US strikes deal w/ Taliban to remove troops from Afghanistan (3 Viewers)

DaveXA said:

Yes, but that advancement started after us leaving became a foregone conclusion. Why would they bother fighting if they already knew we were leaving?

The Afghan soldiers being trained were fighting and dying before we let on that we were planning to leave.

Click to expand...

Actually Dave, they were still fighting in July, long after we had pulled our support. It's a credit to the ones that kept fighting, and it is disgraceful for us to say they wouldn't fight for their country. Their leaders sucked, but there were many that wanted to fight for their country.

Lapaz said:

Dude, I haven't misread anything. I know the 66k is over 20 years. I said they were still fighting and dying. I posted excerpts from the New York Times from deaths in July 2021. More than 300 Afghans died fighting in July. The Times is behind a pay wall, but they give details of daily fights and deaths. It's simply a lie to say they weren't fighting. It's quite extraordinary that they were still fighting a lost cause. It wasn't lost until we pulled our support.

Click to expand...

BLUF:

If their forces won't stay in the fight, why should ours?

KABUL — The spectacular collapse of Afghanistan’s military that allowed Taliban fighters to walk into the Afghan capital Sunday despite 20 years of training and billions of dollars in American aid began with a series of deals brokered in rural villages between the militant group and some of the Afghan government’s lowest-ranking officials.

The deals, initially offered early last year, were often described by Afghan officials as cease-fires, but Taliban leaders were in fact offering money in exchange for government forces to hand over their weapons, according to an Afghan officer and a U.S. official.
Over the next year and a half, the meetings advanced to the district level and then rapidly on to provincial capitals, culminating in a breathtaking series of negotiated surrenders by government forces, according to interviews with more than a dozen Afghan officers, police, special operations troops and other soldiers...

Click to expand...

“Some just wanted the money,” an Afghan special forces officer said of those who first agreed to meet with the Taliban. But others saw the U.S. commitment to a full withdrawal as an “assurance” that the militants would return to power in Afghanistan and wanted to secure their place on the winning side, he said. The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because he, like others in this report, was not authorized to disclose information to the press.

Click to expand...

From April 2021:

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan — The Taliban attack on a police outpost at the edge of the city began at dusk, with the muted chatter of machine-gun fire and the thud of explosions. The men under attack radioed Capt. Mohammed Fawad Saleh at his headquarters, several miles away, desperate for help.

The police captain replied that he would send more men, along with one can of machine-gun ammunition — 200 rounds, not enough for even a minute of intensive fire.

“One can?” the voice on the other end of the radio responded, incredulously.

Ammunition shortages are just one of the serious and systemic issues plaguing soldiers and police officers who will soon have to defend Afghanistan — and themselves — without U.S. aircraft overhead or American troops on the ground.

“We’re holding the weight of the war,” Captain Saleh said as the attack unfolded in January. Yet one ammunition can was all he could spare...

Click to expand...

But the Taliban already control vast amounts of the country, even with American military power present. Afghan units are rife with corruption, have lost track of the weapons once showered on them by the Pentagon, and in many areas are under constant attack. Some soldiers have not been home in years because their villages have been overtaken by the Taliban.

Prospects for improvement are slim, given slumping recruitment, high casualty rates and a Taliban insurgency that is savvy, experienced and well equipped — including with weapons originally provided to the Afghan government by the United States...

Click to expand...

On paper, the Afghan security forces have more than 300,000 troops, but the actual figure is likely significantly less. Some police units keep their ranks lower than their rosters so commanders can pocket the salaries of dead or absent officers. One important army corps meant to have 16,000 men and women has around half that...

Click to expand...

When the United States ended its combat mission in 2014, it left Afghan forces to hold a sprawling and often remote network of outposts and bases that the United States had built over more than a decade. But those forces mostly lacked the logistical capacity, fire support and morale for the job. The Taliban and its allies went on the offensive, and seized territory across the country.

Click to expand...

From May 2021

By seizing ground in far-flung areas in the north, including a border crossing with Tajikistan, the Taliban are forcing the Afghan security forces to balance stretched resources as they try to hold off the insurgents elsewhere in the country, including in provinces near the capital Kabul, he said.

"The Taliban has nearly doubled the number of districts it controls, has captured key areas and military bases, and demoralized segments of the Afghan security forces and the government," Roggio said.

In the country's north, the Taliban have taken control of more than 40 districts since the start of May, including a key district in Kunduz province on Monday, allowing them to encircle the provincial capital.

In a war that has often been a slow grind, the situation on the ground has changed on a daily — sometimes hourly basis — in recent weeks. Some Afghan government units have abandoned their weapons and vehicles without a major fight, as local officials reportedly negotiated surrender agreements with the Taliban.

Click to expand...

EDIT:

Jun 2021

KABUL, Afghanistan -- At least 21 members of Afghanistan's special forces died fighting the Taliban last week after Afghan reinforcements failed to show up when the commandos were surrounded by the enemy and pounded by mortar fire, military and government officials said.

Most of the 170 troops who were supposed to back up the elite fighters during a battle in the northern town of Dawlat Abad stayed put out of fear that the operation had been leaked to the Taliban, an Afghan military official with knowledge of the operation said.



"The army did not come, police did not come, NDS did not come," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak to the media. NDS is the acronym for the country's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security.

"The other forces betrayed the commandos," he said.

Click to expand...

reportedly the ex president fled the country with $168 million. That is an oddly specific number, but wouldn't surprise me

zztop said:

reportedly the ex president fled the country with $168 million. That is an oddly specific number, but wouldn't surprise me

Click to expand...

I hope we extraordinarily rendition those tax dollars back.

DJ1BigTymer said:

BLUF:

If their forces won't stay in the fight, why should ours?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/15/afghanistan-military-collapse-taliban/

From April 2021:

How Long Can the Afghan Security Forces Last on Their Own? (Published 2021)

As the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, it leaves behind broken and battered Afghan security forces to defend the country from the Taliban and other threats.

www.nytimes.com

From May 2021

Taliban forces rapidly gaining ground in Afghanistan as U.S. leaves

Even the Taliban are taken aback at how fast their forces are moving, one commander said, and have slowed down in some cases to avoid offending the U.S.

www.nbcnews.com

EDIT:

Jun 2021

Military Daily News

Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.

www.military.com

Click to expand...

Their forces were fighting a lot until we announced we were withdrawing, and they fought less and less as our departure got closer, because their prospects got worse and worse.

Everything you posted was from after the U.S. announced its withdrawal, and yet it contained many accounts of Afghans fighting and many others frustrated. I have said repeatedly that many were still fighting, but they were fighting much more before the U.S. announced its withdrawal, because they weren't demoralized. Over 66k have died, and many thousands more have been injured. Even in the articles you posted, there were depictions of Afghan soldiers with missing limbs. It is disgraceful to claim that they weren't fighting. If the numbers were reversed and we had lost 66k soldiers, to their less than 3k, then you would have a case. They were plenty corrupt, and had crap leadership, but plenty fought. It's just a lie to say they didn't fight, and it further exacerbates the immorality of our abandonment to claim a part of the reason that we left is because they wouldn't fight. If I was an Afghan, that would radicalize me.

Y

Lapaz said:

Their forces were fighting a lot until we announced we were withdrawing, and they fought less and less as our departure got closer, because their prospects got worse and worse.

Everything you posted was from after the U.S. announced its withdrawal, and yet it contained many accounts of Afghans fighting and many others frustrated. I have said repeatedly that many were still fighting, but they were fighting much more before the U.S. announced its withdrawal, because they weren't demoralized. Over 66k have died, and many thousands more have been injured. Even in the articles you posted, there were depictions of Afghan soldiers with missing limbs. It is disgraceful to claim that they weren't fighting. If the numbers were reversed and we had lost 66k soldiers, to their less than 3k, then you would have a case. They were plenty corrupt, and had crap leadership, but plenty fought. It's just a lie to say they didn't fight, and it further exacerbates the immorality of our abandonment to claim a part of the reason that we left is because they wouldn't fight. If I was an Afghan, that would radicalize me.

Click to expand...

You seem to have the idea that we're impugning the honor and courage of these Afghan soldiers. Like we're sitting in moral judgement.
I, for one, am not.

Thing is, courage doesn't pay the bills. You can't eat it and you can't fire it at the enemy.

The Afghan government is/was as breathtakingly corrupt as any we've ever backed. Over the course of two g-ddamned decades we failed to find anyone interested in actually running Afghanistan. That's who failed. Those are the scumbags I judge harshly. Abdul Average Afghan? He's just making the best of what he can.

Taurus said:

Y

You seem to have the idea that we're impugning the honor and courage of these Afghan soldiers. Like we're sitting in moral judgement.
I, for one, am not.

Thing is, courage doesn't pay the bills. You can't eat it and you can't fire it at the enemy.

The Afghan government is/was as breathtakingly corrupt as any we've ever backed. Over the course of two g-ddamned decades we failed to find anyone interested in actually running Afghanistan. That's who failed. Those are the scumbags I judge harshly. Abdul Average Afghan? He's just making the best of what he can.

Click to expand...

Of course we're impugning the honor and courage of the Afghans when we say they wouldn't fight for their country. I agree that their leadership stunk, but the Afghans were fighting for their country, while we were essentially their leaders. We needed to demand changes at the top and to change other things about the situation, but leaving wasn't necessary at this time. It was purely a political self-interest decision, since the perception of a forever war was sold to us. We were just in a support role, so we shouldn't have characterized it as a war. It's not exactly the same, but we have supported many other wars around the world, to include world wars, before we actually got into the wars. Leaving Afghanistan is more public relations than saving American lives and money.

Lapaz said:

Of course we're impugning the honor and courage of the Afghans when we say they wouldn't fight for their country. I agree that their leadership stunk, but the Afghans were fighting for their country, while we were essentially their leaders. We needed to demand changes at the top and to change other things about the situation, but leaving wasn't necessary at this time. It was purely a political self-interest decision, since the perception of a forever war was sold to us. We were just in a support role, so we shouldn't have characterized it as a war. It's not exactly the same, but we have supported many other wars around the world, to include world wars, before we actually got into the wars. Leaving Afghanistan is more public relations than saving American lives and money.

Click to expand...

It's hard for us over here to fully know all the motivations of all the Afghan fighters. No doubt some/many believed in a Taliban free Afghanistan and were fighting for that cause. It appears to me that many more were fighting to just feed themselves and their families. When fighting wasn't feeding them or their family any longer (because of corruption), they laid down their guns and let the inevitable happen so that they could survive. Where they demoralized without continued US support, no doubt. Without us pumping in hundereds of millions of dollars annually to pay the military and police force, the grift ends for the commanders and political leaders and nothing is left for the soldiers. They all knew that too.

What still remains is that there was no way we were going to help them keep a hold of their country with our minimal support. Sure, it would have taken longer if we had stayed with some troop level and provided air support, but it still would have happened in short order (a year at most). And the end would have likely been just as chaotic as it is now. There wasn't a way for us to fix Afghanistan. We tried for 20 years, we failed.

coldseat said:

It's hard for us over here to fully know all the motivations of all the Afghan fighters. No doubt some/many believed in a Taliban free Afghanistan and were fighting for that cause. It appears to me that many more were fighting to just feed themselves and their families. When fighting wasn't feeding them or their family any longer (because of corruption), they laid down their guns and let the inevitable happen so that they could survive. Where they demoralized without continued US support, no doubt. Without us pumping in hundereds of millions of dollars annually to pay the military and police force, the grift ends for the commanders and political leaders and nothing is left for the soldiers. They all knew that too.

What still remains is that there was no way they were going to help them keep a hold of their country with our minimal support. Sure, it would have taken longer if we had stayed with some troop level and provided air support, but it still would have happened in short order (a year at most). And the end would have likely been just as chaotic as it is now. There wasn't a way for us to fix Afghanistan. We tried for 20 years, we failed.

Click to expand...

Thank you for acknowledging that some were fighting for their country. I agree that many were fighting for a living, but it is wrong to impugn those that were fighting by saying "they" wouldn't fight. Considering that many weren't getting food nor money, we should honor their soldiers for their continued willingness to fight, despite their corrupt leadership. They needed our leadership and support to have hope.

Your take is a much more nuanced and realistic take, and I think it is reasonable. With that said, there was no certainty that this was inevitable, and at this point in time it was costing us very little. Americans were frustrated by the "forever war" perception, and the amount of money and lives lost, but those were sunk primarily many years ago. The situation we just abandoned was not what it was in the past from a danger nor cost perspective. We could've remained and made adjustments, and perhaps it would've helped. Why cut bait now, rather than when the Taliban took over a city, despite our help? That would indicate that it was a lost cause. That wasn't the case today. We gave up when there was still hope. The aftermath under Taliban rule is much more likely to cause us trouble. What will we do after another terrorist attack is cultivated in Afghanistan?

This sounds encouraging, Taliban outside Kabul said to not be interfering with evacuations. The key phrase is with proper papers though. It’s a start.

Lapaz said:

They needed our leadership and support to have hope.

Click to expand...

There was no hope.

The people of Afghanistan have been fighting among themselves or against an invading force for half a century - and yes, the U.S. was an invading force. If you are under 50 years old and live in Afghanistan, you've known and lived through armed conflict your entire life. You may think that they all gave up once the U.S. left, but the history of constant conflict doesn't support that assertion.

In the U.S., we have put the armed forces on a pedestal, romanticizing the idea of fighting/dying for one's country. Most of the world doesn't, and those very few who do, don't come to the level of the U.S.'s adulation for anything military. It is easy to do that when you live in a place like the U.S., isolated from conflict within your borders, while wars are fought across many oceans.

But Afghani fight on their turf, against their own. So what is it? Fighting for one's country? Ideology? Money? Because that's all you have known all of your life: pick a side and get a firearm?

And you forget, the Taliban fight for their country too; but like they say, every freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist. You may not like what the Taliban stands for, but apparently a very large chunk of Afghanistan's population does - and given how fast the Taliban took over, I'd dare say it is the majority of the population.

As for them needing our "leadership", I wouldn't call the U.S. actions in Afghanistan "leadership". 20 years of occupation and trillions of dollars spent, to prop up a corrupt system that abused its own, and folded like a cheap abaya once Sugar Daddy Warbucks left the building; that is not leadership by any reasonable measure.

SystemShock said:

There was no hope.

The people of Afghanistan have been fighting among themselves or against an invading force for half a century - and yes, the U.S. was an invading force. If you are under 50 years old and live in Afghanistan, you've known and lived through armed conflict your entire life. You may think that they all gave up once the U.S. left, but the history of constant conflict doesn't support that assertion.

In the U.S., we have put the armed forces on a pedestal, romanticizing the idea of fighting/dying for one's country. Most of the world doesn't, and those very few who do, don't come to the level of the U.S.'s adulation for anything military. It is easy to do that when you live in a place like the U.S., isolated from conflict within your borders, while wars are fought across many oceans.

But Afghani fight on their turf, against their own. So what is it? Fighting for one's country? Ideology? Money? Because that's all you have known all of your life: pick a side and get a firearm?

And you forget, the Taliban fight for their country too; but like they say, every freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist. You may not like what the Taliban stands for, but apparently a very large chunk of Afghanistan's population does - and given how fast the Taliban took over, I'd dare say it is the majority of the population.

As for them needing our "leadership", I wouldn't call the U.S. actions in Afghanistan "leadership". 20 years of occupation and trillions of dollars spent, to prop up a corrupt system that abused its own, and folded like a cheap abaya once Sugar Daddy Warbucks left the building; that is not leadership by any reasonable measure.

Click to expand...

You keep bringing up all of the sunk costs, but we had gotten Afghanistan to a point that it wasn't costing us that much in lives nor money. The U.S. was providing stability and guidance, which is leadership. What happened after we pulled that caused what we're seeing. I'm not romanticizing their fighting and dying, but I am acknowledging that many were fighting for their country. Many were fighting to maintain the new lifestyle for their women. America had a similar event in 1876, and it took us more than a century to stop fighting among ourselves. Afghanistan just needed the modest support we were providing to have hope. It may not have been enough, but no one knows that for sure. All people can do is speculate, and I speculate that there was hope, and it was worth the price we were paying to prevent the disaster that is ensuing, and the likely aftermath which will probably affect us for years to come.

samiam5211 said:

I don't think we've see any ISIS style murdering and pillaging at this point. Yes, the Taliban is taking over, but it doesn't seem like they are getting much resistance from most people. Maybe i have just missed the stories of mass beheadings.

I am not saying that the Taliban deserves the benefit of the doubt, but so far it just looks like the Taliban is taking control over the government structures that were already in place, they aren't trying to burn it all to the ground.

I doubt they are going to establish a Malala scholarship for girls or anything, but it seems to me that people's fear of the Taliban is what is causing most of the panic, rather than the actions of the Taliban during their return to power.

Sharia is going to be the law of the land, and while terrible, it isn't something far removed from the will of the people of Afganistan.

Click to expand...

Taliban's return to control and power in Afghanistan after 20 years does however, throw the country's image, worldwide, and perhaps the entire region of the ME, into serious decline. You're going to probably see more Americans re-adopt a more negative, polarized, extremely suspicious views towards the ME and unfortunately, see them as perpetually backward medieval-minded, misgyonists, homophobic savages and hardcore religious /Islamic zealots who don't think, behave or rationalize things or their surrounding world like they live in the 21st century.

Whatever their view of "progress", its an entirely one-sided, xenophobic, uncompromising, unreasonable deluded version of it. One that tries very hard to deny the reality there living in the 21st century.

SystemShock said:

There was no hope.

The people of Afghanistan have been fighting among themselves or against an invading force for half a century - and yes, the U.S. was an invading force. If you are under 50 years old and live in Afghanistan, you've known and lived through armed conflict your entire life. You may think that they all gave up once the U.S. left, but the history of constant conflict doesn't support that assertion.

In the U.S., we have put the armed forces on a pedestal, romanticizing the idea of fighting/dying for one's country. Most of the world doesn't, and those very few who do, don't come to the level of the U.S.'s adulation for anything military. It is easy to do that when you live in a place like the U.S., isolated from conflict within your borders, while wars are fought across many oceans.

But Afghani fight on their turf, against their own. So what is it? Fighting for one's country? Ideology? Money? Because that's all you have known all of your life: pick a side and get a firearm?

And you forget, the Taliban fight for their country too; but like they say, every freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist. You may not like what the Taliban stands for, but apparently a very large chunk of Afghanistan's population does - and given how fast the Taliban took over, I'd dare say it is the majority of the population.

As for them needing our "leadership", I wouldn't call the U.S. actions in Afghanistan "leadership". 20 years of occupation and trillions of dollars spent, to prop up a corrupt system that abused its own, and folded like a cheap abaya once Sugar Daddy Warbucks left the building; that is not leadership by any reasonable measure.

Click to expand...

And who cares if 12 year old girls are given away as brides to 50 year old men. Now the left glorifies the Taliban.

MT15 said:

Click to expand...

Its just unfortunate the country and arguably the region they were born in and now leaving, is hopelessly and pathetically backward, from a socio-political and economic standpoint. Their still stuck somewhere in this 15th century medieval worldview and perspective and are fanatically resistant to any semblance, leanings, or inferences of societal change.

Lapaz said:

You keep bringing up all of the sunk costs, but we had gotten Afghanistan to a point that it wasn't costing us that much in lives nor money. The U.S. was providing stability and guidance, which is leadership. What happened after we pulled that caused what we're seeing. I'm not romanticizing their fighting and dying, but I am acknowledging that many were fighting for their country. Many were fighting to maintain the new lifestyle for their women. America had a similar event in 1876, and it took us more than a century to stop fighting among ourselves. Afghanistan just needed the modest support we were providing to have hope. It may not have been enough, but no one knows that for sure. All people can do is speculate, and I speculate that there was hope, and it was worth the price we were paying to prevent the disaster that is ensuing, and the likely aftermath which will probably affect us for years to come.

Click to expand...

It should be noted that the US hadn't planned on ending their financial support of Afghanistan. That was going to continue at least through 2024. I should also be noted that the only reason we hadn't had US military deaths since April is because we were drawing down our forces and ended military engagement.

Paul said:

And who cares if 12 year old girls are given away as brides to 50 year old men. Now the left glorifies the Taliban.

Click to expand...

Here's your participation trophy

Paul said:

And who cares if 12 year old girls are given away as brides to 50 year old men. Now the left glorifies the Taliban.

Click to expand...

We've been able to avoid the Left/Right BS in this thread so far and have actual conversation and discuss different viewpoints. Even if we don't agree. Please don't turn this into another one of your strawman threads. You have plenty of other threads to continue that in.