Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[Legbiter]

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.

The Afghan army getting steamrolled in about a week without even fighting because the Americans hurt their morale after deciding to leave after 20 years and trillions spent nation-building perfectly encapsulates what a farce this whole effort was in hindsight.

[Valmy]

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".

Yeah we only gave them trillions of dollars and hundreds of American lives. How much air support does the Taliban have?

[Berkut]

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".

Yeah we only gave them trillions of dollars and hundreds of American lives. How much air support does the Taliban have?

Well more now anyway!

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Maybe this is hard for you to understand, but being forced to leave the only home you've ever known with nothing but the clothes on your back for an uncertain future in a strange land is very far from being a golden parachute.  The prospect of living off minimum wage or public assistance in USA is not the lure you think it is for people who had decent jobs, decent lives, and social standing in Kabul and Kandahar.

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.

It was pretty important to get friends in Afghanistan back in 02 when we were clearing the nests of al Qaeda.

It was even more important to have friends on the ground in Iraq when the ISIS caliphate was trying to take out that domino.  Lucky the Bush and Obama administrations did not listen to your line of thinking and ISIS was resisted and then destroyed as an effective force at a minimum cost in American lives, but at a high cost in Kurdish and Iraqi militiamen.  Perhaps you thing it would have better if that ratio were reversed?  Or perhaps you think an ISIS caliphate from the Med to the Zagros is a perfectly desirable state of affairs and that only naive humanitarians would see any risk in that outcome.

[Malthus]

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.

I don't think everyone knew that this collapse was inevitable. Did you? I didn't.

I did not.

But then, I'm not someone tasked with understanding that. I have zero military training, I was not in touch with the Afghan forces, and I did not spend twenty years in the country. 

Is the contention that the US had no idea what would happen when they suddenly withdrew? That strikes me as a pretty fundamental failure in intelligence gathering.

[Malthus]

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.

I don't think the Ghani government was interested in negotiating a surrender to the Taliban. I also don't think a U.S. President can parlay a surrender agreement between Ghani and the Taliban, there are political concerns too.

Why not? The Ghani government must have known their chances were slim without US support. Simply offer them a carrot or a stick.

The US President is no doubt creative enough to dress up a surrender as something else - see Nixon in Vietnam.

[grumbler]

The issue isn't whether the US ought to have gone to Afghanistan in the first place. That's a separate argument.

The issue is, having gone, should it have left; and if so, should it have left in this particular manner, which seems designed to produce disaster, discourage allies, and encourage enemies.

No-one is suggesting that the US go everywhere and fix everything.

An argument can certainly be made that the US, having spent so much, needed a viable exit strategy. Is this particular strategy a good idea though?

The US should have announced the departure of US troops in advan... wait.

If you had been in charge of US policy, how would you have arranged a US withdrawal that would not be, in your opinion, "designed to produce disaster, discourage allies, and encourage enemies?"

Any US withdrawal, it seems to me, would do that  As did the US staying in Afghanistan.  As would the US not going into Afghanistan at all. 

The US had a viable exit strategy, and executed it.  The Afghan government's remain strategy seems less well-thought-out.

[Malthus]

The issue isn't whether the US ought to have gone to Afghanistan in the first place. That's a separate argument.

The issue is, having gone, should it have left; and if so, should it have left in this particular manner, which seems designed to produce disaster, discourage allies, and encourage enemies.

No-one is suggesting that the US go everywhere and fix everything.

An argument can certainly be made that the US, having spent so much, needed a viable exit strategy. Is this particular strategy a good idea though?

The US should have announced the departure of US troops in advan... wait.

If you had been in charge of US policy, how would you have arranged a US withdrawal that would not be, in your opinion, "designed to produce disaster, discourage allies, and encourage enemies?"

Any US withdrawal, it seems to me, would do that  As did the US staying in Afghanistan.  As would the US not going into Afghanistan at all. 

The US had a viable exit strategy, and executed it.  The Afghan government's remain strategy seems less well-thought-out.

Depends on what one's priorities are. The US pull out was handled so as to end US involvement, and it did just that, but at the cost of leaving piles of equipment to US enemies, accelerating the collapse of a US ally, and demonstrating once again the US will not stand by its friends.

I assume the argument will be that any strategy would have resulted in the same shambles. One impossible to now prove or disprove.

[alfred russel]

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

Maybe this is hard for you to understand, but being forced to leave the only home you've ever known with nothing but the clothes on your back for an uncertain future in a strange land is very far from being a golden parachute.  The prospect of living off minimum wage or public assistance in USA is not the lure you think it is for people who had decent jobs, decent lives, and social standing in Kabul and Kandahar.

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.

It was pretty important to get friends in Afghanistan back in 02 when we were clearing the nests of al Qaeda.

It was even more important to have friends on the ground in Iraq when the ISIS caliphate was trying to take out that domino.  Lucky the Bush and Obama administrations did not listen to your line of thinking and ISIS was resisted and then destroyed as an effective force at a minimum cost in American lives, but at a high cost in Kurdish and Iraqi militiamen.  Perhaps you thing it would have better if that ratio were reversed?  Or perhaps you think an ISIS caliphate from the Med to the Zagros is a perfectly desirable state of affairs and that only naive humanitarians would see any risk in that outcome.

Whether ISIS controls Iraq or Syria or the Taliban controls Afghanistan just doesn't matter to US interests. It is the other side of the world and simply doesn't matter. For humanitarian reasons you may consider to be naive I don't want them to, but I don't think occupying territory militarily for humanitarian reasons is a sound strategy.

And dude, it is a massive golden parachute to get into the US from a place like Afghanistan. Per capita income there is $493 / year. Minimum wage in a place with real workplace protections is pretty damn sweat by comparison.

[Valmy]

Is the contention that the US had no idea what would happen when they suddenly withdrew? That strikes me as a pretty fundamental failure in intelligence gathering.

Suddenly withdrew? We have been talking about withdrawing for years.

[Legbiter]

WSJ has a profile of the most visible Taliban leader now.

In 2001, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban, tried to arrange the group's surrender to the new U.S.-backed Afghan government. It was rejected. He spent most of the past decade under arrest in Pakistan.

It's a fractal clusterfuck no matter what angle you look at the last 20 years from.

https://archive.ph/sDfHg#selection-751.0-751.222

[Neil]

I'm not in love with the 'The US didn't stand by their allies' take. 

The US spent twenty years in Afghanistan, and spent a great deal of time and treasure trying to build institutions and striking at the enemies of the new Afghan state.  That's twice as long a the occupation of Iraq and three times longer than Japan or Germany.  At what point should Afghanistan be expected to be able to deal with these internal security issues without constant and significant foreign support?  If the Afghan government has no public support in Afghanistan, is it really appropriate for American troops to maintain a sort of a colonial or Vichy regime? 

Maybe they could have done a better job building institutions (although I'd argue that it would be politically unpalatable in the West for the United States to build institutions that would be acceptable to most Afghans), but that would have been an argument for 2002.  In 2021, these choices had already been made and the US was in a position of either continuing their permanent occupation in a time where American resources are growing ever thinner, or moving towards a final withdrawal. 

[Neil]

Whether ISIS controls Iraq or Syria or the Taliban controls Afghanistan just doesn't matter to US interests.

Control of Iraq and Syria are definitely a big deal in terms of US interests.  The US is enormously interested in insuring the supply of Gulf oil to Europe and Asia.  A hostile, aggressive caliphate controlling Iraq and threatening the Saudis and the Gulf states is a pretty big deal.  Maintaining global trade (without which American prosperity cannot be maintained) is in US interests.

[Valmy]

Depends on what one's priorities are. The US pull out was handled so as to end US involvement, and it did just that, but at the cost of leaving piles of equipment to US enemies, accelerating the collapse of a US ally, and demonstrating once again the US will not stand by its friends.

Afghanistan is not some friend and ally we were assisting at the request of their citizens and government. We were not invited in.

[Valmy]

Whether ISIS controls Iraq or Syria or the Taliban controls Afghanistan just doesn't matter to US interests.

Control of Iraq and Syria are definitely a big deal in terms of US interests.  The US is enormously interested in insuring the supply of Gulf oil to Europe and Asia.  A hostile, aggressive caliphate controlling Iraq and threatening the Saudis and the Gulf states is a pretty big deal.  Maintaining global trade (without which American prosperity cannot be maintained) is in US interests.

Fortunately virtually everybody seems to agree with us on that point. Even the Russians.