Was leaving Afghanistan a good decision for America?

[Nikolai2004]

I've been following all conflicts going on our globe at the moment and I personally have mixed feelings since I care about those people and want them to return back home and leave my dear country alone but also if the Taliban take over the country and seal the border then no more rapefugees would come here. The 20 year long American invasion of Afghanistan was a loss in terms of war but a great win in terms of capital and loads of money was made to raise American funding over the years which was most likely have been consumed by corrupt middlemen. Most NATO equipment (9/11 was an attack on NATO) now has been left behind as old remnants that will make sure the continuity of the war in Afghanistan. Basically the Afghan national army has been abandoned and an oil pipeline would be built between Iran and China if the taliban spare China. The US troops withdrawal now is 50 percent complete.
>Uruzgan Province: The forces of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan "Taliban" control the center of the Directorate (Khas Uruzgan), including the market, the police headquarters and all security and defense points, after the army and police forces fled towards the last remaining military base and surrounded them there

Kuchis (tribes allied with the Taliban) attacked popular mobilization forces in Behsud district.
Heavy clashes continue in the area and the popular mobilization forces have repulsed the attacks so far. Taliban have surrounded the center of Anardara district in Farah province.

Updates

+1 y

An elite unit of 120 Afghan operators known as KKA, created and trained by Delta Force and Rangers, “disappeared” overnight in the northern province of Saripol and photos of bodies are circulating, a source who knew several of them tells that the other Commandos are quitting in droves.

Updates

+1 y

I believe America's sole greatest resource is it's military and demobilising it to a smaller force with less active troops could be dangerous.

[nightdrot]

Yes, it was time for the United States to leave Afghanistan. The war was begun for a legitimate purpose and degenerated into what amounts to armed social work. At that point it became unwinnable and a net drain on US foreign policy.

As a purely military exercise in the narrowest sense, the United States was victorious early on. The war having been launched to depose the Taliban government from power in Kabul. That position itself being relative as ever since the fall of the monarchy, what limited sense of cohesive national identity and central government authority had existed in Afghanistan had not really existed except by the imposition of force of arms.

Where things went awry was when the military action became a war of social engineering. An effort to transform Afghanistan from a tribal society overlaid by a limited theocracy into a modern democracy. That was always going to be beyond the power of the United States and it left the military in the hopeless position of being little more than a cork on an active volcano.

From that point on, it was only a matter of time until the US horror over 9/11 - a terrorist act planned and launched in Hamburg, Germany, in any case - subsided and the US grew war weary. At that point, the US began to withdraw and the nominally pro-Western authority that Washington was propping up in Kabul will now be left to fend for itself. It being unlikely that it will be able to last long.

The final irony being that, in the long run, it is not apt to matter very much. As one wag has put it, "Afghanistan is a dagger pointed at the heart of Tajikistan." The British Empire fought three wars in Afghanistan. It lost the first one, one the next two and after all three withdrew, effectively restoring the status quo ante in the country itself. All to no ill effect for the British long term national interests.

It being the long term national interest that is the fundamental question as the international arena is the realm of Machiavelli and not Mother Teresa, of hard national interests and not moral principle. The advancement of moral principle - to the extent that it is advanced - riding on the back of the advancement of American national interest to the extent that the latter is ultimately compatible with the former.

"Good enough for government work." As Theodore Roosevelt said, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states." So it will play out.

Indeed, if any moral question comes into immediately into play it is the question of how moral it is to ask young Americans to fight and suffer grave injuries and even death, all in the name of turning a hostile foreign society into something that there is no precedent for assuming that it will become. There is a certain nobility in that the United States went to war in a country in the name of self-defense and yet sought to leave it better than it was.

Noble, but ultimately foolhardy. America is having a hard time managing security in its own cities. To ask its citizens to go to a foreign land with no history of it and turn it into a thriving democracy was and is the height of absurdity.

Bottom line, the US secured its immediate purposes. Anything after that was fantasy hopped up on hopeless Utopianism. Americans having yet to learn that in the international arena, it is sufficient to do well. Doing good in an imperfect world not likely ending well.

[Nikolai2004]

I believe America's sole greatest resource is it's military and demobilising it to a smaller force with less active troops could be dangerous. The Soviet invasion which lasted from '79 to '89 laid the foundation for the success of warlords since they armed themselves with arms and ammunition the Soviets had to leave behind after losing badly even though they conquered the country in the first two years but couldn't keep it under control, America abandoning it's arms just puts greater technology in the hands of the Taliban. Demobilising and mothballing equipment is bad for them. Though the chances are bleak but mainland USA could definitely have a civil war in the near future and you can't carpet bomb your own people if they choose to fight against you. Not only does this pose a global threat but also a threat to America itself. If America doesn't maintain a strong number of troops ready for combat and experienced in every terrain then that would be like self imposed destruction. at least with fighting wars outside mainland they are maintaining their foothold in the world.

[nightdrot]

First of all, America's top security threat is China and then Russia. Combined, in purely military terms, they will outweigh the United States and it allies no matter what level of defense spending the latter adopts.

The USA offsets this with technological advantages and the flexibility and quality of its manpower. That can only be drained by a secondary campaign against the Taliban. The latter of whom, even if they do employ captured American weapons - and even in a combat situation, they are bound to capture such weapons as the battlefield is not the tidy little place you seem to assume - they lack the means to employ it for long let alone replicate it.

As to the a potential American civil war - if I read your right - here you are delving into high speculation, not to say fantasy. For a people who has already grown war weary, a civil war - and in the last one we lost 650,000 plus dead, more than we lost in both world wars combined - it is hardly likely that they will muster the will to fight themselves. The period we are currently in resembling mostly the upheavals of the 1960s and 70s.

In a nutshell, we have been here before.

In any case, keep your eye on the ball. Afghanistan was and is, at best, a secondary theater against a secondary enemy. To fritter away US will and assets when the US is already facing demographic and budgetary challenges at home and a serious geostrategic threat from China and Russia abroad is to - as the old saying goes - miss the forest for the trees.

[BCA6010]

The US shouldn't be commiting troops to conflicts that we have no intention of resolving, period. We also shouldn't be making alliances and deals with people that we have no intention of actually supporting. It doesn't really matter how noble or pragmatic the decision is. I'm saying this as a veteran of the Syria fiasco.

The problem with Afghanistan, and really just US diplomatic and military strategy for the bulk of post-WW2 era, is our government assumes that every other country in the world feels oppressed by dictators and is desperate for American-style democracy to be brought in. While this alone hasn't really dragged the US into any of its wars, it has directly led to horrendous backseat driving and mismanagement in Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria to name major ones most people have heard of. The pretty glaring problem here though, is that nations with far less cultural diversity than the US and thousands of years of established cultural norms generally aren't receptive to a foreign power showing up and telling them how to run their countries, no matter how good intentions might be.

Afghanistan is a perfect example. Originally, the entire US retaliation for 9/11 was a fairly small force of about 500 US Army Special Forces soldiers embedding with Pashtun guerillas to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, supported by an Army Infantry unit (from 10th MTN if I recall correctly), air support, and both the 75th Ranger Regiment and some SEAL platoons. Some US allies also sent in their Spec Ops, most notably the British Special Boat Service, also embedding with the Northern Alliance guerillas. The key takeaway here is that the plan was to put as few American lives at risk as possible while building a long term diplomatic relationship with what would become the successor government of the country, and no post-conflict occupation would be necessary. In fact, we promised those fighters that we wouldn't occupy the country. This plan was estimated to take about a year to complete. In spite of this, they actually nearly ended the conflict in half the time, covering more ground and making significantly more progress than the Russians did in a full force invasion over the course of a decade.

The Bush administration, and more specifically Donald Rumsfeld were getting impatient and decided that the people needed to see American boots on the ground getting revenge for 9/11. With virtually zero pushback from anyone other than USSOCOM and the CIA (who were running the show and most of the diplomatic operations in Afghanistan at the time), the US deployed thousands of uniformed troops into the country, which was seen as a betrayal by not just our new friends, but also the general population. The Taliban and al-Qaeda couldn't have asked for a better recruiting tool. But by God, did the US get some sick footage of soldiers and Marines touching down in helicopters and rushing to secure airfields (that had already been captured by SF and SBS weeks prior) to get the freedom boners pumping...

It's only a few months later that the Iraq war kicks off, and so Afghanistan basically gets ignored by all parties despite the fact it escalated to the point of being almost completely out of control by the time of the Iraq Troop Surge in 2006. This is a major reason why Obama ran on readdressing Afghanistan, and also escalated US involvement to its highest ever. That isn't to say anything he did actually improved the situation, and in part of the same move he indirectly allowed the creation of ISIS and other radical groups, making yet another war- the one I directly took part in. Iraq and Syria are two entirely different stories that I don't have room to talk about, but the trend should be obvious: failing to commit to cohesive strategy and failing to treat allies as sovereign parties of their own rather than vassals is leaving the US stuck in conflicts we have no intention of actually resolving as long as they can be politically convenient.

[Alyssa11]

Question is - why the fuck does America feel the need to be settling in these countries anyway? Fuck outta here.

[ODC2112]

The West in Afghanistan has lost. Unconditional withdrawal can only be done if one is defeated. It was defeated by the Jihadists as the Soviets, and they had defeated the British before them. Here, the defeat despite being shared with allies such as Germans, British, Canadians, Italians, New Zealanders and 37 other minor partner states of the coalition represents America's inability to lead large-scale actions. The Trump / Biden pair highlighted it.

The defeat will underline the dismissal of the global war on terror paradigm, with the renunciation of the idea that military force serves to spread democracy and build nations.

It was Trump who ordered the retirement, and he handled the realization that America and the allies lost the war. Now Biden, who looks more like a Lassard commander of Police Academy, attempts to justify Trump's decision by reiterating the fact that the US reached the goal of war ten years earlier during the Obama administration, killing Bin Laden. However, Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. A nation that has always supported the Taliban insurrection and to which Biden today asks, to "do more to support Afghanistan", paradoxically.

The sensible mission for every soldier is victory, or at least avert defeat. The progress achieved in Afghanistan in recent years has already been partially compromised and will soon be wholly nullified, turning the fallen and wounded suffered by the Coalition into unnecessary losses. Coalition soldiers were there to help the Americans, and not just for their own business. Therefore, none of them will remain there.

Politically it is a huge defeat for the US. Both towards the Islamist countries and towards the allies.

1- The Jihadists will now celebrate September 11, 2021, as the day of victory over the Americans. Which despite their imposing war machine and their imposing superiority on the card of defeating poor people armed with Kalashnikovs and little more, as had already happened in Vietnam.

2- Withdrawal is admitting inability, poor leadership is a de facto disaster, stupid and terribly dangerous, thus they have lost credibility in the NATO leadership.

3- New players could enter the Afghan conflict and quickly eat away at the efforts made by the coalition. The first player is India. In recent years, it has provided economic and military aid to Kabul and could increase its commitment to combat the influence of Pakistan, the "godfather" of the Taliban for example. For China, which shares a short stretch of border with Afghanistan, the US and NATO withdrawal is a severe blow to investment security and access to natural resources exploited by Chinese companies in Afghanistan. It offers an opportunity to extend its influence on Kabul by helping the government fight Islamic extremism. Becoming yet another Chinese puppet state in the area and increasing Chinese power in Asia.

[BeMuse]

Wars end eventually and terms of peace are drawn. The USA dominated Afghanistan militarily and occupied and policed the territory successfully. The US war goal was to dismantle Al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and remove them from power at the time in an effort to deny Al-Qaeda a base of operations where they could run terrorist based military campaigns. That is exactly what happened. Many high level Al-Qaeda leaders were killed, training camps were bombed into dust, an alternative cooperative government was put into place and trained, and agreements were made between the tribes and the USA to cease terrorist campaigns. Thus from a US standpoint that is complete and total victory. There is no question that the war goals have been completed and it was time to sue for peace. The people that think America lost are fucking mentally retarded. No seriously they are mentally retarded. If America was losing then Afghanistan would not only of been able to control their own territory and prevent US occupation, but would have been able to counter attack and would have occupied American territory, blocked American ports and trade routs, and overall taken less causalities in war than America. They did none of that successfully. Wars end and countries make agreements. America got everything they were asking for when America invaded. Will the Afghan government maintain its stability indefinitely? Who knows, but America can’t baby sit them forever. If they break the terms of the treaty they can easily be bombed into dust again.

[JackSmy]

Why were we even there? What did it matter? More than 2,000 killed, and more than 20,000 wounded, many HORRIBLY wounded, losing arms and legs, and FOR WHAT?
Bullshit Politics?
Once our troops are totally gone, it will return to a Warlord's Paradise, and whatever terrorist/Warlord has the most weapons that we left behind, because it costs more to bring them back, than buy new ones!! Millions of weapons, in the center of a Terrorist-supporting regime!
That won't cause any problems, in the next few years, right?

[Leavesbound]

The U. S. should have let Russia have Afghanistan. But now it's too late for that. The U. S. should have more recently divided Afghanistan up into segments and given each one to their respective neighbors and said "here, how it's YOUR problem." Give Iran most of the western half and Pakistan most of the eastern half. Each of those nations would be good at administering and policing Afghanistan and while not perfect, they have much better record of women's rights than some of their neighbors especially Afghanistan which has an abysmal record on women's rights. But now what is going to happen is that thousands of women will be rounded up and murdered and the Taliban will be back in power and things will be the same as they were on sept 10, 2001.

[NamerOfStars]

It was inevitable. Empire after empire invades Afghanistan, touting its own invincibility. They take the cities, but the descendants of the men who fought Alexander just bury their hatchets, team up, and begin a campaign of hit-and-run attacks against the invaders, until they eventually admit it's not worth it any more and go home. There's a very good reason they call it "the graveyard of empires".

With luck, it'll finally convince people that you can't build a democracy on force of arms and a mountain of skulls.

[Dragonpurple]

Wasn't really a war or invasion, when the UN or US or NATO or whoever decides to be the worlds policeman, it never works out well. This is why I say the USA should be more isolationist and not invade anymore.

However I have no issues if they carpet bomb with mini nukes at targets in terrorists zones to make them radioactive so the terrorists all die and can't live there anymore.

But before that happens the US just needs to never invade, just stay out of other countries no matter how much they beg for help. No refugees allowed for terrorists states to come to the USA and if a 911 happens after the USA has pulled out, then nuke them.

Thing is though so many terrorists just want to destroy the US no matter what the US does, they will never be happy even if the USA never invades another country again. They will still keep trying to attack the USA even if it is isolationist.

[N192K001]

That's not isolationism. That's non-interventionism. Other than that, I completely agree!

[Dragonpurple]

@N192K001 Point taken, but yeah stay out... if they have an issue, just embargo them and stop all trade and forget they exist.

[NotARobberYet]

Of course it was, we should've never been there to begin with. Ask an Afghan person if they like the US presence in their country if you don't believe me.

They hate Americans and have a reason for that. You'd hate us too if our military invaded your country, raped your family and bombed your family. I doubt you'd suck up to American imperialism in that situation.

Also, I'm sure that the Taliban won't tolerate bacha bazi in Afghanistan, but punish them like they were used to before the US invasion.

[ShortCircuit]

Past tense? Um, we're still there. According to Joe Biden, we won't be leaving until September 11 this year, and even that's probably not gonna happen.

But *should* we leave? Absolutely, yes. We never should have been there in the first place.

[Soteris]

You literally had no other choice. You had a chance to help the nation at the start of the war but you blew your one chance and there was no going back on that. Staying just perpetuates the problem and now you handed the region over to China on a silver platter.

[hahahmm]

Should have left 1-3 months after the war started because at that point the Taliban was humiliated by U. S. air power and we'd made our point. We would have gotten bin laden way sooner by being smarter about offering money too. Pakistan protected him as long as we paid them billions per year to 'look' for him. If we'd said, zero cash until you find him and then we'll think about paying you, they would have handed him over on day one. Politicians are idiots.

[hahahmm]

Re updates: well, the US military could win a conflict in say 3 months or 1 year but the number of innocents killed would be astronomical and politiicans/the public don't like that so the military's hands are always tied. Not a good idea to fight a war in a place where your hands are tied.

[jshm2]

They should not have been there in the first place.

The rest of your conspiratorial bullshit should not be there either.

Stay in school, kiddo. You're not ready for adult conversation yet.

[Kas19]

This is the comment I was looking for. Agreed.

[Nikolai2004]

Partially this. The goal is no longer to win war, it's too profitable. The goal is to keep it going as long as possible so that all these slimy rat fucks with their hands in defence companies can keep making money. Why else would an Italian defense company want to help Xiao Bai-Dan win the election?
Forever war.

[Adam1978]

You guys shouldn't have entered Afghanistan, neither should Russia, the hate is because you cannot mind your own business. Unless your presence is requested by a state. You shouldn't be there.

[andreasderjuengere]

I wonder if this has a negative long term effect on the already not too good general U. S. knowledge about geography.
If you never see the outside world - you end up speaking with your neighbours' cows only.

[genericname85]

they had no business of being there to begin with... so yes.

[msc545]

It was a great decision. Not going these in the first place would have been even better.

[JustMe62]

I think we should still have a presence in Afghanistan, but we should only be there to keep training the Afghan army so they can do the work of cleaning up the mess that is there.

[EnglishEuropean]

Yes, Afghanistan is a shit show and American troops weren't achieving anything there. America would do best to address internal security.

[Anonymous]

America lost the war, it's time to leave.

[HaveNoName]

Short, sweet and FACT !!! US got fucked big time. They themselves are to blame.

[Dragonpurple]

A country can never win a war where they are policemen.

[Nikolai2004]

Partially this. The goal is no longer to win war, it's too profitable. The goal is to keep it going as long as possible so that all these slimy rat fucks with their hands in defence companies can keep making money. Why else would an Italian defense company want to help Xiao Bai-Dan win the election?
Forever war. Not only can politicians and big banks/hedge funds greatly profit from war but it has another intention. To weed out anybody who may be strong or willing to fight for their country. It's demoralization across many levels.

[rorimaster]

Yes don't steal everything from them

[ChefPapiChulo]

you need a medical professional

[Nikolai2004]

War is human temperament.

[ChefPapiChulo]

you need help

[Nikolai2004]

Hand me a rifle and a reason and that's enough help for now.