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

[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.

 

[superchuck500]

Are you in the camp that we should leave South Korea, Europe, Syria, and Iraq? If so, then that would be consistent. I think we provide stability. It would've taken generations, like it did in Korea, to establish the culture of democracy. We needed a couple of generations of educated women, hiring and voting them into government, and the maturation of their governing institutions to give them a better chance to survive.

I think we should be clear to note that neither South Korea or Europe presented (presents) active combat with an insurrection that is willing to continue to die and will take over as soon as the Americans stop shooting at them. It's just not the same - in many fundamental ways.

 

[Lapaz]

Precisely, history repeating itself. Will we never learn from our mistakes?

The same thing will happen if we leave South Korea, Iraq, and Syria. Europe probably would survive, but Russia would take territory. It didn't have to happen. We should've stayed long term. Perhaps we shouldn't have ever gone in, but we were there, and it was currently costing very little money and lives. All of the past money spent and lives lost were effectively wasted.

 

[Lapaz]

I think we should be clear to note that neither South Korea or Europe presented (presents) active combat with an insurrection that is willing to continue to die and will take over as soon as the Americans stop shooting at them. It's just not the same - in many fundamental ways.

I agree it's not the same, but North Korea is ready to fight the moment we leave. Afghanistan was not active combat for our troops. The only active fighting we were doing was aerial attacks, with exception of some secret special operations activities, but I don't think those were that frequent anymore.

 

[coldseat]

BTW, I had to go look this up because I wasn't even born when this happened, but the US ended combat missions in Vietnam in 1973 with the Paris Peace Accords. The fall of Siagon happened in 1975, a full 2 years after. The South Vietnamese army fought and defended Saigon for 11 days in intense fighting against the North (and fought for 2 years after the US stopped combat missions.

So these two situation aren't completely analogous even if they appear to be. I haven't really heard that talked about in all of the comparisons.

 

[superchuck500]

I agree it's not the same, but North Korea is ready to fight the moment we leave. Afghanistan was not active combat for our troops. The only active fighting we were doing was aerial attacks, with exception of some secret special operations activities, but I don't think those were that frequent anymore.

Perhaps it's a fair point about the role of US ground forces in Afghanistan but I think the consensus on the US in ROK now is more for regional presence and a show of allied support than it is to prevent a DPRK invasion.

 

[SystemShock]

3000 had been enough for the last year and a half.

You sure about that?

With our troops providing logistical support and air support, many of the Afghan soldiers were fighting bravely.

You sure about that?

Also, while the 911 attackers were mostly Saudis, the training grounds were in Afghanistan.

I didn't know you could get a pilot's license in Afghanistan.

The Saudis are a separate hypocritical problem, but we've just allowed a fundamentalist organization that hates the West to take over Afghanistan, and they will turn a blind eye to terrorist groups operating among them, because they sympathize with them, and they have nothing to gain from us, unlike the Saudis, that need our money, so they won't let terrorists operate within their country.

As long as we keep financing Israel and turning a blind eye to what they do, and keep invading Arab/Islamic nations, they are definitely not going to like us.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't know that it is really feasable to do something like that overnight or in the cover of darkness.

Why wouldn't it be? It's not really that hard. It's been done before.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

We had not lost a soldier in months. I heard one account that it’s been 1 and 1/2 years. Young men die more frequently at home. The cost in lives was trivial. We spent money keeping them there, but we will probably spend more trying to deal with counterterrorism from farther away.

The reality is that the only good reason for pulling out is political and to satisfy the American public, but with a little education about the implications of leaving, the public would’ve been more supportive of a long term presence.

The dynamics are completely different now that the Taliban is in control of the entire country. The Afghan government is no longer our ally.

It's ridiculous that you are trying to compare what has happened in the past year to what would happen if we keep 3,000 troops in a country that is now completely controlled by the Taliban. U.S. troops would be constantly attacked by the Taliban.

Having said that, Biden has completely botched this evacuation. We should keep troops on the ground in Afghanistan until we have evacuated EVERY Afghan in Kabul that wants to leave the country. It is the morally right thing to do. If it takes 6 months, so be it.

 

[Lapaz]

You sure about that?

You sure about that?


I didn't know you could get a pilot's license in Afghanistan.


As long as we keep financing Israel and turning a blind eye to what they do, and keep invading Arab/Islamic nations, they are definitely not going to like us.

You are also not sure whether the reports are true, but I know what is reported. Why is a license relevant? Do you think the 911 terrorists needed a license? I agree about Israel being a sore spot for Islamic nations, but that is a red herring with respect to this discussion.

 

[brandon]

Are you in the camp that we should leave South Korea, Europe, Syria, and Iraq? If so, then that would be consistent. I think we provide stability. It would've taken generations, like it did in Korea, to establish the culture of democracy. We needed a couple of generations of educated women, hiring and voting them into government, and the maturation of their governing institutions to give them a better chance to survive.

Each of these areas have their own specific nuances that require or don't require troops. I would argue that we could/should pull out of some, but not all, of the instances you named.

 

[DaveXA]

The same thing will happen if we leave South Korea, Iraq, and Syria. Europe probably would survive, but Russia would take territory. It didn't have to happen. We should've stayed long term. Perhaps we shouldn't have ever gone in, but we were there, and it was currently costing very little money and lives. All of the past money spent and lives lost were effectively wasted.

No, the same thing won't happen in SK. I don't really know the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria, but from what little I do know, they aren't Afghanistan. So I don't think those situations are comparable.

 

[SystemShock]

Should we leave South Korea, since we know North Korea would take over in a day or 2?

That is a very different situation, and no, NK will not take over on day 2.

Should we leave Europe, since we know that would embolden Russia to try to take over territory in NATO countries?

What century are you living in?

Should we leave Iraq and Syria, since we know the Syrian government would take over, and Iraq would collapse? The answer to all of those is no, even though those are costing us much more than Afghanistan was costing us.

Will terrorists probably have havens in Afghanistan to plot against the West? The answer is very likely yes. Will it be harder and more expensive to deal with them? The answer is probably yes.

Have you seen a map of the ME and Northern Africa? Syria and Afghanistan are not the only places terrorists could train? Do you want the U.S. to invade every single country where terrorists could train?

 

[Lapaz]

The dynamics are completely different now that the Taliban is in control of the entire country. The Afghan government is no longer our ally.

It's ridiculous that you are trying to compare what has happened in the past year to what will happen if we keep 3,000 troops in a country that is now completely controlled by the Taliban. U.S. troops will be constantly attacked by the Taliban.

Having said that, Biden has completely botched this evacuation. We should keep troops on the ground in Afghanistan until we have evacuated EVERY Afghan in Kabul that wants to leave the country. It is the morally right thing to do. If it takes 6 months, so be it.

I've been saying that we should've kept our presence in Afghanistan, and I've been saying that since when it was still a viable option. Now it is no longer a viable option. My point has been for a long time that we should not have left.

By the way, I think the only way the evacuation could've gone better is if we evacuated all of our allied faithful Islamist between now and Ramadan, and then finished the evacuation of our military during Ramadan.

 

[Lapaz]

That is a very different situation, and no, NK will not take over on day 2.


What century are you living in?


Have you seen a map of the ME and Northern Africa? Syria and Afghanistan are not the only places terrorists could train? Do you want the U.S. to invade every single country where terrorists could train?

How do you know how long it would take to overrun South Korea? I've heard it would be just as fast. Afghanistan is not the only place terrorists can train, but we were there, and had neutralized that threat. The others terrorist havens have never organized a large attack against us.

 

[zztop]

The same thing will happen if we leave South Korea, Iraq, and Syria.

I thought there was already withdrawal from Syria? All I remember was after Trump made that announcement, Turkey started bombing the REAL enemy, the Kurds even more. (I say real in the most sarcastic way possible b/c Turkey did nothing to combat isis, but sure loved to attack a group who was fighting back against isis)

 

[Lapaz]

No, the same thing won't happen in SK. I don't really know the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria, but from what little I do know, they aren't Afghanistan. So I don't think those situations are comparable.

How do you know it wouldn't happen in SK? I think the NK military is much bigger than the SK military. Size doesn't make might, but I've read that SK would be blown away very fast without us there.

 

[SystemShock]

You are also not sure whether the reports are true, but I know what is reported. Why is a license relevant? Do you think the 911 terrorists needed a license? I agree about Israel being a sore spot for Islamic nations, but that is a red herring with respect to this discussion.

The license is not relevant at all. It was a sarcastic comment. The 911 Saudi Arabian and Egyptian terrorists didn't train anywhere in Asia of Africa, they trained right here in the good ol' U.S.A. No amount of soldiers anywhere in the ME would have prevented it.

And no, Israel is not a red herring at all. Are you one of those "they hate us because of our freedom" people?

 

[SystemShock]

How do you know how long it would take to overrun South Korea? I've heard it would be just as fast. Afghanistan is not the only place terrorists can train, but we were there, and had neutralized that threat. The others terrorist havens have never organized a large attack against us.

I can't think of any large attack against the U.S. that was organized in Afghanistan. Which large attack are you referring to?