Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[The Minsky Moment]

Why would a terrorist bother flying a plane when unmanned vehicles are so cheap and easy to use?

[crazy canuck]

Why would a terrorist bother flying a plane when unmanned vehicles are so cheap and easy to use?

Stop thinking like its 2021.  We only plan to win the last war.

[Neil]

Perhaps, my point is that your claim that the Taliban cannot have effects beyond its borders with the exception of Pakistan is not accurate.  You may stop the same kind of attack with greater airline security.  But stopping all possible attacks from an adversary that once again has the time and safety to plan and implement attacks is a different very resource intensive project.

But not as resource intensive as conquering and occupying Afghanistan. 

It sounds like you're making an argument that the US should wage war against any and all prospective threats. 

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps, my point is that your claim that the Taliban cannot have effects beyond its borders with the exception of Pakistan is not accurate.  You may stop the same kind of attack with greater airline security.  But stopping all possible attacks from an adversary that once again has the time and safety to plan and implement attacks is a different very resource intensive project.

But not as resource intensive as conquering and occupying Afghanistan. 

It sounds like you're making an argument that the US should wage war against any and all prospective threats.

Not at all.  We are talking about Afghanistan and the threats which will now emanate from that country.  The war was already fought there.  All for naught.

[Neil]

Why would a terrorist bother flying a plane when unmanned vehicles are so cheap and easy to use?

Depends on what you want to do with it.  There's isn't a commercially-available drone large enough to do something like 9/11.  I suppose you could use drones to deliver bombs, but that kind of small-scale havoc can be planned out in any number of ways and doesn't rely on a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan.  That's the equivalent of somebody driving a rental truck into pedestrians and then going on a stabbing spree. 

[Neil]

Not at all.  We are talking about Afghanistan and the threats which will now emanate from that country.  The war was already fought there.  All for naught.

But since threats already emanated from Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon (not to mention far more serious threats from Russia and China), and we're able to deal with those threats without occupation, I guess maybe we shouldn't get too panicky about how the West is in constant danger unless they spend tens of billions to continue the occupation. 

[crazy canuck]

Not at all.  We are talking about Afghanistan and the threats which will now emanate from that country.  The war was already fought there.  All for naught.

But since threats already emanated from Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon (not to mention far more serious threats from Russia and China), and we're able to deal with those threats without occupation, I guess maybe we shouldn't get too panicky about how the West is in constant danger unless they spend tens of billions to continue the occupation.

Do you think the Taliban have the same considerations as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China when deciding to attack the West.  Do you think anyone is Lebanon has the resources to do anything?

[The Minsky Moment]

Do you think the Taliban have the same considerations as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China when deciding to attack the West.  Do you think anyone is Lebanon has the resources to do anything?

Hezbollah.  But whatever mischief they cause, they can be relied on to keep the likes of Daesh down in their own area of influence.

[Sheilbh]

FFS the very least we can do is operate a shredder - apparently there's concerns that the UK embassy still had documents identifying Afghan workers.

Separately - but semi-relatedly - I see a story that the US has given the Taliban at the airport a list of names of U.S. citizens, green card holders & Afghan allies to grant entry into the outer perimeter of the city's airport. That might be fine but it seems trusting.

There's also concerns about the data stored by telecoms companies because they will hold records of people calling and being called by Western diplomats, NGOs etc plus whose phones they were identifying the individual. The fear is this data will basically provide a list for the Taliban to comb through at their leisure once Kabul airport's closed.

[Neil]

Do you think the Taliban have the same considerations as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China when deciding to attack the West.  Do you think anyone is Lebanon has the resources to do anything?

They have some of the same ones.  But it's hard to say how well the Taliban can be deterred by means short of occupation.  They didn't attack the West last time they formed a government.  Maybe the last twenty years of occupation will have put them in a space where they would want to attack, but there are likely better methods for staving off this hypothetical attack using unknowable means than full occupation of Afghanistan. 

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has the resources and capabilities to plan the kind of small-scale attacks that you seem to be concerned about. 

[crazy canuck]

Do you think the Taliban have the same considerations as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China when deciding to attack the West.  Do you think anyone is Lebanon has the resources to do anything?

They have some of the same ones.

Interesting, I would have thought, as just one example, that Saudi Arabia would be much more concerned about keeping their ties with the US than supporting attacks on it.  While the Taliban have no good relations with the US to preserve.  Not sure how your claim they have the same considerations holds any water.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has the resources and capabilities to plan the kind of small-scale attacks that you seem to be concerned about.

I am not sure I would call the attacks on 9/11 small scale.  It seems the only way your claim works is if there are only small scale attacks, whatever that might mean.

[Neil]

Interesting, I would have thought, as just one example, that Saudi Arabia would be much more concerned about keeping their ties with the US than supporting attacks on it.  While the Taliban have no good relations with the US to preserve.  Not sure how your claim they have the same considerations holds any water.

The US holds significant portions of the Afghan financial reserves and controls access to the global economy.  There are all kinds of diplomatic and economic levers that they can pull.  They control humanitarian and developmental aid.  They control sanctioning.  The US can launch airstrikes into Afghan territory with impunity.  They also have the ability to recognize the Taliban regime, although that's a longshot.  The US can engage with countries in other ways aside from occupying their territory. 

I am not sure I would call the attacks on 9/11 small scale.  It seems the only way your claim works is if there are only small scale attacks, whatever that might mean.

Are we talking about things that the Taliban did, or are we talking about 9/11?

[viper37]

Well they control tons of territory in Pakistan. They can sponsor Islamic terror groups there just as well. Is there something special about the dirt in Afghanistan that makes Islamic terror groups more dangerous if they are based there than in Pakistan?

because Pakistan will not allow terrorist training grounds to operate openly like in Afghanistan, for fear of reprisals by the US.  Therefore, they will "covertly" help the Talibans and AQ, but not as openly as the Talibans did from '93 to 2001, culiminating in the WTC attacks. 

ISIS is more of a nuisance than anything else in Afghanistan, not a real threat to the Talibans' power, unlike Syria and Iraq.
It's possible the Talibans have learnt their lessions and will not openly invite terrorist groups to train in Afghanistan.  Doubtful, but possible.  And I think they will eventually, in a not so distant future, reach a compromise with ISIS.

[viper37]

For the small minority of you not fixated by Canadian politics, this PM was first elected during an election in which he greatly benefited from the picture of a drowned young kurdish boy washed up on a Greek beach, who could have come to Canada.   He made a lot hay boasting that things would be different under his government.  This might not end well for him.

The bolded part is highly hypothetical.  Canada only increased the rate at which refugees were coming, overwhelming our system in the process; they never went beyond the numbers promised by the Conservatives.

Also, the government has decided only 2-3 weeks ago to repatriate Afghanis to Canada, and many of these 3700 were sent to "safe 3rd countries".

Canadian government officials said Thursday that Canada has received applications from about 8,000 Afghans to resettle in Canada and managed to airlifted about 3,700 people from Kabul airport – not all of whom are headed for Canada.
From the Liberal gazette

[viper37]

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has the resources and capabilities to plan the kind of small-scale attacks that you seem to be concerned about.

Hezbollah does not seem to be much concerned with the world outside Lebanon and Israel.Even Hamas does not seem that interested in striking western countries.  Nowadays, at least, their focus is on Israel. 

If they somehow managed to destroy Israel, we might have to deal with them.  For the moment, they are not a concern to us, unlike AQ and ISIS who have demonstrated the capability to commit and/or inspire attacks in western countries, including Canada.
For someone who does not like the Liberals, you seem to have a lot of faith in Trudeau to appropriately protect Canadian citizens.