Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[Tonitrus]

The 1975 pics are already rolling in:



(though I doubt the Chinook is landing on that roof)

[Tamas]

I mean, whether Biden made the right decision or not, the decision was between admitting defeat or continuing feeding lives and money into maintaining what has been quickly revealed an illusion of control.

[Tamas]

Seems like Kabul will also be handed over without a shot fired. Bagram airbase already has been.

Meanwhile:

The expected transition to a Taliban-led administration in the coming days has sparked fears over the level of rights and freedoms to be granted women.

Last month, fighters from the group walked into the offices of Azizi Bank in the southern city of Kandahar and ordered nine women working there to leave, explaining that male relatives could take their place.

This is going to be a well managed country I can see. I guess  part of the reason why many men wouldn't fight the Taliban is that all this women's rights thing had to be a serious cut on the shit they could get away with previously. Their good old times are coming back.

[Legbiter]

The 1975 pics are already rolling in:



(though I doubt the Chinook is landing on that roof)

Every member of the Taliban will have his own personal Humvee courtesy of the American taxpayer. 

[Tonitrus]

I mean, whether Biden made the right decision or not, the decision was between admitting defeat or continuing feeding lives and money into maintaining what has been quickly revealed an illusion of control.

I agree, but, however we think of the policy, the optics of how the end game plays out is going to be a big deal.  Whether that is a blazing gunfight of fighting off Taliban from storming the embassy/airport, or peacefully handing over the keys to a Taliban representative after the Afghan government surrenders without a shot being fired.

How would we respond if the government brokers a peaceful handover of control to the Taliban and the Taliban offers to respect the diplomatic status of the embassy?  Is the optics of staying in that case too embarrassing to contemplate, and we clear out anyway...or is it better, in practical terms, to accept that bit of humiliation and stick around?*




*For myself, I think just in terms of the little bit of humiliation in staying could be acceptable...but the fact that staying inevitably means accepting some responsibility of any future atrocities/horrible suppression of women's rights, makes that option completely unacceptable. 

[Razgovory]

This is amazing... We spent 20 years doing nothing.

[Tonitrus]

It is easy, and understandable to say that, as the shockingness of it all is very fresh.  But would that conclusion be any different if the ANA fought to the bitter end at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and material ruin?

But, to lawyer up for the Devil a bit...

...is it a good thing that the Taliban is winning a swift takeover and with much lower deaths than a bloody fight to the finish?  Even if such a finish might satisfy us more in some way?

If I recall, the last time the Taliban took over Kabul, it was a very terrible situation for all concerned.

[alfred russel]

Take it up with Minsky Moment; that post was a quote from him. He made it about a month ago in the context of criticism of Trump. No one challenged his factual accuracy when he made that post or said he was trolling.

Because it was in a completely different context.  In this context, it is meaningless.

Sure Trump made bad decisions.   But what does that have to do whether Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

At least part of the discussion moved to the quality of the American military, and ET made the comment that noting Trump was CiC doesn't extend to top brass of the military.

The comment was relevant, but I agree the context changed.

The first context: criticism of Trump's decision making, everyone nods along in agreement, noncontroversial
The second context: the same statement, said in the same way, but to question military leadership: now its a troll and deliberately stupid

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, to me if the Ghani government was just losing hard fought battles, I'd be more inclined to say we do something. Instead we have a force we've pumped like $90bn into, with at least 100,000+ armed men under its command before all this started, that has chosen not to fight at all. That means there is such deep rot in the paper government we helped build that it might as well not exist at all. It's easy to criticize Biden, but I think his word usage was spot on--Afghans have to choose to fight. If they aren't willing to do so, that says about all we need to know, to be honest. It means keeping the Taliban out of power was never something they were willing to fight for, and thus our money and effort along those lines was wasted. It'd be crazy to extend further American blood and treasure fighting for something that actual people of Afghanistan aren't willing to fight for, when all of the potential benefit accrues to them.

[Sheilbh]

Are the Afghan government forces even fighting back against the Taleban? Saw pictures from Mazar-i-Sharif and it looks like the Taleban drove into the city with their Toyota pickups and that was it.

Not at all. As I say I'm not even sure collapse is the right word - everywhere it seems to be negotiated. The Taliban shadow governor rocks up and the negotiates their takeover.

From the perspective of Afghans that's probably better than a prolonged fight - but yeah it does make you question what the NATO mission achieved in the last 20 years. I suppose one thing is there is state capacity for the Taliban to take over and use, for better or worse.

Edit: And Ghani's left Kabul. Currently in Tajikistan.

This isn't just a military victory for the Taliban, that would be slower - this is politics and intelligence. They've clearly rolled the pitch for this and maybe except for governors it feels like they must have had infiltrators all through the ANA and provincial level. One week ago they didn't conrol a single provincial capital. It's extraordinary.

[alfred russel]

AR, what do the bookies say?

I don't know where you can bet on this, but 3 days ago the reporting based off US officials said Kabul could fall within 90 days. If the bookies set the over under at 90 days I'm guessing they would be seeing the bulk of the action on the "under".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/afghan-government-could-fall-to-taliban-within-90-days-us-official-says/ar-AANczTl#:~:text=Afghanistan%20%27s%20capital%20city%20and%20the%20seat%20of,65%20percent%20of%20Afghanistan%2C%20according%20to%20European%20officials.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know where you can bet on this, but 3 days ago the reporting based off US officials said Kabul could fall within 90 days. If the bookies set the over under at 90 days I'm guessing they would be seeing the bulk of the action on the "under".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/afghan-government-could-fall-to-taliban-within-90-days-us-official-says/ar-AANczTl#:~:text=Afghanistan%20%27s%20capital%20city%20and%20the%20seat%20of,65%20percent%20of%20Afghanistan%2C%20according%20to%20European%20officials.

Yeah. I wasn't following closely but my impression was that every expert - even ones who thought the Taliban would win - assumed there'd be probably a year or two of conflict.

Separately Western governments now need to move from shock and statements about supporting the Afghan government (from a distance) to forming concrete plans to deal with refugees - especially in Europe - and to negotiating either directly with the Taliban, or through the UN, to get "our" people out. I think all NATO governments will have employed Afghans such as translators, or offered Afghans the chance to study in their country (the Chevening scheme etc) or had Afghan contractors/sub-contractors - and I think they will be at risk solely because of that association. I think it's morally on us to negotiate a way out for those people because they don't even have time to flee.

[alfred russel]

Plans to expand the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, will run $150 million over budget and run 2 years behind schedule, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office released Tuesday.

As of May 2014, construction costs have increased 24 percent from the original $625.4 million projection to $773.9 million, the report found. The project, expected to be completed by the end of this summer, now likely won't be done until July 2016.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/211726-gao-afghan-embassy-costs-150m-over-budget#:~:text=Plans%20to%20expand%20the%20U.S.%20Embassy%20in%20Kabul%2C,million%20projection%20to%20%24773.9%20million%2C%20the%20report%20found.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Are the Afghan government forces even fighting back against the Taleban? Saw pictures from Mazar-i-Sharif and it looks like the Taleban drove into the city with their Toyota pickups and that was it.

Not at all. As I say I'm not even sure collapse is the right word - everywhere it seems to be negotiated. The Taliban shadow governor rocks up and the negotiates their takeover.

From the perspective of Afghans that's probably better than a prolonged fight - but yeah it does make you question what the NATO mission achieved in the last 20 years. I suppose one thing is there is state capacity for the Taliban to take over and use, for better or worse.

Edit: And Ghani's left Kabul. Currently in Tajikistan.

This isn't just a military victory for the Taliban, that would be slower - this is politics and intelligence. They've clearly rolled the pitch for this and maybe except for governors it feels like they must have had infiltrators all through the ANA and provincial level. One week ago they didn't conrol a single provincial capital. It's extraordinary.

There's some interesting things to consider, for one the Afghan National Army when we were active in the country militarily, fought with us for years and ate far higher casualty rates than we did. So at least some of the men were willing to fight. What happened here makes me think that like you say, the political and military leadership probably has been breaking away internally for awhile. One issue is that Ashraf Ghani in his two elections barely won, and the parties that lost to him only barely acknowledge him as a valid political leader. The lack of acceptance of democratic outcomes you disagree with is a major inhibitor to a democratic society functioning. I have a feeling a lot of local political and military leaders simply realized Ghani's government wasn't viable without U.S. support, so why die fighting for it? Maybe if there had been another force to get behind they'd have done that, but the Taliban was the only other force in country. Back in the 2000s there were major tribal warlords who likely could have resisted the Taliban, but they've been systematically defanged (by us.) Not saying having them around would be a good thing necessarily, but that's part of the picture of why there's so little fighting now.

Long term what happens is anyone's guess. While the Taliban are inheriting organs of U.S. backed state they will have no real U.S. support obviously. There's already talk of "local resistance militias" being formed in areas that don't actually want Taliban rule. Many of the men joining them are likely to be U.S. trained. The advantage the Taliban has is it has received backing from Pakistan and has had years to build out its militant organization, but it is unlikely they will be able to operate the sort of systemic, nationwide control needed to keep these militias from growing over the coming years. Whether it breaks out into a bloody Civil War is hard to say, if the Taliban is smart and recognizes their own limitations, they likely exercise a very light hand over non-Pashtun areas and mostly let them manage their own affairs, and maybe there's a chance things don't flame up into another prolonged civil war. That's probably the best outcome among the likely outcomes out there.

[DGuller]

In a way this instant bloodless collapse is better PR for the US.  They didn't abandon a friend in need, they just turned off life support for a government in vegetative state.