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

[migalhone]

This will work out very well for Joe Biden.

He will be seen as the President who ended an expensive nonsense.

Yes he will be seen as the POTUS who ended this massive sinkhole of resources, but i doubt it will work out well for him. His public image already is tainted as letting Afghanistan become free real estate for the Talibans.

Funnily enough, the Afghan government and military seem to be exempt of critic even though they should also be held accountable for this mess.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes he will be seen as the POTUS who ended this massive sinkhole of resources, but i doubt it will work out well for him. His public image already is tainted as letting Afghanistan become free real estate for the Talibans.

Funnily enough, the Afghan government and military seem to be exempt of critic even though they should also be held accountable for this mess.

He wasn't going to get any credit whatever happened.
Americans wanted out and he'd have been castigated if he'd kept troops there even though the Taliban were obviously waiting for US withdrawal before moving in.
A mess with no good solution but it'll be him rather than Bush, Obama or Trump who also didn't have a good solution who will be remembered as losing the war.

 

[amadeus]

I’m not in the know so much but I certainly don’t perceive al-Qaeda to be that credible of a threat anymore, at least as far as operations coming from Afghanistan.

So, what’s left to accomplish there? Propping up their feeble government isn’t in itself an objective, it’s a means to achieve something. I don’t think anyone has had a clear explanation for that thing in a good long while.

 

[H4run]

I’m not in the know so much but I certainly don’t perceive al-Qaeda to be that credible of a threat anymore, at least as far as operations coming from Afghanistan.

So, what’s left to accomplish there? Propping up their feeble government isn’t in itself an objective, it’s a means to achieve something. I don’t think anyone has had a clear explanation for that thing in a good long while.

As long as America and Europe don't isolate them they willing to listen. China, Russia and Iran sit-down together and make agreement with them, China give condition not to talk about their humanitarian issue and Uyghurs. Those countries currently busy with their own external or internal problem don't want to have another problem like patrolling their wide border against Taliban. Hence agreement is made and obliged.

Isolating Taliban only resulting them cooperating with others group, namely Al Qaeda, like when it happened during 90s. Given Taliban and Al Qaeda, as I already mentioned earlier, not really in a good term with each other, as one want to keep matters within Afghanistan, while the other want to bring the middle-east conflict to the lap of what they believe as the oppressor.

At least now, after 2 decades, peoples can take a break from war. Dropping Daisy-Cutter bomb that weight almost 6 metric ton, that it cut deep down till the water-level then explode, is not a way to spread freedom.

 

[Lexicus]

The delicate flowers of the "national security" establishment in the US are traumatized, traumatized!

If Biden had more guts he should just say they're useless idiots as advisers, whose predictions turned entirely wrong, and fire them all. Then they're be traumatized.

Unless I'm wrong, that woman on Twitter is some sort of imperialist NGO ghoul rather than an employee of the administration or the Pentagon.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I’m not in the know so much but I certainly don’t perceive al-Qaeda to be that credible of a threat anymore, at least as far as operations coming from Afghanistan.

So, what’s left to accomplish there? Propping up their feeble government isn’t in itself an objective, it’s a means to achieve something. I don’t think anyone has had a clear explanation for that thing in a good long while.

That was done by December 2001. Most of al-Qaeda's leadership had fled to Pakistan by then.

 

[Berzerker]

Gen Milley didn't see the collapse coming, too busy looking for white rage

 

[FriendlyFire]

Gen Milley didn't see the collapse coming, too busy looking for white rage

Nah the Taliban were good fighters and Great negotiators
While the US are losers, that lost and Trump only can win.

“Good Fighters” and “Great Negotiators”: Donald Trump Is Weirdly Full of Praise for the Taliban

Former President Donald Trump praised the Taliban on Tuesday, calling the group “smart” and “good fighters.”
“The Taliban, good fighters, I will tell you, good fighters. You have to give them credit for that. They’ve been fighting for a thousand years. What they do is they fight,” Trump said on Fox News’ [Hannity] on August 17. “The Taliban has circled the airport, and who knows if they’re going to treat us right? All of a sudden, they’ll say—well, frankly, if they were smart, they’d really—and they are smart. They are smart. They should let the Americans out,” Trump said to Hannity.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/08/donald-trump-taliban-good-fighters-great-negotiators

 

[abradley]

Give our troops the same 'Rules of engagement' as the opposition, then howdy, what a difference.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Give our troops the same 'Rules of engagement' as the opposition, then howdy, what a difference.

????

After Trump Loosened the Rules of Engagement, Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan Rose by 95 Percent
he Pentagon escalated its air war against the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan, leading to a historic increase in civilian casualties. In 2017, the United States bombed Afghanistan at its highest rate since 2011, the height of the Obama-era troop surge
McChrystal was even more blunt about the cost of civilian casualties in imprecise airstrikes.“We’re going to lose this fudging war if we don’t stop killing civilians,” he recalls telling his staff. Ten years later, the United States is still fighting the same war.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...casualties-in-afghanistan-rose-by-95-percent/

 

[Drakle]

Give our troops the same 'Rules of engagement' as the opposition, then howdy, what a difference.

The Soviets non stopped looted Afghanistan, cleared entire corridors of Afghan people, and killed between half a million (very low estimate) to 2 million civilians, and displaced so many more, making the Afghan people the number one displaced group until the Syrian civil war. It didn't work.

 

[r16]

yay , Penşir Valley again 'cause ı would be hard pressed to spell Pandjir(?) every time there is a need to . Also proper to refer to FDR and Arsenal of Democracy at a time when BSS aka Trump has started talking of a Dunquerqe ... And of course , just to keep people united and hopeful after the beardie victory organized by Qatar , the echo chamber has a brief attempt to paint it as an Alevi Turkoman resistance , supported by warrior women ... Sure to keep people united ! In New Turkey . Like naturally . You people really gonna support or what ? Because like it would be most unlikely to drop some women in , 'cause they will be doing quite alright on their own . Just no interviews to Al Crusading and keep an eye the likes of Dostum ...

Spoiler :

 

[migalhone]

Former President Donald Trump praised the Taliban on Tuesday, calling the group “smart” and “good fighters.”
“The Taliban, good fighters, I will tell you, good fighters. You have to give them credit for that. They’ve been fighting for a thousand years. What they do is they fight,” Trump said on Fox News’ [Hannity] on August 17. “The Taliban has circled the airport, and who knows if they’re going to treat us right? All of a sudden, they’ll say—well, frankly, if they were smart, they’d really—and they are smart. They are smart. They should let the Americans out,” Trump said to Hannity.

Will he ever stop spewing nonsense?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Will he ever stop spewing nonsense?

Why would he?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Will he ever stop spewing nonsense?

Hes now claiming he always knew Asraf Ghani was a crook and never trusted him and claims he said so but only 2 years ago he was saying Ghani was terrific.

 

[Samson]

Taliban intensify search for Afghans who worked with US, NATO forces

A secret UN document claims the Taliban is intensifying a search for people it believes worked with US and NATO forces, including among the crowds at Kabul’s airport, the New York Times newspaper reported.
The document – seen by NYT – from a UN threat assessment adviser said there were multiple reports the Taliban had a list of people it wanted to question and punish.
It also said the Taliban had been going door to door and “arresting and/or threatening to kill or arrest family members of target individuals unless they surrender themselves”.
​

CPJ calls on Taliban to stop attacking journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists is calling on the Taliban to stop attacking journalists and searching their homes after being informed of at least four incidents since the group took power.
The CPJ says the media must be allowed to “operate freely and without fear of violence or reprisal”.
It said it had received reports of at least four journalists whose homes were searched since the Taliban takeover, and was investigating reports that at least two reporters in Jalalabad had been beaten by the Taliban.​

 

[EgonSpengler]

I've heard a few people on the radio - just folks, not analysts or experts - say they feel that America is less safe, and that the sacrifices made by people killed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban were wasted (there was one guy whose wife was killed in the Twin Towers who was audibly shaking with rage about the withdrawal from Afghanistan). I disagree with them, but that sentiment does reinforce my concern that this decision by President Biden not only cost the Democrats the mid-terms (but let's face it, they were going to lose seats anyway), but has probably impacted the 2024 general election for whoever the nominee is. A lot of people vote with their emotions, and I haven't heard an ounce of positivity about this decision and the way it was managed. (To be frank, I wouldn't have ever expected to. This whole thing was a fustercluck, right from the beginning. Every U.S. President since George W. Bush has just been trying to juggle flaming piles of [garbage] without getting burned or getting any stink on him.)

 

[Samson]

I've heard a few people on the radio - just folks, not analysts or experts - say they feel that America is less safe, and that the sacrifices made by people killed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban were wasted (there was one guy whose wife was killed in the Twin Towers who was audibly shaking with rage about the withdrawal from Afghanistan). I disagree with them, but that sentiment does reinforce my concern that this decision by President Biden not only cost the Democrats the mid-terms (but let's face it, they were going to lose seats anyway), but has probably impacted the 2024 general election for whoever the nominee is. A lot of people vote with their emotions, and I haven't heard an ounce of positivity about this decision and the way it was managed. (To be frank, I wouldn't have ever expected to. This whole thing was a fustercluck, right from the beginning. Every U.S. President since George W. Bush has just been trying to juggle flaming piles of [garbage] without getting burned or getting any stink on him.)

These sort of alternative histories are obviously speculative, but I think there is a good case that the US is less safe because of this:

• A lot of people have lost family and friends to american bombs. They are not going to forget that, and are likely to consider the US an enemy for life, possibly even down the generations.
• Because of how badly this went, the US is less able to do a foreign invasion again, both because of attitudes within and outside the country.
• The world now knows how to defeat the US. Before this one could make a case that the US could take any non-nuclear country, that is no longer possible.

 

[Drakle]

I've heard a few people on the radio - just folks, not analysts or experts - say they feel that America is less safe, and that the sacrifices made by people killed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban were wasted (there was one guy whose wife was killed in the Twin Towers who was audibly shaking with rage about the withdrawal from Afghanistan). I disagree with them, but that sentiment does reinforce my concern that this decision by President Biden not only cost the Democrats the mid-terms (but let's face it, they were going to lose seats anyway), but has probably impacted the 2024 general election for whoever the nominee is. A lot of people vote with their emotions, and I haven't heard an ounce of positivity about this decision and the way it was managed. (To be frank, I wouldn't have ever expected to. This whole thing was a fustercluck, right from the beginning. Every U.S. President since George W. Bush has just been trying to juggle flaming piles of [garbage] without getting burned or getting any stink on him.)

Ford didn't get blamed for South Vietnam falling, even when it fell messily. And even now, with the entire mainstream and right-wing media teaming up on Biden, a majority still supported leaving. The people who are loud, or who are platformed by the media, aren't a representative section of the population. Afghanistan was always going to fall messily. The fact that it fell so fast, meant that if Biden had stayed, it would have forced him to either leave in defeat with dead troops, or to escalate.

Even then, we are a long way off from 2022 elections, and there will be so many other new cycles in the future. I doubt it will still be a major topic then, let alone 2024. Biden is probably wishing that a Hawkish Republican makes it an issue in 2024, so he can wage an election against the forever war hawks.

 

[EgonSpengler]

These sort of alternative histories are obviously speculative, but I think there is a good case that the US is less safe because of this:

• A lot of people have lost family and friends to american bombs. They are not going to forget that, and are likely to consider the US an enemy for life, possibly even down the generations.
• Because of how badly this went, the US is less able to do a foreign invasion again, both because of attitudes within and outside the country.
• The world now knows how to defeat the US. Before this one could make a case that the US could take any non-nuclear country, that is no longer possible.

You're absolutely right that a lot of people have good reason to hold a grudge against us. That's just one reason this kind of behavior is a fustercluck, from the beginning.

I think you're wrong about this impacting the US capacity for conducting another such invasion, though. Over time, the memory of this will fade and people will draw the wrong lessons from it, politicians will make up whatever stories they need to, and the urge to employ military power to solve a problem will be bolstered by the anger caused by some provocation. If Al Qaeda or ISIS or whoever were to mount another big attack on US soil* tomorrow, we'd be launching cruise missiles and airplanes by Monday. Ten years from now, that threshold will be even lower. 30 years from now, America will be aching for a reason to send our soldiers somewhere. By the time the Bush administration had worked everyone up into a lather about invading Iraq in 2003 - which really wasn't very hard - the lessons of Vietnam had been completely forgotten, even by people who lived through it. I literally heard the host of a radio news program have to tell a caller that we didn't win that war.

* It'd have to be on US soil. Americans don't pay much attention to anything in other countries. There were a lot of people who'd never heard of Al Qaeda on Sept 10, 2001, even though they'd been attacking us and others around the world for years.

Ford didn't get blamed for South Vietnam falling, even when it fell messily. And even now, with the entire mainstream and right-wing media teaming up on Biden, a majority still supported leaving. The people who are loud, or who are platformed by the media, aren't a representative section of the population. Afghanistan was always going to fall messily. The fact that it fell so fast, meant that if Biden had stayed, it would have forced him to either leave in defeat with dead troops, or to escalate.

Even then, we are a long way off from 2022 elections, and there will be so many other new cycles in the future. I doubt it will still be a major topic then, let alone 2024. Biden is probably wishing that a Hawkish Republican makes it an issue in 2024, so he can wage an election against the forever war hawks.

I'm not claiming that this has cost the Democrats the next two elections. They were already unlikely to hold their tiny majority in congress, just as a matter of course. Midterms go against the party holding the White House a lot. What I'm saying is that, from a purely political perspective, there doesn't seem to be any upside here. I think the coldly political move for any American President here would be to quietly maintain the status quo and try to make sure that their own page in this saga is as short and boring as possible. The years between now and then could absolutely lessen the impact of this situation. I just think that, however potent the impact of this ultimately is on the voters, it won't be positive for the Democrats.