There was error and chaos in the Afghanistan exit...
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
slatten49 wrote:
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. ... (
show quote)
Maybe some wokeness on the Military industrial complex in DC. Hopefully they will get woke on globalism, but I won't hold my breath.
slatten49 wrote:
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. ... (
show quote)
The sad thing for America is there are people like you who believe this BS.
slatten49 wrote:
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. ... (
show quote)
With all due respect, he DOES owns ALL of it!! Who in their right mind gets military out before American citizens??? Who in their mind leaves ALL our military equipment to Taliban???? Under Trump no military died.....Under your ahole biden 13 military heroes died.... Biden closed Bagram Airbase which housed prison with worst terrorists.... After i***t closed Bagram all these terrorists were freed, including ISIS!!! ...He owns it, he's President (f**e), his fault!!!
Liberty Tree wrote:
The sad thing for America is there are people like you who believe this BS.
Too many people believe the complete and utter lies opined in that story.
Liberty Tree wrote:
The sad thing for America is there are people like you who believe this BS.
Agree. I was going to respond to him but realize it would be pointless.
slatten49 wrote:
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. ... (
show quote)
Ya think? Dah! Ur plant screwed up! Our real president would have handled it differently and would not have let these pukes get away with it! Keep trying to deflect zombie!
microphor wrote:
Agree. I was going to respond to him but realize it would be pointless.
Exactly! He is way left to the center!
slatten49 wrote:
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. ... (
show quote)
This same article would have been written and reposted by right wingers had T***p w*n in 2020...
And ridiculed by left wingers...
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
This same article would have been written and reposted by right wingers had T***p w*n in 2020...
And ridiculed by left wingers...
Very likely. OPP, as well as America, is entrenched in tribalism.
slatten49 wrote:
Very likely. OPP, as well as America, is entrenched in tribalism.
I don't know about your tribe, but mine is almost always right... Even when they're wrong
slatten49 wrote:
Very likely. OPP, as well as America, is entrenched in tribalism.
Tribalism is man’s nature. Only lately has it been politicized by the left. Man has always been tribal
Unfortunately for Biden he owns this cluster foxtrot of an exit. No amount of wordsmithing can change that though doubtless apologists will try.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
"When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not."
Mark Twain
slatten49 wrote:
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. We have no ongoing security interest in Afghanistan, and we don't send troops everywhere to protect women and human rights. We do that in other ways.
By David Rothkopf
The intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the U.S. departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts. That's not to say some of them are not warranted. They certainly are. The swift fall of Kabul to the Taliban was predictable, and there is a case that we should have been better prepared for it. And there is no doubt that the risks we faced were great, as shown by the Kabul airport attack last week that claimed the lives of at least 169 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
But some of the arguments we are hearing are indefensible. Among the worst:
1. Biden owns this.
No. The authors of 20 years of war own this. The corrupt Afghan government and the Afghan military who stood down own this. The Trump administration that set the deadlines, drew down the troops, left behind the materiel and released up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners owns this.
2. Well, at least he owns the chaos surrounding our exit.
No. There's no way that the Taliban regaining control would not have led to chaos with many thousands of Afghans seeking to escape the rule of a thug regime. Whenever we began to airlift folks out, it would have started.
3. Well, at least he should have been better prepared for the chaos.
I'm going to give you this one, but it should be noted that efforts to prepare were rebuffed. The Afghan government did not want the United States beginning mass evacuations for the reasons cited in No. 2.
4. Washington could have given those in jeopardy more warning.
No. Trump said he wanted out when he ran in 2016 and signed a deal with an earlier deadline last year. Biden ran in 2020 saying he would leave. The State Department ordered some federal employees to leave in April.
5. America abandoned our allies.
No. Some of those allies left before we did. Canada left in 2014 but has returned in recent days to help with the evacuation. All knew for years of U.S. discussions regarding departure, and the Trump deal and announced departure early last year. And there has been close coordination during the evacuation process. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has convened meetings every other day with nearly 30 allied and other nations.
6. The evacuation was bungled.
No. It started off badly but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in U.S. military history; about 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.
7. The U.S. departure from Afghanistan will make it a potential breeding ground for terror again.
Afghanistan has been a dangerous place all 20 years America has been there. The swift and inevitable Taliban return to power and the airport attack by ISIS-K, the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate, show that won't change. Meanwhile, there has been a massive increase in terror threats worldwide. Afghanistan is no longer the epicenter of the threat, and we must adapt. We have many tools to respond, as the drone strikes against ISIS-K illustrate.
8. People will be left behind.
It is wildly unrealistic to think the United States could remove everyone at risk from Afghanistan. What's being done is above and beyond expectations. Other forms of political, diplomatic and economic pressure must be used to promote human rights in Afghanistan.
9. We could easily have left troops there indefinitely.
No. There was a cost to that and a risk. The risk grew as the Taliban grew in strength. Trump accelerated that with the release of prisoners held by the Afghan government and his announced May 1 departure date. Staying would have required a bigger investment.
10. But we have left troops in Germany and South Korea.
Not comparable. Those are allied nations facing real imminent threats from major enemies who pose a strategic risk to the United States. We have no similar ongoing interest in Afghanistan.
11. But the troops could have protected women and girls.
First, as noted, the Taliban were gaining strength for years – despite the presence of the troops. Second, troops are not the means we advance such interests anywhere else. It is not a sustainable or effective approach.
12. But Biden and his team say human rights are at the center of our foreign policy.
That can be true without deploying troops to confront all threats to rights. It must be. Because we'll never do that. Are critics suggesting deployments now to Ethiopia? Myanmar? To protect women elsewhere?
13. The debate about Biden’s performance is not about getting out of Afghanistan. Trying to make it about that is an effort to deflect and distract.
No. Getting out of Afghanistan is the central issue, marking a major shift in U.S. policy. It is about ending a 20-year war. It is about acknowledging a massive U.S. foreign policy failure and shifting to new priorities. That's the point.
14. Biden was part of the problem; he has known about this all along.
No. Biden has been arguing to wind this down for 12 years. When he was vice president, his view was overruled by President Barack Obama. And after 9/11, almost everyone supported going in after al-Qaida. For good reason.
15. But … but … it's messy and painful.
Right. As Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim has noted, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you won it.”
Bottom line: The airlift is a major logistical achievement. Tragically, in exiting a war like this, some chaos and deaths were inevitable. But getting out was right – and long overdue.
...but Biden critics are getting it mostly wrong. ... (
show quote)
======================
WRONG!! The exit plan was so wrong without planning.
Period of time for the exit strategy was so l limited. With the 20 years of war, that was impossible to undo it in 10 dumb stupid days by Biden.
What did Biden do. Brought 65,000 to 113,000 Afghans to the US while he left some Americans about 500 of them. And all US military assets $80 billion worth left as a gift by Biden for the Taliban. Biden wanted to have a diplomatic relations with the terrorist Taliban. The Taliban leaders now are the 4 of the 5 GITMO prisoners who were released by Barack Obama in 2014. Biden wants to have diplomatic ties with Taliban terrorists. The 20 years was lead by a number of presidents.
President Bush.. whose objective was to get UBL and his associates. The next president was Barack Obama, time when UBL died. That should have ended the war. That was in 2011, but Barack went to Iraq. There he removed the US security when Iraq was not yet ready to be at its own. President Bush committed to remove US security once Iraq could stand independently. ISIS took over when Obama removed US forces in Iraq. From there Obama's JV Team expanded became very powerful. When Bagdhadi was k**led by president Trump some ISIS moved to the Afghanistan where they are now, along with Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. [/i]
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
This same article would have been written and reposted by right wingers had T***p w*n in 2020...
And ridiculed by left wingers...
But there is one difference between the 2 men.Trump threatened to blow things up if they interfered with the pull out.And no doubt he would have.Talaban knew this.JOoe put the Taliban in charge of the pull out.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
