"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
August 13, 2021, by Doug Bandow
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.)
Afghanistan is looking like a disaster. Ten provincial capitals were lost in a week. Afghan troops surrendered without firing a shot. Now, there are ever more pessimistic estimates as to how quickly Kabul might fall.
The Biden administration is U.S. sending troops back to protect the capital airport for emergency rescue flights. Even more embarrassing is its plaintive request that the Taliban not attack the embassy in any assault on Kabul. It claims that the Taliban will regret the hit to its reputation from a successful military conquest, which has been the movement’s objective since its creation in 1994.
Although the tidings are grim, the Ghani government has a chance to recover its balance. The Taliban are manpower-poor and might have trouble maintaining their blitzkrieg. A modicum of competence from Kabul, some evidence that it has the troops’ backs, could stabilize the defense of major cities. Holding urban areas and rebuffing further Taliban advances until fighting ebbs in the winter might convince the Taliban that political negotiations are a better option than more war. Possible, but alas, unlikely. Successful resistance increasingly looks like a long shot.
Washington’s bipartisan war lobby naturally views President Joe Biden as the villain. A crescendo of criticism has arisen from the bipartisan war lobby, whose members have never found a conflict they were unwilling to send others to fight. Former president George W. Bush returned to the public square to advocate continuing the war which he started but in which he quickly lost interest, switching to the even more disastrous invasion of Iraq. Noteworthy for personally avoiding combat in Vietnam, he blundered away the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Joining him as an advocate of the forever wars was Sen. Mitt Romney, another armchair warrior exempted from Vietnam War service, ever ready to send the sons of other Americans rather than his own off to fight in foreign lands.
No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.
Indeed, the impending debacle exposes the dishonest stance of the “stick-around” crowd. Recognizing the lack of public support for endless wars—70 percent of Americans said they wanted the troops home—opponents of the pullout typically urged keeping a couple of thousand troops on station for just a few more months or years. However, the Afghan government’s impotence and the army’s disintegration demonstrate that such an extension would make no difference in the ultimate fate of the Kabul government. The real choice was not to leave now or in a couple of years. It was leave now or stay forever. Endless war proponents continue to refuse to level with the American people, as they refused to do for the past two decades.
Which sadly was to be expected. Politicians, generals, and the gaggle of parasites to power—consultants, journalists, analysts, lobbyists, scholars, pundits, activists, and more—spent two decades lying to the American people. Successive presidents and commanders promised results that were unattainable and sought to push the tragic denouement into the future, onto their successors. Why would anyone expect anything different when the geo-political Ponzi scheme came crashing down and policymakers were forced to confront the reality of their handiwork?
Should that seem harsh, then reread the Afghanistan Papers. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock noted that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the t***h about the war in Afghanistan throughout the eighteen-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” The supposedly best and brightest, determined to salvage reputations and careers, sacrificed the lives of young Americans to maintain a pretense of success.
Many of those once responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while in authority have taken the lead in trying to perpetuate the mission. For instance, David Petraeus is busy trying to shield his reputation and shift blame to Biden as the Afghan project collapses. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently co-chaired the congressionally mandated Afghanistan Study Group, which predictably insisted that the United States should stay in the country. What other conclusion was imaginable? As the entire geopolitical enterprise collapses, its promoters insist that American forces should stick around with no good purpose and no realistic plan of action.
Reality has been tragic for Afghans. Outsiders fueled a civil war that is five decades old, creating a state that is not real, a political system that does not work, a bureaucracy that does not perform, and a military that will not fight. And the entire structure is crashing down on the Afghans, including those who desperately want to create a liberal society.
With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad.
Today, in America, the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism but terrorism. In a world filled with ungoverned and badly governed spaces, it is said that the vital fight against terrorism requires the perpetual occupation of the remote lands of Afghanistan. Yet Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan, was Washington’s original target and America quickly achieved its objective by degrading and dispersing the group.
Osama bin Laden’s presence there reflected his determination to battle the Soviet invaders, nothing more. The attacks of 9/11 caught his Taliban hosts by surprise and had little to do with Afghanistan: the planning was done elsewhere, the participants came from elsewhere, the funding was from elsewhere. After Washington targeted his Afghan hideaway he relocated to Pakistan, America’s nominal ally, just down the road from its military academy in Abbottabad, where he was subsequently k**led.
It would be better to start by creating fewer enemies. Terrorism is not a mysterious malady, but typically is a response to intervening in other people’s fights and making other people’s conflicts America’s own. Bombing fewer countries, occupying fewer territories, and k*****g fewer people is the best way to reduce terrorism against Americans. Then there would be fewer terrorists to fight. Leaving Afghanistan is a good start to a more restrained international strategy.
In any case, perpetual war and occupation of most of the known world forever is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. Washington is far better prepared to detect and confront terrorist threats today. Moreover, one of the primary benefits of withdrawal is already evident—Afghanistan’s neighbors are beginning to plan for a world in which they, not Washington, are responsible for the stability and peace of their own region. That is the way it should have been for the last twenty years.
Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building. Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform. It is time for the United States to leave Afghanistan.
slatten49 wrote:
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
August 13, 2021, by Doug Bandow
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.)
Afghanistan is looking like a disaster. Ten provincial capitals were lost in a week. Afghan troops surrendered without firing a shot. Now, there are ever more pessimistic estimates as to how quickly Kabul might fall.
The Biden administration is U.S. sending troops back to protect the capital airport for emergency rescue flights. Even more embarrassing is its plaintive request that the Taliban not attack the embassy in any assault on Kabul. It claims that the Taliban will regret the hit to its reputation from a successful military conquest, which has been the movement’s objective since its creation in 1994.
Although the tidings are grim, the Ghani government has a chance to recover its balance. The Taliban are manpower-poor and might have trouble maintaining their blitzkrieg. A modicum of competence from Kabul, some evidence that it has the troops’ backs, could stabilize the defense of major cities. Holding urban areas and rebuffing further Taliban advances until fighting ebbs in the winter might convince the Taliban that political negotiations are a better option than more war. Possible, but alas, unlikely. Successful resistance increasingly looks like a long shot.
Washington’s bipartisan war lobby naturally views President Joe Biden as the villain. A crescendo of criticism has arisen from the bipartisan war lobby, whose members have never found a conflict they were unwilling to send others to fight. Former president George W. Bush returned to the public square to advocate continuing the war which he started but in which he quickly lost interest, switching to the even more disastrous invasion of Iraq. Noteworthy for personally avoiding combat in Vietnam, he blundered away the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Joining him as an advocate of the forever wars was Sen. Mitt Romney, another armchair warrior exempted from Vietnam War service, ever ready to send the sons of other Americans rather than his own off to fight in foreign lands.
No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.
Indeed, the impending debacle exposes the dishonest stance of the “stick-around” crowd. Recognizing the lack of public support for endless wars—70 percent of Americans said they wanted the troops home—opponents of the pullout typically urged keeping a couple of thousand troops on station for just a few more months or years. However, the Afghan government’s impotence and the army’s disintegration demonstrate that such an extension would make no difference in the ultimate fate of the Kabul government. The real choice was not to leave now or in a couple of years. It was leave now or stay forever. Endless war proponents continue to refuse to level with the American people, as they refused to do for the past two decades.
Which sadly was to be expected. Politicians, generals, and the gaggle of parasites to power—consultants, journalists, analysts, lobbyists, scholars, pundits, activists, and more—spent two decades lying to the American people. Successive presidents and commanders promised results that were unattainable and sought to push the tragic denouement into the future, onto their successors. Why would anyone expect anything different when the geo-political Ponzi scheme came crashing down and policymakers were forced to confront the reality of their handiwork?
Should that seem harsh, then reread the Afghanistan Papers. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock noted that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the t***h about the war in Afghanistan throughout the eighteen-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” The supposedly best and brightest, determined to salvage reputations and careers, sacrificed the lives of young Americans to maintain a pretense of success.
Many of those once responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while in authority have taken the lead in trying to perpetuate the mission. For instance, David Petraeus is busy trying to shield his reputation and shift blame to Biden as the Afghan project collapses. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently co-chaired the congressionally mandated Afghanistan Study Group, which predictably insisted that the United States should stay in the country. What other conclusion was imaginable? As the entire geopolitical enterprise collapses, its promoters insist that American forces should stick around with no good purpose and no realistic plan of action.
Reality has been tragic for Afghans. Outsiders fueled a civil war that is five decades old, creating a state that is not real, a political system that does not work, a bureaucracy that does not perform, and a military that will not fight. And the entire structure is crashing down on the Afghans, including those who desperately want to create a liberal society.
With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad.
Today, in America, the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism but terrorism. In a world filled with ungoverned and badly governed spaces, it is said that the vital fight against terrorism requires the perpetual occupation of the remote lands of Afghanistan. Yet Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan, was Washington’s original target and America quickly achieved its objective by degrading and dispersing the group.
Osama bin Laden’s presence there reflected his determination to battle the Soviet invaders, nothing more. The attacks of 9/11 caught his Taliban hosts by surprise and had little to do with Afghanistan: the planning was done elsewhere, the participants came from elsewhere, the funding was from elsewhere. After Washington targeted his Afghan hideaway he relocated to Pakistan, America’s nominal ally, just down the road from its military academy in Abbottabad, where he was subsequently k**led.
It would be better to start by creating fewer enemies. Terrorism is not a mysterious malady, but typically is a response to intervening in other people’s fights and making other people’s conflicts America’s own. Bombing fewer countries, occupying fewer territories, and k*****g fewer people is the best way to reduce terrorism against Americans. Then there would be fewer terrorists to fight. Leaving Afghanistan is a good start to a more restrained international strategy.
In any case, perpetual war and occupation of most of the known world forever is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. Washington is far better prepared to detect and confront terrorist threats today. Moreover, one of the primary benefits of withdrawal is already evident—Afghanistan’s neighbors are beginning to plan for a world in which they, not Washington, are responsible for the stability and peace of their own region. That is the way it should have been for the last twenty years.
Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building. Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform. It is time for the United States to leave Afghanistan.
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involveme... (
show quote)
I thoroughly reject the inevitability argument. Yes we would have eventually gotten out. No it was not inevitable that the withdrawal would turn into as the British say " a bloody shambles. " Afghanistan was stable and quiet for a year before President Biden took office. It is 110 % on him for not figuring out a much better way to do this.
slatten49 wrote:
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
August 13, 2021, by Doug Bandow
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.)
Afghanistan is looking like a disaster. Ten provincial capitals were lost in a week. Afghan troops surrendered without firing a shot. Now, there are ever more pessimistic estimates as to how quickly Kabul might fall.
The Biden administration is U.S. sending troops back to protect the capital airport for emergency rescue flights. Even more embarrassing is its plaintive request that the Taliban not attack the embassy in any assault on Kabul. It claims that the Taliban will regret the hit to its reputation from a successful military conquest, which has been the movement’s objective since its creation in 1994.
Although the tidings are grim, the Ghani government has a chance to recover its balance. The Taliban are manpower-poor and might have trouble maintaining their blitzkrieg. A modicum of competence from Kabul, some evidence that it has the troops’ backs, could stabilize the defense of major cities. Holding urban areas and rebuffing further Taliban advances until fighting ebbs in the winter might convince the Taliban that political negotiations are a better option than more war. Possible, but alas, unlikely. Successful resistance increasingly looks like a long shot.
Washington’s bipartisan war lobby naturally views President Joe Biden as the villain. A crescendo of criticism has arisen from the bipartisan war lobby, whose members have never found a conflict they were unwilling to send others to fight. Former president George W. Bush returned to the public square to advocate continuing the war which he started but in which he quickly lost interest, switching to the even more disastrous invasion of Iraq. Noteworthy for personally avoiding combat in Vietnam, he blundered away the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Joining him as an advocate of the forever wars was Sen. Mitt Romney, another armchair warrior exempted from Vietnam War service, ever ready to send the sons of other Americans rather than his own off to fight in foreign lands.
No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.
Indeed, the impending debacle exposes the dishonest stance of the “stick-around” crowd. Recognizing the lack of public support for endless wars—70 percent of Americans said they wanted the troops home—opponents of the pullout typically urged keeping a couple of thousand troops on station for just a few more months or years. However, the Afghan government’s impotence and the army’s disintegration demonstrate that such an extension would make no difference in the ultimate fate of the Kabul government. The real choice was not to leave now or in a couple of years. It was leave now or stay forever. Endless war proponents continue to refuse to level with the American people, as they refused to do for the past two decades.
Which sadly was to be expected. Politicians, generals, and the gaggle of parasites to power—consultants, journalists, analysts, lobbyists, scholars, pundits, activists, and more—spent two decades lying to the American people. Successive presidents and commanders promised results that were unattainable and sought to push the tragic denouement into the future, onto their successors. Why would anyone expect anything different when the geo-political Ponzi scheme came crashing down and policymakers were forced to confront the reality of their handiwork?
Should that seem harsh, then reread the Afghanistan Papers. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock noted that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the t***h about the war in Afghanistan throughout the eighteen-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” The supposedly best and brightest, determined to salvage reputations and careers, sacrificed the lives of young Americans to maintain a pretense of success.
Many of those once responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while in authority have taken the lead in trying to perpetuate the mission. For instance, David Petraeus is busy trying to shield his reputation and shift blame to Biden as the Afghan project collapses. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently co-chaired the congressionally mandated Afghanistan Study Group, which predictably insisted that the United States should stay in the country. What other conclusion was imaginable? As the entire geopolitical enterprise collapses, its promoters insist that American forces should stick around with no good purpose and no realistic plan of action.
Reality has been tragic for Afghans. Outsiders fueled a civil war that is five decades old, creating a state that is not real, a political system that does not work, a bureaucracy that does not perform, and a military that will not fight. And the entire structure is crashing down on the Afghans, including those who desperately want to create a liberal society.
With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad.
Today, in America, the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism but terrorism. In a world filled with ungoverned and badly governed spaces, it is said that the vital fight against terrorism requires the perpetual occupation of the remote lands of Afghanistan. Yet Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan, was Washington’s original target and America quickly achieved its objective by degrading and dispersing the group.
Osama bin Laden’s presence there reflected his determination to battle the Soviet invaders, nothing more. The attacks of 9/11 caught his Taliban hosts by surprise and had little to do with Afghanistan: the planning was done elsewhere, the participants came from elsewhere, the funding was from elsewhere. After Washington targeted his Afghan hideaway he relocated to Pakistan, America’s nominal ally, just down the road from its military academy in Abbottabad, where he was subsequently k**led.
It would be better to start by creating fewer enemies. Terrorism is not a mysterious malady, but typically is a response to intervening in other people’s fights and making other people’s conflicts America’s own. Bombing fewer countries, occupying fewer territories, and k*****g fewer people is the best way to reduce terrorism against Americans. Then there would be fewer terrorists to fight. Leaving Afghanistan is a good start to a more restrained international strategy.
In any case, perpetual war and occupation of most of the known world forever is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. Washington is far better prepared to detect and confront terrorist threats today. Moreover, one of the primary benefits of withdrawal is already evident—Afghanistan’s neighbors are beginning to plan for a world in which they, not Washington, are responsible for the stability and peace of their own region. That is the way it should have been for the last twenty years.
Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building. Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform. It is time for the United States to leave Afghanistan.
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involveme... (
show quote)
His assertion that we are responsible for creating terrorist is asinine. Radical Islamic terrorists exist because they oppose any nation that stands in the way of world domination.
son of witless wrote:
I thoroughly reject the inevitability argument. Yes we would have eventually gotten out. No it was not inevitable that the withdrawal would turn into as the British say " a bloody shambles. " Afghanistan was stable and quiet for a year before President Biden took office. It is 110 % on him for not figuring out a much better way to do this.
Possibly not quite as inevitable as your expected response, SOW. But, if you indeed read it all, you might recall the following from the article....
"No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland". Plus...
"Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform".
slatten49 wrote:
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
August 13, 2021, by Doug Bandow
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.)
Afghanistan is looking like a disaster. Ten provincial capitals were lost in a week. Afghan troops surrendered without firing a shot. Now, there are ever more pessimistic estimates as to how quickly Kabul might fall.
The Biden administration is U.S. sending troops back to protect the capital airport for emergency rescue flights. Even more embarrassing is its plaintive request that the Taliban not attack the embassy in any assault on Kabul. It claims that the Taliban will regret the hit to its reputation from a successful military conquest, which has been the movement’s objective since its creation in 1994.
Although the tidings are grim, the Ghani government has a chance to recover its balance. The Taliban are manpower-poor and might have trouble maintaining their blitzkrieg. A modicum of competence from Kabul, some evidence that it has the troops’ backs, could stabilize the defense of major cities. Holding urban areas and rebuffing further Taliban advances until fighting ebbs in the winter might convince the Taliban that political negotiations are a better option than more war. Possible, but alas, unlikely. Successful resistance increasingly looks like a long shot.
Washington’s bipartisan war lobby naturally views President Joe Biden as the villain. A crescendo of criticism has arisen from the bipartisan war lobby, whose members have never found a conflict they were unwilling to send others to fight. Former president George W. Bush returned to the public square to advocate continuing the war which he started but in which he quickly lost interest, switching to the even more disastrous invasion of Iraq. Noteworthy for personally avoiding combat in Vietnam, he blundered away the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Joining him as an advocate of the forever wars was Sen. Mitt Romney, another armchair warrior exempted from Vietnam War service, ever ready to send the sons of other Americans rather than his own off to fight in foreign lands.
No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.
Indeed, the impending debacle exposes the dishonest stance of the “stick-around” crowd. Recognizing the lack of public support for endless wars—70 percent of Americans said they wanted the troops home—opponents of the pullout typically urged keeping a couple of thousand troops on station for just a few more months or years. However, the Afghan government’s impotence and the army’s disintegration demonstrate that such an extension would make no difference in the ultimate fate of the Kabul government. The real choice was not to leave now or in a couple of years. It was leave now or stay forever. Endless war proponents continue to refuse to level with the American people, as they refused to do for the past two decades.
Which sadly was to be expected. Politicians, generals, and the gaggle of parasites to power—consultants, journalists, analysts, lobbyists, scholars, pundits, activists, and more—spent two decades lying to the American people. Successive presidents and commanders promised results that were unattainable and sought to push the tragic denouement into the future, onto their successors. Why would anyone expect anything different when the geo-political Ponzi scheme came crashing down and policymakers were forced to confront the reality of their handiwork?
Should that seem harsh, then reread the Afghanistan Papers. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock noted that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the t***h about the war in Afghanistan throughout the eighteen-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” The supposedly best and brightest, determined to salvage reputations and careers, sacrificed the lives of young Americans to maintain a pretense of success.
Many of those once responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while in authority have taken the lead in trying to perpetuate the mission. For instance, David Petraeus is busy trying to shield his reputation and shift blame to Biden as the Afghan project collapses. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently co-chaired the congressionally mandated Afghanistan Study Group, which predictably insisted that the United States should stay in the country. What other conclusion was imaginable? As the entire geopolitical enterprise collapses, its promoters insist that American forces should stick around with no good purpose and no realistic plan of action.
Reality has been tragic for Afghans. Outsiders fueled a civil war that is five decades old, creating a state that is not real, a political system that does not work, a bureaucracy that does not perform, and a military that will not fight. And the entire structure is crashing down on the Afghans, including those who desperately want to create a liberal society.
With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad.
Today, in America, the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism but terrorism. In a world filled with ungoverned and badly governed spaces, it is said that the vital fight against terrorism requires the perpetual occupation of the remote lands of Afghanistan. Yet Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan, was Washington’s original target and America quickly achieved its objective by degrading and dispersing the group.
Osama bin Laden’s presence there reflected his determination to battle the Soviet invaders, nothing more. The attacks of 9/11 caught his Taliban hosts by surprise and had little to do with Afghanistan: the planning was done elsewhere, the participants came from elsewhere, the funding was from elsewhere. After Washington targeted his Afghan hideaway he relocated to Pakistan, America’s nominal ally, just down the road from its military academy in Abbottabad, where he was subsequently k**led.
It would be better to start by creating fewer enemies. Terrorism is not a mysterious malady, but typically is a response to intervening in other people’s fights and making other people’s conflicts America’s own. Bombing fewer countries, occupying fewer territories, and k*****g fewer people is the best way to reduce terrorism against Americans. Then there would be fewer terrorists to fight. Leaving Afghanistan is a good start to a more restrained international strategy.
In any case, perpetual war and occupation of most of the known world forever is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. Washington is far better prepared to detect and confront terrorist threats today. Moreover, one of the primary benefits of withdrawal is already evident—Afghanistan’s neighbors are beginning to plan for a world in which they, not Washington, are responsible for the stability and peace of their own region. That is the way it should have been for the last twenty years.
Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building. Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform. It is time for the United States to leave Afghanistan.
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involveme... (
show quote)
I reckon that Leon Panetta's thoughts on the subject are worthy of consideration.
Our job is unfinished.
https://www.westernjournal.com/obama-defense-sec-says-biden-sunk-new-low-will-redeploy-troops-pullout/
Liberty Tree wrote:
His assertion that we are responsible for creating terrorist is asinine. Radical Islamic terrorists exist because they oppose any nation that stands in the way of world domination.
My day wouldn't be complete without another poorly thought-out comment from you, L-T.
In introducing the article, Mr. Bandow's opening quote stressed that, rather than creating terrorism, the US created forces to counter terrorism, yet then changed instead to nation-building. Then, there was the following...
"With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad".
slatten49 wrote:
Possibly not quite as inevitable as your expected response, SOW. But, if you indeed read it all, you might recall the following from the article....
"No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland". Plus...
"Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform".
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (
show quote)
Donald J. Trump had Afghanistan quiet for a year and was working on slowly getting the US out. He kept the threat of massive US retaliation, in case the Taliban acted badly. The incomprehensible thing was why President Biden threw away our military deterrence, principally Bagram Air Base. Bagram would have also been a better alternative for evacuations than Kabul.
Or Joe could have done nothing. Nothing would have also been very very good. We could have kept the small force we had that supported the Afghan Government and Military. That would have allowed all kinds of options to either continue to draw down, or insert more forces depending on conditions.
Conditions, conditions, conditions. Flexibility. President Trump's strategy allowed for maximum FLEXIBILITY to react to what ever the changing conditions required.
President Biden's strategy was inflexible. It left no options when things did not go according to plan. Obviously things did not go according to plan.
Noted, Gatsby. Yet, unless we truly want a 'forever war', we should leave Afghanistan to its own fate.
slatten49 wrote:
My day wouldn't be complete without another poorly thought-out comment from you, L-T.
In introducing the article, Mr. Bandow's opening quote stressed that, rather than creating terrorism, the US created forces to counter terrorism, yet then changed instead to nation-building. Then, there was the following...
"With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad".
My day wouldn't be complete without another poorly... (
show quote)
Once again you dodge the section to which I was referring. Go back and reread your original post. All of it, not just the part that suits you.
slatten49 wrote:
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
August 13, 2021, by Doug Bandow
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.)
Afghanistan is looking like a disaster. Ten provincial capitals were lost in a week. Afghan troops surrendered without firing a shot. Now, there are ever more pessimistic estimates as to how quickly Kabul might fall.
The Biden administration is U.S. sending troops back to protect the capital airport for emergency rescue flights. Even more embarrassing is its plaintive request that the Taliban not attack the embassy in any assault on Kabul. It claims that the Taliban will regret the hit to its reputation from a successful military conquest, which has been the movement’s objective since its creation in 1994.
Although the tidings are grim, the Ghani government has a chance to recover its balance. The Taliban are manpower-poor and might have trouble maintaining their blitzkrieg. A modicum of competence from Kabul, some evidence that it has the troops’ backs, could stabilize the defense of major cities. Holding urban areas and rebuffing further Taliban advances until fighting ebbs in the winter might convince the Taliban that political negotiations are a better option than more war. Possible, but alas, unlikely. Successful resistance increasingly looks like a long shot.
Washington’s bipartisan war lobby naturally views President Joe Biden as the villain. A crescendo of criticism has arisen from the bipartisan war lobby, whose members have never found a conflict they were unwilling to send others to fight. Former president George W. Bush returned to the public square to advocate continuing the war which he started but in which he quickly lost interest, switching to the even more disastrous invasion of Iraq. Noteworthy for personally avoiding combat in Vietnam, he blundered away the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Joining him as an advocate of the forever wars was Sen. Mitt Romney, another armchair warrior exempted from Vietnam War service, ever ready to send the sons of other Americans rather than his own off to fight in foreign lands.
No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.
Indeed, the impending debacle exposes the dishonest stance of the “stick-around” crowd. Recognizing the lack of public support for endless wars—70 percent of Americans said they wanted the troops home—opponents of the pullout typically urged keeping a couple of thousand troops on station for just a few more months or years. However, the Afghan government’s impotence and the army’s disintegration demonstrate that such an extension would make no difference in the ultimate fate of the Kabul government. The real choice was not to leave now or in a couple of years. It was leave now or stay forever. Endless war proponents continue to refuse to level with the American people, as they refused to do for the past two decades.
Which sadly was to be expected. Politicians, generals, and the gaggle of parasites to power—consultants, journalists, analysts, lobbyists, scholars, pundits, activists, and more—spent two decades lying to the American people. Successive presidents and commanders promised results that were unattainable and sought to push the tragic denouement into the future, onto their successors. Why would anyone expect anything different when the geo-political Ponzi scheme came crashing down and policymakers were forced to confront the reality of their handiwork?
Should that seem harsh, then reread the Afghanistan Papers. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock noted that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the t***h about the war in Afghanistan throughout the eighteen-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” The supposedly best and brightest, determined to salvage reputations and careers, sacrificed the lives of young Americans to maintain a pretense of success.
Many of those once responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while in authority have taken the lead in trying to perpetuate the mission. For instance, David Petraeus is busy trying to shield his reputation and shift blame to Biden as the Afghan project collapses. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently co-chaired the congressionally mandated Afghanistan Study Group, which predictably insisted that the United States should stay in the country. What other conclusion was imaginable? As the entire geopolitical enterprise collapses, its promoters insist that American forces should stick around with no good purpose and no realistic plan of action.
Reality has been tragic for Afghans. Outsiders fueled a civil war that is five decades old, creating a state that is not real, a political system that does not work, a bureaucracy that does not perform, and a military that will not fight. And the entire structure is crashing down on the Afghans, including those who desperately want to create a liberal society.
With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad.
Today, in America, the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism but terrorism. In a world filled with ungoverned and badly governed spaces, it is said that the vital fight against terrorism requires the perpetual occupation of the remote lands of Afghanistan. Yet Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan, was Washington’s original target and America quickly achieved its objective by degrading and dispersing the group.
Osama bin Laden’s presence there reflected his determination to battle the Soviet invaders, nothing more. The attacks of 9/11 caught his Taliban hosts by surprise and had little to do with Afghanistan: the planning was done elsewhere, the participants came from elsewhere, the funding was from elsewhere. After Washington targeted his Afghan hideaway he relocated to Pakistan, America’s nominal ally, just down the road from its military academy in Abbottabad, where he was subsequently k**led.
It would be better to start by creating fewer enemies. Terrorism is not a mysterious malady, but typically is a response to intervening in other people’s fights and making other people’s conflicts America’s own. Bombing fewer countries, occupying fewer territories, and k*****g fewer people is the best way to reduce terrorism against Americans. Then there would be fewer terrorists to fight. Leaving Afghanistan is a good start to a more restrained international strategy.
In any case, perpetual war and occupation of most of the known world forever is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. Washington is far better prepared to detect and confront terrorist threats today. Moreover, one of the primary benefits of withdrawal is already evident—Afghanistan’s neighbors are beginning to plan for a world in which they, not Washington, are responsible for the stability and peace of their own region. That is the way it should have been for the last twenty years.
Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building. Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform. It is time for the United States to leave Afghanistan.
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involveme... (
show quote)
Sadly, the question "then what" is never asked at the beginning, guaranteeing disaster.
Liberty Tree wrote:
His assertion that we are responsible for creating terrorist is asinine. Radical Islamic terrorists exist because they oppose any nation that stands in the way of world domination.
They've existed for centuries. Much of the time they were k*****g other Muslims. That argument, that we created them is a red herring and a cowardly way of excusing their actions. Using that analogy we should have thousands of American terrorists k*****g Muslims everywhere, because they have k**led plenty of our people.
Weasel
Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
slatten49 wrote:
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
August 13, 2021, by Doug Bandow
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.)
Afghanistan is looking like a disaster. Ten provincial capitals were lost in a week. Afghan troops surrendered without firing a shot. Now, there are ever more pessimistic estimates as to how quickly Kabul might fall.
The Biden administration is U.S. sending troops back to protect the capital airport for emergency rescue flights. Even more embarrassing is its plaintive request that the Taliban not attack the embassy in any assault on Kabul. It claims that the Taliban will regret the hit to its reputation from a successful military conquest, which has been the movement’s objective since its creation in 1994.
Although the tidings are grim, the Ghani government has a chance to recover its balance. The Taliban are manpower-poor and might have trouble maintaining their blitzkrieg. A modicum of competence from Kabul, some evidence that it has the troops’ backs, could stabilize the defense of major cities. Holding urban areas and rebuffing further Taliban advances until fighting ebbs in the winter might convince the Taliban that political negotiations are a better option than more war. Possible, but alas, unlikely. Successful resistance increasingly looks like a long shot.
Washington’s bipartisan war lobby naturally views President Joe Biden as the villain. A crescendo of criticism has arisen from the bipartisan war lobby, whose members have never found a conflict they were unwilling to send others to fight. Former president George W. Bush returned to the public square to advocate continuing the war which he started but in which he quickly lost interest, switching to the even more disastrous invasion of Iraq. Noteworthy for personally avoiding combat in Vietnam, he blundered away the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Joining him as an advocate of the forever wars was Sen. Mitt Romney, another armchair warrior exempted from Vietnam War service, ever ready to send the sons of other Americans rather than his own off to fight in foreign lands.
No doubt, Biden’s handling of Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. For instance, evacuation plans for American citizens, allied personnel, and Afghan loyalists should have been developed during the t***sition and implemented immediately after the decision to withdraw was made. The administration should not have sugar-coated the expected result but provided details for Americans information on the U.S.-supported regime’s striking incapacity, which would not improve by extending the occupation. The failure to create something capable of standing on its own was an important reason to leave—after two decades of allied effort, there simply is “no there there,” as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland.
Indeed, the impending debacle exposes the dishonest stance of the “stick-around” crowd. Recognizing the lack of public support for endless wars—70 percent of Americans said they wanted the troops home—opponents of the pullout typically urged keeping a couple of thousand troops on station for just a few more months or years. However, the Afghan government’s impotence and the army’s disintegration demonstrate that such an extension would make no difference in the ultimate fate of the Kabul government. The real choice was not to leave now or in a couple of years. It was leave now or stay forever. Endless war proponents continue to refuse to level with the American people, as they refused to do for the past two decades.
Which sadly was to be expected. Politicians, generals, and the gaggle of parasites to power—consultants, journalists, analysts, lobbyists, scholars, pundits, activists, and more—spent two decades lying to the American people. Successive presidents and commanders promised results that were unattainable and sought to push the tragic denouement into the future, onto their successors. Why would anyone expect anything different when the geo-political Ponzi scheme came crashing down and policymakers were forced to confront the reality of their handiwork?
Should that seem harsh, then reread the Afghanistan Papers. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock noted that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the t***h about the war in Afghanistan throughout the eighteen-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” The supposedly best and brightest, determined to salvage reputations and careers, sacrificed the lives of young Americans to maintain a pretense of success.
Many of those once responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan while in authority have taken the lead in trying to perpetuate the mission. For instance, David Petraeus is busy trying to shield his reputation and shift blame to Biden as the Afghan project collapses. Joseph Dunford, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently co-chaired the congressionally mandated Afghanistan Study Group, which predictably insisted that the United States should stay in the country. What other conclusion was imaginable? As the entire geopolitical enterprise collapses, its promoters insist that American forces should stick around with no good purpose and no realistic plan of action.
Reality has been tragic for Afghans. Outsiders fueled a civil war that is five decades old, creating a state that is not real, a political system that does not work, a bureaucracy that does not perform, and a military that will not fight. And the entire structure is crashing down on the Afghans, including those who desperately want to create a liberal society.
With the mission’s original purpose long past, Washington’s wannabe warriors now profess a touching concern for human rights and status of women, but the United States never would have intervened for that reason and has routinely ignored worse violations elsewhere, including by allied states. If these newfound human-rights champions were serious, then the campaign to right human wrongs would start with China and Russia, move through Asia to the Middle East and finish up in Africa. Protecting human rights is but the latest excuse for another imperial project gone bad.
Today, in America, the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism but terrorism. In a world filled with ungoverned and badly governed spaces, it is said that the vital fight against terrorism requires the perpetual occupation of the remote lands of Afghanistan. Yet Al Qaeda, not Afghanistan, was Washington’s original target and America quickly achieved its objective by degrading and dispersing the group.
Osama bin Laden’s presence there reflected his determination to battle the Soviet invaders, nothing more. The attacks of 9/11 caught his Taliban hosts by surprise and had little to do with Afghanistan: the planning was done elsewhere, the participants came from elsewhere, the funding was from elsewhere. After Washington targeted his Afghan hideaway he relocated to Pakistan, America’s nominal ally, just down the road from its military academy in Abbottabad, where he was subsequently k**led.
It would be better to start by creating fewer enemies. Terrorism is not a mysterious malady, but typically is a response to intervening in other people’s fights and making other people’s conflicts America’s own. Bombing fewer countries, occupying fewer territories, and k*****g fewer people is the best way to reduce terrorism against Americans. Then there would be fewer terrorists to fight. Leaving Afghanistan is a good start to a more restrained international strategy.
In any case, perpetual war and occupation of most of the known world forever is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. Washington is far better prepared to detect and confront terrorist threats today. Moreover, one of the primary benefits of withdrawal is already evident—Afghanistan’s neighbors are beginning to plan for a world in which they, not Washington, are responsible for the stability and peace of their own region. That is the way it should have been for the last twenty years.
Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building. Biden is right to end America’s participation in the war. He recognizes the essential t***h that Donald Trump expressed badly but correctly: Washington’s first responsibility is to Americans, including those in uniform. It is time for the United States to leave Afghanistan.
"Today’s tragic climax to America’s involveme... (
show quote)
Just the facts, No fiction.
https://youtu.be/ImQpZpKuDXE
Liberty Tree wrote:
Once again you dodge the section to which I was referring. Go back and reread your original post. All of it, not just the part that suits you.
L-T, assuming you meant to write terrorists or terrorism, there is no section of Mr. Bandow's article that spoke to America's "creating terrorist". Though I can, I won't guess as to which part you're referring. But, if you can point out what I'm missing in your assertion, I would be happy to reassess my own.
Again, I suggest you recall the opening lines to the OP: "Today’s tragic climax to America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s war probably became inevitable when the mission changed from counterterrorism to nation-building".
Enjoy your Sunday
lpnmajor wrote:
Sadly, the question "then what" is never asked at the beginning, guaranteeing disaster.
What are you talking about ? The only guarantee of disaster was electing Joe Biden and his Camel.
Biden’s handling of the situation “leaves much to be desired”. Its a needless cluster ****. Biden has earned being skewered for this. And he gave names to the taliban. Calling him an i***t is nice
At least we’re finally getting out. Thats something. But more lives will be lost as a result of Biden’s ineptitude
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.