Man of Honour
I forgot about a whole lot of those statements from the red side!
Absolutely mind boggling.
Afghanistan - 20 years on
- Thread starter GreatAuk
- Start date
I forgot about a whole lot of those statements from the red side!
Absolutely mind boggling.
Their terms of the agreement were hardly much.
Had Biden kept troops there and not carried on with the full withdrawal, the Taliban likely would have attacked US soldiers (which is what their end of the bargain was - ie not to do so) and then Biden would have been raked over the coals for the loss of American soldiers.
I guaran-damn-tee you that in that scenario, Biden would have supposedly made a terrible error as well.
There was zero way for him to win this.
But that's the same situation as he'd have been in had Trump not made the agreement!
He could also have pushed aspects of the agreement, delayed further on the basis of the Taliban not adhering to it etc..
The Taliban didn't keep to their end of the deal, they didn't agree to any deal with the Afghan authorities, the US withdrew regardless and not under the terms of the agreement but at a later date... despite having made assurances to allies, like the UK and others that they'd maintain enough of a security presence to ensure the safety of Kabul. In the end they snuck out in the middle of the night from Bagram, first thing the ANA knew was when the base was being looted by civilians and they pulled out the contractors, rendering plenty of the military gear the ANA had been given somewhat useless.
That's completely irrelevant, considering Trump did make the deal.
Still yet to hear any convincing argument for an alternative long term solution that would not have resulted in the Taliban taking over anyway.
Eh? The point was your bad consequence of ignoring it is essentially going back to the same situation as if the deal had not been made.
No reason why they had to withdraw. Alternatively if they’re going to withdraw this chaotic, pull out the rug approach is hardly the only way.
Caporegime
I mean the alternative was a 40 year commitment, probably more troops during that time, and definitely massive investment in education and a better economy. But there was absolutely no political desire for that. Biden would probably have gone about it differently if he'd had control over the last four years rather than picking up the fag end, but the desire to pull out was shared with Trump, and across the political spectrum. The US allies who might have stepped up enough to support the Afghan government, including the UK, were similarly lacking in desire to get involved.
Correct. Hence why the media would have had a meltdown if American troops had got killed by Taliban attacks if he decided to keep US troops there.
Indeed.
There was no good solution to this. The plaster had to be pulled and the inevitable consequences lived with.
Those pretending otherwise, imagining some fairy tale ending, or somehow putting most of this on Biden sound ridiculous.
Not necessarily. I'm saying that there was no stomach from the US population, or from either political party to keep US troops in Afghanistan, and the previous administrations deal with the Taliban has lead us to this point, to which there was no turning back from.
The last US military member KIA was in 2016, well before Trump's deal.
Biden wanted to withdraw anyway, the manner in which he withdrew was totally down to him. Back in June he claimed he'd leave sufficient assets in place to ensure Kabul didn't fall... drawing down troops doesn't mean you need pull out all contractors, SOF etc.. and basically, pull the rug out as far as support for the Afghans is concerned. Nor does it mean you need to carry on rapidly drawing down as the Taliban advances and fails to adhere to their end of the Trump deal. Any deadlines were arbitrary and artificial regardless, as we've seen, but especially so given they weren't sticking to their side.
Not relevant.
But, for a full withdrawal, there would have to become a point, where they got to very minimal numbers, and then to a point where those minimal numbers fell to zero. So eventually there would always be very few or no US soldiers, meaning eventually,whatever Biden did, the Taliban would have done what they have done.
The only alternative to continuing the draw down, was for the US soldiers to stay and fight back against the Taliban, resulting in what would likely have escalated into a nasty conflict.
Literally in reply to you bringing up casualties you’re being a bit incoherent here…
Not necessarily no. You don’t think it might be useful for Kabul to have not fallen so soon? I mean does the current situation at the airport and the evacuation of Western embassies not look a tad chaotic?
Not at all. The Taliban not killing a US soldier since 2016 or before the Trump deal, bears zero relation to what they may do if said deal was completely broken and the US remained there. It is therefore irrelevant to what is being discussed (ie what Biden was to do after inheriting the Taliban agreement.)
Yes, but there is no guarantee that it was unavoidable, and like with anything, the alternatives could have been even worse . A further extended stay by US troops could have led to conflict and a lot of bloodshed.
Caporegime
I don't actually agree with either Trump or Biden on this, but the realities of politics mean that both were fenced in. Trump, however, made it worse than in needed to be by cutting the Afghan government out of peace talks, undermining the Biden administrations ability to get things rolling by restricting access during his attempted coup, and his disgusting abandonment of US allies in Syria set expectations that the US couldn't be relied on in the region. That said, his deal may have avoided the worse outcome of a bloody civil war, so it's hard to say how history will judge.
Because they were really peaceful and not really trying previously?
Or because you don’t grasp that the US had pulled back from major combat operations already years ago, the ANA was doing the fighting… until Biden pulled the rug out and they quickly collapsed/Taliban advanced.
Irrelevant. There is no guarantee of anything here. Back in reality though, there were plenty of likely better options here.
People aren't suggesting there was a viable long term solution - though I can see how it is useful for some posters to try and paint it that way. But that doesn't mean the situation leading up to and the transition itself couldn't have been done better or that there weren't ways to approach it which would have at least given the Afghans some chance even if a slim one. (Up until the 12th the Afghan forces with US air support were largely conducting a successful campaign against the Taliban).
As dowie said it isn't like Biden and his administration had no agency in this.
Soldato
Unconfirmed source posting to twitter which the BBC seem to be citing for info on the ground. Dutch based open source account that makes for an interesting feed to follow (@hillridgeOSINT). They started posting about Afghanistan just this month.