Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[The Minsky Moment]

It might be best to simply allow Afghanistan to disintegrate, and then encourage the neighbors to watch out for their own ethnic groups there (which is going to happen to some extent anyway, since an Afghan Tajik is the same as a Tajikistan Tajik).  Lots of potential for ethnic cleansing with that scenario, though.  More, even, than in the Taliban victory scenario.

That's essentially the course that was attempted in the post-Soviet era, with Pashtuns rallying behind the Taliban and Uzebks, Tajiks and Hazara's each carving out pieces of territory under ethnic leaders.  The equilibrium didn't hold however, because the Taliban were too strong, resulting in the remnants of the minority forces cobbling together the beleaguered Northern Alliance under Massoud's (Tajik) leadership.

[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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean you can't gear your entire military only to fight insurgents, or you could end up in a bad situation if we ever did have to fight a limited war against a China or a Russia. It's not actually easy trying to do "everything" like the United States does. To meet our geopolitical goals we need force projection, policing ability, nation building ability, counter insurgency, but we also need a major Navy, a world class missile program, heavy artillery and armor in case we fight a ground war against a more advanced foe etc etc.

If we're going to cut anything FWIW we cut the insurgency fighting. Insurgencies are not direct threats to the United States, I wouldn't sacrifice our parity with countries like China to get better at fucking around in Afghanistan. I think we should seriously consider ever doing stuff like Iraq II / Afghanistan ever again.

I think the approach we took against ISIS, against Assad in Syria, and in Libya represented "splitting the difference" pretty well. Did we always get the outcome we desired? No we didn't, but we got some of what we wanted out of all of those situations. And I'm not willing or desirous to see large scale ground invasions and troop presences for things that don't materially advance our interests.

Literally no other country is doing shit like this. The closest to it is Russia in some of its overseas adventurism, but it is typically doing it specifically to advance either genuine strategic concerns or to rally the base to Putin (which at least makes logical sense if you're Putin.) Our invasion of Iraq was literally nonsensical, our presence in Afghanistan stretching on 10 years after ObL died was insane. We should have left Afghanistan by 2005 or so when it was obvious our ground presence there wasn't necessary to fight al-Qaeda.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I will say the one area I disagree on Biden is he's showing he's not even willing to conduct a major air campaign against the Taliban, I do think that is a mistake. In 2001 the shambolic Northern Alliance was making ground gains against the Taliban even before we hit the ground, solely because of the impact of our bombing campaign deteriorating their tactical situation. Heavy bombing campaigns aren't going to erase the Taliban anymore than they were able to erase ISIS, but they have absolutely deteriorated the Taliban's ability to conduct major offensives in the past, and they severely undermined ISIS' logistics and maneuvering ability. There isn't a logical reason to not be bombing the Taliban really hard to avoid things getting out of hand in Afghanistan.

[Berkut]

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!"

[grumbler]

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!"

Feeble arguments-by-assertion that appear to be motivated solely by contrarianism aren't worth even refuting.  They are self-evidently wrong.

[The Minsky Moment]

AR is on to something though - which is that the American people have certain expectations for the results of military commitment.

The "American Way of War" as exemplified by the Civil War (Federal) and the two World Wars - involved the use of overwhelming force to achieve unconditional surrender.  Clear-cut enemies and objectives and a clear cut victory that can be declared and recognized by all.  Conflicts that stay close to this model like the first Gulf War are perceived as successful; those that do not like Vietnam are not. 

There is a good deal of merit to this model, but there are limitations and one limitation is that it does not lend itself well to counter-insurgency campaigns that don't always have a definitive victory condition.  America did not win in Afghanistan and it never was going to win.  For some people that is reason enough to leave.  But America did achieve a kind of victory - it helped keep a shadow  peace of sorts that for 20 years allowed millions of people to live some semblance of a life that they might not otherwise been able to live.  And it kept locked down some potentially dangerous forces that created considerable mischief in the past.  That is not the kind of victory that appeals to most Americans - the kind that has a fancy ceremony and signed documents and that wraps up cleanly with front page photos in the papers and the boys all going home to cheering crowds.  That's why the "forever war" label is so powerful - the notion of a never-ending commitment to a permanent stalemate goes very much against the American grain.  But it doesn't mean the policy was wrong.

[Sheilbh]

The Taliban's actions and messages on taking power in cities is really fascinating - it's very different than my impression of them pre-9/11 or when they took over after the civil war. Perhaps because there is a semi-functioning country they're seizing. It is really interesting in seeing a rebel group doing governance and seizing control like this in real time.

See how long it lasts but it's interesting right now.

[Jacob]

The Taliban's actions and messages on taking power in cities is really fascinating - it's very different than my impression of them pre-9/11 or when they took over after the civil war. Perhaps because there is a semi-functioning country they're seizing. It is really interesting in seeing a rebel group doing governance and seizing control like this in real time.

See how long it lasts but it's interesting right now.

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

[Legbiter]

The Taliban's actions and messages on taking power in cities is really fascinating - it's very different than my impression of them pre-9/11 or when they took over after the civil war. Perhaps because there is a semi-functioning country they're seizing. It is really interesting in seeing a rebel group doing governance and seizing control like this in real time.

See how long it lasts but it's interesting right now.

Yeah. 20 years and trillions of dollars once filtered through American military and political elites buys you a regime that holds out for 5 days before bolting to Dubai. I'd be slightly miffed at that. What a world.

[Sheilbh]

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.

[Jacob]

That is mildly encouraging.

[Sheilbh]

And in fairness what we're seeing may not really be a collapse from what I can tell, there's a lot of negotiated surrenders/side-switching.

Basically this doesn't look like Iraq/ISIS.

[Josquius]

It is encouraging. Though can't help but think it's a trick. Just kicking the can down the road to make conquering the whole country easier. Once it's secure they'll start going back to their interpretation of the letter of the Koran....

[The Minsky Moment]

That is mildly encouraging.

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.