# Afghanistan (Again)



## Scepticalscribe

Afghanistan never seems to be far from the news.

For an interesting, intelligent, and invariably well informed piece on Afghanistan (I knew some of their writers when I was deployed there - and met with them reasonably regularly - and the publication retains - and has always employed - excellent and very well informed writers, reporters/analysts, both Afghan and western), I cannot recommend The Afghanistan Analysts Network highly enough.

A piece by Kate Clark and Obaid Ali, dated July 2, is a must read.


----------



## lizkat

Scepticalscribe said:


> A piece by Kate Clark and Obaid Ali, dated July 2, is a must read.




is this the one?  









						A Quarter of Afghanistan’s Districts Fall to the Taleban amid Calls for a ‘Second Resistance’ - Afghanistan Analysts Network - English
					

In the last few weeks, the Taleban have captured scores of district centres across Afghanistan. In this report, we look at the general reasons for the success of the Taleban onslaught, before focusing on the north, which has seen a collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) of...




					www.afghanistan-analysts.org


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> is this the one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Quarter of Afghanistan’s Districts Fall to the Taleban amid Calls for a ‘Second Resistance’ - Afghanistan Analysts Network - English
> 
> 
> In the last few weeks, the Taleban have captured scores of district centres across Afghanistan. In this report, we look at the general reasons for the success of the Taleban onslaught, before focusing on the north, which has seen a collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.afghanistan-analysts.org




The very one.

In my experience, this is one of the best - and balanced, and best informed, - of the sources writing from, in, and about Afghanistan.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> is this the one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Quarter of Afghanistan’s Districts Fall to the Taleban amid Calls for a ‘Second Resistance’ - Afghanistan Analysts Network - English
> 
> 
> In the last few weeks, the Taleban have captured scores of district centres across Afghanistan. In this report, we look at the general reasons for the success of the Taleban onslaught, before focusing on the north, which has seen a collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.afghanistan-analysts.org




People tend to forget that Afghanistan didn't collapse when the Soviets withdrew their forces, in 1989; rather, its collapse commenced after the Soviet Union itself collapsed - in December 1991.

In other words, it collapsed when the money to sustain the state - and to pay the salaries of the police, and the military, the security services - was withdrawn.

And that is the lesson of the current withdrawal; it is one thing to withdraw troops, and another, yes, to withdraw air support.

But, it is another thing yet to pull the plug on paying the salaries (and bills) - and paying for (and maintaining) the equipment - of the state security services.

When I was there - for the best part of two years between early 2013 and late 2014, -  around 70% of the state's income came from foreign aid, with less than 10% coming from (legitimate) tax sources (and an astonishing quarter of that 10% - the state's total tax take, - came from Herat, which was the wealthiest, most progressive, most advanced - re stuff such as employment, female education, etc - and most developed region in the country).

It was explained to me that a bigger threat to the stability and security of the state - long term - lay, not in the existence of "boots on the ground" (something which was always emphasised by a very male type of journalism), but, by the concomitant withdrawal of funds (foreign aid - too much of which, yes, did indeed, vanish into cosmic black holes of stratospheric corruption) which would mean that the state could not afford to pay (and equip) its security forces, which would - in turn - threaten state collapse.


----------



## lizkat

When I bumped into your post about the Afghan Analysts Network piece,  I was just starting to read one in the Christian Science Monitor, asking if the USA's manner and timing of departure from the base at Bagram speaks poorly of US leadership there. 









						In the dark of night: Did exit from Afghan base diminish US leadership?
					

President Biden has pledged to restore U.S. leadership and moral standards. But the sudden abandonment of the Bagram base has undercut that message.




					www.csmonitor.com
				




 I dunno...  seems like if one is leaving Afghanistan without having been able to stand up a really sturdy central government to maintain any interim achievements per previously stated goals, well, "join the club". There's probably no great time to say ok we're outta here now,  when an occupation and associated internal strife have gone on for decades.  The USA are not the first to have run that gig in Afghanistan.    Historians have not tagged that country "graveyard of empires" for nothing. 

You're right though that sometimes when occupiers leave,  the left-behind government does not fall right away.   It can depend on how much care is taken with nonmilitary assistance in the wake of a departure and how much corruption attends the central government's relationship with other power structures.    The US congress tried to shore up the remains of a then very weak Lebanese government after Reagan pulled the Marines out of there in the mid 80s.   It worked "for awhile"...

Anyway the CSM piece is looking at whether loose ends in aid of the Afghan security forces and current central government might not have been tied up a little more helpfully as we were leaving Bagram...  and so was haste to depart made a higher priority than concerns over "what next" would befall the Afghan contingent there?     Of course there was recognition that the longer preparations to depart a major base might have taken, the more risk that the Taliban would have advanced to interfere with the process, despite assertions at peace table they would not attack departing forces.

But stuff like the US  having left at Bagram a bunch of utility vehicles without keys, perhaps unintentionally (since the US forces did destroy stuff they definitely didn't want falling into Taliban hands) speaks to some disorganization and lack of communication.  Same with the odd indicators --food and beverages left around--  that departure date and time were announced to some of the US or allied forces there with very little notice. 

The bottom line though,  I suppose,  may always end up at "If you're gonna leave...  better get going."  

As for financial aid going forward,  I think there have been more than one piece in the NYT or WaPo already on concerns about whether US departure of "boots on ground" will mean also a drop in nonmilitary assistance and so also leave in the lurch some NGOs providing Afghans with ancillary services... exactly the kind of aid that the Taliban would love to supply temporarily as a wedge into local rule again,  the way Hamas has done in the Middle East.

Anyway I will read that piece you had cited now, thanks for the reference.


----------



## lizkat

@Scepticalscribe   Wow.  That piece is harsh on Khalilzad, not that he doesn't merit the observations.  Well, you had warned me off him back in some thread in PRSI (which of course now I cannot consult since the whole f'g subforum is not archived but removed in its entirety).    I think at the time I was reading some book either by or about Khalilzad when you posted your related remarks.

Anyway he seems currently to have cut the Taliban a lot more slack on our behalf than was likely warranted.  Maybe we just wanted to save some face and get something out of the talks,  so we gave away large parts of the store we were itching to depart from anyway.  If that was behind his moves by USA direction, shame on us.  If done partly on spec or his own instincts alone and let stand,  maybe some folks back in DC were no longer bothering to pay enough attention.


----------



## SuperMatt

They interviewed an Afghan general on the radio today. Sounds like the issue of Taliban crossing into and out of Pakistan at will is still a big problem. The title of this isn’t fully representative of what the General actually said, so listen instead of judging based on the headline.









						Afghan Commanding General Says Afghans Feel Abandoned By The U.S.
					

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with commanding general of the Afghan Army, Gen. Sami Sadat, about U.S. troops being almost completely withdrawn from Afghanistan.




					www.npr.org


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> They interviewed an Afghan general on the radio today. Sounds like the issue of Taliban crossing into and out of Pakistan at will is still a big problem. The title of this isn’t fully representative of what the General actually said, so listen instead of judging based on the headline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan Commanding General Says Afghans Feel Abandoned By The U.S.
> 
> 
> NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with commanding general of the Afghan Army, Gen. Sami Sadat, about U.S. troops being almost completely withdrawn from Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org




Infiltration from Pakistan and from Iran as well...  two porous borders.

This quote below from General Sadat seems discouraging in the sense that these tactics have been what we were hassling against all along,  and now the USA is essentially saying that earlier on during our occupation it was worth it,  but now it's not (for us?)  although it's still happening.

But I guess this is what a "built" government faces when an erstwhile occupier has decided to cut losses.   Ugly for our Gold Star families though, and for our troops to look back on if they have come home maimed, injured or lacking the emotional ability to keep a grip on civilian life now without help they may not feel able to ask for.

Anyway, General Sadat noted:



> So my corps is located in southwestern Afghanistan, where I have around 300 kilometer border with Pakistan and then 330 kilometer with Iran. So literally, we are in the middle of two countries' proxy war that we're fighting. From Pakistan, the Taliban crossed armed with a lot of IEDs and landmines and vehicles and other means. There's a number of al-Qaida fighters coming into Afghanistan recently. I've never seen so much al-Qaida fighters in my area of responsibility. There has been this resurgence of al-Qaida battle groups coming back to life, creating, like, radio communication centers, creating facilitation nodes to support some of the Taliban fighters. And I think what they're trying to do is to recruit more, like, Punjabi and extremist elements from Pakistan and then facilitate them into the Taliban ranks.


----------



## Member 216

Two work colleagues of mine were ambassadors at our embassy in Kabul and I knew a number of lower level dips posted there through the years.  The funds spent by my government through the embassy and the military was controversial within the department and the spin put on it to the public at home was shameful.  History has shown that winning there is almost impossible and tribal issues hundreds of years old cannot easily be understood by outsiders, and frankly it is not outsiders business.  If one of my loved ones died or was seriously wounded in this war, I would be furious as it was in vain.

It would be great if the west could save the world, ensure that the poor girls in Afghanistan could go to school and could live safely.  But sadly, that was and is just a pipe dream.  It is clear that the only way to have these things happen on a lasting basis is to either have foreign troops permanently stationed there or to provide never ending massive funding to try to support the country.  We should do neither.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Infiltration from Pakistan has* always* been a problem for Afghanistan (and here, we are right back to the roles played by both the US and Pakistan as long ago as the 1980s).

Mind you, (and Afghanistan has been a nation/state - granted an often fractious one - since 1747, as Afghan friends kept reminding me), it is worth noting that Afghanistan never recognised the Durand Line, - which divides Afghanistan from what is now Pakistan - and still does not recognise it.

They refer to it as "a boundary" not a "border".

This was something that didn't matter much as long as British India remained British India, but which did come to matter, an awful lot, once British India splintered into India, Pakistan, and East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) with the (messy and swift) departure of the British, subsequent civil war and the eventual emergence of the modern states of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh).

Afghan friends also reminded me - with that wry, self-deprecating humour I loved them for - that only one state in the UN (for, Afghanistan, a state since 1747, of course automatically had a seat in the UN from the time the UN was first established) actually attempted to veto - and voted against - the recognition of Pakistan in 1947.  "Shooting ourselves in the foot is our speciality in foreign policy," an Afghan friend sighed, when  relating this story to me.

However, while Afghanistan was stable (and richer, more developed, more advanced, more progressive) than Pakistan until the 1980s, since then, Pakistan has openly (and covertly) interfered in Afghan affairs (paying special attention to try to sabotage any attempts on the part of the Afghan authorities to forge ties - economic, military, social political - with India).

I've always thought that there would be another civil war in Afghanistan before - or rather than - a Taliban victory, or complete state collapse.

What is ominous, however, is the fact that - in addition to internal divisions (Taliban and their supporters versus the urban centres, the west - Herat - the north (Mazar-i-Sharif) and the centre (the area around Bamiyan - home to the Hazaras, and passionately anti-Taliban) - that this also seems to be shaping up into a proxy war between Iran (a Shia state, lest we forget) and Pakistan (which, is, of course, fiercely Sunni).


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Expos of 1969 said:


> Two work colleagues of mine were ambassadors at our embassy in Kabul and I knew a number of lower level dips posted there through the years.  The funds spent by my government through the embassy and the military was controversial within the department and the spin put on it to the public at home was shameful.  History has shown that winning there is almost impossible and tribal issues hundreds of years old cannot easily be understood by outsiders, and frankly it is not outsiders business.  If one of my loved ones died or was seriously wounded in this war, I would be furious as it was in vain.




In my time in Kabul - I served in a diplomatic capacity (Polad - that is, political adviser/counsellor) with one of the EU missions - my experience was that the US diplomats rarely, if ever, ventured out of the Embassy and - possibly for security reasons - didn't seem to have many Afghan contacts.

I do know that I met - and had been asked to brief - US diplomats that had never left the Embassy precincts, and had never met - or interviewed, or spoken with - an Afghan.

I wondered what they were reporting.

Actually, the "tribal issues" are, to my mind, more a "Pashtun" issue, for the Taliban is mainly (though not exclusively) a Pashtun body, and an expression of perfervid Pashtun nationalism, that seeks to conflate itself with Afghan nationalism (a view that is contested by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, among others) and expresses itself by means of an unusually austere and severe interpretation of Islam.





Expos of 1969 said:


> It would be great if the west could save the world, ensure that the poor girls in Afghanistan could go to school and could live safely.  But sadly, that was and is just a pipe dream.  It is clear that the only way to have these things happen on a lasting basis is to either have foreign troops permanently stationed there or to provide never ending massive funding to try to support the country.  We should do neither.



A third option would be to split the country, and hive off the Pashtun parts, whether unifying them with Pakistan, or creating some sort of new state, an independent "Pashtunistan" which would include the ungovernable and unstable "tribal territories" (FATA) of Pakistan.

Personally, I think that the north, centre, and west of Afghanistan (i.e. comprised of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras) could become a perfectly functional central Asian state; granted, not a model western democracy, but, for now, that is an ask too far.

However, until the state of Afghanistan works out a way to live with Pashtun exceptionalism - without destroying itself - (and perhaps, this may not be possible) and remember, even when the Taliban took over in the late 1990s, a region in the North of the country, the Panjshir valley, where the legendary Massoud held sway, remained beyond their reach and sway, for the other ethnicities will contest this Taliban surge, even if they have to enlist the support of the old war-lords to do so, - it will not be stable.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Expos of 1969 said:


> It would be great if the west could save the world, ensure that the poor girls in Afghanistan could go to school and could live safely.  But sadly, that was and is just a pipe dream.



I meant to return to this.

Afghanistan is not a monolith, and attitudes to the education of girls vary between, 

1) the respective ethnicities (the Hazaras are the most liberal, or progressive on such matters, - many Hazaras see education - for both boys and girls - as a means of social mobility - whereas, the Pashtun, - above all, the rural, impoverished, uneducated Pashtun, least so), 

2) region, and here, I refer to the old rural urban divide - cities are far more liberal and progressive in their attitudes on such matters, - a pattern seen almost everywhere else in the world, 

3) region - in the country: The west (Herat), North, (Mazar-i-Sharif), centre (Bamiyan), and indeed, the capital (Kabul) are a lot more relaxed, and progressive than are the Pashtun areas of the south (Kandahar etc),

and,  

4) social class & (somewhat related to social class) educational attainment: Upper class Pashtun - especially older, educated, upper-class Pashtun, also tend to hold progressive views on such matters.


----------



## SuperMatt

We’ve all been angry at Trump the last 4 years, but Bush would like to remind everybody what a piece of crap President he was:



> "It's unbelievable how that society changed from the brutality of the Taliban. And now all of a sudden, sadly, I'm afraid Afghan women and girls are going to suffer unspeakable harm."





> "You know, I think it is," said Bush, 74, when asked if the withdrawal was a mistake. "Yeah, because I think the consequences are going to be unbelievably bad. And I'm sad. Laura and I spent a lot of time with Afghan women. And they're scared."



Maybe you shouldn’t have diverted resources to Iraq in search of fake WMD’s? Or maybe not start a war there at all? But sure, it’s everybody’s fault BUT yours, dubya.





__





						George W. Bush Says Afghanistan Withdrawal Is a Mistake: 'Breaks My Heart'
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> We’ve all been angry at Trump the last 4 years, but Bush would like to remind everybody what a piece of crap President he was.




Yeah when I read that piece you cited, I pretty much snapped out of the nostalgia I was almost feeling for Bush 43 after Donald Trump had hit his stride in the White House.

Edit:  Coincidentally I have been re-reading Peter Baker's book on Bush and Cheney:   _*Days of Fire.*_ Some parts of that offer a glimpse of Bush struggling to find his own way as a novice on foreign affairs and so needing some good advice, but reluctant to rely on what his dad and his dad's advisors had on tap, still wary of his own advisors, and in the end often depending too much on Cheney and the neoncons pushing regime change in Iraq. He did later see some of that as a mistake and by the end of his second term was practically freezing Cheney out, but imo the worst of the damage he allowed regarding decisions on Afghanistan and Iraq occurred in 2003-2006. Honestly I think only Trump will have kept Bush 43 from ending up with the tag of worst US prez ever. The invasion of Iraq topped off by ad hoc reconstruction planning and zero cultural awareness was a horrendous, catastrophic error.


----------



## Member 216

SuperMatt said:


> We’ve all been angry at Trump the last 4 years, but Bush would like to remind everybody what a piece of crap President he was:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you shouldn’t have diverted resources to Iraq in search of fake WMD’s? Or maybe not start a war there at all? But sure, it’s everybody’s fault BUT yours, dubya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George W. Bush Says Afghanistan Withdrawal Is a Mistake: 'Breaks My Heart'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com



So what is his proposed solution?  Have US and other allied troops remain there forever?  If he is so keen he should move to Kabul.  He can take his easel and paints with him so he can relax in his downtime.  "Mission Accomplished" and "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job".   What a low intellect fool.


----------



## lizkat

Expos of 1969 said:


> So what is his proposed solution?  Have US and other allied troops remain there forever?  If he is so keen he should move to Kabul.  He can take his easel and paints with him so he can relax in his downtime.  "Mission Accomplished" and "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job".   What a low intellect fool.




To take a somewhat broader view though,  a lot of the destabilization and retrogression that's been going on in Afghanistan and will continue to occur for the foreseeable future is down to Pakistan allowing it, as far as sinking at or even aiding operations of the Taliban.   There was just a piece in Foreign Affairs by a former ambassador from Pakistan to the USA (2008-11) on how one of these days Pakistan will come to regret its furtherance of Taliban aims with respect to Afghanistan.  Well noted in that article was the fact that the USA is not likely to forget Pakistan's reluctance to cooperate in making Afghanistan less likely to serve purposes of militant terrorists in future.  It's not like the Taliban leadership has a good grip on its own variously ragtag and radicalized enforcers, as is currently being demonstrated across Afghanistan villages.   Meanwhile Pakistan has in the past relied on the USA to help keep its nuclear weapons secure.   So it may not just be Pakistan that eventually regrets some of that country's decisions over the past 20 years.









						Pakistan’s Pyrrhic Victory in Afghanistan
					

Islamabad will come to regret aiding the Taliban’s resurgence.




					www.foreignaffairs.com
				




Another opportunistic operator in the region is Iran,  one noted for playing a very long game and so having both more restraint and patience than the USA has demonstrated, at least since it learned a few lessons about the drawbacks of putting direct fingerprints on violence committed abroad.    It has never been averse to making short term strange bedfellows of assorted militants (be they Sunni, Shia, adherents to non-Islamic religions  or secular) for assistance in reaching its near to medium term goals.   After the ousting of the Shah in 1979 but before the revolutionary government of Iran had built out its own networks of agents in foreign capitals,  Iran often availed itself of terror groups in Europe that were managed by the likes of Arafat from his years spent in exile over in Tunisia.  It's long been accustomed to finding niche alliances inside countries that tend towards tribal politics, whether religious or ethnic.  But it's been a long time since Iran was directly involved in capers like kidnapping Americans and holding them hostage.   Now it detains visitors instead,  or people abroad disappear "somehow".

It's still true though that US administrations (often along with Congress and some leaders of the military) are often reluctant to seek much less take suggestions from the State Department, or to learn more about the culture and history of countries in which we may decide to put boots on the ground (or "US military advisers" alongside foreign leaders at their request, whatever may be the reasoning of those leaders).

There's an unfortunate tradition of considering State Department regional experts a bunch of dithering academics, resulting in an impatience to dispense with "all that" and to get on with what is seen as urgent action needed to resolve a particular situation.  That of course is the kind of thinking that landed us in Baghdad in 2003 without an understanding of what would happen when a tyranny of the minority was suddenly made headless after decades of iron-fisted rule.  Apparently we thought that "liberating Iraq" would lead to full flowering of democracy instead of what was far more likely to happen and did happen, i.e. a gruesome, drawn out sectarian war.  And so yeah it falls on Bush 43 not to have said "wait up, let's hear more about the post-invasion plans before we head into Iraq."


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> To take a somewhat broader view though,  a lot of the destabilization and retrogression that's been going on in Afghanistan and will continue to occur for the foreseeable future is down to Pakistan allowing it, as far as sinking at or even aiding operations of the Taliban.   There was just a piece in Foreign Affairs by a former ambassador from Pakistan to the USA (2008-11) on how one of these days Pakistan will come to regret its furtherance of Taliban aims with respect to Afghanistan.  Well noted in that article was the fact that the USA is not likely to forget Pakistan's reluctance to cooperate in making Afghanistan less likely to serve purposes of militant terrorists in future.  It's not like the Taliban leadership has a good grip on its own variously ragtag and radicalized enforcers, as is currently being demonstrated across Afghanistan villages.   Meanwhile Pakistan has in the past relied on the USA to help keep its nuclear weapons secure.   So it may not just be Pakistan that eventually regrets some of that country's decisions over the past 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan’s Pyrrhic Victory in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> Islamabad will come to regret aiding the Taliban’s resurgence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foreignaffairs.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another opportunistic operator in the region is Iran,  one noted for playing a very long game and so having both more restraint and patience than the USA has demonstrated, at least since it learned a few lessons about the drawbacks of putting direct fingerprints on violence committed abroad.    It has never been averse to making short term strange bedfellows of assorted militants (be they Sunni, Shia, adherents to non-Islamic religions  or secular) for assistance in reaching its near to medium term goals.   After the ousting of the Shah in 1979 but before the revolutionary government of Iran had built out its own networks of agents in foreign capitals,  Iran often availed itself of terror groups in Europe that were managed by the likes of Arafat from his years spent in exile over in Tunisia.  It's long been accustomed to finding niche alliances inside countries that tend towards tribal politics, whether religious or ethnic.  But it's been a long time since Iran was directly involved in capers like kidnapping Americans and holding them hostage.   Now it detains visitors instead,  or people abroad disappear "somehow".
> 
> It's still true though that US administrations (often along with Congress and some leaders of the military) are often reluctant to seek much less take suggestions from the State Department, or to learn more about the culture and history of countries in which we may decide to put boots on the ground (or "US military advisers" alongside foreign leaders at their request, whatever may be the reasoning of those leaders).
> 
> There's an unfortunate tradition of considering State Department regional experts a bunch of dithering academics, resulting in an impatience to dispense with "all that" and to get on with what is seen as urgent action needed to resolve a particular situation.  That of course is the kind of thinking that landed us in Baghdad in 2003 without an understanding of what would happen when a tyranny of the minority was suddenly made headless after decades of iron-fisted rule.  Apparently we thought that "liberating Iraq" would lead to full flowering of democracy instead of what was far more likely to happen and did happen, i.e. a gruesome, drawn out sectarian war.  And so yeah it falls on Bush 43 not to have said "wait up, let's hear more about the post-invasion plans before we head into Iraq."



Excellent piece in Foreign Affairs, well worth a close read.

In my time in Kabul, among some of the people I used to meet, China was frequently referred to as Pakistan's "all-weather friend."

Pakistan has long played a malevolent, destabilising, destructive, spoiler role in internal Afghan affairs, and its eternal - almost pathological - obsession with India (which is not reciprocated to anything like the same extent) is well conveyed and described in the article.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

@lizkat: Another extremely good (and Afghan) source of news is Tolo News.

I was astonished (and deeply impressed) by the quality of the media (granted, much of it funded by western aid, or NGOs, but run and staffed by Afghans) when I was deployed there.

We know the positive stories re access to education and women's rights (and they are rightly applauded), in Afghanistan since 2001, but, also worth noting is the fact that the media in Afghanistan is astonishingly good, and - candidly - in comparative terms, is superb, (intelligent, informed, pretty balanced, solidly analytical, and extraordinarily courageous, - many journalists, especially female journalists - have been killed by the Taliban and their supporters) given what one finds elsewhere in the region.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> The very one.
> 
> In my experience, this is one of the best - and balanced, and best informed, - of the sources writing from, in, and about Afghanistan.




I tried reading it but it's seriously up for TL;DR award of the year.

I'm in the camp that believes whether we withdrew 10 years ago or 50 years from now it would still end up with this same result.

Does the article mention anything about what we were doing there in the last 20 years to prepare their government for our withdrawal and their self rule?  It appears to be nothing.  Whose fault is that?


----------



## SuperMatt

I heard a piece about the resurgence of the Taliban on the radio. Despite the problems, people there have noted how much better their lives are now than they were 20 years ago. They mentioned young people having smart phones, internet cafes, freedom of the press, women having jobs, etc. It will not be easy for the Taliban to take all that away now that most people enjoy have been enjoying the freedoms for quite a while.

The US troops could not stay forever. I think everybody knew there would be difficulties when they left. The Afghans now need to work this out themselves, and I hope they will be able to do so.


----------



## Member 216

SuperMatt said:


> I heard a piece about the resurgence of the Taliban on the radio. Despite the problems, people there have noted how much better their lives are now than they were 20 years ago. They mentioned young people having smart phones, internet cafes, freedom of the press, women having jobs, etc. It will not be easy for the Taliban to take all that away now that most people enjoy have been enjoying the freedoms for quite a while.
> 
> The US troops could not stay forever. I think everybody knew there would be difficulties when they left. The Afghans now need to work this out themselves, and I hope they will be able to do so.



The Taliban is already on the road to taking this away.  They have tortured and killed many hundreds of people in the past few days.    Ahmed and his friends with a smart phone in a cafe are not a match for thugs with machetes and a hobby of beheading folks.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I tried reading it but it's seriously up for TL;DR award of the year.
> 
> I'm in the camp that believes whether we withdrew 10 years ago or 50 years from now it would still end up with this same result.
> 
> Does the article mention anything about what we were doing there in the last 20 years to prepare their government for our withdrawal and their self rule?  It appears to be nothing.  Whose fault is that?



You may consider it to be "tl;dr" but it is still well worth reading, for it is an analytical, nuanced and thoughtful piece.


SuperMatt said:


> I heard a piece about the resurgence of the Taliban on the radio. Despite the problems, people there have noted how much better their lives are now than they were 20 years ago. They mentioned young people having smart phones, internet cafes, freedom of the press, women having jobs, etc. It will not be easy for the Taliban to take all that away now that most people enjoy have been enjoying the freedoms for quite a while.
> 
> The US troops could not stay forever. I think everybody knew there would be difficulties when they left. The Afghans now need to work this out themselves, and I hope they will be able to do so.




Again, it is more complicated than that.

More pressing than the question of troops on the ground, is the issue of who shall pay for them, pay their salaries, equip them, train them.

I have had to remind people that the government of President Najibullah did not fall when the Soviets withdrew their forces in 1989, but rather, it fell some time after the USSR collapsed, in December 1991, after which the USSR was no longer in a position to fund the Afghan security services.

Secondly, I imagine that unsavoury alliances may now have to be contemplated and possibly forged, (on the part of the Afghan government with the warlords) as the old warlords (many of them guilty of what are considered to be war crimes), may - along with whatever forces are still answerable to them - have to be summoned from wherever they are comfortably ensconced in retirement; the problem here is that this is thirty years since they fought their wars in the 1990s; they are older, and some of them may be tired of fighting.

Thirdly, in general, the cities - especially the cities in the non-Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, will be very anti-Taliban and not only for the reasons you state in your post, but also, for ethnic reasons; however, the rural areas - especially in the Pashtun areas, will be the regions from where the Taliban derive their greatest support.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Expos of 1969 said:


> The Taliban is already on the road to taking this away.  They have tortured and killed many hundreds of people in the past few days.    Ahmed and his friends with a smart phone in a cafe are not a match for thugs with machetes and a hobby of beheading folks.



Yes, but losses have also been inflicted on them.

Paradoxically enough, the Ahmeds sitting in cafes with smart phones can become extraordinarily good fighters if sufficiently motivated (and eventually, with sufficient experience, and indeed, training).

The thing is, the Taliban are not popular in the non-Pashtun areas of the country, and, while they may capture some places, they cannot be certain of holding them.  Not without widespread popular support, which they lack.

Even in their first incarnation, they never held the entire country - you may recall how Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Northern Alliance kept them from controlling the northern section of the country.

And, remember, also, the population have already experienced Taliban rule, and most of them loathed it.

Personally, - and I have long thought this - I think a civil war - which may take some time to develop - a far more likely outcome than an easy Taliban victory.


----------



## JamesMike

The Taliban will learn they can't control the whole country once they are in power, too region-orientate.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

JamesMike said:


> The Taliban will learn they can't control the whole country once they are in power, too region-orientate.




Agreed.

And, in all of the coverage - especially the US coverage insisting that it is high time for the Afghans to "take responsibility for", or "take control of," or "take ownership of," their own security, I have yet to see any reference to the (undoubtedly) malevolent and grotesquely irresponsible role played by Pakistan in the current debacle.

Afghanistan may indeed need to take responsibility for its own security, but the international community also need to insist on Pakistan not being so enthusiastic a player in deliberately undermining the stability of its neighbour by equipping, supporting and enabling the Taliban and their fellow-travellers.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Dear God.

Reports (Deutsche Well and Al Jazeera among others, in other words, reputable sources) suggest that Herat - the third city of Afghanistan, - it lies to the west, not far from the Iranian border, it is not at all Pashtun, and - to my mind, - is (was?) undoubtedly the most advanced, attractive, progressive and civilised place (possibly the wealthiest place, too,) in the country, - has fallen this evening to the Taliban forces.


----------



## JamesMike

@Scepticalscribe, you hit the nail on the head about Pakistan.  The Taliban had a safe sanctuary for many years and support by Pakistan intelligence services.  They feared the Western Powers would create a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan which they did not want to spread to their country.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

JamesMike said:


> @Scepticalscribe, you hit the nail on the head about Pakistan.  The Taliban had a safe sanctuary for many years and support by Pakistan intelligence services.  They feared the Western Powers would create a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan which they did not want to spread to their country.




Absolutely spot on.

This - Pakistan - is a profoundly unstable country, one where the armed forces are answerable to nobody, and with the merest veneer of democracy at times.  (Until the 2013 elections, if memory serves, government transitions were notoriously unstable with assassinations and coups regularly interrupting any attempt at establishing a democratic system).

And they feared that Afghanistan would become an ally, or client state, or strong regional supporter, of India.

Their paranoid obsession with India plays an inordinate role in Pakistani affairs.

To my mind, Pakistan should have been held to account (by the west) to a far greater extent than it has been, and lecturing Afghanistan on its short-comings, and on the need to "take control", "take ownership", "take responsibility", misses the point that a near neighbour has been doing absolutely everything in its power to undermine any sort of (political or other) progress on (or in) Afghanistan over the past few decades.

The Afghans - and I regret to say that while they cannot entirely escape the blame for this debacle and unfolding disaster - they are not, by any means, the sole culprits.

I spent the best part of two years in the country, (Afghanistan) and was astonished by the extent of ISI (and, by extension, Pakistani) interference - malevolent, destructive and deliberately destabilising interference - in Afghanistan and in Afghan affairs.

Indeed, when Ashraf Ghani took office, he went to great pains - diplomatically - to attempt to reassure Pakistan (and the ISI) of his bona fides and to persuade them to support his attempts at reform; needless to say, he was unsuccessful, because a stable, peaceful, prosperous (and indeed, any sort of democratic) Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interest.


----------



## JamesMike

When I was in Pakistan training Afghans against the Soviet hordes I was reminded by my Pakistan ‘co-workers’ how they appreciated our training but don’t think of installing a Western-style government post Soviet presents.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

JamesMike said:


> When I was in Pakistan training Afghans against the Soviet hordes I was reminded by my Pakistan ‘co-workers’ how they appreciated our training but don’t think of installing a Western-style government post Soviet presents.




The tragedy is that (possibly excluding the Pashtun, which means the south and east of the country), I have long thought that northern, central and western Afghanistan (the non-Pashtun parts) could form a perfectly reasonable, pretty stable, functioning, country with a sort-of-democracy on a central Asian - or kind of Iranian - model.


----------



## Herdfan

This has turned into a shit show.

Just waiting for the video similar to the last person being airlifted off the Embassy in Saigon.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> This has turned into a shit show.
> 
> Just waiting for the video similar to the last person being airlifted off the Embassy in Saigon.



This is the Bush legacy. ISIS and the Taliban.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> This is the Bush legacy. ISIS and the Taliban.




It is.  Can't disagree with that.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> This has turned into a shit show.
> 
> Just waiting for the video similar to the last person being airlifted off the Embassy in Saigon.



I didn't agree with it when Trump started pulling them out and I don't now. I guess there's nothing more American than invading a country, attempting to and failing to rebuild it and then give it back to the same people we fought to get rid of.

In the end we learned nothing from the fate of Soviet Union in Afghanistan.


----------



## Deleted member 215

It's unfortunate what is happening, but did anyone really not see this coming? We spent 20 years building up an army that crumpled in a few days. What were we supposed to do? Stay there another 20 years? Obviously we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that's hindsight, not a solution. Afghanistan has never been a cohesive state. It's always been a loose collection of tribes. If we couldn't build up a viable alternative to the Taliban in 20 years, then what would staying there longer accomplish? "Nation building" there was a fool's errand.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Unbelievable after all this time, the country is falling this fast. I feel bad for those who were thriving under the protection of America and it’s allies, and are now going to be in a worse spot than before.

However, this is a sign that it needs to be done. If after 20 years things are falling this fast, it proves it was a failed effort. The change will have to come from within the country.


----------



## Member 216

Good articles in today's Guardian....one being...
US deserves big share of blame for Afghanistan military disaster​by Julian Borger


----------



## SuperMatt

Could it happen in America? If the Trump cult turned into something like the Taliban, would they be able to take over huge areas of America quickly? Many of the areas “conquered” by the Taliban were full of their sympathizers and there was no resistance to their advances. If we had a Trump army invasion, I think they could get most of the Southeast US without a fight.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> I didn't agree with it when Trump started pulling them out and I don't now. I guess there's nothing more American than invading a country, attempting to and failing to rebuild it and then give it back to the same people we fought to get rid of.
> 
> In the end we learned nothing from the fate of Soviet Union in Afghanistan.



Mr Trump's administration carried out negotiations with the Taliban (in Doha) and signed a "peace agreement" (which the Taliban, needless to say, interpret most flexibly) which excluded the recognised Government of Afghanistan, who weren't even invited to attend the talks.

In this context, it doesn't matter that the Government is incompetent, somewhat corrupt and at times dysfunctional: It is still the internationally recognised Government, - and deserves the respect of being treated as such.

This is unconscionable, and utterly disgraceful.


TBL said:


> It's unfortunate what is happening, but did anyone really not see this coming? We spent 20 years building up an army that crumpled in a few days. What were we supposed to do? Stay there another 20 years? Obviously we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that's hindsight, not a solution. Afghanistan has never been a cohesive state. It's always been a loose collection of tribes. If we couldn't build up a viable alternative to the Taliban in 20 years, then what would staying there longer accomplish? "Nation building" there was a fool's errand.




Okay:

Let's take a few of the points in this post, and examine them.

Afghanistan is not a "loose collection of tribes" - and it never was; yes, the country is home to a number of different *ethnicities,* (not tribes), but, until the late 1970s, - when it became a tragic pawn in the game of Cold War chess played by the USA and the USSR - it was a reasonably stable, and perfectly functional, and tolerably advanced - for the region and the time - central Asian state.

I know a number of people who visited Afghanistan in the late 1960s, when it was on the "hippie trail", a time when it was a lot more advanced and cosmopolitan, safe, and stable than was, for example, Pakistan.

Re "Afghanistan has never been a cohesive state", yes, the traditional preference has long been for decentralised political arrangements, but - and this is a big but - Afghanistan has been a nation state since 1747, a date, one might care to note, that predates the formation of the United States.

It was a founder member of both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Re the armed forces dissolving, the US departure has been very poorly executed re both timing (autumn would have been better, when what is quaintly termed "the fighting season" is over and winter approaches) and ensuring that the Afghan armed forces were capable of using whatever equipment was left behind.

And the question of who pays the salaries of the armed forces remains a salient one; I have written it before, but Afghanistan did not collapse when the USSR withdrew their forces in 1989; rather, state collapse occurred in 1992 after the Soviet Union itself had collapsed in 1991, for the remains of the USSR were no longer in a position to pay the salaries of the armed forces of the state.

More to the point, yes, corruption has been an endemic feature of Afghan society (and of the armed forces - it was impossible to obtain accurate stats, for the ranks of both the military and police - and this was both deeply depressing and exceedingly frustrating - were undoubtedly fleshed out with "ghost soldiers" who drew salaries) but it should be pointed out that they have taken horrendous casualties over the past decade.

I spoke on many occasions with a man who - when I first met with him - was Chief of Police of Kabul - and with whom I also met frequently when he later served for years as Deputy Minister of the Interior; in early 2013, he told me that the police force was taking seven to ten casualties a day - a number that (he informed me) had increased to 11-14 casualties a day by the time I left the  country nearly two years later.

This is not only unsustainable, - and makes a lie of the canard that says the Afghans won't (or didn't wish to) fight - but, it may also mean that many of those who did choose to fight are dead.

As are many of those impressive, informed, educated, and idealistic activists of civil society - politicians, parliamentarians, lecturers, lawyers/prosecutors/judges, journalists, reporters, writers, women's rights activists, public servants, NGO workers - those who helped try to make the country and society a better place, - who have been targeted (and assassinated, executed, killed, murdered, slaughtered) for at least a decade.

Early in my time there, - I could hear it from my office around two km away - the biggest bomb to go off in two years in Kabul detonated outside the Supreme Court, killing many (law clerks, lawyers, prosecutors, judges) of the people who worked there.



GermanSuplex said:


> Unbelievable after all this time, the country is falling this fast. I feel bad for those who were thriving under the protection of America and it’s allies, and are now going to be in a worse spot than before.
> 
> However, this is a sign that it needs to be done. If after 20 years things are falling this fast, it proves it was a failed effort. The change will have to come from within the country.



Yes, but the disruptive, and malevolent role played by Pakistan - which armed, sheltered, supported, enabled and facilitated the Taliban (and has done so for well over a quarter of a century) also needs to be addressed.

And much of this suport may well have come from the sort of obscene levels of aid that the US has already paid Pakistan, which is not a regional actor that behaves in good faith.

Pakistan does not wish for a peaceful, stable, sort of democratic Afghanistan, and has done everything in its power to disrupt, and destabilise and undermine Afghanistan, and whatever government holds office in Kabul.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

I will say that not all collapses are the same.

For example, I never expected the Government in Kabul to be able to hold Lashkar Gah, or Kandahar; these lie in the Pashtun region, and were home to the Taliban, - the Taliban came from Kandahar, and this served as their capital when they last ruled the country - and had always been strongholds of the Taliban.

However, I am stunned - and shocked - at the fall of Herat; I've been there, it is a beautiful city.

A civilised, cosmopolitan, cultured, urbane, wealthy, place - elegant and sophisticated, home to Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, the antithesis of everything the Taliban stands for, the kind of place where the Taliban is loathed.

The same applies to Mazar-i-Sharif - which I have also visited, - another urbane and cosmopolitan city - and which reports this evening suggest may also have fallen to Taliban forces.

This suggests that loyalty to (and belief in) the government in Kabul is extremely limited, (and President Ghani has shown himself unable to forge alliances with those who do not necessarily agree with him - such as the old warlords) and also suggests that some of the people who run these regions might be cutting deals with the forces (suspiciously well armed forces) of the Taliban in order to save their own skins and the towns and people they are responsible for.

I will say this: The Taliban may well win for now, - as seems to be happening - but I do not believe that they will be able to hold all of the country.

Instead, and I have thought this for years, I think another civil war all but inevitable.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> This has turned into a shit show.
> 
> Just waiting for the video similar to the last person being airlifted off the Embassy in Saigon.




I will not deny that this arresting image was always at the back of my mind (and sometimes, also - compellingly - at the forefront of my mind) during the entire period of time that I was deployed in Kabul.


----------



## Deleted member 215

There was a quote in the New Yorker recently that I thought especially relevant: “The Taliban have made [Afghanistan] unworkable; unworkable, that is, without them.” The Taliban were never really beaten, merely held at bay as an insurgency, always poised to come back in full force.

The fact is that we offered no good alternative to the Taliban, simply a weak government and military that was completely helpless without direct U.S. presence (as this withdrawal has shown). There seems to have been significant mistrust between the Americans, who tended to live in isolated bases, and the Afghans we were purporting to be helping. This situation was untenable from the beginning.

Whatever we were doing for the past 20 years there was obviously woefully inadequate and ineffective. Otherwise the Taliban wouldn’t have been able to take over so swiftly the minute we start to leave. Whether we left in the summer or the fall, the outcome would’ve been the same.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Well, the New Yorker is not what I would regard as an authority on this subject.

And - as I have stated already in this thread - I recall briefing bright young American diplomats who not just never left the grounds of the US Embassy - (which is like one of those cities one sees in the original Star Trek, it is not a building, but an urban space, a vast urban space) but who had never met with, spoken to, or encountered an Afghan.

I used to wonder what their reports consisted of, and how they could claim to possess any knowledge of the country they were posted to.

More to the point, I have attended briefings delivered by senior Americans that were delusional to the point of surreal insanity; I could never work out whether they actually believed the delusional drivel that came out of their mouths, or wished to persuade themselves, their political masters, their fellow international interlocutors, or the locals they worked with, that they spoke the unvarnished truth.

In any case, the US never worked out what it wanted to do in Afghanistan.

If a punishment for 9/11, they should have targeted the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; if nation building, they should have stayed to finish the job, defined what they wanted to do, or focussed on institution building - and made it clear to Pakistan that their interference was unwarranted and unwanted and unwelcome - rather than embarking on a simultaneous fresh war (worse, a war started and fought on a lie, and on what was known to be a lie) in Iraq, which took up all their energy, time, attention, served as a distraction from their earlier focus on Afghanistan.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Yes, I do agree with that. If we had not so soon after invading Afghanistan gotten involved in the supreme blunder that was Iraq, our actions and objectives in Afghanistan might have been better carried out and better-defined. I do believe we had cause to go after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that was harboring and supporting them, but we made a major mistake diverting our power and resources to a war based on a lie. ISIS and a renewed Taliban—that’s the legacy of Bush’s foreign policy.


----------



## Herdfan

Scepticalscribe said:


> I will not deny that this arresting image was always at the back of my mind (and sometimes, also - compellingly - at the forefront of my mind) during the entire time period while I was deployed in Kabul.




Well you don't need to worry.  Biden says it is not going to happen:



> "None whatsoever," Biden said. "Zero.  What you had is you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy, six, if I’m not mistaken. The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability.   There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy … of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable. "




And thank you for your service!


----------



## Member 216

Herdfan said:


> Well you don't need to worry.  Biden says it is not going to happen:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for your service!



I certainly hated Trump but Biden is proving to be like your aging uncle who stumbles around town with his trousers unzipped, yesterdays lunch on his tie and mumbling to himself.  What a sad political system which enables these two to rise to the top.  The UK is no better as Boris and Starmer prove.


----------



## MarkusL

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1426182241659416581/


----------



## Scepticalscribe

MarkusL said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1426182241659416581/




I am lost for words.


----------



## SuperMatt

I have been reading lots of coverage and the notes from @Scepticalscribe here. It seems to me that there are two major issues with the official Afghan military. First, they’ve become reliant on the Americans. Second, they don’t seem to have a strong loyalty to the current government, which has a bad reputation for corruption. Seems like they’d rather take their chances with a Taliban government than give up their lives to defend the current leaders.


----------



## Herdfan

Expos of 1969 said:


> I certainly hated Trump but Biden is proving to be like your aging uncle who stumbles around town with his trousers unzipped, yesterdays lunch on his tie and mumbling to himself.  What a sad political system which enables these two to rise to the top.  The UK is no better as Boris and Starmer prove.



You said it, not me.  But here is an example:









						Bumbling Biden ‘gets lost’ on way home after ignoring agent & walking on lawn
					

GAFFE-PRONE Joe Biden appeared to “get lost” when returning to the White House as he ignored his Secret Service agent’s instructions by walking on the lawn. The commander-in-chief was captured walk…




					www.the-sun.com


----------



## Scepticalscribe

SuperMatt said:


> I have been reading lots of coverage and the notes from @Scepticalscribe here. It seems to me that there are two major issues with the official Afghan military. First, they’ve become reliant on the Americans. Second, they don’t seem to have a strong loyalty to the current government, which has a bad reputation for corruption. Seems like they’d rather take their chances with a Taliban government than give up their lives to defend the current leaders.




I'm also very struck by the fact that - leaving the regular forces (ANSF - Afghan National Security Forces) aside - that the private militias, the private armies - have also (completely) collapsed.

These militias, or armies, were supposedly exceedingly strong, and well equipped, and extremely loyal to their respective "warlords" or "strongmen" - people such as Atta Noor and General Dostum in Mazar-i-Sharif, and Ismail Khan in Herat.

In fact, these forces, these militias, private armies, which were answerable to nobody other than these/their respective strongmen/warlords, and which served as the source of their (the warlords) power - ensuring their military and political independence from any administration based in Kabul, - these regions were in some ways quasi independent fiefdoms at times, an independence preserved by the existence of these private militias, or armies, - failed to fight, or offer resistance, in any way seriously to the threat posed by the Taliban, whereas their very existence had ensured that the writ of Kabul didn't always run in those regions.

And yes, I am also struck by the fact that Ismail Khan surrendered (or was captured) in Herat, while Atta Noor, and Dostum both fled across the border to Uzbekistan.

So, the collapse is not simply that of an unpaid and poorly equipped national security force (and poorly motivated - though some, in fairness, fought desperately hard until they had run out of ammunition, the promised logistical and military and other support from Kabul never arriving), but is also - very strikingly - that of the supposedly well equipped, terrifying (and independent) private armies, or militias, answerable to the regional "strongmen" or "warlords", in areas that were never home to the Taliban, loathed the Taliban, had fought against them and opposed them in the 1990s.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

And a number of (pretty credible) sources are reporting that President Ghani has left the country (to Tajikistan, apparently).


----------



## Herdfan

I am seeing a bird hovering over the Embassy in the near future.


----------



## Herdfan

Scepticalscribe said:


> And a number of (pretty credible) sources are reporting that President Ghani has left the country (to Tajikistan, apparently).








__





						Taliban enter Afghan capital, official says President Ghani has left for Tajikistan
					

AFGHANISTAN-CONFLICT/ (WRAPUP 10, PIX, TV):WRAPUP 10-Taliban enter Afghan capital, official says President Ghani has left for Tajikistan




					news.trust.org


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taliban enter Afghan capital, official says President Ghani has left for Tajikistan
> 
> 
> AFGHANISTAN-CONFLICT/ (WRAPUP 10, PIX, TV):WRAPUP 10-Taliban enter Afghan capital, official says President Ghani has left for Tajikistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.trust.org




This also seems to have been confirmed - in a FB post - by Dr Abdullah Abdullah (the former "Chief Executive" - i.e. No 2, who was defeated by Ghani in the 2014 elections) - himself en route to Doha with what remains of credible senior individuals for negotiations over how to deal with whatever transition is supposed to occur with the Taliban.


----------



## Eric

This sums it up pretty well. The bottom line is they don't have the will to fight against the Taliban and as a result are getting swallowed up by them, it's all pretty sad.


----------



## Deleted member 215

It just amazes me that after Vietnam and the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan that we really thought this was going to be different. If there’s one thing America is consistently good at, it’s not learning from history. We were constantly updated about the “progress” of this 20-year occupation but as I said before, the Taliban were never really defeated and they’ve simply been biding their time…and mostly what I remember hearing out of Afghanistan for the last ten years was the occasional Taliban bombing that killed scores of Afghan civilians (and was often targeting a journalist or a government official).

This was an indefinite occupation. It had no possible end other than this. Its "goal" was to go on forever. This is the way "forever war" ends.


----------



## Eric

Found on Reddit


Pray for Afganistan from
      agedlikemilk


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> Found on Reddit
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/p4qkmw



Oops!  That didn't age well.


----------



## Herdfan

This is interesting.  Have to wonder what they are up to.





__





						Russia says no need to evacuate embassy in Afghanistan - TASS
					

AFGHANISTAN-CONFLICT/RUSSIA:Russia says no need to evacuate embassy in Afghanistan - TASS




					news.trust.org


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> This is interesting.  Have to wonder what they are up to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia says no need to evacuate embassy in Afghanistan - TASS
> 
> 
> AFGHANISTAN-CONFLICT/RUSSIA:Russia says no need to evacuate embassy in Afghanistan - TASS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.trust.org



Someone should tell Conservatives that Russia is not our friends.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> This is interesting.  Have to wonder what they are up to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia says no need to evacuate embassy in Afghanistan - TASS
> 
> 
> AFGHANISTAN-CONFLICT/RUSSIA:Russia says no need to evacuate embassy in Afghanistan - TASS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.trust.org



Yes, I read that this has been reported, and find it interesting.

I'm curious, also, as to the position of the Chinese Embassy, and whether they have chosen to remain in place, or are in a position to do so.

When I served in Kabul, I attended meetings in both embassies, and found their diplomats exceedingly well briefed, well informed, objective, cautious, generous with their advice and experience, and knowledge, and entirely devoid of illusions.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> Someone should tell Conservatives that Russia is not our friends.




The Russians were very badly burned in Afghanistan; I found their experience, and knowledge - which they shared readily - worth noting.


----------



## Eric

Scepticalscribe said:


> The Russians were very badly burned in Afghanistan; I found their experience, and knowledge - which they shared readily - worth noting.



I couldn't agree more, historically speaking. However, right now I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them and nothing good ever happens when they insert themselves into our foreign affairs.


----------



## The-Real-Deal82

I’ve read some hilarious comments online from some Americans and some Brits who think we need to abandon Afghanistan after invading them and bringing a large scale war to their land 20 odd years ago. Apparently our responsibility should be forgotten. 

It’s even funnier as these same people also don’t want to help refugees who are now fleeing for their lives. We apparently shouldn’t take any of them because it would mean more browner people on our western streets and ‘Muslamics’ which ‘ain’t our religion here’ in this multicultural nation here in Europe lol.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> I couldn't agree more, historically speaking. However, right now I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them and nothing good ever happens when they insert themselves into our foreign affairs.



In truth, given their geographical location, and traumatic historic experience in the region, (and let us not forget the Chechen conflict), Russia is far more threatened by what is happening in Afghanistan than are either the US or UK, and will seek to ensure that any possible threat posed by radical Islam to their society (and to their neighbours in the former Soviet "near abroad" - i.e. the "stans", those Muslim states of central Asia that were once a part of the USSR,) is minimised.  

Candidly, I do not see Russia playing a spoiler role here: They were burned too badly  in Afghanistan, and are very much at risk thanks to geo-political and historic considerations.

Instead, I would look to Pakistan, possibly Saudi Arabia, to a lesser extent, Iran (which is Shia, remember, not Sunni), and keep an eye on how China responds to this crisis.



The-Real-Deal82 said:


> I’ve read some hilarious comments online from some Americans and some Brits who think we need to abandon Afghanistan after invading them and bringing a large scale war to their land 20 odd years ago. Apparently our responsibility should be forgotten.
> 
> It’s even funnier as these same people also don’t want to help refugees who are now fleeing for their lives. We apparently shouldn’t take any of them because it would mean more browner people on our western streets and ‘Muslamics’ which ‘ain’t our religion here’ in this multicultural nation here in Europe lol.



At the very least, we owe a duty of care - moral and practical, both - to the Afghans who worked with our missions, our armed forces, our embassies and our NGOs.  

Their lives are now at risk, and they deserve better to to be left to the dubious mercy of vengeful fanatics.

Moreover, the position of women will be dire, and the gains (genuine) made in terms of civil rights, human rights, and women's rights, over the past twenty years, will be obliterated.  

So, also, will the position of the Hazara minority; during their previous period in charge of Afghanistan, the Taliban did their level best to murder, or exterminate, execute, or kill - a sort of genocide - anyone of a Hazara background (again, the Hazara are Shia), and, I believe may well attempt to do so once again.


----------



## MarkusL

The-Real-Deal82 said:


> I’ve read some hilarious comments online from some Americans and some Brits who think we need to abandon Afghanistan after invading them and bringing a large scale war to their land 20 odd years ago. Apparently our responsibility should be forgotten.
> 
> It’s even funnier as these same people also don’t want to help refugees who are now fleeing for their lives. We apparently shouldn’t take any of them because it would mean more browner people on our western streets and ‘Muslamics’ which ‘ain’t our religion here’ in this multicultural nation here in Europe lol.



Here in Sweden we have been arguing about whether to even evacuate the interpreters and other local staff that worked for our troops in Afghanistan. Now by the time that we have something that looks like a political decision to evacuate them we don't really know if there is any way to follow through on it, given the current situation in Kabul.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Maybe our only role in Afghanistan should've been maintaining a low presence to deter a Taliban takeover. Clearly our efforts at building up the government and the army didn't work. But it seems clear the Taliban weren't acting with the threat of an American retaliation hanging over them. As soon as they realized that wasn't going to happen (because of the withdrawal), they took over with swiftness, something they probably could've done years ago.

The original reason we went into Afghanistan was because the country under the Taliban was harboring terrorists like Al Qaeda. Somehow I don't see that no longer being an issue.

Of course, Pakistan is also a haven for terrorists and we don't seem to be doing much about that...


----------



## SuperMatt

Afghan soldiers are abandoning posts without even fighting. They seem to have no loyalty to the current government.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

SuperMatt said:


> Afghan soldiers are abandoning posts without even fighting. They seem to have no loyalty to the current government.




The current government, unfortunately, seems to have had little loyalty to them.

Such contracts go both ways - if you serve, you want to know that your life will be treated with respect, will not be willfully wasted, and that your death - if it happens - will actually count for something, will have been worthwhile, that it matters.

I must say that I am not just underwhelmed - but actually disgusted - by the manner of (former) President Ashraf Ghani's departure (and by the manner in which both Dostum and Atta Noor also fled).


----------



## The-Real-Deal82

Scepticalscribe said:


> At the very least, we owe a duty of care - moral and practical, both - to the Afghans who worked with our missions, our armed forces, our embassies and our NGOs.
> 
> Their lives are now at risk, and they deserve better to to be left to the dubious mercy of vengeful fanatics.
> 
> Moreover, the position of women will be dire, and the gains (genuine) made in terms of civil rights, human rights, and women's rights, over the past twenty years, will be obliterated.
> 
> So, also, will the position of the Hazara minority; during their previous period in charge of Afghanistan, the Taliban did their level best to murder, or exterminate, execute, or kill - a sort of genocide - anyone of a Hazara background (again, the Hazara are Shia), and, I believe may well attempt to do so once again.



Absolutely. I don’t trust the Taliban’s statements to the BBC where they say there will be no revenge and women are safe. There are already reports young girls are being kidnapped by fighters.


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> The current government, unfortunately, seems to have had little loyalty to them.
> 
> Such contracts go both ways - if you serve, you want to know that your life will be treated with respect, will not be willfully wasted, and that your death - if it happens - will actually count for something, will have been worthwhile.
> 
> I must say that I am not just underwhelmed - but actually disgusted - by the manner of (former) President Ashraf Ghani's departure (and by the manner in which both Dostum and Atta Noor also fled).



As with Vietnam, if a foreign power wants to control a country, they need a somewhat unpopular leader as their agent. The reason being: if the leader is unpopular, they NEED America’s support. If they are popular, they are no longer dependent on America for their power and can do what they want. So in both cases, when America left, the people have no loyalty to the unpopular leader.


----------



## JayMysteri0

> World news
> ·LIVE
> Taliban fighters enter presidential palace in Kabul
> 
> - Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani relinquished power to an interim government led by Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar
> 
> - "In order to avoid the bloodshed, I thought it was best to get out," Ghani said in a statement - Officials told Reuters and The Associated Press that President Ghani fled Afghanistan for Tajikistan and is expected to travel to a third country
> 
> - The Pentagon authorized 1,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to help with the evacuation, boosting the overall number to 6,000, US officials said
> 
> - The US Embassy in Kabul has suspended all operations and told Americans to shelter in place, saying it has received reports of gunfire at the international airport, according to The Associated Press Keep up with the latest from reporters and experts here.




The Daily Show on Instagram-

_The situation in Afghanistan makes America look so bad, Texas has already banned schools from teaching it._


----------



## Thomas Veil

That is funny only because it sounds much like something Texas would do.

I tell ya, though, the photos of the Chinook helicopters flying low over the cities remind me_ so much_ of Saigon.

And now it’s too late for many Afghans to get out. If you want to get depressed, read this story of one of the interpreters we’ve abandoned. Not left behind…abandoned.

We may not be good at much else, but we still know how to betray our friends.









						The Taliban 'will kill me and my family,' says abandoned Afghan interpreter
					

The danger Haji and his family face grows every day as the Taliban claims more territory across the country, yet his repeated efforts to reach safety through a US visa program for interpreters keep hitting a brick wall.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Herdfan

WFT Liz?  I get you hate Trump, but given your last name, you might want to sit this one out.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> WFT Liz?  I get you hate Trump, but given your last name, you might want to sit this one out.
> 
> View attachment 8178



Other than completely lying about how it "began" ***cough daddy cough*** she's not wrong about how it's ending. We're basically handing it back to the Taliban on a silver platter, including everything we've armed the Afghans with (so bonus!).

I don't know what Biden (or Trump who started this exit) was hoping to expect but walking out on the people who have grown dependent on us doesn't seem like the right thing to do from a humanitarian standpoint.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> I don't know what Biden (or Trump who started this exit) was hoping to expect but walking out on the people who have grown dependent on us doesn't seem like the right thing to do from a humanitarian standpoint.




No it doesn't.  Like @Scepticalscribe, I have lots of friends who served and they are pissed at what is going on.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Thomas Veil said:


> That is funny only because it sounds much like something Texas would do.
> 
> I tell ya, though, the photos of the Chinook helicopters flying low over the cities remind me_ so much_ of Saigon.
> 
> And now it’s too late for many Afghans to get out. If you want to get depressed, read this story of one of the interpreters we’ve abandoned. Not left behind…abandoned.
> 
> We may not be good at much else, but we still know how to betray our friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Taliban 'will kill me and my family,' says abandoned Afghan interpreter
> 
> 
> The danger Haji and his family face grows every day as the Taliban claims more territory across the country, yet his repeated efforts to reach safety through a US visa program for interpreters keep hitting a brick wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com




Anyone who worked in Afghanistan will testify to the quality, courage, decency, dogged idealism and - yes - integrity of the staff (above all, interpreters - who were also often fixers and advisers, but also other local staff) who worked with us.

They were wonderful, not just eyes and ears, but advisers who very often became friends and who were invaluable - they offered incredible advice re navigating the contours of the local culture, and did it kindly and with grace - and were an incredible support.

It is unconscionable - appalling, disgusting, disgraceful and shaming - that it is not automatically axiomatic that they haven't been offered whatever support, sanctuary and asylum that they need.

I remember sitting with an interpreter - over coffee - he was briefing me on things he thought that I needed to know - recommended by some of my colleagues, within a matter of weeks of my arrival in the spring of 2013 in our compound in Kabul.

To my astonishment, he - speaking softly, quietly, seriously, earnestly - offered the extraordinary information that Mullah Omar "might have died" - that there was a "strong possibility that he had died" - this was not long after Easter 2013 - I had been in the country a mere matter of weeks - and he said, while he couldn't (formally) confirm this, that I needed to "factor it - this (strong) possibilty - in" to any analysis or reports that I would write.

Of course, as we now know, this was exactly when Mullah Omar had died, - around two years before it was formally confirmed - and my source (not for the first time, and this was something I experienced to my awed, stunned, and gratified amazement on many occasions) was extraordinarily well informed.

I vividly remember the night the Vice President dropped dead of a cardiac arrest.  Between 22.30 and midnight, five separate Afghan sources phoned me to inform me of this fact, - it had not yet been publicly announced - keeping me informed, and knowing that I would have to give a political briefing at 08.00 to the EU mission where I served as Polad (political adviser/counsellor); my - astounded - question (this was in the middle of the 2014 election campaign) - "was it natural?" (i.e. was he assassinated? was he killed?) elicted shouts of laughter: "Hey," (addressing me by name - but kindly - and in English, which is my language but not theirs), "is a heart attack natural?  You be the judge."

I loved some of them; they were wonderful and brave and decent, and deserve an awful lot better than has what befallen them.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> No it doesn't.  Like @Scepticalscribe, I have lots of friends who served and they are pissed at what is going on.




I can't begin to describe how upset I am tonight.


----------



## Herdfan

Scepticalscribe said:


> I can't begin to describe how upset I am tonight.




So sorry.  Our service personnel don't deserve this!


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> Other than completely lying about how it "began" ***cough daddy cough*** she's not wrong about how it's ending. We're basically handing it back to the Taliban on a silver platter, including everything we've armed the Afghans with (so bonus!).
> 
> I don't know what Biden (or Trump who started this exit) was hoping to expect but walking out on the people who have grown dependent on us doesn't seem like the right thing to do from a humanitarian standpoint.



I was against the invasion 20 years ago, so part of me is happy while I recognized there are people in that country who put their trust in us, who may have already come to a bad end. That is tragic as usual in a situation like this and I’m not making excuses for the US’s role in this.

An important point is this, they can and did wait us out, 2 decades.  We can no longer afford permanent occupations and the people we propped up had not the will to stand up for their convictions, despite the “training” and equipment.


----------



## Eric

Huntn said:


> I was against the invasion 20 years ago, so part of me is happy while I recognized there are people in that country who put their trust in us, who may have already come to a bad end. That is tragic as usual in a situation like this and I’m not making excuses for the US’s role in this.
> 
> An important point is this, they can and did wait us out, 2 decades.  We can no longer afford permanent occupations and the people we propped up had not the will to stand up for their convictions, despite the “training” and equipment.



It seems like a better managed and controlled departure would've been a better solution here. I'm not sure how much was put into that because all we would hear is things like "we don't want them to know when we're leaving" instead of "this plan will take 5 years with a goal of properly handing it off".


----------



## Deleted member 215

So were there no plans to properly hand it off before Trump promised to withdraw? Were there such plans when Obama wanted to withdraw (and then walked back doing so)? I would like to know exactly how those in positions of power thought this would be accomplished.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> It seems like a better managed and controlled departure would've been a better solution here. I'm not sure how much was put into that because all we would hear is things like "we don't want them to know when we're leaving" instead of "this plan will take 5 years with a goal of properly handing it off".




The US could have waited until what is quaintly termed "the fighting season" had ended, i.e. when winter would have made mountain passes impassable, and when the Taliban could not have launched an offensive, - which might have allowed a few months of conslidation by the Afghan defence forces, instead of setting a ludicrous date of September so that they could announce that they had withdrawn from the country on the twentieth anniversary of 9/11.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> So were there no plans to properly hand it off before Trump promised to withdraw? Were there such plans when Obama wanted to withdraw (and then walked back doing so)? I would like to know exactly how those in positions of power thought this would be accomplished.



Trump’s administration held peace talks with the Taliban and excluded the Afghan government from the talks. Probably because the Afghan government was so weak… but still it looks like the Taliban just used the peace agreement to keep Americans from shooting at them until they left so they could build up their forces and be ready to invade immediately thereafter.









						U.S.-Taliban Peace Deal: What to Know
					

The United States and the Taliban signed an agreement aimed at ending the eighteen-year war in Afghanistan, but many factors could still disrupt the peace process.




					www.cfr.org


----------



## Eric

I find it hard to blame any one president here, for the last 20 years they've all played a role in one way or another and now it's sitting on Biden's doorstep and IMO he needs to address it.

Anyone under the age of 20 has no idea what it was like back then and we're basically sending them back to the stone age, I don't care about democrats vs republicans, we need to do the right thing.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> I find it hard to blame any one president here, for the last 20 years they've all played a role in one way or another and now it's sitting on Biden's doorstep and IMO he needs to address it.
> 
> Anyone under the age of 20 has no idea what it was like back then and we're basically sending them back to the stone age, I don't care about democrats vs republicans, we need to do the right thing.



So more war? To be honest, if Biden wanted to say “just kidding we’re not leaving” - now would be the perfect time - the Taliban are out of their holes and out in the open. They could inflict massive casualties on them… but that would probably just lead to another 20 years of them building back up, hiding in the mountains, crossing into Pakistan, etc, etc….


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> So more war? To be honest, if Biden wanted to say “just kidding we’re not leaving” - now would be the perfect time - the Taliban are out of their holes and out in the open. They could inflict massive casualties on them… but that would probably just lead to another 20 years of them building back up, hiding in the mountains, crossing into Pakistan, etc, etc….



I suppose it would be more war in a sense but we were at the point of maintaining control and not in constant battle. I don't disagree but if they put in a quarter of the effort towards properly planning an exit as they did occupying the country we would actually have a strategy in place. Walking out on them with no real plan or notice and leaving all those people at the hands of monsters will create a major humanitarian crisis.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> I suppose it would be more war in a sense but we were at the point of maintaining control and not in constant battle. I don't disagree but if they put in a quarter of the effort towards properly planning an exit as they did occupying the country we would actually have a strategy in place. Walking out on them with no real plan or notice and leaving all those people at the hands of monsters will create a major humanitarian crisis.



There is no way the US can make the Afghan government popular. They can’t teach loyalty to the Afghan soldiers. Even if the withdrawal was done differently, the Taliban would still try to retake control as soon as we left. Apparently the Afghan army is not willing to give their lives to defend such an unpopular government led by a president who ran away at the first sign of trouble.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

SuperMatt said:


> Trump’s administration held peace talks with the Taliban and excluded the Afghan government from the talks. Probably because the Afghan government was so weak… but still it looks like the Taliban just used the peace agreement to keep Americans from shooting at them until they left so they could build up their forces and be ready to invade immediately thereafter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S.-Taliban Peace Deal: What to Know
> 
> 
> The United States and the Taliban signed an agreement aimed at ending the eighteen-year war in Afghanistan, but many factors could still disrupt the peace process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cfr.org



Look:

At that time, the Afghan Government were the recognised government of the country.  When you negotiate with a national authority, you negotiate with the recognised - and legitimate - government of a country. 

That is diplomacy. 

To do otherwise is not just outrageous, but makes a complete mockery of the rule of law, diplomacy, the norms of international relations.

To exclude them - the (then) Afghan Government - from talks on the future of their country (presumably because they were "weak") is not only unconscionable, insulting, offensive, utterly unprofessional - but - from a practical point of view, served both to undermine the Afghan Government, and to legitimise the Taliban.

Is that really what the US Government (yes, I know - and am fully aware - that this happened under the administration of the loathsome Mr Trump, rather than that of Mr Biden) wants?  

To negotiate with terrorists, crimelords, criminals, just because they are powerful, and, in the process, serve to undermine actual legitimate, and internationally recognised, governmental authorities?


----------



## Hrafn

Eric said:


> I find it hard to blame any one president here, for the last 20 years they've all played a role in one way or another and now it's sitting on Biden's doorstep and IMO he needs to address it.
> 
> Anyone under the age of 20 has no idea what it was like back then and we're basically sending them back to the stone age, I don't care about democrats vs republicans, we need to do the right thing.



I'm sorry, but which is what, exactly?  There was no "winning" when we went in under false pretenses, and there is clearly no "winning" in the area at any rate.


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> Look:
> 
> At that time, the Afghan Government were the recognised government of the country.  When you negotiate with a national authority, you negotiate with the recognised - and legitimate - government of a country.
> 
> That is diplomacy.
> 
> To do otherwise is not just outrageous, but makes a complete mockery of the rule of law, diplomacy, the norms of international relations.
> 
> To exclude them - the (then) Afghan Government - from talks on the future of their country (presumably because they were "weak") is not only unconscionable, insulting, offensive, utterly unprofessional - but - from a practical point of view, served both to undermine the Afghan Government, and to legitimise the Taliban.
> 
> Is that really what the US Government (yes, I know - and am fully aware - that this happened under the administration of the loathsome Mr Trump, rather than that of Mr Biden) wants?
> 
> To negotiate with terrorists, crimelords, criminals, just because they are powerful, and, in the process, serve to undermine actual legitimate, and internationally recognised, governmental authorities?



I couldn’t agree more - well written and thank you.

Trump‘s decision to negotiate with the Taliban and exclude the official government was not only consistent with his destruction of American diplomacy, but led directly to the situation today.


----------



## hulugu

TBL said:


> Maybe our only role in Afghanistan should've been maintaining a low presence to deter a Taliban takeover. Clearly our efforts at building up the government and the army didn't work. But it seems clear the Taliban weren't acting with the threat of an American retaliation hanging over them. As soon as they realized that wasn't going to happen (because of the withdrawal), they took over with swiftness, something they probably could've done years ago.
> 
> The original reason we went into Afghanistan was because the country under the Taliban was harboring terrorists like Al Qaeda. Somehow I don't see that no longer being an issue.
> 
> Of course, Pakistan is also a haven for terrorists and we don't seem to be doing much about that...




The utter collapse of the Afghanistan army, not only across the country, but in what the former stronghold of the Northern Alliance Mazar-e-Sharif, tells us everything about the situation. 

The entire attempt to create a modern military controlled by the central authority in Kabul was a failure, and we were just buying time all these years. 

The Biden administration's failure was not to plan for this moment—hoping it was months away, rather than right now. But, this whole enterprise was a failure, and it was screwed up by the Bush-era. Obama spent too much time listening to the counter-insurgency folks, but the "surge" didn't work. And Trump's era was just the cherry on top of this mud pie. 

People are right to be mad at Biden, but not because the Taliban took over Afghanistan, but rather that we didn't spend the last six months getting everyone who needed it a ticket the hell out of there.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## The-Real-Deal82

Trump spent a lot of time criticising Biden earlier this year for him missing the 1st of May deadline for US troopers leaving Afghanistan. A lot of insults used etc. I’ve just noticed Trump is now calling for Biden to resign if disgrace over the Taliban seizing control of the country. Is this guy for real? He is now blaming his successor for his own failure and is arrogant enough to think nobody blames him for part of this. 

America seriously needs to put forward more competent people for this job and not rely on money competitions and popularity contests. I can’t think of any other western democracy that allows anybody to buy their way into a leadership contest with the potential to cause so much damage.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## hulugu

The-Real-Deal82 said:


> Trump spent a lot of time criticising Biden earlier this year for him missing the 1st of May deadline for US troopers leaving Afghanistan. A lot of insults used etc. I’ve just noticed Trump is now calling for Biden to resign if disgrace over the Taliban seizing control of the country. Is this guy for real? He is now blaming his successor for his own failure and is arrogant enough to think nobody blames him for part of this.
> 
> America seriously needs to put forward more competent people for this job and not rely on money competitions and popularity contests. I can’t think of any other western democracy that allows anybody to buy their way into a leadership contest with the potential to cause so much damage.




It's worse than that, the entire GOP apparatus is now quickly scrubbing away all the articles that praised Pompeo's meeting with the Taliban, and that Trump would create peace in our time by quickly bringing the troops home. 

Again, the Biden fuckup is not that the U.S. is withdrawing, or that the Afghan military noped out of fighting for Mazar, but rather that we didn't spend the last 6 months shipping people to the U.S. on Special Interest Visas with a plan to evacuate most others the minute that the Taliban got moving. 

We could have stymied this assault with air support, but we agreed to withdraw under Trump.


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> It seems like a better managed and controlled departure would've been a better solution here. I'm not sure how much was put into that because all we would hear is things like "we don't want them to know when we're leaving" instead of "this plan will take 5 years with a goal of properly handing it off".



As I said, I’m not making excuses for the Biden Administration but I also remember Vietnam, another lost cause. This was a bad situation from the start. Country building where many of the citizens don’t want to be “like us” is a tough sell, unless you want to manage a permanent colony, aka colonialists which takes longer than 20 years.

Afghanistan was controlled as long as we were the bear in the room. As per @Scepticalscribe’s  idea to wait for the fighting season to be over, this may have bought the government another 6 months and I think the same thing would have happened. Spread withdrawal out over 5 years and as soon as  Afghan forces started losing their grip, it would have been another never ending commitment, in a country that really does not offer any economic advantage, just a trillions dollar sink hole.

The thing is your forces have to have the conviction to fight and in this case it appears the Islamists are the ones with the conviction.

And a lot of us can be pissed we either squandered our sacrifices there by way of lost military lives, or we threw away several fortunes on a lost cause. To be clear I’m not saying Afghanies are a lost cause as a group of people, and the killing going there now makes me feel ill, but I also felt ill when enemies were manufactured with practises like wedding parties being targeted with drone strikes.

I’m saying country building was the lost cause and we lacked the conviction to see it through, and I never wanted to be in another Vietnam. Besides we were supposed to have gained so much wisdom  after Vietnam we’d never get into that situation again. Desert Storm seemed to follow that rule. But then it was a Republican Administration who made that choice after 9-11 and the hijackers were not even from Afghanistan and we frick’n invaded Iraq too! Super Fail, poor choices in leadership and everyone pays for our foolishness.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Holy Fuck this is unreal looking!

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427270433083166721/


----------



## Eric

JayMysteri0 said:


> Holy Fuck this is unreal looking!
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427270433083166721/



It's sad and also infuriating. I get that Biden inherited this mess but we're leaving all of those poor people to die at the hands of monsters over a hasty withdrawal that could have been planned and executed much better than this.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

JayMysteri0 said:


> Holy Fuck this is unreal looking!
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427270433083166721/




I know that airport extremely well.

And, you know, it used to be very well guarded, with more than adequate security.

This is tragic, harrowing and utterly heart-breaking.


----------



## Eric

Well, that aged well.









						GOP removes page praising Donald Trump's "historic" peace deal with Taliban
					

The removal comes after Trump branded the withdrawal from Afghanistan "one of the greatest defeats in American history."



					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Deleted member 215

Huntn said:


> I’m saying country building was the lost cause and we lacked the conviction to see it through, and I never wanted to be in another Vietnam. Besides we were supposed to have gained so much wisdom  after Vietnam we’d never get into that situation again




The only thing we learned from Vietnam was to have a volunteer army. An important lesson, but certainly not the only one we could've learned from it.

I'm also not convinced buying the government a few more months would've had a significant impact, but there were many sources indicating that the Taliban would take over within 3 months (and that wasn't considered to be a particularly good scenario either). Apparently there was a Twitter screengrab from the Taliban's own website indicating even they thought it would take three months to retake the country. Jen Psaki was quoted as saying Afghan forces "have what they need", which is ironic but also illustrates the extent to which most of what we did was provide equipment rather than any effective training or organizing. Equipment that will now belong to the Taliban.

A spokesman for the Pentagon said a few days ago, "the narrative that in every place, in every way, the Afghan forces are simply folding up and walking away is not accurate". Except that is accurate and Kabul fell without a fight.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Deleted member 215

^True. I guess with the U.S. leaving, Afghan soldiers wanted to be on the side that they knew would win. Then I guess I just have to wonder why we even bothered, if they were never going to fight the Taliban in the first place.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## DT

theSeb said:


> I am not sure about the lack of preparation. I reckon they got the supplies and they got the training. They chose not to fight, because they clearly see no cause to fight. The Taliban, on the other hand, have a cause and passion. No amount of training or organising will help when you have people that see no point in doing something




Totally agree with this, in particular the "Why bother?" vs. cause and passion, the latter will win every time.   Without the ongoing boots-on-the-ground and huge tactical advantage of US air support, leaving always meant what we've seen.  The fuck up, is knowing this was the planned action and not taking months to remove people and/or setup far better mechanisms to get people out.

Edited to say:  both not pre-planning months in advance __and__ underestimating the speed at which the Taliban would take control again, that was a BAD mix.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

theSeb said:


> Ah well. This is where things get a bit more interesting.
> 
> I remembered reading stuff about this quite a long time ago, so I had to try and find something from that era just to confirm my memory was correct
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 8186
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan (Published 2010)
> 
> 
> The nearly $1 trillion in untapped deposits are enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on
> 
> 
> Afghanistan, often dismissed in the West as an impoverished and failed state, is sitting on $1 trillion of untapped minerals, according to new calculations from surveys conducted jointly by the Pentagon and the US Geological Survey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon that lithium is super tasty, especially in the context of the ever increasing needs for it (electric cars etc)




Well said, @theSeb.

Actually, I had planned to reply in similar terms to @Huntn's remarks.

Anyway, Afghanistan is home to rich deposits (and veins of) lapis lazuli, lithium, rare earth minerals, cobalt and copper among others - I seem to recall that the world's second largest copper mine lies in the country, and the enlightened - impressive, competent and well educated - Afghan governor (Arsala Jamal) who attempted to have it re-opened - and functional, and running, giving much needed employment and economic development in his region, Logar, - was assassinated by the Taliban (in a mosque, if memory serves) while I was in the country.


----------



## Deleted member 215

There are also Afghanistan's vast opium fields, which have been a major source of revenue for the Taliban.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

TBL said:


> There are also Afghanistan's vast opium fields, which have been a major source of revenue for the Taliban.




And some of the best saffron - the most expensive spice - in the world.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> There are also Afghanistan's vast opium fields, which have been a major source of revenue for the Taliban.




Always wondered why these weren't destroyed.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> Always wondered why these weren't destroyed.




From what I could gather, the problem was two fold.

Firstly, it was in the interests of the Taliban to persuade (or compel, or coerce) farmers to grow opium, - actually, cultivate poppies - both for commercial reasons, (they made a lot of money from it), were able to control whole regions - made the farmers both coerced and complicit - and also to encourage addiction among the infidels, with the exported finished product.

And, secondly, even disregarding regions where the Taliban were strong, and encouraged or compelled or coerced farmers to grow poppies, making them complicit in the production of opium, - if we look at regions which were not under the sway of the Taliban, the challenge lay in persuading farmers to grow other crops instead of poppies, that is, crops that were equally remunerative - growing potatoes, for example, won't cut it, not when you have become used to the easy monies available from the cultivation of the poppy which becomes opium.  Afghans asked (reasonably) for suggestions as to what they should - or could - grow which would be as remunerative as growing poppies.

Thus, some of the more enlightened NGOs focussed on saffron; it is very profitable - for it is the most expensive spice on the planet - and Afghanistan (lying between the saffron producing countries of Iran and India) has a perfect climate and conditions for the cultivation of saffron.

The quality of the saffron produced in Afghanistan was very high, and some of the NGOs focussed on both female empowerment, & economic independence - saffron is a high maintenance crop, and requires careful cultivation - teaching women to grow, tend, harvest, produce and market saffron - by encouraging the growth of saffron as an equally profitable replacement for opium.

Needless to say, the Taliban were especially incensed by the thought of saffron production (and female empowerment), where the producers would be at least equally well remunerated by growing saffron, (earning at least as much as they would have from cultivating poppies) would be economically independent, - and would not be growing opium (well, poppies), - the funds for which would find their way to Taliban coffers - and deliberately targeted saffron growth initiatives, especially those that supported female empowerment.


----------



## Herdfan

Thanks for the insight.


----------



## The-Real-Deal82

I’ve also noticed that most of the worlds media has forgotten the US had allies in Afghanistan, therefore it’s only one country getting the blame for pulling out.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

The-Real-Deal82 said:


> I’ve also noticed that most of the worlds media has forgotten the US had allies in Afghanistan, therefore it’s only one country getting the blame for pulling out.




The situation was - and the German government today alluded to it - was that the allies were not in a position to keep troops (or police, or civilians) - irrespective of whether or not they wished to be able to remain in place - in the country (Afghanistan) once the security umbrella provided by the presence of US forces (and that included other NATO countries, or third party countries - such as NZ and Canada) was withdrawn.  

They didn't have the military resources - or military reach - to do so, and so were unable to protect their own people once the security umbrella that the US presence allowed for, was withdrawn.


----------



## JayMysteri0

While the people have their own horror show to deal with in Afghanistan, we get our own political version as some feel compelled to use this for their cynical gains.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427279488983998473/

This is a sight I could NEVER imagine.  Let alone using it...


----------



## Herdfan

JayMysteri0 said:


> While the people have their own horror show to deal with in Afghanistan, we get our own political version as some feel compelled to use this for their cynical gains.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427279488983998473/
> 
> This is a sight I could NEVER imagine.  Let alone using it...




Well, he DOES need to address the nation with something more substantive than what his favorite ice cream flavor is.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> Well, he DOES need to address the nation with something more substantive than what his favorite ice cream flavor is.



That was so funny I forgot to laugh. By the way, I don’t understand you or McCarthy complaining about him not speaking. He’s already got a speech planned in an hour.

Biden speaks plenty about a lot of things. Maybe they don’t show it on Fox so you don’t know about it? Apparently they just loop a video of him talking about ice cream based on your statement.

If you want to see the speech, you might have to change the station away from Fox - they’ll probably be showing something about CRT or Antifa instead.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> He’s already got a speech planned in an hour.
> 
> 
> If you want to see the speech, you might have to change the station away from Fox - they’ll probably be showing something about CRT or Antifa instead.




I just saw that.  We will see how he does.  But even the more liberal media is absolutely hammering him over this.  Not sure if they are mad at him over the mess, or mad because they know how bad it makes him look.

Fox will carry it.  But just so you know, my TV hasn't been on FoxNews more than a couple of hours in 2021.  I do read their app on occasion, but rarely watch them on TV.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> I couldn’t agree more - well written and thank you.
> 
> Trump‘s decision to negotiate with the Taliban and exclude the official government was not only consistent with his destruction of American diplomacy, but led directly to the situation today.




Hence the haste with which the GOP withdrew that Trump-praiseful page about his US-Taliban talks on their website.  Aside from the disrespect to the Afghan government shown by Trump in starting to negotiate directly with the Taliban, it was naive to expect the Taliban to uphold for long their side of a lot of the details in that agreement, e.g., that they would permit the CIA to maintain a presence in "Taliban-held" areas.   Ludicrous.

Beyond ludicrous, actually.   What case officer in right mind would take that guarantee seriously anyway in a contested political situation abroad.  The only thing that that detail in the agreement could possibly have translated to was that yet more pallets of cash would land along with the agency officers...​
But never mind that now.... in taking that website page down,  the GOP hopes Americans won't remember that Trump is who gave the Taliban an officially American-backed leg up to the retaking of Afghanistan by the Taliban.   Makes it easier to bash Biden for whatever goes wrong as we leave, 20 years after declaring "war on terror" (and having opened a bazaar beyond the wildest dreams of plenty of Afghans having no strong allegiance to anything in particular past getting in hand the means for keeping food on a family's table). 

The realization of that dream (trucks, equipment, weapons, cash money for loyalty) and certainly the dreams of women and children end as a looming nightmare of domestic terror now,  while Afghans sort out all over again whose offer is more worth another temporary and local allegiance... within provinces, or with foreign participation in forming yet again a "national" government. 

There was never going to be an easy way out of Afghanistan.   The Republicans trashing Biden now are hypocrites.  I'm not saying Democrats haven't bashed Trump for launching our departure.  We're a country long focused on "so much winning" in the halls of politics,  and we don't have a vocabulary for sharing either victory or losses any more.

Anyway it strikes me as pathetic that the Republicans and Democrats alike are looking to make political hay off blaming each other for how the military effort is concluding.   They were in it together for 20 years in both Congress and the White House,  or we'd have left sooner, and we're only leaving now because --same as with the American war in Vietnam--  the political will of the American people that we leave is finally and unmistakably stronger than the will of the movers and shakers in DC to cover their asses and keep pouring blood and treasure into an unmanageable cause.

Maybe it was always a hopeless cause.  It's not like anything we did to punish Afghans for having sheltered terrorists could resurrect the three thousand Americans who died in the September 11 attacks.   Exacting revenge can't do that.  Nothing can do that, including efforts to rebuild Afghanistan after we punished it for having sheltered terrorists.  I do find it surprising that we could not foresee Afghan menfolk flipping quickly to the Taliban, easily shifting alliance as an ingrained behavior in a culture of deep corruption.  The Taliban had money from the opium trade, after all, and the Afghan soldiers had only the announcement that the US would be leaving. 

We must have known this power shift could happen quickly,  since we have counted on that behavior ourselves to obtain alliances of convenience in northern Iraq and in Syria as well.  It's one thing to leave, and another to ignore the still prevailing culture as one makes ready to depart.  Not sure there was ever going to be a smooth disentanglement for Afghanistan from the inflow of billions of US dollars that underlay a tenuous central government's grip on power.​
Only Afghan women will eventually be able to say whether 20 years of our presence among them will have translated to long term added value in the overall Afghan culture.   There are some who say Afghanistan's sense of itself can never revert to how it was in 2001 and that improvements have sprung largely from women's broader participation in education, marketplace and workforce including government.   Great.  All the country has to do now is manage to put a spine in their menfolk as the Taliban once again attempt to establish formally the Islamic State of Afghanistan.


----------



## Huntn

Eric said:


> It's sad and also infuriating. I get that Biden inherited this mess but we're leaving all of those poor people to die at the hands of monsters over a hasty withdrawal that could have been planned and executed much better than this.



Maybe if they had actually planned for a rapid collapse?


----------



## Herdfan

lizkat said:


> Only Afghan women will eventually be able to say whether 20 years of our presence among them will have translated to long term added value in the overall Afghan culture.   There are some who say Afghanistan's sense of itself can never revert to how it was in 2001 and that improvements have sprung largely from women's broader participation in education, marketplace and workforce including government.   Great.  All the country has to do now is manage to put a spine in their menfolk as the Taliban once again attempt to establish formally the Islamic State of Afghanistan.




Sadly probably not.  Reports are the Taliban has already closed schools and businesses to women.  

There is a pic of a female reporter covering the story.  Yesterday she was wearing western clothes, today she is in full Islamic garb.

This will not be good for women.


----------



## Huntn

theSeb said:


> Ah well. This is where things get a bit more interesting.
> 
> I remembered reading stuff about this quite a long time ago, so I had to try and find something from that era just to confirm my memory was correct
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 8186
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan (Published 2010)
> 
> 
> The nearly $1 trillion in untapped deposits are enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on
> 
> 
> Afghanistan, often dismissed in the West as an impoverished and failed state, is sitting on $1 trillion of untapped minerals, according to new calculations from surveys conducted jointly by the Pentagon and the US Geological Survey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon that lithium is super tasty, especially in the context of the ever increasing needs for it (electric cars etc)



I wonder if any of those riches have been harvested? I suppose China or Russia will now cash in.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> Sadly probably not.  Reports are the Taliban has already closed schools and businesses to women.
> 
> There is a pic of a female reporter covering the story.  Yesterday she was wearing western clothes, today she is in full Islamic garb.
> 
> This will not be good for women.



I assume some will flee. How tough it must be to be oppressed in this manner.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> Sadly probably not.  Reports are the Taliban has already closed schools and businesses to women.
> 
> There is a pic of a female reporter covering the story.  Yesterday she was wearing western clothes, today she is in full Islamic garb.
> 
> This will not be good for women.




No of course not in the short term.   It's hard to know right now what the longer term will look like.   The men in some of the Afghan rural provinces are no more fond of the Taliban than they ever were of Russian or Americans...


----------



## Huntn

lizkat said:


> No of course not in the short term.   It's hard to know right now what the longer term will look like.   The men in some of the Afghan rural provinces are no more fond of the Taliban than they ever were of Russian or Americans...



The Taliban is now the bear In Afghanistan for  the populace to decide if they can live with. The thing is, it never went away has always been operating in the shadows biding it’s time and appears to have the momentum.


----------



## lizkat

Huntn said:


> I wonder if any of those riches have been harvested? I suppose China or Russia will now cash in.




Well that's been part of China's interest in extending its Belt and Road initiative into Pakistan and Tajikistan.  And,  northeastern Afghanistan itself does have a narrow east-pointing finger (running below Tajikistan and above Pakistan) that directly abuts a part of China's Xinjiang province.

The problem for any private or sovereign state investor in Afghanistan, regarding building of infrastructure for exploiting and transporting mineral resources  --past the substantial challenges of terrain--  has always been lack of long term political stability of the host country.    Trump kept hammering on Gary Cohn about why don't we just round up companies to start taking out the Afghanistan minerals?  and Cohn and Ross both kept telling him a) there are no roads and b) building roads or pipelines when there's also no government is not the stuff of a dream portfolio.  

China's Belt and Road projects have driven up the debt load in most of the countries where they've commenced, and it's possible some of the more severely underdeveloped countries will end up having to make concessions to China either in natural resources, other exportable goods or winking at human rights issues in trade  or labor exchanges with China in order to see those projects completed.   This is not likely accidental on China's part.

On the other hand, China has found itself overextended on some of the projects, due to the economic effects of covid but also possibly due to underestimating the geographic challenges.  I shouldn't think Tajikistan or Pakistan exempt from the latter.  

And Afghanistan, well,  China's basically just placemarking it now the same as anyone else with commercial interests including Russia and the USA.   The Taliban's control of its own forces is dubious and its long term political prospects remain to be seen.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> But even the more liberal media is absolutely hammering him over this.




They’re hammering him because all major news media, left or right, is pro-war and pro-occupation 24/7/365. It’s the only thing they agree on. Even when Trump announced withdrawals it was probably the one time during his entire presidency that right-wing media wasn’t unilaterally applauding him. Even a few Republican politicians briefly grew a pair in opposition.


----------



## Renzatic

Due to this, Biden's approval ratings have just slipped below 50% for the first time. Wonder if this clusterfuck is going to be what defines his presidency.


----------



## lizkat

Renzatic said:


> Due to this, Biden's approval ratings have just slipped below 50% for the first time. Wonder if this clusterfuck is going to be what defines his presidency.




No, because a vast majority of Americans wanted to get out.

We also wanted some kind of feelgood fairytale ending along the way.   That's also how most of us are...


----------



## Eric

Renzatic said:


> Due to this, Biden's approval ratings have just slipped below 50% for the first time. Wonder if this clusterfuck is going to be what defines his presidency.



Just watched his conference and he's sticking to it, I know there are those here who disagree and I get that but IMO it was a complete shit show that could've been handled better. Everyone is far more focused on getting out than actually formulating a proper withdrawal.

Anyone who thinks those people deserve what's going to happen at the hands of the Taliban have little empathy, we expect that from Trump supporters but the rest of us should be better than this.


----------



## Deleted member 215

^I've been pretty staunchly pro-withdrawal but I don't think that the Afghan people deserve this. I'll admit that I wasn't really expecting much better than this (and certainly didn't think there'd be a "fairytale ending"), but seeing it play out leads me to believe that the withdrawal process could've begun earlier, been more gradual, and been more effective in getting people other than American citizens out. The way it has gone was essentially a grand announcement to the Taliban that they can now do whatever they want because there will be no consequences. However, some blame for that should be directed at the Afghan army and government who turned tail and let the Taliban take over without resistance.


----------



## Eric

TBL said:


> ^I've been pretty staunchly pro-withdrawal but I don't think that the Afghan people deserve this. I'll admit that I wasn't really expecting much better than this (and certainly didn't think there'd be a "fairytale ending"), but seeing it play out leads me to believe that the withdrawal process could've begun earlier, been more gradual, and been more effective in getting people other than American citizens out. The way it has gone was essentially a grand announcement to the Taliban that they can now do whatever they want because there will be no consequences. However, some blame for that should be directed at the Afghan army and government who turned tail and let the Taliban take over without resistance.



Yeah, we were able to equip them with everything they need but the will to stand up against an aggressive terrorist force. They never had it before so it should be no surprise they don't now. Had we not gone in there to begin with none of this would be an issue but there's nothing more American than taking over a brown country, imposing our ways on them and then leaving them hung out to dry.

I don't think this will end well for Biden but he has said all along that he would do this. We'll have to see how it plays out.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

For the partisan hacks out there, Trump probably would have done the exact same thing except while giving a finger to the press and establishment and it would probably do very little to his political career or legacy.  Soooo...if it was going to end this way regardless, it probably would have been better to have Trump doing it?


----------



## Renzatic

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> For the partisan hacks out there, Trump probably would have done the exact same thing except while giving a finger to the press and establishment and it would probably do very little to his political career or legacy.  Soooo...if it was going to end this way regardless, it probably would have been better to have Trump doing it?




No, because then Trump would still be in office afterwards.

No matter how mediocre Biden may be, how badly he fucked this up, we can at least rest assured that if he truly goes off the deep end, he can at least be held accountable.


----------



## lizkat

Eric said:


> Just watched his conference and he's sticking to it, I know there are those here who disagree and I get that but IMO it was a complete shit show that could've been handled better. Everyone is far more focused on getting out than actually formulating a proper withdrawal.
> 
> Anyone who thinks those people deserve what's going to happen at the hands of the Taliban have little empathy, we expect that from Trump supporters but the rest of us should be better than this.




We can maybe  be "better than this" in terms of how we feel about the plight of the Afghans now, or how we decide to view the whole debacle from start to finish (finish not arrived at yet by any means)...  and in pressure now to do right in future by Afghans who helped us but whom we're likely leaving stranded in third-party countries as we depart,  but it was never going to be pretty at the Kabul airport once the Taliban got a public green light from Trump to sit down and talk turkey with the USA.

There was no way to prevent a debacle after Trump openly met w/ Taliban to reach a publicized agreement.

Wouldn't be much different if the notice period had been six months or six hours.  The Taliban might have had to spend a little more money to buy switch of allegiance if US military presence and money for it had stretched out longer.  On the other hand the Taliban might have acquired even more windfall weapons and other valuable materiel.

We were always going to be stuck with an insurmountable problem of how to extract like a hundred thousand Afghans who were our fixers and translators and assistants in a country where the language and culture were so unfamiliar.   Can't be done nicely in a hostile situation where the political settlement has not been arrived at and yet a major military force is leaving the battlefield.  

I won't even say Trump was wrong to start talks with the Taliban.   Kabul's central "government" du jour was going to milk us forever,  because it's what they do to survive themselves. 

So if we didn't want a forever war anymore, it was time to leave, and it was sure late in the day to test how well we had managed to start weaning the Afghans off our support for their weak central government.   We were enmeshed with them for help in a foreign culture and languages, and they with us for our money and weapons.

 To announce a departure was to endanger the Afghans who had assisted us.  But we couldn't leave safely ourselves by helping them all get out safely first.  We're lucky we didn't encounter more "blue on green" incidents in the runup to our departure.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Renzatic said:


> No, because then Trump would still be in office afterwards.
> 
> No matter how mediocre Biden may be, how badly he fucked this up, we can at least rest assured that if he truly goes off the deep end, he can at least be held accountable.




Nobody in our government or military has ever been held accountable for this entire mess, and at least under Trump we would be able to lump it in with the rest of his incompetence and indifference to humanity.  Even in this thread there are some "we are better than this" posts.  Under Trump it would be par for the course under his leadership, which would also give us the opportunity to make future amends and show we're not really like this.  Well....I guess we are like this.


----------



## Alli

We are not better than this. We do this time and time again. The US has had months to take care of its allies in Afghanistan and just put it off. They could have been transported to Guam two months ago. Of course, they could never have all been sent to the US because despite the help they gave us, half of the people in this country would have seen them as foreigners and they don’t want immigrants. You know the people I mean. And yet you know those are the ones who will complain the loudest.


----------



## Eric

Any Republican out there right now soliciting sympathy for women and children is absolutely laughable, lest someone can show where they've had the same humanitarian concern over those escaping Mexico. Total hypocrites.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Well....I guess we are like this.




We're not only like this but we doubled down from 2001 and went into Iraq in 2003 because... let's see... 

It wasn't going to be bad enough that 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi jihadists and we took it out on Afghanistan for sheltering their trainers?     [ EDIT:   15, not 19 were Saudis ]

What I won't let Trump off the hook for is exiting the JCPOA unilaterally.

The rest is on Bush and Obama for letting the Pentagon and Congress make hay off the American flag wavers' firm belief that there's nothing like a war to keep the economy rolling.

Iran must be laughing its ass off by now, really, despite its dire economic straits.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Alli said:


> We are not better than this. We do this time and time again. The US has had months to take care of its allies in Afghanistan and just put it off. They could have been transported to Guam two months ago. Of course, they could never have all been sent to the US because despite the help they gave us, half of the people in this country would have seen them as foreigners and they don’t want immigrants. You know the people I mean. And yet you know those are the ones who will complain the loudest.




It's interesting that some are now trying to compare this to the end of the Vietnam war, as if the wars that proceeded the exits were of little consequence.  It's all about the appearance of how we left.  We'll just sweep all the death and destruction that occurred while we were there under the rug.


----------



## Thomas Veil

One interesting thing: you will almost certainly never see Afghanistan's economy under the Taliban becoming anything like Vietnam's did after we left. 

Unless you consider opium growing to be a thriving economy. But somehow I can't see it  being listed on a stock exchange.


----------



## The-Real-Deal82

Scepticalscribe said:


> The situation was - and the German government today alluded to it - was that the allies were not in a position to keep troops (or police, or civilians) - irrespective of whether or not they wished to be able to remain in place - in the country (Afghanistan) once the security umbrella provided by the presence of US forces (and that included other NATO countries, or third party countries - such as NZ and Canada) was withdrawn.
> 
> They didn't have the military resources - or military reach - to do so, and so were unable to protect their own people once the security umbrella that the US presence allowed for, was withdrawn.




That’s very true. As good as the British armed forces are, we just don’t have enough personnel, but we are a small island. The US needed our help though as we seem to offer a level of strategic planning that makes us a very attractive ally. I do wish we’d sat this one out though as we lost so many good men and women for what now feels like nothing.


----------



## Herdfan

lizkat said:


> No, because a vast majority of Americans wanted to get out.
> 
> We also wanted some kind of feelgood fairytale ending along the way.   That's also how most of us are...




But I think there is a difference between wanting to get out and seeing what happened a day after we left.  Those videos of Afghan's falling off the planes will not be easily forgotten.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> But I think there is a difference between wanting to get out and seeing what happened a day after we left.  Those videos of Afghan's falling off the planes will not be easily forgotten.



People voted for 2 presidents in a row that promised to leave Afghanistan. It’s quite clear Americans overwhelmingly don’t want soldiers there.

What did people think would happen after we left? The Taliban was in control when we first attacked, and they are back in control now.

We should have never gone in to begin with, and we left at LEAST 10 years too late.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> But I think there is a difference between wanting to get out and seeing what happened a day after we left.  Those videos of Afghan's falling off the planes will not be easily forgotten.




Nor should they be forgotten.   Desperation drives people to do things that are impossible and are attempted anyway.  Let's not forget that people leaped from the World Trade Towers' uppermost floors on 9/11.  They did not really believe they would survive.  God knows what people sticking to a cargo plane departing a runway believed.  It speaks to their fear of the situation they believed they were facing had they remained.

Like lots of Americans,  I lived through watching and reading about the fall of Saigon. Like far fewer,  I lost someone I loved during that embassy evacuation in 1975.  So I've had some deep preconditioning about the concluding scenarios of our military adventures as they relate to getting people out of embassies and airports in the last days of a military departure,  in the absence of a successful political settlement ahead of time.  There are no graceful exits in those situations.   People do what they do.   People die and get hurt.  It's part and parcel of the war itself.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> What did people think would happen after we left? The Taliban was in control when we first attacked, and they are back in control now.



I expected them to have at least a reasonable exit plan, not to have mass crowds freaking out, getting rescued from rooftops out and falling off of planes.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> We should have never gone in to begin with, and we left at LEAST 10 years too late.




I still think we should have just lobbed a few cruise missiles somewhere in 2001,  and maybe not even Afghanistan.  I'd have liked to see some unoccupied palace of the then Saudi King laid waste as a hint to get his clerics under control instead of filtering money to them in appeasement and as reward for their tolerating the royals' self-serving and decadent ways.

And if we're so into climate change mitigation,  we shouldn't be digging fossil fuels out of the ground any more anyway, much less encouraging the Saudis to keep doing it for us.   Turn the deserts in our southwest into giant solar panels already, make more of them here for residential installations, create better solar storage facilities and transmission grids, and so a pox on the dead dinosaurs...

But no...  the allure of using the last gallon of black gold to make a Barbie doll head is too strong, I guess.  

We're banking on pulling a last minute miracle out of our hats on climate change, same as we apparently figured we could pull off a miraculously peaceful transition of power from a propped-up Afghan central government to a vicious band of fundamentalist thugs.  The Taliban leadership is a crew whose penchant for lies could give Trump a run for the money.

At least Biden will manage to move the country on from this debacle in a measured and sane way,  and eventually get some help back in there for Afghanistan via non-USA NGOs and etc.,   even though our exit as chief warlord has been (perhaps unavoidably) botched. Meanwhile the jokes about Trump's erstwhile incompetence in foreign affairs and in particular with respect to his understanding of power relationships in Central Asia and the Middle East may not be far off the mark.  I was fond enough of this one to hang onto it...


​


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> I expected them to have at least a reasonable exit plan, not to have mass crowds freaking out, getting rescued from rooftops out and falling off of planes.



The Taliban taking over the entire nation in one weekend with basically zero opposition was clearly not what they expected.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> The Taliban taking over the entire nation in one weekend with basically zero opposition was clearly not what they expected.




Well then they weren't listening or they were poorly advised.   There are doubtless American (and other nationality) veterans of service in Afghanistan who could have told them:  once it was clear the US $$$ faucet was going to be turned off, the Taliban was going to open their opium-dough spigot full blast and buy their way into enough power for a convincing takeover.   Whether they can hang on with the loyalty and weapons they bought is another question.  But the quick flip of allegiance?  Who's really surprised doesn't understand what centuries of deep corruption, weak government and poverty add up to.


----------



## hulugu

Renzatic said:


> No, because then Trump would still be in office afterwards.
> 
> No matter how mediocre Biden may be, how badly he fucked this up, we can at least rest assured that if he truly goes off the deep end, he can at least be held accountable.




And, it's worth noting again that the reason that the SIV system is so behind, and thousands of Afghani translators got left on the tarmac was because of Miller and his band of morons and crystal light supremacists, who undermined the State Dept. and USCIS. 

So, spare me any right-winger Trump-humper moaning about all those people. They had 4 years to give a whit. And, I thought that Pompeo had created peace in our time. No surprise he's another Chamberlain. 



Herdfan said:


> But I think there is a difference between wanting to get out and seeing what happened a day after we left.  Those videos of Afghan's falling off the planes will not be easily forgotten.




The proverbial left is going to remember this, but the right will forget about it the minute that someone says Critical Race Theory or Hungary. unless it remains an effective attack on Biden. Once Afghanistan stops being an effective cudgel they'll forget which continent it's on. 

Meanwhile, a lot of people who served time are horrified by this, but they're not really mad at Biden so much as frustrated that all that blood, treasure and sweat meant almost nothing. And, I suspect that the Bush-era, along with Cheney and the KBR/Haliburton fiasco is going to get dragged out. 

Bush's legacy was burnished by Trump's absolutely failures, but it's still going to look pretty bad in the relief of history and the collapse of Kabul.


----------



## hulugu

Worth your time: 

In The Atlantic, "The Taliban's Return is Catastrophic for Women"  by Lynsey Addario. 

From the piece: 



> ...
> As a single American woman, I needed to find a way to move around Afghanistan with a stand-in husband, and to take photographs without being caught (photography of any living thing was forbidden under the Taliban). I made contact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which was one of the few international organizations still functioning in Afghanistan, and the Comprehensive Disabled Afghans Programme, a UN agency that sought to rehabilitate those injured by the many land mines spread across the country. The groups arranged for men to escort me, along with drivers and translators, through the provinces of Ghazni, Logar, Wardak, Nangarhar, Herat, and Kabul to surreptitiously photograph and interview Afghan women. I quickly learned the virtue of being a female photojournalist, despite the challenges: I had free access to women in spaces where men were culturally or legally prohibited to enter.
> 
> From May 2000 to March 2001, over the course of three separate trips, I traveled around with my cameras and film tucked away in a small bag, visiting private homes, women’s hospitals, secret schools for girls. I went to underground mixed-gender weddings where the _Titanic _soundtrack bounced off the concrete basement walls as men and heavily made-up women (with nail polish) danced around in a display of pure joy—a simple pleasure that was punishable by execution under the regime controlling the streets outside.




It's a beautiful piece marked by really good photographs, and it explains a lot of where we are, and where Afghanistan might be going.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427547530179588132/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427582469730152454/


----------



## Scepticalscribe

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427547530179588132/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427582469730152454/




Appalling.  

And shameful.

As with many of the other Embassies under discussion these past days - and, indeed, the Ministry of the Interior, all of which I am familiar with - I've been in the Dutch Embassy, for meetings and briefings.

I will say that I have read that the British Ambassador has remained in Kabul airport, - where a sort of pop-up embassy, personified & staffed by him seems to exist - personally arranging exits for marooned Brits, and visas for stranded Afghan staff.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

hulugu said:


> Worth your time:
> 
> In The Atlantic, "The Taliban's Return is Catastrophic for Women"  by Lynsey Addario.
> 
> From the piece:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a beautiful piece marked by really good photographs, and it explains a lot of where we are, and where Afghanistan might be going.












						Taliban spokesman says U.S. will not be harmed from Afghan soil
					

"We don’t have any grudges," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said at a news conference in Kabul.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




This could get interesting.    They might be attempting a balancing act, at least initially.  They might realize that after 20 years of the people experiencing more freedoms it’s going to be a lot harder to bring back the old oppression.  

Even within the US the Republicans know once Americans experience expanded social services its going to be a lot harder for them to dial them back and still have support.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Critics Warn Withdrawal From Afghanistan Paints Entirely Accurate Picture Of U.S. Government
					

WASHINGTON—Characterizing the disaster left behind after a 20-year military intervention as completely indicative of what America stands for, critics warned Tuesday that the withdrawal from Afghanistan paints an entirely accurate picture of the U.S. government. “The collapse of a nation...




					www.theonion.com


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Critics Warn Withdrawal From Afghanistan Paints Entirely Accurate Picture Of U.S. Government
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON—Characterizing the disaster left behind after a 20-year military intervention as completely indicative of what America stands for, critics warned Tuesday that the withdrawal from Afghanistan paints an entirely accurate picture of the U.S. government. “The collapse of a nation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theonion.com



A takeover that Trump and MAGA could've only dreamed of


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Taliban spokesman says U.S. will not be harmed from Afghan soil
> 
> 
> "We don’t have any grudges," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said at a news conference in Kabul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could get interesting.    They might be attempting a balancing act, at least initially.  They might realize that after 20 years of the people experiencing more freedoms it’s going to be a lot harder to bring back the old oppression.
> 
> Even within the US the Republicans know once Americans experience expanded social services its going to be a lot harder for them to dial them back and still have support.



I think it may be a bit more subtle than that, but, yes, agreed, they may be attempting some sort of balancing act, at least, initially.

And yes, people have experienced more freedoms (in the cities, the ethnicities who are not Pashtun, women to name but three groups whose lives were immeasurably improved over the past twenty years - and here, I will just throw in the fact that I, personally, have observed, on countless occasions, crocodile lines of girls, young girls and older girls, and boys, too, all attired in neat school uniforms, heading to or from school in Kabul), and will not take kindly to their removal.

The Taliban will find that keeping, and holding and maintaining their rule (especially in the cities, and other ethnic regions) - without some form of consent - which may require some degree of a balancing act - on the part of the ruled - is not the same as military (and political) victories.  If they insist on ruling by force, inevitably, some will contest that. 

Moreover, foreign aid - which has comprised between two thirds (67%) and 80% of the state budget will be cut entirely - Germany has announced today that all foreign aid to Afghanistan will cease (and Germany was a generous donor) - will be cut, or its retention may be conditional on some degree of compromise on the part of the Taliban, or an indication that they will be prepared to be more lenient on matters of human rights, civil rights, and women's rights, than they were when they ruled the country previously.

And there is the issue of the position of the other ethnicities.

Under Taliban rule in the 1990s, the Hazaras - who are Shia - were treated atrociously; I cannot see Iran tolerating that - as the leading Shia state in the world, domestically, they cannot afford to be seen to tolerate that, quite apart from any theological ties they have to the Hazara, and this is the case, even if, they - for reasons of realpolitik, - wish to have an amicable relationship with the Taliban.

And then, there are the Tajiks and Uzbeks, two of the other ethnic groups.

The security forces were mainly comprised of Tajiks (and some Uzbeks; far fewer Pashtun served, from what I could see).  

Apparently, several military planes - full of fleeing security forces - landed in both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on Sunday; I would be willing to wager that the people those planes carried were soldiers (and police, possibly) who were Tajiks and Uzbeks.  

Thus, these countries - now host to an unknown number of trained troops and security personnel from Afghanistan - will be keeping a close eye - not just on relations with Afghanistan, and on proceedings within Afghanistan - but also on how people of their own ethnicity are treated by the Taliban (who, if anything, traditionally were an extreme expression of Pashtun nationalism expressed in an ascetic and severe interpretation of Islam).

On Sunday, Tajikistan refused to allow the plane carrying fleeing President Ashraf Ghani - and his immediate entourage - to land in the country; while some twits on Twitter have sneered at what they described as a "lack of Muslim solidarity" I think it goes far deeper than that.  

Ghani - who is Pashtun - seems to have had difficulty in dealing with dissenting opinions, and voices, and was famously incapable of forging harmonious relations with the Tajik members of his administration.

I don't doubt for one minute that he was haunted by the appalling death - murder - of former President Najibullah - who was cruelly murdered by the Taliban in 1996 - and, while such an end may have awaited him, the manner of his departure - he didn't formally resign, nor did he formally put any sort of transition or interim administration with any sort of authority in place - left an awful lot to be desired; it was an abdication of responsibility of the worst kind, and left those of his government who had remained loyal and had stayed at their posts terribly exposed, and betrayed.


----------



## Alli

hulugu said:


> It's a beautiful piece marked by really good photographs, and it explains a lot of where we are, and where Afghanistan might be going.



Beautiful and horrifying at the same time.


----------



## SuperMatt

Reading about how the Taliban treated women, if the government wanted an Army that would have fought the Taliban off, they would have instituted a majority-female force. Are men going to give their lives to fight the Taliban, who promise to reinstate a male-dominated society?

As far as I know, Afghan women weren’t even allowed in the Afghan army... if I’m wrong please correct me.


----------



## Huntn

Renzatic said:


> Due to this, Biden's approval ratings have just slipped below 50% for the first time. Wonder if this clusterfuck is going to be what defines his presidency.



I listened to Biden’s address yesterday regarding Afghanistan and his approach seemed reasonable  although this is his side of the situation, assurance from the host country that they were ready to fight and defend themselves,  but in reality had zero will to fight, sending military people there to die, a trillion(s) $$$  sink hole from a populace at least those willing to fight, did not want us there. We have to ask ourselves were we willing to carry a country into perpetuity? Are we Colonialists?

Country  building is a losing strategy at least it has been for the US. They may have mineral riches there, but were we ever going to be in a position to get them out of the ground?

As far as Biden’s popularity you have to ask yourself do the American people know what they want? This strikes me as political opportunists, more wanting your cake and eating it too.


----------



## Huntn

SuperMatt said:


> Reading about how the Taliban treated women, if the government wanted an Army that would have fought the Taliban off, they would have instituted a majority-female force. Are men going to give their lives to fight the Taliban, who promise to reinstate a male-dominated society?
> 
> As far as I know, Afghan women weren’t even allowed in the Afghan army... if I’m wrong please correct me.



Reports are no women run business, limited education allowed, wrap them up in a burkas and parade them around on a leash like birds in their guided cages, the sex objects they regard them as.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

SuperMatt said:


> Reading about how the Taliban treated women, if the government wanted an Army that would have fought the Taliban off, they would have instituted a majority-female force. Are men going to give their lives to fight the Taliban, who promise to reinstate a male-dominated society?
> 
> As far as I know, Afghan women weren’t even allowed in the Afghan army... if I’m wrong please correct me.




Can't speak with any authority for the Army, but, I can confirm that women were allowed (encouraged) to join the police, and that they were mentored by senior police officers (female) from UK police forces (the UK was a member of the EU at the time) and some senior Dutch female police officers, (the western women held Inspector, Chief Inspector and Superintendent ranks mostly), - among others - who themselves, were extremely impressive and very committed and dedicated.

The EU (and before that, the German government) worked closely with the Afghan police (and with the prosecutor's office, the AGO, Ministries of Justice & the Interior, etc - i.e. the rule of law & law enforcement stuff of civil society - the EU had nothing to do with military missions), re attempting to help mentor and help train the police, and prosecutors - anyway, I do recall meeting with a number of (Afghan) female police colonels, and one female police Brigadier.

As with so much else, this - recruiting, training, protecting and promoting - women police officers (who were under significant threat to their lives from the Taliban, even more so than their male colleagues) - was far easier to achieve in the cities, and in the non-Pashtun areas of the country - the cities were far more liberal and open than the rural areas of the country, and basic stuff - such as separate rest rooms for women, - could be planned & discussed in the cities, but proved very difficult to achieve in some rural areas.


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> Can't speak with any authority for the Army, but, I can confirm that women were allowed (encouraged) to join the police.
> 
> The EU (and before that, the German government) worked closely with the Afghan police (and with the prosecutor's office, the AGO, Ministries of Justice & the Interior, etc - i.e. the rule of law & law enforcement stuff of civil society - the EU had nothing to do with military missions), re attempting to help mentor and help train the police, and prosecutors - anyway, I do recall meeting with female police colonels, and one female police Brigadier.
> 
> As with so much else, this - recruiting, training, protecting and promoting - women police officers (who were under significant threat, even more so than their male colleagues) - was far easier to achieve in the cities, - the cities were far more liberal and open than the rural areas of the country - and in the non-Pashtun areas of the country.



The Taliban is making some noises that make it appear that they will not return to the oppressive ways of the late 90s/early 2000s. I don’t know if they will follow through, but presumably they want: trade, foreign aid, etc, etc... and if they return to the old ways, that will all go away.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> The Taliban is making some noises that make it appear that they will not return to the oppressive ways of the late 90s/early 2000s. I don’t know if they will follow through, but presumably they want: trade, foreign aid, etc, etc... and if they return to the old ways, that will all go away.



One woman asked them about face coverings and their first reaction was "all women will have to keep their entire faces covered". Off to a great start there. Most experts (at least from what I've seen) are skeptical at best that they won't turn back the clock. They have no real structure and lead by force, I wouldn't expect to see any democracy coming out of this. 

20 years, thousands of dead people on both sides, trillions of dollars and zero difference. Any Republican who bitches about the cost of school lunches or taking care of the homeless should first have to explain this first.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Scepticalscribe said:


> I think it may be a bit more subtle than that, but, yes, agreed, they may be attempting some sort of balancing act, at least, initially.
> 
> And yes, people have experienced more freedoms (in the cities, the ethnicities who are not Pashtun, women to name but three groups whose lives were immeasurably improved over the past twenty years - and here, I will just throw in the fact that I, personally, have observed, on countless occasions, crocodile lines of girls, young girls and older girls, and boys, too, all attired in neat school uniforms, heading to or from school in Kabul), and will not take kindly to their removal.
> 
> The Taliban will find that keeping, and holding and maintaining their rule (especially in the cities, and other ethnic regions) - without some form of consent - which may require some degree of a balancing act - on the part of the ruled - is not the same as military (and political) victories.  If they insist on ruling by force, inevitably, some will contest that.
> 
> Moreover, foreign aid - which has comprised between two thirds (67%) and 80% of the state budget will be cut entirely - Germany has announced today that all foreign aid to Afghanistan will cease (and Germany was a generous donor) - will be cut, or its retention may be conditional on some degree of compromise on the part of the Taliban, or an indication that they will be prepared to be more lenient on matters of human rights, civil rights, and women's rights, than they were when thye ruled the country previously.
> 
> And there is the issue of the position of the other ethnicities.
> 
> Under Taliban rule in the 1990s, the Hazaras - who are Shia - were treated atrociously; I cannot see Iran tolerating that - as the leading Shia state in the world, domestically, they cannot afford to be seen to tolerate that, quite apart from any theological ties they have to the Hazara, and this is the case, even if, they - for reasons of realpolitik, - wish to have an amicable relationship with the Taliban.
> 
> And then, there are the Tajiks and Uzbeks, two of the other ethnic groups.
> 
> The security forces were mainly comprised of Tajiks (and some Uzbeks; far fewer Pashtun served, from what I could see).
> 
> Apparently, several military planes - full of fleeing security forces - landed in both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on Sunday; I would be willing to wager that the people those planes carried were soldiers (and police, possibly) who were Tajiks and Uzbeks.
> 
> Thus, these countries - now host to an unknown number of trained troops and security personnel from Afghanistan - will be keeping a close eye - not just on relations with Afghanistan, and on proceedings within Afghanistan - but also on how people of their own ethnicity are treated by the Taliban (who, if anything, traditionally were an extreme expression of Pashtun nationalism expressed in an ascetic and severe interpretation of Islam).
> 
> On Sunday, Tajikistan refused to allow the plane carrying fleeing President Ashraf Ghani - and his immediate entourage - to land in the country; while some twits on Twitter have sneered at what they described as a "lack of Muslim solidarity" I think it goes far deeper than that.
> 
> Ghani - who is Pashtun - seems to have had difficulty in dealing with dissenting opinions, and voices, and was famously incapable of forging harmonious relations with the Tajik members of his administration.
> 
> I don't doubt for one minute that he was haunted by the appalling death - murder - of former President Najibullah - who was cruelly murdered by the Taliban in 1996 - and, while such an end may have awaited him, the manner of his departure - he didn't formally resign, nor did he formally put any sort of transition or interim administration with any sort of authority in place - left an awful lot to be desired; it was an abdication of responsibility of the worst kind, and left those of his government who had remained loyal and had stayed at their posts terribly exposed, and betrayed.






SuperMatt said:


> The Taliban is making some noises that make it appear that they will not return to the oppressive ways of the late 90s/early 2000s. I don’t know if they will follow through, but presumably they want: trade, foreign aid, etc, etc... and if they return to the old ways, that will all go away.



Rather than re-write my own post penned earlier this morning - no 159 - I've taken the liberty of simply re-posting it, as it touches on some of these matters.

But yes, the possibility of the provision of foreign aid (Germany has stated that their aid to Afghanistan will cease) may concentrate Taliban minds, as may the fact that they cannot rule without consent, and the other ethnicities - above all, the Hazara - experienced appalling atrocities during the previous spell of Taliban rule, thus, will view their promises with a very jaundiced eye.

Certainly, I would expect the Tajiks (both within and outside Afghanistan) to be very cautious, - and, furthermore, I would expect that they will be at the centre of any future opposition to the Taliban that may emerge - while the Tajik government has seemed to suggest that it will not recognise the Taliban government.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> The Taliban is making some noises that make it appear that they will not return to the oppressive ways of the late 90s/early 2000s. I don’t know if they will follow through, but presumably they want: trade, foreign aid, etc, etc... and if they return to the old ways, that will all go away.




I'm sure China will be fine with the old ways...as long as it's not on their territory.  They don't tolerate oppression competitors on their terf.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Rather than re-write my own post penned earlier this morning - no 159 - I've taken the liberty of simply re-posting it, as it touches on some of these matters.
> 
> But yes, the possibility of the provision of foreign aid (Germany has stated that their aid to Afghanistan will cease) may concentrate Taliban minds, as may the fact that they cannot rule without consent, and the other ethnicities - above all, the Hazara - experienced appalling atrocities during the previous spell of Taliban rule, thus, will view their promises with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> Certainly, I would expect the Tajiks (both within and outside Afghanistan) to be very cautious, - and, furthermore, I would expect that they will be at the centre of any future opposition to the Taliban that may emerge - while the Tajik government has seemed to suggest that it will not recognise the Taliban government.




So basically it's impossible to rule under a single government in the country, even if it's their own people.  This might be the biggest mental obstacle for those in the west. We just can't fathom an area defined by lines on a map not embracing a single cohesive government.  

This is just a huge inconvenience for foreign entities who want to plunder the region.  We demand they provide a single point of contact we can manipulate and in return we'll turn a blind eye to how they keep their population in check.


----------



## SuperMatt

An op-ed by Malala Yousafzai:









						Opinion | Malala: I Survived the Taliban. I Fear for My Afghan Sisters.
					

In the past two decades, millions of Afghan women and girls received an education. Now the future they were promised is in imminent danger.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I'm sure China will be fine with the old ways...as long as it's not on their territory.  They don't tolerate oppression competitors on their terf.




Re Afghanistan, my sense is that China will want three things:

1: Stability in the region; unlike some other countries, China does not welcome chaos and instability, and nor does it seek to export them.  Yes, it does promote control, (sometimes, considerable control) and prefers predictability, and stability, all the better for trade, and for promoting its interests in the region.

2: Access to the natural resources of Afghanistan, but without armed conflict, i.e. not at the cost of Chinese lives.   Power projection will take an economic form, - as it has across central Asia and some African countries - perhaps presented as something such as "post war reconstruction projects" - but, tellingly, without any of those tedious and trying (human rights) conditions that are usually attached to western aid projects.

3: An assurance (from the Taliban) that its own troubled region (and people) - the Uighurs - will be discouraged from expressing a marked (and potentially destabilising) preference for any sort of Islamic identity, or any sort of Islamic identity that may clash with the Chinese state's preferred expressions of Chinese identity - in other words, that the Taliban will not seek to export ideas of enthusiastic expressions of Islam to take root in territory that China rules.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Even more than the hope that they may retain and secure some degree of foreign aid - which, remember, made up by far the greatest percentage of the Afghan state budget (between 67-78% of the total, depending on the year and source), the Taliban will be hoping to secure recognition for their regime.

Their original regime - the one that came to power in the 1990s - was recognised by only three states in the world; these were Pakistan (and even then, the Taliban didn't recognise the border/boundary with Pakistan, the Durand Line), KSA (Saudi-Arabia) and UAE.

Thus, I would argue that the emollient tone struck by the Taliban in today's press conference (and also agreeing to being interviewed by a female journalist on Tolo News - an excellent TV channel, by the way) are all part of a plan to persuade international interlocutors that Taliban 2.0 is a lot less inflexible than was its predecessor - in a bid to win diplomatic recognition, which would make any subsequent attempts to squash (internal) resistance considerably easier, by claiming that it is illegitimate and illegal.

Meanwhile, the (former) vice-president, Amrullah Saleh, (he was a very able head of the intelligence agency, the NDS), supposedly currently holed up in the Panjshir Valley (which was never captured by the Taliban in the original conflict), apparently in company with the son of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud, - also named Ahmad Massoud, think of the weight of history on those shoulders - has raised the flag of the old Northern Alliance, and named himself the legitimate acting - or caretaker - president, citing the constitution, and stating that this is being done in the absence of the departed (fled) president (Ashraf Ghani), and in the absence of any legal mechanism (a major failing on Ghani's part) to ensure the succession or a formal, legal, transition of power.

My guess is that the Taliban will attempt to sound as moderate and sane and flexible as possible in the hope of winning formal diplomatic recognition (from China, Russia, possibly some western states - e.g. the US) as quickly as possible so that they can then portray any possible, or potential, conflict from the north (the Tajik areas) as an illegal insurrection, and deal with it accordingly.

So, this is not just about securing aid - though that is imperative given the percentage of the state's budget that foreign aid comprises - but also about persuading the "international community" to formally recognise the Taliban as the legal, and legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I'm wondering if part of the Taliban's attempted rebranding is because prior to 9/11 they were relatively unknown unless you were paying a lot of attention to the region.  Because of 9/11 everybody knows who they are and they are no longer off the world radar.

AFAIK they also have very little interest in world domination or retribution.   They'd rather not be included in the terrorist catchall bin.  Might as well provide something other than just appearing terrorist-like 24/7.

Hey, where's ISIS lately?


----------



## lizkat

Scepticalscribe said:


> So, this is not just about securing aid - though that is imperative given the percentage of the state's budget that foreign aid comprises - but also about persuading the "international community" to formally recognise the Taliban as the legal, and legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.




Any blend of ongoing and incoming government in Afghanistan needs foreign development aid funds to start flowing again.  Everything got locked down as Afghan provinces began to fall and it was clear Taliban was reneging on the part of the agreement that said no more violence -- even though they waved off the violence that made it to western news outlets as "mistakes" made in the field etc. 

But the USA has frozen Afghanistan's assets to extent they were held here.  it's billiions of dollars.   So there'll be a push on to at least act like they've been talking now at press conferences, e.g. reasonable, forgiving of past opposition inside the country and intending to honor women's rights "within an Islamic framework."   That last bit of course is not particularly reassuring,  so they've gone out of their way at least in Kabul to signal to women that burkas are not necessary, e.g.,  just be sure to wear a hijab to cover one's hair.   For now...   for how long?

But a clearly distressing concern is that it's not clear how much control the Taliban's top echelon has or will choose to exert over lower level street security regarding Afghan freedoms gained since 2001.   A lot of those Taliban followers are young recruits eager to demonstrate loyalty they must show in order to merit whatever they were given in exchange.   So far Taliban leaders continue to brush off threats or beatings by lower level enforcers as "mistakes".  The UN has urged nonviolent "security" measures be applied during political negotiations for a new government, and said it will be looking to see that human rights gains in Afganistan are not lost.   But they'll be looking from the outside.


----------



## Huntn

I listened to this morning Biden Admin press briefing. It sounded intelligent to me.  One point is, they determined that at 15k troops in Afghanistan were not enough last year, the country was all ready slipping when Trump reduced troops to 3k.  It would have taken a much larger commitment to tamp things back down. We could have doubled down on a bad investment and keep bleeding or leave. The airport is secured and the US is evacuating Afghans involved supporting the US during the occupation and others.


----------



## hulugu

Scepticalscribe said:


> I think it may be a bit more subtle than that, but, yes, agreed, they may be attempting some sort of balancing act, at least, initially.
> 
> And yes, people have experienced more freedoms (in the cities, the ethnicities who are not Pashtun, women to name but three groups whose lives were immeasurably improved over the past twenty years - and here, I will just throw in the fact that I, personally, have observed, on countless occasions, crocodile lines of girls, young girls and older girls, and boys, too, all attired in neat school uniforms, heading to or from school in Kabul), and will not take kindly to their removal.
> 
> The Taliban will find that keeping, and holding and maintaining their rule (especially in the cities, and other ethnic regions) - without some form of consent - which may require some degree of a balancing act - on the part of the ruled - is not the same as military (and political) victories.  If they insist on ruling by force, inevitably, some will contest that.
> 
> Moreover, foreign aid - which has comprised between two thirds (67%) and 80% of the state budget will be cut entirely - Germany has announced today that all foreign aid to Afghanistan will cease (and Germany was a generous donor) - will be cut, or its retention may be conditional on some degree of compromise on the part of the Taliban, or an indication that they will be prepared to be more lenient on matters of human rights, civil rights, and women's rights, than they were when they ruled the country previously.
> 
> And there is the issue of the position of the other ethnicities.
> 
> Under Taliban rule in the 1990s, the Hazaras - who are Shia - were treated atrociously; I cannot see Iran tolerating that - as the leading Shia state in the world, domestically, they cannot afford to be seen to tolerate that, quite apart from any theological ties they have to the Hazara, and this is the case, even if, they - for reasons of realpolitik, - wish to have an amicable relationship with the Taliban.
> 
> And then, there are the Tajiks and Uzbeks, two of the other ethnic groups.
> 
> The security forces were mainly comprised of Tajiks (and some Uzbeks; far fewer Pashtun served, from what I could see).
> 
> Apparently, several military planes - full of fleeing security forces - landed in both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on Sunday; I would be willing to wager that the people those planes carried were soldiers (and police, possibly) who were Tajiks and Uzbeks.
> 
> Thus, these countries - now host to an unknown number of trained troops and security personnel from Afghanistan - will be keeping a close eye - not just on relations with Afghanistan, and on proceedings within Afghanistan - but also on how people of their own ethnicity are treated by the Taliban (who, if anything, traditionally were an extreme expression of Pashtun nationalism expressed in an ascetic and severe interpretation of Islam).
> 
> On Sunday, Tajikistan refused to allow the plane carrying fleeing President Ashraf Ghani - and his immediate entourage - to land in the country; while some twits on Twitter have sneered at what they described as a "lack of Muslim solidarity" I think it goes far deeper than that.
> 
> Ghani - who is Pashtun - seems to have had difficulty in dealing with dissenting opinions, and voices, and was famously incapable of forging harmonious relations with the Tajik members of his administration.
> 
> I don't doubt for one minute that he was haunted by the appalling death - murder - of former President Najibullah - who was cruelly murdered by the Taliban in 1996 - and, while such an end may have awaited him, the manner of his departure - he didn't formally resign, nor did he formally put any sort of transition or interim administration with any sort of authority in place - left an awful lot to be desired; it was an abdication of responsibility of the worst kind, and left those of his government who had remained loyal and had stayed at their posts terribly exposed, and betrayed.




This strikes me as about right, the Taliban are going to find themselves in the role of every other central authority in Afghanistan, and will have to work hard to manage the political and economic questions.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

While we're being skeptical of Taliban 2.0, imagine if you are living in the Middle East right now and the US military rolls up and says "We're here to help!  We won't be here long."


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> While we're being skeptical of Taliban 2.0, imagine if you are living in the Middle East right now and the US military rolls up and says "We're here to help! We won't be here long."




That's approximately how China may feel about the Taliban "securing" the Wakhan Corridor (the narrow strip of Afghanistan between Tajikistan and Pakistan) which terminates on its eastern end at a 80 or 90-km border with China's formerly restive, still mostly Muslim Xinjiang province.   As much as China likes the idea of exploiting Afghanistan's vast array of mineral resources --hence its recent cozying up to the Taliban-- it's unhappy that Taliban loyalists are now a stone's throw from a Chinese province housing a population whose heritage and political lean are more like those of its Central Asian neighbors than of most of the rest of China. 

The one good thing about that Afghan corridor from China's point of view is that its terrain and often its weather are extremely inhospitable. It runs on an easterly upgrade from 9k feet in Afghanistan to 16k feet at its terminus in China.   It was meant to be from inception a buffer zone between the Russian and British empires in Asia as of the late 19th century.   Besides the terrain and weather, there are political impediments to easy border-crossing at the eastern end of the corridor.  China closed off access decades ago and refused to reopen passage during the 20-year period of the US occupation of Afghanistan,  even though Afghan government officials asked for access in order to create trade opportunities and supply lines meant to support anti-Taliban maneuvers.   China's concerns about political meddling by the Taliban are real.  In fact China and Russia are now conducting joint military drills in another area of northern China,  somewhat east of Xinjiang, because.... uh,,,,  they've done it before and so are doing it again.   Or however else others might decide to view it.  









						Chinese and Russian militaries hold drills amid uncertainty over Afghanistan
					

Chinese and Russian military forces are engaged in joint exercises in northwestern China as ties grow between the two autocratic states amid uncertainty over the instability in Afghanistan.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I think this site is uniquely positioned to answer this question.  If you had to choose one, would you rather live under the rule of the Taliban or the MR mods?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

And now this


----------



## Yoused

Jim "Stonekettle" Wright made this analogy: imagine the arsonist who set the big building on fire and then diverted three-quarters of the fire trucks two counties over, lamenting


Spoiler: how poorly the fire department has handled this












						W. Bush Weighs In: We're Watching Unfolding Crisis In Afghanistan 'With Deep Sadness'
					

Former President George W. Bush issued a statement saying that he and...



					talkingpointsmemo.com
				







and, damn, that guy is looking _old_


----------



## JayMysteri0

FFS if true

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427973568630083587/

SOMEBODY needs to write US and so many others a check.

In hundred dollar bills that might weigh 3726lbs or more than a ton & a half in bags.   

Added

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428000701418983436/


----------



## Eric

JayMysteri0 said:


> FFS if true
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427973568630083587/
> 
> SOMEBODY needs to write US and so many others a check.
> 
> In hundred dollar bills that might weigh 3726lbs or more than a ton & a half in bags.



Not to mention they've essentially handed over all of the weapons we armed them with.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Scepticalscribe said:


> Even more than the hope that they may retain and secure some degree of foreign aid - which, remember, made up by far the greatest percentage of the Afghan state budget (between 67-78% of the total, depending on the year and source), the Taliban will be hoping to secure recognition for their regime.
> 
> Their original regime - the one that came to power in the 1990s - was recognised by only three states in the world; these were Pakistan (and even then, the Taliban didn't recognise the border/boundary with Pakistan, the Durand Line), KSA (Saudi-Arabia) and UAE.
> 
> Thus, I would argue that the emollient tone struck by the Taliban in today's press conference (and also agreeing to being interviewed by a female journalist on Tolo News - an excellent TV channel, by the way) are all part of a plan to persuade international interlocutors that Taliban 2.0 is a lot less inflexible than was its predecessor - in a bid to win diplomatic recognition, which would make any subsequent attempts to squash (internal) resistance considerably easier, by claiming that it is illegitimate and illegal.
> 
> Meanwhile, the (former) vice-president, Amrullah Saleh, (he was a very able head of the intelligence agency, the NDS), supposedly currently holed up in the Panjshir Valley (which was never captured by the Taliban in the original conflict), apparently in company with the son of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud, - also named Ahmad Massoud, think of the weight of history on those shoulders - has raised the flag of the old Northern Alliance, and named himself the legitimate acting - or caretaker - president, citing the constitution, and stating that this is being done in the absence of the departed (fled) president (Ashraf Ghani), and in the absence of any legal mechanism (a major failing on Ghani's part) to ensure the succession or a formal, legal, transition of power.
> 
> My guess is that the Taliban will attempt to sound as moderate and sane and flexible as possible in the hope of winning formal diplomatic recognition (from China, Russia, possibly some western states - e.g. the US) as quickly as possible so that they can then portray any possible, or potential, conflict from the north (the Tajik areas) as an illegal insurrection, and deal with it accordingly.
> 
> So, this is not just about securing aid - though that is imperative given the percentage of the state's budget that foreign aid comprises - but also about persuading the "international community" to formally recognise the Taliban as the legal, and legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.



Just summoning my own post - No 172 - rather than re-writing it, which discusses, among other things, how Amrullah Saleh - the Vice-President of the outgoing administration - has declared himself caretaker president, (claiming authority under the existing constitution - not yest repealed by the Taliban - in the absence or incapacity of the president) raised the flag of the Northern Alliance, (in the Panjshir Valley) and has sworn that he will never recognise the Taliban nor will he ever surrender to them.



JayMysteri0 said:


> FFS if true
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427973568630083587/
> 
> SOMEBODY needs to write US and so many others a check.
> 
> In hundred dollar bills that might weigh 3726lbs or more than a ton & a half in bags.



Okay:

Firstly, the source for this is Tajikistan, or rather, the Afghan Embassy in Tajikistan, which - as of a few hours ago, has recognised Amrullah Saleh as the President of Afghanistan, (symbolically removing Ashraf Ghani's portrait and replacing it with that of Amrullah Saleh).

In fact, the Afghan Embassy in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) has sought the arrest of Ghani over what they describe as "state treasury theft".

Saleh's own tweets (which have been retweeted by other Afghans - Tajiks and Uzbeks - holding senior military rank) have made it clear that he will never recognise nor accept Taliban rule, and he has requested support from those who share his views.

Thus far, Ahmad Massoud (a politician, and son of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud) and General Dostum (the Uzbek warlord) have made it clear that Saleh has their full support, and yes, this will include military support.

The state of Tajikistan seems to have followed suit and has recognised Amrullah Saleh as the legitimate President of Afghanistan. 

This is being reported sympathetically in Indian media sources (bear in mind the fact that India would be pro-Afghanistan, especially any Afghan administration that loathes Pakistan - and Saleh, who headed the Afghan intelligence services - and was exceptionally well regarded when he did so - detests Pakistan which he views as seeking to destabilise Afghanistan), and on RT (Russian news).

Re Ashraf Ghani, the Tajiks in Tajikistan and in Afghanistan will view him as arrogant, incompetent (above all, a micro-managing militarily incompetent individual, with a mulish reluctance to delegate military matters to those who were qualified to act and adjudicate on military affairs- he was a technocrat), a traitor, and - with good reason - as an architect of his own political doom.

Once upon a distant time, Ghani was an outstanding Finance Minister in Hamid Karzai's first government (at the time, he was considered - and had been voted - the best Finance Minister in Asia), and was - by reputation - not at all corrupt.

But, things can change, and, change for the worse, and - if true, this is appalling - and I will admit that Ghani didn't remotely cover himself in glory by the irresponsible and furtive manner of his departure, nor by his self-serving silence since then.




Eric said:


> Not to mention they've essentially handed over all of the weapons we armed them with.



Not quite all.

This story hasn't played out yet.

In Jalalabad today, (and this may also have happened in a second city), the Taliban shot at (and appear to have killed some people) demonstrators and marchers who protested - while waving the Afghan state flag - at the replacement of the Afghan State Flag by the Taliban's white standard, which they themselves had removed.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> Just summoning my own post - No 172 - rather than re-writing it, which discusses, among other things, how Amrullah Saleh - the Vice-President of the outgoing administration - has declared himself caretaker president, (claiming authority under the existing constitution - not yest repealed by the Taliban - in the absence or incapacity of the president) raised the flag of the Northern Alliance, (in the Panjshir Valley) and has sworn that he will never recognise the Taliban nor will he ever surrender to them.
> 
> 
> Okay:
> 
> Firstly, the source for this is Tajikistan, or rather, the Afghan Embassy in Tajikistan, which - as of a few hours ago, has recognised Amrullah Saleh as the President of Afghanistan, (symbolically removing Ashraf Ghani's portrait and replacing it with that of Amrullah Saleh).
> 
> In fact, the Afghan Embassy in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) has sought the arrest of Ghani over what they describe as "state treasury theft".
> 
> Saleh's own tweets (which have been retweeted by other Afghans - Tajiks and Uzbeks - holding senior military rank) have made it clear that he will never recognise nor accept Taliban rule, and he has requested support from those who share his views.
> 
> Thus far, Ahmad Massoud (a politician, and son of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud) and General Dostum (the Uzbek warlord) have made it clear that Saleh has their full support, and yes, this will include military support.
> 
> The state of Tajikistan seems to have followed suit and has recognised Amrullah Saleh as the legitimate President of Afghanistan.
> 
> This is being reported sympathetically in Indian media sources (bear in mind the fact that India would be pro-Afghanistan, especially any Afghan administration that loathes Pakistan - and Saleh, who headed the Afghan intelligence services - and was exceptionally well regarded when he did so - detests Pakistan which he views as seeking to destabilise Afghanistan), and on RT (Russian news).
> 
> Re Ashraf Ghani, the Tajiks in Tajikistan and in Afghanistan will view him as arrogant, incompetent (above all, a micro-managing militarily incompetent individual, with a mulish reluctance to delegate military matters to those who were qualified to act and adjudicate on military affairs- he was a technocrat), a traitor, and - with good reason - as an architect of his own political doom.
> 
> Once upon a distant time, Ghani was an outstanding Finance Minister in Hamid Karzai's first government (at the time, he was considered - and had been voted - the best Finance Minister in Asia), and was - by reputation - not at all corrupt.
> 
> But, things can change, and, change for the worse, and - if true, this is appalling - and I will admit that Ghani didn't remotely cover himself in glory by the irresponsible and furtive manner of his departure, nor by his self-serving silence since then.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite all.
> 
> This story hasn't played out yet.
> 
> In Jalalabad today, (and this may also have happened in a second city), the Taliban shot at (and appear to have killed some people) demonstrators and marchers who protested - while waving the Afghan state flag - at the replacement of the Afghan State Flag by the Taliban's white standard, which they themselves had removed.




I don’t want to oversimplify things, but at least in perception it appears the Taliban follows one the main tactics of drug cartels, “silver or lead” translated take the bribe/play ball or we kill you and your family. I don’t think even the biggest US gun enthusiast could say in all honesty how they would handle that scenario when they’re not actually facing it. So many of people’s actions and beliefs are driven by their economic realities. I’m sure for a lot of people their patriotism has a price tag that they may not even be aware of, or they’re willing to bend the definition when life and/or wealth are on the line.  Suddenly their family becomes more important than country.


----------



## GermanSuplex

This is major news, and thus will be covered as such, but the usual GOP talking heads may want to sit this one out, a lot of decisions by the GOP led up to this. Judging by how fast the nation fell, this was a foregone conclusion. Biden is going to take heat over this, but so will the last three presidents, and it remains to be see how this move will be viewed in a few years time.

One thing I’m noticing from my friends on the right is this sudden concern for the people of Afghanistan, which is laughable given how they treat those south of our border seeking asylum from equally horrific violence and depravity.

The GOP may want to rethink their strategy if they want to use this to win points.

I do know I would have blasted Trump if things turned out like this under his watch. However, part of that is because it would be taken in context of all the other daft choices he made.


----------



## Deleted member 215

^That's because their primary concern isn't the Afghan people, but the humiliation at having lost another war.


----------



## lizkat

Eric said:


> Not to mention they've essentially handed over all of the weapons we armed them with.




Means they have to hold some of it in reserve because spare parts are not forthcoming....

Well at least some of the planes and helicopters were flown by Afghan pilots over border to Turkmenistan (and some also to Tajikistan).    The piece cited below says 22 planes and 24 helicopters went to Uzbekistan, which allowed them to land but termed the crossings illegal. That was Aug 15-16.   One plane on Aug 15 did collide with an Uzbek escort fighter jet (originally that was called a shoot-down) in the process but the pilot survived and was given medical treatment.   Same piece says 18 flights carrying Afghan passengers from Kabul were welcomed to Tajikistan by that country's ambassador from Afghanistan.  That would have been by Aug 16.  Not clear if those planes went back or remained in Tajikistan. We also don't know if the hand of the USA was involved in any of that;  it's not impossible. 









						Afghan Forces Flee, Fly, to Central Asia
					

How will Central Asian states handle Afghan government forces that have fled as the Taliban take control in Kabul?



					thediplomat.com
				




Naturally the Taliban is now reaching out to all the current and former Afghan military pilots saying come back and get right with us...    remains to be seen how that sorts out, particularly the ones who crossed the border with their planes or copters.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> This is major news, and thus will be covered as such, but the usual GOP talking heads may want to sit this one out, a lot of decisions by the GOP led up to this. Judging by how fast the nation fell, this was a foregone conclusion. Biden is going to take heat over this, but so will the last three presidents, and it remains to be see how this move will be viewed in a few years time.
> 
> One thing I’m noticing from my friends on the right is this sudden concern for the people of Afghanistan, which is laughable given how they treat those south of our border seeking asylum from equally horrific violence and depravity.
> 
> The GOP may want to rethink their strategy if they want to use this to win points.
> 
> I do know I would have blasted Trump if things turned out like this under his watch. However, part of that is because it would be taken in context of all the other daft choices he made.




Your mistake is trying to use logic. The GOP and their base are completely immune to irony and hypocrisy. “That didn’t age well” used to be used for when somebody said something years ago that they either contradict now or doesn’t fit current times. For the current right “that didn’t age well” can also be applied to the difference of how they started statement and how they ended it, a la “Socialism is evil! Medicare is awesome!”


----------



## Herdfan

GermanSuplex said:


> One thing I’m noticing from my friends on the right is this sudden concern for the people of Afghanistan, which is laughable given how they treat those south of our border seeking asylum from equally horrific violence and depravity.




Completely different situation.  We didn't invade those countries, they screwed them up all by themselves.  We screwed up Afghanistan and really had no business there, so we owe them something.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> Means they have to hold some of it in reserve because spare parts are not forthcoming....
> 
> Well at least some of the planes and helicopters were flown by Afghan pilots over border to Turkmenistan (and some also to Tajikistan).    The piece cited below says 22 planes and 24 helicopters went to Uzbekistan, which allowed them to land but termed the crossings illegal. That was Aug 15-16.   One plane on Aug 15 did collide with an Uzbek escort fighter jet (originally that was called a shoot-down) in the process but the pilot survived and was given medical treatment.   Same piece says 18 flights carrying Afghan passengers from Kabul were welcomed to Tajikistan by that country's ambassador from Afghanistan.  That would have been by Aug 16.  Not clear if those planes went back or remained in Tajikistan. We also don't know if the hand of the USA was involved in any of that;  it's not impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan Forces Flee, Fly, to Central Asia
> 
> 
> How will Central Asian states handle Afghan government forces that have fled as the Taliban take control in Kabul?
> 
> 
> 
> thediplomat.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally the Taliban is now reaching out to all the current and former Afghan military pilots saying come back and get right with us...    remains to be seen how that sorts out, particularly the ones who crossed the border with their planes or copters.




I would doubt that any planes would have been allowed to land in Turkmenistan, it is a very closed & controlled country.

Instead, Tajikistan is a lot more likely as a destination and is the country to watch, not least because of the large numbers of ethnic Tajiks in Afghanistan itself, the role being played by the Afghan Embassy in Dushanbe - which has come out for Amrullah Saleh, - and the fact that the sympathies of the Tajik government will undoubtedly lie with their fellow (Afghan) Tajiks, if not outright with Amrullah Saleh.


Ashraf Ghani was denied permission to land in Tajikistan on Sunday; early reports suggested that he had headed to Oman, but today, what seem to me to be credible accounts suggest that he has been granted asylum in the UAE.


----------



## lizkat

Scepticalscribe said:


> I would doubt that any planes would have been allowed to land in Turkmenistan, it is a very closed & controlled country.




It is that indeed, but those 22 planes and 24 helos did land there, possibly via backchannel arrangements involving the US.  I've no idea of strength of Uzbekistan's air force but surely discretion the better part of valor when you get buzzed by half the then Afghan airforce in one afternoon.   Whatever,  and of course the Taliban would like the hardware to come back now,  and of course the US would like that not to happen.  My money's on the latter, even if it takes some pallets of cash to make that stick.

Interestingly, it was Tajikistan denying at least for awhile that planeloads of fleeing Afghans had arrived in country.   But that would have been for domestic consumption.  Lots of ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks just over the border in Afghanistan.



GermanSuplex said:


> Judging by how fast the nation fell, this was a foregone conclusion. Biden is going to take heat over this, but so will the last three presidents, and it remains to be see how this move will be viewed in a few years time.




Right...  Americans did want to get out.  Getting out of a war turned to quagmire is ugly... again.  I guess a lot of us in the USA either don't remember or understand how that works.  Not like in the movies, not even the ones that don't glorify violent conflict.

But after the evacuations are finished and we find something else to be outraged about, the bottom line will still be that a vast majority of ordinary Americans wanted to leave the war in Afghanistan behind.   The people now trying to say that Biden's sole legacy will be that he messed up the exit from Afghanistan are shortsighted and ill-willed to boot.

Still,  I doubt we realize that it will be generations before the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq can truly put the conflicts that began in 2001 and 2003 in the rear view mirror for good,  and that there are likely related costs for Americans that we've yet to pick up.  That's on top of costs for care of wounded veterans, their families and the survivors of those who died.   But the responsibility for those costs lie with four presidents and every voter who did or didn't vote in the elections that put them in the Oval.  Someone has to make decisions.  Every decision (or default) does count.  How it adds up, well, whoever said let God sort it out probably got that part right. 

The fall of Afghanistan in August of 2021 looked fast but some of the big newspapers like the FT have photo arrays of provincial maps of Afghanistan showing the switch of control over time from quite a few years back.   The Taliban likely sat with local elders to negotiate transfer of power,  one conflict-weary province at a time, with the bigger cities and the provinces with higher concentrations of US forces on hand left for late in the game,  when the political momentum towards a national settlement finally picked up steam. 

The US was always dependent on fixers and translators for local intel, and it wouldn't necessarily have been easy to know when a quiet ceasefire arrangement had been pre-arranged by local elders with the Taliban, cutting out the Kabul government's placeholders.    To us and to Kabul at the time, any one of those gigs might have looked like the Taliban just gave up and the central government was at least nominally in charge.  The Taliban would have been content to let it look that way and move on to focus the fighting elsewhere.

Once the US sat down with the Taliban though, it was surely a signal that Afghanistan's central government was not going to be the winner.    Biden can blame Ghani for folding and fleeing, and that's reasonable.  But once we started the talks with the Taliban, that did say to all the elders in all the tribes in all the provinces that the guy to talk with was the local Taliban guy, not the central government's puppet mayor being guarded by US-trained Afghan police.  So whom to blame?  No one, really.   Everyone. 

And of course the war's not over.   Now it reverts to what it had been before the US went in there in 2001 to teach the Taliban a lesson for letting Osama bin Laden run training camps for terrorists.   It's now back to a civil war taking a pause to regroup and retool and rethink what's next.  Taliban versus other tribal elders and their designated warlords.  There could be some surprises though.   Twenty years of women being out and about is a big deal.  Even the Taliban leadership realizes that, despite having talked a lot of the menfolk into a rollback to Islamic governance. 

I'll say one other thing for the Taliban, they have better command of PR than they used to do.  I guess all that money from the poppy fields can buy anything.  They're currently putting a pretty smooth brand of lip gloss over how they'll eventually revert to operating.    I wonder if Karzai is sleeping well at night.  He's part of the sell-in to get the West to loosen up their sanctions and get the legitimate dough flowing into Afghanistan's coffers again, this time under control of the Taliban.   Does Karzai imagine the Taliban will allow him to tap that stuff again once things "settle down" with a recognized Afghan government in which he's a mere figurehead?  

Meanwhile Central Asia, China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Europe and the USA all hold their breath.   All of them buying in anew to the idea that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.   It's not Afghanistan, really.  It's chaos that does empires in.   It's chaos...  where all the little things count and no one manages to keep track of it all.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Herdfan said:


> Completely different situation. We didn't invade those countries, they screwed them up all by themselves. We screwed up Afghanistan and really had no business there, so we owe them something.




That seems like an arbitrary way of deciding who gets sympathy and when. If I’m feeling bad for women, children and any others caught in violence, I don’t attach these sort of strings to it.


----------



## Herdfan

GermanSuplex said:


> That seems like an arbitrary way of deciding who gets sympathy and when. If I’m feeling bad for women, children and any others caught in violence, I don’t attach these sort of strings to it.



Strings no, responsibility yes.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> Completely different situation.  We didn't invade those countries, they screwed them up all by themselves.  We screwed up Afghanistan and really had no business there, so we owe them something.






GermanSuplex said:


> That seems like an arbitrary way of deciding who gets sympathy and when.




Not only that, @Herdfan  must know better about the past relationships of the USA and our neighbors to the south.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Completely different situation.  We didn't invade those countries, they screwed them up all by themselves.  We screwed up Afghanistan and really had no business there, so we owe them something.




It could be argued that our drug demand royally screwed up Mexico and Central America and if we are going to be honest, our war on drugs has been more interested in throwing users and low-end dealers in prison than attempting any kind of understanding of why so many people feel they have to be high to cope with how awesome we're told the US is.  

I'm not completely excusing the governments of Mexico or Central America but I'm also not giving the government of Afghanistan a free pass.  At some point there's a shift from dedicated partners to overreliance on one side and a complacent belief that, that side will always be there.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> It could be argued that our drug demand royally screwed up Mexico and Central America and if we are going to be honest, our war on drugs has been more interested in throwing users and low-end dealers in prison than attempting any kind of understanding of why so many people feel they have to be high to cope with how awesome we're told the US is.



The war on drugs has never been about drugs, but instead of a way on controlling certain segments of the population.  Otherwise alcohol would also be illegal.


----------



## iLunar

Herdfan said:


> Completely different situation.  We didn't invade those countries, they screwed them up all by themselves.  We screwed up Afghanistan and really had no business there, so we owe them something.




Define invasion? A declaration of war was never issued for South American countries, but political, financial and moral imperialism has been happening since the inception of the US. We've been meddling in South & Central America far longer than Afghanistan, and much of the border crisis is a direct result of US policy from the last century.

We caused the humanitarian crises in these nations.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> The war on drugs has never been about drugs, but instead of a way on controlling certain segments of the population.  Otherwise alcohol would also be illegal.




The illegality of just about every drug can be traced directly back to racism. While we’re ultra concerned about the white people opioid crisis the pharmaceutical industry still has it on the market. They’ve just dialed back the PR campaign until the outrage dust settles.


----------



## lizkat

We could talk about how the US has dealt with countries to the south in some other thread sometime.  It's long been a tale of exploitation and it still is, even if what we do now tends to have the gloss of "assistance in training and education" or "local jobs development" pasted over it.

That's probably an improvement over just sending troops to assist in a coup,  or sending covert operators in there to fix elections to our liking and so prevent rise of leaders who might nationalize US foreign investments.    Still there's room for us to do better on that "jobs development" angle.   And yeah, finding out how to rehab a country addicted to feel-good and party-down might help make drugs trafficking less of a thing on the demand side in the USA for sure.

As far as Afghanistan goes,  the bottom line foretelling our exit from there without successfully standing up a central government has to be that Afghanistan has not abandoned a culture of negotiating ever-shifting alliances for temporary benefit.  Sure that's a great talent and can be necessary for sheer survival,  but it almost invariably also involves acceptance of and dependence on a profoundly corrupt society.  There are historical reasons for that but it's a hindrance when it comes to the need to achieve transparency of governance in order to participate fully in global relationships and commerce.

Leaving aside questionable legitimacy of our prolonged stay in Afghanistan, we wanted Afghan women and kids to have a better shot at life, and that's an honorable ideal but a fairly impractical mission.  Anyway we apparently didn't talk enough Afghan men into our view of how to make that happen, and we couldn't afford to keep buying alliances to try to make it stick forever either.  It's the Afghan men who told us that,  as the provinces folded one by one.

We gave money, arms, training, the lives and well being of our troops.   Afghan leaders in Kabul said thanks, obviously not enough yet since there's still people fighting, so what else ya got.

Out in the boondocks what they mostly saw was devastation from the warring,  the occasional drone attack gone wrong and the Taliban saying hey side with us, give us your poppy crop,  we'll sell it for you and buy you shoes or bread or a tarp for your roof.  

Biden was right to hold fast to departing.  The ugliness isn't even over yet.  But Afghan's corrupt leaders made a money pit out of our presence there, and our frenemies in the neighborhood do thank Afghanistan for it.  The leaders of those countries are surely sorry we're leaving.  Now they will all have to wonder again what the Taliban are up to around their own borders. Let them wonder. There was no good way to stay in or get out of that trap we stepped into in 2001.  I just hope we're not off to do interventions in Africa again.  It must be time for a break in the routine...


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

lizkat said:


> we wanted Afghan women and kids to have a better shot at life




I know this has become a good chunk of this thread, but I also think we need to take a step back and realize that has absolutely nothing to do with why our government kept the military there.  It's a nice feel-good cover story to help us keep our head in the sand on the real reasons.  The world is full of other countries full of human rights abusers our government couldn't give less of a shit about. 

This also gets to "don't tell me it was all for nothing" from military personnel and their families.  Sorry, but a mountain of dead, injured, and mentally damaged people doesn't in and of itself mean it was all for something (or something noble).  If believing there is some noble purpose behind your military job helps you get through the day, then fine, but don't be blind to the bigger picture that put and kept you there.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Important to remember. Our wars are not “humanitarian”.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Right-wing media already bored with bashing Biden over Afghanistan, return to the culture wars
					

The right-wing media doesn't share the Beltway press' faith that Afghanistan will hurt Biden with voters




					www.salon.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Right-wing media already bored with bashing Biden over Afghanistan, return to the culture wars
> 
> 
> The right-wing media doesn't share the Beltway press' faith that Afghanistan will hurt Biden with voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.salon.com



I don’t think this will hurt him with the American electorate either. I feel bad for the people of Afghanistan, and I hope they end up with a government that benefits their people... but getting out of Afghanistan is what Americans have wanted for many years.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Right-wing media already bored with bashing Biden over Afghanistan, return to the culture wars
> 
> 
> The right-wing media doesn't share the Beltway press' faith that Afghanistan will hurt Biden with voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.salon.com




Overall in the USA we do seem to have the attention span of a fruit fly,  and there's always an apple or a banana somewhere else nearby.   The Rs are moving back to their talking points in the culture wars because talking about Afghanistan much longer will not keep eyeballs on ads on Fox News.

The Dems will carry on bashing everyone in reach a little longer because that's the party in power and the Dem Congressional candidates for 2022 races are eager to disperse blame elsewhere --anywhere else--  before the main ads for those midterms are crafted.  

Bottom line  the average American of any political persuasion still couldn't label Afghanistan on a blank outline map of Asia, much less give a damn that Pakistan and China now jointly and separately have a lot to gain or lose in whatever tack the Taliban takes in trying to establish actual governance going forward.   So on TV news, well... it's back to whose fault it is this afternoon that masks aren't being mandated (or are being mandated)  or consumer sentiment is jittery and the housing market remains in disarray and some idiot stole some CDC vaccination certifications and peddled them on eBay for 10 bucks a pop.

Sure it has been selling papers to trash Biden about the human suffering as we depart a military effort in Afghanistan, but the right as well as the left out there in America wanted us to get the hell out and both are relieved it's happening (as well as disgusted by how it's being pulled off).

So Trump AND Biden made it happen, and both the Rs and the Ds do know that,  and also know the voters will end up more satisfied by our leaving than devastated over how the departure is being executed.   The country's not going to make either Trump's or Biden's legacy about exiting the battlefields of Afghanistan or the halls of its hapless, corrupt and propped-up central governments. 

To me it's still mind-boggling to realize that for all the somber claims of "lessons learned" after the USA's war in Southeast Asia,  we took twice as long to slog back out of Afghanistan's civil war as we did leaving the one in Vietnam. 

I'm never going to forget my great great aunt (once a missionary in China, going there as a Methodist and coming back as an undeclared Buddhist!), remarking way back in 1963 that the USA had no business expecting to win a war that we were stepping into for ideological purposes but that the Vietnamese had long since undertaken 1) to declare independence from foreign occupiers for once and for all and 2) to fight to raise a flag for the side they believed would uphold their own families' values.   She wrote a letter about that to a local newspaper back then.   Guess the Pentagon of those times didn't read it.   Of course neither did the Pentagon charged with trying to formulate "victory" from an even more complicated set of scenarios in Afghanistan.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Continuing with signs of that boredom, a slight digression as seen trending on Twitter... white rage.

White rage you ask?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428089708677042180/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428117704955678722/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428108846019588103/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428099037379670020/






I so didn't see "white rage" on my Afghanistan bingo card, but here we are...  It's always inevitably about the triggered few.


----------



## Deleted member 215

The right-wing crocodile tears over this...I just can't even right now. The same people who supported the Muslim ban are now suddenly so concerned about Afghan refugees.  Let's see how they react when the question of settling them in the U.S. comes up.


----------



## lizkat

JayMysteri0 said:


> I so didn't see "white rage" on my Afghanistan bingo card, but here we are... It's always inevitably about the triggered few.




White rage, right.   Must keep talking about white rage and the manufactured horrors of critical race theory and oh yeah the outrage of mandates on anything that one does not want to do but which as either law or temporary directive makes common sense for the common welfare. Rage against authority!   Sure, that must be the way to keep Republican voters in the fold for the next election which is all that matters.

White "rage"?  Someone ought mail those guys a copy of...  oh I dunno, maybe  one of Jericho Brown's poems from his collection "The Tradition," for those wanting to try to catch up with rage.

When rage burns white hot,  it's invisible, exactly like black ice.   Anyway it's not televised, even if some of its effects may eventually land on social media or the living room TV set.


----------



## hulugu

Herdfan said:


> Completely different situation.  We didn't invade those countries, they screwed them up all by themselves.  We screwed up Afghanistan and really had no business there, so we owe them something.




The U.S. has been heavily involved in Central America going back to the antics of the U.S.-based banana companies in the 1890s. And, under Reagan the U.S. supported and sustained the "contras" in Nicaragua. 

And, of course, there was the coup in Honduras in 2009. The U.S. has sent troops, and "advisers" to Central American, and regularly manipulated the governments and their economies for its benefit for more than a century. 

Moreover, the whole GOP concern about the Afghans is a put-on. They supported Trump and Miller, who fundamentally undermined USCIS and the State Dept., and create a massive, overwhelming backlog in immigration cases, including SIVs. 

And, even as many in the GOP are clamoring for Biden to "do something," they're also worrying about Afghans "flooding" the county, and wondering if we can send them somewhere else. And, when they're no doing that, they're arguing that the U.S. is doing too much for people from Afghanistan while U.S. citizens are still on the ground. 

The idea of responsibility isn't the motivating force behind the GOP's concern about Afghanistan.


----------



## lizkat

hulugu said:


> And, even as many in the GOP are clamoring for Biden to "do something," they're also worrying about Afghans "flooding" the county, and wondering if we can send them somewhere else. And, when they're no doing that, they're arguing that the U.S. is doing too much for people from Afghanistan while U.S. citizens are still on the ground.





Compare and contrast to the attitude and actions of three tiny countries which are among the poorest in Europe:









						Balkan countries affirm US alliance by accepting Afghan refugees
					

Frustration with stalled EU accession makes Albania, North Macedonia and Kosovo keen to curry favor with Washington.




					www.politico.eu
				




Sure they hope what they've offered to do (take in tens of thousands of Afghan refugees each) will help the US continue to further their interests in finalizing their EU membership.  But it's also because they're grateful for past assistance from the USA.



> The U.S. has been closely involved in the democratization of all three countries.
> 
> In Kosovo, it spearheaded the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 that led to Serbia’s withdrawal. However, the country is battling for international recognition; five EU countries don’t yet recognize it, creating a huge obstacle to accession.
> 
> In Albania and North Macedonia, the U.S. was crucial in getting both countries accepted into NATO
> 
> “In the last 30 years, U.S. support has been critical for Albania’s democratic processes as well as for all the nations in the Western Balkans,” said Gjergji Vurmo, who oversees the EU and Balkans program at the Institute for Democracy and Mediation in Tirana. “This is not the first time Albania responds positively to similar requests by the U.S.”


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

The more I think about it the more I realize how the military fucks with soldier’s heads. On one hand you’re doing a job, a job full of danger, death, and “greater good” order changes. On the other you’re often being told to gain the local’s trust. Unless you’re a complete sociopath, it’s pretty hard to do that without getting some attachments to people….you’re supposed to just drop when orders change.

At the end of the day we’re all just cannon fodder for the rich to defend their wealth or take revenge when it’s threatened. Even a key component of Hitler’s hatred of Jews was economic. To quote one of the great thinkers of our time, “Sad.”.


----------



## JamesMike

I do have some good news, a number of Afhgan interperters have been evacutated to the UK, who had worked for US Special Operations for over 10 years but could not get visas despite numorous letters of good service, then they worked for UK Special Operations for a short period of time.  The UK Special Ops were able to get them out in 2 weeks thank goodness.  Shame on my State Department.  Kudos to the UK government.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428080638658289668/

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428149927188762630/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428203262583328773/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428172499859038213/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428080638658289668/
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428149927188762630/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428203262583328773/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428172499859038213/





This is probably another reason right-wing media has slowly been moving out the back door with their coverage.

“We probably shouldn’t remind people of…..Wait, what?!?! Who just said that? Christ. I need to look into early retirement. I can’t take this shit anymore.”


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> This is probably another reason right-wing media has slowly been moving out the back door with their coverage.
> 
> “We probably shouldn’t remind people of…..Wait, what?!?! Who just said that? Christ. I need to look into early retirement. I can’t take this shit anymore.”




A lot of the Rs' inconsistency is going to be coming home to roost.   Ds are the "party of the big tent" but the Rs during the Trump era have specialized in being the party of the big mouth and big photo ops and big social media blurbs.   When you don't have an actual policy past saying NO, you have plenty of time to engage in personality fluffing.  The downside of that is that it all gets recorded, including any ad libs in lieu of policy statements.

The Republicans are not the only ones who like to play gotcha though.  And Afghanistan is not the only situation where there's a wealth of archives on who said what to whom and when about which topics including foreign affairs.

Still, it's interesting that potential GOP prez candidates are starting to rummage through those archives so far in advance of 2024 primaries.   _There's gold in them thar hills... _


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Afghanistan Falls To Taliban Couple Hours Earlier Than Expected
					

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—In a development that sent shock waves through the international community and negated two decades of effort by American-led coalition forces, reports confirmed Monday that Afghanistan fell to the Taliban a couple hours earlier than anyone expected. “We of course knew the...




					www.theonion.com


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Afghanistan Falls To Taliban Couple Hours Earlier Than Expected
> 
> 
> KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—In a development that sent shock waves through the international community and negated two decades of effort by American-led coalition forces, reports confirmed Monday that Afghanistan fell to the Taliban a couple hours earlier than anyone expected. “We of course knew the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theonion.com




Heh, they didn't let up on Bush either in the below-article lampooning.  Not too shabby there.


----------



## Eric

I saw the Biden interview with this and can honestly say I've never been more disappointed in him. He was defensive and dismissive of the crisis that frankly he created by exiting with such haste. I get we want out, I think most agree on that but we could've taken the proper time to secure safe passage for all of these people while we still had control.


----------



## lizkat

Eric said:


> I saw the Biden interview with this and can honestly say I've never been more disappointed in him. He was defensive and dismissive of the crisis that frankly he created by exiting with such haste. I get we want out, I think most agree on that but we could've taken the proper time to secure safe passage for all of these people while we still had control.



For all the talk of rights being a big issue on the negotiating table, behind the scenes the main thing was always going to be successfully exporting troops, ancillary US and allied staff plus expat citizens, and equipment not being destroyed or given to the "government forces".... sigh....

_"Oh yeah, and get all our translators and fixers out" _surely kept falling down the page on the to-do list.  The other problem is that after 20 years that's a very big number, never mind that some likely didn't keep in continuous contact. It's alarming if the Taliban are going door to door looking for them now. Based on what sources of information, one can wonder.


----------



## Eric

lizkat said:


> For all the talk of rights being a big issue on the negotiating table, behind the scenes the main thing was always going to be successfully exporting troops, ancillary US and allied staff plus expat citizens, and equipment not being destroyed or given to the "government forces".... sigh....
> 
> _"Oh yeah, and get all our translators and fixers out" _surely kept falling down the page on the to-do list.  The other problem is that after 20 years that's a very big number, never mind that some likely didn't keep in continuous contact. It's alarming if the Taliban are going door to door looking for them now. Based on what sources of information, one can wonder.



I agree it seems like a huge logistical challenge but we've been there for 20 years so why not actually take a little time to formulate a real strategy, go through all the Visas and come up with a plan for their safe exit while we had things in place. Honestly, shutting it down with no thought like this is something we would expect from Trump, not Biden.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> I agree it seems like a huge logistical challenge but we've been there for 20 years so why not actually take a little time to formulate a real strategy, go through all the Visas and come up with a plan for their safe exit while we had things in place. Honestly, shutting it down with no thought like this is something we would expect from Trump, not Biden.




Im very skeptical of our military to the point that I believe some feel they are above Congress and any administration.  The leaders aren’t voted into office or have term limits.  Call it the deep state if you want.  When wondering WTF they’ve been doing to prepare for this under both Trump and Biden I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a serious "Don’t worry. We’re not going anywhere." element to the lack of planning.

I believe it was reported that the military kept certain things from Trump out of fear of one of his insane responses to it.  What didn’t get said was "For the first time in history".  I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that the military lead W Bush, and not the other way around.  So while it’s easy to bag on a President during a failure, perhaps the more rooted failure is the President believing the military were taking care of shit he shouldn’t have to micromanage.  Deferring to the smartest people in the room doesn’t mean those people aren’t putting their own self interest and agenda first.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

At about the middle it starts agreeing with my above statement, past Maduro weighing in.  So I’m not a lone nut job on this.  They convinced Obama and Trump to stay.  So why would they think they couldn’t convince Biden?


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Im very skeptical of our military to the point that I believe some feel they are above Congress and any administration.  The leaders aren’t voted into office or have term limits.  Call it the deep state if you want.  When wondering WTF they’ve been doing to prepare for this under both Trump and Biden I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a serious "Don’t worry. We’re not going anywhere." element to the lack of planning.
> 
> I believe it was reported that the military kept certain things from Trump out of fear of one of his insane responses to it.  What didn’t get said was "For the first time in history".  I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that the military lead W Bush, and not the other way around.  So while it’s easy to bag on a President during a failure, perhaps the more rooted failure is the President believing the military were taking care of shit he shouldn’t have to micromanage.  Deferring to the smartest people in the room doesn’t mean those people aren’t putting their own self interest and agenda first.



The military oath requires one to follow all “lawful orders” - I guarantee you Trump requested unlawful orders dozens, if not hundreds of times. It is literally the responsibility of the top generals to meet with the top military lawyers (The JAG Corps) upon receiving orders they have even the slightest question about.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> The military oath requires one to follow all “lawful orders” - I guarantee you Trump requested unlawful orders dozens, if not hundreds of times. It is literally the responsibility of the top generals to meet with the top military lawyers (The JAG Corps) upon receiving orders they have even the slightest question about.




This isn't all about Trump.  This war has taken place under 4 presidents and both parties.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> This isn't all about Trump.  This war has taken place under 4 presidents and both parties.



You mentioned Trump in your post which is what I was responding to. As for the Bush administration, it was NOT the military wanting to send troops to die: it was the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Reprehensible “human beings” that never spared a single tear for any of those dead due to their decisions.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> You mentioned Trump in your post which is what I was responding to. As for the Bush administration, it was NOT the military wanting to send troops to die: it was the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. Reprehensible “human beings” that never spared a single tear for any of those dead due to their decisions.




I'm pretty positive there are people in the military below those positions that love war.   Not the soldiers on the ground, but you don't have to go all the way to the top to find those people and they'll be there long after those voted in or appointed by those voted in are gone.  You can't pin this entire drawn out mess on 1 party.  You just can't, especially when you throw Congress into the mix.


----------



## JayMysteri0

For anyone who doesn't understand the term 'retcon' when I use it, here's the greatest example of it.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428666368610631685/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> For anyone who doesn't understand the term 'retcon' when I use it, here's the greatest example of it.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428666368610631685/




Right wing media: "Please don't."


----------



## Herdfan

This is not good.  









						US diplomats warned of Afghanistan's collapse in dissent cable last month
					

The cable urged the department to begin evacuating Afghan allies.




					abcnews.go.com
				




Glad they listened to them.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> This is not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US diplomats warned of Afghanistan's collapse in dissent cable last month
> 
> 
> The cable urged the department to begin evacuating Afghan allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad they listened to them.



I think the collapse was inevitable as it's out our hands when we walk. I just wish we had taken care of those who took care of us but instead we carelessly hung them out to dry.


----------



## Alli

Eric said:


> I saw the Biden interview with this and can honestly say I've never been more disappointed in him. He was defensive and dismissive of the crisis that frankly he created by exiting with such haste. I get we want out, I think most agree on that but we could've taken the proper time to secure safe passage for all of these people while we still had control.



How? Did you want US troops to stay an extra month? Two months? Three? The longer you stay, the better chance you have of getting people out. But the longer you stay, the longer we’re still engaged in a never-ending war. The longer you stay, the more American lives are lost.


----------



## Eric

Alli said:


> How? Did you want US troops to stay an extra month? Two months? Three? The longer you stay, the better chance you have of getting people out. But the longer you stay, the longer we’re still engaged in a never-ending war. The longer you stay, the more American lives are lost.



Extra months? How long has Biden been in office now? We could have actually mounted a strategy and plan to get those people out in preparation for leaving had we chose to but that's not what happened. In fact, they just flipped a switch and left the entire thing in chaos.

These people helped us when we needed them the most, we recruited them, ensured them they and their families would be safe and then just turned our backs on them. I don't care what side of the aisle one is on, we should all be outraged at this.

BTW I never once advocated for this war to continue, I have made that clear.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> Extra months? How long has Biden been in office now? We could have actually mounted a strategy and plan to get those people out in preparation for leaving had we chose to but that's not what happened. In fact, they just flipped a switch and left the entire thing in chaos.
> 
> These people helped us when we needed them the most, we recruited them, ensured them they and their families would be safe and then just turned our backs on them. I don't care what side of the aisle one is on, we should all be outraged at this.
> 
> BTW I never once advocated for this war to continue, I have made that clear.




What about the $billions of military hardware?  Was there no plan to get it out?

Our troops should have been the last ones out the door.


----------



## SuperMatt

It’s quite easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. The Taliban took over the country in days, barely having to fire a shot. I think people underestimated how much the Afghans disliked their government... that they were willing to let the Taliban take over without even trying to stop them. Afghan soldiers are supposedly worried about losing their lives now that the Taliban is in power. Well, they could have done something about it when they were equipped with the latest military equipment, in well-fortified positions. A bit late to worry about it now.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> It’s quite easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. The Taliban took over the country in days, barely having to fire a shot. I think people underestimated how much the Afghans disliked their government... that they were willing to let the Taliban take over without even trying to stop them. Afghan soldiers are supposedly worried about losing their lives now that the Taliban is in power. Well, they could have done something about it when they were equipped with the latest military equipment, in well-fortified positions. A bit late to worry about it now.



This much is true, nobody saw how quickly it was coming and while it's sad, we have to hand it back and let the chips fall where they may. 

As for the way we treated those who sacrificed everything for us I believe it'll go down in history as a travesty under Biden's watch and his "who gives a fuck" attitude during that interview was appalling. He deserves every bit of the one-two punch he's getting in the media right now and has lost a lot of credibility in my book.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> This much is true, nobody saw how quickly it was coming and while it's sad, we have to hand it back and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> As for the way we treated those who sacrificed everything for us I believe it'll go down in history as a travesty under Biden's watch and his "who gives a fuck" attitude during that interview was appalling. He deserves every bit of the one-two punch he's getting in the media right now and has lost a lot of credibility in my book.



To be an advocate for the other side: we left Afghans with the training and equipment to defend themselves. They chose to walk away from their posts. They made a calculation that living under Taliban rule would be preferable to fighting the Taliban on the battlefield.

The Afghan government, although selected through elections, was still seen as a puppet of America by many there. It was also quite corrupt. The fact that the Taliban is seen as getting rid of the Americans was a massive boost for their popularity. Now that the dreaded Americans are gone, they have to try and hold power on their own merits. I don’t think it will be easy.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> This much is true, nobody saw how quickly it was coming and while it's sad, we have to hand it back and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> As for the way we treated those who sacrificed everything for us I believe it'll go down in history as a travesty under Biden's watch and his "who gives a fuck" attitude during that interview was appalling. He deserves every bit of the one-two punch he's getting in the media right now and has lost a lot of credibility in my book.




It seems we did know how fast it was coming:



> The classified cable warned of the large territorial gains that had been made by Taliban fighters and the lack of resistance being put up by the country’s own security forces, as well as recommendations to speed up the evacuation of Americans and its allies, two officials told the newspaper.











						Secret State Department cable warned of Afghan collapse in July, report says
					

Secret State department cables warned that the Afghanistan government could quickly collapse following the US withdrawal later this month as recently as July, a report says.  Around two dozen officials from the US Embassy in Kabul gave the Biden administration the stark warning in a 13 July...




					news.yahoo.com
				







As for Biden, those of us who said he wasn't up for the task were mocked.   He has now called an indefinite lid and is hiding in the basement eating mush and watching Matlock.  Elections do have consequences.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Biden did what no president before him could do. They were making this point on Chapo. Trump wanted to withdraw the troops before the 2020 election, but probably decided not to once his advisors told him how bad it would be and that it would make him look like a loser (the only thing Trump cares about). Biden, on the other hand, is already seen as a loser, so he had nothing to lose. Because let's face it, there wasn't going to be any "smooth withdrawal". It was going to be this or hand it off to the next president. That's why the same thing happened over and over...


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> *To be an advocate for the other side: we left Afghans with the training and equipment to defend themselves. They chose to walk away from their posts. They made a calculation that living under Taliban rule would be preferable to fighting the Taliban on the battlefield.*
> 
> The Afghan government, although selected through elections, was still seen as a puppet of America by many there. It was also quite corrupt. The fact that the Taliban is seen as getting rid of the Americans was a massive boost for their popularity. Now that the dreaded Americans are gone, they have to try and hold power on their own merits. I don’t think it will be easy.



These aren't the people I'm talking about though. I'm talking about all of those who were interpreters and other support, many civilians that we promised security and protection for their services who are now left with no way out and a Taliban force searching them out.

the best we could do is burn all the buildings that housed their information which is a double edged sword because it also means they have no credentials to prove who they are to get them out, the Taliban is currently seeking them out through other means. In short, we've totally fucked them over and instead of making good on our promises we put targets on their backs. Shame on us all, especially Joe Biden for allowing that.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> These aren't the people I'm talking about though. I'm talking about all of those who were interpreters and other support, many civilians that we promised security and protection for their services who are now left with no way out and a Taliban force searching them out.
> 
> the best we could do is burn all the buildings that housed their information which is a double edged sword because it also means they have no credentials to prove who they are to get them out, the Taliban is currently seeking them out through other means. In short, we've totally fucked them over and instead of making good on our promises we put targets on their backs. Shame on us all, especially Joe Biden for allowing that.



Why is it not shame on the Afghan army for abandoning their posts? There is literally no way America could protect everybody now seen as an “American sympathizer” without staying as an occupying force in perpetuity. We are talking about tens of thousands of people at least who could fit that description.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> It seems we did know how fast it was coming:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secret State Department cable warned of Afghan collapse in July, report says
> 
> 
> Secret State department cables warned that the Afghanistan government could quickly collapse following the US withdrawal later this month as recently as July, a report says.  Around two dozen officials from the US Embassy in Kabul gave the Biden administration the stark warning in a 13 July...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Biden, those of us who said he wasn't up for the task were mocked.   He has now called an indefinite lid and is hiding in the basement eating mush and watching Matlock.  Elections do have consequences.



Hope you said the same about Trump, because even though they shut him down when he tried had he been given the option he would've done the exact same thing.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> Why is it not shame on the Afghan army for abandoning their posts? There is literally no way America could protect everybody now seen as an “American sympathizer” without staying as an occupying force in perpetuity. We are talking about tens of thousands of people at least who could fit that description.



We went in there and took over their country, even when they didn't ask for it. We armed them, taught them, educated them and yet could not impose their will to fight for themselves. That's on them, I do understand that. I'm not talking about "American Sympathizers" but when we solicit the help of all those who stepped in on their side we goddamned well should be giving them every protection possible in an exit plan.

"But how could we have done that?" is a shitty excuse. We had control of the country, it's airports and all roads leading up to them. We already have these people identified, now before you send all of your troops home you setup outreach to these people, ensure safe passage to the airports and get the pentagon involved in the logistics. This could likely be done within a month or two, once you feel like you've gotten them out safely, pull the troops and let the country slip back into chaos again, that's on them.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> Hope you said the same about Trump, because even though they shut him down when he tried had he been given the option he would've done the exact same thing.




He may not have been.  But he wouldn't be hiding from it. Maybe doubling down on being correct( even if he isn't), but not hiding and calling a lid because he can't handle it.

I thought Biden was supposed to restore America's reputation with the world.  He has done the opposite.  He has made us look weak and incompetent.  Don't believe me, take a look at some European newspapers.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> He may not have been.  But he wouldn't be hiding from it. Maybe doubling down on being correct( even if he isn't), but not hiding and calling a lid because he can't handle it.
> 
> I thought Biden was supposed to restore America's reputation with the world.  He has done the opposite.  He has made us look weak and incompetent.  Don't believe me, take a look at some European newspapers.



The only difference here is we expected better from Biden, sadly we didn't get it. We know Trump has the forethought of a wrecking ball.


----------



## Deleted member 215

How is Biden "hiding" when he's spoken about this publicly multiple times now and defended it? He's doing exactly the kind of thing Trump did and would do. That's why these Biden vs. Trump conversations are just ridiculous. It depends entirely on which side you're on. The two men could do the _exact same thing_ and people will see total opposites depending on which one they voted for.


----------



## Eric

TBL said:


> How is Biden "hiding" when he's spoken about this publicly multiple times now and defended it? He's doing exactly the kind of thing Trump did and would do. That's why these Biden vs. Trump conversations are just ridiculous. It depends entirely on which side you're on. The two men could do the _exact same thing_ and people will see total opposites depending on which one they voted for.



Exactly. We should all question our president where we disagree. Trump supporters blindly followed everything he did lock step no matter what and it was embarrassing to watch. Seriously, try thinking for yourself folks, it's liberating.


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> Exactly. We should all question our president where we disagree. Trump supporters blindly followed everything he did lock step no matter what and it was embarrassing to watch. Seriously, try thinking for yourself folks, it's liberating.




I have never agreed with everything Trump did or said.  In some ways he was disappointing.



TBL said:


> How is Biden "hiding" when he's spoken about this publicly multiple times now and defended it? He's doing exactly the kind of thing Trump did and would do. That's why these Biden vs. Trump conversations are just ridiculous. It depends entirely on which side you're on. The two men could do the _exact same thing_ and people will see total opposites depending on which one they voted for.




He has spoken about it once since it happened.  The second time he spoke was about COVID and he took no questions on Afghanistan.  He has also removed all public appearances from his schedule.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Well, apparently he's going to speak on it again today, so...


----------



## Pumbaa

Herdfan said:


> I thought Biden was supposed to restore America's reputation with the world.  He has done the opposite.  He has made us look weak and incompetent.  Don't believe me, take a look at some European newspapers.



Got any specific examples?


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> We went in there and took over their country, even when they didn't ask for it. We armed them, taught them, educated them and yet could not impose their will to fight for themselves. That's on them, I do understand that. I'm not talking about "American Sympathizers" but when we solicit the help of all those who stepped in on their side we goddamned well should be giving them every protection possible in an exit plan.
> 
> "But how could we have done that?" is a shitty excuse. We had control of the country, it's airports and all roads leading up to them. We already have these people identified, now before you send all of your troops home you setup outreach to these people, ensure safe passage to the airports and get the pentagon involved in the logistics. This could likely be done within a month or two, once you feel like you've gotten them out safely, pull the troops and let the country slip back into chaos again, that's on them.



I understand it’s a bad situation. But pretending there was some solution that would have protected everybody is a fantasy.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> Well, apparently he's going to speak on it again today, so...




Was just coming back to post that.  Guess the pressure got to him.



Pumbaa said:


> Got any specific examples?












						Disbelief and betrayal: Europe reacts to Biden’s Afghanistan ‘miscalculation’
					

‘This does fundamental damage to the political and moral credibility of the West,’ says senior German lawmaker.




					www.politico.eu


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> I understand it’s a bad situation. But pretending there was some solution that would have protected everybody is a fantasy.



Pretending that we couldn't have done anything is frankly bullshit and it's why everyone in the media (not just Republicans) is rightfully calling him out on it. Additionally I never said "everybody" you like to blanket my statements. Let me be clear "those who have helped us, that we have assured protection". 

Going to agree to disagree here, IMO any "Liberal" who is okay with the preventable human atrocities occurring is talking out of both sides of their mouth.


----------



## Deleted member 215

It's why _some_ are calling him out.

It's not why everyone is. They're also calling him out because this is a major setback for the military-industrial complex. The media (which of course backs it) didn't want a withdrawal either way; that's why they were so critical of it before it even happened.

Not all the criticisms of this withdrawal are out of good faith concern for people left behind.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> Pretending that we couldn't have done anything is frankly bullshit and it's why everyone in the media (not just Republicans) is rightfully calling him out on it. Additionally I never said "everybody" you like to blanket my statements. Let me be clear "those who have helped us, that we have assured protection".
> 
> Going to agree to disagree here, IMO any "Liberal" who is okay with the preventable human atrocities occurring is talking out of both sides of their mouth.



You assume they were preventable based on a theoretical alternative course of action that may or may not have worked any better. The plan didn’t work well. Would another plan have worked better? Maybe. The President has taken the blame for this, not fired the generals or others… there might have been another way of doing this with a better outcome, but we will never know now.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> You assume they were preventable based on a theoretical alternative course of action that may or may not have worked any better.




The Taliban has seized billions of dollars, 600,000 weapons, 75,000 vehicles and 200 aircraft.  There is no excuse for this level of incompetence.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> The Taliban has seized billions of dollars, 600,000 weapons, 75,000 vehicles and 200 aircraft.  There is no excuse for this level of incompetence.



Almost like it was a bad idea to even start such a stupid war.

Also, I want to at least see a thank you note from them.


----------



## lizkat

A civil war that began in the 20th century and ended 25 years later,  although largely ignored in the west and certainly in the USA, was that between the Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka.  Now of course the 21st century has a civil war that has gone on in Afghanistan for almost as long (and despite the exit of the USA is likely to continue after our departure).    One chronicler of the Sri Lankan conflicts made an observation that struck me as applicable to all wars but particularly perhaps to Afghanistan's latest experience, since this war that we began in 2001 was hardly the first in that country's benighted history.



> “The war ingested everything whole, bent everything to its service: religion and politics, history and geography, fact and mythology.”
> 
> --Samanth Subramanian, in _This Divided Island: Life, Death and the Sri Lankan War_​



​​The reason I mention that at this juncture is because the departure of the US and western allies has not concluded.  Yet we have all these newspaper editorial boards and bloggers spilling the ink of history over Afghanistan as if the last Afghan to be rescued has already found such luck and as if Joe Biden made the only decisions affecting them.   This has clearly not been the case either on battlefields, in military conference rooms or at negotiation tables during the past 20 years of spilled blood in Afghanistan, a country with a history of spilling the blood of its own and of foreigners since even before Alexander the Great set foot there in 325 BC.   The buck may stop with Biden and he hasn't said it doesn't, but he has pointed out that it takes more than one to tango into or out of a war.   However, one wouldn't know that by wading through some of today's news and social media commentary.  

From my point of view, much of the current political commentary that lays the fate of Afghanistan --or the blame for the outcome of our departing this particular civil war-- at the feet of Joe Biden is off by a mile and a few millennia as well.   And much of that commentary belongs necessarily jumbled together in Subramanian's "fact and mythology" pigeonhole, for future historians to try to sort out.

I say "necessarily" because of course some of the pundits' pronouncements are anything but free of agenda, regardless of cited facts and their sources,   and there are as many political agendas afoot in the USA right now as there are Afghans holding Special Immigrant Visas (no matter where the holders reside or are queued up at the moment).

Seems to me there should be more differentiation between unhappiness over the present state of Afghans who assisted the USA during this conflict and dissatisfaction over the manner of our leaving.   With respect to the latter,  we in the general public have very little notion right now of all the effort that has gone into our exit,  never mind a good grip on how it might have been done better.  

Weird how lots of us agree that once a war starts, the best-laid plans give way to facts on the ground, but some of us now seem to set that idea aside before our participation in this particular war in Afghanistan has concluded.


----------



## Pumbaa

Herdfan said:


> Disbelief and betrayal: Europe reacts to Biden’s Afghanistan ‘miscalculation’
> 
> 
> ‘This does fundamental damage to the political and moral credibility of the West,’ says senior German lawmaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.eu



Yes, people and politicians are unhappy with the withdrawal and Afghanistan reverting to Taliban rule.

However, if following through with the withdrawal is how Biden made you look weak and incompetent, the only alternative would have been to cancel the withdrawal, increase the presence and stay indefinitely. Would you have preferred that?


----------



## Herdfan

Pumbaa said:


> Yes, people and politicians are unhappy with the withdrawal and Afghanistan reverting to Taliban rule.
> 
> However, if following through with the withdrawal is how Biden made you look weak and incompetent, the only alternative would have been to cancel the withdrawal, increase the presence and stay indefinitely. Would you have preferred that?




There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.




I too would like to know more about the rationale behind leaving Bagram early.


----------



## Pumbaa

Herdfan said:


> There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.



…and then Afghanistan would be in Taliban hands anyway, and I dare say the contents of your linked article would have been for all intents and purposes the same.

This “evacuated those who needed it” sure sounds good. A bit vague, though. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think many would be happy with the actual definition of “those who needed it”, whatever it may be…


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Herdfan said:


> There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.



Agreed.


lizkat said:


> I too would like to know more about the rationale behind leaving Bagram early.



And again, agreed.


Pumbaa said:


> …and then Afghanistan would be in Taliban hands anyway, and I dare say the contents of your linked article would have been for all intents and purposes the same.
> 
> This “evacuated those who needed it” sure sounds good. A bit vague, though. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think many would be happy with the actual definition of “those who needed it”, whatever it may be…




Well, we can start with a somewhat more refined, or precisely defined, list.

Personally, I would suggest something along the lines of...

Evacuating, and subsequently giving/granting full rights of residence  and asylum/sanctuary/residence/citizenship to those Afghans, who were (and are):

Anyone (that is, anyone Afghan) who worked for, or with, the western military; western police missions; international (i.e. mostly western) organisations (EU, UN); international embassies; international NGOs; women's organisations with links to (or funded by) international bodies; journalists with links to (or funded by) international - western - bodies.

And none of those horrid and hideous exclusion clauses that because someone worked for "contractors", or, worse, international sub-contractors, that they aren't eligible for such support.

Now, that is a different debate, but I do think it is high time that this ghastly model of (often unaccountable to parliamentary or legislative oversight) "contractors" is critically examined a lot more closely, - which is something that I, for one, would love to see happen - and subject to much closer scrutiny and oversight.  And control.

And yes, this also means eventual (if not immediate) similar rights for their families.

Admittedly, that is a quite a considerable number of people, but aiding them, assisting them, and enabling their escape/evacuation from current conditions in Afghanistan is the right and proper, ethical and moral thing to do; in addition, it is also the correct and the professional thing to do.


----------



## JamesMike

Former teammates of mine who are still Afghanstan said the leaving of Bagram air base was mind-boggling!  They started packing their bags shortly afterwards.  My government will regret doing it in the coming days.


----------



## Huntn

JayMysteri0 said:


> FFS if true
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427973568630083587/
> 
> SOMEBODY needs to write US and so many others a check.
> 
> In hundred dollar bills that might weigh 3726lbs or more than a ton & a half in bags.
> 
> Added
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428000701418983436/



Imo our “partners” in charge of Afghanistan were corrupt. They made assurances that were completely without merit, ie we will fight for our country. Yes, many well meaning people put their faith in the US, but how far can this take us and them?

Sure with $ x trillions more, we could keep carrying this country forever, *IF* we could afford it, while we can’t hardly even get a frick’n infrastructure bill passed here, so would it have been in our best interests to keep investing there? It obvious in hindsight of US trained Afghan troops defecting in mass, this was a waste of our time, money, and blood. …and we are not colonialists. 

I missed Biden’s address today, what did I miss?


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.



That would have required an acceptance in advance that as soon as we left, the country would fall immediately. Now if they had preceded on this basis, and knew this would happen, then they blew it big time. There might have been better ways.

But you have to remember that Trump drew down our presence dramatically during his term to something like 3k troops? It would have been reversing the flow dramatically to pump in tens of thousands of more troops to evacuate, but I’m  not saying that would have been impossible. And there were supposed to be 300k Afghan troops trained and on line. Haha fool’d us. 

The military leadership had to be involved in these decisions. How much misplaced confidence did they have in the Afghan military? This could be a case of historic misplaced trust. I’d love to hear the military leadership’s input on this topic.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Huntn said:


> *That would have required an acceptance in advance that as soon as we left, the country would fall immediately.* Now if they had preceded on this basis, and knew this would happen, then they blew it big time. There might have been better ways.
> 
> But you have to remember that Trump drew down our presence dramatically during his term To something like 3k troops? It would have been reversing the flow dramatically to pump in tens of thousands of more troops to evacuate, but I’m  not saying that would have been impossible. And there were supposed to be 300k Afghan troops trained and on line. Haha.  The military leadership had to be involved in these decisions. How much misplaced confidence did they have in the Afghan military?



No, it wouldn't, not necessarily.

It would simply mean ensuring that those who worked with us would be made safe - and, in this instance, "safe" means evacuated, and given asylum and sanctuary and full citizenship rights - and should not have their lives threatened for having done so.

That is entirely separate from any departure, irrespective of whether such a (precipitate) departure is long anticipated, meticuously planned, or swift, sudden, or surreptitious, and carried out under cover of darkness.

This is not a new position with me.  In other words, it long predates my time in Afghanistan - though I also hold this belief strongly from my time there.

Rather, it is one I have held strongly - and I am sure that @JamesMike will agree with me - ever since I first started in such international work, in my case, elections (when I supervised and ran elections, in Bosnia, in conjunction with local staff, and later, with a different mandate, observed international elections) in Bosnia in 1997, when the first post war elections were held, and when my own staff were - at times - under threat.

From that time, - ever since that time - I have been aware of two things: Firstly, the astonishing calibre and quality of much - if not most, almost all - of our local staff - enthusiastic, engaged, educated, idealistic, informed, decent, generous, (with their time, their insights, their advice, their thoughts), exceptionally hard-working, extraordinarily courageous, and deeply committed to anything which might improve life, and conditions of living, in their own country.  Invariably, they were many of the best of their own people.

And secondly, I was also numbly aware that I would be flown home - evacuated rapidly and effectively if necessary (as happened once in Kyrgyzstan when post election demonstrations appeared - or threatened - to turn violent) - while my local staff would or could get it in the neck, if local conditions turned nasty, sour or ugly after - or, in the wake of - our departure.


----------



## Huntn

My wife said an expert on MSNBC this morning said

that 6 months ago, the US Govt told the Afghan Govt we were leaving, they said no problem.
that when the US shutdown it’s checkpoints instead of the Afghan military it was Taliban who showed up to take over.
that The US Air Base was huge and hard to defend and it was calculated that the city airport would be easier to defend and it would be easier to get more people out from that location.
and finally on the first day of the ball being in the Afghan military’s court, half the military walked.
As a principle, after 20 years, it’s hard to argue the US did not give it a good try.  And if you want to criticize the US for bailing on Afghanistan have at it. If you want to praise the US for finally cutting its losses, you can do that too. Once it became apparent that Afghanistan was going to fall, it was going to be a mess. You can be mad at Biden, or be made at the Afghan military for falling on its swords or worse being traitors their government. Now I guess there is a lot of room here to debate just how worthy the Afghanistan Govt/Military was.


----------



## Alli

Herdfan said:


> There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.



If we had the superior military, blah blah blah, why were we still fighting after 25 years? Why hadn’t we just won and straightened everything out?

You can’t just land multiple (large) planes in the middle of a field.

Maybe Pompeo shouldn’t have made the deal with the Taliban.


----------



## Huntn

Scepticalscribe said:


> No, it wouldn't, not necessarily.
> 
> It would simply mean ensuring that those who worked with us would be made safe - and, in this instance, "safe" means evacuated, and given asylum and sanctuary and full citizenship rights - and should not have their lives threatened for having done so.
> 
> That is entirely separate from any departure, irrespective of whether such a (precipitate) departure is long anticipated, meticuously planned, or swift, sudden, or surreptitious, and carried out under cover of darkness.
> 
> This is not a new position with me.
> 
> Rather, it is one I have held strongly - and I am sure that @JamesMike will agree with me - ever since I first started in international work, in my case, elections (when I supervised and ran elections, and later, with a different mandate, observed international elections) in Bosnia in 1997, when the first post war elections were held, and when my own staff were - at times - under threat.
> 
> From that time, - ever since that time - I have been aware of two things: Firstly, the astonishing calibre and quality of much - if not most, almost all - of our local staff - enthusiastic, engaged, educated, idealistic, informed, decent, generous, (with their time, their insights, their advice, their thoughts), exceptionally hard-working, extraordinarily courageous, and deeply committed to anything which might improve life, and conditions of living, in their own country.  Invariably, they were many of the best of their own people.
> 
> And secondly, I was also numbly aware that I would be flown home - evacuated rapidly and effectively if necessary (as happened once in Kyrgyzstan when post election demonstrations appeared - or threatened - to turn violent) - while my local staff would or could get it in the neck, if local conditions turned sour or ughly after - or, in the wake of - our departure.



Imo, they  would have had to 1) accepted that Afghanistan would have fallen and advertised that to those working with us. 2) Pumped up  the US Air base substantially with troops and arms.  3) Call in all vested personal to that Airbase in advance. If I understand it accurately, under Trump control of countryside was handed over to whoever wanted it, making it very difficult to freely travel.

Now I am not privy to the behind the scenes decisions. If the US military had advised Biden to expect the worst, than the plan I described seems reasonable. If they had planned on a force of 300k Afghan military to be functional, then this is a case where the team we put our trust in folded before the fight even got started. Yes, there is some blame there, depending on how you want to parse it,


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Huntn said:


> Imo, they  would have had to 1) accepted that Afghanistan would have fallen and advertised that to those working with us. 2) Pumped up  the US Air base substantially with troops and arms.  3) Call in every vested personal to that Airbase in advance. If I understand it accurately, under Trump control of countryside was handed over to whoever wanted it, making it very difficult to freely travel.
> 
> Now I am not privy to the behind the scenes decisions. If the US military had advised Biden to expect the worst, than the plan I described seems reasonable. If they had planned on a force of 300k Afghan military to be functional, then this is a case wear the team we put our trust in folded before the fight even got started. Yes, there is some blame there, depending on how you want to parse it,



No.

To my mind, they are two wholly different, distinct and separate things.

You can guarantee - and insist on - and should insist on - ensuring the safety and security of those who worked with you without (simultaneously) appearing to suggest that the state will collapse, or that you expect, assume, or are planning for its collapse.

You owe them a duty of care.

People who worked for you - and with you - in good faith should not have to pay for that with their lives.

And this is something that applies - irrespective of whether the Kabul administration would have lasted one week, one year, that notorious 90 days, or the proverbial forever and a day - after the departure of the US security umbrella.


----------



## hulugu

Herdfan said:


> There has to be somewhere in the middle we could have landed.  We have the superior military.  We could have provided security around our own damn airbase at a minimum.  We could have kept the Taliban out of Kabul and Bagram until we evacuated those who needed it.  Then pulled out of Kabul and spent the next couple of months getting the weapons out of the country.




While I have a real problem with the framing that Biden made America look weak, I agree that the U.S. military should have maintained Kabul and Bagram. I was really surprised that we just exfiltrated from Bagram so quickly considering how essential the airfield has been for so long, and how it would help support our efforts to move people out. 

I think the real question is why didn't the intelligence services undersell 

And, no politico is going to support the current situation in Afghanistan, so it's unsurprising to see the criticism. It was obviously a mess, and it's easy to point at the Biden administration and blame them, rather than for example, Germans considering how the Bush administration got them tied into the mess in the first place, and how after losing 60 soldiers, it all fell right back to the Taliban. Everyone's frustrated, and the Biden administration is the scapegoat. 

That said, they screwed this up, having failed to consider that the Taliban would exploit last year's negotiations, and have a plan to snap people into place to blunt the Taliban's advance if the Afghan Army collapsed.


----------



## lizkat

Pumbaa said:


> …and then Afghanistan would be in Taliban hands anyway, and I dare say the contents of your linked article would have been for all intents and purposes the same.
> 
> This “evacuated those who needed it” sure sounds good. A bit vague, though. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think many would be happy with the actual definition of “those who needed it”, whatever it may be…




There are reports filtering into social media now of people having been helicoptered out of Afghanistan from points outside the Kabul airport.   Most likely there are other such evacuation efforts of which we're generally not aware at this time.  It's more important that the extractions occur than that we know about them in real time.

 The less known of such efforts at the time of occurrence, the less risk of local hostilities, even if the Taliban and US / allies have agreed on such endeavors in general or at certain locations.  Taliban leaders know they essentially only have loyalty from (and not necessarily actual control over) whomever they most recently gifted enough dough or weapons to strike a bargain.


----------



## Herdfan

lizkat said:


> There are reports filtering into social media now of people having been helicoptered out of Afghanistan from points outside the Kabul airport.   Most likely there are other such evacuation efforts of which we're generally not aware at this time.  It's more important that the extractions occur than that we know about them in real time.




Most likely the French and British rescuing their citizens.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> Most likely the French and British rescuing their citizens.




Some US efforts were cited by a reporter for the AP.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428811505437396995/


----------



## lizkat

Very interesting thread by Olivia Troye (former WH advisor to Pence re homeland security counterterrorism issues, and who resigned her post primarily over administration's handling of Covid-19).    She comments on behind-scenes events during Trump administration with respect to advance planning for visas and departure assistance for people who assisted our troops and media as translators, fixers, drivers.   No surprise that the infamous Stephen Miller threw tantrums about any attempts getting them special visas.   Anyway her thread is 7 tweets worth the reading...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428740865665679361/


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> Very interesting thread by Olivia Troye (former WH advisor to Pence re homeland security counterterrorism issues, and who resigned her post primarily over administration's handling of Covid-19).    She comments on behind-scenes events during Trump administration with respect to advance planning for visas and departure assistance for people who assisted our troops and media as translators, fixers, drivers.   No surprise that the infamous Stephen Miller threw tantrums about any attempts getting them special visas.   Anyway her thread is 7 tweets worth the reading...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428740865665679361/



What a brain-dead tweet from Meghan McCain’s husband. Trump promised all troops in Afghanistan would be home for Christmas 2020… and never followed through. His supporters never called him on it though.

“Trump would have done X better” has less than 1% chance of being true.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> What a brain-dead tweet from Meghan McCain’s husband. Trump promised all troops in Afghanistan would be home for Christmas 2020… and never followed through. His supporters never called him on it though.
> 
> “Trump would have done X better” has less than 1% chance of being true.




Trump understood optics all right, but only as they applied to him and at a given moment.  He had zero concerns in leaving a trail of broken promises and related damage or destruction behind him, it's why he had such a raft of lawyers in his serially mismanaged businesses.

He took the same approach into the White House but instead of downstream lawyers,  he relied on Barr at the top of DoJ for that stuff and otherwise just planted agency lackeys who would undermine any policy or process he had indicated he didn't like.

On top of that,  Trump didn't pay attention to what his hand-picked "acting deputy yada-yadas" were doing,  so they were all free to try to implement their own agendas while they were at it.


----------



## GermanSuplex

No matter how bad things are, this was the inevitable end. And there’s no way to convince me dipshit - a goofy reality show star - would have done any better by governing via tweet.


----------



## lizkat

Two part series in the CSM on how the Taliban managed their comeback.   Good read, but you can't tell me that US and allied intel and so the Pentagon weren't aware of the creeping losses in the north --even if they didn't know whether the Taliban would or could pull off a final call to arms and make hay off a swift rout there to parlay that into intimidating regular Afghan army members in the cities that still had more actual support from the US near the end. 

Guess it felt more feasible to the Pentagon to keep on trying to kick the can down the road than cop to defeat.   Overdid it this time though,  and the Trump admin deciding to sit down w/ the Taliban at a table sans the puppet government was an admission of that defeat,  more or less.









						How the Taliban won: They leveraged Afghan history and culture
					

The Taliban’s homegrown strategy took advantage of intimidation, official corruption, and extensive networking to roll up the Afghan countryside.




					www.csmonitor.com
				






> Most Taliban come from rural villages, where they are members of the same tribal clans and subclans as government officials and military commanders – making them relatives or neighbors. Starting at the district level, they created shadow governments and militaries in every province. Then they offered deals to switch sides.
> 
> “About a year ago, the Taliban started reaching out to lower-level government troops and fighters, offering money for their weapons and to abandon their posts. And then they ratcheted up the process to reach more senior provincial leaders,” says Mr. London.
> 
> The Taliban’s control over rural areas, which had grown steadily since the U.S. military handed over security to Afghan forces in 2014, rose dramatically as U.S. forces began their final pullout this summer. In one month, from June to July, the number of districts under Taliban control doubled from 104 to 216, according to tracking by the Long War Journal.






> Many elite forces, including Afghan special forces and paramilitary units such as that under Mr. Hanif, did fight until the last possible moment. Unlike the regular army, these units were organized largely along community and tribal lines, with elders vetting new recruits.
> 
> “They have kind of an obligation to one another,” says Mr. London, author of “The Recruiter,” a book about the CIA’s post-2001 transformation. “Given their reputation after years of bleeding the Taliban ... such troops realized that surrender was less likely to be an option and amnesty highly unlikely,” he says.
> 
> Mr. Hanif had to fight his way out of Kunar and is on the run. “We will fight until our last breath,” he said in his last phone call.












						Afghanistan: How the Taliban won over northern ethnic minorities
					

The Taliban path to victory in Kabul ran through northern Afghanistan where a decadelong strategy of recruiting ethnic minorities paid off.




					www.csmonitor.com
				






> When the Taliban last ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s, they faced stiff resistance across the country’s north from ethnic-based paramilitaries that resented the southern Pashtun militants. That resistance would prove decisive in 2001 when the same ethnic minorities, backed by U.S. air power, ousted the Taliban regime in Kabul.
> 
> This time around, the Taliban had a new strategy: Enlist minorities in the north and turn a Pashtun-based insurgency into a pan-Islamic fighting force against foreign infidels.
> 
> Taliban commanders and fighters describe a decadelong effort to recruit among ethnic minorities, setting the stage for a lightning-fast victory over Afghan security forces in city after city, until Kabul capitulated on Sunday.






> Mr. Aleem, who wears a brown silk turban favored by Uzbeks, says the Taliban created a cadre of local leaders who were routinely sent to Pakistan for religious and military training.
> 
> “After 2008, the recruitment of young men from villages began in religious schools, which led the Taliban to have a mobile force among the people ... at a very low cost. It grew deep roots inside the indigenous people,” he told The Christian Science Monitor a week ago, before the Taliban took Kabul.
> 
> Mr. Aleem says he made three trips to Pakistan where, in addition to a religious curriculum, he studied battlefield tactics such as how to build roadside bombs. “Those who were educated in Pakistan played a key role in advancing the Taliban’s attacks.”
> 
> The Taliban’s recruitment of ethnic Uzbek, Turkmen, and Tajik Afghans under a broader pan-Islamic banner was sweetened with promises of all-expenses-paid religious education in Pakistan – and a chance of martyrdom. Along with Islamic jurisprudence, these northern recruits learned guerrilla war tactics and skills, before returning home to serve as local Taliban leaders.






> The Taliban’s unlikely path to victory through the north reflects a deep understanding of local grievances, analysts say.  Not only did the militants tap into a growing Islamic and political radicalization, but they also took full advantage of deepening complaints over corruption, incompetence, and unpopular leadership appointments by the U.S.-backed Afghan government in Kabul.
> 
> “The ethnic minorities were deeply alienated. ... I can’t stress enough the effect this had on the north,” says Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh who has studied Afghan governance.
> 
> This provided fertile ground for indoctrination of minority youth via Taliban-controlled madrassas in the north and in Pakistan.
> 
> “You need something to fight for, not just fight against. And there was no vision from the central government that they could believe in,” says Ms. Murtazashvili. The Taliban provided a pan-Islamic banner for the north that could transcend its Pashtun roots.




Heh.  Somewhere I remember reading that the Pashto word for "cousin" is the same as for "enemy".  The Taliban, however,  has managed to overcome at least temporarily certain aspects of close-kin and tribalistic feuding by appealing to jihadism as a form of religious commonality instead.  Worked for them, for now.  But it didn't happen without money.  They're going to run short without all the graft off what the US was plugging in.

That may only exacerbate resumption of the civil war...  or it may inspire a new round of strange bedfellows in support of a "central" government that various countries would like to do business with in Afghanistan.  But the Taliban leadership as well as those prospsective investors are rightly wary of Taliban mid-level enforcers reverting to behavior like they had displayed in ruling Afghanistan from 1996-2001.  Doing that again would spook both China and Pakistan, the latter of which almost certainly values commerce w/ China more than it does continuing to back Afghan fundamentalists (even if Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, has a certain requirement to tap dance around its own fundamentalist adherents and clerics).


----------



## Yoused

__





						Fox News' Tucker Carlson blames Taliban gains on 'grotesque' gender studies
					





					theweek.com
				




includes this delightful segue

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427381371358568449/


"_Flee your big-Corp cell service the way Afghans are fleeing Afghanistan_"


----------



## lizkat

Yoused said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News' Tucker Carlson blames Taliban gains on 'grotesque' gender studies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> includes this delightful segue
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1427381371358568449/
> 
> 
> "_Flee your big-Corp cell service the way Afghans are fleeing Afghanistan_"




Unbelievable.   Did that segue without taking a breath.  WTF?!


----------



## Scepticalscribe

lizkat said:


> Two part series in the CSM on how the Taliban managed their comeback.   Good read, but you can't tell me that US and allied intel and so the Pentagon weren't aware of the creeping losses in the north --even if they didn't know whether the Taliban would or could pull off a final call to arms and make hay off a swift rout there to parlay that into intimidating regular Afghan army members in the cities that still had more actual support from the US near the end.
> 
> Guess it felt more feasible to the Pentagon to keep on trying to kick the can down the road than cop to defeat.   Overdid it this time though,  and the Trump admin deciding to sit down w/ the Taliban at a table sans the puppet government was an admission of that defeat,  more or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the Taliban won: They leveraged Afghan history and culture
> 
> 
> The Taliban’s homegrown strategy took advantage of intimidation, official corruption, and extensive networking to roll up the Afghan countryside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.csmonitor.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan: How the Taliban won over northern ethnic minorities
> 
> 
> The Taliban path to victory in Kabul ran through northern Afghanistan where a decadelong strategy of recruiting ethnic minorities paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.csmonitor.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  Somewhere I remember reading that the Pashto word for "cousin" is the same as for "enemy".  The Taliban, however,  has managed to overcome at least temporarily certain aspects of close-kin and tribalistic feuding by appealing to jihadism as a form of religious commonality instead.  Worked for them, for now.  But it didn't happen without money.  They're going to run short without all the graft off what the US was plugging in.
> 
> That may only exacerbate resumption of the civil war...  or it may inspire a new round of strange bedfellows in support of a "central" government that various countries would like to do business with in Afghanistan.  But the Taliban leadership as well as those prospsective investors are rightly wary of Taliban mid-level enforcers reverting to behavior like they had displayed in ruling Afghanistan from 1996-2001.  Doing that again would spook both China and Pakistan, the latter of which almost certainly values commerce w/ China more than it does continuing to back Afghan fundamentalists (even if Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, has a certain requirement to tap dance around its own fundamentalist adherents and clerics).




Excellent (and thought-provoking) post; however, the Hazaras are striking by their absence from that list - and, already, I have been reading reports of fresh Taliban atrocities (dating from July, i.e. before the fall of Afghanistan or Kabul) committed against Hazaras by the Taliban.

I would expect - especially since Amrullah Saleh and Ahmad Massoud, currently based in the Panjshir Valley - from where they will serve as a rallying point for those who will oppose the Taliban - resistance (from Tajiks, especially, and from Uzbeks, and, as time passes, above all, from Hazaras) to the Taliban and Taliban rule to grow.

Moreover, and hearkening back to the old saying whereby one, is, or has been - "campaigning - (or, conducting an insurrection, or revolution), - in poetry, but is obliged to govern in prose", a shortage of funds (as the international community cuts off aid, and freezes the Afghan state's assets and central bank accounts abroad) may soon show us Taliban administrative short-comings, inexperience and ineptitude.

Studying Islam (and bomb-making) in Pakistan is no substitute for executive and administrative competence and experience.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/21/why-kabul-is-not-saigon

An interesting piece - well worth a read - from Al Jazeera.


----------



## Renzatic

Herdfan said:


> The war on drugs has never been about drugs, but instead of a way on controlling certain segments of the population.  Otherwise alcohol would also be illegal.




I've always thought of the War on Drugs as being a dog and pony show put on for we, the voting public. It did nothing, but made for excellent talking points on the campaign trail.

see also: Tough on Crime.


----------



## Huntn

Scepticalscribe said:


> No.
> 
> To my mind, they are two wholly different, distinct and separate things.
> 
> You can guarantee - and insist on - and should insist on - ensuring the safety and security of those who worked with you without (simultaneously) appearing to suggest that the state will collapse, or that you expect, assume, or are planning for its collapse.
> 
> You owe them a duty of care.
> 
> People who worked for you - and with you - in good faith should not have to pay for that with their lives.
> 
> And this is something that applies - irrespective of whether the Kabul administration would have lasted one week, one year, that notorious 90 days, or the proverbial forever and a day - after the departure of the US security umbrella.



I understand your argument and I agree with you, and am fine with your disagreement of my analysis.  Yes it’s a f****** mess. These Afghans who had faith in the US have been betrayed, *if* they we’re not protected though no fault of their own. So how would you parse  blame specifically?
And what specifically would you have expected them to do for a better outcome? Please use bullet points. :/

As I see it there many parties that bear responsibility:

W
Republican Leadership leading W
Democrats who folded under pressure
Obama
Trump
Biden
US Congress Republicans and Democrats
US Military Leadership
Afghan President
Afghan Military Leadership
Afghan Military Rank and File
Anyone with accurate foresight of the reality of the situation.
Although he is the President and has accepted responsibility, I’m not going to assign Biden with 100% blame until I get the background beyond what is commonly known.

I do know that if you look at the actions taking by Trump Administration to draw down US military forces in Afghanistan before he was booted out, and that after 20 years of preparing the Afghan army to stand on their own, without knowing the behind the scenes Intel, an assumption could be made that the 300k people who composed the Afghan Army would have lasted at least a month. instead of folding on day 1 and because of that, a lot of these people were living on borrowed time.

Ultimately, we invaded, we were in control, we were responsible for the outcome. The Republicans who did not dare question Trump, although imo Trump set up anyone who replaced him, and they will try to make political hay in this regard… and the dummies will cheer. And as a result of this if the Republicans retake Congress and the Presidency, maybe we’ll head to Ireland (said in a moment of frustration).  

As I‘ll say for the last time, imo, which I accept agreement about, based on what I don’t know, if the US Army had any reason to think the Afghan Army was going to fold, they should have spent the last 6 months gathering their chicks quietly. But during this period of time how many people were anticipating this? How many of the chicks were willing to abandon Afghanistan until reality hit them up side the head after it became very difficult to get them out safely?


----------



## Huntn

Scepticalscribe said:


> https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/21/why-kabul-is-not-saigon
> 
> An interesting piece - well worth a read - from Al Jazeera.



I agree, with this, the US was supposed to have learned our lesson in Vietnam, we should have never invaded. When that happened we had W and Neocons running the Federal Govt cheerled by the Republicans, and in the process, pissed away several fortunes, a lot of lives, and 20 years trying to make it work, without becoming colonialists. So two monumental strikes against  the US to piss away $$$ fortunes on lost causes.

Are we any smarter today? Will we ever  learn? A lot of you know I’m a pessimist about or future.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> The war on drugs has never been about drugs, but instead of a way on controlling certain segments of the population.  Otherwise alcohol would also be illegal.



I’ll say TWOD is a wrong headed fantasy trying to control certain drugs without looking at the big picture, nor dealing with the problem in the correct manner, beyond drug dealers, in many cases treating addiction of illegal substances not as a medical issue but as a punitive issue putting the final nail in many already struggling/ruined lives.


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> I agree, with this, the US was supposed to have learned our lesson in Vietnam, we should have never invaded. *When that happened we had W and Neocons running the Federal Govt cheerled by the Republicans, and in the process, pissed away several fortunes, a lot of lives, and 20 years trying to make it work, without becoming colonialists.* So two every expensive strikes when the US had $$$ to piss away on lost causes.
> 
> Are we any smarter today? Will we ever  learn? A lot of you know I’m a pessimist about or future.




Can't disagree with your assessment of the outcome, but while hammering the Republicans you seem to forget there was ONLY ONE Dem vote against it.


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> I’ll say TWOD is a wrong headed fantasy trying to control certain drugs without looking at the big picture, nor dealing with the problem in the correct manner, beyond drug dealers,* in many cases treating addiction of illegal substances *not as a medical issue but as a punitive issue putting the final nail in many already struggling/ruined lives.




This is part of the problem, especially as it relates to cannabis.  Not everyone who uses it is addicted anymore than everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.  Some college kid who hits a bong in his apartment on Saturday night does not need addiction counseling.    Yet that is the solution proffered by addition specialists and law enforcement.  How about just leave them alone?


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> Can't disagree with your assessment of the outcome, but while hammering the Republicans you seem to forget there was ONLY ONE Dem vote against it.



The Republicans pushed it, were in the position to do so. In a post here today I mentioned the Democrats who caved. I realize there is an argument that there was much momentum for this on the heals 9-11, our genius citizens who swallowed the W/Cheney narrative, and I think the elected Dems feared they’d be voted out of office. But I’d put a higher price on doing the right thing which would have been to vote no on invading Afghanistan. As a Minnesota resident at the time, I was happy it was Paul Wellstone who had the balls.

For the record, I was against both invading Iraq and Afghanistan from the start when it was an idea that squirted out of W's ass. But I was not against  taking action against real, credible terrorist threats.

 We spent so much money there we could have entirely rebuilt our infastructure, but instead we pissed away Trillions.  I think many don’t realize just how much money that is, and for what ZERO return, 100% loss, huge numbers of military and civilians dead.

If any country has squandered inherently great economical advantages, it has been the United States of America. We have blown it and we are now running up an insurmountable national debt because this is our path to failure, we're a bunch of sheep bawing to be sheared by Capitslists, because apparently it’s out destiny. We are too busy fighting among ourselves, focused on unimportant bull shit, destroying our republic, because at least half of us don’t believe in democracy, don’t live in the real world, can’t focus on what’s important, the common good, and have our heads up our asses. We are a joke. It makes me want to cry, but instead I’ll go find a good movie to take my mind off it.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> This is part of the problem, especially as it relates to cannabis.  Not everyone who uses it is addicted anymore than everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.  Some college kid who hits a bong in his apartment on Saturday night does not need addiction counseling.    Yet that is the solution proffered by addition specialists and law enforcement.  How about just leave them alone?



Drugs should not be illegal, but distribution and possession of large quantities can be illegal. Start treating  addiction as a medical issue, stop throwing people in jail for possession, instead offer rehab programs at a fraction of the cost of hard jail time. It’s not that hard. Anyone says there is a racist element to the war on drugs, I’m not in a position to disagree with them, not with the way sentences have historically be handed out in this country based on skin color.


----------



## lizkat

Scepticalscribe said:


> Moreover, and hearkening back to the old saying whereby one, is, or has been - "campaigning - or, conducting an insurrection, or revolution, - in poetry, but is obliged to govern in prose", a shortage of funds (as the international community cuts off aid, and freezes the Afghan state's assets and central bank accounts abroad) may soon show us Taliban administrative short-comings, inexperience and ineptitude.
> 
> Studying Islam (and bomb-making) in Pakistan is no substitute for executive and administrative competence and experience.




Too right.  Throw in the uncertainties of a covid pandemic that's not going away as soon as the world might once have thought, and in the near term at least, Afghanistan is likely to be left to the mercies of the Taliban and  tribal struggles for power.

China's the most eager to fill in the external power vacuum and establish actual deals for extraction of minerals from Afghanistan,  but they have little tolerance for social unrest and are already getting a taste of militant objection to their infrastructure investments in Pakistan. 



Huntn said:


> We spent so much money there we could have entirely rebuilt our infastructure, but instead we pissed away Trillions. I think many don’t realize just how much money that is, and for what ZERO return, 100% loss, huge numbers of military and civilians dead.




A lot of contracting firms are going to miss the boost to their bottom lines...  they made out like bandits even given the risk plus undoubtedly all the baksheesh and other "taxations".


----------



## Herdfan

Huntn said:


> The Republicans pushed it, were in the position to do so. In a post here today I mentioned the Democrats who caved. I realize there is an argument that there was much momentum for this on the heals 9-11, our genius citizens who swallowed the W/Cheney narrative, and I think the elected Dems feared they’d be voted out of office. But I’d put a higher price on doing the right thing which would have been to vote no on invading Afghanistan. As a Minnesota resident at the time*, I was happy it was Paul Wellstone who had the balls.*




It was not.  It was Barbara Lee.


----------



## Herdfan

Pumbaa said:


> Yes, people and politicians are unhappy with the withdrawal and Afghanistan reverting to Taliban rule.
> 
> However, if following through with the withdrawal is how Biden made you look weak and incompetent, the only alternative would have been to cancel the withdrawal, increase the presence and stay indefinitely. Would you have preferred that?




The world knows we have the military superiority to pretty much do what we need to do to evacuate our citizens and those who helped us.  We look weak because we don't have the will to do it.


----------



## Pumbaa

Herdfan said:


> The world knows we have the military superiority to pretty much do what we need to do to evacuate our citizens and those who helped us.  We look weak because we don't have the will to do it.



How did you get that from the article you linked?

If we’re just going to throw opinions around, how about this outside perspective regarding what the world “knows”:

Yes, the world knows that you have the military capability to do what you wrote. The world also knows you would go pretty far for your citizens, officially posing with your scary military and economical might, and then really getting it done with special ops raids or backroom deals. The world also knows that you don’t really give a rat’s arse about the people who helped you. The world has known these things since way before Biden took office. I expect the world will still know these things long after he’s gone.


----------



## Huntn

Herdfan said:


> It was not.  It was Barbara Lee.



I may have been thinking of the Iraq invasion, another winning idea from Team America. We like invading other countries to push our ideals, punish bad guys, and make some $$$, while bankrupting ourselves and trying to take down democracy on the home front.


----------



## lizkat

Herdfan said:


> The world knows we have the military superiority to pretty much do what we need to do to evacuate our citizens and those who helped us.  We look weak because we don't have the will to do it.




Well apparently the administration has enough will now, whether always in the works or maybe only as result of being butt-kicked for a week plus seeing how it's going and realizing the logistics need work.   White House now talking about activating the WWII-era Civil Reserve Airfleet (CRAF) provision of the DoT and DoD to get commercial airlines to fly Afghanistan evacuees (Americans and others) out of bases in Qatar, Bahrain and Germany that are getting over crowded from the airlifts departing Kabul.   This is a voluntary program (although contractual) and crews working the flights generally get above-market pay for doing it.









						U.S. Considers Ordering Commercial Airlines to Help in Afghan Evacuation
					

The Biden administration is making preparations to invoke an emergency civil aviation program, while adding to the number of U.S. bases that can house Afghan evacuees.




					www.wsj.com
				






> The U.S. military has deployed dozens of C-17 cargo aircraft to fly evacuees out of Kabul. Those jets aren’t considered suitable for the long ride over the Atlantic to U.S. bases, officials said. Many have had seats removed to create more space for evacuees and a typical C-17 has only two onboard restrooms.
> 
> Some planes are carrying about 400 people, and one military jet took off with more than 600 evacuees, officials have said. Such conditions, one military official said, are untenable for longer flights.






> Dulles International Airport, outside of Washington, D.C., is expected to become the central processing site for a surge of Afghan evacuees, officials said.
> 
> Pentagon officials are preparing at least one more U.S. base, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, to begin to receive Afghan refugees. But as the crisis in Kabul unfolds and other nations have grown wary of housing large numbers of Afghan evacuees, the U.S. has begun taking a harder look at its own facilities in the U.S. and overseas, officials said.






> A tent city is being erected at the New Jersey base and medical supplies, food, water, restrooms, lighting and other equipment are being installed there now, officials said. Evacuees could be there by next week, they said.
> 
> Other bases being studied as potential housing sites include Fort Pickett, Va., Camp Atterbury, Ind., Camp Hunter Liggett, Calif., and Fort Chaffee, Ark. Pentagon officials are also looking at American bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Kosovo, Bahrain and Italy, officials said.
> 
> The Pentagon earlier had identified Fort Lee, Va., Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort McCoy in Wisconsin as bases that were to begin housing refugees.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Opinion | America turned a blind eye to Afghan corruption. It backfired spectacularly.
					

Time and again, the U.S. seemed to be prioritizing security over efforts to combat kleptocracy. But in the end, it got neither.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




At least we successfully exported something American, corruption.  Silver lining?


----------



## Huntn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Opinion | America turned a blind eye to Afghan corruption. It backfired spectacularly.
> 
> 
> Time and again, the U.S. seemed to be prioritizing security over efforts to combat kleptocracy. But in the end, it got neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least we successfully exported something American, corruption.  Silver lining?



This is my throw it at the wall and see if it sticks thought, we put our faith in a group of people the ones in charge, who were in some manner unworthy, corrupt, to playing us all along, and it cost us 20 years of effort. This is really on all of us.

And you know there is a group of politicians who are going to try to hang this on Biden. In hindsight it illustrates perfectly why it was long overdue to cut our loses. And why the next President who suggests we invade a country can be immediately be impeached for incompetence and to help him or her remove their head from their ass.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Huntn said:


> This is my throw it at the wall and see if it sticks thought, we put our faith in a group of people the ones in charge, who were in some manner unworthy, to corrupt, to playing us all along, and it cost us 20 years of effort. This is really on all of us.
> 
> And you know there is a group of politicians who are going to try to hang this on Biden. In hindsight it illustrates perfectly why it was long overdue to cut our loses. And why the next President who suggests we invade a country can be immediately be impeached for incompetence and to help him or her remove their head from their ass.




It also mentions how we stopped corruption investigations into those with power and influence.  No real reason given.  Sounds pretty American to me.


----------



## lizkat

This op-ed is on the money, based on a lot of the stuff I've seen pass my eyes lately.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428928618865074181/


From the cited WaPo piece (bolding is mine):



> The number of Afghanistan/Iraq hawks — the ones who brought us those twin disasters in the first place — who have been called on by major media organizations to offer their sage assessment of the current situation is truly remarkable.
> 
> Whether it’s retired generals who now earn money in the weapons industry, former officials from the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations who in many cases are _directly responsible_ for the mistakes of the past two decades, or war enthusiast pundits with an unblemished record of wrongness, we’re now hearing from the same people who two decades ago told us how great these wars would be, then spent years telling us victory was right around the corner, and *are now explaining how somebody else is to blame* for Afghanistan.




If I were Biden I'd just keep on truckin'.  Get the Americans and Afghans who helped us out, give any NATO allies in country a hand if they need it, since we seem to have shorted them on advance notice of details on our departure,  and just leave the later historians to talk about "blame" --including blame for how the departure rolled out.    And meanwhile don't forget that a majority of even Republicans wanted the USA to extricate itself after 20 years.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> This op-ed is on the money, based on a lot of the stuff I've seen pass my eyes lately.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428928618865074181/
> 
> 
> From the cited WaPo piece (bolding is mine):
> 
> 
> 
> If I were Biden I'd just keep on truckin'.  Get the Americans and Afghans who helped us out, give any NATO allies in country a hand if they need it, since we seem to have shorted them on advance notice of details on our departure,  and just leave the later historians to talk about "blame" --including blame for how the departure rolled out.    And meanwhile don't forget that a majority of even Republicans wanted the USA to extricate itself after 20 years.



Wow, this piece feels really spot-on. All the news networks seem to be doing the same thing. They get all these Afghanistan “experts” who are people who worked to facilitate the occupation for the last 20 years.

I wish the Taliban was not back in power. I am concerned at how they will treat the Afghan people (especially women). But to act like this is on Biden instead of the warmongers who got us in there in the first place is upsetting. Here’s another take from a Military member who killed hundreds during the war… he is glad it’s over.



			https://wapo.st/383a4lh


----------



## Alli

SuperMatt said:


> But to act like this is on Biden instead of the warmongers who got us in there in the first place is upsetting.



Especially since Biden has been in office of some sort since it started and has always been vocally against it.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

lizkat said:


> This op-ed is on the money, based on a lot of the stuff I've seen pass my eyes lately.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1428928618865074181/




"Conventional wisdom".  You mean like the only solution to problems associated with economic hardship and vast inequality is more police?  I don't know if it's the exact same people but they probably get together on the weekends to party.  Who doesn't enjoy a good gaslighting drinking game.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> But to act like this is on Biden instead of the warmongers who got us in there in the first place is upsetting.




I think the blame needs to be split.  How we got there is not on Biden, except for his Yay vote to go in the first place.  There are lots of people to blame for being there.  Nor is he to blame for the Taliban being back in power.  That was going to happen when we left no matter who was President

But the actual mess of leaving, that is 100% on him.  He said Trump started and he had no choice.  Really?  He spend the first few days of his Administration undoing things that Trump did and he couldn't undo this?  BS!  The overall plan was faulty and that is on his watch.   And leaving billions in military hardware basically outfitting the Taliban with more military equipment than many countries, that is unacceptable.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> I think the blame needs to be split.  How we got there is not on Biden, except for his Yay vote to go in the first place.  There are lots of people to blame for being there.  Nor is he to blame for the Taliban being back in power.  That was going to happen when we left no matter who was President
> 
> But the actual mess of leaving, that is 100% on him.  He said Trump started and he had no choice.  Really?  He spend the first few days of his Administration undoing things that Trump did and he couldn't undo this?  BS!  The overall plan was faulty and that is on his watch.   And leaving billions in military hardware basically outfitting the Taliban with more military equipment than many countries, that is unacceptable.



I disagree. Things had gotten worse in the past few years, and once the Trump administration signed a peace deal with the Taliban and intentionally excluded the Afghan government, things were set into motion that couldn’t be stopped. And Afghan soldiers walking away from their posts and letting the Taliban take power without a fight is not 100% on Biden. There’s plenty of blame to put on him and others, but to put this outcome on Biden 100% is nonsensical.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> I think the blame needs to be split.  How we got there is not on Biden, except for his Yay vote to go in the first place.  There are lots of people to blame for being there.  Nor is he to blame for the Taliban being back in power.  That was going to happen when we left no matter who was President
> 
> But the actual mess of leaving, that is 100% on him.  He said Trump started and he had no choice.  Really?  He spend the first few days of his Administration undoing things that Trump did and he couldn't undo this?  BS!  The overall plan was faulty and that is on his watch.   And leaving billions in military hardware basically outfitting the Taliban with more military equipment than many countries, that is unacceptable.




I still say there was a heavy element of "Totally ready, Mr. President." coming from the military and Biden not responding back with a "how about this?" checklist. So whose more to blame, the military for not covering all bases in preperation or Biden for believing them and not micromanaging it?

Not saying we couldn't have done a better job, but I think putting all the blame entirely on Biden is extremely disingenuous, but I also think in general giving the US President all the blame or praise for anything is disingenuous.  It's like saying Steve Jobs personally assembled all the first iPhones.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I still say there was a heavy element of "Totally ready, Mr. President." coming from the military and Biden not responding back with a "how about this?" checklist. So whose more to blame, the military for not covering all bases in preperation or Biden for believing them and not micromanaging it?
> 
> Not saying we couldn't have done a better job, but I think putting all the blame entirely on Biden is extremely disingenuous, but I also think in general giving the US President all the blame or praise for anything is disingenuous.  It's like saying Steve Jobs personally assembled all the first iPhones.



On the flip side of that, we used to take pride in a president who when not taking praise, could say 'the buck stops here' when failure occurs.  Until of course the last president who only believed in all praise / no blame for himself.


In other "news", I guess it's been a slow "news" day for Faux...



> Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy says Jill Biden ‘failed the country’ by allowing her husband President Joe Biden to run for office



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1429589031734685700/


> Fox News' Rachel Campos-Duffy Tries to Blame Jill Biden for Afghanistan Crisis (Video)
> 
> 
> "I think she failed the country as well," the host said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thewrap.com



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1429556451387838466/


----------



## lizkat

JayMysteri0 said:


> In other "news", I guess it's been a slow "news" day for Faux...






> Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy says Jill Biden ‘failed the country’ by allowing her husband President Joe Biden to run for office




Oh for God's sake.   The fox crew running on fumes now, are they?

Why not blame everything on the serpent in the garden of Eden while they're at it. 

[oh, they left their company-supplied Bibles home in the rush to make it to their interviews of neocons about how Biden has f'd up)[/QUOTE]


----------



## hulugu

GermanSuplex said:


> No matter how bad things are, this was the inevitable end. And there’s no way to convince me dipshit - a goofy reality show star - would have done any better by governing via tweet.




Trump would have added elements of inanity and chaos to this mix. And, the whole SIV effort would have collapsed under Miller. 

Having professionals, even if they've made major strategic mistakes in my view, has been beneficial. Trump had the same bad intelligence, and the same generals in charge, so the idea that Trump would have done better in any way shape or form is just fucking wrong.


----------



## GermanSuplex

hulugu said:


> Trump would have added elements of inanity and chaos to this mix. And, the whole SIV effort would have collapsed under Miller.
> 
> Having professionals, even if they've made major strategic mistakes in my view, has been beneficial. Trump had the same bad intelligence, and the same generals in charge, so the idea that Trump would have done better in any way shape or form is just fucking wrong.




As I’ve always said, history will put this into perspective. In another five years - maybe ten years or maybe even six months from now - people are going to say “we should have done this sooner”. Many of the experts have said this was the inevitable end, not just usual cable news talking heads. There was not going to be any smooth retreat, and the issue is with believing that.

The problem for Biden is that, well, he’s the one who finally pulled the trigger. I’ve listened to countless hours about how Biden could have safely evacuated more Americans sooner, or how it was irresponsible, but again… was there ever going to be a good way to end this?

As you mentioned, Biden and his team of professionals are handling the inevitable fallout well (this far, at least). If he can keep up the evacuations and the fallout handled well, I can see this being one of those things that is viewed in a much different light in the near future.

I don’t see this giving Republicans much ammunition. They’ve talked about this for years - both sides have - and it’s going to be argued Trump made an already overwhelming task that much more difficult.

Like you, I feel a lot better just listening to Biden and his staff talk… competency isn’t everything, but the lack of it sure is, and with the fallout being what it is, I’m sure glad the last guy isn’t directing things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lizkat

hulugu said:


> Trump would have added elements of inanity and chaos to this mix. And, the whole SIV effort would have collapsed under Miller.
> 
> Having professionals, even if they've made major strategic mistakes in my view, has been beneficial. Trump had the same bad intelligence, and the same generals in charge, so the idea that Trump would have done better in any way shape or form is just fucking wrong.





All this time we've wanted out but kept fearing the price would be too ugly.  Untenable, as postponement only added to the tab.

At least Biden had the guts to say ok it was inevitable (after Trump greenlit the Taliban talks), so pull the plug, let it rip, debug it as it unwinds.

Whole thing reminds me of a few different Dana Gioia poems.   This one, for instance.

​​Nosferatu's Serenade​​-- by Dana Gioia, in his collection _99 Poems_​​I am the image that darkens your glass,​The shadow that falls wherever you pass.​I am the dream you cannot forget,​The face you remember without having met.​​I am the truth that must not be spoken,​The midnight vow that cannot be broken.​I am the bell that tolls out the hours.​I am the fire that warms and devours.​​I am the hunger that you have denied,​The ache of desire piercing your side.​I am the sin you have never confessed,​The forbidden hand caressing your breast.​​You’ve heard me inside you speak in your dreams,​Sigh in the ocean, whisper in streams.​I am the future you crave and you fear.​You know what I bring. Now I am here.​​(From Nosferatu)​


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

theSeb said:


> The US tends to leave that stuff behind, because of the costs to get it back home. This is how ISIS became so well equipped, because the US left a lot of cool stuff behind in Iraq.



Then blow it up.


----------



## Member 216

theSeb said:


> The US tends to leave that stuff behind, because of the costs to get it back home. This is how ISIS became so well equipped, because the US left a lot of cool stuff behind in Iraq.



I realise time may be a factor in some cases, but do they not attempt to render these weapons and vehicles non operational and non repairable before abandoning them?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences
					

This veteran and Missouri U.S. Senate candidate saw what the Afghan National Security Forces really were. | Opinion




					news.yahoo.com
				




One: For 20 years, politicians, elites and D.C. military leaders lied to us about Afghanistan.

Two: What happened last week was inevitable, and anyone saying differently is still lying to you.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences
> 
> 
> This veteran and Missouri U.S. Senate candidate saw what the Afghan National Security Forces really were. | Opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One: For 20 years, politicians, elites and D.C. military leaders lied to us about Afghanistan.
> 
> Two: What happened last week was inevitable, and anyone saying differently is still lying to you.




He nailed it.


----------



## SuperMatt

Expos of 1969 said:


> I realise time may be a factor in some cases, but do they not attempt to render these weapons and vehicles non operational and non repairable before abandoning them?





Herdfan said:


> Then blow it up.



I am not following this. Was the idea that we already saw the future that the Afghan security forces would just let the Taliban waltz in? Because that’s the only scenario I can imagine where this makes even the slightest bit of sense.

And in that case how would that work? Take out all the equipment and leave them defenseless?

The plan was that the Afghan forces would use the equipment to defend the official government. Once that collapsed, how do you think “blow it up” is even remotely a way to get rid of equipment spread all over the country? So bomb everything to oblivion? Weren’t we supposed to get out of there?

You cannot take all the equipment away and expect the Afghan army to defend themselves. If they started carting all the equipment out a year before the pullout, the Taliban would have immediately attacked and you would probably only get the first couple shipments out of there before it was too late.

I cannot believe people gave thumbs-up to a “solution” as ignorant as “blow it up.”


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> I am not following this. Was the idea that we already saw the future that the Afghan security forces would just let the Taliban waltz in? Because that’s the only scenario I can imagine where this makes even the slightest bit of sense.
> 
> And in that case how would that work? Take out all the equipment and leave them defenseless?
> 
> The plan was that the Afghan forces would use the equipment to defend the official government. Once that collapsed, how do you think “blow it up” is even remotely a way to get rid of equipment spread all over the country? So bomb everything to oblivion? Weren’t we supposed to get out of there?
> 
> You cannot take all the equipment away and expect the Afghan army to defend themselves. If they started carting all the equipment out a year before the pullout, the Taliban would have immediately attacked and you would probably only get the first couple shipments out of there before it was too late.
> 
> I cannot believe people gave thumbs-up to a “solution” as ignorant as “blow it up.”




I guess you didn't see the pics of all the vehicle and armament at the Air Base.  That the Taliban now controls.  Send a couple of drones to blow it up.


----------



## Pumbaa

Herdfan said:


> I guess you didn't see the pics of all the vehicle and armament at the Air Base.  That the Taliban now controls.  Send a couple of drones to blow it up.



Send a couple of drones to blow up an air base under Taliban control? Sounds kinda like a declaration of war.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

SuperMatt said:


> I am not following this. Was the idea that we already saw the future that the Afghan security forces would just let the Taliban waltz in? Because that’s the only scenario I can imagine where this makes even the slightest bit of sense.
> 
> And in that case how would that work? Take out all the equipment and leave them defenseless?
> 
> The plan was that the Afghan forces would use the equipment to defend the official government. Once that collapsed, how do you think “blow it up” is even remotely a way to get rid of equipment spread all over the country? So bomb everything to oblivion? Weren’t we supposed to get out of there?
> 
> You cannot take all the equipment away and expect the Afghan army to defend themselves. If they started carting all the equipment out a year before the pullout, the Taliban would have immediately attacked and you would probably only get the first couple shipments out of there before it was too late.
> 
> I cannot believe people gave thumbs-up to a “solution” as ignorant as “blow it up.”




I hear you.

However, - and I write this with real reluctance - if the alternative is having such equipment falling into the hands of an outfit such as the Taliban, I would quite seriously advocate (and I write as someone who spent the best part of two years in Afghanistan) "blowing it up" and thereby ensuring that they cannot avail of it, above all, that they cannot avail of it to harm us, and threaten our interests and allies.

Obviously, it would have been preferable, and far better to have ensured that such equipment was handed over - prior to the US abrupt departure - to the Afghan security forces (not all of their security forces were poor, and to say so does them a grave disservice; their special forces were very well trained and motivated) along with the means to maintain and use such equipment.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I served in Afghanistan as a US Marine, twice. Here’s the truth in two sentences
> 
> 
> This veteran and Missouri U.S. Senate candidate saw what the Afghan National Security Forces really were. | Opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One: For 20 years, politicians, elites and D.C. military leaders lied to us about Afghanistan.
> 
> Two: What happened last week was inevitable, and anyone saying differently is still lying to you.






lizkat said:


> He nailed it.



I have some depressing thoughts on this and am debating, or mulling over, just how to express them.


----------



## Deleted member 215

SuperMatt said:


> I am not following this. Was the idea that we already saw the future that the Afghan security forces would just let the Taliban waltz in? Because that’s the only scenario I can imagine where this makes even the slightest bit of sense.
> 
> And in that case how would that work? Take out all the equipment and leave them defenseless?
> 
> The plan was that the Afghan forces would use the equipment to defend the official government. Once that collapsed, how do you think “blow it up” is even remotely a way to get rid of equipment spread all over the country? So bomb everything to oblivion? Weren’t we supposed to get out of there?
> 
> You cannot take all the equipment away and expect the Afghan army to defend themselves. If they started carting all the equipment out a year before the pullout, the Taliban would have immediately attacked and you would probably only get the first couple shipments out of there before it was too late.
> 
> I cannot believe people gave thumbs-up to a “solution” as ignorant as “blow it up.”




Yeah, I don’t really understand the “weapons” argument. Are we saying the Taliban was able to take over so quickly because they used those American weapons or that now that they have taken over, they will have access to those American weapons? If the weapons were for Afghan army use, then should we have removed them before the Taliban takeover, if we knew that the Afghan army could never have beaten the Taliban?


----------



## GermanSuplex

Tim Kaine just made a great point on MSNBC - if we can’t convince our own citizens to get vaccinated or believe the last election was legit, what makes us think we ever had a chance of building a true democracy in an entire middle-east nation?

This was always how it was going to play out, and maybe even worse if we prolonged it. As I mentioned, I don’t see this hurting Biden long-term. If this had been a slow, systematic descent into chaos over the course of a decade, it could easily be argued the U.S. pullout effort was botched. Instead, it was 11 days. That to me alone proves the only botch was going there and trying to nation-build in the first place.

The bigger point is that it’s incredibly sad we ever stayed their that long, and many people who had hope are now in danger. I hate to make it about Biden, because it’s really not, but the truth is that he could have punted again, but he made the choice to take the heat and end a losing war for the United States. So I’m relieved for America and sad for the Afghans and other people in danger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SuperMatt

Pumbaa said:


> Send a couple of drones to blow up an air base under Taliban control? Sounds kinda like a declaration of war.



Exactly. We left to get out of wars, not start new ones.


----------



## SuperMatt

Scepticalscribe said:


> I hear you.
> 
> However, - and I write this with real reluctance - if the alternative is having such equipment falling into the hands of an outfit such as the Taliban, I would quite seriously advocate (and I write as someone who spent the best part of two years in Afghanistan) "blowing it up" and thereby ensuring that they cannot avail of it, above all, that they cannot avail of it to harm us, and threaten our interests and allies.
> 
> Obviously, it would have been preferable, and far better to have ensured that such equipment was handed over - prior to the US abrupt departure - to the Afghan security forces (not all of their security forces were poor, and to say so does them a grave disservice; their special forces were very well trained and motivated) along with the means to maintain and use such equipment.



I thought all the equipment *was* handed over before the withdrawal. But since the Afghan army folded in a week, it now belongs to the Taliban basically.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> Yeah, I don’t really understand the “weapons” argument. Are we saying the Taliban was able to take over so quickly because they used those American weapons or that now that they have taken over, they will have access to those American weapons? If the weapons were for Afghan army use, then should we have removed them before the Taliban takeover, if we knew that the Afghan army could never have beaten the Taliban?



That’s what I was trying to say but you put it much more succinctly.


----------



## lizkat

Scepticalscribe said:


> I have some depressing thoughts on this and am debating, or mulling over, just how to express them.




My depressing thoughts --on that brief piece by the former Marine captain at least--  would run to asking how much more useful are his remarks now than are those of the retired generals and DoD guys and former Nat Sec chiefs lately....    i.e. they're all implicitly copping *now* to inability or unwillingness _*before now*_ to have persuaded their superiors of their thoughts while on active military duty or in other government service. 

The buck always stops at the President's desk but he's not likely to have all the info he might need to make  a best call on anything if too many down the line inputs are squelched. 

Sure there must be filters.  There's a story "Funes the Memorious"  (by Jorge Luis Borges) in which the protagonist suffers from absorbing and remembering every detail of everything all the time (as result of a head injury suffered falling off a horse).  He of course completely loses all those wonderful and essential human abilities to generalize, to abstract, to synthesize...  and finds himself spiraling into the morass of his own mind, essentially spending all of each day just to catalogue the day's details.​
Of course in reality, our leaders need gatekeepers and filters amongst their subordinates.  The question is how siloed each level up from the battlefield should be.

The veteran Marine captain and now Senate candidate Lucas Kunce is not wrong in his Kansas City Star op-ed piece,  and he's been refreshingly succinct.  But his observations are from long hindsight,  and the missing part of "lessons learned" remains this:  why can't we refrain from "mission creep" while it's happening and while we're lying about the fact that it's happening as well as that it's not working?

Everyone makes mistakes.   Biggest mistake resides in denying that fact.   _Après moi, le déluge_...  of more mistakes, and the series of self-centered concerns about losing position or livelihood.  With the US experience in Afghanistan there were even times when players with a fair amount of power copped to the fact that "this is not working" but then we poured another billion bucks into the hole to finish out the week and shuffled the paperwork to get the next surge or regular rotation of troops deployed.  And sent all those overclassified cables about how messed up things were, as if that weren't common knowledge among many more people than those cleared to read the things. 

I get the need for filters and sequestered discussions and certainly for diplomatic protocol...   even in the civilian world there are such things.   I remember my boss standing up one day in a fairly large conference of in-house clients and her project team,  after her counterpart on the client side had suddenly launched into berating one of his own subordinates in front of the whole group.  My boss then gestured for the rest of her team to stand up too, quickly gathered up her papers, nodded at her counterpart --who had abruptly stopped speaking-- and said "We'll reschedule,  so you can get these details squared away privately" and turned around and just walked out,  with us in tow. 

In the elevator she said to us "Don't ever let your clients embarrass each other in your presence if you can help it:  it's bad for business and can reflect badly on you."

Still, in affairs of government, when it's clear that someone on the other side of any negotiation is behaving like an [expletives deleted] and there's limited ability on one's own side to change that behavior,  there comes a time when it seems futile to bury acknowledgment of that fact among the other side's members in classified cables or triple-walled digital document safes. Especially if the media have been saying the quiet part out loud for years, based on reliable if anonymous sources on the inside.   Go-along and get-along and averting eyes from naked emperors eventually comes off as pandering, ass covering or worse, perhaps a nod to corruption that keeps an untenable situation rolling.   All the more infuriating when the dam breaks and everyone suddenly sees a tsunami and calls it that.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

On all the equipment left behind...Seems like the final insult in our military budget bloat.  Gee, I guess we'll just have to manufacture more to replace what was left behind.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> Exactly. We left to get out of wars, not start new ones.




Who the F knows.  We might be leaving because someone thinks we've run out that string and it's time to do west Africa right.   

OK I've turned into a real cynic.  What other rational response is there after the US spends 20 years in Vietnam and 20 in Afghanistan and all the while carrying on about both "light at the end of the tunnel" and "lessons learned".    The lesson for foreign invaders is that when a civil war won't quit and resistance to the occupiers gets worse, it's time to move the war machine to greener pastures.  



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> On all the equipment left behind...Seems like the final insult in our military budget bloat.  Gee, I guess we'll just have to manufacture more to replace what was left behind.




You got it.  Biden thinks to pay for the social programs instead of war expenses.   Others have war machine jobs at home in mind.


----------



## Huntn

In the *Head POS That Keeps On Giving Dept*…

There have been a lot of posts I have not reviewed so this may have been discussed. Today on MSNBC they are talking about how the Trump Beelzebub Administration undercut the bureaucracy for 4 years to avoid issuing SIV (Special Immigrant Visas) to Afghans for a time like now…
and Shit Head, he is making pronouncements how he could have done it better. Are you fool’d yet or puking?  









						Former Pence aide says Trump and Stephen Miller fought against Afghan refugee visas
					

Olivia Troye slammed previous administration’s failure to help allies who were ‘lifelines’ in Afghanistan




					www.independent.co.uk
				












						Advocate for Afghan translators says Trump administration 'purposely destroyed' visa program
					

Don’t get me wrong. Joe Biden isn’t perfect. His administration’s assumption that the Afghan government’s security forces would put up more than nominal resistance to the Taliban appears to have been disastrously wrong—though, luckily, many of the...




					www.dailykos.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

lizkat said:


> You got it.  Biden thinks to pay for the social programs instead of war expenses.   Others have war machine jobs at home in mind.




We should be declaring a war on failing infrastructure, but we won't because there isn't a large group of people to kill or throw in prison.  We won't take action on anything that doesn't include that group of people.


----------



## JayMysteri0




----------



## Deleted member 215

lizkat said:


> Who the F knows.  We might be leaving because someone thinks we've run out that string and it's time to do west Africa right.
> 
> OK I've turned into a real cynic.  What other rational response is there after the US spends 20 years in Vietnam and 20 in Afghanistan and all the while carrying on about both "light at the end of the tunnel" and "lessons learned".    The lesson for foreign invaders is that when a civil war won't quit and resistance to the occupiers gets worse, it's time to move the war machine to greener pastures.
> 
> 
> 
> You got it.  Biden thinks to pay for the social programs instead of war expenses.   Others have war machine jobs at home in mind.




Yeah, there's a part of me that thinks that anyone thinking this won't happen again is kidding themselves to the highest degree. If we didn't "learn our lesson" last time, what makes anyone think we will have learned it this time?

On the other hand, getting involved in wars like these does seem to be less popular than ever and I think part of why the MIC is having such a ****-fit over this is that they know we're never going to reinvade Afghanistan and that it will be much more difficult to launch another "forever war".


----------



## lizkat

TBL said:


> Yeah, there's a part of me that thinks that anyone thinking this won't happen again is kidding themselves to the highest degree. If we didn't "learn our lesson" last time, what makes anyone think we will have learned it this time?
> 
> On the other hand, getting involved in wars like these does seem to be less popular than ever and I think part of why the MIC is having such a ****-fit over this is that they know we're never going to reinvade Afghanistan and that it will be much more difficult to launch another "forever war".




One must hope it will be awhile before the next great quagmire.   Especially since the Middle East remains so unsettled over the one in Iraq.   We haven't even figured out yet how to end the conflict in Yemen, to pick another candidate for catastrophic endings.. And there the proxy managers are essentially the Iranians and us (dragged in via our protectorate Saudia Arabia). Talk about a tinderbox.    Man, all these impoverished, tribal placeholders on the world's maps, always the focus of ancient trade routes and today always seemingly parked amid behemoths who don't get along.


----------



## lizkat

JayMysteri0 said:


>




Wow, kudos to the paper having run that cartoon in Mitch McConnell's home city and state.  Well done.


----------



## SuperMatt

Well well well look who came out of the woodwork; it’s John Bolton!



			https://wapo.st/385lwNg
		


He says we should keep troops in Afghanistan forever because it’s the only way to keep Pakistan from starting a nuclear war. Thank goodness this guy is not working in government anymore.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> Well well well look who came out of the woodwork; it’s John Bolton!
> 
> 
> 
> https://wapo.st/385lwNg
> 
> 
> 
> He says we should keep troops in Afghanistan forever because it’s the only way to keep Pakistan from starting a nuclear war. Thank goodness this guy is not working in government anymore.




Also Bolton suggests we should "tilt towards India" and "make it clear" to China that it's responsible for Pakistan's behavior re nukes.

India has tilted towards Hindu nationalism big time under Modi.   What would it say to Muslims around the world --as we depart Afghanistan after 20 years and let fade the memories of our engagements in Iraq and Syria--  if we cozy up closer to a guy in India now, one who has countenanced stirring up hatred of Muslims in his own country,  and has the power to unleash the mutually assured nuclear destruction of India _and_ Pakistan, whether over Kashmir or some other provocation by either party.

Muslims outside India will not be particularly impressed that Indians of non-Hindu cultures (Buddhists, Sikhs) are also in conflict with Hindu nationalists these days)   What will stick in their minds if the USA ratchets up sanctions against Pakistan and reduces commerce and aid there,  is that the USA is anti-Muslim, period.  How does John Bolton figure that's a positive step?   Guy remains a rabid neocon.  Maybe getting involved in a civil war in India seems like a brilliant move to him,  who knows.   One can hope India will decline to go there.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> Also Bolton suggests we should "tilt towards India" and "make it clear" to China that it's responsible for Pakistan's behavior re nukes.
> 
> India has tilted towards Hindu nationalism big time under Modi.   What would it say to Muslims around the world --as we depart Afghanistan after 20 years and let fade the memories of our engagements in Iraq and Syria--  if we cozy up closer to a guy in India now, one who has countenanced stirring up hatred of Muslims in his own country,  and has the power to unleash the mutually assured nuclear destruction of India _and_ Pakistan, whether over Kashmir or some other provocation by either party.
> 
> Muslims outside India will not be particularly impressed that Indians of non-Hindu cultures (Buddhists, Sikhs) are also in conflict with Hindu nationalists these days)   What will stick in their minds if the USA ratchets up sanctions against Pakistan and reduces commerce and aid there,  is that the USA is anti-Muslim, period.  How does John Bolton figure that's a positive step?   Guy remains a rabid neocon.  Maybe getting involved in a civil war in India seems like a brilliant move to him,  who knows.   One can hope India will decline to go there.



In reading his ideas, it sounds like they are geared to *start* a nuclear war, not prevent one. Really, you want to encourage India and Pakistan to ramp up their conflict? And get China in there too? He is insane.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

‘Let’s Take It To Our Afghanistan Experts,’ Says Anchor Throwing To Panel Of Dick Cheneys
					

NEW YORK—In an effort to provide more in-depth analysis of the ongoing situation in Kabul, CNN anchor Don Lemon reportedly announced Monday that he was going to “take it to our Afghanistan experts” before the broadcast cut to a panel full of Dick Cheneys. “You know, that’s an excellent point...




					www.theonion.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

‎Krystal Kyle & Friends: Episode 35: Matthew Hoh on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Krystal Kyle & Friends, Ep Episode 35: Matthew Hoh - Aug 21, 2021



					podcasts.apple.com
				




Great interview with a former marine who later resigned his related civilian post because he longer wanted to be associated with or in support of the lies about the Afghanistan war.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> ‎Krystal Kyle & Friends: Episode 35: Matthew Hoh on Apple Podcasts
> 
> 
> ‎Show Krystal Kyle & Friends, Ep Episode 35: Matthew Hoh - Aug 21, 2021
> 
> 
> 
> podcasts.apple.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great interview with a former marine who later resigned his related civilian post because he longer wanted to be associated with or in support of the lies about the Afghanistan war.




A few key take aways.

The main cause of veteran suicides is guilt, but not just from possibly killing people. Once out of their echo chamber of military support they are allowed to think more critically, possibly being exposed to the lies for the first time and connecting those dots to their own experience. They realized they were duped into being little more than a cog in the US imperialism machine. The VA is well aware of this.

At one point during the Obama administration the strategy was to terrorize the population into supporting the US. This follows the logic that if it worked for our enemies then why not use the same tactic.

Members of Congress have said behind closed doors that they know the generals are lying to them but feel there is nothing they can do about it. If any member of Congress threatens to go public with this they get slammed by other members in Congress telling them they can’t do that. This circles back to “blame Biden!”. You honestly believe the military that has been lying for decades is incapable of lying to the President about how prepared we were to exit? More than likely they are bitter at a President who finally followed through with the exit. They also have a nice long history of not giving a shit about the civilians…now they suddenly care?


----------



## Huntn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> A few key take aways.
> 
> The main cause of veteran suicides is guilt, but not just from possibly killing people. Once out of their echo chamber of military support they are allowed to think more critically, possibly being exposed to the lies for the first time and connecting those dots to their own experience. They realized they were duped into being little more than a cog in the US imperialism machine. The VA is well aware of this.
> 
> At one point during the Obama administration the strategy was to terrorize the population into supporting the US. This follows the logic that if it worked for our enemies then why not use the same tactic.
> 
> Members of Congress have said behind closed doors that they know the generals are lying to them but feel there is nothing they can do about it. If any member of Congress threatens to go public with this they get slammed by other members in Congress telling them they can’t do that. This circles back to “blame Biden!”. You honestly believe the military that has been lying for decades is incapable of lying to the President about how prepared we were to exit? More than likely they are bitter at a President who finally followed through with the exit. They also have a nice long history of not giving a shit about the civilians…now they suddenly care?



Unless you are a sociopath (then you already have different issues), war, the act of harming and killing people as a matter of routine, damages everyone involved. But by our nature, we as a species seem prone to this activity as we attempt to sieze the advantage for ourselves and our interests. We might learn some things from the ants and the bees.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Huntn said:


> Unless you are a sociopath (then you already have different issues), war, the act of harming and killing people as a matter of routine, damages everyone involved. But by our nature, we as a species seem prone to this activity as we attempt to sieze the advantage for ourselves and our interests. We might learn some things from the ants and the bees.




I think we’ve been brainwashed by those at the top into believing violence is always a possible solution to disagreements and the suggested target is never them, always everybody else. This in turn causes outrage over the resulting violence which keeps our eyes off them while they continue to block non violent solutions that would cost them money. If our eyes start going in their direction then they just remind us we should return our gaze to the violence in the lower classes (which they instigated).


----------



## Huntn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I think we’ve been brainwashed by those at the top into believing violence is always a possible solution to disagreements and the suggested target is never them, always everybody else. This in turn causes outrage over the resulting violence which keeps our eyes off them while they continue to block non violent solutions that would cost them money. If our eyes start going in their direction then they just remind us we should return our gaze to the violence in the lower classes (which they instigated).




It’s hard for me to judge what kind of lying is going on, primarily because, I’m not a first hand witness. And when I was in the USNavy, we were all formerly civilians, who had a variety of moral standards, but regard for human life was supposed to be one of these standards. I was lucky in that I was not in the military during a war, and I ended up flying an unarmed aircraft, so I was less likely to feel the kind of guilt one gets from killing civilians. Yes, bombing civilians could be a huge guilt issue.

At the time I was in (early 80s),  Iran was an issue, and was viewed as a hostile entity and I can imagine that if a hostile Iranian F-14 (if any were functional) challenged US forces in the Red Sea would be shot down without much in the way of guilt.

At one point in my Navy career where I was lining up for being a fighter pilot, I read the book *And Kill Migs* which was an eye opener because it made me realize without a doubt, this was the ultimate life and death game. I never had to do it, there was never an opportunity for me to do it during the 9 years I flew in the Navy.

But back to the Generals and Admirals, do they lie on occasion or as a matter of routine, I imagine it might depend on what kind of pressure they are under. I would sincerely hope that there are some (most) with integrity. In Afghanistan, the issue is we had supposedly trained hundreds of thousands of Afghans to defend their country. Was that entire premise suspect? Yes, possibly. But did our Generals know that the bulk of these Afghan forces would walk in day 1? If so, then there was some serious lying going on and I refer to my earlier statement that if they had known, they completely blew our withdrawal planning, imo. Otherwise, they should have been gathering their chicks up for six months prior to get them out.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Huntn said:


> It’s hard for me to judge what kind of lying is going on, primarily because, I’m not a first hand witness. And when I was in the USNavy, we were all formerly civilians, who had a variety of moral standards, but regard for human life was supposed to be one of these standards. I was lucky in that I was not in the military during a war, and I ended up flying an unarmed aircraft, so I was less likely to feel the kind of guilt one gets from killing civilians. Yes, bombing civilians could be a huge guilt issue.
> 
> At the time I was in (early 80s),  Iran was an issue, and was viewed as a hostile entity and I can imagine that if a hostile Iranian F-14 (if any were functional) challenged US forces in the Red Sea would be shot down without much in the way of guilt.
> 
> At one point in my Navy career where I was lining up for being a fighter pilot, I read the book *And Kill Migs* which was an eye opener because it made me realize without a doubt, this was the ultimate life and death game. I never had to do it, there was never an opportunity for me to do it during the 9 years I flew in the Navy.
> 
> But back to the Generals and Admirals, do they lie on occasion or as a matter of routine, I imagine it might depend on what kind of pressure they are under. I would sincerely hope that there are some (most) with integrity. In Afghanistan, the issue is we had supposedly trained hundreds of thousands of Afghans to defend their country. Was that entire premise suspect? Yes, possibly. But did our Generals know that the bulk of these Afghan forces would walk in day 1? If so, then there was some serious lying going on and I refer to my earlier statement that if they had known, they completely blew our withdrawal planning, imo. Otherwise, they should have been gathering their chicks up for six months prior to get them out.




Currently I think there is a sliver of being able to criticize the military but being able to actually hold them accountable is still a bridge too far.  They are probably protected under some house of cards perception.  "If they were wrong about that then.......!" and we just can't have that.

In the podcast interview he mentioned a region in Afghanistan that was widely being reported as some great strategic victory.  When he interviewed different soldiers who were there at different times the only reason he was given as to why they were there was because soldiers were already there before them.  When he traced it back to the first group he was told it seemed like a good geographic location to set up a base.  Nothing of consequence ever happened there the entire time we were there.  The people who lived in the region just wanted to be left alone and didn't have any ties to the war.  In fact after decades or generations of being left alone, the first time they had to deal with the greater Afghan government was when the one we backed showed up to tell them they were now going to get taxed now.  USA!!


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> ‎Krystal Kyle & Friends: Episode 35: Matthew Hoh on Apple Podcasts
> 
> 
> ‎Show Krystal Kyle & Friends, Ep Episode 35: Matthew Hoh - Aug 21, 2021
> 
> 
> 
> podcasts.apple.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great interview with a former marine who later resigned his related civilian post because he longer wanted to be associated with or in support of the lies about the Afghanistan war.




Another key take away.

We partnered with the drug lords. Opium is pretty much the country’s entire export economy. I seem to recall the US having an opioid crisis, but I guess not, given this information. We funded one governor to eradicate the poppy fields but he instead used the opportunity to strongarm competitors out and increase his own share of the industry. We gave him $10 million for a job well done. Makes you wonder why the local population wasn’t excited to embrace the government we backed.

The whole thing stinks of Iran Contra, but this time the down wind victims were white. Oops, guess we ran out of minorities to plague. Anyhow, gotta keep the war profiteering machine rolling.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ISIS terrorist threats jeopardize Afghanistan evacuation, Pentagon assessment warns
					

The security in Kabul has deteriorated Tuesday due to new terrorist threats by the Islamic State branch in Afghanistan.




					www.politico.com
				




Hey, let’s attempt the ISIS Hail Mary.  Maybe we should have the military protecting the military as it’s leaving, or did we just leave all our weapons behind and FedEx what we could back to the US?  Oops, what a goof.  Now we just look silly.


----------



## Eric

WTG Hillary









						Hillary Clinton trying to charter flights for at-risk women in Afghanistan
					

Former secretary of state also spoke with Justin Trudeau about escalating crisis in the country




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

So 2 Congressmen flew to Afghanistan for a couple hours.  Not really sure what the point of that was.  

IMO next time we go to war if it lasts more than 2 months then every person in Congress needs to be picked at random to go live in that region for a month until we exit.  We'll see how eager they are to start and prolong wars then.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> WTG Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton trying to charter flights for at-risk women in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> Former secretary of state also spoke with Justin Trudeau about escalating crisis in the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk




Living improved for women and girls in the cities.  The majority of the population doesn't live in the cities and those people are more preoccupied with not becoming collateral damage between the warring sides.  We don't care about those people.  They don't make good Oprah guests.


----------



## Alli

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> So 2 Congressmen flew to Afghanistan for a couple hours.  Not really sure what the point of that was.
> 
> IMO next time we go to war if it lasts more than 2 months then every person in Congress needs to be picked at random to go live in that region for a month until we exit.  We'll see how eager they are to start and prolong wars then.



Both of the guys who went actually served in Afghanistan and are combat vets. Not sure why they did it really. It was a dumb move.


----------



## SuperMatt

Alli said:


> Both of the guys who went actually served in Afghanistan and are combat vets. Not sure why they did it really. It was a dumb move.



Political theater…


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Political theater…




For what purpose though?  Has anybody reported on their Instagram feeds during that time frame?


----------



## lizkat

Alli said:


> Both of the guys who went actually served in Afghanistan and are combat vets. Not sure why they did it really. It was a dumb move.




Yeah and at least Pelosi has reminded Dems that State and Defense have asked congressmen not to engage in such adventures at this time.    Gotta love one of them saying well i made sure to come back on a flight with empty seats.   That does nothing to ameliorate the fact that US officials had to dedicate resources to those guys' security in Afghanistan after they just showed up.   JFC.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

lizkat said:


> Yeah and at least Pelosi has reminded Dems that State and Defense have asked congressmen not to engage in such adventures at this time.    Gotta love one of them saying well i made sure to come back on a flight with empty seats.   That does nothing to ameliorate the fact that US officials had to dedicate resources to those guys' security in Afghanistan after they just showed up.   JFC.




Maybe it was to show the world that we still have bipartisan agreement when it comes to being tone def dipshits on war.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Taliban tries to breach Panjshir; gets thrashed by Resistance Force with heavy casualties
					

Northern Alliance in Afghanistan which is at the helm of the anti-Taliban resistance once again thrashed Taliban fighters from entering the Panjshir province




					www.republicworld.com
				




The Taliban never gets tired of having their ass handed to them by the Northern Alliance.

Hm, wonder why I’m getting this story from India.  Doesn’t seem to be registering with the usual western media sources.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Taliban tries to breach Panjshir; gets thrashed by Resistance Force with heavy casualties
> 
> 
> Northern Alliance in Afghanistan which is at the helm of the anti-Taliban resistance once again thrashed Taliban fighters from entering the Panjshir province
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.republicworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Taliban never gets tired of having their ass handed to them by the Northern Alliance.
> 
> Hm, wonder why I’m getting this story from India.  Doesn’t seem to be registering with the usual western media sources.




I saw that go past me somewhere other than in that source but don't remember where now.

Anyway Panjshir province may be the last one standing right now but tribal resistance to the Taliban will ratchet back up as time goes on.   Taliban are still seen as occupiers especially in the north, particularly when monetary emoluments recently made start fading from memory.   How long will that take? 

Biden argued early during Obama's presidency that even a surge and then counterintelligence style efforts going forward in Afghanistan were not going to win the day there.  

Some contemporary American general or field commander said back then that "this will all end in an argument".  Yeah... but apparently not all that soon.   Not there, not here.    Even now the USA's beltway neocons beat the drum that there was and so still is a way to "win it". 

Win what?   The quagmire was failure to define the extension of the original "retaliate!!" mission in a way that would ever draw in all of Afghanistan.   "Afghanistan" per se remains a geopolitical construct, not a nation.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Blackwater founder selling $6500 seats on flights out of Kabul
					

The controversial founder of military contractor Blackwater, Erik Prince, is charging desperate refugees $6500 for seats on charter flights out of Afghanistan — a move called unethical by many.




					www.salon.com


----------



## Deleted member 215

The founder of a mercenary group acting unethical? I'm shocked, just shocked, that is unprecedented.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

TBL said:


> The founder of a mercenary group acting unethical? I'm shocked, just shocked, that is unprecedented.




More upsetting is the fact that they are probably the #1 reason we stayed there so long so they could continue to do this shit, but we're too busy going "But Republicans/Democrats!" about it.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Taliban tries to breach Panjshir; gets thrashed by Resistance Force with heavy casualties
> 
> 
> Northern Alliance in Afghanistan which is at the helm of the anti-Taliban resistance once again thrashed Taliban fighters from entering the Panjshir province
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.republicworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Taliban never gets tired of having their ass handed to them by the Northern Alliance.
> 
> Hm, wonder why I’m getting this story from India.  Doesn’t seem to be registering with the usual western media sources.






lizkat said:


> I saw that go past me somewhere other than in that source but don't remember where now.
> 
> Anyway Panjshir province may be the last one standing right now but tribal resistance to the Taliban will ratchet back up as time goes on.   Taliban are still seen as occupiers especially in the north, particularly when monetary emoluments recently made start fading from memory.   How long will that take?
> 
> Biden argued early during Obama's presidency that even a surge and then counterintelligence style efforts going forward in Afghanistan were not going to win the day there.
> 
> Some contemporary American general or field commander said back then that "this will all end in an argument".  Yeah... but apparently not all that soon.   Not there, not here.    Even now the USA's beltway neocons beat the drum that there was and so still is a way to "win it".
> 
> Win what?   The quagmire was failure to define the extension of the original "retaliate!!" mission in a way that would ever draw in all of Afghanistan.   "Afghanistan" per se remains a geopolitical construct, not a nation.



Around a week ago, I mentioned the fact that both Amrullah Saleh (the vice-president of the ousted administration, who had served as a very able head of the NDS, the intelligence service) and Ahmad Massoud (ths son of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud) had both found their way to the Panjshir Valley and had set themselves up against Taliban rule.

One account I have read suggests that the son of General Dostum (the Uzbek warlord) has also joined them.

Among other things, I have no doubt that - by their actions, and their presence as a focus for opposition to Taliban rule - they are seeking to challenge the narrative that Afghans were not prepared to fight the Taliban; I would expect these individuals (and their supporters) to fight the Taliban until the bitter end.

Given that the Panjshir Valley was never conquered by the Taliban during their earlier period in power, - and Saleh's loathing of the Taliban is deeply felt, intensely personal as well as political (they had murdered his sister) - and was the location of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud's resistance (to Taliban rule) with the Northern Alliance, this should have significant resonance across Afghanistan.

However, it is interesting that Indian sources appear to be the only credible sources covering their resistance in any depth.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Scepticalscribe said:


> However, it is interesting that Indian sources appear to be the only credible sources covering their resistance in any depth.




The western media is serving the establishment with the narrative that our presence in Afghanistan was the best thing that ever happened to them and they are all helpless desperate victims when we're not there.  A successful resistance not lead by the US doesn't fit that narrative.


----------



## lizkat

Scepticalscribe said:


> Around a week ago, I mentioned the fact that both Amrullah Saleh (the vice-president of the ousted administration, who had served as a very able head of the NDS, the intelligence service) and Ahmad Massoud (ths son of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud) had both found their way to the Panjshir Valley and had set themselves up against Taliban rule.
> 
> One account I have read suggests that the son of General Dostum (the Uzbek warlord) has also joined them.
> 
> Among other things, I have no doubt that - by their actions, and their presece as a focus for oposition to Taliban rule - they are seeking to challenge the narrative that Afghans were not prepared to fight theTaiban; I would expect these individuals (and their supporters) to fight the Taliban until the bitter end.
> 
> Given that the Panjshir Valley was never conquered by the Taliban during their earlier period in power, - and Saleh's loathing of the Taliban is deeply felt, intensely personal as well as political (they had murdered his sister) - and was the location of the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud's resistance (to taliban rule) with the Northern Alliance, this should have significant resonance across Afghanistan.
> 
> However, it is interesting that Indian sources appear to be the only credible sources covering their resistance in any depth.




Well and we should not be surprised at such news coverage.  India's interest in Afghanistan is substantial because of its fraught relationships with both China and Pakistan.

Consider India's longstanding hostile relationship with Pakistan, which is now sandwiched between Afghanistan and India but which --before the independence and partition of India in 1947--  was once part and parcel of India.   Afghanistan acknowledged Pakistan as a country but never formally accepted the Durand line of separation.

 Pakistan has long tolerated that porous border and related activities of residents in that area, so it's now plausibly the dog that caught the Afghan car, but may not be sure what to do with it yet... since that may depend on how the West comes to view the new Afghan ruling arrangement.  It's worth noting that Pakistan has now closed off access to Afghans seeking to flee Pakistan as it fears spread of social unrest beyond its border area.

Not to give the musings of the Council on Foreign relations undue weight, but they're not wrong about the tense state of Chinese-Indian relationships, even after the spring 2021 negotiated cessation of open hostilities over the border region of Ladakh.









						Preparing for Heightened Tensions Between China and India
					

China-India tensions remain high. To reduce the threat of conflict, Daniel S. Markey recommends the U.S. boost aid to India and begin working with like-minded partners to develop a coordinated response strategy.




					www.cfr.org
				






> Any future India-Pakistan conflict is more likely to implicate China because Beijing’s strategic embrace of Islamabad has tightened in recent years. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is delivering tens of billions of dollars in Chinese infrastructure investments to Pakistan, including in territories claimed by India. Rather than urging restraint from both India and Pakistan in their 2019 crisis, Beijing accepted Islamabad’s position that it needed to escalate the conflict to deter future Indian aggression. Also, like Pakistan, China contests Indian control over parts of Kashmir and has criticized India’s August 2019 revocation of Kashmir’s special constitutional status. If ongoing India-Pakistan peace overtures falter, as they have so many times in the past, an overlapping crisis that pits both China and Pakistan against India simultaneously poses a realistic threat.




So again to poor Afghanistan with that sometimes impassable and always bleak terrain at its northeastern juncture with China:   the latter hopes to cut deals with a more stable Afghan government for exploitation of mineral resources but the easiest route out of Afghanistan to China is by way of the roads China is already building in Pakistan. 

And then again to Pakistan's interests in all these matters:









						Pakistan’s Pyrrhic Victory in Afghanistan
					

Islamabad will come to regret aiding the Taliban’s resurgence.




					www.foreignaffairs.com
				






> Pakistan’s security establishment has long obsessed about imposing a friendly government in Kabul. That fixation is rooted in the belief that India is plotting to break up Pakistan along ethnic lines and that Afghanistan will be the launching pad for antigovernment insurgencies in Pakistan’s Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regions. These fears have their roots in the fact that Afghanistan claimed parts of Balochistan and Pakistan’s Pashtun regions at the time of Pakistan’s creation in August 1947. Afghanistan recognized Pakistan and established diplomatic relations a few days later but did not acknowledge the British-drawn Durand Line as an international border until 1976. Afghanistan also remained friendly with India, leading Pakistan to allow Afghan Islamists to organize on its territory even before the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979.




So no wonder India has more of a focus in their news coverage on resistance to the Taliban in the northern provinces of Afghanistan.   India had hoped to offset its own hostile relationships with China by developing stronger ties to the US in the wake of problematic China-US dealings in the past five years.  The fall of the US in Afghanistan throws more than a bit of a wrench into the works from India's point of view.


----------



## lizkat

Hard to read but also inspiring:  an AP piece on a couple in Tennessee who lost their son in Afghanistan but are constructing a lodge in the woods that will enable combat veterans with PTSD and in need of quiet time to find peace for awhile with fellow vets in similar straits. 









						'Was it worth it?' A fallen Marine and a war's crushing end
					

SPRINGVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — She was folding a red sweater when she heard a car door slam, went to the window and realized that a moment she always imagined would kill her was about to be made real: three Marines and a Navy chaplain were walking toward her door, and that could only mean one thing.




					apnews.com
				






> And then, as she recalls it, she lost her mind. She ran wildly through the house. She opened the door and told the men they couldn’t come inside. She picked up a flower basket and hurled it at them. She screamed so loud and for so long the next day she could not speak.
> 
> “I just wanted them not to say anything,” said Gretchen Catherwood, “because if they said it, it would be true. And, of course, it was.”
> 
> Her 19-year-old son was dead, killed fighting the Taliban on Oct. 14, 2010.






> As she watched the news over the last two weeks, it felt like that day happened 10 minutes ago. The American military pulled out of Afghanistan, and all they had fought so hard to build seemed to collapse in an instant. The Afghan military put down its weapons, the president fled and the Taliban took over. As thousands crushed into the Kabul airport desperate to escape, Gretchen Catherwood felt like she could feel in her hands the red sweater she’d been folding the moment she learned her son was dead.
> 
> Her phone buzzed with messages from the family she’s assembled since that horrible day: the officer who’d dodged the flowerpot; the parents of others killed in battle or by suicide since; her son’s fellow fighters in the storied 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regment, nicknamed the Darkhorse Battalion, that endured the highest rate of causalities in Afghanistan. Many of them call her “Ma.”






> “There are three things I need you to know,” she said to some. “You did not fight for nothing. Alec did not lose his life for nothing. I will be here for you no matter what, until the day I die. Those are the things I need you to remember.”
> 
> In the woods behind her house, the Darkhorse Lodge is under construction. She and her husband are building a retreat for combat veterans, a place where they can gather and grapple together with the horrors of war. There are 25 rooms, each named after one of the men killed from her son’s battalion. The ones who made it home have become their surrogate sons, she said. And she knows of more than a half-dozen who have died from suicide.
> 
> “I am fearful of what this might do to them psychologically. They’re so strong and so brave and so courageous. But they also have really, really big hearts. And I feel that they might internalize a lot and blame themselves,” she said. “And oh God, I hope they don’t blame themselves.”


----------



## SuperMatt

Republican leaders: How dare Biden leave Afghanistan? What about the poor Afghan people that will suffer under the Taliban now?
Also Republican leaders: We don’t want Afghan refugees coming to America.

So do Republican leaders care about the Afghan people or not? Gonna say NOT:



> “You can be sure the Taliban, who are now in complete control, didn’t allow the best and brightest to board these evacuation flights,” Trump said Tuesday. “Instead, we can only imagine how many thousands of terrorists have been airlifted out of Afghanistan and into neighborhoods around the world.”
> House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday said he was concerned that early planes were carrying unknown people with potentially questionable ties.





> “I will tell you, from an ISIS, from al-Qaeda, and from a Taliban point of view, do you think they’ll take advantage of this situation? Do you think they put some people in there?” he said. “I pretty much believe they would.”



Meanwhile, the reality of the situation:


> After flights filled with Afghans leave the Kabul airport, they said, evacuees are flown into third-party countries. At that point, they undergo biometric and biographical background checks. If they are cleared, they can fly to the United States and then must submit to health screenings, which includes coronavirus testing and soon will probably also include vaccinations.



McCarthy and Trump should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, there are bigger a-holes…


> “If history is any guide, and it’s always a guide, we will see many refugees from Afghanistan resettle in our country, and over the next decade, that number may swell to the millions,” Fox News’s Tucker Carlson said during one of several segments he has devoted to the issue over the last week. “So first we invade, and then we are invaded.”



Good news: most Americans DO want to help the Afghan people:


> But polling suggests that even in the midst of deep partisan divides, there is widespread bipartisan support for helping Afghan translators and others who aided the U.S.-led war effort. Some 81 percent of Americans said the United States should support those Afghans, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll published on Sunday, with 90 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans backing the efforts.






			https://wapo.st/2Wzlhrw


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

On a positive note.  









						Housing, jobs and free calls: How businesses are supporting Afghan refugees
					

Airbnb, Verizon, Walmart, and others are rushing to support the thousands of refugees that have been evacuated from Afghanistan in recent days.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I miss her from politics.  This just randomly hit my YouTube suggested feed.

Also she looks like DC's recent Wonder Woman.  Is that sexist to think?


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Has anyone here thought to take a look at the video that (Lieut-Colonel USMC - since dismissed/retired) Stuart Scheller posted?

The full four minute (plus) version?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Afghanistan collapsed because corruption had hollowed out the state | Zack Kopplin
					

The Afghan state was held together by theft, extortion and nepotism – at the highest levels, says accountability investigator Zack Kopplin




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Thomas Veil

Well, that explains a lot. A whole lot.

You have to believe these levels of corruption were known to the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Was there _nothing_ they could have done?


----------



## SuperMatt

Thomas Veil said:


> Well, that explains a lot. A whole lot.
> 
> You have to believe these levels of corruption were known to the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Was there _nothing_ they could have done?



For the US to have influence over a leader of a foreign nation, that leader must be unpopular. Why? If they are popular, they don’t need the US to help them stay in power. The people support them and they have the mandate of the masses. This was the situation in Vietnam. Thiêu was unpopular, so he filled his government with loyalists and was highly corrupt. He held sham elections. America knew this and didn’t care because it meant that Thiêu was sure to be in their pocket.

This policy let the US control him. However, it meant that the average person in Vietnam started to support the North, even if they were opposed to communism.

Judging from the rampant corruption in the Afghan government and the rapid fall to the Taliban, I feel like similar dynamics were in play in 2000s Afghanistan.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Well, it's done.  We're out, slightly ahead of schedule.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Well, it's done.  We're out, slightly ahead of schedule.




Is every American out?  Every Afghani who helped us and will be executed if found?  I doubt it.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> Is every American out?  Every Afghani who helped us and will be executed if found?  I doubt it.




I would like to book a flight to the perfect world you live in.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I would like to book a flight to the perfect world you live in.




It's something to shoot for.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> It's something to *shoot* *for*.




I see what you did there.   

Things could have gone better for sure but in relation to our time there, it could have been a lot messier and I don't think anybody would be surprised.


----------



## Thomas Veil

The way this has gone, I've actually been dreading this moment. I have a feeling we're going to hear about some American diplomats or contractors who got left behind in the confusion.

As for the Afghans who were helping us all these years...well, our attitude has been "Too bad, so sad," so I assume we're going to see quite a few more of them shot, beheaded or otherwise terminated.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Thomas Veil said:


> The way this has gone, I've actually been dreading this moment. I have a feeling we're going to hear about some American diplomats or contractors who got left behind in the confusion.
> 
> As for the Afghans who were helping us all these years...well, our attitude has been "Too bad, so sad," so I assume we're going to see quite a few more of them shot, beheaded or otherwise terminated.




Hopefully the refugees that made/make it here have a good experience and we get lots of coverage of that.


----------



## lizkat

Thomas Veil said:


> Well, that explains a lot. A whole lot.
> 
> You have to believe these levels of corruption were known to the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Was there _nothing_ they could have done?




The influx of money and ensuing corruption were part of the glue holding the central government together at all.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Right-wing politicians already panicking about refugees:









						As Biden ends mission in Afghanistan, a refugee backlash looms at home
					

The White House is trying to work quickly to stave off criticism from more state and local officials over the resettlement of Afghan refugees.




					www.politico.com


----------



## lizkat

TBL said:


> Right-wing politicians already panicking about refugees:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Biden ends mission in Afghanistan, a refugee backlash looms at home
> 
> 
> The White House is trying to work quickly to stave off criticism from more state and local officials over the resettlement of Afghan refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com




Some pols on the right want to have it both ways:   criticize Biden for the manner of our exit, but god forbid the Afghan refugees should end up resettled here, even if those with special visas helped keep Americans and their allies alive through their tours of duty in Afghanistan.

 "Not in my backyard" has an especially ugly ring to it here.  Hope American vets will continue to speak out against the hypocrisy of Beltway pols trying to score points with anti-immigration constituents in the wake of our exit from the battlefields of Afghanistan.


----------



## JayMysteri0

To go along with the hypocritical nature of some for their so called concern for the attacks in Afghanistan...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1432328477534048258/


----------



## Pumbaa

JayMysteri0 said:


> To go along with the hypocritical nature of some for their so called concern for the attacks in Afghanistan...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1432328477534048258/



The 1/6 Capitol attack, now _that’s_ something that made USA look weak.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

“A Vast Criminal Racket”: Sebastian Junger on How the U.S. Corrupted Afghanistan
					

Four successive American administrations utterly betrayed the public trust—and lost a righteous war.




					www.vanityfair.com
				




So here’s what we successfully exported from America to Afghanistan in our 20 years.

Corruption
Hyper wealth inequality driven by class, not hard work
Hostile industry takeovers supported by the government
The rich screwing the poor and workers
Bribing both sides of a conflict

I guess it works so well for us, why wouldn’t the Afghanis love it?


----------



## Herdfan

Not sure if anyone has access to the Washington Post website, but they have been ripping Biden for the mess in Afghanistan.  I mean ripping him.

Kind of surprised actually.


----------



## JayMysteri0

For a crowd that likes to cry they see fraud everywhere, that certainly aren't adverse to carrying it out everywhere.

Even for the most foul of reasons...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1432801179549962240/


----------



## Deleted member 215

Herdfan said:


> Not sure if anyone has access to the Washington Post website, but they have been ripping Biden for the mess in Afghanistan.  I mean ripping him.
> 
> Kind of surprised actually.




Honestly that doesn't really surprise me. Most of the media did not want us out of Afghanistan. They would've been ripping any president for it, IMO.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> Honestly that doesn't really surprise me. *Most of the media did not want us out of Afghanistan*. They would've been ripping any president for it, IMO.




What was in it for them?


----------



## Deleted member 215

Well, I don't want to sound "conspiratorial" but I've never said there are no conspiracies  The media is in bed with the military-industrial complex (always has been), which had a vested interest in continuing this war (defense contractors continue to profit as long as it goes on). So sorry if I'm not completely buying the sincerity of all the moral outrage from the media right now, who always support our invasions of other countries.


----------



## lizkat

US media outlets now though are starting to focus on how many states and metro areas are already welcoming Afghan refugees and preparing to welcome more,  as they are processed through the US military bases to which they've arrived.









						Only 2 Governors Are So Far Refusing To Take In Afghan Refugees
					

According to a HuffPost analysis, 37 states are willing to accept refugees, and another 11 haven't yet taken a position.




					www.huffpost.com
				
















						Hochul: New York is committed to welcoming refugees from Afghanistan
					

The United States has 19 cities that accept Special Immigrant Visa holders from Iraq and Afghanistan, which includes Buffalo.




					www.wkbw.com
				






> According to data from the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, a total of 860 Refugees and Special Immigrant Visa holders (SIVs) resettled in New York State in 2020, with 273 coming from Afghanistan.
> 
> The majority of refugees (222) in New York State came to Erie County.
> 
> The United States has 19 cities that accept Special Immigrant Visa holders from Iraq and Afghanistan, which includes Buffalo.
> 
> *Here is the list of cities that resettles Afghan/Iraqi refugees*














						With toasters and empathy, former refugees welcome Afghans to US
					

As thousands fleeing Afghanistan arrive in the United States, they are being met by former refugees offering hope and encouragement as well as aid.




					www.csmonitor.com
				






> Local resettlement professionals like Kristyn Peck, CEO of the Lutheran Social Services national capital branch, say the scale and timeline of current efforts is unlike anything they’ve experienced. It wasn’t until the last week of July that Ms. Peck and her team were informed that President Joe Biden would begin mass evacuations on July 31.
> 
> “It was like, ‘Tomorrow. Be ready.’ Usually we have more time,” says Ms. Peck. “But there was no hesitation. We were like, ‘Absolutely.’”
> 
> By the end of September, Ms. Peck’s organization is projected to have helped more than 1,000 Afghans with everything from housing, to job placement, to enrolling in English as a second language classes.
> 
> “We are all working around the clock,” says Ms. Peck.


----------



## Herdfan

So basically he asked Ghani to lie about the situation:



> “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said. “And there is a need, *whether it is true or not*, there is a need to project a different picture.”




Seems he may have also offer aid for the lie:




> In the call, Biden offered aid if Ghani could publicly project he had a plan to control the spiraling situation in Afghanistan.












						Exclusive: Before Afghan collapse, Biden pressed Ghani to ‘change perception’
					

In the last call between U.S. President Joe Biden and his Afghanistan counterpart before the Taliban seized control of the country, the leaders discussed military aid, political strategy and messaging tactics, but neither Biden nor Ashraf Ghani appeared aware of or prepared for the immediate...




					www.reuters.com
				





Afghanistan fell 23 days later.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Seems like this entire war was about manufacturing "perception" until these last couple of weeks. If the government was upfront about the likelihood of winning, the progress of the fight against the enemy, the state of "nation building", we'd probably invade fewer countries.


----------



## Herdfan

TBL said:


> Seems like this entire war was about manufacturing "perception" until these last couple of weeks. If the government was upfront about the likelihood of winning, the progress of the fight against the enemy, the state of "nation building", we'd probably invade fewer countries.




We shouldn't be invading any countries unless they attack us.  End of story.  If they are allowing terrorists to set up camps, then that is what the CIA and Black Ops teams are for.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1433173637666942979/

For the all the armchair quarterbacks trying to push their way onto the field for their time at the microphone.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1433177778401206278/


----------



## Deleted member 215

The new message in the right-wing rags is "Biden voters killed 13 soldiers". A restaurant in Florida is banning Biden voters because they caused that terrorist attack in Kabul.

_Fuck you_. That is all I have to say to anyone saying that.


----------



## JamesMike

As a former service member who was involved in several missions: the POW rescue mission in North Vietnam, Iran rescue mission in Iran, and the Blackhawk Down incident in Somalia, any loss of service member’s lives because of feckless decisions made by our government, both Democractic and Republican, is especially tragic. 

Did anyone notice if any video showed explosive detecting equipment or dogs on long leads at the gates of Kabul Airport?!


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I just realized Trump probably negotiated with the Taliban because he loves punishing muslims, even if it is at the hands of other muslims.  Potential violation of human rights wasn't a concern.  It was a bonus.  Treating women like little more than sex slaves!  Sign him up!


----------



## lizkat

JamesMike said:


> As a former service member who was involved in several missions: the POW rescue mission in North Vietnam, Iran rescue mission in Iran, and the Blackhawk Down incident in Somalia, any loss of service member’s lives because of feckless decisions made by our government, both Democractic and Republican, is especially tragic.
> 
> Did anyone notice if any video showed explosive detecting equipment or dogs on long leads at the gates of Kabul Airport?!




Yeah the whole management of evacuation via Kabul airport (impossible bottleneck) was necessarily cobbled together a minute at a time and clearly on very short notice.  The evacuation overseers were likely most focused on not taking explosives on board any aircraft  --imagine the PR damange from something like that--  and otherwise proceeded on some assumptions that the inward-crush was all from people genuinely desirous of leaving. 

Score one for opportunism on part of ISIS-K, since that's the whole thing of Daesh leaders anyway:  find opportunity for maximum PR value out of any suicide bombing.   This one got global attention and (so they would hope) a boost for recruitment.


----------



## SuperMatt

While 77% of Americans supported leaving Afghanistan, the way it was handled by Biden dropped his approval rating from 51% to 44%. All this according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll.









						Biden’s job approval drops to 44% amid broad criticism on Afghanistan: POLL
					

Just 36% of Americans say the war was worth fighting; 77% support withdrawal.




					abcnews.go.com
				




Interesting poll result that I think demonstrates people saying what they really think vs what they think is acceptable:

68% of people say we should accept screened refugees. But when asked if they think screening can identify terrorists, only 53% think it can. Which makes me think 15% of people think it makes them look bad to say they would reject refugees, but in reality they think the refugees are potential terrorists. And then you have the 32% who have no problem saying they think we should not accept any refugees. A full 1/3 of the country openly refusing to accept refugees. That’s pretty appalling to me. At least that 15% of people who think they might be terrorists still seem to know providing refuge is the “right thing to do."


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

A good percentage of the few hundred Americans left behind have dual citizenship and I guarantee none of them are named Brad Whitman or something similar, but that's what the sudden bleeding heart Republicans are picturing, some blonde haired blue eyed guy running through the streets in his AC/DC t-shirt dodging bullets.  

Also they were told at least several times we are planning to evacuate going as far back as March.


----------



## Yoused

I encountered some folks asserting that Joe the President was, by abandoning all that military hardware, guilty of treason (i.e., giving aid and comfort to our enemy). I felt that this


Spoiler: called for a nice graphic


----------



## Alli

Yoused said:


> I encountered some folks asserting that Joe the President was, by abandoning all that military hardware, guilty of treason (i.e., giving aid and comfort to our enemy). I felt that this



I just remind them that all that hardware was given to the Afgans by the previous administrations. He didn’t leave behind anything that belonged to us.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Final U.S. Soldiers In Afghanistan Do Some Last-Second Nation-Building On Way To Plane
					

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—Making sure to use all the time they had remaining to leave the country with a strong national identity and political stability, the final U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan reportedly did some last-second nation-building Monday on the way to the plane as they completed their...




					www.theonion.com


----------



## Renzatic

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Final U.S. Soldiers In Afghanistan Do Some Last-Second Nation-Building On Way To Plane
> 
> 
> KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—Making sure to use all the time they had remaining to leave the country with a strong national identity and political stability, the final U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan reportedly did some last-second nation-building Monday on the way to the plane as they completed their...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theonion.com




This one nails the point home a little better, I think.









						Nation Stunned That 20-Year Catastrophe Could End So Catastrophically
					

WASHINGTON—Expressing disbelief after an attack on evacuees at the Kabul airport killed Afghan civilians and U.S. troops fleeing a war zone, the nation was reportedly stunned Friday that a 20-year catastrophe could end so catastrophically. “You could never imagine in a million years that a...




					www.theonion.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

To all the war hawk politicians, media, and generals trying to promote the idea that the Taliban are preventing US citizens from leaving Afghanistan, can you explain what their motivation would be? Are they afraid once they get back to the west they are going to share experiences that would ruin the overwhelmingly positive press the Taliban is currently getting in the west? They want an excuse for the world’s attention to be focused on them long-term? Perhaps they already miss the good ol days of retaliatory drone strikes?


----------



## Yoused

Senator Individual-ONEs-number-one-ass-licker says we will have to go back into Afghanistan to kill more terrists. Because lessons go unlearned (and that thing Einstein said about insanity).


----------



## Huntn

Yoused said:


> Senator Individual-ONEs-number-one-ass-licker says we will have to go back into Afghanistan to kill more terrists. Because lessons go unlearned (and that thing Einstein said about insanity).



So does this mean you get a terrible disease by licking Donny’s ass or was it disease that made you lick in the first place? I’m going with the latter.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Three major networks devoted a full five minutes to Afghanistan in 2020 - Responsible Statecraft
					

It should be no surprise then, that Americans are shocked at the images of violence and the grim political situation on the ground today.




					responsiblestatecraft.org


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Three major networks devoted a full five minutes to Afghanistan in 2020 - Responsible Statecraft
> 
> 
> It should be no surprise then, that Americans are shocked at the images of violence and the grim political situation on the ground today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> responsiblestatecraft.org



This sudden interest in Afghanistan is something I dislike about the media. I saw the same type of thing during the 2016 election. Every day, new revelations about illegal business practices by Trump, sexual assault charges, racist statements, misogynist statements, etc. But they dropped all of it when there was news that Hillary Clinton may have emailed somebody using her personal email account when she was Secretary of State… seriously?

Ignore the years of war, but get all upset because the withdrawal of troops wasn’t calm and orderly. Or blame Biden for the fact that 20 years of occupation didn’t do anything to shore up the Afghan military. And all the talking heads they brought on in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal were people actively involved in the failed policies of the last 20 years. Of COURSE they will be critical of Biden and defend the policies. But if you think about it for a couple minutes, you would realize that if their policies were effective, the government wouldn’t have collapsed within a week of American troops leaving.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> This sudden interest in Afghanistan is something I dislike about the media. I saw the same type of thing during the 2016 election. Every day, new revelations about illegal business practices by Trump, sexual assault charges, racist statements, misogynist statements, etc. But they dropped all of it when there was news that Hillary Clinton may have emailed somebody using her personal email account when she was Secretary of State… seriously?
> 
> Ignore the years of war, but get all upset because the withdrawal of troops wasn’t calm and orderly. Or blame Biden for the fact that 20 years of occupation didn’t do anything to shore up the Afghan military. And all the talking heads they brought on in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal were people actively involved in the failed policies of the last 20 years. Of COURSE they will be critical of Biden and defend the policies. But if you think about it for a couple minutes, you would realize that if their policies were effective, the government wouldn’t have collapsed within a week of American troops leaving.




Going back even further I heard there was a combined grand total of 24 minutes covering Afghanistan over the past 5 years.

If there was any justice most of the people they have put in front of the camera as experts should be there responding to criminal charges, not the least of which is fraud.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> Or blame Biden for the fact that 20 years of occupation didn’t do anything to shore up the Afghan military.




That should be the question being asked.  Not the part about blaming Biden, but why the Afghan military was so poorly prepared.  I mean we had men and women who were basically volunteers taking bullets for these guys, yet the guys who should have stepped up to defend their own country were cowards.    Why are the US and UK and German and a few other forces braver defending someone else's country vs the people who should be defending, or in this case not defending, their own country?  They should have at least been equals to The Taliban and certainly better equipped.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Herdfan said:


> That should be the question being asked.  Not the part about blaming Biden, but why the Afghan military was so poorly prepared.  I mean we had men and women who were basically volunteers taking bullets for these guys, yet the guys who should have stepped up to defend their own country were cowards.    Why are the US and UK and German and a few other forces braver defending someone else's country vs the people who should be defending, or in this case not defending, their own country?  They should have at least been equals to The Taliban and certainly better equipped.




They didn't stop fighting because they were cowards.  They stopped fighting because the government we supported and left them with wasn't worth fighting for, epic scale corruption and extortion.  And honestly that region was created into countries by the west and Afghanistan in particular has been used to play live amo cold war games for the past half century.  Not really a lot to fight for other than being left the fuck alone for more than 5 minutes.  The people who tolerated the Taliban previously said they did so because at least they got peace and order.  The US brought them western "values" which were only really appreciated in the cities and most of the population doesn't live in the cities.  They're more concerned about having a bomb dropped on their head than going to school.  So from the US they got death, corruption, extortion, and "Go to college and solve all your problems!".  Sounds about right.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Petraeus says Afghanistan withdrawal did "damage to our credibility and to our reputation" - "The Takeout"
					

The wartime general reflected on the 20-year war with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




Hey, another “expert” who thinks we were only in Afghanistan for the last month and nothing of note happened over the previous 20 years.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Petraeus says Afghanistan withdrawal did "damage to our credibility and to our reputation" - "The Takeout"
> 
> 
> The wartime general reflected on the 20-year war with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, another “expert” who thinks we were only in Afghanistan for the last month and nothing of note happened over the previous 20 years.



Remember how outraged the right-wingers were at the "General Betray Us" ad in 2007, accusing him of lying to keep the Afghan war going? Even some Democrats were scared to go against him, because saying anything bad about any of "the troops" is supposedly political suicide.

And then, when it turned out he was having an affair with a junior officer in 2011/12, the same right-wingers acted super-offended?

But I guess now both sides are ok with him coming back as an "expert" even though if it wasn't for him "cooking the books" for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, we might have gotten out of the war in 2007.

Disgusting, and shame on CBS for running this interview... and for Major Garrett for tossing him softballs and treating him like an f-ing genius.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Anyone interested in Afghanistan, the war, the Taliban, and the plight of women there should read this recent article from _The New Yorker_:









						The Other Afghan Women
					

In the countryside, the endless killing of civilians turned women against the occupiers who claimed to be helping them.




					www.newyorker.com
				




Yes, it's long, but it's worth the read IMO.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

TBL said:


> Anyone interested in Afghanistan, the war, the Taliban, and the plight of women there should read this recent article from _The New Yorker_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Other Afghan Women
> 
> 
> In the countryside, the endless killing of civilians turned women against the occupiers who claimed to be helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newyorker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's long, but it's worth the read IMO.




An excellent, informed, intelligent and thoughtful piece, and one well worth reading.  

Thank you for sharing the link, and for drawing my attention to it.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Petraeus says Afghanistan withdrawal did "damage to our credibility and to our reputation" - "The Takeout"
> 
> 
> The wartime general reflected on the 20-year war with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, another “expert” who thinks we were only in Afghanistan for the last month and nothing of note happened over the previous 20 years.




Petraeus made some valid points in that podcast, although the real takeaway for me regarding Petraeus is not from that podcast, rather from Coll's _*Directorate S *_book, where it was noted per a number of interviewees that Petraeus had trouble transferring his mindset (or even sometimes his attention) from how things had worked in Iraq to how things worked in Afghanistan, after Obama asked him to take over in Afghanistan when McChrystal was fired in 2010 over the Rolling Stone piece.

So much was so different in the two venues:  the histories of the two countries immediately preceding the two invasions,  local and national senses of politics, existing infrastructure and economies, relationships of ethnic groups and tribes, considerations of near neighbors and proxies in the two regions.  Counterterrorism tactics were less effective in Afghanistan where allegiances shifted like the wind in the rural provinces.

Petraeus, while right in saying "Afghanistan was not Vietnam" (when he was suggesting it was not necessary to leave Afghanistan at all) pretty much glossed over the fact that it wasn't Iraq either, even if while in Iraq he had thought he could transplant some of what had worked in much of Iraq to any of Afghanistan outside the cities.   

Start with Pakistan being a way different complicating factor for NATO and the USA in particular,  compared to how and why Iran had played with more subtlety and patience in southern Iraq.  The matter of the USA crossing into Pakistan to get bin Laden without notice was never going to go away, not for Pakistani citizens and not for its intelligence services.  That that was the case only pointed up the more severe underlying problem of how Pakistan had played "the Taliban card" differently depending on whether it was Pakistani or Afghan Taliban behavior under discussion with the USA advisors. 

And the presence of so many USA "advisors" became another sticking point, to where remarks were passed along lines of "do you think we are stupid enough to think that you need 300 people here in Pakistan with diplomatic visas?"  The Raymond Davis incident likely ruptured value of Pakistani-CIA relationships to the USA, and so reduced intel we needed independent of what we learned on the ground in Afghanistan.

For awhile I too thought that it would have been better if peacekeepers stayed in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.  But it was impossible, really.  The killing of an American soldier by an Afghan army trainee was problematic every time it occurred, and there were already months when those killings were the bulk of American losses.   Out in the boondocks Afghans were war-weary, tired of having to figure out whether the best way to stay alive today was side with the Taliban, the local warlord currently supported by the village elders, or the Americans offering help from a different warlord or their own resources. 

The culture differences persisted in making American presence unwelcome,  e.g. our soldiers' use of vulgarities and casual locker room type congratulatory pats on the ass of a male comrade after a successful incident vs the enemy are viewed as deeply insulting in Afghan culture. Once it became known that the USA was looking to get out,  how long could it take for the Taliban to start looking pretty good, at least  in the more conservative boondocks? 

The Taliban also had more money than warlords already paying taxes to the Taliban for their piece of the poppy harvest or assorted smuggling operations.   None of this was going to make Afghans feel the love if the USA stayed there forever, even given the needed bloat to the Afghan economy while we remained.

How long would Petraeus want guys with some other uniform running things in his hometown either in the background or right up front?  Twenty years was a long time already for Afghans to experience that in the context of losing their own sons to the fray by the tens of thousands each year.  And the fact that the national government was so corrupt they weren't even supplying the soldiers with bullets or paychecks had to be the last straw, once Afghan soldiers heard the US figured to cut off the money flow and just pack up and leave.


----------



## SuperMatt

TBL said:


> Anyone interested in Afghanistan, the war, the Taliban, and the plight of women there should read this recent article from _The New Yorker_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Other Afghan Women
> 
> 
> In the countryside, the endless killing of civilians turned women against the occupiers who claimed to be helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newyorker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's long, but it's worth the read IMO.



Thanks for the article. It is really sad to see the cost of the war for innocent people in Afghanistan.

If Americans were angry, shocked, and wanting to punish somebody after a single day of attacks on 9/11/01, what do the people of Afghanistan think about America after the past 20 years?



> “My daughter wakes up screaming that the Americans are coming,” Pazaro said. “We have to keep talking to her softly, and tell her, ‘No, no, they won’t come back.’ ”


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1437544275227512832/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

The news could put up a picture or video of any random bearded middle eastern guy in the appropriate outfit, say it’s the leader of the Taliban, and 99.9% of the public would believe it. FACT. That’s less racist and more how little we actually pay attention or give a shit.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Holeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee F-    
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1438549709438738432/

Talk about picking & choosing...


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> Holeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee F-
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1438549709438738432/
> 
> Talk about picking & choosing...



“Support the Troops” has joined “Back the Blue” as a slogan that right-wingers flush down the toilet the instant it conflicts with the worship of Donald Trump.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Bonus editorial about insincere critics
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1439007663912747009/


----------



## lizkat

There's a piece in the Washington Post about members of the Taliban currently serving to keep the peace in Kabul (as opposed to their former commitment to jihadi warrior roles in the hinterlands):



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/19/afghanistan-taliban-fighters/
		




> On Kabul’s western edge, fighters from another Taliban unit charged with protecting Afghanistan’s national museum from looting explained that they were told their assignment was intended to encourage confidence among Kabul’s residents.
> 
> “Our leadership just told us that this building is important, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to loot it,” said Mohammad Javid Mubari, the leader of about a dozen men stationed at the museum. He admitted that he didn’t know what was inside the building and brushed off the question as unimportant.






> “Before this, I was just fighting jihad,” the 30-year-old said, boasting of his battlefield credentials. “I fought in many different provinces in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. We also trained in Pakistan, and fought against the Pakistani army.”
> 
> “I became the top commander in my group after the three commanders before me were killed in drone strikes,” he said with little emotion.
> 
> “I don’t have a background in archaeology,” he said of his current assignment guarding relics, including Buddhist antiquities, which many Taliban fighters view as an affront to Islam. “Our leaders will decide what will happen to the artifacts here. *We don’t have the authorization to destroy them yet*.”




Hell of a punchline there (bolding is mine).


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

I set flipboard to block all news on Afghanistan and the Taliban. The only reason it is getting so much coverage is at the behest of the military industrial complex attempting to make the President look bad for ending their forever war, and they would have done the exact same thing to any President who did the same. This wasn’t a failure of the past month. This was a failure of the past 20 years and it’s astonishing they want to continually remind people of their failure. It would be like the oil industry trying to blame the current President for their past 20 years of environmental damage. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## lizkat

I'm not blocking any of it, sickening as some of the at least temporary outcomes may be...  also waiting to see more of the nudges of neocons towards getting back in or towards getting on with the Next Long War already....    likely candidates for the latter appear to be in East Africa or western Sahel areas where the USA has already long had some troops and "advisors".   Of course right now we're in a  row with France over the Australian submarine contracts, so maybe whatever we have or had been doing with the French regarding trying to keep a lid on terrorists in the Sahel will remain status quo for awhile.


----------



## Deleted member 215

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I set flipboard to block all news on Afghanistan and the Taliban. The only reason it is getting so much coverage is at the behest of the military industrial complex attempting to make the President look bad for ending their forever war, and they would have done the exact same thing to any President who did the same. This wasn’t a failure of the past month. This was a failure of the past 20 years and it’s astonishing they want to continually remind people of their failure. It would be like the oil industry trying to blame the current President for their past 20 years of environmental damage. Go fuck yourself.



I’ve done something similar. Just tired of all the BS. Not like there’s never been BS in the media (Russiagate being a notable example of the past few years) but the way we’re being sold on the next war is just absurd. I’m hearing China is our new Cold War enemy and I’m sure we’ll be entering some proxy wars soon.


----------



## lizkat

TBL said:


> I’ve done something similar. Just tired of all the BS. Not like there’s never been BS in the media (Russiagate being a notable example of the past few years) but the way we’re being sold on the next war is just absurd. I’m hearing China is our new Cold War enemy and I’m sure we’ll be entering some proxy wars soon.




That's another thing that creeps me out.  All this bearing down on China.  Both countries were better off when we kept our coats hung on the "competitive partnership" pegs.    From mistaken interpretations of what's for domestic consumption or face-saving sometimes come actual policy shifts that one could regret later on because they're so hard to back out of. 

Sigh.  Sometimes hard to tell when a "pivot" to a new external enemy is launched by a state for purposes of shoring up the incumbent regime and so  just a matter of feeding campaign material as news to their own constituents...  or when the mainstream media in the west foresee a dearth of enough controversial news to prop up the bottom line for another quarter.   Anyway it's at any of those times that special interest items and longstanding partisan agendas start popping up as items of "compelling news!" -- on the off chance that finally their moment to shine has arrived. 

The winding down of a war usually involves days, weeks, maybe months of crisis-level reporting.  The publishers and editors (and the war machine) are meanwhile looking for what's next and there is always someone ready to pop item 743 off a long wish list into a reporter's mailbox.  

God forbid the planet should endure a few months of low level rumble before erupting into whole new sets of flag-waving and amped-up old hostilities.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

lizkat said:


> I'm not blocking any of it, sickening as some of the at least temporary outcomes may be...  also waiting to see more of the nudges of neocons towards getting back in or towards getting on with the Next Long War already....    likely candidates for the latter appear to be in East Africa or western Sahel areas where the USA has already long had some troops and "advisors".   Of course right now we're in a  row with France over the Australian submarine contracts, so maybe whatever we have or had been doing with the French regarding trying to keep a lid on terrorists in the Sahel will remain status quo for awhile.




I like reading news on Afghans resettled in the US. In fact, I found out a couple days ago that Fremont CA that I pass by every day to/from work has the biggest community of Afghans in the US.

What I don’t need is to read about every transgression of the Taliban. We had 20 years to fix that shit and failed spectacularly. We should be embarrassed to be reporting on our epic failure with a magnifying glass. Like I said, the only reason it’s being covered is an attempt to make the current President look bad. Anybody who is buying into that narrative is a fucking moron.


----------



## Yoused

Not we have a civil war in Afghanistan, between the Assholes and the Scum-of-the-Earth.









						IS bomb attacks on Taliban raise specter of wider conflict
					

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The extremist Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for a series of deadly roadside bombs targeting Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan, raising the specter of wider conflict between the country’s new Taliban rulers and their long-time rivals.




					apnews.com
				




Hard to decide which side I think should win. It might be a good thing if a war-battered Da'esh prevailed over the Taliban, so that the neighboring countries might be encouraged to go in and beat them down. However, I could imagine such a situation leading to an ongoing war between Pakistan and Iran.


----------



## lizkat

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Like I said, the only reason it’s being covered is an attempt to make the current President look bad. Anybody who is buying into that narrative is a fucking moron.




Yes because there were op-eds and books out since just a few years into the Afghanistan adventure,  not least from people who didn't even disapprove going there, just  saying hello why not finish the omelet there before going in to break all the eggs in Iraq too.



Yoused said:


> Not we have a civil war in Afghanistan, between the Assholes and the Scum-of-the-Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IS bomb attacks on Taliban raise specter of wider conflict
> 
> 
> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The extremist Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for a series of deadly roadside bombs targeting Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan, raising the specter of wider conflict between the country’s new Taliban rulers and their long-time rivals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to decide which side I think should win. It might be a good thing if a war-battered Da'esh prevailed over the Taliban, so that the neighboring countries might be encouraged to go in and beat them down. However, I could imagine such a situation leading to an ongoing war between Pakistan and Iran.




It's going to be a mess, and unless Taliban takes sensible advice from contacts in say Qatar or UAE, will also be another round of brain drain from war-weary educated Afghan professionals and disappointed families with half-educated women just wanting out already.    For instance if the Taliban settle on permanent injunction against letting women teach, that means another couple generations of mostly illiterate women, since there are not enough male teachers to continue to improve literacy rates among females.  Right now it only hovers around 30%, and that was a grand improvement. 

A civil war versus Taliban and likely some tribal score-settling (opportunistically exploited by Da'esh for sure ) does seem likely now...  it was happening already and only mitigated by the lingering presence --and money--  of the US in force and in all its contracting services glory.    But those engagements the Afghans need to settle by themselves now if they can.  If they can't, I shudder to think what will happen if the proxy managers like Pakistan, Iraq and China get involved.  Afghanistan is perhaps not a graveyard of empires any more, but it remains almost impossible to govern centrally,  thanks to its location, terrain and longstanding tribal history overlaid by centuries of bribery as a way of assembling armies and an ability to govern.   Villagers have been buying peace a day at a time for at least forty years now.  How does it matter whom one pays this afternoon?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy




----------



## Herdfan

So do you believe the Generals or Biden?

The Generals say they warned him (under oath), he told Stephanopoulos that no one told him.









						Top generals contradict Biden, say they urged him not to withdraw from Afghanistan
					

Gen. Frank McKenzie said that he recommended maintaining a small force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan earlier this year.




					www.politico.com
				




I do realize that no one on this board really wants to question his competence, but this is not going to go away.


----------



## Yoused

Herdfan said:


> I do realize that no one on this board really wants to question his competence, but this is not going to go away.



Nonetheless, it was based on the agreement give-away that Agent Orange negotiated last year. Do you think he could have handled his own screw-up any better? Screwing things up was SOP for Individual-ONE.


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> So do you believe the Generals or Biden?
> 
> The Generals say they warned him (under oath), he told Stephanopoulos that no one told him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top generals contradict Biden, say they urged him not to withdraw from Afghanistan
> 
> 
> Gen. Frank McKenzie said that he recommended maintaining a small force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan earlier this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do realize that no one on this board really wants to question his competence, but this is not going to go away.




You “realize” a lot about people on this board. Why not just put ideas out there and debate them on the merits instead of painting your fellow board members with a broad brush? I bet you there are some here who wish Bernie had won the nomination, and plenty who  don’t agree with everything Biden says or does.

In this situation, this is how I see it. Biden listened to the generals for 8 years when he was in the Obama administration. And things just got worse over time, despite Obama taking their recommendations. Biden promised to get the troops out, and he was tired of generals saying to just wait a while longer, send more troops, etc, etc….

The fall of the Afghan government in a matter of days was way faster than expected. It was a tragedy, but America is better off without our troops in Afghanistan.

Biden promised to get the troops out, and he did. Trump promised the same and failed to do so. Point: Biden. In a couple years, people will remember that he ended it, not that the exit was problematic.


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> You “realize” a lot about people on this board. Why not just put ideas out there and debate them on the merits instead of painting your fellow board members with a broad brush? I bet you there are some here who wish Bernie had won the nomination, and plenty who  don’t agree with everything Biden says or does.




You're right.  I will attempt to do better.



SuperMatt said:


> In this situation, this is how I see it. Biden listened to the generals for 8 years when he was in the Obama administration. And things just got worse over time, despite Obama taking their recommendations. Biden promised to get the troops out, and he was tired of generals saying to just wait a while longer, send more troops, etc, etc….




But Biden said in an interview with Stephanopoulos that he wasn't told.  But multiple 4-stars have said under oath that he was told.  So who do you believe?


----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> You're right.  I will attempt to do better.
> 
> 
> 
> But Biden said in an interview with Stephanopoulos that he wasn't told.  But multiple 4-stars have said under oath that he was told.  So who do you believe?



I think the Generals did suggest multiple plans in which troops were left in Afghanistan. I read the transcript of Stephanopoulous’s question. It was part of a larger discussion and it seemed like Biden was trying to dismiss the entire line of questioning. It’s being presented as one question with a flat answer - it seems a bit more nuanced than that, but that doesn’t drive traffic to websites.



> STEPHANOPOULOS: So no one told -- your military advisors did not tell you, "No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It's been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that"?
> 
> BIDEN: No. No one said that to me that I can recall. Look, George, the reason why it's been stable for a year is because the last president said, "We're leaving. And here's the deal I wanna make with you, Taliban. We're agreeing to leave if you agree not to attack us between now and the time we leave on May the 1st."



So, one could interpret that as advisors not saying to keep 2500 troops, or one could interpret his response as being focused on “stable situation for the last several years” which is what he expounded upon. George layered multiple things onto his question - it wasn’t a flat “keep 2,500” troops - IMHO George should have left the question as that. The way he presented it, one could say he gave Biden space to interpret the question to be about whether the generals said 2,500 troops would keep things stable as they had been for the last several years. That would be naive and I don’t think the generals would claim something like that.

I don’t think it was Biden’s intent to say that no military advisors told him to keep troops there. Based on his full answer, it seemed like he was addressing the stability question. In other statements, it was clear some advisors did suggest that to him. But Biden could have answered it better, and now it’s making him look like he’s contradicting others. I think the media is making more of this answer than they should. Hopefully Biden will have a chance to clear things up... or maybe he will just avoid it and wait for the next news cycle. Who knows... not the greatest moment for the administration either way.


----------



## Yoused

We had to stay.

And we had to leave.

The Afghan government was in no way prepared, or really even able, to defend the country from the Taliban.









						Afghanistan's ghost soldiers undermined fight against Taliban - ex-official
					

Thousands of troops who were supposed to fight the Taliban did not exist, a former minister says.



					www.bbc.com
				




Their army mostly did not exist, except as a fiction for the Generals to draw money out of. I mean, the US has propped up the likes of Batista and Somoza, Chiang Kai-Shek, Reza Pahlavi, and we still support the al Saud family, where the good guy is a festering piece of shit.

And, of course, Halliburton and Blackwater.

What is the right thing to do? I mean, in terms of what can be done?


----------



## SuperMatt

Yoused said:


> We had to stay.
> 
> And we had to leave.
> 
> The Afghan government was in no way prepared, or really even able, to defend the country from the Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan's ghost soldiers undermined fight against Taliban - ex-official
> 
> 
> Thousands of troops who were supposed to fight the Taliban did not exist, a former minister says.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their army mostly did not exist, except as a fiction for the Generals to draw money out of. I mean, the US has propped up the likes of Batista and Somoza, Chiang Kai-Shek, Reza Pahlavi, and we still support the al Saud family, where the good guy is a festering piece of shit.
> 
> And, of course, Halliburton and Blackwater.
> 
> What is the right thing to do? I mean, in terms of what can be done?



I don’t know the answer. If America had never gone there 20 years ago, would people have risen up on their own against the Taliban? If so, such an uprising might have been far more popular. A U.S.-backed overthrow of the Taliban always allowed the Taliban to not just be a bunch of extreme religious leaders, but the heroic defenders against the interfering Americans.


----------



## lizkat

Meanwhile winter is imminent or present now in Afghanistan, the west has not released Afghan assets held abroad, the Taliban cannot manage food distribution even if it had the wherewithal...  the UN has classified much of the citizenry as critically food insecure, and some provinces had poor harvests due to drought that persists into the cold weather.









						Afghanistan is facing the ‘worst humanitarian disaster we’ve ever seen,’ the UN says
					

Almost 97% of Afghanistan's 38 million population are at risk of sinking into poverty, Abdallah Al Dardari, the resident representative for the UNDP said.




					www.cnbc.com
				






> Some 23 million people are in desperate need of food, the $20 billion economy could shrink by $4 billion or more and 97% of the 38 million population are at risk of sinking into poverty, Abdallah Al Dardari, the resident representative for the UNDP in Afghanistan, said Wednesday.
> 
> “Afghanistan is probably facing the worst humanitarian disaster we’ve ever seen,” Al Dardari told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia.”
> 
> “We have never seen an economic shock of that magnitude and we have never seen a humanitarian crisis of that magnitude,” he said. Funding for the humanitarian crisis and for essential services is crucial to maintain lives and livelihood in the Central Asian country, he added.






> Pakistan hosted a meeting in Islamabad on Thursday, with representatives from China, Russia and the United States, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.
> 
> Officials from the four countries also met with senior Taliban representatives on the sidelines, according to the U.S. State Department.
> 
> Prime Minister Imran Khan said that Pakistan is “sending essential food items, emergency medical supplies [and] winter shelters to provide immediate relief” to Afghans. He also urged the international community to fulfill “its collective responsibility to avert a grave humanitarian crisis” in Afghanistan.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> Meanwhile winter is imminent or present now in Afghanistan, the west has not released Afghan assets held abroad, the Taliban cannot manage food distribution even if it had the wherewithal...  the UN has classified much of the citizenry as critically food insecure, and some provinces had poor harvests due to drought that persists into the cold weather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan is facing the ‘worst humanitarian disaster we’ve ever seen,’ the UN says
> 
> 
> Almost 97% of Afghanistan's 38 million population are at risk of sinking into poverty, Abdallah Al Dardari, the resident representative for the UNDP said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com



They don’t want to release money to the Taliban, but if they don’t, the crisis will get worse.

Just a terrible situation.


----------



## lizkat

SuperMatt said:


> They don’t want to release money to the Taliban, but if they don’t, the crisis will get worse.
> 
> Just a terrible situation.




The administration has arranged now with Qatar to represent US interests in further direct talks with Taliban.  An official proxy is at least an improvement over just talking at each other through social media and op-eds.









						Qatar agrees to represent US interests in Afghanistan
					

Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the Gulf nation of Qatar has agreed to represent American interests in Afghanistan following the closure if the U.S. embassy in Kabul in late August




					abcnews.go.com
				




  Meanwhile, the window of feasible deliveries to some of the provinces in winter is already closing.  UNHCR has been delivering winterization supplies for displaced Afghans, and I read somewhere they've stashed some emergency food in Uzbekistan for later use, but I also read that their $600 million budget for such humanitarian aid purposes is only half-funded.









						UNHCR begins airlifting aid to Kabul
					

A plane carrying winter relief from the UN Refugee Agency’s global stockpiles in Dubai is landing this afternoon in Kabul, Afghanistan.




					www.unhcr.org


----------

