President Biden Statement on Afghanistan: Read It For Yourself
With the situation in Afghanistan deteriorating by the moment, and having to deploy troops to protect the withdraw of remaining US personnel, President Biden has released a statement on Afghanistan:
The president’s full statement on Afghanistan as released by the White House:
Over the past several days I have been in close contact with my national security team to give them direction on how to protect our interests and values as we end our military mission in Afghanistan.
First, based on the recommendations of our diplomatic, military, and intelligence teams, I have authorized the deployment of approximately 5,000 US troops to make sure we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission and those at special risk from the Taliban advance.
Second, I have ordered our armed forces and our intelligence community to ensure that we will maintain the capability and the vigilance to address future terrorist threats from Afghanistan.
Third, I have directed the Secretary of State to support President Ghani and other Afghan leaders as they seek to prevent further bloodshed and pursue a political settlement. Secretary Blinken will also engage with key regional stakeholders.
Fourth, we have conveyed to the Taliban representatives in Doha, via our Combatant Commander, that any action on their part on the ground in Afghanistan, that puts US personnel or our mission at risk there, will be met with a swift and strong US military response.
Fifth, I have placed Ambassador Tracey Jacobson in charge of a whole of government effort to process, transport, and relocate Afghan special immigrant visa applicants and other Afghan allies. Our hearts go out to the brave Afghan men and women who are now at risk. We are working to evacuate thousands of those who helped our cause and their families.
That is what we are going to do. Now let me be clear about how we got here.
America went to Afghanistan 20 years ago to defeat the forces that attacked this country on September 11th. That mission resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden over a decade ago and the degradation of al Qaeda. And yet, 10 years later, when I became President, a small number of US troops still remained on the ground, in harm’s way, with a looming deadline to withdraw them or go back to open combat.
Over our country’s 20 years at war in Afghanistan, America has sent its finest young men and women, invested nearly $1 trillion dollars, trained over 300,000 Afghan soldiers and police, equipped them with state-of-the-art military equipment, and maintained their air force as part of the longest war in US history. One more year, or five more years, of US military presence would not have made a difference if the Afghan military cannot or will not hold its own country. And an endless American presence in the middle of another country’s civil conflict was not acceptable to me.
When I came to office, I inherited a deal cut by my predecessor—which he invited the Taliban to discuss at Camp David on the eve of 9/11 of 2019—that left the Taliban in the strongest position militarily since 2001 and imposed a May 1, 2021 deadline on US forces. Shortly before he left office, he also drew US forces down to a bare minimum of 2,500. Therefore, when I became President, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies’ forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country’s civil conflict. I was the fourth President to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan—two Republicans, two Democrats. I would not, and will not, pass this war onto a fifth.
Meanwhile, the circumstances requiring a statement on Afghanistan go from bad to worse:
The fall of the traditional anti-Taliban bastion marked a major gain for the militants, who have been advancing at speed as US-led forces withdraw.
President Ashraf Ghani travelled to the city just days ago to rally troops.
The Taliban are now in control of much of the country and are edging closer to the capital Kabul.
More than a quarter of a million people have been displaced by the violence, and many have headed to Kabul in hopes of finding safety.
Women in areas captured by the Taliban have described being forced to wear burkas and the militants are also reported to have beaten and lashed people for breaking social rules.
Western countries are scrambling to evacuate their citizens.
How did Mazar-e-Sharif fall?
Local officials said Mazar-e-Sharif – the fourth largest city in Afghanistan – fell largely without a fight.Abas Ebrahimzada, a lawmaker from Balkh province whose capital city is Mazar-e-Sharif, told the Associated Press news agency that the national army were the first to surrender, which then prompted pro-government forces and other militia to give up.
Mazar-e-Sharif is a major economic centre that lies close to the borders with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The last time the Taliban took the city was in the 1990s.
Ethnic Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum and prominent ethnic Tajik leader Atta Mohammad Noor are reported to have fled the province. Details of their whereabouts are unknown.
Following crisis talks with Mr Ghani earlier this week, Mr Dostum struck a defiant tone, saying: “The Taliban have come to the north several times but they were always trapped.”
Other areas also fell to the Taliban on Saturday, including the capitals of Paktika and Kunar provinces.
Unverified footage from the city of Asadabad, in Kunar, showed people waving the Taliban flag and walking through the streets.
The Taliban are now in control of more than half of the provincial capitals in the country. The only major cities to remain under government control are Kabul and Jalalabad.
What’s you expect? The “democratic” Afghan gov’t to actually put up a fight? Afghanistan will got back to the way it was, and all that blood and treasure was wasted. +1 for the graveyard of empires.Report
Our mission wasn’t to make the Afghan gov functional. Our mission was to kill OBL and his crew.
If the new Afghan gov is willing to oppress people solely on their own ground, then we’re good.
If the new Afghan gov feels the need to support their ideological allies (AQ renamed) who in turn will launch more 911 style attacks, then we’ll need to go back. We can’t let AQ have the resources of a country without the wheels coming off.Report
Our mission was to kill OBL and his crew.
Didn’t we do this years and years and years ago?
It would have been a great opportunity to leave somewhere around immediately after our mission was accomplished.Report
Unfortunately OBL’s death didn’t end his movement. Witness the problems we had with ISIS (previous name “AQ in Iraq”).
Similarly we didn’t just walk away from Germany after dealing with the Na.zis, nor did we walk away from Japan after dealing with whatever in WW2. It takes a LONG time to get the local players used to the concept of power sharing and so on.Report
“his movement”
This can be read broadly or narrowly.
Broadly, we wouldn’t have been able to end his movement without genocide.
Narrowly, we did this years and years and years ago.Report
This is like saying we can’t end Na.zism, or anarchism.
It’s a true statement but reduces a non-binary situation to binary logic.
We can’t end the idea but letting the it’s followers have the resources of a country is a bad idea. Bad enough that we had to go back into Iraq.Report
Is there a point at which we might be able to say that Al Qaeda was ended?
If the answer is “no”, then I think it’s safe to say that it is not within our power to end it.
If the answer is “yes”, then I think it’s safe to say that then would have been a better time to pull out.Report
Your convo with DM reminded me of a convo I had with a jewish woman I was dating. She stated that we must not let the muslim brotherhood win election in Egypt. I asked what we needed to do. Answer: invade. “And, after 10 years and 1 trillon dollars and we leave, they elect them anyway”? I said. Invade again was the response. I asked her “how many times must we invade”? The feedback loop never ends. She objected when I suggested that it would be more cost effective, in american blood and $$ to just nuke the populated areas. Apparently that was a line she wouldn’t cross, but continual invasion and occupation for decades was acceptable.Report
In terms of integration with society, the big problems TMB poses is its insistence that the government be run by Islam.
In October 2007, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a detailed political platform. Amongst other things it called for a board of Muslim clerics to oversee the government, and for limiting the office of the presidency to Muslim men. (wiki)
So if you’re a non-Islamic woman looking at them restructuring society, yeah, it’s going to hit the radar as a problem.
Now I don’t see much in terms of genocide, mass murder, or expansion, so they’re missing a lot of things which make AQ such a problem. Note those three are also what made Germany and Japan such problems in WW2.Report
This is the wrong question, it’s like asking when Na.zism is ended instead of asking when it is inappropriate for us to have an army there. The answer to both is we can take away the army when the opposing force is weak enough that the local police can deal with the situation, or at a minimum we’re not handing them a country.
Now to be fair the Taliban isn’t AQ, so it’s not totally clear what we’re doing.Report
Even by this metric the conflict could have been essentially over by 2004 when the Taliban was ready to capitulate to the Karzai government and AQ scattered. Instead we chose to nation-build.Report
Steven Taylor over at Outside The Beltway had some good comments about how America failed to learn the lessons of how to secure the peace.
In the case of WWII, we had large teams of people who spoke German and Japanese and were well versed in their histories, and were closely aligned with the previous pre-Nazi cultures, and could therefore construct a restoration of these regimes, with a new added shot of liberalism.
We drove the Taliban up into the hills in short order, but we couldn’t secure the peace in Afghanistan because none of the necessary components for a peaceful society were present.Report
Biden’s comments are 100% right.
If these people won’t fight for their government neither should we. Also the media needs to just shut the hell up with the hysterics about the human rights abuses. There’s nothing we can do. If they care so much I’m sure there’s some corrupt anti-Taliban warlord with a Soviet bullet lodged in his head that will be happy to use them for cannon fodder.Report
ThisReport
Related:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-america-failed-afghanistan/619740/Report
If you EVER want to know why the Military is so brassed off about the Legislature going over the Commander in Chief’s head, -illegally-… to send the Military in to do Police Work in a Hostage Scenario (instead of paying for enough police to Do Their Job).
…
well, that dude’s experience is the start.
…
Never fear! Pelosi is a battlehardened… distributor of candy.Report
The Constitution requires the Congress to direct where the President sends the military when we go to war. It can brass off the military all it wants by declaring war and authorizing military force through AUMFs. Thats how we set up the country.Report
Yes. I was talking about January, and the monthslong occupation of Washington DC.Report
Good speech. Right call. It’s still gonna suck.Report
“When I came to office, I inherited a deal cut by my predecessor—which he invited the Taliban to discuss at Camp David on the eve of 9/11 of 2019”
We’re going to have 16-year-olds who’ve never seen the country led by an adult.Report
So you’re saying this country hasn’t been led by an adult since, what Washington? I’m sure even he blamed the British for stuff that happened prior to his administration.Report
In his day, and given his position in the culture, his critics couldn’t blame him for much, though — as they did back when they were Englishmen when they wanted to politely say the King had blown a call — early Americans chose to blame this or that advisor for giving the President bad advice. Fortunately, Washington gave them both Jefferson and Hamilton in his Cabinet so it was pretty easy to find someone to blame.Report
Hah, that is highly plausible, well done.Report
There’s a difference between putting something in context and being petulant. And while I didn’t completely agree with the recent article on politicization of foreign policy, this kind of childishness is particularly gross when it goes beyond the water’s edge. Ask yourself, does that aside about Camp David seem “presidential”?Report
Biden is a politician, he’s gonna politic, it’s his job. The right hasn’t put aside petulance for my entire adult life and in the context of current and recent politicians a charge of petulance against Biden for that accurate if somewhat very mildly mean dig is the height of chutzpah.Report
I don’t remember stuff like that from W.Report
I recall a pretty thorough and not particularly fair throwing of the Clinton admin under the bus for the 9/11 attacks, which then culminated in a heated interview of Clinton himself with Chris Wallace.Report
Personally, in his major addresses?Report
Sadly I lack perfect memory of those addresses. But assuming he never specifically said it in a speech to the country I’m not sure I really see a difference. The message was out there.
Anyway I’d imagine we’d be pretty hard pressed to find a president who didn’t characterize moves of past administrations in ways they deemed advantageous to them in the moment.Report
Okay. We probably don’t want to call right-wingers “The American Taliban” anymore.Report
OK, the minute they stop calling us Communists.Report
I meant in the sense of, like, “we probably don’t want to call them winners”.Report
Long read below from 2019, but really insightful on why they’re collapsing so quickly. There are situations where tens of thousands of Afghan security forces won’t stand up to a couple thousand Taliban fighters. They’re too corrupt, incompetent, and do not care.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-army-police/?itid=hp_special-topic-chain1Report
Was a good read. It was a Potemkin army.Report
I have sinned by editing a comment with a link, and humbly request a rescue.Report
You are healed. Go forth and sin no moreReport
Thank you!Report
I’m having a really hard time drumming up any outrage over this. I feel for our own who lost so much and who maybe feel like their service was all for nothing. I feel for the Afghan people, especially the terror our allies must be feeling right now. But the rest? Exactly why did we ever think things were going to be any different this time?Report
What’s noteworthy is how little American policymakers or opinion shapers appear to know about the Afghans, even after 20 years.
I don’t recall very many interviews with Afghans, either people on the street or government officials, or leading cultural figures and thinkers, ever.
There was the occasional snippet or photograph thrown in for color, but all the leading voices on Afghanistan have always belonged to Americans.
Its like the Taliban and the other Afghans are just shadow puppets cast onto a wall by the government and media outlets, nonexistent images created to fill a role written by outsiders.
Like that WaPo article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/15/afghanistan-military-collapse-taliban/
discussing how, after the initial withdrawal agreement was signed, almost the entire Afghan military and security establishment scurried to strike surrender deals with the Taliban, and when the time came, ordered their troops to stand down and surrender without a shot.
How did the Pentagon, CIA, and State Departments not know how corrupt and fickle the Afghan government and military was? How did they not hear about these quiet backroom deals, despite having so heavy a presence in the country for two decades?
I don’t know for certain but I think a lot of it goes back to the first days, when it was practically a point of pride for the Americans in charge to NOT know very much about Afghanistan and how none of them bothered to learn or even hire people who did.
Instead we were subjected to the shadow puppets of the Evil Taliban and Heroic Yearning For Secular Democracy Afghans, which were fictitious creations of the US government and media.Report
I kinda expected it to take, I dunno, six months for Afghanistan to fall.
Not, like, six days.
This strikes me as being a *MASSIVE* intelligence failure (and military and diplomatic one).
Like, to the point where if I wanted to say where we could have turned this around, I don’t think that we could have. This would have happened under Bush, under Obama, under Trump, and now it’s only happening under Biden because it didn’t happen under Trump or Obama or Bush.Report
Allegedly there has been a slow motion surrender going on for some time now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/15/afghanistan-military-collapse-taliban/
The deals, initially offered early last year, were often described by Afghan officials as cease-fires, but Taliban leaders were in fact offering money in exchange for government forces to hand over their weapons, according to an Afghan officer and a U.S. official.Report
I just saw this:
Maybe we need smarter academics.
Or maybe we need to start using ones that are significantly dumber.Report
As soon as it was clear the US was leaving, everyone knew the government would fall and the Taliban would take over, so everyone took that into account. The paymasters stopped paying the soldiers (that money was needed to bribe the Taliban and/or GTFO), the soldiers started negotiating with the new bosses, the Taliban stopped fighting and started planning their coronation. This was going to happen whenever the US left, under any president; nothing to be done about it other than get more people out.Report
You’re assuming the existence of buses and roads. You’re also assuming Putin doesn’t game this.Report
There’s some word from in country that the orders came from on high for units to give up the fight suggesting deals were cut.
Also, this kind of defeat tends to be highly contagious. When you’re losing because your compatriots morale has broken its a strong sign that you should break to rather than hold position to be the poor dumb suckers that died instead of giving up or running. A full on rout is more contagious than the flu.Report
From what I read they knew, they just lie about it to the public. Even then the basic facts of the situation have been out there for years.Report
This has been my understanding for years, that the only people in Afghanistan that wanted to do things according to the US were the people who benefited directly from the US. Everyone else just grabbed what they could and hunkered down To wait until we got bored and left.Report
Yea I remember reading stories during Obama’s first term about infrastructure money disappearing and sketchy deals with people whose allegiance or even identity was unclear.Report
Like remember when we and our allies gave a million dollars to a guy claiming to be a Taliban commander who then vanished?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11818583.ampReport
If that had only happened once…Report
What’s noteworthy is how little American policymakers or opinion shapers appear to know about the Afghans, even after 20 years.
I don’t recall very many interviews with Afghan, either people on the street or government officials, or leading cultural figures and thinkers, ever.
There was the occasional snippet or photograph thrown in for color, but all the leading voices on Afghanistan have always belonged to Americans.
Its like the Taliban and the other Afghans are just shadow puppets cast onto a wall by the government and media outlets, nonexistent images created to fill a role written by outsiders.Report
A take that left me wincing and agreeing:
Report
I have a vague memory – so its probably wrong – of Bin Laden giving an interview saying he believed the best way to bring down superpowers was to mire them in Afghanistan. It certainly broke the Soviet Union, and while America didn’t break, only the chewing gum and bailing wire is holding us together at the moment.Report
Kinda hoping that Afghanistan is a useful example of why we shouldn’t attempt nation-building when the opportunity comes up in… October? November?
Can we get rid of the AUMF?Report
I think Biden was correct in just pulling off the band-aid. It is now possible for someone to serve in Afghanistan or Iraq but have been born after 9/11.
I don’t expect the foreign policy set to learn any lessons because they never do. The simpler solution would just to be allow more immigration in the U.S. rather than try and fix Afghanistan or any similar country.Report
The fact that this chaotic collapse happened shows that withdrawal was the right call.Report
The collapse is hardly chaotic, it only looks that way.
https://www.vox.com/2021/8/15/22626082/kabul-capital-fall-afghanistan-government-taliban-forces-explainedReport
I mean, the US intelligence and military forces being caught flat-footed demonstrates why withdrawal was correct.
They spent 20 years there, and in the end, had no inkling what the Afghan forces were actually doing.Report
People are unfairly putting too much emphasis on stuff like this:
And not putting enough emphasis on how few people have been executed.Report
I think the refugee thing is something that was poorly planned and Biden does deserve some or a lot of criticism for it. Though I did see this: https://www.businessinsider.com/dod-could-house-afghan-refugees-fort-mccoy-fort-bliss-report-2021-8Report
This isn’t about criticizing Biden, Saul.Report
It is one thing for the military to say they could house 30,000 refugees on a couple of bases, or upwards of 100,000 if more bases were brought into use.
That’s not a plan. A plan has to include identifying which 100,000 Afghans, how to house them safely in Afghanistan while waiting for planes, where the airlift capacity is going to come from, and on, and on. Not to mention identifying the legal basis under which the military could evacuate 100,000 Afghans to the US and house them. If they were going to be finishing up now, we should have been building massive refugee facilities at Bagram a year ago.Report
It is cheaper for us in the short term. It removes us from the position of imposing/supporting an unpopular government.
So, the people of Afghanistan will get the Fascist Islamic state that they want.
This state will almost certainly abuse all of its minorities. “Abuse” might be “women are beaten for not wearing the mandated outfits”, or it might be “women are killed for trying to learn to read or trying to have jobs”. Gays can be expected to need to stay in the closet or be killed. Ditto religious minorities. That’s the best-case outcome.
The worst-case outcome is we’ll (again) see the projection of mass murder in the name of Islamic Fascism.Report
There are a lot of anti-Biden folks out there making hay with the whole Afghan extraction. Comparisons to Saigon.
The main point of this, I guess, is to get the pro-Biden folks to make obviously wrong statements or obviously sycophantic ones (“people use helicopters to leave, sometimes… that doesn’t make this like Saigon!”) and so it’s kind of silly to see the point scoring and the absolute inability to do anything but fight against the wrong people scoring points among the folks for whom the game is more important than anything else.
But I am hoping to hear from Biden and/or Harris today or tomorrow to explain that Afghanistan has been a corrupt mess for the last couple of decades and now heads are going to roll at the Pentagon and the various intelligence agencies that were, presumably, in charge of making sure that the fall of Kabul would take months rather than hours.Report
Good!
Report
I think he handled that quite well. Felt like an actual adult conversation on foreign policy.Report
Stephen Miller reminds the world that he is a horrible person.Report
https://twitter.com/NGrossman81/status/1427232743000354817?s=20Report
The “writing on the wall” hasn’t been hidden –
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/15/1027951992/u-s-watchdog-criticizes-steps-preceding-taliban-takeover-in-afghanistanReport
“This was entirely foreseeable!”, exclaim pundits who did not foresee it.
How many I-told-you-so tweets and op-eds will we be subjected to by journalists who will smugly tell us that they had inside information about the weakness of the ANA but mysteriously held in private until now?Report
The actual projection was for the Afghan gov to fall in a few months. I can’t think of anyone who thought they could do it alone. Certainly the Iraqi gov losing to AQ should have taught us a lesson.
And this is armchair quarterbacking. Biden, with a extremely large budget for this sort of thing and dozens of experts, is supposed to be better at this than we are.Report
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure that the pundits claiming to have seen it beforehand are the problem here.
It’s the Professionals Who Do This Stuff For A Living who were blindsided that need to give an accounting.Report
Remember Obama proclaiming ISIS was the JV team and there was no chance Iraq or Afghanistan would fall apart?
Might be the professionals were told what to think and/or didn’t want to displease their masters.
This does not suggest good things on whether we’ll have to go back.Report
I’m sure he trusted his experts who were, it is now apparent, lying to him.
And then, by extension, to us.
Report
Might be easier than that. The President is given a range of options and a range of opinions. He picks the one he likes.
Bush hears that Iraq has WMDs.
Obama hears that we can safely pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan (and that Obamacare’s website is turn-key ready).
Trump hears that the election was stolen.
Biden hears that Afghanistan will stay stable.Report
I think the more likely thing is that the FP and military hands say “Afghanistan will fall apart in the course of a few months to a year if you leave and you’ll be blamed!” thinking that this’d dissuade Biden from leaving so they can have a surge 2.X. Biden says
“Good, I have a few months to pull all our assets out.” Turns out he has less than a week. I hope he fires some people but I fear he won’t due to the politics of it.
Either way, we’re out, thank goodness for that.Report
I do not know who Josh Rogin is but he appears to have gotten copies of Pelosi’s Afghanistan Talking Points:
Report
I wouldn’t normally offer an extended quote here, but I find this in my e-mail inbox from Heather Cox Richardson’s substack, Letters from an American:
It’s abundantly clear that both political parties in America responded to a broad, bipartisan consensus that Americans wanted to at long last end our twenty-year war in Afghanistan. Whether Americans thought through that this would mean the Taliban would immediately step into the power vacuum we left behind is less clear, but what is happening today is what Americans wanted. And what’s more, it’s reasonably likely that in several months, most Americans will have forgotten about whatever outrage, disappointment, anger, or fear they feel from this week’s events, to be replaced by whatever new bullshit has come up in the news cycle. Remember how mad everyone was about Critical Race Theory last month? Seems very far away now.
So too with the Fall of Kabul be an unpleasant but distant memory come mid-September when we shall surely become engrossed with whether or not the still-rampaging Delta Variant should close schools, politically-wedged cultural debate about something some NFL player hasn’t done just yet, and maybe VP Harris will show up to a tiebreaking vote in the Senate wearing rainbow-colored Chucks and the pearls will be clutched so hard they’ll get ground into dust.
Biden’s play, domestically, is to just eat the frog, right now and all at once. And that’s what he’s done. And if we’d re-elected Trump, that’s what Trump would be doing too, albeit with different rhetoric.
Of course, the losers in all this are the people of Afghanistan. They lost whatever vibrancy they could have hoped for in their country way back in 1979, and so for the entirety of almost all of this site’s readers’ adult lives, Afghanistan has been in a state of crippling civil war. We offered them hope for a time and now it’s gone, and if Alexander couldn’t bring enduring stability to the top of the Khyber Pass three thousand years ago, perhaps we were simply vain to believe ourselves any better at extending our empire there than was he.Report
Donald Trump sent officials to negotiate with the Taliban, and in February 2020 the U.S. agreed to withdraw all U.S. troops, along with NATO allies, by May 1, so long as the Taliban stopped attacking U.S. troops and cut ties with terrorists.
That is “You can have a free hand in Afghanistan” was explicitly agreed to.Report
Us pulling out means we’re not pointing guns at them, and they’re not going to honor any agreement with us unless it’s at gun point. That’s the “shifting sands” part of how things work over there.
Ergo making an agreement with them that involves us pulling out means, by definition, they’re going to do what they want.
Early reporting from towns they’ve taken says despite what they said about women being allowed to work (assuming that happened and wasn’t just happy talk from someone) , woman have to stay in their homes, need to be accompanied by a male relative, can’t go to school, and the dress codes are back.
The real question is whether they’ll go back to backing groups that try to mass murder their way to a global Islamic Theocracy. Backing groups like that is probably what “virtue signaling” looks like in their group.Report
I think you’re missing what the very probable outcome is, that being continued targeted assassination by drones based in other countries. The real evolution in thinking isn’t that we shouldn’t intervene, it’s that we can accomplish 90% of what we want without a single boot on the ground, issues of other country’s sovereignty or our own competence notwithstanding.Report
That line of reasoning is why imho we could/should have stayed.Report
“Get what we want…”
We don’t even know what we want!
After twenty years, the American people and their government still have no idea what we would want to accomplish with Afghanistan, what “success” would even look like.
This is the madness, where our foreign policy is a shifting mirage of fantasy fears and daydreams;
We fear a fantasy “global Islamic Theocracy” headed by…a mullah in a cave in some remote mountaintop. Meanwhile we form close alliances with the House of Saud, the largest promoter of Islamic Theocracy called Wahabbism.
We have a daydream of a secular liberal Afghanistan where pink haired lesbian bartenders listen to rap music, a daydream of our own desires projected onto the Afghans.
Its complete madness, completed unmoored from any actual knowledge of the real world or thoughts about American strategic interest.Report
What we want is no more 911s. Similarly how ISIS ran Iraq seemed like a bad thing.
It’s less about what we want and more what we don’t want.
Transportation costs have shrunk the world to the point where a mullah in a cave can level buildings in the US. It’s in our best interests to prevent people like that from getting their hands on the resources of a nation state.Report
Hogwash. The window for Mullas in a cave to pull off what happened on 9/11 closed on *checks notes* 9/11. Afghanistan was not some institution of vast resources that allowed Bin Laden to scheme his attacks- it was just where he happened to be camped out. If Islamists could have done a 9/11/ style attack after 9/11 they’d have done it, us being in Afghanistan not withstanding. The hinterlands of Pakistan are functionally identical to Afghanistan pre-American invasion and have been for the past decades.Report
You’re claiming that airplanes being jackable was the only flaw in our society that two dozen suicide attackers can exploit. I disagree. I can think of others. I refuse to discuse how to min/max mass murder and strongly suggest no one else do so.
OBL didn’t take 12 random guys and train them into a strike force and come up with some magic plan that got lucky.
He needed a recruiting organization, he needed training bases, he vetted his potentials for personality and so on. This took years and much organizational effort and resources even if the implementation only needed box cutters and plane tickets.
Being able to do all of that, openly and with the support of a nation, was the problem. His organization made a lot of other attacks and spent years learning what works and what doesn’t. They got a lot of organizational skill where people spent enough time at their jobs to get good at them and learn what processes work, what law enforcement does and how to avoid them, etc.Report
And, again, they could have done all the exact same stuff in the Pakistani hinterland if they hadn’t done it in Afghanistan. I am not going to say our society is impenetrable but the black and white facts are that vulnerabilities like the one those airliners presented are rather unique. It isn’t easy to get your hands on that kind of mobile volatile mass and airplanes are no longer valid target, partially because of Government security but mainly because the passengers will absolutely not sit quietly any more if you try and hijack them.
Our being camped in Afghanistan’s mountain wastelands playing whack a mole with the Taliban (note, the Taliban, not Al Queda) has had dick all to do with the lack of major terror attacks in the west subsequent to 9/11.Report
Well 20 years of killing them in their own lands, while supporting their bankrollers was probably not our best idea then huh? I mean we assassinated a wildly popular socialist prime minister in Iran, installed a dictator with a throwback title, and it got us a nation state adversary that funds Islamic terrorists and has nuclear weapons. Doing the same thing for two decades in Afghanistan wasn’t exactly a way to show we had learned anything from that experience, now was it?Report
Our mere existence is a threat to their way of life. We are constantly putting out movies and TV broadcasts showing women who have educations and wear immodest clothes. This encourages their own women to do things god is against. We’re also doing a ton of other things that are flatly unacceptable, like allowing gays to exist and encouraging other religions to exist.
20 years of killing them in their own lands is the only reason why they might not try something like 911.Report
This is absurd.
The Taliban have never, ever, attacked America, but a bunch of Saudis did, and you seem blissfully unaware of the reasons why.
Try to say something about the Taliban that doesn’t apply equally to the Saudis, Pakistanis, Iraqis or Yemenis.
For extra credit, maybe we should all stop assuming that those respective people think of themselves as Afghans, Saudis, Pakistanis or Iraqis, because they sure as hell dont.Report
The Saudis wanted to cut OBL’s head off and did exile him. His crew was largely made up of Saudis who were pissed at their gov.
It is indeed absurd to jump from “Saudi criminals” to “they represent the government of Saudi Arabia”.
After 911, when the US asked for OBL to be handed over and his crew disbanded, the Taliban refused because he was their hero and had done nothing wrong.Report
I think that conflates two separate things. The US has a legit interest in preventing attacks from Islamic terrorists domestically and on its people and assets abroad. We should be able to have open debates on how to do that and the cost benefit analysis of different approaches. For example, if Clinton had succeeded in killing OBL in Sudan with a targeted strike that would have been a pretty good benefit at a pretty minimal cost.
The issue is all the separate, highly ideological crap that gets thrown under the rubric. Perpetual occupation of other countries. Nation building. Overthrowing governments without thought to what follows. Intervening in civil wars. And about a million other things.Report
If OBL was nonexistent, and the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, would we be discussing a military occupation of that country?
Because those are the facts in front of us, yet somehow there is this inertia that demands that we must absolutely be the implacable enemy of Eastasia, er, the Taliban.Report
I’d certainly hope not. But I also take what I can get.Report
You’re skipping the issue of whether or not they’re going to let AQ do their thing.
That’s the issue that took us to war with the Taliban before and might do so again.Report
Without getting into the merits of what’s going on in Yemen or Somalia, it seems like that issue can be addressed similarly to how it is in Yemen or Somalia.Report
Other people going to war, committing vast war crimes, and turning the entire area into a vast failed state?
That’s your suggestion on a better alternative?Report
Yes. Every conflict on this planet is not our problem, and there’s plenty of evidence that our involvement in many of these places does not help.
But I was speaking more narrowly. If AQ takes up residency again in Afghanistan I assume we will drone them wherever we can. Is this my preferred policy? No. But is it better than wasting American lives and even more money for similar results? Yes.Report
And when the Taliban, i.e. the government of Afghanistan, tells us to stop committing acts of war on their territory, or simply forbids us access, what do we do?
Those drones don’t have unlimited range and we also would find it very useful to have local intel.Report
Doesn’t seem to stop us in other places where we have nothing on the ground.Report
Those other places would be failed states that have no government?Report
In a country like Afghanistan I doubt the Taliban’s writ will extend any further than those places. They didn’t even have full control of the territory when we invaded in 2001.Report
Some of them do. Global Hawks are so named because they can literally fly round the world. And Predators are able to cross several time zones, deliver ordinance and return.Report
If AQ takes up residency again in Afghanistan I assume we will drone them wherever we can.
Why?
Are we going to wait to see if there is some credible threat to America?
Or are we simply at war with AQ, because, we have always been at war with AQ?
One of the most fundamental things to grasp about Mideast politics is that there are a myriad of factions, and they are ever-shifting and evolving into different forms, and (most importantly!) their agenda and goals almost never have anything to do with the United States.
The mujahedeen were our good friends during the Soviet era; Then after the Soviets left the mujahedeen split apart into what were their constituent tribes and factions, some of whom were to become the Taliban, some of whom formed Al-Queda. Some of the Northern Alliance allies we had during the war have since flipped sides, several times, and ended up fighting for the Taliban.
ISIS was born out of the remnants of Saddam’s Revolutionary Guard, and pursued goals which were entirely regional and posed no threat to America itself.
There are about 20 or so different other groups and factions fighting there, either in the Syrian war or the Yemeni-Saudi war, or in the intra-Iraqi clashes.
The idea that any radical Islamic group demands our armed response is madness since almost none of them pose any sort of threat to us.Report
This is my prediction for what will happen, not my proposal of what should happen.Report
What “thing” is AQ doing and who is letting them do it?
Once again, much of their “thing” involved learning to fly which the State of Florida allowed them to do. And purchase tickets, and boxcutters, in Boston.
As you yourself pointed out, the internet allows people to meet and plan from anywhere.
There wasn’t anything special about Afghanistan other than it was remote.Report
We really should have given more power to the INS, as it was known at the time, to deal with immigrants who were no longer here legally.Report
Support of a state has nothing to do with whether or not a group of terrorists can organize well enough to commit terrorism in another nation state?
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that issue.Report
Alternatively, it’s a policy of appeasement. The Taliban don’t ardently disagree with such people, and backing them means the Taliban don’t have to deal with them as an internal problem.
The real question is, will the Taliban remember the past 20 years and what happens when you allow such groups your backing? Or will they continue to look at Iran and see how that nation gets away with it?Report
Of course, of course.
Taiwan and China can start World War Three,
But America will still only care about
“Will I Die TODAY!?!”
China is already starting the bidding on Taiwan.Report
I’m seeing a *LOT* of various kinds of pushback against Biden… like, the NYT and so on. Not just contrarians who argued for pulling out two months ago and turned on a dime the second Biden said “okay”.
It is difficult to see this as anything but buck-passing.
To the extent that there are major failures going on, it’s difficult to not see them as the failures of Generals and the CIA. Heads need to roll.Report
If you cannot trust Unnamed Official, whomst can you trust?
Report
Trump could have gotten away with this sort of thing.
I don’t know if Biden can.
Say what you will about 3 news cycles a week, it lets people ask “are you still talking about that?”Report