USA Politics (redux)

[Karl Henning]

And, in Trump World, where the cruelty is the point:

In Florida, DeSantis cut jobless aid just as virus began terrifying new wave

[Karl Henning]

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman admits faulty assumptions on effectively training Afghan forces

By Matt Viser 12:10 p.m.

Mike Mullen, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Barack Obama, said he made faulty assumptions that the United States could train Afghan forces and build an effective, modern army. He said that he was wrong in those assumptions and now has regrets.

"What I thought we could do, and I advised President Obama accordingly, is I thought we could turn it around," he said Sunday. "Obviously I was wrong."

[Karl Henning]

Jennifer Rubin:

In rebutting unwarranted criticism that the United States was abandoning Afghans we promised to help, Biden pointed to the 13,000 people who had been evacuated from Afghanistan since Aug. 14. By Saturday, the number was up to roughly 17,000 (22,000 since late July). Now for the hard part: Figuring out the total population that still wants evacuation, and overcoming the obvious logistical problems in transporting them to the airport with the Taliban controlling Kabul.

Second, Biden, in response to accusations of incompetence, was able to explain his reading of intelligence reports. Without blaming others  [there's a significant change from Blowhard-a-Lago—kh] for the suddenness of the Taliban victory, he declared, "I made the decision. The buck stops with me. I took the consensus opinion. The consensus opinion was that, in fact, it would not occur, if it occurred, until later in the year. So, it was my decision." He also gently informed the media that if we had left 15 or five years ago, "there's no way in which you'd be able to leave Afghanistan without there being some of what you're seeing now." Nevertheless, he was able to add that "we've been able to get a large number of Americans out, all our personnel at the embassy out, and so on." In essence, it was always going to be hard, Biden asserted, and we are now doing what needs to be done to live up to our commitments.

Third, Biden went to great lengths to rebut the accusation that allies were dismayed, if not furious, about the United States' pullout. Certainly, loud voices of disapproval popped up around the globe. (The United States is not the only democracy with grandstanding backbenchers who crave attention.) But when it came to the official actions of our allies, Biden highlighted European and other partners operating as they should in trying circumstances....

[Fëanor]

I fully agree with the USA's abandonment of Afghanistan -- yes, it IS an abandonment and so be it.
I don't hold the USA mainly accountable for the current state of affairs.  In fact after it was clear that the Obama's surge had not crushed the Taliban in 2010 and Hamid Karzai be criticizing the allied actions that country, I began to feel that Afghans should be left to their own devices.

Two things were then clear, circa 2010:

• No outsiders, not matter how well intended, can "build a nation";  that must be done by the people of the aspiring nation;
• In the case of Afghanistan, there wasn't the internal unity and civic determination, despite allied assistance, to overcome tribal differences and thereby the Taliban.

So even 'way back then I was thinking , Eff 'em.

The fact that the Taliban triumph has come quicker than the US military and Afghan government predicted is neither here nor there -- it was going to happen and it was 95% the fault of the Afghans themselves.

Sure, the USA could have kept a fairly modest contingent in Afghanistan and staved off the Taliban indefinitely but as far as anyone could tell, that would have been forever.

[Karl Henning]

I fully agree with the USA's abandonment of Afghanistan -- yes, it IS an abandonment and so be it.
I don't hold the USA mainly accountable for the current state of affairs.  In fact after it was clear that the Obama's surge had not crushed the Taliban in 2010 and Hamid Karzai be criticizing the allied actions that country, I began to feel that Afghans should be left to their own devices.

Two things were then clear, circa 2010:

• No outsiders, not matter how well intended, can "build a nation";  that must be done by the people of the aspiring nation;
• In the case of Afghanistan, there wasn't the internal unity and civic determination to overcome tribal differences and thereby the Taliban.

So even 'way back then I was thinking , Eff 'em.

The fact that the Taliban triumph has come quicker than the US military and Afghan government predicted is neither here nor there -- it was going to happen and it was 95% the fault of the Afghans themselves.

Sure, the USA could have kept a fairly modest contingent in Afghanistan and staved off the Taliban indefinitely but as far as anyone could tell, that would have been forever.

I find your analysis sound.

[JBS]

It should be pointed out that the "failure of intelligence" was merely thinking the Afghan army would not immediately run away from/surrender to/switch over to the opponent.  Everyone knew what happened would happen. But they thought the process would be slow enough to allow the NATO powers time to evacuate whomever they wanted to evacuate, and not deal with mobs of Afghans who needed to take immediate refuge with the US military.

[Karl Henning]

It should be pointed out that the "failure of intelligence" was merely thinking the Afghan army would not immediately run away from/surrender to/switch over to the opponent.  Everyone knew what happened would happen. But they thought the process would be slow enough to allow the NATO powers time to evacuate whomever they wanted to evacuate, and not deal with mobs of Afghans who needed to take immediate refuge with the US military.

Aye.

[71 dB]

Apparently there is good cooperation between western countries evacuating their people from Afganistan Talibanistan.

[Daverz]

Audiatur et altera pars*

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-biden-officials-turning-more-than-afghanistan


* Caveat: a dead, white, European, men, slave-holder dictum.

Yes, because America's Julius Streicher must be heard.

https://www.rawstory.com/there-is-a-sinister-strategy-behind-tucker-carlsons-apparent-stupidity/

[JBS]

Yes, because America's Julius Streicher must be heard.

https://www.rawstory.com/there-is-a-sinister-strategy-behind-tucker-carlsons-apparent-stupidity/

I'd say the article underestimates the gullibility of Carlson's audience. They believe those things because they want it to be true, and all contrary information is dismissed as something produced by the "lamestream media".

[Karl Henning]

I'd say the article underestimates the gullibility of Carlson's audience. They believe those things because they want it to be true, and all contrary information is dismissed as something produced by the "lamestream media".

That's the Trumpworld ecosystem

[milk]

I fully agree with the USA's abandonment of Afghanistan -- yes, it IS an abandonment and so be it.
I don't hold the USA mainly accountable for the current state of affairs.  In fact after it was clear that the Obama's surge had not crushed the Taliban in 2010 and Hamid Karzai be criticizing the allied actions that country, I began to feel that Afghans should be left to their own devices.

Two things were then clear, circa 2010:

• No outsiders, not matter how well intended, can "build a nation";  that must be done by the people of the aspiring nation;
• In the case of Afghanistan, there wasn't the internal unity and civic determination, despite allied assistance, to overcome tribal differences and thereby the Taliban.

So even 'way back then I was thinking , Eff 'em.

The fact that the Taliban triumph has come quicker than the US military and Afghan government predicted is neither here nor there -- it was going to happen and it was 95% the fault of the Afghans themselves.

Sure, the USA could have kept a fairly modest contingent in Afghanistan and staved off the Taliban indefinitely but as far as anyone could tell, that would have been forever.

I agree too except I think the U.S. has got to take more blame and do more soul-searching. Why were we there really? How about all the money people were making there? If the reasons were venal then that's on U.S. leadership.
I AM DISGUSTED BEYONG BELIEF BY THE LIKES OF LINDSAY GRAHAM, THE MEDIA, NEOCONS, ETC. They wanted this war. IT'S DISGUSTING HOW THEY WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.
And sorry, I give plus points to Biden because everyone in the establishment wanted him to go back on this deal and postpone it. Sticking to it was brave. Maybe it's the only policy opinion he's been right about in his career.

[Fëanor]

I agree too except I think the U.S. has got to take more blame and do more soul-searching. Why were we there really? How about all the money people were making there? If the reasons were venal then that's on U.S. leadership.
I AM DISGUSTED BEYONG BELIEF BY THE LIKES OF LINDSAY GRAHAM, THE MEDIA, NEOCONS, ETC. They wanted this war. IT'S DISGUSTING HOW THEY WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.
And sorry, I give plus points to Biden because everyone in the establishment wanted him to go back on this deal and postpone it. Sticking to it was brave. Maybe it's the only policy opinion he's been right about in his career.

There is conjecture that the USA could have cut a deal with Taliban in 2001 to get Al-Qaeda out of the country.  I don't know whether this is true, but if so that is the approach that ought to have been pursued.  As it stands, I approved the Afghan invasion back in '01 on the basis that the Taliban was supporting that terrorist organization.  (I want to mention that I was against the Iraq invasion despite swallowing the WMD deception).

In fact the invasion by the USA and allies suppressed the Taliban, more or less, for 20 years bring about greater freedom for women and other Afghans.  However this "nation building" failed largely because Afghans could not step up to take advantage of foreign assistance.  IMHO, there was never much chance of this "nation building" was going to working.  If it had worked, it would have been vindicated, however it was evident to me that it was failing a decade ago.

[BasilValentine]

I fully agree with the USA's abandonment of Afghanistan -- yes, it IS an abandonment and so be it.
I don't hold the USA mainly accountable for the current state of affairs.  In fact after it was clear that the Obama's surge had not crushed the Taliban in 2010 and Hamid Karzai be criticizing the allied actions that country, I began to feel that Afghans should be left to their own devices.

Two things were then clear, circa 2010:

• No outsiders, not matter how well intended, can "build a nation";  that must be done by the people of the aspiring nation;
• In the case of Afghanistan, there wasn't the internal unity and civic determination, despite allied assistance, to overcome tribal differences and thereby the Taliban.

So even 'way back then I was thinking , Eff 'em.

The fact that the Taliban triumph has come quicker than the US military and Afghan government predicted is neither here nor there -- it was going to happen and it was 95% the fault of the Afghans themselves.

Sure, the USA could have kept a fairly modest contingent in Afghanistan and staved off the Taliban indefinitely but as far as anyone could tell, that would have been forever.

I mostly agree but have a few thoughts to add:

Biden, following Trump's example of reneging on the Iran-nuclear deal, could have disavowed his predecessor's withdrawal agreement and extended the half-assed semi-occupation, but his concern with national credibility among our allies argued against it. Those kind of agreements have to be stable across administrations or no one will take them seriously. And it's questionable how much the extra time would have helped. The Trump administration had spent four years crippling the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, creating the enormous backlog of Afghans in the pipeline who are now likely being hunted down and summarily executed for working with US forces. What Biden could and should have done was to start the emergency evacuations months in advance, setting aside the SIV red tape. His failure to do so was a blunder and the result is the ongoing shameful abandonment of our allies.

[krummholz]

I mostly agree but have a few thoughts to add:

Biden, following Trump's example of reneging on the Iran-nuclear deal, could have disavowed his predecessor's withdrawal agreement and extended the half-assed semi-occupation, but his concern with national credibility among our allies argued against it. Those kind of agreements have to be stable across administrations or no one will take them seriously. And it's questionable how much the extra time would have helped. The Trump administration had spent four years crippling the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, creating the enormous backlog of Afghans in the pipeline who are now likely being hunted down and summarily executed for working with US forces. What Biden could and should have done was to start the emergency evacuations months in advance, setting aside the SIV red tape. His failure to do so was a blunder and the result is the ongoing shameful abandonment of our allies.

I agree with both you and Fëanor - but where did Biden cite concern for national credibility as a reason for not reneging on the withdrawal? The only publicly stated reason that I recall was that it would have put a target on the backs of American troops, a reason that plays well at home and is, of course, very much in keeping with Biden's moral character, but IMO projects weakness to the rest of the world.

Of course, by NOT getting the Afghans in the pipeline (assuming he is not able to, which remains to be seen but looks very doubtful), he has damaged the US's national credibility far more than he would have by going back on the deal. After all, it's not as if the Talibs themselves were being faithful to it.

[BasilValentine]

I agree with both you and Fëanor - but where did Biden cite concern for national credibility as a reason for not reneging on the withdrawal? The only publicly stated reason that I recall was that it would have put a target on the backs of American troops, a reason that plays well at home and is, of course, very much in keeping with Biden's moral character, but IMO projects weakness to the rest of the world.

Of course, by NOT getting the Afghans in the pipeline (assuming he is not able to, which remains to be seen but looks very doubtful), he has damaged the US's national credibility far more than he would have by going back on the deal. After all, it's not as if the Talibs themselves were being faithful to it.

He didn't specifically cite it, but the lesson from the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Iran-nuclear deal, the Paris-climate accord, and so on foregrounded the issue and provided object lessons in why the continuity of US foreign policy has to be taken seriously. But you are right: While I think Biden is concerned about policy continuity in the abstract, it certainly wasn't on the top of the list of his motivations in this case.

More generally, it looks like Biden et alia were naive about the levels of corruption in the puppet government and its consequences for the motivation of Afghan national troops. It has been suggested that the capitulation of forces in and about the provincial capitols had been negotiated in advance between the Taliban, local government officials, and national forces. This seems likely in retrospect, and if it was so, then the intelligence failure on the Biden administration's part is appalling.

[Florestan]

Yes, because America's Julius Streicher must be heard.

https://www.rawstory.com/there-is-a-sinister-strategy-behind-tucker-carlsons-apparent-stupidity/

Iow, Tucker Carlson (whom until having read the article I quoted I knew only by name --- and read it because quoted in full on a Romanian website) is a despicable Nazi propagandist, inciting, and approving of, extreme hatred against Jews and worthy of being hanged by the neck for his crimes against humanity...

What balderdash you are capable of writing!

[Daverz]

Iow, Tucker Carlson (whom until having read the article I quoted I knew only by name --- and read it because quoted in full on a Romanian website) is a despicable Nazi propagandist, inciting, and approving of, extreme hatred against Jews and worthy of being hanged by the neck for his crimes against humanity...

What balderdash you are capable of writing!

Don't be so literal.  You've got it mostly right, though.  Tucker Carlson is a despicable propagandist, inciting, and approving of, hatred against immigrants and racial minorities (do we need it to be "extreme" to find it despicable?).  He's constantly race-baiting on his show.

He has also promoted the anti-Semitic "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory on his show. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/09/media/adl-letter-fox-news-tucker-carlson/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tucker-carlson/2021/07/13/398fa720-dd9f-11eb-a501-0e69b5d012e5_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/12/how-tucker-carlsons-racist-rhetoric-gives-new-life-trumpism/
https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2021/04/15/tucker-carlson-is-a-white-supremacist-and-hes-giving-fox-viewers-exactly-what-they-want

[SimonNZ]

And lets not forget he's one of the most aggressive and influential pushers of covid disinformation and vaccine skepticism no matter how far out, including most recently:

Right-wing media pushes animal dewormer as COVID treatment
The FDA: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow."


But apart from that he's a totally serious "conservative voice" who needs to be heard for "balance"

[T. D.]

Yes, because America's Julius Streicher must be heard.

https://www.rawstory.com/there-is-a-sinister-strategy-behind-tucker-carlsons-apparent-stupidity/

Excellent article, thanks