Dieuwer wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres does such good work in that area, great respect.

It might become too dangerous for them to continue their work.

I certainly hope they are able to depart before becoming trapped.

Dieuwer wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres does such good work in that area, great respect.

It might become too dangerous for them to continue their work.

They often stay providing medical help when others leave, accepting the risks, paying the price. Started sponsoring them long ago.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/w ... led-attack

keesje wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres does such good work in that area, great respect.

It might become too dangerous for them to continue their work.

They often stay providing medical help when others leave, accepting the risks, paying the price. Started sponsoring them long ago.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/w ... led-attack

Anyone know how radical Islamicists view non-believing doctors and medics? If they take over the area in which Medecins Sans Frontieres are working, how are the doctors treated?

Medecins Sans Frontieres will treat both sides without any questions asked, they just see the person.

readytotaxi wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres will treat both sides without any questions asked, they just see the person.

Do the Taliban just see a doctor? Or an infidel offering medical help to them but also aiding and abetting their misguided muslim enemy?

I am interested in Indian military aviation. A few days ago in the non-aviation part of this Indian site someone posted a video of a number of men emerging from a house - purportedly Afghan army troops who had run out of ammunition and came out of the house to surrender to the Taliban besieging the house. 10 seconds later the Taliban had shot them all. Yes, could be staged.

I worry about MSF personnel falling into Taliban hands. Also Hindus with multi-theistic beliefs and Sikhs living in Afghanistan. Basically anyone with a belief in a non-Abrahamic religion is in danger from Islamist zealots.

IMO, the key point in all of this is the 'government' and army are unable or unwilling to hold of the Taliban without western military support.

given that we have been there for 20 years, at what point, if ever, will this change.

art wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres will treat both sides without any questions asked, they just see the person.

Do the Taliban just see a doctor? Or an infidel offering medical help to them but also aiding and abetting their misguided muslim enemy?

I am interested in Indian military aviation. A few days ago in the non-aviation part of this Indian site someone posted a video of a number of men emerging from a house - purportedly Afghan army troops who had run out of ammunition and came out of the house to surrender to the Taliban besieging the house. 10 seconds later the Taliban had shot them all. Yes, could be staged.

I worry about MSF personnel falling into Taliban hands. Also Hindus with multi-theistic beliefs and Sikhs living in Afghanistan. Basically anyone with a belief in a non-Abrahamic religion is in danger from Islamist zealots.

The Islamic zealots don’t seem to care much for adherents to the other two Abrahamic religions.

Rather ironic calling Islamists “zealots”, too.

Came across this interesting article. I suggest reading it in full.

Most of the Afghan people — like the majority of people across the world — probably never travel too far from their home town. That’s their world, the focus of their lives, all they can afford to care about.
This is why so many are willing to fight for or at least tolerate the Taliban at this point, even in former anti-Taliban strongholds. Everyone in the region is exhausted by forty years of constant war —many don’t care who rules anymore, they just want the killing to end.

https://andrewmtanner.medium.com/?p=285152538ae1

I have to agree with the author that giving up fully on Afghanistan might not be a wise decision. Because if Afghanistan falls, Pakistan will be next. And if Pakistan falls into the hands of the Taliban, we have a fundamentalist regime on our hands with nuclear weapons.

Dieuwer wrote:

Because if Afghanistan falls, Pakistan will be next. And if Pakistan falls into the hands of the Taliban, we have a fundamentalist regime on our hands with nuclear weapons.

The Pakistanis play by different rules. They can get away with stuff that Westerners can't.

johns624 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Because if Afghanistan falls, Pakistan will be next. And if Pakistan falls into the hands of the Taliban, we have a fundamentalist regime on our hands with nuclear weapons.

The Pakistanis play by different rules. They can get away with stuff that Westerners can't.

This all sounds incredibly familiar…

But I agree, if we let Vietnam fall to the communists, then Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and India will fall next. Best to keep some peacekeepers over there just to watch over things

Well, we’re gonna pretty soon. Anyone for a pool on the day Kabul falls. I’m in for Oct 1st, but 9/11 would be a huge middle finger at the US and Washington. Get tough or get out. Hilariously, the Biden administration asks for the Taliban to spare the US Embassy. Saigon all over again.

MaverickM11 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

IMO, the key point in all of this is the 'government' and army are unable or unwilling to hold of the Taliban without western military support.

given that we have been there for 20 years, at what point, if ever, will this change.

Not only that, we've been lying about our progress for 20 years. It was going pear shaped in 2006, and we have all the receipts now showing we never had a prayer.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, we’re gonna pretty soon. Anyone for a pool on the day Kabul falls. I’m in for Oct 1st, but 9/11 would be a huge middle finger at the US and Washington. Get tough or get out. Hilariously, the Biden administration asks for the Taliban to spare the US Embassy. Saigon all over again.

Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David. Honestly we should get the W/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld gang back together and have them fix it.

It's par for the course. The West, led by the US moves in to prop up an incompetent regime, creates a lot of mayhem, and when the adventure leads to nothing pulls out and leaves a mess behind: ask the people of North Korea, South Vietnam, the Kurds of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Afghanistan.

So who's next on the menu of "bringing democracy"?

johns624 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Because if Afghanistan falls, Pakistan will be next. And if Pakistan falls into the hands of the Taliban, we have a fundamentalist regime on our hands with nuclear weapons.

The Pakistanis play by different rules. They can get away with stuff that Westerners can't.

Yeah but they avoid doing it most of the time. How come it's the US droning all the indesirables and not the Pakistan military ?

Dieuwer wrote:

It's par for the course. The West, led by the US moves in to prop up an incompetent regime, creates a lot of mayhem, and when the adventure leads to nothing pulls out and leaves a mess behind: ask the people of North Korea, South Vietnam, the Kurds of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Afghanistan.

So who's next on the menu of "bringing democracy"?

Afghanistan was a mess before so it's not really the same.

Well that was a delightful way to spend a few trillion dollars of your kids’ future tax dollars.

luckyone wrote:

Well that was a delightful way to spend a few trillion dollars of your kids’ future ta dollars.

Yep - here we go again. As a condition of further protection in the Gulf, we should have made KSA and UAE pay for any future Afghanistan missions.

As with any country, the key is the people not the political elite (small number), the middle class (small number), the reason why the Taliban is taking over so easily is because the people on the ground are not fighting against them, they are either fleeing or willing to accept their fate under the Taliban.
All the efforts and millions spent by the west were spent on the wrong things, if the social works were not going because it was too easy for Taliban extremists to get access to the community to kill a teacher for example, it means that the local population was not vested.
How about a simple question, where since the end of WWII has a civil insurrection been stopped by military means? I had cause recently to read up on the older history of Cyprus, facinating read.
As for the fallout into Pakistan, militants are already entrenched in Pakistan, they are closer to the Taliban culturally than the west, at least in my opinion.

Aaron747 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Well that was a delightful way to spend a few trillion dollars of your kids’ future ta dollars.

Yep - here we go again. As a condition of further protection in the Gulf, we should have made KSA and UAE pay for any future Afghanistan missions.

What's even funnier (in a not really funny kinda way...) is that more or less the same people vehemently MAGA, supporting Trump's withdrawal and isolationist foreign policy, were the same people who would call you a traitor and unpatriotic for not supporting then President Bush and his War on Terror.

As i see it, Afghanistan cannot return to normalcy as long as they have this sub-culture of warlordism.

On my first and only visit to Afghanistan, we saw this everywhere. Every local goonda acquires a few weapons and then sets up his para-military unit! It is a very profitable business in that country. Our personal bodyguard on this work trip was a cop who stole weapons provided by the US and setup his own security outfit. He continued to receive his cop salary (bankrolled by Americans) while running his side business of providing security. He had one flat in Dubai. Basically everyone who is anyone does! And those that dont aspire to buy one! His house in Afghanistan, located a stones throw from an American base, had dozens of giant antennas on the roof. Like a listening post. How was this going on openly? I havent gone back to the country and dont intend to! But my colleague who travelled to that country more recently tells me our cop friend has setup a "checkpost" manned by personnel equipped with weapons bought from American soldiers (illegally). Let that sink in - A cop, still collecting his meagre cop salary ($150), steals weapons and sets up an illegal checkpost to collect money from passing motorists. A profitable business indeed!

This guys story is by no means the exception. This same thing can be seen across Afghanistan. As long as these warlords are around, Afghanistan is going to remain volatile.

If we have to assign accountability for the mess, and we must, it ultimately falls on the United States. Why? It was the US that created and encouraged the warlord culture because it was an essential part of their Cold War strategy to defeat the Soviets in the country. That is where it began. All warlords from that War allied with whoever was taking power. Whether it was Najibullah or Taliban when they took over. When the Americans walked in, they did not eliminate the Warlords. Instead, they struck deals with Warlords that made the takeover quick. I have heard stories from Afghans about how Hamid Karzai went around Afghanistan on a motorcycle striking deals with Warlords in the South and East of Afghanistan. Americans rallied warlords in the North and got them to work with Hamid Karzai's warlords. What they did not do was crack down on the Warlords after the war against Taliban was won. They settled down and created a system where warlords got a share in everything.

Hamid Karzai who was the chosen leader did not do anything to crack down on the warlords either. Instead, he and his family granted themselves a share in every $ transaction. Everyone got a share, but Karzai was at the top of this pyramid of corruption. Karzai's successor is following the same path as his predecessor and building his own empire. Its not just Afghans. There are many Americans, British, Canadians and Australians who have a share in the pie as well.

One of the interesting stories I heard when I was about the purchase of transport aircraft from an Italian company. The deal was worth $600 million or so and paid for by the American taxpayer. Initial purchase was Over invoiced. But the annual support contract was also heavily padded. Karzai, folks in the Afghan defense ministry and many many others got their share. This deal was negotiated by a USAF officer who had worked on the aircraft program during his tenure with the USAF and post retirement taken up an assignment as a contractor with the Italian aircraft company. The aircraft themselves were scrapped within a year of purchase! Neither the deal nor the recipients were investigated and the case was quietly buried.

Then there is the curious case of Pamir Airways - an interesting airline (2013) that exists only to transport ill-gotten money to safe countries like Dubai. If Pamir Airways is ever investigated, a lot of big names in the Obama administration will be facing prison time!

Both these cases are a good illustration of how things were run in the years preceding the withdrawal. A lot of people in Afghanistan and in the US Defense Dept were neck deep in corruption divving up the aid money and tax revenues. There was no attempt to destroy the base of the warlords and crack down on the violence. Instead, the goal was to ensure "peace" by buying out the warlords effectively sustaining the warlords and creating an ecosystem where new warlords sprung up everyday!

As the Taliban take over now, these Warlords will shift sides again, this time to the Taliban.

There is one way out of the mess. It might happen. China and Pakistan will try to strike a deal with the Taliban to ensure that Taliban dont export their movement to the Xinjiang province or NWFP Province (Pakistan). But I dont see this deal succeeding. China and Pakistan could try to stir up a "Peoples Revolution" to bring about a Communist Govt in Afghanistan. This might work. The Chinese will definitely crack down on the Warlords and bring peace to the countryside as well as infrastructure development.

But will the US allow a "Communist" govt in Afghanistan? Or will they repeat history by once again repeating the 80's experiment with Warlords.

Toppling a "communist" govt in Afghanistan should be easier for the Americans this time. They dont have to create the base of warlords and supply them from scratch via the infamous "Karachi Trail". They already created this base in the 80's when they were fighting the Soviets. They will just have to find enough money to buy out sufficient number of warlords to topple the Afghan Govt one city at a time.

Like the Taliban is doing right now!

BawliBooch wrote:

As i see it, Afghanistan cannot return to normalcy as long as they have this sub-culture of warlordism.

On my first and only visit to Afghanistan, we saw this everywhere. Every local goonda acquires a few weapons and then sets up his para-military unit! It is a very profitable business in that country. Our personal bodyguard on this work trip was a cop who stole weapons provided by the US and setup his own security outfit. He continued to receive his cop salary (bankrolled by Americans) while running his side business of providing security. He had one flat in Dubai. Basically everyone who is anyone does! And those that dont aspire to buy one! His house in Afghanistan, located a stones throw from an American base, had dozens of giant antennas on the roof. Like a listening post. How was this going on openly? I havent gone back to the country and dont intend to! But my colleague who travelled to that country more recently tells me our cop friend has setup a "checkpost" manned by personnel equipped with weapons bought from American soldiers (illegally). Let that sink in - A cop, still collecting his meagre cop salary ($150), steals weapons and sets up an illegal checkpost to collect money from passing motorists. A profitable business indeed!

This guys story is by no means the exception. This same thing can be seen across Afghanistan. As long as these warlords are around, Afghanistan is going to remain volatile.

If we have to assign accountability for the mess, and we must, it ultimately falls on the United States. Why? It was the US that created and encouraged the warlord culture because it was an essential part of their Cold War strategy to defeat the Soviets in the country. That is where it began. All warlords from that War allied with whoever was taking power. Whether it was Najibullah or Taliban when they took over. When the Americans walked in, they did not eliminate the Warlords. Instead, they struck deals with Warlords that made the takeover quick. I have heard stories from Afghans about how Hamid Karzai went around Afghanistan on a motorcycle striking deals with Warlords in the South and East of Afghanistan. Americans rallied warlords in the North and got them to work with Hamid Karzai's warlords. What they did not do was crack down on the Warlords after the war against Taliban was won. They settled down and created a system where warlords got a share in everything.

Hamid Karzai who was the chosen leader did not do anything to crack down on the warlords either. Instead, he and his family granted themselves a share in every $ transaction. Everyone got a share, but Karzai was at the top of this pyramid of corruption. Karzai's successor is following the same path as his predecessor and building his own empire. Its not just Afghans. There are many Americans, British, Canadians and Australians who have a share in the pie as well.

One of the interesting stories I heard when I was about the purchase of transport aircraft from an Italian company. The deal was worth $600 million or so and paid for by the American taxpayer. Initial purchase was Over invoiced. But the annual support contract was also heavily padded. Karzai, folks in the Afghan defense ministry and many many others got their share. This deal was negotiated by a USAF officer who had worked on the aircraft program during his tenure with the USAF and post retirement taken up an assignment as a contractor with the Italian aircraft company. The aircraft themselves were scrapped within a year of purchase! Neither the deal nor the recipients were investigated and the case was quietly buried.

Then there is the curious case of Pamir Airways - an interesting airline (2013) that exists only to transport ill-gotten money to safe countries like Dubai. If Pamir Airways is ever investigated, a lot of big names in the Obama administration will be facing prison time!

Both these cases are a good illustration of how things were run in the years preceding the withdrawal. A lot of people in Afghanistan and in the US Defense Dept were neck deep in corruption divving up the aid money and tax revenues. There was no attempt to destroy the base of the warlords and crack down on the violence. Instead, the goal was to ensure "peace" by buying out the warlords effectively sustaining the warlords and creating an ecosystem where new warlords sprung up everyday!

As the Taliban take over now, these Warlords will shift sides again, this time to the Taliban.

There is one way out of the mess. It might happen. China and Pakistan will try to strike a deal with the Taliban to ensure that Taliban dont export their movement to the Xinjiang province or NWFP Province (Pakistan). But I dont see this deal succeeding. China and Pakistan could try to stir up a "Peoples Revolution" to bring about a Communist Govt in Afghanistan. This might work. The Chinese will definitely crack down on the Warlords and bring peace to the countryside as well as infrastructure development.

But will the US allow a "Communist" govt in Afghanistan? Or will they repeat history by once again repeating the 80's experiment with Warlords.

I'll agree that the US poured gas on a wildfire, but I'll take exception to the US creating the warlord culture. Clannism existed in Afghanistan long before the US was even an idea.

luckyone wrote:

I'll agree that the US pour gas on a wildfire, but I'll take exception to the US creating the warlord culture. Clannism existed in Afghanistan long before the US was even an idea.

Afghanistan, like many other countries in the Muslim CIS, has a tribal culture. Indeed it is present even in the Middle East. But "warlord culture" is very different from Tribal oriented culture. Very, very different!

You dont see this kind of warlordism anywhere in the region except in Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon. Syria is an interesting case - if you look carefully, one side on the Syrian conflict is indeed composed of private warlords. Who is backing them?

Have we learnt NOTHING from history?

Does *anyone* with good knowledge of Afghanistan really know what to do to solve the country's problems, while being able to extricate the US substantially from long term boots on the ground, and create a society which has some modicum of stability and a basic level of human rights ?

I suspect the answer is "No"

Please provide a link to your source when stating facts, thanks.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Does *anyone* with good knowledge of Afghanistan really know what to do to solve the country's problems, while being able to extricate the US substantially from long term boots on the ground, and create a society which has some modicum of stability and a basic level of human rights ?

I suspect the answer is "No"

Even the Brits tried three times and didn’t succeed in the 1800s.

I don't know if anyone will agree here, but the main reason for the 'Re-Emergence Of Taliban' is mainly for the fact that the US and NATO forces felt 'Saddam Hussein' was a 'Bigger Threat' to them during the war on terror campaigns.

And also the US still considering Pakistan as a 'Srategic Partner' is another reason for today's situation in Afghanistan.

The Taliban's existence in Afghanistan even during the US's 2 decades war was mainly possible due to the support from Pakistan.

Why couldn't America put a 'Final Nail In The Coffin' of Taliban just like what they did to Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Baghdadi, and many other such brutal forces across the globe?

BawliBooch wrote:

But will the US allow a "Communist" govt in Afghanistan? Or will they repeat history by once again repeating the 80's experiment with Warlords.

Remind us again why the USA was in Afghanistan, hint, we know it had nothing to do with oil and with the basic end of the cold war not communism.
So unless the Taliban initiate another 9/11 I suspect the USA interest is way down, even if they start exporting opium on a larger scale, as the country is landlocked, the USA and Europe can exert pressure on the surrounding countries who are still trying to play the "western game".

I think Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan. And nobody since. This is one of those "let\s not and say we did" type deals. Leave them to their own devices.

extender wrote:

I think Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan. And nobody since. This is one of those "let\s not and say we did" type deals. Leave them to their own devices.

Alexander had a huge advantage—no whinny ninnies posting on the internet about what he was doing to the locals. Rome had the same advantage—make it desert! Then, again, when Roman legions were crushed on Hadrian’s Wall or in the Teutoberg forest, no one was posting about casualties, either.

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Well that was a delightful way to spend a few trillion dollars of your kids’ future ta dollars.

Yep - here we go again. As a condition of further protection in the Gulf, we should have made KSA and UAE pay for any future Afghanistan missions.

What's even funnier (in a not really funny kinda way...) is that more or less the same people vehemently MAGA, supporting Trump's withdrawal and isolationist foreign policy, were the same people who would call you a traitor and unpatriotic for not supporting then President Bush and his War on Terror.

I’m very disappointed in the withdrawal. The irony you pointed out is very true.

It was long expected when the USA withdrew, it would be a total mess and the Taliban taking over. It is beginning to look like when we left Vietnam and Iran in 1978 for the USA. We have lost any credibility in Afghanistan and throughout the Islamic world, we are seen as failures and they are right.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/af ... hp&pc=U531

It appears that we are going down hard. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vi ... hp&pc=U531

Any sensitive papers, anything with the USA logo, USA flags, are being shredded and destroyed out of fear of capture and used as propaganda by Taliban forces. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... uxbndlbing

Here at home in the USA, this news is likely to be a big political mess for the Biden Administration and will be used by Republicans to bash Democrats and him in 2022 & 2024 elections.

ltbewr wrote:

It was long expected when the USA withdrew, it would be a total mess and the Taliban taking over. It is beginning to look like when we left Vietnam and Iran in 1978 for the USA. We have lost any credibility in Afghanistan and throughout the Islamic world, we are seen as failures and they are right.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/af ... hp&pc=U531

It appears that we are going down hard. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vi ... hp&pc=U531

Any sensitive papers, anything with the USA logo, USA flags, are being shredded and destroyed out of fear of capture and used as propaganda by Taliban forces. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... uxbndlbing

Here at home in the USA, this news is likely to be a big political mess for the Biden Administration and will be used by Republicans to bash Democrats and him in 2022 & 2024 elections.

Not clear how things would be different if Trump had won.

It wouldn’t have a nickel’s worth different, just who happens to be in office when the inevitable happens. Biden’s been been wrong in every foreign policy issue over his entire career. He’ll be the only political figure associated with the fall of Saigon and Kabul. He voted against the Persian Gulf War of ‘91; for the Iraq invasion and against raiding OBL. Even a wind sock does better.

bennett123 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

It was long expected when the USA withdrew, it would be a total mess and the Taliban taking over. It is beginning to look like when we left Vietnam and Iran in 1978 for the USA. We have lost any credibility in Afghanistan and throughout the Islamic world, we are seen as failures and they are right.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/af ... hp&pc=U531

It appears that we are going down hard. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vi ... hp&pc=U531

Any sensitive papers, anything with the USA logo, USA flags, are being shredded and destroyed out of fear of capture and used as propaganda by Taliban forces. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... uxbndlbing

Here at home in the USA, this news is likely to be a big political mess for the Biden Administration and will be used by Republicans to bash Democrats and him in 2022 & 2024 elections.

Not clear how things would be different if Trump had won.

If Trump won things would be exactly the same as today because it was Trump who started the troop withdraw.

bennett123 wrote:

Not clear how things would be different if Trump had won.

Optics are all that matters, and the optics aint great.

This was a no-win scenario for Biden.
1) proceed with the Trunp ordered pull-put, knowing the taliban would bulldoze over afghani forces. Everyone could see that was going to happen. The only surprise is the speed at which it happens.
2) cancel the pull out. In that case the republicans would complain that Biden is a warhawk, does not support the troops, unilaterally cancels treaties and would only have done this to spite Trump.

I don’t see a path here where Biden would come out on top.

petertenthije wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not clear how things would be different if Trump had won.

Optics are all that matters, and the optics aint great.

This was a no-win scenario for Biden.
1) proceed with the Trunp ordered pull-put, knowing the taliban would bulldoze over afghani forces. Everyone could see that was going to happen. The only surprise is the speed at which it happens.
2) cancel the pull out. In that case the republicans would complain that Biden is a warhawk, does not support the troops, unilaterally cancels treaties and would only have done this to spite Trump.

I don’t see a path here where Biden would come out on top.

What Biden, or Democrats in general, could have done, especially after winning the election, is to calculate and announce the consequences, and see how different side, including Democrat supporters, react, since it obviously wasn't only a single side that demanded the US pull out of Afghanistan. Now, Biden is saying they're pulling out of Afghanistan to better focus against the main threat coming from like China, but Afghanistan is also on the side of China, along their belt and road, and thus while there're.probably not enough time, it's still worth asking whether pulling out of Afghanistan can really netter help counter China than staying there

You are making a false presumption there that Afghanistan was better under the US than it will be under the Taliban. The US was not widely
regarded as winning the war there and hence it is pulling out.

TokyoImperialPa wrote:

You are making a false presumption there that Afghanistan was better under the US than it will be under the Taliban. The US was not widely
regarded as winning the war there and hence it is pulling out.

You are confusing a few different thing in the statement.
Whether Taliban able to control entire Taliban
Have no relationship with whether the US have been regarded as having won whatever war they were fighting.

And that also have no bearing on, whether Afghans are better with ot without the US pull out
Given that US pullout was based on their own financial and resource calculation,
Not based on welfare of Afghans.

And then another thing your reply is missing is that, while US failed to achieve their objective in Afghanistan,
Does that mean there are nothing to lose there? The two thing are not equal either.

And whether the US having won any war in Afghanistan or not
Also have no bearing on whether Afghans will be better under Taliban.

Thus I don't understand the logic behind your reply.

petertenthije wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not clear how things would be different if Trump had won.

Optics are all that matters, and the optics aint great.

This was a no-win scenario for Biden.
1) proceed with the Trunp ordered pull-put, knowing the taliban would bulldoze over afghani forces. Everyone could see that was going to happen. The only surprise is the speed at which it happens.
2) cancel the pull out. In that case the republicans would complain that Biden is a warhawk, does not support the troops, unilaterally cancels treaties and would only have done this to spite Trump.

I don’t see a path here where Biden would come out on top.

Except Trump was right on one thing, Americans are tired of foreign wars. You might convince brainless MAGA deplorables that Biden was wrong to do what Trump decided, but these people weren't going to vote (D) anyway. Would (D) voters switch to (R) over Afghanistan ?

Unlike 20 years ago, everyone has internet and social networks now, even in Afghanistan. So Taliban rule might not be as easy as it was before, unless they really go for the "stone age country" thing, and then half the people there will leave again.

petertenthije wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not clear how things would be different if Trump had won.

Optics are all that matters, and the optics aint great.

This was a no-win scenario for Biden.
1) proceed with the Trunp ordered pull-put, knowing the taliban would bulldoze over afghani forces. Everyone could see that was going to happen. The only surprise is the speed at which it happens.
2) cancel the pull out. In that case the republicans would complain that Biden is a warhawk, does not support the troops, unilaterally cancels treaties and would only have done this to spite Trump.

I don’t see a path here where Biden would come out on top.

Except now there's gobs of tweets, public statements, and executive orders that any half-witted political novice can cobble together in a counter ad with Trump's face all over it.

This will sound cruel, but the world is cruel.

The reality is, you cannot stay forever. I think it's unfair to blame a future president or prime minister when at some point, such decisions must be made. It will be tragic what will happen to the people in Afghanistan, but if they really truly despise the Taliban, they will have just a strong a will to fight back. The problem is the Taliban just have more determination.

I honestly think the only solution to keep the Taliban in check, because I have no doubt that they are the same old Taliban (don't buy for a second their sleek 2020 veneer of "moderation" or pragmatism), the only semi-solution is for the US, the Russians, the Chinese, the EU, India, the Arab nations, Pakistan, Central Asian countries, and basically anyone else from Israel to Australia to Canada to Brazil... is to all agree to some sort of Entente, and produce a document that will make it VERY clear to the Taliban: if anyone of us catches you helping and harboring terrorists, and radicalizing people, which later are sent overseas to trouble and harm the lives and freedoms of our countries again... you will not see the face of your enemy, your "fighters' will be vaporized with no chance of a fight. And basically carpet bomb any place with Taliban into sand. One can only hope that threat will be enough. The next less horrible scenario would be that a one-time example of Carpet bombing would suffice.

luckyone wrote:

Except now there's gobs of tweets, public statements, and executive orders that any half-witted political novice can cobble together in a counter ad with Trump's face all over it.

The defining moment for Trump. You're right, reading his asinine comments and then the oral vomitus out of Pompeo's pie hole should remind all of us just how thoroughly incompetent and buffoonish these GOP Superheroes were. They left a big hot steaming pile of dookie for Biden to deal with just like Bush Jr. and Rummy left for Obama. Rummy's even worse in my opinion. He had the lessons of Vietnam to draw from but clearly didn't learn a single lesson from that fiasco to better manage US involvement in Afghanistan. They shot their main load chasing Fedex Tube nukes in Iraq and went completely half-assed into Afghanistan thinking platitudes would defeat the Taliban. But in the end having to listen to a draft-dodging coward pontificate bellicose bullshit out of cheeto-stuffed face takes the cake.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51689443

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army

The Afghan Army with 180,000 not only cannot push back the Taliban, they cannot even hold territory.

IMO, it is clear that unless we keep troops in Afghanistan forever that the outcome is inevitable.

All this talk of carpet bombing will just scatter refugees in all directions.

Perhaps the elephant in the room is that the present Afghan govt has little or no real support.

I recall visiting Egypt in 2006. We visited Cairo where the majority of women either had their heads uncovered or wore a headscarf. A few days later, we were in Siwa, and most if not all women had their faces covered.

In many of these countries, the cities and countryside are in different centuries. The West consistently fails to grasp this point.

bennett123 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army

The Afghan Army with 180,000 not only cannot push back the Taliban, they cannot even hold territory.

IMO, it is clear that unless we keep troops in Afghanistan forever that the outcome is inevitable.

Obviously the Afghan troops are poorly trained, we do have to wonder where the millions budgeted to train them went, including deploying trainers to the region, what were they doing.

As you say, if the Afghan Army is less well trained than the Taleb, that does raise further questions.

bennett123 wrote:

As you say, if the Afghan Army is less well trained than the Taleb, that does raise further questions.

Lack of formal education, poor quality of candidates, and tribal allegiances all play a significant factor in the quality of the Afghan Army.

That, and a sprinkling of corruption.

Is it training or is it motivation ? Would you die for a cause you don't believe in, for a country that never existed ?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wouldn’t have a nickel’s worth different, just who happens to be in office when the inevitable happens. Biden’s been been wrong in every foreign policy issue over his entire career. He’ll be the only political figure associated with the fall of Saigon and Kabul. He voted against the Persian Gulf War of ‘91; for the Iraq invasion and against raiding OBL. Even a wind sock does better.

Uh huh. If it makes you feel better then keep telling that to yourself Galaxy. And you should be thankful that there’s ninnies on the internet holding war mongering idiots accountable. You romanticize the barbarism of the past, but I doubt you’d last a day in Ancient Rome. You’re lucky to live in these wimpy times.

CitizenJustin wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It wouldn’t have a nickel’s worth different, just who happens to be in office when the inevitable happens. Biden’s been been wrong in every foreign policy issue over his entire career. He’ll be the only political figure associated with the fall of Saigon and Kabul. He voted against the Persian Gulf War of ‘91; for the Iraq invasion and against raiding OBL. Even a wind sock does better.

Uh huh. If it makes you feel better then keep telling that to yourself Galaxy. And you should be thankful that there’s ninnies on the internet holding war mongering idiots accountable. You romanticize the barbarism of the past, but I doubt you’d last a day in Ancient Rome. You’re lucky to live in these wimpy times.

You quoted me, so read it and tell us where I “romanticize” ancient barbarism. The barbarism in question is coming from the Taliban. Are you hopeful Taliban 2.0 will educate women, become multi-cultural and Afghanistan is a future paradise? It won’t be, just the last 100 years repeated.

Do you have a substantive link showing Biden’s record isn’t a wind sock and he’s been wrong about every foreign policy question in the last 45 years, as Robert Gates is quoted?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... stion.html

If you grabbed the post, I’ll standby it. Imagine WW II fought today on the Internet—it wouldn’t have gotten past Sept 30, 1939. Churchill was a “war mongering idiot”, too.