What we see in Afghanistan will happen at some point in countries like Somalia and Mali
What we see in Afghanistan will happen at some point in countries like Somalia and Mali
How much money does the US need to spend to win? You said sunk costs don't matter. Only current and future costs. I'll ask the question again.
How much more money does the US need to spend to stabilize the Afghan government and defeat the Taliban? I am not going to let you ignore this question like you did my post.
QUOTE=antaeus;16042484]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. [/QUOTE]
I've addressed this already. Yes US stations troops in those countries. You are leaving out key details. Germany, South Korea, nor Italy are in civil wars where the US is sending billions in aid and stationing troops to prop up their government. I'm opposed to propping up a corrupt government fighting a war where we have made no reliable progress
The Afghan Army hasn't been reliable since it creation. The Afghan forces who so the bulk of fighting are Afghan special commandos.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.
And I'm sorry but you do realize the Taliban was kicking the Afghan Army's ass three years ago right? Violence in Afghanistan between 2017-2019 was pretty bad and the Afghan Army couldn't handle the Taliban. Hence the peace talks that came into effect.
The Iraqis who the US trained in a few years can fight on their own even after the Iraqi Army completely collapsed in face of ISIS. The Syrian Kurds who the US trains and arms can fight on their own against ISIS. It's not a cultural problem in Afghanistan. The Afghans want to have to fight for their government. It's quite obvious they don't want to.
Afghanistan is hardly a democracy.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?
Last edited by Vanoi; August 14, 2021 at 01:36 PM.
Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude
A.B.A.P.
March 2020,President Trump's Disgraceful Peace Deal with the Taliban-Time
One and half year later,Donald Trump blames Joe Biden for 'unacceptable' Taliban surge in AfghnistanThere is a difference between peace and retreat. The Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban represents a full retreat. It’s an agreement that most Republicans would deplore if a Democrat president made the deal, and they’d be right to be angry
I have to say that the irony of this is not lost on me.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
Then there'd be resistance (like anti-Cartel squads in Central America or Shiite militias that fought ISIS in Iraq and Syria), while there is barely none. Afghan army just switches sides as soon as American sugar daddy turns his back.
So... US is supposed to be there indefinitely? At least with Trump's plan US was somewhat saving face (probably with Taliban getting only control over rural parts), now instead of that US is being painfully humiliated, by Taliban re-taking most of Afghanistan within mere weeks after Americans retreated.
The State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations isn't an objective or exhaustive list of the world's terror groups. See: Why Isn't Afghan Taliban on US List of Foreign Terror Groups?
But the real reason the Afghan Taliban is not on the list has more to do with political considerations than whether or not it meets the statutory criteria for a terrorist designation, experts say. ...
In the case of the Taliban, the deterring factor has long been a concern that applying the terror label to the group would restrict U.S. and Afghan government diplomatic contacts with the Taliban, making peace talks more difficult. ...
Asked whether the administration is considering designating the Taliban as a terror group, a State Department spokesperson referred to a 2002 executive order labeling the Taliban a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity" and a 2008 Congressional law mandating that the Taliban be considered a terrorist organization for immigration purposes.
While the Global Terrorist Entity sanctions are focused on financial transactions, a foreign terrorist organization designation prohibits "material support," such as training, and carries greater weight, according to Oliver Krischik, a trade law attorney specializing in U.S. economic sanctions.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
Look in fact the Taliban is largely based on the Pashtun community so it's misleading to call it "fringe". They ran the country before we blew them away, they have survived 18 years of crushing punishment and are taking it back. Many Afghans may hate them, but it's not a polity short of hatred.
It's not a popularity contest. The Taliban are the most effective governing force in Afghanistan. It's a low bar and they are low dogs. We couldn't do better though, despite billions poured down the drain. Our stamina ran out, theirs didn't
Any idiot claiming we could "win" in Afghanistan is living in dreamland. The leaders who sent our forces in there were dishonest and the good faith efforts of soldiers, NGOs and others were doomed before they began by Cheney and co.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
It wasn’t ignored, you ignored the answer (again):Originally Posted by Vanoi
There’s the cost/benefit metric you asked for. Not my problem if it renders your “It’s AlL a WasTe eM aLl tO dEaTh” sophistry irrelevant.Originally Posted by me
Sort of like ISIL in Iraq? And no, peace talks with the Afghan government and various belligerents have been held on and off since 2007 or so, by which point analysts suggested the country would fall to the Taliban any day. Not only was that prediction wrong, NATO would formally turn over the reins to the ASF by 2014, assuming a non combat support role thereafter. Direct talks between the Afghan government/US and the Taliban proper were happening as early as 2010-11 and in 2015. The 2017-2020 talks began as Ghani’s idea, under increasing pressure from the Aghan people to end the war without preconditions.And I'm sorry but you do realize the Taliban was kicking the Afghan Army's ass three years ago right? Violence in Afghanistan between 2017-2019 was pretty bad and the Afghan Army couldn't handle the Taliban. Hence the peace talks that came into effect.
There was no singular watershed moment where the Taliban’s military or territorial gains forced the Afghan government or the US to sue for peace. Peace and stability was always the goal, and the total eradication of the Taliban ceased to be realistic option early on in the conflict. As I have argued and Trump/Biden’s surrender has proven, US/NATO presence is crucial to give Kabul any leverage at all in the ongoing peace talks, and to more effectively minimize the risk of terror attacks on US soil from groups harbored in Afghanistan. Neither you nor the Biden Admin have given any good reason for taking that leverage away.
No you haven’t. Your logic doesn’t even follow through, given that if you’re perfectly ok stationing 30-40000 troops in Germany indefinitely, 60-80,000 troops throughout the rest of the Middle East (which has no civil wars/conflicts going on lol) or ~7,000 troops throughout super stable, non-corrupt, peaceful and safe countries in Africa (with billions in aid), the only objection you’re able to come up with against keeping ~5,000 on a non combat NATO mission in Afghanistan is that you think it’s icky. Hell, Congress voted to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as recently as last December (yeah, 2020), citing security concerns. But it’s cool when Biden does it.I've addressed this already. Yes US stations troops in those countries. You are leaving out key details. Germany, South Korea, nor Italy are in civil wars where the US is sending billions in aid and stationing troops to prop up their government. I'm opposed to propping up a corrupt government fighting a war where we have made no reliable progress.
This is purely rhetorical and bears little resemblance to reality, as was already pointed out here. Moreover, the parallels between Iraq and Afghanistan are being actively discussed in the news, making your arbitrary distinctions look even more silly:The Iraqis who the US trained in a few years can fight on their own even after the Iraqi Army completely collapsed in face of ISIS. The Syrian Kurds who the US trains and arms can fight on their own against ISIS. It's not a cultural problem in Afghanistan. The Afghans want to have to fight for their government. It's quite obvious they don't want to.
U.S. troops’ return to Afghanistan has ominous parallel to recent history in Iraq
Aside from differing geography, the resurgence of the Taliban and the rise of Islamic State read like the same disturbing story of U.S. intervention. At its inception, the Islamic State resembled the Taliban of late. Racing through the rugged Mideast terrain in August 2014 atop weathered Toyota pickups, the Islamic militants scythed through one city, then another and another still. Whole army units — all paid for and trained by the U.S. — disintegrated.
Islamic State blitzed through wide swaths of Syria and Iraq, commandeering a full third of each country for what it claimed was its caliphate. And the United States, three years after its last soldier had withdrawn from Baghdad, returned to a war it thought it had left behind.
In Afghanistan, the question is if the U.S. will have the chance to leave in the first place. The Taliban, the Islamist Afghan group that the U.S. came to defeat after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has arguably never been stronger. Its resurgence, much like that of Islamic State in 2014, has seen it take over — with astonishing ease — areas it could never have hoped to breach in the past. The Taliban now has its knife to the government’s neck.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...scue-operation
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 14, 2021 at 09:28 PM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
That's because it isn't an answer. It's a cop out because you can't actually name a number and also refuse to recognize the money spent because only in your mind does sunk cost not matter. The benefits are no where near worth the cost.
Only initially. They managed to fight back and win. The Afghan Army had 16 years of training and even after 2017, they didn't improve unlike the Iraqis who themselves were the ones clearing cities like Mosul.Sort of like ISIL in Iraq?
Thanks for proving my point. The minute we handed control over to the Afghans things got worst. Why? Because they don't want to fight.And no, peace talks with the Afghan government and various belligerents have been held on and off since 2007 or so, by which point analysts suggested the country would fall to the Taliban any day. Not only was that prediction wrong, NATO would formally turn over the reins to the ASF by 2014, assuming a non combat support role thereafter. Direct talks between the Afghan government/US and the Taliban proper were happening as early as 2010-11 and in 2015. The 2017-2020 talks began as Ghani’s idea, under increasing pressure from the Aghan people to end the war without preconditions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-us-tr...161942684.html
This entire article completely throws cold water on your entire position. You want to stay in Afghanistan and fight for a corrupt government that Afghans don't believe or want to fight for?Experts told the magazine that the problem lies not in the training or equipment provided to Afghanistan, but in local mismanagement, corruption, and demoralized soldiers who often lack the will to fight.
Sources said that Afghan police have not been paid for months by the Ministry of Interior and that the same is true for the Ministry of Defense, Foreign Policy reported.
They added that Afghan forces are often not supplied with adequate arms, or even food or water.
Many soldiers and police are also posted to areas far from their homes, to which they have no connection, and some choose to abandon their posts and return home to defend their families, the magazine said.
There is also a widespread lack of faith in the government, with officials across the country stating they will not fight to defend President Ashraf Ghani's government.
"The issue of legitimacy is very important," said Enayat Najafizada, founder of Kabul-based think tank the Institute of War and Peace Studies, told Foreign Policy.
He said the 2020 presidential election that returned Ghani for a second term was seen as corrupt, which has been capitalized on by the Taliban.
I have addressed this and I'll day the same again for you. I'm perfectly ok with troops in Germany or Italy or the UAE because they are actually useful. All of those countries are major logistics hubs for the US military that allow them to operate in regions that hold US interests.No you haven’t. Your logic doesn’t even follow through, given that if you’re perfectly ok stationing 30-40000 troops in Germany indefinitely, 60-80,000 troops throughout the rest of the Middle East (which has no civil wars/conflicts going on lol) or ~7,000 troops throughout super stable, non-corrupt, peaceful and safe countries in Africa (with billions in aid), the only objection you’re able to come up with against keeping ~5,000 on a non combat NATO mission in Afghanistan is that you think it’s icky. Hell, Congress voted to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as recently as last December (yeah, 2020), citing security concerns. But it’s cool when Biden does it.
None of those countries are in civil wars. None of them require US troops to prop up their government from falling. None of them are being even close to the amount of aid we have sent to the Afghan government. Something you continue to ignore.
I can very much oppose a useless war in Afghanistan and still support US troop presence in other countries.
See above. Comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is silly. The Iraqis actually bothered to fight for their country. As seen in my article above the Afghans won't even fight for there's. Compare them all you want. We both know Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same.This is purely rhetorical and bears little resemblance to reality, as was already pointed out here. Moreover, the parallels between Iraq and Afghanistan are being actively discussed in the news, making your arbitrary distinctions look even more silly:
Pure projection. Sunk cost doesn’t matter by definition lmao.
You’re also lying at this point, given it’s been pointed out repeatedly that leaving is almost certainly more costly than staying, hence you continue to deflect to sunk costs and copium about how poorly the ASF performs without NATO support, undermining your own argument in favor of withdrawal. All you’ve managed to do is reiterate the incoherent nonsense you’re trying to pass off as an argument via rhetorical questions. No one knows exactly how much more money the US will spend on the ASF. What we do know is the US will foot their bills whether we’re there or not. You’ve lost your own plot again.
No it doesn’t lol. You’re the one trying to claim the situation in Afghanistan is so totally not at all like Iraq regardless of how ridiculous it makes your argument look. I’ve already addressed the ASF and the cost/benefits of withdrawal on their own merits. Biden is committed to bankrolling the ASF whether we’re there or not, so your point is moot here to begin with.Only initially. They managed to fight back and win. The Afghan Army had 16 years of training and even after 2017, they didn't improve unlike the Iraqis who themselves were the ones clearing cities like Mosul.
Thanks for proving my point. The minute we handed control over to the Afghans things got worst. Why? Because they don't want to fight.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-us-tr...161942684.html
This entire article completely throws cold water on your entire position. You want to stay in Afghanistan and fight for a corrupt government that Afghans don't believe or want to fight for?
No you haven’t, and you continue to project and deflect to avoid your own unjustifiable position. More than one person has already spelled it out for you. I don’t need to repeat myself.I have addressed this and I'll day the same again for you. I'm perfectly ok with troops in Germany or Italy or the UAE because they are actually useful. All of those countries are major logistics hubs for the US military that allow them to operate in regions that hold US interests.
None of those countries are in civil wars. None of them require US troops to prop up their government from falling. None of them are being even close to the amount of aid we have sent to the Afghan government. Something you continue to ignore.
I can very much oppose a useless war in Afghanistan and still support US troop presence in other countries.
And again, no one claimed they are exactly the same. You’re the one trying to draw Iraq as some kind of unique distinction so you can avoid having to justify pulling 5k troops out of Afghanistan despite that being the more costly option, when there are still 60-80k troops spread throughout the rest of the region. Even if your arbitrary goalposts were valid, it would only underscore how sophistic your priorities are, keeping troops in Iraq where they are ostensibly not needed despite the latter being described as a failed state which was only saved from ISIL by NATO, while withdrawing from Afghanistan where they are needed. Given that Biden is expected to pull out of Iraq completely by the end of the year, your suggestion that the Iraqis can handle it on their own just makes your support for retreat from Afghanistan look that much more nonsensical.See above. Comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is silly. The Iraqis actually bothered to fight for their country. As seen in my article above the Afghans won't even fight for there's. Compare them all you want. We both know Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same.
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 15, 2021 at 12:40 AM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
No where does it say that. Ignoring sunk cost again is just you deflecting. You can't recover sunk cost but you can look at what you have spent and the result from it. Trillions spent on this war and the results are what again?
No lies here. The poor performance of the ANA doesn't undermine my argument whatsoever. There's no point in training a force that doesn't want to fight. That's useless and a waste of time and money. Nor is continuing to prop up a notoriously corrupt government.You’re also lying at this point, given it’s been pointed out repeatedly that leaving is almost certainly more costly than staying, hence you continue to deflect to sunk costs and copium about how poorly the ASF performs without NATO support, undermining your own argument in favor of withdrawal. All you’ve managed to do is reiterate the incoherent nonsense you’re trying to pass off as an argument via rhetorical questions. No one knows exactly how much more money the US will spend on the ASF. What we do know is the US will foot their bills whether we’re there or not. You’ve lost your own plot again.
Last time I checked Iraq is a mostly stable country now with armed forces capable of fighting on their own without foreign support. So yes Iraq is not Afghanistan.No it doesn’t lol. You’re the one trying to claim the situation in Afghanistan is so totally not at all like Iraq regardless of how ridiculous it makes your argument look. I’ve already addressed the ASF and the cost/benefits of withdrawal on their own merits. Biden is committed to bankrolling the ASF whether we’re there or not, so your point is moot here to begin with.
You didn't address anything. My article destory's your argument and you know it. It's why you just completely ignored it. The ANA does not want to fight. They desert their posts. They have no faith in the Afghan government. Stick your head in the sand all you want. It's not going away.
I certainly have and once again you don't address anything I actually said. Sorry I'm not falling for your fallacies.No you haven’t, and you continue to project and deflect to avoid your own unjustifiable position. More than one person has already spelled it out for you. I don’t need to repeat myself.
I pointed out Iraq because their soldiers fight. They actually fight and win. Unlike the Afghans who have no faith in their government. The number of troops in the Middle East is irrelevant. This isn't a debate on troop numbers it's a debate on the Afghan War.And again, no one claimed they are exactly the same. You’re the one trying to draw Iraq as some kind of unique distinction so you can avoid having to justify pulling 5k troops out of Afghanistan despite that being the more costly option, when there are still 60-80k troops spread throughout the rest of the region. Even if your arbitrary goalposts were valid, it would only underscore how sophistic your priorities are, keeping troops in Iraq where they are ostensibly not needed despite the latter being described as a failed state which was only saved from ISIL by NATO, while withdrawing from Afghanistan where they are needed. Given that Biden is expected to pull out of Iraq completely by the end of the year, your suggestion that the Iraqis can handle it on their own just makes your support for retreat from Afghanistan look that much more nonsensical.
The Iraqis can handle things on their own and have been. The number of troops currently even stationed there is even smaller than there was in Afghanistan, and they were there to train Iraqi Armed Forces and nothing more.
My argument isn't nonsensical. We can withdraw from Iraq because ISIS is defeated and the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves own their own. Meanwhile in Afghanistan the ANA is still after 20 years and shows no signs of improvement.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/may-never...173649471.html
How do we get the Afghans to fight for themselves? It may never happen,”said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a retired Army lieutenant colonel and member of the Armed Services Committee who opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops.Infantry units face high turnover in any army, but that has been especially true for the Afghans, who have been plagued from the outset by troops abandoning their posts for reasons ranging from harvest schedules to combat losses to desertion.It's idiotic to continue.to stay in Afghanistan.We failed in trying to make the Afghan army in our own image,” he said in an interview. “We tried to create regiments and brigades when we needed to create an army and police force that was basically special forces designed specifically to beat back an insurgency, not to defend the Afghan borders against outside conventional attacks.”
The Afghans’ inability to hold the line is also simply a function of geography, said retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East from 2016 to 2019.
“You have a lot of forces out away from the capital, and many of them are dispersed in smaller locations that are easy to be isolated and cut off,” he said in an interview. “They’re hard to reinforce.”
That also means the most effective Afghan units, which by definition can only be engaged in one battle at a time, are under especially heavy demand.
Very sad for the Afghans who cooperated in good faith with the US. I guess Conon's point about truckloads of visas is the best response, but its still heartbreaking.
I haven't seen a sensible argument to stay, just some point scoring (which is typical of US domestic politics, both sides try and spin...well everything) and some brainlet bot trash.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
Nope...Trump now says the opposite of what he said before. And McConnell said in a statement:"it isn’t too late to prevent the Taliban from overrunning Kabul. The Administration should move quickly to hammer Taliban advances with air strikes"
Republican demagoguery...democracy cannot be imposed by force. Biden did the right thing.
------
From the news,
Costs of the Afghanistan war, in lives and dollars
'Peaceful transition': Taliban leaders head to presidential
Taliban enter Afghan capitalTaliban leaders head to presidential palace in Kabul
Isn't the Afghanistan called the "graveyard of empires"? UK in the 19th century, Russia in the 20th century, US in the 21th century.Some say that China will be the next empire to enter the Afghan "graveyard"....as the United States evacuated diplomats from its embassy by helicopter.
In a statement late on Saturday, the Taliban said its rapid gains showed it was popularly accepted by the Afghan people and reassured both Afghans and foreigners that they would be safe.
Last edited by Ludicus; August 15, 2021 at 07:01 AM.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
The result is everything I’ve discussed that we are giving up by leaving, and deciding instead to spend even more resources pursuing the same objectives. That fact alone makes all the cope in the world about irrecoverable costs irrelevant, aside from the fact sunk costs are not relevant to current or future budgetary considerations, which you already admitted you don’t care about in the first place.Trillions spent on this war and the results are what again?
Claiming I didn’t address anything you said because you can’t justify your claims is silly. The article hurts your argument, not mine, given it lays out reasons why continued NATO support is necessary for the ASF to function. It’s pretty clear at this point you have nothing more to say than to continue motte and baileying your failed arguments by complaining about the ASF. The latter obviously was not collapsing with NATO support, or there wouldn’t be such a dramatic difference between before and after. Moreover, deflecting to the quality ASF does not negate the things that matter to US interests in Afghanistan:You didn't address anything. My article destory's your argument and you know it. It's why you just completely ignored it. The ANA does not want to fight. They desert their posts. They have no faith in the Afghan government. Stick your head in the sand all you want. It's not going away.
I certainly have and once again you don't address anything I actually said. Sorry I'm not falling for your fallacies.
Fact 1: It’s more costly to leave than to stay
Fact 2: Leaving directly exposes the US homeland to terror attacks by groups harbored in Afghanistan, and makes counterterrorism operations in the region more difficult.
Nor does the quality of the ASF suggest anything regarding any alleged benefits of US retreat, which has been a complete disaster.
Biden is committed to propping up Kabul and the ASF by paying their bills, giving them weapons, etc, same as ever, regardless of US troop presence. If the ASF can’t fight on it’s own, then per your own logic NATO supporting should not be withdrawn, period, given it’s more costly to leave than to stay. Those costs and the national security risks posed by terrorism render your copium about how much the ASF sucks irrelevant, becauseThe poor performance of the ANA doesn't undermine my argument whatsoever. There's no point in training a force that doesn't want to fight. That's useless and a waste of time and money. Nor is continuing to prop up a notoriously corrupt government.
A) the US is paying their bills just the same and
B) you have no basis for claiming the USM shouldn’t be in Afghanistan because the government is corrupt. This can be said of allied/partner governments throughout the Middle East and Africa, where tens of thousands of US troops are working with those governments in various operations, and the USG sends billions of dollars in aid.
Again, the harder you argue the Iraqis are super cool and the Afghans suck, the more you underscore the empty sophistry of your claims. As was pointed out more than once and you ignored:Last time I checked Iraq is a mostly stable country now with armed forces capable of fighting on their own without foreign support. So yes Iraq is not Afghanistan.
I pointed out Iraq because their soldiers fight. They actually fight and win. Unlike the Afghans who have no faith in their government. The number of troops in the Middle East is irrelevant. This isn't a debate on troop numbers it's a debate on the Afghan War.
The Iraqis can handle things on their own and have been. The number of troops currently even stationed there is even smaller than there was in Afghanistan, and they were there to train Iraqi Armed Forces and nothing more.
My argument isn't nonsensical. We can withdraw from Iraq because ISIS is defeated and the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves own their own. Meanwhile in Afghanistan the ANA is still
after 20 years and shows no signs of improvement.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/may-never...173649471.html
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-woesIn 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.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...state-collapseA continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, modest as it may be, is essential to ensure the enduring defeat of the Islamic State.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...eed-each-otherAll the whining about Afghanistan can be applied to Iraq as well. Per your own logic, the comparison illustrates why the Afghanistan withdrawal (if not the impending withdrawal from Iraq as well) is a bad idea:Factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of Shiite militias who have fought alongside Iraqi armed forces, are brazenly attacking and intimidating Kadhimi and his government.
Meanwhile, Shiite militias openly hostile to Kadhimi’s government have taken over key government buildings in the heart of Baghdad.
Iran and its militia proxies have effectively hollowed out the Iraqi state by becoming the key battlefield force in the existential struggle against the Islamic State.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...-intervention/
If the Iraqis and Afghans both suck, then continued USM is all the more essential to protect US interests there, and Biden is twice the fool.
If the Iraqis are cool and the Afghans suck, then continued USM support for the Afghans is all the more essential to protect US interests there.
Then why can’t you make an argument for leaving? Troop numbers don’t matter to you. Cost doesn’t matter to you. By your own admission, you’ve got nothing left but rhetoric.It's idiotic to continue.to stay in Afghanistan.
Pretty telling that those arguing for withdrawal can’t even counter brainlet bot trash.Originally Posted by Cyclops
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 15, 2021 at 10:46 AM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
Ah yes, the US has no allies, only subjects. Don’t worry, King Sebastian will return any day now to liberate Lajes from the Americans and establish the Fifth Empire.
In other news, Biden has now sent twice as many troops back to Afghanistan as he pulled out, returning US troop levels in the country to where they were last year. The Administration is apparently willing to commit the same number of troops to abandon our allies as they refused to commit to support them. At a time when Biden is ostensibly trying to reiterate US support for allied partners, why should any of them believe him after this farce?
From 2019:
Imagine.A future force of 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, aided by 2,000 to 3,000 other NATO military personnel, would contrast with the late-2019 figure of 13,000 GIs there. It would be 95 percent less than the 100,000 U.S. troops commanded there by General David Petraeus and then General John Allen at the peak of the American presence in 2010-11. This lower level could probably be achieved by 2022, though the glidepath could be slowed if conditions required.
With this approach, the United States would maintain several counterterrorism strongholds throughout the broader region where the jihadist scourge has been most serious. An enduring presence in Afghanistan would complement other mid-sized U.S. capabilities in places closer to the Middle East such as Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Djibouti. In each of these places, as well as in Turkey, the United States stations roughly 1,500 to 10,000 uniformed personnel. Several thousand sailors are routinely in or near the Persian Gulf aboard ships as well. Together, all these forces represent 2 to 3 percent of the nation’s total active-duty strength. That is a significant but reasonable burden to bear in a region where America’s interests remain considerable, even if the primary focus of U.S. military planning has turned to scenarios involving Russia and China. Indeed, the United States competes with both China and Russia within the Middle East. So a strategy aimed at Beijing and Moscow presumably should not concede crucial territory to either country in that region.
If the U.S. and NATO effort in Afghanistan is troubled, challenged, and frustrating, yet still succeeding in helping protect American and allied homelands, it should not be abandoned lightly. The prospects for a successful peace process require a measure of resoluteness as well. It defies reason to think that the Taliban will negotiate in good faith with the United States or the Afghan government if they believe, rightly or wrongly, that after outwaiting Washington, Afghanistan will then somehow magically fall into their laps after western forces leave.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...-us-president/
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 15, 2021 at 07:46 AM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
1. I hear Pakistani Intelligence is supporting current Taliban activities with Electronic Warfare assets.
2. Considering the rapid collapse of the current Kabul regime, it seems that even sunk costs haven't been sticky.
3. Difference between Obama and Biden is that Biden doesn't have to polish his warfighter credentials, and made up his mind a very long time ago.
4. I belief the rapid collapse was a surprise to the United States military and intelligence agencies, not in terms that it would happen, just that it would happen so fast.
5. At least Vietnam had sea access; I doubt that the Taliban would be dumb enough to attack the American Embassy, though I wouldn't see much point in leaving an emissary there, once all Americans are evacuated from Kabul, since you can talk to them through the Saudis.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.