Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[Valmy]

Sure probably a competent country could have done that much better but we have been pretty dysfunctional for awhile.

And maybe Biden fucked it up somehow. I don't know. He is the President, all he should be doing is simply telling the military and the State Department when he wants the war to end and they should handle the details. So it is probably likely this would have ended up fucked up no matter who the President was, but I have zero problem with Biden getting shit for it because, after all, if the bureaucrats and military had pulled it off brilliantly he would also be getting the credit.

But it was the right policy and it ultimately will be better for both the US and Afghanistan. I wanted him to do this so I am hardly going to be upset with him for it, even doing it in a shitty way. It is not like I can expect exceptional accomplishments from our government much anymore.

Empires and wars are just messy to end. The European Empires also ended in chaos and death for the most part but it was still the right thing to do to end them.

But the backlash is giving me heartburn because I want this to just be the beginning, we have many more wars and engagements to end. Biden paying a bigger political cost for ending them than the previous assholes paid for starting and sustaining them worries me a lot. Politicians have only so much courage.

[Valmy]

I'm just tired of goddamn war.

Yep. Once the Cold War ended the American people have been clear: end the wars. Morale and a sense of purpose have been falling apart ever since. It is dangerous to continue it for much longer.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm just tired of goddamn war.

Yep. Once the Cold War ended the American people have been clear: end the wars.

And so they did.  And yet despite ending the wars, American soil was attacked. 
Saying Bush handled it wrong doesn't change the fact there are no easy solutions.
The belief that there will no consequences or fallout from the Taliban takeover is wishful thinking.

[The Minsky Moment]

The leader in the Economist is pretty scathing.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/08/21/the-fiasco-in-afghanistan-is-a-grave-blow-to-americas-standing

Biden has gotten more bad press over a week of messy-but-successful-so-far evacuations than Obama and Trump combined got across 12 years of Americans actually dying in pursuit of a failed policy.

Frightening political implications.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1428791771023163396

There is no contradiction between criticizing Obama and Trump's policy of pursuing intervention in Afghanistan and Biden's policy of abandoning it. 

Both can fairly be criticized and quibbling over which merits the higher criticism is just that: quibbling.  Iglesias had a decent point before tipping over into hysteria with his "frightening" comment.  I would be a lot more frightened as a human being in Afghanistan right now then a Beltway pundit fretting about the misuse of national security issues in political discourse.

[jimmy olsen]

Over 70k people have been successfully evacuated with no casualties so far. Seems like a success to me.

[Valmy]

I'm just tired of goddamn war.

Yep. Once the Cold War ended the American people have been clear: end the wars.

And so they did.  And yet despite ending the wars, American soil was attacked.

Um what wars did we end? American soil was attacked why? Because of our freedom? It is because we were involved over there. But anyway I certainly have no issue going after AQ and punishing their Taliban Allies.

Saying Bush handled it wrong doesn't change the fact there are no easy solutions.
The belief that there will no consequences or fallout from the Taliban takeover is wishful thinking.

I don't know if there are any easy or correct solutions in Afghanistan but it seems pretty clear we are not likely to do much to find them. And even if we were not a total disastrous mess is it more likely we know better than the Afghanis themselves?

And oh there will be consequences to a Taliban takeover. Likely very bad ones. But are the consequences of continuing to kill innocent civilians and endanger our own soldiers in an endless, fruitless, and pointless war any less? A million people died when the British left India, but they were still right to do it.

[Valmy]

Over 70k people have been successfully evacuated with no casualties so far. Seems like a success to me.

That a fact? That makes me feel a bit better.

Edit: Link?

[jimmy olsen]

Over 70k people have been successfully evacuated with no casualties so far. Seems like a success to me.

That a fact? That makes me feel a bit better.

Edit: Link?

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1430284203808133121

We have helped to evacuate 70,700 people since August 14. This is a testament to the efforts of our brave service women and men, to our diplomats on the ground in Kabul, and to the Allies still standing with us.

[Valmy]

Ah well as much as I love our beloved President he might be presenting facts in an overly rosy way. But here is hoping that is the case. I am certainly fine with helping out the Afghans who bet on the USA.

[Jacob]

I do take Minsky's point that perhaps there was a level of sustainable commitment that wasn't trying to rebuild the country and that wasn't super costly in American lives and treasury - and which wouldn't cause American state policy to have an unconscionable amount of Afghan blood on its hand. I'm not sure whether that was the status quo prior to withdrawal or something else, but it's a reasonable point I think. And if the Taliban victory leads to spectacularly adverse outcomes down the road, then having maintained that reasonable commitment will look eminently reasonable in hindsight.

[The Minsky Moment]

Um what wars did we end?

The United States was not at war in September 2001 - had not been at war for years.  The last military conflict it had been involved in was Kosovo --  more than three years earlier.  The last conflict before that was the restoration of Aristide in Haiti in the mid 90s. 

American soil was attacked why?

No secret there - the person responsible gave the reasons:

"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."

There are references to wars and conflicts here - but mostly not ones involving the US, other than notably Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the US intervened *in defense* of Muslims. The US is nonetheless held responsible because in bin Laden's conspiratorial and paranoid worldview, the US was responsible for all evils in the world of Islam by definition. They didn't hate us for our freedom.  They hated us because they hated us.  Reason had nothing to do with it.

What did have something to do with it was the tepid response to al Qaeda's attacks during the 90s. The first WTC center bombing resulted in an effective criminal prosecution in the SDNY but did not bring the broader organization to American attention. Clinton responded to the wave of embassy bombings with a symbolic missile launch and nothing else despite intelligence that AQ was planning more attacks. AQ operatives planned the attack on the US Cole - again no response.  And bin Laden's response was to escalate . . .

The deserved backlash against the many errors of the Bush administration should not cause us to forget why and how that policy developed and obtained support in the first place.  It was based on a kernel of truth - that sitting back and hoping that dangerous overseas zealots would confine their violence to overseas targets was very far from a foolproof strategy.

US policy on the use of military intervention - like US policy in many domains - is prone to pendulum-like cycles.  During the height of the Bush years in 2003-06, the pendulum swung hard and far to intervention, but since then the pendulum has been swinging back, and what we are seeing now is a signal that perhaps it has swung too far the other way.

[The Minsky Moment]

Over 70k people have been successfully evacuated with no casualties so far. Seems like a success to me.

It is a success in the sense that after putting itself in a nearly untenable position, the US has done a good job of making the best of an awful situation, using whatever shreds of negotiating leverage it has left, and mounting an impressive logistical effort. It is a humanitarian Dunkirk.  Fair to call it success but the kind of success you really don't want to repeat.

And the hourglass is almost run out:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/24/asia/kabul-airport-afghanistan-intl-hnk/index.html

The Taliban said Tuesday that they were "not allowing the evacuation of Afghans anymore" and warned that the US must stick to next week's deadline to pull out, as a frantic Western evacuation operation at Kabul airport picked up pace.

[Zoupa]

Or what? What are the Taliban going to do exactly? Bunch of empty threatening bullshit bravado.

You guys should deal with it the same way you deal with the southern "Chinese" straits, call their bluff and force the issue.

[The Brain]

After 20 years of forcing the issue the US is tired of winning.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well they could start shooting anyone trying to access the airport without their leave.  Just to take one example. I doubt the US carrier battle groups in the Paciific could do much to deter murder in Kabul.