Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[viper37]

I was reading Al Jazeera's Live Updates about Afghanistan and, to me, it looks like the choice is between staying forever or letting the Taliban have the country.  (Biden insists that the latter is not a foregone conclusion.)

As a second question if the Taliban does retake the country; was the coalition involvement in Afghanistan a success?  We ended up more or less where we started 20 years ago minus an Osama bin Laden.

no, it was the wrong decision.

he should have tried harder to rebuild an international coallition, vanquish the Taleban and truly train the troops there to take care of their security.

[Caliga]

Biden made the right choice and I applaud him for his bravery.

[Habbaku]

I was reading Al Jazeera's Live Updates about Afghanistan and, to me, it looks like the choice is between staying forever or letting the Taliban have the country.  (Biden insists that the latter is not a foregone conclusion.)

As a second question if the Taliban does retake the country; was the coalition involvement in Afghanistan a success?  We ended up more or less where we started 20 years ago minus an Osama bin Laden.

no, it was the wrong decision.

he should have tried harder to rebuild an international coallition, vanquish the Taleban and truly train the troops there to take care of their security.

Tried harder, holy fuck. What a policy.

[Admiral Yi]

EDIT to add: I think going into Afghanistan was required, given the situation, but that the attack needed a better exit strategy.

As Valmy mentioned above, the correct exit strategy was to narrowly define the mission as killing the hell out of OBL and al Qaeda and smacking the Taliban around for giving them sanctuary.

[Berkut]

EDIT to add: I think going into Afghanistan was required, given the situation, but that the attack needed a better exit strategy.

As Valmy mentioned above, the correct exit strategy was to narrowly define the mission as killing the hell out of OBL and al Qaeda and smacking the Taliban around for giving them sanctuary.

Indeed. It would not have been that hard to clearly define a mission, do it, and then leave.

But as usual, we took on the worst choice and split the baby instead.

[Jacob]

EDIT to add: I think going into Afghanistan was required, given the situation, but that the attack needed a better exit strategy.

As Valmy mentioned above, the correct exit strategy was to narrowly define the mission as killing the hell out of OBL and al Qaeda and smacking the Taliban around for giving them sanctuary.

Yeah, I agree with this.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Whatever al-Qaeda's ultimate goals for 9/11 none of them really worked out in its favor. America got into some shit, but AQ is basically a third rate jihadist group now, it being the focus of so much U.S. attention has seriously rolled back its capabilities, and any time they start to resurge they become the focus again. Meanwhile jihdaism is a competitive game just like anything else, other groups have bigger mind share and get less attention, meaning they can recruit and build out in peace, while AQ can't. It's unsurprising AQ fell to the wayside in many respects.

As for Afghanistan I actually think it is exaggerated as the "graveyard of Empires" there's periods of literally hundreds of years where it's been under the authority of outside powers. Where you get into trouble is in thinking Afghanistan is a country, it's actually just a lawless border region. One reason it's been a "border region" for thousands of years is geographically it's always been fairly worthless. No history of important natural resources, no land that's particularly amazing for agriculture. Places like Egypt or the Bosporus strait were always center piece jewels in any crown. Parts of Persia the same can be said for as well, but Afghanistan is literally what historical records mean when they talk about "mountain barbarians." Or to put it in Trumpian terms--this is a shit hole country in every real respect, because the land is bad and the people are poor, and it's never had much economic value. If it had real value one of the old Empires would've ran through and just genocided out all the undesirables and seeded in settlers, akin to what we have seen many times over in more valuable patches of land.

[Razgovory]

Here's something unexpected: The Iraq war looks like it will turn out better than the Afghan war.  It's hard to say that Iraq war went well, but Iraq does have a
mostly functioning government.

[celedhring]

That's not unexpected, Iraq did have a history of functional government (for the region's standards) that you could work with.

Also, I doubt that it was politically feasible to frame the Afghan war solely as a punitive expedition. The Afghan war enjoyed vastly more international support than the Iraq war later had, but I don't think the nation building aspect could have been avoided.

[Tamas]

It was time to admit defeat and retreat, but as somebody else wrote before here, I hope there will be airstrikes and such to keep the Taliban from letting themselves become too much of a terrorist training ground.

[Solmyr]

I mean, the Taliban are going to be a problem mostly for Russia, whose Central Asian border is basically nonexistent.

[Sheilbh]

Also, I doubt that it was politically feasible to frame the Afghan war solely as a punitive expedition. The Afghan war enjoyed vastly more international support than the Iraq war later had, but I don't think the nation building aspect could have been avoided.

No - and the two were inextricably linked. The argument was that terrorism like 9/11 happens if you let states fail and if you allow there to be sort of ungoverned spaces. So the idea of a punitive strike only would have been seen as futile and creating the space for another attack, a fuure bin Laden etc.

It may be that if the White House and others had pushed a narrative that they just wanted a punitive stike (though I think they would have come up against both and liberal and neo-cons operating in the media) that you could go down that route. But I think without that concerted effort to shape the understanding of what the US was doing, why it was doing it - and an analysis of how that fit with wanting to punish and 9/11 and prevent another attack - this was inevitable. I think it's historical fiction to pretend that there was an alternative given the rhetoric and understanding in the media, general public and among political/think tanker elites.

On the other hand, there are indications that China may be getting more involved a bit in Afghanistan.

Yeah. China's approach is going to be arguably easier in that they are indifferent to the form of a regime or its internal politics, but I think there will be a "provided it is stable" caveat in the future. At least for states that are in a position to impact China's access to raw materials or its strategic economic interests (like developing OBOR).

But given that I think there it's not unreasonable (especially now the US is a net oil and gas exporter) to see the US pulling out of much of its engagement with the Middle East, and China not quite replacing it but being a foreign intervening force for the purposes of stability. I wouldn't be surprised to see the US take more of an interest in the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia or Egypt, say, as this happens. I think the same is also happening with Pakistan and Afghanistan as the US re-aligns with India and there's probably be other areas like South-East Asia where the old Cold War framework doesn't work and the US/China is presented with new partners.

It's in that context that I think Turkey has actually been a really interesting and canny player - because they are moderate in their criticisms of China of Xinjiang but they are, at the top of my head, the only Muslim country in the Middle East or Central Asia that has criticised China at all. But also they may be part of OBOR but the "middle corridor" which goes through Central Asia-Caspian-Caucasus-Turkey is only one of the options including going through Iran or going through Russia. It's easier probably than the North route because it doesn't rely so heavily on Russia and it doesn't need the Russians and Georgians to cooperate, plus with this route post-conflict there's no need for the Armenians and Turks to cooperate or share their cut. And it's a route that will happen anyway - Turkey wants access to Azeri fuel - so it'll arguably be cheaper. But it puts Turkey in a far stronger negotiating position with China than if they are just one option to receive the end bit of the route as they would be with the Northern or Southern routes - especially if Turkey continues to expand its influence and relationships with the Central Asian states.

[grumbler]

People seem to be forgetting that China was a major supplier of the Mujahedeen during the war against the Soviets.  They are becoming a bigger player in Afghanistan now, for sure, but have always been a player.

[Legbiter]

Let the Chinese deal with it. The less the US does direct interventions like the ones it's been doing for the last 20 years in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc, the happier it'll be.

[Legbiter]

Also, America can of course theoretically go in to mow the lawn in Afghanistan if it feels the need. Have a pliable warlord or two as a clients.