By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Kind of funny how so many from the US are feigning shock at what happened when this is what the US planned for a year and a half. Many are hypocritically switching their opinion, and pretending like they suddenly care about Afghani people, because it's convenient to their political biases to do so.

Trump and nearly all of the Democratic Party candidates wanted troops out of Afghanistan (including Bernie and Tulsa).  Some Democratic candidates spit bullshit about "I can get us out of there AND prevent a Taliban takeover in my first term"  others said an even stupider "Lets get troops out and instead spend money on Afghanistan" not caring that the Taliban would be the recipients. Only two of the many candidates pointed out the consequences and wouldn't commit to a withdrawal  - Deval Patrick and Marianne Williamson - and how many people cared enough to actually support them in this?

Just as a refresher on what the US did a year and a half ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51689443

Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war

Published29 February 2020

The US and the Taliban have signed an "agreement for bringing peace" to Afghanistan after more than 18 years of conflict.

The US and Nato allies have agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants uphold the deal.

President Trump said it had been a "long and hard journey" in Afghanistan. "It's time after all these years to bring our people back home," he said.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban are due to follow.

Under the agreement, the militants also agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Rab said:

Jiacee thank you for your insight, many here focus on the small picture, it really isnt common to see someone like yourself that has the big picture view, really enjoyed your last two posts

Thanks so much for your kind words!

I wouldn't say that I have the big picture per se; I've learned to be more humble than to ever just assume that I do. But I do try to dissect the details of public opinion and major events. Anyway, glad you find my posts helpful!



Rab said:

Progressive Democrats, the true centre, are challenging the 9 Corporate/Conservative/"Moderate" right leaning Democrats currently blocking Biden's infrastructure bill because it doesn't protect/benefit the elites enough, and it appears to be having an effect  

I read about this story too (and we're now up to 10 of them as of today!) and was annoyed by the fact that the articles I've read on this subject described these House members holding up progress on the infrastructure and family bills as "moderates". It irks me because I consider myself to be a moderate and think nothing like these characters. They are not moderates. Both of these bills enjoy the support of more 60% of the U.S. population, and are even more popular than that among Americans who describe themselves as moderate to pollsters.

Contrary to the logic of our corporate press, moderates aren't typically affluent suburbanites who vote for neoliberal candidates and policies. Americans who describe themselves as moderate to surveyors are mostly working class people and live disproportionately in urban areas. The press describes neoliberal politics as "moderate" in order to make them sound more popular, reasonable, and practical than they really are and I disapprove. It's just dishonest.

A politician who opposes Medicare expansion, paid family and medical leave, child care, and tuition-free pre-K and community college isn't a moderate, but a rightist and should be characterized as such. I don't wish to be associated with these worthless bourgeois assholes.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 24 August 2021

Jumpin said:

Kind of funny how so many from the US are feigning shock at what happened when this is what the US planned for a year and a half. Many are hypocritically switching their opinion, and pretending like they suddenly care about Afghani people, because it's convenient to their political biases to do so.

Trump and nearly all of the Democratic Party candidates wanted troops out of Afghanistan (including Bernie and Tulsa).  Some Democratic candidates spit bullshit about "I can get us out of there AND prevent a Taliban takeover in my first term"  others said an even stupider "Lets get troops out and instead spend money on Afghanistan" not caring that the Taliban would be the recipients. Only two of the many candidates pointed out the consequences and wouldn't commit to a withdrawal  - Deval Patrick and Marianne Williamson - and how many people cared enough to actually support them in this?

Bandorr said:

How do you plan for the taliban to be able to easily pay off the guards because they weren't getting paid?

How do you plan for the president of afghanistan to flee the country leaving no bargaining chip on the table?

Real questions.

It's been a disaster in the making for 20 years. With plenty of it spread across many presidents.

In my opinion, the issue isn't really that the Taliban took over Afghanistan. That was largely expected. The expectation was largely that it would take a bit longer, but unfortunately that didn't happen, so we have to deal with the worst case scenario on that front.

However, that isn't to say that everything that occurred over the last month was inevitable. First of all, there were steps that we could have taken to give the Afghan government a better chance. The Trump deal made that hard by putting us on a clock for withdrawal, but you'll hear a lot of talk about how we could have better supported the government. Personally, I don't see a ton of value in fighting more to prop up a government doomed to fall.

That leads us to the worse outcome: The humanitarian crisis. I think a lot those who are criticizing the administration, especially from the left, aren't necessarily saying that we shouldn't have left, they are saying that we need to ensure our promises to the people of Afghanistan are upheld. The fact that we are rushing to evacuate people by the thousands, six days before we are planning to leave should tell you that this hasn't gone smoothly. Again, there was a lot of politics and bureaucracy making things difficult for the Biden Administration, but that doesn't excuse their failures. To say "You supported the withdrawal so this blood is on your hands" is over-simplifying the issue. The Administration could have and should have done better at working on these evacuations for the last six months, and if they did it is likely we wouldn't be seeing so many scenes of chaos across Kabul.

However, I will say that over the past week, I applaud the administration for its work getting people out, and I do think that certain other coalition countries deserve some criticism. There has been a lot of talk from other countries imploring the US not to leave at the end of the month to give more time, yet at the same time, these countries are making commitments to cease evacuations as soon as tomorrow. They relied on America to be the world police and now that we are stepping back, they would rather complain about us than step up. 



Bandorr said:
sundin13 said:
Bandorr said:

How do you plan for the taliban to be able to easily pay off the guards because they weren't getting paid?

How do you plan for the president of afghanistan to flee the country leaving no bargaining chip on the table?

Real questions.

It's been a disaster in the making for 20 years. With plenty of it spread across many presidents.

In my opinion, the issue isn't really that the Taliban took over Afghanistan. That was largely expected. The expectation was largely that it would take a bit longer, but unfortunately that didn't happen, so we have to deal with the worst case scenario on that front.

However, that isn't to say that everything that occurred over the last month was inevitable. First of all, there were steps that we could have taken to give the Afghan government a better chance. The Trump deal made that hard by putting us on a clock for withdrawal, but you'll hear a lot of talk about how we could have better supported the government. Personally, I don't see a ton of value in fighting more to prop up a government doomed to fall.

That leads us to the worse outcome: The humanitarian crisis. I think a lot those who are criticizing the administration, especially from the left, aren't necessarily saying that we shouldn't have left, they are saying that we need to ensure our promises to the people of Afghanistan are upheld. The fact that we are rushing to evacuate people by the thousands, six days before we are planning to leave should tell you that this hasn't gone smoothly. Again, there was a lot of politics and bureaucracy making things difficult for the Biden Administration, but that doesn't excuse their failures. To say "You supported the withdrawal so this blood is on your hands" is over-simplifying the issue. The Administration could have and should have done better at working on these evacuations for the last six months, and if they did it is likely we wouldn't be seeing so many scenes of chaos across Kabul.

However, I will say that over the past week, I applaud the administration for its work getting people out, and I do think that certain other coalition countries deserve some criticism. There has been a lot of talk from other countries imploring the US not to leave at the end of the month to give more time, yet at the same time, these countries are making commitments to cease evacuations as soon as tomorrow. They relied on America to be the world police and now that we are stepping back, they would rather complain about us than step up. 

The problem is expectation and perspective.

Everything was suppose to take X amount of time.  In which we get rid of Y amount of people.  The intelligence we had suggestion this would work.

Then the afhgan guards got bribed. Then the president ran out.  There was a deal on the table for 2 weeks of nothing happening if the President resigned. Instead he ran away and Taliban got what they wanted - without having to wait two weeks.

So that X amount of time to get Y people out? It got crushed.  And it getting crushed caused further problems. instead of having to get Y amount of people out - because of the talibans massive surge we not have to deal with Z. These are the people that would have gone later after things were more settles. After Y was already out etc.

Because the Taliban attacked so quickly people got spooked.  These people wanted out - and they wanted out now.  They are the Z people.  So what was two weeks to get Y people out became almost instantly get out Y and Z amount of people.  We had to get out way more people way faster than anyone anticipated.

So when I see stuff like " when this is what the US planned for a year" I call out it as BS. Because as far as I can tell no plan would have mattered because we didn't have all the information.

This never would have been less of a disaster than now.

From what I've read, it seems that the more pessimistic range of expected outcomes from the CIA was pretty close to what actually happened. It shouldn't really have caught the United States off guard if we planned for that worst case scenario. 

Biden seems to both want to argue that they planned for every scenario, while also kind of saying that this happened a lot quicker than intelligence said it would. Neither of these things seem to be completely true. They didn't seem to be fully prepared for the fall of the Afghanistan government, and this outcome was not altogether unexpected from our intelligence agencies. 

If there was even a sliver of a possibility of this happening, why haven't we been fast tracking SIVs for the past six months? I understand that to some degree, blame for that rests on Congress, but the Biden Administration could have and should have pressured them to act sooner. Instead, we had very few evacuations before August 14th which led to the crush we are facing now. This very much could have been mitigated. 

I agree that it would not have been possible to completely avoid the chaos that we have seen, but to state that it was impossible to do this better seems unfounded to me.



Around the Network



The level of incompetence is astounding.



Good video about the thought process behind "They hate America!"



Dulfite said:

Ah that conspiracy theory. No, we went there to fight the terrorists that orchestrated 9/11 and when you do that you either:

a) blow stuff up and leave. Then the children of the people you blew up grow up to avenge those we killed so they attack us again, causing the cycle to repeat over and over.

or

b) invade and try to build a better nation.

We chose option b

Americans, you are so delusional



sundin13 said:

To me, the question about Afghanistan is a question what the role of the United States should be around the world, and I've been somewhat struggling with that answer for the last week. I personally don't think that we should have entered Afghanistan in the first place. I also feel that we should have never engaged in nation building exercises.

However, we cannot change those past decisions, and in 2020, we were in a place where we failed in creating a state that can stand on its own, but succeeded in creating a state that has a much better record on human rights than the one we replaced. This brought us to a place where continued occupation of Afghanistan was manageable. Yearly deaths were low, and costs were fairly sustainable - $2trillion over twenty years really isn't that much money for the US, and those costs were likely frontloaded.

So what benefit do we get from pulling out? Not much. We avoid a few casualties and save a little bit of money, but this cost isn't overly burdensome. 

What would we have gained from staying in? We would have upheld the human rights for millions of people and ensured the conditions upon the agreement that were made would be upheld.

But I still find myself supporting a withdrawal. To me, I find the initial condition of our occupation so untenable, that I feel we simply cannot justify continued occupation. 

I agree with you when you state that Afghanistan doesn't want Taliban occupation. I also agree when you state that criticisms of Afghani soldiers are overstated. The failures with the military largely rest with the leaders, not the soldiers. But I'm not sure if this changes anything, because it isn't what the fundamental question is about.

That said, I do agree that the withdrawal has been fairly disastrous. It started with the Trump deal which presupposed the Taliban taking over, but it was also a failure on Biden's part. I do sympathize with how shitty his options were - If we break the deal, we undoubtedly would have to engage in more fighting. If we uphold it, the nation will inevitably fall - but even considering that, the withdrawal was not well orchestrated (it is more complicated than a lot of people are making it out to be though). I think under different circumstances, we likely could have pulled out in a much more organized fashion, which simultaneously would give the Afghani government a better chance, but their fall was likely inevitable. 

Look, I get people's hard feelings. Islam, frankly, is a horrible religion. It really is. But that doesn't mean there exists no nuance. I just can't shake fundamentally being a populist by nature and fundamentally having faith in the basic goodness (at least in the sense of good intentions) of most people. Like I pointed out, most Afghans have fundamentally liked us and liked their democratic government despite all its corruption and flaws. They fought and died for it in numbers that make our investment pale in comparison. I fear that one outcome of this debacle we're seeing is that Americans aren't appreciating that reality. They're responding by starting to stereotype Afghans as being like all Taliban sympathizers and the very worst of monsters. I just don't feel that way. I know the Afghan people, for all of their agrarian xenophobia and shortcomings, are better than that, that they haven't wanted this outcome, that they're better than this image. Afghans are more than just conservative Islam. When I see those images of Afghan people chasing down our planes or the photos from yesterday's suicide bombing (which mainly killed Afghan civilians, it may be worth remembering), my heart is filled with compassion! It makes me want to cry. We have to help them! We have to do something. We can't just leave them at the mercy of these wolves. That's just the way I feel. Offering some of them asylum just doesn't feel like enough to me.

As to this notion that we're saving lives by opting to completely pull out of Afghanistan, as you can see from recent events, we have saved no one's life here. Yesterday was the deadliest day in a decade for American troops in Afghanistan thanks to their Islamic State affiliate that has been greatly empowered by the current chaotic situation and by the fact that thousands of their fighters and leaders have recently been freed by the Taliban as they swept across the country and emptied its prisons. The toll from that one attack alone so far stands at at least 170 people dead (including 13 Americans) and some 200 more injured (including 18 Americans). The ultimate consequence of our total withdrawal will likely be similar to what happened after we withdrew even our non-combat troops from Iraq in late 2011 because the Iraqi government wouldn't grant them total immunity from local laws: the Islamic State will start seizing more and more territory and attacking other countries (like us). We only solved that problem before by organizing an alliance against them and sending a bunch of special forces of our own back into Iraq.

The Taliban says they won't harbor terrorists. They also claim that there's no evidence Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks to this very day. They claim they and the Islamic State are enemies. They also just freed thousands of their fighters and leaders all across the country. They furthermore claim they have never oppressed women before. They are liars. Afghanistan is absolutely about to become a breeding ground for international terrorism the same as it was the last time the Taliban ran the country, and that WILL come back to haunt us. We might think we are done with Afghanistan, but the question is whether Afghanistan is done with us.

Perhaps even more pointedly, the overwhelming majority of American military deaths don't result from combat situations, but from suicide. This right here strikes me as just the kind of development that will likely cause depression and suicide in the ranks and among our veterans to spike. We have saved no one's life here. There is nothing noble or redeeming and liberating for the people of Afghanistan about our decision to tuck tail and run and leave them to these monsters they hate. This is quite possibly the single worst, dumbest, most cowardly, and frankly most evil thing President Biden has done in the course of his presidency so far. I can't believe the White House is seriously considering recognizing the Taliban's government.

There is another way. Panjshir Valley is currently a bastion of resistance to the Taliban, much as it always has been, and claims to have 20,000 soldiers ready to fight, but it is now endangered, as the Taliban is blocking crucial supply lines into the region. Based on their long history of fighting the Taliban, it's unlikely they will ever surrender. The Taliban will have to crush them. The stated goals of Panjshir Valley's National Resistance Front are, in their words, "decentralization of power and wealth, democracy, political and cultural pluralism, moderate Islam, and equal rights and freedom for all citizens", and they're imploring us to help them. That is exactly what we should do! Given their situation, time is of the essence here! We should promptly recognize the government in Panjshir Valley as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and provide much-needed humanitarian and military assistance to their fight in the same sort of way that we aided the Kurds in Northern Syria (only we shouldn't sell them out at the earliest convenience like we did the Kurds in the end). I mean it just seems like a far better path than legitimizing the Taliban's government with official recognition like we're apparently seriously considering doing! That's the path I'm in favor of.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 28 August 2021

IcaroRibeiro said:
Dulfite said:

Ah that conspiracy theory. No, we went there to fight the terrorists that orchestrated 9/11 and when you do that you either:

a) blow stuff up and leave. Then the children of the people you blew up grow up to avenge those we killed so they attack us again, causing the cycle to repeat over and over.

or

b) invade and try to build a better nation.

We chose option b

Americans, you are so delusional

What? With a country that can’t solve a hurricane crisis, has constant riots, and where 83% of them don’t even know where Afghanistan is, what could go wrong?

(citation: https://www.edweek.org/education/afghanistan-young-americans-cant-find-it-on-map-survey-finds/2002/11)

The other 17% probably watched Carmen Sandiego.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.