As long as the terrorists aren't threatening US interests, nobody cares.

There aren't any soldiers. I keep on hearing about some US citizens there that didn't get out. Strange.

I know right? The argument reeks of *if only more was done or at least in another way!!!*

So how many American citizens were left to Afghanistan? — ssu

I'm not sure, but if you read all the St Dept. warnings, like 15, ramping up in intensity for many months, the thing that comes to mind is the guy in the bed, about to go on vent, begging for the vax. I'd go look it up but it's open source and easy to find. Any one who wanted out could have gotten out, when they were told, pleaded with, begged, months ago.

It's very cute to see Americans lobbing tar bombs at their respective local villains, as if a multi-decade bipartisan effort led by a nation whose condition of existence is perpetual war isn't the problem.

whose condition of existence is perpetual war — StreetlightX

Why is that the condition of (its) existence?

As long as the terrorists aren't threatening US interests, nobody cares. — frank

Unfortunately a kidnapped US citizen is a "threat to US interests".

1. Policy

The United States is committed to achieving the safe and rapid recovery of U.S. nationals taken hostage outside the United States. The United States Government will work in a coordinated effort to leverage all instruments of national power to recover U.S. nationals held hostage abroad, unharmed.

The United States Government will strive to counter and diminish the global threat of hostage-taking; reduce the likelihood of U.S. nationals being taken hostage; and enhance United States Government preparation to maximize the probability of a favorable outcome following a hostage-taking.

That's why the question as obviously guys like ISIS-K are looking for them.

The argument reeks of *if only more was done or at least in another way!!!* — Shawn

Well, the truth is that the Trump-Biden way to handle Afghanistan is a disaster. To argue that "any withdrawal would have been similar" is simply not true. This was immensely badly conducted. It's obvious from what Biden and his administration stated earlier this summer.

Classified assessments by American spy agencies over the summer painted an increasingly grim picture of the prospect of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and warned of the rapid collapse of the Afghan military, even as President Biden and his advisers said publicly that was unlikely to happen as quickly, according to current and former American government officials.

By July, many intelligence reports grew more pessimistic, questioning whether any Afghan security forces would muster serious resistance and whether the government could hold on in Kabul, the capital. President Biden said on July 8 that the Afghan government was unlikely to fall and that there would be no chaotic evacuations of Americans similar to the end of the Vietnam War.

Even the Soviets withdrew in a far better way. Their proxy, the Najibullah regime, collapsed only as the Soviet Union collapsed. Even the Obama withdrawal, that after ISIS actually didn't happen, was itself planned better.

And there are a lot of consequences.

As Kit MacLellan notes:

The problem is that the idea of a kind of universal multilateralism now looks more utopian than ever, especially when it comes to conventional security matters (as opposed to, say, climate change). Any hope the world had that Joe Biden would herald a new era of dialogue and trust in allies has been dashed by recent events.

I don't think that the World will be safer with present American unilateralism and disengagement. Biden is just following in his peculiar way Trump's foreign policy.

Any one who wanted out could have gotten out, when they were told, pleaded with, begged, months ago. — James Riley

I think Afghanistan has been on the official "do-not-go, try-to-avoid"-list for years now.

I think Afghanistan has been on the official "do-not-go, try-to-avoid"-list for years now. — ssu

That is true. But what I'm talking about is the last few months in anticipation of what happened:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/30/how-evacuation-americans-is-going/

As long as the terrorists aren't threatening US interests, nobody cares. — frank

I'm not sure how we should categorize $85 billion of war assets that the US seems to have "left behind". They have more Blackhawk helicopters than 85% of non-US nations around the world. Imagine if Sweden got all of that, we could be much more efficient as a baltic sea blockage against Russian interests. Now, Talibans have great war assets and might be in bed with China. This entire war has been so successful... I mean, no one in the world has criticized this since Bush let his mental health problems dictate what to do with 9/11. And now, US has done it again, put weapons in the hands of terrorists. Great job! It's not really Biden's fault, this is both side's fault, it's US fault. If it weren't so tragic I would laugh my ass off at this incompetent handling of middle eastern politics the last 20 years.

85 billion of war — Christoffer

Prishon say Tesla sir can start his own big war. Tesla man enough money have to make big war. Prishon say: "misser Tesla for predisent! Beat crap out bat men!"Prisho sa....PRISHON! STAY PUT!

The assets, the cash, the strategic air bases—all of this looks intentional, and it's difficult to avoid conspiracy theorizing on the issue.

A proper pull-out, I believe, would have happened in a different order: evacuate Americans and allies, evacuate assets, destroy base, pull out of Afghanistan. But for whatever reason they tried it other way about.

But for whatever reason they tried it other way about. — NOS4A2

I don't think they tried anything. The Talibans were in Kabul before they even had the ability to say that they might come to Kabul. So whatever they couldn't blow up or shred were left behind just to avoid the shitstorm of killed soldiers. The attack on the airport didn't help the schedule, I think that attack made them panic and just left everything. Hopefully, they left outdated manuals for the Black Hawks and planes so the Taliban crash them instead of mastering combat with them.

I'm just stunned about the number of advanced war assets they have, it's fucking crazy. Seeing them in night-vision goggles and M4s is a whole other thing than white robes and old Russian AKs fired into the air. With some modern training, the Taliban forces could be trained to be special forces that could become a real nightmare in the middle east. Fubar clusterfuck.

That is true. But what I'm talking about is the last few months in anticipation of what happened:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/30/how-evacuation-americans-is-going/ — James Riley

Now it seems you are separating the state department and the Biden administration.

And one could argue similarly that it was a success that only 13 US servicemen died and about 100 or so Afghans also. Plus those who died falling after clinging on to the undercarriages of C-17s (which has a cruising speed of 906 km/h).

Yet I think the real thanks for that above goes for the Taliban honoring the Trump surrend peace deal. Unlike some commentators argue, the Emirate didn't brake any terms of the Doha agreement (yet). Because with my reading of the short 3,5 page deal (link here), there was absolutely no part where the Taliban would have been made to stop to fight the Afghan administration. Only that it would engage with discussion with the government in talks. Well, I think they sat until in Doha with the Afghans...not doing anything.

So, should we similarly thank the Taliban for the minimum casualties for overtaking the country?

Now it seems you are separating the state department and the Biden administration. — ssu

No, no, no, I agree they are part of the Biden Administration.

So, should we similarly thank the Taliban for the minimum casualties for overtaking the country? — ssu

I think we kind of did. We left them with a metric shit ton of kit.

In an ideal world, we tell them "Yeah, we went about this all wrong. But you have to admit you suffered WAY more than we did. But that was not our intent, either. We promise that if any non-state actors launch an assault on us from your borders in the future, we will not respond the way we did. As the shining example of state sovereignty that you are, we will just expect you to track them down and unconditionally turn them over to the U.N. Of course, if you don't want to do that, then you don't have to. And don't worry, we won't respond in the same way we responded last time. It will be different. Anyway, all the best in your future effort at adulting. Let us know if your kids won't mind. We'll give you some parenting tips. But please, try to keep them in your yard."

There was a spicy Biden leak about his last phone call to Afghan president Ghani, days before the Afghan disaster.

Exclusive: Before Afghan collapse, Biden pressed Ghani to ‘change perception’

The odd thing about it is Biden's demand for a shift in "global perception", proving once and for all why America is one of the world's largest public relations firm, and why no one should trust a word this man says.

In much of the call, Biden focused on what he called the Afghan government’s “perception” problem. “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said. “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”

Biden told Ghani that if Afghanistan’s prominent political figures were to give a press conference together, backing a new military strategy, “that will change perception, and that will change an awful lot I think.”

“I’m not a military guy, so I’m not telling you what a plan should precisely look like, you’re going to get not only more help, but you’re going to get a perception that is going to change …,” Biden said.

His Joint Chiefs of Staff also focused on "narrative".

In this call, too, an area of focus was the global perception of events on the ground in Afghanistan. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Ghani “the perception in the United States, in Europe and the media sort of thing is a narrative of Taliban momentum, and a narrative of Taliban victory. And we need to collectively demonstrate and try to turn that perception, that narrative around.”

None of it worked, of course, and we get to watch as they pick up the pieces of their "narrative".

No, no, no, I agree they are part of the Biden Administration. — James Riley

So officially saying one thing and anticipating another. But that anticipation didn't go deep enough and hence the withdrawal was chaotic. It's telling that military people or retired military people have as independent citizens tried to arrange for the evacuation of Afghans that they worked with. So marvelously was this evacuation anticipated by the administration.

Well, everything is about perception and nothing is about reality. Because who cares about reality? Besides, there really was no effort at all from Biden here. For Joe Biden the Afghan war had been a lost cause for years now. It's telling that the last call was made in the middle of the July. And when the collapse happened, Biden didn't even bother calling his allies. Who cares if there were more of their troops in total than US troops on the ground?

What we now should forget, according to this administration:

So officially saying one thing and anticipating another. But that anticipation didn't go deep enough and hence the withdrawal was chaotic. It's telling that military people or retired military people have as independent citizens tried to arrange for the evacuation of Afghans that they worked with. So marvelously was this evacuation anticipated by the administration. — ssu

I don't know about the "officially saying one thing and anticipating another." If the Biden Administration had been officially telling Americans to pop smoke since when, March, May (? one of the M months?) then that is on those Americans who didn't leave. Those military men are trying to evac Afghans, not Americans. If they were trying to evac Americans, then they are Americans that didn't abide the official word.

As to Afghans, maybe those military folks new something the Administration didn't know: Like the fact that the contractors had not spun up a force that would stand. That's the danger of contracting military jobs. Just my uninformed opinion based on what I was told by some uniforms.

Regardless, the couple of weeks of getting out the way and when we did was the best Presidential leadership in Afghanistan in 20 years.

I don't know about the "officially saying one thing and anticipating another." — James Riley

Joe Biden was pretty sure that the Afghan government would not collapse. Events like in Saigon wouldn't happen. They happened. For starters.

Regardless, the couple of weeks of getting out the way and when we did was the best Presidential leadership in Afghanistan in 20 years. — James Riley

I assume then not going to Afghanistan would have been the best Presidential leadership decision. I agree.

If you would have given the Emirate of Afghanistan the Doha terms right back in September 2001, I guess they would have happily agreed. And even given OBL with it. And the 20-year war wouldn't have happened.

And then there would not have been this "global war on terror". Which is now likely to continue for at least a decade.

Only thing you would have had then are furious Americans hell bent on getting rid of the chicken-livered weasel of the President who was such a weak dick that didn't bomb the goddam terrorists that killed 3000 Americans, but only negotiated with them. What injustice!!!

Saigon in Afghanistan never happened. No embassy in Afghanistan was under siege. I don't know why you keep on repeating that as if it was factual...?

Joe Biden was pretty sure that the Afghan government would not collapse. Events like in Saigon wouldn't happen. They happened. For starters. — ssu

He was wrong. Saying that "officially saying one thing and anticipating another" makes it sound like there was an intent to deceive. This was going to be a shit show no matter what. Pick a leader you think would do better and guess what? We'd still be there.

I assume then not going to Afghanistan would have been the best Presidential leadership decision. I agree. — ssu

:100:

Only thing you would have had then are furious Americans hell bent on getting rid of the chicken-livered weasel of the President who was such a weak dick that didn't bomb the goddam terrorists that killed 3000 Americans, but only negotiated with them. What injustice!!! — ssu

:100:

Within 45 minutes of watching the second plane go in the second tower, live, I knew what was going to happen (including Iraq). It did. I talked then, as did others. But to no avail. For the reasons you state. To do what I and others recommended would have taken real leadership. Not Dick and Donny and the MIC. I tried to dig up some of the analysis but I find it strangely lacking in open source. Hmmm. I'd wax on but I have to run to town. I assume if you care, you'll ask and I'll get to it.

:roll:
Yeah, unlike with the case of South Vietnam, you still had US ground troops in Afghanistan. Not so when in the pictures of the Saigon embassy. Then it was only the marines in the embassy. And note, the collapse happened before the planned September 11th withdrawal date. (How conveniently that is forgotten, actually.)

So yes, neither the withdrawal of US troops from South Vietnam and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan happened so hastily, in such chaotic manner as now. In fact, this war crumbled far quicker that the Vietnam war. Or the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Far more orderly event in 1973:


Just compare to this image. No lights, a picture taken with night vision. I bet the commander of the 82nd Airborne, major general Chris Donahue in the photo, had a full magazine of live rounds in his rifle. Just in case. It's really telling what a debacle this was as the enemy was just waiting few meters away to take the airport and would be in minutes looking at the US aircraft left in the hangars:



And compare the image above to the last Russian general leaving Afghanistan back to the Soviet Union, when Boris Gromov walked over the bridge (at the newsclip below).

Sure. A dismal future ahead then too for Afghanistan. Yet the Najibullah goverment actually survived until Soviet Union itself collapsed. Not something that the ex-Afghan president (that made his career in Western universitie, think tanks and the World Bank) did before general Donahue left Kabul. Ghani had already fled away with over 100 million dollars in cash. Here's a news report from February 1989. (Do note the interview of Zalmay Khalilhad, the Mazar-i-Sharif born US diplomat and Charley Wilson in the 1989 report)



What is obvious that the Islamic fighters will surely say that they beat both of the Superpowers. You just leaving for them is a victory in war.

Within 45 minutes of watching the second plane go in the second tower, live, I knew what was going to happen (including Iraq). It did. I talked then, as did others. But to no avail. For the reasons you state. To do what I and others recommended would have taken real leadership. Not Dick and Donny and the MIC. I tried to dig up some of the analysis but I find it strangely lacking in open source. Hmmm. I'd wax on but I have to run to town. I assume if you care, you'll ask and I'll get to it. — James Riley

Yes, this is so true, James. :up:

Only a Houdini-level mastermind of a politician would have pulled it off in some other fashion. Falling Afghans that have climb to a jet (not understanding what the wind will be at 900 km/h) is one thing. But American leaping off to their death from a burning skyscraper is another. Try then as a leader to start with a police inquiry when everybody already know that an international terrorist organization is behind this!!!

Still, I will be optimistic. I think that the US can still learn from it's mistakes. Those in Foreign Policy establishment and those in the military. There should be that genuine American soul-searching. That makes you better!

Just in case. It's really telling what a debacle this was as the enemy was just waiting few meters away to take the airport and would be in minutes looking at the US aircraft left in the hangars: — ssu

Actually, the Taliban were cooperating with the US by making promises to allow evacuations until the 31, which they even assisted in transporting and allowing US citizens to the airport. Yeah...

Yeah, unlike with the case of South Vietnam, you still had US ground troops in Afghanistan. — ssu

I don't really know what your getting at here. Like I said, if helicopters flying near embassies in Afghanistan makes you think it's Saigon, then I don't know how that makes any sense.

Actually, the Taliban were cooperating with the US by making promises to allow evacuations until the 31, which they even assisted in transporting and allowing US citizens to the airport. Yeah... — Shawn

The actual date was September 11th. But the Taliban conquered the country far more rapidly. So actually the US had to change it's timetable. Which I guess was OK for the Taliban.

Have you actually read the Trump Doha peace agreement?

Who wouldn't be in favor of such terms if you would be fighting the US?

I don't really know what your getting at here. Like I said, if helicopters flying near embassies in Afghanistan makes you think it's Saigon, then I don't know how that makes any sense. — Shawn

YOU don't see any similarity???

Sorry, but this was an even a more uncoordinated and a far more hasty withdrawal.

The actual date was September 11th. But the Taliban conquered the country far more rapidly. So actually the US had to change it's timetable. Which I guess was OK for the Taliban. — ssu

Yes, that did happen. Yet, what's this got to do with the US' failure. The facts elude me as to when the US decided to cooperate with the Taliban. Do you know how else the US would have dealt with the situation especially under a republican tenure for a peace deal?

Sorry, but this was an even a more uncoordinated and a far more hasty withdrawal. — ssu

Uncoordinated with whom? You keep on asserting these wishful thoughts about the whole war. If I'm not mistaken from the moment the Taliban started taking over Afghanistan to the point where the US made it's departure was 2-3 weeks. In that time they evacuated 120,000 people from Afghanistan. Only the US military could accomplish that without RPG's shooting at landing planes or grounded planes or guided missiles shooting at planes taking off.

Isn't that a success?

Yes, that did happen. Yet, what's this got to do with the US' failure. — Shawn

:snicker:

Do you know how else the US would have dealt with the situation especially under a republican tenure for a peace deal? — Shawn

Good question, glad you asked it.

Ummm...how about like, uh Iraq?

You left, but didn't. Is it catastrophic that you have 2500 US troops, similar amount actually that you had in Afghanistan? Is it intolerable that the US is in Iraq? And then how about forgetting that strategic narcissism, and face the reality.

The US for a time, actually, defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, but then snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and in the end you had ISIS. Do notice just how this was done. But I guess making an ally of part of your enemy is far too incomprehensible for the US. To find the political solution.

And let's start with the facts: You have been at war basically with Pakistan for all the time when it comes to the Taliban. But somehow you have not face this reality. So start at least from there.

If I'm not mistaken from the moment the Taliban started taking over Afghanistan to the point where the US made it's departure was 2-3 weeks. In that time they evacuated 120,000 people from Afghanistan. Only the US military could accomplish that without RPG's shooting at landing planes or grounded planes or guided missiles shooting at planes taking off.

Isn't that a success? — Shawn

I'm not sure just what year was it, but for a long time the Taliban was winning this war, not losing. If I remember correctly, someone put it to 2014. From that year or so, the US was losing. But the US was fighting an one-year war twenty times over.

Only the US military could accomplish that without RPG's shooting at landing planes or grounded planes or guided missiles shooting at planes taking off. — Shawn

13 American soldiers killed in action is not much. But then it's more than the crew of three in a C-17.