Article

2021-08-08 Afghanistan

In Desperate Bid to Stop Taliban Offensive, Biden Begins Massive Bombing Campaign Supported by Gunships

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2021-08-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 well, hopefuly we will get some new videos of the AC 130's taking out stuff. Always fun to watch them run around like ants.

Posted by Chris 2021-08-08 00:05|| 2021-08-08 00:05|| Front Page Top

#2 BIDEN IS A MURDERER!

Ordered our forces to leave our ally in the middle of the night.

Posted by Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589 2021-08-08 00:11|| 2021-08-08 00:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Chris, the AC-130 gunship has it's uses... but I don't want to see one dropped by a MANPAD because Biden wanted to look tough.

Posted by magpie 2021-08-08 00:47|| 2021-08-08 00:47|| Front Page Top

#4 Up to five missions a day are being scheduled.

WTF? Some sort of twisted, tough guy virtue signaling? Five or fifty, the game is still over. Time to leave the field and write the Lessons Learned.

Posted by Besoeker 2021-08-08 01:17|| 2021-08-08 01:17|| Front Page Top

#5 The U.S. is throwing B-52 bombers, armed Reaper drones and A-130 gunships into the effort to slow the Taliban

Somebody slipped in the truth?

Posted by Dron66046 2021-08-08 02:21|| 2021-08-08 02:21|| Front Page Top

#6
"We're a SOTA military, and our allies with us! We'll slow any enemy successfully. We can slow things for decades!"

Posted by Dron66046 2021-08-08 02:23|| 2021-08-08 02:23|| Front Page Top

#7 Didn't Nixon do something like this?

Posted by 49 Pan 2021-08-08 03:56|| 2021-08-08 03:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Operation Linebacker was directed against the North Vietnamese military supply and infrastructure that had been 'off limits' to interdiction. To be like Nixon, Biden would have to be hitting Pakistani sanctuaries and the routes into Afghanistan to cut supplies. However, in this phase of the offensive the Taliban are just picking up supplies the Afghan national forces are abandoning.

Posted by Procopius2k 2021-08-08 05:33|| 2021-08-08 05:33|| Front Page Top

#9 But Biden does continue Nixon's China policies.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2021-08-08 05:53|| 2021-08-08 05:53|| Front Page Top

#10 It's all about making Joe appear to be "doing something" and as #3 notes, it may come at too high a price.

Posted by M. Murcek 2021-08-08 08:04|| 2021-08-08 08:04|| Front Page Top

#11 ...In fairness to FICUS, an ARC LIGHT or two have an amazing capacity for focusing one's attention.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2021-08-08 09:50|| 2021-08-08 09:50|| Front Page Top

#12 Somehow, asking US service personnel to risk their life for political optics when the quagmire called Afghanistan is going under at breakneck speed, seems a form of fundamental betrayal. Not that many Democrats can even grasp that concept....

Posted by NoMoreBS 2021-08-08 12:31|| 2021-08-08 12:31|| Front Page Top

#13 /\ .....seems a form of fundamental betrayal

Indeed.

Posted by Besoeker 2021-08-08 13:14|| 2021-08-08 13:14|| Front Page Top

#14 Gateway Pundit - Biden’s Back in Afghanistan: US Deploys Bombers and Gunships to Fight Advancing Taliban Terrorists; Embassy Urges Americans to Leave Country “Immediately”

Posted by Besoeker 2021-08-08 13:18|| 2021-08-08 13:18|| Front Page Top

#15 I have no problem with this. When the Taliban forces mass and identify themselves...make them pay a heavy price from the air.

When a Taliban official tries to set up a government...bomb that and destroy it too.

NDS MOI Afghan Mil and our folks can effectively target the ones that need to be visited from the air. That kind of disruption will provide a little hitch in their giddy up.

Since we no longer have a tactical weakness (holding onto useless FOBs), a long term strategic war against these folks is in order.

Posted by Tennessee 2021-08-08 13:24|| 2021-08-08 13:24|| Front Page Top

#16 #12 He's, maybe, prepping Afghanistan for the Chinese?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2021-08-08 13:55|| 2021-08-08 13:55|| Front Page Top

#17 #12 He's, maybe, prepping Afghanistan for the Chinese?

No real need. An account from a book I read many moons ago indicates that when the Tibetans started sniping from various perches within a city at a PLA invasion force, the Chinese withdrew to a respectable distance and proceeded to level the city with artillery. There is no technological bar to exterminating the Taliban. Only American restraint keeps them alive. There is nothing and no one the Chinese need in Afghanistan. That makes a successful conquest just a matter of delivering equipment and ordnance on time.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2021-08-08 15:21|| 2021-08-08 15:21|| Front Page Top

#18 ^Mongol tactics?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2021-08-08 15:42|| 2021-08-08 15:42|| Front Page Top

#19 at this point it looks like the Taliban will be, at least initially, on friendly terms with the Chinese if/when the Taliban come to dominate Afghanistan

how long this will last is anyone's guess

Posted by Lord Garth 2021-08-08 15:51|| 2021-08-08 15:51|| Front Page Top

#20 ^Mongol tactics?

The Mongols have gotten a bad rap. This was the way conquerors everywhere dealt with resistance. It's very expensive to fight insurgents - to the point that it can bankrupt and collapse the regime fighting them. The traditional remedy is the general massacre.

Wikipedia: destruction of Jerusalem

In Alexander's time, he slaughtered various populations for resisting his forces from behind city walls:

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/diodorus/the-sack-of-thebes/
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/diodorus/alexander-sacks-persepolis/

The attitude was basically go along and get along with your conquerors and live, or fight them as insurgents and get your entire tribe wiped out or sold into slavery.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2021-08-08 15:58|| 2021-08-08 15:58|| Front Page Top

#21 ^Except they were better than anybody else at this.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2021-08-08 16:03|| 2021-08-08 16:03|| Front Page Top

#22 ^Except they were better than anybody else at this.

At conquest? Sure. The problem is that they were tiny in numerical terms. To control large numbers of people is a serious problem. So, like other numerically inferior conquerors, they hewed closely to a policy of exemplary massacre of resisters, pour encourageurs les autres.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2021-08-08 16:10|| 2021-08-08 16:10|| Front Page Top

#23 ^Except they were better than anybody else at this.

Another thing less mentioned is that soldiers tended to be much less docile in antiquity. Any war leader who heightened his soldiers' risk of getting killed was setting himself up for an assassination, or worse. Alexander's endless campaigns might have gotten him killed. His death was followed by the erasure of his entire family line. Regime collapse wasn't something that affected just the leader - his entire clan's survival was at risk. If the entire Bush or McCain clans stood to be killed due to their politically-correct rules of engagement, would they have been as cavalier with GI lives?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2021-08-08 16:32|| 2021-08-08 16:32|| Front Page Top

#24 ^Don't you just love the Alamut story?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2021-08-08 16:37|| 2021-08-08 16:37|| Front Page Top

#25 #24 --> #22

#25 Can I recommend "March of Folly"?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2021-08-08 16:39|| 2021-08-08 16:39|| Front Page Top

#26 Can I recommend "March of Folly"?

No offense re your reading preferences, but I've always thought of her as Barbara Tuchus, because that seems to be the source of many of her ruminations. The idea that mobilization schedules led to WWI is the most moronic thing I've ever heard of. I'm not surprised at many of the things she's come up with. The fact is - history is remote from the interests of the average person. So you can write the nuttiest things and have them not just accepted by a wide audience, but actually repeated as shibboleths.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2021-08-08 18:12|| 2021-08-08 18:12|| Front Page Top

#27 Since we no longer have a tactical weakness (holding onto useless FOBs), a long term strategic war against these folks is in order.

They're not technically useless, given that being in-country means optempo can be increased, i.e. more strike missions can be mounted per day with less wear and tear on equipment. The problem is that since every bullet has to go through Pakistan or be flown in, maintaining a presence in Afghanistan is expensive. Ultimately, this is probably the most cost effective solution. Leave and give the Taliban the impression that Uncle Sam is out of the game, while maintaining the ability to mount round-the-clock airstrikes against Taliban troop concentrations. Failing that, getting the Afghan government to evac civilians from Taliban-held areas and then burning those areas to the ground.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2021-08-08 18:47|| 2021-08-08 18:47|| Front Page Top

#28 Once again, Zhang Fei, a joy reading anything you write.

Only American restraint keeps them alive

Something that has kept many unworthy things alive has been the restraint legitimized and instituted in all our ROEs and conventions, by politicians playing to the islam gallery.

Posted by Dron66046 2021-08-08 23:59|| 2021-08-08 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 Dron66046
23:19 Richard Aubrey
21:12 Old Patriot
20:28 Waldemar Noodleman3358
20:26 CrazyFool
20:25 CrazyFool
20:11 Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589
20:06 Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589
19:44 rjschwarz
19:34 Rex Mundi
19:28 CrazyFool
19:04 NoMoreBS
18:47 Zhang Fei
18:17 Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589
18:12 Zhang Fei
17:26 Skidmark
17:01 magpie
16:39 g(r)omgoru
16:37 g(r)omgoru
16:36 Bugs Bucket4797
16:32 Zhang Fei
16:20 Bugs Bucket4797
16:10 Zhang Fei
16:03 g(r)omgoru