What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[mongers]

Afghanistan is beginning to have echoes of South Vietnam in early 1975.

The midnight flight from Bagram doesn't have good optics.

[DGuller]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

[The Brain]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

You guys are still propping up Washington though?

[DGuller]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

You guys are still propping up Washington though?

We laid him to rest more than 200 years ago.

[crazy canuck]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

You guys are still propping up Washington though?

We laid him to rest more than 200 years ago.

Ok Timmay

[The Brain]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

You guys are still propping up Washington though?

We laid him to rest more than 200 years ago.

Ok Timmay

[Barrister]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

Why not?

[DGuller]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

Why not?

Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis.  Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.

[Barrister]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

Why not?

Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis.  Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.

Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak.  That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.

[Admiral Yi]

Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak.  That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.

I don't see how the US gets 45 billion in benefit a year out of that deal.

Non-Taliban Afghans, instead of fighting for their country, moved to Germany.

[Jacob]

Non-Taliban Afghans, instead of fighting for their country, moved to Germany.

I don't think that's completely accurate....

[The Brain]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

Why not?

Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis.  Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.

He knows that his country is a colony, you don't have to rub it in.

[alfred russel]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

Why not?

Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis.  Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.

Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak.  That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.

There is a lot of talk on what the founding principles of the US were, but I think there is little doubt they included self-determination. If the people of Afghanistan want the taliban, they should get the taliban.

[grumbler]

It sucks that clearly a sustainable government couldn't take root in the country, but you can't be propping it up indefinitely.

Why not?

Because military interventions are unsustainable on a permanent basis.  Maybe things would be different if we lived in a colonial age and could keep governments in power under threat of massive and unfair punitive actions, but alas that era is in the past.

Quick research suggests the US spends $45 billion per year on its military forces in Afghanistan, down quite a bit from it's peak.  That's not an insignificant sum, but seems to me to be a fair price for not allowing the Taliban back in power.

There is a lot of talk on what the founding principles of the US were, but I think there is little doubt they included self-determination. If the people of Afghanistan want the taliban, they should get the taliban.

The problem with that idea is that "the people of Afghanistan" is more than one guy, and they don't all want the same thing. 

The Taliban is basically the militia of the Pashtun tribes.  They have some support among the most fanatically Islamist members of other tribes, but not much.  The Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, bit not a majority, and not all Pashtuns support the Taliban.

So, deciding what "people of Afghanistan want" is not even possible, let alone a useful tool in determining international policy towards Afghanistan.

[alfred russel]

Taliban was in charge, pushed out by the coalition, fought for 20 years, and if they take over after all that time it seems reasonable to conclude that is as legitimate "self determination" for Afghanistan as independence was for the USA in 1776-1783.