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

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ignoring my points and deflecting isn't debunking my argument. i have mentioned the multi-trillion dollar cost of this war numerous times and the lack of progress to show for it. You simply ignore that since you and I both know you don't have a counter.

The Afghan Army is barely fighting anymore. Goes to show that after 20 years of training and arming the Afghans that it amounted to absolutely nothing. Just provincial capitals falling. What a

ing waste.

Repeating your lies doesn’t make them more true, especially when you already admitted you don’t have a leg to stand on:

It's not about saving money. It's about not wasting money on a failed war any longer.

Focusing on sunk costs is misleading. Focusing on current and future costs is how anyone actually concerned with cost would approach it.

Calling an international non combat mission to support the Afghan government since 2014 a “forever war” doesn’t change the fact that Trump/Biden’s decisions to suddenly abandon our allies directly and foreseeably caused the problems happening now. Screaming “ em all to death!!” into the wind doesn’t make for a coherent point. It just means you have nothing relevant to say but are determined to defend the Biden Admin’s abysmal handling of the situation anyway. Increased costs, civil war/regional destabilization, and significantly increased risk of terror attacks on US soil as a result of withdrawal are a matter of fact I have cited more than once. You’ve yet to address these or come up with any relevant counterpoint/ net benefits of withdrawal.

[Heathen Hammer]

American taxpayer doesn't owe anything to those "allies" and does not get any benefits from them, therefore its not the taxpayers problem. I'm sure that chickenhawks from both wings of Uniparty could create some kind of militia force and go their themselves to fight Taliban. Or give the corrupt proxy government there their own money, instead of public budget money that are supposed to be spent on needs and interests of American taxpayers.

[Vanoi]

Repeating your lies doesn’t make them more true, especially when you already admitted you don’t have a leg to stand on:



Screaming “ em all to death!!” into the wind doesn’t make for a coherent point. It just means you have nothing relevant to say but are determined to defend the Biden Admin’s abysmal handling of the situation anyway. Increased costs, civil war/regional destabilization, and significantly increased risk of terror attacks on US soil as a result of withdrawal are a matter of fact I have cited more than once.

Leg to stand on? I've mentioned numerous times in debates with you that I don't want to continue wasting money on the war in Afghanistan. Not wasting money on this useless war any longer is always been my goal.

Ignoring sunk costs is just a way for you to deflect any criticism for the war. You don't want to talk about the money spent because that would mean you'd have to actually acknowledge that the money has been wasted and there has been no real progress made in the twenty years this war went on. You want to ignore the vast corruption in the Afghan government. You want to ignore how badly the Afghan Army is performing despite twenty years of training and arms supplies given to them.

You simply want to ignore any failures like they never happened while continuing to advocate support for a war that has led to absolutely no real progress.


But I'll bite. Since you say current and future costs are what we need to be concerned about.

How much more money does the US need to spend to create a stable Afghan government and defeat? I can't wait to hear your answer.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Leg to stand on? I've mentioned numerous times in debates with you that I don't want to continue wasting money on the war in Afghanistan. Not wasting money on this useless war any longer is always been my goal.

Ignoring sunk costs is just a way for you to deflect any criticism for the war. You don't want to talk about the money spent because that would mean you'd have to actually acknowledge that the money has been wasted and there has been no real progress made in the twenty years this war went on. You want to ignore the vast corruption in the Afghan government. You want to ignore how badly the Afghan Army is performing despite twenty years of training and arms supplies given to them.

You simply want to ignore any failures like they never happened while continuing to advocate support for a war that has led to absolutely no real progress.


But I'll bite. Since you say current and future costs are what we need to be concerned about.

How much more money does the US need to spend to create a stable Afghan government and defeat? I can't wait to hear your answer.

Projecting your refusal to acknowledge facts and deflecting any liability for your failed arguments by accusing me of bias is par for the course. I needn’t repeat myself. As long as the net costs of withdrawal exceed the net costs of staying, which they currently do, I’m under no obligation to entertain increasingly outdated cope from you. The Biden Admin is doing your position no favors either, given they just sent in more troops than they originally pulled out, and will leave hundreds in place post withdrawal to guard USG assets, all while running even costlier bombing runs from further afield and continuing to bankroll the entire ASF. “Not wasting money on this useless war” indeed lolol.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its pretty obvious that those troops are just to pull out the last US citizens out before Taliban takes Kabul in next few months.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates famously wrote that President Biden has been on the wrong side of every major foreign-policy issue in his long career. The world is getting another example as Mr. Biden’s hell-bent, ill-planned withdrawal from Afghanistan is turning into a strategic defeat and moral debacle.

Many Afghan troops are fighting bravely, but they lack the air support that has been their main military advantage. Mr. Biden blundered in withdrawing all U.S. air power from the country, including private contractors who assist the Afghan air force in maintaining helicopters and planes. The contractors are now literally having to assist via Zoom calls, while the U.S. military flies too few sorties from the Persian Gulf region to slow the Taliban.

The White House has failed to understand what’s happening, with leaks saying the Administration is surprised by the Taliban assault. Surprised? The military warned Mr. Biden and so did U.S. intelligence. The Taliban began this offensive on May 1, two weeks after Mr. Biden announced his withdrawal, aiming for the symbolic date of Sept. 11.

Many Americans may not care now what happens in Afghanistan. But as in Vietnam, the abandonment of our allies will have significant costs. When the world’s rogues sense that a superpower lacks the will to support its friends, they soon look for other ways to take advantage.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deb...mp-11628806642

Afghanistan seems to be on the brink of collapse. The Taliban has now managed to reportedly capture Kandahar, the country's second largest city whose governor fled as the terrorists took over. Meanwhile, the United States of America, which had been waging a war on terror for the last 20 years in the region, is now reportedly pleading with the Taliban to spare its embassy in capital city Kabul in case it is overrun by the anti-government fighters.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/video...850543881.html

We’ve gone from “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” to “please oh please spare us.” American decline: a comedy.

[Papay]

Despite the fact that some people try to equate Taliban with international terrorism, fact is that they dont pose a real threat for US at least not in the way Taliban pose for countries like Russia and India. The victory of Mujahedin was the prime reason why USSR collapsed leading to many new muslim nations like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and in two huge wars in Chechenia. All these events were directly inspired by the result of the Afghan-Soviet war. India too might face problems in Kashmir. But if USA is smart they will use Saudi Arabia to influence Taliban. But then of course many feminists will be pissed of so i dont know if this will happen

[Lord Thesaurian]

Despite the fact that some people try to equate Taliban with international terrorism, fact is that they dont pose a real threat for US at least not in the way Taliban pose for countries like Russia and India.

Proximity may amplify the risks for Afghanistan’s neighbors, but the Taliban’s links to international terrorism are well documented and will benefit immensely from US withdrawal, posing significant and direct threats to the US homeland - and that was under the assumption Kabul doesn’t collapse.

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

[Papay]

Proximity may amplify the risks for Afghanistan’s neighbors, but the Taliban’s links to international terrorism are well documented and will benefit immensely from US withdrawal, posing significant and direct threats to the US homeland - and that was under the assumption Kabul doesn’t collapse.

The answer to this is recognision. But this will make some feminists angry...

[antaeus]

So how much longer does the US and friends need to stay? It's been twenty years. Longest war in American history.

How much longer does the US need to stay to finally win?

I think you're asking the wrong question. I don't think this is a question of "winning". But most of what you're asking has already been addressed in the thread.

Firstly, the US has remained committed to supporting democratic freedoms in Europe for nearly 80 years. The US has more forces based in Germany, Japan and Italy than they do in Afghanistan currently - despite there being no risk to the stability of those countries. There has been risks to those countries over the years however - the Korean War, 1948 and 1961 in Europe. The US isn't there to fight any more - but that's why they first went. They're there in partnership as a long term guarantor. Long term commitments aren't the problem. That would be what victory in Afghanistan would look like too - and there is no single moment when that victory is realised.

Secondly, again as has has been pointed out, the US isn't doing most of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. It hasn't been since Obama. Afghan forces have been carrying out the bulk of security operations. The US has been drawing down forces for half a decade. The reason Afghan forces are failing now is that they feel let down by their key ally. The last 3 years have shown that the US didn't need to do the fighting, they just needed to show public commitment to long term support. Changing a country's cultural outlook is a multi generational activity. Instead the US said "we don't value your freedom enough to support it any more". It's an issue of messaging, not being there to fight. And the messaging from Biden over the past month has been particularly Machiavellian - it is entirely self serving for a local political audience. That is what has led to the morale collapse in the face of Taliban attacks. A morale collapse that didn't happen last year when the Taliban became more active.

This situation is particularly galling given Biden's plans to convene another summit of democracies in December - in an attempt to strengthen democracy globally in the face of advancing authoritarian regimes. Who amongst the citizens of marginal democracies would trust a partnership with Biden, if he is so cavalier about his existing partnerships?

[sumskilz]

The answer to this is recognision. But this will make some feminists angry...

I hardly think feminists would have the time to give Afghanistan a second thought considering the rampant manspreading epidemic in the West.

[Papay]

I hardly think feminists would have the time to give Afghanistan a second thought considering the rampant manspreading epidemic in the West.

Yeah like there wasnt a refugee crisis while NATO was there...

In other news

https://news.yahoo.com/taliban-seize...165019930.html

Taliban have taken a huge amount of weaponry, all of them made by NATO and that for free.

[Cyclops]

I don't think the various regimes we cobbled together in Afghanistan had much staying power: they aren't falling because of disappointment, they are falling because they were held together by US force and buckets of US money, and those are being withdrawn. The vast majority of Pashtuns weren't on board and they are the largest single demographic. I think most of the major ethnic groups have larger populations over the border in neighbouring states, which is basically a guarantee of instability.

The arguments here are as old as the hills. Afghanistan is very easily invaded, and never easily pacified. This was common knowledge before the invasion began, and events have confirmed this. Only the most benighted idiot would argue otherwise.

I hardly think feminists would have the time to give Afghanistan a second thought considering the rampant manspreading epidemic in the West.

My problem with manspreading is these blokes with no reason to spread doing it anyway. Those of us with huge balls deserve the right, the rest, what have they done to deserve this privilege? We need orchidometers on public transport and gathering places. Name and shame the peanut brigade (and hobble them at the knees if needs be), and keep the venerated tradition of spreading for those with the need.

I'd go even further: those with sufficient size should be mandated to spread. What good is a right if it goes unexercised?

[Prodromos]

The Taliban isn't some popular uprising against foreign occupation, though, it's a fringe terrorist organization hated by all sectors of Afghan society.

[Heathen Hammer]

The Taliban isn't some popular uprising against foreign occupation, though, it's a fringe terrorist organization hated by all sectors of Afghan society.

Its clearly not the case, given how they are rapidly gaining ground, which is impossible without widespread grassroots support among many sectors of Afghan society. The proxy puppet regime that US government set up there failed at most rudimentary tasks, so its pretty clear significant amount of population would rather take a chance with Taliban instead, which just speaks volumes of American governments in the past 20 years more then anything.

[irontaino]

Its clearly not the case, given how they are rapidly gaining ground, which is impossible without widespread grassroots support among many sectors of Afghan society.

Not necessarily. They gain ground the same way cartels in Mexico do; using fear, intimidation, and the money they make from the heroin trade, then they just kill anyone who doesn't tow the line (along with their families).

[Heathen Hammer]

Not necessarily. They gain ground the same way cartels in Mexico do; using fear, intimidation, and the money they make from the heroin trade, then they just kill anyone who doesn't tow the line (along with their families).

All sides there are like that, including the Western "good guys" that routinely bomb hospitals and other civilian areas, while propping up a repressive and corrupt regime there. It seems Taliban is viewed as a lesser evil by a significant part of the population, which tends to care more about such mundane things as access to food and water, then "democracy".

[irontaino]

All sides there are like that, including the Western "good guys" that routinely bomb hospitals and other civilian areas, while propping up a repressive and corrupt regime there. It seems Taliban is viewed as a lesser evil by a significant part of the population, which tends to care more about such mundane things as access to food and water, then "democracy".

Citation needed

[Cope]

The Taliban isn't some popular uprising against foreign occupation, though, it's a fringe terrorist organization hated by all sectors of Afghan society.

The Taliban is not listed as a terrorist organization by the US.

[Heathen Hammer]

Citation needed

Them defeating American occupation despite being outnumbered and outclassed on technological level. That's impossible without popular support.