U. S. to halve troop number in Afghanistan.

#2
Agreed. Unfortunately a lot of guys have died for nothing.
 
#3
Seems it's all about making money to MAGA!

'This month, in the January/February print issue of the gun and hunting magazine “Recoil," the former contractor security firm Blackwater USA published a full-page ad, in all black with a simple message: “We are coming.” Is the Afghan war about to be privatized?

'Blackwater’s founder and former CEO Erik Prince has courted President Donald Trump’s administration since he took office with the idea that the now 17-year Afghan War will never be won by a traditional military campaign. Prince has also argued that the logistical footprint required to support that now multi-trillion dollar endeavor has become too burdensome. Over the summer and into this fall Prince has engaged heavily with the media to promote the privatization; particularly as the Trump administration’s new South Asia Strategy, which was crafted with Mattis, passed the one-year mark.

'In an previous exclusive interview with Military Times, Prince said he would scrap the NATO mission there and replace the estimated 23,000 forces in country with a force of 6,000 contracted personnel and 2,000 active duty special forces. The potential privatization of the Afghan War was previously dismissed by the White House, and roundly criticized by Mattis, who saw it as a risk to emplace the nation’s national security goals in the hands of contractors.'

Mattis is out, and Blackwater is back: ‘We are coming’

Edit: Oh, woe is me! A 'dislike' from 'a 17 year old college student living in England. I am currently studying for an International Baccalaureate, because my current school doesn't offer A levels. I have only 4 GCSEs, but am projected to score very high in my IBs.' Yeah, good luck with that, using your vast experience and mature judgement.
 
Last edited:

ugly

LE
Moderator
#5
Surely he is doing what his predecessor promised but actually doing what he said!
 
#6
Surely he is doing what his predecessor promised but actually doing what he said!
Trump said:
Has Trump delivered on his promises?
Before: Long before he ran for president, Mr Trump posted a number of tweets calling for an end to US involvement in Afghanistan. They were similar in tone to this one from 2013: "Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA."

But his stance changed during last year's presidential election, when he said US troops would probably have to stay in order to avoid the total collapse of the Afghan government, and to keep a check on neighbouring nuclear-armed Pakistan.

After: He has committed the US Army to the open-ended conflict, saying his approach will be based on conditions on the ground and will not have time limits. He also said he would get tough on Pakistan, who he criticised for offering "safe havens" to extremists - claims rejected by Pakistan.

US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis confirmed Mr Trump's strategy in an announcement that the US would send 3,000 additional troops to Afghanistan

Why the US persists in Afghanistan after 17 years of fighting
Trump said American service members would be withdrawn on a "condition-based" approach and not according to a timetable. “One way or another these problems will be solved,” he said. “In the end, we will win.”
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#7
If winning means letting someone else do the job for big bucks then he is on course to win, Joe tax payer or whatever his core supporters are called will see this as a promise kept.
Like him or not he actually seems to do what he says. Maybe he read Maggies Bio?

Nah, somebody read it to him obviously!
 
#8
I can't help wondering how long before the 8,000 contractors cost more than the 23,000 service personnel. Blackwater are not going to do this at a loss and the ex military they want to recruit are not going to do it for peanuts.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#9
I can't help wondering how long before the 8,000 contractors cost more than the 23,000 service personnel. Blackwater are not going to do this at a loss and the ex military they want to recruit are not going to do it for peanuts.
I can't help wondering how long before the 8,000 contractors cost more than the 23,000 service personnel. Blackwater are not going to do this at a loss and the ex military they want to recruit are not going to do it for peanuts.
The plan is they wont be costing US Taxpayers anything! Or at the least a whole lot less than the US Army does.
PMC's make profits because they are smarter at what they do. They aren't stuck waiting for some general officer 20 000 miles away giving the go ahead.
 
#10
The plan is they won't be costing US Taxpayers anything! Or at the least a whole lot less than the US Army does.
PMC's make profits because they are smarter at what they do. They aren't stuck waiting for some general officer 20 000 miles away giving the go ahead.
So who is paying, will it be 'village security by subscription', are Blackwater the successors of Big Al from Chicago.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#11
The yanks are cutting their financial aid. The PMC's will I expect be paid up front by the locals, where they get there money from isn't really important, the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians all have a dog in the fight and possibly even the Saudis. I suspect the Indians just to upset their neighbours!
One thing you can be sure of is that when the money stops so does the PMC.
The fact that loads of the money will come from us and the Eu is immaterial.
 
#12
About time too! It's a total waste of money having troops over there. We went to Afghanistan due to dismantle al-qaeda and to topple the Taliban. There's no need for us to be there now and Afghanistan can sort its own security issues out.
USA spending more money over there by keeping troops - would just be a complete waste of money. Having served in Afghanistan myself - I know first hand that you'd need about 100 years to modernise that country and it's infrastructure. We shouldn't be paying for other countries to modernise when we have people homeless and living in poverty, and child poverty is rampant - plus we have a housing crisis.
The USA is much the same - a wealthy nation but that's maybe only the top 10% of people, while millions of people are poor and living in poverty.
We/USA and the west should sort our own issues out and use our taxes to help our own people, before spending it on these 3rd world fleabag countries.
 
#13
The yanks are cutting their financial aid. The PMC's will I expect be paid up front by the locals, where they get there money from isn't really important, the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians all have a dog in the fight and possibly even the Saudis. I suspect the Indians just to upset their neighbours!
One thing you can be sure of is that when the money stops so does the PMC.
The fact that loads of the money will come from us and the Eu is immaterial.
Jesus.

The fact that someone as thick as you is a moderator for this site explains why it’s on such a steep glide path to failure.
 
#14
About time too! It's a total waste of money having troops over there. We went to Afghanistan due to dismantle al-qaeda and to topple the Taliban. There's no need for us to be there now and Afghanistan can sort its own security issues out.
USA spending more money over there by keeping troops - would just be a complete waste of money. Having served in Afghanistan myself - I know first hand that you'd need about 100 years to modernise that country and it's infrastructure. We shouldn't be paying for other countries to modernise when we have people homeless and living in poverty, and child poverty is rampant - plus we have a housing crisis.
The USA is much the same - a wealthy nation but that's maybe only the top 10% of people, while millions of people are poor and living in poverty.
We/USA and the west should sort our own issues out and use our taxes to help our own people, before spending it on these 3rd world fleabag countries.
I think that you might be ill informed on several global issues big dog, with the first one being since when did the Afghans have the ability to sort their own security issues out?
 
#16
And what happens when the first PMC gets captured and paraded on TV. Who's going to have to come to their rescue? Whose reputation (if not life) will be on the line -Uncle Sam's only this time the assets to know ground truth won't be there.

Using PMCs to further national goals needs to be carefully thought through. It is not just a question of looking at it from a financial lens.
 
#17
Having been closely involved with the US mission in Afghanistan i can tell you that throwing a load of SOF Magazine reading Americans to do what US/NATO couldn't is not the answer. On top of that, its never the cost of boots on the ground type personnel that cost money, its the support and using the dirty word, Logistics, that will be the thing that drains the purses of whoever is paying for all this. And whoever that is will want results fast unlike what the military were doing pissing in the wind for the past 15 odd years.
Here is an example..getting fuel transported to run a small base for 24 hours that does not have the luxury of Afghan main supply, approx $60,000...thats a daily charge! And the answer is not large convoys like it used to be as mil oversight will disappear. So $1.8million a month alone for fuel.....yep, i can see loads of people rushing to finance that!
 
#18
And also pulling US troops from Syria.

The entire post-9/11 military strategy has been an abject failure. It has cost trillions of dollars, millions of lives, and there is no indication anyone is better off, whether it’s the American public or innocent civilians in the Middle East. In the meantime, we’ve engendered hatred from multiple generations of Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis and many others.
Trump is right to withdraw US troops from Syria | Trevor Timm
 
#19
Having been closely involved with the US mission in Afghanistan i can tell you that throwing a load of SOF Magazine reading Americans to do what US/NATO couldn't is not the answer. On top of that, its never the cost of boots on the ground type personnel that cost money, its the support and using the dirty word, Logistics, that will be the thing that drains the purses of whoever is paying for all this. And whoever that is will want results fast unlike what the military were doing pissing in the wind for the past 15 odd years.
Here is an example..getting fuel transported to run a small base for 24 hours that does not have the luxury of Afghan main supply, approx $60,000...thats a daily charge! And the answer is not large convoys like it used to be as mil oversight will disappear. So $1.8million a month alone for fuel.....yep, i can see loads of people rushing to finance that!
I can see the Blackwater recruiting drive kicking in already, which Uncle Sugar will fund. Be a PMC make three or four times the money and get your own share of a poppy field!

I would imagine quite a few of your lads will be poached as well.
 
#20
Dont forget though there is a Afghan law in place to stop foreign PMC's operating with weapons outside of coalition compounds etc. PMC's for instance escorting convoys is long gone and can only operate as security of personnel in places like Kabul. So that little issue will need to be solved.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top