https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/world/evacuations-afghanistan-taliban-ramstein-intl/index.html

Other G7 country leaders urged the US to prolong the deadline, but Biden will go with the 31st deadline.

Several European leaders had openly lobbied Joe Biden to extend the August 31 deadline that the US president imposed for the total withdrawal of American forces, including British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who acknowledged after the summit that he wasn't able to sway his American counterpart.

“We will go on right up until the last moment that we can,” he said after the summit. "But you’ve heard what the president of the United States has had to say, you’ve heard what the Taliban have said."

Earlier in the day, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace warned that "we’re not going to get everybody out of the country" in time. There have been similar statements from German and Spanish ministers.

But the Taliban have insisted that Western forces must complete evacuations by the end of the month.

A senior French official, speaking anonymously in accordance with the French presidency’s customary practices, said President Emmanual Macron had pushed for extending the Aug. 31 deadline but would “adapt” to the American sovereign decision. “That’s in the hands of the Americans,” he said.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Monday he was "concerned (about) the cutoff date. An extension is necessary to see through the operations that are underway".

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference after the virtual meeting that "of course the United States of America has the leadership here"

"Without the United States of America, for example, we — the others — cannot continue the evacuation mission," she added.

Her foreign minister, Heiko Maas, had said on Monday that Berlin was in talks with the US, Turkey and other allies to keep Kabul airport open for evacuations beyond the deadline.

I think there are extremely large implications here just what is happening. Not only that every radical islamist group is likely to be emboldened by the victory over the US that the Taliban de facto got. Or that tens of thousands of US arms likely now go to the various militant groups or those who pay for them (as obviously the Emirate will be short of cash).

The issue is that now twice in row US Presidents have resorted to quite unilateral decisions. During the Trump administration there was serious discussion about the possibility that the US indeed leaves NATO. Trump being Trump might be understood. But now the unilateralism continues. Now it starts to be obvious that European country simply cannot put their faith in the US that is spooked from it's own shadow and rely that it will back up it's own team as it did earlier. Also it's very likely that the US will now avoid any international operations afterwards. Although nobody will dare to say it, US leadership is quickly eroding.

It's likely that several countries will look at having at least the capability that France now has for limited interventions. Especially if the 31st of August comes and goes and this ends in a larger debacle as it is now.

There can be even the possibility of NATO going the way as CENTO or SEATO, which were disbanded and the US later followed with bilateral defense agreements with it's former pact members.

As European countries have integrated their defense into NATO, it's likely then that the solution is a more a European lead NATO equivalent. Some might think this is a good thing.

Also it's very likely that the US will now avoid any international operations. — ssu

Good.

The faster they fuck right off, the better.

Do notice that if a large player leaves the scene, it likely will cause a power struggle of the void it leaves behind even if nobody actually wants a power struggle and would have been happy as things were.

Just as we saw with the war in Yemen, actually countries in the Middle East don't need the US to start wars. They can do it on their own. It's long time since the Middle East was a playing ground for the two Superpowers ...or earlier the victors of WWI, France and UK.

Just as we saw with the war in Yemen, — ssu

A genocide enabled and supported by US arms and money.

Actually countries in the Middle East don't need the US to start wars. — ssu

All the more reason for the US to fuck right off forever.

The faster they fuck right off, the better. — StreetlightX

:100: :up:

Lack of empathy as I expected...
Spanish government admits it will have to leave some Afghan refugees behind

“

We are going to get everyone possible out,” said Defense Minister Margarita Robles this morning, during an interview with the Cadena SER radio network. “There will be people that will have to stay for reasons that are beyond our control.” The minister added that it will be very difficult for those who are not already in Kabul to board a Spanish aircraft.

Control? What control minister? You don't have any kind of "control" anymore...

if the US would withdraw from the country it has occupied, it will create a safe haven for terrorists to strike mainland US from the safety of having camps in Afghanistan. — ssu

Then they shouldnt have put the first domino brick upright in the first place. Why is a first stone put up? Because the western scientific capitalist technological way of living is the best? Imposing it with the very products (high-tech weaponry, potentially able to wipe out of existence every culture in one fucking flash)? Which has already been done with a lot of cultures who just wanted to be left alone. Not only by the US (in fact the US offers in principle a safe haven for all of these and thats what I like about the US; but... thats all nice in theory...but in practice it seems this is not the case...as far as I can tell, because Im no part of that great (in principle and not ment ironic) country) but by all "civilized" countries who were in search of the new world (in accordance with the Enlightenment imperative to discover endlessly). They imposed their way brutally (like before not too long Aborigal children in Australia were taken away from their children to educate them "properly").

To think that this piece of shit country still imagines it gives a flying hoot about the 'women and children' of Afghanistan:

Everyone on the conference call stopped talking. “It got real quiet,” the official recalled.For the Scan Eagle pilots, their macabre duty now transitioned to watching the bodies of the Afghan civilians, including the dead child as they were loaded on a truck and hauled off. It was common practice for them to watch the bodies, see who showed up to claim them, and where they were taken. “We killed two innocent men and a charger,” the U.S. official wrote in a personal journal that day, using the military jargon “charger,” which means child.

...A military source that worked with Task Force South West told Connecting Vets they felt their drone strikes served little purpose when the Marines had essentially given up on Helmand, feeling that this would be their last deployment before the province, if not the country, was abandoned to the Taliban. At that point, “the drone strikes were punitive. Killing for the sake of killing,” he said. “It’s nihilistic, there is no point,” a second source, one of the drone operators supporting Task Force South West described. “It was clear that we were not making a difference.” For some of those involved in these operations, they saw it as the return of Vietnam War-era body counts used as a metric for success.

...“The only plan was to stack bodies,” an intelligence official working with the Special Operations Task Force said. “Task Force ODIN used metrics of how many targets were hit. There was no real measure for success that intersected with strategic level goals. How does Afghan stabilization intersect with 300 strikes this week? They are not the same thing." Schroden notes that if you are incentivizing body counts as a metric then at some point the veracity of the data being reported by units conducting lethal operations becomes questionable.

https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-failed-afghan-drone-campaign-against-taliban

Refugee and humanitarian problems are likely to go haywire. — jorndoe

I read a piece about how the MSM, in a rush to prove they could be critical of both sides, are making more out of this than is necessary. It's actually going swimmingly well, considering you are closing down a war zone. So far. Knock on wood.

Then they shouldnt have put the first domino brick upright in the first place. Why is a first stone put up? — Prishon

Do notice that I was questioning the reasoning itself.

Let's not forget, intervention and the now so-hated "nation building" worked in the Balkans. Bosnia is peaceful. Croatia is peaceful. And so on. Now how many years would have that conflict which killed over 100 000 Europeans have gone on without the US taking charge.

The idea that any involvement in wars and crises is a doom attempt and will bring only more chaos and destruction is simply wrong. Especially UN operations can have been successful. They have been successful when the sides do agree in principle to have peace, yet have trouble to find the trust needed. The most successful operations are usually then one's people have never heard of.

Let's think about for example UNTAG, the operation in Namibia when the country finally got it's independence:

the de facto but illegal occupying Power, South Africa, and the United Nations, in which de jure authority reposed but which had not previously been able to establish effective administration in Namibia, were to work together to enable the Namibian people to exercise their right of self-determination. The central objective of the United Nations operation was to create conditions for the holding of free and fair elections for a Constituent Assembly which would draw up a Constitution under which Namibia would proceed to independence as a free and sovereign State. The process, all of which was to take place under United Nations supervision and control, would move step by step from a ceasefire in a long and bitter war to the final moment of transition, that of independence. Every step had to be completed, in a democratic manner, to the satisfaction of the Secretary-General's Special Representative.

At its height, nearly 8,000 men and women - civilians, police, military - from more than 120 countries were deployed in Namibia to assist this process. Every step was followed with the closest attention, not only by the people of Namibia themselves but by the members of the Security Council, who had set the process in motion, by the international community at large, by the media and by a multitude of non-governmental organizations.

Were the Superpowers behind this? Oh yes:

In May 1988, a US mediation team – headed by Chester A. Crocker, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs – brought negotiators from Angola, Cuba, and South Africa, and observers from the Soviet Union together in London. Intense diplomatic activity characterized the next 7 months, as the parties worked out agreements to bring peace to the region and make possible the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435 (UNSCR 435). At the Ronald Reagan/Mikhail Gorbachev summit in Moscow (29 May – 1 June 1988) between leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, it was decided that Cuban troops would be withdrawn from Angola, and Soviet military aid would cease, as soon as South Africa withdrew from Namibia.

Result? No news from Namibia, which is good news. The country has been quite peaceful since then. Just compare how difficult it has been for it's northern neighbor, Angola.

Since independence Namibia has successfully completed the transition from white minority apartheid rule to a democratic society. Multiparty democracy was introduced and has been maintained, with local, regional and national elections held regularly.

So some times these things work...

The idea that any involvement in wars and crises is a doom attempt and will bring only more chaos and destruction is simply wrong — ssu

Nice answer, to begin with! Thanks! (ooooh, that damned phone! Ten times I dialed fthanks!). Yes you are right that it can bring chaos and war. And there are situations where its better. One has to be careful though not to introduce western democracy too fast. The whole face of the Esrth is virtually filled with that (which started in ancient Greece(. If thiss democracy means equal opportunities to live a full fledged culture than its allright.

Yes you are right that it can bring chaos and war. And there are situations where its better. One has to be careful though not to introduce western democracy too fast. — Prishon

It's not about speed. It's about having some sanity in what your objectives are and taking into account the objectives of the participants.

Let's talk about the insanity in the Afghan policy, the true madness here:

Perhaps the madness in Afghanistan is best seen how delusional some commentators are on the role the US played. Because the idea that "The US came just to hunt Al Qaeda and after the Osama was killed, the US should have walked away and not gone with the nation-building humbug." is really insane. Unfortunately some people don't see the insanity.



Let's make a thought experiment. Assume that homicidal Narco leader with close ties to the Mexican government gets so angry for some reason at the US that he orders and some in his narco organization to make a hideous terror attack in the US.

The US then responds with vowing to hunt the narco leader down and because he is so close to the Mexican government, the government has to go also. And just in case, the US attacks Mexican armed forces to destroy their combat capability. After all, they are untrustworthy. Then the US send combat forces to hunt down the narco leader and his organization and while doing it, why not all the drug organizations. War on drugs, you know. And a new Mexican government is installed with Mexicans that have made their life in Washington, so they are trustworthy and fluently speak English. Because, that's more easy.

Then after few years the narco leader is finally caught hiding in an outdoor lavatory and killed. Yet the violence, the bombings and US troops being killed doesn't stop. So the US politicians get frustrated why this is so.

Finally they make a peace deal with the "narcos" and the "remnants of the old Mexican government" and promise to leave Mexico only with the condition that they promise not to attack the US. As it was only this homicidal psychopath that attacked the US in the first place, the Mexicans have problem to give such assurances.

After this the new government put in place by the US quickly falls and seeks asylum and the old regime takes power again. And commentators in the US are horrified in that now the narcos have taken over Mexico and can attack the US. Because decades ago this insane m**f*cker of a narco leader did this hideous attack. And then there is a debate in the US where did things go wrong, and some say after killing the narco leader they should have left. That the US backed regime would have collapsed then also isn't remembered.

So let's just remember what George Bush really said in October 7th 2001:

Good afternoon. On my orders the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

To strike against military installations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime is an act of war. The US has been, right from the start, at war with the Emirate of Afghanistan. But this is conveniently forgotten. This is the madness, the hubris, to deny that the US has been in a 20 year war with a country and that the enemy has been, from start, the Taliban government.

This insanity isn't reality, it's just believing your own propaganda. It's like Soviet propaganda declaring literally in 1939 that the Red army will free the workers of Finland from their cruel oppressors and the Finnish proletariat will welcome them with open hands. The truth of course is that the Finnish proletariat fought for the "oppressors" just as everybody else did and the puppet regime got as far as a few kilometers inside Finland to declare themselves as the "rightful government of Finland".

(The Afghan president who fled the country, Ashraf Ghani, a Fullbright scholar, not only was in Berkeley and Johns Hopkins, but also even attended high school (Lake Oswego High School) in the 1960's. He basically made his career everywhere else than Afghanistan. And why not? Afghanistan a scary place!)

To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.

-- Tacitus

Afghanistan: 20 years ago it was a terrorist haven, an attack at the airport would show it could be again

Ministers have been warning in recent days about the risk posed by Islamic State Khorasan - or ISIS-K - to British, US and other forces involved in evacuating tens of thousands of people.

Thoughts? Would we see terrorist attacks again in our cities? I wish not... But it is true that the victory of Taliban over Afghanistan could give a lot of force to ISIS or other Islamic terrorists cells.

Gee it's almost like a twenty year occupation which didn't change a thing and was the cause of tens of thousands of deaths is likely to breed resentment which will spill over back into the lands of the occupying powers? Who could have seen that coming? Apparently not the fucking Americans.

I think Afghanistan was an issue that all the "powers" would not care at all but now it is important just because the security system is trembling due to the amount of money and presence the emirate, DAESH or whatever Islamic organization is winning.
I do not care at all about politics and governments but people. Imagine being hurt or even die due to a terrorist attack because some incompetent asses did not solve anything after 20 years.

The security system is trembling due to... — javi2541997

...American presence fucking up the region, and directly precipitating the rise of terrorism.

...American presence fucking up the region, and directly precipitating the rise of terrorism. — StreetlightX

True but I guess there are other countries who are guilty. Remember the "bros" relationship between Aznar and Bush? Well this lead us in the terrorist attack of March 11th 2004. Despite this fact, Spain was still being there and probably we are a target again...

And a new Mexican government is installed with Mexicans that have made their life in Washington, so they are trustworthy and fluently speak English. Because, that's more easy. — ssu

A lot of that happened. The Afghans have a nickname for all these expats who came back to Kabul to govern them after the US invasion: sag shui. It means "dog washers". I guess because in Afghan culture you don't wash dogs; they are impure by essence. Only a deeply Americanized 'Afghan' would have a pet dog, and wash it.

There's been an ABC TV special, second installment this week, Beyond the Towers. It goes right back to 9/11 and Rumsfield-Cheney-Bush and spells out that they invaded Afghanistan mainly to avenge the attack. But then Cheney said straight out that Afghanistan wasn't a big enough target, they had to go bigger. That was the beginning of the 'Sadam's nuke's' fiasco and the invasion of Iraq. The whole thing was driven by machismo and wounded pride. They would put together whatever rationale they needed to get what they wanted. Like the roaring of a demented and crazed lion.

Remember that W only beat Al Gore by a couple of hundred hanging chads in Florida. WHat might have been, we'll never know, of course......

But then Cheney said straight out that Afghanistan wasn't a big enough target, they had to go bigger. That was the beginning of the 'Sadam's nuke's' fiasco and the invasion of Iraq. The whole thing was driven by machismo and wounded pride. They would put together whatever rationale they needed to get what they wanted. Like the roaring of a demented and crazed lion. — Wayfarer

It's very well documented how Cheney and the neocons pushed for the war in Iraq.

I think the extreme hubris came from the fact that then there wasn't any other player that they had to anticipate countermoves from and the ease that Desert Storm had played out (let's remember that the US generals were anticipating many thousands of US casualties when pushing out Iraqi army from Kuwait). It all went to their head. And now you reap what they sowed.

Remember that W only beat Al Gore by a couple of hundred hanging chads in Florida. WHat might have been, we'll never know, of course...... — Wayfarer

You would have still gone in to Afghanistan. Madeleine Allbright, who had a prominent position in the Clinton/Gore team, admitted that they would have gone in too.

But this outcome still then could have been avoidable. Intervening in the Yugoslav civil war was rather successful.

Madeleine Allbright, who had a prominent position in the Clinton/Gore team, admitted that they would have gone in too. — ssu

That's interresting. Albright was always someone I had respect for. And agree that the Yugoslav intervention was more successful. Still I think the hubris of the Bush neo-cons was disastrous. It was far too macho, too aggreived, too driven by rage. Unlike others here, I don't see the USA as an evil power, but I do wish they could be better than what they often are.

I'm mostly anxious about the Afghan situation, aside from the dreadful humanitarian consequences, because I'm hoping against hope that the Democratic Presidency is successful. I think the USA's biggest threat by far is from within, and anything which benefits those internal enemies of democracy and the rule of law is a threat to world freedom.

Absolutely giddy over the week plus meltdown by the media, pundits, and other elites across the liberal-conservative spectrum, at the prospect of America's limited ability to maintain overseas Empire.

giddy

Another word I learned today. I never read the word "giddy" until today. In my language means mareado.
Yes, I also feel giddy due to this meltdown press and media of Afghanistan when they did not care in the last 20 years.

Absolutely giddy over the week plus meltdown by the media, pundits, and other elites across the liberal-conservative spectrum, at the prospect of America's limited ability to maintain overseas Empire. — Maw

You probably just drank too much coffee.

Still I think the hubris of the Bush neo-cons was disastrous. It was far too macho, too aggreived, too driven by rage. Unlike others here, I don't see the USA as an evil power, but I do wish they could be better than what they often are. — Wayfarer

Yes, but as I've pointed out earlier, you had a lot of same Republicans that managed the Gulf War quite decently: objectives were met, UN and Soviet Union showed green light, not only NATO participation, but a large coalition of muslim countries participated (even Syria). Above all, the US listened to it's Arab allies and didn't invade Iraq.

So basically during "dad" Bush, everything seemed to be "normal". Same actors were rational. Then it changed. Then somehow what earlier was brushed off as "would be a quagmire" became the line that "Iraqis would greet the US with open arms". The small cabal of neocons simply took the center stage and the more thoughtful and cautious US diplomacy and foreign policy was thrown out.

And I think once the boat veered off and the US invaded Iraq, nobody could put it back anymore to the earlier route. The train wreck has happened. And it's only getting worse.

Now with US servicemen being killed in Kabul among with Afghan civilians, for example.

Then somehow what earlier was brushed off as "would be a quagmire" became the line that "Iraqis would greet the US with open arms". — ssu

The goal was to democratize the whole middle east starting with Iraq. It was supposed to build into a democracy snowball the way it apparently did in SE Asia.

No snowball.

It was supposed to build into a democracy snowball the way it apparently did in SE Asia. — frank

That apparently happened when the US left SE Asia (Vietnam and Thailand etc.) Even if, we have to admit, they have been in South Korea (and Japan) all the time.

(The US in South Korea)

That apparently happened when the US left SE Asia — ssu

Sure. The plan was never to occupy the middle east. It was just: kill Saddam and run, leaving behind Vietnam on the Tigris. This was Wolfowitz's plan.