Tunisian Revolution and the Middle East--And Now, The Withdrawal From Afghanistan (M.E.T.)

[redskins59]

Let's see what happens, but there is no guarantee that the Taliban will be in power a year from now, or 2 years from now.

[Larry]

 

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Surprised that many are correct on this issue. Improves my opinion of my fellow citizens. 

1 hour ago, China said:

 

Afghan refugee debate fractures GOP

 

Republicans are united in their belief that President Joe Biden has botched the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. But on the question of the thousands of Afghan refugees looking to flee to the United States, a schism has emerged within the party, pitting immigration restrictionists against those who view the resettlement of individuals and families in the U.S. as a moral charge

 

Translation:  They all agree that pretending Biden caused this problem will help them gain power. But they're not sure whether helping refugees will. 
 

Not one of them gives a **** about the refugees. Probably Muslim, anyway. 

[Larry]

43 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

Let's see what happens, but there is no guarantee that the Taliban will be in power a year from now, or 2 years from now.

They outlasted 20 years of conflict with the US military. Who, exactly, do you see pushing them out of power?  And quickly?  

[gbear]

On the more worried about domestic terrorists front, their worries seem born out by guy parked by the Library of Congress...

[NickyJ]

16 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

Surprised that many are correct on this issue. Improves my opinion of my fellow citizens. 

Translation:  They all agree that pretending Biden caused this problem will help them gain power. But they're not sure whether helping refugees will. 
 

Not one of them gives a **** about the refugees. Probably Muslim, anyway. 

Sounds like that schism means it's a disagreement, not "not one of them". To me, it's easy to see there's a different view about Afghans who are fleeing vs. being focused on the Mexican border. A lot of the Afghans worked directly for the U.S. military. The military gets high approval from the right, so the Afghans who worked for the U.S. military get it by extension.

 

For the other half of the schism, yeah, they're just contrarian to be contrarian.

 

It's easy to just paint an entire country or an entire party with a brush. But try not to sweep the people who genuinely care out with the rest of the trash. We're depending on the people who genuinely care to stand up, both here and in Afghanistan.

Edited August 19, 2021 by NickyJ

[hail2skins]

Is anyone else feeling increasingly nauseous about the situation in Kabul?  I know exact numbers of whoever is left and the pace of withdrawing said folks is hard to come by, and obviously our main concern is with the safety of those people, but the appearances just seem to be an absolute ****show.  I'm really concerned that we're going to be facing some sort of pseudo-hostage crisis soon.

[DCSaints_fan]

I hear alot comments (not in this thread, but elsehwere) of about how the "nation building" experiment in Afghanistan failed.  

 

My question did the US really fund "nation building" in Afghanistan?  Or was it more funding our own and their militaries?   I seem to recall a comment during the Bush admin specifically saying they were not going to be doing nation building, but maybe my memory isn't good on that one. 

[DCSaints_fan]

On 8/13/2021 at 6:07 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

I don’t know how in tune people here are with the military veteran community but there is a lot of grief going around right now.  All the blood spilled, friends lost, and emotional toll paid only to see the Taliban move right back in in a matter of days is rough.  I firmly believe that there will be numerous suicides tied to this, more so than just the normal veteran suicides.

I've though about this a bit more .. is the fact we got bin Laden at least any consolation?  being that was a major reason why we there in the first place?  Staying there another 10 years of course being a separate issue.

 

With respect to bin Laden, I'm wondering if the US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, or they could have done what they needed to do from a carrier as soon as they got the intel, or they did they really need a land base? 

[NickyJ]

19 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

I hear alot comments (not in this thread, but elsehwere) of about how the "nation building" experiment in Afghanistan failed.  

 

My question did the US really fund "nation building" in Afghanistan?  Or was it more funding our own and their militaries?   I seem to recall a comment during the Bush admin specifically saying they were not going to be doing nation building, but maybe my memory isn't good on that one. 

We built schools there, we got their women involved in politics, etc. Enough to make the people flee from the country when they knew it was going to end. We definitely did work there, but like most 3rd world countries, the elite let corruption take precedence over strengthening their foundations. Case in point, the military that we propped up ourselves and their government failed to keep in line the moment we were gone. We can build nations all we want, but unless the people choose leaders who continue to maintain the nation we built, it's not going to last.

 

5 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

I've though about this a bit more .. is the fact we got bin Laden at least any consolation?  being that was a major reason why we there in the first place?  Staying there another 10 years of course being a separate issue.

 

With respect to bin Laden, I'm wondering if the US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, or they could have done what they needed to do from a carrier as soon as they got the intel, or they did they really need a land base? 

According to government reviews from 2009 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-111SPRT53709/html/CPRT-111SPRT53709.htm), we could have had Bin Laden by Christmas 2001. Through incompetence in command/government, we let him escape to Pakistan after having him cornered in the caves of Tora Bora.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

They outlasted 20 years of conflict with the US military. Who, exactly, do you see pushing them out of power?  And quickly?  

The Afghan people?

they didn’t take control so quickly because of their military prowess. 
 

they took control because they negotiated the Afghan warlords/army to not fight them. 
 

I could take over anything I want too, if I could convince the people defending it to not defend it… 

[TMK9973]

37 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

With respect to bin Laden, I'm wondering if the US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, or they could have done what they needed to do from a carrier as soon as they got the intel, or they did they really need a land base? 

Well - We tried BEFORE 9/11 to get him and never did.

After 9/11 we needed boots on the ground because he kept hiding. We had to flush him out.

Once he went to Pakistan we prob could have taken him out from afar -But bombing a neighborhood in a country that is suppose to be a allied is prob not a great look.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, DCSaints_fan said:

I've though about this a bit more .. is the fact we got bin Laden at least any consolation?  being that was a major reason why we there in the first place?  Staying there another 10 years of course being a separate issue.

 

With respect to bin Laden, I'm wondering if the US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, or they could have done what they needed to do from a carrier as soon as they got the intel, or they did they really need a land base? 

Im tired so I’m gonna just give the short answer here.

 

Yes, getting bin Laden was a nice prize, even more so for us Navy guys.  But that does nothing in the sense of the feelings that vets are having seeing Afghanistan fall to the Taliban in just a couple days.  At least in my experience and what I’m hearing in vet circles.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[The Sisko]

On 8/18/2021 at 8:40 AM, tshile said:

You’re just way off base. 
 

you are trying very hard to keep up your overly harsh criticism of our country, thinking you’re providing some sort of nuanced/meaningful/insightful opinion or description of what went on here when you’re not…
 

It works sometimes. You’ve missed big time here.

I actually had almost completed an even more nuanced/meaningful/insightful reply😜 but then lost it and the site’s post memory or whatever it is didn’t come through for me.🤬

 

Anywho, my post wasn’t a slam against the US per se but a simple statement of fact. We lost. Periodt. Admittedly it was a gross oversimplification but it’s obvious they used the standard insurgent/guerrilla playbook, i.e. understand it’s impossible to “win” so be patient and don’t lose. Eventually the invader will tire of the costs, both human and financial, and they’ll be forced to leave.

 

The Taliban did depart from that strategy occasionally and they paid dearly for it. They learned from that and adapted, the same way they did upon discovering the tactics they used against the Soviets weren’t going to work against us and like they did when they saw how effective IEDs were in Iraq. They also adjusted their military administration/management which improved their effectiveness. Some of the latter can be attributed to an alliance with elements of Hezbi Islami and input from the Pakistani and Iranian military but they implemented it and did it well. Aside from that, they worked the locals, pushed a lot of propaganda, and PR via social media. So, not just dumb goat herders after all...and I know that’s not what you said or meant, but it’s generally our attitude going into these conflicts.

 

As for what I said about us screwing up I stand by that too. We had little or no strategy or understanding of the myriad tribes and ethnic groups or their history. If we did, we’d have understood why the populace cheered the Taliban’s exit and not do essentially the same stuff they did. Among other mistakes, we allowed the Afghan govt. to reinstall corrupt local/regional warlords the Taliban displaced that had abused the populace. Our campaign of trying to eradicate poppy farming also went over about as well as it did under the Taliban. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we allowed them to chill in Pakistan and come fight whenever they were ready. We should have made it clear to the Pakistanis that they were going to have to choose us or them.

 

The interesting thing will be to see the degree to which they’re able to exhibit the same Flexibility in governing that they did on the battlefield. I suspect they’ll make some improvements around the edges but their version of Islam doesn’t allow for much change. I do think they learned that harboring terrorists is not a winning strategy for keeping themselves alive and in power, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part. In fact, I could see certain elements in this country helping them out for political gain, but I won’t go there. 😉

 

I’m open to being wrong though. If you have a better explanation for us taking the L, I’d love to hear it.

[tshile]

Nah I’m good. I think we agree for the most part. 

i took issue with the exact euphemism you used. It implies they were smarter than us. They weren’t. 
 

if I were forced to use it in some way I would have flipped it:

we were playing chess, they were playing checkers; unfortunately the game was checkers. 
 

there’s a lot of things we did wrong. 
 

but one of them was our level of commitment as a public. 
 

if we wanted to control that country with military presence for eternity, working with a government we installed, we absolutely could. 
 

the taliban was as war with us for 20 years and we have the lowest death count of any war we’ve been in. Except for the Spanish American war in the 1800’s which lasted all of one year 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

 

I just disagree with that one aspect of your criticism 

[LD0506]

[The Sisko]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:there’s a lot of things we did wrong. 

...but one of them was our level of commitment as a public. 
 

if we wanted to control that country with military presence for eternity, working with a government we installed, we absolutely could. 
 

the taliban was as war with us for 20 years and we have the lowest death count of any war we’ve been in. Except for the Spanish American war in the 1800’s which lasted all of one year 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

 

I just disagree with that one aspect of your criticism 

Slight correction. We could have stayed there for eternity, or until we go broke. Whichever comes first.

 

We didn’t sustain a lot of casualties but that’s not the measure of winning or losing. But that’s related into your first point. Too many flag draped coffins landing in Delaware, and it’s over. 

[tshile]

To give you an idea of where I stood - somewhere around 10-15 years ago I decided:

we need to leave. 
or, dedicate us 100% meaning tons more troops, tons more money, and a potentially a lifetime commitment. 
 

Cause anything else was going to be what is happening now. 10 years. 20 years. 30 years. Doesn’t matter this is what the ending of our strategy looks like. 
 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

15 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

A joke I know, but the more I read about wars the more pacifist I get.  Even to the extent that I have a hard time fighting in the American revolution ( say, had I been a colonist at the time withot the benefit of foreknowledge) . 

 

Except for rare circumstances like Hitler and  bin Laden.  **** those guys.

[bearrock]

If US didn't go to war against Afghanistan after 9/11, they were never going to go to any war.  The problem wasn't that we went to war, the problem was that the objective was ill defined or too sprawling.  Go in, kill Bin Laden and level anything related to Al Queda and the Taliban.  Get out.  The aftermath of the war is not our job.

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If US didn't go to war against Afghanistan after 9/11, they were never going to go to any war.  The problem wasn't that we went to war, the problem was that the objective was ill defined or too sprawling.  Go in, kill Bin Laden and level anything related to Al Queda and the Taliban.  Get out.  The aftermath of the war is not our job.

Or as I like to call it: the Russian model. 
 

(blah ok I realize in this thread that may sound weird but when Russia messes around in Eastern Europe their model is to basically level everything and leave with a “if you make us come back it’ll be worse” tone to it)

Edited August 20, 2021 by tshile

[redskins59]

6 hours ago, Larry said:

They outlasted 20 years of conflict with the US military. Who, exactly, do you see pushing them out of power?  And quickly?  

Afghans.

I can see it happen, especially in Kabul, where a lot more people are educated than 20 years ago.

They are not going to shoot everybody. 

I see it as a possibility.

Tajiks don't like the Taliban, neither do the Hazaras.  What % of Pashtuns support them?  

Now, 42% of Afghans are Pashtuns.  They are like a majority minority.  There will be resistance.  

There is already a resistance building in the Panjshir valley.

 

[Jabbyrwock]

7 hours ago, Larry said:

Surprised that many are correct on this issue. Improves my opinion of my fellow citizens. 

 

Its amazing how much your opinion of our fellow citizens improves when you move the bar suitably low enough.

[PeterMP]

1.  There certainly was no guarantee of getting Bin Laden without US troops on the ground.  Getting him in Tora Bora would have required (more) US troops on the ground.

 

2.  I believe that some of the intelligence that was required to get bin Laden in the end was developed from sources that were captured in Afghanistan, so I think even the way we did get him was based on us having troops there.

 

3.  We didn't just get bin Laden.  We've gotten essentially every leader of the Taliban involved in the decision making at the time.  Everybody that knew 9/11 was going to happen are now dead mostly because we put people on the ground in Afghanistan.

 

4.  Any sense of nation building was never going to be overly successful because we never put a enough people on the ground.

 

5.  Let's give it time.  After the rise of ISIS Iraq looked like a complete failure.  Now, it at least looks like things might be okay.

[ixcuincle]