Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean it will certainly go up. That isn't justification for a permanent presence in the country.

Of course it's a justification, the real question is whatever it is a sufficient justification in terms of cost vs benefit.

No, there is no such question. Evidence suggests it is not a sufficient justification.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, there is no such question. Evidence suggests it is not a sufficient justification.

What evidence would that be?

The only concrete evidence I am aware of is the historical datum of what happened the last time the Taliban were in charge in Afghanistan and allowed Islamic terror groups to organize on their soil.

[Razgovory]

This is about to get messy...

[Valmy]

The only concrete evidence I am aware of is the historical datum of what happened the last time the Taliban were in charge in Afghanistan and allowed Islamic terror groups to organize on their soil.

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?

Look so long as the Taliban has a powerful state sponsor we are unwilling to challenge we are never going to defeat them. It is impossible. So why spend time, treasure, and demoralize our country over an impossible mission? We would be better off using our strength for missions that are possible.

Look I would rather we not fight any non-defensive wars at all. But if we are going to be this global spanning empire who needs to make sure nobody in fucking central Asia is being naughty then at least lets do missions that are not impossible.

[Valmy]

And as expected, a terrorist attack left 5 dead near the Kabul airport.

It is almost like there is a war there or something.

[DGuller]

And as expected, a terrorist attack left 5 dead near the Kabul airport.

It is almost like there is a war there or something.

Yeah, these days, even Afghanistan is not safe. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The only concrete evidence I am aware of is the historical datum of what happened the last time the Taliban were in charge in Afghanistan and allowed Islamic terror groups to organize on their soil.

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?

Yes a lot more.  There are al Qaeda affiliates laying low in the FATA but they have to lay low because Pakistan does not tolerate their operation in Pakistan.  The Afghan Taliban is tolerated only because the ISI still finds them useful in the greater game.  So it would be a significant development if jihadi movements could cease their clandestine status and operate safely with state support.  Just as it was a significant development for al Qaeda's development to obtain refuge and state backing in Sudan and Afghanistan.

So why spend time, treasure, and demoralize our country over an impossible mission?

The theoretical mission to decisively defeat the Taliban was impossible.

The actual mission to contain the Taliban was not only possible, it had been succeeding for years with declining costs over time.

[Sheilbh]

Via Leo Carella and a little out of date given Biden and Guardian figures - but to be honest this is far more than I expected. And really surprised at Italy - again interesting that UK and Italy were apparently most keen on staying, it seems a bit surprising:

[Neil]

The actual mission to contain the Taliban was not only possible, it had been succeeding for years with declining costs over time.

The Taliban is kind of self-containing.  They can overrun Afghanistan, but beyond that there isn't that far to go.  Maybe they can mess around in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that's China's problem. 

[Razgovory]

The GOP just got their new Benghazi.

[crazy canuck]

Via Leo Carella and a little out of date

A lot of out date.  The Canadian number is 3700 as of today.  The troubling thing is the Canadian operation has ended.  The acting Chief of Staff is quoted in the Globe and Mail that our operations had to end because the Americans needed the runway to withdraw their troops by the deadline.  That does not seem a very plausible explanation.  The Americans could surely have worked around a couple extra Canadian flights.  Thousands of people who could have come to Canada will be left behind as a result.

Meanwhile, our PM, in the middle of an election, is reported to have said that he would not take personal responsibility for the failure to get those people out.  The buck stops - somewhere other than his desk.  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.

[crazy canuck]

The actual mission to contain the Taliban was not only possible, it had been succeeding for years with declining costs over time.

The Taliban is kind of self-containing.  They can overrun Afghanistan, but beyond that there isn't that far to go.  Maybe they can mess around in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that's China's problem.

Well except for when they assist the people who fly planes into tall buildings.

[Neil]

The actual mission to contain the Taliban was not only possible, it had been succeeding for years with declining costs over time.

The Taliban is kind of self-containing.  They can overrun Afghanistan, but beyond that there isn't that far to go.  Maybe they can mess around in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that's China's problem.

Well except for when they assist the people who fly planes into tall buildings.

And there are better alternatives vis-a-vis airline security than an unending, half-hearted occupation.

[The Minsky Moment]

More US troops have died from hostile fire in the withdrawal from Afghanistan than died in the two years prior to the withdrawal.

[crazy canuck]

The actual mission to contain the Taliban was not only possible, it had been succeeding for years with declining costs over time.

The Taliban is kind of self-containing.  They can overrun Afghanistan, but beyond that there isn't that far to go.  Maybe they can mess around in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that's China's problem.

Well except for when they assist the people who fly planes into tall buildings.

And there are better alternatives vis-a-vis airline security than an unending, half-hearted occupation.

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.