JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes. They are beloved. How soon do they fill their stadiums, stoning women & playing buzkashi polo with the head of an enemy ? Cheer them on.

Oh don't worry, I won't be cheering. This unlike those who rejoiced when Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in cold blood and continue to do so as other criminal cops do the same.

Apologies for veering off-topic but I have to ask... how is the above post not trolling? This is not a whiny complaint on my part like others on this board who consistently respond with that charge when unhappy or frustrated with what has been posted, especially when it comes to PB (quite unfairly IMHO). This is simply a question regarding the subjective/nebulous term "troll" and how it's being applied by people with autocrat temperaments on here in order to control discussion.

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, the poster above has every right to post outrageous or stupid content (and often does). Their credibility will take a hit either by push back from others or simply by being ignored. Unless clearly stated board rules ("troll" could not be further from clearly stated) are broken, then posters and their posts should not be censored, canceled, boycotted, or penalized. This should apply to everyone.

Seems like there are already sufficient board rules...don't fix what ain't broke.

I agree with tech here about the Brooklyn post. Not advocating any action; I am just saying that there is no effort at discussion, only indictment based on a false narrative.

It goes back to the definition of trolling which I’m not sure means simply no effort at discussion which you could apply to all the false equivalencies which WG was referencing previously. It seems to require some clear intent at inciting an off topic accumulation of people to go against another person.

Right it’s baiting others not the act but intent which is hard to often know but in some cases it takes extreme cognitive dissonance to pretend to not see. Here’s one definition

with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]

The one who’s got shot earned this. I’ll be interested in seeing what defenses in this specific case that actually happened not theoretical draws out.

[Brooklyn]

^ Then let's have a discussion on the challenge I made at the end of my earlier post. That while we overly concern ourselves with government abuses overseas, too many of us look the other way and at times even defend government abuses at home. Recall the initial posts on the Race In America - Riots Explode in Minneapolis thread. Some right wingers blamed the people, not the cops, even though it was the latter who caused the problems. Then recall my videos from you tube showing police slashing tires and destroying property thereby proving my point that it was the government which was the problem. Other videos showed cops spraying poison gas at both end of the Brooklyn Bridge thereby trapping and poisoning people. Still other videos showed all kinds of government abuse. There can be no question that it was the government that caused those problems. That isn't trolling, it is fact.

Address the issue and offer solutions, not criticism or personal attacks.

You previously had my solutions: disarm the cops, arm the people (as conservatives always say in re to the 2d Amendment). That will end the government's abuses. As for what happens overseas, that, again, is their problem, not ours. The Taliban represents the majority of that country's people. It represents their will. They have a right of self determination. As such, we have no business intervening in their affairs. Conservatives claim they don't want government to make determinations for them. If they had any principle at all they would agree that government caused the problem in Minneapolis and other cities. Furthermore, the federal government has no business attempting to dictate to Afghans what their society should be like. Let them make that determination for themselves.

Now let's see a reasoned discussion of all that.

[old salt]

Salty, you and I appear to agree pretty strongly on this one and have for some time.
Indeed, it's been my chief warning/concern about Biden's early leadership/decisions in his Presidency.

I'm not trying to stir up a disagreement, but do you agree that had Trump done what he committed to do, withdrawing by this past May, this same outcome trajectory would have been much the same?

IMHO -- this is all on Biden. He was no more obligated to follow through on Trump's target date than Trump was obligated to follow through on Obama's decicions & policies.

Look how much Trump changed from Obama's (or his own) promises-- JCPOA w/Iran, ROE vs ISIS in Iraq/Syria, backtracking on his order to withdraw from NE Syria (after his initial pull back from the border defused the looming conflict with Turkey & Russia).

The May deadline was to get the Taliban to the table & keep them engaged. Trump was no more believable than the Taliban. He just wanted a talking point for his final election.

Trump blustered, but in the final analysis, still followed his advisors (e.g. using the NG rather than declaring martial law). I think that Gen Milley, the other Generals, NSC Obrien, acting SecDef Miller, Sec State Pompeo, DNI Ratliffe, Patel & Congressional (R)'s like Graham, Ernst, Young(s), Nunes, Waltz, Crenshaw, Green, even Kinzinger & Cheney, would have been able to convince Trump to stretch out the drawdown, until after the fighting season. That's when the Taliban leave the field & hole up in Pakistan for the winter, slowly enough to avert a sudden collapse & possibly get Trump (after the 2020 election) to leave the small residual force, which was working well. Trump only groused about "the Generals" after the election when it became obvious they would not follow a martial law order.

Our NATO allies had twice as many troops there as we did & wanted to stay, if we would stay. Our deployment to Afghanistance was a pittance compared to our NATO basing/deployment for wealthy EU allies who are more than able to defend themselves. That's a point not lost on our NATO allies. The threat of a renewed jihadi safe haven was a justification they could sell to their public.

This is the same "brain trust" -- Biden, Klain, Rice, Blinken, Austin, Sullivan, Kohl, et. al. -- that convinced Obama to disregard the advise of his Sec State, Sec Def, CIA & military advisors in our withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. Biden also strenuously objected to Obama's decision to send 150k troops into Afghanistan for a COIN/nation building surge, with a predetermined exit date.

Biden is stubborn & has a bling spot. That prompted SecDef Gates to opine that Biden was proven wrong on every national security decision in the preceding four decades. Biden's record is intact. He wanted the political talking point that he got us out of Afghanistan before the 20th anniversary of 9-11. He gave that propaganda coup to the Taliban. It will inspire militant Islamic terrorists around the globe, IMHO.

[tech37]

Yes. They are beloved. How soon do they fill their stadiums, stoning women & playing buzkashi polo with the head of an enemy ? Cheer them on.

Oh don't worry, I won't be cheering. This unlike those who rejoiced when Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in cold blood and continue to do so as other criminal cops do the same.

Apologies for veering off-topic but I have to ask... how is the above post not trolling? This is not a whiny complaint on my part like others on this board who consistently respond with that charge when unhappy or frustrated with what has been posted, especially when it comes to PB (quite unfairly IMHO). This is simply a question regarding the subjective/nebulous term "troll" and how it's being applied by people with autocrat temperaments on here in order to control discussion.

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, the poster above has every right to post outrageous or stupid content (and often does). Their credibility will take a hit either by push back from others or simply by being ignored. Unless clearly stated board rules ("troll" could not be further from clearly stated) are broken, then posters and their posts should not be censored, canceled, boycotted, or penalized. This should apply to everyone.

Seems like there are already sufficient board rules...don't fix what ain't broke.

Post by admin » Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:31 am

Added to forum rules within Unsportsmanlike Conduct
SECTION 4. No post-er shall:
...
d. Troll and/or commit other Russian 'bot and/or other Putinesque behaviors. A troll is someone who uses over-the-top opinions or unverified claims to incite others, stir up controversy, and change a civilized discussion into a battleground.

Indeed, Brooklyn's post veered pretty darn far off topic.
That said, he's retorting to a post that said he'd be cheering Taliban slaughtering other Afghans and any Americans they find.

Trolling is typically when someone posts something unrelated to an actual discussion simply to inflame other readers, typically with a really out there view coupled with straight out disinformation/misinformation baloney. Brooklyn sometimes does so in terms of his perspective, but not very often with something factually not true, on purpose. One may disagree with his view (as I do on this topic of Afghanistan) but he's not likely to purposely post something provably false. If he did, then sure, that'd be trolling (IMO).

Does that explain the difference?
[/quote]
This is just silly. When opinion represents the vast majority of content posted on here, who's to say what is "misinformation" or "provably false". You mdlax? Undoubtedly you think so...

The rules are the rules. It's obvious the problem lies with the whiny complainers on here who take advantage of a dumb, unnecessary rule to control discourse and posters they're uncomfortable with.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty, you and I appear to agree pretty strongly on this one and have for some time.
Indeed, it's been my chief warning/concern about Biden's early leadership/decisions in his Presidency.

I'm not trying to stir up a disagreement, but do you agree that had Trump done what he committed to do, withdrawing by this past May, this same outcome trajectory would have been much the same?

IMHO -- this is all on Biden. He was no more obligated to follow through on Trump's target date than Trump was obligated to follow through on Obama's decicions & policies.

Look how much Trump changed from Obama's (or his own) promises-- JCPOA w/Iran, ROE vs ISIS in Iraq/Syria, backtracking on his order to withdraw from NE Syria (after his initial pull back from the border defused the looming conflict with Turkey & Russia).

The May deadline was to get the Taliban to the table & keep them engaged. Trump was no more believable than the Taliban. He just wanted a talking point for his final election.

Trump blustered, but in the final analysis, still followed his advisors (e.g. using the NG rather than declaring martial law). I think that Gen Milley, the other Generals, NSC Obrien, acting SecDef Miller, Sec State Pompeo, DNI Ratliffe, Patel & Congressional (R)'s like Graham, Ernst, Young(s), Nunes, Waltz, Crenshaw, Green, even Kinzinger & Cheney, would have been able to convince Trump to stretch out the drawdown, until after the fighting season. That's when the Taliban leave the field & hole up in Pakistan for the winter, slowly enough to avert a sudden collapse & possibly get Trump (after the 2020 election) to leave the small residual force, which was working well. Trump only groused about "the Generals" after the election when it became obvious they would not follow a martial law order.

Our NATO allies had twice as many troops there as we did & wanted to stay, if we would stay. Our deployment to Afghanistance was a pittance compared to our NATO basing/deployment for wealthy EU allies who are more than able to defend themselves. That's a point not lost on our NATO allies. The threat of a renewed jihadi safe haven was a justification they could sell to their public.

This is the same "brain trust" -- Biden, Klain, Rice, Blinken, Austin, Sullivan, Kohl, et. al. -- that convinced Obama to disregard the advise of his Sec State, Sec Def, CIA & military advisors in our withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. Biden also strenuously objected to Obama's decision to send 150k troops into Afghanistan for a COIN/nation building surge, with a predetermined exit date.

Biden is stubborn & has a bling spot. That prompted SecDef Gates to opine that Biden was proven wrong on every national security decision in the preceding four decades. Biden's record is intact. He wanted the political talking point that he got us out of Afghanistan before the 20th anniversary of 9-11. He gave that propaganda coup to the Taliban. It will inspire militant Islamic terrorists around the globe, IMHO.

My only disagreement then is that I think Trump set up this immense blunder (hope we're both wrong about that, looking back a decade or two from now) and would have blundered further. I don't buy the argument that he would have balked at the last minute from following through on the May commitment. He was/is an idiot and had he won reelection (esp through the shenanigans at the state level he wanted) would have been convinced of his own brilliance (his gut) and not followed anyone's advice or pressure.

We were headed into an entirely autocratic situation in which he'd gotten away with everything with no negative consequences.

But I do agree that Biden could have reversed that decision and maintained a small force, demanded proof of Taliban compliance and a much more gradual power sharing arrangement. With very low cost relatively speaking.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes. They are beloved. How soon do they fill their stadiums, stoning women & playing buzkashi polo with the head of an enemy ? Cheer them on.

Oh don't worry, I won't be cheering. This unlike those who rejoiced when Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in cold blood and continue to do so as other criminal cops do the same.

Apologies for veering off-topic but I have to ask... how is the above post not trolling? This is not a whiny complaint on my part like others on this board who consistently respond with that charge when unhappy or frustrated with what has been posted, especially when it comes to PB (quite unfairly IMHO). This is simply a question regarding the subjective/nebulous term "troll" and how it's being applied by people with autocrat temperaments on here in order to control discussion.

Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned, the poster above has every right to post outrageous or stupid content (and often does). Their credibility will take a hit either by push back from others or simply by being ignored. Unless clearly stated board rules ("troll" could not be further from clearly stated) are broken, then posters and their posts should not be censored, canceled, boycotted, or penalized. This should apply to everyone.

Seems like there are already sufficient board rules...don't fix what ain't broke.

Post by admin » Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:31 am

Added to forum rules within Unsportsmanlike Conduct
SECTION 4. No post-er shall:
...
d. Troll and/or commit other Russian 'bot and/or other Putinesque behaviors. A troll is someone who uses over-the-top opinions or unverified claims to incite others, stir up controversy, and change a civilized discussion into a battleground.

Indeed, Brooklyn's post veered pretty darn far off topic.
That said, he's retorting to a post that said he'd be cheering Taliban slaughtering other Afghans and any Americans they find.

Trolling is typically when someone posts something unrelated to an actual discussion simply to inflame other readers, typically with a really out there view coupled with straight out disinformation/misinformation baloney. Brooklyn sometimes does so in terms of his perspective, but not very often with something factually not true, on purpose. One may disagree with his view (as I do on this topic of Afghanistan) but he's not likely to purposely post something provably false. If he did, then sure, that'd be trolling (IMO).

Does that explain the difference?

This is just silly. When opinion represents the vast majority of content posted on here, who's to say what is "misinformation" or "provably false". You mdlax? Undoubtedly you think so...

The rules are the rules. It's obvious the problem lies with the whiny complainers on here who take advantage of a dumb, unnecessary rule to control discourse and posters they're uncomfortable with.
[/quote]

Well, I don't know how better to explain this to you, tech, than to say there's indeed a difference between objective truth and opinions, and when someone purposely lies it's possible to tell the difference between that lie and simply a difference of opinion.

When they do to piss people off, that's trolling.
Is there anyone here who actually wants to see more, rather than less of that?

You seem to believe that opinions held by someone become truth...they do not, they're simply opinions. You tend to hold some that are indeed well out the mainstream, others that are simply quite 'right wing'...these are not at issue. However, if you cite some study that has little to no credibility, given the way it has been constructed, including actual fraud by the authors, you really shouldn't be surprised if that 'study' then becomes an argument against the 'opinion' you were trying to support...but it then becomes actual trolling if you already knew the study was fraudulently based and instead had lied and said it was definitive proof...and you did so just to piss people off. If there's a pattern of that sort of behavior, it's indeed going to get flagged under this rule. And then there's a choice to either continue that behavior or not.

I've found very little of your discourse to be objectionable in that way, as much as I may have disagreed with your "opinion".

[RedFromMI]

Vindication and the Fall of Kabul

By Josh Marshall
|
August 15, 2021 8:56 a.m.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/vi ... l-of-kabul

Yesterday I wrote this: “In the coming days or weeks we’re likely to see a situation in which the government only controls Kabul. If you’re in the Afghan army how hard are you going to fight in that final battle? Why fight? The question answers itself.”

As we can see this morning, not days or weeks but hours. Overnight in the United States the army and government of Afghanistan melted away and remaining authorities are in the process over turning over power to a transitional Taliban government. It’s over.

People are lining up to say that this is all on Joe Biden, that he “lost” Afghanistan, that he mismanaged or failed to manage the US withdrawal, that this is “on him”. In the calculus of US military-political culture that’s likely right. But I see it quite differently. This seems to me like the ultimate vindication of his decision.

I’ll come back to some other points on the Times but in an analysis piece out this morning they quote retired General Douglas Lute who ran the Afghanistan desk under Bush and Obama. “Under Trump, we were one tweet away from complete, precipitous withdrawal. Under Biden, it was clear to everyone who knew him, who saw him pressing for a vastly reduced force more than a decade ago, that he was determined to end U.S. military involvement. But the Pentagon believed its own narrative that we would stay forever.”

What we have seen over the last couple weeks shows decisively and irrefutably that the entire politico-military project in Afghanistan was an illusion. Lots of criticism from this or that person, look at what’s happened to everything we built, look what’s been squandered. But what you built was the Afghan state and the military. What we’re seeing here shows you built nothing. We built nothing. The Taliban haven’t so much conquered the post-2002 Afghan state as nudged it over. There was simply nothing there.

I’ve seen lots of US vets, diplomats and military hands on Twitter over the last few days. And I can see this comes as a gut punch to so many. We’ve had a couple generations of young Americans fighting there: more than 2,300 dead, many more traumatic brain injuries, brutal effort. As I noted yesterday we have a profound obligation to protect the Afghans who worked with us and are now imperiled by that association. We can and should honor that effort and sacrifice. But that doesn’t change the picture we can see here clearly in front of us.

It’s clear that while able, operationally, to understand the limitations of the Afghan army, the US military simply bought into this facade. As Lute says above, “the Pentagon believed its own narrative that we would stay forever.”

In an exchange with David Rothkopf yesterday I saw Eli Lake, one of the most confident and reliable defenders of the wars of the Bush-Cheney era, tell Rothkopf, “This is on Biden” and then blamed the situation on the exigencies of the US withdrawal. Biden “didn’t have to surprise the Afghan govt. by announcing an unconditional withdrawal at the start of the fighting season in the middle of his policy review. He could have made contingency plans. And he will not be able to hide from the judgment of history.”

It probably made most sense to leave Afghanistan in 2002 or 2003. The Taliban were roundly unpopular by the time the US military and mostly its local allies had driven them off. A critical, critical decision was made in late 2002 both to remain in Afghanistan but move it to the backburner as we launched on to our folly in Iraq. These were critical errors, though how much they actually impacted the final result seems quite uncertain to me. Nor should we forget that Barack Obama came to office in 2009 with a promise to redouble efforts in Afghanistan while disentangling the country from its continuing involvement in Iraq. That was 12 years ago, eight of which were during Obama’s presidency. There’s a lot of blame to go around.

After Biden’s inauguration, Pentagon leaders reportedly told the new President that despite his desire to withdraw, it wasn’t the right time. The Taliban had been strengthened under Trump’s feckless management of US national security policy and effort to negotiate what amounted to a handover of the country to the Taliban. Maybe. But I doubt it. Trump’s foreign policy – to the extent one can call it that – was catastrophic. But I don’t buy efforts to put this on him.

Like I said, there’s plenty of blame to go around. And those most to blame are, I think, more guilty of self-delusion than deceit.

Now, the domestic politics are another matter entirely. Republicans are past masters at blaming Democrats when they’re called in to clean up after Republican mistakes. Americans don’t like to lose wars. That’s baked deep into American politico-military culture for a century. And in truth the same applies for most other countries. It’s hard to get much credit rightly revealing that much of the time and lives and treasure spent over twenty years went to waste. I continue to believe that the American public simply doesn’t care about Afghanistan nearly as much as military and foreign policy elites think they should or want them to.

To the extent there’s a political strategy for the President, it’s to stick to his guns. It would be a grave political mistake to begin handwringing over the fall of Kabul or second-guessing the decision. It’s done. If nothing else, Lake and his cohort are right: Biden owns the decision. He needs to combat overheated insider DC nonsense like this. Since it was the right decision he should not run away from it. It’s sad to see what it is happening, he should say. But after 20 years of support, it was time for the Afghans to stand on their own.

A month ago, Biden said this: “Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that “just one more year” of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It’s up to Afghans to make the decision about the future of their country … I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome.”

This is right. However ugly the denouement, Biden understood the reality of the situation better than his military advisors. He was and is more in line with US popular opinion which long ago soured on our perpetual occupation of Afghanistan. Whether they will reward him or punish him for following through on that judgment I can’t say. But the best way to ensure the former outcome is to be clear, direct: After 20 years it was up to the Afghans to decide their own future. A perpetual deployment was not in the security interests of the United States.

[old salt]

Vindication and the Fall of Kabul

By Josh Marshall
|
August 15, 2021 8:56 a.m.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/vi ... l-of-kabul

Weak sauce. Where to begin ?
What we have seen over the last couple weeks shows decisively and irrefutably that the entire politico-military project in Afghanistan was an illusion.
As long as we were there to help the ASF do what they could not yet do for themselves, it was hardly an illusion. Was it an illusion when Biden celebrated in the WH situation room as we took out OBL or when Trump dropped a MOAB early in his term ?

It’s clear that while able, operationally, to understand the limitations of the Afghan army, the US military simply bought into this facade.
... “the Pentagon believed its own narrative that we would stay forever.”
As we have in Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea & even still/again Iraq & NE Syria, helping critical allies do what they can't do alone.
It probably made most sense to leave Afghanistan in 2002 or 2003. The Taliban were roundly unpopular by the time the US military and mostly its local allies had driven them off. Right. Just leave OBL in exile, to reconstitute AQ.

I continue to believe that the American public simply doesn’t care about Afghanistan nearly as much as military and foreign policy elites think they should or want them to. They don't care because our political leaders have failed to make them care.

Lake and his cohort are right: Biden owns the decision.
Biden understood the reality of the situation better than his military advisors. He was and is more in line with US popular opinion which long ago soured on our perpetual occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, Biden is a far sighted genius. I'm sure this was part of his plan, to send 5k troops back in to get our diplomats out before the Taliban captures them. Great plan.

We couldn't leave until OBL was killed or captured (for which Biden was eager to take credit). That was the opportunity to convert our presence into part of a NATO peacekeepng, training & stabilization operation, with a non-US NATO Commander, with a US component. Before our pullout, our 2,500 troop presence made possible the presence of 7,000 NATO troops & 16,000 contractors which enabled the ASF to keep the Taliban at bay, as the Afghan economy & society slowly recovered. That would have kept NATO relevant & provided our NATO allies a mission to which they could contribute. The EUros loved Obama. He could have sold them on making it a NATO mission, under NATO Command. Instead of our longest war, we'd be a jr partner in just another NATO peacekeeping mission.

[PizzaSnake]

One last chance to do it right. Evacuate a sizable percentage of young women and girls. Then watch the population crumble in a generation.

I want my money back from the war colleges. Officers didn’t learn a damned thing.

[RedFromMI]

There is NO significant strategic reason to be involved in Afghanistan. What does the US gain from a continuous presence?

[PizzaSnake]

There is NO significant strategic reason to be involved in Afghanistan. What does the US gain from a continuous presence?

Not for the US, but China sure does (Silk Road).

Have at it, Xi.

We can stand back and let India and China settle this the old fashioned way: land war with mass casualties. They both have a surplus of young men...

[RedFromMI]

From hubris to humiliation: America’s warrior class contends with the abject failure of its Afghanistan project

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

One quote:

“You look at the Afghan constitution that was created in Bonn and it was trying to create a Western democracy,” said Michèle Flournoy, one of the architects of President Barack Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan in 2010. “In retrospect, the United States and its allies got it really wrong from the very beginning. The bar was set based on our democratic ideals, not on what was sustainable or workable in an Afghan context.”

[Brooklyn]

Triumph of the people in Afghanistan is just minutes away!


https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news ... 0519b04a60


God bless the people of Afghanistan!

[Brooklyn]

There is NO significant strategic reason to be involved in Afghanistan. What does the US gain from a continuous presence?

The USA gained nothing from its criminally imperialistic invasion. But the corporate traitors made billions in war profits. This is what traitor Bush wanted all along. Note how he hasn't had much to say recently about his colonialist war or how much it contributed to the nation's debt.

And where are all the "principled" conservatives of this forum? Why aren't they praising Afghans for demonstrating their right of self determination? For years they have used this forum to defend their 2d Amendment rights to be free of enemies both domestic and foreign. As usual, they are silent when it comes to Afghans asserting the same rights they have proclaimed for themselves all this time.

[Kismet]

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/ ... to-afghan/

Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker exclusive to his hometown newspaper on the bad decisions of BOTH the Trump and Biden administrations woeful decisions that ultimately resulted in the current mess. Once the Trumpies elected to negotiate without the Afghan government sealed the deal that the government and army would not be supported. Biden staff failed to recognize this fact as they just wanted to exit ASAP as they just authorized deployment of another 1,000 combat troops to the existing 5,000 already in theater. Bet we'll end up with over 10,000 before we are done exiting.

Crocker makes so much sense that it is only appropriate that neither administration asked him to serve preferring instead NeoCon Republican Khalilzad who implemented the current FUBAR.

Icing on the cake - Taliban spokesman talking to the media from the occupied Presidential Palace in Kabul claims he spent 8 years at Guantanamo.
Mike Pompeo met with Taliban Head of the Political Office Mullah Beradar on September 12, 2020. Beradar is now set to become the new President of Afghanistan. President Trump had Beradar released from a Pakistani prison in 2018.
https://af.usembassy.gov/secretary-pomp ... e-taliban/

So let's not pile on only Biden who certainly deserves what he's getting but also the Trumpies are, by no means, blameless. Those around here who give them a pass are just continuing their past precedent in this regard.

[Farfromgeneva]

There is NO significant strategic reason to be involved in Afghanistan. What does the US gain from a continuous presence?

I always figured it was guilt for arming the taliban in the late 70s early 80s...

[Brooklyn]

There is NO significant strategic reason to be involved in Afghanistan. What does the US gain from a continuous presence?

I always figured it was guilt for arming the taliban in the late 70s early 80s...

Mullah Omar's reply to George Bush " Allah has promised us victory and Bush has promised us defeat. The World will see which promise is truthful".


God has spoken.

[old salt]

HR McMaster on our Afghan withdrawal... ...I really hope he's wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/04/1 ... nistan.cnn

McMaster does nothing but tries to move forward a strawman. Like no one else, let alone the president doesn't understand all of this. Yes this is dangerous. Nothing new.

If the current Afghan govt survives, the ASF can protect the population from the Taliban & civil war does not return, then you & Biden will be right & McMaster will be wrong. I hope you & Biden are are right. Hope is not a strategy.

Actually, McMaster responds that he too thinks the current gov't can survive and prevail, IF the US and NATO continue to provide intelligence, logistical and economic support. The IF is to be seen. But that's indeed a strategy.

I'd prefer a residual force for continued drone support, etc. So would Biden's military folks.

But it's not as if there isn't a strategy.

The same strategy we had when we left Vietnam, ...or Iraq in 2010.

QFP ...like Crocker (& others), HR called it.

[DocBarrister]

Vindication and the Fall of Kabul

By Josh Marshall
|
August 15, 2021 8:56 a.m.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/vi ... l-of-kabul

Weak sauce. Where to begin ?
What we have seen over the last couple weeks shows decisively and irrefutably that the entire politico-military project in Afghanistan was an illusion.
As long as we were there to help the ASF do what they could not yet do for themselves, it was hardly an illusion. Was it an illusion when Biden celebrated in the WH situation room as we took out OBL or when Trump dropped a MOAB early in his term ?

It’s clear that while able, operationally, to understand the limitations of the Afghan army, the US military simply bought into this facade.
... “the Pentagon believed its own narrative that we would stay forever.”
As we have in Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea & even still/again Iraq & NE Syria, helping critical allies do what they can't do alone.
It probably made most sense to leave Afghanistan in 2002 or 2003. The Taliban were roundly unpopular by the time the US military and mostly its local allies had driven them off. Right. Just leave OBL in exile, to reconstitute AQ.

I continue to believe that the American public simply doesn’t care about Afghanistan nearly as much as military and foreign policy elites think they should or want them to. They don't care because our political leaders have failed to make them care.

Lake and his cohort are right: Biden owns the decision.
Biden understood the reality of the situation better than his military advisors. He was and is more in line with US popular opinion which long ago soured on our perpetual occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, Biden is a far sighted genius. I'm sure this was part of his plan, to send 5k troops back in to get our diplomats out before the Taliban captures them. Great plan.

We couldn't leave until OBL was killed or captured (for which Biden was eager to take credit). That was the opportunity to convert our presence into part of a NATO peacekeepng, training & stabilization operation, with a non-US NATO Commander, with a US component. Before our pullout, our 2,500 troop presence made possible the presence of 7,000 NATO troops & 16,000 contractors which enabled the ASF to keep the Taliban at bay, as the Afghan economy & society slowly recovered. That would have kept NATO relevant & provided our NATO allies a mission to which they could contribute. The EUros loved Obama. He could have sold them on making it a NATO mission, under NATO Command. Instead of our longest war, we'd be a jr partner in just another NATO peacekeeping mission.

That is a completely absurd post.

The United States was never going to be a “jr partner” in a NATO mission in Afghanistan. After all, it was the United States that invoked the NATO treaty to begin the invasion.

The United States spent 20 years, more than a trillion dollars, and thousands of American lives in Afghanistan. It was time to leave.

Afghanistan’s corrupt and incompetent leaders, and it’s cowardly security forces, abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

The United States was never going to be a “jr partner” in a NATO mission in Afghanistan. After all, it was the United States that invoked the NATO treaty to begin the invasion.

The United States spent 20 years, more than a trillion dollars, and thousands of American lives in Afghanistan. It was time to leave.

Afghanistan’s corrupt and incompetent leaders, and it’s cowardly security forces, abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban.

DocBarrister

Traitor Bush saw an opportunity to prey upon right wing bloodlust and lust for corporate profits. But it's not just the corruption of the Kabul leadership that led to this victory. It is the fact that at no point did they get support from the majority of the people. Whether anyone likes it or not, the Taliban represent the majority of the Afghan population. This is why it succeeded in defeating the imperialistic invaders.

Now let's put traitor Bush on trial for treason and for violation of Nuremberg tribunal principles (recall that this is what I called for in the old LP forum years ago). Then let's send the bill for cost of the war to the Republican party for the lies they used to "justify" their colonialist war on that innocent country.


As with the Iraqis and Vietnamese, the people of Afghanistan have spoken.