Afghanistan

[Mellsblue]

[Digby]

has to be a decent chance the biggest reaction will be to tell off the MPs who clapped

[Sandydragon]

Seriously disappointing foreign policy fail by Biden, followed by unbelievable denial of error. Dishonesty, back-covering and isolationism.

While I'm not denying it was an appalling policy failure, he had little to no choice in the matter. "Disentangling America from overseas military adventures," was a popular policy for both Trump and Biden and if he'd disavowed it on the grounds of logic and common sense, it likely would have cost him the election.

Puja

That’s arguable. But the implementation was just awful. It was almost designed to cause maximum chaos. Biden owns a large share of this disaster.

[Son of Mathonwy]

NATO share the workload? Not sure they would or anyone would trust them

Two NATO members have been running the show for 20 years, so the idea of spreading the work more widely across NATO members is not unreasonable.

I'm not claiming that any of the ideas I gave would have definitely worked, but the existence of such a range of options does suggest that Biden could have done a lot better.

[Digby]

NATO share the workload? Not sure they would or anyone would trust them

Two NATO members have been running the show for 20 years, so the idea of spreading the work more widely across NATO members is not unreasonable.

I'm not claiming that any of the ideas I gave would have definitely worked, but the existence of such a range of options does suggest that Biden could have done a lot better.

If Biden wanted to protect Afghani lives he'd have had to have been willing to pay a political price.

And 2 NATO members running the show means the USA was running the show, and they were trusted by a lot of people. How much they've undermined their own status we're yet to see, it's entirely possible hardly anyone cares on an international basis similar to how hardly anyone cares at a domestic level in the US, which gets us back to why Biden doesn't need to care

I just don't see a role for NATO in providing air support going after Taliban positions, nor supplying the Afghan armed forces. Which would have been a minimum requirement. Partly where would NATO get those resources and then who'd authorise their use?

[kk67]

This is the illogical conclusion of the West’s new consensus that we should not stick our nose in other people’s business.
Our interventions may not be perfect, far from it, but it’s better than leaving complete nutters like the Taliban in charge.

I keep hearing from the English media that the UK has been involved with Afghanistan for the last 20 years.
200 years would be more accurate. And it's always been about the heroin. Someone is funding the Taliban and I doubt that Pakistan are funding them without some measure of a prid quo pro.
It's still about the heroin.

[kk67]

This is the illogical conclusion of the West’s new consensus that we should not stick our nose in other people’s business.
Our interventions may not be perfect, far from it, but it’s better than leaving complete nutters like the Taliban in charge.

I keep hearing from the English media that the UK has been involved with Afghanistan for the last 20 years.
200 years would be more accurate. And it's always been about the heroin. Someone is funding the Taliban and I doubt that Pakistan are funding them without some measure of a prid quo pro.
It's still about the heroin. But don't mention the heroin.

[kk67]

This is the illogical conclusion of the West’s new consensus that we should not stick our nose in other people’s business.
Our interventions may not be perfect, far from it, but it’s better than leaving complete nutters like the Taliban in charge.

I keep hearing from the English media that the UK has been involved with Afghanistan for the last 20 years.
200 years would be more accurate. And it's always been about the heroin. Someone is funding the Taliban and I doubt that Pakistan are funding them without some measure of a quid pro quo.
It's still about the heroin. But don't mention the heroin.

[kk67]

Apologies, having difficulty with the edit function. And very angry.

[kk67]

Cheers, Puja.

[Zhivago]

This is the illogical conclusion of the West’s new consensus that we should not stick our nose in other people’s business.
Our interventions may not be perfect, far from it, but it’s better than leaving complete nutters like the Taliban in charge.

I keep hearing from the English media that the UK has been involved with Afghanistan for the last 20 years.
200 years would be more accurate. And it's always been about the heroin. Someone is funding the Taliban and I doubt that Pakistan are funding them without some measure of a quid pro quo.
It's still about the heroin. But don't mention the heroin.

What about Rare Earth Metals? Get with the times KK, it's not the 1990s anymore.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... ead3aefcf6

The Entirely Predictable Failure of the West's Mission in Afghanistan
In early July, I met with a leading Taliban military commander. I asked when his fighters would arrive in Kabul. His answer: "They are already there." How the Afghanistan mission failed and what happens next.

In early July, before the great storm broke over Afghanistan, Kabul was already surrounded by the Taliban. And nowhere were the Islamist fighters closer to the Afghan capital city than on the shores of the Qargha Reservoir, a popular getaway on the western edge of the city. People were saying that the Taliban had gathered in the villages behind the nearby hills. The last frontline, it was said, was on the shore of the reservoir at the amusement park.

During the day, families were still taking their children to the rides and the restaurants or going out on the water in swan-shaped paddle boats. A small, six-member special forces unit even enjoyed a picnic in a wooden pavilion on the shore. One of them had to stand guard at the gun turret of their armored Humvee as the rest smoked hookahs and drank colorful sodas.

The next day, I met one of the Taliban’s leading military commanders for Kabul, who received me in the middle of the city in an unremarkable office building. When asked how far the Taliban had to walk to get to the lakeshore, he responded: "Not far at all." He seemed perfectly calm, a clean-shaven emissary of fear. "They’re already there, after all. They are the security guards at the restaurants, the ride operators, the cleaning staff. When the time is right, the place will be full of Taliban."

Six weeks after our meeting, in the middle of August, the same man drove to the Presidential Palace along with 10 bodyguards and the senior commander responsible for the conquering of Kabul. He hadn’t lied when he said that his men had already infiltrated the park at the reservoir. What he had failed to mention, though, was that the Taliban were also already in the heart of the city.


Article continues...

[fivepointer]

Another perspective here - https://www.sarahchayes.org/post/the-ides-of-august

I hold U.S. civilian leadership, across four administrations, largely responsible for today’s outcome. Military commanders certainly participated in the self-delusion. I can and did find fault with generals I worked for or observed. But the U.S. military is subject to civilian control. And the two primary problems identified above — corruption and Pakistan — are civilian issues. They are not problems men and women in uniform can solve. But faced with calls to do so, no top civilian decision-maker was willing to take either of these problems on. The political risk, for them, was too high.

[Mellsblue]

https://institute.global/tony-blair/ton ... s-and-ours

‘We held out the prospect, backed by substantial commitment, of turning Afghanistan from a failed terror state into a functioning democracy on the mend. It may have been a misplaced ambition, but it was not an ignoble one. There is no doubt that in the years that followed we made mistakes, some serious. But the reaction to our mistakes has been, unfortunately, further mistakes. Today we are in a mood that seems to regard the bringing of democracy as a utopian delusion and intervention, virtually of any sort, as a fool’s errand.’

‘It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating, and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values.’

[Puja]

https://institute.global/tony-blair/ton ... s-and-ours

‘We held out the prospect, backed by substantial commitment, of turning Afghanistan from a failed terror state into a functioning democracy on the mend. It may have been a misplaced ambition, but it was not an ignoble one. There is no doubt that in the years that followed we made mistakes, some serious. But the reaction to our mistakes has been, unfortunately, further mistakes. Today we are in a mood that seems to regard the bringing of democracy as a utopian delusion and intervention, virtually of any sort, as a fool’s errand.’

‘It will require parts of the right in politics to understand that isolation in an interconnected world is self-defeating, and parts of the left to accept that intervention can sometimes be necessary to uphold our values.’

Your instinct, whenever he weighs in on anything, is to automatically tell him to shut up and butt out, but he's far from wrong on a lot of that.

Puja

[morepork]

"...the bringing of democracy ..."

What a twat. Spare us your affected benevolence you lying war profiteering cult leader.

[Puja]

"...the bringing of democracy ..."

What a twat. Spare us your affected benevolence you lying war profiteering cult leader.

Afghanistan I don't blame him so much for - there was an actual casus belli and there was an international commitment to the aftermath.

On Iraq, I'll give you every word of that.

Puja

[Digby]

As so often I like Blair and what he has to say, it's just his policies and things he often actually did in practice.

[Son of Mathonwy]

"...the bringing of democracy ..."

What a twat. Spare us your affected benevolence you lying war profiteering cult leader.

Afghanistan I don't blame him so much for - there was an actual casus belli and there was an international commitment to the aftermath.

On Iraq, I'll give you every word of that.

Puja

In Blair's mouth, even the occasional truth is just another tool to further his agenda. Which at this point seems to be to cover his back, save face and make the miniscule chance of justice ever being visited upon his war criminal ass even smaller.

[Zhivago]

NATO share the workload? Not sure they would or anyone would trust them

Two NATO members have been running the show for 20 years, so the idea of spreading the work more widely across NATO members is not unreasonable.

I'm not claiming that any of the ideas I gave would have definitely worked, but the existence of such a range of options does suggest that Biden could have done a lot better.

If Biden wanted to protect Afghani lives he'd have had to have been willing to pay a political price.

And 2 NATO members running the show means the USA was running the show, and they were trusted by a lot of people. How much they've undermined their own status we're yet to see, it's entirely possible hardly anyone cares on an international basis similar to how hardly anyone cares at a domestic level in the US, which gets us back to why Biden doesn't need to care

I just don't see a role for NATO in providing air support going after Taliban positions, nor supplying the Afghan armed forces. Which would have been a minimum requirement. Partly where would NATO get those resources and then who'd authorise their use?

drop the i

Biden made the same mistake

[Digby]

Meh, it's in dictionaries an everything

Some may dislike the use, and to use modern parlance may even consider it a tragedy, feck 'em (although the misuse of tragedy should come with a public beating)

[Zhivago]

Meh, it's in dictionaries an everything

Some may dislike the use, and to use modern parlance may even consider it a tragedy, feck 'em (although the misuse of tragedy should come with a public beating)

It's akin to referring to Europeans as Euros. More to the point - why are you so stubborn?

[Digby]

Meh, it's in dictionaries an everything

Some may dislike the use, and to use modern parlance may even consider it a tragedy, feck 'em (although the misuse of tragedy should come with a public beating)

It's akin to referring to Europeans as Euros. More to the point - why are you so stubborn?

Nothing you say is worth listening to, and I only respond out of amusement in taking the piss. And anyway no it's not, it was a definition that wouldn't have worked, but language changes, often for incorrect reasons, but nonetheless it changes

[Zhivago]

Had some fun the other day reading about The Second Resistance in the Panjshir valley, and had some fun while I was at it deciphering the place names on Open Street Map (which is far better than Google maps), as they're of course in Persian script.

[morepork]

These poor souls are now at the cutting edge of the latest front on the endless culture war. Apparently The Libruls encouraged a mass exodous via this messy foreign policy exercise in order to boost their voter base. The USA really does need a fuckin baby sitter.