Afghan War ending, foretold by The Onion 10 years Ago [DT thread ruined by politics]

[Nueces River Rat 5796]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

the only two things that are problematic to me is that we spent 20 years training a military that didn't have the will to protect its country, that's on them and on us for either being there that long knowing they wouldn't or failing to see how pansy-ass they were going to be which then gets to a sub-point about the complete failure of our intelligence to see what the fuck was going to happen when we evacuated. 

The second concern is what's next in terms of the Taliban harming women and children and promoting and harboring terrorist organizations.  This remains to be seen how we and the global community deal with it.

But anyone pointing the finger at the overall outcome is a hypocrite.  Trump wanted out, Obama wanted out, Bush wanted out, none could do it for good reason or for political reason, none could do it.  Biden did whatever one wanted and if Afganistan is gonna fall like a cheap tent, we had no business being there after about 5 years.

But yeah, the immediate fiasco of not expecting this and knowing this is on him and his Administration.

1) Our intel agencies have been on a roll with success for the last four decades or so....   Maybe it's high time to do away with all of them and start over?

2) Sadly the global community will sit back and verbally say a lot of stuff the world will want to hear condemning the Taliban with how they treat women/children, but will do nothing about it.  The track record with how these regimes work in that part of the world and Africa and basically sticking the middle finger at the global community is well documented.  Sending in UN blue helmets won't work either.  

 

[BabaYaga 15625]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

 

JFC.....

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

36 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Consider this: in the time we have been in Afghanistan, there have been no foreign led terrorist attacks on US soil.

What makes you think there’s a connection there? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? You’re repeating Bush/Cheney talking points. All the while the 9/11 attacks kept paying dividends. They didn’t have to attempt another major attack. We’ve wasted trillions of dollars in a massive overreaction to 9/11 and weakened ourselves on the world stage as a result.

The shoe bomber’s bomb failed and he got caught and then we all had to take off our shoes in the security line at the airport. I’m not certain that they didn’t mean for the underwear bomber to get caught just to try to make us take off our pants. We’ve had a number of domestic terrorism events inspired by social media like the Boston Marathon bombers. That’s probably the biggest threat going forward and it’s not just limited to Muslim extremists as the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6 clearly showed.

But mostly I think our beefed up security and disruption of the financial networks that fund foreign terrorist organizations had a lot more to do with keeping us safe than “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” which I see as just empty rhetoric. 

[Hmbre97 6337]

The South Vietnamese continued to fight for almost 2 years after the US left.  It's not solely on their will or ability, it's how the logistics and communication is handled based upon the situation on the ground.
You don't skip to the end step and announce a wholehearted withdrawal until earlier steps are taken care of such as stowing secret docs and gear, managing the people situation, lining up logistics, etc.  Nor do you back yourself into a symbolic corner so you can have your DC photo op and tell the press you "got us out" on the symbolic date of 9/11.  Fucking amateur hour.

I'm sorry, what position do you hold in our govt and are privy to info we don't have? Oh, you don't and are just speculating and talking out of your ass? Got it.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

 

The Taliban is awful.  They will continue to do awful things.  But they aren't an outlier in the region.  Negotiations and agreements aren't a "good faith' thing.  Rather, they are transactional.  There are things both the Taliban and the US can gain in the region.  We could find ways to give them some things in exchange for them not fostering or protecting Al Qaeda II, Electric Boogaloo.  Is it disgusting to "negotiate" with shitbags like the Taliban?  Maybe.  Are they the governing power in a region that still matters? Yep, so suck it up, buttercup.

The more you learn about some of the warlords who'd once been presented as heroes in America, the more the Taliban come across as merely annoying religious fanatics by comparison. I mean, the Taliban at least insist on the formality of marriage before they countenance rapes, and those little boy unga bunga parties are punishable by death. Not saying they probably still don't go on, but not with the same abandon they would under the warlord regime.

[troph 25227]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The South Vietnamese continued to fight for almost 2 years after the US left.  It's not solely on their will or ability, it's how the logistics and communication is handled based upon the situation on the ground.

You don't skip to the end step and announce a wholehearted withdrawal until earlier steps are taken care of such as stowing secret docs and gear, managing the people situation, lining up logistics, etc.  Nor do you back yourself into a symbolic corner so you can have your DC photo op and tell the press you "got us out" on the symbolic date of 9/11.  Fucking amateur hour.

Again I've been clear I think the failure to recognize the Afgan army would fold is a major problem.  There's no way that's Joe Biden, career Senator, VP just saying fuck it let's leave.  That's not what happened, no way, no how.  The intelligence and military communities completely shit the bed here as did the Administration.  The bigger issue isn't omfg Biden's a circus monkey, it's that our rank and file people in critical agencies don't know what the fuck is going on.  I think everything you say should have happened was expected to happen over a month or so as the Taliban approached Kabul.  Instead, the Afgan military said, fuck this shit and got out of the way.  The fundamental issue is why did we not see that coming? 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

7 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

This is probably the dumbest of all dumb questions, but why does our diplomatic staff have to pull out?

So they don’t get killed.

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

Consider this: in the time we have been in Afghanistan, there have been no foreign led terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

So they don’t get killed.

But would they? Like i said, I've not been able to confirm if the Russians ever left. And killing our diplomatic staff would certainly not be the way the new and improved Taliban would want to make their entry back on to the world stage. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

This is probably the dumbest of all dumb questions, but why does our diplomatic staff have to pull out? Is that a Taliban demand, or is it just the way things are done? In all likelihood there will be at least a token effort at rebuilding diplomatic relations almost as soon as we leave. 

Russia and Afghanistan have full diplomatic relations now and I can't seem to find a date for their embassy ever closing in Kabul. Shit got really sour between them when the Taliban was aiding the Chechens, but that doesn't seem to have caused a full break in relations.

 

Also, it's disturbing to me that the Russian-backed Afghan government survived for three fucking years after the Soviet Union collapsed and all their troops went home and ours lasted about three days. What's up with that?

The Taliban is much more organized, funded, and trained now would be my spitballin' answer.

[BabaYaga 15625]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

Again I've been clear I think the failure to recognize the Afgan army would fold is a major problem.  There's no way that's Joe Biden, career Senator, VP just saying fuck it let's leave.  That's not what happened, no way, no how.  The intelligence and military communities completely shit the bed here as did the Administration.  The bigger issue isn't omfg Biden's a circus monkey, it's that our rank and file people in critical agencies don't know what the fuck is going on.  I think everything you say should have happened was expected to happen over a month or so as the Taliban approached Kabul.  Instead, the Afgan military said, fuck this shit and got out of the way.  The fundamental issue is why did we not see that coming? 

It's almost as if a conditions-based withdrawal makes sense....as if gives you the flexibility to shore up logistical challenges in the face of new or previously unexpected challenges.  Again, it's not the choice to extricate.  Its how it was facilitated.  It's the time honored hubris is a leader thousands of miles away being unable to adapt to changes.  What does losing a few weeks or a few months as long as you protect your people and your gear other than sacrificing your precious 9/11 photo op?

[Nueces River Rat 5796]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The South Vietnamese continued to fight for almost 2 years after the US left.  It's not solely on their will or ability, it's how the logistics and communication is handled based upon the situation on the ground.

You don't skip to the end step and announce a wholehearted withdrawal until earlier steps are taken care of such as stowing secret docs and gear, managing the people situation, lining up logistics, etc.  Nor do you back yourself into a symbolic corner so you can have your DC photo op and tell the press you "got us out" on the symbolic date of 9/11.  Fucking amateur hour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon

 

For what it's worth, read this and you can see our intel agencies were spot on target with timing in Saigon as well (sarcasm).

South Vietnam lost it's will once the US cut all aid (military and civilian) in the spring of 1975.

Unlike Vietnam, there is little chance of reconciliation with Taliban.    Vietnam has actually become a strategic trading partner and doesn't mind our Navy making  ports of call in order to send China a message.  They mistrust the Chinese as much as we do or hope we do after the last year and half.

[956 Worldwide 35594]

5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

This is probably the dumbest of all dumb questions, but why does our diplomatic staff have to pull out? Is that a Taliban demand, or is it just the way things are done? In all likelihood there will be at least a token effort at rebuilding diplomatic relations almost as soon as we leave. 

Russia and Afghanistan have full diplomatic relations now and I can't seem to find a date for their embassy ever closing in Kabul. Shit got really sour between them when the Taliban was aiding the Chechens, but that doesn't seem to have caused a full break in relations.

 

Also, it's disturbing to me that the Russian-backed Afghan government survived for three fucking years after the Soviet Union collapsed and all their troops went home and ours lasted about three days. What's up with that?

The worst of all worlds is a repeat of the Iran hostage situation, which is the prime reason.
 

More theoretically, we do not recognize the Taliban as a state or a legitimate government and there is no longer an alternate Afghanistan government to maintain diplomatic relations with. The Russians never went to war with the Taliban and the Taliban have consistently referred to us as an invading power. 
 

To the last point, the Russians inherited a nation that was somewhat more functional before it broke. And the Russians had recent experience of turning Central Asian Islamic emirates into something that functioned in a way.  The Bolsheviks came to stay and believed in what they were doing. 

It is a sobering thing, as an American or Westerner, to wander some faraway capital or village in the great Asian landmass and to realize— everything that you recognize, even dimly, as civilization or modernity, was brought and built by first the Tsarists and then the Soviets. To ponder the fact that all the girls and women who can read, can read because the cadres came and abolished polygamy, burned the paranjas on the maidan, and taught everyone how to make Cyrillic letters.

 It turns your usual perspective of the Soviets as incompetents who looted and broke civilization in Central Europe, on its head. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

56 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If you can't take a little light-hearted ribbing maybe Surly isn't the place for you.

You didn’t use the “ I’m just fucking with you” font. 

Forgive me for just assuming pure assholery. It’s endemic to surly. 

[sidis 10017]

17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'll save us both the time and re-post what I posted earlier - namely,  that Trump set forth a conditions-based withdrawal with a timeline that could shift based on those conditions. After negotiations with the Taliban, who promised to stop attacking the Afghan government, we started to implement that. The Taliban began violating that agreement. When Biden took over, he did not embrace the Trump policy of conditions-testing, but kept to the timeline even advanced it blindly.

Biden spent the first days in office overturning every single policy of Trump EXCEPT THIS ONE. He had eight months to review the plans, change them, put in carrots and sticks, and he did nothing except speed up the timeline, and deceive the Afghans about the timetable so they got caught flat footed. He can't say that he inherited this and had no choice but to act like a robot and implement it when he literally undid every single other policy of Trump.  THAT IS ON HIM.

 

despite this being a waste of time, a few points...

1) he hasn't overturned every trump policy and i would not have expected him to overturn this one because a) it was immensely popular with the american people, and b) he was in complete agreement with it as a consistently long-time advocate of extracting american personnel from the shit-show that is afghanistan.

2) have you read the conditions that were set forth in the agreement?  you say that a condition was that the taliban agreed to stop attacking the afghan government.  can you show me where that is?  the conditions were to not attack american personnel as they drew down and exited and that they would not provide safe harbor to al-qaeda.  there were no enforcement mechanisms outlined and there was not a soul on the planet (besides you apparently) who were naive enough to believe that the minute that deal was signed by trump, the afghan government would crumble to the taliban.  hence, why they were dealing with them in the first place.  what conditions-testing process did the new administration abandon exactly?  give this a read...

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/568154-trumps-deal-with-the-taliban-set-the-stage-for-the-afghan-collapse

this day was inevitable unless the united states was willing to commit to a permanent occupation.

that said, the state department has really fucked this ever since the signing of the deal under both administrations. there should have been a more efficient and orderly removal of highly vulnerable people under a return to taliban rule and that has been a goat-fuck process instead.  very unfortunate.

that said, the point of my post was to bring some semblance of perspective to all the screeching present in this thread about this being the most embarrassing u.s. foreign policy event in history.  that's absurd.

[BabaYaga 15625]

12 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The South Vietnamese continued to fight for almost 2 years after the US left.  It's not solely on their will or ability, it's how the logistics and communication is handled based upon the situation on the ground.
You don't skip to the end step and announce a wholehearted withdrawal until earlier steps are taken care of such as stowing secret docs and gear, managing the people situation, lining up logistics, etc.  Nor do you back yourself into a symbolic corner so you can have your DC photo op and tell the press you "got us out" on the symbolic date of 9/11.  Fucking amateur hour.

I'm sorry, what position do you hold in our govt and are privy to info we don't have? Oh, you don't and are just speculating and talking out of your ass? Got it.

Wait, what?  So this isn't about being able to get out on the symbolic date of 9/11?  I just made all that up?

[ChickenSandwich 9959]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

Again I've been clear I think the failure to recognize the Afgan army would fold is a major problem.  There's no way that's Joe Biden, career Senator, VP just saying fuck it let's leave.  That's not what happened, no way, no how.  The intelligence and military communities completely shit the bed here as did the Administration.  The bigger issue isn't omfg Biden's a circus monkey, it's that our rank and file people in critical agencies don't know what the fuck is going on.  I think everything you say should have happened was expected to happen over a month or so as the Taliban approached Kabul.  Instead, the Afgan military said, fuck this shit and got out of the way.  The fundamental issue is why did we not see that coming? 

Afghanistan disaster: Why Biden's foreign policy team failed America (usatoday.com)

Part of the problem has to do with personnel decisions. The White House has opted to pack political types into the most influential positions.

Indeed, there is only one career diplomat in a senior position on the National Security Council, the senior director for Africa. This is far fewer than under President Barack Obama. It means Sullivan and Biden are not getting advice from those with the most recent and relevant experience.

Political allies rewarded with jobs

Things do not get much better at the State Department, where for the first time in a quarter century, a current career diplomat is not in one of the top three jobs. 

We can see the administration’s predilection for putting political appointees in national security positions in their choice of ambassadors. Biden has too often treated too many posts as political party favors, naming the well-to-do or the well-connected to places like Turkey, where diplomatic experience is normally a prerequisite.

Those appointments across the national security structure are a reflection of the arrogance that has accompanied the arrival of this team. They came in largely ignoring the worries and warnings of institutional experts on several major international issues.

First, we saw the border and refugee policies run into avoidable ditches. The president rushed to change policies without adequately consulting the experts working in those areas. 

[kevwun 16438]

I also expect the Russians have been sending the Taliban weapons over the years.

[AUS-97HORN 12051]

11 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

I'm sorry, what position do you hold in our govt and are privy to info we don't have? Oh, you don't and are just speculating and talking out of your ass? Got it.

I'm sorry, what is your expertise to counter-argue his points?   Oh the same fucking answer, which is none.

 

the optics on this shitshow are sooooo fucking bad, we basically abandoned a multiplier of 10,000 people (1,2,3,4,5...   actual number keeps changing, but its at least 10k) who trusted us, were our agents, interpreters, informants, etc.  

yet, in 2-5 years when the next major terrorist attack that comes from a group trained and taught in New Afghanistan, and a new administration is in charge, you will be the first person in line to be an expert on that particular foreign policy and maybe even yelling that WHY WERE WE UNPREPARED!   because its gonna happen.

 

 

[Macanudo 13327]

4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I also expect the Russians have been sending the Taliban weapons over the years.

Ya think?

[sidis 10017]

2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

I'm sorry, what is your expertise to counter-argue his points?   Oh the same fucking answer, which is none.

 

the optics on this shitshow are sooooo fucking bad, we basically abandoned a multiplier of 10,000 people (1,2,3,4,5...   actual number keeps changing, but its at least 10k) who trusted us, were our agents, interpreters, informants, etc.  

yet, in 2-5 years when the next major terrorist attack that comes from a group trained and taught in New Afghanistan, and a new administration is in charge, you will be the first person in line to be an expert on that particular foreign policy and maybe even yelling that WHY WERE WE UNPREPARED!   because its gonna happen.

 

 

is it your position that a permanent occupying force was the best alternative?

[Parliament 14598]

23 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

JFC.....

So they call a cab/buy a bus ticket. When they get to a taliban checkpoint, then what?

[Blotto 24021]

31 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

This is probably the dumbest of all dumb questions, but why does our diplomatic staff have to pull out?

They wouldnt have to if they would just conduct all their bidness in a hot tub.

[troph 25227]

18 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's almost as if a conditions-based withdrawal makes sense....as if gives you the flexibility to shore up logistical challenges in the face of new or previously unexpected challenges.  Again, it's not the choice to extricate.  Its how it was facilitated.  It's the time honored hubris is a leader thousands of miles away being unable to adapt to changes.  What does losing a few weeks or a few months as long as you protect your people and your gear other than sacrificing your precious 9/11 photo op?

again, I agree, why the fuck didn't we know this would happen.  you or chickenshit posted the usatoday article, sure Biden has responsibility, our entire state department was hobbled by the prior president, remember the deep state career civil servants?  it's the entirety of it all.  I never, ever give safe harbor to "my team" so I'm at a disadvantage in any of these real discussions because others play by different rules.  But as a factual matter, Trump did the State department no favors and if accurate, with certain appointees neither did Biden and yet here we are with real problems, people abandoned likely to their death, technology that will be misused, and a 20 year war seemingly all for naught.  yeah it's a fucking problem.  why are you arguing with me?  Simply because I'm a progressive?  Because if so take that shit to the CR, real policy?  we've shit the bed for a while now across multiple Administrations.

Edited August 17, 2021 by troph

[AUS-97HORN 12051]

Just now, sidis said:

is it your position that a permanent occupying force was the best alternative?

no... just as you already posted on here, having a fucking plan to get the "helpers" out of the fucking country before we just disappeared overnight wudda probably been helpful.    and its not like we would have been breaking any operational security by telling those folks that.

It was NO SECRET AT ALL that we were 99.9% gonna be gone by Dec 31.  We were on record saying that.

so in April or May we literally could have gotten the word out that anyone with verified concern of being left behind who felt uncomfortable living in the supposedly democratic afghanistan that was poised to take over at the end of the year should probably contact the State Dept about options to leave in the next 5-6 months  (again, keeping with the theme of us leaving before year end)  plus still allowing for the surprise escape on July 6

yeah, maybe only 15-20% would have taken us up on the offer, but at least we would have some semblance of "we kinda told you"     instead of whatever the holy fuck this current shit show has became.

[Assman 1830]

30 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

 

As harsh as this is, there's no other solution.  Want to send an MRAP full of Marines to go door-to-door to rescue Americans?  Want to land a Chinook in a few front yards?  There's no better way to do it.  Put on your shemagh, throw your shit in your car, and hope for the best.  

[BabaYaga 15625]

18 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

Unlike Vietnam, there is little chance of reconciliation with Taliban.    Vietnam has actually become a strategic trading partner and doesn't mind our Navy making  ports of call in order to send China a message.  They mistrust the Chinese as much as we do or hope we do after the last year and half.

I was there a few years back.  Visited the Cu Chi tunnels.  The same tunnel system my uncle, who was an air force "Wild Weasel" pilot flew over.  The B52 craters are still there.  Like giant oval depressions the size of a large house.  They have a gun range there and you can fire all the ordinance from the era, including a full auto M60 (bolted down obviously)

[troph 25227]

1 minute ago, AUS-97HORN said:

no... just as you already posted on here, having a fucking plan to get the "helpers" out of the fucking country before we just disappeared overnight wudda probably been helpful.    and its not like we would have been breaking any operational security by telling those folks that.

It was NO SECRET AT ALL that we were 99.9% gonna be gone by Dec 31.  We were on record saying that.

so in April or May we literally could have gotten the word out that anyone with verified concern of being left behind who felt uncomfortable living in the supposedly democratic afghanistan that was poised to take over at the end of the year should probably contact the State Dept about options to leave in the next 5-6 months  (again, keeping with the theme of us leaving before year end)  plus still allowing for the surprise escape on July 6

yeah, maybe only 15-20% would have taken us up on the offer, but at least we would have some semblance of "we kinda told you"     instead of whatever the holy fuck this current shit show has became.

anyone who had reason to get out and no reason to stay longer had notice I would contend.  I would have already left.  those that needed to stay and needed fair warning, we'll we fucked them proper.  that's on Biden and everyone under him.  shit needs to change.  of course, we spent four years gutting the State Department so kinda hard to have a proper functioning State Department in 8 months.

[Assman 1830]

DP, and not the good kind

Edited August 17, 2021 by Assman

[DDD Dad 14650]

5 minutes ago, troph said:

again, I agree, why the fuck didn't we know this would happen.  you or chickenshit posted the usatoday article, sure Biden has responsibility, our entire state department was hobbled by the prior president, remember the deep state career civil servants?  it's the entirety of it all.  I never, ever give safe harbor to "my team" so I'm at a disadvantage in any of these real discussions because others play by different rules.  But as a factual matter, Trump did the State department no favors and if accurate, with certain appointees neither did Biden and yet here we are with real problems, people abandoned likely to their death, technology that will be misused, and a 20 year war seemingly all for naught.  yeah it's a fucking problem.  why are you arguing with me?  Simply because I'm a progressive?  Because if so take that shit to the CR, real policy?  we've shit the bed for a while now across multiple Administrations.

[BabaYaga 15625]

10 minutes ago, sidis said:

is it your position that a permanent occupying force was the best alternative?

Oh, I don't know?  Maybe a less public extrication based upon on-the-ground-intelligence and able to first secure all important personnel and gear as you systematically decrease your presence.  Not just yank the fucking rug out so you can make a GD photo op.  Maybe start with the 5-10: US civilians first and go form there?  It's not like he hasn't had 8 months to prepare for this day.  

[MillerEP 30907]

Maybe they should've gotten the civilians out first before packing up a leaving in the middle of the night *checks title*, like The Onion predicted 10 years ago.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

31 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is a sobering thing, as an American or Westerner, to wander some faraway capital or village in the great Asian landmass and to realize— everything that you recognize, even dimly, as civilization or modernity, was brought and built by first the Tsarists and then the Soviets. To ponder the fact that all the girls and women who can read, can read because the cadres came and abolished polygamy, burned the paranjas on the maidan, and taught everyone how to make Cyrillic letters.

 It turns your usual perspective of the Soviets as incompetents who looted and broke civilization in Central Europe, on its head. 

CRT: Critical Russian Theory.

But kidding aside, really interesting and thought-provoking post. You sound like you've seen some things.

Edited August 17, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[BabaYaga 15625]

8 minutes ago, troph said:

again, I agree, why the fuck didn't we know this would happen.  you or chickenshit posted the usatoday article, sure Biden has responsibility, our entire state department was hobbled by the prior president, remember the deep state career civil servants?  it's the entirety of it all.  I never, ever give safe harbor to "my team" so I'm at a disadvantage in any of these real discussions because others play by different rules.  But as a factual matter, Trump did the State department no favors and if accurate, with certain appointees neither did Biden and yet here we are with real problems, people abandoned likely to their death, technology that will be misused, and a 20 year war seemingly all for naught.  yeah it's a fucking problem.  why are you arguing with me?  Simply because I'm a progressive?  Because if so take that shit to the CR, real policy?  we've shit the bed for a while now across multiple Administrations.

First off, this is funny (bolded)

Second, only point I'm arguing about is not the act itself, but how, over the last 8 months was there no planning for this?  I posted earlier that Biden tore up every Trump order BUT THIS ONE?  It's not like he was bound to anything.  If the situation is FUBAR, then push it back a few months.  The end is the same minus the chaos, casualties, and loss of equipment/documents.  The only explanation continues to come from state officials is not missing his seemingly precious 9/11 date.  From a planning and project standpoint, this is amateur hour for those of us that have been augured in on a date that is detrimental to mission at hand.  If you have the capacity to move the date, you do.  In this case, he could have easily but chose not to against the advice of many WH and military officials.  This is why this crap will stick to him.  

[Hmbre97 6337]

25 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

I'm sorry, what is your expertise to counter-argue his points?   Oh the same fucking answer, which is none.

 

 

Oh, so because I don't have inroads with the state dept to provide actual information to refute his baseless speculations. that means his points are valid?

[Captainant 28539]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is why this crap will stick to him.  

well that, and he doesn't have the ministry of truth backing up his words and memory-holing certain SiGnAtUrE aChIeVeMeNtS

['stache 22143]

Yeah, pretty sure we won't just be all diplomatic to a group we've been fighting for 20+ years and by which we were essentially defeated. The new "kinder gentler" Taliban thing they're trying to put out there is pretty weak and not credible. I'm also sure we shouldn't be following diplomatic decisions from Russia. I'm pretty sure our UN and Nato allies will largely not treat the Taliban as a legitimate government either. If they do, we might rethink things a bit, but for now at least based on how this has played out, we aren't just going to pretend were all friends all of a sudden. Especially when they start suppressing rights and treating women like property. We manage to be able to ignore human rights violators when we buy shit from then (cough, cough, China), but can't really do that immediately after what the whole world is witnessing right now with a close eye on Afgan human rights over the next however many years the Taliban is in control.

[AUS-97HORN 12051]

4 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

Oh, so because I don't have inroads with the state dept to provide actual information to refute his baseless speculations. that means his points are valid?

 

 

His points might not be valid, but Im gonna need you to site your sources saying that hes making baseless speculations.    cause hes linked the CNN article which has lots of the concerns he listed.

and just in case you coudlnt find it

Heres today's NYT article also confirming that Biden was warned by multiple experts that Afghan was gonna fall super quick

 

So take your masturbatory self back to the cloak room and jerk off all you want there. 

[SEC 1174]

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

Consider this: in the time we have been in Afghanistan, there have been no foreign led terrorist attacks on US soil.

EDIT: Beat like OU in a bowl

Edited August 17, 2021 by SEC

[babysdaddy 2731]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/08/17/treasury-taliban-money-afghanistan/

"Let our people go unharmed and you can have the cash"

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1231636.shtml

The US troops' withdrawal from Afghanistan has led to the rapid demise of the Kabul government. The world has witnessed how the US evacuated its diplomats by helicopter while Taliban soldiers crowded into the presidential palace in Kabul. This has dealt a heavy blow to the credibility and reliability of the US.

Many people cannot help but recall how the Vietnam War ended in 1975: The US abandoned its allies in South Vietnam; Saigon was taken over; then the US evacuated almost all its citizens in Saigon. And in 2019, US troops withdrew from northern Syria abruptly and abandoned their allies, the Kurds. Some historians also point out that abandoning allies to protect US interests is an inherent flaw that has been deeply rooted in the US since the founding of the country. During the American War of Independence, the US humbly begged the king of France, Louis XVI, to ally with it. After the war, it quickly made peace with Britain unilaterally and concluded a peace treaty with Britain that was detrimental to France's interests. This put Louis XVI's regime in a difficult position, giving cause for the French Revolution.

How Washington abandoned the Kabul regime particularly shocked some in Asia, including the island of Taiwan. Taiwan is the region that relies on the protection of the US the most in Asia, and the island's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities have made Taiwan go further and further down this abnormal path. The situation in Afghanistan suddenly saw a radical change after the country was abandoned by the US. And Washington just left despite the worsening situation in Kabul. Is this some kind of omen of Taiwan's future fate?

Tsai Ing-wen, who had sent a message of condolence to the US president for the death of his dog, did not mention even a word about the change in the situation in Afghanistan. Other DPP politicians as well as the media that tilt toward the DPP downplayed the shocking change as well. But they must have been nervous and feel an ominous presentiment. They must have known better in secret that the US is not reliable.

The geopolitical value of Afghanistan is no less than that of Taiwan island. Around Afghanistan, there are the US' three biggest geopolitical rivals - China, Russia and Iran. In addition, Afghanistan is a bastion of anti-US ideology. The withdrawal of US troops from there is not because Afghanistan is unimportant. It's because it has become too costly for Washington to have a presence in the country. Now the US wants to find a better way to use its resources to maintain its hegemony in the world.

Taiwan is probably the US' most cost-effective ally in East Asia. There is no US military presence on the island of Taiwan. The way the US maintains the alliance with Taiwan is simple: It sells arms to Taiwan while encouraging the DPP authorities to implement anti-mainland policies through political support and manipulation. As a result, it has caused a certain degree of depletion between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. And what Washington has to do is only to send warships and aircraft near the Straits from time to time. In general, the US does not have to spend a penny on Taiwan. Instead, it makes money through arms sales and forced pork and beef sales to the island. This is totally a profitable geopolitical deal for Washington.

Once a cross-Straits war breaks out while the mainland seizes the island with forces, the US would have to have a much greater determination than it had for Afghanistan, Syria, and Vietnam if it wants to interfere. A military intervention of the US will be a move to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and this will make Washington pay a huge price rather than earn profit. 

Some people on the island of Taiwan hype that the island is different from Afghanistan, and that the US wouldn't leave them alone. Indeed, the island is different from Afghanistan. But the difference is the deeper hopelessness of a US victory if it gets itself involved in a cross-Straits war. Such a war would mean unthinkable costs for the US, in front of which the so-called special importance of Taiwan is nothing but wishful thinking of the DPP authorities and secessionist forces on the island. 

In the past two decades, the Kabul government cost over 2,000 US soldiers, $2 trillion, and the majesty of the US against the "bandits." But how many lives of US troops and how many dollars would the US sacrifice for the island of Taiwan? After all, the US acknowledges that "there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China." Will the US get more moral support from within and from the West if it fights for the secession of Taiwan than it did during the Afghan War? 

The DPP authorities need to keep a sober head, and the secessionist forces should reserve the ability to wake up from their dreams. From what happened in Afghanistan, they should perceive that once a war breaks out in the Straits, the island's defense will collapse in hours and the US military won't come to help. As a result, the DPP authorities will quickly surrender, while some high-level officials may flee by plane. 

The best choice for the DPP authorities is to avoid pushing the situation to that position. They need to change their course of bonding themselves to the anti-Chinese mainland chariot of the US. They should keep cross-Straits peace with political means, rather than acting as strategic pawns of the US and bear the bitter fruits of a war.
 

[troph 25227]

20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

First off, this is funny (bolded)

Second, only point I'm arguing about is not the act itself, but how, over the last 8 months was there no planning for this?  I posted earlier that Biden tore up every Trump order BUT THIS ONE?  It's not like he was bound to anything.  If the situation is FUBAR, then push it back a few months.  The end is the same minus the chaos, casualties, and loss of equipment/documents.  The only explanation continues to come from state officials is not missing his seemingly precious 9/11 date.  From a planning and project standpoint, this is amateur hour for those of us that have been augured in on a date that is detrimental to mission at hand.  If you have the capacity to move the date, you do.  In this case, he could have easily but chose not to against the advice of many WH and military officials.  This is why this crap will stick to him.  

There was planning but they were completely blindsided by a 7 day collapse of the Afghan government. To say there was no planning is beyond absurd. The problem isn’t no plan the problem is faulty assumptions and terrible intelligence.  I make plans all the time, it’s the assumptions that matter.  Those were terribly off the mark. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by troph

[Parliament 14598]

In case folks don't know. The Global Times is a Chinese publication.  Doesn't mean they're entirely wrong, but let's take their op ed with a grain of salt.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

[Brisketexan 106899]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

There was planning but they were completely blindsided by a 7 day collapse of the Afghan government. To say there was no planning is beyond absurd. The problem isn’t no plan the problem is faulty assumptions and terrible intelligence.  I make plans all the time, it’s the assumptions that matter.  Those were terribly off the mark. 

One quibble here -- they weren't blindsided by the short collapse, and it wasn't "terrible intelligence."  From what I understand, the issue was that there were two schools of thought in the intel community: one that said the gov't should hold out for a couple of months, and another that said it would be more like a few days.

I suspect the admin did what many people do: listened to the version that it most wanted to hear.  That version, while it looked like sunshine and roses, turned out to be WAY f'n wrong.  And if the admin made its evac plans based on that BEST case scenario only, without contingencies for the worst case, that was a failure.

[Nivek 17415]

Consider this: in the time we have been in Afghanistan, there have been no foreign led terrorist attacks on US soil. The point was to fight terrorism where the terrorists lived. We let the mission creep and fucked up on assessing when and how to extricate ourselves but I feel that the fact that we haven't had an attack by foreign terrorists is not something to brush off as a non-accomplishment of the men and women who went there in good faith to keep us safe. Maybe this was mentioned up-thread and I didn't see it. 
I just feel bad for all the people who went there either in the military or in support of it and forming close relationships with their Afghan colleagues. The emotional wounds for collossal mistakes for not extricating these people in a planned manner is going to be as bad as what some Vietnam vets dealt with. That sucks.

Since aggy has not won a national championship in football, there has not been a world war. Maybe we just need to Nuke them from orbit.

[Born to Run 6601]

This is probably the dumbest of all dumb questions, but why does our diplomatic staff have to pull out? Is that a Taliban demand, or is it just the way things are done? In all likelihood there will be at least a token effort at rebuilding diplomatic relations almost as soon as we leave. 
Russia and Afghanistan have full diplomatic relations now and I can't seem to find a date for their embassy ever closing in Kabul. Shit got really sour between them when the Taliban was aiding the Chechens, but that doesn't seem to have caused a full break in relations.
 
Also, it's disturbing to me that the Russian-backed Afghan government survived for three fucking years after the Soviet Union collapsed and all their troops went home and ours lasted about three days. What's up with that?

The Taliban have gotten way more sophisticated over the last 20 years. Modern phones help for coordination and speed movement up.

[BabaYaga 15625]

19 minutes ago, troph said:

There was planning but they were completely blindsided by a 7 day collapse of the Afghan government.

The best laid plans?  What's the old saying?  What you are saying is basically that there was effectively no planning, as any good strategy includes multiple contingencies.  Being able to rely upon the ANA is pretty far up near the top of the list.  So the contingency that they fall apart would be your first, and most obvious contingency.  

[BabaYaga 15625]

19 minutes ago, Parliament said:

In case folks don't know. The Global Times is a Chinese publication.  Doesn't mean they're entirely wrong, but let's take their op ed with a grain of salt.

I think the Taiwan talks seem pretty obvious, as is their fear of also being left out to dry.  

[troph 25227]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The best laid plans?  What's the old saying?  What you are saying is basically that there was effectively no planning, as any good strategy includes multiple contingencies.  Being able to rely upon the ANA is pretty far up near the top of the list.  So the contingency that they fall apart would be your first, and most obvious contingency.  

you're saying there was no planing.  that's absurd.  I'm saying the underlying intel and the assumptions drawn were completely faulty.