Afghanistan 2021...
- Thread starter noble cane
- Start date
Did I understand you correctly? I was referring to ISIS holding up for themselves and the Talibans sake, such that we would acually get out of the country.
The risk for ISIS would be if we were tempted to abort the pullout, and bulk back up to previous #'s, before the pullout was finished. I wasn't referring to the Ranger battalions or our Army holding up.
ISIS hits us, and Biden would be pressured to reoccupy.
Afghanistan offers enough blame for everyone to share from Bush to Biden. No doubt. The idea that anyone, Brits, Russia, or the USA could succeed in nation building there, especially with Pakistan playing a double or triple game, was always folly. But let's do keep in mind that the timeline and deal that Biden was handed was all Trump's.
www.businessinsider.com
GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger rips into Trump and Mike Pompeo for 'getting rolled' by the Taliban
"They set this up to fail," Rep. Adam Kinzinger said of former President Donald Trump and his administration.
www.businessinsider.com
Afghanistan offers enough blame for everyone to share from Bush to Biden. No doubt. The idea that anyone, Brits, Russia, or the USA could succeed in nation building there, especially with Pakistan playing a double or triple game, was always folly. But let's do keep in mind that the timeline and deal that Biden was handed was all Trump's.
GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger rips into Trump and Mike Pompeo for 'getting rolled' by the Taliban
"They set this up to fail," Rep. Adam Kinzinger said of former President Donald Trump and his administration.
Nah let’s keep in mind that people who helped us are needlessly being killed in gruesome ways right now rather than deflecting. This is what people do to cope when their guy is struggling. When it’s the other team’s guy who ****ed up the blame falls squarely on him. But when it’s my team’s guy who ****ed up we have to make it about a broader issue so the blame can be spread around. People can litigate all the stupid crap done before Biden was president until the end of time, but none of that is an excuse for what’s going on right now.
Last edited:
First of all, Biden had to use Trump's plan. You don't think he is capable of coming up with a plan on his own. Let's get this straight, Trump pushed an attack on Congress, that is his fault. 5 good Americans died. Trump should be through.
Okay, so let's hang Afghanistan on Trump. Numbers are still coming in, but most likely will exceed five. We walked out at 3 am. I don't remember Biden running on using a plan that Trump came up with...if he did why? Biden is an uncontrolled weak brain in action. Kamala is warming up in the bull-pin
Except the complete withdrawal date of 9-11 was set by Biden. The problem wasn’t the withdrawal. The problem was that we gave up control of the city to the Taliban without first evacuating our citizens from said city….and that is all on Biden and his military advisors / generals.Afghanistan offers enough blame for everyone to share from Bush to Biden. No doubt. The idea that anyone, Brits, Russia, or the USA could succeed in nation building there, especially with Pakistan playing a double or triple game, was always folly. But let's do keep in mind that the timeline and deal that Biden was handed was all Trump's.
GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger rips into Trump and Mike Pompeo for 'getting rolled' by the Taliban
"They set this up to fail," Rep. Adam Kinzinger said of former President Donald Trump and his administration.
The cost of helping bankrupt the Soviet Union and making them look foolish as they withdrew from a third world country was destabilizing that country, indoctrinating the people of the country (and their progeny) to become fighters in what they perceived as a holy war, and then costing our nation trillions, and being embarrassed as we failed to stop the monster we created so many years ago. Thanks Ronnie?
Mujahideen and the Taliban ain’t the same thing. This is a bit like saying someone who voted for Ronald Reagan is responsible for Donald Trump. The notion that we created the Taliban given how the religious movement formed and how the opposition to it formed is pretty far off base. Political coalitions change and fracture in other countries all the time just like in the US. The Muj still had our backs in 2001 when we invaded and what’s left of them are still mounting a resistance to the Taliban today.
I saw an NPR article the other day that couldn’t get the history right. I guess that’s not surprising for NPR though
I saw an NPR article the other day that couldn’t get the history right. I guess that’s not surprising for NPR though
Last edited:
The Taliban are the heir apparent to the Mujahedeen. After the soviets left, the mujahedeen broke into various factions with various warlords. The Taliban were formed by a former Mujahedeen commander - Mohammed Omar - allegedly to combat other former Mujahedeen warlords he accused of raping children. The Taliban were one branch of the Mujahedeen, but they were the branch that essentially "won" the civil war of the 1990's that followed the Soviet exit. We promoted with the assistance of our regional ally, Saudi Arabia, emigrant freedom fighters who were transported to Pakistan. Alongside the weapons that we gave the Taliban on the Afghan / Pakistan border, the Saudis were setting up Wahhabi / Deobandi fusion Madrassas. These madrassas were the main influencers of the (now elder) Taliban leaders who were young children / young men in exile in Pakistan at the time. Taliban literally means "students".
BTW. The Taliban founder, Omar, was trained during the Soviet - Afghan war by the Pakistani Interservice Intelligence Agency (ISI) which was bankrolled by? You guessed it... The United States of America... in order to provide counter insurgents to combat the Soviets.
Saudi Wahhabi Islam in the Service of Uncle Sam
In various entries in his unpublished diaries, British Mesopotamian officer Harry St. John Philby, on special mission to central Arabia during 1917-1918, recorded the minutes of his many private “interviews” with Ibn Saud. He concluded that the newly re-emerging Wahhabi movement under Ibn Saud...
BTW, I'm not arguing that there weren't former Mujahedeen that assisted us, early on, in the Afghanistan invasion post 9/11... but they were not the ones who were in power post Afghan Civil War. If we had allowed the Soviets to steam-roll the Afghans in the 80's we might have a different timeline today. That's not to say it would have been a better timeline.
Well, your description of the Mujahadeen "Having our backs" was fundamentally inaccurate. SOME of them had our backs.... others, were the ones we were fighting. The power vacuum after the Soviets left was what allowed some of the most fundamentalist groups to rise to power.
So, I repeat. Thanks Ronnie? I'm not sure which is the worse outcome though... A) The possibility of the USSR still being around and us still being in the Cold War, or B) US dealing with the fallout of our attempt to subvert the USSR, 40 years down the road.
Sorry but saying we created the taliban is like freshman who just took poli sci stuff. It's right up there with "we went to Iraq to take the oil."
Last edited:
Okay now it is "Ronnie's" fault. Under no circumstances can we blame the person who is running things now. IF he is running things now.The cost of helping bankrupt the Soviet Union and making them look foolish as they withdrew from a third world country was destabilizing that country, indoctrinating the people of the country (and their progeny) to become fighters in what they perceived as a holy war, and then costing our nation trillions, and being embarrassed as we failed to stop the monster we created so many years ago. Thanks Ronnie?
It’s the culmination of the actions of 5 presidents. It is a problem that was sat on Biden’s plate by all of them. I wouldn’t say it has been the best of all outcomes but the fact that we’re not in a firefight with the Taliban at the moment, and that we’re getting many, many people out in a semi-orderly fashion (as compared to say Saigon) is a good thing.
Blaming Biden for the events there and disregarding the fingerprints left on the region by Reagan, Bush, and Obama (to a lesser degree Clinton and Bush 1.0) is just playing the blame game.
As I recall Bush, Obama, and Trump all ran on a platforms featuring 'no nation building!", yet that is exactly what all of them did. To be fair, Trump said he wanted out and did negotiate a deal to exit, but it was a horrible deal. Basically he agreed to leave in May this year. Biden extended it to give more time to get out, but once Trump agreed to a date (plus letting the head of the Taliban out of prison), the Taliban knew exactly what to prepare for.
As Aston points out, our there's a lot of finger prints on Afghanistan. For me the most puzzling is Dubya's decision to stay in Afghanistan after getting rid of Alqueda. Why? Given the subsequent invasion of Iraq, I suspect it had to do with his father's pulling out of Iraq after Dessert Storm, which he (or at least Cheney) considered a bad move. In retrospect it appears his old man had it right.
As Aston points out, our there's a lot of finger prints on Afghanistan. For me the most puzzling is Dubya's decision to stay in Afghanistan after getting rid of Alqueda. Why? Given the subsequent invasion of Iraq, I suspect it had to do with his father's pulling out of Iraq after Dessert Storm, which he (or at least Cheney) considered a bad move. In retrospect it appears his old man had it right.
Last edited:
To be clear for what is the 1000th time. No one is blaming Biden for leaving Afghanistan. He is being blamed for allowing the Taliban to occupy Kabul before tens of thousands of US citizens were evacuated. Before the 9-11 deadline he set. You don’t allow the enemy to take over territory and then try to get your people out of the same. You might also want to get your equipment out as well but this argument is directed more at our military leadership.
I think there were likely strategic and logistical issues that we weren’t aware of.
I think the Admin and at least some of our military leaders completely misjudged the situation on the ground and were shocked the Taliban were able to take over Kabul so quickly. I also believe there were those who warned the Admin of what was coming and they were ignored.
Sounds like we need a commission. I’d be down for that, but I would want it to start its evaluation of the conflict and our presence in the region when the war began. Kind of like a full body autopsy. “Was the cause of death choking on the blood that he was spitting up? Or was it the knife wound that was present in his abdomen?”
Here’s the thing, there’s no guarantee that we would ever be able to make the Afghans a legitimate fighting force, and as soon as we started evacuating people, the Taliban were going to go on the offensive anyway. To me it kind of seems like this was inevitable. There was no way to evacuate all of our non-combatants without either fighting the Taliban ourselves in a retreating motion, or letting the Afghans do it for us while we consolidated our position.
Disagree. There is zero chance the Taliban could or would even try to take over Kabul against US air support and troops in the ground. Seems like we knew the Afghan’s couldn’t hold anything without US air support and intelligence. You hold the city, get the civilians out and then the troops leave. You never allow the enemy to take over the area were your people are and then try to get them out.
Not great news when we still don't know how many Americans are left, but you get what you get when you depend on the Taliban. Good news is evacuations have picked up a lot
This outcome makes the book and movie "Charlie Wilson's War" look very different in retrospect.
www.npr.org
The Real-Life Story Behind 'Charlie Wilson's War'
The dark comedy is based on real events in the life of Democratic Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson. Martin Frost, a former Texas congressman, says Hollywood didn't embellish the story of Wilson's efforts to help Afghan mujahedeen fight the Soviets in the 1980s — if anything, the filmmakers toned...
www.npr.org
That would mean us defending the city from the Taliban, because the Afghan army was already crumbling with air support.
I just hope we don’t end up sending out convoys to fetch stranded Americans, black-hawk-down style.
We had a duty to defend our citizens until we could evacuate them….period. Is that a novel concept ? You tell the Taliban any forces stationed within 50 miles of Kabul will be immediately destroyed by US air power until 9-11. Our withdrawal date. This isn’t difficult. Keep sufficient US forces in place to secure the city until our withdrawal. Evacuate civilians first and then military personnel.
Honest question, how do you propose we get US citizens out of Kabul? Because the Taliban is making it nearly impossible for us to get them out peacefully.
To be clear, my question has NOTHING to do with whether we should’ve ever gone there or should’ve stayed as long as we have. I’m talking about the situation we are in right now.
This isn’t a gotcha or me trying to “get you”, I’m just stumped on what you view the solution is.
My best idea, I’m not an expert on military, politics, or the Middle East, is we send troops and air support back into Kabul to ensure the safety of American citizens. It isn’t ideal but I don’t see a better option given the current situation. This approach almost certainly means we WON’T ultimately end up leaving Kabul, so it is like this is not how it’ll play out.
I wish we had a better plan in place before we started evacuating without a clear plan to get everyone out safely. I also don’t understand how our military wiffed at knowing when the Taliban would make it to Kabul AND our lack of preparedness.
The conspiracy theorist in me, makes me think intelligence offers were negligent or willfully not providing accurate information. I doubt that is accurate but is the best theory I can come with that explains where we are today.
I really think it’s as simple as the political side telling military leadership “we want to get out by x date, come up with a plan” and our weak spineless general corps of career climbers not having it in them to say “no we can’t do that safely” and convincing themselves they could. So you just have a combination of the political side setting unrealistic objectives and then the military side failing them by not telling them what actually is realistic. No one who has spent 5 days in Afghanistan would have decided to try to pack up and leave in July-August if doing this safely was a priority.
Last edited:
Looks like it's pretty much Americans only from here on out. Lots of SIV holders probably won’t make it
Last edited:
Distinguishing the Taliban from Isis and the limits of 'nation building'.
www.nytimes.com
Opinion | The Taliban Want You to Keep Your Phone On (Published 2021)
They employed social media to cultivate an image of strength within Afghanistan while projecting an air of legitimacy to the outside world.
Distinguishing the Taliban from Isis and the limits of 'nation building'.
Opinion | The Taliban Want You to Keep Your Phone On (Published 2021)
They employed social media to cultivate an image of strength within Afghanistan while projecting an air of legitimacy to the outside world.
Do you want to try distinguishing strategy from tactics and apply that distinction to what’s happened this week?
It may be that the Taliban are taking a hard line in order to negotiate for funding. Most of the old government's funds have been frozen. If they want to take over and run any sort of government, they will need the cash to do so.
Similar threads
