Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[The Minsky Moment]

To be clear with the full benefit of hindsight, it might have been optimal to follow the Valmy plan of go in, bloody the Taliban's nose, and get the hell out in 02/03, as opposed to what actually happened. But that doesn't mean withdrawal is the right policy *now*

[Tonitrus]

The Taliban won't get the whole country, of course.  They'll get the Pashtun majority of the country, and when they try to take over the Tajik and Hazera parts of the country they will be Taliban'd themselves.

Defeating the Taliban would require ethnic cleansing of the type that is just not acceptable these days.

Yeah, I was going to post exactly this--it's misunderstood about the Taliban having support all over the country, Afghanistan's two largest ethnic groups are Pashtun and Tajik, the Taliban has no support amount Tajiks. Pakistan moved support to the Taliban in 1994 as it emerged, due to fall outs with some other Mujahedeen groups. Several of the other prominent Mujahedeen groups were in serious disarray from basically 20 years of fighting, the Taliban was arguably in a fresher position, and with a lot of outside support it was able to get most of the country other than the Northeast. The situation this time isn't quite like that, the Taliban has some outside support, but nothing like the relative support it had versus the other Mujahedeen in the mid-90s. Additionally the Taliban's entrenched enemies have a lot of support this time they did not have last time. The Taliban is going to do really well in the parts of Afghanistan that have basically been "under occupation" by the central government, due to their people completely rejecting the legitimacy of the central government. But not all of Afghanistan is like that. Areas that are not Pashtun majority and where tribal affiliations are distinctly not aligned with anything the Taliban is doing, will be very hostile operating territory for the Taliban. They'll be limited to terror attacks and raids into those areas, but occupations? No. They likely will suffer lots of counter raids and counter-terrorist attacks as well.

Thanks, Otto, Grumbler and Tonitrus; I was unaware that the Taliban would only be able to control Pashtun areas.  To me that raises the question: is a long lasting civil war in the region a better outcome than complete Taliban control?

To clarify...I think grumbler is too optimistic.  The Taliban already control a large amount of the area that had resisted them prior to the US intervention.  The Tajiks and some others may never go away entirely (or has he suggested, strike back from the outside)...but I think if/when the Taliban win this time, it will be for keeps...and their hold on the country more firm and brutal.

I think too many are disposed to thinking the Taliban as being "somewhat reasonable", when compared to say...ISIS.  But I think they are very little different.

[Berkut]

Yeah, these kind of things tend to have a momentum, and those who are brutal enough to ride that momentum will exploit it to its full extent.

[Savonarola]

Thanks, Otto, Grumbler and Tonitrus; I was unaware that the Taliban would only be able to control Pashtun areas.  To me that raises the question: is a long lasting civil war in the region a better outcome than complete Taliban control?

To clarify...I think grumbler is too optimistic.  The Taliban already control a large amount of the area that had resisted them prior to the US intervention.  The Tajiks and some others may never go away entirely (or has he suggested, strike back from the outside)...but I think if/when the Taliban win this time, it will be for keeps...and their hold on the country more firm and brutal.

I think too many are disposed to thinking the Taliban as being "somewhat reasonable", when compared to say...ISIS.  But I think they are very little different.

Heh, well if a long lasting civil war is an optimistic outcome I guess I have an answer to my question.   

I agree that the Taliban and ISIS are cut from the same cloth.  The Taliban was destroying world patrimony and blowing up statues long before ISIS thought it was cool.

[mongers]

One positive in the the unfolding disaster is, I hope the realisation in the US that Pakistan is in no meaningful way any kind of ally of America. Because a significant part of this Taliban offensive is being driven by the Pakistan intelligence services and backed by that country's military.

The first outcome of the collapse of the Afghan 'government' should be US and international sanctions against Pakistan.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the US govt has understood the realities of Pakistan for a while, certainly since the operation to take out OBL, when Pakistani territory was entered without permission or prior warning.

In the broad sense, the US has made a clear commitment to align itself with India which means any possibility with an alliance with Pakistan is out of the question.  And that is a clear policy trend among many that exhibited continuity between the Obama and Trump admins, the domestic US political rhetoric aside.

At the same time, Pakistan remains a key regional player.  Its a highly transactional relationship but there are some important and useful transactions to make.

[alfred russel]

Should we stop to consider the possibility that the US military sucks and all the smoke that is blown up their ass the past few decades is bullshit?

The better part of 20 years were supposed to be spent training the Afghan military to stand on its own two feet and the Afghan military folds within 20 minutes against a goofball gang aka as the taliban.

[Jacob]

Should we stop to consider the possibility that the US military sucks and all the smoke that is blown up their ass the past few decades is bullshit?

The better part of 20 years were supposed to be spent training the Afghan military to stand on its own two feet and the Afghan military folds within 20 minutes against a goofball gang aka as the taliban.

I think it is always valuable to question conventional truths. I expect that the US military has shortcomings in some places where the US public thinks it has strengths. There could be some good lessons to be learned from a clear-eyed honest examination of the facts.

That said, training the Afghan military to stand on its own two feet is not, strictly speaking and IMO, a military problem. It is a political problem. I think we may find that a number of crucial failure points for the "get the Afghan government and military to be able to stand on its own" effort to lie elsewhere than with the US military.

Finally, I don't think your characterization of the Taliban as "a goofball gang" is particularly accurate.

[DGuller]

No amount of equipment or training can make up for complete lack of morale.

[The Minsky Moment]

Should we stop to consider the possibility that the US military sucks and all the smoke that is blown up their ass the past few decades is bullshit?

The better part of 20 years were supposed to be spent training the Afghan military to stand on its own two feet and the Afghan military folds within 20 minutes against a goofball gang aka as the taliban.

I don't agree with the premise that the quality of the US Army is determined by their ability and success in training a foreign force.  It's possible it sucks at that task but is really good in lots of other things . . .

The Afghan army has 180,000 troops on paper compared to about 60,000 Taliban fighters.  However it is generally understood that the regular army is useless - basically a jobs program for young men.

The US training focused on the Commando units which total about 20,000.  Those units have a decent track record at least when backed by proper air support and communications. Though designated elite units it is probably more accurate to see them as the army properly speaking with the putative regular forces being a unreliable constabulary.

In that context the problem is clear: the Afghans just don't have enough properly trained troops to cover the widely dispersed areas under govt control. If they split up the commandos to cover a wide area they leave them vulnerable to Taliban hit and run attacks; if they concentrate them, they leave outlying areas unprotected.  US air power and recon could counteract those problems but are no longer available.

[The Brain]

What has the US determined would motivate the non-Taliban to fight like tigers against the Taliban? What has the US determined really hurts the Taliban and would make them behave?

The answers may be "nothing" and "annihilation", and it might be as far as anyone can get. But as long as you don't know how to motivate the parties to behave the way you want them to behave you won't solve or win anything (sure annihilating the Taliban is at least a known way to defeat them, but it's beyond the political/military capabilities of the US).

[Tamas]

When we demand high morale of a local army raised by a foreign occupying force perhaps we are hindered by our own viewpoint. Sure, we believe the US are the good guys and they are most certainly are when compared to savage animals like the Taliban, but I reckon many natives consider the Americans an occupying force (even if they are not keen on the Taliban either) and that means people fighting for the US-backed government are considered collaborators with a foreign conqueror. Hardly the kind of societal pressure that encourages the brightest and best to throw in their lot with them.

[Savonarola]

I think the US govt has understood the realities of Pakistan for a while, certainly since the operation to take out OBL, when Pakistani territory was entered without permission or prior warning.

IIRC one of the revelations from WikiLeaks is that the US believed Pakistani Intelligence Services were working with the Taliban.

[Neil]

The US training focused on the Commando units which total about 20,000.  Those units have a decent track record at least when backed by proper air support and communications.

Which is great, but also leaves them dependent on a US presence for those things.  If the US is training their allies in the US method of doing war, then they probably shouldn't.  I mean, I get the appeal of creating specialized commando units.  They've proven great for doing counterinsurgency work, but are they really ready to fight a total war?

[The Minsky Moment]

The US training focused on the Commando units which total about 20,000.  Those units have a decent track record at least when backed by proper air support and communications.

Which is great, but also leaves them dependent on a US presence for those things.  If the US is training their allies in the US method of doing war, then they probably shouldn't.  I mean, I get the appeal of creating specialized commando units.  They've proven great for doing counterinsurgency work, but are they really ready to fight a total war?

They aren't really specialized commando units; that's just the name used to distinguish them from the otherwise useless regular formations.  The "commando" units are the army: the "army" units are guys getting paid to keep themselves out of trouble.