Whatever you need to think to make yourself feel better is fine with me. I don't even like Trump that much but there's no way he would've screwed this up royally like Jim Crow Joe has. The guy is 8 months into his presidency you can't blame Trump for this.canpakes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:37 pmAtlanticmike wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:26 pmI just find it extremely funny that you guys think somehow this Afghanistan fuk up has something to do with the Trump Administration. Let me make it really simple so you college-educated Ding Dongs can understand it. Pull the Americans who don't have the guns (civilians) then pull the Americans who have the guns (military)! Jim Crow Joe did the exact opposite. He's a buffoon and an idiot!!
Nope. Here’s how that went:
On 17 November 2020, acting US Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller announced further withdrawals of troops by 15 January 2021, leaving 2,500 troops across both Afghanistan and Iraq, down from the previous amount of 4,500 and 3,000, respectively. US National Security Advisor Robert C. O'Brien issued a statement on behalf of President Trump that it was his hope the incoming Biden administration would have all US troops "come home safely, and in their entirety" by their previously agreed 1 May 2021, deadline.[58] Joe Biden had previously signalled his support for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan during his presidential campaign,[59] although he left room for the possibility that the US would be "open to maintaining a small number of troops in the country whose mission would focus solely on counterterrorism operations".[60]
The Pentagon announced on 17 November 2020, that it would reduce the number of US forces in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500 by mid-January, i.e. by 15 January 2021, before President Trump's term of office expires on 20 January 2021.
Afghanistan
- Atlanticmike
- God
- Posts: 2721
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:16 pm
Re: Afghanistan
- canpakes
- God
- Posts: 8510
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am
Re: Afghanistan
I think that there’s enough blame to share. You can’t evacuate an entire country’s collection of American contractors (over 18,000) and dual-citizenship Afghans (over 70,000) when all the troops that you have in the whole country are at the lowest level in 20 years.Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:43 pmWhatever you need to think to make yourself feel better is fine with me. I don't even like Trump that much but there's no way he would've screwed this up royally like Jim Crow Joe has. The guy is 8 months into his presidency you can't blame Trump for this.
Why would Trump have done that? And where were all of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks on the conservative side when these decisions were made and publicized?
-
- God
- Posts: 4358
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am
Re: Afghanistan
We don't really need to guess at how Trump would have managed this. He did the same thing when he pulled out of Syria on a much smaller scale and an accelerated timeline that left US military assets exposed, equipment and facilities in Russian hands, and then abandoned our allies to both Assad and the Turks.
But that doesn't matter since both Trump and Biden represent one side of an issue only made into a partisan issue because America is a nation of political idiots.
Both the populist right and the radical left favor withdrawal and retreat of the US for practically identical reasons. And both aren't serious enough to apply meaningful principles to implementing withdrawal policies that maintain a cohesive foreign policy because neither embrace a coherent policy. I'd argue that applies to domestic issues as well but that's not a topic for this thread.
For example, take a trip back in time -
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/04/th ... out-syria/
No doubt more news is yet to emerge, and perhaps more policy shifts, too. In the midst of all the breaking developments and about-faces, an important debate has emerged about U.S. policy and force deployments. Trump’s original decision to withdraw was met with scathing criticism across the political spectrum: from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Rep. Liz Cheney, from Sen. Chuck Schumer to Sen. Ted Cruz, from the Center for American Progress to the American Enterprise Institute, and on editorial pages from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. Many of Trump’s senior officials seemed to disagree with the decision as well, according to their anonymous conversations with reporters, and the Defense Department had long tried to prevent it.
...
Restraint advocates tend to blame the inherent folly of military interventions whenever they encounter implementation problems or adverse developments. But when retreat leads to disaster, as in Syria, they find something else to blame—some hiccup, some spot of bad luck, the perfidy of the enemy—anything but the withdrawal itself or the failure of withdrawal advocates to confront the “and then what” question.
When all other rhetorical gambits fail, restraint advocates (and Trump) resort to their ultimate card: Blame some earlier intervention for creating the problem in the first place, as if this absolves them from dealing with the actual consequences of the policies they advocate. They seem to argue that if we can trace the current situation to an earlier policy decision we opposed, we get a free pass and can blame all of the bad consequences of the next policy we recommend on the previous policy we opposed.
Look familiar?
And that's a problem with being unserious, self-destructive, and faux-principled. The example upthread about CNN reporting on the Taliban press conference yesterday takes a partisan position based on a sense it is misrepresenting the Taliban. Yet the press conference included both their clear statement they are blocking Afghans from traveling to the airport in addition to the statements decrying those who have encouraged people to leave who view themselves at risk under a Taliban regime. Why? Because it appears the comments are complex and likely layered over opaque motivations by a group who also has to tell women not to go to work until they can train their troops to behave appropriately when they see a woman with a job outside of their 13th century worldview. ISIS is gaining power and will only continue to do so as the Taliban evolve from mass movement to establishment while being unable to realize the promises of positive change that fuel such movements. But hey, we have partisan bickering to engage in so “F” all that crap, right?
Anyway.
But that doesn't matter since both Trump and Biden represent one side of an issue only made into a partisan issue because America is a nation of political idiots.
Both the populist right and the radical left favor withdrawal and retreat of the US for practically identical reasons. And both aren't serious enough to apply meaningful principles to implementing withdrawal policies that maintain a cohesive foreign policy because neither embrace a coherent policy. I'd argue that applies to domestic issues as well but that's not a topic for this thread.
For example, take a trip back in time -
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/04/th ... out-syria/
No doubt more news is yet to emerge, and perhaps more policy shifts, too. In the midst of all the breaking developments and about-faces, an important debate has emerged about U.S. policy and force deployments. Trump’s original decision to withdraw was met with scathing criticism across the political spectrum: from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Rep. Liz Cheney, from Sen. Chuck Schumer to Sen. Ted Cruz, from the Center for American Progress to the American Enterprise Institute, and on editorial pages from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. Many of Trump’s senior officials seemed to disagree with the decision as well, according to their anonymous conversations with reporters, and the Defense Department had long tried to prevent it.
...
Restraint advocates tend to blame the inherent folly of military interventions whenever they encounter implementation problems or adverse developments. But when retreat leads to disaster, as in Syria, they find something else to blame—some hiccup, some spot of bad luck, the perfidy of the enemy—anything but the withdrawal itself or the failure of withdrawal advocates to confront the “and then what” question.
When all other rhetorical gambits fail, restraint advocates (and Trump) resort to their ultimate card: Blame some earlier intervention for creating the problem in the first place, as if this absolves them from dealing with the actual consequences of the policies they advocate. They seem to argue that if we can trace the current situation to an earlier policy decision we opposed, we get a free pass and can blame all of the bad consequences of the next policy we recommend on the previous policy we opposed.
Look familiar?
And that's a problem with being unserious, self-destructive, and faux-principled. The example upthread about CNN reporting on the Taliban press conference yesterday takes a partisan position based on a sense it is misrepresenting the Taliban. Yet the press conference included both their clear statement they are blocking Afghans from traveling to the airport in addition to the statements decrying those who have encouraged people to leave who view themselves at risk under a Taliban regime. Why? Because it appears the comments are complex and likely layered over opaque motivations by a group who also has to tell women not to go to work until they can train their troops to behave appropriately when they see a woman with a job outside of their 13th century worldview. ISIS is gaining power and will only continue to do so as the Taliban evolve from mass movement to establishment while being unable to realize the promises of positive change that fuel such movements. But hey, we have partisan bickering to engage in so “F” all that crap, right?
Anyway.
Last edited by honorentheos on Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- 2nd Counselor
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:42 pm
Re: Afghanistan
Sure you can. You're not addressing any of the pertinent facts that undermine your argument. Your notion that anything that happens during an administration must de facto be the fault of said administration, is nothing short of ridiculous. By this logic Obama was to blame for the recession he inherited and Trump was the reason unemployment kept going down during his first year. Wait a minute, that's precisely the "logic" Right Wingers have been accustomed to. But it is still ridiculous as we can see cause and effect from previous administrations roll over into the next.Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:43 pmWhatever you need to think to make yourself feel better is fine with me. I don't even like Trump that much but there's no way he would've screwed this up royally like Jim Crow Joe has. The guy is 8 months into his presidency you can't blame Trump for this.
Trump is the one who legitimized the Taliban by negotiating with them instead of the existing Afghan government. This empowered the Taliban and made the existing government feel illegitimate, which is why the Taliban rushed to take over as quickly as they did and it is why the government immediately surrendered to them. Trump handed Biden a crap sandwich which was probably by design. If Trump had any integrity at all he would have had everyone out by the deadlines he made for last year, but after losing the election he figured he'd just make it a problem for Biden to deal with.
Also, much ado is being made of the Afghan allies in need of transport. But Trump is the one whose administration fought tooth and nail to make it difficult to impossible for Afghan allies to obtain immigrant visas. This all dovetails with their xenophobic view on immigration. You can thank his band of racist blowhards like Stephen Miller for that. Hell, even to this day Right Wing media is still freaking out about the prospect of thousands of Afghanis coming to America. But at the same time they want to attack Biden for not getting enough of them out of the country.
-
- 2nd Counselor
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:42 pm
Re: Afghanistan
This morning I heard there were still 5,000 Americans in Afghanistan, but then I read this:
(CNN)Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that there are approximately 1,500 people who may be Americans left in Afghanistan, adding that when evacuation operations began, there was a population of as many as 6,000 American citizens in the country who wanted to leave.
Blinken said the US has "evacuated at least 4,500 American citizens and likely more" since August 14, and more than 500 were evacuated in the last day alone. "Over the past 24 hours we've been in direct contact with approximately 500 additional Americans and provided specific instructions on how to get to the airport safely," he said speaking at the State Department.
"For the remaining roughly 1,000 contacts that we had who may be Americans seeking to leave Afghanistan, we're aggressively reaching out to them multiple times a day through multiple channels of communication," he added.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/politics ... index.html
At this rate, it seems we should have everyone out by the 31st.
(CNN)Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that there are approximately 1,500 people who may be Americans left in Afghanistan, adding that when evacuation operations began, there was a population of as many as 6,000 American citizens in the country who wanted to leave.
Blinken said the US has "evacuated at least 4,500 American citizens and likely more" since August 14, and more than 500 were evacuated in the last day alone. "Over the past 24 hours we've been in direct contact with approximately 500 additional Americans and provided specific instructions on how to get to the airport safely," he said speaking at the State Department.
"For the remaining roughly 1,000 contacts that we had who may be Americans seeking to leave Afghanistan, we're aggressively reaching out to them multiple times a day through multiple channels of communication," he added.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/politics ... index.html
At this rate, it seems we should have everyone out by the 31st.
-
- 2nd Counselor
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:42 pm
Re: Afghanistan
Erik Prince, Betsy DeVos' brother, sent his charter plane to Afghanistan to help with the evac. He's charging them $6,500 per seat.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... d-flights/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... d-flights/
- ceeboo
- God
- Posts: 1756
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:22 pm
Re: Afghanistan
Hey honor
I don't think I have ever seen it put quite like that before but man, that's not just really deep, that's freaking brilliant!honorentheos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:25 pmBut that doesn't matter since both Trump and Biden represent one side of an issue only made into a partisan issue because America is a nation of political idiots.
-
- God
- Posts: 9714
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: Afghanistan
I was just going to say the same thing. Honor hitting home runs.ceeboo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:05 pmHey honor
I don't think I have ever seen it put quite like that before but man, that's not just really deep, that's freaking brilliant!honorentheos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:25 pmBut that doesn't matter since both Trump and Biden represent one side of an issue only made into a partisan issue because America is a nation of political idiots.
-Doc
- Res Ipsa
- God
- Posts: 10636
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
- Location: Playing Rabbits
Re: Afghanistan
Yep. Outta da park.
he/him
we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
— Alison Luterman
we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
— Alison Luterman
-
- 2nd Counselor
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:42 pm
Re: Afghanistan
More than 101,000 people have been evacuated in just two weeks. That's a marvel in and of itself. Biden has really stepped up to the challenge and performed. Five days to go and there are only about 500 American civilians still in Afghanistan.