Only one president has had the courage to do the right thing in Afghanistan.

[kpete]

US policy in Afghanistan has been 20 yrs of bad decisions & bad execution in the face of an insoluble challenge. Our local allies were very flawed, our enemy was resolute & the last 3 US presidents have wanted out & knew what's happening now would happen. But sure, it's on Biden.

It is the same man who advised we do this in 2009 when he was Vice President. It takes courage because he knows that he will receive the critiques his opponents are heaping on him now.— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) August 13, 2021

America's war in Afghanistan will rank alongside Vietnam as one of our great modern failures of strategy and execution. Many are to blame for that. Whatever arguments might be made that the US departure could have been better executed, one thing is absolutely clear.

The bulk of the responsibility for that failure lies with past administrations and with the leadership in Kabul (and to some extent with Taliban enablers beyond the country's borders). Biden is doing what is right and what must be done. It is time to turn the page.

MORE:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1426164809804959748.html

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

The illusion of success could be maintained so long as U.S. and NATO military remained engaged. Now that the military cover is being withdrawn, the ugly and bloody truth is emerging: 20 years’ worth of senior leaders claiming progress, success, and “on the right azimuth” were always fiction.

...............

As awful as the security situation in Afghanistan is today, it was a disaster almost two decades in the making. The U.S. should have admitted the truth long ago and ended the war even before the conclusion of the Bush administration. Above all, America must permanently cease waging “nation-building” wars, restricting deployments abroad only to fights directly related to U.S. national security.

Link to tweet

?s=20
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/08/why-afghanistan-is-falling-to-the-taliban-so-fast/

[Walleye]

1. I remember Bill Clinton saying he could send ground troops to Kosovo but he didn't know how to get g

How he would get them out. He made a dictator back down with the bombing campaign and we didn’t lose one soldier in the whole thing. Doesn’t really get credit for that though

[PatSeg]

4. Very true

"Boots on the ground" should always be the last option. Unfortunately at the time, we had a gung-ho cowboy president with daddy issues, who felt he had something to prove. He has so much blood on his hands. Some mistakes live on and on for generations.

[Walleye]

5. Exactly, This current mess is on W

[PatSeg]

14. Yes and all the neocons

who loved playing chess with real people's lives, as if the world was their game board. In his early presidency, GW was inexperienced and very easily manipulated by those around him. Toward the end of his time in the White House, he seemed to take a bit more control, but the damage was already done. He never was cut out for a leadership role. He should have taken up painting earlier.

You know, when it comes to the entire Bush family, I find them to be mediocre, unimpressive forgettable people. Without the money and connections, they would have amounted to pretty much nothing of any consequence. They are like the Kennedys without the charisma, intelligence, and good looks. I read a book about the Bush dynasty some years ago and I swear, there wasn't one person that was memorable, aside from perhaps George Herbert Walker, who was known for extravagant spending, drinking, and womanizing.

[former9thward]

18. W has not been president since 2009.

Every president since then has had the opportunity to remove the troops. What happnes militarily on a president's watch is on him. He is the CIC.

[COL Mustard]

26. Clausewitz Said It Over 200 Years Ago

War is the continuation of politics by other means. Military force should only be used after political and diplomatic solutions have failed. We should have learned this after Vietnam. Maybe we'll actually learn it this time.

[PatSeg]

43. Yes and in this day and age,

we have so many options, military force is not only unnecessary, it is also ineffective. In the end, it is innocent civilians who end up paying the price for the ambitions of aggressive political leaders. The older I get, the more war just seems like total insanity to me.

[PatSeg]

2. Sadly there are no really good solutions

Only less bad ones, unless you can time travel and undo all the previous mistakes. Yes, it does take courage to make such a decision, rather than kicking it down the road for the next president to deal with. I don't envy President Biden. I would hate to be in his shoes.

[Walleye]

7. It's one thing I like about Joe. He will make hard decisions, and take the flak

[PatSeg]

17. Yes, he has a lot of character

He may not have always made the right decision, but I believe he always did so for the right reasons.

[Polybius]

3. Well the asshole did make the deal to pull out last year

Whether he would have followed up had he won isn't known though.

[PatSeg]

6. Yeah, he SAID a lot of crap

often whatever popped into his head at the moment. He was too busy tweeting and watching TV to actually do any actual presidenting.

[malaise]

9. 100% correct

The best security for all citizens is health care - spend the money at home

[kpete]

11. Yes

Spend the money at home

YES!!!

peace,
kp

[IronLionZion]

20. And we'd have fewer foreign enemies to worry about

only domestic enemies

[malaise]

21. And many of the disgruntled at home are simply fed up of their situation

[Vinca]

10. This will be Biden's Benghazi, but I don't know what else he could do.

No matter when we left, this would happen and we can't afford to keep draining the treasury and burying dead soldiers for a foregone conclusion. There is no good solution, but poor Joe is going to get kicked around for it.

[Walleye]

16. If the GOP ever gets back in the majority it will be endless, vicious hearings

[Xoan]

25. Then they'll be the Taliban ...

for selfish people.

[calimary]

36. DAYUM! That nails it!

The Taliban for selfish people: the GOP. You nailed it, Xoan. Nailed it to the wall.

[zuul]

12. +1

[captain queeg]

13. The rethugs have almost bankrupted us with their stupid wars.

They never learn. They want to be “tough” and have no idea how to actually do anything. They are so full of shit, unfortunately there are a lot of US citizens that are the same.

[UpInArms]

15. Ghengis Khan was the last to conquer Afghanistan

Ruthlessly and unfalteringly, the Mongol ruler unleashed more than 200,000 Mongol soldiers into Afghanistan, crippling cities such as Herat, Balkh, Ghazni, and Bamiyan and slaughtering every man, woman, and child along the way.

The Mongols conquered and destroyed the Khwarizm Empire from 1219 to 1221, and afterward Genghis Khan divided the army into two separate forces. He led his army on a forceful storm across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, destroying the region as punishment for the shah’s insulting actions. His other military force, led by his two top generals, Jebe and Subutai, marched their soldiers through Russia and the Caucasus. For the most part, the campaign was not to ruthlessly kill and destroy, but rather to subdue those in these lands by pillaging settlements and forcing the inhabitants to recognize Genghis Khan as the only universal ruler of the world. After several years of adding more territories to the empire, including Persia, the once-divided forces united again in Mongolia in 1225. Genghis Khan was callous in his avenging defeat of these lands, and historical records describe vast fields filled with the skeletal remains of slain enemies and slaughtered horse carcasses scattered among the bodies on the battlefield. The stories of the Mongols’ method of conquest were extremely terrifying, for once the army entered the city, bodies and blood filled the streets as punishment for refusing to bow down to the Mongol ruler. When provoked, angered, or extremely insulted, Genghis Khan was brutal in his methods, and in one such instance he poured molten hot silver into the eyes and ears of his enemy as retribution for a previous insult. The legend of these malicious methods caused many shahs to tremble in fear of the Mongol army. Understandably, once this fear was instilled in a man’s heart, it was hard to find the courage to fight such savage warriors. For those that would not submit to the Mongol army, the Mongols’ ruthless mission was for the most part a simple instruction from Genghis Khan: slay the men, rape the women, and enslave the children.

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/10/12/mongol-rule-in-afghanistan-1219-1332/

[Jon King]

19. Yup, it was unwinnable and the women will suffer.

The entire culture treats women like garbage. These Afghan males who are just laying down their arms and walking away when the Taliban comes will do okay.

[ansible]

23. They're executing prisoners who surrender too

Link to tweet

[Jon King]

29. Yes, but in the longer run most males will be fine.

Sure the Taliban will execute some captured Afghan males, that is how they send their brutal message. But overall most males will go on and get by just fine in that society.

It has always be and will always be the women who have no rights and are nothing but reproductive and cooking objects to male Afghans.

[IronLionZion]

22. There's no definition of winning

nobody knows what the US is supposed to accomplish by staying there so might as well leave after 20 years. Enough is enough.

[Mustellus]

24. The Romans had anti-insurgency figured out.

The strategy is simple: Never Go Home. Thats why every northern Med country speaks a version of Latin.

Unfortunately the United States has a surplus of Spectator Patriots, who want to cheer from the bleachers. Would not ever dream of getting on the field themselves and participating.

(edit for spelng)

[marble falls]

27. Big Dog stayed out, too. He got the lesson of Somalia very quickly and got a quick refresher ...

... the Sudan aspirin factory droning.

GWB was the fool rushing in. It took a political will for Joe Biden to just end it. Presidents who end wars, won or lost, tend to lose their glitter quick.

HW won his war and had a 92% approval rating. Bill Clinton beat him after admitting on 60 Minutes while sitting next to Hillary that he had cheated on her, but that they had worked through it, and he deeply regretted it.

But if you win the war, like HST, you get a better chance, but conventional wisdom is against it:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/resizer/0XXLLkLyF4c3E3w-g8bwg8rLY64=/1200x0/top/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/SCDRU4ADLNANVA77N4QPJGMKJM

[monkeyman1]

28. I completely agree with Joe & back him 100% . V.N.-67 - 70 . time to leave !

[thesquanderer]

30. And if we'd followed his advice in 2009, we'd be in the same position as now...

...except with fewer dead or wounded soldiers.

[maxsolomon]

31. Quibbling, but Iraq ranks higher than Afghanistan.

as a failure for me. It was 100% a war of choice. At least we had motive to enter Afghanistan.

Taken together, they're the worst strategic blunders America has ever made (I'm sure I'm missing something because I'm biased towards events in my lifetime). We did exactly what OBL wanted us to do - overreact.

[Cosmocat]

33. Yep

Afghanistan was somewhat justifiable.

There was no excuse for Iraq, and those responsible for it should have paid much heavier prices, but that is just how Rs roll.

[BarbD]

32. There is never a "good" way to end a big 20 year mistake.

Biden has great courage to take all the flack and the determination to end this folly.

Did we learn nothing from the stupidity of Vietnam? Who can forget the horrifying scene in April, 1975 when Army helicopters scrambled to evacuate civilian and military personnel from the rooftop of the American embassy in Saigon? Who can forget the tragedy of ordinary South Vietnamese refugees who sought to escape by boat -- many not surviving?

War is not a game. There is always collateral damage. When will we ever learn?

[chowder66]

40. +1

[GB_RN]

34. Because Bush Let the Taliboneheads & Al Qaida Slip Away

Into Pakistan, and instead invaded Iraq, we permanently lost our chance to solve this thing. Now, the Taliban are back, en mass, and Afghanistan will be back at square one. Watch them march into Kabul on 9/11 as a symbolic 🖕to us...especially since it's the 20th anniversary. It's practically guaranteed at this point.

But, this was always a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. And Biden would catch hell no matter what he did or didn't do.

[3catwoman3]

35. We could have stayed another 100 years and it would not...

Last edited Fri Aug 13, 2021, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

...have made any difference.

[Jon King]

39. Exactly, Russia tried before the US did.

The tribes, the terrain, the religious fanaticism....Afghanistan will always be a mess.

[Loge23]

37. The Collapse of an Empire

After 20 years, a trillion dollars, and 2,500 American troops killed, this is what we get.
Is there any better example of the bloated military establishment than what we see in this horrendous aftermath?
A guerilla force a fraction of the size of its' opponents was able to hang on for 20 years and wait until the USA finally pulled out, after enduring two decades of hellfire.
Is anyone worried yet about the real strength of our military forces?
The fact is, our military rank and file has become a prop for the military-industrial complex, as warned by one of the last of the great American Generals, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address as President. Eisenhower correctly warned us about the complex as it had "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
So now we have a self-serving complex that eats a sizable portion of the nation's budget but can't manage to carry out its' mission in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan - as flawed as those missions are conceived.
This isn't post WW2 Europe anymore and we can't expect to prop up puppet governments and install faux-democracies in places whose people do not recognize nor understand Western-style governments. Hell, even in the USA we have a significant portion of our population that doesn't recognize nor understand our own government anymore!
So along with our deteriorating infrastructure (due to get a band-aid soon), our failing education systems, our increasing morbidity, and our seemingly unbridgeable political/socio chasm, we can all stop chanting USA, USA and realize that we no longer need a military that insists on fighting wars like we did 80 years ago, albeit with shinier toys.
New ships? They're blown out of the water by someone sitting a few thousand miles away staring at a computer screen.
New planes? For what purpose? To kill civilians? The enemy of today is rarely affected by mass bombing campaigns.
More "boots on the ground"? Again, for what purpose? To spread "democracy"?!! Yeah, they'll listen to us.
No, what the complex needs is more and more of our tax dollars to blow up. Because that makes us all feel like we're getting our money's worth.
None of this screed should suggest I'm in favor a bunch of homicidal fanatics taking control of anything, let alone a country, but it should be evident by now that we're hopelessly unable to stop it.

[SpankMe]

38. "...restricting deployments abroad only to fights directly related to U.S. national security.."

"Directly related to U.S. national security..." can be pretty subjective. If there is a direct threat of attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests from Afghanistan, then most would agree military intervention is advisable.

But, if the Taliban supports terrorist networks that might have an impact on the U.S. some day, then is that sufficient?

How about if the Taliban supports cells that destabilize other countries that in turn cause problems for the U.S.?

Supporting stability everywhere is good for the U.S. The question is - how pre-emptive should we be?

[lonely bird]

42. Define stability

That has been the rationale for intervention into Latin America, Iran, the Spanish-Cuban-American war and who knows what else.

[lonely bird]

41. When you lie wounded on Afghanistan's plains

And the women come out to cut up what remains
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.

The problem, hypothetically , since it can’t be reduced to the level of a single problem, lies in not realizing complexity and the law of unintended consequences. The alleged reason for “going in”, retribution, was forthright and completely delusional.

War is not over, in point of opinion, it is never over. War has shifted, become redefined, and since we lack the vision to see beyond or the potential to see beyond we simply resort to technology and claim that we are better than we are.