Your regular reminder that the Taliban offered to surrender in 2001, but Rumsfeld refused.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/news/rumsfeld-rejects-pla...
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/news/rumsfeld-rejects-pla...
I'm not taking any position here, but I think the nuance is helpful.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/robert-fisk-os...
Modern armies do it to their own hardware if it’s at risk of being captured by the enemy. I guess there are few secretive things the Afghans got, but even that isn’t for wider consumption.
Regardless of your partisan status. This does not look good.
Even CNN is questioning the administration: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/08/15/blinken-intv-...
What do you think?
That's not what Biden said. Just over a month ago, on July 8th, he actually argued that the Afghan army could win:
Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not.
Q Why?
THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.
...
I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
And why tell a lie that will soon be disproven so spectacularly?
(To be clear, I'm not arguing whether he lied or really believed what he said. I'm responding to "even if he is relatively confident of an eventual Taliban victory")
Be the change you wish to see. If you think Biden was lying here, don't defend him for it.
Even in terms of realpolitik this was clearly a mistake. He obviously didn't think his words would be disproven so quickly; it would be foolish to lie about what's going to happen almost immediately.
Me criticizing Biden on an internet forum for offering comforting falsehoods will do nothing. He's responding to a tendency in human nature or perhaps American culture that is far too big to be moved significantly by so small an act, or even thousands or millions of such acts. So I'm happy to continue discussing this in realistic terms rather than idealistic ones.
Or the account of this former Army colonel who mentions how poorly managed Afghanistan was all this time, with basically no real attempt at establishing institutions over the last twenty years: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-americ...
Or the WSJ editorial board's suggestions to rescue Afghanistan from a few days ago: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...
There are plenty of ways this could have been handled better. It all comes down to having better leadership. The US hasn't had good leadership for a long time. Four different presidents came into office based on populist sentiments more than competence, and the result is they completely mismanaged all of this while we still incurred the immense expenses that a more successful plan would have required. Worst, they lied to the public and assured the public of how things were going well - this too came from multiple presidents.
Look at the southern US border. Another disaster.
Barack Obama himself said it: "Never underestimate Joe's ability to f** things up".
It's certainly a bad "look" for Biden, but the real error was going there in the first place. That was when this outcome was decided. Whoever finally pulled the plug was going to have a PR issue on their hands, but this is hardly Biden's defeat.
This is a failure. Don't downvote because of politics.
Obama's ambassador to Afghanistan mentioned that the Taliban's recent blitz was avoidable (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/aug/14/a-self-inflict...). In the same interview he also says:
> “I’m left with some grave questions in my mind about his ability to lead our nation as commander-in-chief,” [the former ambassador] said. “To have read this so wrong – or, even worse, to have understood what was likely to happen and not care.”
However, I remember the chorus of opposition when the Bush administration decided to send half a million troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Rumsfeld wanted to try invading Afghanistan on the cheap so the US could afford two wars, and because Iraq had a legitimate military and “all the good targets.” They were so delusional they thought both would be over in months. Here we are twenty years later, with the same problems and 10 trillion dollars missing from the treasury. We tortured people and imprisoned them without trial or due process. We debased ourselves on so many levels and we have nothing to show for it.
Dig into the origins of the Taliban, and you’ll find US and Saudi Arabian meddling in the 70s and the 80s exploiting that extremism to counter Russia and communism. Saudi Arabia needed a way to rid themselves of radical theocrats, and the US was looking for soldiers to counter Russian influence. So we helped them fund and train militants by building madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. With haunting irony, Russia was trying to impose similar reforms by invading: gender equality, secularism, and their version of political freedom.
Do you want to know why the second Bush Administration never investigated Saudi Arabia after 9/11? They were all the same people from the first Bush and Reagan administrations, and they knew the paper trail would lead right back to themselves.
Meddling in the affairs of foreign nations always has unintended consequences. Democracy spreads through attraction, not enforcement. I sincerely hope the lesson we learn is not to blame the people who finally accept it, but the people who always think that this time will be different.
Each war is initially “won” very quickly, then the occupant struggles to find allies, reliable new political elites, and frankly purpose. It all turns sour, things go from awkward to deadly, and there is a disastrous and embarrassing retreat and that’s that.