The Taliban leader (who has a Twitter account!) will be sworn in as President shortly.

Afghanistan/Kabul fell, largely because they didn’t have close air support (CAS) to assist ANY ground elements. So no one manned a post! Fact: The Taliban used HUMINT to find out where pilots lived and they EXECUTED them publicly.

Kabul is a city of millions, like a Los Angeles, but it’ll fall before noon EST (1600hrs ZULU TIME). KNOW THIS: Not just pilots are being executed in and around Kabul. We’re now seeing a human rights shit hole emerge that resembles the atrocities of ISIS at the zenith of their head chopping caliphate. ….Kabul is now the hostage holding center of the planet.

Now the Taliban will have the full (US Tax Payer funded!) arsenal of vehicles, helos, small arms, explosives, munitions, etc. of the Afghan & US military. This is the point where External Operations (Ex-Ops) attacks, or proliferation of same to other groups willing to conduct Ex-Ops (read: Terror Attacks!) on US or allied interests at home and abroad become a terminal and viable threat.

Just wait until the Taliban’s leader is installed as President of Afghanistan. It’s going to make the Arab Spring look like a Girl Scout picnic…..

You’re witnessing the birth of a new era of terror. “Terror 3.0.” Fact: the conditions are actually better now for the Taliban than AQI had in 2008 when it restructured to ISI, and the results will be worse. You also have to remember that ISIS had Iran/SMGs, the U.S./Kurds, Assad Regime/Russians as hard counters to their efforts. Who does the Taliban have as a hard counter now? Hell: Just 72 hours ago they spoke of the idea of Kabul falling in under 90 days. How about under 90 hours? ………YEP: We are witnessing the birth of something that history will judge as FAR worse than MB/Morsi Egypt and the ISIS caliphate “combined.”

wardialer wrote:

This is the point where External Operations (Ex-Ops) attacks, or proliferation of same to other groups willing to conduct Ex-Ops (read: Terror Attacks!) on US or allied interests at home and abroad become a terminal and viable threat.

Personally I never thought islamic terrorism per se to be an existential threat to the US. Apart from all the gun deaths, the domestic terrorism and the drug crises which kill a considerably larger magnitude of people and cost considerably more, the US’ paranoia from terrorism (and the associated knee jerk reactions from the people and its government) are probably the biggest threat to the country.

wardialer wrote:

Now the Taliban will have the full (US Tax Payer funded!) arsenal of vehicles, helos, small arms, explosives, munitions, etc. of the Afghan & US military. This is the point where External Operations (Ex-Ops) attacks, or proliferation of same to other groups willing to conduct Ex-Ops (read: Terror Attacks!) on US or allied interests at home and abroad become a terminal and viable threat.

I’d be very curious to see how they plan to source spares, pilots, and maintenance personnel for the more advanced gear.

For all the hype surrounding pictures of Taliban with blackhawks, they might as well be standing next to space shuttles.

The rest…well, that’s the military industrial complex at work.

As for any sort of retaliation or attacks directly from the Taliban…doubt it. They may not be the most advanced military force, but I’m sure they haven’t immediately forgotten that despite how quickly they took control back…back in 2001, they lost it even faster.

MaverickM11 wrote:

DTVG wrote:

wardialer wrote:

This is the point where External Operations (Ex-Ops) attacks, or proliferation of same to other groups willing to conduct Ex-Ops (read: Terror Attacks!) on US or allied interests at home and abroad become a terminal and viable threat.

Personally I never thought islamic terrorism per se to be an existential threat to the US. Apart from all the gun deaths, the domestic terrorism and the drug crises which kill a considerably larger magnitude of people and cost considerably more, the US’ paranoia from terrorism (and the associated knee jerk reactions from the people and its government) are probably the biggest threat to the country.

Right wing terrorism has proven to be far more dangerous, by magnitudes and multiples than islamic--and any other source of terrorism combined.

In the fevered dreams of the progressive left, maybe, in the real world—male bovine fecal matter.

FGITD wrote:

wardialer wrote:

Now the Taliban will have the full (US Tax Payer funded!) arsenal of vehicles, helos, small arms, explosives, munitions, etc. of the Afghan & US military. This is the point where External Operations (Ex-Ops) attacks, or proliferation of same to other groups willing to conduct Ex-Ops (read: Terror Attacks!) on US or allied interests at home and abroad become a terminal and viable threat.

I’d be very curious to see how they plan to source spares, pilots, and maintenance personnel for the more advanced gear.

For all the hype surrounding pictures of Taliban with blackhawks, they might as well be standing next to space shuttles.

The rest…well, that’s the military industrial complex at work.

As for any sort of retaliation or attacks directly from the Taliban…doubt it. They may not be the most advanced military force, but I’m sure they haven’t immediately forgotten that despite how quickly they took control back…back in 2001, they lost it even faster.

They can ask China to help reverse engineering and make copies of parts for them

DTVG wrote:

wardialer wrote:

This is the point where External Operations (Ex-Ops) attacks, or proliferation of same to other groups willing to conduct Ex-Ops (read: Terror Attacks!) on US or allied interests at home and abroad become a terminal and viable threat.

Personally I never thought islamic terrorism per se to be an existential threat to the US. Apart from all the gun deaths, the domestic terrorism and the drug crises which kill a considerably larger magnitude of people and cost considerably more, the US’ paranoia from terrorism (and the associated knee jerk reactions from the people and its government) are probably the biggest threat to the country.

Terrorism threaten a society's stability, without ability to control that, tjat would be the situation of Afghanistan before Taliban success in taking over the country, where people cannot feel assured by theor daily life, and thus mentally affecting the operation of society
Is it not the type of impact you expect "right wing terrorism" to cause when you use such term?

It’s China’s turn. If they play by the rules, they’ll waste billions like the rest of us. If they don’t, we’ll be getting our iPhones from Afghanistan inside of 5 years. They have mining interests in Afghanistan. Will be interesting to see their response. They talk like we did, but they are less likely to accept failure.

Incredible piece here by an angry veteran:

https://laurajedeed.medium.com/afghanis ... 3f099b00e5

I remember Afghanistan well. I deployed there twice — once in 2008, and again in 2009–2010. It was already obvious that the Taliban would sweep through the very instant we left. And here we are today.

Aaron747 wrote:

Incredible piece here by an angry veteran:

https://laurajedeed.medium.com/afghanis ... 3f099b00e5

I remember Afghanistan well. I deployed there twice — once in 2008, and again in 2009–2010. It was already obvious that the Taliban would sweep through the very instant we left. And here we are today.

I’d imagine there will many of these coming out. Too many gave too much.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Then why did Pompeo not answer to Wallace's questions about the Taliban deals, and why did the GOP remove their Ra Ra informercial on the deal from their website? If the deal was something to be proud of, why was it scrubbed?

I'm not their mouthpiece. I have no clue, and it's irrelevant isn't it? We are where we are despite your deflections. History ain't gonna be kind on this.

You want to blame the latest president for decisions and intel breakdowns that lead to a US withdrawal?

You are admitting incompetence in the Trump administration, but are laying all the blame at Biden's feet?

Sorry, but this is 1000% the Biden administration's to own. He is the commander in chief now. Period. He failed to execute a strategic exit plan, plain and simple.

Slug71 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I'm not their mouthpiece. I have no clue, and it's irrelevant isn't it? We are where we are despite your deflections. History ain't gonna be kind on this.

You want to blame the latest president for decisions and intel breakdowns that lead to a US withdrawal?

You are admitting incompetence in the Trump administration, but are laying all the blame at Biden's feet?

Sorry, but this is 1000% the Biden administration's to own. He is the commander in chief now. Period. He failed to execute a strategic exit plan, plain and simple.

Sorry this kind of take is neither serious or reasonable. Every administration since 2001 is responsible. Partisans eager to hit Biden for whatever are trying to oversimplify a doomed 20-year affair into one exit play. That’s not how foreign policy of this scale works.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 19776?s=21

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You want to blame the latest president for decisions and intel breakdowns that lead to a US withdrawal?

You are admitting incompetence in the Trump administration, but are laying all the blame at Biden's feet?

Sorry, but this is 1000% the Biden administration's to own. He is the commander in chief now. Period. He failed to execute a strategic exit plan, plain and simple.

Sorry this kind of take is neither serious or reasonable. Every administration since 2001 is responsible. Partisans eager to hit Biden for whatever are trying to oversimplify a doomed 20-year affair into one exit play. That’s not how foreign policy of this scale works.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 19776?s=21

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

Slug71 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Sorry, but this is 1000% the Biden administration's to own. He is the commander in chief now. Period. He failed to execute a strategic exit plan, plain and simple.

Sorry this kind of take is neither serious or reasonable. Every administration since 2001 is responsible. Partisans eager to hit Biden for whatever are trying to oversimplify a doomed 20-year affair into one exit play. That’s not how foreign policy of this scale works.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 19776?s=21

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming in public that the situation was stable for exit (untrue) and DoS moving glacially on preparations for getting Afghan helpers out. The writing was already on the wall as to how any exit would play with the rapid reconstitution of the Taliban under Trump.

Ultimately most security analysts say 2004-5 was the best time for exit, but the 43 administration was too busy with Iraq at the time.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

DTVG wrote:

Personally I never thought islamic terrorism per se to be an existential threat to the US. Apart from all the gun deaths, the domestic terrorism and the drug crises which kill a considerably larger magnitude of people and cost considerably more, the US’ paranoia from terrorism (and the associated knee jerk reactions from the people and its government) are probably the biggest threat to the country.

Right wing terrorism has proven to be far more dangerous, by magnitudes and multiples than islamic--and any other source of terrorism combined.

In the fevered dreams of the progressive left, maybe, in the real world—male bovine fecal matter.

In the real world there are actual statistics that confirm this, and have for decades. The former guy’s acting secretary of DHS confirmed it even:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -wolf-says

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sorry this kind of take is neither serious or reasonable. Every administration since 2001 is responsible. Partisans eager to hit Biden for whatever are trying to oversimplify a doomed 20-year affair into one exit play. That’s not how foreign policy of this scale works.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 19776?s=21

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming publically that the situation was stable for exit (untrue).

As Baghdad Bob as it was to say that, what else could he have said?

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Sorry this kind of take is neither serious or reasonable. Every administration since 2001 is responsible. Partisans eager to hit Biden for whatever are trying to oversimplify a doomed 20-year affair into one exit play. That’s not how foreign policy of this scale works.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 19776?s=21

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming publically that the situation was stable for exit (untrue) and DoS moving glacially on preparations for getting Afghan helpers out. The writing was already on the wall as to how any exit would play with the rapid reconstitution of the Taliban under Trump.

Ultimately most security analysts say 2004-5 was the best time for exit, but the 43 administration was too busy with Iraq at the time.

That could be accurate. I haven't looked much into it. I agree we should have left long ago, and never went to Iraq.

But then we should have stayed until the next best window. I'm sure there was plenty of intel and briefings to suit, that led all the way up to the point of withdrawal.

Slug71 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming publically that the situation was stable for exit (untrue) and DoS moving glacially on preparations for getting Afghan helpers out. The writing was already on the wall as to how any exit would play with the rapid reconstitution of the Taliban under Trump.

Ultimately most security analysts say 2004-5 was the best time for exit, but the 43 administration was too busy with Iraq at the time.

That could be accurate. I haven't looked much into it. I agree we should have left long ago, and never went to Iraq.

But then we should have stayed until the next best window. I'm sure there was plenty of intel and briefings to suit, that led all the way up to the point of withdrawal.

Not possible - desertion and morale drift accelerated in the Afghan army after Pompeo’s meetings with the Taliban in 2019 and negotiated release of Taliban prisoners. Stay another how-many years? There is no public appetite for that in the US body politic.

And then you have disgusting takes like this. Someone needs to put Charlie Kirk on a barren island somewhere.

https://twitter.com/jasonscampbell/stat ... 81957?s=21

MaverickM11 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Right wing terrorism has proven to be far more dangerous, by magnitudes and multiples than islamic--and any other source of terrorism combined.

In the fevered dreams of the progressive left, maybe, in the real world—male bovine fecal matter.

In the real world there are actual statistics that confirm this, and have for decades. The former guy’s acting secretary of DHS confirmed it even:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -wolf-says

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming publically that the situation was stable for exit (untrue).

As Baghdad Bob as it was to say that, what else could he have said?

Tell the PR people to shut their scriptbooks and give it to the public straight.

“Based on current assessments, there is a strong possibility the Taliban will take control of the government in due course. This is not desirable but impossible to stop without a serious rededication of major commitments of indefinite duration. The American people have been clear this is not a time for enhanced engagement. We should not be surprised to see difficult scenes unfold in the coming months”

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming publically that the situation was stable for exit (untrue) and DoS moving glacially on preparations for getting Afghan helpers out. The writing was already on the wall as to how any exit would play with the rapid reconstitution of the Taliban under Trump.

Ultimately most security analysts say 2004-5 was the best time for exit, but the 43 administration was too busy with Iraq at the time.

That could be accurate. I haven't looked much into it. I agree we should have left long ago, and never went to Iraq.

But then we should have stayed until the next best window. I'm sure there was plenty of intel and briefings to suit, that led all the way up to the point of withdrawal.

Not possible - desertion and morale drift accelerated in the Afghan army after Pompeo’s meetings with the Taliban in 2019 and negotiated release of Taliban prisoners. Stay another how-many years? There is no public appetite for that in the US body politic.

It appears morale was down because they weren't being paid and they weren't sufficiently armed, yet put in the thick of it.
Look at the group of commandos that were just recently slaughtered. The ran out of ammunition and ended up being captured.

At least another year, or until the exit plan was revised sufficiently to avoid the bloodshed that is likely to come.

Dutchy wrote:

[
Afghanistan was a multi-national effort. The problem here (and in Iraq among others) is that defeating the enemy isn't all that hard, it is nation-building that is hard. The US didn't have a plan when they got into Afghanistan after the Taliban was defeated. And now to hear Biden say: "We weren't there to build a nation, but to protect US soil" is very harsh. The US has asked many nations to join them - even triggered article five of the NATO manifest for the first time. The Dutch have lost around 20 soldiers in Afghanistan, which is huge for a small nation as ours. And it seems to be all for nothing.

We will see what will happen in the coming days and weeks and months. It isn't unthinkable that a new "ISIS" like regime will be in place and we will see all the acts against human rights once again. What will the world do then? Send in troops yet again, as we have seen in Iraq? No matter what, the Afghan people are once again the ones paying the price, and unfortunately, I think many will pay the ultimate price.

Ok, so you start off saying that Afghanistan was a multi-national effort, then the US had no plan for rebuilding, but the former colonial powers who are experts in nation building and who were there as partners did nothing even after the US triggered Article 5?
Better to just ignore all of that and simply say the US was arrogant and did not listen to the experts, much simpler than trying to find justifications and holding the US responsible at the same time.
As for sending in troops again, since 9/11, how much terrorist activity has there been on a state sponsored basis, if we look at all the bombings and vehicle killings in Europe, most of those have been done by terrorist that the EU let in via their mass immigration drive which is still ongoing and the terrorist activity fluctuates. However, can we point to any nation state that is openly run by terrorist organizations and that are openly promoting terrorist actions against "The West"?

Pakistan is the nation most likely to be affected by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the issue is whether the USA still needs to have Pakistan in their camp as a bulwark against India who had a close relationship to the Soviet Union, if there is no longer an American perceived fear of India with the Soviet union, Pakistan may finds it relationship with the USA on thin ice. India has nuclear weapons as well, so that in an of itself will not be a major motivating factor on USA aid and comfort.

Turkey is building walls along their borders sharing Iran, to prevent a huge influx of refugees that would be coming through from Afghanistan.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427475605692452896?s=19

The first ones to shun muslim refugees are other Muslim countries, big or small. Erdogan is the one that endorses and encourages extremist forms of Islam in other muslim countries, yet will be the first to shun the people of other such countries when they in distress.

avier wrote:

Turkey is building walls along their borders sharing Iran, to prevent a huge influx of refugees that would be coming through from Afghanistan.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427475605692452896?s=19

The first ones to shun muslim refugees are other Muslim countries, big or small. Erdogan is the one that endorses and encourages extremist forms of Islam in other muslim countries, yet will be the first to shun the people of other such countries when they in distress.

The government of Turkey is secular, not a theocracy. Nice try though...there are worse players in the region in terms of not caring, especially the Gulf.

Aaron747 wrote:

The government of Turkey is secular, not a theocracy. Nice try though...there are worse players in the region in terms of not caring, especially the Gulf.

And this very secular Turkish government has Pakistan as its best mate.
If you read what I wrote, they endorse extreme forms of Islam in other muslim countries, while being secular in their own country. They are the only muslim country that supports Pakistan and it's terrorist organisations at the UN level on multiple issues.
They are leader of the Ummah in the entire muslim world today. So much for a "secular" nation.
https://www.newdelhitimes.com/how-erdog ... ays-world/

Aaron747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In the fevered dreams of the progressive left, maybe, in the real world—male bovine fecal matter.

In the real world there are actual statistics that confirm this, and have for decades. The former guy’s acting secretary of DHS confirmed it even:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -wolf-says

Aaron747 wrote:

Based on your original post compared to the above, the ‘1000%’ seems way over the top.

The primary folly here for the Biden administration was claiming publically that the situation was stable for exit (untrue).

As Baghdad Bob as it was to say that, what else could he have said?

Tell the PR people to shut their scriptbooks and give it to the public straight.

“Based on current assessments, there is a strong possibility the Taliban will take control of the government in due course. This is not desirable but impossible to stop without a serious rededication of major commitments of indefinite duration. The American people have been clear this is not a time for enhanced engagement. We should not be surprised to see difficult scenes unfold in the coming months”

Can you really publicly state that your ally is about to be overrun? I’m really not clear what the admin actually knew/believed but it seemed like publicly they had to telegraph that they weren’t jumping the gun, otherwise the dominoes would have fallen even faster

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

In the real world there are actual statistics that confirm this, and have for decades. The former guy’s acting secretary of DHS confirmed it even:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -wolf-says


As Baghdad Bob as it was to say that, what else could he have said?

Tell the PR people to shut their scriptbooks and give it to the public straight.

“Based on current assessments, there is a strong possibility the Taliban will take control of the government in due course. This is not desirable but impossible to stop without a serious rededication of major commitments of indefinite duration. The American people have been clear this is not a time for enhanced engagement. We should not be surprised to see difficult scenes unfold in the coming months”

Can you really publicly state that your ally is about to be overrun? I’m really not clear what the admin actually knew/believed but it seemed like publicly they had to telegraph that they weren’t jumping the gun, otherwise the dominoes would have fallen even faster

I'm sure we will know in the coming months. There are veterans of Afghanistan in both houses of Congress on both sides of the aisle and there will no doubt be inquiries.

In this particular case they would not have been saying anything Afghan citizens didn't already know. Sometimes our cultural imperative to PR-sugarcoat every bit of bad news at official levels is counterproductive.

c933103 wrote:

They can ask China to help reverse engineering and make copies of parts for them

I guess that's a win for the US Defense suppliers. We'll need new generation stuff now that China will have their hands on what we left.

par13del wrote:

Ok, so you start off saying that Afghanistan was a multi-national effort, then the US had no plan for rebuilding, but the former colonial powers who are experts in nation building and who were there as partners did nothing even after the US triggered Article 5?
Better to just ignore all of that and simply say the US was arrogant and did not listen to the experts, much simpler than trying to find justifications and holding the US responsible at the same time.

My country (France) left in 2014. I remember that people involved thought the US was going about "nation building" the wrong way, but I wouldn't say they thought any way was going to work, I shall wait for new articles/documentaries on the matter to form an opinion on that.

I know a bit more about Iraq, and aside from the war itself that we opposed, France was in an unique position to know Iraq very well (for example my company built all the palaces and bunkers of Saddam...). We said to the US that after having conquered they should have worked with the Baʽathists and the former military leaders. Instead the US dismissed them all. A bit later they joined ISIS.

It seems in both cases the US concentrated on putting a puppet leader at the top, instead of really promoting a society to come together and find a way to govern themselves.

Aaron747 wrote:

What’s unconscionable here is partisan statements on a complex issue just to defend/score points for Trump. It’s beyond the pale.

If Trump were still President and this happened exactly as it did under him, you can only imagine the posts. I doubt anyone who didn't join this site yesterday believes you would call them "unconscionable"

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What’s unconscionable here is partisan statements on a complex issue just to defend/score points for Trump. It’s beyond the pale.

If Trump were still President and this happened exactly as it did under him, you can only imagine the posts. I doubt anyone who didn't join this site yesterday believes you would call them "unconscionable"

You haven't been here that long - I have been calling AFG a complicated and troubled endeavor since the mid-2000s here. You're welcome to look up the posts if you like.

AFG is an issue beyond partisanship. Trump would receive the same amount of defense I have given Biden in this situation: none. The only difference here is the previous SecState enabled the conditions of this exit through his ridiculous negotiations with the Taliban and release of their prisoners.

Hopefully China can stabilize the situation longer term. Short term a deal with the Taliban is needed to prevent voilent settlements & murder. Organized evacuations seem essential, but you need Taliban cooperation short term.

Looking at how quickly the Taliban took control of the entire country makes me think that they must have sizable support of the locals.

A very cogent and interesting 30K foot view of the situation from Damon Linker:

https://twitter.com/damonlinker/status/ ... 99337?s=21

tu204 wrote:

Looking at how quickly the Taliban took control of the entire country makes me think that they must have sizable support of the locals.

Exactly, hence the reason why the past 20 years was about investing in projects and creating employment in western nations while using Afghanistan as the trigger for spending. Projects to work on the local mindset would have been considered American brain washing. Until the locals desire a western style democracy it can only be forced on them by might, once the might is removed reversion takes place. Only issue now is whether all those who would have been executed in public have already left, inclusive of all those who wore uniform and were not Taliban sympathizers. It may well be that since the Taliban are now well known, the need for public demonstrations of their power to cower the civilian population is no longer needed, so folks simply vanishing may be acceptable, in which case the western media would be happy to launch inquiries months later for missing relatives.
I think this time the Taliban will attempt to portray a "government" acceptable to the west to allow the continued flow of aid into the country, one can only imaging the wide spread private sector support in the west for any funding to correct the "wrongs" left by corrupt governments in and involved in Afghanistan.

Slug71 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Sorry, but this is 1000% the Biden administration's to own. He is the commander in chief now. Period. He failed to execute a strategic exit plan, plain and simple.

Sorry this kind of take is neither serious or reasonable. Every administration since 2001 is responsible. Partisans eager to hit Biden for whatever are trying to oversimplify a doomed 20-year affair into one exit play. That’s not how foreign policy of this scale works.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 19776?s=21

I generally agree with your post. But this is still the Biden admin's to own. This is a massive failure of leadership and I would say the same thing regardless of who was in office.
But this is especially not new to him considering he was in the Senate when this started, and then VP for 8 years not too long ago. It's not like he just stepped into this. This is just horrible.

The issue is owned by a lot of failures of intelligence under Trump and Biden. Remember, when Biden stepped in, there were only 2500 troops left in Afghanistan. Kudos to the Taliban for laying low and then stomping on the gas, but this has a lot of failures in terms of the intelligence and support of the Afghan government. .

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 143131002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 327763002/

There are about 4,500 troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 in Iraq. The withdrawal would be completed by Jan. 15, 2021, just five days before President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. It falls short of Trump's vow to end American involvement in those countries.

At those draw down levels, there wasn't much of a force in Afghanistan even in 2020 to stop the Taliban should they have attempted to go further.

Europe needs to have a plan for the mass migrations heading their way from Afghanistan and Lebanon. Might as well throw Pakistan in there too.

I believe these migrations will be the defining issue for the next generations.

Criticism of Team Biden's preparation for the withdrawal (no matter what they say about timetables, which are always flexible, they are not kidding anyone), and criticism for their assessments on Taliban gains over time are completely valid. From any side of the isle.

Using this crisis as a way to chip away at Biden from the opposition is disingenuous, but par for the course in politics and the democrats would have done same or worse had Trump himself pulled the trigger. It would be democratic senators all over the airways instead of the other way around.

Calling for the President's resignation over this, as some on the right have called for, including elected officials, is laughable and those people should be dismissed from ever again being taken seriously. They showed their cards by making such outrageous statements. If this event rises to the level of resignation of a president (because he said "The Taliban won't be taking over any time soon"), according to such right wing hacks, where do the following file under in the "resignation" hierarchy?

"We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine."
" Think the virus is going to be—it’s going to be fine, in no time."
“Looks like by April, you know in theory when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away."
The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… the Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
“CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.”
“The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

We were for almost 15 years told progress was made establishing an Afghani army and police force. That was a lie. A lie perpetrated by every single administration since GWB; nobody walks free here. And that includes coalition partners, where the politicians were uttering the exact same lies to their voters.

The Afghan army was said to be 350.000 strong, but at any given time more than 100.000 was unaccounted for. Officers and commanders were selected not on merit, but on the basis of tribal and family ties and, of course, money. Because corruption was the overwhelming factor, and everybody was in it to make money for themselves, their families and their tribes.

Stories of how a 500-strong Afghan army force was unable to suppress 10-20 Talibans in an area. And the reason was simple enough; they weren't fighting the Taliban, rather they were making themselves busy establishing various racketeering schemes to extract money from the locals.

Plenty of other stories about how newly "graduated" soldiers abandoned post en masse, to set up their own private check-points and extract tolls from travellers.

That type of behaviour became the norm for both the Afghan police and armed forces, and as a result they became hated.

The Afghan army and police was never coherent or capable entities; it was a collection of non-affiliated groups with allegiance to their tribal leader, enjoying little to no support or leadership from a central government, who regularly went unpaid (because other groups and individuals in central govt. stole the money) and therefore lived off corruption wearing a government issued uniform. Unless they've sold the uniform, of course.

And whenever they f.cked something up, the US was always there to reward them with more money and more equipment, establishing what is probably the worst incentive program the world has ever seen.

So the idea the Afghan army could have stemmed the progress of the Taliban if they'd just had air support is laughable in the extreme, as there would have been nothing for the "air" to support!

Slug71 wrote:

But then we should have stayed until the next best window. I'm sure there was plenty of intel and briefings to suit, that led all the way up to the point of withdrawal.

But that's the point...there was no next best window compared to early in the conflict. It's why people are contradicting themselves with "we should have stayed" while saying "get us out". Even if Trump had still been in office and executed the withdrawal and Afghanistan fell as it has, I'd still say that it was bound to happen and that Trump's major misstep was releasing 5000 Taliban fighters and giving them legitimacy by negotiating directly with them (whatever happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?) without including the Afghan government in the talks.

FARC and ETA were drained of resources and eventually declared their surrender; the Taliban simply waited out, and replenished its resources. We knew this was happening when every summer they'd launch an offensive. Kabul could be kept secure; the outer provinces, not so much.

Slug71 wrote:

At least another year, or until the exit plan was revised sufficiently to avoid the bloodshed that is likely to come.

But then the headlines would be how Biden is prolonging the war. Heck, here's one of our favorite Whackjobs in Congress complaining about the extension and that was just for 3 months.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

But then we should have stayed until the next best window. I'm sure there was plenty of intel and briefings to suit, that led all the way up to the point of withdrawal.

But that's the point...there was no next best window compared to early in the conflict. It's why people are contradicting themselves with "we should have stayed" while saying "get us out". Even if Trump had still been in office and executed the withdrawal and Afghanistan fell as it has, I'd still say that it was bound to happen and that Trump's major misstep was releasing 5000 Taliban fighters and giving them legitimacy by negotiating directly with them (whatever happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?) without including the Afghan government in the talks.

FARC and ETA were drained of resources and eventually declared their surrender; the Taliban simply waited out, and replenished its resources. We knew this was happening when every summer they'd launch an offensive. Kabul could be kept secure; the outer provinces, not so much.

Slug71 wrote:

At least another year, or until the exit plan was revised sufficiently to avoid the bloodshed that is likely to come.

But then the headlines would be how Biden is prolonging the war. Heck, here's one of our favorite Whackjobs in Congress complaining about the extension and that was just for 3 months.

Precisely - all of the above is right on the button.

tu204 wrote:

Looking at how quickly the Taliban took control of the entire country makes me think that they must have sizable support of the locals.

The Afghanistan national army was reportedly neither equipped with proper knowledge to fight nor themselves nor being paid for doing their job

So how long will it be before folks stop focusing on the break in the fence and start focusing on containment?
1. How many Taliban supporters are on the flights into the USA as was done in migration to the EU, anyone vetting or will that start if tragic events happen?
2. Anyone checking on the Taliban history and thoughts on the opium trade?
3. We do not need to be concerned on China repeating the US history, anyone expecting them to try to put a democracy in place, universal rights for all?
4. Other than Pakistan, has there been any other surrounding nations involved in the last 20 years other than commercial profiting from shipments of goods?
5. What non-illegal trade links exist with Afghanistan, by anyone including the US?

Yes the world is blind right now focusing on the activity on the ground, but the civil servants the world over who were knee deep in the project over the last 20 years are probably already working on or have already formulated their plans - I mean the thousands who are the experts in Foreign Affairs and State Department type government bodies.

Can't believe this grift didn't fix the country:

Although these numbers are staggering, much of U.S. investment did not stay in Afghanistan. Because of heavy reliance on a complex ecosystem of defense contractors, Washington banditry, and aid contractors, between 80 and 90 percent of outlays actually returned to the U.S. economy.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/16/pa ... n-taliban/

MaverickM11 wrote:

Can't believe this grift didn't fix the country:

Although these numbers are staggering, much of U.S. investment did not stay in Afghanistan. Because of heavy reliance on a complex ecosystem of defense contractors, Washington banditry, and aid contractors, between 80 and 90 percent of outlays actually returned to the U.S. economy.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/16/pa ... n-taliban/

No different than after the end of the cold war the industry switched to the war on drugs with easy access to local police forces to military grade weapons and systems and to Iraq.
When you compare Iraq, I think you will find more American companies benefit from non-oil related revenue, I think most oil revenue went to other countries.

par13del wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Can't believe this grift didn't fix the country:

Although these numbers are staggering, much of U.S. investment did not stay in Afghanistan. Because of heavy reliance on a complex ecosystem of defense contractors, Washington banditry, and aid contractors, between 80 and 90 percent of outlays actually returned to the U.S. economy.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/16/pa ... an-taliban

No different than after the end of the cold war the industry switched to the war on drugs with easy access to local police forces to military grade weapons and systems then to Iraq.
When you compare Iraq, I think you will find more American companies benefit from non-oil related revenue, I think most oil revenue went to other countries.

par13del wrote:

So how long will it be before folks stop focusing on the break in the fence and start focusing on containment?
1. How many Taliban supporters are on the flights into the USA as was done in migration to the EU, anyone vetting or will that start if tragic events happen?
2. Anyone checking on the Taliban history and thoughts on the opium trade?
3. We do not need to be concerned on China repeating the US history, anyone expecting them to try to put a democracy in place, universal rights for all?
4. Other than Pakistan, has there been any other surrounding nations involved in the last 20 years other than commercial profiting from shipments of goods?
5. What non-illegal trade links exist with Afghanistan, by anyone including the US?

Yes the world is blind right now focusing on the activity on the ground, but the civil servants the world over who were knee deep in the project over the last 20 years are probably already working on or have already formulated their plans - I mean the thousands who are the experts in Foreign Affairs and State Department type government bodies.

The Soviets weren't trying to install democracy there AFAIK.
It is hard to nation-build in an area where the tribes have warring as their national pastime...

yonahleung wrote:

par13del wrote:

So how long will it be before folks stop focusing on the break in the fence and start focusing on containment?
1. How many Taliban supporters are on the flights into the USA as was done in migration to the EU, anyone vetting or will that start if tragic events happen?
2. Anyone checking on the Taliban history and thoughts on the opium trade?
3. We do not need to be concerned on China repeating the US history, anyone expecting them to try to put a democracy in place, universal rights for all?
4. Other than Pakistan, has there been any other surrounding nations involved in the last 20 years other than commercial profiting from shipments of goods?
5. What non-illegal trade links exist with Afghanistan, by anyone including the US?

Yes the world is blind right now focusing on the activity on the ground, but the civil servants the world over who were knee deep in the project over the last 20 years are probably already working on or have already formulated their plans - I mean the thousands who are the experts in Foreign Affairs and State Department type government bodies.

The Soviets weren't trying to install democracy there AFAIK.
It is hard to nation-build in an area where the tribes have warring as their national pastime...

The Soviets failed and the USA followed, I do not expect China to try the same thing, they do not place as much importance on portraying to the west that they are a democracy. Too much countries held by trade to be overly critical and put cheap goods at risk.

avier wrote:

The whole world knows who's the current president of US. So I'm not sure why some dragging the former president(s) in here. This whole blame game doesn't reflect well on the current administration tbh. Especially when the current sitting president said he won't be like his predecessor; i.e keep blaming former presidents for current issues.

Aaron747 wrote:

What’s unconscionable here is partisan statements on a complex issue just to defend/score points for Trump. It’s beyond the pale.

But partisan statements on a complex issue to discredit Trump are absolutely fine it seems. Like this below:

Reinhardt wrote:

Taking this into account and everything else that's happened, it's rather clear to me the blame for Afghanistan falling to the Taliban in the last year lies firmly at the feet of Trump and Pompeo.

How an earth can you look at the evidence that is now out and simply say, It's Biden's fault he's in command? You think the entire situation is that simplistic, that black and white? What a ridiculous point of view to take.

Trump deserves most of the blame here. The deal was rotten, he got played by the Taliban.

They let out Abdul Ghani Baradar as part of the deal along with 5,000 Taliban.
That year, well before Biden was sworn in, they started re-taking back territory.. easily. Along the way capturing US weapons and ammo. Rumours were that the real strength of the Afghan Army from early 21 onwards was well, well below that of the 300,000 stated.
Biden was sworn in, US troop levels were down to 2,500.

What would you have had Biden do?

As soon as the Taliban started taking back teritory without little to no resistance was the end game. It was only ever a matter of time, if there were going to be no more US Troops put back in. It happened faster than everyone expected, and has some have said already it was highly likely all planned this way.

And by the way, I don't need to discredit Trump, he is already discredited.

Well said. Bush will own this tragedy on the way in but Trump will own the exit deal. It fits the mold perfectly, just like every other deal this ass clown ever executed. This one is surely his biggest bankruptcy yet. We went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq because the Saudis killed 3000 Americans on 9-11 and then found succor in Pakistan. You can unravel this shit straight back to Cheney and Rumsfeld. They were the original architects of the costliest military debacles in our history. Then the GOP put a draft dodger in charge of the exit deal. It’s repugnant to have to share a flag with these desperate tools.

It is good to know, there's a stable, reliable ally nearby, Pakistan. The majority Pashtuns Taliban (from area overlapping with Pakistan) have been supported by them for 30 years.

par13del wrote:

I do not expect China to try the same thing, they do not place as much importance on portraying to the west that they are a democracy. Too much countries held by trade to be overly critical and put cheap goods at risk.

I think China will likely attempt to use business as a means to do mineral extraction. They won't really care about the daily lives of Afghans, but they may talk to the Taliban government to tone down their extremism enough to allow Chinese companies to do business. Whether the money goes to improving the country or not is not China's business; just as long as they have access, they should be fine.