Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[FunkMonk]

I'm not very knowledgeable of Afghan war policy or history. Would a complete American withdrawal after Bin Laden was killed been a better point of departure?

[alfred russel]

Also, while it isn't in the top 1,000 of things I hate in the world, I'm not sure why we should be evacuating those who collaborated with us.

We were initially there to push out Al Qaeda, but after that it was more or less a humanitarian mission to help the Afghans help themselves. While that was as stupid an idea as humanitarian wars always are, those who collaborated weren't advancing our interests--they were ostensibly advancing their own nation's or at least their own pocketbooks. Not sure why they should get a lotto first world plane ticket when things go bad, and I think that actually sets a bad precedent for the future: maybe people would fight harder if their backs were really against the wall.

[The Minsky Moment]

The conduct of the Afghan security forces was disgraceful. They deserve what they had the lack of will to fight against.

Will to fight?  They were all sold out by their political masters. Who would fight for a government where everyone either switched sides or took a private plane out?

[The Minsky Moment]

Also, while it isn't in the top 1,000 of things I hate in the world, I'm not sure why we should be evacuating those who collaborated with us.

We were initially there to push out Al Qaeda, but after that it was more or less a humanitarian mission to help the Afghans help themselves. While that was as stupid an idea as humanitarian wars always are, those who collaborated weren't advancing our interests--they were ostensibly advancing their own nation's or at least their own pocketbooks. Not sure why they should get a lotto first world plane ticket when things go bad, and I think that actually sets a bad precedent for the future: maybe people would fight harder if their backs were really against the wall.

Yes it sets a great precedent for the future that anyone who helps US forces overseas will be sold out when convenient. No doubt America will win many more friends with such a policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

The conduct of the Afghan security forces was disgraceful. They deserve what they had the lack of will to fight against.

Will to fight?  They were all sold out by their political masters. Who would fight for a government where everyone either switched sides or took a private plane out?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/13/asia/afghanistan-taliban-commandos-killed-intl-hnk/index.html

Gunfire erupts. At least a dozen men are seen shot to death amid cries of "Allahu Akhbar" -- God is Great.

The victims were members of an Afghan Special Forces unit: their executioners, the Taliban. The summary killings took place on June 16 in the town of Dawlat Abad in Faryab province, close to Afghanistan's border with Turkmenistan.

CNN has obtained and verified several videos of the incident and has spoken with witnesses.

Videos show the commandos' bodies strewn across an outdoor market. After a fierce battle to hold the town, the commandos had run out of ammunition and were surrounded by the Taliban fighters, witnesses said.

I doubt soldiers of any other nationality would have acquitted themselves better.
A credit to American training perhaps.  But not to American commitment.

[viper37]

The question is, based on what we know about Afghanistan and our efforts there, how likely is it a departure at any point looks materially different than the departure that we're seeing right now?

Why not simply negotiate a surrender of the nation to the Taliban, allowing an opportunity for those who wish to leave to do so in an orderly manner, and withdraw US equipment, if this collapse was inevitable? No doubt the Taliban would have been happy to get such terms.

that was basically the deal Trump-Pompeo made last year with the Talibans.  They immediatly launch assaults against the Afghan security forces and US troops.  And Russia has been paying them a bounty for each American soldier killed.

[Sheilbh]

Sure. So you don't start with "it'll be a total collapse, let's evacuate everyone" as your plan A because it's politically untenable. But it'd be good and competent if there was a solid risk analysis that indicated that a total collapse was a risk, and a plan to enact if a total collapse came sooner than expected.

Hindsight, of course, but that doesn't make it less true.

I agree - although I don't know what that plan looks like. You know just to use the example of Kabul the airport is still held by Western forces, but the roads to the airport and the city are now held by the Taliban. I don't know how you can necessarily get people - as we should be trying - without fighting the Taliban for control of the places people live and a route to the airport.

It seems pretty clear that the overall thinking must have been something like "ok, if all of the cities except Kabul fall, we'll start pulling it all out, and the ANA will make some of fighting "last stand" and give us to time, maybe a couple weeks, to pull it all out in a somewhat orderly fashion".

They clearly didn't except/plan for it all go under inside a weekend.

So I flagged that I think this is largely a political and intelligence success for the Taliban. But I understand there was at least some cleverness on the military front too - it is pretty basic but I understand that they basically feinted, the ANA and in particular the special forces, went to that area of the country. Then the Taliban started rolling up defections on the other side of the country and that area was clearly the focus.

I wonder how long it would take for Taliban to start their purges once they break the back of the idea of organized resistance to them.  Historically, the problem with surrendering power to an overwhelming force is that you're even more powerless to stop them from renegotiating the terms afterwards.  The Mongols likewise often got cities to surrender through threats of massacre, and everyone knew their word was good on that, but sometimes they massacred those who surrendered anyway.

From what I've seen they have already started in the cities they've occupied. But it does seem still slightly more mixed or pragmatically dealing with the reality of Afghanistan than they were in the 90s (it might help that despite support from UAE and Saudi - they don't have as many outsiders around). So there's been meetings with the Hindu and Sikh communities in Kabul, but also a Shi'ite procession in Western Kabul (I think it's coming up to Ashura). The Taliban had assured the Shi'ite that they would be allowed to hold parades. If that holds then that is a shift.

Will to fight?  They were all sold out by their political masters. Who would fight for a government where everyone either switched sides or took a private plane out?

Yes I agree. And they absolutely were sold out. But I think the bigger issue that has become clear is that the government had lost all legitimacy. Fleeing is just the ultimate expression of that, but as I say I think this is a political victory for the Taliban so I think we probably need to focus on it more as a political defeat for the government the West backed (and the West) rather than the failure of the army.

The state melted the second the Taliban arrived and that only happens if there's basically nothing real there and I think that's probably where I'd be focusing the post-mortem not on the military element - it's a part of it, for sure. But for all the money and advisors and NGOs and international bodies operating in Afghanistan for the last 20 years they could not produce a durable and legitimate set of political institutions (I think there's probably an argument there was too much money) - and I don't think Afghanistan's unique in that.

I don't know you'd hope that Ashraf Ghani who is an expert on failed states would have the insights for that. But I don't think it's will to fight if you're an army and there's no state to fight for and, it seems, the Afghan people weren't particularly engaged by it - then I think it's really difficult to see how or for what the army can fight.

Video of a Taliban reciting a Quran verse in Ghani's office - the thing I find kind of fascinating about this video is in the last 20 seconds you can see a guy who is not like the rest of them dressed in a suit and from the bit at the end it looks like he is possibly someone who works in the Presidential palace taking them on to the next room in the tour:
https://twitter.com/ArifCRafiq/status/1426992712390172679?s=20

Edit: Reports of multiple Taliban checkpoints along the road to the airport - very difficult to see who they'll actually be letting get to it

[alfred russel]

Also, while it isn't in the top 1,000 of things I hate in the world, I'm not sure why we should be evacuating those who collaborated with us.

We were initially there to push out Al Qaeda, but after that it was more or less a humanitarian mission to help the Afghans help themselves. While that was as stupid an idea as humanitarian wars always are, those who collaborated weren't advancing our interests--they were ostensibly advancing their own nation's or at least their own pocketbooks. Not sure why they should get a lotto first world plane ticket when things go bad, and I think that actually sets a bad precedent for the future: maybe people would fight harder if their backs were really against the wall.

Yes it sets a great precedent for the future that anyone who helps US forces overseas will be sold out when convenient. No doubt America will win many more friends with such a policy.

The absence of a golden parachute when things go to shit doesn't equate to being "sold out".

And yeah it would make it tougher to get "friends" like we had in Afghanistan going forward. Whether such friends were all that great, or whether ventures like Afghan nation building should ever be attempted again, is more debatable.

[Josquius]

Its not the ruling elites who happened to be running the criminal gang that lost out that people are talking about getting out. Its the little guys who worked as translators and the like.
Sure they were largely motivated by putting food on the table rather than any amazing love of the US. But then thats the top priority for most people- if it isn't (e.g. the true believers amongst the taliban) then there's something wrong with you.

[garbon]

Its not the ruling elites who happened to be running the criminal gang that lost out that people are talking about getting out. Its the little guys who worked as translators and the like.
Sure they were largely motivated by putting food on the table rather than any amazing love of the US. But then thats the top priority for most people- if it isn't (e.g. the true believers amongst the taliban) then there's something wrong with you.

But wouldn't many of them have 'lost out' even if the US had never been involved in Afghanistan?

It feels like the lionshare of the blame to heap on the US is that for nearly two decades, we perpetrated the illusion that they could develop and maintain a westernized society. And that those who bought into that illusory hope have been particularly hard done by.

[Josquius]

Its not the ruling elites who happened to be running the criminal gang that lost out that people are talking about getting out. Its the little guys who worked as translators and the like.
Sure they were largely motivated by putting food on the table rather than any amazing love of the US. But then thats the top priority for most people- if it isn't (e.g. the true believers amongst the taliban) then there's something wrong with you.

But wouldn't many of them have 'lost out' even if the US had never been involved in Afghanistan?

It feels like the lionshare of the blame to heap on the US is that for nearly two decades, we perpetrated the illusion that they could develop and maintain a westernized society. And that those who bought into that illusory hope have been particularly hard done by.

Sure, but its like the analogy of adopting a kid then after a few years dumping him back on the street.
And you've dumped him in a bad part of town at night wearing clothes that mark him out as a rich kid.
Had you never adopted him he'd have been stuck in the system and had a shitty life. But by taking responsibility you took him away from that and this is a responsibility you can't just give up at whim, especially to put him in a shitter position than he would have been in as just part of the under privileged crowd.

[garbon]

Its not the ruling elites who happened to be running the criminal gang that lost out that people are talking about getting out. Its the little guys who worked as translators and the like.
Sure they were largely motivated by putting food on the table rather than any amazing love of the US. But then thats the top priority for most people- if it isn't (e.g. the true believers amongst the taliban) then there's something wrong with you.

But wouldn't many of them have 'lost out' even if the US had never been involved in Afghanistan?

It feels like the lionshare of the blame to heap on the US is that for nearly two decades, we perpetrated the illusion that they could develop and maintain a westernized society. And that those who bought into that illusory hope have been particularly hard done by.

Sure, but its like the analogy of adopting a kid then after a few years dumping him back on the street.
And you've dumped him in a bad part of town at night wearing clothes that mark him out as a rich kid.
Had you never adopted him he'd have been stuck in the system and had a shitty life. But by taking responsibility you took him away from that and this is a responsibility you can't just give up at whim, especially to put him in a shitter position than he would have been in as just part of the under privileged crowd.

But it isn't really like that reductive analogy at all. There are many people at risk in Afghanistan now who didn't work with the US but did engage in modern/liberal jobs/lifestyles/practices. Do we have a duty to let them all in as well given we setup the conditions that allowed that sort of life to flourish?  How and when is the debt discharged? If we went with your analogy, the child would now be an adult and on their own.

Note, I'm not saying that we don't help as many as we can (in fact I think we should) but I'm not sure there should be a moral imperative to evacuate everyone who is in danger. Many people are in the same position all around the world.

[Legbiter]

I don't know you'd hope that Ashraf Ghani who is an expert on failed states would have the insights for that.

His academic bio prepared him to teach undergraduates. Not rule Afghanistan. I bet he sounded great to State Department morons though.

[Josquius]

But it isn't really like that reductive analogy at all. There are many people at risk in Afghanistan now who didn't work with the US but did engage in modern/liberal jobs/lifestyles/practices. Do we have a duty to let them all in as well given we setup the conditions that allowed that sort of life to flourish?  How and when is the debt discharged? If we went with your analogy, the child would now be an adult and on their own.

Note, I'm not saying that we don't help as many as we can (in fact I think we should) but I'm not sure there should be a moral imperative to evacuate everyone who is in danger. Many people are in the same position all around the world.

With the others we're taking away the dumping them in a bad part of town all dressed up part (which was my addition).
So, still a dick move, but they've been less directly put clearly in harms way.

[Agelastus]

By the looks of things the outcome of the US withdrawal was different than the assumptions Biden had used to make his decision.  Has anyone changed their mind based on the events of the past weekend (about keeping troops in the country long term, I mean, not about the withdrawal was handled or the immediate need to bring back forces)?  What would convince you to change your mind?

I voted that Biden made the right decision.  The collapse of the central government has not changed my mind.  If the Taliban takes control of one of Afghanistan's neighbors (especially Pakistan) or if there's another 9/11 style attack on western(ish) country then I will admit that I was wrong.

No, it was a terrible idea to withdraw in the first place anyway given the situation, and it has been handled so badly that I don't think even Trump could have done it worse.

Although the speed of collapse has surprised me, I did always think it was going to be disastrous. When you start off by handing your opponents an open-goal in propaganda terms it doesn't say much for the quality of the planners.

Hint: If you are going to announce a withdrawal will be completed before a certain, highly symbolic, date, do not do so when the opponents for whom IT IS ALSO, OR CAN EASILY BE USED AS, A HIGHLY SYMBOLIC DATE ARE STILL IN THE FIELD!!!! You only do that when the opponent has been crushed and is unable to take advantage of the importance it has for their own side.

[Biden was reported in the UK news as saying that all American forces would be home by the anniversary of 9/11; I haven't tracked down the speech to confirm he was that specific but that was how it was reported.]

There's also been stories during the withdrawal about Afghan forces being surprised at abrupt departures, or outright not being told when the local Americans were pulling out. This may have been due to security concerns regarding leaks to the Taliban from the local forces but even so I cannot imagine how it could have seemed a good idea to conduct the withdrawal in a way that would have left such a morale crushing impression with the locals who were supposed to keep fighting after the Americans had gone. Not only are the Americans "running away" but they don't "trust us enough to even tell us when they are leaving".

Then the stories such as the huge stockpile of German beer that had to be sent back to Germany...funny, weren't they? Except, of course, the image left by this story is again of a force running away - the stockpile is big enough that it has to be returned to Germany? But then, if the withdrawal has been planned for months and is being done in an orderly fashion why is the stockpile so big? Why has it not been run down to a low level in preparation for the withdrawal?

How the withdrawal was handled, perhaps as much as the actual withdrawal itself, probably dropped the morale of Afghan forces to virtually nothing. As would be suggested by the speed of the collapse.

--------------------------

Anyway, my paralyzed mother, who can do nothing but watch the TV all day, has a more pungent explanation for the collapse, although probably one with a grain of truth to it. "Biden took away their air support".