I have a question. But before we get to that, I have a couple of pieces of background material. First there's this:
Before the current Taliban offensive, U.S. officials said they didn’t expect the takeover of any provincial capital until fall at the earliest. Instead, a carefully planned strategy carried out by the Taliban has produced swift battlefield advances....The latest U.S. intelligence assessment said Kabul could fall to militants in as soon as a month, officials said. U.S. officials now worry that Afghan civilians, soldiers and others will flee the city ahead of a Taliban assault.
Second up is Biden's hope that diplomatic talks can accomplish something:
The Biden administration has mounted a last-ditch effort this week to convince the Taliban, as it continues its relentless march across Afghanistan, that the world will reject it if it takes over the entire country by force. In the largest such gathering since U.S.-Taliban talks began nearly two years ago, representatives from Russia, China, Afghanistan’s regional neighbors, European powers, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations have converged on Doha, Qatar, for U.S.-led meetings with the militants.
....Russia, China, Iran and others in the region have recently hosted delegations of senior Taliban officials, treating them as “diplomats, as a kind of hedge,” said a senior Biden administration official, one of several U.S. and European officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive diplomacy. “They all condemn it and say it is not in their interest,” the official said of a Taliban takeover. “Now is the moment we will see how much they’re willing to press for” a negotiated political solution “and to really signal to the Taliban that that’s the expectation.”
So here's my question: Does Biden actually believe this stuff? I mean, did he initially think that the Taliban was fairly weak and would take months just to take over a few northern provinces? And does he now believe that a united front will persuade the Taliban to leave Kabul alone?
Neither of these things has ever been remotely credible. We've dealt with the Taliban for the past two decades and we know that their aim is to take over the entire country, full stop. We also know—or have every reason to suspect—that government forces will almost literally abandon entire cities rather than fight the Taliban. There are still a few forces left who can fight, but only a few, and they won't present the Taliban with much trouble. So whether the Taliban takes over the central government in 30 days or six months is mostly down to whatever's most convenient for them.
Does Biden know this and is just trying to show a brave face? Or did he believe the happy talk military advice he got? If the latter, he'd be well advised to fire a few people.
We spent 20 years and over a trillion dollars trying to build a viable Afghan Army. What reason do we have to believe we'd have any more success if we stayed another 20 years?
Apparently, the Afghan Army is abandoning their equipment as they retreat. I saw a news clip last night of Taliban fighters showing off the MRAP vehicles they captured. They even captured some helicopters, although I doubt that they have pilots who can fly them.
I also saw a news clip of Joe Biden fielding questions about the situation in Afghanistan. He said it's up to the Afghans to fight for their country. He's right.
Even if they have pilots to fly them, it's highly unlikely that they can get parts to maintain them.
This is the guy who wanted to partition Iraq.
That said I think saying the Talibs would slow walk the take over wasn't 100% unrealistic. Wait until the US retreats then take over easily. But what they forgot is these Islamics want a win over America. They don't give a flying fuck what China is doing to their coreligionists. They want to look like they kicked our asses. I mean they did, but they want the flashy PR win.
First, if the President of the United States through deeds shows he thinks Afghanistan is lost, Afghan soldiers are not going to believe happy talk about them beating the Taliban. Of course their morale will be low and many will desert. There are many ways to leave and this was the worst.
Second, the "whole country" strategy was the President's responsibility, not the military's. Very early on it was clear it wouldn't work and a "city defense" strategy should have been adopted. That would also have prevented all those deaths in rural areas. It's awful that even now the thinking is "all or nothing". Afghanistan is a loosely knit country. Just holding the cities, which would have been easy, would have enabled progress most especially for women's rights.
Was Biden snookered? No, he was sick of it, unable to think outside the "whole country" box, and aware that most Americans don't care anymore.
" Just holding the cities, which would have been easy..."
Easy in your dreams, perhaps.
Why? They were held for two decades. ALL the important ones. Easily.
In 2015, we lost the sixth biggest city in the country and had to take it back. And that was with American ground troops and air support.
So, no, they were not all held for two decades, and it was not easy.
See Mosul vs ISIS.
Cities become islands under seige. With reinforcement, replacements and resupply blocked by land, what happens to the morale of the defenders? It evaporates, as it did in Mosul and as it is doing in Afghanistan. Vietnam is an older example of the same thing.
Remember, Afghanistan is still 75% rural. The cities aren't sustainable on their own.
"Second, the 'whole country' strategy was the President's responsibility..."
This is true--but the President in question is named Ghani, not Biden.
Yeah it was the AFGHAN Presidents responsibility. The US planners recommended this but the government didn't do it so they wouldn't look weak.
Oh, we made the Afghanis get "low morale"!! Come on. In a sane world, where people in a country feel some kind of loyalty to it, being dumped ought to make them angry and MORE inclined to fight for their land. Not turn into sad sacks sitting in their barracks and letting the Taliban soldiers take all their stuff.
If it's not important enough for Afghans to shoulder the burden of defending what they've got before it's gone, then that's on them. The US gave 'em 20years.
The Taliban are fighting for something. The Afghan Army was only fighting for a paycheck, for leaders who were unpopular. No wonder they took the Taliban deal.
The only way to "win" was to cut off Taliban support from outside groups. That never really happened.
Indeed, they were part of Reagan's Freedom Fighters against the Soviets--and we were the ones backing them at that time.
No, those were Massoud, who was killed but certainly wouldn't have worked with the Taliban, Dostum who is holding out against them in Mazar-i-Sharif (not that he's a good guy), and Hekmatyar (also a bad guy) who after some back and forth is in Kabul now, I believe. The Taliban was the force that washed away all those warlords. Reagan's policies were awful and probably did lead to this situation, but the Taliban came later and not from the forces the US aided.
Right, we created Al Qaeda's leaders not the Taliban.
You mean old school liberal Wilson's freedom forces. The Reagan administration was more interested in central America.
Charlie Wilson's War was a greater offense to humanity on the part of Tom Hanks than is being the father of Chet Hanks.
I'll believe it when I see the DNA test.
Each of Tom Hanks's four sons & one daughter is a very different mood.
Chet clearly got his mad phat flow from Rita Wilson, based on her quarantine performance of "Hip Hop Hooray".
To a point, but Charlie Wilson lamented the fact that we didn't help Afghanistan at the time and let the crazies take over.
"Does Biden know this and is just trying to show a brave face? "
A brave face to whom, and for what purpose?
There's no domestic constituency that cares. There's no pool of idiotic foreigners that will be fooled.
Essentially to believe this is to believe that the American establishment is so locked into lying for lying's sake that they continue to do so when there's *zero* reason for it. Which may well be true -- and if so, is vastly more interesting than the details of the Taliban...
There will be a domestic constituency that cares. Once Fox makes it so. Ending The Forever Wars(TM) is going to be memory holed.
Oh, yes. Afghanistan will join Vietnam and Iraq on the list of wars that we coulda totally won if we had only stayed just a little bit longer (and a little bit longer after that, and a little bit longer after that).
And Donald Trump will be right up there fulminating about how Biden totally botched this, and he, Donald Trump, would have gotten American troops out while also defeating the Taliban and securing Afghanistan forever... bigly. When asked why, in four years as President, he never actually did this, he will explain that the questioner is a bad person.
Trumps a brain damaged old fart. Who cares. Posts like these....
Suddenly, everything has changed... & even Glemm Greemwald wants the US to be nation-builders.
Greenwald is a Russkie spy
No lies detected.
Some times the right decision (to leave) still has bad optics.
Biden is trying to avoid admitting it will end up being under his watch (deserved or not) that the helicopters have to be dispatched to the embassy.
It would seem preparations fir that day are continuing apace if not accelerating: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/12/_politics-zone-injection/us-afghanistan-embassy/index.html
Oops, better bring some back:
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027175876/u-s-embassy-kabul-evacuate-staff-afghanistan-military
And we also have this: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/urgent-cable-us-embassy-calls-washington-evacuate-afghan/story?id=79428579&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed
I doubt Biden expects the diplomatic strategy to work, but what else is there to do, other than send American forces back into the mire?
And if he's going to try it, he has to talk it up--admitting up front that you expect your diplomatic effort to fail is a great way to snuff out whatever faint chance of success there is.
Carpet bomb Tora-Bora with B-52's. Yeah, the airframes are old, but they still can carry a hell of a bomb load.
And yes, I realize that this will not change the situation, but it will kill a lot of Taliban. And that's a big plus.
No.
So here's my question: Does Biden actually believe this stuff?
And my question is why does any of that matter? They key point is the US president decided it was no longer in the country's interest to pay whatever price we've been paying lately to preserve a measure of security and civil society for 20-odd million Afghans. All the rest just amounts to the precise shade of lipstick Washington is putting on this particular pig.
This kind of realpolitik works on a purely pragmatic level: We're out, we don't have to lose any more American $$$ or lives. But it doesn't work well for the long-term reputation on the U.S. as an international force that can be trusted, or would be worth helping on a regional basis if asked. This is the less-obvious benefit that is lost in this fiasco, and other stupid moves driven by internal U.S. politics.
Of course I mean "of the U.S.," not "on the U.S." It would be so easy to implement a user editing function here...
We stuck around for 20 years. We never promised to prop up the Afghan government forever, and no one with two brain cells to rub together expected that we would. In fact, Presidents from Obama onward have been making noises about pulling out, only to get talked into staying another year, and another year after that. Sooner or later, someone had to pull the plug.
"...the long-term reputation on the U.S. as an international force that can be trusted, or would be worth helping on a regional basis if asked..."
That horse left the barn years ago.
Not 20 million, more like 5 million. Most of Afghanistan was already under Taliban control even before Biden. That's why the whole "womens rights" thing are falling on deaf ears. 75% of the Afghan population was already living under Taliban rule.
A cynic might note that, for the Biden White House and the Democratic Party, the swiftness of the Taliban's triumph is very much a feature, not a bug, once the decision was made to gift Afghanistan to these lunatics. Far better for Kabul to fall in November 2021 than November 2022.
Well, October of those years anyway, given Election Day being the first Tuesday of November.
The Cubs won the World Series in November 2016.
“No one will be happy to see theocratic barbarians rout a military we trained for two decades at a cost of more than two thousand lives and two trillion dollars. Yet the very fact of that outcome will serve as powerful confirmation that Biden's (and Trump's) instincts were correct: The mission couldn't be accomplished, which means the mission had to be abandoned.”
Well that sounds not all true. I’m happy to see the barbarians control Afghanistan. It’s a pathetic and useless society of barely literate religious fanatics, warlords, and drug dealers. They are all Taliban and they deserve their fate. Otherwise the rest is correct. The mission could not be accomplished. The US military is as pathetic as and useless and the Afghans.
https://theweek.com/politics/1003620/biden-afghanistan-taliban-kabul
Wasn't KD agreeing with Trump a while back that ditching Afghanistan was good? I'm not going to go back & research it - correct if wrong.
I don't like this at all:
"I’m happy to see the barbarians control Afghanistan. It’s a pathetic and useless society of barely literate religious fanatics, warlords, and drug dealers. They are all Taliban...."
Nah. Smacks of racism. A lot of Afghanis don't want this. Let's bring the ones who want something else & need to get out, here. Some we owe it to.
Thanks for the link - I think the quote provided adequately sums up the current situation - the mission couldn't be accomplished, & recent events are a painful demonstration of that.
KD has been consistently in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan.
He has also been consistent in saying the result will be a swift Taliban takeover. I don't know if he was expecting it to be *this* swift, but it was always clear that they were going to win once our forces had left.
There are no good choices in Afghanistan. Maybe there were 20 years ago, I don't know. But for several years now, the only options on the table have been "leave and let the Taliban take over," or "stay and prop up the corrupt, incompetent government forever."
You can acknowledge the problems with option #1, and still prefer it to the alternative.
When a society fails so completely that it cannot progress with the rest of the world, there must be some explanation. The US military wasn't fighting other foreign troops, they were fighting afghans. The taliban are supported by some significant portion of the afghan population. They are funded and supplied by afghans. The entire society is therefore suspect and unworthy of any respect at all.
It's not surprising really. Religious fanaticism and "tribal" hatreds are common there. Who else would fight over a country with few resources and stuck in the dark ages?
Your syllogism goes from "some" to "entire". It's a classic logic error. That's also why it smacks of racism.
I guess Afghanis feel it's worthwhile to fight over their country - or not much, one one side, & would rather throw in with the Taliban faction. It makes me think that your other argument might not be valid either, that tribal hatreds are common there (& so, I guess, dispositive). Could we have inadvertently helped recreate a real Afghanistan - just not the one we wanted?
On the other hand, if you're right, then after the Taliban catch the pickup truck they won't know what to do & the internal contradictions will tear them apart like it did the last time they gained control. That's when they'll go shopping for serious outside support to save themselves, which is part (I think) of every cycle of disaster in Afghanistan this century.
Biden's words were not meant for you, Mr. Drum. They were meant for rubes the world over who may or may not be gullible enough to believe them, and who would be unable to do anything about it even if they didn't.
I'm glad to have Trump out of the White House, and to have a Democratic president trying to enact "for-the-people" type domestic programs, but make no mistake: The international stage is a tough room, and the people who have battled their way to the top understand the use of power. Biden is no exception.
"hold the cities" ? Am I the only one who hasn't forgotten about the Battle of Kabul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kabul
The most tragic of ironies is that we had far better reasons, and a considerably better chance of achieving our goals in Afghanistan than we ever did in Vietnam.
Then, our record for wars since 1945 is 2-3.
(Being charitable in counting the Iraqi War as a win).
PANAMA!!!
Grenada!
Reminds me: Diamond Dave needs more Grenadine.
Meanwhile, the predictable series of “think of this group and how they will be treated” articles are appearing on The Guardian…
Sorry, but those cities were already abandoned. There is nothing to fall. It had already happened.
Years ago, I writer I thought was pretty knowledgeable said that the United States' engagement in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew was inadequate. The way to really help the country was to be more deeply involved, including a military role that would be planned to last for fifty years.
Maybe that was crazy talk, and it apparently wasn't something most Americans wanted to support. But I wonder if we could have actually seen a new generation of Taliban-resistant Afghani society emerge and become dominant if the U.S. had a really long game.
Maybe, and it's a big maybe, if all the resources W dumped on Iraq had been used to stabilize Afghanistan in 2002-05 it might have had a chance. Trying to do it on the cheap was a guaranteed disaster.
I doubt the military brass was giving him any optimistic talk about military withdrawal. They were trying to get him to go instead with a "timetable for withdrawal upon conditions" type of set-up, where they could then stall for time and drag their feet on withdrawal.
I think Biden just doesn't care what happens to Afghanistan, and figures most Americans won't either. He was opposed to escalating in Afghanistan back when he was Obama's VP.
I think the question you want to ask is, "What's the difference between one and twelve months -- isn't the end result still the same?"
The semantic of how long it'd take for the Taliban to reclaim Afghanistan is silly. Obviously, they're trying to change the narrative to something along the lines of, "Well, we didn't realize just how incompetent and corrupt the Afghans were. Thank goodness we got out when we did!"
"[H]e'll be well-advised to fire a few people."
Um. No. He doesn't get to blame other people; the buck stops with him. If he didn't realize that the Taliban are Medieval Saracens he's an idiot. If he REALIZED it and abandoned the people of Afghanistan ANYway, he's just as much a monster as the Talibs.
"So how are you going to win, Mr. Smarty-Pants?" you say? Uncrate the mothballed A-20's and the B-52's and carpet bomb Tora-Bora. Go into the negotiating room tomorrow with flash-bang grenades and AR's and capture all of the "diplomats". Then behead a couple of the worst ones on Arab TV -- after treating them to seppuku slashes -- to remind the rest of them that we're the Running Dog Maniacs who have the ability to burn people with Nukes.
We've been forbearing for political and humanitarian reasons; they need to understand that there's a limit.
I disagree. Yes, the buck stops with the President and it is his responsibility to avoid believing in bullshit.
But: If he made that mistake the bullshitter--who is supposed to be more informed about the particular area in question than the President--made a bigger mistake. He needs to go because the team must be as good as you can make it.
I'd say the President has a responsibility to get rid of people who have given very bad advice and hire people with the potential to do better. I am not advocating firing people for minor problems but this is a big one.
The problem is though: Was Biden snookered or did he just have the guts to face the music and call an end to the pretense.
This outcome was inevitable. Nothing else to say. Did anyone ever hear of the Vietnam war?
Yeah, this is looking a lot like 1975, with the capital likely to fall a lot sooner than the brass originally predicted. The only real difference now is that Afghanistan is landlocked, meaning the flood of refugees will be over land routes into such "friendly" countries as Iran, Pakistan, or Turkmenistan. None of these neighbours will be too welcoming, I suspect. Pakistan especially, since the Pakistani military and intelligence services are the main supporters of the Taliban.
The other parallel that makes this outcome inevitable, is that in both cases we propped up a hopelessly corrupt and lacked popular support.
And in this case, we did regime change as well (thanks, GOP).
What did everyone expect? That the United States could just go around the world and decide what government sovereign nations should have? That's 1960's CIA thinking, Neo-Con thinking.
Obama should have gotten us out, but he listened the his military advisers, which is not a mistake, as long as you recognize their perspective is not the same as the Nation's.
Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the time the last veteran dies? $3 TRILLION.
EACH. There's your modern infrastructure, smart grid, renewable energy, healthcare for all, education for all, and modern nation right there.
"We also know—or have every reason to suspect—that government forces will almost literally abandon entire cities rather than fight the Taliban."
Why don't people write more about why this is so?
And isn't this evidence that the US presence was a waste?
It was far from a waste. A generation of young women got a taste of freedom and self-actualization. They will do everything they can to leave for saner lands, and the place will be depopulated in fifty years.
It was a waste.
It's the same phenomenon that we saw in Iraq. America trains local troops to fight the American way: with massive firepower and sophisticated technology. If a sniper shoots at you, call in an airstrike with smart bombs, etc.
Then of course the hardware and the technology are taken away, and the locals are faced with hardened warriors who've been waging irregular wars all their lives. Naturally they panic and run.
Heck, this is the same mistake that was made in South Vietnam. They too were trained to fight like the US military does, but had no hope of having the same resources.
I'm sure Biden had a very good idea what was going to happen. It's been obvious for more than a year that absent another "surge", the Taliban was going to take back the country. But he could hardly come out and say "C'mon, man, of course the Afghan army's gonna fold like a cheap suit. They're scared shitless of the Taliban."
The former guy handed him a gift: the opportunity to end a futile mission while claiming truthfully that he was merely carrying out his predecessor's decisions. He would have been a fool to do anything else. I just wish Democrats would be more energetic in slapping down the chorus on the right that is trying to airbrush the former guy's agreement to withdraw out of history, just as they did when they blamed Obama for "losing Iraq".
Lots of people liken this to Vietnam, but unlike after the fall of Saigon, we'll be back in Afghanistan in some form or another, in fairly short order.
Thanks to the Taliban, Islamic extremist groups will find it a hospitable place to move to, where they will establish their caliphate. At some point, Biden will have no choice but to get involved militarily. Naturally, lots of Americans will bemoan the absence of an AUMF, but that won't prevent Biden from doing what every prior president has done, namely, commit to extrajudicial killings to minimize American lives, but at the expense of the lives of civilians.
I want those "extra-judicial killings" to be made with napalm, not "precision munitions" which make a pretty green flash and a small crater in the roadway.
A nice big napalm fireball tends to focus the minds of nearby -- but not TOO "nearby" -- observers.