Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[Jacob]

A more political savvy Taliban is not an unalloyed good.
It's one thing to act moderate to smooth the process of taking power.  The question is how long the velvet glove stays on.

For sure. I do believe there's a pretty wide space between "mildly encouraging" and "unalloyed good." But yes, just because it's better than expected doesn't mean it won't be bad.

[Sheilbh]

A more political savvy Taliban is not an unalloyed good.
It's one thing to act moderate to smooth the process of taking power.  The question is how long the velvet glove stays on.

Yeah - I don't think they've moderated particularly (there have been reports they will allow some education for girls which is a shift).

I think it's more likely that they are aware that Afghanistan now has state capacity (funded by the US and allies), and they fully intend to take it over and then use it for their ends. As opposed to just inheritng piles of rubble and having to build a "state" in the 90s. So not necessarily more politically savvy as much as a Taliban with a real state - which again is not an unalloyed good (but would, perhaps, be the biggest irony if the ultimate beneficiary of all that Western money etc was the Taliban).

[Grey Fox]

It's a new leadership group, no? The new group might have a more in depth agenda than the previous one. The soviets were godless heathens while that is not who the West has put in charge the past decade.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I see little reason to assume anything positive--people are surrendering so the Taliban is letting them surrender. Them doing anything else at this point would be stupid.

The bigger point in terms of U.S. involvement is in city after city, we're seeing the Taliban not win by conquest, we're seeing literally hundreds of Afghan National Army give weapons to the Taliban and stand down, local officials surrender, and usually the provincial Governor flees. What exactly was built when that's the level of response? The answer is nothing. Which highlights how foolish it was to have remained there so long.

[alfred russel]

The US military is still trying to fight WWII.

How much investment goes into advanced warplanes, ships and tanks to ensure that we continue to totally outclass every other country? Most of the rest of the world has given up in fielding a real military, and the only conceivable competitive foes are Russia and China, the former of which is a total joke. In either case a all out war against either would be nuclear.

Neither Russia nor China is projecting force through proxies fighting conventional wars the way the Soviets did--and neither is really equipped to do so.

The US military is not trying to fight WW2.

I know this might be hard to imagine, but there are a lot of rather smart people running "the US military" and some of them have actually thought about their mission beyond "We must be able to beat the Nazis again if necessary!"

Are you sure there are a lot of smart people in charge?

We just ended 4 years of Trump being Commander in Chief, and now we a really old dude that was pretty damn mediocre academically even in his heydey.

Military leadership (both on the civilian side and within the military) is egregiously underpaid for their responsibilities versus their private sector counterparts, which would seem prone to a culture of mediocrity or preference for high priced defense industry products (as the defense industry selling them those products is the natural place for them to eventually cash in).

[OttoVonBismarck]

The US military is still trying to fight WWII.

How much investment goes into advanced warplanes, ships and tanks to ensure that we continue to totally outclass every other country? Most of the rest of the world has given up in fielding a real military, and the only conceivable competitive foes are Russia and China, the former of which is a total joke. In either case a all out war against either would be nuclear.

Neither Russia nor China is projecting force through proxies fighting conventional wars the way the Soviets did--and neither is really equipped to do so.

The US military is not trying to fight WW2.

I know this might be hard to imagine, but there are a lot of rather smart people running "the US military" and some of them have actually thought about their mission beyond "We must be able to beat the Nazis again if necessary!"

Are you sure there are a lot of smart people in charge?

We just ended 4 years of Trump being Commander in Chief, and now we a really old dude that was pretty damn mediocre academically even in his heydey.

Military leadership (both on the civilian side and within the military) is egregiously underpaid for their responsibilities versus their private sector counterparts, which would seem prone to a culture of mediocrity or preference for high priced defense industry products (as the defense industry selling them those products is the natural place for them to eventually cash in).

I'm quite convinced you have zero clue what you're talking about, or understand anything about how any of this works.

[alfred russel]

Google says the Secretary of Defense makes $221,400. A 4 star general is $197,301.60.

That is a joke. I just looked up Raytheon's comp disclosure. The CEO made $21 million in 2020 and the lowest paid named executive officer made $2,999,414.

[Jacob]

You're kinda all over the place there Dorsey.

[alfred russel]

You're kinda all over the place there Dorsey.

I don't think industry capture of the defense department is an especially radical idea, nor do I think it is wild to suggest that ultimate leadership from people like Trump is a problem.

I don't think criticism of the effectiveness of the US military based on its performance in Afghanistan is radical either. Or maybe it is but it shouldn't be.

[Jacob]

I don't think industry capture of the defense department is an especially radical idea, nor do I think it is wild to suggest that ultimate leadership from people like Trump is a problem.

I don't think criticism of the effectiveness of the US military based on its performance in Afghanistan is radical either. Or maybe it is but it shouldn't be.

For sure, neither of those things are particularly outlandish. It's kind of unclear what you're trying to say, though, or how those two things relate to it.

[alfred russel]

I don't think industry capture of the defense department is an especially radical idea, nor do I think it is wild to suggest that ultimate leadership from people like Trump is a problem.

I don't think criticism of the effectiveness of the US military based on its performance in Afghanistan is radical either. Or maybe it is but it shouldn't be.

For sure, neither of those things are particularly outlandish. It's kind of unclear what you're trying to say, though, or how those two things relate to it.

-Mediocre civilian and military leadership angling for jobs in the defense department = lots of focus on cool & pricey toys
-We get a military with lots of cool & pricey toys and a price tag to match
-Brainpower (limited in any event) and resources go to billion dollar submarines and zillion dollar carrier groups, doesn't really improve the ability succeed in the wars we are actually fighting
-Taliban getting ready spike the football and shake its butt in Kabul

[Valmy]

I'm not following closely. What are they doing?

They've assure Shi'ite Muslims they'll be able to celebrate a festival later this month (previously banned by the Taliban). They've released a phone number/WhatsApp for people to get in touch to make complaints/report abuse by Taliban soldiers.

They've allowed UN planes to fly in and out of cities they're occupying.

The deputy Emir has released a messages to fighters and provincial leadership promising to fulfil all promises with people who surrender and treat them with respect and asked the provincial leadership to report to their offices to ensure regular smooth functioning of public services. They've asked for civil servants, municipal employees, traffic police etc to keep working. Taliban have been directed to deploy special units to protect airports, airplanes, pilots, travellers and personnel.

Where they've taken over they've announced that universities will re-open on Sunday (unclear if women will still be allowed to attend). They're planning a meeting on "future governance" but so far are only replacing governors - provincial and lower leadership are being kept on and asked to keep working.

As I say it's interesting - but for want of a better word they seem to be trying to win hearts and minds. Maybe that's just because that's possible when you take over a semi-functioning state as opposed to rubble after 10 years of war with the Soviets, but it feels like they've thought and planned for this takeover.

Well I appreciate you putting a positive spin on it but wow what an embarrassing farce. We put all this money and effort supporting this government and for what? They are just going to surrender right away. If the Afghans want the Taliban then who are we to deny them?

[crazy canuck]

Simplistic logic, but on par with US policy since 9/11

[Valmy]

Simplistic logic, but on par with US policy since 9/11

Oh so pre-9/11 we would have occupied Afghanistan for 200 years? Maybe 9/11 made us smarter then.

[Sheilbh]

Well I appreciate you putting a positive spin on it but wow what an embarrassing farce. We put all this money and effort supporting this government and for what? They are just going to surrender right away. If the Afghans want the Taliban then who are we to deny them?

I'm not sure it's a positive spin on it - I just think it's quite interesting - and good rebel politics.

And that would be the ultimate defeat of the US and NATO effort if, after 20 years, Taliban 2.0 are better at governance using the infrastructure built up in the last 20 years, as well as more stable (because no Taliban) and perceived as more legitimate by Afghans than the current government.