Democrats have become so dominant they no longer strive to appear competent. It's so bad they feel they can flaunt their incompetence and laugh it off - the final manifestation of decadence and corruption prior to collapse
How is it that the military evacuated without securing documents, equipment, weaponry? At the very least I would have expected it to be utterly destroyed than to be left for our enemies. I find this appalling.
There is one hugely insightful point made in this post. Democracy requires certain historical/cultural traditions that do not exist in much of the world; the most important of which involves the peaceful transfer of power. That is often unheard of elsewhere, which is why our efforts to plant the seed of democracy usually result in one man, one vote . . . one time.
You are spot on there, Neil. What the proponents of "nation building" so often forget that we didn't even engage in that in this country. The Founders didn't have to "plant the seed of democracy" because it had already been planted by the British Crown, which allowed the 13 colonies to have their own colonial legislatures, and pretty much order their own affairs, so long as they remembered that they were, in its eyes, subjects of the Crown. It was only when the colonies started thinking of themselves as something other than the King's subjects that they began contemplating life after British dominion. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has a structure more akin to that of Classical Greece, with tribal/family groups replacing the Greeks' city-states. Greece wasn't unified until Phillip II of Macedon conquered the other city=states, which led to his son, Alexander the Great, to take on the task of destroying Persia once and for all.
I have what tends to be an unusual perspective on issues such as this these days. Unlike the overwhelming majority of people who think they know what they are talking about, I actually spent time in the military. Let me tell you what it is, and is not good at.
No one - and I mean no one - can stop us in a conventional battle, where the objective for both sides is simply to kill people and break things. By contrast, just about anyone can beat us when after the battle is over, we try to stay and hold ground for years at a time; for the simple reason that it is hard to outlast an opponent in his own country. The latter proposition is especially problematic (i.e., dangerous) for the individual trooper because he is trained to kill people and break things, not to keep the peace while basically serving as target practice for the enemy.
The math on this should be so obvious at this point that no actual calculation is even necessary. Which would have cost more, in both blood and treasure: (1) trying to keep the Taliban at bay for the last 20 years or (2) going in to uproot Al Qaeda, leaving after we got Bin Laden, and then going back in again to repeat the process if we had to?
I know for damn sure which cost more in the precious blood, lives, and limbs of our soldiers. Bush I got it right when he went into Iraq, kicked Saddam's butt, and then left. Bush II didn't.
It's real easy to sit at home in this country and put somebody else (who bothered to serve) at risk so that Kabul can have skyscrappers, entertainment, and television. For anyone in command of troops, except for the mission, their welfare is his main concern. And as for the mission, a good commander tries to accomplish it while putting those troops at the least possible risk. This Commander-in-Chief understands that. Even the last one, idiot though he was, seems to have understood that.
"I actually spent time in the military." I admit that I'd wondered if that was the case. For the record, so did I (20 years, USAF). Now, on to your post.
Paragraph 2 is spot on; soldiers, even those trained in policing, make lousy policemen. That's why after WWII, we couldn't wait to get out of the business of neocolonial masters over Germany and Japan, choosing to turn over the reins of power to the Germans and Japanese, both of whom at least had some experience with democratic self-governance, such as it was, before the war. As I noted in my reply to your earlier post, the Afghans had absolutely NO experience with the concept, being instead a collection of tribes and family units, something which is commonplace in Islamic nations because of what they had prior to Islam (see Iraq).
I do have a quibble with Paragraph 3. As you well know, the problem with leaving after the required amount of punishment has been administered has one flaw, that being that IF the opposing side has the will and determination to hang in there until we depart, it can reassume control in our absence. This is exactly what we're now seeing in Afghanistan. And the costs (financial, at least) of returning and rebuilding an infrastructure again and again can be very expensive. The "stay and tough it out" strategy, while also costly, does offer the prospect of winding up with something relatively stable, which is the case in Iraq. What Iraqis now have, while far from "perfect" by our standards, at least more accurately reflects the pre-2003 situation on the ground, without the distortion of power which resulted when a minority (the Sunni) governed a large majority (the Shiite). And yes, I know that Shiite majority rule brings Iran into the mix, but at least it isn't what Bush 43 originally envisioned, which was to make Baghdad a sort of Boston, Middle East. That sort of "nation building" is what needs to be avoided at all costs, as Bush 41 did in 1991, largely with the agreement of his military advisors; General Schwarzkopf adamantly opposed a U.S. occupation of Iraq. Which approach has cost us more in blood and treasure? It seems that the Afghan model has - and the Taliban's still there.
Paragraph 5 is where you and I really part ways. Leaving aside your gratuitous shot at President Trump, let's see if your statement, "This Commander-in-Chief understands that." holds water. My contention is that Joe Biden did not, does not, and will never understand the costs he has incurred, and the butcher's bill which will be paid, by this poorly (more likely not) planned, reckless, and disastrous withdrawal. For example: Which facility should have been chosen to host the withdrawal; the modern, Bagram AB, with its easily defensible perimeter and access roads which is 1.5 hours from and population center, or the Kabul airport, with a perimeter which was for us indefensible without great cost and which is dead square in the middle of a town of 3 million souls? You don't have to be a career military planner to know THAT answer, Neil. Biden then further screwed the pooch with his naming Sept 11th as his final withdrawal date. That was exactly the date which should NEVER have been chosen for obvious reasons. The Embassy staff added to the disaster by managing to forget to destroy the payroll records of ALL Afghans who had worked for the U.S., as well as the biometric ID gear we were using for access, giving the Taliban a ready made list of Afghans it will kill. I think it's demonstrably true that, contrary to your assertion, that this Commander-in-Chief has no consideration for the welfare of Americans stationed in Afghanistan, both military and civilian. He has engaged in a course of action which has placed Americans in that country at the most possible risk, as shown by the instructions from Secretary of State Blinken that Americans should begin traveling to the Kabul airport, then noting that their safety while in transit there cannot be insured. And now, the military and intelligence community leaders he so casually tried to throw under the bus are leaking frantically, arguing (correctly) that this whole cluster &%$#! was really unplanned, and against all advice they had given. Let's call it what it really is, Neil: It's the Afghanistan Hostage Crisis, Day 6. And just as the Iran Hostage Crisis brought down Jimmy Carter, so too will this one bring down Joe Biden, plus cost Democrats control of both Houses of Congress next year. What's not yet clear is whether the damage to American power and influence in the world is transitory or permanent.
Whether Iraq is better off now than before is debatable, given the number of Iraqis who died on the way to the current situation. Moreover, unless they are going to come over here and help make America better, how things are in their country is their concern, not ours. But for weapons of mass destruction (which of course did not really exist), we had no business over there in the first place.
(Jeez, I thought this was a conservative forum. Since when do conservatives think it's our job to improve conditions in places that don't belong to us?)
As for Biden's mistakes, do you really think he made the call on whether to close one airbase as opposed to another? Big decisions, such as whether and when to withdraw, cross his desk; not logistical details. Biden has owned those big decisions, as well as the failure to anticipate the speed with which the Afghan forces would collapse. But in the latter regard, on one side you have 300,000 well-trained troops armed with the best weaponry we could provide, and they have air support. On the other, you have 75,000 Taliban without air support or much in the way of artillery. If you could have foreseen that the first side would capitulate to the other in just 11 days, you're a lot smarter than I am, and Biden to boot.
"But in the latter regard, on one side you have 300,000 well-trained troops armed with the best weaponry we could provide, and they have air support. On the other, you have 75,000 Taliban without air support or much in the way of artillery. If you could have foreseen that the first side would capitulate to the other in just 11 days, you're a lot smarter than I am, and Biden to boot."
Two things, Neil: 1) It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. The larger dog (the Afghan Army) was not the well equipped and trained machine that President Biden thinks it is, a fact which he would have known had he bothered to ask:
"Within the Afghan army, soldiers complain of substandard equipment, even shoddy basic items like army boots that fall apart within weeks because corrupt contractors used inferior material. The Associated Press witnessed boots with gaping holes being worn, insufficient helmets available and weapons that often jammed.
"At a police outpost seen by the AP earlier this month, eight men lived in a partially built bunker that looked big enough for only half that number. They had only a few rifles as they watched sentry from two turret-style posts on the outpost’s high brick walls. They overlook a busy road where the Taliban frequently attack security convoys." https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghan-forces-struggle-demoralized-rife-corruption-77934403
2) There were NEVER 3,000 soldiers, trained or otherwise, in the Afghan Army. There were, however, many a "ghost soldier", defined as someone who doesn't exist but is reported as existing by unit commanders who stand to pocket the pay of that "soldier".
"Washington’s chief watchdog overseeing U.S. spending in Afghanistan, John Sopko, told a Congressional hearing in March that Afghanistan’s security forces were demoralized. He said the figure of 300,000 troops in the security forces was a guesstimate because of the many so-called ghost soldiers, where commanders list non-existent personnel to collect their paychecks.
“ 'I think corruption is the threat,' he said. Not only does it mean money is lost, he said, 'it also is fueling the insurgency' since the Taliban can build public support by pointing to the corruption and the impunity officials enjoy. (Same reference as above) More: "Days after the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, it has emerged that the Army in the strife-torn nation was made up of “ghost soldiers” who did not exist while the ramped up numbers were used to inflate the salary bill and siphon off millions of dollars annually.
Again, it's inconceivable that President Biden was unaware of these facts, unless he failed to ask, or has become so delusional that he just meekly accepted whatever assurances he was given. Which is it? You decide, Neil.
If you're leaving it to me to decide, I choose the obvious. Specifically, if they thought government forces had more staying power, they got it wrong. BIDEN HAS OWNED THAT. It is to be noted, however, that if things were as bad as you say concerning government forces - after 20 years of our best efforts - these were even more reasons to get the hell out, just as Biden is now doing.
Although you did not affirmatively state that you would have known better, I hereby acknowledge that you are in fact smarter than me, and Biden to boot. I would just add this, however, as concerns Biden "meekly accept[ing]" whatever assurances he was given. When under our system of government a mere civilian occupies the post of Commander-in-Chief, he has no choice but to rely upon the military and intelligence expertise of his top advisers. He is responsible for choosing them and firing their butts if they don't know what they're doing, but the notion of a civilian President doing anything other than relying on the advice of his generals as to which airbase should be closed, for example, is not well-founded.
The case of one Abraham Lincoln is illustrative. Relying on the advice of his generals, the Confederacy kicked our tail in one battle after another until Lincoln finally found a general (Grant) who knew what the hell he was doing. Once having done so, I'm guessing that Lincoln "meekly accepted" his advice . . . as well he should have.
And I haven't even managed to address the probable results of the Taliban's inviting in al-Qaeda, version 3.0, which certainly will be more terror attacks on American soil, aided and abetted by all those folks from the Middle East who are now running around courtesy of Joe Biden's other disaster - the one on our southern border.
Oh, and about our vulnerability to terrorists crossing the southern border: When, since 9/11, have we ever really been in control of that border? Yet for two decades now, we have not had a single documented case of a terrorist taking advantage of that particular opening.
And why would they choose that entry point anyway? Say what you want about the sufficiency of our border patrols down there, but there are border patrols down there. Meanwhile, one could drive up to our northern border, walk a short distance off into the woods and then simply stroll across.
As you and I have discussed previously at some length, there are other things we should be much more worried about.
Islamic terrorism has not subsided because we controlled Afghanistan. It subsided because once we were on guard against the threat, the terrorists came nowhere close to being a match for our intelligence and defense capabilities. They're still not, and never will be.
That is not to say there will never be another attack on the so-called homeland, but I ask you: when was the last act of Islamic terrorism in this country? For a while there, we had a mass shooting just about every week. And you're worried about terror attacks? I'm more afraid of dying at the hands of one of my own deranged countrymen than from some act of terrorism, and frankly (having never felt the need to own a gun), I'm not really afraid of that either.
And before anyone offers the lame proposition, "But we haven't been attacked . . . ." Of course we were . . . in Afghanistan and Iraq! The lives of our soldiers count too. (Even more so, in my book, than that of people who have never done anything more for their country than to demand its flawless performance in protecting them.)
Ah, Alas, we shall have another 9/11. Does the Lord, really put them in power.? For His purposes.? What shall we pray for? It's cruel for the women, children and others left in Afghanistan. Anne Graham Lotz gave a prayer yesterday for the people of Afghanistan. Me: I am taking to my bed.
had Trump another 4 years he would have added the Taliban leaders to the list populated by al-Baghdadi, Soleimani and al-Rimi. Remember Mr. Biden voted against the raid on Bin Laden and Obama was considerate of the Taliban.
Erick the democracy heritage (or lack of) is also true of the European nations as a whole. I believe they have a continuing mindset of the monarchy tending to them with whatever it deems fit. Seems we in the US want to think the same these days. Thanks for the continuing education and history.
Peace through strength. We can't shoot the idea of radical anything, but we can outlive it. The median age in Afghanistan is 18, they know only the peace we brought, they aren't interested in joining a radical bunch of killers, they want to go about their lives. We can't make Pakistan stop them.
We could deny them an open home territory so they would eventually wither and die.
Read Erick's piece again. There's an annual cycle for all their activities, including the time they "hibernate" and teach their children to carry on the legacy. 20 years can produce a lot of previously unborn children to mature into their next generation.
Eliminating an idea is different from eliminating people. The Taliban is made up of people...aligned on an idea. Killing ideas and ideology is a fool's errand; holding back the tide of idea-bearers was the strategy. And when you remove the dam, the water flows everywhere it can, washing away everything in its path that we built.
The issue today is the world needs police, and the US is the only nation with resources and resolve to maintain that infrastructure. There is a responsibility to being the most powerful and altruistic (to some degree) nation on earth. Sadly, as Erick points out, mis-alignment on ideological, political, racial and religious lines yields unsustainable governments.
I'm reminded of the story of King Joash in II Chronicles 24 - started out okay ("Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest." verse 2) then ended badly once Jehoiada died ("After the death of Jehoiada, the officials of Judah came and paid homage to the king, and he listened to them. They abandoned the temple of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and worshiped Asherah poles and idols. Because of their guilt, God’s anger came on Judah and Jerusalem..." verses 17-18).
We have been the world's Jehoiadah, pull back Jehoiadah and you get the REAL Joash. :-(
Simple facts: The birthrate in the U.S. is 12.4 live births per 1,000 women of child bearing age, and the median age of the American population is 38.5 years old. The corresponding figures for Afghanistan: 30.9 live births per 1,000 women, and 18.2 years old.
...and the commitment to nurture their values and ideology is far more "hands-on" than parenting in the US. They are brought up with the belief that heaven awaits if Allah so wills ("inshallah") with a proviso that martyrdom or death in jihad puts one at the head of the line.
Our children (as a whole) don't necessarily even believe there's actually a God, let alone one involved in human affairs. How to instill fervor in our youth for the preservation of freedom to counter Taliban's training and indoctrinating their children to kill infidels?
The Taliban couldn't have 4 fighters come together without an F-16, A-10, or combat drone showing up as an uninvited guest, so good was our intelligence network. Now all that's lost, although I'm sure that the Pakistanis and the Chinese will appreciate the unintended gift they have been given in the form of all that technology they can reverse engineer. And China will definitely appreciate the opportunity to strengthen its stranglehold over the world supply of strategic minerals, specifically "rare earth" elements, which are in abundance in that country.
Most of the 2,500 were troops thst supported the Afghan (especially air power)- who actually fought the Taliban. Once the support was pulled, their ability to fight was severely hampered.
What you say is true. The theory going in to these messes is to "teach Country XYZ to fish" but the actual practice is continually "handing them a fish". In the end, we failed to train Afghanistan to hold its own destiny independent of the Taliban and its ideological foundation. The Taliban is ideologically driven, willing to die for what they believe, especially since in Islam, martyrdom and dying in jihad is the only "guaranteed" path to heaven. Rank-and-file Afghanis are apparently unwilling to appropriate an equivalent ideological commitment to their own freedom to match that of the Taliban.
Erick brings out another important factor our hubris has ignored for decades: not everyone wants the USA's system (though all want the USA's money :-P ). The assumption that people will gravitate toward Western Democracy once we throw out the "bad" government is to ignore the history and context of its inhabitants. We try to make little "Americas" in South America, SE Asia, the Middle East, even Eastern Europe - doesn't fit their worldview, or at least their sacrificial commitment to our system. If you want to teach people to fish, gonna have to find those willing to fish for the specific fish you want them to and keep on fishing. Ideological alignment and commitment to an acceptable form of alternative gov't is the only way to get the people of a country to throw off the current regime. It is one reason we see Iran have little temper-fits from those bucking the Ayatollahs...who die and go away because the rest of the country doesn't see an acceptable alternative. They are Muslim, so don't expect them to throw in with Western Democracy that they believe belittles their Prophet and belief system. From their perspective, the devil they know is better than the devil they don't know...
The Afghan political structure, such as it is, is closer to that of Classical Greece, with family and tribal allegiances replacing the city-state as the foundational structure.
...but ideology of Islam is most definitely not akin to Classical Greece.
It is ideology and commitment thereof that drives gov't. We are (or at least have been) committed to freedom and Democracy. Muslim commitment is to Allah and their specific interpretation of Mohammed's teaching. It only gets more extreme the further down that fanatical path leadership and populace goes.
The leadership structure may look similar between Afghanistan and Classical Greece, it is societal underpinnings combined with structure needed to yield a stable (even when irrational) national gov't. We have arrogantly ignored cultural and societal underpinnings attempting to clone Democracy. Without our Founding Fathers' or equivalent commitment to our particular system, it will ultimately fail without the USA holding it up.
Democrats have become so dominant they no longer strive to appear competent. It's so bad they feel they can flaunt their incompetence and laugh it off - the final manifestation of decadence and corruption prior to collapse
How is it that the military evacuated without securing documents, equipment, weaponry? At the very least I would have expected it to be utterly destroyed than to be left for our enemies. I find this appalling.
There is one hugely insightful point made in this post. Democracy requires certain historical/cultural traditions that do not exist in much of the world; the most important of which involves the peaceful transfer of power. That is often unheard of elsewhere, which is why our efforts to plant the seed of democracy usually result in one man, one vote . . . one time.
You are spot on there, Neil. What the proponents of "nation building" so often forget that we didn't even engage in that in this country. The Founders didn't have to "plant the seed of democracy" because it had already been planted by the British Crown, which allowed the 13 colonies to have their own colonial legislatures, and pretty much order their own affairs, so long as they remembered that they were, in its eyes, subjects of the Crown. It was only when the colonies started thinking of themselves as something other than the King's subjects that they began contemplating life after British dominion. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has a structure more akin to that of Classical Greece, with tribal/family groups replacing the Greeks' city-states. Greece wasn't unified until Phillip II of Macedon conquered the other city=states, which led to his son, Alexander the Great, to take on the task of destroying Persia once and for all.
I have what tends to be an unusual perspective on issues such as this these days. Unlike the overwhelming majority of people who think they know what they are talking about, I actually spent time in the military. Let me tell you what it is, and is not good at.
No one - and I mean no one - can stop us in a conventional battle, where the objective for both sides is simply to kill people and break things. By contrast, just about anyone can beat us when after the battle is over, we try to stay and hold ground for years at a time; for the simple reason that it is hard to outlast an opponent in his own country. The latter proposition is especially problematic (i.e., dangerous) for the individual trooper because he is trained to kill people and break things, not to keep the peace while basically serving as target practice for the enemy.
The math on this should be so obvious at this point that no actual calculation is even necessary. Which would have cost more, in both blood and treasure: (1) trying to keep the Taliban at bay for the last 20 years or (2) going in to uproot Al Qaeda, leaving after we got Bin Laden, and then going back in again to repeat the process if we had to?
I know for damn sure which cost more in the precious blood, lives, and limbs of our soldiers. Bush I got it right when he went into Iraq, kicked Saddam's butt, and then left. Bush II didn't.
It's real easy to sit at home in this country and put somebody else (who bothered to serve) at risk so that Kabul can have skyscrappers, entertainment, and television. For anyone in command of troops, except for the mission, their welfare is his main concern. And as for the mission, a good commander tries to accomplish it while putting those troops at the least possible risk. This Commander-in-Chief understands that. Even the last one, idiot though he was, seems to have understood that.
"I actually spent time in the military." I admit that I'd wondered if that was the case. For the record, so did I (20 years, USAF). Now, on to your post.
Paragraph 2 is spot on; soldiers, even those trained in policing, make lousy policemen. That's why after WWII, we couldn't wait to get out of the business of neocolonial masters over Germany and Japan, choosing to turn over the reins of power to the Germans and Japanese, both of whom at least had some experience with democratic self-governance, such as it was, before the war. As I noted in my reply to your earlier post, the Afghans had absolutely NO experience with the concept, being instead a collection of tribes and family units, something which is commonplace in Islamic nations because of what they had prior to Islam (see Iraq).
I do have a quibble with Paragraph 3. As you well know, the problem with leaving after the required amount of punishment has been administered has one flaw, that being that IF the opposing side has the will and determination to hang in there until we depart, it can reassume control in our absence. This is exactly what we're now seeing in Afghanistan. And the costs (financial, at least) of returning and rebuilding an infrastructure again and again can be very expensive. The "stay and tough it out" strategy, while also costly, does offer the prospect of winding up with something relatively stable, which is the case in Iraq. What Iraqis now have, while far from "perfect" by our standards, at least more accurately reflects the pre-2003 situation on the ground, without the distortion of power which resulted when a minority (the Sunni) governed a large majority (the Shiite). And yes, I know that Shiite majority rule brings Iran into the mix, but at least it isn't what Bush 43 originally envisioned, which was to make Baghdad a sort of Boston, Middle East. That sort of "nation building" is what needs to be avoided at all costs, as Bush 41 did in 1991, largely with the agreement of his military advisors; General Schwarzkopf adamantly opposed a U.S. occupation of Iraq. Which approach has cost us more in blood and treasure? It seems that the Afghan model has - and the Taliban's still there.
Paragraph 5 is where you and I really part ways. Leaving aside your gratuitous shot at President Trump, let's see if your statement, "This Commander-in-Chief understands that." holds water. My contention is that Joe Biden did not, does not, and will never understand the costs he has incurred, and the butcher's bill which will be paid, by this poorly (more likely not) planned, reckless, and disastrous withdrawal. For example: Which facility should have been chosen to host the withdrawal; the modern, Bagram AB, with its easily defensible perimeter and access roads which is 1.5 hours from and population center, or the Kabul airport, with a perimeter which was for us indefensible without great cost and which is dead square in the middle of a town of 3 million souls? You don't have to be a career military planner to know THAT answer, Neil. Biden then further screwed the pooch with his naming Sept 11th as his final withdrawal date. That was exactly the date which should NEVER have been chosen for obvious reasons. The Embassy staff added to the disaster by managing to forget to destroy the payroll records of ALL Afghans who had worked for the U.S., as well as the biometric ID gear we were using for access, giving the Taliban a ready made list of Afghans it will kill. I think it's demonstrably true that, contrary to your assertion, that this Commander-in-Chief has no consideration for the welfare of Americans stationed in Afghanistan, both military and civilian. He has engaged in a course of action which has placed Americans in that country at the most possible risk, as shown by the instructions from Secretary of State Blinken that Americans should begin traveling to the Kabul airport, then noting that their safety while in transit there cannot be insured. And now, the military and intelligence community leaders he so casually tried to throw under the bus are leaking frantically, arguing (correctly) that this whole cluster &%$#! was really unplanned, and against all advice they had given. Let's call it what it really is, Neil: It's the Afghanistan Hostage Crisis, Day 6. And just as the Iran Hostage Crisis brought down Jimmy Carter, so too will this one bring down Joe Biden, plus cost Democrats control of both Houses of Congress next year. What's not yet clear is whether the damage to American power and influence in the world is transitory or permanent.
Whether Iraq is better off now than before is debatable, given the number of Iraqis who died on the way to the current situation. Moreover, unless they are going to come over here and help make America better, how things are in their country is their concern, not ours. But for weapons of mass destruction (which of course did not really exist), we had no business over there in the first place.
(Jeez, I thought this was a conservative forum. Since when do conservatives think it's our job to improve conditions in places that don't belong to us?)
As for Biden's mistakes, do you really think he made the call on whether to close one airbase as opposed to another? Big decisions, such as whether and when to withdraw, cross his desk; not logistical details. Biden has owned those big decisions, as well as the failure to anticipate the speed with which the Afghan forces would collapse. But in the latter regard, on one side you have 300,000 well-trained troops armed with the best weaponry we could provide, and they have air support. On the other, you have 75,000 Taliban without air support or much in the way of artillery. If you could have foreseen that the first side would capitulate to the other in just 11 days, you're a lot smarter than I am, and Biden to boot.
"But in the latter regard, on one side you have 300,000 well-trained troops armed with the best weaponry we could provide, and they have air support. On the other, you have 75,000 Taliban without air support or much in the way of artillery. If you could have foreseen that the first side would capitulate to the other in just 11 days, you're a lot smarter than I am, and Biden to boot."
Two things, Neil: 1) It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. The larger dog (the Afghan Army) was not the well equipped and trained machine that President Biden thinks it is, a fact which he would have known had he bothered to ask:
"Within the Afghan army, soldiers complain of substandard equipment, even shoddy basic items like army boots that fall apart within weeks because corrupt contractors used inferior material. The Associated Press witnessed boots with gaping holes being worn, insufficient helmets available and weapons that often jammed.
"At a police outpost seen by the AP earlier this month, eight men lived in a partially built bunker that looked big enough for only half that number. They had only a few rifles as they watched sentry from two turret-style posts on the outpost’s high brick walls. They overlook a busy road where the Taliban frequently attack security convoys." https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghan-forces-struggle-demoralized-rife-corruption-77934403
2) There were NEVER 3,000 soldiers, trained or otherwise, in the Afghan Army. There were, however, many a "ghost soldier", defined as someone who doesn't exist but is reported as existing by unit commanders who stand to pocket the pay of that "soldier".
"Washington’s chief watchdog overseeing U.S. spending in Afghanistan, John Sopko, told a Congressional hearing in March that Afghanistan’s security forces were demoralized. He said the figure of 300,000 troops in the security forces was a guesstimate because of the many so-called ghost soldiers, where commanders list non-existent personnel to collect their paychecks.
“ 'I think corruption is the threat,' he said. Not only does it mean money is lost, he said, 'it also is fueling the insurgency' since the Taliban can build public support by pointing to the corruption and the impunity officials enjoy. (Same reference as above) More: "Days after the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, it has emerged that the Army in the strife-torn nation was made up of “ghost soldiers” who did not exist while the ramped up numbers were used to inflate the salary bill and siphon off millions of dollars annually.
"The observations are part of a report released in US by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Titled “What we need to learn: Lessons from twenty years of Afghanistan reconstruction”, the 140-page report paints a picture of ground reality of the Afghan army." https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/us-report-afghan-army-beset-with-corruption-ghost-soldiers-299152#:~:text=Days%20after%20the%20Taliban%20takeover%20in%20Afghanistan%2C%20it,bill%20and%20siphon%20off%20millions%20of%20dollars%20annually.
Again, it's inconceivable that President Biden was unaware of these facts, unless he failed to ask, or has become so delusional that he just meekly accepted whatever assurances he was given. Which is it? You decide, Neil.
If you're leaving it to me to decide, I choose the obvious. Specifically, if they thought government forces had more staying power, they got it wrong. BIDEN HAS OWNED THAT. It is to be noted, however, that if things were as bad as you say concerning government forces - after 20 years of our best efforts - these were even more reasons to get the hell out, just as Biden is now doing.
Although you did not affirmatively state that you would have known better, I hereby acknowledge that you are in fact smarter than me, and Biden to boot. I would just add this, however, as concerns Biden "meekly accept[ing]" whatever assurances he was given. When under our system of government a mere civilian occupies the post of Commander-in-Chief, he has no choice but to rely upon the military and intelligence expertise of his top advisers. He is responsible for choosing them and firing their butts if they don't know what they're doing, but the notion of a civilian President doing anything other than relying on the advice of his generals as to which airbase should be closed, for example, is not well-founded.
The case of one Abraham Lincoln is illustrative. Relying on the advice of his generals, the Confederacy kicked our tail in one battle after another until Lincoln finally found a general (Grant) who knew what the hell he was doing. Once having done so, I'm guessing that Lincoln "meekly accepted" his advice . . . as well he should have.
And I haven't even managed to address the probable results of the Taliban's inviting in al-Qaeda, version 3.0, which certainly will be more terror attacks on American soil, aided and abetted by all those folks from the Middle East who are now running around courtesy of Joe Biden's other disaster - the one on our southern border.
Oh, and about our vulnerability to terrorists crossing the southern border: When, since 9/11, have we ever really been in control of that border? Yet for two decades now, we have not had a single documented case of a terrorist taking advantage of that particular opening.
And why would they choose that entry point anyway? Say what you want about the sufficiency of our border patrols down there, but there are border patrols down there. Meanwhile, one could drive up to our northern border, walk a short distance off into the woods and then simply stroll across.
As you and I have discussed previously at some length, there are other things we should be much more worried about.
Islamic terrorism has not subsided because we controlled Afghanistan. It subsided because once we were on guard against the threat, the terrorists came nowhere close to being a match for our intelligence and defense capabilities. They're still not, and never will be.
That is not to say there will never be another attack on the so-called homeland, but I ask you: when was the last act of Islamic terrorism in this country? For a while there, we had a mass shooting just about every week. And you're worried about terror attacks? I'm more afraid of dying at the hands of one of my own deranged countrymen than from some act of terrorism, and frankly (having never felt the need to own a gun), I'm not really afraid of that either.
And before anyone offers the lame proposition, "But we haven't been attacked . . . ." Of course we were . . . in Afghanistan and Iraq! The lives of our soldiers count too. (Even more so, in my book, than that of people who have never done anything more for their country than to demand its flawless performance in protecting them.)
Ah, Alas, we shall have another 9/11. Does the Lord, really put them in power.? For His purposes.? What shall we pray for? It's cruel for the women, children and others left in Afghanistan. Anne Graham Lotz gave a prayer yesterday for the people of Afghanistan. Me: I am taking to my bed.
Great article!
had Trump another 4 years he would have added the Taliban leaders to the list populated by al-Baghdadi, Soleimani and al-Rimi. Remember Mr. Biden voted against the raid on Bin Laden and Obama was considerate of the Taliban.
Erick the democracy heritage (or lack of) is also true of the European nations as a whole. I believe they have a continuing mindset of the monarchy tending to them with whatever it deems fit. Seems we in the US want to think the same these days. Thanks for the continuing education and history.
If we were so good we at destroying the Taliban, how on Earth are there 75,000 of them that remained to take over Afghanistan?
Peace through strength. We can't shoot the idea of radical anything, but we can outlive it. The median age in Afghanistan is 18, they know only the peace we brought, they aren't interested in joining a radical bunch of killers, they want to go about their lives. We can't make Pakistan stop them.
We could deny them an open home territory so they would eventually wither and die.
Read Erick's piece again. There's an annual cycle for all their activities, including the time they "hibernate" and teach their children to carry on the legacy. 20 years can produce a lot of previously unborn children to mature into their next generation.
Eliminating an idea is different from eliminating people. The Taliban is made up of people...aligned on an idea. Killing ideas and ideology is a fool's errand; holding back the tide of idea-bearers was the strategy. And when you remove the dam, the water flows everywhere it can, washing away everything in its path that we built.
The issue today is the world needs police, and the US is the only nation with resources and resolve to maintain that infrastructure. There is a responsibility to being the most powerful and altruistic (to some degree) nation on earth. Sadly, as Erick points out, mis-alignment on ideological, political, racial and religious lines yields unsustainable governments.
I'm reminded of the story of King Joash in II Chronicles 24 - started out okay ("Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest." verse 2) then ended badly once Jehoiada died ("After the death of Jehoiada, the officials of Judah came and paid homage to the king, and he listened to them. They abandoned the temple of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and worshiped Asherah poles and idols. Because of their guilt, God’s anger came on Judah and Jerusalem..." verses 17-18).
We have been the world's Jehoiadah, pull back Jehoiadah and you get the REAL Joash. :-(
Simple facts: The birthrate in the U.S. is 12.4 live births per 1,000 women of child bearing age, and the median age of the American population is 38.5 years old. The corresponding figures for Afghanistan: 30.9 live births per 1,000 women, and 18.2 years old.
...and the commitment to nurture their values and ideology is far more "hands-on" than parenting in the US. They are brought up with the belief that heaven awaits if Allah so wills ("inshallah") with a proviso that martyrdom or death in jihad puts one at the head of the line.
Our children (as a whole) don't necessarily even believe there's actually a God, let alone one involved in human affairs. How to instill fervor in our youth for the preservation of freedom to counter Taliban's training and indoctrinating their children to kill infidels?
If we WEREN'T so good at destroying the Taliban, how could 2,500 soldiers keep them at bay?
The Taliban couldn't have 4 fighters come together without an F-16, A-10, or combat drone showing up as an uninvited guest, so good was our intelligence network. Now all that's lost, although I'm sure that the Pakistanis and the Chinese will appreciate the unintended gift they have been given in the form of all that technology they can reverse engineer. And China will definitely appreciate the opportunity to strengthen its stranglehold over the world supply of strategic minerals, specifically "rare earth" elements, which are in abundance in that country.
Most of the 2,500 were troops thst supported the Afghan (especially air power)- who actually fought the Taliban. Once the support was pulled, their ability to fight was severely hampered.
What you say is true. The theory going in to these messes is to "teach Country XYZ to fish" but the actual practice is continually "handing them a fish". In the end, we failed to train Afghanistan to hold its own destiny independent of the Taliban and its ideological foundation. The Taliban is ideologically driven, willing to die for what they believe, especially since in Islam, martyrdom and dying in jihad is the only "guaranteed" path to heaven. Rank-and-file Afghanis are apparently unwilling to appropriate an equivalent ideological commitment to their own freedom to match that of the Taliban.
Erick brings out another important factor our hubris has ignored for decades: not everyone wants the USA's system (though all want the USA's money :-P ). The assumption that people will gravitate toward Western Democracy once we throw out the "bad" government is to ignore the history and context of its inhabitants. We try to make little "Americas" in South America, SE Asia, the Middle East, even Eastern Europe - doesn't fit their worldview, or at least their sacrificial commitment to our system. If you want to teach people to fish, gonna have to find those willing to fish for the specific fish you want them to and keep on fishing. Ideological alignment and commitment to an acceptable form of alternative gov't is the only way to get the people of a country to throw off the current regime. It is one reason we see Iran have little temper-fits from those bucking the Ayatollahs...who die and go away because the rest of the country doesn't see an acceptable alternative. They are Muslim, so don't expect them to throw in with Western Democracy that they believe belittles their Prophet and belief system. From their perspective, the devil they know is better than the devil they don't know...
The Afghan political structure, such as it is, is closer to that of Classical Greece, with family and tribal allegiances replacing the city-state as the foundational structure.
...but ideology of Islam is most definitely not akin to Classical Greece.
It is ideology and commitment thereof that drives gov't. We are (or at least have been) committed to freedom and Democracy. Muslim commitment is to Allah and their specific interpretation of Mohammed's teaching. It only gets more extreme the further down that fanatical path leadership and populace goes.
The leadership structure may look similar between Afghanistan and Classical Greece, it is societal underpinnings combined with structure needed to yield a stable (even when irrational) national gov't. We have arrogantly ignored cultural and societal underpinnings attempting to clone Democracy. Without our Founding Fathers' or equivalent commitment to our particular system, it will ultimately fail without the USA holding it up.