MohawkWeekend wrote:

More airstrikes over the weekend. Does anyone know what packages are being used for these airstrikes and where they may be from?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... he-horizon

Happy reading

Thanks for posting. Interesting read for anyone following the recent developments.

Article validates the need to re-engine of the BUFF, order new F-15EX and long range strike drones.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Thanks for posting. Interesting read for anyone following the recent developments.

Article validates the need to re-engine of the BUFF, order new F-15EX and long range strike drones.

Or it validates the need for a coherent strategy.

The tools or talent for killing people has never really been in doubt. The questions were always “where are we going with this?” and “Does this represent the will of the American people?”

One could argue that this new "no boots on the ground" is what America was successful doing for a brief period back in early 2002. Around 100 Special Forces acting mainly as forward air controllers accomplished our "mission" - deny bin Laden freedom of movement and operation. Shutting down al-Qaeda.

Aren't we sending a message now? Act in a way contrary to US interests - e.g. executing our friends we have trained and we will rain destruction on your leaders personally. And the Taliban can't readily strike back because there are no American's in country. Vietnam, Somali, Afghanistan, and Iraq showed you don't really want a protracted ground presence. Syria and early Afghanistan showed our adversaries what American airpower and war fighting technology coupled with local forces allied with our more limited goals can accomplish.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

One could argue that this new "no boots on the ground" is what America was successful doing for a brief period back in early 2002. Around 100 Special Forces acting mainly as forward air controllers accomplished our "mission" - deny bin Laden freedom of movement and operation. Shutting down al-Qaeda.

Aren't we sending a message now? Act in a way contrary to US interests - e.g. executing our friends we have trained and we will rain destruction on your leaders personally. And the Taliban can't readily strike back because there are no American's in country. Vietnam, Somali, Afghanistan, and Iraq showed you don't really want a protracted ground presence. Syria and early Afghanistan showed our adversaries what American airpower and war fighting technology coupled with local forces allied with our more limited goals can accomplish.

This is a "how" or "ways/means" when it comes ends-ways-means strategic analysis.

Ultimately, we need to address who the enemy is individually in each theater.

I see our policy morphing into what the Israelis do. A shadow war with strong intelligence gathering, striking at anytime, in any conditions, and leaving the enemy with no effective counter-measures.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I see our policy morphing into what the Israelis do. A shadow war with strong intelligence gathering, striking at anytime, in any conditions, and leaving the enemy with no effective counter-measures.

We are an open society, who refuses to do adequate vetting on the vast majority of immigrants from countries, former countries and pseudo-countries with significant terror links, with significant targetable interests all over the world.

The idea that we Fortress America our through this is certainly attractive, but comes with some downside risks.

I would hope that in the future we set a high bar for those strikes. But having that ability does serve as a deterrent to even the most suicidal fanatic.

As our young friends say "Haters gonna hate" America will always be a target.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I would hope that in the future we set a high bar for those strikes. But having that ability does serve as a deterrent to even the most suicidal fanatic.

As our young friends say "Haters gonna hate" America will always be a target.

Agreed on your second point. I think there is nothing we can do, short of a wide scale conversion to Deobandi Islam, that will satisfy those who view us as the Dar al Harb.

To the first point, I don't think deterrence calculus, as we understand it, works on that suicidal guy. Killing him does, though. Historically.

Well I think the Israeli's will be showing us how (again) very soon -
"Israeli Officials Say Iran Is Behind Deadly Attack on Oil Tanker" NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/worl ... -oman.html

Apparently this Israeli tanker was being escorted by a US destroyer at the time.

TheF15Ace wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

More airstrikes over the weekend. Does anyone know what packages are being used for these airstrikes and where they may be from?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... he-horizon

Happy reading

Sigh.

Not bad for a Drive article. Maybe it'll be a trend.

Recent news reports are that airstrikes are hitting pretty hard. Not Hanoi in December of 72. but as long as the Tailban thinks more can be coming. We'll see if their advances stall.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Recent news reports are that airstrikes are hitting pretty hard. Not Hanoi in December of 72. but as long as the Tailban thinks more can be coming. We'll see if their advances stall.

Had the RVN gotten the level of support the GIRoA is receiving now, there might still be a South Vietnam.

LyleLanley wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

More airstrikes over the weekend. Does anyone know what packages are being used for these airstrikes and where they may be from?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... he-horizon

Happy reading

Sigh.

Not bad for a Drive article. Maybe it'll be a trend.

Wow, it's a good thing we're retiring all these KC-10s now. They seem to be pretty useful for this sort of fight.

Long range loitering systems work well in this low threat environment. Think how long a re-engined BUFF could work with a flying gas station nearby.

Spacepope wrote:

Wow, it's a good thing we're retiring all these KC-10s now. They seem to be pretty useful for this sort of fight.

Yep! And it doesn't take a modern-day Napoleon to figure out they'd also be invaluable in a Pacific party, too. Considering the distances involved, the KC-10 is pretty much tailor-made to takeoff MGTOW (340K of jet-A to give), tank a bunch of fighters/bombers, come back and console once or twice from 135s, re-join the party, then RTB. Over the distances involved, it's a smarter option than sending in 135s to fly 2,000 NM to offload 40K (2 F-35s) and RTB. Alas, I don't have the "big picture". C'est la vie.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Long range loitering systems work well in this low threat environment. Think how long a re-engined BUFF could work with a flying gas station nearby.

Three words, mate: crew duty day.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Long range loitering systems work well in this low threat environment. Think how long a re-engined BUFF could work with a flying gas station nearby.

So a million dollars a sortie to maybe kill 9 or 10 $25/day rent-a-Taliban?

Sounds like the war that is perfect for is the one on the taxpayer.

I'm not suggesting that a mission with a B-52 be used for small targets. The Tailban is now out in the open and on the move. They have given up their concealment. They are massed in groups now trying to over run Govt positions. And when they do over run them, they execute the prisoners.

Precision airstrikes supported by local fighters who now know surrender is not an option. This was strategy to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It may be the same here.

When we've used short range aircraft in a conflict, that requires basing assets in country. The first large scale deployments of US ground forces in S. Vietnam were to try and stop attacks on US airbases in country. That started a vicious cycle that played into the VC/NVA strengths. I also see the Taliban are taking a page out of the the VC handbook with targeted assassination inside Kabul

If the aircraft are at 35,000 feet and based 1000 miles away, what can the Taliban do?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

When we've used short range aircraft in a conflict, that requires basing assets in country. The first large scale deployments of US ground forces in S. Vietnam were to try and stop attacks on US airbases in country. That started a vicious cycle that played into the VC/NVA strengths. I also see the Taliban are taking a page out of the the VC handbook with targeted assassination inside Kabul

If the aircraft are at 35,000 feet and based 1000 miles away, what can the Taliban do?

That short range airpower absolutely decimated the VC in 1968, and crushed the NVA in 1971 and 1973. The reality is that our abandonment of the South Vietnam in the face of commitments made to them, and not North Vietnamese combat power, caused the defeat of South Vietnam.

In opposition to the GIRoA military capability, the DIA assessed the ARVN as the most capable Free World military in Asia in 1971, and they were correct.

The issue is that things like air strikes require JTACs and other ground enablers, who eventually need Green force enablers. Those guys can't live out of their rucksacks indefinitely. Now could we have had a far more expeditionary footprint in Afghanistan than we did? Certainly, but that's not why we are leaving.

I recall seeing a detailed list of all the fixed wing aircraft the US lost due to enemy fire in Vietnam. I was stunned by how many. America would never accept those types of losses today.

Anyhow back to the situation at hand. The question is can a limited use of American airpower blunt a takeover? Had Ford launched strikes in 1973 and 1974, would Saigon and Phnom Penh fallen?

I would argue that we can make the price high enough that they will at least moderate. The Israeli's are effective in this manner because their war is one of existence. I guess the question would be how long will the Americans keep up? Or do we wipe our hands and just walk away like we did in SE Asia.

Mohawk,

I think I understand what you’re proposing, but I don’t think it can work in Afghanistan. The Israelis can do their thing on one tank of gas and from their own territory; American jets can’t. They need tankers, basing rights, and overflight rights. They also have to be ok with, essentially, swatting flies into perpetuity. People get tired of that, and the military gets exhausted doing it. Essentially they get punch drunk. I for one didn’t sign up to help blow big rocks into smaller rocks or to drop a $100K bomb onto a guy who earns $30 a year because he planted a grenade. He doesn’t hate me. He just wants guys like me out of his country. Sounds good to me.

In a country like Afghanistan, where most of the “nation” is still in the Bronze Age, it’s easy to play the long game and wait for the other side to get tired and leave. Why? Time doesn’t mean all that much to people like the Afghans because not a lot will change. On the other hand, 20 years is a very long time to a democracy. Very few of the Supreme Court justices are even the same. And at the end of the day we can’t commit to flying the wings off of B-52s and pissing away the B-21/F-15EX/NGAD/F-35/KC-46’s lifespans to prop up a government that has little to no interest in holding itself up.

I agree with what all you are saying. Our mistake was staying past Bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

We need to remember how this started in the first place. They were providing safe harbor for a group of people intent on killing us. America needs the ability and will to do more than what Clinton did when he had intelligence about Bin Laden's whereabouts. Had the right response been used then think of how history would have been changed.

Right now our airpower should be used to send a msg to the Tailban. Act like the Khmer Rouge and none of your leaders will be able to sleep at night.

FlapOperator wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Thanks for posting. Interesting read for anyone following the recent developments.

Article validates the need to re-engine of the BUFF, order new F-15EX and long range strike drones.

Or it validates the need for a coherent strategy.

The tools or talent for killing people has never really been in doubt. The questions were always “where are we going with this?” and “Does this represent the will of the American people?”

We are good at the killing part, not so much the purpose part.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I agree with what all you are saying. Our mistake was staying past Bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

We need to remember how this started in the first place. They were providing safe harbor for a group of people intent on killing us. America needs the ability and will to do more than what Clinton did when he had intelligence about Bin Laden's whereabouts. Had the right response been used then think of how history would have been changed.

Right now our airpower should be used to send a msg to the Tailban. Act like the Khmer Rouge and none of your leaders will be able to sleep at night.

AQ was the enemy of the US. The Taliban just let them hang out there. The initial push into Afghanistan was nothing short of brilliant. Once the Taliban was pushed out of the way to get to AQ....we should have left...end of story.

Agreed. But what do we do now?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Agreed. But what do we do now?

Seriously?

Make life as hard as we can on Pakistan. Make them eat grass.

What do we do with their nukes? I say let the Chinese figure it out.

FlapOperator wrote:

So a million dollars a sortie to maybe kill 9 or 10 $25/day rent-a-Taliban?

Sounds like the war that is perfect for is the one on the taxpayer.

In Taliban's case it has way more to do with determination and conviction than getting paid peanuts.
The Vietcong was just as determined and look at all the Big Macs they are eating now.
Though I doubt Afghanistan will ever become like Vietnam maybe at best a poorer Islamic republic of Iran.


Forgive my ignorance but isn't the reason behind the withdrawal to shift their focus to a certain emerging super power in East Asia?
You know the super power that every liberal democracy helped to create.
But the real question is how much would it cost per year to keep using drones like the MQ-9 to hunt down and kill Taliban commanders and provide air support to the government forces.
What about basing those drones and a few attack aircraft in neighboring friendly countries?

The trouble with continuing to use "drones like the MQ-9 to hunt down and kill Taliban commanders and provide air support to the government forces." is that you basically lay the groundwork for gradual takeover of the country (with a possible exception of Kabul) by Taliban "night government". Central government remains a figurehead, governing the central government district, during the day. Real power, as in money flows, and monopoly of violence, shifts to the "night government". Once that happens, Taliban has no need to deploy in the field. Will you bomb buildings in cities in towns, known to house Taliban officials? And if those same buildings are actually courthouses, or registrar offices, or notary public offices? At some points, "night government" will infiltrate officialdom...

bajs11 wrote:

In Taliban's case it has way more to do with determination and conviction than getting paid peanuts.
The Vietcong was just as determined and look at all the Big Macs they are eating now.
Though I doubt Afghanistan will ever become like Vietnam maybe at best a poorer Islamic republic of Iran.


Forgive my ignorance but isn't the reason behind the withdrawal to shift their focus to a certain emerging super power in East Asia?
You know the super power that every liberal democracy helped to create.
But the real question is how much would it cost per year to keep using drones like the MQ-9 to hunt down and kill Taliban commanders and provide air support to the government forces.
What about basing those drones and a few attack aircraft in neighboring friendly countries?

Well north of 80% of the Viet Cong alive before Tet were dead afterwards. I've spoken with former main force VC officers who were down to their RTOs after Tet. Many of them shared that they felt that Tet was designed to fail; the destruction of the primarily southern Vietnamese cadres ensured that there was no real counter-revolutionary force to face the NVA after the NVA would start invading the South. Pretty Machavellian, but completely plausible. They pointed to Stalin allowing the Warsaw Uprising to be defeated in detail as a similar dynamic.

There is really no one "Taliban." There are the rent-a-Taliban, there are families/clans supporting the Taliban to preserve their independence, there are the committed ideological Taliban, Pakistani stooge Taliban, and Pashtun patriotic Taliban. Funny thing is an Afghan Taliban can be any or all of these things, at any given time. Its complex, and there are many pretty logical reasons why.

Ultimately under the Taliban, it will take decades (under in my opinion all optimistic scenarios) for Afghanistan to look like 1980s Afghanistan, let alone 1950s Afghanistan. For many of the reasons why, both at the local power level and as a function of inter-state political factors, I'd recommend a book "The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System" by Barnett Rubin.

As far as confronting the rising Chinese threat to much of East and South Asia, yeah. There was a near religious hope that the McDonalds Theory of international conflict, along with a rising Chinese middle class, would both integrate and liberalize China. These assumptions are nearly all but dead, but many in the West were still committed to failed policy for a variety of reasons.

Phosphorus wrote:

The trouble with continuing to use "drones like the MQ-9 to hunt down and kill Taliban commanders and provide air support to the government forces." is that you basically lay the groundwork for gradual takeover of the country (with a possible exception of Kabul) by Taliban "night government". Central government remains a figurehead, governing the central government district, during the day. Real power, as in money flows, and monopoly of violence, shifts to the "night government". Once that happens, Taliban has no need to deploy in the field. Will you bomb buildings in cities in towns, known to house Taliban officials? And if those same buildings are actually courthouses, or registrar offices, or notary public offices? At some points, "night government" will infiltrate officialdom...

This a really good point. Most people on the planet will accept a degree of tyranny as long as there is justice. If its an al-Shaabab or Taliban judge, using sharia with the means of enforcing his decree, that is preferable to complete anarchy.

Phosphorus wrote:

The trouble with continuing to use "drones like the MQ-9 to hunt down and kill Taliban commanders and provide air support to the government forces." is that you basically lay the groundwork for gradual takeover of the country (with a possible exception of Kabul) by Taliban "night government". Central government remains a figurehead, governing the central government district, during the day. Real power, as in money flows, and monopoly of violence, shifts to the "night government". Once that happens, Taliban has no need to deploy in the field. Will you bomb buildings in cities in towns, known to house Taliban officials? And if those same buildings are actually courthouses, or registrar offices, or notary public offices? At some points, "night government" will infiltrate officialdom...

Didn't know the Afghan government is that weak. It sounds like it's much weaker than even the Iraqi government 7 years ago.
I wonder if anyone actually thought of putting a strong pro-western dictator in power instead of an extremely weak democratically elected government.
I guess things have changed since the 70s.

FlapOperator wrote:

Well north of 80% of the Viet Cong alive before Tet were dead afterwards. I've spoken with former main force VC officers who were down to their RTOs after Tet. Many of them shared that they felt that Tet was designed to fail; the destruction of the primarily southern Vietnamese cadres ensured that there was no real counter-revolutionary force to face the NVA after the NVA would start invading the South. Pretty Machavellian, but completely plausible. They pointed to Stalin allowing the Warsaw Uprising to be defeated in detail as a similar dynamic.

There is really no one "Taliban." There are the rent-a-Taliban, there are families/clans supporting the Taliban to preserve their independence, there are the committed ideological Taliban, Pakistani stooge Taliban, and Pashtun patriotic Taliban. Funny thing is an Afghan Taliban can be any or all of these things, at any given time. Its complex, and there are many pretty logical reasons why.

Ultimately under the Taliban, it will take decades (under in my opinion all optimistic scenarios) for Afghanistan to look like 1980s Afghanistan, let alone 1950s Afghanistan. For many of the reasons why, both at the local power level and as a function of inter-state political factors, I'd recommend a book "The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System" by Barnett Rubin.

As far as confronting the rising Chinese threat to much of East and South Asia, yeah. There was a near religious hope that the McDonalds Theory of international conflict, along with a rising Chinese middle class, would both integrate and liberalize China. These assumptions are nearly all but dead, but many in the West were still committed to failed policy for a variety of reasons.

My apologies. I actually meant North Vietnam and later on the unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Didn't even know that the Viet Cong were almost wiped out and it was the North Vietnam that conducted most of the operations after Tet. I really need to read more history books.

Correct me if I am wrong but it does sound like Afghanistan today is a bit like the Republic of China in the 1920s with a weak central government and too many warlords and the Talibans are a bit like the CCP which later on took over. No wonder they, the Talibans, wanted to ally themselves with the PRC though my guess is that they did it simply because of that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
Thanks for recommending that book. I really need to play less online games and read more books...

Watched a show on aljazeera on the assassination of Iran's Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. If you get a chance it's well worth watching because it highlights US ability and the fact that human intelligence on the ground in Syria is what gave him up.

America has only used decapitation strikes a few times that the public is aware of - Yamamoto and bin Laden being obvious successes. The British were better at it during WWII chasing down German officers and conducting strategic pin point raids. The Israeli's have taken it to a whole new level. I believe you'll see the US utilize this tactic if the Taliban go khmer rouge on the Afghan people.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Watched a show on aljazeera on the assassination of Iran's Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. If you get a chance it's well worth watching because it highlights US ability and the fact that human intelligence on the ground in Syria is what gave him up.

America has only used decapitation strikes a few times that the public is aware of - Yamamoto and bin Laden being obvious successes. The British were better at it during WWII chasing down German officers and conducting strategic pin point raids. The Israeli's have taken it to a whole new level. I believe you'll see the US utilize this tactic if the Taliban go khmer rouge on the Afghan people.

What has been accomplished be this assassination? Questioning Iranians/Iraqis now hate the US for a reason, any US citizen and especially someone in the armed forces is now seen as fair game (and rightly so) for any attacks.

And of course the US will do little if nothing to support the Afghanistan that they destroyed for over 20 years and then abandoned in a night.

That Genie has been out of the bottle for a long time.

What was accomplished when the US killed Yamamoto in WWII? Bin Laden?

tu204 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Watched a show on aljazeera on the assassination of Iran's Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. If you get a chance it's well worth watching because it highlights US ability and the fact that human intelligence on the ground in Syria is what gave him up.

America has only used decapitation strikes a few times that the public is aware of - Yamamoto and bin Laden being obvious successes. The British were better at it during WWII chasing down German officers and conducting strategic pin point raids. The Israeli's have taken it to a whole new level. I believe you'll see the US utilize this tactic if the Taliban go khmer rouge on the Afghan people.

What has been accomplished be this assassination? Questioning Iranians/Iraqis now hate the US for a reason, any US citizen and especially someone in the armed forces is now seen as fair game (and rightly so) for any attacks.

And of course the US will do little if nothing to support the Afghanistan that they destroyed for over 20 years and then abandoned in a night.

What was accomplished by Russia attempting to assassinate several people in Western Europe?

And of course the US will do little if nothing to support the Afghanistan that they destroyed for over 20 years and then abandoned in a night.

I wonder how much the Soviets did for Afghanistan after their withdrawal in 1989.
and how much did the Americans destroy during those 20 years compared to how much the Soviets destroyed during their 9 year war?

GDP per capita of Afghanistan between 2002 and 2020
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY ... cations=AF

Afghanistan was just one battle in the war on terrorism. We are just pulling back.
Luckily we have 2 oceans and enhanced Homeland Security now. Be careful what you wish for - the Taliban and al-Qaeda can walk to Russia and China.

johns624 wrote:

What was accomplished by Russia attempting to assassinate several people in Western Europe?

And: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58009514

It's actually quite hilarious how clumsy and diletantic russian operatives have become in the last decades. I mean, in the soviet era they were still a somewhat formidable force, but nowadays they're really little more than a bad joke.
It's almost as if they're not even trying any more.

Zeppi wrote:

johns624 wrote:

What was accomplished by Russia attempting to assassinate several people in Western Europe?

And: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58009514

It's actually quite hilarious how clumsy and diletantic russian operatives have become in the last decades. I mean, in the soviet era they were still a somewhat formidable force, but nowadays they're really little more than a bad joke.
It's almost as if they're not even trying any more.

Clumsiness is a way of sending a message, we’ll get you, you’ll be dead and the US, UK can’t and won’t do anything about it.

tu204 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Watched a show on aljazeera on the assassination of Iran's Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. If you get a chance it's well worth watching because it highlights US ability and the fact that human intelligence on the ground in Syria is what gave him up.

America has only used decapitation strikes a few times that the public is aware of - Yamamoto and bin Laden being obvious successes. The British were better at it during WWII chasing down German officers and conducting strategic pin point raids. The Israeli's have taken it to a whole new level. I believe you'll see the US utilize this tactic if the Taliban go khmer rouge on the Afghan people.

What has been accomplished be this assassination? Questioning Iranians/Iraqis now hate the US for a reason, any US citizen and especially someone in the armed forces is now seen as fair game (and rightly so) for any attacks.

And of course the US will do little if nothing to support the Afghanistan that they destroyed for over 20 years and then abandoned in a night.

We did better at building than the Russians. It was destroyed by them.

US sending 3K troops for partial Afghan embassy evacuation

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said one Army and two Marine infantry battalions will enter Afghanistan within the next two days to assist at the Kabul airport with the partial embassy evacuation. State Department spokesman Ned Price said diplomatic work will continue at the Kabul embassy.
...
The United States continues to support the Afghan military with limited airstrikes, but those have not made a strategic difference thus far and are scheduled to end on Aug. 31.

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan- ... 9e99c3dabf

While additional troops are being deployed, diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban continue.

U.S. Asks Taliban to Spare Its Embassy in Coming Fight for Kabul

American negotiators are trying to extract assurances from the Taliban that they will not attack the U.S. Embassy in Kabul if the extremist group takes over the country’s government and ever wants to receive foreign aid, three American officials said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/p ... bassy.html

Clearly the US (and their allies) would prefer to avoid a 'Fall of Saigon' scenario but they're already preparing for the worst. Keeping KBL open at least ensures that civilians can leave the country on scheduled commercial flights.

We’re gonna offer foreign aid to the Taliban government? The inmates have taken over in the Versailles on the Potomac. I’m changing my date to 9/11, the Taliban rips thru the US Embassy that day as a giant middle finger to us.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We’re gonna offer foreign aid to the Taliban government?

Why not? Foreign aid goes to many countries with very questionable governments, even to usually shunned countries like North Korea. (Though I suppose this topic would take us to non-av)

mxaxai wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We’re gonna offer foreign aid to the Taliban government?

Why not? Foreign aid goes to many countries with very questionable governments, even to usually shunned countries like North Korea. (Though I suppose this topic would take us to non-av)

Maybe because that same Taliban aided and abetted a group that killed 3,000 US residents in the worst terror attack in our history? That’s more than good enough to take then off my Christmas card list.

Kandahar and Herat are now in Taliban hands

The only groups/places that seem to be expected to give any notable resistance to Taliban are minority-controlled areas, Uzbeks especially. I wonder if anything like "Northern Alliance" or "alliance of seven" that toppled pro-Soviet Afghan government could be re-built.

No, this doesn't mean Taliban are that great a fighting force. It means they are the only structured organization, capable of any coherent effort, in the area. Government, in the meantime, melts away.

I am afraid the scenario "govt controls. to some degree, Kabul, while Taliban tries not to accidentally take Kabul. The two haggle over transitional govt" comes true. There's just no sufficient resistance from the government, while Taliban takes over territories mainly through agreements with local population leaders. There are photos out there -- Taliban "takes over town" with a handful of folks, showing up in a jeep.

Timeline of events now depends on Taliban's need for a legitimate transition government; also the presence of foreign (mainly US and now British) "evacuation battalions" would moderate the schedule.

As much as I hope the Afghan government can prevail, I'm often reminded of the old article about the NMAA "Multiplying by Zero" when i think of why the Afghans will never, ever, become capable of defending themselves. There are solid dudes in the Afghan military who can put up a legit fight, but they're the minority and not pulling the power-strings, there. It's a sad match-up to put dudes who can't figure out how to inflate a basketball against those who execute fellow countrymen who surrender.

With the fall of everything, but Kabul, I cannot help but remember a scene from 1990's "Last Flight Out" movie, on Pan Am's departure from Saigon, less than a week before fall.
There is an "off the books" evacuation programs going on in the film, with folks boarding allegedly domestic flights, and being shipped out of the country. In the meantime, passport control for exiting the country gets ever tougher, and less and less people have a chance to board an actual international flight.

Once South Vietnam defenses start collapsing, one of the protagonists has to confront the reality -- "off the books" program doesn't work anymore, as there are no more "domestic" destinations left to fly to, from Saigon. It's only the airfield at Tan Son Nhut, and nothing else. This forces his hand towards more bold action...

Well, it's not a even melting ice cube anymore, it's a collapsing house of cards, or so it appears.
Even indomitable Dostum, the guy who fought everybody, more or less, over last 40+ years, leader of Uzbek armed groups in Afghanistan, has apparently left the country.

A helo delivered a Taliban guy to Kabul, to negotiate power transition. Taliban is apparently ready to take over Kabul, but doesn't appear to want to. Words like "not a single unneeded drop of Afghani blood should be spilled" were heard. They probably are still haggling over "legitimate" power transfer, not willing to be a pariah again...