Seven Days in Kabul

[Azure]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I struggle to see how it was logistically possible to get all Afghans that worked for or with the Coalition out.

What was the estimate of individuals that needed to be taken out of the country?

Between 150-170k people.

Nothing we couldn't easily do.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Between 150-170k people.

Nothing we couldn't easily do.

Come on. I'm 100% of the belief that this is an epic tragedy and absolutely shameful.

Bu there is no way that you can say moving 150,000 people out is something that we could easily do though. That's just pure hindsight bias, or just plain wrong.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by zamler

Why did the U.S. leave so much military hardware behind? Are they trying to ignite a full blown war?

Peace is bad for business

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

The A-29? No, they are modern - early 2000s and Afghanistan received their about six years ago.

Thanks - forgot about that. I just remembered there were some advanced prop planes used in Vietnam, so thought they were re-purposing them. Forgot they developed this anti-insurgent close support fighter.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Peace is bad for business

Yeah, it's the same strategy the Russians used. Leave enough military hardware to ensure future insurgency is absolutely guaranteed. Probably China up next to take on the graveyard of empires, in their continued bid to encircle India.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

Between 150-170k people.

Nothing we couldn't easily do.

Ok then explain to me what it would look like, getting 150k-170k people out.

I mean I get it, what is happening or what might happen is appalling, but logistically moving that many people from a landlocked country ain't easy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Peace is bad for business

Peace Sells.....but Who's Buying.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Ok then explain to me what it would look like, getting 150k-170k people out.

I mean I get it, what is happening or what might happen is appalling, but logistically moving that many people from a landlocked country ain't easy.

I think you had to have made that part of the deal with the Taliban and basically run an evacuation caravan/convoy to Karachi to put them on ships.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Peace Sells.....but Who's Buying.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

In what capacity? What use would the air force have for a prop driven airplane of that size?

Pilot training, it's actually a turbo prop (jet engine) and it was one of the options when the NFTC program was ramped up in MJ. We went with the T-6 Harvard, another turbo.

You will see more of them around, the next iteration of this program will probably see an advanced turbo prop fulfilling even more advanced training capacity.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Come on. I'm 100% of the belief that this is an epic tragedy and absolutely shameful.

Bu there is no way that you can say moving 150,000 people out is something that we could easily do though. That's just pure hindsight bias, or just plain wrong.

Canada took in 180k immigrants in 2020.

A combined worldwide effort to help the Afghans at risk wouldn't be that hard. Sure, it would take planning, something those morons in Ottawa & DC couldn't possibly figure out, but it is possible.

In comparison, the US helped 130k Vietnamese refugees when they left Vietnam.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I think you had to have made that part of the deal with the Taliban and basically run an evacuation caravan/convoy to Karachi to put them on ships.

That one big #### off convoy.

Also, convoy driving is the worst. That would take a ####ing month or more to pull off.

[Azure]

Surely you don't think anyone means they should have evacuated them in a week, right?

Everyone knew for a long time that if the US is going to draw down, we need to help the people that helped us. Its been all over the news forever.

400 people per plane * 25 flights per day = 10,000 people moved per day. It wouldn't even take a month.

But you know, planning.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Canada took in 180k refugees in 2020.

Source on that figure? My understanding is it's normally 20-25K, and even that amount hasn't stopped some people from losing their ****.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

Surely you don't think anyone means they should have evacuated them in a week, right?

Everyone knew for a long time that if the US is going to draw down, we need to help the people that helped us. Its been all over the news forever.

400 people per plane * 25 flights per day = 10,000 people moved per day. It wouldn't even take a month.

But you know, planning.

Of course I don't think it would happen in a week.

Listen I have never organized a large land move. I was involved in one, it was a 400 km road move of a half a battalion and it was a pain in the ass.

Is 25 flights per day non-stop feasible?

I have no idea.

But there is a tonne of logistics and planning that would be required.

Perhaps you have more experience in this type of thing than me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Source on that figure? My understanding is it's normally 20-25K, and even that amount hasn't stopped some people from losing their ****.

Sorry, meant to say immigrants.

Refugees we are usually around 10k.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That one big #### off convoy.

Also, convoy driving is the worst. That would take a ####ing month or more to pull off.

Right. That's where you plan ahead and don't just bug out...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Of course I don't think it would happen in a week.

Listen I have never organized a large land move. I was involved in one, it was a 400 km road move of a half a battalion and it was a pain in the ass.

Is 25 flights per day non-stop feasible?

I have no idea.

But there is a tonne of logistics and planning that would be required.

Perhaps you have more experience in this type of thing than me.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That it isn't possible because you think it is a pain in the ass?

It is. The US alone has the resources to do it. Sure it would have required time, planning and the political will.

We didn't even try. We had flights coming home to Canada half empty.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That it isn't possible because you think it is a pain in the ass?

It is. The US alone has the resources to do it. Sure it would have required time, planning and the political will.

We didn't even try. We had flights coming home to Canada half empty.

My point is I don't think it was/is possible to get every Afghan that worked for or with the Coalition out.

I'm not sure where you number came from, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me if the 170,000 number was greater.

Question, do we include the ANA and the police?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That it isn't possible because you think it is a pain in the ass?

It is. The US alone has the resources to do it. Sure it would have required time, planning and the political will.

We didn't even try. We had flights coming home to Canada half empty.

Alright, let's just pretend that you can organize and move that number of people (I still have my doubts). Where are we moving them? I look at the map around Afghanistan and I'm pretty sure that China/Iran/Pakistan aren't opening their borders to help these people out. So that means coming to North American or Europe.

I don't think that pointing to our immigration number is a good comparison here either. Those immigrants have to meet certain criteria and what we're really talking about here is refugees. I'd say we could accept 10-15,000 (and remember the uproar when we did that in 2015?). so you still have to settle say 135,000 people somewhere.