Eric Boehlert comments on TV coverage of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan:
like clockwork: as the situation in Kabul stabilizes, cable news cuts away today
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) August 18, 2021
more analysis here; https://t.co/UzALF3TZjl
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) August 18, 2021
ftr, CNN is on track to air 50% fewer mentions of “Kabul” today vs Monday, according to TVeyes, so yes the pullback is real
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) August 18, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads. It's only natural that coverage is going to be more intense when an airport is overrun and people are toppling off airplanes and dying. That said, coverage should also be fair. If it turns out that the American withdrawal is basically moving along competently with the exception of a few hours on a single day, reporters have an obligation to say so clearly. So far they haven't.
And maybe it's too early for that. Fair enough. But eventually they should be willing to critique the own performance if things continue to play out the way they have so far.
"That said, coverage should also be fair. If it turns out that the American withdrawal is basically moving along competently with the exception of a few hours on a single day, reporters have an obligation to say so clearly. So far they haven't."
Good luck with that! "Dog bites man" is not news.
I'm sure there will be something else to fault Joe Biden over that the media will move onto soon enough. The atrocities committed during the Trump Admin still haven't been (im)morally balanced out yet by the Biden Admin, so the media has its work cut out for them if they're going to bothsides the parties in time for 2022 and 2024.
It's not so much a matter of balance as much as their viewership: old, white, and conservative. Start reporting the news accurately and on actual events that have actual relevance? Can't have that; why, half their audience would change the channel in disgust ... permanently.
No, make no mistake about it, most of the so-called MSM actually have a right-wing bias. Because of numbers. And who owns them.
I don't expect fairness from the media on this issue. They have decided it's time to take Biden down a notch. News that he is having a pretty successful presidency so far doesn't get clicks/eyeballs on the tube.
So, for now, lots of hand wringing and finger pointing, mostly at Biden.
And the coverage now is about the people they know who did not make it out yet and are now in hiding.
There will be many individual tragedies, and everything will be blamed on Biden. Some analysts still say just 3,000 troops were all that were needed (utter nonsense) or just another month or two (Biden already delayed the pullout from May until now). We still need to help those who helped us when we were there, especially those working directly with troops on the ground. Not sure about high ranking old government officials who have large foreign bank accounts....
Cokie Rules Everything Around Me. It's out there. Dollar dollar bill y'all.
Remember 'Friedman units'? Good times.
Biden standing his ground seems to have set his critics back on their heels. His forthright statement that American troops weren't going to fight a civil war the Afghans themselves weren't willing to fight must have hit home hard, as did his reminder of the deal he inherited from the former guy.
Trump Republicans might have succeeded too well in persuading each other their 'Sleepy Dementia Joe" drivel is actually true. Biden's shown many times over the years that he can give as good as he gets in a political stoush.
Fret not Kevin, there are still a few bleeding items in Afghanistan for cable news to cover. To wit: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/evacuations-afghanistan-gather-momentum-taliban-promise-peace-2021-08-18/
Joebiden is basically reliving Bill Climpton's Somalia withdrawal.
& Somalia, like Afghanistan, was a more a Bush mishandled & left for a Democrat to pickup... & take the blame for.
I agree with Kevin that the taliban threat to out national interest might be overstated as I still have doubts that they will want to sponsor terrorism, etc. And I agree with most here that leaving was what we had to do, that there was going to be problems no matter what when you left, and that our responsibility is limited.
But this post says this was competent except for a few hours on a single day - that is complete crap. And is it more peaceful- how do you know that? We saw the pictures from within the airport which was chaotic and now is more calm. But that is really only because the taliban have surrounded the airport, and are beating people trying to get in. And our soldiers have locked the gates and are stopping potential refugees from getting there.
And the us reporting is only going to come mostly from places where the reporters are, which in Afghanistan is only going to be where therr are us troops to protect them largely- i.e. the airport. The media is not going to spend as much time covering any other area where they cannot get camera crews and where the taliban might be murdering people on the street for not wearing a burkha. But it sure looks more peaceful right in the airport so the media should just report that and let the democratic president look better. How dare they ever report on biden screening up.
And now, as people trying to escape cannot get into the airport as the taliban is stopping them, we have lots of planes taking off mostly empty. There are no refugees falling off them because the taliban is instead violently stopping them from getting there. So maybe they can just be peacefully killed outside of our media view so biden looks better.
We still have THOUSANDS of American citizens maybe up to 10,000 or so in the Kabul area who have no way to get to the airport and the administration just told then they are on their own trying to get to the airport and to full out an online form ( really?). And just a couple days ago before the taliban surrounded the airport, they were told to shelter in place and now they are stuck.
And why did we just abandon Bagram air base, a very secured airport with lots of runways 25 miles from Kabul. Think we could have used that about now?
But I guess kevin wants the press to go back to intensively covering the ice cream flavors biden likes.
If trump was still president and the exact same thing was going on, you know kevin and most of you would be crucifying him for it.
The exact same thing couldn’t be happening because Trump would never allow Afghan refugees into this country. We can already see right wing media and their toady politicians demonizing them.
Trump would be trying to get somebody to pay him to evacuate those people.
In the press conference just now at the Pentagon they said they abandoned Bagram because they had enough people to defend that or the airport but not both.
I certainly do agree they should have left a substantially larger force behind and I can't imagine the rationale for not doing so. I'd have thought the military should have been the last to leave, after everyone else they needed to remove.
"Trump would be trying to get somebody to pay him to evacuate those people."
.... to Greenland.
He would have demanded the State Department bring him a list of which ones have money, and he'd have heard the Afghan president escaped with a helicopter load of cash and been morally offended he didn't get a cut if it.
Has it ever occurred to you that the people you listen to are lying to you? It is true that it is hard to tell from America exactly what is going on, but I've seen pictures today of long lines at the runways.
And then this was tweeted out an hour ago:
John Harwood @JohnJHarwood 59m
Milley says US military is now processing about 500 people an hour into the Kabul airport for evacuation
Kevin seems to be right about this. It is highly likely that most people who need one will get a flight out before this is all done. You are being lied to and you don't seem to mind.
"But that is really only because the taliban have surrounded the airport, and are beating people trying to get in. And our soldiers have locked the gates and are stopping potential refugees from getting there."
Unfortunately, this is all just part and parcel of securing the airport (and its perimeter) so that we can get the people we want to the terminal to the terminal. We can't have hundreds to thousands of non-approved desperate people flooding the airport, that's an impossible security and logistical situation.
The Taliban are helping or at least facilitating, securing a perimeter around the airport, and in some cases escorting foreign citizens directly to the airport. Considering this is a city where most of the police bounced, it sounds like the operation is going about as orderly as we can expect, but we're not going to like some of the images of how the Taliban maintain that security and control.
"And now, as people trying to escape cannot get into the airport as the taliban is stopping them, we have lots of planes taking off mostly empty. "
Also, people are being discouraged from just showing up at the airport, which just aggravates the security situation. The State Department is giving tranches of people very specific instructions when and where to go in the vicinity of the airport to evacuate. This is not really a walk-up and show your pass operation, for all the obvious reasons (people milling and pressing around who are not approved to evacuate).
Also, what's happening elsewhere in the city is unfortunately no longer our concern or responsibility. We have no control over that and won't. That is part and parcel of withdrawal, the local Afghans are in charge now, and the leading local group is the Taliban, as was pretty much foreseen in the agreement with the Taliban that kicked all this off.
The future of Afghanistan is in Afghan hands now, we'll be looking on and strongly advocating for civilized treatment, as time goes on, pressuring when we feel it's needed, but our immediate mission is to evacuate Americans, foreign citizens, and Visa'd Afghans, and the Taliban have agreed to be and are our partners in this endeavor, and we welcome and appreciate their assistance.
Its a completely open question whether anyone ought to be "crucified" for anything.
The following analysis would be considered too boring for either mainstream media or conservative propaganda media.
1. Even now, 20 years on, other than general dismay over (a) US casualties in Afghanistan, (b) Afghan casualties, and (c) human rights in Afghanistan, including women's rights, I have yet to see an actual plan, other than being over there.
2. If you had to describe the plan, Afghanistan got the pleasure of US invasion because of (i) the possibility of supressing terrorists who might, repeat might, find haven there, and (ii) once point (i) was on the table, the additional reasoning of imposing western values, on everything from democracy to women's rights on a country which was lacking in both.
3. Essentially, we picked a side in a civil war. Now, we don't intervene in every civil war out there, we don't intervene in every country where women are discriminated against, and we don't intervene in every country where corruption wins out. We do not, as far as I can see, have a coherent plan for doing so. As Kevin pointed out, predicting what the US will do is not simple.
4. We obviously picked the losing side. I mean, all of this hand wringing over the fact that the Taliban are the winning side sort of misses the point that this is not some sort of close "loss." I mean, I get that if we have to pick between Islamic fundamentalists v. a regime which gives some sort of lip service to our values we will go with lip service -- but its not as if the Taliban can assume control over an entire country in a week or so without actual support of the population.
5. Without even the slightest agreement on how this can be framed, the coverage is going to be meaningless.
-- Anyone against Biden will blame Biden. For what, exactly, I don't know.
-- Anyone who has considered whether we ought to send our military over to dangerous assignments will be in favor of it.
-- Anyone who has already made up their mind that occupying the country was worth it to preserve women's rights will be critical of it.
-- Anyone who sort of views the US military as a sports team which should always "win" we be against withdrawing.
All of these positions, and there are more, are simultaneously valid and flawed.
The mainstream media, with its burden of instant reporting, is not going to be able to analyze this either.
Thorough reporting is almost book length. There is no point in waiting for that book from CNN.
Well put.
I agree with some of your points but not all
1. I would say there certainly were detailed plans and strategies. It is just that they were based on completely unrealistic assumptions. And that might be worse than having no plan and just playing it as it comes.
And staying in Afghanistan as we have been for the last decade , with heavy financial support, airpower helping the Afghan army from a pretty secure base, and very limited us ground presence, was a workable strategy that could be sustained long term if you wanted . I would say not worth the cost but depends on what you think the alternative is. If the taliban just harbors isis and other Islamic terrorists again, maybe then we should have stayed . But my guess is they will not ( except a little maybe for appearance).
2. We did not invade Afghanistan because of the "possibility " of suppressing terrorists that " might, repeat might" find safe haven there. We invaded because al queda , a terrorist group , DID get safe haven there and DID launch a terrorist attack that killed thousands of Americans using that safe haven. You describe it as if 9/11 never actually happened.
The democracy human rights goal was not a reason for the initial invasion and came later. We could not just win and leave, right?
3. Yes, we picked a side in a civil war. The side of the northern alliance and other resistance fighters over the taliban , who basically made themselves out enemy.
And that worked fine and was a great idea. Rather than trying to conquer the whole worthless country ourselves at great cost , just defeat your enemy the taliban by giving enough support ( at a magnitude less cost) to allow them to do the heavy lifting and knock out the taliban.
Worked fine. But then we decided just letting those relatively friendly, much more moderate than the taliban, warlords take over and run their own country, we had to try to reinvent the govt on our image as a western style democratic republic.
This was just part and parcel of changing the goal from defeating the taliban to nation building. And great nation we managed to build.
If we had just stayed with intervening in a civil war, we would have been fine.
4. We did not really pick the ' losing side". We did pick the side that had been losing somewhat but seemed to possibly be turning it around before 9/11, and then made them the " winning side" with an amount of us support that was easily maintainable.
And then we decided instead to insist on creating another " side" that was more "perfect" for our tastes and was not suited to the country and that side we created ( not chose ) just lost spectacularly.
Well said.
Crucifying Trump? It does seem likely; that's what polarization does. But I do know that some strong anti-war people I know, who despised Trump and Republicans generally, approved of Trump's agreement to get out of Afghanistan.
What about the Syria pullout? Did Kevin Drum crucify Donald for that? I don't remember.
For the finger pointing and backside covering files: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/18/massive-policy-fail-cia-warned-taliban-takeover
All these people being flown out of Kabul, where are they going?
I think the plan is to have afghans go to third countries for processing and maybe, it seems, they hope that most will not end up in the us. The Americans I am sure are coming back to the US but might go thru other countries first.
One thing I have not heard reported is how many of the up to 15,000 us citizens are dual nationals with Afghan citizenship, some of which will not want to leave and some may even support or be taliban. Like someone who was born here but moved back at age 3 and whose whole life is Afghan.
I am sure some are thinking I am saying they are not " real Americans " and, in the current context, yes that is basically what I am saying.
How many American civilians are really in Afghanistan ( or were up to last week)? Was it really over 10,000? That does just seem hard to believe. And, if so, that was just nutty.
Hot tip: "Cable news" does not consist solely of CNN. MSNBC has been mostly about Afghanistan, with a few bits here and there on Covid (remember that? It's still here) and Haiti. (Remember Haiti?)
CNN is not the only cable news network and Afghanistan, sorry, is not the only important, and tragic, story going on right now.
Those Americans who for whatever insane reason chose to remain in far away places like Herat, as if they were just begging to be made hostages, should we have sympathy for this?
Of course you should.
You can say that you feel less responsible for them , well fine. But it takes a real cold heart to not even be able to sympathize.
And many of then just believed what their president and government was telling them. How long ago was it that Biden gave his speech saying it was unlikely that the taliban would be able to take over the whole country. Are you going to condemn them and have no sympathy because they did not realize the president was either a fool or lying? And, if you do not want to accept that Biden is either a fool or a liar ( so Biden just got it wrong understandably in good faith), how can you condemn them for making that same mistake?
And I still am not sure if Biden ( or more accurately whoever is making the decision) was just foolish or lying.
I think Biden just wanted as quick an out as possible and get it all over with and that everyone else would then take the hint and evacuate under cover of the civil war.
But there was enough going on that I think they should have gotten the hint months earlier.
Reminds me of every other story of Americans trapped in a war they didn't realize was all that bad until it was right upon them, civil wars, world wars, revolutions, it seems to happen every time.
Ah,
https://www.rawstory.com/afghanistan-american-escaping-horror/
Reminds me of the Obamacare rollout. Endless weeping and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the website didn't work perfectly from the first day (and what software ever has?). The fact that a monumental health care reform decades in the making was finally becoming reality was buried under the noise.
Excellent point, although obviously some of the shock and criticism is warranted, this hasn't been the smoothest, or even close to a best-case, but seems we're making the best of a bad situation now, and the Taliban are showing they very well may be prepared and willing to be a legitimate government recognized by the world. We'll see, but had this gone say by Trump's timetable (May), maybe would have went smoother at the outset, and then when the Taliban took over we'd be hearing we shouldn't have left, that the Afghan military needed another Friedman, so we're fortunate that's not going to happen, all can plainly see the state and military building mission was a farce, and all the howling about how terrorist are going to rise up like a phoenix now seems somewhat belied by a more mature and focused Taliban.
Plus, Pashtun Pakistan has been free of any central government control for this entire 20-year period, and for long before that, and we haven't seen a bunch of terrorist attacks because terrorists could train and plot there unperturbed, and Afghanistan isn't some magical mystery terrorist land that's suddenly going to change that situation, but it is the card the security sector is going to play hard next.
One thing I can guarantee.
Whatever Biden did, no matter how it turned out ( it is never going to be perfect) there were going to be plenty of Republican conservatives saying after the fact, with 20/20 hindsight, that we should not have left and everything would be great if we had stayed, or that they could have done a much better job in pulling out.
And same if trump was president. No matter what he did, no matter how well he pulled out , democratic liberals would use 20/20 hindsight and argue that we should have stayed and there is so much better way to pull out.
That is just politics. Many will just always say that what a president of the opposite party does that the opposite was the right choice.
On Afghanistan, I was initially giving the administration more benefit of the doubt. I accepted the decision to pull out itself made by trump and confirmed and executed by Biden. And any pullout , no matter how expertly handled, there will be mistakes. Inevitable for anything complicated. The analogy to obsmacare and the computer site mess up. That was a screw up - and not defensible. But you just have to accept that there will always be some and should not judge against perfection. And could also add Katrina. Yes, errors were made but actually no more than you would expect - and it was always said that in a hurricane you should be prepared to wait a week for help, and it did take about a week.
One reason us presidents always fail is that people, the media, etc. Expect too much and humans are not perfect.
But as more facts come out, I am sorry but cannot cut anymore more slack. Just too many really stupid errors, and I do not even consider underestimating the speed of the collapse to be that bad.
You're likely going to end up in a minority with that opinion, once the initial shock wears off, but of course we can respectfully disagree on this, perhaps all the "takes" on this will be minority, as there's various ways to approach, criticize and praise this.
The most important big-picture and strategic thing is that we're going to be out of Afghanistan, against all odds and resistance from the establishment and security sector. In the end, Biden is going to get the credit for pulling this off, and it's going to be great for America and bolster his legacy.
Biden should get the credit for pulling out itself with most of the American public, but not the establishment of both parties who were largely opposed.
But that will be offset by blame for how incompentently the pullout was managed.
What will in the end predominate? Not sure. At first , I thought this would be a political win for biden but really unsure now. I have been surprised how badly the initial polls on this have looked. And the implementation screw ups really have been bad, worse than I first thought.
I think it is going to depend on how things go from here. If things do get back in order and they eventually get the Americans out, I think it may net out slightly positive long run even if negative short run. But any more mistakes will be bad. What happens to the afghans, including those who put their lives on the line for us, matters little politically ( which is not a compliment to the American people).
One point is that Biden may be messing up the political spin. He seems to be trying to emphasize now that he was just following through with trump's plan. Bad politics.
The political positive is the fact of the pullout itself. The negative is HOW it was done. Bringing trump into the argument just gives him partial credit for the decision itself while only democratic partisans are going to buy that trump is responsible for the execution. Biden should have accepted that he was going to get all the negatives anyway ( and deserved them) and just owned the whole idea of the pullout.
So please, delineate those catastrophic errors, and while enumerating, tell us how many thousands of lives have already been lost because of them. Specifically. And accurately. And with links and cites that support your every individual claim.
Emitting a vague gray fog while emoting at 11 at its epicenter simply isn't going to cut it.
"That is just politics. Many will just always say that what a president of the opposite party does that the opposite was the right choice."
While I agree some of this IS politics it's also electioneering
Many in the conservative press went immediately into asylum denier mode because they are under the impression that someone who is RESCUED would then reward their rescuer with votes.
And the presidential election (and some senate races) were close enough that a 10,000 vote swing would have really changed the outcome.
And this case would have been far different because they would be seeking asylum with proof of a bad regime as opposed to illegal immigrants.
So for conservative media this is a double whammy - most people approved of Trumps pullout decision and they approved of Bidens until this evacuation failure appeared. This will pass out of our memory banks of course which drives the conservative media nuts because they NEED it to stay in the headlines
But then you have the asylum seekers who might, MIGHT reward democrats with rescuing them. This is whats driving Ingraham and Carlson crazy
Conservatives can tell themselves that but it's really that here's an opportunity to harm helpless victims on some trivial pretext so they cannot possibly resist, and then also, if any of those people ever became US citizens eligible to vote in US elections, are they going to vote for the people who remind them of the Taliban? Almost certainly not. And who do conservatives think would remind reasonable people of the Taliban?
Well . . .
Whatever refugees come from Afghanistan will be irrelevant to any state or national election, how many do you think are coming?
Bigger dilemma for Republicans is they've had "respectable" preachers for years preaching that the Arab Spring was a ruse to flood America with refugees, who would then be activated by Obama in a simultaneous military takeover of the country. Fortunately this didn't happen lol but they just recycle the same BS and attach it to liberals and Democrats generally, along with critical race theory which is their catch-all to put all the liberal stuff some people are suspect about.
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/people/bill-federer/
The media wants to make you feel something so that you will keep watching so that they can sell you something. Doesn't matter who it is (well, maybe not Public television/radio). They gave up on informing people a long time ago. Now they can track clicks on news stories and in about a week, they will know that the majority of people don't give shit what Peter Bergen thinks about anything.
Cld,
You are just out of touch with reality here.
From the perspective of an Afghan, the entire political range of American politics, excluding maybe only the far fringe, is very left wing on social issues.
A republican will remind an Afghan refugee of the taliban in the same amount as an establishment democrat would remind a Cambodian refugee of Pol pot.
I would expect most Afghan refugees, even though they opposed the taliban , will be much closer to the Republicans than democrats on social issues. For voting, social issues would be a winning issue with them.
There are other reasons why many might lean to democrats, including perceived hostility of the Republicans to Muslims ( which is sort of the opposite of your point). American Muslims who hold more conservative social views ( closer to the taliban than most Republicans) tend to vote democratic, not republican.
It might also depend on who they were. I would think the Afghan interpreters who worked with the military will lean republican but the more culturally western govt beurocratic elite may lean more democrat. And I do expect sadly that these elite beurocrats who stayed working at a desk and were paid well from western money ( and were corrupt) will get out. Those interpreters who put their life on the line every day are mostly going to be left behind.
Remember who it is who's evacuating, it's those people least inclined to like the Taliban and whatever they represent, who are least inclined to think they can make a go of it with them in charge, or even with them around.
And then they will live in the US for however many years it takes to become naturalized and acquire citizenship. In this time they'll get a full dose of who's who in American politics and be very aware of who is demonizing whom and who is exploiting religion and whipping up mob fanaticism, and which side thinks refugees immigrants should be excluded and denied civil protections.
One side is about making things work, the other is about exploiting the harm they can cause. I think a refugee from Afghanistan will be among the least likely people to vote for a Republican.
If it doesn’t fit the narrative, it isn’t news.
I’m personally convinced that global warming could end tomorrow and we’d have a hard time figuring it out from the media coverage.
Headlines would probably switch instantly to: “Humanity now doomed by OverPopulation!”
Trump administration had no plan to evacuate Afghan civilians,
https://www.axios.com/afghan-allies-siv-visa-biden-white-house-99e21c9a-c081-4a66-b5ae-74301bafdb25.html
Or, maybe most western journalists have evacuated, thereby making it difficult to document what's going on.
On the contrary, America wasn't responsible for the operation of the Kabul international airport. But once its Afghan operators proved to be out of their depth (or abandoned their posts), the way the US military moved to take control was extremely competent.
Much of the criticism of Biden is now focused on what's going to happen to the poor Afghans now the wicked Taliban is back running things. The time for that weeping and wailing was February 2020, when the US announced it was leaving. The truth is America appears to be organizing the evacuations smoothly, with minimal casualties. Trump Republicans will be furious.
Re political impact, one way it could hurt democrats is by reminding other immigrant groups like Cubans and vietnsmese of their past " betrayal " by American democrats.
Both groups started out more republican and have slowly moved more democratic over time ( Cubans more so on both counts). As the memory and impact of that past event fades , it becomes less important politically and that vote more based on other things. Anything that stirs up that old issue can hurt democrats with that group.
Try not to overthink it.
I see you're not addressing the very salient points people have made, nor are you posting any cites or links to back up your claims. And, strangely enough, you're always 'reluctantly' coming to the conclusion that it's the Democrats who are at fault, sometimes as a group, sometimes a particular member of that tribe. Whadda surprise.
Fuck off, you dimwitted troll. I'm tired of taking your abuse. Take your concerning schtick elsewhere.
Have you been hearing Zalmay Khalilzad's name come up in news analysis, yet?
You should. Fact of the matter is, whatever side you're on re American hegemony / American Exceptionalism, his participation and voice in the matter, specifically in Afghanistan, is central.
How did we transition from going to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden to building a mini democracy?
How did we end up staying in Afghanistan after Obama got Bin Laden?
Khalilzad.