c933103 wrote:

na wrote:

Why is it that the Afghan Army doesn't fight? Sorry to say, but it seems that country wants what's going on.

US failed with the amount of money and equipment they have. Afghanistan national army is in the same position as the US minus the equipment and funding. What make you think they can fight.

The Taliban are using crappy AK47's and pickup trucks, it's not exactly an advanced adversary.

Derico wrote:

And this will be the biggest cost for western nations from this. Who the he!! will ever want to put their skin on the line ever again for your far away country, when you will not help back when the time comes and it is clear to those countries that leaving behind those who helped you may lead to their slaughter, and not because of any innocent overlooking.

Already happened with the Kurds. and with various groups in Libya and other nations in the Magreb, that both the US and various European nations deserted.

It's their own country isn't it ? They're not helping us, they're helping themselves. The West didn't want to be some kind of colonial power staying forever, we wanted locals to take the matter into their own hands.

Aesma wrote:

c933103 wrote:

na wrote:

Why is it that the Afghan Army doesn't fight? Sorry to say, but it seems that country wants what's going on.

US failed with the amount of money and equipment they have. Afghanistan national army is in the same position as the US minus the equipment and funding. What make you think they can fight.

The Taliban are using crappy AK47's and pickup trucks, it's not exactly an advanced adversary.

Derico wrote:

And this will be the biggest cost for western nations from this. Who the he!! will ever want to put their skin on the line ever again for your far away country, when you will not help back when the time comes and it is clear to those countries that leaving behind those who helped you may lead to their slaughter, and not because of any innocent overlooking.

Already happened with the Kurds. and with various groups in Libya and other nations in the Magreb, that both the US and various European nations deserted.

It's their own country isn't it ? They're not helping us, they're helping themselves. The West didn't want to be some kind of colonial power staying forever, we wanted locals to take the matter into their own hands.

Afghanistan isn't one.

HAWK21M wrote:

Heard there is a deal being worked out and the existing govt will step down and hand over power to Taliban.

Next would be the creation of Greater Phustostan eliminating the Durand line.
Tough times ahead for the World.

Interesting thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunistan makes for an interesting read, especially its map of ethnicities.



I'm sure one could argue about exactly where the lines should be drawn, but the point is the political borders are clearly not in line with the ethnic borders and that will lead to ongoing tensions.

c933103 wrote:

A Vietnamese I know said they don't understand why some would compare the current situation in Afghanistan to Vietnam. In Afghanistan you have Taliban from before the engagement start to now end by retreating, trying but failing to defeat it, which was totally not what the Vietnam War was about.

I'm sorry they don't see parallels from their point of view, but I sure do from mine.

c933103 wrote:

Afghanistan isn't one.

Yes I agree, and that's why it was pointless. Maybe what should have happened, and same in Iraq, is an invasion, toppling of the Taliban (Saddam), then get away with a warning : support terrorists again, we come in again.

As for Vietnam, another name for that war is the Second Indochina War. The US could have learned from the First one already, lost by the French who were fighting with US support. But they didn't learn.

Aesma wrote:

It's their own country isn't it ? They're not helping us, they're helping themselves. The West didn't want to be some kind of colonial power staying forever, we wanted locals to take the matter into their own hands.

How well is this working in Iraq, the west still helping the Kurds have some independence or turning a blind eye to Turkey buffer zone?
Until the west accepts that the cultures drive the running of the country (government) things will remain the same.
The illusion that there was a western style government in Afghanistan with western values was just that, an illusion, billions spent on military and police training does not change that.
Unfortunately unlike Iraq, the amount of modern infrastructure in Afghanistan is / was lower than Iraq so the billions spent were not in infrastructure which the Taliban could keep and move the nation forward in their own time.
Audits will review where the bulk of the funds were spent, in the manufacture of the goods in the west, or the use of the goods in Afghanistan, if the former, then money well invested.

From Sky News:
US citizens in Kabul airport told to take shelter as reports of building taking fire

A security alert from the US embassy has warned the situation in Kabul is changing quickly, including at the airport.

It's where many diplomats and embassy staff are currently waiting to be ferried out of the country.

The embassy said it's heard reports of the airport taking fire and has told US citizens to shelter in place.

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO sans allies, I don’t think many other countries will be willing to help.

Depends. The US can invoke Article 5 of NATO, but something tells me the allies will reconsider how to respond. While many initially provided troops, the next time around, they may just provide logistics support. The UN may authorize a multi-nation coalition, provided there's a timeline and it's not a US-led effort. I think Iran, Pakistan, and China will want more of a say given that they share borders with the country.

Well, that was a successful 20 years of war.

Derico wrote:

And to play a brainstorming here: I keep hearing the figure that it only took 2,500 US troops to maintain the status-quo in Afghanistan. This is one of the main arguments made by those who advocated for an indefinite presence, basically the idea that it was minor deployment in the big picture.

I hear some criticism in the backchannels coming out of European capitals about the US decision, for various reasons from long term credibility, to the human rights situation post-departure, to a fear of a refugee wave hitting Europe again.. Assuming they are not so sold on the withdrawal (for the sake of this argument)...

Why wasn't it possible for the Europeans to assign 2,500 troops to replace the Americans? Why, apparently, was it not even considered? I would think that is a mission the European nations as a combined unit, in terms of budget and military power, could deal with rather easily.

This is my problem with the Europeans really. They do have the capabilities but they never exercise it. Well, if the problem of Afghanistan will disproportionately affect the EU, perhaps they should have, in all these years, prepared a plan-B AS WELL (with a scenario of US resolve flagging). Any military or government of any competence would have such plans somewhere in a drawer.

I doubt the Europeans will send much assistance to the US in terms of the problems in the Tri-Nations of Central America that cause so much trouble to them (El Salvador, Honduras in particular), because that problem is not really of a big impact.

France has more than 5000 troops in the Sahel already (along with some assistance from other countries) and things aren't stable there, against an enemy far less numerous and organised than the Taliban.

I doubt that number of 2500 troops to keep things "stable" in Afghanistan, I would say 10 times more, and more importantly, billions pouring in to corrupt everybody and for some to trickle down to Afghan soldiers seem to have been what's needed. The EU would never commit to spend money like that (and rightly so, since as we're seeing it doesn't do anything in the end).

slider wrote:

Well, that was a successful 20 years of war.

Lasted 10 years longer than the USSR. Putin must be having a hearty guffaw today.

Aesma wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Afghanistan isn't one.

Yes I agree, and that's why it was pointless. Maybe what should have happened, and same in Iraq, is an invasion, toppling of the Taliban (Saddam), then get away with a warning : support terrorists again, we come in again.

As for Vietnam, another name for that war is the Second Indochina War. The US could have learned from the First one already, lost by the French who were fighting with US support. But they didn't learn.

Iraq didn’t support terrorists. The entire invasion of Iraq was based on a fabrication of lies.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO sans allies, I don’t think many other countries will be willing to help.

Depends. The US can invoke Article 5 of NATO, but something tells me the allies will reconsider how to respond. While many initially provided troops, the next time around, they may just provide logistics support. The UN may authorize a multi-nation coalition, provided there's a timeline and it's not a US-led effort. I think Iran, Pakistan, and China will want more of a say given that they share borders with the country.

One of the talking heads on Sky News today thinks China will be one of the first countries to recognise the Taliban, the main reason is to stave off incursions into China from the long finer of Afghanistan that points into China.

I would be throughly disgusted if Norway or New Zealand ever joins a US lead incursion which does not directly affect either country, I don’t believe I’m even remotely alone in this opinion.

The US is still a military superpower but it no longer has any moral authority over anyone. This is the end of the American age.

Afghan president flees the country as Taliban move on Kabul

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan- ... c51b8e32a5

I believe that the extra Troops that Biden is sending in are not so much from fear about the Taliban, but more to keep secure our exit from Afghanistan citizens that would mob the exit operation. Now you think about that for a minute.

Aaron747 wrote:

slider wrote:

Well, that was a successful 20 years of war.

Lasted 10 years longer than the USSR. Putin must be having a hearty guffaw today.

I honestly can't believe the CIA tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/cia/status/13794370 ... KLSx1rwiXs

There must be a list somewhere of rebels we supported decades ago that we're fighting now...it'd be a long list.

Kiwirob wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO sans allies, I don’t think many other countries will be willing to help.

Depends. The US can invoke Article 5 of NATO, but something tells me the allies will reconsider how to respond. While many initially provided troops, the next time around, they may just provide logistics support. The UN may authorize a multi-nation coalition, provided there's a timeline and it's not a US-led effort. I think Iran, Pakistan, and China will want more of a say given that they share borders with the country.

One of the talking heads on Sky News today thinks China will be one of the first countries to recognise the Taliban, the main reason is to stave off incursions into China from the long finer of Afghanistan that points into China.

I would be throughly disgusted if Norway or New Zealand ever joins a US lead incursion which does not directly affect either country, I don’t believe I’m even remotely alone in this opinion.

The US is still a military superpower but it no longer has any moral authority over anyone. This is the end of the American age.

I don't know how the USA is ever trusted again militarily after Iraq/Afghanistan, never mind everything else.... Then again I don't know how an orange pathological narcissist grifter is trusted or how his party has become objectively pro pandemic and here we are.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO sans allies, I don’t think many other countries will be willing to help.

Depends. The US can invoke Article 5 of NATO, but something tells me the allies will reconsider how to respond. While many initially provided troops, the next time around, they may just provide logistics support. The UN may authorize a multi-nation coalition, provided there's a timeline and it's not a US-led effort. I think Iran, Pakistan, and China will want more of a say given that they share borders with the country.

Once you provide a timeline, all the Taliban have to do is yield a bit till the timeline expires.

Kiwirob wrote:

The US is still a military superpower but it no longer has any moral authority over anyone. This is the end of the American age.

In my opinion, GWB ended it long ago with his unilateral actions post-9/11. His father had the sense to build a coalition and only go as far as consensus would allow. GWB and his neo-con advisers didn't care to deal with building a coalition, they wanted what they wanted and they didn't care how they got it. So we get a made-up WMD cover story and off they go. They didn't care if it trashed America's moral authority long term.

It might be worth noting that Biden is just implementing the timeline Trump set down, troop withdrawal in August. The Afghans knew it was coming and it's clear they just didn't have the strength to defend themselves. Staying in the country another 20 years would have changed nothing, IMO.

Revelation wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO sans allies, I don’t think many other countries will be willing to help.

Depends. The US can invoke Article 5 of NATO, but something tells me the allies will reconsider how to respond. While many initially provided troops, the next time around, they may just provide logistics support. The UN may authorize a multi-nation coalition, provided there's a timeline and it's not a US-led effort. I think Iran, Pakistan, and China will want more of a say given that they share borders with the country.

Once you provide a timeline, all the Taliban have to do is yield a bit till the timeline expires.

Kiwirob wrote:

The US is still a military superpower but it no longer has any moral authority over anyone. This is the end of the American age.

In my opinion, GWB ended it long ago with his unilateral actions post-9/11. His father had the sense to build a coalition and only go as far as consensus would allow. GWB and his neo-con advisers didn't care to deal with building a coalition, they wanted what they wanted and they didn't care how they got it. So we get a made-up WMD cover story and off they go. They didn't care if it trashed America's moral authority long term.

It might be worth noting that Biden is just implementing the timeline Trump set down, troop withdrawal in August. The Afghans knew it was coming and it's clear they just didn't have the strength to defend themselves. Staying in the country another 20 years would have changed nothing, IMO.

This is really 90% on W and his circus and 10% on Trump/Biden, but as they say success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. It was always going to be the last guy holding the bag that would face the disaster.

Revelation wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

IMO sans allies, I don’t think many other countries will be willing to help.

Depends. The US can invoke Article 5 of NATO, but something tells me the allies will reconsider how to respond. While many initially provided troops, the next time around, they may just provide logistics support. The UN may authorize a multi-nation coalition, provided there's a timeline and it's not a US-led effort. I think Iran, Pakistan, and China will want more of a say given that they share borders with the country.

Once you provide a timeline, all the Taliban have to do is yield a bit till the timeline expires.

Kiwirob wrote:

The US is still a military superpower but it no longer has any moral authority over anyone. This is the end of the American age.

In my opinion, GWB ended it long ago with his unilateral actions post-9/11. His father had the sense to build a coalition and only go as far as consensus would allow. GWB and his neo-con advisers didn't care to deal with building a coalition, they wanted what they wanted and they didn't care how they got it. So we get a made-up WMD cover story and off they go. They didn't care if it trashed America's moral authority long term.

It might be worth noting that Biden is just implementing the timeline Trump set down, troop withdrawal in August. The Afghans knew it was coming and it's clear they just didn't have the strength to defend themselves. Staying in the country another 20 years would have changed nothing, IMO.

Biden could have slowed down the withdrawal, this is on him just as much as it’s on Trump.

The Afghans didn’t have the air support, none, it left.

Glad to be out of Afghanistan, no matter how messy. I say, let China figure it out.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Afghans didn’t have the air support, none, it left.

It wasn't going to stay under Biden or Trump or any other POTUS, it was too vulnerable once the ground troops began to leave.

The general idea was that Western Democracy would prevail over centuries of Islamic teachings about Sharia Law and the land would be pacified.

It never was a good idea, and after twenty years of trying one just has to admit it was never going to work and leave.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Glad to be out of Afghanistan, no matter how messy. I say, let China figure it out.

Yeah, good luck to them.

I think they'll throw around a bit of money to say they have some influence like they do in Pakistan and leave it at that.

I doubt they'll make it a giant money pit like we've done for twenty years.

Revelation wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Glad to be out of Afghanistan, no matter how messy. I say, let China figure it out.

Yeah, good luck to them.

I think they'll throw around a bit of money to say they have some influence like they do in Pakistan and leave it at that.

I doubt they'll make it a giant money pit like we've done for twenty years.

I'd rather throw money at India, and let India deal with China and Pakistan.

Revelation wrote:

Staying in the country another 20 years would have changed nothing, IMO.

I think this one of the most central questions and personally believe the opposite. I don't know if 20 years more or 40 more or even longer would have been necessary but I want to belive that with enough time fundamental change could have been possible. I want to belive that values of freedom, of tolerance or in other words values of human rights is something most people would aspire too if given enough time. Unfortunately I might be totally wrong about the power of those rights and as you said if the Nato forces stayed 20 years more, the exact same fiasco would have happened when they exit.

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

Aesma wrote:

Derico wrote:

And to play a brainstorming here: I keep hearing the figure that it only took 2,500 US troops to maintain the status-quo in Afghanistan. This is one of the main arguments made by those who advocated for an indefinite presence, basically the idea that it was minor deployment in the big picture.

I hear some criticism in the backchannels coming out of European capitals about the US decision, for various reasons from long term credibility, to the human rights situation post-departure, to a fear of a refugee wave hitting Europe again.. Assuming they are not so sold on the withdrawal (for the sake of this argument)...

Why wasn't it possible for the Europeans to assign 2,500 troops to replace the Americans? Why, apparently, was it not even considered? I would think that is a mission the European nations as a combined unit, in terms of budget and military power, could deal with rather easily.

This is my problem with the Europeans really. They do have the capabilities but they never exercise it. Well, if the problem of Afghanistan will disproportionately affect the EU, perhaps they should have, in all these years, prepared a plan-B AS WELL (with a scenario of US resolve flagging). Any military or government of any competence would have such plans somewhere in a drawer.

I doubt the Europeans will send much assistance to the US in terms of the problems in the Tri-Nations of Central America that cause so much trouble to them (El Salvador, Honduras in particular), because that problem is not really of a big impact.

France has more than 5000 troops in the Sahel already (along with some assistance from other countries) and things aren't stable there, against an enemy far less numerous and organised than the Taliban.

I doubt that number of 2500 troops to keep things "stable" in Afghanistan, I would say 10 times more, and more importantly, billions pouring in to corrupt everybody and for some to trickle down to Afghan soldiers seem to have been what's needed. The EU would never commit to spend money like that (and rightly so, since as we're seeing it doesn't do anything in the end).

I know the French are involved in Magreb and the Sahel, so get the Germans, Italians, Spanish, Dutch to put more weight on Afghanistan, of course if they had reservations about the whole situation and the departure.

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Staying in the country another 20 years would have changed nothing, IMO.

I think this one of the most central questions and personally believe the opposite. I don't know if 20 years more or 40 more or even longer would have been necessary but I want to belive that with enough time fundamental change could have been possible. I want to belive that values of freedom, of tolerance or in other words values of human rights is something most people would aspire too if given enough time. Unfortunately I might be totally wrong about the power of those rights and as you said if the Nato forces stayed 20 years more, the exact same fiasco would have happened when they exit.

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

I have no doubt it's possible but the US was doing it the wrong way, by bribing everyone around. If you have a long term plan, then eliminating corruption has to be part of it. People have to see that there are rules, that they apply to everybody, and that it's positive.

c933103 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

aerosreenivas wrote:

It is surprising that despite the last two decades of US and NATO forces training Afghan Army Forces, they still couldn't defend their country from the Taliban.

na wrote:

Taliban are fighting, but the Army not? Ridiculous. What kind of "soldiers" have been employed and trained there if the white flag is the only weapon they use? I think its good that the Allies have left this awful place that always has been one. If only a small percentage of the population wants to live like civilized people, and those even are not willing to fight then it useless to hold on to such country.

Exactly the same thing that happened with the South Vietnam Army, so it should be no surprise.[quote="c933103"]

In Vietnam the US Forces withdrew years before the Vietcong beat the Army of corrupted South Vietnam.
In Afghanistan it happens directly after the Allies left, and it shows that the training the Allies gave to the Afghan Army was utterly worthless. The Afghan "Army" or whatever you want to call that useless bunch of uniformed men has no honor whatsoever.

Interesting article from the Guardian from last Friday:

Rift with US grows as UK minister voices fears over Afghanistan exit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... istan-exit

According to the article the UK looked to form an alliance of the willing without the US:

Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, revealed in remarkably frank interviews on Friday that the UK was so aghast at the US decision to withdraw completely from Afghanistan next month that it had canvassed other Nato allies to see if there was support for a reconfigured alliance to continue the stabilisation force in Afghanistan without the US.
....
Wallace revealed that once other Nato allies – understood to include France and Germany – had rejected forming a coalition of the willing without the US, the UK concluded that it could not go it alone.

There is certainly a fondamental logistics proplem. The US is simply the only country that has the logistics to sustain a war operation at such a scale in a far away country. Hence without US involment massive capabilities would first have to be built.
Also without the US, the involment of those 5 countries is a must in my opinion: Canada, Australia, UK, France and Germany.
The UK seemed to be willing. I have no clue about Canada and Australia. And from the article, Germany and France weren't willing.

For Germany a problem might be that they still have a hinderance from WW2. I think German society has taken responsability for the crimes committed by the Nazi and can't just switch back to a more agressif stance. It is my understanding that in international operation German troups are less involved in direct confrontation and are more involved in logistics and medical support (my assessment might be wrong and I'm happy to be corrected by members that know better).

For the French I think that there engagement in the Sahel is already streching there resources and that they don't feel that the can provide further resources for Afghanistan (It also my belief that the French engagement in the Sahel was the reason they left Afghanistan much earlier).
For both Germany and France there are also election soon....

Of course the reason other Nato allies weren't interested might also simply be that they believe what most believe here: staying longer would only have delayed but not changed the outcome we see now.

It would also be really interesting to know if Trump, and later Biden, talked with there Nato allies. From the news at least one get the feeling, that they never were consulted. Even the possibility of sharing the burden more, doesn't seem to have been considered....

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

na wrote:

it shows that the training the Allies gave to the Afghan Army was utterly worthless.

A cynic might argue that the training the USA gave to the mujahedeen/taleban was highly successful. The USA taught them how to defeat the soviet union. A lesson they then used against their teachers.

petertenthije wrote:

na wrote:

it shows that the training the Allies gave to the Afghan Army was utterly worthless.

A cynic might argue that the training the USA gave to the mujahedeen/taleban was highly successful. The USA taught them how to defeat the soviet union. A lesson they then used against their teachers.

Thats no news. Taliban are still Guerilla.
News is the utter worthlessness of the Afghan Army, the unwillingness of the non-Taliban Afghans to fight. It did not expect cowardice to happen on that magnitude.

US: "How much Afghan long-term patriotism can we buy with these pallets of cash???"

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

Interesting article from the Guardian from last Friday:

Rift with US grows as UK minister voices fears over Afghanistan exit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... istan-exit

According to the article the UK looked to form an alliance of the willing without the US:

Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, revealed in remarkably frank interviews on Friday that the UK was so aghast at the US decision to withdraw completely from Afghanistan next month that it had canvassed other Nato allies to see if there was support for a reconfigured alliance to continue the stabilisation force in Afghanistan without the US.
....
Wallace revealed that once other Nato allies – understood to include France and Germany – had rejected forming a coalition of the willing without the US, the UK concluded that it could not go it alone.

With Brexit and how UK leaders handled it, the fear mongering about an "EU army" etc., and on the other hand the fanboyism regarding the US and Trump, the UK has burnt bridges that could have been helpful right now.

But to be honest it would have been possible only with France, and France is already fighting another war in North Africa and left Afghanistan long ago despite having been extremely committed at the beginning of that war (Chirac was the first foreign head of state to visit NYC after 9/11), sending the CDG carrier, so it was never going to happen. If anything Ben Wallace is just going through the motions to be sure he doesn't get any blame.

slider wrote:

Well, that was a successful 20 years of war.

On one hand it was, lots of companies made tons of money. War is profitable. Should have been over under Bush, but they liked to keep the business going.

SRQLOT wrote:

slider wrote:

Well, that was a successful 20 years of war.

On one hand it was, lots of companies made tons of money. War is profitable. Should have been over under Bush, but they liked to keep the business going.

Please stand for the national anthem now as we salute our Lockheed-Boeing-Northrop troops. Something something freedom!

Aesma wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

Interesting article from the Guardian from last Friday:

Rift with US grows as UK minister voices fears over Afghanistan exit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... istan-exit

According to the article the UK looked to form an alliance of the willing without the US:

Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, revealed in remarkably frank interviews on Friday that the UK was so aghast at the US decision to withdraw completely from Afghanistan next month that it had canvassed other Nato allies to see if there was support for a reconfigured alliance to continue the stabilisation force in Afghanistan without the US.
....
Wallace revealed that once other Nato allies – understood to include France and Germany – had rejected forming a coalition of the willing without the US, the UK concluded that it could not go it alone.

With Brexit and how UK leaders handled it, the fear mongering about an "EU army" etc., and on the other hand the fanboyism regarding the US and Trump, the UK has burnt bridges that could have been helpful right now.

But to be honest it would have been possible only with France, and France is already fighting another war in North Africa and left Afghanistan long ago despite having been extremely committed at the beginning of that war (Chirac was the first foreign head of state to visit NYC after 9/11), sending the CDG carrier, so it was never going to happen. If anything Ben Wallace is just going through the motions to be sure he doesn't get any blame.

I personally don't believe Brexit and general British anti-EU attitude have much consequences when such decision are taken. I read in some french newspaper that when considering military matters, France and UK are still really close and that both governments, after Brexit in 2016, immediately made sure their aggrements concerning defence were update fast.

Considering your second point I fully agree (I think I said about the same in my post). I just would add that in my opinion both retreat from the French troups from Afghanistan and engagement in the Sahel region were linked and cordinated with Nato in a sort of task sharing: US and big part of Nato trying to stabilise Afghanistan, France with some support by Nato members trying to stabilise the Sahel.

Unfortunately both can't boost much success. While we unfortunately just learned that Afghanistan failed, we perhaps can learn something for the Sahel.
One thing is sure, if the French would leave know, Mali, Tchad and Niger would fall immediately (well Tchad would at least be a terible masacre, there president basically a warlord - I think a definition still true for the son). And the conequences for the Maghreb, especially Lybia, but also Burkina Faso, Cameron, Central Africa, DRC, and others possibly so dramatic that Afghanistan suddenly looks like a bad joke (possible half of Africa ruled by Isis affiliated or in terrible civil war, think Christian country with 20% Muslim poulation)...OMG that sounds really bad. Just hope that I'm wrong!!!

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

Derico wrote:

This is my problem with the Europeans really. They do have the capabilities but they never exercise it. Well, if the problem of Afghanistan will disproportionately affect the EU, perhaps they should have, in all these years, prepared a plan-B AS WELL (with a scenario of US resolve flagging). Any military or government of any competence would have such plans somewhere in a drawer.

We Europeans aren’t just as warmongering as the US. And talking about competence: your plans in Afghanistan and later on in Iraq weren’t a proof of success either. Starting some fake wars just to support your weapons industry and sucking other countries into it under the guise of “the war against terror”
Too much European men died in Afghanistan in vain because of your “competent” foreign politics.

I doubt the Europeans will send much assistance to the US in terms of the problems in the Tri-Nations of Central America that cause so much trouble to them (El Salvador, Honduras in particular), because that problem is not really of a big impact.

The European foreign politicy of the last decades aren’t the cause of what is happening in Central America. The USA made a huge mess of great parts of the Middle East and surrounding areas. IMHO a non-insignificant detail…..

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Glad to be out of Afghanistan, no matter how messy. I say, let China figure it out.

In the end, China has only a small sliver of a border with Afghanistan and crossing it is easier said than done. However, I DO see an opening for China to flex its muscle into central Asia; will India allow it or will it try to put its mark? I see Pakistan as gaining a lot either way: if India wants to leave its mark, it needs to go through Pakistan from which Pakistan can extract some concessions (maybe put an end to the Kashmir conflict)? Otherwise, Pakistan will be only too happy to let China use it as a base to build Afghanistan while keeping India out.

Revelation wrote:

The general idea was that Western Democracy would prevail over centuries of Islamic teachings about Sharia Law and the land would be pacified.

It never was a good idea, and after twenty years of trying one just has to admit it was never going to work and leave.

A video on YouTube sheds light on something that's been overlooked: Afghans simply don't have a national unity. After the downfall of the monarchy and the constant gorilla fighting, each province became semi-independent. People rarely traveled and when they did, it was usually to Kabul or another major city. During the Taliban years, travel was effectively restricted so people weren't really concerned with how other provinces were doing. The fledgling central governments simply had no resources to influence the provinces beyond Kabul and did not strive to create unity among the people (Karzai can be thought of as the only one who tried by wearing pieces of clothing representative of each major demographic in the country). That in turn could explain why these provincial governments fell so quickly and why the military never worked: they were Afghan soldiers but they had no sense of duty to the country, just to their area.

Some embraced democracy, but it seems it was more of a sham. So long as a military power protected them, they were happy to go along. Once that military departed, they had no idea on how to keep the show running or whether they wanted it to.

Kiwirob wrote:

Biden could have slowed down the withdrawal, this is on him just as much as it’s on Trump.

If after 20 years the Afghans couldn't take care of themselves, a few months wouldn't have made the difference. Let's not forget, Trump actually wanted a speedy withdrawal with the troops back home by Christmas 2020. The Afghans had nearly a year to assume command (more if you think about how the US has been drawing down troops since the latter Obama years); if they weren't ready, then they were never able to defend their country.

Revelation wrote:

Once you provide a timeline, all the Taliban have to do is yield a bit till the timeline expires.

Not a timeline for withdrawal, but a timeline of operations. Training the troops and then slowly letting them assume control over operations, province by province. Kinda like teaching a kid how to ride without training wheels: you let go for a bit but you're still close by and stabilize if the kid loses their balance. Eventually you can follow closely from behind until the point when they're doing their own thing. Oversimplifying the situation, of course, but far better than an all out withdrawal.

Derico wrote:

And to play a brainstorming here: I keep hearing the figure that it only took 2,500 US troops to maintain the status-quo in Afghanistan. This is one of the main arguments made by those who advocated for an indefinite presence, basically the idea that it was minor deployment in the big picture.

I hear some criticism in the backchannels coming out of European capitals about the US decision, for various reasons from long term credibility, to the human rights situation post-departure, to a fear of a refugee wave hitting Europe again.. Assuming they are not so sold on the withdrawal (for the sake of this argument)...

Why wasn't it possible for the Europeans to assign 2,500 troops to replace the Americans? Why, apparently, was it not even considered? I would think that is a mission the European nations as a combined unit, in terms of budget and military power, could deal with rather easily.

This is my problem with the Europeans really. They do have the capabilities but they never exercise it. Well, if the problem of Afghanistan will disproportionately affect the EU, perhaps they should have, in all these years, prepared a plan-B AS WELL (with a scenario of US resolve flagging). Any military or government of any competence would have such plans somewhere in a drawer.

I doubt the Europeans will send much assistance to the US in terms of the problems in the Tri-Nations of Central America that cause so much trouble to them (El Salvador, Honduras in particular), because that problem is not really of a big impact.

The Europeans shouldn’t need to clean up after the “war of the willing” that the USA and some allies waged. Nor should they be criticised for not sending troops in after the allies have run away from their war of the willing.

So this is Mission Accomplished is it? Massive disappointment. What happens to the Afghan people who helped our people, interpreters, etc? It’s ridiculous that they are just left to their fate.

na wrote:

In Vietnam the US Forces withdrew years before the Vietcong beat the Army of corrupted South Vietnam.
In Afghanistan it happens directly after the Allies left, and it shows that the training the Allies gave to the Afghan Army was utterly worthless.
The Afghan "Army" or whatever you want to call that useless bunch of uniformed men has no honor whatsoever.

Such an odd set of conclusions. You blame the training then you blame the men's honor, it could be both, it could be either, it could be neither.

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

The US is simply the only country that has the logistics to sustain a war operation at such a scale in a far away country. Hence without US involment massive capabilities would first have to be built.

No surprise to many of us who participated in the A400M threads. EU showed the goal wasn't to step up their game.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Let's not forget, Trump actually wanted a speedy withdrawal with the troops back home by Christmas 2020. The Afghans had nearly a year to assume command (more if you think about how the US has been drawing down troops since the latter Obama years); if they weren't ready, then they were never able to defend their country.

Yes, this was the same idea as "Vietnamization" of the Nixon era, try to get the locals to carry the load as we find our way to the doors. Didn't work then, didn't work now, for similar reasons: the government did not have the hearts and minds of the people. In the case of Vietnam it was nationalism wrapped in communism that held sway, in the case of Afghanistan it was the local flavor of Islam that held sway.

Revelation wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

The US is simply the only country that has the logistics to sustain a war operation at such a scale in a far away country. Hence without US involment massive capabilities would first have to be built.

No surprise to many of us who participated in the A400M threads.

The USA wants those capabilities to enforce the world their Pax Americana. Their western allies were useful for that purpose, but that doesn’t mean the USA would let it happen that Europe would take it over. With Trump we have seen how unpredictable and unloyal the USA can be with a blink of an eye.

https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1427002551858311173

Wow. I'm just speechless. This is Saigon all over again

slider wrote:

Well, that was a successful 20 years of war.

Sarcasm at its best

Please avoid using bigoted language. It's unrelated to the discussion, and it's not welcome on this site.

✈️ atcsundevil

marcelh wrote:

Revelation wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

The US is simply the only country that has the logistics to sustain a war operation at such a scale in a far away country. Hence without US involment massive capabilities would first have to be built.

No surprise to many of us who participated in the A400M threads.

The USA wants those capabilities to enforce the world their Pax Americana. Their western allies were useful for that purpose, but that doesn’t mean the USA would let it happen that Europe would take it over. With Trump we have seen how unpredictable and unloyal the USA can be with a blink of an eye.

Pax Americana is dead for a long time. America's credibility as a reliable, focused player on the international stage hasn't existed in decades. While it is easy to whine and blame Biden for the collapse of Afghanistan and the country reverting to Taliban control, it's so obvious in the speed with which it happened that the US involvement there never lacked any substance and was always conducted through the lens of American thinking over a real understanding of the problem, the players, the landscape.

The time for America to act in Afghanistan was in the weeks after 9/11. The Bush Administration could have and should have gone into Afghanistan within days or weeks, with a ground force backed by air superiority, and not beg the Taliban to "cough him up" as they so eloquently did in their Texas twang on national TV. But, putting troops on the ground in Afghanistan would have looked terrible on the evening news and so the typical American practicality of an air war combined with an outright lie that Iraq was the culprit....and we know what happened. All the US has accomplished in twenty years of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan is to further destabilize the region and make an even bigger mess. Perhaps it was wrong to leave Afghanistan the way the US has done but how many more US lives, money, and effort needed to be expended here?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... people-out

It's amazing that all the intelligence reports that the White House was getting regarding how long the Afghan military would hold out for was not worth the paper they were printed on. Good God. This whole situation is in military terminology FUBAR.

Why is the world so obsessed with Afghanistan? If they don’t want freedom and the natives don’t mind to be ruled by a group of terrorist, then why bother? It’s a waste of US Tax dollars to send in US troops.

I just don’t think we should intervene if a country doesn’t want any democracy and we wasted 20 years of fighting a religious war that we never should have fought.

The Russians even lost to the Taliban back in the 1980s. So we the US has lost this one as well.

And as for 9/11, it wasn’t the Taliban, all those were from Saudi Arabia. They found the passports of those hijackers and there’s proof that there were Saudi Arabian nationals.

So to make matters worse, we were even fighting the wrong enemy for 20 years.

Well 20 years ago there was a legitimate reason to go there (in fact it started under Clinton) because Al Qaeda and Ben Laden were based there and the Taliban were aiding and abetting.

The Russians had lost to the Taliban and so we did too.

I think we should just leave them as it is and only let the special intelligence groups like JSOC to keep an eye on them. As for the rest of the troops, it’s time to just go home. That’s it.

wardialer wrote:

The Russians had lost to the Taliban and so we did too.

I think we should just leave them as it is and only let the special intelligence groups like JSOC to keep an eye on them. As for the rest of the troops, it’s time to just go home. That’s it.

It’s pretty clear we shouldn’t have been in Afghanistan after OBL turned up quite literally in the backyard of the Pakistani military. Meanwhile, I’m curious to know just exactly who cashed in on all that heroin that’s been pouring out of Afghanistan the last twenty years after it stopped funding the Taliban…

alberchico wrote:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42001/fall-of-kabul-to-taliban-imminent-as-surprised-united-states-races-to-get-its-people-out

It's amazing that all the intelligence reports that the White House was getting regarding how long the Afghan military would hold out for was not worth the paper they were printed on. Good God. This whole situation is in military terminology FUBAR.

It was FUBAR a decade ago--we just had multiple administrations lying to us about how Vietghanistan was going because any reversal would lead to this exact situation.

wardialer wrote:

The Russians had lost to the Taliban and so we did too.

I think we should just leave them as it is and only let the special intelligence groups like JSOC to keep an eye on them. As for the rest of the troops, it’s time to just go home. That’s it.

This is factually wrong. The Taliban were not founded until 1994. You're talking about the mujahadeen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War