Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[crazy canuck]

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

In the case of that boy, he had Canadian sponsors who were trying to bring him to Canada.  The government came under heavy fire because it was reported that the application had been rejected. So, no not at all hypothetical.   The paper work was in for him to come.  The government later claimed that there had been no rejection but the local MP had a different version of events.

The point is there are thousands of people in a similar situation that have been left behind in Afghanistan.   Including people who had already been accepted for entry into Canada.

[viper37]

The point is there are thousands of people in a similar situation that have been left behind in Afghanistan.   Including people who had already been accepted for entry into Canada.

I know that.  But I never voted for the LPC in my entire life as I dislike hypocrites and liars.

[Sheilbh]

Last Italian Air Force flight is out of Afghanistan - around 5,000 people airlifted out. But strong signs this is ending very soon.

[Valmy]

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.

Oh so Pakistan was cool letting them use their territory as a base to attack our troops but they were too afraid of reprisals to do other things? That is a very specific level of fear. Pakistan has nukes, they know damn well we would never touch them.

And they were sponsoring the Taliban and were responsible for them taking over Afghanistan in the 1990s. Pakistan was at least as responsible for 9/11 as the Taliban were.

But hey if the Taliban want to be bombed again then they can do their old tricks. But we pay tons of money for this massive security state, maybe they can stop terrorist attacks.

[Valmy]

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.

The Taliban are no friends to ISIS either.

[Tonitrus]

True...but it doesn't seem totally inconceivable that a faction of the Taliban could take control that is more sympathetic to those with an ISIS-like mentality/sympathy.

[Valmy]

The GOP just got their new Benghazi.

We will see. But if so, this is how we get endless empire and endless wars. Everybody has such a thirst for blood that any movement towards peace sets off the political alarm bells. While GWB can get re-elected after starting two disastrous wars.

But they can go fuck themselves in their warmongering asses. Most of the American people want peace. The Benghazi thing was a reaction to just generally how much the American people hated the Libyan intervention which is why it had legs. Hopefully this will not.

[Valmy]

True...but it doesn't seem totally inconceivable that a faction of the Taliban could take control that is more sympathetic to those with an ISIS-like mentality/sympathy.

Well sure they share a common mentality but that is exactly why they are not sympathetic to each other.

[Razgovory]

The GOP just got their new Benghazi.

We will see. But if so, this is how we get endless empire and endless wars. Everybody has such a thirst for blood that any movement towards peace sets off the political alarm bells. While GWB can get re-elected after starting two disastrous wars.

But they can go fuck themselves in their warmongering asses. Most of the American people want peace. The Benghazi thing was a reaction to just generally how much the American people hated the Libyan intervention which is why it had legs. Hopefully this will not.

Yeah.  Reagan could get away with abandoning Lebanon after US soldiers were killed by terrorists and Clinton could survive a pull-out of Somalia.  I don't think you could do that now.

[Valmy]

Yeah.  Reagan could get away with abandoning Lebanon after US soldiers were killed by terrorists and Clinton could survive a pull-out of Somalia.  I don't think you could do that now.

Well I hope not.

But if we are going to punish every politician who ends a war and rewards every one who starts one then we have no ground to complain when we end up in tons of wars around the world.

[mongers]

The situation now seems ripe for foreign nationals who have not made it out, to be taken as hostages by ISIL-K and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan. 

How will the West deal with a Lebanon style carousel of hostage taking?

Another danger is once the Western forces leave, assuming there's no attempt to shot down one of the last departing aircraft, could be Afghan interpreters and others being used as human shields at likely retaliatory targets for the airport bombing that are selected by the Biden administration, a la Saddam in the Gulf War.
 

[viper37]

Oh so Pakistan was cool letting them use their territory as a base to attack our troops but they were too afraid of reprisals to do other things? That is a very specific level of fear. Pakistan has nukes, they know damn well we would never touch them.

Pakistan's ISIS helped the Talibans, not Al-Queida.  Bush, as President of the USA, declared war on Afghanistan because the Talibans refused to surrender the AQ militants who planned and organized the terrorist attack.
The Talibans did openly support and work hand in hand with Al-Queida and Oussama Bin Laden.  Pakistan never officially worked with the Talibans, and they always had some kind of plausible deniability.  Of course, everyone knew Pakistani's intelligence service, and likely the government were turning a blind eye to the Talibans' activities.  but AQ's actions were on a whole other level.

And they were sponsoring the Taliban and were responsible for them taking over Afghanistan in the 1990s. Pakistan was at least as responsible for 9/11 as the Taliban were.

AQ was responsible for 9/11, not the Talibans.  The Talibans refused to surrender AQ making them accomplice in a terrorist act, when Article 5 of NATO had been invoked.
There's a difference between actively harboring and helping an ennemy of the State escape justice, while turning a blind eye to your citizens and citizens of another country criss-crossing your border to hide from ennemy airstrikes after attacking the US & coallition troops.
Was it enough to justify attacking Pakistan?  Certainly.  Enough to really justify attacking a country with nukes?  Unlikely.  Had Pakistan harbored the AQ militants who trained for, planned and organized 9/11, the US would have invaded Pakistan, nuke or not. But turning a blind eye while enemy combatants seek refute in a lawless zone AND providing some intel to help the US&NATO?  Nah, not worth it.
This is like Saudi Arabia.  You know some member of the government are working with ISIS and Al-Queida.  You know the top level of the government will shut their eyes on this.  You know Saudi Arabia is a cancer in the muslem world, constantly funding religious fanatics, the same way the USSR was funding communist groups all across the world, I guess.  Yet, the US, nor any occidental country will declare war on Saudi Arabia.  Iran is engaged in a proxy war in Yemen against Saudi Arabia. Yet, SA does not directly attack Iran and Iran does not directly attack SA.  But everyone there knows each another is helping enemy combatants strike at their respective armies.

But hey if the Taliban want to be bombed again then they can do their old tricks. But we pay tons of money for this massive security state, maybe they can stop terrorist attacks.

I don't think you are paying tons of money for the Talibans to improve their security.  Well, the US kind of like throwing money around, as much as Justin Trudeau does, so it's hard to keep track of whom they're paying or not, so who knows, really?  
But I'm pretty confident the US isn't collaborating with the Talibans on security matters.

[viper37]

Most of the American people want peace.

So did most of the Romans in the 5th century.

[Sheilbh]

UK's last purely civilian flight has left Kabul. All the remaining flights will also be pulling out the remaining essential diplomats and military personnel.

[Threviel]

UK's last purely civilian flight has left Kabul. All the remaining flights will also be pulling out the remaining essential diplomats and military personnel.

Did you get the dogs out?