Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: sf on April 16, 2021, 02:40:35 pm
-
I see the Taliban are claiming that Biden's decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, just before the 20th anniversary of 9/11, means that they have won. What do people here think? Can the Afghan government defend itself?
S
(I realize this is politics, but as the vaccine thread is now almost pure politics and as Jeremy Russack isn't the moderator any more, I think it's OK. I suppose someone will delete or lock this thread if I am wrong.)
-
It was an unwinnable war.
-
+1
Now Aghanistan will back fighting with their own. It is a tribal country. I don't suspect it will be a land in peace soon.
For women it is back to square one, i am afraid.
-
But leaving behind 18,000 US special forces, mercenaries and intel operatives.
Not leaving, just privatising?
As usual, there's money to made in misery.
-
As far as I can tell, only one American soldier was killed as a result of hostile action in Afghanistan in 2020, although I suspect there might be others who were killed by hostile action in with intelligence and mercenary forces, and aren't reported. Given the number of troops there, they were probably safer than they would be driving around the American south, since they tend to be risk-takers.
The biggest problem with Afghanistan from an American perspective was the cost, not the lives, at least, not in the last few years. There were fewer American death in Afghanistan in 2020 than there were in the Indianapolis murders yesterday. A progressive would tell you that the money would be much better spent in American communities rather than in a war in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of American troops could possibly lead to a catastrophe, like the one that followed the American departure from Vietnam. However a column on the subject in either the Washington Post or the NYT suggested that the modernization of Afghanistan since the American occupation will make it much more difficult for the Taliban to effectively take over and rule, as millions of people won't want to go back to what was essentially a religion-based rural and tribal economy before the American intervention -- that is, that the Afghani government may be better positioned to resist than it once was, because of support in the major cities.
So, we shall see. I have a feeling that, on balance, withdrawal will be eventually seen as a mistake. I'm very aware that I could be wrong.
-
Hard to know.
The Taliban are after all, a US creation.
The US armed and financed them during the Russian occupation.
If my memory serves me right, the Taliban were nicely self-destructing over questions like the right beard length for a revolutionary, when the US sent in ground troops. Thus ensuring their revival. I can't recall what resources the US were after there.
I hope the country finds peace.
-
We should impress upon the Taliban if they do anything again to harm Americans or support others who would, that we'll be back again in force to finish them off this time.
-
We should impress upon the Taliban if they do anything again to harm Americans or support others who would, that we'll be back again in force to finish them off this time.
I am sure that will have them quaking in their boots.
-
I am sure that will have them quaking in their boots.
That's funny. An hour ago I meant to write the same, just using the word "shaking." We do agree sometimes ;)
-
That's funny. An hour ago I meant to write the same, just using the word "shaking." We do agree sometimes ;)
It's all about finding common ground. ;)
-
I am sure that will have them quaking in their boots.
Well, Biden pulling out just like Obama pulled out of Iraq, isn;t going to make the quake at all. The only thing we can hope for now is that they'll spend their time trying to recover and keep power for themselves and not get distracted by Bin Laden types.
Curious that we haven't heard from anyone here who wanted America to bleed to help the Kurds but seem to be willing to abandon Afghanistan.
-
Well, Biden pulling out just like Obama pulled out of Iraq, isn;t going to make the quake at all. The only thing we can hope for now is that they'll spend their time trying to recover and keep power for themselves and not get distracted by Bin Laden types.
Curious that we haven't heard from anyone here who wanted America to bleed to help the Kurds but seem to be willing to abandon Afghanistan.
You shouldn't jump to conclusions, it's the weekend and forum participation seems to decline then, I think.
The only reaction I have to your comments is that after who knows how many decades of war, I doubt a stern talking to will have much effect in Afghanistan. I assume that you're referring to El Qaeda training camps on Afghani soil when you speak of their doing or supporting harm to Americans. It was never clear to me that Afghanistan was ever really much of a political entity, and it has been often referred as a tribal place by people who know more than me about it (almost everyone), so when you say "...finish them off this time", it's not clear who you might mean by "them". If one "tribal warlord" (if that is a relevant description) cuts a deal with El Qaeda to rent them some land, what point is served by punishing the rest of the "country"? What influence would the country have to begin with? The last time I read anything lengthy about the current Afghan government, I was left with the impression that it did not actually control much territory. So if in some future you posit, US troops go back there to "finish them off" who are they going to shoot at? I mean, they've had 20 years to figure that out by now, what would be different next time?
If US troops leave and a disaster does unfold, then that does not say much for the stability of the place, nor does it say much about what foreign involvement has accomplished there. But only time will tell about that.
-
Well, Biden pulling out just like Obama pulled out of Iraq, isn;t going to make the quake at all. The only thing we can hope for now is that they'll spend their time trying to recover and keep power for themselves and not get distracted by Bin Laden types.
Who is they, their, and themselves?
Curious that we haven't heard from anyone here who wanted America to bleed to help the Kurds but seem to be willing to abandon Afghanistan.
It's not that curious. Who wants to get into all that with you again?
-
these tribal suppression wars have been going on since the British Raj and probably before that.
As Russia and now the US have proved, no one is going to "tame" the tribes.
-
You shouldn't jump to conclusions, it's the weekend and forum participation seems to decline then, I think.
The only reaction I have to your comments is that after who knows how many decades of war, I doubt a stern talking to will have much effect in Afghanistan. I assume that you're referring to El Qaeda training camps on Afghani soil when you speak of their doing or supporting harm to Americans. It was never clear to me that Afghanistan was ever really much of a political entity, and it has been often referred as a tribal place by people who know more than me about it (almost everyone), so when you say "...finish them off this time", it's not clear who you might mean by "them". If one "tribal warlord" (if that is a relevant description) cuts a deal with El Qaeda to rent them some land, what point is served by punishing the rest of the "country"? What influence would the country have to begin with? The last time I read anything lengthy about the current Afghan government, I was left with the impression that it did not actually control much territory. So if in some future you posit, US troops go back there to "finish them off" who are they going to shoot at? I mean, they've had 20 years to figure that out by now, what would be different next time?
If US troops leave and a disaster does unfold, then that does not say much for the stability of the place, nor does it say much about what foreign involvement has accomplished there. But only time will tell about that.
When 9-11 occurred, the Taliban was in charge of the government and a lot of the Afghan territory generally and the area where Al Khaida, Bin Laden and their training camps were located. Before we attacked, we "requested" the Taliban turn them over to us, They refused and continued to back them. So we went to war. Hopefully, they learned that wasn't a good idea after fighting us for 20 years and won't do it again. Since we're leaving, just a reminder to them not to repeat that mistake again. If they do, we'll be back.
As far as what happens there now, whether they will keep their "freedoms", or allow the Taliban to take over again, it's up to them. We can't stay there forever. Of course, it's being debated that we may open the territory for another ISIS as what happened when we pulled out of Iraq. That's a possibility. I guess Americans are tired and broke and just don't want to bleed for others all the time to make their nations "safe for democracy". Maybe tribal organizations and religious governments are best for some people. Who are we to decide? However, I could see some of them fleeing across our southern border pretty soon.
-
It's not that curious. Who wants to get into all that with you again?
If Biden pulled out of the Kurdish issue, you would have supported it. If Trump pulled out of Afghanistan, you would have opposed it. It never had anything to do with helping the poor Kurds or Afghans, only domestic politics.
-
When 9-11 occurred, the Taliban was in charge of the government and a lot of the Afghan territory generally and the area where Al Khaida, Bin Laden and their training camps were located. Before we attacked, we "requested" the Taliban turn them over to us, They refused and continued to back them. So we went to war. Hopefully, they learned that wasn't a good idea after fighting us for 20 years and won't do it again. Since we're leaving, just a reminder to them not to repeat that mistake again. If they do, we'll be back.
Maybe that's what we should have told the North Vietnamese when we pulled out of Saigon.
-
If Biden pulled out of the Kurdish issue, you would have supported it. If Trump pulled out of Afghanistan, you would have opposed it. It never had anything to do with helping the poor Kurds or Afghans, only domestic politics.
You are just projecting your behavior onto us. Since that it what you would do, it must be what everyone would do. It leads to underestimating your opponents. You don't consider all of the other strategies they might employ.
-
Maybe that's what we should have told the North Vietnamese when we pulled out of Saigon.
and now we are doing quite a business with Vietnam. Won't happen in Afghanistan due to the frozen in time culture represented by the Taliban and other tribes.
-
Maybe that's what we should have told the North Vietnamese when we pulled out of Saigon.
North Vietnam never attacked us unlike Afghanistan and AL Khaida on 9-11. The Tonkin Bay incident, when North Vietnamese ships supposedly attacked ours, was a lie made up by democrat President Johnson as an excuse to go to war with North Vietnam. For some reason, Johnson felt the need to continue with former President Kennedy's bellicosity regarding NV. Maybe he felt guilty becoming president when Kennedy was assassinated. By the time we pulled out of Saigon, congress stopped funding the South and threw them to the wolves. Many people didn't care by then. Many Americans did, however, and thought they would take over as some are claiming now about the Taliban. I guess Americans don't care anymore about the Afghans either. It's not our problem.
-
and now we are doing quite a business with Vietnam. Won't happen in Afghanistan due to the frozen in time culture represented by the Taliban and other tribes.
We buy their heroin.
-
For some reason, Johnson felt the need to continue with former President Kennedy's bellicosity regarding NV. Maybe he felt guilty becoming president when Kennedy was assassinated.
That must be it. I can't think of any other plausible explanations.
-
We should impress upon the Taliban if they do anything again to harm Americans or support others who would, that we'll be back again in force to finish them off this time.
That would work. How charmingly naive.
S
-
That must be it. I can't think of any other plausible explanations.
Well, it could have been just anti-Communism. But there was something else. It was ephemeral. Something I felt during his presidency. I lived through the time in fact served for four years in the Air Force during Vietnam War. There was a sense that Johnson felt obligated to continue what Kennedy started both in Vietnam and for some of his social programs. I'm not saying there weren't other reasons. But we all do stuff for various reasons, often more than one. I think one of them for Johnson was to continue Kennedy's legacy. I think he felt an obligation due to the way, especially, he came president when Kennedy was assassinated. Also, he kept on many advisors who advised Kennedy. He should have fired them all but even there, I'm sure he felt some obligation to keep them around in deference to Kennedy. Of course, the Mafia was happy Johnson got rid of Robert Kennedy as Attorney General.
-
Well, it could have been just anti-Communism. But there was something else. It was ephemeral. Something I felt during his presidency. I lived through the time in fact served for four years in the Air Force during Vietnam War. There was a sense that Johnson felt obligated to continue what Kennedy started both in Vietnam and for some of his social programs. I'm not saying there weren't other reasons. But we all do stuff for various reasons, often more than one. I think one of them for Johnson was to continue Kennedy's legacy. I think he felt an obligation due to the way, especially, he came president when Kennedy was assassinated. Also, he kept on many advisors who advised Kennedy. He should have fired them all but even there, I'm sure he felt some obligation to keep them around in deference to Kennedy. Of course, the Mafia was happy Johnson got rid of Robert Kennedy as Attorney General.
You are certainly free to believe whatever you want to believe.
-
That would work. How charmingly naive.
S
Well, I am a charming fellow. Also, it's a warning to them and to others. If they set up a base for Al Khaida again, we can bomb it and tell everyone, we told you what we were going to do. We don't necessarily have to put troops back in there. The Taliban isn't stupid. They just want power over their country. Why would they jeopardize that again, assuming they defeat the current leadership in Kabul, knowing what happened twenty years ago?
-
Why would they jeopardize that again, assuming they defeat the current leadership in Kabul, knowing what happened twenty years ago?
You mean the bunker bombs and Bin Laden escaping over the mountains into Pakistan with his dialysis machine on a donkey?
-
You mean the bunker bombs and Bin Laden escaping over the mountains into Pakistan with his dialysis machine on a donkey?
We stupidly sent the Northern Alliance Afgan troops after him who were working with us. I knew the same day I read that he would get away. Why the hell didn't we use our own troops to get him? But we learned our lesson and killed him finally with Navy Seals, our own troops, the way it should have been done when he escaped to Pakistan.
By the way, did he really need dialysis?
-
That would work. How charmingly naive.
S
You didn't tell us what we should do in Afghanistan. Would you like to now?
-
By the way, did he really need dialysis?
No, I took a little poetic license. It sounded more dramatic than saying he escaped with a box of insulin pens. And there were rumors that he had kidney problems, so a dialysis machine wasn't outside the realm of possibility. That's one of the rules of poetic license. It can't be too farfetched.
-
No, I took a little poetic license. It sounded more dramatic than saying he escaped with a box of insulin pens.
Oh, OK. Glad to see you're lightening up a little. :)
-
... If they set up a base for Al Khaida again, we can bomb it and tell everyone, we told you what we were going to do. We don't necessarily have to put troops back in there. ...
Has that ever worked?
-
When 9-11 occurred, the Taliban was in charge of the government and a lot of the Afghan territory generally and the area where Al Khaida, Bin Laden and their training camps were located.
Jerry Seinfeld has some unique insights into those terrorist training camps.
https://youtu.be/qYVu-j_lcr4?t=4
-
Has that ever worked?
Yes, it helped contribute to the defeat of ISIS. But it is true that in order to defeat an enemy permanently, you need troops on the ground. What I'm proposing, however, is if the Taliban allows terrorists back in their country, should they take over the government or allow them into the areas they control, we should bomb Taliban resources as well as the terrorists. They'll get the point rather quickly. We always have the option of sending ground troops again. Let's hope that isn't needed. Let's hope none of it is needed.
-
Yes, it helped contribute to the defeat of ISIS. But it is true that in order to defeat an enemy permanently, you need troops on the ground. What I'm proposing, however, is if the Taliban allows terrorists back in their country, should they take over the government or allow them into the areas they control, we should bomb Taliban resources as well as the terrorists. They'll get the point rather quickly. We always have the option of sending ground troops again. Let's hope that isn't needed. Let's hope none of it is needed.
There are terrorist in quite a few countries. Is there anyone else you would like to bomb? Iran perhaps? Would they get the point rather quickly? There’s Syria too. How about Syria?
-
There are terrorist in quite a few countries. Is there anyone else you would like to bomb? Iran perhaps? Would they get the point rather quickly? There’s Syria too. How about Syria?
We've bombed terrorists in Syria already. Remember ISIS. Not sure about Iran, yet. Here's a map. By the way, others have joined in the bombing and counter-terrorist activities. After all, we were not the only ones who have been attacked by terrorists. France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, Kenya, and many others. Are you suggesting we shouldn't protect ourselves? Biden was only president about a month before he bombed some terrorists - in Syria.
This Map Shows Where in the World the U.S. Military Is Combatting Terrorism
The infographic reveals for the first time that the U.S. is now operating in 40 percent of the world’s nations
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/
-
We've bombed terrorists in Syria already. Remember ISIS. Not sure about Iran, yet. Here's a map. By the way, others have joined in the bombing and counter-terrorist activities. After all, we were not the only ones who have been attacked by terrorists. France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, Kenya, and many others. Are you suggesting we shouldn't protect ourselves? Biden was only president about a month before he bombed some terrorists - in Syria.
This Map Shows Where in the World the U.S. Military Is Combatting Terrorism
The infographic reveals for the first time that the U.S. is now operating in 40 percent of the world’s nations
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/
I wonder if it's working.
-
The topic reads as a statment and the covo is moving into as a discussion of a general political nature. If this drifts into the usual territory where old grievences are hashed-out under this header, I'll have to delete.
Please do keep it as topical / focused possible, or move it over to the political thread.
Thanks.
-
We've bombed terrorists in Syria already...
Nah... we are there to bomb Assad. Russians are bombing terrorists.
-
Are you suggesting we shouldn't protect ourselves?
I'll respond to that straw man. I am asking to which of the "40 percent of the world’s nations" are you suggesting we read the riot act, and threaten to bomb if they let terrorists in? So far you have only mentioned Afghanistan.
-
I'll respond to that straw man. I am asking to which of the "40 percent of the world’s nations" are you suggesting we read the riot act, and threaten to bomb if they let terrorists in? So far you have only mentioned Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is different. It was run twenty years ago on 9-11 by the Taliban who gave aid and comfort to Al Khaida. Taliban are still around and may take back control. That's why we should "read them the riot act. "
IN any case, we're not bombing 40 countries. Only seven that I could count where terrorists have set up bases: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen. The rest we have some sort of military arrangement with the government: training, bases, etc. A few we have done ground combat missions with the cooperation of the host countries: Chad, Mali some of the above mention bombing countries, etc.,
Look at the map. It spells out where we've been and what we've done.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/
-
When 9-11 occurred, the Taliban was in charge of the government and a lot of the Afghan territory generally and the area where Al Khaida, Bin Laden and their training camps were located. ...
Where I'm uncomfortable with this argument is your use of "the Taliban", as if there were one Taliban political entity who spoke reliably for the entire country. That's not the impression that has been conveyed over the years. It can't be that simple.
-
"Terrorist" = "person we don't like (this week)".
See also "freedom fighter".
In the United States, federal law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331) and various implementing regulations define terrorism as violence against civilians that is intended to intimidate or coerce them or to influence the policies or conduct of their government. Internationally, the authority of the executive branch (i.e., the president and the federal bureaucracy) and consequently the military to take action against terrorists without specific additional legislation is constrained by this definition. For domestic terrorism, the definition may invoke federal law enforcement jurisdiction for behavior which otherwise would be subject to criminal prosecution by the states.
-
Where I'm uncomfortable with this argument is your use of "the Taliban", as if there were one Taliban political entity who spoke reliably for the entire country. That's not the impression that has been conveyed over the years. It can't be that simple.
Al Qaeda was allowed to run training camps, protect Bin Laden, and supported their activities in Afghanistan. When 9-11 occurred, perpetrated by Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, the Taliban refused to do anything about Al Qaeda on their territory in their country. So we attacked both the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorist fighters. How do you see it differently?
-
Al Qaeda was allowed to run training camps, protect Bin Laden, and supported their activities in Afghanistan. When 9-11 occurred, perpetrated by Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, the Taliban refused to do anything about Al Qaeda on their territory in their country. So we attacked both the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorist fighters. How do you see it differently?
They can't be that bad. Trump was going to invite them to Camp David.
Anyway, if that is your rational, it seems like bombing Iran would be a no-brainer for you.
Iran Regime’s 14 Terrorist Training Camps Preparing to Strike West – Daily Star
https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/terrorism-a-fundamentalism/iran-regime-s-14-terrorist-training-camps-preparing-to-strike-west-daily-star/
-
The Taliban were freedom fighters when the US was giving them advanced weaponry, now they are terrorists and soon they will be the government.
The Taliban of Afghanistan have never been designated as terrorists by the United States. Same goes for your two historical examples (although both, I believe, antedate the enactment of the statutory definition).
-
They can't be that bad. Trump was going to invite them to Camp David.
Anyway, if that is your rational, it seems like bombing Iran would be a no-brainer for you.
Iran Regime’s 14 Terrorist Training Camps Preparing to Strike West – Daily Star
https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/terrorism-a-fundamentalism/iran-regime-s-14-terrorist-training-camps-preparing-to-strike-west-daily-star/
There's never been as far as I know any Iranian terrorism against the west. There has been Iranian support of groups in the Middle East that have been called terrorists. But this is all part of Iran trying to reach hegemony over the Middle East. This is one of the reasons Iranian General Soleimani was killed by us as well as his involvement with the deaths of many American soldiers there in the ME.
The way to keep the thumb on Iran is to keep sanctions. I read that their cash accounts have been reduced from $150 billion to only $4B. But Al Qaeda and the Taliban, unlike Iran, were implicitly involved with 9-11 attacks against the US and other western targets.
-
The way to keep the thumb on Iran is to keep sanctions. I read that their cash accounts have been reduced from $150 billion to only $4B...
So you think those sanctions makes Iran less dangerous?
-
Yes.
-
Al Qaeda was allowed to run training camps, protect Bin Laden, and supported their activities in Afghanistan. When 9-11 occurred, perpetrated by Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, the Taliban refused to do anything about Al Qaeda on their territory in their country. So we attacked both the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorist fighters. How do you see it differently?
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point I was trying to make. What I'm suggesting is there is no such thing as one single Taliban. If there were just one entity on whom you could apply pressure, then you had 20 years to do that and would have done it by now. All I've ever heard about the situation for as long as I can remember if that it's difficult to know who you're dealing with at any on time. Why would you think that giving someone a stern talking to now would accomplish anything? So what if you get 5 people in a room and stare them down, there may be 20 others outside who don't care.
-
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point I was trying to make. What I'm suggesting is there is no such thing as one single Taliban. If there were just one entity on whom you could apply pressure, then you had 20 years to do that and would have done it by now. All I've ever heard about the situation for as long as I can remember if that it's difficult to know who you're dealing with at any on time. Why would you think that giving someone a stern talking to now would accomplish anything? So what if you get 5 people in a room and stare them down, there may be 20 others outside who don't care.
I didn't know that was the point you were trying to make. However, I assume even the Taliban has leadership. We've been meeting with them for months although I don't think we've made much headway. Probably because they see us leaving and why should they give up anything now? That's why I say our parting words should just remind them that we'll be back if they threaten us. There's not much more we can negotiate with since Biden's said he's pulling out and has given up any leverage we may have had.
-
I didn't know that was the point you were trying to make. However, I assume even the Taliban has leadership. We've been meeting with them for months although I don't think we've made much headway. Probably because they see us leaving and why should they give up anything now? That's why I say our parting words should just remind them that we'll be back if they threaten us. There's not much more we can negotiate with since Biden's said he's pulling out and has given up any leverage we may have had.
We had 13,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2019. Trump gradually drew them down, reducing our presence to 2500 in January. You praised him for doing so, saying he was fulfilling his campaign pledge to bring an end to endless wars, not to mention we are broke. Now that Biden is pulling out the last 2500, you are saying we are giving up any leverage we may have had. You should have thought about that earlier.
-
We had 13,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2019. Trump gradually drew them down, reducing our presence to 2500 in January. You praised him for doing so, saying he was fulfilling his campaign pledge to bring an end to endless wars, not to mention we are broke. Now that Biden is pulling out the last 2500, you are saying we are giving up any leverage we may have had. You should have thought about that earlier.
I didn't say we should stay. That's a different subject and debatable. All I said was we're giving up leverage because we told them we're pulling out in September. Negotiations are over. That's why the parting words:- Don't give us a reason to come back.
-
I didn't say we should stay. That's a different subject and debatable. All I said was we're giving up leverage because we told them we're pulling out in September. Negotiations are over. That's why the parting words:- Don't give us a reason to come back.
So if Trump told them we are pulling out in September and negotiations are over, and then true to his word Trump drew down forces to 2500, I not sure why you made this statement:
There's not much more we can negotiate with since Biden's said he's pulling out and has given up any leverage we may have had.
Seems to me like it was Trump rather than Biden who gave up any leverage we may have had.
From October 2020:
"The U.S. military was blindsided Thursday by President Donald Trump’s assertion that all U.S. troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, with U.S. officials saying they are not aware of such a plan and have gotten no actual order to accelerate the more gradual pullout they’ve been executing.
Trump’s comments, laid out in a confusing progression of comments and a tweet, alarmed Pentagon and State officials who fear that putting a definitive date on troop withdrawal could undercut negotiations to finalize a peace deal between the Taliban and the Afghan government. "
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-troop-withdrawals-taliban-archive-afghanistan-01ac38c793ca71a2ec099c226e50e7c8
-
So if Trump told them we are pulling out in September and negotiations are over, and then true to his word Trump drew down forces to 2500, I not sure why you made this statement:
Seems to me like it was Trump rather than Biden who gave up any leverage we may have had.
Biden's the president now, not Trump. He could have done whatever he wanted, reversing whatever Trump did just like Trump reversed Obama's Iran deal, climate change, etc. Biden's now re-reversing Trump's with Iran and climate. So he can't cop-out on his own decisions regarding Afghanistan. He was told by his experts in the military that he should leave some troops there. But he decided not to. For better or worse, he made the final decision regarding troops in Afghanistan.
-
Biden's the president now, not Trump. He could have done whatever he wanted, reversing whatever Trump did just like Trump reversed Obama's Iran deal, climate change, etc. Biden's now re-reversing Trump's with Iran and climate. So he can't cop-out on his own decisions regarding Afghanistan. He was told by his experts in the military that he should leave some troops there. But he decided not to. For better or worse, he made the final decision regarding troops in Afghanistan.
On a scale of 1-10, how convincing do you think that argument is?
I don't recall your complaining last fall about Trump giving up any leverage we may have had with the Taliban when he announced he was recalling all troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. It was all rah-rah about Trump keeping his campaign promises, and of course how we were going broke.
And what does "Iran and climate" have to do with withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?
-
On a scale of 1-10, how convincing do you think that argument is? And what does "Iran and climate" have to do with withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?
Convinced about what? I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I think my post was very clear.
-
... I think my post was very clear.
I don't.
-
Convinced about what? I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I think my post was very clear.
You do realize that there is a difference between a clear argument and a convincing argument?
The other interesting contradiction is that when Trump said he was going to pull out the troops from Afghanistan, in addition to praising him for keeping his campaign promises, you overlooked that he was doing so against the advice of his military advisors, yet when Biden announces he is going to pull out the troops from Afghanistan, in addition to criticizing him for giving up leverage against the Taliban, you point out that he is not following the advice of his military advisors. In other words, your views differ depending who is taking the action. All of which is entirely predictable.
-
I just listened to this old talk by journalist Robert Fisk about Middle East politics and journalism. It's not directly on point but not that far off either, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6ASJA7fbcE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6ASJA7fbcE). It's about an hour long.
-
You do realize that there is a difference between a clear argument and a convincing argument?
The other interesting contradiction is that when Trump said he was going to pull out the troops from Afghanistan, in addition to praising him for keeping his campaign promises, you overlooked that he was doing so against the advice of his military advisors, yet when Biden announces he is going to pull out the troops from Afghanistan, in addition to criticizing him for giving up leverage against the Taliban, you point out that he is not following the advice of his military advisors. In other words, your views differ depending who is taking the action. All of which is entirely predictable.
I agree that Trump gave up negotiating power do to his remarks about pulling out. But Biden is president now and fully reasonable for what happens going forward. He could have reversed what Trump said and kept US forces there. But he didn't. The pulling out is on his watch. We only have one Commander=in=Chief at a time. Are you claiming he isn't fully responsible for this act?