Afghanistan

[Carolina Red]

This isn’t true either though. The clock ‘expiring’ was started by Trump and continued by Biden. It was a US decision to put a date on things and Biden had a chance to reverse it or slow/change approach and chose not to take it. He’s not a poor fellow who was left with no choice and he needs to own some of the responsibility for how chaotic the withdrawal has been.

Considering the rapidity at which the Afghan Army capitulated, I doubt it would have mattered how long Biden delayed the withdrawal.

 

[nickm]

Its just the way power works in an anarchic international system. It will remain this way until there's a world government, which won't happen anytime soon.

You can always mitigate this sort of thing by having a superpower play the world policeman role, like Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th but we all know what people think about that...

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

This isn’t true either though. The clock ‘expiring’ was started by Trump and continued by Biden. It was a US decision to put a date on things and Biden had a chance to reverse it or slow/change approach and chose not to take it. He’s not a poor fellow who was left with no choice and he needs to own some of the responsibility for how chaotic the withdrawal has been.

So the only other alternative is to keep the status-quo going, rotate 2000 troops into Afghanistan every 9 months and maintain a stalemate? I think its politically more palatable for Biden to rip off the band-aid once and for all. As long as there is no American lives lost in the evacuation process, he's home safe. Who's going to have a go at him for abandoning some Afghans to their fate? The GOP?

 

[Agent Red]

Considering the rapidity at which the Afghan Army capitulated, I doubt it would have mattered how long Biden delayed the withdrawal.

I think they would have needed to be there for a long time, yes, but arguably that was the right thing to do. People keep saying “if you can’t do it in 20 years” but I’m not convinced 20 years is that long from point of invasion to expecting a country to be on its feet with a functioning democracy. If you invade you probably need to accept you’re taking on a commitment for more like half a century.

Even if you agree with withdrawal, and I’m not sure of my own view on this, I still hold Biden accountable for getting the execution of it so badly wrong and then being completely absent/tin eared in his administration’s statements of recent days. When he’s asked about it he answers as though he is being asked to consider the case for invasion now, there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment of the fact the US did invade and therefore has some responsibility for the short and medium term future of the country.

I just don’t think he should be absolved of responsibility here so don’t agree with statements that imply things couldn’t have been handled any better and that he’s just some unlucky guy trying to make the most of a bad situation.

 

[sun_tzu]

I agree with you. It had to be done and done fast. What I feel is that Biden was never told of the possibility of the collapse of the Afghan Army. But put yourself in their shoes. They know that they can't beat the Taliban. So once they knew the Americans are leaving they took the only option to save their lives. Cut a deal with the Taliban. We don't fight and you don't kill us.

I guess we will never be able to prove that without access to the daily intel briefings... but it would be a shocking failure of having intelligence services there for 20 years and not even seeing this as a possibility worth briefing the president on?

 

[Agent Red]

So the only other alternative is to keep the status-quo going, rotate 2000 troops into Afghanistan every 9 months and maintain a stalemate? I think its politically more palatable for Biden to rip off the band-aid once and for all. As long as there is no American lives lost in the evacuation process, he's home safe. Who's going to have a go at him for abandoning some Afghans to their fate? The GOP?

The objective shouldn’t just be ‘can I politically get away with this’ though. It might well be, but that sort of attitude isn’t good governing.

I think the alternative is either to be there much longer (which arguably they owe to Afghanistan) until the government is more established and whole generations have become accustomed to it, or, if withdrawing, to do so more slowly and at least ensure things like sensible evacuation plans and asylum policies.

I don’t know enough on the military strategy to have my own view, but I’ve seen a lot of commentators argue that withdrawing ground troops and maintain air strikes would have been a better low risk & cost compromise that could have been maintained for longer.

 

[nickm]

I think they would have needed to be there for a long time, yes, but arguably that was the right thing to do. People keep saying “if you can’t do it in 20 years” but I’m not convinced 20 years is that long from point of invasion to expecting a country to be on its feet with a functioning democracy. If you invade you probably need to accept you’re taking on a commitment for more like half a century.

Even if you agree with withdrawal, and I’m not sure of my own view on this, I still hold Biden accountable for getting the execution of it so badly wrong and then being completely absent/tin eared in his administration’s statements of recent days. When he’s asked about it he answers as though he is being asked to consider the case for invasion now, there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment of the fact the US did invade and therefore has some responsibility for the short and medium term future of the country.

I just don’t think he should be absolved of responsibility here so don’t agree with statements that imply things couldn’t have been handled any better and that he’s just some unlucky guy trying to make the most of a bad situation.

I read somewhere Biden was quoted as saying Nixon didn't pay a political price in the manner of the US leaving Viet Nam... And if you are referencing Nixon in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of something, you've probably lost the argument.

 

[WI_Red]

Considering the rapidity at which the Afghan Army capitulated, I doubt it would have mattered how long Biden delayed the withdrawal.

Maybe not from a "win the war" perspective, but from a humanitarian perspective he absolutely could, and should, have stayed as long as necessary to get people out. This is an own goal of disgraceful proportions and he should be ashamed.

 

[nickm]

I guess we will never be able to prove that without access to the daily intel briefings... but it would be a shocking failure of having intelligence services there for 20 years and not even seeing this as a possibility worth briefing the president on?

Especially given how dangerous the process of a retreat is known to be.

 

[nickm]

Maybe not from a "win the war" perspective, but from a humanitarian perspective he absolutely could, and should, have stayed as long as necessary to get people out. This is an own goal of disgraceful proportions and he should be ashamed.

A properly managed withdrawal.. How hard could that have been?

 

[WI_Red]

A properly managed withdrawal.. How hard could that have been?

When you are America it apparently is impossible.

 

[Agent Red]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...r-being-hunted-by-the-taliban-tells-her-story

This is the stuff of nightmares. All for being a 22 year old woman who had a job.

 

[Sky1981]

American politicians and its military industry complex + related media succeeded in achieveing their objectives. But the US government and military failed.

The main objective was simple: find those who are responsible for 9/11, and bring him to justice. The responsible main guy is Osama bin Laden, the organisation is Al Qaeda.

He was suspected to settle in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban and the leader Mullah Omar. Osama has been the bane of anti-Saudi militia that has been ousted from one country to another (first to Yemen, and then Sudan, and many other unknown parts of the world) due to constant harrasment from Saudi agents. When the Saudis & Pakistanis tried to convince Taliban to shun Osama, Mullah Omar outright refused. The usually polite and charming militant leader poured an ice water over his head to show how much heat the thought of banishing his best friend has generated. “You were like father & brother (Saudi and Pakistan) to us, but please never talk about this again!” with that, the Saudi & Pakistani agents failed.

Fast forward to 9/11, the Americans demanded the Taliban to handover Osama and his groupies. The Taliban, of course, refused, demanding evidence for his best friend’s complicity in the terrorist attack.

Basically, what happened in the US (and the rest of the world) at that time was boiling rage. I don’t know how, but at the time, even South Korea and Japan send their military to jointly invade the Afghanistan, China opened the border for military supplies to flow through US allies. Everyone was overcome with collective grief and anger over the sight of collapsing twin tower and its aftermath. I think it was the need to vent out frustration, fragile ego being stroke, and other factors contributing to the overreaction of “Operation Enduring Freedom” a massive international bombing campaign and invasion of Afghanistan.

It was a massive profit & patriotic moment for any defense contractor working for the US and its allies.

Some experts questioned the feasiblity of the operations, given how the US failed in Vietnam 30 years earlier. But many dismissed it, given the last US success in the Balkans and the 1990–1991 Gulf War. The US quickly overran their “defenses“ and captured every major cities without much resistance, except in some provinces known to be the stronghold of Taliban at the time like the Helmand province. But Osama was nowhere to be found, let alone the high ranking Taliban leader. It was celebrated as “victory” and “liberation” of Afghanistan, but job’s not done yet.

From the onset, the US clearly won’t admit that their occupation was any different from the Soviets. “We are doing good deeds here”. Yet incidents after incidents, from Pat Tillman case, misfire on a village celebrating wedding, a helicopter full of Navy SEALS was killed in the process of hunting a Taliban impostor (semi-fictionalised in the movie “Lone Survivor”). The impostor was later killed by Pakistani border patrols. The US looked overwhelmed and simply spending more and more money on the name of “global security” by conducting “war on terror”.

Back in 2009, I asked a forum full of military hobbyists (mainly Europeans) about why the Americans need to send an expeditionary force, which is very expensive? Wouldn’t hunting one guy and his organisation require the meticulous work of a Special Operations and crafty intels of CIA, NSA, FBI, and the likes working together?

The reaction was mixed, from typical Americans calling it “an armchair expert’s view on the complexity of the situation” to “you don’t know what’s being planned” - a typical military expert excuse when they have no definitive answer. It is quite surprising to see how much argumentative gymnastics the Americans have to went through, from the philosophical “we must bear the cost of freedom” when confornted with the billions of dollars of the invasion bill, to the “protecting the civilised world”. The Europeans and Australians (including their active duty and veterans) were more receptive to the suggestion.

In 2011, the thread got resurrected when Osama bin Laden was killed by a group of SEAL operatives. Yep, not the entire US Army, Marine, or Navy and their glory-seeking, best-selling book idea-looking, political career-aiming top brass who gets the bag, but a small group of specialised units. It was the civilian leader who never served that claims the glory on national television, Barrack Obama.

Did it end there?

Nope.

They really never have a clear objective there. They clearly lost all credibility when they equate a disagreeable Arab nationalist like Saddam Hussein into the list of terrorist, equating him to the likes of Taliban, potentially hosting Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. Saddam famously told his FBI interviewers: “I am not a zealot” when asked if he knows Osama bin Laden. He died years earlier than bin Laden. My Muslims friends were clearly agitated with how the US media quite easily point finger at any random disagreeable Muslims and then randomly call them “terrorists”, which are subjected to torture and abuse at either Abu Gharib in Iraq or the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility in US Navy’s Cuban enclave.

I was never able to find a good answer until much later. I initially believe all the good propaganda that the US government and its media has been preaching: we are promoting western good values upon Afghanistan. Malala Yousafsai become the face of “why we are here” for the western and NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is not about understanding the bigger picture, we just find a piece of evidence that supports our own ideals.

I have a lot of Americans friends who went to Afghanistan, a lot of Indonesians too went there for humanitarian reasons. There is a perverse sense of “Africanisms” here, in a way that Afghanistan is a place for the world to put their charitable spirit on full display. Here is a helpless, backward, and desperately needy Afghans, just like Africa, who needs your help. America is here to make your good deeds safe and secure. Africans have been calling this “poverty porn” for citizens of wealthy nation to indulge in their dubious privilege-validating act of limited scale charities, a Nigerian-American author drafted “white saviour complex” list of reasons why this is a thing.

Look, I am a Buddhist. The Talibans bombed the ancient Bamiyan Buddha statues. The western media were predictably outraged on our behalf. But they never really discussed what was being communicated in our Buddhist society: “actually the Taliban’s complaints makes sense.” The UN gave so much money to Afghanistan just to preserve statues, yet turned blind eye on the general suffering of the people.

Of course, back then, I could be the western ideal advocate: “they are suffering, because of Taliban’s rule, it is therefore ironic in our mindset that they suddenly care when it only matters to them.” But think about it: why would you care about some ancient statues but not its people? Why would you let them suffer just because you disagree with their politics and way of life? This is what has always been wrong about the west: they make people suffer, by sanctioning them, yet claims to be for their own good. What do they want to exactly achieve here? Pressure the population by inflicting them great suffering, so they rise up and challenge the ruler, hopefully replace them with one that is more agreeable to the western powers. They did this in Iraq, but it is not someone they wanted, they did too in Afghanistan, but it is also someone that is not as good as they hoped.

And for the ultimate answer:

The USA, at least some of them, still wins. It doens’t matter if Taliban retakes the country. It only matters to the ruling political party and president. It was a slap for President Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, that it happens under their watch. For me, they are just the “fall guys”.


The US$975 billion (2001–2019) are just the money spent by taxpayers. The defense contractors, weapons manufacturer, the military industry complex all pocketed that money. The stock price of the military industry complex companies should rise further on the expectation that this will lead to another war, or probably in preparation for another confrontation with China, or even Russia.

The US government and military might fail against China or Russia, but it doesn’t matter, as long as the military industry complex, the contractors, the wealthy individuals get their money. The ruling politicians will answer to that, the media will there to direct the public’s attention to the fall guys, and hopefully back to business. This is what matters today, not about Taliban being religious fanatics that enforces restrtictive form of Sharia law, women’s rights, poverty, social progress, and so on. Nope, this is about the capitalism principles of increasing shareholder value: creating demand for more war and thus driving the revenues up.

Western Military Generals and leaders these days don’t win wars, because:

1. They answer to politicians who want agreeable answers to back up their political agenda, “yes it is possible to exit Afghanistan as my election campaign promised”. Thanks General, we will consider your application to be the next defense minister or make sure that your project gets senate approval for federal funding! General Eric Shinseki of the US Army once gave a honest answer to George W Bush (he needs at least 1 million soldier to occupy Iraq - still much less coverage than Vietnam war), he got fired as a result.
2. They have conflicting interest with the military industry complex, eager to get deeper and even deeper connection to the inner workings of the government, especially the Department of Defense. More and more top brass are retiring to “cash in on their stars” - getting employment from defense contractors as their government / political liaison. “Don’t end the war, yet! Find more reasons to drop more bombs or employ this new experimental weapon!”
3. The military culture, especially US military culture, with a lot of inner conflicts and leadership intrigues itself, prevented themselves from getting the best out of the best. A General that is too jealous of his colonel getting all the media attention? Check. An entire general staff jealous of a general getting all the media coverage? Check (happened in Gulf War). Threatening your efficiency report and promotion for trying to report the actual state of the motorpool instead of making it look better to save your superior’s career? Check (happened in Vietnam war). They are no longer accountable to anyone, but to themselves, since they have become too big of an organisation to be completely held accountable. It is not just the Afghani government and military that is corrupt - a typical western excuse, but also the western military report supporting the decision to withdraw the troops.
4. Western media running the show. I am more than 30 years old, I’ve known English since 20 years ago, actively reading the news since 15 years ago. And you know what? I’ve witnessed cycles and bouts of elections, rules, regimes, including those in the west. The much worshipped western “free” media changes narratives too. The shift in their editorial tone is very apparent for the discerning. I’ve witnessed the turning point of CNN, I witnessed the shift in BBC’s tone, the change in Reuters’ anti-China rhetoric, the changing of Al Jazeera (English) geopolitical tones, the change of tone in Bloomberg, the downfall of Forbes. All these times, only the Sinophobic Economist stayed consistent through and through. People like my parents and friends who have their masters degree are plenty, and these people believed what they read in western media. As a guy, who was dubbed as “expert” by one of them after working just 2 years in my job line, I can only say: it is much more challenging for military personnel to answer to these detached, no stake, and sensationalist free-association propagandists. Imagine being “grilled” by these scandal poachers asking stupid questions, while you clearly have a lot to answer to your superiors and given very limited authority to respond.

https://qr.ae/pGOgz0

 

[Raoul]

You can always mitigate this sort of thing by having a superpower play the world policeman role, like Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th but we all know what people think about that...

That wouldn't work in the present because there are two competing superpowers with different interests, as well as many regional powers, each with their own regional interests.

 

[owlo]

Indirectly heard from all but one of the people I know out there know. Taliban presence not particularly strong in the area, nor are they attempting to control the border.

 

[FootyGirl88]

What a complete shitshow, Blair and Bush need locking up.

 

[FootyGirl88]

 

[2mufc0]

The objective shouldn’t just be ‘can I politically get away with this’ though. It might well be, but that sort of attitude isn’t good governing.

I think the alternative is either to be there much longer (which arguably they owe to Afghanistan) until the government is more established and whole generations have become accustomed to it, or, if withdrawing, to do so more slowly and at least ensure things like sensible evacuation plans and asylum policies.

I don’t know enough on the military strategy to have my own view, but I’ve seen a lot of commentators argue that withdrawing ground troops and maintain air strikes would have been a better low risk & cost compromise that could have been maintained for longer.

Air strikes are very indiscriminate and cause a lot of innocents to die. Its a reason why Obama is considered to be a butcher around those parts. You can't be up in arms about women's rights then have a total disregard to innocents dying from air strikes.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

This is just terrible. How can this be fixed ? Can it be fixed?

 

[The Firestarter]

This is just terrible. How can this be fixed ? Can it be fixed?

No

 

[Raoul]

This is just terrible. How can this be fixed ? Can it be fixed?

It can be if the US and Taliban negotiate safe passage for those wanting to leave. Would the Taliban agree to such a thing ? Likely not, without carrots or sticks.

 

[WI_Red]

It can be if the US and Taliban negotiate safe passage for those wanting to leave. Would the Taliban agree to such a thing ? Likely not, without carrots or sticks.

The time to do that would have been when Pompeo was negotiating the "peace" treaty with the Taliban. Or when Trump's team was designing its exit plan. Or when Biden team was designing its exit plan.

The time to do so is not after fecking around for 2 years and then leaving without negotiated concessions for the safety of Afghan refugees. The blood of those people is on both administrations for their callous disregard for, and betrayal of, those people.

 

[Agent Red]

Air strikes are very indiscriminate and cause a lot of innocents to die. Its a reason why Obama is considered to be a butcher around those parts. You can't be up in arms about women's rights then have a total disregard to innocents dying from air strikes.

Fair enough. I won't offer any counter as I don't know enough about what I'm talking about on that front to be honest. I've just read and listened to a few things where it was pitched as a compromise option between maintaining a full presence of troops and total immediate withdrawal (which they predicted would have led to this exact outcome).

 

[sun_tzu]

It can be if the US and Taliban negotiate safe passage for those wanting to leave. Would the Taliban agree to such a thing ? Likely not, without carrots or sticks.

I suspect the Taliban wouldn't mind a lot of the people who want to go leaving anyway ... if nothing else it will save them a few thousand bullets / rocks

Not sure the USA has much of a credible stick to wave around as I doubt there is a clear air route for them (assuming Pakistan recognise the taliban as the government and wont let the USA fly combat missions any more... Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan does not seem very likely )

As for a carrot they have already given the taliban a road network, an airforce and enough guns and ammo for 300,000 troops so thats a pretty decent start?

 

[Raoul]

I suspect the Taliban wouldn't mind a lot of the people who want to go leaving anyway ... if nothing else it will save them a few thousand bullets / rocks

Not sure the USA has much of a credible stick to wave around as I doubt there is a clear air route for them (assuming Pakistan recognise the taliban as the government and wont let the USA fly combat missions any more... Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan does not seem very likely )

As for a carrot they have already given the taliban a road network, an airforce and enough guns and ammo for 300,000 troops so thats a pretty decent start?

Those aren't carrots. Carrots would be "we will recognize your government and coordinate a diplomatic presence". Sticks would be - "If you harm anyone leaving the country, it will met with a full military response".

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

It can be if the US and Taliban negotiate safe passage for those wanting to leave. Would the Taliban agree to such a thing ? Likely not, without carrots or sticks.

Why is it only the US who needs to negotiate with them? Surely others can get involved and try to save some of these people.

 

[Raoul]

Why is it only the US who needs to negotiate with them? Surely others can get involved and try to save some of these people.

Because time is a critical factor and the US has the resources and security means to get people out quickly. There are apparently numerous C17s taking off and landing at the airport, alongside numerous rotary assets (aka helicopters). Trouble is, many of the people have nothing to do with Americans or Afghans who worked with Americans who can get SIV visas to the US. They are simply ordinary Afghans seeking to leave the country.

 

[sun_tzu]

Those aren't carrots. Carrots would be "we will recognize your government and coordinate a diplomatic presence". Sticks would be - "If you harm anyone leaving the country, it will met with a full military response".

20 years of killing for that... I mean even by team USA standard thats bad

as for the stick... the taliban were with the chinese government 2 weeks ago and are in touch with the Pakistan government... frankly there isnt going to be a way to coordinate a full military response without the impractical route of staging in iraq and overflying the countries mentioned and dropping everything from the air... plus politically biden does not have the capital to do it

they simply cant do anything military and with China onside I'm not sure the Taliban need USA diplomatic presence or recognition... they will probably cut a better deal from china without it

 

[shamans]

It's in China's, Pakistan's and Iran's interest to make this work. Oh and Russia too.

Let's be real here its in the worlds interest here to have a stable nation with human rights being respected and normalcy continued there. We have bigger crap to fry with climate change and all. End conflict at all costs.

 

[shamans]

A properly managed withdrawal.. How hard could that have been?

this is an inevitable point of the withdrawal. We've been pulling back troops slowly and steadily since God knows when. Whatever we are seeing is failure/lack of fight in Afghan national forces.

 

[Foxbatt]

I guess we will never be able to prove that without access to the daily intel briefings... but it would be a shocking failure of having intelligence services there for 20 years and not even seeing this as a possibility worth briefing the president on?

It's simply that I don't think the US military is that incompetent at the field level. If they knew this 10 years ago, certainly at field level, then they should know it now too. No commander wants to say it's not going to work under me because it's a block on their promotion.
We know from history that the Intelligence and the military have lied many times to the President. It's simply that I can't see him that incompetent to ignore all advice given to him.

 

[Cheimoon]

Interesting, if short, thread about some of the points.

Points 3-5 is also what I read today. The Taliban didn't swiftly conquer the country with their army in the past few weeks; they had already convinced the leaders of lots of cities, regions, and army division to accept their rule when the time came, so a lot of their rollover was them simply triggering that promise. They basically already did have most of the country in their possession; they were just waiting for the right moment to communicate that outwardly (to put it simplistically).

Which also underlines again how poor the existing government was.

 

[sun_tzu]

It's simply that I don't think the US military is that incompetent at the field level. If they knew this 10 years ago, certainly at field level, then they should know it now too. No commander wants to say it's not going to work under me because it's a block on their promotion.
We know from history that the Intelligence and the military have lied many times to the President. It's simply that I can't see him that incompetent to ignore all advice given to him.

indeed - its hard to imagine intelligence services didn't see this as at least a possibility if not a probability
its hard to imagine this information wouldn't have been available when making decisions
its hard to imagine somebody not making contingency plans for this if it was seen as a realistic possibility

Perhaps there is some path where the intelligence services misjudged how rapid this would be or at least that kabul would fall so quickly
Perhaps people making decisions further underrated this or over rated other intelligence showing different scenarios
Perhaps people then made a plan based on a longer scenario and have been bad to react

But thats a lot of consecutive errors so perhaps they just thought fek it... short term pr disaster but if we pull out in 2 years its still going to be bad so do it now and get it out of the way 3 years before the election so people will have forgotten about it ?

 

[Raoul]

20 years of killing for that... I mean even by team USA standard thats bad

as for the stick... the taliban were with the chinese government 2 weeks ago and are in touch with the Pakistan government... frankly there isnt going to be a way to coordinate a full military response without the impractical route of staging in iraq and overflying the countries mentioned and dropping everything from the air... plus politically biden does not have the capital to do it

they simply cant do anything military and with China onside I'm not sure the Taliban need USA diplomatic presence or recognition... they will probably cut a better deal from china without it

If American troops are harmed, then Biden will have more than enough capital to whatever he wants.The Taliban leadership are aware of this as well.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Of course loads in here blaming Afgan forces, feck me.
And that’s why the US gets away with this shit time and time again, scumbags.

 

[Gehrman]

Of course loads in here blaming Afgan forces, feck me.
And that’s why the US gets away with this shit time and time again, scumbags.

Both are to blame.

 

[berbatrick]

all my phone news feeds, including both fox and CNN, piled with negative headlines directly naming biden. hope he rides this out.

...

trump is ridiculous entertainment

 

[rotherham_red]

this is an inevitable point of the withdrawal. We've been pulling back troops slowly and steadily since God knows when. Whatever we are seeing is failure/lack of fight in Afghan national forces.

Related to this is the climate impact of maintaining an army and armed presence which is spread across many countries around the world...

 

[Gehrman]

1996 - Mullah Omar displays the Cloak of the Prophet in Kandahar:

Is this meant as some glorification about recent events or just providing a backdrop for the Taliban pov?

 

[Interval]

Eight years old. But I guess you could see it coming even then. Not some overnight thing