Withdrawal from Afghanistan

[Alan Klein]

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/

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Chris Kern]

"Terrorist" = "person we don't like (this week)". 
See also "freedom fighter".

In the United States, federal law 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.

[Alan Klein]

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?

[faberryman]

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/

[Chris Kern]

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).

[Alan Klein]

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.

[kers]

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?

[Alan Klein]

Yes.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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.   

[faberryman]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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.

[faberryman]

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

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[faberryman]

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?

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

... I think my post was very clear.

I don't.

[faberryman]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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. It's about an hour long.