Biden decided to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan - what do you think?

[msc545]

I personally think it's about damn time.

"For 20 long years, the United States has waged endless, fruitless, and destructive war in Afghanistan. With today's decision, President Biden recognizes what the people of the United States and Afghanistan have long known: we simply cannot bomb our way to peace."

Bring all troops home

Leave them there

Leave them there and send MORE

Updates

+1 y

OR: I guess spending your nation's wealth and resources on an endlessly expanding worldwide military campaign while impoverishing your citizenry at home and keeping them in line with an increasingly violent and militarized police force is one way you can choose to do things.

[nightdrot]

Voted "withdraw," though for more strategic and less emotional reasons than have been implied in the follow up to the questions. Such matters to be decided on geostrategic grounds and not simply in a fit of passion.

To start, actually, President Trump had begun the process of withdrawal and had a target date of this May. His having been defeated for re-election, the process was delayed. President Biden is merely continuing that policy, extending the date from May into September. Though whether that deadline can be met is contingent on a variety of immediate logistical and other factors.

(Also, as an aside, it is unclear what the administration thinks it is doing in timing the withdrawal on the anniversary of one of the nation's worst national security failures. The symbolism is, to say no more, highly problematic. One wonders how much thinking the Biden administration puts into its foreign policy.)

In any event, the case for withdrawal from Afghanistan is sound. First, as an indicator, as a matter of historical record, the British fought no less then three wars in Afghanistan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were defeated the first time and won the next two wars - all without any significant strategic or other implications for the British Empire.

Quite simply, Afghanistan does not matter in a larger geostrateic global context. The post-9/11 action by the United States was originally intended as a military operation to eliminate some of al-Qaeda's support infrastructure as well as punish the Taliban government that backed it. (It is worth adding that 9/11 itself was planned and launched from an al-Qaeda terrorist cell based in - - Hamburg, Germany.)

Unfortunately, the United States, in the wake of its victory in the Cold War, had developed within its foreign policy establishment the thesis that exposing a society to freedom and free markets would invariably lead to the reform and stabilization of those societies. This was particularly true of the neo-conservatives, a group of anti-communist former liberals turned nominal conservatives who, in effect, believed in applying liberal ideas of social engineering. This they then applied - pace the victory in the Cold War - on a global scale.

Thus did a war of retaliation become war as social policy and thus war without end. It being - as classical conservatives would argue - that societies are NOT tinkertoys that can be pulled apart and reassembled at will according to some a priori abstract plan.

In truth, al-Qaeda will remain a shadow force, best handled by defensive precautions rather than proactive social engineering. The organization being a manifestation of schisms in the Muslim and Arab worlds that well pre-date 9/11 and will likely endure for decades, if not centuries to come.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Similarly, Afghanistan will remain what it largely has been - except for a brief interlude under the monarchy from the late 19th through the mid-20th centuries. Namely a tribal society, bonded very loosely by a common religious heritage and a vague sense of ethnic commonality. No amount of US military and economic power, or diplomatic influence, will change that.

In this connection, the key players in Afghanistan are India, Pakistan, Iran and to a lesser degree China. (Russia has essentially lost the position it held till the late 1980s.) These states can be played off against one another and will help keep the balance in Afghanistan - and thus keep a lid on the ethnic and religious rivalries that led to the rise of the (now deposed) Taliban government and the support base for al-Qaeda. (The latter largely in decline in any case as it has been superseded by other terrorist groups.)

By withdrawing from Afghanistan, the United States will take itself out of the line of fire and create a strategic stalemate between India, Pakistan, Iran and China. This increasing US freedom of action, staunching the costs in blood and treasure in the bargain, and creating a regional environment in which, by default, US interests are protected by other powers.

This then putting into practice the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

Very well said..
I think at this point my perspective is this
1. The United States clearly achieved most of its objectives many years ago, and has been stuck in a never ending "nation building" process.. where success clearly depends more on the Host than it does on the United States. .. At this point it just makes it more a $$ drain, than anything of any serious strategic value
2. It is clear that the war between the Afghan Government and the Taliban has fallen into an endless stalemate. The Taliban lack the military ability to truly take over the country (and anyone who knows history, would know the Taliban never controlled all of Afghanistan... even in the 1990s they were in conflict with the Northern Alliance).. but the Afghan Government also lacks the logistical/military abilities to completely defeat the Taliban... and its very unlikely the United States will ever get seriously involved (it even spent some of the last few years ignoring the Taliban and concentrated on ISIS)... So its clear a peace process is the best way to go
^ at that point American troops could be viewed as a instigator of the conflict (even if they are not) because it will become (As it always has been) a propaganda source for the Taliban to continue the war... with the USA troops gone.. the Taliban lose the propaganda leverage, and any legitimacy in the war

[FortheHonorofDragons]

3. With Afghanistan playing less of a strategic value... and also clearly being a Stalemate
I think American support to the conflict should go no further than logistical or aid/funding.
There really is no serious need for American forces to based in any great number in Afghanistan at this point...
AND if things go amiss, it would be simply enough to intervene (as what happened in Iraq after the 2011 withdrawal)
4. The Taliban are not particularly that popular inside Afghanistan or out (most surveys show the Afghans has a general distaste for them, and the International community has no interest in supporting them.. outside of perhaps Pakistan)...
So I think in some ways the Peace Process is the "Nail on the Head" for the Taliban
either they
1. Accept the terms of the peace (which have clearly highlighted standards that go against Taliban demands... such as constitutional rights, womens rights, democratic processes... etc)
or
2. They can find themselves in perpetual war, where its unlikely they will come out on top anyways
considering the Afghan Government having many supporters outside of the USA (China and India for example coming to mind)

[FortheHonorofDragons]

But at this point
though I believe the stability of the nation is important (which becomes more questionable as the United States removes its influences)
^ but once again... I think if the USA funds/aids etc Afghanistan things will turn out fine
If the United States pulls out cold turkey, and cuts it relations (which is unlikely) that is when things can go wrong

But the United States can clearly achieve what it wants from Afghanistan, without physically being there.

[nightdrot]

@FortheHonorofDragons Agree with much of what you say, though you are ignoring the influence of Pakistan, China, India, and to a lesser degree Russia. This will tend to keep the pot boiling and it is unlikely that there will be any stability or peace.

MY point was that, in fact, Afghanistan's internal stability is NOT that important to the USA. That the powers who carry out their rivalries in the country will continue to do so and that will tend to keep any negative external effects to a minimum.

(In that connection, as I pointed out, 9/11 was planned and implemented in Hamburg. In that sense, our intervention in Afghanistan was the best we could do in response. The Taliban "government" was sheltering al-Qaeda - which, although Sunni, is now getting support from Shiite Iran - and therefore we went after Afghanistan.

This, under the influence of post-Cold War euphoria and neoconservative thinking in the USA, went from being a punitive military operation into a case of social engineering with machine guns. That, suffice to say, was not likely - and has not - ended well. Although, with the Biden people extending Trump's May 1 withdrawal date to September 11, it remains to seen if the USA really will be leaving. This could really just drag on and on.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Also, it is not there will not be negative impacts on US influence in the region. The US will look defeated - the fact that we go out trumpets blaring will not cover that fact. (The bone headed idea of setting the deadline for September 11 also won't help. Wonder what genius in the Biden administration came up with that brilliant idea? Good grief.)

This is a sort of Vietnam in miniature. Though like Vietnam, its impact on the US is likely to be of far less significance in both geostrategic and domestic policy terms than everyone imagines.

One last question: I am happy to chat with you, but why in heaven's name did you not write what you have as a separate response instead of just a reply to me? You might have gotten more attention.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

Honestly, I don't think anyone would view any sort of withdrawal to look like "victory"
and most peoples standards of what "victory" means tends to make such a thing irrelevant.
nor do I even know if there has been a clear stated standard of what "victory" looks like in Afghanistan (or the War on Terror in general) other than very vague and generalized concepts of "security" "protecting the homeland" "eliminating threats to the homeland" which are all ever changing issues
EVEN if the United States achieved every objective, and it was well known.. I think simply the time, blood, and money spent.. would have looked like "defeat" regardless
people expect everything to conclusive like WW2 and that is just not realistic
This has more or less been an extremely long and costly policing action akin to the CPD trying to keep the streets of Chicago safe (which will be a never ending job)..
Even negotiating a settlement to the conflict looks like "defeat" even if its been a stated goal for quite a few years (and a major reason for not putting the Taliban on the terrorist list)...
Is it really? no.. not really
Its clear every party of this conflict is just looking for a resolution
the Afghan Government clearly wants an end to it
the USA and its allies are looking for a way to end their involvement
the Taliban were never originally open to negotiating (even after being approached multiple times over the past 10+ years)... and clearly are open now due to realizing there is no military resolution to the war..
Now its just posturing, trying to find a better bargaining chip.. etc

Though its not really a defeat (anymore than id say Vietnam was in 1973... that turned into a self made political disaster/defeat due to decisions after the troop withdrawal... Case Church Amendment.. cutting of funds to South Vietnam.. etc)

[FortheHonorofDragons]

I do agree with it being relatively inconclusive (or at least not having the very visible success of a WW2) no one is going to be out holding a victory celebration

clearly a lot of the objectives of the war have been met
and its also clear that the United States has been interesting in leaving for around 10 years now... but never could find a way to extricate itself from the conflict

But once again, I agree.. regardless of whatever success could be found in the conflict
the length of the conflict.. the waste of resources to achieve those objectives (which id argue had very little strategic value)

[FortheHonorofDragons]

^ and as you stated

the very clear inconclusive end to this conflict
and the recognition of waste
I think ultimately will harm the United States image

You don't exactly find yourself in a conflict for 20 years
find a peaceful settlement.. and withdrawal
and ever come out looking like the "winner"
regardless of what youve achieved, or whatever military victories you had
We could find the perfect settlement... and create an inclusive government... end 40 years of war.. etc
and still likely come out looking as though we gained nothing for all that time

So I agree it won't look well on the US image regardless.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

And ultimately I did post an answer here
just found your answer quite thought out in comparison to most
so I figured id give my thoughts to it

[nightdrot]

@FortheHonorofDragons Okay, thanks. I will see if I see your answer when I am done here. Honestly, though, we do not disagree on much.

However, I would argue that Vietnam - and Afghanistan - are defeats. The nation set itself a certain set of objectives and failed to achieve them. Vietnam is united - and communist. Afghanistan remains a welter of factions and not the democracy the neoconservatives believed - wrongly - that all people want equally and ardently.

It can be argued that those objectives were wrongheaded and unrealistic - and I have so argued it. However, the fact remains that measured against the objective standards the USA set for itself, it failed. The price was too high relative to the benefits - and the USA, in so many words, threw in the towel.

Fair or not, that is how matters will be seen - and rightly so. The fact that those defeats will likely not prove especially damaging or consequential does not mean that they were not defeats on their own terms.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

I would look at it this way
in the case of Vietnam
YES, clearly a defeat.

My point was that in 1973, at that point it was not
in all technicality South Vietnam was safeguarded, and still "protected" (with promises made by Nixon) of future invasion
It was the political decisions immediately after that sealed the defeat

If for example, Nixons promise was kept.. or the USA kept funding (and the South Vietnamese were thus more capable of defending themselves).. We could argue the objective would have been fulfilled

But because of congressional decisions... that ultimately never came to pass
So when the war started up against 1975... and North Vietnamese launched their offensives
there was no American help

So yes, a Defeat for Vietnam I agree
But I view it mainly as being a conflict "won" on the battlefields
but ultimately political decisions after the pullout led to defeat.

In case of Afghanistan, as this point in time I would disagree
It does have a functioning democracy, and security force (the ANDSF)
in terms of how much territory it actually controls that hotly debated
^ I've seen estimates of Taliban control to be anywhere from 20 to 75 Districts (of 440)

[FortheHonorofDragons]

in terms of Afghanistan being a "democracy"
I think the term is thrown around a lot.. but means very little

If we look at the peace process, and the proposals pushed by Blinkin (he released a 8 page standard)
and the expectations of the International community...
the discussions held in Turkey.. etc

I would argue that many aspects of "Democracy" are clearly being kept
a Constitution (Which Afghanistan has had since... 2004?)
an Election process (which has been in place for about the same amount of time... but once again I know the latest election has questions of validity)
In many ways through the peace process those objectives would be upheld

I think calling it a "defeat" or a "victory" at this point in time is too premature
IF for example... the United States leaves, and Afghanistan collapses into Civil War (as many fear).. then yes, ultimately the United States would have failed to achieve a major objective (though it had others.. including safeguarding the homeland.. and preventing Afghanistan from being a base of attacks on the USA.. which so far have been upheld)
But if the United States leaves.. and a peace process goes through... the conflict finds some form of resolution. and a Government is formed by the edicts that have been given
id say that is clearly a success?

[nightdrot]

@FortheHonorofDragons Just a few points - and sorry for the belated reply but my workday is about to begin.

Whatever you may say about a "democracy" and Afghanistan - and I agree - that was NOT the mindset of the American public and especially the neoconservatives. (Mr. Bush was not, himself, a neocon, but their view of freedom sat well with his own evangelical Christian beliefs.)

In the wake of the victory in the Cold War, the United States believed that free markets and democracy were universal principles and that they could apply always and everywhere. (After all, the USSR was gone and it was believed on the road - under Boris Yeltsin - to democracy.) This was, ironically in its way, a weirdly quasi-Marxist view, but insofar as the neocons were socialists who had become conservatives, it is perhaps not surprising.

Indeed, it is why China so flummoxes the US now. It is an American presumption, deeply rooted in the culture, that all peoples want freedom. They therefore equate democracy and free markets as levers to establish world peace and - narrowly - national security. Expose China to free markets - or so the theory goes - and democracy will follow and then better relations.

Alas, free markets have much to speak for them, but their advocates forget Adam Smith's famous maxim: "The merchant has no country." So now the USA finds itself deeply entwined economically with a country that wishes it ill - and it is tying the USA in knots in terms of its domestic politics.

Sorry for the digression, but the point is that the policymakers who embarked on Afghanistan may have begun it as a narrow military operation. However, it did not take long - given the nexus of the culture in its post-Cold War euphoria and the theories of the neocons who came in with the Bush II administration - for the war to become social engineering.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

You may think "democracy" was a mere slogan, Clearly, 20 years of investment shows that they - and the nation - did not.

In that connection, it is true that "victory" will be discerned over the long run. However, there can be no doubt that as the West defined it, the USA has been defeated. Indeed, America's enemies are apt to so view it as well.

The USA wanted al-Qaeda gone, the Taliban defeated and a flourishing democracy that would act as a beacon to the whole Muslim world. It matters not if Afghanistan falls into civil war - the USA got none of the above. On its OWN TERMS, that is defeat.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

I suppose we would have to agree to disagree on that point then.

[nightdrot]

@FortheHonorofDragons Except that, if we are unable to face the practical implications of our decisions and our mistakes, we are apt to repeat them.

American culture - especially at this interregnum in history - is VERY bad at facing facts. It tells itself how brave and noble it is and is apt to forgive itself the costs because of how noble its intentions are.

That is a VERY bad - and bloody and costly - habit to get into. Afghanistan went on and on because the nation convinced itself that it was always just one step away from victory and defeat would be calamitous.

Reality is more complicated than that.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

That I would agree with

[ItsTheNephilim]

Should've never been there in the first place but yeah, time to bugger off.

[backontheblock22]

Yeah we should of left Osama bin laden alone (cough). Who cares if killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. Nah just let him be. No big deal.

Read a history book for once before you say something so asinine again.

[ItsTheNephilim]

@backontheblock22 should've left Iran and Iraq alone way before. Who cares if USA created menace there?

Do yourself a favor, try not to be so selective about history.

[backontheblock22]

Selective? Now you are changing the conversation.

US military conflict in Afganistan is radically different (and justified) vs the coalition invasion in Iraq. Yet you just equated them all as the same thing.

by the way 9/11 actually killed much more than 3000 people. Many people died of side effects (first responders breathing in dust) after the incident.

[ItsTheNephilim]

@backontheblock22 well not justified but rather useless and dangerous. USA isn't the world ruler. It should keep it to itself. It's invasion in Islamic world is what drove the Islamic radicalism sentiment against USA.

But let's forget about the casualties that happened haha. 911 overtakes all.

[backontheblock22]

I’m having a hard time following your logic here. Islamic radicalism is what orchestrated the 9/11 events which was a direct terrorist attack on US soil taking thousands of innocent CIVILIAN lives which bin laden justified through violent jihadism.

The United Stated had several opportunities to take Bin Laden out in the 90s but we hesitated out of fear of what could go wrong. So what did our “play nice” complacency result in? 9/11

You weren’t even alive (or maybe a new born) when all this went down but here you are acting like some sort of woke expert on this.

You are probably getting brainwashed by liberal college professors or worse gathering your information from leftist outlets.

You are man and need to think logically like one. I already admitted the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. It was rushed and done on faulty intel (although Saddam was out of his mind). However Afghanistan was a completely different story. The country was literally be run by the Taliban prior to the US invasion. Taliban who directly attacked us.

[FortheloveofHistory]

@backontheblock22 One thing that is typically ignored about Afghanistan
1. though the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan, it never controlled all of Afghanistan...
at its peak it controlled roughly 90%... the rest was controlled by the Northern Alliance
2. The Taliban were never considered the official government of Afghanistan... instead the Northern Alliance was due to the Peshawar Agreement of 1992 .. which created the Islamic State of Afghanistan... when it collapsed, much of its leadership became the Northern Alliance
3. Much of the ground campaign during the invasion was carried out by the Northern Alliance
4. The Government of Afghanistan was created through Loya Jirga (a gathering of elders.. a Pashtun tradition) which the Taliban prohibited... and it was affirmed through the Bonn Agreement of 2002

most people ignore this

[backontheblock22]

@FortheloveofHistory thanks for those above important insights.

So as usual hindsight is 20/20 in history. But if you were the commander in chief in 2001 how would of you responded? Should of we funded the Afghan government to combat terror? Should we of done exclusive special ops missions to kill/apprehend Taliban leaders? There are methods to freeze their assets and choke off their supplies. But they always seem to find a way around this (black market opium sales to fund terrorism).

We couldn’t of just let Bin Laden operate with impunity. No other developed country would of tolerated that.

[FortheloveofHistory]

@backontheblock22

The issue with the Afghan war was never the Taliban..
I think it was more to do with the Nation Building standard that was applied
the Taliban were always viewed as an insurgency (not a terrorist group) and this limited what the USA could do..
SECURITY was the main influencer...
but in a nation that lack any real government structure.. where you had to build up a security force from scratch
it would have been inevitable that it would suck of funds and reap few rewards...

I think in 2001, people would have assumed if we had just left Afghanistan to its own decisions... the Taliban would have returned anyways
and conflict with Pakistan was not a possibility (for we relied on them to ship resources to Afghanistan)

so it was a complex situation we still see today
where there is a Government.. Democratic Process.. and Military/Police structure
but all of it with very mixed results

I dont hold the cynicism of pessimism that exists so commonly today
I think most objectives were ultimately achieved in the conflict
and as long as the USA continues to support Afghanistan.. we have little to worry about

but im unsure how things could have been handled any differently
it really depends more on the Afghans.. than the US/NATO/ISAF..

[backontheblock22]

@FortheloveofHistory the Afghans have to WANT to change. It’s one thing if radical terrorists oppressed the country but quite another when they execute an attack on foreign soil killing innocent civilians.

Sometimes I wonder how crazy it would be if the US decided just to invade and annex the entire country. Of course the UN wouldn’t allow. Plus the resources, casualties and view of America as being imperialistic. Also I haven’t heard that Afghanistan is exactly a land rich in resources (oil, minerals, etc.). But having establish US territory in the Middle East might of had some long term benefits of finally bringing true democracy.

[FortheloveofHistory]

@backontheblock22
Well, most Empires in History have used Afghanistan as either a "Buffer" or a Roadway.
Some Empires even based their Capital there... but that was unique..

In regards to what the Afghans WANT...
most surveys show they DONT support the Taliban
they are relatively open/progressive (compared to many muslim nations they have a fairly progressive system)

The issue in Afghanistan is one of corruption
lots of funds simply dont find the way to the proper area...
there are a lot of a lot of ethnic/religious issues that complicate issues

[Belgie]

“Yeah we should of left Osama bin laden alone”

He was in Pakistan. In his fucking HOUSE. Not in Afghanistan you numpty.

[backontheblock22]

“ Also I haven’t heard that Afghanistan is exactly a land rich in resources (oil, minerals, etc.)”

That was an ignorant statement. Afghanistan is actually very rich in unmined natural resources. That was one of the chief reasons the Soviet Union invaded.

[FortheloveofHistory]

@Belgie
Osama Bin Laden was originally in Afghanistan
he likely fled over the border sometime during the Battle of Tora Bora

[backontheblock22]

@Belgie
“Yeah we should of left Osama bin laden alone”

He was in Pakistan. In his fucking HOUSE. Not in Afghanistan you numpty.

... so what are you trying to say? Are seriously saying that Bin Laden was somehow “innocent” just because he was in his own house?

[Belgie]

@backontheblock22 Sure. Be that stupid. Pretend that is what I said, you mental defective...

If America was serious about going after the perpetrators they'd have gone into Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. You utter ignoramus. And if they wanted Bin Laden they should have checked his properties before nearly 10 years had gone by.

Just admit you never gave a shit about who was behind 9/11. You just wanted the war.

[backontheblock22]

@Belgie bravo buddy. Brav-a-fuck-ing-o. I wish you can give that speech in front of all the families who lost relatives in 9/11 (and people are still dying from secondary issues... breathing in cement dust/toxins).

Excellent job debating with no emotion and using logic to debate with people. Excellent work not using any statistics or vetted facts. Excellent job relying on nothing but your emotions and mental libtardation to express an opinion.

I got to tell you buddy you completely won me over to your side. I never met and seen such an astute academic scholar who brilliantly debates people with outstanding details and knowledge.

But anyway why are you wasting your time on here? You better get back to AOC’s live Instagram feed while you are getting your antifa gear ready for the next BLM riot.

Proud of you bud. So proud.

[FortheloveofHistory]

@Belgie
calm down friend
you are looking very ignorant.

[backontheblock22]

@FortheloveofHistory thanks man. This Belgie guy is 48 years old! It’s bad enough when 19 year olds act that way. But a grown ass middle aged man acting that way?

Anyway thanks for you FACTUAL insights above. I’m open minded to people who debate with logic. If challenged with cogently organized facts I may at times shift my perspective. However I realize that’s sometimes just too much to ask for other people out there. Smdh.

[Screenwriter]

We also cannot FORCE people into peace or Democracy. Especially countries where Islam is the chief religion and things are not modernized culturally or socially.

The nations have to WANT progress and when the regime in charge is oppressive, this is a losingl battle.

We can work miracles in Central America and stem the tide of immigrants running into the United States if we help nations closer to home: Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador.

If we establish good relations and improve the lives, make work deals with these nations, help them manage climate change and do grassroots work to alter mafiaesque issues in these countries, we might see these peoples' lives and nations blossom!

Afghanistan is too far away in religion and culture. Maybe SOME day. But not now.

[BirdshotJohn]

Imagine buying our cheap consumer goods from free countries in the Americas instead of authoritarian communist China?

Wouldn't that be nice.

[canuck_guy23]

So then why is the US going after Iran and sanctioning them? Since their revolution started Iran has not fired one missile or bomb in the US. Iran produces their own cars, updating their technology, their literacy rate for men and women have gone up, and even if they are producing nuclear weapons. Eh, in today’s age every country has a right to defend itself. Why is it okay for Israel and Britain to increase their nuclear arms? Iran is a beautiful country with amazing people. People have a misconception about Islam and I’m not going to get into the religious debate here. But I’ve seen Christian extremists in the US say and do awful things, that doesn’t mean I will demonize an entire religion and the people who follow it. Buddhism for example is seen as a “peaceful” religion and it’s far from it. We have been manipulated by the media and the government for such a long time. People can read this and disagree with me but I’m not looking to pick a fight with people.

[NotARobberYet]

"Especially countries where Islam is the chief religion and things are not modernized culturally or socially."

What's the problem with Islam?

Do you think your stupid political cult is in any way better than Islam?

[canuck_guy23]

@NotARobberYet so you are going based off assumptions by trying to act clever and smart by saying the word cult. Instead of demonizing others and their faiths how about taking a look in the mirror at yourself buddy. But you can’t comprehend my comment so you act like a manic crazy person by yelling on GAG... good job, want a cookie or should I place a horse in your face so the horse can rip a fart?

[canuck_guy23]

@NotARobberYet and what you are also stupid about is I don’t support the west or east, I don’t support capitalism or communism, so go based off your “assumptions”

[NotARobberYet]

@canuck_guy23 Sucker. I wasn't talking to you but OP. I didn't even read your comment.

[canuck_guy23]

@NotARobberYet doesn't matter, Islam shouldn’t even be compared to today’s politics. Do you know the difference between Wahabbism and Islam. The US govt supports wahabbism.

[NotARobberYet]

@canuck_guy23 Don't be a retard. I wasn't talking to you and I have no interest in doing so. Find someone else to hear your complaints.

[canuck_guy23]

@NotARobberYet well you’re the one talking. Last time I checked you don’t pay for my internet connection so I can voice my opinion. Deal with it.

[NotARobberYet]

@canuck_guy23 Shove your opinion up your ass and shut up. Blocked.

[canuck_guy23]

@NotARobberYet lol

[canuck_guy23]

@NotARobberYet this dude is getting TRIGGERED!!! Lmao

[Screenwriter]

@BirdshotJohn Boy, I agree with that one JohnBoy. And that we get quality items instead of fall apart clothing that are knockoffs. And the goods don't have to be CHEAP. Reasonable would be wonderful. I'd enjoy helping Mexico's economy, helping create jobs, economic stability.
Think of the fact that goods wouldn't be wandering over oceans, causing oil spills, wasting energy. Returns policies wouldn't be ridiculous or nonexistant. So many advantages.

[Agape93]

Good

[Kaneki05]

I think it mostly don't make sense but also does.
Think about it like this no one can go to war with china because then WW3 would happen and everyone dies, but everyone kinda wants to stop there Fascist ruling and make sure they get democracy. But the country's we can go to war with like Afghanistan to stop there fascist stuff people say no we should leave them alone?

But then the war has been going on for ages there and we all know america wanted to keep it going and still does for the own gains rather then actual benefit of that country.
There is another side i guess, no more troops there all more easier to bomb... and American presidents love doing that whether demo or republic.
Then again troops home is a good thing and bush was an idiot for what he did.

So i have no idea other than Trump was already trying to do this so this would only been big news if biden said No and did a bush lol.
And i really doubt it will matter anyway as if all troops will be out.

[Anonymous]

And people wonder why individuals of other nations decide to do lone wolf extremist attacks. Imagine being a kid in Iraq and you see an American soldier shooting your family in the head right in front of you, for no reason.

Americans are stupid and aloof til this day on Middle East issues, their system is corrupt and their government and their agencies are 100 times worse then Hitler’s Nazi regime. When the US empire collapses it will be a good day. When I say collapse i mean the system and it’s government. Because unlike Americans I actually have sympathy for others to be safe not to wage war.

To think your precious government could have used that money to save lives. But America’s mindset is to divide and conquer. Go in, mess things up and leave. The US funded ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others, the US was behind 9/11. That’s why Bush had that stupid look on his face where he was pretending to read to kids on September 11th an attack happened. Bush and his administration knew what was going to happen prior. Are people that gullible to think scanning or detectors weren’t around in 2001? They were, so how did those men board those flights?

The United States is a falling empire and I’m sorry to say but movies that depict the US’ collapse like The Purge will come to fruition. The collapse won’t happen by international attacks, the US will collapse by domestic terrorism like the ones from January 6th on Capitol Hill. I know Americans or supporters of America will read this and get mad at me. But only a heartless/gutless/spineless individual with no pure good soul would accept US terrorist attacks in other countries.

[Mishan97]

I don't know on the one hand withdrawing all troops creates a big power vacuum, making it easy for the taliban to step in and gain power because the Afghan government is not strong enough to fight the taliban without foreign assistance. Especially when you factor in the fact that pakistan will likely continue to fund and support the taliban the way it has in the past. This is of course bad news for the Afghan people. The taliban is ruthless, extremist, and evil. But on the other hand, the U. S. can’t stay there forever and we have been there for 20 years and it isn’t exactly the US’s problem. But it is extremely saddening to think of what will happen to the Afghan people once taliban gains more power. Especially to the women living there. It is an incredibly sad situation and I honestly am not sure how to feel.

[msc545]

This is NOT our problem and there is no reason that American soldiers should be killed and wounded to solve Afganistan's problem. I am not even certain they consider it a problem.

[jackInTack]

@msc545

Have some empathy too. What if that was us? We were being slaughtered, raped, forced into dictatorship that starts wars with other countries. You were getting destroyed. You saw no way out. Wouldn’t you want help? Something to give you hope? Wouldn’t you want someone to care? Wouldn’t you want a chance at living?

[jackInTack]

That’s why Vietnam wasn’t a pointless war.

[msc545]

@jackInTack Yes of course, and I would do what I had to do to solve my problem. I would not expect others to die in order to solve it.

[msc545]

I guess spending your nation's wealth and resources on an endlessly expanding worldwide military campaign while impoverishing your citizenry at home and keeping them in line with an increasingly violent and militarized police force is one way you can choose to do things.

[msc545]

@jackInTack it was totally pointless except that the US wanted to drill for oil in the South China sea. 58,000 lives later, they decided they were beaten and left.

[jackInTack]

@msc545

Yes, wouldn’t expect someone to die for you. What if you knew you couldn’t solve the problem? There’s nothing you can do. Then someone saved you. Another country stepped in and gave you a better shot at life. That’s what America did to Vietnam and Afghanistan.

You’d be happy and grateful as hell right? You wouldn’t tell them, this is our problem, you should’ve just let us all die and get enslaved.

What if it was us in the same dying struggles against an enemy? Wouldn’t you expect our allies to help?

[jackInTack]

@msc545

Why don’t you tell the Vietnamese people who were saved by Americans that the Vietnam War was worthless? Especially the older ones who lived through it. Their lives are worthless. It’s not about us all the time.

[msc545]

@jackInTack Our "allies" would do nothing we didn't force them to do. Power flows one way.

[msc545]

@jackInTack Why don't you ask the million or so Vietnamese we did kill?

[backontheblock22]

Complicated. The problem is the Taliban still control an estimated 52 percent of the territory.

This goes back to the beginning of the war. The initial invasion was justified given the country had active terrorist organizations that had attacked the United States. But then we decided to invade Iraq on faulty intel (Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction) and we spread ourselves thin. The moral of the war deteriorated.

Not sure what to say at this point. We had only 2500 troops there and it’s been a low level war. But this country is been extremely unstable for decades. Now it can be all too easy for terrorist organizations to completely take it over again.

[FortheloveofHistory]

Though, I would agree the United States limited itself greatly in Afghanistan
it should be mentioned that the 52% statistic comes from Tolonews (which is Afghan based)
and specifically a survey of 1,266 people
Within that same article is clearly states that
the Taliban claim to control 70%
the Afghan Government claims the Taliban have no permanent presence
etc
territorial control is hotly debated topic.

For example some years ago the BBC reported that the "Taliban threatened 70% of Afghanistan"
and it created this misconception that the Taliban controlled that much
even though the article itself stated they controlled 4%
^ the other statistics came from territories that were attacked 1. 2 times per week... 2 times per month.. and 1 time per 3 months
if my memory serves me right

point is
no one knows

[jshm2]

You're mistaken.

For over 20 years, Afghanistan has waged endless and destructive war against the USA and it's proxies - just like it did the Soviets and the British before then. Biden is simply making the cut off official, is all.

No one can win in Afghanistan but the Afghans. The proxy government the West installed in Afghanistan will likely collapse in around a decade, without Western money funnelling to it.

The drug smuggling routes will remain open though. Ensuring the USA and it's proxies have continued supply to cheap opium and heroin.

[FortheloveofHistory]

Actually historically
Afghanistan has spent most of its history conquered
From the various Persians Empires (Medes, Achaemenids, Sassanians, Safavids)
to the Greeks (Alexander's Empire, Selecuids, Bactrians)
to the Mongols (even Timur)
to the Indians (Maryuan Empire, the Sikhs.. etc)
the British won 2 of its 3 wars
the Soviets without a doubt suffered a political disaster
the outcome of Afghanistan for the USA is yet to be known

[Gespenster_division]

Mission accomplished. It was never about bombing the US enemies but instead installing a US friendly government so US companies could gain access to mineral rich central asia. It costs quite a bit to put a US service person into the field, a lot cheaper just to hire mercenaries or field the armies of client states like Saudi Arabia. The US is currently bombing 20 countries. Biden has probably bought the taliban warlords off.

[Anonymous]

Seems like a good idea. Although the statement "we can't bomb our way to peace" isn't correct. I'm pretty sure we demonstrated in WWII that you absolutely CAN do that. You just have to be willing to inflict massive damage on another population until you completely break their will. If we're not willing to do that (and we appear not to be willing to do that) then we shouldn't fight a war.

There's a REASON we were able to get Germany and Japan to submit within 5 years even though they were MUCH bigger and badder than Afghanastan and we were MUCH smaller in the grand scheme of things than we are today.

[msc545]

This is a false comparison. The geography and very limited infrastructure of Afghanistan mean that bombing is mostly ineffective unless you are talking about nukes, which I hope you are not.

[Opinion Owner]

Nukes not needed, as was the case with subduing Germany. However you DO need a willingness to inflict absolutely catastrophic damage on civilian populations as we did with Germany. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to do with Afghanistan, but it absolutely COULD be done. I don't think we're willing to break the people of Afghanistan in the same way we were absolutely willing to break the people of Germany and Japan. And that's totally fine. So long as that's the case, we should leave.

[msc545]

What you are suggesting are called "War Crimes" - The US is already massively unpopular throughout the world. No need to add to it.

[Opinion Owner]

LMFAO! So was it a "war crime" to submit Germany and Japan? Should we not have done that? Did it make us incredibly unpopular? If so was it worth it or no?

Again, I'm not suggesting that we take the same tack in Afghanistan. All I'm saying is that it is DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE that it's not possible to get to peace through a LOT of force. You just have to be willing to do some pretty terrible things. In the 1940s we absolutely were (as well we should have been) and were therefore able to END a MASSIVE war with much bigger foes in UNDER FOUR YEARS. The reason that it's been over 20 in Afghanistan is NOT because the foe was more formidable than the German and Japanese war machines, NOR is it that the US is less powerful now than 80 years ago. The reason is we have not been willing to inflict the carnage we absolutely were willing to inflict in prior wars.

Not saying we should, just saying that's how you COULD "bomb your way to peace" if you were so inclined.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

I am not certain the United States requires any significant footprint in Afghanistan
the United States military has already stated it can achieve its objective with 2,500...
On top of this continued support of the Afghan Government, and the ANDSF will likely be good enough... without the need for any foreign footprint

THOUGH it should be mentioned the Germans have stated they are staying until 2022
Its very likely the USA will stay as well


I think as long as the United States continues to support Afghanistan, all will be fine without the need of any serious footprint
If the United States pulls out its troop quickly without any peaceful resolution (or what appears to be a true peaceful resolution in process) then it can turn into a serious problem

[Gespenster_division]

The US will be staying. The US has 800 foreign bases globally and never leaves not counting France of course.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

@Gespenster_division

I would agree with that
In my honest opinion
the peace process was largely a Trump political move for the election
The United States Congress found the whole idea stupid and pointless
The United States military found it stupid and pointless
etc etc

It has been a relatively minor war for the United States since 2014
very little involvement of American forces
largely just a supporting role
and largely out of the eyes of the American public

sooo ultimately I do agree
I think USA troops are likely to stay regardless

[Gespenster_division]

Agreed. The US military is currently fighting all over the Middle east and Africa and the general public are unaware.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

@Gespenster_division
Well sure
that I don't doubt
the United States has connects and influences everywhere

when the whole Tongo Tongo ambush happened
I imagine most people were like
"We... have troops working with the Nigerians? wait? what?"
then everyone forgot

We do live in an age where people tend to forget things almost immediately.

[BCA6010]

Smoke in mirrors.

Trump was already going to do that by May 1st. Biden pushed the date back to September 11th to virtue signal, and also cover up the fact that he's escalating in other locations around the world, including Syria, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.

The "forever wars" make way too much money for the political elite for them to just abandon one without moving elsewhere.

[Hidden_P]

It’s long overdue. Too many lives have been over nothing.


Put it this way. The world wars (especially the second) had a clear purpose, a reason. Defeat Hitler. What I don’t understand, in a comparison situation, Bin Laden was killed and then the war carried on? Why? That’s like winning monopoly and insisting the game carries on to keep claiming money. It’s been a pointless charade.

[Jamie05rhs]

Bin Laden wasn't the only terrorist, you know...

[Hidden_P]

No just like Hitler wasn’t.

[Jamie05rhs]

Yeah. But Germany was a country. Al-quaeda is a non-state actor.

[Hidden_P]

And if you had learnt your history Hitler was Austrian not German which made the war complex. It also wasn’t U. K. (or USA) vs Germany. USA believe they were kings and amazing but really not the case lol. It was half the world Vs the other. Can’t think of anything less state vs state.

You are keen to persist in a explicit comparison of Iran vs Iran to reduce any confusion or brainpower. Do you want me to list various terrorist or can we just put this to rest?

[Jamie05rhs]

WWII was nation-states at war with other nation-states. That is a fact. There were just many of them. Terrorism is different.

I didn't not mention Iran even once.

[MrOracle]

It's strange how Trump was blocked from doing this by Congress, but they're okay with Biden doing it...

[FortheHonorofDragons]

Politics in a nutshell
Democrats and Republicans can completely agree on an issue
and still find a way to disagree

[LZPanzer]

I think it's more in the manner in which the two proposed withdrawal.
I hated trump but one of the few things I liked was he did want us out of the wars. I strongly disagree about he went about it though.

[kkirk4442]

Biden might as well bring most of the troops home, as our relations with the Afghans and the Kurds were already ruined before he took office. The metaphorical egg has been smashed, and can't be put back together.

[HawkPerception]

Now... I don't know anything about why they were there or what they were doing while there. But what I do know is that it's probably not a smart idea to invade a country, build up a lot of hate for your country while you're there, and then leave like they will not retaliate. Regardless of if the past decisions to invade were right or wrong, I think it's a bad tactical move to take everyone out now.

[FortheloveofHistory]

Actually the Northern Alliance (Afghans) were the ones that largely overthrew the Taliban regime.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Bush was a warmonger just like his father. The Taliban offered to give up Osama, but Bush invaded anyways because his demands were unconditional. And then he invaded Iraq, where we found no weapons of mass destruction. These were wars that drained the pockets of Americans, and killed millions of innocents. just so weapons manufacturers could make a dollar.

[FortheloveofHistory]

I think a detail that is often ignored
is was largely the Northern Alliance that carried out the destruction of the Taliban regime

[ChefPapiChulo]

@FortheloveofHistory it’s a detail sure.

[FortheloveofHistory]

And to be entirely honest
though the Taliban were open to giving up Bin Laden
they set many preconditions, and were attempting to remove any influence of American justice/law in the process

which in the immediate aftermath of 9/11
was not going to fly

So though its easy to say "The Taliban were going to give up Bin Laden"
considering they wanted to use Islamic Courts, 3rd Parties... Etc to try him
for a crime specifically committed in the United States
clearly that was going against the very fair expectations of the American government of "Give him to us, he killed 3,000 of our people"

[FortheloveofHistory]

should also be mentioned he was already on the wanted list for several attacks in the 1990s
and was subject to a USA strike in 1998

so the Taliban were not actually being that open..
it gives too much credit to an organization that could barely gain any legitimacy in the eyes of the international community for massacres carried throughout the 90s

Even when the Taliban controlled 90% of the Afghanistan in the 1990s (they never controlled it all)
the UN considered the Northern Alliance the official government of Afghanistan.. on the basis of the Peshawar Agreement of 1992 (which formed the "Islamic State of Afghanistan"..)

just some history MOST people tend to ignore

[Rangers]

Surprising but hopefully they follow through with the plan to withdraw because the Taliban have been on their knees for years, they're finished, any death that occurs after that is a needless (for a lack of better words) tragedy. And with China and Russia tensions rising, we'll definitely need their assistance should a war break out.

[FortheHonorofDragons]

I agree with this to an extent

clearly the Taliban are stronger now than before 2014 (when the USA ended its combat mission)
Most of their gains in the conflict have been made since 2014... but its still a stalemate between the Taliban and the ANDSF

But I also believe the only reason the Taliban are at the negotiating table is because they see they have no way towards military victory.
They will of course push their "We have won" nonsense that they have done for years...
But I think many of their leadership realize there is no way for them to win this war..
better for them to negotiate... try to find some piece of the political pie
IF the Taliban were so assured of their victory (like some people seem to believe)
they would just push for it.. no need for negotiation.

[joshctlee]

As long as they don’t attack america anymore bring the troops home.


No one cares what else happens over there. That’s not our problem

[msc545]

Agreed. Also, they never attacked us in the first place. 9-11 was the Saudis.

[Djaay]

The very thing that America has done to Hawaii for over a hundred years now through military occupancy. Intetestingly enough , the attack on Pear Harbor was intact not an invasion of Hawaii its self , but the American military only. I wonder when they're going to admit this and get tf out of our Hawaiian Nation.

[bulletbob555]

Afganistan has wrecked 3 major powers over the ages. It hasn't done any country any favors during this go round either. If we leave bad things will happen for sure. The reality would be the Afghan people should try to fight harder as we won't be there to help them

[FortheloveofHistory]

In reality
Afghanistan has spent most of its history conquered
from the Greeks, to the Mongols, to the Persians, to the Indians
The British themselves won 2 of the 3 wars (only losing the 1st war)
the Soviet Union did suffer a largely self made political disaster in Afghanistan
and the current war is more or less inconclusive, only time will tell what is going to happen

The Afghan Government and the Taliban are fighting to a stalemate
the United States has only been limited involved since 2014
IT Very well could turn into a political disaster if the USA (and international community) ignore Afghanistan
or it could end up in an endless civil war
or it could end up in a victory with the Afghan Government winning the war in the end
its really too early to call

[ShadezMcgee]

Trump wanted to bring us home and only was able to bring some back before his exit in January. He got blocked from doing so.

Joe wasn't the first to try it.

[cloud9vortex1234]

I thought we weren't ever going to pull out completely considering the High-Grade Rare Earth Minerals that Afghanistan has. I mean do we really need to be there after the death of UBL if that's not the reason?