16:50 BBC reports Kabul Airport being under fire

Don't the regiment have Force Protection duty?
One assumes our relief aircraft must use the airport?

And is Brize runway still partially u/s?

BJ seems well behind the curve.

Oooh Dear, this will be Biden’s legacy, helicopters evacuating an Embassy just like Vietnam, Trump stitched him up royally into this course of action knowing full well the public wouldn’t like a reversal and the US staying on.

Runway is serviceable LB.

Thank you.
We have idiot MPs saying we should have stayed, even when US leaves. What planet do they live on?
Have our "600 paras" pitched up yet? Mighty quiet on that score.

Here in Canada Trudeau promised to accept up to 20,000 Afghan interpreters and other employees serving Canada along with their families.

Just how they will make it out of Afghanistan as the Taliban waltzes into Kabul today in one piece is a total mystery:confused:

Oh yes, they need unexpired passports - good luck getting the Taliban to issue fresh passports:}

​​​There's also a bunch of other documents required - good luck getting them from the Taliban.

​​​Then a digital form must be filled out in a collapsed state with intermittent electricity and internet.

Canada promised to accept White Helmets from Syria, but many are still stuck in refugee camps in Jordan for the last three years while Canadian bureaucracy is navel gazing:mad:

LB Where else would you expect BJ to be but behind the curve? Time for a new leader I fear!

My thoughts are both with those that are stuck in Afghan and those that now have the task of getting them out.

I'm reading a lot about the US, then the British abandoning Afghanistan but what of our Allies?
On LBC radio today a reporter stated that
"A senior British commander (name escapes me) had asked some of the other nations in Afghanistan to support the British with a view to staying put. None would support the UK. As Britian is no longer the power it once was standing alone was not a viable option.".
Doesn't look like anyone else wants to stay either. Seems all countries are seeing the US withdrawal as a way of getting out of what has become a long term situation.

It won't be Biden's legacy, any more than Saigon is Ford's. Saigon was one factor among several that led to Ford losing the 1976 election, but when people think about Vietnam mistakes now it's LBJ and to an extent JFK that come to mind. No-one credibly argues that Nixon or Ford made the wrong strategic calls in scaling back and eventually withdrawing. Afghanistan will be part of the dismal Bush legacy.

Obama, Trump and Biden all spoke out against the war in their election campaigns. Obama's subsequent surge and the failure of State and Defense departments to plan properly for withdrawal, despite the April 2021 deadline, the Taliban's creeping gains throughout rural Afghanistan *and the very clear intent of three successive presidents* show clearly the undemocratic nature of US foreign policy. What is the point of trying to impose democracy abroad while consistently ignoring your own polity's wishes? The US intelligence, foreign policy and army* establishments have been shown to have been grievously wrong in their understanding of the situation and their advice on how to proceed. (The UK is equally guilty here, General Carter almost comically so in the Times last week, and Ben Wallace thrashing around trying to cobble together a coalition). Even as the Taliban approached Kabul these discredited lobbies were attempting to force a reversal by orchestrating criticism of Biden and Trump's decisions. Biden was right to call time, and I believe that once the undeniable shame of the botched withdrawal has receded, history will judge him kindly for practising (not imposing) democracy.

* Yes, I did say 'army'. A period of silence would be welcomed from a generation of generals, on both sides of the Atlantic, who exploited the conflict to secure primacy in inter-service battles for funding, senior appointments and political influence. If they understood the hopelessness of the task, they either lacked the moral courage to speak truth to power or were guilty of the deepest cynicism. If they didn't understand it, they were either hopelessly naive or weren't listening to their people. None of those possibilities reflect well on them. I also find it regrettable that we have veterans of the conflict chairing our parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defence committees; their comments in recent days have shown more in the way of emotional investment than strategic perspective.

House of Commons Library - research briefing
 

Published Friday. Might be of interest.
"Withdrawal of military forces in Afghanistan and its implications for peace"
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-9241/
​​​​​​

Simple quality control, the summary says:'Fresh intelligence assessments suggest that Kabul could fall in a month to 90 days.'
The document is dated Aug 13, Kabul is gone by Aug 15th, so even this emergency study was really clueless about how unfit the Afghan armed forces really are.
These apparently shared delusions among all the western powers who invested blood and treasure in this venture really need to be understood so they can be dispelled more effectively next time.

The central failure of Western understanding was of Afghan society and power structures. Western establishments deluded themselves that they were creating security forces for a functioning government. The melting away of those security forces and the almost-unopposed transfers of power to the Taliban in carefully-staged meetings with each of the regional tribal chiefs now show conclusively that the government ceased to function some time ago: maybe when the US struck its deal with the Taliban, maybe earlier. Maybe it never functioned effectively at all. From the report linked by etudiant, and the credibility-destroying revelation from Ben Wallace that he was trying to get other countries to help the UK stay in Afghanistan, it seems we were deluding ourselves that it was still functioning just days ago.

Pentagon deploying additional troops to assist with their evacuation - total number of troops now 6000.

No information on helicopter deployments but they seem to have a lot of CH-47s and Blackhawks moving around and they will have to handle and turn a lot of AT in the next few days or weeks.

Saudi Arabia evacuating their embassy so obviously don’t think they will be considered to be in the Taliban good books.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f167405121.jpg
Something tells me the Taliban is not going to be kind to the LGBTI community...

But who to replace BJ?, who it has to be said is all wind and p*ss. Starmer?. Rees-Mogg?. It just gets worse.

Apparently 800 pax onboard C-17 RCH 871 from Kabul.
Saigon all over again.

I do wonder if the Afghan Government squirrelled away their ahem… pension funds.

Never worked with helicopters whilst in the RAF so don’t know too much about them regarding range. Where will the ones flying in Kabul fly to, will they have to destroy some before they leave the airport?

They’ll take them home. Even the CH-47 easily fits into a C-17.

ORAC
 

What strikes me the most about the first video you posted is how the people trying to board that aircraft seem to be almost exclusively young and healthy males.

You may infer what you wish from what I have said.

BV

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...go-jet-reports

800 People Evacuated From Kabul Aboard A Single C-17 Cargo Jet: Reports

….A tanker bridge has also been created that is refueling heavily laden USAF transport flights as they move from Afghanistan to safer locales in the Middle East. The tankers could allow for the loaded transports to make tactical departures from Kabul with lower fuel loads than they would have to without aerial refueling support. There could be a major shortage of jet fuel at Kabul International, as well….

Twitter

Twitter

Will the Taliban decide to extend there empire.

Info for those on the ground from Politico:

Embassies have now set up makeshift offices to coordinate the evacuation at the Kabul airport. There are reports the British and German Embassy staff are staying behind to process visas for their Afghan employees. And to speed things up and cut through red tape, Berlin has also agreed to process visa requests on German ground after the evacuation, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said.

The U.S. acting ambassador has left Kabul, and the embassy is likely to be shuttered by Tuesday, two U.S. officials told our Stateside colleagues They report certain staffers will continue their work from the airport, protected by roughly 6,000 U.S. troops. Overnight, the U.S. Embassy issued a security alert warning of the “airport taking fire” and told U.S. citizens to shelter in place.

It is unclear how long the U.S. will be able or willing to hold the airport — with Germany’s Spiegel reporting that Washington has warned counterparts it was planning to wrap up the operation within 72 hours….

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said Kyiv was also helping with evacuations. “Ukrainian aircraft stationed in Afghanistan took citizens of Ukraine, the Netherlands, Croatia, Belarus, Afghanistan out of Kabul,” he tweeted. “We don’t abandon our people & help others.” The U.S. is also helping to evacuate Europeans, German media reports….

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Paris has stepped up rescue efforts and is launching its first evacuations to the United Arab Emirates, also promising “full mobilization to allow the safe and rapid evacuation of all our nationals and individuals from Afghan civil society threatened because of their engagements.”

Spain announced it would send two airplanes Monday to Dubai for the first phase of evacuating embassy staff, local Afghan workers who helped Madrid and their families, as well as EU personnel.

“We will support the EU and its foreign service for an orderly departure of European and local personnel. We will not leave anyone behind,” said Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares.….

Meanwhile, Albania and Kosovo both said Sunday they had accepted a request from Washington to temporarily bring in Afghan refugees seeking visas to enter the United States, according to Reuters.

Theres also the option of ferrying them out to via the North and AT from K2 or elsewhere.

Yet another example of the Western world not understanding (or not wanting to understand, as it may get in the way of quick profits) a "country" that is tribal and probably doesn't have an over-riding national identity unless one has been forced on it (along with some arbitrary borders), either by its own rulers or by invaders (as with most of Asia, the Middle East, former Yugoslavia, etc etc).

Then let’s hope it doesn’t come down to people or equipment.

Dreadful reports on Twitter just now.
Video of people clinging to sponsoon of C-17 as it took off... reports several fell to their deaths.

People or Chinooks, I know which I would airlift out, the other would be left burning on the runway.

To see juniors hidden twitter feed of the mayhem, click quote then copy the link.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...its-people-out

More video online of people perched on the right hand sponsoon of a C-17 taxying at high speed...

With Apaches trying to clear a path for the taxying C17's Tartare

Watch this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-58219963

Re the question of how the helicopters will be recovered: won't they just fly across to Pakistan and be recovered from there? With diplomatic clearance, of course; the Pakistanis wouldn't dare to refuse it. It's only 110 miles from Kabul to the border, and then another 20 miles to Peshawar or 90 to Islamabad. Besides, a few hundred troops will be needed to keep the runway clear of civilians for the final fixed-wing departure and they will presumably depart by helicopter with Apache escort. I should imagine that care is being taken to ensure that enough fuel remains (or is flown in) to get them all out.

Aircrew on the ground in Kabul are going to be having to make some horrific decisions, and then be witnessing the outworkings at first hand. I cannot begin to imagine the distress there as we watch from thousands of miles away. We can argue the politics forever and a day, but surely there is no doubt that a sustained presence would have prevented this meltdown. And what we are witnessing now will have ramifications for a generation.
I really feel for our troops on the ground, and the innocent Afghanis that are going to pay for this with their lives in the coming days.

I'm afraid there is very much doubt over that. A sustained Western presence would have caused suffering in other ways. From the most recent SIGAR report:

I've said it earlier in the thread, there was no 'stay' option. The Taliban was progressively taking control of the country, its tax revenues and the home villages of ANDSF members. In short they were winning. The level of civilian casualties was not 'low cost'. The level of ANDSF casualties was not 'low cost', so much so that the numbers have been classified for a couple of years now. The choices were to escalate in order to pause (never mind reverse) the Taliban's progress, or to get out. Both options end with the scenes we see today; the first option merely kicks it down the road and kills more people by prolonging the fighting.

The only* realistic way of avoiding today's scenes was a negotiated peaceful transition to a power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban. The time for that was some years ago, when the Kabul government still held a fig leaf of credibility and the West had tens of thousands of troops in place with no pre-announced timetable for withdrawal. A paradox of negotiation is that you should compromise when at your strongest. Unfortunately Ghani refused to consider it.

* In a limited sense, there is perhaps one other way, which is that US government departments could have paid earlier heed to the intent of their elected Presidents and drawn down their personnel numbers sooner so that the scale of the final airlift could have been smaller.

Edit: same arguments made here.

There's a Spooky en-route to Kabul as we speak...