800 people evacuated on one C-17 flight

IK04 said:
Nah, that only counts for crossing Disney Ave...

When we did our awards ceremony on the ramp at Bagram, I came up with the idea to hide our reflector belts under our jackets. When the ceremony was closed, we all exposed our very bright belts and connected them all together to form long ropes that we wrapped around the helicopters behind us, which were positioned for the photo op.

Our intent was to make all the CSM's go nuts. There were always a few dozen of them around checking for empty chambers and reflector belts!
Click to expand...
CSM's ??
 
Ed Haywood said:
When you look at world events from 1946 until 1964, it is crystal clear that the primary reason we went into Vietnam was to halt the spread of Soviet communism. Containment had been US Cold War strategy since George Kennan proposed it in 1947.
Click to expand...

Define 'went in to Vietnam.' In 1954, yes, certainly, you could argue that we supported South Vietnam and politically assisted them in order to prevent a communist entity from filling the power void. But, we had not backed that up by arming them as the Soviets did with the North when it was known from day one that ultimately Ho Chi Minh would retake the South. So, our military involvement beginning in 1963 represents a departure from the policy we established for Vietnam.
 
“A Bright Shinning Lie.” Never read the book but the movie is pretty good.
 
SoonerAviator said:
@Rushie was referencing the remnants of the Spin Zone (PilotSpin.com). Basically an echo chamber of about 10 regular posters who bash any viewpoint not expressly conservative and lurk over here to see when threads get locked/banned to revel in how "censored" PoA is.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s pretty humorous. I’ve lurked over there a few times before. They love to complain about the moderation here and how awful the Management Council is, yet they continue to come back and participate in the discussions, strange how that works…

Regardless, I’m definitely not some far left extremist like they seem to think, in fact, I lean right on most everything, but the RoC are clear -politics are politics - and that’s the way it’s been ever since the dissolution of the Spin Zone. Oh well, can’t please them all.
 
Velocity173 said:
“A Bright Shining Lie.” Never read the book but the movie is pretty good.
Click to expand...
What troubled me the most recently was listening to the tapes of presidents Johnson and Nixon talking about how Vietnam was not winnable, but going much further ahead with extensive combat operations and subsequent deaths anyway (Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s ten-part, 18-hour documentary series, The Vietnam War). There is/was a term familiar to soldiers called to 'waste' someone, that is, to kill them. So many thousands of my comrades in arms were wasted, literally and figuratively. OIF/OEF, same same.
 
RyanB said:
Yeah it’s pretty humorous. I’ve lurked over there a few times before. They love to complain about the moderation here and how awful the Management Council is, yet they continue to come back and participate in the discussions, strange how that works…

Regardless, I’m definitely not some far left extremist like they seem to think, in fact, I lean right on most everything, but the RoC are clear -politics are politics - and that’s the way it’s been ever since the dissolution of the Spin Zone. Oh well, can’t please them all.
Click to expand...

oh, we can talk about pilotspin now?
 
I have not commented so far as not sure my comments would be respectful, but what a **** show…if you know a veteran who has served in the last 20 years who been part of any operation into the theater do a buddy check…they may say their good but I can tell you every one of them feels they been gut punched…never had to worry about pac’s as I was a career gun guy, but always amazing what the lift guys would do to pull people out of the crap…
 
Warlock said:
I have not commented so far as not sure my comments would be respectful, but what a **** show…if you know a veteran who has served in the last 20 years who been part of any operation into the theater do a buddy check…they may say their good but I can tell you every one of them feels they been gut punched…never had to worry about pac’s as I was a career gun guy, but always amazing what the lift guys would do to pull people out of the crap…
Click to expand...
I don't think any of us veterans mind fighting. That was the mission for those who accept (apologies to various film producers). I would go hobbling back to SE Asia or wherever today, cane, medications, and all if there were a justifiable cause. Think Bush 41 and Desert Storm. Clear objective, exit criteria, support plan...all in place. What a concept.

It occurs to me I would do well to stop posting so much personal stuff. Yes, it is personal to every one of my septuagenarian buddies who went there and did that. And as you say, to all those who served more recently. The good news is that an increasing number of younger veterans are being elected to office. That will help absolutely.

Your words are truth, or as some great American said, "QFT".
 
luvflyin said:
CSM's ??
Click to expand...

I know you do this to make a point, but certainly you can't expect a conversation between folks that are knowledgable in a given field (in this case the military) to spell out everything for you. Maybe meet them halfway and put in a *little* effort by doing an internet search if you're trying to follow along?
 
Warlock said:
I have not commented so far as not sure my comments would be respectful, but what a **** show…if you know a veteran who has served in the last 20 years who been part of any operation into the theater do a buddy check…they may say their good but I can tell you every one of them feels they been gut punched…never had to worry about pac’s as I was a career gun guy, but always amazing what the lift guys would do to pull people out of the crap…
Click to expand...

I’m not quite in the “gut punch” category. Just plain disappointed. A predicable disappointment if you will.

In both OIF and OEF, I really didn’t have much confidence in what we were doing. Didn’t care though. I’m a professional and I try and leave emotions out of the equation. I got paid tax free / combat pay to fly in an area that had a threat far less than a Vietnam. Got steak and lobster every Friday as well. Don’t get me wrong, I was ready to mix it up with AIF and AAF but they rarely came out to play. I admired those who had almost a righteous belief in what we were doing there and they prosecuted their part of the war aggressively. I did admire their passion but in the back of my mind I thought they were a bit naive. Passion is good but when things don’t turn out as planned, that passion will result in anger and disbelief.

A common thread I read on FB from vet friends is that we did our jobs and we can hold our heads high. There were several mission objectives given to us after the initial objective (kill Al Qaeda). We met every single one of those objectives. It’s on the Afghan people and their lack of caring and leadership.

I won’t lie though. When I think back to all the draped caskets on the flight line and all the “hero flights” that we did, it’s hard not to feel a bit morose. So much talent wasted to go all the way back to square one.
 
kayoh190 said:
I know you do this to make a point, but certainly you can't expect a conversation between folks that are knowledgable in a given field (in this case the military) to spell out everything for you. Maybe meet them halfway and put in a *little* effort by doing an internet search if you're trying to follow along?
Click to expand...
No, no. That's not my point. I do google but some of the results make no sense. Like for instance the OIF and OEF above came right up on subject. Some of them come up with something completely unrelated.
 
luvflyin said:
No, no. That's not my point. I do google but some of the results make no sense. Like for instance the OIF and OEF above came right up on subject. Some of them come up with something completely unrelated.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, some of the acronyms get vets from different services too. There are some that are pretty universal and some quite specific to an individual service. CSM didn't make any sense to a Navy vet like me but if he'd had said something like CMC, DDG, or RAS i'd have gotten it. :D

FYI CMC = Command Master Chief
DDG = Guided Missile Destroyer
RAS = Refueling at Sea
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
I’m not quite in the “gut punch” category. Just plain disappointed. A predicable disappointment if you will.

In both OIF and OEF, I really didn’t have much confidence in what we were doing. Didn’t care though. I’m a professional and I try and leave emotions out of the equation. I got paid tax free / combat pay to fly in an area that had a threat far less than a Vietnam. Got steak and lobster every Friday as well. Don’t get me wrong, I was ready to mix it up with AIF and AAF but they rarely came out to play. I admired those who had almost a righteous belief in what we were doing there and they prosecuted their part of the war aggressively. I did admire their passion but in the back of my mind I thought they were a bit naive. Passion is good but when things don’t turn out as planned, that passion will result in anger and disbelief.

A common thread I read on FB from vet friends is that we did our jobs and we can hold our heads high. There were several mission objectives given to us after the initial objective (kill Al Qaeda). We met every single one of those objectives. It’s on the Afghan people and their lack of caring and leadership.

I won’t lie though. When I think back to all the draped caskets on the flight line and all the “hero flights” that we did, it’s hard not to feel a bit morose. So much talent wasted to go all the way back to square one.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the minimal number in terms of money and casualties would have been to prop up the 'mayor of Kabul' indefinitely ?
- Maintain a presence at Bagram,
- continue equipping and training afghan air-force with hardware adequate for the counter-insurgency mission
- continue shipping pallets of shrink-wrapped cash straight from the buerau of engraving and printing to the basement of some corrupt government officials
- pay contractors to provide training for the ANA/ANP
etc.
Everything short of the actual fighting.

The annual number of OEF service member deaths have been hovering around 20 since 2015. I dont know what the annual expense to the US taxpayer has been. I do however believe that there is an expense to the alternative of not being there, that expense may or may not be lower than what has been spent over the last 5 years.
 
Velocity173 said:
A common thread I read on FB from vet friends is that we did our jobs and we can hold our heads high. There were several mission objectives given to us after the initial objective (kill Al Qaeda). We met every single one of those objectives. It’s on the Afghan people and their lack of caring and leadership.

I won’t lie though. When I think back to all the draped caskets on the flight line and all the “hero flights” that we did, it’s hard not to feel a bit morose. So much talent wasted to go all the way back to square one.
Click to expand...

I like to think our presence there helped contain the terrorist threat at least for a while if nothing else. We haven’t had another 9/11 in 20 years. The lives and limbs lost meant something, accomplished something if only temporary safety. But 20 years of safety is enough time for a generation to grow up. They didn’t sacrifice for nothing. I have to think that anyway.

Nation building was a disaster and it’s easy to say we never should have gone, if that failure is all you see, and, I’m not nearly knowledgeable enough to judge whether we should have or not. Way before 9/11 there were calls to help the human abuse problems in Afghanistan, women in particular. Maybe that was a just cause to go and to try to set up a “modern democracy” but in retrospect, it didn’t take. They have to come around on their own, if ever.

Our military’s job should be to protect the U.S., period. Not socially engineer other cultures, although I understand the theory that if you can change their culture to be more like our own, they become less of a threat. I don’t know if that’s true, it may rest on a false premise. But even if it is, it’s starting to become clear that using the military to try to force such a change doesn’t seem to work well. At least not in the Mid East, or Far East for that matter. Or did it work in Japan? Germany? What were the differences with those occupations?
 
Rushie said:
I like to think our presence there helped contain the terrorist threat at least for a while if nothing else. We haven’t had another 9/11 in 20 years. The lives and limbs lost meant something, accomplished something if only temporary safety. But 20 years of safety is enough time for a generation to grow up. They didn’t sacrifice for nothing. I have to think that anyway.

Nation building was a disaster and it’s easy to say we never should have gone, if that failure is all you see, and, I’m not nearly knowledgeable enough to judge whether we should have or not. Way before 9/11 there were calls to help the human abuse problems in Afghanistan, women in particular. Maybe that was a just cause to go and to try to set up a “modern democracy” but in retrospect, it didn’t take. They have to come around on their own, if ever.

Our military’s job should be to protect the U.S., period. Not socially engineer other cultures, although I understand the theory that if you can change their culture to be more like our own, they become less of a threat. I don’t know if that’s true, it may rest on a false premise. But even if it is, it’s starting to become clear that using the military to try to force such a change doesn’t seem to work well. At least not in the Mid East, or Far East for that matter. Or did it work in Japan? Germany? What were the differences with those occupations?
Click to expand...
I think Japan was different in that we used a couple of nuclear bombs that laid waste to a sizeable portion of their major cities which (on top of prior military engagements) essentially brought the war to their front doorstep and convinced them that they would be obliterated if they were to continue. It impacted not just the Japanses military but their citizens. There was also little impact of religion/ideology driving the fight.

Germany was a different story since that was driving back their regime building and taking back conquered lands. Again, not so much of a religious battle there, either. By the end of the war they also had enemies on just about all sides. You had a lot of European people nearby to help enforce the post-war restrictions on Germany.

Afghanistan isn't surrounded by their enemies necessarily. They are tribal and highly-driven by centuries of religious indoctrination. There's no one there (other than non-Taliban) to make sure they maintain a peaceful society. Their neighbors don't care about their turmoil and likely don't want a democratic success story nextdoor. We also had to operate by a much more restrictive set of rules of engagement which didnt allow us to just lay waste to vast numbers of Afghan civilians. When you obliterate a nation of people, it's hard for them to rise up and fight much more. When you just take out their military sons/fathers for a decade or two, they just keep fighting.
 
kayoh190 said:
I know you do this to make a point, but certainly you can't expect a conversation between folks that are knowledgable in a given field (in this case the military) to spell out everything for you. Maybe meet them halfway and put in a *little* effort by doing an internet search if you're trying to follow along?
Click to expand...

It is an aviation board. Not a board for the ex-military folks. CSM? Hell, that shows up as Certified Scrum Master in the top 20 results in a google search.
 
Ed Haywood said:
These are military systemic issues, not some kind of inherent characteristic of Afghan men. When my buds in Iraq would laugh at inept Arab soldiers, I would always observe that it was funny how the other side seemed to have no trouble finding Arabs who could fight.

Conscription and signing bonuses fill the ranks with hapless boobs with no other options. Victims mostly. Guys who want to fight go to the side that gives them a good reason to fight. In a culture where religion dominates everything, it is hard to compete with the Imams and Mullahs telling young men to drive out the infidels.

I struggle to understand how the same approach that wound up working in Iraq failed in Afghanistan. Many of the same cultural features existed. I think fundamentally it comes down to two things. First, the Iraqi people were more modern and urban, and understood as a society that national stability was better than tribal and ethnic chaos. Eventually all the sheiks realized, OK, we gotta have some kind of government here or we're going to get eaten by ISIS and Iran, so they did the hard work to hammer out some kind of uneasy method of sharing power. Also, Iraq has Kurds. I love Kurds. All 10th Group guys love Kurds.

Second, Iraq lacks a dominant tribe like the Pashtun. The Pashtun are the world's largest tribal society, with over 50 million people. Since their religious and tribal leadership are pretty much the same, that makes them a very cohesive and motivated foe. Combine that with an untouchable sanctuary and unlimited outside aid, and they are unbeatable in a guerilla war. A quick look at the distribution of Pashtun tribes on a map of Afghanistan and Pakistan tells you pretty much everything you need to know. Basically, Russia and the US fought a 40 year war against Pashtunistan, tagging out in the middle.

View attachment 99273
Click to expand...
You seem to have some first hand knowledge, so I will ask. A friend who is passionate on the subject, took exception to the idea that the Afghans were not willing to fight. Pointed out that 50,000 of the ANA died in combat fighting the Taliban. What is your take on this?
 
Rushie said:
Nation building was a disaster and it’s easy to say we never should have gone
Click to expand...

I think nation building probably works when you have a nation. Japan, Germany, a bunch of people in a geography who all have similar interests and believe in some version of solidarity as a country. It helps if you crush their will up front and show them a path to something better. They will come together and pull towards something better. Afghanistan? Iraq? Very disjointed societies that didn't have enough buy-in to be a unified country. Hard to set a course when there are multiple groups who are more concerned with beating the others out of their slice of the pie vs creating a bigger pie to share.
 
kyleb said:
It is an aviation board. Not a board for the ex-military folks. CSM? Hell, that shows up as Certified Scrum Master in the top 20 results in a google search.
Click to expand...
Ain't no thang really. I asked and they or someone else answered. I don't begrudge them using the Acronyms in the course of conversation. They have some really good, informative ones. Same thing when the Airline dudes get going
 
Morgan3820 said:
You seem to have some first hand knowledge, so I will ask. A friend who is passionate on the subject, took exception to the idea that the Afghans were not willing to fight. Pointed out that 50,000 of the ANA died in combat fighting the Taliban. What is your take on this?
Click to expand...

It’s really difficult understanding decisions made by those who’s life expectancy (and that of their most important relations) doesn’t extend beyond today.
 
kyleb said:
It is an aviation board. Not a board for the ex-military folks. CSM? Hell, that shows up as Certified Scrum Master in the top 20 results in a google search.
Click to expand...
But a lot of pilots here are military. I learned some new acronyms. Every profession has its jargon. I get lost with the IT guy's verbiage.

If you type in "what is csm in the military mean". Command Master Sargent is at the top of the list. Perhaps adding some context to the query, next time.
 
Morgan3820 said:
If you type in "what is csm in the military mean". Command Master Sargent is at the top of the list. Perhaps adding some context to the query, next time.
Click to expand...

Even better. Why doesn't the OP write it out so 50 others don't have to look it up?
 
TCABM said:
It’s really difficult understanding decisions made by those who’s life expectancy (and that of their most important relations) doesn’t extend beyond today.
Click to expand...
Could you please rephrase so I understand your meaning?
 
kyleb said:
Even better. Why doesn't the OP write it out so 50 others don't have to look it up?
Click to expand...
I tell my Daughter to look up a word herself. That way she will have a better chance of remembering it.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Could you please rephrase so I understand your meaning?
Click to expand...

Sure. Most Americans don’t have to worry whether or not they will die today or whether their loved ones will be maimed, raped, sold into slavery, or have their head sawed off based on a choice to support a political organization/entity.

That is reality for most Afghans who’ve been a part of the various US-backed Afghan forces.
 
TCABM said:
Sure. Most Americans don’t have to worry whether or not they will die today or whether their loved ones will be maimed, raped, sold into slavery, or have their head sawed off based on a choice to support a political organization/entity.

That is reality for most Afghans who’ve been a part of the various US-backed Afghan forces.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Morgan3820 said:
You seem to have some first hand knowledge, so I will ask. A friend who is passionate on the subject, took exception to the idea that the Afghans were not willing to fight. Pointed out that 50,000 of the ANA died in combat fighting the Taliban. What is your take on this?
Click to expand...

Any discussion about "The Afghans" is off base right from the start. There isn't really such a thing as "the Afghans". There are 14+ separate ethnic groups, many speaking different languages, each with their own different situations and goals.

If you wanted to analyze the ANA, you would have to break it down into various tribes and ethnic groups. Some of them were quite willing to fight; others, not so much. The Tajiks aren't backing down, and are already moving to secure the Panjshir Valley under the leadership of Ahmad Massoud, the son of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the famed "Lion of the Panjshir" who fought the Soviets so effectively and was assassinated by Al Qaeda 2 days before 911. Doesn't hurt that the Panjshir valley is almost perfectly suited to defense and guerilla warfare.

I think the biggest single issue with the ANA was that it placed ethnic Pashtuns in a position of divided loyalty. The Taliban are basically the religious leadership of the Pashtun tribes. The Pashtuns are 40% of the population of Afghanistan. How are you going to build a national Army when you are asking 40% of your potential troops to fight against their own clerics? As an analogy, it would be like trying to recruit a bunch of Irishmen and Italians to fight a war against the Catholic Church.

The Taliban were a very cohesive force, for the same reason. Their tribe, religion, and government are unified. No divided loyalty.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I wonder what the minimal number in terms of money and casualties would have been to prop up the 'mayor of Kabul' indefinitely ?
- Maintain a presence at Bagram,
- continue equipping and training afghan air-force with hardware adequate for the counter-insurgency mission
- continue shipping pallets of shrink-wrapped cash straight from the buerau of engraving and printing to the basement of some corrupt government officials
- pay contractors to provide training for the ANA/ANP
etc.
Everything short of the actual fighting.

The annual number of OEF service member deaths have been hovering around 20 since 2015. I dont know what the annual expense to the US taxpayer has been. I do however believe that there is an expense to the alternative of not being there, that expense may or may not be lower than what has been spent over the last 5 years.
Click to expand...

Well that’s the exact question I’ve pondered many times over the years. We’ve had a strong presence at Camp Bondsteel Kosovo since 1999 and there isn’t jack going on there anymore. I think we should have at least held onto Bagram.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of complete occupation with our history of multiple COP / FOB scattered throughout the country. Maintaining hold of Bagram like a Bondsteel or even an Incirlik would have been wise. What type of setup to keep the Taliban from a takeover and keep the peace? Same setup when I was there only with a more robust ground force. So that would consist of 2 fighter squadrons for CAS (4 month rotation), Army Aviation CAB with UH-60,CH-47, AH-64 (12 month rotation), special ops and regular division infantry. Maybe 10,000 personnel total. All of that would be supported by out of country (CENTCOM / Carrier Battle Group) air power. Also supported by PMC and the usual Brown and Root / Halliburton civilians. Possibly even rotations with the Marines (MEU) to augment those forces since Kandahar would be closed.

Would also be a strategic asset if we ever had to go to war with any other country in that region. Expensive to maintain but no where near the footprint during the height of GWOT.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well that’s the exact question I’ve pondered many times over the years. We’ve had a strong presence at Camp Bondsteel Kosovo since 1999 and there isn’t jack going on there anymore. I think we should have at least held onto Bagram.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of complete occupation with our history of multiple COP / FOB scattered throughout the country. Maintaining hold of Bagram like a Bondsteel or even an Incirlik would have been wise. What type of setup to keep the Taliban from a takeover and keep the peace? Same setup when I was there only with a more robust ground force. So that would consist of 2 fighter squadrons for CAS (4 month rotation), Army Aviation CAB with UH-60,CH-47, AH-64 (12 month rotation), special ops and regular division infantry. Maybe 10,000 personnel total. All of that would be supported by out of country (CENTCOM / Carrier Battle Group) air power. Also supported by PMC and the usual Brown and Root / Halliburton civilians. Possibly even rotations with the Marines (MEU) to augment those forces since Kandahar would be closed.

Would also be a strategic asset if we ever had to go to war with any other country in that region. Expensive to maintain but no where near the footprint during the height of GWOT.
Click to expand...
All right. IGTA, (I got them all.):D A little context to the search works. Took a couple minutes. Not bad
 
Just because the ANA lost a lot of soldiers doesn’t mean they were a competent army. ARVN lost well over 250,000 in Vietnam and you can read about the same complaints from military officials about them as we have with the ANA today.

The critique of the ANA historical performance is a generalization. Yes, even the ANA and the ARVN for that matter had soldiers with a fierce will to fight and win. Just like the Commandos, I’ve read reports of ARVN special ops personnel that were outstanding. But, they’re the exception, not the rule.

An analogy for the ANA would be like the NG Soldiers trying to capture Rambo in that mine shaft. They come from all types of backgrounds, aren’t really trained that well and would rather be back home with their families (no cohesion / common purpose). That doesn’t mean that there aren’t a few NG dudes who are squared away and as good as any active duty Soldier.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Even better. Why doesn't the OP write it out so 50 others don't have to look it up?
Click to expand...

Certainly in formal scientific writing the convention is to always spell out an abbreviation the first time and place the abbreviation in parentheses. Obviously PoA is not formal writing, but I agree that if it is not a standard aviation abbreviation it could be nice.

Interesting thread drift.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I think Japan was different in that we used a couple of nuclear bombs that laid waste to a sizeable portion of their major cities which (on top of prior military engagements) essentially brought the war to their front doorstep and convinced them that they would be obliterated if they were to continue. It impacted not just the Japanses military but their citizens. There was also little impact of religion/ideology driving the fight.

Germany was a different story since that was driving back their regime building and taking back conquered lands. Again, not so much of a religious battle there, either. By the end of the war they also had enemies on just about all sides. You had a lot of European people nearby to help enforce the post-war restrictions on Germany.

Afghanistan isn't surrounded by their enemies necessarily. They are tribal and highly-driven by centuries of religious indoctrination. There's no one there (other than non-Taliban) to make sure they maintain a peaceful society. Their neighbors don't care about their turmoil and likely don't want a democratic success story nextdoor. We also had to operate by a much more restrictive set of rules of engagement which didnt allow us to just lay waste to vast numbers of Afghan civilians. When you obliterate a nation of people, it's hard for them to rise up and fight much more. When you just take out their military sons/fathers for a decade or two, they just keep fighting.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the upcoming civil [tribal] wars will consume all of the resources of the Taliban.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Certainly in formal scientific writing the convention is to always spell out an abbreviation the first time and place the abbreviation in parentheses. Obviously PoA is not formal writing, but I agree that if it is not a standard aviation abbreviation it could be nice.

Interesting thread drift.
Click to expand...
My day job is technical publications for a large engine manufacturer, and any certification documents use that convention, or else!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top