The US War in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Dotini
- 329 comments
- 13,247 views
Catch the joke?
- 86,611
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Where did I say it was?
Trump bears part of the blame, because his administration negotiated with the Taliban (so much for "the USA does not negotiate with terrorists) to withdraw the US forces starting in July 2020 - when he was still in charge - and ending in May 2021, while also kicking the can down the road on actually planning it. Biden bears part of the blame for sticking to the withdrawal and not implementing a better plan despite a few extra months of delay (which again destroys your ludicrous point that he made the decision with a night's notice).
Obama bears part of the blame, because his administration repeatedly kicked the can down the road on withdrawal despite literally campaigning on it - he initially sent more in and though he did pull out 65,000 troops, the 2008-promised withdrawal never happened. GW Bush bears part of the blame because he started the damned thing on the basis that the Taliban were sheltering Osama bin Laden and wouldn't hand him over, as well as allowing a base of operations for the wider Da'esh organisation. The Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush administrations bear part of the blame for funding and arming the mujahideen (of which the Taliban was one) against first the extant Afghan government to encourage Russia to invade, and then the Russians. As did the UK and Saudi Arabia.
There's plenty of blame to go round (including to the totally ineffectual and corrupt Afghan military who, despite being provided with US weaponry and outnumbering Taliban forces 2:1, apparently just gave up), and centering it on a single US administration is at best one-sidedly short sighted and smacks of ignorant axe-grinding.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
How does the most powerful military in the world give up Bagran before removing its own people and Afghanistan supporters of the US ? Remove 2500 troops from a secure facility with air support to send in 7500 troops into the middle of Kabul with no air support? I'm no military genius, but somebody is a complete buffoon in either Bidens Administration or the top brass in the Pentagon. The Afghan army was not the size they say it was https://www.usnews.com/news/world-r...few-hundred-the-collapse-of-afghanistans-army
and if US intelligence didn't know this and didn't supply air support then there is only 1 idiot to blame. You guess.
Last edited:
- 86,611
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The US left Bagram on July 1 - nearly two months ago - by quite literally slipping out in the night; bizarrely this was all-but predicted by The Onion.
I'm not sure what personnel you're saying were left behind, but control of the base passed to the Afghan National Army. It fell to Taliban control (along with all the equipment the US had given to the ANA) on August 15.
Yes, this was part of the corruption. A significant number of the ANA's enlisted troops simply didn't exist.
Last edited:
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Ok so let me ask a simple question. Everybody in the US military knew the Afghan armies numbers were inflated. Half of the Afghan army couldn't do a simple jumping jack nor read or write and were stoned out of their minds. This is what Uncle Joe called a "well trained army" with an airforce ? So the only person who didn't know this controls the nuclear football ? The personnel left behind were American Consolate personnel, contractors and American citizens that were air lifted off of the US Embassy by helicopter . Something the guy that controls the nuclear football said would never happen. It's an epic blunder reminiscent of a Benny Hill skit. Joe better talk to the Onion. At least they new what was going on.
Last edited:
- 86,611
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
That's a rather loaded question, powered by hindsight.
Most military analysts were predicting Afghanistan to return to Taliban control in 12-18 months last year, when Trump said the withdrawal would be finished by May 1. By the time June came round, on Biden's delayed program, that was six months. As recently as last week it was 90 days. Some of these sources were actual US military.
It very much doesn't look like everyone but Biden knew the country would fall in mere days.
There was not a US Embassy at Bagram base, nor any personnel or contractors.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
I realize there was no Embassy at Bagram. Uncle Joe said no Americans would be lifted off the roof by copter. Again the Benny Hill theme plays in my head. Blame whomever anybody wants. The guy in power now takes the L for this. He's in charge and evidently surrounded by people as incompetent as his Parmesan smoking son.
Last edited:
- 86,611
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Oooo... kay. I don't see how your answer answered the query then.
As far as I'm aware, the US abandoned Bagram in the dead of night on July 1 and cut the electricity, leaving nothing and no-one behind except ANA personnel due to take control of the base and the equipment given to the ANA; unfortunately a lot of the US personnel removed were responsible for maintaining and running the equipment and the ANA had no idea how to do so.
That happened nearly two months ago, and I don't see the connection to the consulate personnel at the US Embassy 30 miles away in Kabul, who started their planned evacuation nearly six weeks later on August 12.
Interestingly, the Taliban offensive in Afghanistan started on May 1, the original date stated by Donald Trump as the end of the complete withdrawal of US interests from the USA.
Last edited:
- 40,727
Imagine being Tony Blair and waking up this morning and thinking "I'm going to call someone an imbecile because of mistakes they made regarding Afghanistan."
At the very least, as far as I know, none of the Bush Administration or their cronies have had the balls to say anything.
At the very least, as far as I know, none of the Bush Administration or their cronies have had the balls to say anything.
Last edited:
- 29,123
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Things are going to be just fine.
thehill.com
Biden grapples with twin crises
President Biden is grappling with an international crisis involving the fall of the Afghan government and a domestic one in the COVID-19 pandemic, testing the resolve and ability of his young presi…
thehill.com
McLaren
Premium
- 45,377
- Texas
I had heard a report criticizing Bush's response, so I assumed at the time, he must have chipped in. Googling it now, looks like he did issue a statement.
Statement by President and Mrs. Bush on Afghanistan | George W. Bush Presidential Center
Laura and I, along with the team at the Bush Center, stand ready as Americans to lend our support and assistance in this time of need. Let us all resolve to be united in saving lives and praying for the people of Afghanistan.
www.bushcenter.org
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
As any of you can easily guess I am not a Biden fan.
However in this case I believe he’s done the right thing.
It’s maybe kinda botched and unplanned but better to do the right thing poorly than not do it at all.
For me it’s sort of like ripping off a large band aid.
Do you want to slowly rip out each hair and mm of scab and slowly torture yourself over the course of time OR
just get it over with already?
To me the answer is clear and the Biden administration has done the right thing.
I think we owe the Afghans NOTHING.
They’ve been playing us all along anyhow.
I was training a relatively fresh Afghan immigrant here. He was an interpreter for US military over there.
Great guy amazing stories. Lots of Afghans were just taking advantage of the money in bad ways.
I’m just glad Biden did the right thing and is ending our time there.
I’m sad that my tax dollars provided the Talibsn with military equipment but oh well.
Screw the Afghans the biggest moral issue here is what do you say to the service members that were there?
How do you explain this to them?
That’s the biggest issue.
However in this case I believe he’s done the right thing.
It’s maybe kinda botched and unplanned but better to do the right thing poorly than not do it at all.
For me it’s sort of like ripping off a large band aid.
Do you want to slowly rip out each hair and mm of scab and slowly torture yourself over the course of time OR
just get it over with already?
To me the answer is clear and the Biden administration has done the right thing.
I think we owe the Afghans NOTHING.
They’ve been playing us all along anyhow.
I was training a relatively fresh Afghan immigrant here. He was an interpreter for US military over there.
Great guy amazing stories. Lots of Afghans were just taking advantage of the money in bad ways.
I’m just glad Biden did the right thing and is ending our time there.
I’m sad that my tax dollars provided the Talibsn with military equipment but oh well.
Screw the Afghans the biggest moral issue here is what do you say to the service members that were there?
How do you explain this to them?
That’s the biggest issue.
Last edited:
- 17,058
- United Kingdom
If fighting and dying for nothing on foreign soil is a moral issue for service men and women, it should absolutely be one they address for themselves before joining up. It entirely sucks, but surely it is part of the job, no?
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,987
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
You're talking to someone who just said "screw the Afghans" and "moral issue" in the same sentence.
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
No. That’s not the idea, but does it happen and has it been happening for over fifty years? Yes. Is that right? No.
Do these folks understand the real reasons behind these armed conflicts? No.
Not imo anyways. Those reasons are not right. Are these service men and women people motivated as you suggest to kill for nothing?
Not any that I have met.
@UKMickey
Yes I did.
- 17,058
- United Kingdom
I didn't say it was the idea, but as you state yourself, it does happen, and has been happening for over 50 years... so it really should not be news to anyone signing up to join the military. You also state pulling the troops was the right thing to do, so you yourself are equipped to answer the moral outrage your questioning.
Good soldiers follow orders. However, I'd expect a soldier under fire, to return fire, with self-preservation as their motivation. Them being in a scenario that puts them under fire does not require their motivation, it just relies on them following orders.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,987
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
It's Mikey, not Mickey. And yes, you did.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,911
- Mile High City
It's so weird to kindof agree with you.
That's not the only reason to do something.
No the biggest issue is definitely the (perhaps unavoidable) humanitarian fallout that is going on/will go on after our departure. To the people who were stationed there, I would say that they were involved in an operation that ended up without a clear goal, and should probably be happy that the US is not willing to continue to leave its military mired in a no-win situation.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,990
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
People who I've spoken to, one of whom was active there for 13 years, seem to have developed an emotional attachment to it. They feel like the US is abandoning these people by leaving at all. They sacrificed years of their life to help and provide and they feel like their job wasn't done yet. They seem to be struggling with the idea that all those years of work might have been for nothing.
I wish they weren't viewing it that way but they were the ones who did the work, not me. As an observer it makes sense that these guys should be happy the bad relationship is finally over but they've basically got wartime Stockholm syndrome, or whatever a better term would be. I don't think it's as simple as "good soldiers follow orders" when you've spent that much time working toward a goal and making friends.
Overall it does seem that the vast majority of people who support leaving Afghanistan are non-military which seems a bit obtuse but whatever.
There's a problem with this idea of soldiers feeling like they're abandoning their friends too because Chinese propaganda is pushing that narrative, that the US is abandoning Afghanistan. That's the story their media is publishing.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,911
- Mile High City
Pretty well written opinion on Afghanistan. Hard to argue with his point.
Biden is Right on Afghanistan - Juan Williams
Biden is Right on Afghanistan - Juan Williams
- 11,778
- Marin County
Has anyone read the text of the Doha agreement? I was curious and so I read it...it's not long
via state department website: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/up...or-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
Considering Trump criticized the Iran deal so harshly for being too lenient on the Iranians...this deal sure doesn't appear to constrain the Taliban very much. Notably, it doesn't even attempt to bind them from...like...taking over Afghanistan, just that if they happen to do so that they won't train terrorists. It has far more constraints on the United States, if anything - point 1F is particularly broad and restrictive:
So if we abide by these terms, we cannot even threaten to use force against the Taliban to safeguard the passage of US Citizens or Afghan refugees. Who wrote this? It's like a college freshman level document. It also explicitly calls for removing Taliban members from sanctions (with no apparent conditions) and releasing all prisoners - we shouldn't be surprised that the Taliban has done just that.
We signed on the dotted line and the bar for the Taliban violating this agreement is quite high - they don't appear to have done so yet. I'm curious as to why the Trump administration even negotiated with the Taliban to begin with - was the hope that they wouldn't try to take over Afghanistan? Because that doesn't seem to be supported in the text.
via state department website: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/up...or-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
Considering Trump criticized the Iran deal so harshly for being too lenient on the Iranians...this deal sure doesn't appear to constrain the Taliban very much. Notably, it doesn't even attempt to bind them from...like...taking over Afghanistan, just that if they happen to do so that they won't train terrorists. It has far more constraints on the United States, if anything - point 1F is particularly broad and restrictive:
So if we abide by these terms, we cannot even threaten to use force against the Taliban to safeguard the passage of US Citizens or Afghan refugees. Who wrote this? It's like a college freshman level document. It also explicitly calls for removing Taliban members from sanctions (with no apparent conditions) and releasing all prisoners - we shouldn't be surprised that the Taliban has done just that.
We signed on the dotted line and the bar for the Taliban violating this agreement is quite high - they don't appear to have done so yet. I'm curious as to why the Trump administration even negotiated with the Taliban to begin with - was the hope that they wouldn't try to take over Afghanistan? Because that doesn't seem to be supported in the text.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,911
- Mile High City
I'm not entirely sure that threatening to use force against the Taliban (or anyone) who obstructs passage of US citizens or refugees constitutes "against the territorial integrity or political Independence of Afghanistan".
That being said, accepting refugees, or doing just about anything in Afghanistan, probably constitutes intervening in its domestic affairs. Heck, just condemning subjugation of women is intervening in its domestic affairs. It's almost impossible not to.
Similar threads
