Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.
We should have at least kept a smaller force around as a presence to maintain continuity. See this “rescue plan for Afghanistan” from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for more suggestions that aren’t blindly exiting Afghanistan in a few short months: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...
But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/destabilizing to the whole region, so I can understand doing it.
This isn't a commentary on the specifics of how it was done, merely on whether a withdrawal should have been done.
Terrorism in Afghanistan has zero to do with the US constituency.
A "foothold" is useless and unnecessary.
I feel badly for the Afghan people, but ultimately it isn't the US' problem, and never has been. If they'd like to have a civil war and get those assholes out, let them.
But when the Saudis presumably financed some of the same/similar bad guys it wasn't even worth much of an investigation? I find such "they're bad guys!"-arguments to be applied very inconsistently
those are the terrorists the US created by mercilessly bombing their civilian relatives.
What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? I've mostly only seen them fight back against foreign invaders.
> and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!).
First they offered to look at evidence and consider extradition, then they offered extradition, both of which the U.S. refused.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
> It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically.
Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?
Giving aid to a terrorist group that commits those acts doesn't make the Taliban less complicit. See this UN report from June about how the Taliban is still closely tied to al Qaeda (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-tali...). As for what atrocities they've committed, there's a long list on Wikipedia, many of which meet the definition of terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices).
> Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?
So many reasons. First, to contain China, which is the principal threat to America's prosperity and control in the future. Second, to support other democratic nations like India, who will suffer from the Taliban's resurgence. Third, to expand our economic interests. Fourth, to continue our mission to sustain human rights which the Taliban is already eroding. There are others, and I am certainly not a foreign policy expert, but my point is - there's something there.
Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set.
Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics.
Can you articular which particular aspects of our nation-building and counter-insurgency techniques are distinct from our equally-failed predecessors? Have you considered that the objective may not have been to erect a fully-functional Afghan government and military, but instead to conduct a multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?
(I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)
"Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say."
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh...
The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.
Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?
Having said that, it didn't work at all. China patiently used those 20 years to develop its economy and infrastructure, locked down Xinjiang against subversion, set up Belt and Road, and gained strategic tempo in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait while the US got much too carried away in Central Asia.
To humiliate America
Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.
I recommend checking out this thread, as the whole Afghanistan = Graveyard of empires meme only applies to quite recent history.
https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166...
That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years?
Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.
Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?
On the other hand, it seems a lot of Afghan soldiers deserted to the other side. They see no upside to the new Afghan regime.
"China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering."
But, really, China is pretty peaceful compared to US thuggery. I prefer China. At least they are rational.
Yeah it's one of those unspoken "national interests" that underlies how the US plays The Great Game, but rarely states explicitly.
>>>Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.
If we are lucky, that will be the outcome. If the Chinese find a way to balance transit routes and natural resource extraction without somehow pissing a conservative Muslim population (while they are simultaneously oppressing Muslims in their home territory)....that could turn into a problem. If they build out links to Iran, it will not only throw a lifeline to that economically-struggling adversary, it will help China pivot away from reliance on maritime lines of communication. That maritime reliance is key to the US's strategy of threatening economic strangulation of Chinese coastal industry in the event of a conflict.
>>>Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?
Via their shared border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord...
Via China's ally Pakistan, the same routes most of US military logistics took into Afghanistan for the first decade?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afgha...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%9...
Probably not. There's definitely something we are doing wrong. Personally I look at the Russian intervention in Syria as a model for "hybrid warfare done -r-i-g-h-t- well enough". I think they manage to prop up client states, accomplish strategic objectives, and do it all without completely breaking the bank.
Remember that the companies you talk about are not the only ones that profited here. It's not that different from when Hillary Clinton was laughing at the camera and saying the greatest thing about Lybia's liberation would be that they would pay for the reconstruction.
It was written by a retired veteran: Mike Jason retired in 2019 as a U.S. Army colonel, after 24 years on active duty. He commanded combat units in Germany, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
It pulls no punches and, in my opinion, is worth reading.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-americ...
I read a book a while ago that was well researched and gave the impression that Afganistan would always belong to the Taliban. It was called "No Good Men Among the Living".
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17454723-no-good-men-amo...
Gopal’s book is essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so wrong. It is a devastating, well-honed prosecution detailing how our government bungled the initial salvo in the so-called war on terror, ignored attempts by top Taliban leaders to surrender, trusted the wrong people and backed a feckless and corrupt Afghan regime. The book has its flaws, minimizing the role of neighboring Pakistan in the Taliban’s resurgence and letting the Taliban off too easy. But it is ultimately the most compelling account I’ve read of how Afghans themselves see the war.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/no-good-men-...
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizur...
Why wasn't all this equipment repatriated or destroyed? Why were the bases just abandoned without proper transition to Afghan Control, so that in some cases they were even looted by civilians?
Possible explanations:
1. Extreme incompetence or total apathy by US Commanders/Politicians
2. There was no land/sea transport route through Pakistan to retrieve all the equipment
3. The US Military-Industrial Complex was happy for all this stuff to be lost, so it could be reordered
4. The US wanted the Taliban to reconquer the country quickly, so that any power vaccuum could not be filled by China or Russia
5. Managed decline of the US Empire, requiring deliberate humiliation and demoralization of the US forces, enabled by corrupt senior US commanders and politicians who have made deals with China.
"The fall of the last major city [Jalalabad] outside the capital secured for the insurgents the roads connecting Afghanistan to Pakistan, a Western official said."
If Afgans do not want to fight Taliban themselves what US can do?
Which of course has been the post-WW2 standard operating procedure for the U.S. in more countries than I care to count. And it always comes back to haunt us, god knows what the long-term ramifications of this latest fiasco will be.
But it seems like all Western-minded urban Afgans want to get evacuated to US, Europe, Canada rather then put up a good fight. So why the West shall fight for their freedoms?
> Q Mr. President, some Vietnamese veterans see echoes of their experience in this withdrawal in Afghanistan. Do you see any parallels between this withdrawal and what happened in Vietnam, with some people feeling —
> THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever. Zero. What you had is — you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy — six, if I’m not mistaken.
> The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
That did not age very well. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/15/1027806863/the-taliban-seize-...
https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corru...
E.g. an excerpt:
> [A]s Chayes studied the graft of the Karzai government, she concluded that it was anything but benign. Many in the political élite were not merely stealing reconstruction money but expropriating farmland from other Afghans. Warlords could hoodwink U.S. special forces into dispatching their adversaries by feeding the Americans intelligence tips about supposed Taliban ties. Many of those who made money from the largesse of the international community enjoyed a sideline in the drug trade. Afghanistan is often described as a “failed state,” but, in light of the outright thievery on display, Chayes began to reassess the problem. This wasn’t a situation in which the Afghan government was earnestly trying, but failing, to serve its people. The government was actually succeeding, albeit at “another objective altogether”—the enrichment of its own members. Washington supported Hamid Karzai and his ministers and adjutants in the hope that they could establish a stable government, help pursue Al Qaeda, and keep the Taliban at bay. But the Karzai government wasn’t a government at all, Chayes concluded. It was “a vertically integrated criminal organization.”
The ammo, weapons and military vehicles I believe quite lot of it technically belongs (or belonged) to the Afghan national army or at least was donated to them, although from what others on here have said, they were barely functioning as a force with rampant corruption at all levels.
None of this is new, pretty much exactly the same thing happen after South Vietnam fell, with the North Vietnamese getting an even more massive stockpile of basically US military equipment that makes what the Taliban have captured pale in comparison. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/29/archives/arms-left-by-us-... https://militarymatters.online/weapons/vietnam-loves-america...
Not to mention all the helicopters they just pushed into the sea during the Saigon evacuation to make more space on the decks of ships.
Even back to end of world war 2 they dumped huge amounts of equipment into the sea or buried them or just left them in place to avoid the costs of taking them back. I suppose it does make some sense from an overall cost and logistical point of view, but on a personal level it does seem incredibly wasteful. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/wwii-ended...
... and if some group (Talibans?) fetches it then become a foe, he will be a serious one, and therefore the Complex will sell more stuff.
4. Profit!
“God has promised us victory, and Bush has promised us defeat. We’ll see which promise is more truthful”.
At least US tried to make a difference. EU is very passive in that sense (I'm from EU).
the mainy problem in afghanistan is the fact that not many people feel a common sense of being an afghani. The country is extremely decentralised and rural. Most people only look at their villages and community, not at the bigger picture.
Only thing is that when they left, we made sure the Nazi's didn't come back.
Right now they were training Afghans to have their own military, but it's all so corrupt that it is just an impossible task. Those who can will flee the country instead of fighting for it.
Initially, Taliban offered surrender. US denied their terms. So they kept on fighting and rebuilding.
They took over the country in less than a month. They never left. They were always there.
Chinese approach to radical islam will work. But West will never admit that.
Chinese see islam as totalitarian ideology that is incompatible with Chinese values and competing communist totalitarianism.
The public just believes otherwise because of 70 years of US propaganda [1]. The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees of which we have to take care of and for which we are ridiculed by US politicians and their citizens alike.
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year...
Don't forget the military bases and the half-secret spy networks linked to terrorist attacks.
The role of the US and Russia are inextricably linked at the end of WWII and to pretend either was irrelevant, or either "really did all the work", is to simply ignore history.
You're responding to another human, such that its a locality sensitive sentiment. To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation.
As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...
At least it is sure that many of them wished the Americans had liberated them, not Soviet.
The USSR for all its achievements was a harsh place to be for everyone except the luckiest ones.
"In America there is huge differences between rich and poor - in USSR everyone is equally poor".
While the Soviet Union obviously never fought in Western Europe, the article that the person you are replying to quotes numbers from right after the war, where the majority of French people said that the soviets were the ones who were the most responsible for the outcome of the war. And that does make sense, considering for how long they bore the brunt of Nazi aggression, and the number of casualties speak for themselves.
There is a comparison with now, where of course most people would give most of the credit to the Americans. I think a lot of people in Western Europe aren't aware what the costs of the War in Russia were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_o...
To be fair, the major reasons for this were that the Russian military leadership was utterly incompetent during the earlier stages of the war [1], and that they suffered from a serious lack of equipment and material. "Number of casualties" and "years spent fighting" aren't good indicators of military effectiveness.
[1] That's what happens when you liquidate your military elite or put them into gulags because they are on the wrong side of your class war.
WW2 was started by Germany and USSR hand in hand.
'Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September'
In my view there's always arrogance in thinking that GIs can literally fall from the sky and "save" the locals...
This is the only way to keep the faux heaven looking as it does. Utopian.
It’s also the one topic you can have both sides of the aisle always agree on. No matter the political climate. When the military is working, it’s always at work in keeping us free.
Woodrow Wilson would have been proud at how we monetized his emotional button of American exceptionalism
And an honest question: why do American people think that it's so damn important to spread American democracy at the cost of waging wars? Pew Research said 94%+ of Afghanistan adults support Sharia laws. So why do we risk our own people's lives, kill thousands of people in a foreign nation, and throw trillions of dollars just to force other countries to buy our own ideology? Isn't it text-book definition of pure evil? Another case in point: According to the book Skin in the Game, the western countries removed Assad in the name of bringing democracy, yet triggered one of the most brutal civil war in a country, left dozens of cities in ruins, and ironically fostered the largest slave market in the world. Yeah, slave market. Isn't it ironic?
The humiliating part is that the U.S. was there at all, not that the U.S. finally pulled out of a place where troops should never have been sent.
That is: the humiliation isn't in retreating, but in things collapsing even before you've left.
People fought in Afghanistan, and people died, but not always in the obvious way. They had been fighting for so long, twenty-three years then, that by the time the Americans arrived the Afghans had developed an elaborate set of rules designed to spare as many fighters as they could. So the war could go on forever. Men fought, men switched sides, men lined up and fought again. War in Afghanistan often seemed like a game of pickup basketball, a contest among friends, a tournament where you never knew which team you’d be on when the next game got under way. Shirts today, skins tomorrow. On Tuesday, you might be part of a fearsome Taliban regiment, running into a minefield. And on Wednesday you might be manning a checkpoint for some gang of the Northern Alliance. By Thursday you could be back with the Talibs again, holding up your Kalashnikov and promising to wage jihad forever. War was serious in Afghanistan, but not that serious. It was part of everyday life. It was a job. Only the civilians seemed to lose.
Battles were often decided this way, not by actual fighting, but by flipping gangs of soldiers. One day, the Taliban might have four thousand soldiers, and the next, only half that, with the warlords of the Northern Alliance suddenly larger by a similar amount. The fighting began when the bargaining stopped, and the bargaining went right up until the end. The losers were the ones who were too stubborn, too stupid or too fanatical to make a deal. Suddenly, they would find themselves outnumbered, and then they would die. It was a kind of natural selection.
This example was discussed in Robert Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation".
Only US and NATO provided military assistance. Others like India invested billions in constructive projects like Salma dam.
I guess the Afghan army should have focused more on quality than size to be able to afford talanted soldiers.
The failure is not in money, training, or conscription. The failure is in not giving the army any reason to fight.
If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting?
The problem is that in twenty years, the coalition-supported government failed to make enough of its constituents give a rat's ass about their cause. They might not like the Taliban much, but they seem to prefer to live under them, than die for what is perceived as a corrupt, self-serving, ineffective government.
> If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting?
Keep fighting? My understanding is that there was no serious effort to fight from the army's side.
Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not.
Q Why?
THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.
...
I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
Also with the sheer size of the US embassy - it rather looks to me like there never was a sovereign afghan government in the first place, so of course they don't stand a chance on its own. It was all too artificial and US dependent.
(I of course don't at all doubt that the big military contractors have been making a ton of money from the wars, but I'm specifically referring to their corporate influence being the primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. force behind why we were still in Afghanistan after two decades.)
My own uninformed Occam's razor assumption would've been that it's primarily a matter of tangled geopolitics rather than a military-industrial complex scheme from day one to today. That is, that the State Department and top-level strategists and policy advisors are mostly the people to blame.
Maybe it's all of the above or some complex mixture. But what I want to know is the actual individuals responsible, or at least where they're contained. Not just an opaque storm cloud labeled "the military-industrial complex" or "the Deep State". For example, it could potentially be the case that this narrative might actually unintentionally help to shield the people who are truly culpable.
Last time there was a pretty strong grassroot movement against Taliban, particularly in the northern parts of the nation. Taliban didn't have to fire a shot in many of these places this time.
The explanation is very, very simple, but I don't see any Western media talking about it at all.
Basically, Afghan government fell apart when USA withdrew the pork barrel of military contracts from locals.
People forget that 20 years ago USA mounted all kinds of warlords, and other rogue elements into seats of power. The entirety of regional elites which emerged in these 20 years are a product of that system.
The only things securing their loyalty to USA, and thus to the government in Kabul were American money.
The moment they ran out, it all fell apart just like Middle Eastern, and Latin American US friendly regimes. The "Our Bastard!" theory showed extreme naivete of people following it yet again.
There is no such things as "Our Bastards!" Time to learn that after 60 years.
Henry Kisinger lured USA into a geopolitical deathtrap with his lunatical political theories. Now US has found itself in the world surrounded by backstabbing, and turncoat regimes of its own making, who nor fear, nor respect it now, and who will pounce the moment USA stops spoonfeeding them, and shows its back.
USA has less allies in the world now than at any time in the last century.
USA can't now fight half the world dominated by solidified group of corrupt regimes.
Escaping this situation will be extremely hard.
USA cannot rely on allies who are loyal only to American printing press.
USA will not score any real allies without changing itself first
If there is anything the past few decades have shown, it's that the pocketbook and the sword are both useless tools when it comes to any kind of Middle Eastern policy.
The moment Taliban started to carve out territory inside Afghanistan, that leverage was gone. There's some gratitude, but also lots of resentment among Taliban leadership about the way they were treated by the Pakistani authority.
Is Pakistan aiding them in this current offense? It really doesn't seem like it.
It's clear that in the past 30 years afganistan did not have a functioning government at all. Its not about popular support, its a failure of 'statebuilding'
https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corru...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-11-04/the...
If this really is Saigon 2.0, 20 years from now Afghanistan will be a peaceful country with active tourism. With the Taliban seemingly making efforts to appease China for economic gain, who knows, it just might happen.
I guess we will be getting an Hollywood version of the facts in 10 years timeframe.
My heart goes to those that died for nothing, and those that will now face the revenge of Talibans.
I wish a safe return to the very professional troops from more than 20 countries still on the ground. Once again they are victims of incompetent politicians.
But it 20 years, was it not always obvious, that a young Afghani, that just got in the Army because it was only available well paid job would not be willing to die for some very local nebulous cause? To defeat a group that embodies the cultural heritage that prevailed in the country for the last few centuries?
Afghanistan's tragic contemporary conflicts has many winners and losers that switch places every so often but there's been one constant loser: its civilians.
This Is What Winning Looks Like (2013?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI
The only thing it can accomplish is creating additional casualties on your side, and you gain no additional turf.
Killing them while they're trying to retreat just makes them turn around and start shooting back, because if they're going to die no matter what, they might as well go down in a blaze of glory.
When did terrorist groups get spokespeople, geez.
Apparently they also have a English website: http://alemarahenglish.net/?p=48412
Then protested Iraq and they cheered our freedom of speech, then rolled tanks into Baghdad anyway and the WMDs weren't there, just like Scott Ritter told them. That worked out well.
Really should have listened to us when it came to Kuwait in 1991 as well. The towers might still be standing.
I eagerly await the mental tap dancing and 'splaning that results in us being the hopelessly geopolitically naive ones, when the other side of the argument has been wrong for a solid 30 years straight.
Someone reminded me about Reagan sending weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, which I do remember (and Carter boycotting the Olympics).
The problem with this argument is we have no way of definitively proving it one way or the other. If Communist Vietnam hadn't spent 10 years and a million lives dislodging the US, could Communism have overtaken SE Asia? Would Vietnam have had the military experience necessary to depose the Khmer Rouge after that regime killed ~25% of Cambodia's population? How many excess deaths would you be counting if Thailand's Communist insurgency had eventually turned into a Khmer Rouge clone (itself having copied the worst excesses of Mao's Cultural Revolution)? https://www.cia.gov/static/e73ecdedf076611c592b1d8397cbe61a/...
Bottom line: Hindsight is 20/20. Don't assume that the outcome we have is the worst one possible and therefore all has been for naught. That said.....hold people accountable for shit decision-making, and there definitely has been that in spades.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/19/taliban-expanding-drug-...
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2021/May/afghanista...
https://theconversation.com/amp/afghanistan-what-the-conflic...
https://varlamov.ru/tjm1DhGAHsj
https://varlamov.ru/gLxlGFc6GCc?cda=
https://varlamov.ru/VndQif0KCJw?cda=
a lot of very interesting photos
Moving away from US centric debates on the economic value of this war and attempt at governance; I fear Afghanistan will again become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism atrocities and also put increased pressure on Europe in terms of migration.
To the latter point, Europe is already on the breaking point here and further stress will probably - judging from recent experience - lead to further success of conservative and anti-immigration political parties.
The same was said about Bush administration when the war was started. The same was said about the whole 'nation building' and troop surge and so on that happened until now...
Judging by the lack of fighting back, nothing was achieved in 20 years and same thing would happen even if US stayed 20 more years...
Once you go in - you at least have a responsibility for the manner in which you get out.
In particular for all the allies that helped you for the past 20 years and now are at risk.
The Afghan army couldn’t fight back once Biden forbade all service technicians to stay in the country and maintain the machines and veichles, and certainly not when the army was trained to work in coordination with US Air Force which hastily left.
It’s a complete failure all around.
Did their AK-47s need special US Air Force attention to work?
> Once you go in - you at least have a responsibility for the manner in which you get out.
The people living there had every chance to train and fight for their freedom. Apparently they did not want that.
The pull out was announced and negotiated 2nd of Feb 2020, they had ample time to prepare.
Did you have the same oppinions then as well regarding the pull out?, and did you do anything about it then?
Full press release from back then:
https://theweek.com/afghanistan-war/1003748/gop-takes-down-2...
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CONTINUED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN PEACE TALKS AS HE SIGNED A HISTORIC PEACE AGREEMENT WITH THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH WOULD END AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR
On February 2, 2020 , the Trump Administration signed a preliminary peace agreement with the Taliban that sets the stage to end America's longest war.
Under the agreement , the U.S. will withdraw nearly 5,000 troops from the country in 135 days in exchange for a Taliban agreement to not allow Afghanistan to be used for transnational terrorism.
Time Magazine reported that other components of the agreement included an agreement that U.S. counterterrorism forces stay in the country, permissions for the CIA to operate in Taliban-held areas, and details of how the Taliban's promises to reduce violence will be monitored and verified.
The deal has been called the " best chance to end this conflict ," a " decisive move " towards peace, and " the best path " for the United States.
The war in Afghanistan is the longest in U.S. history, a conflict that has killed more than 3,500 U.S. and NATO troops and cost U.S. taxpayers nearly 900 billion dollars.
As part of the peace agreement, the Taliban and the Afghan government recently began historic peace, talks which would end decades of war that Afghanistan has consumed.
The negotiations will cover the terms of a " permanent ceasefire, the rights of women and minorities, and the disarmament of the country's many militia groups ."
US still has forces and bases in Okinawa, South Korea and Germany etc. The scale and purpose of the operation of course changes as the context changes.
Merely withdrawing “before 9/11” (as if that is some relevant symbolism…) was irresponsible and clearly not even planned in any serious manner.
I don’t have any defense for the Afghan army, it’s government nor the people. Many have come to Europe under false statements of age and now we are stuck with them. Many turn to criminality simply because the European job market has no use for them. It’s a horrible result for all involved.
It’s well known that US presidents since Bush have wanted to leave and not spend more dollars on these foreign adventures. Many arguments can be made that more countries in Europe should have made larger contributions to the war against terrorism.
Again, it matters in the manner how you scale down, and what you leave behind.
Had it been Trump (or anyone else) - of course I would have been equally critical. This immediately affects my life in Sweden; and it’s just horrible to see the consequences in Afghanistan with the Taliban barbarians subjecting the people to their tyrannical rule.
It’s not hard to see this area turning into a place for terrorist plots again. And then what. At least the Trump administration clearly has that in mind. It’s hard to imagine what Biden has in mind - if anything at all.
EDIT (in response to reply, since I got the dreaded rate limiting message): Trump didn’t initiate a departure. He set up a deal that included numerous conditions and phases contingent on commitments and actions from both the Taliban and Afghanistan government (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-sign-historic-deal-taliba...). But it really doesn’t matter. Biden is either the President or he isn’t. The withdrawal timeline he set and executed is his to own. Anything less than full ownership means he isn’t fit to be President.
Afghanistan isn't a modern country and cannot sustain a modern military or modern governance. Taliban is adapted to local conditions, Afghan govenrment isn't. But modern countries cannot help someone build a tribal fighting force best suited for the most remote mountains on the planet; people tend to replicate their own institutions wherever they go, because they are the only ones that we actually understand.