, 2013
20,250
1
29,396
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Yea, This airstrike they are planning, are they going to do it over Iran? Ah, NO. So This is another tactic in trying to throw their weight about. I hope its made crystal clear that Pakistan will not allow its airspace for any further activity.

================================
U.S. Weighs Possibility of Airstrikes if Afghan Forces Face Crisis
The Pentagon is considering whether to intervene with warplanes or drones in the event that Kabul is in danger of falling to the Taliban, though no decisions have been made.




A United States Air Force pilot training Afghan service members in 2018. Afghan security forces are at risk of being overwhelmed by the Taliban once American troops withdraw from the country.Credit...Bryan Denton for The New York Times
Helene CooperEric SchmittThomas Gibbons-Neff
By Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Thomas Gibbons-Neff
Published June 9, 2021Updated June 10, 2021, 12:09 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is considering seeking authorization to carry out airstrikes to support Afghan security forces if Kabul or another major city is in danger of falling to the Taliban, potentially introducing flexibility into President Biden’s plan to end the United States military presence in the conflict, senior officials said.

Mr. Biden and his top national security aides had previously suggested that once U.S. troops left Afghanistan, air support would end as well, with the exception of strikes aimed at terrorist groups that could harm American interests.
But military officials are actively discussing how they might respond if the rapid withdrawal produces consequences with substantial national security implications.
No decisions have been made yet, officials said. But they added that one option under consideration would be to recommend that U.S. warplanes or armed drones intervene in an extraordinary crisis, such as the potential fall of Kabul, the Afghan capital, or a siege that puts American and allied embassies and citizens at risk.
Any additional airstrikes would require the president’s approval. Even then, officials indicated that such air support would be hard to sustain over a lengthy period because of the enormous logistical effort that would be necessary given the American withdrawal. The United States will leave all its air bases in Afghanistan by next month, and any airstrikes would most likely have to be launched from bases in the Persian Gulf.
A potential fall of Kabul is the crisis most likely to lead to military intervention after U.S. troops leave, officials said. Intervening to protect Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second-largest city, would be far less certain, one official said. Encroaching Taliban forces have increasingly threatened several other urban hubs in almost every corner of the country in recent months.
The discussion suggests the degree of concern in Washington about the ability of Afghanistan’s military to hold off the Taliban and maintain control of Kabul and other population centers.
And it is the latest indication of the scramble by the United States to address the ramifications of Mr. Biden’s decision in April to order a full withdrawal — a goal that had eluded his two immediate predecessors, in part because of opposition from the military.
Whether to provide air support to Afghan security forces after U.S. troops pull out is one of several major questions about Afghanistan policy that the administration is grappling with as Mr. Biden prepares to meet NATO allies in Europe next week.

Also unresolved is how U.S. troops will carry out counterterrorism missions to prevent Al Qaeda and other militants from rebuilding their presence in Afghanistan, and how to allow Western contractors to continue to support the Afghan military. At the same time, the C.I.A. is under intense pressure to find new ways to gather intelligence and carry out counterterrorism strikes in the country.
With the Pentagon set to conclude the pullout of U.S. troops by early July, the Afghan military — created, trained and supplied in the image of the American military — is supposed to start defending the country on its own.
Senior American officials say that the immediate crumbling of the Afghan military is not a foregone conclusion. But there is little doubt that the Afghan forces are battered and at risk of being overwhelmed, especially if their commandos and air forces falter.
The United States is not likely to provide additional air support to Afghan forces in rural areas, many of which are already under Taliban control, the officials said. And even government enclaves around the country, which are already under siege, are unlikely to receive much military help from American warplanes, the officials said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid speaking publicly about internal administration discussions.

An Afghan soldier at an outpost in Panjwai, Afghanistan, in March. The United States is not likely to provide air support to Afghan forces in rural areas, officials said.Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

When Mr. Biden announced the withdrawal in April, he promised to support the Afghan government, including its security forces; but he appeared to indicate that the Afghans would be on their own militarily after American and NATO troops left this summer. “While we will not stay involved in Afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue,” he said at the time.
Officials said then that the United States would launch strikes in Afghanistan only for counterterrorism reasons, in case there was intelligence about efforts to attack American interests.
A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council declined to comment on the options under discussion, saying the administration did not publicly discuss rules of engagement.


But officials say there appears to be some new flexibility in the interpretation of counterterrorism. They say a debate has risen in the administration over what, exactly, is the threshold for turmoil in Afghanistan that could lead to American airstrikes.
The discussion reflects lessons learned from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, which forced the Obama administration in 2014 to recommit troops and air cover to defend Iraqi cities as the group encroached on Baghdad.
Senior officials said that at the moment, that threshold looked like a looming fall of Kabul, a situation that would most likely require a signoff from the president before American warplanes — most likely armed MQ-9 Reaper drones but possibly fighter jets — provided air support to Afghan forces.
Afghan officials said they had been told by their American counterparts that the United States would also stop any takeover of major cities, a vague statement without any clear backing.
That support would be tough to maintain over any extended period.
“It’s a very hard thing to do,” said Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the former commander of United States Central Command. “It’s an operation to get aircraft to Afghanistan, especially if you’re having to come from the Gulf or an aircraft carrier. There is limited loiter time for them to do anything.”
There are already signs of the difficulties that the United States would face in sending crewed aircraft to carry out strikes after the withdrawal. As U.S. bases in Afghanistan close, it has left pilots with a conundrum: What if something goes wrong thousands of feet over Afghanistan?
Forward Operating Base Dwyer — a sprawling complex in the south with a sizable landing strip — is closing in weeks, if not days. At that point, U.S. aircraft will have only one viable American military base, Bagram, to divert to if they face a mechanical or other issue in flight. Bagram will shut down when the withdrawal is complete.
With restrictive rules of engagement that require hours of overhead surveillance before an American airstrike is authorized, Afghan forces have tried to compensate, launching 10 to 20 airstrikes a day. U.S. surveillance drones are providing a wealth of coordinates to the Afghan Air Force, but Afghan pilots and aircraft are facing burnout and maintenance issues that grow by the day as foreign contractors withdraw.
“Our policy should be to do everything possible, consistent with not having troops on the ground, to enable the legitimate Afghan government and security forces to hold on,” said Representative Tom Malinowksi, Democrat of New Jersey and a former State Department official.
Mr. Malinowski last month joined more than half a dozen other House Democrats and Republicans in urging Mr. Biden to provide an array of support to the Afghan government after American troops leave, including any information on impending Taliban attacks detected by U.S. surveillance aircraft and spy satellites.
Top American generals have acknowledged that the Afghan security forces could collapse in a year or two, or even a matter of months, after the departure of Western military support.



“We frankly don’t know yet,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said when asked about the ability of Afghan forces to hold up under increasing pressure.Credit...Alex Wong/Getty Images

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered reporters traveling with him last month a lukewarm statement about the abilities of the Afghan forces. After 20 years of war, thousands of casualties and huge sums of money spent on the Afghan military and police, he characterized them as “reasonably well equipped, reasonably well trained, reasonably well led.”
When pressed on whether he thought the Afghan forces could hold up, General Milley was noncommittal.
“Your question: The Afghan army, do they stay together and remain a cohesive fighting force, or do they fall apart? I think there’s a range of scenarios here, a range of outcomes, a range of possibilities,” he said. “On the one hand, you get some really dramatic, bad possible outcomes. On the other hand, you get a military that stays together and a government that stays together.
“Which one of these options obtains and becomes reality at the end of the day?” he said. “We frankly don’t know yet.”
When asked at a Pentagon news conference last month if Afghan cities were in danger of being overrun by the Taliban after American forces left, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III declined to say whether the United States would provide air support, saying it was a hypothetical situation.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the top U.S. diplomat leading peace efforts with the Taliban, issued last month what seemed to be a definitive statement on the matter.
“We will do what we can during our presence until the forces are withdrawn, to help the Afghan forces, including coming to their defense when they are attacked,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But once we are out of Afghanistan, direct military support of Afghan forces such as strikes in support of their forces, that’s not being contemplated at this time.”
But three other American officials said the issue had not been resolved in high-level administration meetings on Afghanistan.
Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff from Kabul, Afghanistan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Adecypher

FULL MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
1,220
1
1,358
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States

US might use Pakistani airspace to strike on Taliban, so far Pakistan stance is not to provide its airbases or airspace ... so let see what will happen IF an airstrike is carried out ...
 
Last edited:

mudas777

FULL MEMBER
Oct 24, 2016
1,256
0
2,319
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Elvis have left (i.e. leaving soon) the building. Thanks for the memories please now stay away.
If you are so concerned about the embassies then vacate them too as it will be in the west interest to have some self respect and what ever dignity left with while leaving Afghanistan. Occupation never succeeds should have left Afghanistan a long time ago and let natives to work out their differences, government and ways of living.
 

Bossman

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 11, 2010
2,908
-5
3,903
So letting the Taliban know not to concentrate forces. Now they will slowly infiltrate the cities and towns on motorcycles, on foot or occasional pick up trucks and the only thing US will end up doing is killing a lot of civilians as in the past, which in turn would open more doors for the Taliban.
 
Last edited:

313ghazi

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 14, 2017
9,202
39
18,695
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Zalmay Khalilzad, the top U.S. diplomat leading peace efforts with the Taliban, issued last month what seemed to be a definitive statement on the matter.
“We will do what we can during our presence until the forces are withdrawn, to help the Afghan forces, including coming to their defense when they are attacked, he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But once we are out of Afghanistan, direct military support of Afghan forces such as strikes in support of their forces, that’s not being contemplated at this time.”
 
Nov 18, 2014
1,227
1
1,509
Country
United States
Location
United States
It is only a matter of time and I think the transplant government's perhaps most important aspiration will be an effort to remain relevant. A nail in the coffin would be recognition of Talib government by states like China or Russia, essentially making the current setup redundant.

The idea that if you hire enough of the locals and engage another sum in the affairs of the current state setup, people's opinions could be swayed. That, in having their personal stakes in keeping the status quo, such as in Pakistan or other similar states. Where the right thing is simply not done because of existing structures, stakes and proclivities.

Afghans remain largely aloof to the parallel predicament and amounts of money poured into it, to sway their opinion and change their ways into one's exported to them, pseudo benchmarks of success, esteem, valor and civilization.

Is this where the project starts to role back?
 

Asif Mayet

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jun 7, 2020
98
0
60
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Yea, This airstrike they are planning, are they going to do it over Iran? Ah, NO. So This is another tactic in trying to throw their weight about. I hope its made crystal clear that Pakistan will not allow its airspace for any further activity.

================================
U.S. Weighs Possibility of Airstrikes if Afghan Forces Face Crisis
The Pentagon is considering whether to intervene with warplanes or drones in the event that Kabul is in danger of falling to the Taliban, though no decisions have been made.




A United States Air Force pilot training Afghan service members in 2018. Afghan security forces are at risk of being overwhelmed by the Taliban once American troops withdraw from the country.Credit...Bryan Denton for The New York Times
Helene CooperEric SchmittThomas Gibbons-Neff
By Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Thomas Gibbons-Neff
Published June 9, 2021Updated June 10, 2021, 12:09 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is considering seeking authorization to carry out airstrikes to support Afghan security forces if Kabul or another major city is in danger of falling to the Taliban, potentially introducing flexibility into President Biden’s plan to end the United States military presence in the conflict, senior officials said.

Mr. Biden and his top national security aides had previously suggested that once U.S. troops left Afghanistan, air support would end as well, with the exception of strikes aimed at terrorist groups that could harm American interests.
But military officials are actively discussing how they might respond if the rapid withdrawal produces consequences with substantial national security implications.
No decisions have been made yet, officials said. But they added that one option under consideration would be to recommend that U.S. warplanes or armed drones intervene in an extraordinary crisis, such as the potential fall of Kabul, the Afghan capital, or a siege that puts American and allied embassies and citizens at risk.
Any additional airstrikes would require the president’s approval. Even then, officials indicated that such air support would be hard to sustain over a lengthy period because of the enormous logistical effort that would be necessary given the American withdrawal. The United States will leave all its air bases in Afghanistan by next month, and any airstrikes would most likely have to be launched from bases in the Persian Gulf.
A potential fall of Kabul is the crisis most likely to lead to military intervention after U.S. troops leave, officials said. Intervening to protect Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second-largest city, would be far less certain, one official said. Encroaching Taliban forces have increasingly threatened several other urban hubs in almost every corner of the country in recent months.
The discussion suggests the degree of concern in Washington about the ability of Afghanistan’s military to hold off the Taliban and maintain control of Kabul and other population centers.
And it is the latest indication of the scramble by the United States to address the ramifications of Mr. Biden’s decision in April to order a full withdrawal — a goal that had eluded his two immediate predecessors, in part because of opposition from the military.
Whether to provide air support to Afghan security forces after U.S. troops pull out is one of several major questions about Afghanistan policy that the administration is grappling with as Mr. Biden prepares to meet NATO allies in Europe next week.

Also unresolved is how U.S. troops will carry out counterterrorism missions to prevent Al Qaeda and other militants from rebuilding their presence in Afghanistan, and how to allow Western contractors to continue to support the Afghan military. At the same time, the C.I.A. is under intense pressure to find new ways to gather intelligence and carry out counterterrorism strikes in the country.
With the Pentagon set to conclude the pullout of U.S. troops by early July, the Afghan military — created, trained and supplied in the image of the American military — is supposed to start defending the country on its own.
Senior American officials say that the immediate crumbling of the Afghan military is not a foregone conclusion. But there is little doubt that the Afghan forces are battered and at risk of being overwhelmed, especially if their commandos and air forces falter.
The United States is not likely to provide additional air support to Afghan forces in rural areas, many of which are already under Taliban control, the officials said. And even government enclaves around the country, which are already under siege, are unlikely to receive much military help from American warplanes, the officials said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid speaking publicly about internal administration discussions.

An Afghan soldier at an outpost in Panjwai, Afghanistan, in March. The United States is not likely to provide air support to Afghan forces in rural areas, officials said.Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

When Mr. Biden announced the withdrawal in April, he promised to support the Afghan government, including its security forces; but he appeared to indicate that the Afghans would be on their own militarily after American and NATO troops left this summer. “While we will not stay involved in Afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue,” he said at the time.
Officials said then that the United States would launch strikes in Afghanistan only for counterterrorism reasons, in case there was intelligence about efforts to attack American interests.
A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council declined to comment on the options under discussion, saying the administration did not publicly discuss rules of engagement.


But officials say there appears to be some new flexibility in the interpretation of counterterrorism. They say a debate has risen in the administration over what, exactly, is the threshold for turmoil in Afghanistan that could lead to American airstrikes.
The discussion reflects lessons learned from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, which forced the Obama administration in 2014 to recommit troops and air cover to defend Iraqi cities as the group encroached on Baghdad.
Senior officials said that at the moment, that threshold looked like a looming fall of Kabul, a situation that would most likely require a signoff from the president before American warplanes — most likely armed MQ-9 Reaper drones but possibly fighter jets — provided air support to Afghan forces.
Afghan officials said they had been told by their American counterparts that the United States would also stop any takeover of major cities, a vague statement without any clear backing.
That support would be tough to maintain over any extended period.
“It’s a very hard thing to do,” said Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the former commander of United States Central Command. “It’s an operation to get aircraft to Afghanistan, especially if you’re having to come from the Gulf or an aircraft carrier. There is limited loiter time for them to do anything.”
There are already signs of the difficulties that the United States would face in sending crewed aircraft to carry out strikes after the withdrawal. As U.S. bases in Afghanistan close, it has left pilots with a conundrum: What if something goes wrong thousands of feet over Afghanistan?
Forward Operating Base Dwyer — a sprawling complex in the south with a sizable landing strip — is closing in weeks, if not days. At that point, U.S. aircraft will have only one viable American military base, Bagram, to divert to if they face a mechanical or other issue in flight. Bagram will shut down when the withdrawal is complete.
With restrictive rules of engagement that require hours of overhead surveillance before an American airstrike is authorized, Afghan forces have tried to compensate, launching 10 to 20 airstrikes a day. U.S. surveillance drones are providing a wealth of coordinates to the Afghan Air Force, but Afghan pilots and aircraft are facing burnout and maintenance issues that grow by the day as foreign contractors withdraw.
“Our policy should be to do everything possible, consistent with not having troops on the ground, to enable the legitimate Afghan government and security forces to hold on,” said Representative Tom Malinowksi, Democrat of New Jersey and a former State Department official.
Mr. Malinowski last month joined more than half a dozen other House Democrats and Republicans in urging Mr. Biden to provide an array of support to the Afghan government after American troops leave, including any information on impending Taliban attacks detected by U.S. surveillance aircraft and spy satellites.
Top American generals have acknowledged that the Afghan security forces could collapse in a year or two, or even a matter of months, after the departure of Western military support.

Yea, This airstrike they are planning, are they going to do it over Iran? Ah, NO. So This is another tactic in trying to throw their weight about. I hope its made crystal clear that Pakistan will not allow its airspace for any further activity.

================================
U.S. Weighs Possibility of Airstrikes if Afghan Forces Face Crisis
The Pentagon is considering whether to intervene with warplanes or drones in the event that Kabul is in danger of falling to the Taliban, though no decisions have been made.




A United States Air Force pilot training Afghan service members in 2018. Afghan security forces are at risk of being overwhelmed by the Taliban once American troops withdraw from the country.Credit...Bryan Denton for The New York Times
Helene CooperEric SchmittThomas Gibbons-Neff
By Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Thomas Gibbons-Neff
Published June 9, 2021Updated June 10, 2021, 12:09 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is considering seeking authorization to carry out airstrikes to support Afghan security forces if Kabul or another major city is in danger of falling to the Taliban, potentially introducing flexibility into President Biden’s plan to end the United States military presence in the conflict, senior officials said.

Mr. Biden and his top national security aides had previously suggested that once U.S. troops left Afghanistan, air support would end as well, with the exception of strikes aimed at terrorist groups that could harm American interests.
But military officials are actively discussing how they might respond if the rapid withdrawal produces consequences with substantial national security implications.
No decisions have been made yet, officials said. But they added that one option under consideration would be to recommend that U.S. warplanes or armed drones intervene in an extraordinary crisis, such as the potential fall of Kabul, the Afghan capital, or a siege that puts American and allied embassies and citizens at risk.
Any additional airstrikes would require the president’s approval. Even then, officials indicated that such air support would be hard to sustain over a lengthy period because of the enormous logistical effort that would be necessary given the American withdrawal. The United States will leave all its air bases in Afghanistan by next month, and any airstrikes would most likely have to be launched from bases in the Persian Gulf.
A potential fall of Kabul is the crisis most likely to lead to military intervention after U.S. troops leave, officials said. Intervening to protect Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second-largest city, would be far less certain, one official said. Encroaching Taliban forces have increasingly threatened several other urban hubs in almost every corner of the country in recent months.
The discussion suggests the degree of concern in Washington about the ability of Afghanistan’s military to hold off the Taliban and maintain control of Kabul and other population centers.
And it is the latest indication of the scramble by the United States to address the ramifications of Mr. Biden’s decision in April to order a full withdrawal — a goal that had eluded his two immediate predecessors, in part because of opposition from the military.
Whether to provide air support to Afghan security forces after U.S. troops pull out is one of several major questions about Afghanistan policy that the administration is grappling with as Mr. Biden prepares to meet NATO allies in Europe next week.

Also unresolved is how U.S. troops will carry out counterterrorism missions to prevent Al Qaeda and other militants from rebuilding their presence in Afghanistan, and how to allow Western contractors to continue to support the Afghan military. At the same time, the C.I.A. is under intense pressure to find new ways to gather intelligence and carry out counterterrorism strikes in the country.
With the Pentagon set to conclude the pullout of U.S. troops by early July, the Afghan military — created, trained and supplied in the image of the American military — is supposed to start defending the country on its own.
Senior American officials say that the immediate crumbling of the Afghan military is not a foregone conclusion. But there is little doubt that the Afghan forces are battered and at risk of being overwhelmed, especially if their commandos and air forces falter.
The United States is not likely to provide additional air support to Afghan forces in rural areas, many of which are already under Taliban control, the officials said. And even government enclaves around the country, which are already under siege, are unlikely to receive much military help from American warplanes, the officials said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid speaking publicly about internal administration discussions.

An Afghan soldier at an outpost in Panjwai, Afghanistan, in March. The United States is not likely to provide air support to Afghan forces in rural areas, officials said.Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

When Mr. Biden announced the withdrawal in April, he promised to support the Afghan government, including its security forces; but he appeared to indicate that the Afghans would be on their own militarily after American and NATO troops left this summer. “While we will not stay involved in Afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue,” he said at the time.
Officials said then that the United States would launch strikes in Afghanistan only for counterterrorism reasons, in case there was intelligence about efforts to attack American interests.
A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council declined to comment on the options under discussion, saying the administration did not publicly discuss rules of engagement.


But officials say there appears to be some new flexibility in the interpretation of counterterrorism. They say a debate has risen in the administration over what, exactly, is the threshold for turmoil in Afghanistan that could lead to American airstrikes.
The discussion reflects lessons learned from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, which forced the Obama administration in 2014 to recommit troops and air cover to defend Iraqi cities as the group encroached on Baghdad.
Senior officials said that at the moment, that threshold looked like a looming fall of Kabul, a situation that would most likely require a signoff from the president before American warplanes — most likely armed MQ-9 Reaper drones but possibly fighter jets — provided air support to Afghan forces.
Afghan officials said they had been told by their American counterparts that the United States would also stop any takeover of major cities, a vague statement without any clear backing.
That support would be tough to maintain over any extended period.
“It’s a very hard thing to do,” said Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the former commander of United States Central Command. “It’s an operation to get aircraft to Afghanistan, especially if you’re having to come from the Gulf or an aircraft carrier. There is limited loiter time for them to do anything.”
There are already signs of the difficulties that the United States would face in sending crewed aircraft to carry out strikes after the withdrawal. As U.S. bases in Afghanistan close, it has left pilots with a conundrum: What if something goes wrong thousands of feet over Afghanistan?
Forward Operating Base Dwyer — a sprawling complex in the south with a sizable landing strip — is closing in weeks, if not days. At that point, U.S. aircraft will have only one viable American military base, Bagram, to divert to if they face a mechanical or other issue in flight. Bagram will shut down when the withdrawal is complete.
With restrictive rules of engagement that require hours of overhead surveillance before an American airstrike is authorized, Afghan forces have tried to compensate, launching 10 to 20 airstrikes a day. U.S. surveillance drones are providing a wealth of coordinates to the Afghan Air Force, but Afghan pilots and aircraft are facing burnout and maintenance issues that grow by the day as foreign contractors withdraw.
“Our policy should be to do everything possible, consistent with not having troops on the ground, to enable the legitimate Afghan government and security forces to hold on,” said Representative Tom Malinowksi, Democrat of New Jersey and a former State Department official.
Mr. Malinowski last month joined more than half a dozen other House Democrats and Republicans in urging Mr. Biden to provide an array of support to the Afghan government after American troops leave, including any information on impending Taliban attacks detected by U.S. surveillance aircraft and spy satellites.
Top American generals have acknowledged that the Afghan security forces could collapse in a year or two, or even a matter of months, after the departure of Western military support.



“We frankly don’t know yet,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said when asked about the ability of Afghan forces to hold up under increasing pressure.Credit...Alex Wong/Getty Images

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered reporters traveling with him last month a lukewarm statement about the abilities of the Afghan forces. After 20 years of war, thousands of casualties and huge sums of money spent on the Afghan military and police, he characterized them as “reasonably well equipped, reasonably well trained, reasonably well led.”
When pressed on whether he thought the Afghan forces could hold up, General Milley was noncommittal.
“Your question: The Afghan army, do they stay together and remain a cohesive fighting force, or do they fall apart? I think there’s a range of scenarios here, a range of outcomes, a range of possibilities,” he said. “On the one hand, you get some really dramatic, bad possible outcomes. On the other hand, you get a military that stays together and a government that stays together.
“Which one of these options obtains and becomes reality at the end of the day?” he said. “We frankly don’t know yet.”
When asked at a Pentagon news conference last month if Afghan cities were in danger of being overrun by the Taliban after American forces left, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III declined to say whether the United States would provide air support, saying it was a hypothetical situation.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the top U.S. diplomat leading peace efforts with the Taliban, issued last month what seemed to be a definitive statement on the matter.
“We will do what we can during our presence until the forces are withdrawn, to help the Afghan forces, including coming to their defense when they are attacked,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But once we are out of Afghanistan, direct military support of Afghan forces such as strikes in support of their forces, that’s not being contemplated at this time.”
But three other American officials said the issue had not been resolved in high-level administration meetings on Afghanistan.
Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff from Kabul, Afghanistan.

“We frankly don’t know yet,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said when asked about the ability of Afghan forces to hold up under increasing pressure.Credit...Alex Wong/Getty Images

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered reporters traveling with him last month a lukewarm statement about the abilities of the Afghan forces. After 20 years of war, thousands of casualties and huge sums of money spent on the Afghan military and police, he characterized them as “reasonably well equipped, reasonably well trained, reasonably well led.”
When pressed on whether he thought the Afghan forces could hold up, General Milley was noncommittal.
“Your question: The Afghan army, do they stay together and remain a cohesive fighting force, or do they fall apart? I think there’s a range of scenarios here, a range of outcomes, a range of possibilities,” he said. “On the one hand, you get some really dramatic, bad possible outcomes. On the other hand, you get a military that stays together and a government that stays together.
“Which one of these options obtains and becomes reality at the end of the day?” he said. “We frankly don’t know yet.”
When asked at a Pentagon news conference last month if Afghan cities were in danger of being overrun by the Taliban after American forces left, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III declined to say whether the United States would provide air support, saying it was a hypothetical situation.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the top U.S. diplomat leading peace efforts with the Taliban, issued last month what seemed to be a definitive statement on the matter.
“We will do what we can during our presence until the forces are withdrawn, to help the Afghan forces, including coming to their defense when they are attacked,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But once we are out of Afghanistan, direct military support of Afghan forces such as strikes in support of their forces, that’s not being contemplated at this time.”
But three other American officials said the issue had not been resolved in high-level administration meetings on Afghanistan.
Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff from Kabul, Afghanistan.
Ameriscums are a spent force ,like their economy, will soon be dispatched to the dustbin of history .
 

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
13,305
-17
24,305
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
The Americans will have to fly over Pak air space. Very unlikely the Americans get permission.
 

Gangetic

FULL MEMBER
Oct 25, 2018
474
0
807
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
This will just cause unnecessary civilian casualties. If the Taliban surround the provincial capitals and cut off road access, there's no way they'll be able to stop them from taking the cities.
 

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
13,305
-17
24,305
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
This will just cause unnecessary civilian casualties. If the Taliban surround the provincial capitals and cut off road access, there's no way they'll be able to stop them from taking the cities.
Don't give these Americans an inch. We are in control and we seek absolute full control. Time to move ahead unapologetically and with full conviction. It took us 20 years to reach this important milestone. Now we are going to reap the benefits. Provide China full access to Afghanistan. Everything else is just talk.
 

Kingslayerr

FULL MEMBER
Sep 16, 2019
787
2
1,043
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
They'll get the base they want in Pakistan. In return we will get concession from IMF, FATF pak-afg border monitoring and taking out TTP and balochi targets. Probably pak will ask US to take permission first to take out any taliban member but idk how they will reach this agreement on the taliban point but they will get the base thats for sure, deep down most members knows this. Also people needs to understand that every action in Afg for pak is like damned if you do it damned if you don't, there are benifits of giving base and there's downside also the same way there's benifits of not giving base but there's downside also. And honestly we dont know which one is better. People need to pray for the best for Pakistan, irrespective of if we provide base or not.
Don't give these Americans an inch. We are in control and we seek absolute full control. Time to move ahead unapologetically and with full conviction. It took us 20 years to reach this important milestone. Now we are going to reap the benefits. Provide China full access to Afghanistan. Everything else is just talk.
Mars pay say wapis ajao pehlay jani phir comment karlaina.
 

Dalit

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 16, 2012
13,305
-17
24,305
Country
Pakistan
Location
Netherlands
They'll get the base they want in Pakistan. In return we will get concession from IMF, FATF pak-afg border monitoring and taking out TTP and balochi targets. Probably pak will ask US to take permission first to take out any taliban member but idk how they will reach this agreement on the taliban point but they will get the base thats for sure, deep down most members knows this. Also people needs to understand that every action in Afg for pak is like damned if you do it damned if you don't, there are benifits of giving base and there's downside also the same way there's benifits of not giving base but there's downside also. And honestly we dont know which one is better. People need to pray for the best for Pakistan, irrespective of if we provide base or not.

Mars pay say wapis ajao pehlay jani phir comment karlaina.
You are living in a different universe. The Americans are packing their bags and this fool wants us to commit suicide by becoming an American lackey all over again. Keep dreaming dude. Pakistan has already said no to any US demands. Do you even read the news?

The Americans aren't getting anything let alone military bases. The Americans won't even get permission to fly over Pak air space and you are fantasizing about handing over military bases LOL you think Pakistan needs US permission to take out BLA and TTP targets? Pakistan is already eliminating these targets at free will. Both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You are smoking some really bad stuff.

Papa America is begging for military bases from every regional country. Every regional country has already said no. It is wake up time for you.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom