Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think Biden did lie, for what it's worth. I think he had to have known at least some of the details coming out now. I think he (and I think this was because of intelligence analysis provided to him) assumed the collapsed would take months and months. He didn't want to start prepping for a withdrawal 6 months ago that he was publicly saying wasn't going to happen. He was expecting there to be a slow fall and then he could say something like "conditions have deteriorated as the Afghan government is showing itself unable to contain the Taliban" and started withdrawal preparations, likely assuming he would still have several months to get it done.

It's definitely a major intelligence failure that we assumed it would take 90-180 days when it really took like 10.

For the rest of it though, I'm not sure I have enough eye rolls left in me to express how I feal about Afghan civil society. We are not the world's baby sitter.

[Berkut]

I am trying to figure out what should have been done instead.

An orderly withdrawal? Isn't that what we've been doing for like the last decade and a half?

I am not trying to put gloss on anything. I am trying to understand what the failure was - and given what has happened, it seems pretty clear to me that the last fucking two decades has been a trillion dollar pig lip glossing, and staying even longer would just have meant more really, really expensive lip gloss being added on top of the 15 years that has been slathered on there already.

I am not indifferent to the suffering that is going to happen. Just not sure, given what we know now, how it could be avoided other then just staying and occupying the country basically forever. If it could not get done in 20 years, how much longer is it going to take?

I think we did go in there so we at the very least owe it to those who tried to help us in this doomed effort. I am happy expending more American treasure and potentially even lives to try to protect as many of those we brought along with us on our long, long ride tilting at those windmills. Hell, it's frankly cheap to do so compared to how many hundreds of billions we poured into that country. I would be fine with a basically nearly open door policy towards Afghans interested in getting the fuck out.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the notion of an orderly, deliberate withdrawal is a bit of magical thinkiing.  What reason is there to think that if we had withdrawn 100 men a week the Afghan army wouldn't have collectively decided overnight that it was not worth it to fight?

I am trying to figure out what should have been done instead.

An orderly withdrawal? Isn't that what we've been doing for like the last decade and a half?

The fact that 5000 troops are being sent BACK to Afghanistan now to help evacuate the US citizens and dependents currently "sheltering in place" in country strongly suggests that there was ample room for improvement in the original plan.

For example, maybe NOT withdraw the 5000 troops until after the US personnel was evacuated.

[Neil]

I think fears about our "allies" need to be tempered with an understanding of what sort of allies we should want, our allies should generally have a naturally mutually beneficial position to our own.

The Kurds met that definition by any fair assessment.  For a very long time they were loyal and reliable partners and effective fighters to boot. And if those are the kinds of allies you want, you need to have a reputation for being a reliable partner yourself.

True, but Kurds got into trouble with another important US ally.  So the question became which was more important to US geopolitical interests:  Containing Russia or fighting ISIS?

[Berkut]

I think the notion of an orderly, deliberate withdrawal is a bit of magical thinkiing.  What reason is there to think that if we had withdrawn 100 men a week the Afghan army wouldn't have collectively decided overnight that it was not worth it to fight?

I am trying to figure out what should have been done instead.

An orderly withdrawal? Isn't that what we've been doing for like the last decade and a half?

The fact that 5000 troops are being sent BACK to Afghanistan now to help evacuate the US citizens and dependents currently "sheltering in place" in country strongly suggests that there was ample room for improvement in the original plan.

For example, maybe NOT withdraw the 5000 troops until after the US personnel was evacuated.

That is most definitely a detail.

Of course there is no question that we look like morons for letting the situation get out of control.

But that isn't what I was asking, and I think you know that.

[Jacob]

I think the notion of an orderly, deliberate withdrawal is a bit of magical thinkiing.  What reason is there to think that if we had withdrawn 100 men a week the Afghan army wouldn't have collectively decided overnight that it was not worth it to fight?

I agree that it's magical thinking if you believe that withdrawing 100 men a week would've caused the Afghan army to decide to fight rather than roll over, though I'm not sure what that has to do with the notion of an orderly withdrawal?

I think mainitaining a robust fighting perimeter while non-combatants leave in an orderly fashion, and where those Afghans at risk for reprisals by the Taliban for collaborating with the US could be properly processed and helped (to leave the country in many cases) in a semi-safe and organized fashion would've been preferable to the scenes we are seeing now.

[The Minsky Moment]

True, but Kurds got into trouble with another important US ally.  So the question became which was more important to US geopolitical interests:  Containing Russia or fighting ISIS?

I don't believe purchasing the S 400 from Russia is an effective containment strategy.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I am trying to figure out what should have been done instead.

An orderly withdrawal? Isn't that what we've been doing for like the last decade and a half?

I am not trying to put gloss on anything. I am trying to understand what the failure was - and given what has happened, it seems pretty clear to me that the last fucking two decades has been a trillion dollar pig lip glossing, and staying even longer would just have meant more really, really expensive lip gloss being added on top of the 15 years that has been slathered on there already.

I am not indifferent to the suffering that is going to happen. Just not sure, given what we know now, how it could be avoided other then just staying and occupying the country basically forever. If it could not get done in 20 years, how much longer is it going to take?

I think we did go in there so we at the very least owe it to those who tried to help us in this doomed effort. I am happy expending more American treasure and potentially even lives to try to protect as many of those we brought along with us on our long, long ride tilting at those windmills. Hell, it's frankly cheap to do so compared to how many hundreds of billions we poured into that country. I would be fine with a basically nearly open door policy towards Afghans interested in getting the fuck out.

So to get specific:

1. Temporary deployment of troops to manage withdrawal, probably bringing to a total 7500 or so our forces in Kabul.
2. Seize control of the Kabul airport
3. Seize control of roads leading to the Kabul airport

At that point you tell the Taliban we aren't there to fight, but 7500 U.S. forces concentrated in a small area would probably be able to inflict a massive amount of death on Taliban trying to attack them. Let them know we're just focused on moving people out, and that we plan to leave on X date when that is over. Given how they've been behaving, they most likely leave the situation alone (right now they aren't even sending forces into the diplomatic district of Kabul, giving it a wide berth.)

Instead we waited until the airport had basically already fallen before we appeared to much do anything.

[Sheilbh]

I think the notion of an orderly, deliberate withdrawal is a bit of magical thinkiing.  What reason is there to think that if we had withdrawn 100 men a week the Afghan army wouldn't have collectively decided overnight that it was not worth it to fight?

Isn't it more the Taliban would decide it wasn't worth the fight? If they know/knew the country was ready to fall into their laps why risk that by fighting the Americans.

The fact that 5000 troops are being sent BACK to Afghanistan now to help evacuate the US citizens and dependents currently "sheltering in place" in country strongly suggests that there was ample room for improvement in the original plan.

But doesn't that happen anyway? I don't think anyone was considering an orderly withdrawal of US civilians or citizens plus Afghan support staff. No one was in effect trying to dismantly the American support the Afghan government.

So unless the orderly withdrawal is accompanied by an orderly increase in power by the Taliban, you have the same situation of them waiting and then moving swiftly and comprehensively across the country putting civilians/citizens/Afghan support at risk. And I think there's a very good reason for the Taliban to act swiftly and not build up slowly which is that resistance would be likely to increase the more people can see Taliban rule. I think Kabul is less likely to fall very quickly if there's been three or four months of people watching the Taliban rule in Kandahar, say.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheilbh I don't disagree which is why I advocated the stick with the status quo policy in this thread.

You can say that Biden was taken by surprise and didn't realize in advance how fast he'd have to pull out non-combat personnel but that's the risk his policy ran.  And when events turn adverse, the buck stops with the man at the top. 

[Jacob]

So to get specific:

1. Temporary deployment of troops to manage withdrawal, probably bringing to a total 7500 or so our forces in Kabul.
2. Seize control of the Kabul airport
3. Seize control of roads leading to the Kabul airport

At that point you tell the Taliban we aren't there to fight, but 7500 U.S. forces concentrated in a small area would probably be able to inflict a massive amount of death on Taliban trying to attack them. Let them know we're just focused on moving people out, and that we plan to leave on X date when that is over. Given how they've been behaving, they most likely leave the situation alone (right now they aren't even sending forces into the diplomatic district of Kabul, giving it a wide berth.)

Instead we waited until the airport had basically already fallen before we appeared to much do anything.

For example, yes.

It would've been good to have processed the status of translators and other collaborators (and their families), and have a plan for getting them out of the country if/ when necessary to avoid Taliban reprisals. Which, it turns out, is pretty much now.

[Jacob]

So unless the orderly withdrawal is accompanied by an orderly increase in power by the Taliban, you have the same situation of them waiting and then moving swiftly and comprehensively across the country putting civilians/citizens/Afghan support at risk. And I think there's a very good reason for the Taliban to act swiftly and not build up slowly which is that resistance would be likely to increase the more people can see Taliban rule. I think Kabul is less likely to fall very quickly if there's been three or four months of people watching the Taliban rule in Kandahar, say.

The point of the orderly withdrawal is not that it'll decrease the chances that the Taliban takes over - it won't. The point of an orderly withdrawal is that people who worked with the West are less likely to get executed by the Taliban because they're waiting for a visa to be processed (because they have to apply at the German consulate in New Delhi or whatever), and that where possible fewer tangible benefits (such as military materiel) are left to fall into Taliban hands.

[Berkut]

I am trying to figure out what should have been done instead.

An orderly withdrawal? Isn't that what we've been doing for like the last decade and a half?

I am not trying to put gloss on anything. I am trying to understand what the failure was - and given what has happened, it seems pretty clear to me that the last fucking two decades has been a trillion dollar pig lip glossing, and staying even longer would just have meant more really, really expensive lip gloss being added on top of the 15 years that has been slathered on there already.

I am not indifferent to the suffering that is going to happen. Just not sure, given what we know now, how it could be avoided other then just staying and occupying the country basically forever. If it could not get done in 20 years, how much longer is it going to take?

I think we did go in there so we at the very least owe it to those who tried to help us in this doomed effort. I am happy expending more American treasure and potentially even lives to try to protect as many of those we brought along with us on our long, long ride tilting at those windmills. Hell, it's frankly cheap to do so compared to how many hundreds of billions we poured into that country. I would be fine with a basically nearly open door policy towards Afghans interested in getting the fuck out.

So to get specific:

1. Temporary deployment of troops to manage withdrawal, probably bringing to a total 7500 or so our forces in Kabul.
2. Seize control of the Kabul airport
3. Seize control of roads leading to the Kabul airport

At that point you tell the Taliban we aren't there to fight, but 7500 U.S. forces concentrated in a small area would probably be able to inflict a massive amount of death on Taliban trying to attack them. Let them know we're just focused on moving people out, and that we plan to leave on X date when that is over. Given how they've been behaving, they most likely leave the situation alone (right now they aren't even sending forces into the diplomatic district of Kabul, giving it a wide berth.)

Instead we waited until the airport had basically already fallen before we appeared to much do anything.

I am talking about what we should have done overall - not how we should have better managed what we did do.

[Neil]

True, but Kurds got into trouble with another important US ally.  So the question became which was more important to US geopolitical interests:  Containing Russia or fighting ISIS?

I don't believe purchasing the S 400 from Russia is an effective containment strategy.

No, but maintaining control of the Bosphrous is. 

Turkey has become less reliable over time, and has been squabbling with other US allies for decades.  But the question is whether they offer more value towards advancing larger US goals than the Kurds. 

[Berkut]

So to get specific:

1. Temporary deployment of troops to manage withdrawal, probably bringing to a total 7500 or so our forces in Kabul.
2. Seize control of the Kabul airport
3. Seize control of roads leading to the Kabul airport

At that point you tell the Taliban we aren't there to fight, but 7500 U.S. forces concentrated in a small area would probably be able to inflict a massive amount of death on Taliban trying to attack them. Let them know we're just focused on moving people out, and that we plan to leave on X date when that is over. Given how they've been behaving, they most likely leave the situation alone (right now they aren't even sending forces into the diplomatic district of Kabul, giving it a wide berth.)

Instead we waited until the airport had basically already fallen before we appeared to much do anything.

For example, yes.

It would've been good to have processed the status of translators and other collaborators (and their families), and have a plan for getting them out of the country if/ when necessary to avoid Taliban reprisals. Which, it turns out, is pretty much now.

This sounds simple. I suspect it is not.

After all....the expectation is that the US would withdraw, and the Afghan National government would maintain control of some part of the country, including Kabul, and there would not be a need for a mass evacuation.

Perhaps that is a pipe dream, but that was the idea.

You can't say "Hey, the US is leaving, but we have left a powerful miliary capable of defending the country! It's going to be fine! Also.....please have everyone who would be needed to help run that government, and everyone who might be in danger should that government fall, start evacuating right now...."

You don't know you need emergency evacuation until the emergency, and it seems pretty clear that the US was expecting that the Afghan Nationals would be able to hold onto the critical pieces of the country.

Now, this doesn't really excuse the mess per se - but I don't think it is nearly as simple as it is being made out to be.