The POTUS decides to be a chicken, pulls out of Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by caketastydelish, Apr 17, 2021.

  1. EnglishEdward

    EnglishEdward Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,644
    Location:
    England
    Meanwhile in the UK:

    Does he believe what he is saying?

    If he does, he is deluded; if he does not, he is dishonest.

    What is happening in Afghanistan represents defeat , not only for the USA (and the UK
    which doesn't really count) but also for NATO and the UN who fell into the same trap.

    And it rather looks like the end of the R2P philosophy.

    Edit: Here is the link

    Responsibility to protect - Wikipedia
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2021
    innonimatu likes this.
  2. sherbz

    sherbz Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,883
    Location:
    London
    I have to say that the Afghan "defence" of the nation has been utterly pathetic. Basically they took the wages, took the equipment, took the training, then as soon as they could they offered up everything to the Taliban. With barely a shot being fired.

    One thing I dont really understand, though, is that some Trump supporters are claiming this would never have happened on his watch. Even though he was the one who signed the deal in the first place. I know they are liable to conspiracy theories and also outright refuting the facts. But have they just completely forgotten what Trump did?

    Anyway, what a mess. Hard to find an outcome or policy thats worth supporting at this point.
     
    João III and caketastydelish like this.
  3. EnglishEdward

    EnglishEdward Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,644
    Location:
    England
    Donald Trump was a sort of business man.

    I deduce that he looked at Afghanistan and saw it as
    an irretrievable loss making operation.

    And his class of businessmen know all about abandoning loss
    makers, and letting someone else take the loss and blame.
     
    sherbz likes this.
  4. Snowygerry

    Snowygerry King

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    610
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Gent - Belgium.
    'Never get involved in a land war in Asia' ?
     
    migalhone and Birdjaguar like this.
  5. sherbz

    sherbz Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,883
    Location:
    London
    You are probably right in this assessment. However, had he won the election (and i think by his constant whining that he really did win the election we can take it that he actually thinks it was a possibility), this would have all happened under his watch anyway. It still has the potential to be politically toxic to Biden though. His opponents will try to paint his as the one who gifted Afghanistan to the Taliban.

    Aside from obvious concerns about Afghanistan becoming a haven for extremists, as big a priority should be on the illicit trade of Opium and heroin.
     
    caketastydelish likes this.
  6. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    7,817
    no , ı should wait a day or two before gloating .
     
  7. Thorgalaeg

    Thorgalaeg Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,394
    Location:
    Spain
    I have always been skeptic about US fighting a movement supported by US allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and formerly by US itself.

    To defeat the Taliban US should first annihilate Pakistan. Helping India to re-annex Pakistan for instance. Which is as much as turning the world upside down.
     
  8. sherbz

    sherbz Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,883
    Location:
    London
    Although i disagree with your slightly apocalyptic approach, you are right in that Pakistan is a problem when it comes to Afghanistan. Nearly all of the Taliban leadership come from Madrassas in Pakistan. And those Madrassas funnel money to the Taliban. But the US would not confront them openly. Because they have a very large and well equipped army and also a nuclear bomb.
     
  9. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    10,561
    Location:
    Cambridge
    TV is reporting that the Taliban are in talks about a transfer of power within the Palace of Kabul. Taliban have taken Bagram airbase, including a prison that held ISIL fighters. The most serious fighting in the city is between ISIL and Taliban fighters there.
     
  10. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,160
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    One group that make the Taliban look good
     
    migalhone and Bestbank Tiger like this.
  11. Verbose

    Verbose Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,109
    Location:
    Sweden / France
    No nation state has actually tried it like that, aside from them US – and the US record is pretty abyssmal with Afghanistan and Iraq as showpieces. At the very least the US should have tried to do Afghanistan seriously back around 2002-03 when the Taliban had actually been defeated, the was a huge international consensus, and UN-backing, and there could have been an opportunity to try to do it right. But it would have cost fortune (an even greater than the one spent) and taken a lot of time (which everything did anyway).

    The problem is of course that the US got distracted, managed to make itself invade Iraq through auto-suggestion in 2003, and then added injury to injury by trying to do both Afghanistan and Iraq on the cheap. So it's not really any meaningful exercises to look at, except as a purely negative example of what-not-to-do.

    The UN otoh has done a fair bit – if still a mixed record – but the most successful examples are East Timor and Sierra Leone. We don't hear much about either these days – as should be expected from relative successes on that score.
    https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/united-nations-nation-building
     
    Samson likes this.
  12. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    9,350
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think fear of Pakistans military (or even nuclear capacity) has anything to do with why the US won't stand up to them. The united states could easily annihilate Pakisans's conventional military from their own, and if America is the side starting the war (obviously with the element of surprise) they will already have their defenses prepared for any Pakistani retaliation, including but not limited to nuclear war.

    The real reason why they won't stand up to them is because of the sense of morals (or lack thereof) that dictates US foreign policy. Giving money to a misogynistic, hateful government that harbors terrorists as long as they defend their supply lines is more important to us than doing what is right. It is obvious they were hiding Bin Laden and actively helping the Taliban every step of the way. But we continue to not only not stand up to them, but actively help them each year.
     
  13. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,160
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    So what's your solution? The US can't win. If the do nothing they get blamed, if they use sanctions they get blamed if they use the military they get blamed

    What do you do with various crappy regimes?
     
    migalhone, sendos and Bestbank Tiger like this.
  14. EnglishEdward

    EnglishEdward Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,644
    Location:
    England
    Build a containment wall around them, and let them fade away from their own shortcomings in due course.

    It worked with the Stalin's soviet union.
     
    Bestbank Tiger likes this.
  15. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    9,350
    Gender:
    Male
    Doing a much better job of fortifying Kabul should have happened, for sure.
     
    Bestbank Tiger likes this.
  16. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,160
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    How?

    The Afghan army wasn't paid and logistics in the country are a nightmare.

    The Taliban just surrounded the cities and captured them for free. No fuel or ammo no food no pay.

    Soviets and Americans both struggled lose control of the roads and you're basically screwed.

    From the sounds of it the Taliban has been granting free passage to any soldier who wants to bail. Various local governments with no support cut deals and it seems several government types did their own diplomacy.

    With foreign troops, logistics, air support the whole lot just collapses. Once things got rolling more defected and once it was apparent who was gonna win it just fel apart.

    How do you feed Kabul even if you fortify it? A "government" barely controlling the capital and can't feed it rapidly loses what little legitimacy it has.
     
    innonimatu and Drakle like this.
  17. Gelion

    Gelion Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,111
    Location:
    Earth Dome
    There was a fairly large amount of American aid as well as aid in form of giving access to markets, which is always a big deal. Guarantee of military protection is also one of those big things when you don't have to continuously invest into your army to guarantee survival.

    Yes, thats why it is an excellent example of "nation-building".

    :goodjob:
    I think the idea was to assimilate Korea into Japan so a lot of work was done in that direction.

    Its debatable, the Soviet investments in Afghanistan were fairly heavy in terms of infrastructure, but we already have an example where a nation was "constructed" from nothing - Korea. Arguably Japan and Germany too because the levels of devastation were severe.

    Well, the Soviet Afghanistan was able to resist forces backed by foreign governments for 3 years in near complete international isolation, so I think there's a precedent, especially considering what is happening now. I think, as you, that there was a real chance at nation building in Afghanistan and considering the costs of the war and military training, nation-building could have been far cheaper than 2 trillion USD.

    Yeah, since 2001 the Middle East is more and more of a mess unfortunately for all of its neighbours.

    Many thanks for this report, thats exactly what I was looking for. Merci :thumbsup:
     
  18. amadeus

    amadeus Nilknarf!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    36,861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    I should add that I think an important element is just not the physical building of secondary industry, but having the population with the experience in running them.

    Perhaps another example of this is Czechoslovakia; one of the most highly-developed regions outside of Austria proper in Austria-Hungary, they were rapidly approaching standards on par with other wealthier European countries before Hitler invaded. Although part of the Eastern bloc for the years 1945-1990, Czechoslovakia had some of the highest standards of living in the COMECON. The same would also go to a lesser extent in Hungary and E. Germany, but not so much countries like Romania and Bulgaria.
     
    innonimatu likes this.
  19. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,160
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Korea wasn't built from nothing though.

    Germany and Japan weren't that badly off. Germany lost something like 1/3rd of it's stuff during bombing but they expanded production in the war years.

    Post war I think they had more than they started with. They didn't have to waste resources post war on the huge Wehrmacht
     
  20. EnglishEdward

    EnglishEdward Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,644
    Location:
    England
    Misunderstanding persists in the UK political class.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58220730





    What happened is the Afghan people abandoned their nominal government.
     

Share This Page