Terrible mistake in Afghanistan.

[theflashunc]

He's been making the rounds a bit over the last few weeks, but Philip Caputo's A Rumor of War remains a must read and should be required reading for anyone related to our foreign policy decision making over the last 40 odd years.

[mjbabcock]

I mean, Hong Kong wasn’t gonna win against the Chinese state, but the Taliban strike me as a numerical minority who rule with fear. Granted, this is all perception with no kernel of knowledge.

[colker]

Serious question here, if the flood of people turned on their oppressors, would they be capable of overtaking the taliban? I understand that the taliban is well armed and violent, but would hundreds of thousands swarming and passionate citizens overwhelm them?

A flood of people turning on the oppressors is a romantic image w/ tenuous link w/ reality. From the take on the Bastille to the Winter Palace in 1917, there is always an elite of revolutionaries who are able not only to raise mayhem but also to negotiate terms and and surrender. This elite is built over years of underground action and it is hard to build under a tyrannical highly organized hierarchy as the Taliban. We have seen chaotic movements under charismatic leadership backed by western powers and their intelligence services.. as in Venezuela, Afhganistan and Egypt. It´s usually fragile and unable to stand the pressure

[htwoopup]

As far as ultimate lessons to be learned, you and I agree. But I disagree that the current focus on the withdrawal is truly misplaced. There is actually a distinction that makes a difference. I have already stated here I disagreed after the mission changed from strikes to damage Al-Queda capability. There is a huge amount of ground covered between "A" problem and "THE" issue. There remain many problems.

However, the obvious issue here is temporal. While there are facts from the past, the past itself is just that, and cannot be addressed (I believe your point is it can provide lessons, and I agree). Some of us looked hard even as the "WMD" lie led to OIF. Others not so much. The withdrawal is real-time, and since some of the "facts" surrounding the timeline, plans, and execution are still unknown; it is entirely reasonable to question the withdrawal.

It isn't in the past, it is is ongoing. Individuals just died, including service members. The 'way we pull out' is mattering, and will at the most fundamental level, either for more service members and their families, or for Afghanis, and sadly, likely for both.

My issue is that no matter what course of action would have been taken, the result that is playing out now would have occurred anyway with very minor differences in how it is playing out.

The phrase the die was cast really applies. From, (as the US has done in the past) getting in bed with the wrong individuals/ throwing money and men and equipment willy nilly/ flooding the zone/ letting the rural areas go to the other side/ Trump telling the Taliban directly that we were leaving momentarily or any one of the hundreds of other errors there was simply NO operational way that an evacuation from a few months before the Trump/Taliban talk to even a year from now wouldn’t FUBAR.

As one of my high school buddies who was getting folks out during that other US shitshow in Asia said afterwords “There are just some things that you can’t achieve because of shit the guys before you did, no matter how hard you try or how much you want to. It isn’t about bravery or more assets. It is about you are f”d no matter what you do because of how our guys got to this place in history. So, I just sucked it up and did the best I could with the hand I was dealt.”

That is why to even look at this as the problem when it is merely the result of the mistakes made before it (no matter the wet dreams of air cover/ more troops/ shock and awe or politically driven blame game) is a waste of focus.

We painted ourselves into one ugly ugly corner.

[jimcav]

I don't disagree with your points. I only meant the focus on the CURRENT and ONGOING EVAC is understandable. That EVAC has to be done (well, I suppose one can argue it should just stop, but I can't accept that), and the process to accomplish EVAC may need adjustments to "plans". Afterwards, I truly hope the suits take a hard look at US Policy there and elsewhere, so that past is not again prologue.

[vertical_doug]

A flood of people turning on the oppressors is a romantic image w/ tenuous link w/ reality. From the take on the Bastille to the Winter Palace in 1917, there is always an elite of revolutionaries who are able not only to raise mayhem but also to negotiate terms and and surrender. This elite is built over years of underground action and it is hard to build under a tyrannical highly organized hierarchy as the Taliban. We have seen chaotic movements under charismatic leadership backed by western powers and their intelligence services.. as in Venezuela, Afhganistan and Egypt. It´s usually fragile and unable to stand the pressure

I think the problem is we are totally clueless about other cultures and keep making the same mistakes.

War by definition is uncivilized. Our problem is we try to make it palatable by civilizing it. It is a mild version of the Star Trek episode where the two sides made war too civiilized, so they never stopped fighting. (A Taste of Armageddon. S1E23)

Genghis khan had the right idea. Kill everyone to set an example, and the next ones won't fight. If we aren't doing this, we should just sit it out.

[sk_tle]

It is a mistake to think afghans in general want to get rid of talibans or to think they shouldn't be there. We may not like there way of living and running a country but talibans are afghans and and Afghanistan is not Kabul. We cannot look at it in a choice between having talibans oppression and a stable and widely accepted state and administration. Given the choice of having local warlord or the talibans reigning in their area, a lot of afghans probably prefer the talibans. After the soviet-afghan war and the civil war between all the Mujahideen factions that followed, the Talibans were seen as the one to introduce stability in the mid 90's, even if all afghans do not agree with their way of ruling. After all, they represent law and order in a similar way our governments and administration represent law and order.

[sk_tle]

The concept of Manifest Destiny that is embedded in its root and perfectly illustrated by John Gast really explain the struggle of the US of A to understand the world. And funnily it is very close to the kind of concept Talibans brings to Afghanistan, which is quite understandable as talibans are in a way a product of the United States of America.

[colker]

It is a mistake to think afghans in general want to get rid of talibans or to think they shouldn't be there. We may not like there way of living and running a country but talibans are afghans and and Afghanistan is not Kabul. We cannot look at it in a choice between having talibans oppression and a stable and widely accepted state and administration. Given the choice of having local warlord or the talibans reigning in their area, a lot of afghans probably prefer the talibans. After the soviet-afghan war and the civil war between all the Mujahideen factions that followed, the Talibans were seen as the one to introduce stability in the mid 90's, even if all afghans do not agree with their way of ruling. After all, they represent law and order in a similar way our governments and administration represent law and order.

The nazis were also orderly and stable in Berlin. You make it sound like it´s an internal affair only but it´s as internal as the soviet rule in east germany. No country is a secluded island in a geopolitical world. Also I am sure most if not all the women there will chose a foreign liberal ruler over the Taleban.

[colker]

Genghis khan had the right idea. Kill everyone to set an example, and the next ones won't fight. If we aren't doing this, we should just sit it out.

Too old school. Much more fun is to let everybody live and buy your movies & hip hop music.

EDit: btw.. ten billion dollars from the Afhgan bank are being kept in american banks. Unless the Taleban is "recognized internationally", it won´t go home.

[vertical_doug]

The nazis were also orderly and stable in Berlin. You make it sound like it´s an internal affair only but it´s as internal as the soviet rule in east germany. No country is a secluded island in a geopolitical world. Also I am sure most if not all the women there will chose a foreign liberal ruler over the Taleban.

I would take the otherside of this bet. I doubt most, and definitely not all.... It is making assumptions like this that land America in the fire in the first place.

[guido]

As usual Ezra Klein hits this one out of the park...


Let’s Not Pretend That the Way We Withdrew From Afghanistan Was the Problem| New York Times

[vertical_doug]

EDit: btw.. ten billion dollars from the Afhgan bank are being kept in american banks. Unless the Taleban is "recognized internationally", it won´t go home.

As a reserves versus GDP this is a huge number..... another sign of massive corruption in the government. I'd like to see the Afghan UN ambassador's T&E account.... I'd bet it is like the former Haitian Ambassador on a first name basis with the maitre'd at a 3 star restuarant in NYC....

[Marvinlungwitz]

Klein has valid points, but I still question releasing thousands of Taliban before leaving.

Same for getting Baradar out of jail.

[nebraskacycling]

Klein has valid points, but I still question releasing thousands of Taliban before leaving.

Same for getting Baradar out of jail.

Agree that we didn't need to let them out before we left, but they were getting out when we left anyway sadly. Either we kill anyone we think is Taliban or we will never beat them. They are fighting by totally different rules. We could never win a fight against them or many of these other groups while following international law.

[sk_tle]

The nazis were also orderly and stable in Berlin. You make it sound like it´s an internal affair only but it´s as internal as the soviet rule in east germany. No country is a secluded island in a geopolitical world. Also I am sure most if not all the women there will chose a foreign liberal ruler over the Taleban.

Apples vs Oranges. Godwin point already?

Nobody fighted Germany to free the germans of a dictator. He had a ton of support and in many parts of the world there was that shared sentiment that jews were the cause of many issues. Germany also had its allies. The world foughts the nazies and the japaneses because they were invading so many countries and getting too much power, not because of the holocaust or because the german or japanese needed to be freed from a non democratically elected government.

[9tubes]

This has been an interesting discussion. I'd like to add a question for the group. All of the major media treat the Taliban as the enemy. The view of the press (and these 7 pages of discussion) has been based upon this. The questions are "Why did the U.S. do this thing? Why didn't the U.S. do this other thing?

I find that when things don't make sense I need to revisit my premises. Consider for a moment the possibility that the U.S. decided that its goals could/would be met by having the Taliban run the country. How does this change the view of what has happened? To me, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

[bigbill]

This has been an interesting discussion. I'd like to add a question for the group. All of the major media treat the Taliban as the enemy. The view of the press (and these 7 pages of discussion) has been based upon this. The questions are "Why did the U.S. do this thing? Why didn't the U.S. do this other thing?

I find that when things don't make sense I need to revisit my premises. Consider for a moment the possibility that the U.S. decided that its goals could/would be met by having the Taliban run the country. How does this change the view of what has happened? To me, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

The Taliban released thousands of Al Qaeda prisoners when they took over Bagram Air Base, so probably not in our interest to rely on them. https://www.axios.com/taliban-bagram...a252dcf7d.html

[vertical_doug]

This has been an interesting discussion. I'd like to add a question for the group. All of the major media treat the Taliban as the enemy. The view of the press (and these 7 pages of discussion) has been based upon this. The questions are "Why did the U.S. do this thing? Why didn't the U.S. do this other thing?

I find that when things don't make sense I need to revisit my premises. Consider for a moment the possibility that the U.S. decided that its goals could/would be met by having the Taliban run the country. How does this change the view of what has happened? To me, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

I think that doesn't make sense. I think a simpler explanation is 'we' have no idea what we are doing, and who we are dealing with. You can go back to the Iraq War and look all the crap Bernard Lewis was shoveling. I don't know if you could be more wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

It looks like the Afghan Army essentially surrendered with zero or almost zero resistance to the Taliban. It seems the Taliban had co-opted the military from the inside, and 'we' had no clue. It seems the Taliban are the gov that majority of the 37mm Afghans want. This is after 'we' invested for 20 years on nation building.

Nation building didn't work Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in Afghan. It is time to try something new. We either colonize the place, or sit it out.

[colker]

I find that when things don't make sense I need to revisit my premises. Consider for a moment the possibility that the U.S. decided that its goals could/would be met by having the Taliban run the country. How does this change the view of what has happened? To me, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

Didn´t the US try this before: training and arming the Taleban as an alliy?