Biden is now more dangerous to the west than the Taliban.

[Stevicus]

Knowing the people of Afghanistan wasn't as
thorough as necessary, eh.
Who predicted their military would collapse so
quickly? Let them step forward, & say....
"I told you so."

The one thing that should be self-evident from this is that the Taliban obviously had a much stronger hold over the hearts and minds of the Afghani people than our leadership wanted to believe.

There's a certain hubris about the way politicians and other government officials (including military) carry themselves in press conferences and other statements to the press about what they're doing in America's name. This is a cultural thing I've noticed, as the same personality traits are evident in both parties.

Heck, the political leadership and much of the elite in this country are so out of touch that they don't even understand much about the American people, so it's not surprising they know even less about the Afghani people.

 

[Revoltingest]

The one thing that should be self-evident from this is that the Taliban obviously had a much stronger hold over the hearts and minds of the Afghani people than our leadership wanted to believe.

There's a certain hubris about the way politicians and other government officials (including military) carry themselves in press conferences and other statements to the press about what they're doing in America's name. This is a cultural thing I've noticed, as the same personality traits are evident in both parties.

Heck, the political leadership and much of the elite in this country are so out of touch that they don't even understand much about the American people, so it's not surprising they know even less about the Afghani people.

Even the Pakistanis (per Nat Geo) didn't expect this quick
collapse. They'd know more about their neighbor than
Ameristanian "experts". So I cut Biden some slack for
doing what needed to be done with the info he had.

 

[anna.]

Well, they may have had their reasons, but whether or not they were good reasons remains to be seen. All we really now know is that there has been a very bad outcome from this affair, and someone needs to step up and take responsibility for it.

It does remain to be seen. I'm not going to assume they didn't know what they were doing.

And we don't really even know there was a "very bad outcome" except the right wing and certain drama-needy media want to push that narrative, which in my opinion makes the narrative suspect. In the meantime:

Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan

 

[Stevicus]

Even the Pakistanis (per Nat Geo) didn't expect this quick
collapse. They'd know more about their neighbor than
Ameristanian "experts". So I cut Biden some slack for
doing what needed to be done with the info he had.

Perhaps, although considering that Osama Bin Laden had been living in Pakistan for years before his discovery and execution by US forces, it makes one wonder just how reliable they actually are.

It's a reasonable question, considering that people are sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan. Sounds like something the Taliban would do.

Mind you, I don't blame Biden personally for this. This isn't really a political thing for me, as I really detest both major parties. But I think there's a certain culture in government which seems to be reflected in the political culture overall. If there's a reason they didn't expect what happened in Afghanistan, it may be rooted in the hubris I mentioned above, which seems to pervade every aspect of government these days. Sometimes, one can see shades of it even among the posters here at RF.

It's like the trope about "the Army doesn't make mistakes." I remember hearing that when they drafted Danny Partridge, a ten-year-old kid, into the Army. They had to fight an entire military bureaucracy before someone would admit that they actually did make a mistake. A little kid at the induction center wasn't enough evidence.

Sure, it's a joke and good fodder for comedy, but sometimes, one has to wonder just how far away is that from the truth?

As you say, let someone come forth and say "I told you so." I'm sure there will be more stories coming out from people who are/were actually there and saw everything firsthand. Those are the stories I want to hear, not the CYA press conferences put on by the Pentagon.

 

[Stevicus]

It does remain to be seen. I'm not going to assume they didn't know what they were doing.

And we don't really even know there was a "very bad outcome" except the right wing and certain drama-needy media want to push that narrative, which in my opinion makes the narrative suspect. In the meantime:

Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan

This really goes beyond politics, and as I mentioned in my previous posts, I don't blame Biden personally for this.

I suppose the question of whether it was a bad outcome or a good outcome is in the eye of the beholder.

However, I don't know of anyone, Democrat or Republican, who is happy that the Afghani government collapsed so quickly and the Taliban took over. Neither the Democrats or Republicans like the Taliban, so the idea of them being back in control of Afghanistan is not a palatable idea for either political party. So, it should suffice to say that, from the point of view of our government and political leadership, it was a bad outcome. Things definitely did not go as planned or expected.

That's not right-wing rhetoric. That's US foreign policy as it has manifested itself in that country, approved and actively participated in by both political parties. Biden himself played an active role as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the decision to invade Afghanistan was undertaken. I think it would be unfair to lay it all on Biden, but I don't agree with those who would characterize this as someone who just came into the game and scored a winning touchdown.

What does fall on Biden at this point is the aftermath. It may not be his fault, but as Chief Executive, it's his administration's responsibility to deal with the aftermath. I'm not necessarily assuming they didn't know what they were doing, but I would hope an investigation will yield some more definitive answers in that regard.

 

[anna.]

This really goes beyond politics, and as I mentioned in my previous posts, I don't blame Biden personally for this.

I suppose the question of whether it was a bad outcome or a good outcome is in the eye of the beholder.

I'd say it would also depend on how knowledgeable the beholder is. As you said, it goes beyond politics into the realm of what's supposed to be non-political: military intelligence. Most of us outside those circles can't even make an educated guess, we can only speculate until information is released to the public.

However, I don't know of anyone, Democrat or Republican, who is happy that the Afghani government collapsed so quickly and the Taliban took over. Neither the Democrats or Republicans like the Taliban, so the idea of them being back in control of Afghanistan is not a palatable idea for either political party. So, it should suffice to say that, from the point of view of our government and political leadership, it was a bad outcome. Things definitely did not go as planned or expected.

Again, do we even know that? That things didn't go as planned or expected? I think it was Gen. Milley who said they'd planned for every possible outcome from weeks to months to even years, but perhaps even with all that they didn't think the Afghan forces would fold as quickly as they did, within days. There are a lot of armchair generals out there.

That's not right-wing rhetoric.

Well, it is rightwing rhetoric, serenaded by a feckless media that even has the NYT with headlines "Miscue After Miscue, U.S. Exit Plan Unravels."

That's US foreign policy as it has manifested itself in that country, approved and actively participated in by both political parties. Biden himself played an active role as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the decision to invade Afghanistan was undertaken. I think it would be unfair to lay it all on Biden, but I don't agree with those who would characterize this as someone who just came into the game and scored a winning touchdown.

What does fall on Biden at this point is the aftermath. It may not be his fault, but as Chief Executive, it's his administration's responsibility to deal with the aftermath. I'm not necessarily assuming they didn't know what they were doing, but I would hope an investigation will yield some more definitive answers in that regard.

I don't see this as a "winning touchdown" scenario at all. This isn't about political points, or the president could've played it safe and extended the forever war like his predecessors. I don't believe for a minute the American public wants to send any more of its sons and daughters to die in a war we should never have started. I think in the end the public will side with the president on this, and not with the war hawks and the military-industrial complex who are losing their cash cow.

 

[Stevicus]

I'd say it would also depend on how knowledgeable the beholder is. As you said, it goes beyond politics into the realm of what's supposed to be non-political: military intelligence. Most of us outside those circles can't even make an educated guess, we can only speculate until information is released to the public.



Again, do we even know that? That things didn't go as planned or expected? I think it was Gen. Milley who said they'd planned for every possible outcome from weeks to months to even years, but perhaps even with all that they didn't think the Afghan forces would fold as quickly as they did, within days. There are a lot of armchair generals out there.

So, you think we should just keep our mouths shut and defer to the military, because the Army never makes mistakes? Military intelligence is still part of the government, and the government is political.

As for what "we" know, we should both know that both Democrats and Republicans supported the war against the Taliban. They were against the Taliban, so I think "we" should be able to surmise that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was an unfavorable result from the point of view of our government. I think it's reasonably safe to conclude that they didn't plan or expect the Taliban to take over. Even you state above "they didn't think the Afghan forces would fold as quickly as they did," so it seems that we're both in agreement on this point.

Other than that, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

Well, it is rightwing rhetoric, serenaded by a feckless media that even has the NYT with headlines "Miscue After Miscue, U.S. Exit Plan Unravels."

What would you have them say about it? If the NYT and rightwing rhetoric agree on anything, it might be worth looking at.

Of course, we'll wait for whatever further reports, evidence, and testimony are made public - if they're ever made public. But in the meantime, the press is going to report what they know based on what has already been made public.

I don't see this as a "winning touchdown" scenario at all. This isn't about political points, or the president could've played it safe and extended the forever war like his predecessors. I don't believe for a minute the American public wants to send any more of its sons and daughters to die in a war we should never have started. I think in the end the public will side with the president on this, and not with the war hawks and the military-industrial complex who are losing their cash cow.

You don't think the president has been on the same side as those war hawks and the military-industrial complex? He supported the war on Afghanistan when he was in the Senate. The decision to withdraw was made and an agreement signed before Biden took office. The war hawks and MIC could have balked about it then.

The media were focused on other things, such as COVID and riots and disputes over the election. I don't recall very many people (if any) making any huge fuss about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan either last year or in the first seven months of this year. This is likely because they believed that there was a duly-elected Afghan government with a large, US-equipped and US-trained security force which was expected to be strong enough to keep the Taliban at bay. But either way, the withdrawal was already a done deal, and most people seemed to be okay with it.

Biden isn't being criticized for that.

 

[metis]

As far as the issue of national security is concerned, remember that 9-11 was committed on American soil and had little to do with Afghanistan in reality. Yes, binLaden's plan was hatched there, but that could have been done anywhere. The screw-up happened here with people missing the warning signs, such as some Middle Eastern men here in the States learning how to fly but not to land.

Thus, we don't have to occupy another country when we can better rely on our own intelligence networks both here and with our allies. And right now, domestic terrorism is more of a threat than one from western Asia. What we saw happening from after the election, especially January 6th to the 20th, was far more threatening to us than 9-11, whereas a sitting president tried a coup that would have made him "Dictator of the United States" if he had been successful. We got dangerously close to losing our constitutional republic, and it's utterly appalling that there are Americans who want to put him back into power again whereas there would be pretty much no restraints on what he might try to do. Sick-- truly sick.

 

[esmith]

As far as the issue of national security is concerned, remember that 9-11 was committed on American soil and had little to do with Afghanistan in reality. Yes, binLaden's plan was hatched there, but that could have been done anywhere. The screw-up happened here with people missing the warning signs, such as some Middle Eastern men here in the States learning how to fly but not to land.

Thus, we don't have to occupy another country when we can better rely on our own intelligence networks both here and with our allies. And right now, domestic terrorism is more of a threat than one from western Asia. What we saw happening from after the election, especially January 6th to the 20th, was far more threatening to us than 9-11, whereas a sitting president tried a coup that would have made him "Dictator of the United States" if he had been successful. We got dangerously close to losing our constitutional republic, and it's utterly appalling that there are Americans who want to put him back into power again whereas there would be pretty much no restraints on what he might try to do. Sick-- truly sick.

Only have one comment to your assumption that domestic terrorism is more of a threat than one from western Asia, which I assume you mean from Islamic terrorist..


Bullcrap

 

[metis]

• “For the last 20 years our biggest concern was international terrorism -- ISIS, Al Qaeda,” said Bill Bratton. “Now it’s here and it’s us, and it’s the citizens of the United States.”
• State capitols across the nation are facing the threat of violence in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden’s inaugurations.
• Bratton said that is “much, much harder” to battle domestic terrorism, and that the U.S. does not have the “tools to battle domestic terrorism” in the way it does to battle international terrorism...

Former New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton warned CNBC’s “The News with Shepard Smith” that domestic terrorism has superseded the threat of international terrorism in the United States.

“For the last 20 years our biggest concern was international terrorism — ISIS, Al Qaeda,” Bratton said in a Friday evening interview. “Now it’s here and it’s us, and it’s the citizens of the United States, some of whom are rebelling against everything we thought we believed in for the last 300 to 400 years.”

Former Homeland Security Department counterterrorism official, Nate Snyder, echoed Bratton’s sentiments on “The News with Shepard Smith.”

“If you’re talking about the lethality of the threat, domestic terrorism — meaning violent white supremacists, neo-Nazis, sovereign citizens, militia movements — have been the most lethal threat in these past ten years compared to Al Qaeda and ISIS- inspired threats,” Snyder said... -- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dom...rrorism-warns-ex-nyc-police-commissioner.html

 

[Twilight Hue]

As far as the issue of national security is concerned, remember that 9-11 was committed on American soil and had little to do with Afghanistan in reality. Yes, binLaden's plan was hatched there, but that could have been done anywhere. The screw-up happened here with people missing the warning signs, such as some Middle Eastern men here in the States learning how to fly but not to land.

Thus, we don't have to occupy another country when we can better rely on our own intelligence networks both here and with our allies. And right now, domestic terrorism is more of a threat than one from western Asia. What we saw happening from after the election, especially January 6th to the 20th, was far more threatening to us than 9-11, whereas a sitting president tried a coup that would have made him "Dictator of the United States" if he had been successful. We got dangerously close to losing our constitutional republic, and it's utterly appalling that there are Americans who want to put him back into power again whereas there would be pretty much no restraints on what he might try to do. Sick-- truly sick.

What's sick is legitimizing terrorists whom are being kowtowed to and not being pushed back out, betrayed Americans and allies, and a president that does nothing about it and glad he did it to a point of bragging.

That's really whats sick here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

• “For the last 20 years our biggest concern was international terrorism -- ISIS, Al Qaeda,” said Bill Bratton. “Now it’s here and it’s us, and it’s the citizens of the United States.”
• State capitols across the nation are facing the threat of violence in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden’s inaugurations.
• Bratton said that is “much, much harder” to battle domestic terrorism, and that the U.S. does not have the “tools to battle domestic terrorism” in the way it does to battle international terrorism...

Former New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton warned CNBC’s “The News with Shepard Smith” that domestic terrorism has superseded the threat of international terrorism in the United States.

“For the last 20 years our biggest concern was international terrorism — ISIS, Al Qaeda,” Bratton said in a Friday evening interview. “Now it’s here and it’s us, and it’s the citizens of the United States, some of whom are rebelling against everything we thought we believed in for the last 300 to 400 years.”

Former Homeland Security Department counterterrorism official, Nate Snyder, echoed Bratton’s sentiments on “The News with Shepard Smith.”

“If you’re talking about the lethality of the threat, domestic terrorism — meaning violent white supremacists, neo-Nazis, sovereign citizens, militia movements — have been the most lethal threat in these past ten years compared to Al Qaeda and ISIS- inspired threats,” Snyder said... -- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/dom...rrorism-warns-ex-nyc-police-commissioner.html

Sovereign citizens?

Impeccable insight here.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's sick is legitimizing terrorists whom are being kowtowed to and not being pushed back out, betrayed Americans and allies, and a president that does nothing about it and glad he did it to a point of bragging.

That's really whats sick here.

Rather than "sick", consider it as the reality of enemies
coming to power after we failed to dislodge them with
20 years of destroying many lives & much money.
We had to deal with enemies many times before....
Soviets, Castro, N Vietnam, PRC, etc. We'll do it again.

As for Biden's "bragging". Nah.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sovereign citizens?

Impeccable insight here.

Notice how Antifa & BLM aren't included?
One might suspect some bias there.

 

[metis]

What's sick is legitimizing terrorists whom are being kowtowed to and not being pushed back out, betrayed Americans and allies, and a president that does nothing about it and glad he did it to a point of bragging.

That's really whats sick here.

What's very sick is when one misportrays what another posts as I never stated nor implied we should let our guard down

As General Milley stated, we are better served through increased intelligence efforts with our allies plus reserving the right to attack if needed.

 

[tas8831]

I’m not defending Biden (notice that), but Trump wanted to pull out even faster and more recklessly; and you’d do well to remember that.

I would welcome new candidates in 2024.

Plus he had already pulled out of bases in Syria, leaving equipment for the Russians and Turks, who quickly moved in and killed our Kurdish allies. Odd how few (on the right) seemed to be upset about any of that.

 

[tas8831]

What's sick is legitimizing terrorists whom are being kowtowed to and not being pushed back out,

So you must be really mad at Trump for making a deal with the Taliban, releasing 5k Taliban thugs, and even inviting them to Camp David.... Right?

... he did it to a point of bragging.

That's really whats sick here.

Yes, bragging is sick. So, again, you must really be mad at Trump.

 

[anna.]

So, you think we should just keep our mouths shut and defer to the military, because the Army never makes mistakes?

Strawman much?

Please don't put words in my mouth. You can speculate all you want, but unless you're privy to classified information you don't have the whole story, or know what intelligence went into making the decisions that were made. Down the road, the public all might know, but right now, we don't. Plain and simple.

Military intelligence is still part of the government, and the government is political.

It's not political, by design. Unfortunately, that was another norm smashed to smithereens by Trump.

How it's supposed to be:

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DOD PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: Political Activities

All DoD personnel, Service members, and civilian employees alike, swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those of us privileged to serve our Nation, in and out of uniform, in the DoD must be the epitome of American values and ethics. Our mission, to protect and defend the Nation, is apolitical.

As for what "we" know, we should both know that both Democrats and Republicans supported the war against the Taliban. They were against the Taliban, so I think "we" should be able to surmise that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was an unfavorable result from the point of view of our government. I think it's reasonably safe to conclude that they didn't plan or expect the Taliban to take over. Even you state above "they didn't think the Afghan forces would fold as quickly as they did," so it seems that we're both in agreement on this point.

Other than that, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

We certainly weren't arguing about how we got into the war or by who. I remarked there are a lot of armchair generals out there who can only speculate, because they're not privy to the military intelligence used to make decisions. You turned that into me thinking we "should just keep our mouths shut and defer to the military, because the Army never makes mistakes."

What would you have them say about it? If the NYT and rightwing rhetoric agree on anything, it might be worth looking at.

Of course, we'll wait for whatever further reports, evidence, and testimony are made public - if they're ever made public. But in the meantime, the press is going to report what they know based on what has already been made public.

You don't think the president has been on the same side as those war hawks and the military-industrial complex? He supported the war on Afghanistan when he was in the Senate. The decision to withdraw was made and an agreement signed before Biden took office. The war hawks and MIC could have balked about it then.

The right wing will refuse to admit that Trump set this in motion and Stephen Miller intentionally throttled the ability to move visas quickly, but will quickly abandon their hatred of the 'MSM' if the media gives them what they want, which is criticism of the president.

It's good that the the media pushes, investigates, examines. Engages in actual journalism, not just reporting. It's not good when they hand-wring with loaded words and unnamed sources and frame the narrative in ways that maintain access whether intentionally or unintentionally.

On the other hand, it appears that criticism is necessary, and that "mistakes were made." I think it's quite possible history will show the Biden administration made some big mistakes in how they executed the withdrawal. The administration isn't above criticism and neither is military leadership.

The media were focused on other things, such as COVID and riots and disputes over the election. I don't recall very many people (if any) making any huge fuss about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan either last year or in the first seven months of this year. This is likely because they believed that there was a duly-elected Afghan government with a large, US-equipped and US-trained security force which was expected to be strong enough to keep the Taliban at bay. But either way, the withdrawal was already a done deal, and most people seemed to be okay with it.

Biden isn't being criticized for that.

I agree with most of this last.

 

[Stevicus]

Strawman much?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I was asking you a question, not putting words in your mouth. I also note that you didn't answer it.

You can speculate all you want, but unless you're privy to classified information you don't have the whole story, or know what intelligence went into making the decisions that were made. Down the road, the public all might know, but right now, we don't. Plain and simple.

All we're discussing is what has already been made public knowledge. We're not talking about phantoms here, but information which has already been disseminated to the public. True, we might have to wait for more information to come out, but what, exactly, do you think I'm speculating about?

It's not political, by design.

In theory, perhaps.

Unfortunately, that was another norm smashed to smithereens by Trump.

How it's supposed to be:

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DOD PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: Political Activities

All DoD personnel, Service members, and civilian employees alike, swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those of us privileged to serve our Nation, in and out of uniform, in the DoD must be the epitome of American values and ethics. Our mission, to protect and defend the Nation, is apolitical.

They can say whatever they want to, and I don't doubt that many of them actually believe it. Besides, look at the phrase "must be the epitome of American values and ethics." Is that not a political statement, in and of itself?

Also, I agree with the basic idea that "War is the continuation of politics by other means," which would mean that the military exists primarily as a political weapon. All of our wars have been political wars.

Granted, the military won't likely engineer any political coup or anything like that at least not on American soil. They won't take sides with the Democrats or the Republicans, so in that sense, they can be said to be apolitical, but other than that, I wouldn't be too sure.

We certainly weren't arguing about how we got into the war or by who. I remarked there are a lot of armchair generals out there who can only speculate, because they're not privy to the military intelligence used to make decisions. You turned that into me thinking we "should just keep our mouths shut and defer to the military, because the Army never makes mistakes."

Well, it's not speculation that the Taliban now rule Afghanistan. This is something that US leaders in both parties - and even the military - regards as a "bad outcome." I said this upthread, and you seemed to challenge this point, thinking that it's just speculation that it's a bad outcome. Because I'm not privy to the military intelligence and the decision-making processes of the military commanders. But I submit that that's irrelevant to the point being made.

I said things did not go as planned or expected, and you replied:

Again, do we even know that? That things didn't go as planned or expected?

Yes, we do know that. You even said it yourself later on in the same paragraph:

I think it was Gen. Milley who said they'd planned for every possible outcome from weeks to months to even years, but perhaps even with all that they didn't think the Afghan forces would fold as quickly as they did, within days.

They didn't know it would happen. I would think that qualify as "unexpected," yet you ask "Do we even know that?"

I also would find it difficult to believe that the government or military actually planned for the Taliban to take over, so I think it's safe to say that that outcome was "unplanned," yet you ask "Do we even know that?" Yes, we do know it, because the Taliban currently rule Afghanistan.

Other than that, what else are we arguing here? I'm looking at the results of what happened and what's been widely reported through the worldwide media, which all tell the same story: The Taliban rule Afghanistan.

Do I need to be privy to top secret military information to be able to comment on what has been widely reported?

Even if I did have this information, how would that change the obvious result of what we're seeing right now? That maybe they have good reasons? In other words, they might have a good excuse for this failure (but it's a secret and they can't tell us what it is)? Will it make any difference?

I'm an armchair peacenik myself, and I have no qualms about criticizing warmongers and military adventurists. I think the debacle of Afghanistan is a perfect example (but not the only one) of why we shouldn't engage in these policies at all.

The right wing will refuse to admit that Trump set this in motion and Stephen Miller intentionally throttled the ability to move visas quickly, but will quickly abandon their hatred of the 'MSM' if the media gives them what they want, which is criticism of the president.

It's good that the the media pushes, investigates, examines. Engages in actual journalism, not just reporting. It's not good when they hand-wring with loaded words and unnamed sources and frame the narrative in ways that maintain access whether intentionally or unintentionally.

On the other hand, it appears that criticism is necessary, and that "mistakes were made." I think it's quite possible history will show the Biden administration made some big mistakes in how they executed the withdrawal. The administration isn't above criticism and neither is military leadership.

That's what I've been saying. Mistakes were made.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It does remain to be seen. I'm not going to assume they didn't know what they were doing.

And we don't really even know there was a "very bad outcome" except the right wing and certain drama-needy media want to push that narrative, which in my opinion makes the narrative suspect. In the meantime:

Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan

Credit for getting servicemen killed because of his moronic moves, and credit for leaving allies there and then lying about it? Yes that's what he deserves credit for.