Leaving Afghanistan

[Uncle Sparky]

[Proteus_MST]

So true
Germany also leaves the local afghan asssistants haanging as well ...
at least those who weren't already relocated to germany before the fall of Kabul

[Sugarrynad]

I think Biden did the right thing by withdrawing.

It seems senseless to send American troops to defend the Afghanistan government when, for whatever reason, the Afghan army would not defend the Afghanistan government.

I wonder why, isn't it because there are Taliban's in their own army ranks?

[Egbert]

I wonder why, isn't it because there are Taliban's in their own army ranks?

I rather doubt that there would be a simple explanation that we could point to and say "this is why the Taliban took over so quickly".

The explanation may be some blend of historical factors, allegiances to central government, corruption, nepotism, fear, not paying salaries, selfishness, Taliban strategy and so forth. I have very limited knowledge of the current events and history of Afghanistan.

I also can not see why the Americans should continue spending enormous sums in Afghanistan.

[Dinner]

I rather doubt that there would be a simple explanation that we could point to and say "this is why the Taliban took over so quickly".

The explanation may be some blend of historical factors, allegiances to central government, corruption, nepotism, fear, not paying salaries, selfishness, Taliban strategy and so forth. I have very limited knowledge of the current events and history of Afghanistan.

I also can not see why the Americans should continue spending enormous sums in Afghanistan.

Absolutely all of those things are factors. The number one thing was that Biden wouldn't even allow US contractors or logistics support or even continuing cash support for Afgh forces. That means all the military simply stopped getting paid in May. That meant food and ammo stopped getting to front line units starting last May. That meant fuel, spare parts for vehicles and planes, as well as people trained to repair those vehicles and planes were no longer available.

The AfghansAfghann't even fly the aircraft we gave them because of what Biden did. That meant the Afghan army had month of the government not supplying any pay,, any food,, any ammo, or any air support. Is it any wonder they all just went home or changed sides? Biden did this even though all the Pentagon and intelligence officials told him Afghanistan would collapse. Biden did this and ignored what all the experts told him.

[Jon Miller]

Trump had made the deal with the Taliban to pull out in May. Was part of the deal that we could continue to prop up the Afghan military after May? I am just trying to understand the context that Biden was working in.

I could believe that the Taliban would be more OK with us leaving a few months later as long as we quit the financial support of the Afghan military (as we see/saw, they couldn't even last 3 months without it).

JM

[Bereta_Eder]

we got our translator out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8rh0oJrZLM

what a FUBAR beyond belief... poor women there


at least when the communists had it they made the women learn to read and write.


do you know that now virtually the half world

THE HALF WORLD is autocracies and dictatorships....


something is not being done right...

[Bereta_Eder]

I also can not see why the Americans should continue spending enormous sums in Afghanistan.

Most of that money goes right back into their military conglomerates.

They can't just take money out of peoples pockets even in a corporate democracy so they think up of "wars" so they can siffon the funds out of hard working people to the congomerates.
Also the military is the vast social state that the US lacks.

Afganistan can't be tamed for many reasons. But the US (and the west in general) has been delt a very serious blow to its credibility.

it was pathetic all around (I'm not leaving greece out, we were there too) but especially heart breaking for the people there

that was afganistan before....

https://e-cynical.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_2.html

great job....

[Bereta_Eder]

I rather doubt that there would be a simple explanation that we could point to and say "this is why the Taliban took over so quickly".

there is a simple explanation. afganistan's borders are arbitrary thought up by some western powers because it served their interest at that time. ,ust have been the marble stealers
There is no national identity in afganistan. there is no afganistan. the pashtun or whatever they are called are half in afganistan and half in pakistan. those are primarily the taliban. (means student of some dumb ass islamic school) they can fight the other ethnicites then fall back into pakistan to regroup and then attack and reattack.

Also as it happens in these cases, violence and corruption (accentuated to the nth with the foreign occupation) leaves all people vulnerable. a strong limp d!ck ****head called taliban comes along and says I will stop the chaos. and people (some people) follow him.

too bad.

the USSR was the best hope that country had after the screwing britain did to it.

but rambo had to go and freck everything up (I'm joking he didn't do sh!T, just promped up the taliban, because to small pea murican minds the communists were worst)

[Egbert]

Absolutely all of those things are factors. The number one thing was that Biden wouldn't even allow US contractors or logistics support or even continuing cash support for Afgh forces. That means all the military simply stopped getting paid in May. That meant food and ammo stopped getting to front line units starting last May. That meant fuel, spare parts for vehicles and planes, as well as people trained to repair those vehicles and planes were no longer available.

The AfghansAfghann't even fly the aircraft we gave them because of what Biden did. That meant the Afghan army had month of the government not supplying any pay,, any food,, any ammo, or any air support. Is it any wonder they all just went home or changed sides? Biden did this even though all the Pentagon and intelligence officials told him Afghanistan would collapse. Biden did this and ignored what all the experts told him.

I looked up some articles after reading your comment. If my understanding is correct, a lot of logistical support was was provided to the Afghan military by US Defence contractors. Those contracts stopped leaving the Afghans with insufficient logistical capacity to fully supply their forces.

There were many ghost soldiers in the Afghan Army who did not exist and were on the books solely so somebody could collect their salary. Corruption was rampant so awesome sums of money were siphoned off. Nepotism was rampant. Incompetence was rampant. Morale was patchy. Commanders were selling equipment. Paymen of salaries was not reliable.

Yikes!

[Berzerker]

one of the US soldiers there training Afghans said they'd lose ~80% of the Afghan army with drug testing and missions had to be planned before paydays because the Afghan soldiers would disappear after payday

army on meth > army on heroin

[BeBMan]

I read this CNN article and think it made me instantly an expert on all things related to Afghanistan....nah.

Nonetheless, found this bit interesting:

BERGEN: There are people who say, "This was badly executed," and then there are others, myself included, who think that there was no real reason to get out at all. So everybody can agree that the execution has been terrible, but was there a better policy prescription that could have been followed by either the Trump administration or the Biden administration or both?

LONDON: I believe that the United States could have maintained a relatively small military and intelligence presence. When I say small, I would have preferred something in the 5,000 range as far as military troops. When Trump came into office, there were around 9,000 US armed forces in Afghanistan. So a force between 5,000 and 9,000, would have ideally kept the status quo because it would have instilled confidence. It would have shored up the willingness of the Afghans to fight, and it would have allowed the US military program to continue training Afghans.

Because the Afghans did fight. An estimated 66,000 members of the Afghan military and security forces were killed over two decades. It's not like they sat on the sidelines, but they didn't fight effectively, and they certainly weren't going to stand up when it was just them against the Taliban and nobody backing them and the US military gone. And this idea that they were going to fight and die for Ghani? That just wasn't going to happen.

So could we have done it differently? Obviously, the answer is yes.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/20/opinions/afghanistan-failure-intelligence-policy-qa-douglas-london-bergen/index.html

This "small presence" approach could have worked, but otoh it would likely have turned US engagement into a forever-thing, which is after 20 yrs already not exactly something that finds a lot of support.

[Egbert]

Let us assume that the USA remained in Afghanistan. A US soldier has just been killed and you are the President of the United States who is just about to call the mother of the dead soldier to inform her of the death of her son.

What would you say if she asked "how was the life of my son worth whatever is going on in Afghanistan"?

I do know how to answer that question and that is why I support a US (and Australian) withdrawal.

[BeBMan]

I'm not saying the US should stay. Just that (acc. to those folks in the article) it would have been possible, without the huge cost/effort of the last 20 yrs. Whether it should be done or not (as there are also costs/risks of leaving) is kinda moot now, as everyone's on the way out.

As for soldiers losing lives, mother etc. - anybody confronted with this would be in a bad spot, as there is never a good answer, even when ppl think there's some noble cause "worth" of combat deaths.

[Egbert]

I'm not saying the US should stay. Just that (acc. to those folks in the article) it would have been possible, without the huge cost/effort of the last 20 yrs. Whether it should be done or not (as there are also costs/risks of leaving) is kinda moot now, as everyone's on the way out.

As for soldiers losing lives, mother etc. - anybody confronted with this would be in a bad spot, as there is never a good answer, even when ppl think there's some noble cause "worth" of combat deaths.

When a man joins the military he, and his mum, know that he may be called upon to risk and perhaps give his life for his country. That is a condition of employment that is accepted and understood. Giving his life for unknown reasons in some remote place is not so comprehensible.

It would be different if the Taliban invaded the United States. For an American marine to die defending Philadelphia from an amphibious landing is very different to getting his throat cut at Checkpoint Bravo in the Hindu Kush Mountains.