President Biden's first term in office

[irontaino]

What was the war's objective again? GBjr erratic swerve of swift vengeance (Us the old warlords as well) to nation build while simultaneously drawing down the occupation footprint to fight a disastrous war of choice in Iraq... well the conclusion was more or less a forgone one. For go or ill once Trump flipped the republican line on staying there was no real domestic party or group that wanted to stay. And as Vietnam showed loosing a small very expensive 'colonial' war does not bring down the pillars of heaven.

Honestly the only thing I will judge Bidon is if he does a good job getting locals out who helped the US.

Pretty much. As soon as the U.S. settled in to try and nation-build, the war was lost.

[B. W.]

The rumor is that the Democrats want a new $00.16 coin in honor of the Xiden regime's saving Americans $00.16 on their July 4th cookout food bill.

[conon394]

The rumor is that the Democrats want a new $00.16 coin in honor of the Xiden regime's saving Americans $00.16 on their July 4th cookout food bill.

Fine by me. Want to explain what couple thousand troops were doing a in occupation that was 3 administrations ago. A broken clock is right twice a day one only useful thing Trump did was basically allow for a consensus pulling of the plug on the forever war in A-stan.

[Infidel144]

What was the war's objective again? GBjr erratic swerve of swift vengeance (Us the old warlords as well) to nation build while simultaneously drawing down the occupation footprint to fight a disastrous war of choice in Iraq... well the conclusion was more or less a forgone one.

Drew it down good and proper, from 1300 in November of 2001, to almost 10,000 a year later, to over 13,000 a year after that, to more than 20,000 in 2004 and increasing to 25,000 in 07.

Yep, total draw down.

[Cope]

Biden of 2002 arguing with Biden of 2021.

"Security is the basic issue in Afghanistan," Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a Washington speech. "Whatever it takes, we should do it. History will judge us harshly if we allow the hope of a liberated Afghanistan to evaporate because we failed to stay the course."

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) says U.S. troops are needed to ensure stability in Afghanistan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-00e4f0387aef/

[irontaino]

Huh, who could have guessed someone might change their minds within the span of roughly 20 years?

[Lord Thesaurian]

An Indian government official said China’s approach was to try to rebuild Afghanistan’s shattered infrastructure in co-operation with the Taliban by channelling funds through Pakistan, one of Beijing’s firmest allies in the region.

“We can vouch that China will fund the rebuilding of Afghanistan through the Taliban via Pakistan,” the official said. “China is Pakistan’s wallet.”

Another diplomat in the region said: “China at the request of Pakistan will support the Taliban.”

https://www.ft.com/content/49d266c6-...2-ed34d72b22c1

Beyond the immediate security concerns resulting from Biden’s politically motivated surrender, the latter has compelled Beijing to consider bankrolling the Taliban (and by extension, the terrorists supported by the Taliban) in exchange for access to Afghanistan’s resources and certain guarantees vis a vis Xinjiang. Yet another unforced strategic disaster the Administration evidently considered secondary to political grandstanding.

[Cope]

Huh, who could have guessed someone might change their minds within the span of roughly 20 years?

It's certainly convenient for Biden that he can simply "change his mind" in tandem with public opinion without bearing any accountability for his complicity in a war which liberals now consider a failure.

[Exarch]

Beyond the immediate security concerns resulting from Biden’s politically motivated surrender, the latter has compelled Beijing to consider bankrolling the Taliban (and by extension, the terrorists supported by the Taliban) in exchange for access to Afghanistan’s resources and certain guarantees vis a vis Xinjiang. Yet another unforced strategic disaster the Administration evidently considered secondary to political grandstanding.

The best part is that China gets rich and all them mineral resources from A-stan and the Indians and Anglo Americans get locked out of Afghanistan's wealth for the rest of the century.
Wonder how Biden's gonna explain that to the american dead and maimed and wounded US Servicemen

Oh wait, Biden doesn't give a crap about those americas, he and everyone else in the Beltway only cares about US corporations who are gonna be pissed about being locked out of A-stan.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The best part is that China gets rich and all them mineral resources from A-stan and the Indians and Anglo Americans get locked out of Afghanistan's wealth for the rest of the century.
Wonder how Biden's gonna explain that to the american dead and maimed and wounded US Servicemen

Oh wait, Biden doesn't give a crap about those americas, he and everyone else in the Beltway only cares about US corporations who are gonna be pissed about being locked out of A-stan.

The US still has tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East, and more American soldiers have died by suicide since 2001 than by combat in Afghanistan. Americans in general care little about either. The withdrawal was begun by Trump and continued by Biden for the same reason: short term political optics. I’m actually confident Beijing has a chance to succeed where others failed in maintaining a profitable presence in Afghanistan, because the Chinese would involve a minimal number of the local population in any infrastructure building projects, and expend only the amount of hard power needed to protect those assets. It’s a lose-lose-lose for the US, courtesy of Jimmy Carter Biden.

[Coughdrop addict]

The rumor is that the Democrats want a new $00.16 coin in honor of the Xiden regime's saving Americans $00.16 on their July 4th cookout food bill.

I head a rumor that Trump's male voters can no longer perform in bed after Biden's victory emasculated them.

The US still has tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East, and more American soldiers have died by suicide since 2001 than by combat in Afghanistan. Americans in general care little about either. The withdrawal was begun by Trump and continued by Biden for the same reason: short term political optics. I’m actually confident Beijing has a chance to succeed where others failed in maintaining a profitable presence in Afghanistan, because the Chinese would involve a minimal number of the local population in any infrastructure building projects, and expend only the amount of hard power needed to protect those assets. It’s a lose-lose-lose for the US, courtesy of Jimmy Carter Biden.

You're free to get a gun and a plane ticket to Afghanistan and go fight the good fight yourself. The American public has had enough of forever wars kept going to make the rich richer. Personally I fail to see a problem with China getting stuck in Afghanistan. At worst it will be a huge drain on resources with nothing to show for it as it was for the US.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're free to get a gun and a plane ticket to Afghanistan and go fight the good fight yourself. The American public has had enough of forever wars kept going to make the rich richer. Personally I fail to see a problem with China getting stuck in Afghanistan. At best this could lead to a global jihad against China, at worst it will be a huge drain on resources with nothing to show for it as it was for the US.

More empty rhetoric. If the NATO mission to support the Afghan government against insurgents (in which US troops comprised a minority) is a “forever war,” then all US counterterrorism operations throughout the world are “forever wars.” I’d wager the American people don’t know or care about most of them. The narrative the left (and the isolationist right) has concocted to justify withdrawing from Afghanistan is only as coherent as the politics motivating it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[irontaino]

More empty rhetoric. If the NATO mission to support the Afghan government against insurgents (in which US troops comprised a minority) is a “forever war,” then all US counterterrorism operations throughout the world are “forever wars.”

That's right, he CAN be taught!

[Vanoi]

More empty rhetoric. If the NATO mission to support the Afghan government against insurgents (in which US troops comprised a minority) is a “forever war,” then all US counterterrorism operations throughout the world are “forever wars.” I’d wager the American people don’t know or care about most of them. The narrative the left (and the isolationist right) has concocted to justify withdrawing from Afghanistan is only as coherent as the politics motivating it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually no. Counter-terrorism operations throughout the world involve smaller amounts of US troops, and involve working with the government that's already stable and isn't in threat to fall to rebel groups like the Taliban.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan the US invaded and toppled a government. The US then engaged in nation-building. And failed.

The counter-terrorism operations conducted in other countries come no where close to the Afghanistan war in terms of scope, time, lives lost, or money wasted.

Let's tell the American people about the other operations in detail. But you and I both know the American public has no stomach to be interventionist anymore. So I'd be careful. You might lose support for them too.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Actually no. Counter-terrorism operations throughout the world involve smaller amounts of US troops, and involve working with the government that's already stable and isn't in threat to fall to rebel groups like the Taliban.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan the US invaded and toppled a government. The US then engaged in nation-building. And failed.

What little substance these assertions have is incorrect, and I’m not sure what the point of these rhetorical goalposts are. Again, there are tens of thousands of US troops in the Middle East, indefinitely. As far as I know, there are the same number of troops in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan (2-3000), and they still come under attack from insurgents regularly. Iraq is in economic freefall and probably wouldn’t be able to fight off both ISIL and Iran et al for long if the US just packed up overnight and abandoned the government we are propping up years after toppling the previous, like we did in Afghanistan. You can continue to feel around for semantic distinctions all you like, and you’ll continue to prove my point for me. As top Republicans have pointed out, Biden has presented a false dilemma with this “forever war” narrative.

Unfortunately, President Biden chose to ignore the conditions on the ground and withdraw all U.S. troops by Sept. 11 of this year—a purely political decision. The Biden administration pretends there are only two options: unconditional U.S. withdrawal, or a “forever war.” Nobody wants to see U.S. troops in Afghanistan forever. But there is a third option: maintaining a relatively small troop presence until the conditions outlined in the 2020 U.S.-Taliban Agreement are fully implemented.

As we saw after President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, terrorists will exploit a security vacuum. Two and a half years after U.S. troops left Iraq, ISIS captured Mosul. It took five years, tens of thousands of troops and more than 30,000 airstrikes to destroy the physical caliphate.

Mr. Biden could leave a small force of about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan until at least the spring of 2022. Maintaining a small, tailored troop presence for an additional six months would accomplish critical objectives. It would maintain a quick counterterrorism force as the political and security environment evolves; enable more-effective intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; help protect the U.S. Embassy during what the intelligence community predicts will be a chaotic transition; and allow more time to process visas for Afghans who assisted U.S. troops and now fear for their lives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-alte...ut-11623615905

Circumstances may well force Biden to do some version of this, whether he wants to or not, given these same circumstances have already exposed withdrawal for the unforced disaster that it is.

The counter-terrorism operations conducted in other countries come no where close to the Afghanistan war in terms of scope, time, lives lost, or money wasted.

Surely you jest? See above. The US has spent about 2 trillion on the post-9/11 wars in the Middle East, with an expected 6.4 trillion in total obligations thus far. Withdrawing from Afghanistan changes little in that regard.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...conomic/budget

As was pointed out before:

That leaves the issue of money. There is no question that ending the U.S. ground presence will yield savings—but, it turns out, significantly less than one might think. After all, U.S. troops still need to be housed, fed, and paid regardless of whether they are based in Afghanistan, Qatar, or Texas. The Biden administration has also pledged to keep financing the Afghan army to the tune of several billion dollars a year, and has actually proposed to increase budgetary support to the government in Kabul. Then there are the operational and maintenance costs for aircraft making the long-distance commute to Afghanistan, which will be eye-watering, as will any new basing arrangements. Add it all up, and the supposed windfall of savings from leaving Afghanistan starts to look more illusory than real.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/202...-china/182882/

Let's tell the American people about the other operations in detail. But you and I both know the American public has no stomach to be interventionist anymore. So I'd be careful. You might lose support for them too.

As was pointed out previously, American public support for maintaining troops in the Middle East is growing, not declining. Just 24% think military presence there should be decreased. 63% consider the Middle East to be the most important region in the world to the security interests of the US. About half - again an increase - consider permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan a good idea, even while they believe these wars were not “worth it.”

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/re...east-has-grown

The day the American public returns to its isolationist tendencies of the prior century is the day the American-led world order actually, not just politically, declines and dies. With the left pushing the idea that the US is a racist, evil empire that must be destroyed into the mainstream, that day may well come. But not today.

That's right, he CAN be taught!

If that’s the definition you want to apply then yes, the conclusion would be that “forever wars” are wonderful and necessary.

U.S. overseas security commitments have a positive, statistically significant effect on U.S. bilateral trade. Doubling U.S. security treaties would expand U.S. bilateral trade by an estimated 34 percent, and doubling U.S. troop commitments overseas would expand such trade by up to 15 percent.

Trade losses from a 50-percent retrenchment in overseas commitments would reduce U.S. trade in goods and services by approximately $577 billion per year. This reduction in trade would likely reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $490 billion per year.

The economic losses from retrenchment are conservatively estimated to be more than three times any potential gains.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9912.html

[Vanoi]

What little substance these assertions have is incorrect, and I’m not sure what the point of these rhetorical goalposts are. Again, there are tens of thousands of US troops in the Middle East, indefinitely. As far as I know, there are the same number of troops in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan (2-3000), and they still come under attack from insurgents regularly. Iraq is in economic freefall and probably wouldn’t be able to fight off both ISIL and Iran et al for long if the US just packed up overnight and abandoned the government we are propping up years after toppling the previous, like we did in Afghanistan.

US forces in Iraq are mostly attacked by rockets and drones by pissed off Iranian militants and nothing more. The Iraqis are more than capable of taking on any threat from ISIS currently. They are not fighting the Iranians. That's just stupid. And besides the Iranians have done a great job of curbing their own influence in Iraq by attacking and assassinating various protesters which is why there is current tension between the Iraqi government and PMU. Iranians are ing up themselves all on their own.

Iraq is not the government the US left behind in 2011, nor is Iraq Afghanistan. Trying to say leaving Iraq now would cause their government to topple again is not based on one single fact.

You can continue to feel around for semantic distinctions all you like, and you’ll continue to prove my point for me. As top Republicans have pointed out, Biden has presented a false dilemma with this “forever war” narrative.

Yes some of the neo-cons are upset. We know.

Surely you jest? See above. The US has spent about 2 trillion on the post-9/11 wars in the Middle East, with an expected 6.4 trillion in total obligations thus far. Withdrawing from Afghanistan changes little.

Yes we invaded a country and toppled a government just like in Afghanistan. How did that work out?

The very fact you call them wars indicates they are not counter-terrorism operations like you claimed they were. As pointed out, counter terrorism operations are not invasions that topple governments and then an occupier engaging in nation building.

As was pointed out previously, American public support for maintaining troops in the Middle East is growing, not declining. Just 24% think military presence there should be decreased. 63% consider the Middle East to be the most important region in the world to the security interests of the US. About half - again an increase - consider permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan a good idea, even while they believe these wars were not “worth it.”

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/re...east-has-grown

Thanks for pointing out a majority of Americans don't favor staying Afghanistan.

The day the American public returns to its isolationist tendencies of the prior century is the day the American-led world order actually, not just politically, declines and dies. With the left pushing the idea that the US is a racist, evil empire that must be destroyed into the mainstream, that day may well come. But not today.

If that’s the definition you want to apply then yes, the conclusion would be that “forever wars” are wonderful and necessary.

America has never isolationist. America has intervened in it's neighbors affairs since it's existence.

That Cold War mentality you have where America has to intervene everywhere will die out eventually.

[Lord Thesaurian]

US forces in Iraq are mostly attacked by rockets and drones by pissed off Iranian militants and nothing more. The Iraqis are more than capable of taking on any threat from ISIS currently. They are not fighting the Iranians. That's just stupid. And besides the Iranians have done a great job of curbing their own influence in Iraq by attacking and assassinating various protesters which is why there is current tension between the Iraqi government and PMU. Iranians are

ing up themselves all on their own.

Iraq is not the government the US left behind in 2011, nor is Iraq Afghanistan. Trying to say leaving Iraq now would cause their government to topple again is not based on one single fact.

Weird strawman. No one claimed Iraq is directly at war with Iran. Iranian proxies are and have been active in Iraq, including recently. As for your second assertion, it’s less a question of if the current Iraqi government would collapse in the event the US suddenly pulled out a la Afghanistan, but whether or not the US should intervene or re-intervene to avert it.

Along with major security issues and political inertia—discussed in a separate article—much of this crisis can be understood through an economic lens. Specialists agree that, in the current situation, there are no economic drivers in Iraq. The only significant economic activity is merely the oil industry, the revenues of which get allocated as operating expenses. In the event of a revenue deficit from oil expenditures, as happens yearly and has happened for a number of years, the government resorts to internal and external borrowing. This has prompted the state to completely stop rebuilding what has been destroyed in previous wars, developing the basic services sector, or launching sustainable development in the period since 2003.

Today, these economic pressures have become a time bomb. There are already signs of grave consequences in the October demonstration and the demonstrations that followed, where graduates demanding employment in front of the headquarters of various ministries. In the past few weeks, youth’s demands for revolution and for boycotting the elections are being renewed, as well as a call for change in the existing political system. It is not unlikely that demonstrations will return in force to threaten the political system and remove the ruling class. Moreover, the country’s governance failures—discussed in a separate article—demonstrate the ways in which corruption and a proliferation of arms have further destabilized Iraq.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...-economic-woes

In fact, the only reason that the Iraqi government has not failed completely in past years has been an abundance of oil revenues, which have covered the state’s operational expenses and were enough for all the parties to divvy up their shares without butting heads. Even as the overall situation continued to deteriorate, political parties did not feel pressure to mobilize.

While implementing these solutions would require a difficult and radical departure from Iraq’s current governance structures, it is not possible for Iraq to continue on its current path. If Iraq does not collapse due to internal factors, it will collapse due to external factors—with a potential drop in oil prices being the most obvious immediate threat. Iraq’s ruling parties and their leaders must know that they bear full responsibility for state collapse. When that happens, angry groups of people, the afflicted, will not have mercy on them, and the torrent will sweep everyone away. At present, the only way to save the country is to adopt serious reforms before it is too late.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...state-collapse

A continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, modest as it may be, is essential to ensure the enduring defeat of the Islamic State.

Iraq suffers greatly from Iran’s interference, but the U.S.-Iraq relationship is demonstrably not a lost cause. Evidence for this abounds in the past few days alone: President Barham Salih, Speaker of Parliament Mohammed al-Halbousi, and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry publicly denounced Iran’s ballistic missile strike on bases housing U.S. forces; fully half of Iraq’s parliament boycotted the January 5 vote to oust U.S. troops; President Salih issued a statement noting that “the United States is our ally. Iran is our neighbor”; and leaders of Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government recommitted—publicly and privately— to cooperate with the United States.

If U.S. troops stay in Iraq, they would greatly reinforce America’s position there and help counter Iran’s malign influence throughout the region. But if they leave, Iraq would be at immediate risk of slipping back into the destructive isolation of the Saddam era, with even less ability to resist Iran’s predatory policies. Most Iraqis rightly dread that thought. The hundreds of thousands of anti-Iranian protestors who have taken to Iraq’s streets in recent months, especially in Shia areas, drive home this point. They would much prefer an Iraq that is sovereign, peaceful, pluralistic, and fully integrated into the international community. A continuing U.S. diplomatic and military presence would help bolster those prospects. As such, Washington can reasonably expect Iraq’s government to offer terms that make this presence useful to both parties.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...eed-each-other

Yes some of the neo-cons are upset. We know.

Yes we invaded a country and toppled a government just like in Afghanistan. How did that work out?

The very fact you call them wars indicates they are not counter-terrorism operations like you claimed they were. As pointed out, counter terrorism operations are not invasions that topple governments and then an occupier engaging in nation building.

Wait, so post-2011 operations in Iraq aren’t counterterrorism, or the NATO operation in Afghanistan post-2014 wasn’t a war? Not that it has anything to do with what I said, either way. It appears you’ve lost the plot of your semantic “gotchas” again.

Thanks for pointing out a majority of Americans don't favor staying Afghanistan.

As I told you the last time you retreated to this “yeah, but…” quip, the public was against withdrawal according to some polls, so long as it was Trump’s idea. From 2019:



https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ruary-Poll.pdf

Americans seem to care less about getting out of Afghanistan, and more about whose idea it is. In any case, it hasn’t dampened support for USM presence in the Middle East, nor the increasing support for maintaining bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America has never isolationist. America has intervened in it's neighbors affairs since it's existence.

That Cold War mentality you have where America has to intervene everywhere will die out eventually.

I suppose it’s predictable that you pivot again to lazy deflections when you have no argument. As for the first:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the second, the current Afghanistan withdrawal has nothing to do with the Cold War, and opposition to it doesn’t necessarily relate to a “Cold War mentality” just because you can’t defend your assertions with anything more than “muh neocons.”

[irontaino]

If that’s the definition you want to apply then yes, the conclusion would be that “forever wars” are wonderful and necessary.

Right, so a few corporations and defense contractors getting rich is truly a thing to celebrate (and let's not pretend for one second that U.S. interventions abroad are about anything more than looting resources from a country and letting defense contractors try out their new toys). It just comes at the cost of wasting trillions of dollars in perpetual conflict while at home, the nation's infrastructure is crumbling, debts mounting, the cost of living skyrocketing, and big money (with a vested interest in keeping forever wars going) taking the reigns in U.S. politics. All for the supposed reason of "protecting our freedom", even though no existential threat to American freedom exists abroad.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Right, so a few corporations and defense contractors getting rich is truly a thing to celebrate (and let's not pretend for one second that U.S. interventions abroad are about anything more than looting resources from a country and letting defense contractors try out their new toys). It just comes at the cost of wasting trillions of dollars in perpetual conflict while at home, the nation's infrastructure is crumbling, debts mounting, the cost of living skyrocketing, and big money (with a vested interest in keeping forever wars going) taking the reigns in U.S. politics. All for the supposed reason of "protecting our freedom", even though no existential threat to American freedom exists abroad.

Again, this kind of self-righteous cope is based on nothing but political talking points that directly contradict the cited analysis, as well as the threat assessment to the US homeland cited by the Pentagon I provided earlier. As for the false dichotomy between domestic and foreign spending, neither party has any fiscal qualms these days about doing both, nor would any foreign spending necessarily dictate policy or outcomes in domestic markets. Anything you don’t like can be called a waste. The difference is that you’re just plain wrong. For your review, some basics on trade, and who benefits from it:

WHY IS TRADE IMPORTANT?
* Jobs. More than 40 million American jobs depend on trade, and trade is critical to the success of many sectors of the U.S. economy.
* Growth. According to economic data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. real manufacturing output has risen by nearly 80% over the past 25 years. This represents the continuation of a long trend: U.S. manufacturing value-added has grown eightfold since 1947 in real terms.
* Business. 98% of the roughly 300,000 U.S. companies that export are small and medium-sized businesses, and they account for one-third of U.S. merchandise exports, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

https://www.uschamber.com/internatio...national-trade

[irontaino]

Again, this kind of self-righteous cope is based on nothing but political talking points that directly contradict the cited

Gonna level with you, I stopped reading right about here. All of your responses have been some variation of this same exact bit.