National Security Council releases 12 page summary of its review of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan

[FireDragon76]

I think Colin Powell was speaking of Iraq when he made his “Pottery Barn” remarks, (“you break it, you ‘bought’ it.”) But the principle applies for Afghanistan, too.

So it turned out that having a “foreign policy” that assumed “freedom loving peoples” would choose the war-bringing foreign devils “friends” to infect “grace one’s land” with Democracy, (the system that allows the stupid to have a say!), over their homegrown adversaries, seemed “optimistic”.

Just like in Vietnam, the military-industrial complex failed to appreciate the culture of the country in which they were involved. But then again, they weren't picking up the tab.

 

[wing2000]

To stay into September could have meant committing up to 25,000 more American service members to reopen bases and retake Kabul from the Taliban, said Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He added it was always the intention to evacuate the civilians through Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul and not use Bagram.

The political reality is the American people would not have supported sending that level of force back to Afghanistan. Neither Trump nor Biden were going to sign up for that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You mean the equipment that belonged to the ANDSF?

I think he meant the equipment we gave them.

The stuff we'd given them over 20 years so the 800,000 strong force could defend against the Taliban?

Unfortunately, we couldn't give them any ability or courage...or the dedication to gaining those things.

You do realize it had to be operational for them to use, right?

You do realize they had no interest or motive to use them...right? If we had a self operating AI Warbot that could operate itself but they had to have their on/off switch flipped on....I think they still would have lost.

That's just a straight up falsehood. A fair number of holders of American passports lollygagged and stayed in the hinterlands while the State Department made numerous phone calls and sent numerous e-mails telling them they needed to get to Kabul to evacuate. I feel bad for those who didn't get out when they could, but they had been warned.

Classic victim blaming. Just because they dressed sa certain way doesn't mean they were that way.

This:
>> Two U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said countries were hesitant to take in the Afghans because of concerns about the quality of security vetting and health screening for COVID-19 before they were allowed to fly.

Understandable.

The Biden administration was exploring having Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan take in thousands of applicants, but that effort has made little progress.

It seems other nations wisely decided to stay out of it.

“There’s concerns that you might expect: ‘Who are these people?

Afghans

How do you know these people?

I'm assuming they worked alongside our soldiers.

Can you assure that these people will get visas to the United States?

It's a war zone...that's actually what asylum was created for. Regardless, Biden has no plans to remove 2 million asylum seekers that have been denied since he took office....so why these people had to jump through hoops or even got left behind is pretty simple...

This administration doesn't want to have to explain why a violent terrorist was allowed into the nation.

Who’s going to care for and feed these people. What happens if these people wander off this facility you’ve got them in?” a senior State Department official said. <<
tells me that a large part of the problem was finding third party countries to hold them in while their SIV paperwork was processed. If those sovereign nations didn't want Afghan nationals in their country for any reason, the blame doesn't lie with President Biden.

Who is to blame then? They're seeking asylum after all.

CENTCOM: Keeping Bagram Airbase Was ‘Untenable’ Under White House Rules for Afghanistan Withdrawal - USNI News

The sprawling size of the U.S. airbase at Bagram and its isolation from Kabul meant that keeping it under American control was “untenable under the situation” once President Joe Biden ordered all U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, U.S. Central Command’s top officer told a House panel Wednesday...

news.usni.org

>> Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said, “the Bagram option [for use later in a large-scale evacuation of civilians] went away” without an order to send in up to 5,000 more American troops to back up the 650 left behind to defend the embassy in Kabul and retake the airbase.

“I did not see any tactical utility” to holding Bagram, <<

>> Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said remaining at Bagram “meant staying at war in Afghanistan.” He added, “there was no risk-free status quo option” of staying in the country after the announced withdrawal date.

To stay into September could have meant committing up to 25,000 more American service members to reopen bases and retake Kabul from the Taliban, said Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He added it was always the intention to evacuate the civilians through Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul and not use Bagram. <<
Bagram had to be abandoned or we'd have needed to deploy 5 Brigades worth of personnel just to maintain Bagram and Kabul.

Wow....sounds like they had a plan the entire time after all. Yet the first four pages effectively just blame Trump.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The political reality is the American people would not have supported sending that level of force back to Afghanistan. Neither Trump nor Biden were going to sign up for that.

True. I also think that the Taliban sped up their offensive when they realized Trump’s deal might be rescinded under Biden.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just like in Vietnam, the military-industrial complex failed to appreciate the culture of the country in which they were involved. But then again, they weren't picking up the tab.

Vietnam....not the worst comparison....but nation building wasn't really the same sort of issue as the French had effectively done a rather significant job in that regard already.

I think the issue was....as nearly every war or conflict since WW2 proves, we abandoned a "total war" doctrine for a "just war" doctrine and while that certainly appeals to the public more than a total war doctrine....it creates a fundamental problem with the goal of war right at the start. The reason we were able to nation build in Germany and Japan and to a partial extent S Korea...despite vastly different cultures, traditions, and ideals has less to do with attempted methods and more to do with the fact that we didn't even begin helping Germany or Japan because they agreed to unconditional surrender first. Perhaps some people think the fanatical Taliban would never even consider unconditional surrender yet I would argue that the nazis were no less fanatical....and Japanese no less proud or unwilling to engage in suicide attacks.

Nation building is entirely pointless prior to breaking the will of an enemy nation.

 

[wing2000]

Just like in Vietnam, the military-industrial complex failed to appreciate the culture of the country in which they were involved. But then again, they weren't picking up the tab.

...some GOP members are avocating a new rational for US military intervention...this time inside Mexico. SMH

Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill seeking authorization for the use of military force to “put us at war with the cartels.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he is open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to target drug lords even without that nation’s permission. And lawmakers in both chambers have filed legislation to label some cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move supported by GOP presidential aspirants.

GOP embraces a new foreign policy: Bomb Mexico to stop fentanyl

Republicans suggest everything from terrorist labels to an invasion to decimate drug cartels in Mexico.

www.politico.com

 

[FireDragon76]

...some GOP members are avocating a new rational for US military intervention...this time inside Mexico. SMH

Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill seeking authorization for the use of military force to “put us at war with the cartels.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he is open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to target drug lords even without that nation’s permission. And lawmakers in both chambers have filed legislation to label some cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move supported by GOP presidential aspirants.

GOP embraces a new foreign policy: Bomb Mexico to stop fentanyl

Republicans suggest everything from terrorist labels to an invasion to decimate drug cartels in Mexico.

www.politico.com

That would be a very bad idea.

 

[USincognito]

Joe ordered the military out before the civilians and caused many deaths. His administration dragged on the paperwork for translators, their families, and others who helped us and he left them behind. Private efforts were able to get out some of those Joe abandoned. Joe has consistently lied, now he's trying to rewrite history and blame Trump--Joe was the commander in chief. Don't join him in claiming truth is falsehood. I saw him looking at this watch during the funeral. Quit making excuses for Joe and his administration, they made horrific mistakes and continue to make major foreign policy errors.

Repeating the same debunked talking points won't make them factual.
The State Department warned civilians for almost a year that the military was leaving. They were warned.
The SIV processing was slowed down by Donald and his team.

Judge rules visa delays for Iraqi, Afghan interpreters are illegal

Calling the government's arguments "untenable," the court ordered the Trump admin to produce a plan in 30 days on how to fix the visa application problem.

www.nbcnews.com

>> U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington, D.C., said the government offered no convincing explanation why it has failed to abide by 2013 legislation requiring authorities to deliver a decision on visa applications for Afghans and Iraqis within nine months. Instead, many applicants — who risked their lives working for U.S. troops or other government agencies — have had to wait for several years to get an answer on their visa requests, the court said in the ruling handed down on Friday. <<