FILE PHOTO: A US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft from the 492nd Fighter Squadron © REUTERS/Technical Sgt. Michael Ammons/USAF/Handout
Business Insider: US considers preparing for airstrikes to support Afghan forces if there's a risk of the Taliban taking over Kabul, report says
* The Biden administration has pledged to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11.
* But the NYT reported the Pentagon is considering keeping the option of airstrikes even after withdrawal.
* The talks suggest concern over whether Afghan forces can contain the Taliban without US troops.
The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of supporting Afghan forces with airstrikes depending on the threat of the Taliban taking control over a major city in the country, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
President Joe Biden has pledged to end the US involvement in the conflict, promising to withdraw all American troops by September 11, but the recent consideration over airstrikes puts a strain on that goal.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The Soviets made the same promise of air support to the Communist regime in Afghanistan when they withdrew their military in 1989. We all know how that ended.
More News On The U.S. Considering Authorizing Airstrikes To Support Afghan Forces If They Face Being Defeated By The Taliban
U.S. Weighs Possibility of Airstrikes if Afghan Forces Face Crisis -- NYT
Pentagon to consider authorizing airstrikes in Afghanistan if country falls into crisis: report -- The Hill
The US will consider airstrikes on Taliban militants if they try to attack cities: Report -- The Khaama Press News Agency
Report: Pentagon considering use of warplanes, drones if Afghan forces are in crisis -- The Week
9 comments:
Air support, from where? That's not only militarily unrealistic but also politically stupid. It will be clear that the American support is ineffective, which is devastating. This move is only saving the face of the administration...at best.
1) If?
2) Lot of wear and tear on the air frame from long flights. Lot of cost
3) What if a pilot has to eject due to engine malfunction. Where are the Jolly Green Giants and Sky Raiders going to be based? Xinjiang or India?
5) Dems will still be Dems. During the last 2 decades they used any spending on the wars against terrorism as leverage to get more of the spending they wanted. They never were in it to win it.
4) not 5)
6) not 2)
7 come 11
So they dropped how many tons when we were in country that didn't seem too overly effective and certainly alienated many. The proposal now is to assist the army that couldn't hold much WHEN the coalition was in country to the tune of many tens of thousands.
What am I missing?
You are missing a lot actually.
There have not been tens of thousands of troops since 2014, Add to it shitty ROE and not being able to go into Cambodia, how do you expect victory?
We're commenting on Afghanistan, 10:15. That's probably why we were not allowed into Cambodia this time.
Typing Cambodia was a purposeful non sequitur. It was to draw comparisons between Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Viet Cong were allowed to violate the sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia at will for decades. It gave them strategic, operational and tactical advantages. IT was extremely asymmetric. As soon as Nixon tried to take that advantage which violated international law away from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese, gullible children left the universities to protest at the instigation of their Soviet handlers.
Like wise the Taliban hide out in a country. Pakistan allowed them to hide out. If the Coalition had been allowed to go into FATA, the Taliban would have been destroyed within 2 or 3 years.
Imagine Afghanistan as a cherry pie. Imagine Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China and the Taliban fighting over how to slice the pie. I do not think there will be a fight. China will bribe the Taliban. The Taliban will beat uppity women, kill Afghan men not conforming to the theocracy and wenching in private.
Post a Comment