US, NATO Outta Afghanistan 2021

[Czech_pivo]

They want legitimacy. Having the US embassy there gives them that’s.

Maybe we should as well. Our Ambassador can be Monsef.

 

[dimsum]

So we left 5 days earlier than the 31st? If we are only flying 2 C-17's a day in/out of Kabul, then our presence on the ground was likely never bigger than 2 full plane loads of C-17's available seatbelts, 188X2. If it was that small, then why the rush to get out 5 days early? From where I'm sitting and based on the limited information available, this looks bad. I find it hard to believe that if we stay another 3 days that we couldn't have gotten more of our people out.

One of the flights on the 24th had over 500 passengers onboard.

RCAF operates largest evacuation flight from Kabul since Op Aegis began - Skies Mag

Canadian aircraft have conducted 13 flights and airlifted 1,700 Canadians and eligible Afghans from Kabul thus far. The most recent flight carried 506 people out of Afghanistan.

skiesmag.com

(Unless it is at the US’s request as they prepare to end operations & depart Tuesday, and need the runway & taxi ways for their own aircraft. That I can understand and makes sense, as there is only one runway. They do have 6000+ military on the ground after all.)

France, etc are also leaving around now. That would make sense since it'll take time for the US to get all of its remaining troops out as well.

And to no one's surprise:

Kabul airport attack kills 60 Afghans, 13 US troops

Two suicide bombers and gunmen have targeted crowds of Afghans flocking to Kabul’s airport to flee the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

apnews.com

 

[Remius]

Maybe we should as well. Our Ambassador can be Monsef.

So about Monsef.

I don't think for a second she wants to friends with the Taliban. LPC detractors will chew on that bone as predicted.

I have no reason to doubt that she was attempting to use cultural language. (there is debate about that though)

But, a few things strike me as tone deaf about it.

1. Context is everything and perception. In this context with what is going on, even if culturally it fits (again debatable but I'm not enough of an expert to agree or disagree) it was stupid. That tweet was more for a domestic audience than for the Taliban.

2. Why would anyone think that an Afgan ex pat woman who is in a position of power in a country that was at war with the Taliban, would be able to convene a message to the Taliban that would be well received? Seems to me that it would just add oil to the fire or at the very least be dismissed outright. As I said in point 1, I think this was for a domestic audience which again leads to the question of how this message was crafted and who actually vetted it.

 

[MilEME09]

So about Monsef.

I don't think for a second she wants to friends with the Taliban. LPC detractors will chew on that bone as predicted.

I have no reason to doubt that she was attempting to use cultural language. (there is debate about that though)

But, a few things strike me as tone deaf about it.

1. Context is everything and perception. In this context with what is going on, even if culturally it fits (again debatable but I'm not enough of an expert to agree or disagree) it was stupid. That tweet was more for a domestic audience than for the Taliban.

2. Why would anyone think that an Afgan ex pat woman who is in a position of power in a country that was at war with the Taliban, would be able to convene a message to the Taliban that would be well received? Seems to me that it would just add oil to the fire or at the very least be dismissed outright. As I said in point 1, I think this was for a domestic audience which again leads to the question of how this message was crafted and who actually vetted it.

Agreed, cause let's be honest do you really think the taliban care what a woman in Canada has to say? They do not care about what a woman in the same house of them says. Given the tweet was for the domestic audience, the choice of words was poor.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Suicide bomber at the airport gates.......time too release the hounds for a day or so.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Agreed, cause let's be honest do you really think the taliban care what a woman in Canada has to say? They do not care about what a woman in the same house of them says. Given the tweet was for the domestic audience, the choice of words was poor.

Its the phase 'our brothers in the Taliban' vs 'my brothers in the Taliban' that is giving me the shudders. The use of 'our' denotes that all Canadians (since a current Cabinet Minister in the Federal Government represents ALL Canadians) are calling them 'brothers'. If she is using it in a 'cultural' aspect, again it should be the word 'my', not 'our' because though she is a Muslim she shouldn't be assuming that ALL Muslims would agree that its a cultural phase or would want to be associated with a bunch of 7th century living individuals.
This isn't the first time this Minister has misspoken on a major issue. Sure is getting alot of 2nd chances.....

 

[brihard]

There’s long distance video of the explosions, and close up video of the aftermath. It’s gonna be a lot more than 13 dead… looks like a couple of good sized SVBIEDs.

EDIT: Two attacks. One on Abbey Gate, the other on a nearby hotel previously used by the US to stage evacs. US troops have been wounded and exchanged fire, possible complex attack.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

During her announcement, I found the pause between the words 'our' and 'brothers' telling. She was reading from a script (watch her eyes) and she got to the word 'brothers' and hesitated as if she was mulling over whether to use the word. There may have been another reason for her hesitation, I don't know what her thought process was. However, it was obviously a hot button word for her to hesitate on. I wonder if she wrote the script or whether she was reading someone else's script for the first time. Either way she knew it was a sticky word. And no, I'm not buying the government excuse that it was a harmless cultural reference. It was put there on purpose, IMO.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Other Canadian politicians use the phrase "our Christian brethren" on behalf of Canada all the time and it excites no comment.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't know where you live, Brad, but i'm closing in on 63 and nowhere in Canada have I ever heard a federal, provincial or municipal politician refer to any group as their "Christian brethren".

 

[MilEME09]

Couple unverified posts I've seen on Facebook claim around 700 people trying to get to Canada were left behind. That would of been an extra two flights, shame we couldn't get them all out

 

[Brad Sallows]

nowhere in Canada have I ever heard

I was being facetious. If anyone did, it would be inappropriate and people opposed to any hint of church-in-state would blow a gasket. Equally, it is inappropriate for any politician to use a framing for any other religion. That the reference was to Taliban is just a multiplier.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They want legitimacy. Having the US embassy there gives them that’s.

and a form of hostages that you don't have to feed

 

[suffolkowner]

I wonder if we were just getting in the way in Kabul. Why such a large discrepancy between Canadian flights and between what we were taking versus the US on the C17's. I thought I read that we were not capable of in flight refueling and that was a limiting factor but next thing you know we can handle 500?

 

[Altair]

I wonder if we were just getting in the way in Kabul. Why such a large discrepancy between Canadian flights and between what we were taking versus the US on the C17's. I thought I read that we were not capable of in flight refueling and that was a limiting factor but next thing you know we can handle 500?

Hard to say, but the Dutch, Danes, Poles and Belgians have all had their last flights out, and the French will be done by tomorrow.

Seems like everyone is clearing out to leave room for the Americans to get all their troops out.

 

[Good2Golf]

I wonder if we were just getting in the way in Kabul. Why such a large discrepancy between Canadian flights and between what we were taking versus the US on the C17's. I thought I read that we were not capable of in flight refueling and that was a limiting factor but next thing you know we can handle 500?

Other than a 60% weight-loss, something else entered the calculus…hint: not aircraft performance, nor aircrew willingness to ‘load em up!’

 

[Czech_pivo]

Hard to say, but the Dutch, Danes, Poles and Belgians have all had their last flights out, and the French will be done by tomorrow.

Seems like everyone is clearing out to leave room for the Americans to get all their troops out.

any thoughts of the US taking with them each and every airworthy helo still on the tarmac at Kabul and anything else of military value, or will they just blow them all up in place?

 

[Altair]

any thoughts of the US taking with them each and every airworthy helo still on the tarmac at Kabul and anything else of military value, or will they just blow them all up in place?

Boom.

 

[QV]

Other than a 60% weight-loss, something else entered the calculus…hint: not aircraft performance, nor aircrew willingness to ‘load em up!’

I sure as hell hope it wasn't available seatbelts.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I find blaming the attacks on ISIS far to convenient, I suspect the Taliban using it as a way to ensure the US does not stay.