Forever wars

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
For anyone who wants to know the real reason we were in Afghanistan for 20 years. Hint: It wasn't to defend freedom.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/military-contractor-caci-international-weapons-military

On August 12, the military contractor CACI International Inc. told its investors that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is hurting its profits. The same contractor is also funding a think tank that is concurrently arguing against the withdrawal. This case is worth examining both because it is routine, and because it highlights the venality of our “expert”-military contractor feedback loop, in which private companies use think tanks to rally support for wars they’ll profit from.​
The contractor is notorious to those who have followed the scandal of U.S.-led torture in Iraq. CACI International was sued by three Iraqis formerly detained in Abu Ghraib prison who charge that the company’s employees are responsible for directing their torture, including sexual assault and electric shocks. (The suit was brought in 2008 and the case is still ongoing.)​
In 2019, CACI International was awarded a nearly $907 million, five-year contract to provide “intelligence operations and analytic support” for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan.​
During an August 12 earnings call, CACI International noted repeatedly that President Biden’s withdrawal from the 20-year Afghanistan War harmed the company’s profits. John Mengucci, president and CEO of CACI International, said, “we have about a 2 percent headwind coming into FY 2022 because of Afghanistan.” A “headwind” refers to negative impacts on profits.​
Afghanistan was mentioned 16 times throughout the call — either in reference to the dent in profits, or to assure investors that other areas of growth were offsetting the losses. For example, Mengucci said, “We’re seeing positive growth in technology and expect it to continue to outpace expertise growth, collectively offsetting the impact of the Afghanistan drawdown.”​
Similar themes were repeated in an April 22 earnings call, where the company lamented the “headwinds” posed by the Afghanistan withdrawal. (Industry and defense publications have picked up on this them, but framed it in the company’s terms, by emphasizing the offsets to its losses.)​
CACI International is listed as a “corporate sponsor” of the Institute for Study of War, which describes itself as a “non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.” Dr. Warren Phillips, lead director of CACI International, is on the board of the think tank. (Other funders include General Dynamics and Microsoft.)​
When it comes to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, however, the think tank is extremely partisan. In an August 20 paper, the think tank argued that “Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey are weighing how to take advantage of the United States’ hurried withdrawal.”​
Jack Keane, a retired four star general and board member of the Institute for Study of War, meanwhile, has been on a cable news blitz arguing against the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as reported by Ryan Grim, Sara Sirota, Lee Fang and Rose Adams for The Intercept.​
Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War, told Fox News on August 17 that the U.S. withdrawal could cause Afghanistan to become the “second school of jihadism.” She warned, “It is not clear that the Taliban, which seeks international recognition and legitimacy, is going to want to tolerate or encourage direct attacks on the U.S. from al Qaeda or other extremist groups based in Afghanistan.”​
The think tank’s backing from a military contractor was not discussed in these media appearances.​
The case of CACI International is not unique. The Intercept notes, “Among the other talking heads who took to cable news segments or op-ed pages without disclosing their defense industry ties were retired Gen. David Petraeus; Rebecca Grant, a former staffer for the Air Force secretary; Richard Haass, who worked as an adviser to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell; and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”​
 

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,446
17,961
1
For anyone who wants to know the real reason we were in Afghanistan for 20 years. Hint: It wasn't to defend freedom.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/military-contractor-caci-international-weapons-military

On August 12, the military contractor CACI International Inc. told its investors that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is hurting its profits. The same contractor is also funding a think tank that is concurrently arguing against the withdrawal. This case is worth examining both because it is routine, and because it highlights the venality of our “expert”-military contractor feedback loop, in which private companies use think tanks to rally support for wars they’ll profit from.​
The contractor is notorious to those who have followed the scandal of U.S.-led torture in Iraq. CACI International was sued by three Iraqis formerly detained in Abu Ghraib prison who charge that the company’s employees are responsible for directing their torture, including sexual assault and electric shocks. (The suit was brought in 2008 and the case is still ongoing.)​
In 2019, CACI International was awarded a nearly $907 million, five-year contract to provide “intelligence operations and analytic support” for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan.​
During an August 12 earnings call, CACI International noted repeatedly that President Biden’s withdrawal from the 20-year Afghanistan War harmed the company’s profits. John Mengucci, president and CEO of CACI International, said, “we have about a 2 percent headwind coming into FY 2022 because of Afghanistan.” A “headwind” refers to negative impacts on profits.​
Afghanistan was mentioned 16 times throughout the call — either in reference to the dent in profits, or to assure investors that other areas of growth were offsetting the losses. For example, Mengucci said, “We’re seeing positive growth in technology and expect it to continue to outpace expertise growth, collectively offsetting the impact of the Afghanistan drawdown.”​
Similar themes were repeated in an April 22 earnings call, where the company lamented the “headwinds” posed by the Afghanistan withdrawal. (Industry and defense publications have picked up on this them, but framed it in the company’s terms, by emphasizing the offsets to its losses.)​
CACI International is listed as a “corporate sponsor” of the Institute for Study of War, which describes itself as a “non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.” Dr. Warren Phillips, lead director of CACI International, is on the board of the think tank. (Other funders include General Dynamics and Microsoft.)​
When it comes to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, however, the think tank is extremely partisan. In an August 20 paper, the think tank argued that “Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey are weighing how to take advantage of the United States’ hurried withdrawal.”​
Jack Keane, a retired four star general and board member of the Institute for Study of War, meanwhile, has been on a cable news blitz arguing against the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as reported by Ryan Grim, Sara Sirota, Lee Fang and Rose Adams for The Intercept.​
Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War, told Fox News on August 17 that the U.S. withdrawal could cause Afghanistan to become the “second school of jihadism.” She warned, “It is not clear that the Taliban, which seeks international recognition and legitimacy, is going to want to tolerate or encourage direct attacks on the U.S. from al Qaeda or other extremist groups based in Afghanistan.”​
The think tank’s backing from a military contractor was not discussed in these media appearances.​
The case of CACI International is not unique. The Intercept notes, “Among the other talking heads who took to cable news segments or op-ed pages without disclosing their defense industry ties were retired Gen. David Petraeus; Rebecca Grant, a former staffer for the Air Force secretary; Richard Haass, who worked as an adviser to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell; and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”​

I had to stop reading your drivel at the mention of Abu Ghraib prison. IMO there's no limit to what you can do to a terrorist. Not when they cut off Americans' heads 'n $hit. I'm very biblical on that respect, as are they.

Newsflash. We spent over $2T there. Afghanis did not receive the money. US contractors and NGOs did. Anyone who does not know that already probably voted for Biden.

Thank you.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
I had to stop reading your drivel at the mention of Abu Ghraib prison. IMO there's no limit to what you can do to a terrorist. Not when they cut off Americans' heads 'n $hit. I'm very biblical on that respect, as are they.

Newsflash. We spent over $2T there. Afghanis did not receive the money. US contractors and NGOs did. Anyone who does not know that already probably voted for Biden.

Thank you.
Wait, wut?! You think Afghanis did not receive any of the money the U.S., the U.N., and various NGO's were spending over there? Karzai and his cronies specialized in graft and corruption. They skimmed plenty, which is one of several reasons why the Afghan people would not support them..
 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
I had to stop reading your drivel at the mention of Abu Ghraib prison. IMO there's no limit to what you can do to a terrorist. Not when they cut off Americans' heads 'n $hit. I'm very biblical on that respect, as are they.

Newsflash. We spent over $2T there. Afghanis did not receive the money. US contractors and NGOs did. Anyone who does not know that already probably voted for Biden.

Thank you.

Sure would have been nice to spend the 2 trillion dollars in the US on infrastructure and schools. Having the extra 2,000 or so dead soldiers still alive and the 24,000 not wounded wouldn't be so bad either.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,544
62,493
1
Having more 9/11s wouldn't be bad either. Am'rite?

LdN
you nailed it. I recall realizing that the war on terror is THE forever war. It may be in the desert of the middle east, the mountains of Africa or the island in Indonesia but they are all about terror.

Last night, there were reports of people amassing at the Pakistan AF border. ISIS K broke off from the Taliban because they weren't strict Sharia law followers and India had some dust-ups as well.

We'll be back in AF sooner or later. It may be air only, because the technology has changed sine 2001. It may be strike teams who get in and out like OBL...but if anyone thinks this "forever war" is over, they are sadly wrong.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
Yep. And that is great for the US. Keep Al Queda in the middle east where they can be mowed down by US troops.

It's a self licking ice cream cone. We mow down a bunch of people in these countries and al Qaeda uses the violence to recruit more nut cases that kill more of our troops.

The people that benefit are big companies that get military contracts. Everyone else loses.

We have done the same thing for 20 years now and what has the accomplished?

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."​
 
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
you nailed it. I recall realizing that the war on terror is THE forever war. It may be in the desert of the middle east, the mountains of Africa or the island in Indonesia but they are all about terror.

Last night, there were reports of people amassing at the Pakistan AF border. ISIS K broke off from the Taliban because they weren't strict Sharia law followers and India had some dust-ups as well.

We'll be back in AF sooner or later. It may be air only, because the technology has changed sine 2001. It may be strike teams who get in and out like OBL...but if anyone thinks this "forever war" is over, they are sadly wrong.

I'd reply but I'm busy buying stock in CACI international.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
47,070
22,750
1
DFW, TX
It's a self licking ice cream cone. We mow down a bunch of people in these countries and al Qaeda uses the violence to recruit more nut cases that kill more of our troops.

The people that benefit are big companies that get military contracts. Everyone else loses.

We have done the same thing for 20 years now and what has the accomplished?

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."​

Except, of course, the US had Afghanistan under control.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
110,305
65,676
1
Sure would have been nice to spend the 2 trillion dollars in the US on infrastructure and schools. Having the extra 2,000 or so dead soldiers still alive and the 24,000 not wounded wouldn't be so bad either.

Sounds like you want a couple more 747's to fly into buildings and kill another 3000 Americans who simply went to work one day.....
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
110,305
65,676
1
Peace keeping forces....

You know. The collective....

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en

UN Peacekeeping helps countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. We have unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing, and an ability to deploy troops and police from around the world, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to address a range of mandates set by the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
Sounds like you want a couple more 747's to fly into buildings and kill another 3000 Americans who simply went to work one day.....

Yeah, that make sense.

Do you even read your responses before you post them?
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,314
8,232
1
Sure would have been nice to spend the 2 trillion dollars in the US on infrastructure and schools. Having the extra 2,000 or so dead soldiers still alive and the 24,000 not wounded wouldn't be so bad either.
Isn't that what trump said?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,314
8,232
1
I'd reply but I'm busy buying stock in CACI international.
If you think caci is capable of keeping A war going in anywhere, then you are naive. You could find similar "keep the programs going" efforts in dc from ngo, abortion proponents, food stamp advocates, teachers, and on and on and on.
These anecdotal examples are really nonsensical
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
47,070
22,750
1
DFW, TX

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
110,305
65,676
1
Yeah, that make sense.

Do you even read your responses before you post them?

Of course.

Sorry to have to explain the point to you, but the reason for being in Afghanistan is not for companies to profit as you suggest, but to mitigate terrorism. You might be aware that their are a lot of radicals there. Radicals who hate you and would cut your head off and parade it around without hesitation.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,314
8,232
1
I think so! Trump campaigned on pulling the troops out of Afghanistan. He just didn't do it.
He had a conditioned based plan to get all troops out by may 1.... Biden changed the plan and set his own date - Sep 11 and then revised it to Aug 31. By the way, after Biden was elected, both parties violated the agreement and neither party renegotiated the deal.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
Have you looked at the dead soldiers during the last 18 months?

Are you a moron?

Let me help you:

Biden allowed more soldiers to die thab during the entirety of 2020 and 2021 up to this week.

Have you looked at the dead soldiers during the last 18 months?

Do you know why not a single US soldier has been killed in the last 18 months? Only a moron wouldn't know the answer.

The answer is that Trump made a deal directly with the Taliban. The deal was that if they didn't attack any US soldiers for 18 months then the would pull all the troops out of Afghanistan and leave the country.

How would one go about honoring Trump's deal with the Taliban to keep our troops safe and keep them in Afghanistan forever? Please tell us you aren't this stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
If you think caci is capable of keeping A war going in anywhere, then you are naive. You could find similar "keep the programs going" efforts in dc from ngo, abortion proponents, food stamp advocates, teachers, and on and on and on.
These anecdotal examples are really nonsensical

CACI is just one small example. There are plenty more, they just don't have CEO's that come out and directly admit leaving Afghanistan will crush their profits.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
Of course.

Sorry to have to explain the point to you, but the reason for being in Afghanistan is not for companies to profit as you suggest, but to mitigate terrorism. You might be aware that their are a lot of radicals there. Radicals who hate you and would cut your head off and parade it around without hesitation.
ou might be aware that their are a lot of radicals there. Radicals who hate you and would cut your head off and parade it around without hesitation.

Sounds like a really good place not to be.

A bunch of radicals that want to cut my head off sitting in tent in a desert on the other side of the world does not scare me.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
He had a conditioned based plan to get all troops out by may 1.... Biden changed the plan and set his own date - Sep 11 and then revised it to Aug 31. By the way, after Biden was elected, both parties violated the agreement and neither party renegotiated the deal.

Why would the Taliban "renegotiate" the deal? They got exactly what they wanted without giving up anything in return. You don't get too many deals like that! All they have to do is not attack any US troops and wait for all them to leave the country. What do they care if takes 1 month or 3 to happen? They have been waiting us out for 20 years.

Heck at this point the Taliban should be renting jets help get the Americans out of the country faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
110,305
65,676
1
ou might be aware that their are a lot of radicals there. Radicals who hate you and would cut your head off and parade it around without hesitation.

Sounds like a really good place not to be.

A bunch of radicals that want to cut my head off sitting in tent in a desert on the other side of the world does not scare me.

On the contrary, this is where you need to be. You know, the source..... Where 9/11 originated....

C'mon man.....
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
On the contrary, this is where you need to be. You know, the source..... Where 9/11 originated....

C'mon man.....

Yeah, all the money to fund the 9/11 attacks came from all those wealthy radicals in Afghanistan.

C'mon man.......
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
110,305
65,676
1
Yeah, all the money to fund the 9/11 attacks came from all those wealthy radicals in Afghanistan.

C'mon man.......

The plan. The extremists. Those that execute the plan..... I'll give you credit, they do need cash. A little bit of cash will go a long way in that place.

A UN peace keeping force would have been appropriate to keep the Taliban in check. This is common sense. Joey Asthma failed common sense.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
63,347
40,883
1
Have you looked at the dead soldiers during the last 18 months?

Do you know why not a single US soldier has been killed in the last 18 months? Only a moron wouldn't know the answer.

The answer is that Trump made a deal directly with the Taliban. The deal was that if they didn't attack any US soldiers for 18 months then the would pull all the troops out of Afghanistan and leave the country.

How would one go about honoring Trump's deal with the Taliban to keep our troops safe and keep them in Afghanistan forever? Please tell us you aren't this stupid.
You are so dishonest it's pathetic.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
63,347
40,883
1
Why would the Taliban "renegotiate" the deal? They got exactly what they wanted without giving up anything in return. You don't get too many deals like that! All they have to do is not attack any US troops and wait for all them to leave the country. What do they care if takes 1 month or 3 to happen? They have been waiting us out for 20 years.

Heck at this point the Taliban should be renting jets help get the Americans out of the country faster.
You libs are so ignorant. Two parties enter into an agreement. One party (Taliban) reneged. The other party (Biden) says he's still obligated to honor their part of the deal.

You must enjoy getting sand kicked in your face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
The plan. The extremists. Those that execute the plan..... I'll give you credit, they do need cash. A little bit of cash will go a long way in that place.

A UN peace keeping force would have been appropriate to keep the Taliban in check. This is common sense. Joey Asthma failed common sense.

What successful "mission" has the UN carried out in the last 30 years?
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
47,070
22,750
1
DFW, TX
Have you looked at the dead soldiers during the last 18 months?

Do you know why not a single US soldier has been killed in the last 18 months? Only a moron wouldn't know the answer.

The answer is that Trump made a deal directly with the Taliban. The deal was that if they didn't attack any US soldiers for 18 months then the would pull all the troops out of Afghanistan and leave the country.

How would one go about honoring Trump's deal with the Taliban to keep our troops safe and keep them in Afghanistan forever? Please tell us you aren't this stupid.

Trump was a brilliant leader who protected our troops.

Biden... gets our troops blown up. But you're good with that. Am'rite?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,603
5,791
1
How many Afghan's were involved in 9/11 you clueless twit?

None. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia. Probably most of not all the money to fund the attacks came from Saudi Arabia.

But someone had to get bombed for the 9/11 attacks and sure wasn't going to be Saudi Arabia. We make a lot of bombs they don't drop themselves. Afghanistan had the least capability to fight back so there you go. Sorry for all the innocent Afghanis that we turned into pink mist but bombs aren't super accurate.

The United States and its allies have dropped at least 326,000 bombs and missiles on countries in the greater Middle East/ North Africa region since 2001. That is the conclusion of new research by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies of anti-war group CODEPINK.​
Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen are the countries that have felt the worst of the violence, but Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine and Somalia have also been targeted. The total amounts to an average of 46 bombs dropped per day over the last 20 years.​
CODEPINK’s numbers are based primarily on official U.S. military releases, as well as data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Yemen Data Project, and the New America Foundation. As striking as the figure of 326,000 is, it is an underestimate, as the Trump administration ceased publishing figures of its bombing campaigns in 2020, meaning there is no data for Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan for either of the previous two years. Also not counted are bombs or missiles used in helicopter strikes, AC-130 gunship attacks, strafing runs from U.S. bombers, or any counterinsurgency or counter-terrorism operations in other parts of the world.​