Skip to content

57 thoughts on “Evacuation total is now up to 70,000”

    1. bbleh

      And when this story gets used up, there's always Democrats in Disarray over Infrastructure, and of course the Looming Threat of Inflation.

    3. Jasper_in_Boston

      There's no telling how the Biden presidency will ever recover from this.

      Assuming this isn't snark, it works like this:

      1) There's not much to actually recover from, substantively, given that much of the supposed debacle is media hype (most Americans agree with the president that it's time to leave Afghanistan).

      2) When all is said and done the United States will have successfully managed probably the largest civilian evacuation in history. In other words an objectively successful operation.

      3) In any event in the months to come the vast majority of Americans will prioritize different things.

      4) Next year the focus of the vast majority of voters in the approach to the midterm election will be covid and the economy, and there's obviously an opportunity for the White House to win credit with the electorate on these issues.

      5) GOP overreach and hubris will (and already is) rear its ugly head, inviting voter backlash.

      These items, in a nutshell, are how the Biden presidency recovers.

      1. Lounsbury

        Rather evidently snark...

        But it is not the largest civilian evacuation in history, not by far...(nor even by airplane). Please dear Americans, not everything you do is either first or biggest Evar...

        1. sonofthereturnofaptidude

          "1939–1940 and June 1944 – The entire population of Finnish Karelia, 522,000 people, was evacuated during the Winter War. Some 260,000 of these returned home during the Continuation War but were evacuated again in June 1944." -- Wikipedia

          1. Lounsbury

            one can add the Portugeuse evac of their citizens from African colonies (that was an airliner based evac of nearly 1 mln in a couple of months, 2 I think) or evac of Indian nationals from Kuwait in 90 in about same period of time, a few hundred thousand.

      1. Jimm

        Taliban aren't really calling the shots, this is a joint endeavor, and they don't want to be enemy if the world anymore, they don't have all the leverage, security concerns are a different matter however, and we are not obligated to evacuate everyone in Afghanistan who picked the wrong side in a civil war.

  3. D_Ohrk_E1

    "it's becoming clear that thousands of the Afghans who helped the U.S. won't be evacuated, a scenario that has engendered deep frustration inside U.S. national security agencies." -- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/fury-disgust-cia-pentagon-congress-thousands-afghans-will-be-left-n1277552

    Sounds like they're going to be slowing down evacs, not because they're running out of folks to evac, but because they need to evac military by the Aug 31 deadline which will end up slowing down the evac of others, starting on Friday.

    1. randomworker

      The national security agencies have totally beclowned themselves from 9-11 to today and anything they can do to detract from their ghastly incompetence they will do.

      1. D_Ohrk_E1

        I think you mean to say, "NSC". If there's a failure, it's an across-the-board failure from intelligence, military, and state.

        Don't buy the narrative that the military or the intelligence failed Biden; it was every part that makes up the NSC.

        1. jte21

          I haven't read anything to suggest there was an intelligence failure here per se. Anyone analyzing the situation over the past 10-15 years knew, and stated clearly, that Afghanistan was FUBAR and our occupation/training mission/whatever couldn't prop up the government forever and the Taliban would probably take over the second we left. What got had instead was a DC foreign policy establishment whose only purpose, it would seem, is to advocate for permanent war, a compliant media happy to feature these clowns on Sunday talk shows and the like to make it appear like staying forever was the consensus among "serious people," and a circle jerk of Pentagon officials who kept failing upwards as long as they pretended everything was going great.

          1. D_Ohrk_E1

            If so, then surely, Biden wouldn't have had to ramp up evacs, temporary shelters, processing of SIVs and political refugees.

            Just saying, you can't have it both ways.

    2. Jimm

      So much crap, our national security agencies have lots of other priorities than Afghan SIPs, who were led to remain in Afghanistan largely because of all the rosy assessments about how the nation and military building were going.

  4. cld

    Extending the deadline would mean conflict with the Taliban which, if they really fought it, would mean we'd have to retake Kabul.

    We don't have the forces in the country to do that and probably can't get them in quickly and in the meantime how many will be killed in the crossfire?

    Extending the deadline is probably impossible.

    2. cld

      And if that even could be done how many people in Kabul will want to leave after that, knowing what kind of mood that would leave the Taliban in? All of them, probably.

      And then you'll have the Taliban really thinking about revenge.

    3. Jimm

      Taliban need the world as much as we need them, they don't have all the leverage, we have other emerging security concerns.

  5. randomworker

    Afghanistan is a very remote and undeveloped country. We have been there nearly 20 years and we have had "leaving today" written on the calendar for about 15 months now. It is over. There will be some pretty awful stuff go on...just like there was awful stuff going on before we got there.

    1. D_Ohrk_E1

      Well no. The deadline set last February was May 1. Biden changed it on April 14th to Sept 11. Then on July 8, he moved it up to Aug 31.

      1. Mitch Guthman

        I’m not sure that the exact date or time is as important as believing that this isn’t one of the innumerable crises when an American president has threatened to leave but is ultimately rolled by the military into surging instead of withdrawing. My impression is that nobody really believed that Biden was actually going to end the war. I think that’s why so many foolishly stayed until the deadline instead of getting out while the getting was good.

        1. colbatguano

          People approached this like the debates over the debt ceiling. The war supporters thought they could force Biden into reneging on the withdrawal at the last minute. They were wrong.

          1. Mitch Guthman

            It’s true that they were wrong. And, as I’ve been saying, probably the near universally shared assumption that Biden would vacillate and then reinvade under pressure. They were wrong but it’s Biden who will pay the political price for their hubris.

  6. golack

    Wasn't the original estimate 80,000? Once things started going south, the number started going up--i think it's 300K now.....

    For all the chaos, it has been remarkably efficient. But no matter how many get evacuated, it will never be enough. And any Afghans relocated to the US will be too many.

  8. rational thought

    I do not think that the actual estimates have changed much and may have gone down somewhat over the days ( as the problems have popped up).

    There are just so many different possible definitions of what you are talking about and much of the media has switched back and forth talking about different versions which means you sometimes can get confused and compare apples to oranges. And kevin has been guilty of this too. He started out talking about those the USA evacuated from the airport since the final pull out started on 8/14. Then it changed to include everyone since end of July. And now I think the numbers he is quoting include any evacuated from the airport by other countries too because we " helped ". And it is also what the administration has been doing, maybe because shifting the goalpost makes it seem more like everything is getting much better ( or to a greater extent) than reality. I would note that kevin has dropped those before 8/14 in his headline now at least.

    Re how many need to be or will be evacuated, also differing definitions. I expect the 300,000 you saw was the total refugees they expect, including those fleeing to neighboring nations over land borders like to Iran and Tajikistan, both of which may end up with 100,000 or more.

    Note the refugees leaving by land will almost surely be much higher than all being evacuated from the airport, by us and others. And they are largely being completely ignored by the media. Are 100,000 refugees having to go to refugee camps in Tajikistan not worthy of any attention too?

    And re evacuation from the airport, a large chunk of it is by other nations. A few days ago I think it was around 40% buy not sure if that has changed . But that also has been downplayed.

    Now the us reports that we have " helped " evacuate in the " us led mission" is 70,000. Which I think has got to include those other nations have evacuated. But then the uk has " helped " evacuate 70,000 too . And so has France and Germany and turkey. Looks like up to 350,000 now.

    Also what is missing in media reports is the total Afghan refugees that we the USA are evacuating ( which I think are expected to be up to 80,000 but likely will end up less) are NOT all expected to be immigrants to the USA. It was never the plan to have them all come to the USA, although you would think so from some of the reporting. We are trying to arrange for other nations to take a good number, including a lot of non nato nations.

    My expectation is that many of our nato " allies " who are worthless is helping with military missions and do not pull their weight ( looking at you Germany) will step up at least taking their share of refugees.

    One little point to share about nato. I have talked to some us soldiers who served in Afghanistan. Of course no other nato member really contributed near as much as the USA, even proportionately for their size. But they had some opinions of nato countries.

    As expected that have great respect for the uk soldiers and the uk really did chip in significantly and their soldiers were dependable fighters " would go into battle with those guys at my back anytime ".

    They also had great respect for the Canadians somehat surprisingly. Who were not that numerous and poorly armed by their govt but who fought hard and took their share of casualties. As soldiers, they had little respect for the Germans who many thoght just did not seem to be there to fight.

    But most Americans, relying on the media, perceive it as a war fought all by us soldiers and the Afghan army with maybe the uk helping a bit. Other nato allies were more important than that.

    Also people do not understand the big role contractors played there instead of actual service members.

    1. rational thought

      Might note I also noticed something that should have been a warning signal for years.

      During the Vietnam War, the north vietnamese and viet Kong usually took higher casualties in fighting than the south vietnamese . Until the us basically abandoned them in 74 and 75.

      Which makes sense as we could give them air support supplies, morale lift , etc

      In Afghanistan, the Afghan govt forces were taking more casualties than the taliban all throughout the war, even though so much of the taliban casualties were due to us air strikes and us and nato troops on the ground and even though the govt troops were better armed.

      So why should you expect them to fight after we leave?

          1. Vog46

            Crissa- sorry now I get what you were asking for
            Second cup of coffee needed.......

            I don;t know how anyone could estimate the Taliban casualties

          2. rational thought

            Thanks vog but I do not think anyone should need a citation for Afghan war or Vietnam casualties. Just Google it and you will find plenty of hits.

            On Vietnam, yes out casualty counts of the enemy were exaggerated and not totally depending on them. If you see the wiki article vog linked, the north viet figures themselves showed more casualties than the south. They won because they did not break at a casualty level that would have broken us.

            But that does not really cover the south vietnamesee army in glory. They were better armed ( by us) and had out massive air support. So they should take less casualties. But at least then it was reasonable to believe they could fight on their own after we left.

            The Afghan statistics you can find many places. And they come from nato sources . Do you think nato would be overestimating or understating enemy casualties? C'mon. The bias is going to be too high.

            And my point is that nato itself was estimating that the Afghan army they trained , with superior weapons and massive air support , were taking more casualties than the taliban even including those killed by nato troops.

            Big warning sign.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      it changed to include everyone since end of July. And now I think the numbers he is quoting include any evacuated from the airport by other countries too because we " helped "

      It should include the total by all countries. This is a collaborative Nato mission led by the United States, and in any event it would be impossible to pristinely disentangle all the different contributions (an individual evacuee might have been helped to reach the airport by a Dutch aid organization, guarded by US soldiers, received medical care by Norwegian doctors, flown out by a UK plane, etc).

    3. Lounsbury

      Why on earth you Americans think your imperial servants, the NATO auxilaries should be pissing away their money and lives for a useless mission 20 years on rather escapes. In 2001 NATO engagement had some sense and justification. But since then it's merely been making nice with the blindly arrogant USA.

    4. Vog46

      Why would ANY Afghan government - Taliban or NOT - allow for 300K citizens to leave? with a population estimated at 39.9M thats absurd to allow THAT many to leave the country.

      As for NATO?
      In January 2015, NATO launched the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces and institutions to fight terrorism and secure their country. The focus was on Special Operations Forces and the Afghan Air Force.
      At the July 2018 NATO Summit in Brussels, the Allies and their operational partners committed to extending financial sustainment of the Afghan security forces through 2024. This funding is currently frozen.
      In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021.

      I don't LIKE NATO any more than you do but it is clear that we have been working on leaving the fighting to Afghans for quite some time. We have failed in that regard but it doesn't appear to be NATO's fault. We had a treaty with Afghanistan that NATO applauded.
      And while the situation on the ground has changed there was no easy exit by Biden, Trump, Obama or Bush. We DID however assure there were no terrorist attacks based out of that country since 9/11 - which was the reason for the intervention by NATO.
      But since 2015 it has been a special forces war - not a blunt military action

  9. Jimm

    Impressive, and considering that had predictions about the Afghan army holding for a few months before the Taliban takeover, how would we have gone about rescuing people then, after we withdrew?

    In some ways, this has turned out to be a "better" outcome, imagining the full gamut of outcomes (especially the realistic ones where we see the military building effort was never really working).

    1. Lounsbury

      Indeed, as it ripped the mask off of the Potemkin village façade of a government that the US built and to the extent a real Afghan opposition to the Taleban will exist, it will have to be one that emerges not as lackeys of a foreign power, but something organic with fighting style and resources rooted in Afghanistan, not defined by Americans.

    1. iamr4man

      Thanks for the link. My wife and I saw one while driving on 19th ave. I thought it a driverless vehicle but she thought it was a mapping vehicle. There was a person in the driver’s seat.

  11. Vog46

    Lets face it. The media needs disasters to sell stuff

    If Trump were evacuating Troops as he agreed to do - he would be insisting on a Nobel Peace Prize and all Americans would be cheering, at least the departure of Troops.

    Since Biden is doing it all Americans are cheering the departure of the troops but all of the sudden the Republicans are concerned about refugees? About helping those that helped us?

    We are doing what should have been done 19 years ago. It is, and will remain a God awful military adventure that was doomed from the beginning.

    1. sonofthereturnofaptidude

      Dems: "We're evacuating Americans and Afghan allies."
      GOP: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN! THE GIRLS! THE WOMENFOLK!"

  12. sonofthereturnofaptidude

    The US could literally bid on the entire agricultural output of Afghanistan, including the opium harvest, and then use that as leverage. I don't know why we don't use our wealth to create economic leverage like that. The Taliban still have to manage an economy if they want to hold power, even if in only some parts of the country.

    1. Salamander

      Yeah, I'm sure US pharmaceutical companies would be thrilled to get it at a subsidized price. Not like those poppies need to go to waste.

    2. colbatguano

      Instead of military aid, we should have just bought all of the food crops from Afghanistan's farmers at 10x market rate and then handed it to the merchants.

  13. Vog46

    We seized their U.S. based assets which is substantial compared to their economic output. Why would we turn around and bid on the opium output to gain leverage?

    And, I thought the Afghanistan president was supposed to remain behind to hopefully form a coalition government with the Taliban?

Comments are closed.