Was Afghanistan worth it?

[RDKirk]

Al Jazeera said troops were retained without pay. Other sources said commanders were skimming off money from the wages paid.

So maybe some troops got their wages, others had their wage packets skimmed by corrupt generals and others were retained without pay.

What strikes me about this situation and the dissonance between Biden's impressions of the capability of the Afghans and the reality on the ground is another intelligence failure. Indeed it is the same intelligence failure that led to 911 in the first place. Not a failure of the actual intelligence on the ground but rather how it is filtered through command and control to the highest leaders. Americans cannot help themselves and have a tendency to only pass up good news. The initial report is passed like Chinese whispers up the chain becoming more and more positive as it goes until it is the opposite of the original report:

Afghan soldiers are not being paid and morale is low BECOMES The army is facing its challenges, BECOMES There are challenges but we are coping BECOMES We are coping
BECOMES Everything is fine.

To be fair to my intelligence colleagues, the condition of allied forces is not an intelligence problem. We don't spy on allies, at least not consistently and effectively. Reports on those matters should come through operations forces--the US troops who are working directly with the Afghan troops.

But when "green on blue" violence has become a threat, the operational forces begin operating in a disengaged fashion: You stick to your hill, and we'll stick to ours.

the "green on blue" threat and its ramifications were certainly not explored seriously enough. It was papered over politically, but the only way it could be resolved on the field was by disengagement...which means the internal issues of Afghan forces were not revealed to US command through operational sources either.

What bothers me, and I'm sure bothers every person in uniform--because it has been a loud complaint heard since Vietnam and most recently with the pull out of Syria--has been abandoning those local troops who have been loyal enough to actually be embedded within US forces, such as the interpreters. When the US units withdrew, their interpreters and immediate families should have been in the same airplanes.

Regardless of what other political conditions dictated the character of a US troop withdrawal, the abandonment of those who who fought side-by-side with American forces to certain execution by those who will take power, is the greatest of all shames to the military mind.

I cannot imagine why, particularly so soon after it happened again with in the withdrawal from Syria, that this issue should happen again now. That there weren't generals willing to fall on their swords over this issue alone perhaps gives me the greatest reason to wonder about current military leadership.

 

[mindlight]

To be fair to my intelligence colleagues, the condition of allied forces is not an intelligence problem. We don't spy on allies, at least not consistently and effectively. Reports on those matters should come through operations forces--the US troops who are working directly with the Afghan troops.

But when "green on blue" violence has become a threat, the operational forces begin operating in a disengaged fashion: You stick to your hill, and we'll stick to ours.

the "green on blue" threat and its ramifications were certainly not explored seriously enough. It was papered over politically, but the only way it could be resolved on the field was by disengagement...which means the internal issues of Afghan forces were not revealed to US command through operational sources either.

What bothers me, and I'm sure bothers every person in uniform--because it has been a loud complaint heard since Vietnam and most recently with the pull out of Syria--has been abandoning those local troops who have been loyal enough to actually be embedded within US forces, such as the interpreters. When the US units withdrew, their interpreters and immediate families should have been in the same airplanes.

Regardless of what other political conditions dictated the character of a US troop withdrawal, the abandonment of those who who fought side-by-side with American forces to certain execution by those who will take power, is the greatest of all shames to the military mind.

I cannot imagine why, particularly so soon after it happened again with in the withdrawal from Syria, that this issue should happen again now. That there weren't generals willing to fall on their swords over this issue alone perhaps gives me the greatest reason to wonder about current military leadership.

The evacuation seems to have gotten at least 100000 people out but I think that leaves several hundred thousand more. I wonder how on earth they could be retrieved. I understand Biden's motivations in wanting to be out of this mess once and for all. But the withdrawal could have been better done. The debt of loyalty may yet be repaid in more creative ways, time will tell. I notice that Vietnam today is more pro-American than ever due to the growing threat of its main trade partner China in the North.

 

[mikeforjesus]

Yes I believe it was the right thing to do to try to stabilise the country but if taliban closed the country because they said they would rule well and not do wrong they would have to leave but they are not so they should not altogether leave it they may have to leave to prevent war we as Christians who are confident about our beliefs should stay to help ensure refugees of those who are trying to flee persecution get out especially those who helped America as far as America is able to control its country not too many places but even still they should find refuge atleast to cross the border and place in refugee camps controlled by America. If one is Christian he should trust Christ if he does not and wants more assurance he can accept a church he believes is best for him to trust in

 

[seeking.IAM]

Afghanistan was always going to end badly. The only question was which President was going to end it and take the blame for the resulting fiasco. America should have learned its lesson from Russia's experience there, from our former attempts fighting unconventional warfare, and from past failures of trying to impose our system of government on others. But we didn't. It was never going to work, and the cost we paid was too dear.

 

[hedrick]

Probably not. But it will take years to see how things work out. You now have many in Afghanistan with some experience of a Western society. The Talibans guns will win in the short run, but that doesn’t tell us what will happen over time.

 

[mindlight]

Afghanistan was always going to end badly. The only question was which President was going to end it and take the blame for the resulting fiasco. America should have learned its lesson from Russia's experience there, from our former attempts fighting unconventional warfare, and from past failures of trying to impose our system of government on others. But we didn't. It was never going to work, and the cost we paid was too dear.

It worked in Germany, Japan, and Korea. Even Vietnam is now headed in a Western direction.

Like the British who successfully occupied the place for decades and were not militarily forced out, the Americans have made a strategic decision now that this is no longer worth the cost. But for twenty years their influence was felt. When the Taliban mess the economy up which they surely will people may look back on the American occupation with some nostalgia yet.

 

[mikeforjesus]

I believe it is not a Christian thing to go to war on purpose to free others it is not their battle Christians are not supposed to go to war only they may be required to to defend country you can’t seek to do to do it because you want to as it could be your will and you can’t seek to do it as it seems good and easy path to salvation to avoid following the path you must but if persecution comes upon you it is allowed by God and you should be willing to die for the Lord though self defense is allowed to protect others only when they are not at risk of death it should not be for yourself as Jesus said you should not as you risk dying as He said those who take sword will perish by sword you should be willing to die for the Lord Jesus as He asks us not to take revenge also as I am now orthodox I believe you should accept catholic faith if you don’t know truth not having opportunity to know if you were not orthodox if you don’t know for sure if your faith is accepted

 

[mindlight]

I believe it is not a Christian thing to go to war on purpose to free others it is not their battle Christians are not supposed to go to war only they may be required to to defend country you can’t seek to do to do it because you want to as it could be your will and you can’t seek to do it as it seems good and easy path to salvation to avoid following the path you must but if persecution comes upon you it is allowed by God and you should be willing to die for the Lord though self defense is allowed to protect others only when they are not at risk of death it should not be for yourself as Jesus said you should not as you risk dying as He said those who take sword will perish by sword you should be willing to die for the Lord Jesus as He asks us not to take revenge also as I am now orthodox I believe you should accept catholic faith if you don’t know truth not having opportunity to know if you were not orthodox if you don’t know for sure if your faith is accepted

It is the only option in the case of Islam. Spain and the Balkans and much of Russia and Africa would not be Christian without military conquest. You cannot convert a person with force but you can remove the external obstructions to that conversion. The use of force is not about imposing theocracy as that is what the Muslims do and is a false religion. The use of force is about giving people the freedom to chose.

 

[Carbon]

The comparison of Afghanistan to Vietnam is apt. The mess in Afghanistan is the totally predictable dumpster fire that happens when large empires fight over a nascent small nation.

The French empire takes over Vietnam to solidify its hold in Asia and to stifle Russian advance. Vietnamese nationalists seek help from the Russian empire, America's enemy. So the US empire intervenes, arming local militant rebels to overthrow the elected government. In Afghanistan it is the same story. The British empire takes over Afghanistan to solidify its hold in Asia and to stifle Russian advance. Afghan nationalists seek help from the Russian empire, still America's enemy. The US empire intervenes, arming local militant rebels to overthrow the elected government.

20 years later the far right faction of those militants organizes an attack on the US for precisely the sort of meddling in Central Asia and Middle East from which they previously benefited, still armed back home with the $40B in weapons and training they received from the US and Pakistan.

The US then sends troops to kick out the radical theocrats it formerly took credit for creating, in what would become its longest war. What could possibly have gone wrong?

 

[mindlight]

The comparison of Afghanistan to Vietnam is apt. The mess in Afghanistan is the totally predictable dumpster fire that happens when large empires fight over a nascent small nation.

The French empire takes over Vietnam to solidify its hold in Asia and to stifle Russian advance. Vietnamese nationalists seek help from the Russian empire, America's enemy. So the US empire intervenes, arming local militant rebels to overthrow the elected government. In Afghanistan it is the same story. The British empire takes over Afghanistan to solidify its hold in Asia and to stifle Russian advance. Afghan nationalists seek help from the Russian empire, still America's enemy. The US empire intervenes, arming local militant rebels to overthrow the elected government.

20 years later the far right faction of those militants organizes an attack on the US for precisely the sort of meddling in Central Asia and Middle East from which they previously benefited, still armed back home with the $40B in weapons and training they received from the US and Pakistan.

The US then sends troops to kick out the radical theocrats it formerly took credit for creating, in what would become its longest war. What could possibly have gone wrong?

Russia was not a major factor in the original French occupation of Indo-China though it supported the communists against the USA.

I do not think that the American time in Vietnam or Afghanistan was completely worthless but nor was it completely fruitful either.

You have to consider these involvements in terms of the grander scale conflicts of which they are but a small part.

Communism was an evil that needed to be defeated and opposing communism was not wrong. But opposing a people that just wanted their freedom was doomed to fail in Vietnam. The war against Communism was ultimately won and lessons learned in Vietnam helped in that.

Opposing radical Islam is not a major issue but these people are radicalized so deeply that their jihad will not stop until they are dead or the world is a Caliphate. Afghanistan cut off multiple heads of multiple snakes and decimated the radicals for a generation. The country thrived under Coalition rule with its population doubling. That is now is their muscle memory and can be contrasted with the oppression they now live under which is a radical Muslim state. This could yet work out for the best and the Afghan people themselves reject a false religion that really does not work for them in favor of freedom and Christian hope.

 

[RDKirk]

Russia was not a major factor in the original French occupation of Indo-China though it supported the communists against the USA.

I do not think that the American time in Vietnam or Afghanistan was completely worthless but nor was it completely fruitful either.

You have to consider these involvements in terms of the grander scale conflicts of which they are but a small part.

Communism was an evil that needed to be defeated and opposing communism was not wrong. But opposing a people that just wanted their freedom was doomed to fail in Vietnam. The war against Communism was ultimately won and lessons learned in Vietnam helped in that.

A couple of things came of that.

1. Although the US was in Vietnam up to our necks, the Soviets were in it up to their waists, and it still nearly took them under economically. They never fully recovered from the economic strain, which also caused them to pull back support for North Korea. North Korea was a lot hotter at the time than people may think.

2. It bought time for Thailand, at least, to shore up its government. The Domino Theory was not a joke. If not for US involvement in Vietnam, the Vietnamese would have rolled through Cambodia and Laos in the 50s instead of in the 70s, and Thailand would not have had the power to resist.

 

[Carbon]

Russia was not a major factor in the original French occupation of Indo-China though it supported the communists against the USA.

I do not think that the American time in Vietnam or Afghanistan was completely worthless but nor was it completely fruitful either.

You have to consider these involvements in terms of the grander scale conflicts of which they are but a small part.

Communism was an evil that needed to be defeated and opposing communism was not wrong. But opposing a people that just wanted their freedom was doomed to fail in Vietnam. The war against Communism was ultimately won and lessons learned in Vietnam helped in that.

Opposing radical Islam is not a major issue but these people are radicalized so deeply that their jihad will not stop until they are dead or the world is a Caliphate. Afghanistan cut off multiple heads of multiple snakes and decimated the radicals for a generation. The country thrived under Coalition rule with its population doubling. That is now is their muscle memory and can be contrasted with the oppression they now live under which is a radical Muslim state. This could yet work out for the best and the Afghan people themselves reject a false religion that really does not work for them in favor of freedom and Christian hope.

The assumption that ideological warfare must include actual weaponized warfare has a very 20th century flare to it. I don't share this assumption.

In any case the Bolshevik revolution and resulting Soviet Union, "democratic" centralism, Supreme Board of the National Economy, dictatorship over the proletariat, and Lenin's New Economic Policy, are hardly communist. As was argued by Marx's 19th century early critics on the left, actual 20th century communists, and later Orwell, the implementation of "communism" in the Soviet Union was actually a highly autocratic form of state capitalism.

I do share your hope that Afghans move away from radical Islam. Obviously I would wish they revive their stalled project of a secular, progress-oriented, open society. If naturalism/atheism is too much to ask, would I prefer they adopt Christianity over Islam? That's a hard sell for me, but I could imagine a few future histories where Christianity would be preferable.