Afghanistan

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 07:33 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. 




(Note: I'm not saying Trump is actually tough himself, like he's some badass, but this clearly sent a strong message. And it's not one I'm so sure someone like Biden would have made either.)

He did have that one hawkish move, yes. I don't think that changes the fact that his tough guy act wasn't believable

[BmorePat87]

(08-26-2021, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're talking about redeploying ground troops, I absolutely agree.  I'm talking about his bombing the ever loving shit out of them, which I think would have been a dead certainty.  As for your last sentence, the assassination of Soleimani doesn't exactly jive with that position.  

One strike versus a policy of appeasing multiple dictators and abandoning allies in the Middle East. They just had to look at how he left Syria and the Kurds. He put on a show with Turkey for a few days after giving them a week to bomb our abandoned Kurdish allies, and within a month they were rubbing elbows in the White House as he was telling the GOP to block a bill recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a favor to Turkey. 

[Dill]

(08-27-2021, 03:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're like arguing with a child.  This has been explained to you ad naseum.  I don't give two shits if "academics" see a benefit in comparing groups of Americans to Nazis and Taliban.  It is an intentionally inflammatory comparison and serves to only further polarize and divide people.  News flash, there are an extremely minimal number of Americans for which any kind of legitimate comparison can be made to either Nazi or Taliban beliefs.  Hence such comparisons serve no legitimate purpose.  I don't care how many of your faux intellectual posts you make, the comparisons are harmful and cause far more harm than any "academic" benefit gained by the comparison.

You think they're ok, you also ignore the excesses of Islam because you wrongly equate valid criticism with hate.  In summation:

Dill thinks comparing Americans to Nazis and the Taliban is fine.  I think they are needlessly inflammatory.  Anything else is just window dressing.  It boils down to just that.  Pick your sides, kids.  

Pfft. No one else is reading this debate. 

Children don't elaborate social-scientific rationales for research paradigms. They often do think simply repeating a contested claim is explanation. 

Dill thinks that social scientific comparisons between authoritarian regimes and current US politics are fine, where they actually illuminate emerging authoritarian tendencies--e.g., linkages between nationalism, anti-communism, anti-feminism, anti-immigration, racism, and right wing populism, boosting the submission of one party's order to the personality of a single leader, who by the way attempted to disrupt the legitmate, democratic transfer of power, and has convinced MILLIONS that the current president is illegitimate. 

We can't apply what we know about authoritarian politics to this mess because it is "inflammatory" to authoritarians? "Polarization" is the fear here, not the emerging crisis of democracy? 

That would be no different, in princple, from censoring research into biology because it challenges the identity of some groups, for whom the theory of evolution "serves no legitimate purpose."

Comparisons can work both ways as well. People empathizing with Americans stressed by cultural and economic change might gain some insight into how similar stresses and anxities develop in other countries--often from the same causes. Understanding how processes of globalization produce strident tribalisms and nationalisms helps us see why instability arises in places it previous hadn't, and frequently is expressed in religious form. This is a type of inquiry pursued outside of or prior to moral evaluation. Certainly outside of name calling. The knowledge produced should be understood as applicable everywhere these processes produce resistance, and without the assumption resistance is always wrong or bad. 

I think this sort of inquiry is particularly useful in understanding what is going on in countries like Afghanistan, where the conflict between tradition and modernity has been the sharpest and most accelerated by invasion, occupation, and the internet. Culture shock, economic and social disruption, especially of traditional authority, are more intense there than anywhere in the world right now. The US has produced a generation of literate women, enabled them to step into politics, professions, public life in general, and now anti-modern forces must confront those changes. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2021, 03:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: One strike versus a policy of appeasing multiple dictators and abandoning allies in the Middle East. They just had to look at how he left Syria and the Kurds. He put on a show with Turkey for a few days after giving them a week to bomb our abandoned Kurdish allies, and within a month they were rubbing elbows in the White House as he was telling the GOP to block a bill recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a favor to Turkey. 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then.  Not that it matters as the discussion is purely academic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2021, 04:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Pfft. No one else is reading this debate. 

You're probably right, and since you're one of the last people on Earth I'd choose to have a drawn out conversation with we can leave it at that.

[Dill]

(08-27-2021, 03:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Nothing to disagree with in this, but I just want to note that I said only conservatives saw him as a tough guy (as in believes the charade), not that he was only tough on them. 

Yes, I understand that. I was making general points.

Trump sold the "don't-mess-with-me-I'm-not-weak-like-the-libs" image pretty well to his base. 

If you think of foreign policy and diplomacy in terms of "strong" and "weak" leaders, then you'll
naturally imagine Trump projecting a "strength" not to be trifled with. (You saw how he belitted Sessions publicly. Strong!) 

I think that's part of what supporters mean when they sometimes claim that people "respected"
the US again under Trump. They imagine foreign governments in awe of his "strength", as opposed to
reconsidering US reliability as a partner.

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 08:39 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Ahhh see. And here we are.

"Was Biden given enough" is basically your point here. At least that's how I take it.

That again I believe is the central question that will surround all of this and ultimately will sway people to one side or the other. Or people will go with the "We shouldn't have been there anyway" argument and feel that's justification enough in us leaving. I don't.

It's a complex topic to be sure, however, I wholeheartedly believe that Biden's execution of withdrawal was the wrong way to go about it and has damaged our credibility while simultaneously invigorating our opposition. As I stated before, we should have left, but we should have never left like this.

And the lack of consistency from Biden and his administration isn't helping. Biden claimed he couldn't change the deal because doing so would mean sending more troops, which in turn could cause the Taliban to turn on the deal. Now we've sent more troops in anyway because of what has unfolded.

And beside the fact that the Taliban weren't honoring the deal anyway, I fail to see how abandoning our allies looks better than sending more troops in to ensure getting our allies out before our military. I believe the desire to protect our allies and citizens rather than abandon them would have been received on a domestic and international level much better than abandoning them and then trying to rush back to correct what we did. And then Biden's administration later goes on to say that we had to get out as soon as possible because the Taliban said they wanted to control the airport as soon as possible.

So, now it seems like we're not only admitting that leaving our allies is better than making sure they get out. It seems like we're also admitting that what the Taliban wanted mattered more than what we wanted and we were willing to fold to their demands.

You make the point that, " As far as keeping Trump's "conditions" for leaving--that was already not possible by the time Biden took office, not without re-igniting the war. "

I'd argue, that the reignition of war should have been less of a concern than protecting our allies and citizens. I understand that such a thing would possibly risk more American lives if the Taliban saw our "re-invasion" as provocation, but I feel that scenario would have been perceived in a better light than outright abandonment and from a moralistic standpoint would have just been the "right" thing to do.

To the first bolded, not exactly. Maybe better to say Biden was, perhaps, not LEFT enough. There were some 3,500 troops left when Biden took office, along with over 10,000 contractors (mostly keeping the Afghan AF flying) and another 5,000+ coalition allies. Had Biden prioritized getting civilians out first, maybe that force was enough. I speculate part of the problem here, though, might go back to two decades of "privatization." Much of the military has become dependent upon non-military support. I suspect it was difficult to remove civilians without to some degree reducing combat effectiveness/strength.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/20/trump-peace-deal-taliban/

Biden could not have announced that he was still pulling out, but was re-introducing more troops only to insure orderly withdrawal, because that would break the agreement with the Taliban, re-igniting the war. REALLY hard to protect allies and citizens then. I think that is what he means when he says he had "no choice." He probably didn't if he wanted to pull off the withdrawal. So he had to start with what Trump left. There has been no "outright abandonment" of US civilians and allies. Thousands, probably the majority of US citizens, have been withdrawn, and thousands of Afghans as well. The Taliban have tolerated a small increase in troop levels, clearly speeding up the US exit, not occupying the country. The problem is the remainder of civilians are still having difficulty getting to the airport. The collapse of the ISA has created that problem. Determining the cause of that collapse will be central to clarifying responsibility for the collapse of security during the withdrawal.

As to the second bolded, the Taliban stopped attacking Americans, per the Agreement--which by the way shows some discipline in chain of command. So they definitely kept that part of the agreement. As for the rest of the agreement, de-escalate the violence against the ANA and neutralize Al Qaeda, they realized the first few months after that there would be no penalty from the mighty and "unpredictable" Trump if they ignored that. There was no mechanism for enforcement. Americans would not punish them for continuing to assasinate judges and reporters etc., or even integrating some Al Qaeda into their command. To confuse matters more, Trump's last Sec. of Defense now says the withdrawal promise was only a "ploy" to get the ISA to accept a coalition gov. dominated by the Taliban, which would allow a small remainder of coalition forces to remain in the country indefinitely. Jeezus. The Taliban sharing gov. and allowing US troops to remain??  
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/08/trumps-pledge-exit-afghanistan-was-ruse-his-final-secdef-says/184660/

Even more telling, Trump had bypassed the ISA in direct negotiation with the "terrorists," and then forced the ISA into the humiliation of releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners, in increments of 100 per week--keeping an agreement they had never agreed to. Talk about abandoning an ally. Useful timeline for withdrawal errors -->https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

I agree Biden's execution of the withdrawal was flawed, but it was a segue from one flawed executive policy to another. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-27-2021, 03:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trolling like this is a detriment to the sub-forum and against CoC. 

Trolling? Uh...... okay. I get it. Deflect and dismiss.

Clearly you're not going to address what I've actually argued here, which is what is "detrimental". I'm moving on.

[GMDino]

I've seen and read a few things this week that puts it better than I can.

But the one thing that stood out was how DJT and Pompeo negotiated only with the Taliban and did not include the Afghan government.  That right there is probably the biggest fault in the "planning" of the withdrawal.

Good AP article on what Trump handed to Biden and what Biden could have done differently had he chosen to.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be


And an article on how Pompeo and Trump are spinning what they did in case they run for office.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/mike-pompeo-afghanistan-collapse-506927

[Matt_Crimson]

Quote:1. Abandoning our allies--we aren't abandoning ALL of them. E.g., thousands of Afghans have made it out thanks to US and NATO efforts. But it was impossible to accomdate all their at risk relatives. That was always going to be the case if we withdrew. Also, the Germans and Brits are angry because the pullout was decided unilaterally, without consultation. After dragging our NATO allies to Afghanistan, we decided "hey, we've had enough." Since 2017 we've become a very uncertain ally, subject to whims of fickle presidents and public. We may have forgotten the trashed Iran Deal and disastrous Syria pullout, but our Allies through Europe and the Middle East have not.

I agree with you there. We didn't abandon everyone, and I didn't mean that, but I understand how it could be taken that way. It would be better to say that we didn't do our best to ensure that we got our allies out before we started evacuating our troops.

You make the point that it was impossible to accommodate all their at risk relatives, but I believe that is based upon which position one wishes to take regarding the withdrawal. If you take the position that risking American lives is not worth getting everyone out that we "should" have gotten out, then yes, I'd think you can make the argument that getting everyone out would be extremely difficult based specifically on that position. But if you're coming from the position that risking American lives is worth getting "everyone" out, then you can argue that it wouldn't have been impossible.

My point being, what the argument of "leaving our allies behind" really boils down to is how much do we value preserving the lives of our American troops vs upholding responsibility to save those whom we've allied ourselves with. Now I'm not saying weighing the value of American troops lives vs our allies is an easy decision to make, but the truth is if we really wanted to get "everyone" out, then we could have stayed until we got them out, but that would most likely have cost more American lives, which is the core issue here in my opinion and not necessarily the probability of success. That probability is majorly dependent on what position you take regarding the value of American troops lives vs our allies.

Quote:2. Agree. It was stupid of Biden to say Afghans didn't want to leave. Sure, some didn't, e.g., the Taliban. It was plain that many did.

But I haven't seen evidence this "lie" has been perpetuated and spread anywhere. I have been traveling, often without internet and news access, so maybe you are aware of something I am not. 

I am still examining the process as best I can with intermittent internet and news access. Critical for what we are discussing is what was going on a year ago. What was in place to AFTER the Doha Agreement to prepare for the withdrawal of some 20,000 US affiliated refugees. I am thinking there must have been some resistance to this within the Trump administration (what would Stephen Miller say about thousands of brown Muslims dropped on our doorstep?). Though I don't have reason to believe Pompeo would balk at saving those who risked it all for Americans. Were Trump's people already moving hundreds or thousands to safety?  Think I'll go check on that now.

Well in terms of perpetuation and spreading lies, I was talking about how this view has been perpetuated and spread amongst the public itself and not necessarily by the Biden Administration or the media. On the contrary, the media did the right thing in this instance and actually challenged Biden and his administration when they first introduced this as a talking point and the Biden administration, to save face, has deceptively pivoted from "Afghan's didn't want to leave" to arguing "Well we told everyone we were going to leave", insinuating that everyone had time to leave if they really wanted, which is essentially the same argument but with even more deflection added in.

Regarding whether or not there was resistance within the Trump administration concerning refugees, I think that's a good question and not one I'd say I'm fully informed on. I think going back to what you said earlier about bringing back their relatives complicates this even further and certainly makes for an interesting discussion.

[jj22]

I think it's important to note that Trump refused to meet the returning bodies of our fallen soldiers.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-02-2021, 01:29 PM)jj22 Wrote: I think it's important to note that Trump refused to meet the returning bodies of our fallen soldiers.

Well he's on record as saying that people who become POWs or fall in battle are losers, so color me shocked at his actions.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-15-2021, 10:44 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yeah, and I heard we're just leaving tanks, guns, and whatever else, so it's going to be hell.

The Taliban is rapidly taking over.  

This is what you get when Americans vote with emotion and elect a leader with dementia.

I thought the election was stolen?  So the American citizens actually elected Biden?

[jj22]

(09-02-2021, 01:57 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I thought the election was stolen?  So the American citizens actually elected Biden?

The one good thing that came out of this was Biden is universally accepted as POTUS. 

It is kinda a touch subject still since they believed the ridiculous lie he'd be reinstated in August..... And donated millions to his reinstatement inauguration (that he just pocketed).

You almost want to chuckle if his coning his supporters wasn't so sad. But it's not like people don't keep telling them.

[Wes Mantooth]

(09-02-2021, 01:29 PM)jj22 Wrote: I think it's important to note that Trump refused to meet the returning bodies of our fallen soldiers.

Serious question: Why do you think this is important to note in a discusssion about what's going on in Afghanistan right now?

[Belsnickel]

(09-02-2021, 05:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Serious question: Why do you think this is important to note in a discusssion about what's going on in Afghanistan right now?

I don't get it, either, but it makes about as much sense as most of the arguments in this thread.

[NATI BENGALS]

They did some evil ass suicide bombing shit and we kicked their ass for 20 years. Is it over?

Are religious extremist dangerous?

The drone stuff has a lot of flaws. Like innocent bystanders. Which is really terrible and probably helps make more new religious extremist.

Glad to be done with it.

[jj22]

(09-02-2021, 05:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Serious question: Why do you think this is important to note in a discusssion about what's going on in Afghanistan right now?

It'll always be important to not forget what all Trump supporters supported and defended under Trump when they clutch their pearls over Biden. Why is this important, because now Trump supporters are clutching their pearls over our fallen men and women in Afghanistan, when they applauded and supported Trump as he attacked our gold star families, refused to meet our fallen soldiers, called those captured weak, and overall slammed many vets. 

As many already stated, this was Trumps withdrawal plan, his agreement with the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, nothing in the agreement said they had to meet specific requirements (the agreement is online), or any of the revisionist history that we are hearing today. It's great to be back to regular order in politics, but Trump supporters won't get off that easy after what all they defended. 

This statement was pertinent to Afghanistan because Biden was slammed by Trump supporters for being caught looking at his watch while meeting the fallen soldiers coming back from Afghanistan. Slammed by the same people who supported a POTUS who refused to even meet them. Which one was worse? Looking at your watch, or refusing to even attend? 

That comment wasn't to any specific post, it was about Afghanistan though and this was the proper place to put it. It's "interesting" no Trump supporter denied it nor did they say anything critical about his treatment of our fallen soldiers.... They questions me and my purpose for posting. Avoiding the point.

[GMDino]

If you voted in the 2020 Presidential election you voted to end the war in Afghanistan and to bring our troops home.

If you voted for Trump you liked the plan for the end of the war that he and his Sec. of State agreed to with the Taliban and that was started before he left office.

If you voted for Biden you liked the idea of him continuing that plan as he saw fit.

In the end Biden followed the plan on a delayed schedule. 

Libertarians wanted us out now too.

Could it have gone better?  Hell yes it could have.

Could it have gone worse?  Without a doubt it could have.

What do you think would happen if we stayed another month? Year? Twenty years?

Change is painful and this is no different.

This country spent twenty years, billions of dollars and countless young lives in a war that had no plan and no exit strategy. 

So go ahead and play the partisan game and blame "the other side"...you voted for this.

[*Nately120*]

I just caught that interview where Trump told Hannity that the Taliban, which was founded in the mid 90s, has been fighting for a thousand years. Damn...that's pretty far off the mark. It's like Trump doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and Hannity either didn't know or didn't care to correct him for being off by a mere 973 years.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Jungle Noise to talk about if Burrow and the Bengals can win their first playoff game since 1017 AD.