Will the events in Kabul hurt Joe Biden's chances of reelection in 2024? That depends on how things go, of course, but most likely it will be too far in the past to make any difference one way or the other.
However, there's still the question of Afghanistan as a whole. It's possible the Taliban has mellowed a bit over time, but that's probably not the betting line. More likely, they'll terrorize the country, force women out of the public eye, and (maybe) give safe haven once again to terrorists. If that's the case, will Donald Trump be able to make hay out of it? I'm not sure, but that's the question to be thinking about.
Biden isn't running for reelection. There is your first mistake.
Sure he is. If he wins a second term, though, my bet is he'll step down after the 2026 midterms.
that would actually be pretty damn smart.
Indeed, both good bets, not certain but good bets.
Second mistake, Trump is the one who initiated the withdrawal, Biden just carried it out.
Second mistake, Trump is the one who initiated the
withdrawaltotal and abject surrender, Biden just carried it out.A lot of people have picked up the mistaken impression that Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler at Munch. He didn't - in fact, even before meeting Hitler he was busy rebuilding Britain's armed forces. The fact of the matter is that none of the European nations was ready for war, including Germany. Britain took huge losses in WWI and it still loomed large in people's minds. Same for most of the European combatants. If Chamberlain had come back from Munich talking war, there is a high likelihood that his government would have fallen.
Appeasement is giving up an advantage in negotiations without getting anything in return - Chamberlain got something very valuable - time to continue Britain's rearming. It was barely sufficient, but it worked.
What TFG did - THAT'S appeasement. He got nothing of value except a chance to brag - which is worthless except to his bloated ego.
Neville Chamberlain, Nazi appeaser is yet another myth that will not die. I'm guessing it's because the narrative is simple and appeals to a certain type of simplistic butthead.
While actual Briton Hitler appeasers & sympathizers like Oswald Mosley only get the occasional cheek from Elvis Costello & others like Edward VII get hagiographies from the likes of Madonna.
Hitler got more than Britain did at Munich.
Chamberlain got what Britain needed. And, to be cold-blooded, he was willing to sacrifice the Sudetenland to get it. It's not clear that Britain, even if it had been able to reassemble an alliance (doubtful - everybody had bad memories of WWI), could have effectively opposed Germany on this.
You're right, but I understand why the Czechs might disagree.
Biden just said he would have done the same regardless of what Trump did.
and toddler donnie will have one foot in the grave, at least.
Remember the old saying: The Good Die Young and the Evil Live Forever.
> too far in the past
yes, this
I tend to agree with spades that not running but if he is
Terrorize the country and force women out of the public eye ( or even kill them for not wearing a burkha) - honestly that will not change the political situation much for American public.
There is a decent % of Americans that do care about human rights, stopping persecution, spreading democracy, etc.
But they are mostly strong republican or democratic partisans. The vast majority of those in the Middle are more concerned about bread and butter issues and not some foreign place they cannot find on a map. A lot of times, foreign policy issues are only really important to those whose votes are locked in anyway.
Now harboring terrorists again - that will be a much bigger political problem if it happens. And if actual terrorists acts happens, way more.
But still limited. Why? Because that is simply a result of leaving itself, not how we left. And the general public supports that and so did trump. So if now the taliban stares terrorizing again, why would the same not have happened if trump pulled out?
Consequences of pulling out itself can be neutralized as both sides were going to do it and Americans agreed.
Any real political damage has to come from results of how the process of pulling out was handled as that is on biden.
Next year is all about abortion.
Next year is all about abortion.
If Dems are lucky.
More likely it'll be about Covid and the economy. Although that might well be a good things for them, depending on how things shake out. I know a lot of people are stressed and depressed right now given the arrival of Delta. But I feel the US is a lot better off than it was a year ago: substantially, we now have a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Precautions are in order, but, statistically, vaccinated people appear to face less danger than they do from influenza (the latter of which does, after all, claim lives). The arrival of booster shots, the continual rise of infection-induced immunity, the development of therapeutics, the fear-induced vaccination of the hesitant, the full approval of the vaccines themselves, and their greenlighting for children -- all of these trends should help to continue to improve the situation over the longer term.
Covid's not going away in '22. But we can now envisage a path whereby it's steadily transformed from a crisis to a manageable if serious challenge.
Agree
Democrats may or may not have a decent midterm next year. But it's vanishingly unlikely it'll be because of Afghanistan either way. Americans overwhelmingly are reluctant to shed more blood and spend more taxpayer money on somebody else's civil war. Also, Republicans don't control either chamber of Congress, and so can't do Benghazi Hearings Part II.
Afghanistan will be difficult to find on the front pages by late next week, never mind October of 2022. And to the extent we do get occasionally ugly headlines out of that sorry place, in the minds of many voters it's likely to reinforce the wisdom of the decision to pull out — not give them second thoughts.
I think a big element that's driving right wing kvetching (really, projection) right now is the realization that we won't see a politically-damaging (to Democrats), long and tortuous Afghanistan withdrawal in the runup to the midterms. I believe many Republicans were banking on that.
Biden's not perfect. But he appears to be very shrewd practitioner of electoral politics.
Yes, the probable risk factor is return of Al Qaeda but good proxies and drones are the solution, not the ongoing occupation merely feeding nationalist resentments
Al Qaeda has had different places around the world to regroup, including Pashtun-controlled Pakistan, a veritable no-man's land for centralized government control, and we haven't seen that, or a wave of terrorist attacks, it is not "probable" they suddenly reconstitute and metastasize in Afghanistan now, just speculation and imagination, much from a traumatized experience from 20 years ago.
How many nos. 3 does al-Qaeda have left?
Good point, very well could be the case that some in the inner circle were relying on a protracted withdrawal, and the Taliban threatening to take control closer to election season. And any of those who were counting on arguing for us going back under these conditions have had their plans ruined.
My interest is piqued by question related to whether Trump will be able to make hay with it. What do you think the is are that Trump remains out of prison by that time?
Sorry about the typos. I was trying to ask what the odds are that Trump will remain out of prison.
High
Also, nothing in the constitution prevents a convicted, incarcerated felon from running for his party's nomination, and serving as POTUS if he wins the Electoral College. Mafiosi have long been known to manage their criminal enterprises from behind the walls of a prison; I see no reason Don Trumpioni would be any different.
Not just high, 100%. Even if he shoots a guy on fifth avenue tomorrow.
Nah.
The Trump Org crimes are there. They’ll be obvious, many, and egregious. It’ll all boil down to proving intent, which is to say Weisselburg’s cooperation.
I give it 50/50.
I don’t think anyone is serious about sending Trump to prison, especially not the SDNY which has had limitless opportunities and a ready to go case sitting on the shelf. They immunized Weisselburg and Pecker to reward their loyalty to Trump and prosecuted lower ranking Family members to punish their stated willingness to flip.
Weisselburg’s very unlikely to cooperate. Even if he’s convicted, he’ll get a slap on the wrist. Little Donnie Two Scoops will take care of his family and Weisselburg’s status will be enhanced when he gets out because he didn’t rat.
Why is the question even being asked? Biden is in his FIRST YEAR. In what other country do people start buzzing about reelection immediately after election? It's silly. Americans are no different from anyone else and to the extent they care about Afghanistan in 2024 (which is unlikely), it'll be what Biden does that year.
That's a fair point, but Kevin muffed the question by asking about 2024. The more relevant one involves next year's midterms. It's hard to imagine the specifics of his ending a highly unpopular war will hurt him in 2024, agreed.
It's hard to imagine this being much of a factor in 2022 either, other than Democrats having a win in their back pockets instead of Republicans (probably not super impactful though, but in 2024 could be a big win to sell in the presidential election).
So we don't care about terrorism or women's rights per se, but only how they affect the prospects of the Democrats in the next election?
So, in your view discussing the political ramifications of phenomena equate to being unconcerned about phenomena?
Seems wrong.
I have to say, it is not our job to police human rights by occupying every country around the world.
So it’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that it’s not our problem to fix.
A future superhero (or villain) whose power involves generation and control of fire:
"If a problem can't be solved by twisting a human until they're snapped in half, I'm not interested."
- Chris Baker, twister
Thanks to the never ending GWOT, there’s now numerous other places where terrorists have sanctuary and from which would theoretically be capable of planning operations. But there’s no indication that the sanctuary of Afghanistan played a significant part in any terror activities, especially 9/11, which was planned in a variety of countries including the USA and Germany.
I've also never seen evidence that Al-Qaeda let the Taliban know about their 9/11 plans. That would have been monumentally stupid for a lot of reasons - and operational security is only one.
Good point, and mostly funded by you-know-who, declassify and release the documents!
I agree although at this point my guess is that what’s in the documents or in the possession of the intelligence community is probably no more damaging than what an overwhelming majority of people already believe.
I think it comes down to what happens on 2022.
If the Dems lose seats and can get nothing done because of gridlock I think that could help Biden. The GOP always overplays their hand and assumes more support from the public than what really exists.
If Dems pick up seats and have a majority in both houses it will hurt Biden. The progressives always overplay their hand and assume more support from the public than what really exists.
It won't take much for the GOP to flip the House and/or Senate in 22. If that happens, they'll turn Congress into a 24/7 Trumpist shitshow. The government will come to a standstill for the next two years and the media will blame Biden for failing to show more bipartisanship by resigning.
I don't think Afghanistan will be a big deal unless it becomes clear that the Taliban are letting the country once again become a refuge for Al Qaeda or ISIS. I don't think they'll be that stupid this time, but who knows?
More likely, the People's Liberation Army will use Afghanistan as a staging area for future intentional lab leaks.
If Biden sticks to his guns and doesn't act like he's ashamed of his actions he'll be better than fine as a results of the Afghanistan pullout. He's the president who got us out of a 20-years-long war. He should be proud of that and I think it will be a popular position.
The war-loving media wants to make out that he "botched" something. He didn't. By the end of the year he'll be able to brag about X number of Afghans and American citizens peacefully evacuated, X number of flights out of the country, and so on. The chaotic first 12 hours will be a distant memory, no matter how the war-loving media tries to hype it.
The war-loving, right-wing pandering media. Fixed it for you.
To be clear, no one loves war like the "mainstream" media.
Lamestream media, please.
The election in 2024 will likely be about issues we aren’t even thinking about now. If Trump is running, the issue will be whether we want to have a Democracy or a dictatorship.
If there's an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, Republicans will be able to use that to bash Biden and get some headlines. But, based on what we've seen before, most voters really won't care. (That's unfortunate, but that's who we are.) It likely won't impact either 2022 or 2024 much.
If there's a terrorist attack that directly affects or threatens America just before an election, that would be a bigger deal politically and could shift some voters.
I don’t think this will matter at all in any election.
Should be concerned about the midterms not 2024. If GOP gets congress Biden can win reelection but won't be allowed to be reelected.
I think it's going to hurt Biden significantly. Even if people sort of forget about Afghanistan, the perception has now been absorbed that Biden is a weak leader on the world stage.
Biden appears to have committed to a rapid withdrawal plan which gave little chance for Afghans to stand up to the Taliban. Of course Trump had already made random cuts in US troops that undermined the Afghan situation significantly. But Biden picked up Trump's baton and played along with Trump's random playbook.
Checking AP articles on Trump's troop cuts in 2020, I found this:
"The accelerated withdrawal, however, goes against the longstanding advice of Trump’s military leadership, including Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, top U.S. commander for the Middle East."
There was never a chance the Afghan army was going to stand up to the Taliban which is why Biden went along with Trump's timetable. He knew it made no difference when we decided to leave. This will not hurt Biden.
Nothing "rapid" about this withdrawal plan, and do you really want a protracted withdrawal from a civil war?
And perception om the world stage can change in the blink of an eye, as we've just seen, it will very likely swing back, as events further unfold, and allies remember the alternative.
Afghanistan will be a non-issue in 2022 or 2024. Sure, Trump or some members of the GOP may harp about it, but it isnt going to be something that moves voters one way or another. I fully expect Trump to go around demanding a Nobel for Afghanistan, regardless of what the country looks like over the next few years.
Americans really dont care about humanitarian issues in foreign countries. They've been tired of this war for over a decade, and are completely disinterested in reengaging.
The Taliban will likely do awful stuff. Other terrorists may collect there. But they wont bother attacking the US, so American voters really wont care. The Taliban will be about as interesting to voters as Boko Haram or al Qaeda in Africa.
2022 will be all about the domestic economy, whatever woke outrage the GOP gins up that year, and something new we cant even imagine yet (likely a natural disaster or some new freak out over Iran or N Korea).
We should not underestimate the Taliban. The press seems to operate under the assumption that they are a rag tag militia. They are not. They are well organized and efficiently led; the campaign last week demonstrates that.
They are not more humane than 20 years ago (at least nobody believes they are) but I don't think they are stupid enough to repeat the mistake of offering foreign organizations their territory to prepare attacks on the US. It was that mistake that cost them the power for 20 years.
I agree pretty much with all you say above.
Not sure that they will not be stupid enough to bring back al queda or some analog to them but I suspect they will not. They might pay lip service to doing so for display and allow them a spokesman but will make sure they do not use their territory to launch any attacks.
Someone earlier said that Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 which is just not true. Al queda was allowed to do a lot of planning , equipping training etc. For it in Afghanistan and the taliban did have some knowledge of it.
But the taliban were not doing it out of some idea of starting a world Islamic revolution. They did not finance al queda - al queda paid them for their sanctuary. For the taliban it was self interest not a big desire for a world Islamic state. Three types of Islamic extremists. One has a dream of conquering the whole world for Islam. The second wants an Islamic extreme state in all Islamic areas and just wants the west to leave them to do it. The third just wants to take over their own country . The taliban are mostly the third.
What happened with 9/11, I think, was a taliban miscalculation overestimating the USA in both competence and spirit. They thought that the mighty usa was too competent to allow the al queda clowns to pull off something like 9/11 and also thought we were too cowardly to do anything about it to them if they did. Wrong on both counts.
Short term end game here to me comes down to 3 things re taliban strategy.
1) for American citizens, how far do they want to push the implicit hostage game here to get us concessions ? Dangerous game. They do not fully control all their own fighters. More Americans will get killed the longer this takes. Push it too far and might force even biden to send the us army back in to fight. Note that, having exposed themselves to take over the country, they are more vulnerable than they have been for 20 years. Will they know when they have gone too far?
If they wanted to, the taliban could get all Americans to the airport and out. But they want a price for that.
2. Does the taliban want revenge enough to want to just kill those who helped the us army. Or will they just eventually be happy to get them out of the country and not making trouble for them?
3. How many of the western trained professionals do they want to force to remain ( not kill) to work for them?
"they'll terrorize the country, force women out of the public eye, and (maybe) give safe haven once again to terrorists"
I really wish people were more careful about these sorts of statements.
First question is
- how popular is the Taliban (and the regime they want to install) across the whole of Afghanistan? I cannot find an answer to that, but I see no particular reason to believe that they're not as least somewhat popular.
Aren't we supposed to be for Democracy? ie People get to choose what THEY want, regardless of what we want.
Second question
- why is the women issue our business? Once again, that's for them to choose. What does "respect other cultures" MEAN if it always turns into "we respect their foods and their silly costumes, but they damn well better adopt the same social and political understandings that we do"?
Or, to put it differently, how is "OMG, but think of the women" any different from that old Religious Right standby "OMG, but think of the local christians"?
Are we in the business of letting other people live their lives by their choices, or not?
(And I would remind everyone that the ERA failed in the US because of WOMEN's mobilization. I'd remind everyone of just how popular books with covers like this are
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=amish+romance&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
There are plenty of women [even in the US] who pine for a pre-modernity alternative.
Do their voices not matter?)
- safe haven for terrorists is, indeed, the one legitimate concern we should have. That seems like something that can be negotiated behind closed doors on very simple grounds; at which point we revert to the above two points.
Sure, it upsets you that a state is being created based on a different worldview than your own. It's OK for you to be upset.
But, just possibly, maybe this is an opportunity for some self-reflection that you are, in fact, neither a cultural relativist nor a democrat -- instead you're exactly like 95% of all people throughout all history,
- insistent that your way of life is better than any other,
- that you have the right to force it down other people's throats,
- and that you're no better than everyone you claim to despise, whether Republicans today, or European Imperialists of 150 years ago...
Some good points here I think.
On taliban support, clearly they have a solid base of support especially in the rural areas. A majority I doubt it. But , if the democratic choice was between them and the semi democratic corrupt and western modeled govt we supported, the vote would be close. Still think the taliban would lose but not positive. But the taliban do have the majority of those willing and able to fight and die for what they believe and that is what really counts. A democracy only can work if the part of the population willing and able to fight respects the right of a democratic majority to rule. And that is not Afghanistan today.
I would guesstimate the median real democratic opinion in Afghanistan to maybe want something between a soft semi democratic theocracy like turkey and a harder Islamic theocracy but not one too oppressive like Saudi Arabia.
It is just so ridiculous when you have the un issuing statements saying that they expect the taliban to respect the right of women to participate in government. What world do these naive idiots live in? Be satisfied if they allow women to survive as something more than oppressed serfs.
I would quibble with your points re women's rights and democracy here, especially with something as extreme as the taliban. Even if the majority did want the taliban , including the women , that does not justify taking away civil rights from those that want them .
If in the Civil War, 80% of southerners supported slavery and that included 51% of the slaves, does that mean the north should have said OK then and allowed the continuing slavery of the 49% who did not want to be slaves?
I am not willing to say that this is totally not our business and it is wrong for us to want to do anything about it. But saying it would be moral if we did does not make it a good idea. If Cuba was Islamic and the taliban were right there just off our shores, I might support us intervention because it is doable and we can maintain that. I would have been OK with a competent bay of pigs. Vietnam was more practical and important to make that war arguable.
But Afghanistan is near the most difficult place for us to project power. About the worst place for us to get a bang for our buck. We cannot fix everything in the world. Use your resources where they can do the most good. If you want to intervene on human rights try Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela in out own hemisphere with poor governments that we could topple and improve with a small fraction of the resources we wasted in Afghanistan and where democracy could work.