Ex-Blackwater CEO Unimpressed By Afghan Strategy

[piezoe]

We haven't learned, it seems, anything from this war or our disastrous involvement in Vietnam, which is actually by far our longest war when you consider that we financed the bulk of the French effort and then continually escalated our involvement one step at a time, always fighting on the losing side of a civil war for a puppet government we imposed on South Vietnam. The worst advice we got in that war was always from the military brass. Had we listened to the people of Vietnam and our civilian experts --Edwin Reischauer-- and most importantly our platoon leaders and enlisted men in the field, and not the generals, we would have done the right thing, been on the winning side, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

We haven't learned, it seems, anything from this war or our disastrous involvement in Vietnam, which is actually by far our longest war when you consider that we financed the bulk of the French effort and then continually escalated our involvement one step at a time, always fighting on the losing side of a civil war for a puppet government we imposed on South Vietnam. The worst advice we got in that war was always from the military brass. Had we listened to the people of Vietnam and our civilian experts --Edwin Reischauer-- and most importantly our platoon leaders and enlisted men in the field, and not the generals, we would have done the right thing, been on the winning side, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

The analogies to Vietnam are endless. We have moved from Westmoreland and the Vietnamization of the war (never happened) to Kelly/Mattis Afghanization of the war (will never happen).

The analogies have their limits though. Cambodia truly did descend into hell for lack of intervention by all the united nations types or anyone else in the world once the U.S was too exhausted to do anything more in the region.

In addition, the conservatives justified the war on an anti-commie "stop them there or we will have to stop them here" type of argument. Over time it became clear that we were involved in a civil war so it made it somewhat easier to walk away. The problem with the war on terrorism so-called is that is real and it advances globally by the day and it has already changed the trajectory of civilization with no end in sight. Conservatives want to fight Afghanistan as though a military victory is possible, and liberals and non-neocons want to fight it/not fight it as though it is another vietnam where you can just fold up shop and chock it up to another american intervention gone astray. But is not either/or. You can acknowledge that further intervention in Afg is useless but also acknowledge that radical islam is on the move globally. Vietnam provided the luxury of just pulling out.

American and Europe have grown weary of fighting terrorists. Unfortunately, they have not grown weary of fighting the west. We can say "ok, but we have not won anywhere" and that is pretty much true but bespeaks an old military view of the world where there are battlefield victories and surrenders on the decks of ships. Those days are over. You just try to do more good than harm in the fight against the cockroaches of the world now and it will never end. Same on the domestic front. You can make a clear case that we are not winning the war against the bad guys in chicago but there are consequences to just pulling all the police out too. No longer a good world for the binary thinkers.

We are not going to win the "war" in Afghanistan. In fact it is not clear that we are going to win the war against radical islam in general. In a lot of countries the "we" is increasingly the "them" so when "we" win, it may be because we are "them." by then. When you see Osama Bin Laden's statue in the town square that might be one of the small signs to look for.

 

[traderob]

Simple deduction:If John Mccain likes it then it is a wrong move.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

McCain and the rest of the neo cons, ie pretty much all of congress and the administration other than Trump himself, remind me of traders who keep letting a bad trade run against them. Easier to deal with the losses than admit your whole worldview was dead wrong. They rationalize further investment just like the democrat welfare hustlers democrat do failed welfare programs. They just needed more money. Then they will work.

We will defeat terrorism through immigration policy, not nation building in tribal societies. Frankly, we can't afford all this nonsense, even if it means McCain's feelings are hurt. We have a freakin' wall to build and the infrastructure is so bad, BLM is afraid to block traffic on bridges.

 

[piezoe]

The analogies to Vietnam are endless. We have moved from Westmoreland and the Vietnamization of the war (never happened) to Kelly/Mattis Afghanization of the war (will never happen).

The analogies have their limits though. Cambodia truly did descend into hell for lack of intervention by all the united nations types or anyone else in the world once the U.S was too exhausted to do anything more in the region.

In addition, the conservatives justified the war on an anti-commie "stop them there or we will have to stop them here" type of argument. Over time it became clear that we were involved in a civil war so it made it somewhat easier to walk away. The problem with the war on terrorism so-called is that is real and it advances globally by the day and it has already changed the trajectory of civilization with no end in sight. Conservatives want to fight Afghanistan as though a military victory is possible, and liberals and non-neocons want to fight it/not fight it as though it is another vietnam where you can just fold up shop and chock it up to another american intervention gone astray. But is not either/or. You can acknowledge that further intervention in Afg is useless but also acknowledge that radical islam is on the move globally. Vietnam provided the luxury of just pulling out.

American and Europe have grown weary of fighting terrorists. Unfortunately, they have not grown weary of fighting the west. We can say "ok, but we have not won anywhere" and that is pretty much true but bespeaks an old military view of the world where there are battlefield victories and surrenders on the decks of ships. Those days are over. You just try to do more good than harm in the fight against the cockroaches of the world now and it will never end. Same on the domestic front. You can make a clear case that we are not winning the war against the bad guys in chicago but there are consequences to just pulling all the police out too. No longer a good world for the binary thinkers.

We are not going to win the "war" in Afghanistan. In fact it is not clear that we are going to win the war against radical islam in general. In a lot of countries the "we" is increasingly the "them" so when "we" win, it may be because we are "them." by then. When you see Osama Bin Laden's statue in the town square that might be one of the small signs to look for.

Trump says he is going to kill terrorists. I would think it is difficult to tell through a riffle scope who is a terrorist and who isn't, and even harder from high altitude. Trump should insist on all terrorists wearing fluorescent pink shirts, though I don't think they would pay any attention to him. He is going to find out it is impossible to wipe out an ideology using conventional military tactics. He's not relying on the advice of those who might supply a better approach. He is relying on the military for advice. Bad idea! He will fail of course. In the meantime stocks of arms manufacturers should do well.

We've seen this before. It didn't work then. It won't work now. But what he'll do is going to help recruit more terrorists. So at least he'll be able to say he accomplished something.

 

[fhl]

Trump says he is going to kill terrorists. I would think it is difficult to tell through a riffle scope who is a terrorist and who isn't, and even harder from high altitude. Trump should insist on all terrorists wearing fluorescent pink shirts, though I don't think they would pay any attention to him. He is going to find out it is impossible to wipe out an ideology using conventional military tactics. He's not relying on the advice of those who might supply a better approach. He is relying on the military for advice. Bad idea! He will fail of course. In the meantime stocks of arms manufacturers should do well.

We've seen this before. It didn't work then. It won't work now. But what he'll do is going to help recruit more terrorists. So at least he'll be able to say he accomplished something.

Guess what? You shoulda thought of that before you tried to run him out of office and drive him into the hands of the military.

I blame you.

 

[OddTrader]

" We have an Air Force that is 750 pilots short, that has severe readiness problems with all their aircraft. "???

" Demand For Foreign Pilots Takes Off
By Wang Ying in Shanghai and Zhu Wenqian in Beijing | China Daily USA | Updated: 2017-08-21 "
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2017-08/21/content_30907529.htm

Nice $ and safe!

The war is already over! Over!! Over!!!

* Want to earn $300,000 tax free? Try flying a plane in China - Nov. 15 ...
money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/.../china...pilots-pay/index.html - Cached
15 Nov 2016 ... "This is why the pay keeps going higher. ... Chengdu Airlines says it offers the " highest pay in China" for pilots at $25,800 a month. ... Some top U.S. airlines have recently granted big pay raises as part of new labor agreements ...

* Foreign Pilots Offered Ritzy Pay Packages with Chinese Airlines ...
fortune.com/2016/08/18/china-airlines-foreign-pilots/
17 Aug 2016 ... Foreign Pilots Offered to 'Live Like a King' If They Just Sign On with China ... Both airlines say they'll also cover his income tax bill in China. ... (dal, 0.00%), and they're giving recruiters from the U.S. to New Zealand free rein to fill their captains ' chairs. .... Wall Street Keeps Valuing Bitcoin Higher and Higher.

* Chinese airlines poaching foreign pilots with lucrative pay offers ...
www.stuff.co.nz/.../Chinese-airlines-poaching-foreign-pilots-with-lucrative-pay-offers
18 Aug 2016 ... Flying is getting riskier in India as safety incidents increase ... Some US regional airlines pay pilots as little as $US25,000 a year, according to ...

$12,840,000,000,000.00: Americans' Debt Notches a New Record High
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-debt-idUSKCN1AV1PY?il=0
August 15, 2017

Total U.S. household debt was $12.84 trillion in the three months to June, up $552 billion from a year ago, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York report published on Tuesday.

 

[OddTrader]

" We have an Air Force that is 750 pilots short, that has severe readiness problems with all their aircraft. "???

However, if that were a planned shortage of pilots for saving salary expenses and cutting fuel costs, that would be completely another story!

 

[Spike Trader]

What happened about Qatar ?

 

[gwb-trading]

Erik Prince gave an interview to breitbart to discuss the president's reveal of the new and improved plan for Afghanistan. He posed some difficult questions and pointed out that we spend more in Afghanistan than the entire UK defense budget. Definitely worth a read. In part:


“This is America’s longest war, by far,” he said. “It’s hugely costly, and we’re not winning. Every voter, every taxpayer, every parent that has a son or daughter serving has to wonder, ‘What are we doing in Afghanistan and to what end?’”


Marlow asked how President Trump can reconcile his campaign call for non-interventionist foreign policy and minimized American troop deployments with his expected announcement of more troops in Afghanistan. Prince replied that he could think of no way to do so.

“It is an abrupt departure from what candidate Trump was saying,” Prince said, anticipating that President Trump’s announcement Monday night would be “literally more of the same” as the seventeenth anniversary of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan approaches.

“One just has to say, ‘When does it end? When is the Pentagon ever really held to account?’” he asked, noting that the Pentagon has reportedly requested 15,000 more troops, but even higher troop levels seven years ago were unable to stabilize Afghanistan.

“As a country, we’re spending more than the entire U.K. defense budget just in Afghanistan. Every dollar that’s wasted in Afghanistan is money that’s not spent here on infrastructure or things that really matter to Americans,” he said.

Prince noted that 26,000 contractors are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 9,000 U.S. troops. “I came from a clean sheet of paper and said, ‘What is the minimum that’s needed to strengthen the Afghan security forces and to help them – not American forces – take back this terrain and deny terrorists sanctuary?’” he said of his own proposed strategy.


“I think that’s really the only goal the United States should have, is to deny terror sanctuary in Afghanistan so we can leave. The basic elements to that are strengthening Afghan units at the battalion level, which is really where the rubber meets the road, provide them some air support so they get medevac, and resupply and close air support,” he said.

“To help them with some governance matters, some of those battalions need resupply – their food and fuel, pay and parts – that it comes on time,” he added. “That’s it – not the nation-building strategy still being pursued at very high cost by the Pentagon.”

“If the President grants them 15,000 troops, the fact is only a few hundred of those will actually be trainers that leave the base to go do activities for the Afghans, because the tooth-to-tail ratio of the Pentagon is so bloated and so overhead-laden that very few troops are actually doing the job of training, advising, and equipping the Afghans. Most of them are there for support and for force protection,” he noted.

“It’s a very high-cost model. At what point, after 16 years, does someone call the Pentagon on what they’re accomplishing or not, sadly?” said Prince. “I hope the president does, but it seems from all the advice he’s getting that he will not do that.”

Marlow asked how the president’s advisers, particularly National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, can justify a plan that seems to double down on the approach that has resulted in so much disappointment. Prince envisioned them presenting the troop increase as advice to “stay the course, and just a little bit of tweaking around the edges, and it will all be okay.”


“But if you really take a step back and say, ‘That’s what the national security adviser said in 2006, 08, 10, 12, 14, 16, and now 2017’ – you know, the president said in his inaugural address, ‘We’re going to drive Islamic terrorism off the face of the earth.’ The sad thing is, under President Trump, under H.R. McMaster, under Secretary Mattis being in charge, there have now been three open-air victory parades by the Taliban in Afghanistan,” Prince observed.

“The president meant what he said, but his advisers and those around him are not getting that done. Because the rules of engagement were clear. Certainly, the president wants to wage war against terrorism, but the bureaucracy and advisers around him are giving some bad advice,” he charged.

Prince said he has heard that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney were both “strongly in opposition to more of the same policy at the Pentagon” during meetings with President Trump.

“The plan I laid out for the president would save, every year, at least $40 billion off what they’re spending in Afghanistan,” he said, speculating that such savings would appeal to the budget director.

Prince pointed to the collision between the destroyer USS John McCain and an oil tanker off the coast of Singapore early Monday morning as a sign of deep-rooted problems in the U.S. armed forces.

“We have a Navy that has trouble navigating. We have an Air Force that is 750 pilots short, that has severe readiness problems with all their aircraft. And sadly, we have a U.S. Army that can’t seem to end an insurgency after now 17 years,” he said.

“Our military has problems, and wasting more money in Afghanistan is not part of that solution,” he declared.

Marlow asked for Prince’s assessment of H.R. McMaster’s performance as national security adviser.

“Well, again, the danger of appointing a serving general, a three-star general that wants to be a four-star general, means that that general will always go with his service,” Prince replied. “If it’s a long-retired guy that’s not worried about a promotion, I think it’s easier to give objective advice. That’s the danger of having a serving officer as the national security adviser.”
"http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/08/21/prince-afghanistan-strategy-troops-money-work-16-years/

Erik Prince is just talking his book. He just wants the government to hire his private contractors instead of using the military.