US Forces In Full Scale Retreat From Afghanistan; 20 years of War Ending In Total Military Defeat?

[Heathen Hammer]

And now the Taliban will let Al-Qaeda and ISIS use their caves again, from where they'll plot a whole series of nasty attacks on the US and Europe, just like AQ did prior to 9/11. And now the Taliban has a score to settle against the West for trying to oust them from power. Unfortunately the story of the War on Terror hardly ends here, and we will soon realize that these past twenty years were a relative respite from Islamic attack.

There was never any "war on terror" to begin with. Just vague excuses to start wars over a textbook example of a false flag op.
9/11 attacks were done by Saudi Arabia, whose involvement is still classified by American government for "greater good".
I don't think Islamism across the globe is really a priority threat to US, when it has its own woke fanatical taliban going around assaulting people with full support from corporations and media.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There is a significant difference between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, a global terrorist movement. The Taliban movement is deeply rooted in rural, tribal culture, they hold very rigid perspectives of urban culture. Read "Landscapes of the Jihad". Some parts of the Taliban oppose al-Qaeda. Taliban’s victory is not necessarily al-Qaeda’s victory.Of course, I can be wrong.

An extremist group like al-Qaida may be able to regenerate in Afghanistan and pose a threat to the U.S. homeland within two years of the American military’s withdrawal from the country, the Pentagon’s top leaders said Thursday.

At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley whether they rated the likelihood of a regeneration of al-Qaida or the Islamic State group in Afghanistan as small, medium or large.

“I would assess it as medium,” Austin replied. “I would also say, senator, that it would take possibly two years for them to develop that capability.”

Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, said he agreed.

“I think that if certain other things happen — if there was a collapse of the government or the dissolution of the Afghan security forces — that risk would obviously increase, but right now I would say ‘medium’ and about two years or so,” Milley said.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...9b9a4f89002547

Anyway, you can't stay there forever

The USAF has been stationed at Lajes off and on for 80 years.

...The United States face terrorist threats in countries around the world including Syria, Libya, Yemen, Africa... We don’t have boots on the ground in those countries. We have over the horizon counter terrorism capabilities. And, that’s what we’ll do in Afghanistan.

Lol. Lie or senior moment? Who can say with this guy?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

America’s enemies smell blood, and are wasting no time:

Iran Goes on the Offensive as the U.S. Retreats From Afghanistan and Elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-of...el-11629141427

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cope]

Resolution 1510 authorizes ISAF to act as guards for UN and Afghani officials and maintain the peace in various regions. Do note that ISAF was not part of Operation Enduring Freedom, which saw military elements deployed to Afghanistan and less than half of the US forces in Afghanistan were part of ISAF at any point. At it's peak ISAF had 130k personnel total of which ~70k + were US soldiers while the US had a presence of 140k military personnel (not including CIA elements, PMC's and contractual muilitary personnel from other nations).

Resolution 2189 Deals with the follow up to ISAF, which at its peak included ~7700 army personnel from multiple nations, that is a fraction of the US forces present in 2015 (roughly 9800, again not including CIA, PMCs and foreign soldiers fighting under contract).

So basically you have two resolutions that do not even cover a fraction of operational array in Afghanistan (but hey maybe you can explain how Tier 1 snipers in the northern regions were included in ISAF) and only a fraction of the total personnel present.

Assuming that the ISAF operations were not an occupation, how do you justify the other freaking half's presence there?

PS: you still haven't justified your point of view and supported your claim that no rulings that it is an occupation = it's not an occupation. I would really like to see the UN rulings on the 20th century military occupations. I assume you have them since you brought up that idea in the first place. Or were you just being contrarian as always?

PPS: Since you're curious Romania's contribution to the war in Afghanistan consisted of peace-keeping operations as part of ISAF as well a mercenary volunteers who fought under contract with the US army and were payed and supplied by the US army. Said volunteers were romanian professional soldiers given leave of absence to go to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

See my previous comments. US forces which were not part of ISAF/RSM were operating in Afghanistan with the consent of the internationally recognized, elected Afghani govt (which was a product of the UN endorsed Bonn Agreement). Their mission coincided with the UN Charter and multiple Security Council resolutions on international terrorism, the Taliban insurgency and Afghani self-determination. These forces were not “hostile” to the Afghan govt. nor was the Afghan govt. under their authority. Neither they, nor ISAF were occupying Afghanistan as per international law. This is why no other international institution has (to the best of my knowledge) claimed otherwise.

Secondly, the peak troop numbers of the RSM was not ~8 thousand. It was at least double that. By the start of 2021, only 2,500 US soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan, almost all of which were assigned to RSM. So even setting aside the international standards and the UN mission, it isn't possible that country as large and populated as Afghanistan could have been "occupied" by a few thousand men.

[Sir Adrian]

US forces which were not part of ISAF/RSM were operating in Afghanistan with the consent of the internationally recognized, elected Afghani govt (which was a product of the UN endorsed Bonn Agreement).

You mean the regime that was imposed by the US army and propped up by the US army and only by the US army at every turn and which started to crumble locally as soon as US troops left an area? Yeah, the people of Afghanistan clearly disagree with this assessment.

Their mission coincided with the UN Charter and multiple Security Council resolutions on international terrorism,

We've already been down this road and you failed to provide a single resolution that covered the forces not part of ISAF, which as I have showed was the bulk of the US forces in Afghanistan.

These forces were not “hostile” to the Afghan govt. nor was the Afghan govt. under their authority.

That is not a requirement for military occupation. See once again the soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet occupation of the Warsaw pact countries until the 1950s.

This is why no other international institution has (to the best of my knowledge) claimed otherwise.

For the third time, can you or can you not prove your claim that a military occupation requires that an international institution issue a statement that it is so?

Secondly, the peak troop numbers of the RSM was not ~8 thousand. It was at least double that. By the start of 2021, only 2,500 US soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan, almost all of which were assigned to RSM. So even setting aside the international standards and the UN mission, it isn't possible that country as large and populated as Afghanistan could have been "occupied" by a few thousand men.

Ok, let's assume for the sake of the argument that the occupation forces were withdrawn during Trump and only legally mandated forces remained by 2020. That still leaves around 16-17 years to account for.

Iirc Iceland was militarily occupied by 50 British soldiers back in WWII. You don't really need boots on the ground if you can react quickly enough to any attempts to shake off the regime you imposed.

[Ludicus]

Anyway, you can't stay there forever

The USAF has been stationed at Lajes off and on for 80 years

The dumbest comparison ever. Even worse, bordering on extreme trolling.
-----
Why is it so hard for warmongers to deal with reality?
Why the United States is no longer winning the wars | USA

A few days before the fall of Saigon in April 1975, an event that marked the end of the Vietnam War, Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr of the United States Army had a conversation in Hanoi with Colonel Tu of the North Vietnamese Army at peace negotiations. “You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,” said Summers. The North Vietnamese colonel reflected on this remark for a moment, then replied: “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”
Summers, who became a writer and a scholar of the Vietnam War, concluded that his North Vietnamese counterpart was right: that regardless of action on the battlefield, the Americans had lost the 20-year-long war in such a terribly profound way that it became a symbol and a slogan: “We don’t want another Vietnam.”
They didn’t want one in Afghanistan, they didn’t want on in Iraq, they didn’t want one in any of the wars that the US fought in the early 21st century and which quickly turned into dead ends – conflicts that are not lost but not won either, and which are very hard to abandon. In the case of Afghanistan, it will have taken two decades.
And in Iraq, site of the most unpopular war in recent US history, President Joe Biden agreed to conclude the combat mission by the end of 2021, after 18 years.

The Latest: Taliban leader reported in Kabul for talks - AP News

Senior Taliban leader Amir Khan Muttaqi is said to be in the Afghan capital negotiating with Kabul’s political leadership, including Abdullah Abdullah, who once headed the country’s negotiating council, and former President Hamid Karzai.
Muttaqi was a higher education minister when the Taliban last ruled and he began making contacts with Afghan political leaders even before Afghan President Ashraf Ghani secretly slipped away from the Presidential Palace on the weekend, leaving a devastating vacuum
The official says the talks underway in the Afghan capital are aimed at bringing other non-Taliban leaders into the government that Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has said will be an “inclusive Afghan government.”
...a government will be announced after negotiations with non-Taliban leaders are completed.

Taliban attitudes and policies towards education - ODI

There are significant debates and differences of opinion within the Taliban on education. There is a tension between the preferences of the Taliban’s traditionalists and hardliners, and those who recognise that Afghanistan needs more diverse and more modern ideas and approaches within its education system. Even so, there is still a far stronger emphasis on, and preference for, Islamic education.

Realistic expectations.Long read Interview with Taliban's Zabihullah Mujahid: Full Transcript (12 July 2021)

[Lord Thesaurian]

The dumbest comparison ever. Even worse, bordering on extreme trolling.

Looks like those pesky libertarian facts have put your sophistry in an awkward position again. If that upsets you, perhaps you shouldn’t pretend the US hasn’t stationed troops all over the world for decades.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. I presume most of us are here, because we happen to like computerized military simulations.

2. Biden can say what he likes, but anyone paying attention knows he's wanted out for a very long while, possibly definitely for the past twelve years, and he campaigned on that promise.

3. Could the withdrawal be handled better, sure.

4. However, the rapid collapse indicates there was no political will with either the Afghan elite or the proletariat to be willing to militarily resist the Taliban.

5. As far as I can tell, there would be two basic questions involved.

6. How much more investment would have been needed to stabilize the situation, in actual money and troops, or at least, allow a very gradual deterioration of the military situation stretching into years?

7. What is America actually getting out of it, to prolong the military occupation of Afghanistan?

8. We know that America and it's allies are getting hammered economically during the pandemic, and they don't want any distractions while they struggle over the South China Sea and Eastern Europe.

9. So for the interest groups outside of Biden, it may boil down to opportunity cost.

[Ludicus]

Looks like those pesky libertarian facts..

Not all libertarians are libertarian warmongers- a contradiction in terms.A Libertarian Vision for Foreign Policy and National Defense

Reducing the size, scope, and expense of our military would make us safer—and lead to a more peaceful world.

perhaps you shouldn’t pretend the US hasn’t stationed troops all over the world for decades.

Stop embarrassing yourself. I never said that "the US hasn’t stationed troops all over the world" .A completely, irrelevant theme for the present situation in Afghanistan. In fact, the US has probably more foreign military bases than any other people, nation or empire in history, and still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. On a side note, the pertinent question is why does the US have 800 military bases around the world? Anthropologist warns of growth in US bases
-----
-----
Back to the topic.

Taliban announce 'amnesty,' urge women to join government

In another sign of the Taliban’s efforts to portray a new image, a female television anchor on the private broadcaster Tolo interviewed a Taliban official on camera Tuesday in a studio — an interaction that once would have been unthinkable.
The interview, notable given the Taliban’s history of subjugating women, was part of a wider effort by the group since taking power to present a more liberal face to the world.

English transcription needed

[Lord Thesaurian]

Not all libertarians are libertarian warmongers- a contradiction in terms.

Of course it’s a contradiction in terms. And yet that hasn’t stopped you from using it as your go-to codeword for everything from Nazism/fascism to “hyper nationalist jingoism.”

A completely, irrelevant theme for the present situation in Afghanistan.

Your false assertions only reveal the vacuousness of your narrative.

The Resolute Support (RS) is a NATO-led mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) and institutions. The mission was launched on Jan. 1, 2015 immediately following the stand-down of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

The legal framework for RS is provided by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed in Kabul on Sept. 30, 2014 and ratified by the Afghan Parliament on Nov. 27, 2014. The SOFA defines the terms and conditions under which NATO forces are deployed, as well as the activities they are authorized to carry out. The mission is also supported by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2189, unanimously adopted on Dec. 12, 2014.

These efforts are part of the broader engagement of the international community in Afghanistan to ensure that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorism.

https://www.centcom.mil/OPERATIONS-A...OLUTE-SUPPORT/

Underscoring the importance of continued international support for Afghanistan, the Security Council today welcomed the agreement between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Afghan Government to establish a post‑2014 non-combat mission in that country to aid national defence and security forces.

Through the unanimous adoption of resolution 2189 (2014), the 15-nation body looked forward to the new mission’s leadership in working with the Afghan Government and cooperating with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11697.doc.htm

Terrorism poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries, and to international stability and prosperity. It is a persistent global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion, and is a challenge that the international community must tackle together. NATO will continue to fight this threat with determination and in full solidarity. NATO’s work on counter-terrorism focuses on improving awareness of the threat, developing capabilities to prepare and respond, and enhancing engagement with partner countries and other international actors.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77646.htm

With the dawn of the Global War on Terror, Lajes Field continued its keystone role in U.S. overseas operations, serving an important transport and logistics hub during both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the lead-up to the 2nd Iraq War, Lajes hosted a summit among President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

https://www.heritage.org/global-poli...egic-interests

[irontaino]

1. I presume most of us are here, because we happen to like computerized military simulations.

2. Biden can say what he likes, but anyone paying attention knows he's wanted out for a very long while, possibly definitely for the past twelve years, and he campaigned on that promise.

3. Could the withdrawal be handled better, sure.

4. However, the rapid collapse indicates there was no political will with either the Afghan elite or the proletariat to be willing to militarily resist the Taliban.

5. As far as I can tell, there would be two basic questions involved.

6. How much more investment would have been needed to stabilize the situation, in actual money and troops, or at least, allow a very gradual deterioration of the military situation stretching into years?

7. What is America actually getting out of it, to prolong the military occupation of Afghanistan?

8. We know that America and it's allies are getting hammered economically during the pandemic, and they don't want any distractions while they struggle over the South China Sea and Eastern Europe.

9. So for the interest groups outside of Biden, it may boil down to opportunity cost.

A lot of what's happening now boils down to the fact that since Bush, the US has had no idea what it wanted to do in Afghanistan. It had been lying to the public about how well the war was going, and how they totally weren't wasting money on an ineffective government from the time the occupation began to now. America effed up, that's the in and out of it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Politicians that pushed for more foreign wars while also holding stock in military-industrial complex and later offered executive positions in there know exactly what they are doing. They weren't "wasting" money they were simply using foreign wars as scheme to enrich themselves.

[Sir Adrian]

A lot of what's happening now boils down to the fact that since Bush, the US has had no idea what it wanted to do in Afghanistan. It had been lying to the public about how well the war was going, and how they totally weren't wasting money on an ineffective government from the time the occupation began to now. America effed up, that's the in and out of it.

A lot fo what's happening there boils down to the fact that the Afghan government was plagued by factionalism and was by far the most corrupt government on the planet. All the aid and funding that the US dumped into Afghanistan ended up in the pockets of a few well placed individuals while the lives of the general population stagnated or got worse.

Add into the mix Afghan government forces in the rural parts of the country that acted like bandits more often than not, robbing and raping in broad daylight with no consequence whatsoever, and the general cowboy attitude of some of the coalition soldiers and you get a people that is understandably counting the days.

America ed up, but it ed in selecting and backing the wrong government, even when proof of corruption and abuse were evident.

[irontaino]

A lot fo what's happening there boils down to the fact that the Afghan government was plagued by factionalism and was by far the most corrupt government on the planet. All the aid and funding that the US dumped into Afghanistan ended up in the pockets of a few well placed individuals while the lives of the general population stagnated or got worse.

Add into the mix Afghan government forces in the rural parts of the country that acted like bandits more often than not, robbing and raping in broad daylight with no consequence whatsoever, and the general cowboy attitude of some of the coalition soldiers and you get a people that is understandably counting the days.

America ed up, but it ed in selecting and backing the wrong government, even when proof of corruption and abuse were evident.

Pretty much. The government it set up there was irredeemably corrupt from the get-go.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As proven by the tragic scenes of panicked Afghan civilians swarming the tarmac in Kabul, it’s clear that the NATO backed government, regardless of its glaring flaws, was vastly preferable to the alternative. The privileged cynicism of the western tankies and isolationists deflecting blame for this disaster by coping about the futility and incompetence of American intervention cannot and will not accept the fact that the NATO mission to back the Afghan government was categorically better than an Afghanistan without it - better for America, better for Afghanistan, and better for the world.

There are now 7,000 US troops deploying to Kabul in a frantic attempt to save American citizens from the disaster created by people who whined about deploying 5,000 troops to prevent anything like this from happening in the first place. The catastrophic costs and consequences of withdrawal are proliferating by the day.

[EmperorBatman999]

As proven by the tragic scenes of panicked Afghan civilians swarming the tarmac in Kabul, it’s clear that the NATO backed government, regardless of its glaring flaws, was vastly preferable to the alternative. The privileged cynicism of the western tankies and isolationists deflecting blame for this disaster by coping about the futility and incompetence of American intervention cannot and will not accept the fact that the NATO mission to back the Afghan government was categorically better than an Afghanistan without it - better for America, better for Afghanistan, and better for the world.

There are now 7,000 US troops deploying to Kabul in a frantic attempt to save American citizens from the disaster created by people who whined about deploying 5,000 troops to prevent anything like this from happening in the first place. The catastrophic costs and consequences of withdrawal are proliferating by the day.

What puzzles me, and perhaps this is callous, but I don't understand how the Afghan people viewed the Taliban as such an evil as to want to flee their entire country to avoid them, but didn't consider them so evil as to try putting up a resistance against them?

It seems to me that you don't get the choice to do nothing about the problem and then suddenly try running away from it when it shows up on your doorstep.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its not that the Western proxy government was preferable or not, its the fact that it was not feasible, all while all the effort, all the sacrifices and immense funding that was thrown into it - all of that made no difference as Afghanistan is back to square 1.
Only difference is pro-war American politicians that managed to enrich themselves now enjoy nice executive positions in military-industrial complex corporations.

[Lord Thesaurian]

What puzzles me, and perhaps this is callous, but I don't understand how the Afghan people viewed the Taliban as such an evil as to want to flee their entire country to avoid them, but didn't consider them so evil as to try putting up a resistance against them?

It seems to me that you don't get the choice to do nothing about the problem and then suddenly try running away from it when it shows up on your doorstep.

I get that, and there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, plenty of Afghans did fight. The ASF was leading the fight since 2014, with a handful of western troops operating in a non combat support role. As we’re seeing, that was a hell of a bargain compared to the situation going forward.

As for the people themselves, I always try to separate “people” from “government.” I’m bewildered and disgusted by my own government’s self destructive behavior, from the completely avoidable debacle we just witnessed, to the Marxist cancer spreading through and rotting American institutions, to the culture of decadence and weakness that created it. But what can I do about it? I won’t be clinging to the side of a plane any time soon , but if there were a better place to go, I would seriously consider it. America is the last best place, like Reagan said. The scenes from Kabul airport are a solemn reminder of that responsibility.

[Sir Adrian]

As proven by the tragic scenes of panicked Afghan civilians swarming the tarmac in Kabul

Or they could be local NATO collaborators and contractors that are now more or less marked for death. Several NATO countries, including Spain, are gathering all civilians that assisted them and taking them out of the country through the Kabul airport.

There is no doubt that some people found the new government the least evil when compared to the Taliban but the speed with which the Taliban conquered the country is not possible without full support from the population.

[EmperorBatman999]

Yet, at the moment it counted, when the ASF had to look solely to themselves (with US air support) to hold back the Taliban, they retreated, and retreated, and retreated. The civilian population has not come forward to take up arms to shore up the ASF or to fight a stay-behind guerrilla war against the Taliban. The ASF handed over every asset they had, from their massive NATO weapons stockpiles to the fortress airfield at Bagram, often without a shot fired. The ASF did not even attempt to make a stand at the outskirts of Kabul, to hold off and protect the government and Kabul's civilians. The soldiers of the ASF, and the civilians of Afghanistan, had to know what a Taliban victory was going to look like, and yet they did nothing to fight it, instead preferring to flee the country like hapless victims when they had the means and the power to fight back.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yet, at the moment it counted, when the ASF had to look solely to themselves (with US air support) to hold back the Taliban, they retreated, and retreated, and retreated. The civilian population has not come forward to take up arms to shore up the ASF or to fight a stay-behind guerrilla war against the Taliban. The ASF handed over every asset they had, from their massive NATO weapons stockpiles to the fortress airfield at Bagram, often without a shot fired. The ASF did not even attempt to make a stand at the outskirts of Kabul, to hold off and protect the government and Kabul's civilians. The soldiers of the ASF, and the civilians of Afghanistan, had to know what a Taliban victory was going to look like, and yet they did nothing to fight it, instead preferring to flee the country like hapless victims when they had the means and the power to fight back.

Again, the ASF =/= the Afghan people. Militias are already forming. We’re going back to square one. Plus, there’s not really much in the way of US air support, and that’s a big reason why the ASF was losing badly even before it collapsed. The US gave up Bagram, and the long distance bombing runs made periodically were too few and far between to make a difference. It took 5,000 troops to keep the ASF going. It’s taking 7,000 and counting to deal with the collapse.