Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001)
Quote | Reply
I can remember in the weeks after 9/11 when a lot of people who didn't know what they were talking about predicted that we'd have a hugely difficult time brooming the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (leaving aside the post-toppling mess we experienced, of course).

But these so-called "experts" didn't reckon on the ability of the US Soldier (and Marine and Sailor and Airman) to improvise and use the tools at hand to get the job down. As in 2003, the US surprised (some may say "shocked and awed" ;-) the world with its ability to quickly put troops, ships and air assets into the field and bring down a regime with relatively little trouble.

For example, take these original horse soldiers and members of the US Army special operations command acting as fast-moving cavalrymen, in effect, and getting to where they needed to be, when they needed to be, with their Afghan compatriots. Those men were probably fighters of the Afghan Northern Alliance, which had been led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assassinated by Al-Qaeda on September 9, 2001, in hopes of diminishing Northern Alliance effectiveness in an expected, and short-lived, US response. How little Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda knew...



"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That looks like Steve Hawley all the way over on the right, dwarfing the horse he rode into town on. ;-)

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Can someone explain to me why we are still in Afghanistan after 16 years. My nephew is a captain in SF and leads a 12 man team and he is getting deployed for the 6th time to Afghanistan. I've never asked him, thinking it would be inappropriate, so I'll put it out to the collective wisdom of ST.
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [summitt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
summitt wrote:
Can someone explain to me why we are still in Afghanistan after 16 years. My nephew is a captain in SF and leads a 12 man team and he is getting deployed for the 6th time to Afghanistan. I've never asked him, thinking it would be inappropriate, so I'll put it out to the collective wisdom of ST.

Strategically, I can see why. Afghanistan abuts Iran in the west, Pakistan in the southeast and the various ex-Soviet republic "-stans" (Turkmenistan, Tajikstan) in the north, and so forth. It's a crossroads of radical Islamic activity. Besides all that, we're so deep into the place now we almost can't afford to leave.

Iraq, on the other hand... who knows why we went in and have stayed in, more or less, since 2003? ISIS taking the place over was one reason, I guess.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What is old is new again. LdSH(RC)
Quote Reply
Post deleted by spudone [ In reply to ]
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
summitt wrote:
Can someone explain to me why we are still in Afghanistan after 16 years. My nephew is a captain in SF and leads a 12 man team and he is getting deployed for the 6th time to Afghanistan. I've never asked him, thinking it would be inappropriate, so I'll put it out to the collective wisdom of ST.

So Putin can laugh at us for taking so long to digest all the stuff Russia learned already.

Another thing to consider is that it's a great way for the armed forces (especially the Army and the Marine Corps) to get junior officers, which an Army CPT is, the kind of experience that can make them more effective field grade and general officers down the line. It's like "blooding" them. Which it often literally is, unfortunately. It sounds kind of cynical but how do you get your JOs actual combat experience? So Afghanistan serves that purpose as well, especially for Army SOF and Marine Corps special operations and Navy special warfare officers.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Post deleted by spudone [ In reply to ]
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
spudone wrote:
summitt wrote:
Can someone explain to me why we are still in Afghanistan after 16 years. My nephew is a captain in SF and leads a 12 man team and he is getting deployed for the 6th time to Afghanistan. I've never asked him, thinking it would be inappropriate, so I'll put it out to the collective wisdom of ST.

So Putin can laugh at us for taking so long to digest all the stuff Russia learned already.


Another thing to consider is that it's a great way for the armed forces (especially the Army and the Marine Corps) to get junior officers, which an Army CPT is, the kind of experience that can make them more effective field grade and general officers down the line. It's like "blooding" them. Which it often literally is, unfortunately. It sounds kind of cynical but how do you get your JOs actual combat experience? So Afghanistan serves that purpose as well, especially for Army SOF and Marine Corps special operations and Navy special warfare officers.

My comment was snarky and not directed at his nephew, so I apologize for that.

But I will say from the perspective of a former military person, I think many of the higher level decisions are maybe a little bit for training purposes. But mostly it is about *funding* or trying to justify funding. You see this with particular pieces of equipment (Osprey, A-10). And you see it with certain units (e.g. the 10th Mountain Division has been getting a lot of work in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Of course there's a separate kind of pressure from the Congressional side of things, depending on what's politically expedient at the time.

Oh, I agree about the funding thing, believe me. Afghanistan presents the perfect opportunity to make a play for such appropriations, for sure.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
spudone wrote:
summitt wrote:
Can someone explain to me why we are still in Afghanistan after 16 years. My nephew is a captain in SF and leads a 12 man team and he is getting deployed for the 6th time to Afghanistan. I've never asked him, thinking it would be inappropriate, so I'll put it out to the collective wisdom of ST.

So Putin can laugh at us for taking so long to digest all the stuff Russia learned already.


Another thing to consider is that it's a great way for the armed forces (especially the Army and the Marine Corps) to get junior officers, which an Army CPT is, the kind of experience that can make them more effective field grade and general officers down the line. It's like "blooding" them. Which it often literally is, unfortunately. It sounds kind of cynical but how do you get your JOs actual combat experience? So Afghanistan serves that purpose as well, especially for Army SOF and Marine Corps special operations and Navy special warfare officers.

Unfortunately, looking at all his ribbons, I think you are correct on "blooding" them. He opted to go to West Point over several Ivy league schools and then he chose the combat path, which led to Airborne, Ranger, then SFs. Either way, I worry for him and wonder what being in a combat zone multiple times does to psychologically. It can't be good.
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
I think many of the higher level decisions are ... But mostly it is about *funding* or trying to justify funding. You see this with particular pieces of equipment (Osprey, A-10).

My first job out of college was working for a construction company at Boeing's military plant in Wichita, KS.

Towards the end of the year, they would pay us time and materials to provide x number of guys to hand sweep the multi-acre plant.
They would have us pour sidewalks only to tear them out and re-pour them.

It was explained to me that these things occurred because Boeing did not spend all of their military funding and if they didn't spend it, funding would be reduced the following year.

I love the efficiencies of our government.
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [Bumble Bee] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bumble Bee wrote:
spudone wrote:
I think many of the higher level decisions are ... But mostly it is about *funding* or trying to justify funding. You see this with particular pieces of equipment (Osprey, A-10).


My first job out of college was working for a construction company at Boeing's military plant in Wichita, KS.

Towards the end of the year, they would pay us time and materials to provide x number of guys to hand sweep the multi-acre plant.
They would have us pour sidewalks only to tear them out and re-pour them.

It was explained to me that these things occurred because Boeing did not spend all of their military funding and if they didn't spend it, funding would be reduced the following year.

I love the efficiencies of our government.


One of my Navy officer tours was as the supply officer/department head of the medical supply department at the Naval Hospital in Groton, CT (New London). That "burn the money, don't turn it back in" thing was standard operating procedure, believe me. One year, on September 3rd or 4th, I got a $4 million supplement appropriation dropped on me from our higher headquarters (BUMED) and had to have it spent by close of business on September 30th. I put every purchasing clerk I had on overtime, plus kept my military folks on the clock and we busted rear end to get it all spent, and not on "must have" stuff, either. Mostly, it was "wish list" purchases for the hospital and all its clinics. If I hadn't "obligated" at least 99% of that money by the end of the fiscal year, my annual report of officer fitness (FITREP) would have gotten dinged. And our next-fiscal-year supply budget would have probably taken a hit by the amount of money I failed to obligate. It's crazy.

The only military outfit I ever saw turn money back in at the end of the FY -- and proudly so -- was the Marine Corps. During my enlisted days I was serving in one Marine Corps unit where the skipper and his XO kept tabs on the money being spent and kept cutting the operating target funds dedicated to what they called "non-essentials" (anything NOT for medical supplies, ammo, or field rations, basically ;-). They turned the resulting savings back in at the end of the FY so that it, hopefully, could be "reprogrammed" for other Marine Corps units.
Last edited by: big kahuna: Jan 23, 18 13:07
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I’ve heard pipeline and I’ve heard lithium / minerals on top of the others mentioned above.
Quote Reply
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [summitt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There are many reasons depending on who you ask, Anti Terrorist, Political stability, and even global commerce. Recently watched "Fighting Season" on NetFlix and in the final episode in mentioned that many of the worlds largest banks have purchased the land rights for huge mining resources (don't remember what the element is), however those companies can't operate with ongoing civil wars.
To contrast there are other countries in Africa having political unrest, lack of government yet the US isn't there. Follow the money, you'll find a reason.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by spudone [ In reply to ]
Re: US Army Horse Soldiers (Real Deal, Afghanistan 2001) [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
Litemike wrote:
I’ve heard pipeline and I’ve heard lithium / minerals on top of the others mentioned above.
Cynical folks will say that we stay there because the Taliban was doing too good a job at squashing the opium trade, and big pharma didn't like that.
I’ve wondered this myself
Quote Reply