The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Ok, I'll bite. What could Biden have done differently, execution-wise, between late January and now to make the outcome differently while still getting out in the agreed-upon timetable? The way I see it, any changes that could have been made would have been on the decades-long process of getting a government in place, training the military there, etc. that happened pre-Biden. In what way could we have gotten out these last several months to avoid this outcome?

There were about 2,500-3,000 troops in Afghanistan before the latest final withdrawal. Sure if you put the timetable as last several months, there is a constraint and only so much Biden can do. Let's not artificially say agreed-upon timetable. Who cares, the past 3 Presidents have missed their timetables.

(BTW - we are sending 3,000 troops back in to help out in the Embassy. Arguably in a more dangerous situation than 2 months ago)

So how about over the next 2 years (?). Buy time for 2 more years to transition out gradually ... 3,000 to 2,500 to 2,000 etc. As my boss tells me, have to get creative ...

1) Pull out region at a time and not en masse. Here's Iraqis, pulling out of the North. You own it for the next 6 months but feel free to call for air or artillery support. Let's do the south next.

2) Hey Blackwater-et-al. Can't use US folks but do you have some dependable mercenaries that want gainful employment for 2-4 years? What, that's triple the price ... nevermind we'll pay it.

3) Hey Warlord. Central government ain't getting it done. How about we do some business. Your boys seem much better fighters. What do you need?

4) Hey central government. Here's $500M cash and passports for you and your cronies. You do what we want and we'll fly you out after 2 years to Monaco (?). Just sign these proclamations, promotions, shuffles etc.

5) Hey women & children, we've negotiated a couple nice countries we can move you to. Not going to force you but it'll be messy next couple years so think about it.

6) etc.

Look, before everyone chimes in and shoots holes into all these options ... I get it, easier to say than to do/execute.

Bottom line. I am sure Biden was presented with options on How and he thought this was the best option. However, in retrospect, his decision on How was based on bad assumptions (e.g. wilingness to fight).


Question to you:

Knowing what Biden knows now, do you think he would made the exact same decision on How to leave?

I don't think so. He probably would have picked another option. So IMO he has some blame in picking a How option that is becoming a debacle.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's not artificially say agreed-upon timetable. Who cares, the past 3 Presidents have missed their timetables.

It's not artificial. The difference between the situation Biden walked into and the previous ones is that we had a written, negotiated agreement as of February 2020. The word of the United States was at stake here. So anything we gain by delaying is going to be more than offset by us not honoring our agreements. A President saying they want to be out by X date is completely different than such a written agreement.

Originally Posted by Edward64

how about over the next 2 years (?). Buy time for 2 more years to transition out gradually ... 3,000 to 2,500 to 2,000 etc. As my boss tells me, have to get creative ...

What convinces you those kinds of options weren't explored over the previous two decades?

Originally Posted by Edward64

Knowing what Biden knows now, do you think he would made the exact same decision on How to leave?

Yes, without much doubt. He simply didn't have a lot of choice.

I think the bottom line is the only way for a positive future is a stable, competent Afghan government that had the support of the people. Given what we're seeing now, it's obvious that didn't materialize. A bad outcome doesn't always mean there was a better path available. Sometimes there's nothing you can reasonably do to prevent a bad outcome, and the only path is to avoid an even worse one.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bottom line. I am sure Biden was presented with options on How and he thought this was the best option. However, in retrospect, his decision on How was based on bad assumptions (e.g. wilingness to fight).

If they won't fight for their own country after 20 years or training, support, infrastructure, etc...for their own country why should we?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not artificial. The difference between the situation Biden walked into and the previous ones is that we had a written, negotiated agreement as of February 2020. The word of the United States was at stake here. So anything we gain by delaying is going to be more than offset by us not honoring our agreements. A President saying they want to be out by X date is completely different than such a written agreement.

So the Taliban kept to their part of the written deal? I'm pretty sure we can find legit-negotiated-agreement irregularities to delay if we wanted to.

re: the word of the US. Is it worse doing creative-and-arguably-valid-excuses delay this deal or leaving an pseduo-ally to fall after supporting it for 20 years? From many other countries point of view (and certainly vast majority of normal Afghanis) it is the latter.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If they won't fight for their own country after 20 years or training, support, infrastructure, etc...for their own country why should we?

I don't disagree about leaving. I disagree with some here that say Biden has no blame in what is happening right now in Afghanistan.

I say he has some blame for the How option he picked.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm pretty sure we can find legit-negotiated-agreement irregularities to delay if we wanted to.

Sure, but we'd need a good reason for doing so. There's an assumption baked into your argument that there was/is a reasonable way to not leave our psuedo-ally to fall. I think it's evident the only way for them to not fall is for us to stay there indefinitely. We've given them far more than enough support. I haven't seen anyone dispute that they have far superior numbers, training, weapons, etc. to the Taliban. I see no evidence that staying another six months or two years or five years or ten years would significantly improve the situation.

I also don't think after 20 years there are any 'arguably valid excuses'. I don't think that was the case even 10 years ago. There's a point beyond which you either turn the country over to those to whom it belongs or you don't. Whatever the point of reasonable support for the government to get there is, we are way, way, way past it here.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Sure, but we'd need a good reason for doing so. There's an assumption baked into your argument that there was/is a reasonable way to not leave our psuedo-ally to fall. I think it's evident the only way for them to not fall is for us to stay there indefinitely. We've given them far more than enough support. I haven't seen anyone dispute that they have far superior numbers, training, weapons, etc. to the Taliban. I see no evidence that staying another six months or two years or five years or ten years would significantly improve the situation.

I also don't think after 20 years there are any 'arguably valid excuses'. I don't think that was the case even 10 years ago. There's a point beyond which you either turn the country over to those to whom it belongs or you don't. Whatever the point of reasonable support for the government to get there is, we are way, way, way past it here.

100000000%

The only alternative to leaving is staying for another 20+ years or attempting to fully occupy the country. Both which are far worse.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If they won't fight for their own country after 20 years or training, support, infrastructure, etc...for their own country why should we?

Pre 9/11/2001, there was a formidable grass roots resistance to the Taliban. "The Northern Alliance" was led by a guy named Ahmad Shah Massoud. He gained limited knowledge of an impending terrorist attack against the United States, which he first announced in a speech to the European Parliament in the summer of 2001. Massoud was assassinated on September 9, 2001 by two Al Qaeda operatives posing as reporters. Analysts believe Osama bin Laden ordered Massoud's assassination to help his Taliban protectors and ensure he would have their co-operation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

Massoud's funeral was attended by hundreds of thousands of Afghans, and he is a national hero to this day, called the "Lion of Panjshir."

Unfortunately, the 300,000 troops that we armed and trained are not possessed with the same courage and determination that "The Northern Alliance" had.

[bhlloy]

Plus it seems like an ungodly amount of the funding we pumped in was lost to corruption as well. Just sad all around, the waste in lives and money and now the people will suffer horrendously again.

I have no idea what could have been done differently FWIW. Outside of the full occupation suggested a few posts ago, but I don’t think anyone had the stomach for double digit deaths a day and what that would mean for the military. And chances are it’s still a shitshow when we leave.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Pre 9/11/2001, there was a formidable grass roots resistance to the Taliban. "The Northern Alliance" was led by a guy named Ahmad Shah Massoud. He gained limited knowledge of an impending terrorist attack against the United States, which he first announced in a speech to the European Parliament in the summer of 2001. Massoud was assassinated on September 9, 2001 by two Al Qaeda operatives posing as reporters. Analysts believe Osama bin Laden ordered Massoud's assassination to help his Taliban protectors and ensure he would have their co-operation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

Massoud's funeral was attended by hundreds of thousands of Afghans, and he is a national hero to this day, called the "Lion of Panjshir."

Unfortunately, the 300,000 troops that we armed and trained are not possessed with the same courage and determination that "The Northern Alliance" had.

Even the Afghans have no idea how many troops were trained or they actually have. Some of these troops were either cobbled together just to get the money for their commanders and some may have never existed but were claimed for the same reason. Ultimately we just didn’t understand the tribal alliances and who we could and couldn’t trust and just threw as much money as we could at it anyway.

[molson]

One idea I remember reading over the years was that we never really thought we were going to install a Western Democracy in Afghanistan with a Starbucks on every corner. The idea was more that Afghanistan would act as a lightning rod and jihadist destination for relative sporadic indefinite conflict so that those entities weren't instead able to get comfortable and launch terrorist attacks and more aggressive military campaigns across borders in the region.

If the Taliban sticks to banning independent expression, brutalizing women in the own borders, that's basically the best-case scenario, which is sad. If the stability of a county creates bigger ambitions again, we'll be at war with them again sooner or later.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Pre 9/11/2001, there was a formidable grass roots resistance to the Taliban. "The Northern Alliance" was led by a guy named Ahmad Shah Massoud. He gained limited knowledge of an impending terrorist attack against the United States, which he first announced in a speech to the European Parliament in the summer of 2001. Massoud was assassinated on September 9, 2001 by two Al Qaeda operatives posing as reporters. Analysts believe Osama bin Laden ordered Massoud's assassination to help his Taliban protectors and ensure he would have their co-operation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

Massoud's funeral was attended by hundreds of thousands of Afghans, and he is a national hero to this day, called the "Lion of Panjshir."

Unfortunately, the 300,000 troops that we armed and trained are not possessed with the same courage and determination that "The Northern Alliance" had.

I only learned about this guy last week - walked behind a group, one of whom had an arm tattoo under his T-shirt sleeve ‘Massoud - War Hero’. It meant nothing to me, didn’t know whether he was good/bad, and read up a little on him. Such a shame what has happened to that country

[Edward64]

Yes, without much doubt. He simply didn't have a lot of choice.

If something really bad is happening because of a decision I made ... if provided the opportunity with 20-20 hindsight, yeah I would try other things. I personally think most people would.

I think the bottom line is the only way for a positive future is a stable, competent Afghan government that had the support of the people.

I tossed out earlier, possibly a strong warlord. I guess we can debate on what positive means but looks like pretty much anything is positive now compared to what's coming. But yeah, I get what you are saying and generally agree.

Given what we're seeing now, it's obvious that didn't materialize. A bad outcome doesn't always mean there was a better path available. Sometimes there's nothing you can reasonably do to prevent a bad outcome, and the only path is to avoid an even worse one.

I disagree with this. I guess its possible there are times when there is nothing one can do to reasonably prevent a bad outcome but there are always ways to have a better or less bad outcome. Let's say the bad outcome is a 10, I believe there are ways to make it a 8. Still a bad outcome but better relatively speaking.

Just so you now where I'm coming from. In my profession, it is normal to do win-loss reviews, root cause analysis and like. Although not done to blame someone(s), sometimes it does. But more importantly, we try to understand why we lost (or won), what happened etc. and come up with ways to mitigate what happened.

In other words, there are stuff that could have been done for a better outcome. ​

here's an assumption baked into your argument that there was/is a reasonable way to not leave our psuedo-ally to fall. I think it's evident the only way for them to not fall is for us to stay there indefinitely. We've given them far more than enough support. I haven't seen anyone dispute that they have far superior numbers, training, weapons, etc. to the Taliban. I see no evidence that staying another six months or two years or five years or ten years would significantly improve the situation.

Going back to above. I believe there is almost always a "better" way and in this context, a better outcome is possible.

Should we spend another 2 years of US lives, absolutely not. Should we spend another 2 years of US $ ... something to consider seeing what's happening right now.

I also don't think after 20 years there are any 'arguably valid excuses'. I don't think that was the case even 10 years ago. There's a point beyond which you either turn the country over to those to whom it belongs or you don't. Whatever the point of reasonable support for the government to get there is, we are way, way, way past it here.

Not sure if I or you misunderstand here. My 'arguably valid excuses' statement was in the context of your statement that "word of US is at stake here, not honoring our agreements" in delaying our departure and not beholden to an artificial date.

That "contractual date" is null and void and isn't a valid reason to have to leave. There are a lot of valid reasons to leave for sure but not because of a date on a piece of paper.

Our allies and neutrals would be more concerned about our bailing out of Afghanistan in this debacle than us staying past the negotiated date. That is more negative, that is more "not honoring our (implied) agreements" than the piece of paper.

[Edward64]

If the Taliban sticks to banning independent expression, brutalizing women in the own borders, that's basically the best-case scenario, which is sad. If the stability of a county creates bigger ambitions again, we'll be at war with them again sooner or later.

I'm hoping they'll enjoy their caliphate for 20+ years before they decide to expand outside their borders. I think the Taliban has always been content to stay in Afghanistan, its the other crazy foreign muslim extremists.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You know the answer to this, don't you? The plan was to stabilize the country, help them form a democratic-ish government, train and equip their soldiers to take over the security situation, etc. For reasons discussed, it was a failure. That doesn't mean it wasn't a plan.

Why do you think this was the plan? We aren't exactly huge fans of democracy and our military has been a laughingstock for decades. Seems only the most gullible of folks thought that was the plan.

Seems the plan was to run in and get some revenge. Then when they failed at that, just hang around and line the pockets of military contractors.

[NobodyHere]

Random political thought:

I am very surprised at the lack of attention by the Biden administration towards healthcare. It was a very hot topic during primary debates and was warm during the elections.

But now you seem to hear little about it, whether Biden wants to strengthen Obamacare or pivot towards Medicare for All.

Or maybe it's just me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Random political thought:

I am very surprised at the lack of attention by the Biden administration towards healthcare. It was a very hot topic during primary debates and was warm during the elections.

But now you seem to hear little about it, whether Biden wants to strengthen Obamacare or pivot towards Medicare for All.

Or maybe it's just me.

Obamacare/Medicare is coming up in the $3.5T bill.

I think he just wants to get the Infrastructure $1.2T done first.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why do you think this was the plan? We aren't exactly huge fans of democracy and our military has been a laughingstock for decades. Seems only the most gullible of folks thought that was the plan.

I don't think any of this is true. As a general statement, I'd say we're so far apart here that it's not really worth the effort to discuss it, common ground is a long way off.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I disagree with this. I guess its possible there are times when there is nothing one can do to reasonably prevent a bad outcome but there are always ways to have a better or less bad outcome. Let's say the bad outcome is a 10, I believe there are ways to make it a 8. Still a bad outcome but better relatively speaking.

Given what we know, I think what we're seeing now is a lot closer to the 8. It'd be more like a 10 if we stuck around. There's no way to prove one way or the other without a time machine, I just don't see any evidence that it could be significantly improved.

Originally Posted by Edward64

If something really bad is happening because of a decision I made

This is probably the crux of it. I don't think it's happening because of decisions Biden made, but because of those made long, long before Biden became president. What I know of history suggests to me that the warlord option would not have been an improvement and almost certainly backfired. I could be wrong about that, but I just don't see a reason to think otherwhise. .02

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Random political thought:

I am very surprised at the lack of attention by the Biden administration towards healthcare. It was a very hot topic during primary debates and was warm during the elections.

But now you seem to hear little about it, whether Biden wants to strengthen Obamacare or pivot towards Medicare for All.

Or maybe it's just me.

I have read that the bills includes some particular focus on nursing homes and elder care 'infrastructure' which I do think is overdue. I get the impression that Biden isn't personally all that progressive or motivated on healthcare in general, but that's not based on much but my own assumptions, and I'd love to be wrong.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Random political thought:

I am very surprised at the lack of attention by the Biden administration towards healthcare. It was a very hot topic during primary debates and was warm during the elections.

But now you seem to hear little about it, whether Biden wants to strengthen Obamacare or pivot towards Medicare for All.

Or maybe it's just me.

Pretty standard. Most Presidents talk a big game during the election but end up bending over for special interest when in office when in comes to health care.

He did expand tax credits for those on the exchange, but there is almost no chance he takes on anything substantial.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think any of this is true. As a general statement, I'd say we're so far apart here that it's not really worth the effort to discuss it, common ground is a long way off.

That is because you know nothing of our military or the war in Afghanistan. Nothing that has happened is a surprise.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

2) Hey Blackwater-et-al. Can't use US folks but do you have some dependable mercenaries that want gainful employment for 2-4 years? What, that's triple the price ... nevermind we'll pay it.

They are already there. Their job is to protect the mining industry at the expense of US taxpayers. That's been the priority for the US in Afghanistan for the past decade. We aren't allocating those resources away.

Originally Posted by Edward64

3) Hey Warlord. Central government ain't getting it done. How about we do some business. Your boys seem much better fighters. What do you need?

4) Hey central government. Here's $500M cash and passports for you and your cronies. You do what we want and we'll fly you out after 2 years to Monaco (?). Just sign these proclamations, promotions, shuffles etc.

Just sheer American arrogance to assume you can just bribe deeply religious and prideful people into doing whatever you want. But for the record, we've done this repeatedly and it hasn't worked. The Taliban has been tactically superior to the United States from the start.

Originally Posted by Edward64

5) Hey women & children, we've negotiated a couple nice countries we can move you to. Not going to force you but it'll be messy next couple years so think about it.

Sure we orphaned you or made you a widow. Not to mention ignored you for the last 15 years. But trust us this time, we have your best interest at heart.

The question of whether Biden would do it this way again only relates to his political career. The war was lost before Obama even took power. The incompetence within the military assured that there was no conceivable way to turn things around. What is happening now was inevitable. It was just a matter of which President would be stuck holding the football at the end.

So while I don't think there is much you can blame Biden for in terms of what is happening now, you can blame him for his Senate vote to authorize an endless war with no discernable goals. Biden has been wrong about almost every single foreign policy decision this country has made since he's been in office, but with this one, he realized he had an unwinnable hand and is folding.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is because you know nothing of our military or the war in Afghanistan.

Or, I simply draw a different conclusion from the available facts. Not every difference of opinion is down to ignorance.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They are already there. Their job is to protect the mining industry at the expense of US taxpayers. That's been the priority for the US in Afghanistan for the past decade. We aren't allocating those resources away.

Just sheer American arrogance to assume you can just bribe deeply religious and prideful people into doing whatever you want. But for the record, we've done this repeatedly and it hasn't worked. The Taliban has been tactically superior to the United States from the start.

Sure we orphaned you or made you a widow. Not to mention ignored you for the last 15 years. But trust us this time, we have your best interest at heart.

The question of whether Biden would do it this way again only relates to his political career. The war was lost before Obama even took power. The incompetence within the military assured that there was no conceivable way to turn things around. What is happening now was inevitable. It was just a matter of which President would be stuck holding the football at the end.

So while I don't think there is much you can blame Biden for in terms of what is happening now, you can blame him for his Senate vote to authorize an endless war with no discernable goals. Biden has been wrong about almost every single foreign policy decision this country has made since he's been in office, but with this one, he realized he had an unwinnable hand and is folding.

We concluded a while ago that we live in two very different worlds and our discussions are non-productive. Let's continue ignoring each other.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Given what we know, I think what we're seeing now is a lot closer to the 8. It'd be more like a 10 if we stuck around. There's no way to prove one way or the other without a time machine, I just don't see any evidence that it could be significantly improved.

The topic is not if we withdraw (I'm definitely all for that), it's How we are withdrawing (e.g. last 2-3 months). With that in mind, I don't see how "now is a lot closer to the 8 vs 10 if we stuck around".

But let's agree to disagree.

This is probably the crux of it. I don't think it's happening because of decisions Biden made, but because of those made long, long before Biden became president. What I know of history suggests to me that the warlord option would not have been an improvement and almost certainly backfired. I could be wrong about that, but I just don't see a reason to think otherwhise. .02

I don't necessarily disagree about the warlord option not being an improvement. It was just something I tossed out because, arguably, some countries need a strong authoritarian leader vs democratically elected leader crippled by infighting, long established political factions, religious dogma etc.

Referring to post above, I do remember reading about Massoud's assassination. Wonder if he could have made a difference.

[PilotMan]

Right now Afghanistan is that bad Civ game where barbarians keep sacking your shit.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Referring to post above, I do remember reading about Massoud's assassination. Wonder if he could have made a difference.

I think so. He had the respect and admiration of the majority of his people and the western democracies. From his biography, written by Pepe Escobar:

Massoud is adamant that in Afghanistan women have suffered oppression for generations. He says that "the cultural environment of the country suffocates women. But the Taliban exacerbate this with oppression." His most ambitious project is to shatter this cultural prejudice and so give more space, freedom and equality to women—they would have the same rights as men.

From Steve Coll's Pulitzer Prize winning "Ghost Wars":

The CIA officers admired Massoud greatly. They saw him as a Che Guevara figure, a great actor on history's stage. Massoud was a poet, a military genius, a religious man, and a leader of enormous courage who defied death and accepted its inevitability, they thought. ... In his house there were thousands of books: Persian poetry, histories of the Afghan war in multiple languages, biographies of other military and guerilla leaders. In their meetings Massoud wove sophisticated, measured references to Afghan history and global politics into his arguments. He was quiet, forceful, reserved, and full of dignity, but also light in spirit. The CIA team had gone into the Panshjir as unabashed admirers of Massoud. Now their convictions deepened.

This was a once in a generation type of person, and it is highly unlikely that anything close to him will emerge in the future in Afghanistan.

[molson]

Do you ever sit around and kill time by seeing if you can start the process of booking travel and hotel accommodations in dangerous places?

I can book a pretty decent one-way trip to Kabul right now, with only two stops. Boise to O'Hare, a 1:21 layover there. Then O'Hare to Istanbul, and an 8 hour 35 minute layover there. Then Istanbul to Kabul. $4,264. If I leave this afternoon it will take me about 26 hours to get there. Who wants a postcard?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The topic is not if we withdraw (I'm definitely all for that), it's How we are withdrawing (e.g. last 2-3 months). With that in mind, I don't see how "now is a lot closer to the 8 vs 10 if we stuck around".

From what I have read, the majority of the 2,500 troops officially on the ground in Afghanistan when Biden took over were there in advisory and logistical roles. The rest were there to provide security for the people in those roles. At this point, all the advisory and logistical work has been completed. There is no reason to keep those people on the ground, especially since history has told us that the preferred time for Taliban offenses has been during the spring and summer. Leaving them exposed to Taliban attacks without a proper defense force would be the ultimate betrayal.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you ever sit around and kill time by seeing if you can start the process of booking travel and hotel accommodations in dangerous places?

I can book a pretty decent one-way trip to Kabul right now, with only two stops. Boise to O'Hare, a 1:21 layover there. Then O'Hare to Istanbul, and an 8 hour 35 minute layover there. Then Istanbul to Kabul. $4,264. If I leave this afternoon it will take me about 26 hours to get there. Who wants a postcard?

26 hours is a long time. I wonder if the airport will still be named "Hamid Karzai International Airport" when you land?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Right now Afghanistan is that bad Civ game where barbarians keep sacking your shit.

Nice analogy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think so. He had the respect and admiration of the majority of his people and the western democracies. From his biography, written by Pepe Escobar:

From Steve Coll's Pulitzer Prize winning "Ghost Wars":

This was a once in a generation type of person, and it is highly unlikely that anything close to him will emerge in the future in Afghanistan.

Generation is every 20 years (?) so it's time for the next one!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

26 hours is a long time. I wonder if the airport will still be named "Hamid Karzai International Airport" when you land?

Even odds no.

Afghanistan’s president fled the war-torn country on Sunday as Taliban militants, who entered the capital of Kabul earlier in the day, were involved in discussions with Afghan government officials about surrendering, according to reports.

Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman of the Afghan High Council for National Reconciliation, referred to Ashraf Ghani as the “former president” and said he had left the country.

“The former president of Afghanistan left Afghanistan, leaving the country in this difficult situation,” Abdullah said. “God should hold him accountable.”

Ghani’s departure comes as Taliban fighters and government officials huddled in the Presidential Palace on Sunday for discussions about the transfer of power.

[lungs]

Anecdotal, but my brother’s best friend worked in the Army Corps of Engineers for several years in Afghanistan. We suspect he was actually CIA, but that’s a whole different story. Brilliant guy, morally flexible. He was always convinced any type of nation building in Afghanistan was a fool’s errand. Ultimately, outside of Kabul and maybe some other urban centers, the Taliban is what they want. It’s gone down about exactly as he said it would when we leave and he told me this stuff 10 years ago or maybe more.

All this hand wringing about how we could save the outgoing Afghani government and keep the Taliban in check is just looking at it from a jingoistic American perspective and ignoring that the government we propped up also sucks. In ways more acceptable to us Americans. But as we can see by the resistance put up by the Afghani people, the Taliban suck less to them.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you ever sit around and kill time by seeing if you can start the process of booking travel and hotel accommodations in dangerous places?

not until today, but now it's one of my things to do

thanks

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

not until today, but now it's one of my things to do

thanks

I don't see what is so hard about booking a hotel in St. Louis

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by lungs

as we can see by the resistance put up by the Afghani people, the Taliban suck less to them.

The more I've read about what's going on right now, the more clear this seems to be.

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

not until today, but now it's one of my things to do

thanks

A related hobby is reading the travel guides and blogs about how to visit these places.

I remember some of my favorite tips over the years - if you're driving into Iraq (this was about 10 years ago), buy a car at the border, paint it orange and white, and you have a rough approximation of a taxi. But don't ever use your headlights, even at night, because Iraqis never do for some reason, and you don't want to stand out.

And the tips and what to expect traveling back and forth into the occupied Palestine territories. Where the bathrooms are, how the indication light system works going down different corridors at the checkpoint, where your luggage will show up after you surrender it for checks, etc.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I tossed out earlier, possibly a strong warlord. I guess we can debate on what positive means but looks like pretty much anything is positive now compared to what's coming.

History tells us this would eventually lead to the same issues with radicalism and jihadism. In a bizarre way, we're better off (and to a certain extent, many of their citizens) with atheist secular dicatators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, etc. in power.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm hoping they'll enjoy their caliphate for 20+ years before they decide to expand outside their borders. I think the Taliban has always been content to stay in Afghanistan, its the other crazy foreign muslim extremists.

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ... catchy.

President JOE BIDEN, July 8: “The Taliban is not … the North Vietnamese army. … There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of … the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.

How are we going to pull 3-5k troops out of Kabul. Don't think they can go via troop transport (I'd think way too easy to shoot down since the Taliban are already in Kabul).

I'm betting there are some midnight oil burning at the Pentagon right now.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

History tells us this would eventually lead to the same issues with radicalism and jihadism. In a bizarre way, we're better off (and to a certain extent, many of their citizens) with atheist secular dicatators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, etc. in power.

The CIA is like "that's what we've been saying for the last 80-odd years". That said, I'm not sure they're right, especially for the long term.

SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ... catchy.



How are we going to pull 3-5k troops out of Kabul. Don't think they can go via troop transport (I'd think way too easy to shoot down since the Taliban are already in Kabul).

I'm betting there are some midnight oil burning at the Pentagon right now.

Not saying that it won't happen, but it makes very little sense for the Taliban to bother the Americans at this point. As I described in my previous post if they wanted to go after the Americans, they would have done so already. They are getting exactly what they want. The West is leaving Afghanistan. Why do anything to might stop that?

[Brian Swartz]

Yep. I agree with that as well. It seems to me they are behaving in a way to encourage other nations, esp. but not just us, to not be involved. I.e. so-far peaceful occupation of Kabul etc.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you ever sit around and kill time by seeing if you can start the process of booking travel and hotel accommodations in dangerous places?

I can book a pretty decent one-way trip to Kabul right now, with only two stops. Boise to O'Hare, a 1:21 layover there. Then O'Hare to Istanbul, and an 8 hour 35 minute layover there. Then Istanbul to Kabul. $4,264. If I leave this afternoon it will take me about 26 hours to get there. Who wants a postcard?

Brit student 'stuck in Afghanistan' in plan to visit all the 'worst places in world' - World News - Mirror Online

[GrantDawg]

As much as this was always going to be the outcome, Biden is going to catch a lot of crap for this.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

History tells us this would eventually lead to the same issues with radicalism and jihadism. In a bizarre way, we're better off (and to a certain extent, many of their citizens) with atheist secular dicatators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, etc. in power.

This is part of the "they're just savages" trope that gets passed around to absolve ourselves of responsibility.

Fact is that Iran was much better before we helped put the Shah in. Iraq was much better off before we helped put Saddam in power. And how do we know what Libya and Syria would even be like if it wasn't for European colonization and the events that led to dictators taking power (which the United States played a role in)?

The only thing "history tells us" is that we'll keep meddling with other countries and then act perplexed when our actions lead to destabilization.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Not saying that it won't happen, but it makes very little sense for the Taliban to bother the Americans at this point. As I described in my previous post if they wanted to go after the Americans, they would have done so already. They are getting exactly what they want. The West is leaving Afghanistan. Why do anything to might stop that?

I agree the leadership probably wouldn't want anything to happen. But I could see some grunts wanting to take shots.

Honestly, if the US gets shot up (transport downed), there is no way we are going stay/return even then. It may delay the departure some but that's all.

My guess is our troops will have to protect the airport until all the foreigners are gone and then we'll negotiate a clear path out for a convoy. Same as the rooskies way back when.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Brit student 'stuck in Afghanistan' in plan to visit all the 'worst places in world' - World News - Mirror Online

In a way, I admire him. But yet think he's just asking for it and a Darwin nominee.

I'd like to visit Jerusalem and the Pyramids, and consider those 2 places risky enough.

[Qwikshot]

Probably the only time I was happy from a Trump decision.

It was always a house of cards and it never was going to get any better. You would've had to wipe out 75% of the population to perhaps have a sea change.

The Taliban represent what American Conservatives really want, total control over cultural, scientific and political aspects through a pseudo-religious dictatorship. The subjugation of the women, the curtailing of intellectuals, and the return of the landowner-peasant fiefdoms.

Once again, Trump did this to create a scorched Earth on Americans. To all the people who did put effort into stabilizing a fruitless nation-building, it's bitter. To the military who've lost brothers and sisters, I'm sure the bitter will easily to finger point to Biden, but really Bush is the culprit. And the reality is, it was a lost cause.

Obama should've pulled up stakes the moment Bin Laden's head was blown off in Pakistan.

No one is going to mourn Afghanistan. And when the drone strikes continue afterwards, no one will care.