US strikes deal w/ Taliban to remove troops from Afghanistan (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

Surprised I didn't see it posted anywhere. And to preface -- I know there are too many contextual complexities to name regarding this.

Props to this administration for pushing to get this done. Endless war shouldn't be what American citizens view as 'normal'.

This would be a huge win for Americans and Afghanis if this works out as planned:

Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war

President Trump says it is "time after all these years to bring our people back home".

www.bbc.com

The US and Nato allies have agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants uphold the deal.

President Trump said it had been a "long and hard journey" in Afghanistan. "It's time after all these years to bring our people back home," he said.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban are due to follow.

Under the agreement, the militants also agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control.

 

[bdb13]

Read this:

CIA’s Former Counterterrorism Chief for the Region: Afghanistan, Not An Intelligence Failure — Something Much Worse

"While it’s certainly convenient to depict the shock and miscalculation U.S. officials claim over Afghanistan’s tragic, rapid fall to the Taliban as an intelligence failure, the reality is far worse."

www.justsecurity.org

I expect too much, but I'm bothered more and more honestly by the BS about the rapidity of the takeover taking them by surprise. Bothered more and more that Biden didn't go ahead and fall on the sword in that press conference more than he did.

You all were only taken by surprise because, ultimately, in your arrogance towards the seriousness of the situation you did not give this scenario you were warned about the proper respect.

It's a lie to an insulting level in my view.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That's an excellent article by the former Trump CIA Southwest Asia counterterrorism chief and Biden advisor. He makes the case that we needed to make changes to the way we were supporting Afghanistan, but that we should've kept a presence there. He explained about a lot of the problems, but that ultimately the decision to leave was political and not based on the intelligence guidance, and that the intelligence included scenarios for a collapse in days, precisely following the approach we took.

Well, the article later stated that we should've maintained a presence:

"As the CIA’s former regional counterterrorism chief, and then a private citizen, I advocated the need for the United States to remain in Afghanistan with a small, focused, counterterrorist presence but to adopt a dramatically different approach that did not require us being in the line of fire between rival national forces whose conflicts predated our intervention and will persist long after we’re gone. And while I have criticized the CIA and the intelligence community for various ills that require reform and contributed to the current circumstances, not least of which was a counterterrorism strategy that was arguably more damaging than the ill it sought to address, there was no intelligence failure by the agency in warning either Trump or Biden as to how events would play out. Operating in the shadows and “supporting the White House” will prevent the intelligence community from publicly defending itself. But the failure was not due to any lack of warning, but rather the hubris and political risk calculus of decision makers whose choices are too often made in their personal and political interest or with pre-committed policy choices, rather than influenced by (sometimes inconvenient) intelligence assessments and the full interests of the country."

It may not have been the status quo of troops, but it also wasn't what we're doing now.

And that would be a repeat of what was done before the Obama surge, continuing the endless cycle. I'll also add that all wars are political decisions, for him to continue to point out that the withdrawal was purely political is, at best, disingenuous. His statement is just as political as Trump & Biden's decision to pullout because it leaves out the obvious and that would be a permanent American presence in Afghanistan much like we have in Europe. Even in his brightest assessment, the Taliban would be in power within 2 years of a full withdrawal.

 

[Lapaz]

And that would be a repeat of what was done before the Obama surge, continuing the endless cycle. I'll also add that all wars are political decisions, for him to continue to point out that the withdrawal was purely political is, at best, disingenuous. His statement is just as political as Trump & Biden's decision to pullout because it leaves out the obvious and that would be a permanent American presence in Afghanistan much like we have in Europe. Even in his brightest assessment, the Taliban would be in power within 2 years of a full withdrawal.

I don't believe what we were doing in the last couple of months in Afghanistan should be characterized as a war. We were supporting a war, but we didn't have any soldiers in combat. I suppose you can call it political, but his point was that the decision to leave wasn't done based on the best interest of the U.S. It was a decision made on self-serving interests of politicians. You may disagree, but Douglas London is not a politician. If you read his article, you'll realize that it is a very sober perspective, and I agree with his assessment.

Also, London wasn't advocating a surge. He was advocating not pulling out completely. Also, there is no certainty that Afghanistan was going to collapse, as some speculated. We gave up on any chance that it would succeed while it was costing us very little. I normally keep my investments into which I've poured a lot of money, as long as I know there is still a chance that it will reap benefits, especially if I know the alternative is likely worse, such as my termite inspection bond payments. I paid a lot to get them, so now I just sustain them for little cost. I think the termites are about to infest Afghanistan.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Also, London wasn't advocating a surge. He was advocating not pulling out completely. Also, there is no certainty that Afghanistan was going to collapse, as some speculated. We gave up on any chance that it would succeed while it was costing us very little. I normally keep my investments into which I've poured a lot of money, as long as I know there is still a chance that it will reap benefits, especially if I know the alternative is likely worse, such as my termite inspection bond payments. I paid a lot to get them, so now I just sustain them for little cost. I think the termites are about to infest Afghanistan.

Again, it's rinse & repeat of what has already been done in the past 20 year. The moment those smaller forces come under threat from the Taliban, in comes another 100K to push them back, it's tiresome. You either all in or all out! Stop with the quarter assing!

 

[SystemShock]

Weight wise, I’m sure it can handle more weight. But are you telling me my loadmaster nephew doesn’t know the maximum number of people they are supposed to load in a floor-sitting situation?

Don't be silly. Of course he doesn't.

 

[Lapaz]

Again, it's rinse & repeat of what has already been done in the past 20 year. The moment those smaller forces come under threat from the Taliban, in comes another 100K to push them back, it's tiresome. You either all in or all out! Stop with the quarter assing!

We weren't going to necessarily need another surge. With every passing year, the Afghan army was getting better. We cut bait in the anticipation of a possible surge, and gave up on the alternative that seemed to be working. Some changes were warranted, but not a complete departure.

 

[coldseat]

Also, London wasn't advocating a surge. He was advocating not pulling out completely. Also, there is no certainty that Afghanistan was going to collapse, as some speculated. We gave up on any chance that it would succeed while it was costing us very little. I normally keep my investments into which I've poured a lot of money, as long as I know there is still a chance that it will reap benefits, especially if I know the alternative is likely worse, such as my termite inspection bond payments. I paid a lot to get them, so now I just sustain them for little cost. I think the termites are about to infest Afghanistan.

The Afgan government was never going to succeed. 1 to 2 years was half glass full outcome even if we had maintained 5,000 troops. Given the deals that the Taliban had made with Afgan military and government leaders in major districts to lay down arms and live when their offensive started in March of this year (that apparently we did not know the extent off), it wouldn't have even taken even 6 more months for the Taliban to conquer all of Afghanistan. Once Trump made a the deal with the Taliban in March of 2020, this outcome was sealed. To prevent it, we would have had to not make that deal and maintain the troop level at about 9,000. But eventually we would have had to surge troops and reengage in major military operation to fight back the Taliban. The only way Biden could have stopped it once the Taliban started its offensive in March was to increase troop level significantly and reengage in combat operations in order to stop the Taliban's advance.

I get people are angry. Criticism is warranted. But just continuing to believe we could fix it if only we stayed longer is just another lie. The same type that led us to this point. You don't lose a war in a graceful fashion. It's always demoralizing and ugly.

 

[MT15]

Lapaz, you don’t seem to be acknowledging the utter corruption of the Afghan army brass and the government. The regular soldiers will / would never fight for that. They were never going to. They weren’t getting better, that’s a pipe dream.

our military made huge mistakes over there by turning a blind eye to the corruption for many years. It just wasn’t a tenable situation. We did what was our only real option, which was leave.

also, just a general observation, but now that the evacuation is ramping up and is peaceful, this looks like it will be doable. And with that, the news channels are already scaling back their coverage drastically. The comparisons to Vietnam are looking really hyperbolic at the moment.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

We weren't going to necessarily need another surge. With every passing year, the Afghan army was getting better. We cut bait in the anticipation of a possible surge, and gave up on the alternative that seemed to be working. Some changes were warranted, but not a complete departure.

No, they were not. They had no food, they were not able to maintain their own equipment and their government has repeatedly failed to pay them.

 

[DaveXA]

The Afgan government was never going to succeed. 1 to 2 years was half glass full outcome even if we had maintained 5,000 troops. Given the deals that the Taliban had made with Afgan military and government leaders in major districts to lay down arms and live when their offensive started in March of this year (that apparently we did not know the extent off), it wouldn't have even taken even 6 more months for the Taliban to conquer all of Afghanistan. Once Trump made a the deal with the Taliban in March of 2020, this outcome was sealed. To prevent it, we would have had to not make that deal and maintain the troop level at about 9,000. But eventually we would have had to surge troops and reengage in major military operation to fight back the Taliban. The only way Biden could have stopped it once the Taliban started its offensive in March was to increase troop level significantly and reengage in combat operations in order to stop the Taliban's advance.

I get people are angry. Criticism is warranted. But just continuing to believe we could fix it if only we stayed longer is just another lie. The same type that led us to this point. You don't lose a war in a graceful fashion. It's always demoralizing and ugly.

I don't really care about losing a war gracefully or whatever. But I do care about us planning ahead and getting our people out without leaving them stranded in no man's land. There's no way to get people to the airport safely without taking some big risks. They should have quietly evacuated as many as possible ahead of time. Biden insisted in early July that the government of Afghanistan would be able to hold the Taliban off long enough, but there was intel that if I understand the reports correctly, Biden was aware of, that contradicted his earlier statements.

I've long wanted out of Afghanistan, but not without ensuring safe passage out of the country for Americans in the country.

 

[DaveXA]

Lapaz, you don’t seem to be acknowledging the utter corruption of the Afghan army brass and the government. The regular soldiers will / would never fight for that. They were never going to. They weren’t getting better, that’s a pipe dream.

our military made huge mistakes over there by turning a blind eye to the corruption for many years. It just wasn’t a tenable situation. We did what was our only real option, which was leave.

also, just a general observation, but now that the evacuation is ramping up and is peaceful, this looks like it will be doable. And with that, the news channels are already scaling back their coverage drastically. The comparisons to Vietnam are looking really hyperbolic at the moment.

Yeah, it's too soon to make those comparisons, but, there are apparently thousands of Americans not yet on site at the airport, and no safe way for them to get there. This is the issue I have the biggest problem with. Just pulling out without having a plan to evacuate those not near the airport makes no sense.

 

[coldseat]

I don't really care about losing a war gracefully or whatever. But I do care about us planning ahead and getting our people out without leaving them stranded in no man's land. There's no way to get people to the airport safely without taking some big risks. They should have quietly evacuated as many as possible ahead of time. Biden insisted in early July that the government of Afghanistan would be able to hold the Taliban off long enough, but there was intel that if I understand the reports correctly, Biden was aware of, that contradicted his earlier statements.

I've long wanted out of Afghanistan, but not without ensuring safe passage out of the country for Americans in the country.

From my understanding, the troops that are moving in now (up to 4,500 by lunch today, previously 600) were already in place precisely for this contingency. That's why they're able to mobilize so quickly. What Biden was saying publicly and what they new from intelligence where two different things. Biden himself said during his new conference that the confidence he projected in early July in the Afgan government was to prevent the rapid defection and destabilization that we saw. Apparently believing that if he gave an honest assessment of the situation it would have promoted even faster destabilization then. Given the benefit of hindsight, that was a poor choice and didn't make any difference. And another lie, I might add. The lack of urgency from the State Department in drawing down its embassy is also ripe for criticism. Apparently there was a lot friction between the Military and State department with how long it was taking.

 

[DaveXA]

From my understanding, the troops that are moving in now (up to 4,500 by lunch today, previously 600) were already in place precisely for this contingency. That's why they're able to mobilize so quickly. What Biden was saying publicly and what they new from intelligence where two different things. Biden himself said during his new conference that the confidence he projected in early July in the Afgan government was to prevent the rapid defection and destabilization that we saw. Apparently believing that if he gave an honest assessment of the situation it would have promoted even faster destabilization then. Given the benefit of hindsight, that was a poor choice and didn't make any difference. And another lie, I might add. The lack of urgency from the State Department in drawing down its embassy is also ripe for criticism. Apparently there was a lot friction between the Military and State department with how long it was taking.

Yeah, I was watching some of the DOD presser today and Milley said two things that caught my attention. One, he unequivocally stated they had no intelligence that control of Afghanistan would fall to the Taliban in 11 days. And two, that the Pentagon was working hand in glove with the State Department and that they were basically there to provide support to them on the ground at the airport gates.

I don't know if they have their stories straight, but there's a lot of mixed messages being put out there.

 

[Lapaz]

Lapaz, you don’t seem to be acknowledging the utter corruption of the Afghan army brass and the government. The regular soldiers will / would never fight for that. They were never going to. They weren’t getting better, that’s a pipe dream.

our military made huge mistakes over there by turning a blind eye to the corruption for many years. It just wasn’t a tenable situation. We did what was our only real option, which was leave.

also, just a general observation, but now that the evacuation is ramping up and is peaceful, this looks like it will be doable. And with that, the news channels are already scaling back their coverage drastically. The comparisons to Vietnam are looking really hyperbolic at the moment.

But they were fighting. None of you that are debating that it was right to leave have admitted that it was a lie to say they weren't fighting. The fact that thousands died and were recently dying belies that. Countries all over the world are corrupt, yet they give much more freedom to their citizens than the Taliban will and than the terrorists that will follow will. I acknowledge that it is possible that Afghanistan would've collapsed even if we stayed, but that wasn't a foregone conclusion. To say that that is a lie is to say you have absolute knowledge. What I know is that we weren't losing soldiers and we were supporting the Afghan army. What I think is highly likely is that what will follow will be much worse. Biden could've started the pullout after the first provincial capital was taken, which would prove that the Taliban had become a much greater force. This action was not necessary at this time, and the article from London, if true, means it was a lie that we didn't know the implications of this action.

Also, if we get people out from all over the country, then it will largely be a successful evacuation, but as far as I can tell, we are only getting people out of Kabul. None of the other airports are flying people out that I know of.

 

[Lapaz]

No, they were not. They had no food, they were not able to maintain their own equipment and their government has repeatedly failed to pay them.

Perhaps that was true of some in the military, but many were still fighting and dying recently. Are you suggesting that the New York Times reports are wrong? What are your sources that the Afghans weren't being killed in action as recently as July?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

But they were fighting. None of you that are debating that it was right to leave have admitted that it was a lie to say they weren't fighting. The fact that thousands died and were recently dying belies that. Countries all over the world are corrupt, yet they give much more freedom to their citizens than the Taliban will and than the terrorists that will follow will. I acknowledge that it is possible that Afghanistan would've collapsed even if we stayed, but that wasn't a foregone conclusion. To say that that is a lie is to say you have absolute knowledge. What I know is that we weren't losing soldiers and we were supporting the Afghan army. What I think is highly likely is that what will follow will be much worse. Biden could've started the pullout after the first provincial capital was taken, which would prove that the Taliban had become a much greater force. This action was not necessary at this time, and the article from London, if true, means it was a lie that we didn't know the implications of this action.

Dude, you keep saying that thousands has died since the drawdown and you are basing that off of reports that you have misread. The 60k+ Afghan forces that was reported as KIA was a total number since the 20 year occupation, the overwhelmingly majority of territory taken by the Taliban since their advancement was taken without a shot being fired.

 

[DaveXA]

Dude, you keep saying that thousands has died since the drawdown and you are basing that off of reports that you have misread. The 60k+ Afghan forces that was reported as KIA was a total number since the 20 year occupation, the overwhelmingly majority of territory taken by the Taliban since their advancement was taken without a shot being fired.

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.

 

[Lapaz]

Dude, you keep saying that thousands has died since the drawdown and you are basing that off of reports that you have misread. The 60k+ Afghan forces that was reported as KIA was a total number since the 20 year occupation, the overwhelmingly majority of territory taken by the Taliban since their advancement was taken without a shot being fired.

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.