Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

[MDlaxfan76]

Why did the US bugout of Bagram with no notice and who would have made such a stupid decision? This stinks to me like a decision made by someone very high up in DC. I'm also wondering where the leaks are in the Biden administration when we really need them?

A decision this significant had to go all the way to the President.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/ ... /100277452

I remain mystified why we felt the need to get down to just 650 troops nearly 2 mos before we had to.
We demonstrated we have the ability to extract 6,000 troops in a few days, if we have to.
We obviously expected to be able to keep the Embassy & HKIA open after the troops were gone.
All the planning was based on the Ghani govt remaining in power & the ASF staying in the field & able to defend Kabul.
The plan provided no contingency to respond to the govt falling & the ASF collapsing.
Airlift was our only way out, so we needed to hold every air base as along as we could.
How would we get people to Bagram ? In those 7 Embassy Air helos we left for the Taliban & all the military helos we airlifted out last.
We could have airlifted directly out of other air bases or shuttled evacuees to Bagram via C-130's.
It violates all the precepts of an orderly retreat from a position of strength. It was a self-inflicted rout.
We'll get answers. Books will be written. This will be studied in War Colleges & Service Academies forever, ...as a monumental failure.

The “monumental failure” occurred back in 2003 when George W. Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and diverted massive resources to Iraq.

Bush left his successor with two major mismanaged wars (never mind the wrecked economy as frosting on his cake).

President Biden finally ended the nation-building folly that George W. initiated. You cannot deny that nation-building was a major rationale for Bush’s two wars.

Both W and Trump completely screwed up. President Obama should have take Biden’s advice and withdrawn from Afghanistan a decade ago.

Nothing the United States could have done short of a permanent substantial deployment would have “saved” the Afghan government. W’s failed experiment in nation building and Trump’s reckless agreement with the Taliban were both doomed to fail from their initiation.

And you blame Biden for the failure?

If so, you haven’t learned a thing in the past two decades.

DocBarrister

What did Bush specifically do the wreck the economy? Wouldn’t be the wars. Is it leaving Greenspan in charge? Ethanol mandate? Or did you throw that in just cause? Tax code changes and profit repatriation (as well as ethanol mandate) required congressional approval and had fairly broad appeal (reducing cap gains was a huge mistake IMO but that’s not Bush that’s all of congress including Pelosi and Biden).

It could be argued that the deregulation of financial institutions, including gray market, led to the collapse and crisis. Incentives were all on volume, not credit. Yes, the wars also contributed to the juicing of the economy (which the Admin wanted) as did Greenspan's perspective on risk in the economy, all tragically overdone. Much of what was done, from deregulation to community investment and home ownership boosting lending mandates may have had positive intentions, but as things heated up and up and up, as we now know, it became a house of cards.

I'm not big on assessing 'blame' to a President when they're doing their honest best to muddle through hard choices, often without fully realizing the downsides, but there's no question that the crisis was built during the Bush years and Obama inherited its aftermath.

I'm more ok with 'blame' when those hard choices are being made solely for personal, political gain rather than because they were simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems.

[Farfromgeneva]

Why did the US bugout of Bagram with no notice and who would have made such a stupid decision? This stinks to me like a decision made by someone very high up in DC. I'm also wondering where the leaks are in the Biden administration when we really need them?

A decision this significant had to go all the way to the President.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/ ... /100277452

I remain mystified why we felt the need to get down to just 650 troops nearly 2 mos before we had to.
We demonstrated we have the ability to extract 6,000 troops in a few days, if we have to.
We obviously expected to be able to keep the Embassy & HKIA open after the troops were gone.
All the planning was based on the Ghani govt remaining in power & the ASF staying in the field & able to defend Kabul.
The plan provided no contingency to respond to the govt falling & the ASF collapsing.
Airlift was our only way out, so we needed to hold every air base as along as we could.
How would we get people to Bagram ? In those 7 Embassy Air helos we left for the Taliban & all the military helos we airlifted out last.
We could have airlifted directly out of other air bases or shuttled evacuees to Bagram via C-130's.
It violates all the precepts of an orderly retreat from a position of strength. It was a self-inflicted rout.
We'll get answers. Books will be written. This will be studied in War Colleges & Service Academies forever, ...as a monumental failure.

The “monumental failure” occurred back in 2003 when George W. Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and diverted massive resources to Iraq.

Bush left his successor with two major mismanaged wars (never mind the wrecked economy as frosting on his cake).

President Biden finally ended the nation-building folly that George W. initiated. You cannot deny that nation-building was a major rationale for Bush’s two wars.

Both W and Trump completely screwed up. President Obama should have take Biden’s advice and withdrawn from Afghanistan a decade ago.

Nothing the United States could have done short of a permanent substantial deployment would have “saved” the Afghan government. W’s failed experiment in nation building and Trump’s reckless agreement with the Taliban were both doomed to fail from their initiation.

And you blame Biden for the failure?

If so, you haven’t learned a thing in the past two decades.

DocBarrister

What did Bush specifically do the wreck the economy? Wouldn’t be the wars. Is it leaving Greenspan in charge? Ethanol mandate? Or did you throw that in just cause? Tax code changes and profit repatriation (as well as ethanol mandate) required congressional approval and had fairly broad appeal (reducing cap gains was a huge mistake IMO but that’s not Bush that’s all of congress including Pelosi and Biden).

It could be argued that the deregulation of financial institutions, including gray market, led to the collapse and crisis. Incentives were all on volume, not credit. Yes, the wars also contributed to the juicing of the economy (which the Admin wanted) as did Greenspan's perspective on risk in the economy, all tragically overdone. Much of what was done, from deregulation to community investment and home ownership boosting lending mandates may have had positive intentions, but as things heated up and up and up, as we now know, it became a house of cards.

I'm not big on assessing 'blame' to a President when they're doing their honest best to muddle through hard choices, often without fully realizing the downsides, but there's no question that the crisis was built during the Bush years and Obama inherited its aftermath.

I'm more ok with 'blame' when those hard choices are being made solely for personal, political gain rather than because they were simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems.

1. President doesn’t have the influence everyone claims on either side.
2. I’m sure if Doc choose to engage and prove out his assertion he’d make a highly flawed argument and doesn’t really have the answer just threw that bomb in for no reason.
3. Robert Rubin, expansion of HUD, etc. Forcing Fan and Fred on volume to a cohort that may have been bad borrowers at the expense of sacrificing their standard underwriting box all before Bush had a ton to do with it. Lot of 08-10 had to do with policies implemented in the 90s. Yes that kind of lag exists in tons of macro and policy.
4. Deregulation like when Citi bought Travelers illegally in 1994? I could go on and on but Clinton’s team had more to do with deregulation on the whole than Bush’a in reality.

Edit: I’ll add that most recent studies show that the policies of the 1960s under LBJ if we’re blaming presidents is what caused the stagflation in the second half of the 70s.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.ph ... INDEX=TRUE

[cradleandshoot]

Why did the US bugout of Bagram with no notice and who would have made such a stupid decision? This stinks to me like a decision made by someone very high up in DC. I'm also wondering where the leaks are in the Biden administration when we really need them?

A decision this significant had to go all the way to the President.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/ ... /100277452

I remain mystified why we felt the need to get down to just 650 troops nearly 2 mos before we had to.
We demonstrated we have the ability to extract 6,000 troops in a few days, if we have to.
We obviously expected to be able to keep the Embassy & HKIA open after the troops were gone.
All the planning was based on the Ghani govt remaining in power & the ASF staying in the field & able to defend Kabul.
The plan provided no contingency to respond to the govt falling & the ASF collapsing.
Airlift was our only way out, so we needed to hold every air base as along as we could.
How would we get people to Bagram ? In those 7 Embassy Air helos we left for the Taliban & all the military helos we airlifted out last.
We could have airlifted directly out of other air bases or shuttled evacuees to Bagram via C-130's.
It violates all the precepts of an orderly retreat from a position of strength. It was a self-inflicted rout.
We'll get answers. Books will be written. This will be studied in War Colleges & Service Academies forever, ...as a monumental failure.

The “monumental failure” occurred back in 2003 when George W. Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and diverted massive resources to Iraq.

Bush left his successor with two major mismanaged wars (never mind the wrecked economy as frosting on his cake).

President Biden finally ended the nation-building folly that George W. initiated. You cannot deny that nation-building was a major rationale for Bush’s two wars.

Both W and Trump completely screwed up. President Obama should have take Biden’s advice and withdrawn from Afghanistan a decade ago.

Nothing the United States could have done short of a permanent substantial deployment would have “saved” the Afghan government. W’s failed experiment in nation building and Trump’s reckless agreement with the Taliban were both doomed to fail from their initiation.

And you blame Biden for the failure?

If so, you haven’t learned a thing in the past two decades.

DocBarrister

What did Bush specifically do the wreck the economy? Wouldn’t be the wars. Is it leaving Greenspan in charge? Ethanol mandate? Or did you throw that in just cause? Tax code changes and profit repatriation (as well as ethanol mandate) required congressional approval and had fairly broad appeal (reducing cap gains was a huge mistake IMO but that’s not Bush that’s all of congress including Pelosi and Biden).

It could be argued that the deregulation of financial institutions, including gray market, led to the collapse and crisis. Incentives were all on volume, not credit. Yes, the wars also contributed to the juicing of the economy (which the Admin wanted) as did Greenspan's perspective on risk in the economy, all tragically overdone. Much of what was done, from deregulation to community investment and home ownership boosting lending mandates may have had positive intentions, but as things heated up and up and up, as we now know, it became a house of cards.

I'm not big on assessing 'blame' to a President when they're doing their honest best to muddle through hard choices, often without fully realizing the downsides, but there's no question that the crisis was built during the Bush years and Obama inherited its aftermath.

I'm more ok with 'blame' when those hard choices are being made solely for personal, political gain rather than because they were simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems.

That could be the understatement of the year on this forum... " simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems" When your planning a strategic withdrawal failure is not an option. Bidens people had months to come up with a cohesive plan. The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. This wasn't a "mistake" it was an industrial strength foul up. The truth will come out after all of the congressional hearings and testimony in the months to come.

[ardilla secreta]

Afghan women to be banned from playing sport, Taliban say. The ban was enacted in order to beat out Texas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... SApp_Other

[youthathletics]

Afghan women to be banned from playing sport, Taliban say. The ban was enacted in order to beat out Texas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... SApp_Other

No to be confused with children playing music in Afghanistan either...so similar to Texas.

[Brooklyn]

Afghan women to be banned from playing sport, Taliban say. The ban was enacted in order to beat out Texas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... SApp_Other

Interesting comment. I have checked through other web forums and many people have equated Texass's restrictions on women with those made by the Taliban. Hmmm ~ what a coincidence between them.

[MDlaxfan76]

Why did the US bugout of Bagram with no notice and who would have made such a stupid decision? This stinks to me like a decision made by someone very high up in DC. I'm also wondering where the leaks are in the Biden administration when we really need them?

A decision this significant had to go all the way to the President.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/ ... /100277452

I remain mystified why we felt the need to get down to just 650 troops nearly 2 mos before we had to.
We demonstrated we have the ability to extract 6,000 troops in a few days, if we have to.
We obviously expected to be able to keep the Embassy & HKIA open after the troops were gone.
All the planning was based on the Ghani govt remaining in power & the ASF staying in the field & able to defend Kabul.
The plan provided no contingency to respond to the govt falling & the ASF collapsing.
Airlift was our only way out, so we needed to hold every air base as along as we could.
How would we get people to Bagram ? In those 7 Embassy Air helos we left for the Taliban & all the military helos we airlifted out last.
We could have airlifted directly out of other air bases or shuttled evacuees to Bagram via C-130's.
It violates all the precepts of an orderly retreat from a position of strength. It was a self-inflicted rout.
We'll get answers. Books will be written. This will be studied in War Colleges & Service Academies forever, ...as a monumental failure.

The “monumental failure” occurred back in 2003 when George W. Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and diverted massive resources to Iraq.

Bush left his successor with two major mismanaged wars (never mind the wrecked economy as frosting on his cake).

President Biden finally ended the nation-building folly that George W. initiated. You cannot deny that nation-building was a major rationale for Bush’s two wars.

Both W and Trump completely screwed up. President Obama should have take Biden’s advice and withdrawn from Afghanistan a decade ago.

Nothing the United States could have done short of a permanent substantial deployment would have “saved” the Afghan government. W’s failed experiment in nation building and Trump’s reckless agreement with the Taliban were both doomed to fail from their initiation.

And you blame Biden for the failure?

If so, you haven’t learned a thing in the past two decades.

DocBarrister

What did Bush specifically do the wreck the economy? Wouldn’t be the wars. Is it leaving Greenspan in charge? Ethanol mandate? Or did you throw that in just cause? Tax code changes and profit repatriation (as well as ethanol mandate) required congressional approval and had fairly broad appeal (reducing cap gains was a huge mistake IMO but that’s not Bush that’s all of congress including Pelosi and Biden).

It could be argued that the deregulation of financial institutions, including gray market, led to the collapse and crisis. Incentives were all on volume, not credit. Yes, the wars also contributed to the juicing of the economy (which the Admin wanted) as did Greenspan's perspective on risk in the economy, all tragically overdone. Much of what was done, from deregulation to community investment and home ownership boosting lending mandates may have had positive intentions, but as things heated up and up and up, as we now know, it became a house of cards.

I'm not big on assessing 'blame' to a President when they're doing their honest best to muddle through hard choices, often without fully realizing the downsides, but there's no question that the crisis was built during the Bush years and Obama inherited its aftermath.

I'm more ok with 'blame' when those hard choices are being made solely for personal, political gain rather than because they were simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems.

That could be the understatement of the year on this forum... " simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems" When your planning a strategic withdrawal failure is not an option. Bidens people had months to come up with a cohesive plan. The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. This wasn't a "mistake" it was an industrial strength foul up. The truth will come out after all of the congressional hearings and testimony in the months to come.

I hear all this, but I remain unconvinced that it was a 'failure'.
Not when you actually do accomplish the largest personnel withdrawal in history at the end of a failed war and the enemy is at the gates. The allies exited an enormous # of people over a short period of time. Fact.

At this point, we don't know what all the scenarios were that they incorporated in their planning, how they weighed various 'what ifs' and alternatives. I certainly wouldn't assume that they didn't plan for various scenarios, including the rapid fall of the government, the total capitulation of the Afghan allied military. Doesn't mean that they placed their primary bets on that scenario, especially with the speed of capitulation, but I'd think that it was more of a rolling shitstorm that they simply had to deal with as it came.

Now, I do agree with Salty that there's going to be books written about how it could have been done better, but it's really all going to be speculation as to various 'what if's' that may seem like good ideas, but there's always the reciprocal 'and then, this would've happened'...all unknowable.

That said, it will all make for interesting grist for the mill.

[MDlaxfan76]

Afghan women to be banned from playing sport, Taliban say. The ban was enacted in order to beat out Texas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... SApp_Other

No to be confused with children playing music in Afghanistan either...so similar to Texas.

yeah, that's the same thing...

[youthathletics]

Afghan women to be banned from playing sport, Taliban say. The ban was enacted in order to beat out Texas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... SApp_Other

No to be confused with children playing music in Afghanistan either...so similar to Texas.

yeah, that's the same thing...

exactly

[MDlaxfan76]

Afghan women to be banned from playing sport, Taliban say. The ban was enacted in order to beat out Texas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... SApp_Other

No to be confused with children playing music in Afghanistan either...so similar to Texas.

yeah, that's the same thing...

exactly

I think we all know that Texas ain't Taliban...yet.
Closer to Gilead of the Handmaid's Tale.

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

[cradleandshoot]

Why did the US bugout of Bagram with no notice and who would have made such a stupid decision? This stinks to me like a decision made by someone very high up in DC. I'm also wondering where the leaks are in the Biden administration when we really need them?

A decision this significant had to go all the way to the President.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/ ... /100277452

I remain mystified why we felt the need to get down to just 650 troops nearly 2 mos before we had to.
We demonstrated we have the ability to extract 6,000 troops in a few days, if we have to.
We obviously expected to be able to keep the Embassy & HKIA open after the troops were gone.
All the planning was based on the Ghani govt remaining in power & the ASF staying in the field & able to defend Kabul.
The plan provided no contingency to respond to the govt falling & the ASF collapsing.
Airlift was our only way out, so we needed to hold every air base as along as we could.
How would we get people to Bagram ? In those 7 Embassy Air helos we left for the Taliban & all the military helos we airlifted out last.
We could have airlifted directly out of other air bases or shuttled evacuees to Bagram via C-130's.
It violates all the precepts of an orderly retreat from a position of strength. It was a self-inflicted rout.
We'll get answers. Books will be written. This will be studied in War Colleges & Service Academies forever, ...as a monumental failure.

The “monumental failure” occurred back in 2003 when George W. Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and diverted massive resources to Iraq.

Bush left his successor with two major mismanaged wars (never mind the wrecked economy as frosting on his cake).

President Biden finally ended the nation-building folly that George W. initiated. You cannot deny that nation-building was a major rationale for Bush’s two wars.

Both W and Trump completely screwed up. President Obama should have take Biden’s advice and withdrawn from Afghanistan a decade ago.

Nothing the United States could have done short of a permanent substantial deployment would have “saved” the Afghan government. W’s failed experiment in nation building and Trump’s reckless agreement with the Taliban were both doomed to fail from their initiation.

And you blame Biden for the failure?

If so, you haven’t learned a thing in the past two decades.

DocBarrister

What did Bush specifically do the wreck the economy? Wouldn’t be the wars. Is it leaving Greenspan in charge? Ethanol mandate? Or did you throw that in just cause? Tax code changes and profit repatriation (as well as ethanol mandate) required congressional approval and had fairly broad appeal (reducing cap gains was a huge mistake IMO but that’s not Bush that’s all of congress including Pelosi and Biden).

It could be argued that the deregulation of financial institutions, including gray market, led to the collapse and crisis. Incentives were all on volume, not credit. Yes, the wars also contributed to the juicing of the economy (which the Admin wanted) as did Greenspan's perspective on risk in the economy, all tragically overdone. Much of what was done, from deregulation to community investment and home ownership boosting lending mandates may have had positive intentions, but as things heated up and up and up, as we now know, it became a house of cards.

I'm not big on assessing 'blame' to a President when they're doing their honest best to muddle through hard choices, often without fully realizing the downsides, but there's no question that the crisis was built during the Bush years and Obama inherited its aftermath.

I'm more ok with 'blame' when those hard choices are being made solely for personal, political gain rather than because they were simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems.

That could be the understatement of the year on this forum... " simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems" When your planning a strategic withdrawal failure is not an option. Bidens people had months to come up with a cohesive plan. The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. This wasn't a "mistake" it was an industrial strength foul up. The truth will come out after all of the congressional hearings and testimony in the months to come.

I hear all this, but I remain unconvinced that it was a 'failure'.
Not when you actually do accomplish the largest personnel withdrawal in history at the end of a failed war and the enemy is at the gates. The allies exited an enormous # of people over a short period of time. Fact.

At this point, we don't know what all the scenarios were that they incorporated in their planning, how they weighed various 'what ifs' and alternatives. I certainly wouldn't assume that they didn't plan for various scenarios, including the rapid fall of the government, the total capitulation of the Afghan allied military. Doesn't mean that they placed their primary bets on that scenario, especially with the speed of capitulation, but I'd think that it was more of a rolling shitstorm that they simply had to deal with as it came.

Now, I do agree with Salty that there's going to be books written about how it could have been done better, but it's really all going to be speculation as to various 'what if's' that may seem like good ideas, but there's always the reciprocal 'and then, this would've happened'...all unknowable.

That said, it will all make for interesting grist for the mill.

I know when Bidens people made the decision to abandon Bagram with no notice this situation was going to hell in a hand basket. A strategic withdrawal never allows for letting the opposition know you have pushed the panic button. The abandonment of Bagram was the catalyst for this entire chitshow. There was no longer any possibility of a strategic withdrawal. What followed was the chaos and confusion that would be expected. Biden made a smart decision to get out of Afghanistan. He himself chose to take the Harry Truman road and tell all of us that the buck stops here. No sooner had those words left his mouth when he said the buck stops with everybody except him. The endless congressional hearings into this monumental foul up will make the Benghazi investigations look like child's play. IMO the foolish decision to abandon a valuable asset like Bagram Airfield with no notice will come back to haunt Biden. The decision to abandon Bagram will come back to bite Biden in the ass. That is the single event that proved Biden had lost control of our exit from Afghanistan. It was a stunning example of stupidity on parade. I am dying to find out who was advising Biden on this decision. The buck stops here my ass... A strategic withdrawal implies that you actually have a strategy and perhaps a plan. Bidens people proved that they had neither.

[MDlaxfan76]

Why did the US bugout of Bagram with no notice and who would have made such a stupid decision? This stinks to me like a decision made by someone very high up in DC. I'm also wondering where the leaks are in the Biden administration when we really need them?

A decision this significant had to go all the way to the President.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/ ... /100277452

I remain mystified why we felt the need to get down to just 650 troops nearly 2 mos before we had to.
We demonstrated we have the ability to extract 6,000 troops in a few days, if we have to.
We obviously expected to be able to keep the Embassy & HKIA open after the troops were gone.
All the planning was based on the Ghani govt remaining in power & the ASF staying in the field & able to defend Kabul.
The plan provided no contingency to respond to the govt falling & the ASF collapsing.
Airlift was our only way out, so we needed to hold every air base as along as we could.
How would we get people to Bagram ? In those 7 Embassy Air helos we left for the Taliban & all the military helos we airlifted out last.
We could have airlifted directly out of other air bases or shuttled evacuees to Bagram via C-130's.
It violates all the precepts of an orderly retreat from a position of strength. It was a self-inflicted rout.
We'll get answers. Books will be written. This will be studied in War Colleges & Service Academies forever, ...as a monumental failure.

The “monumental failure” occurred back in 2003 when George W. Bush failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and diverted massive resources to Iraq.

Bush left his successor with two major mismanaged wars (never mind the wrecked economy as frosting on his cake).

President Biden finally ended the nation-building folly that George W. initiated. You cannot deny that nation-building was a major rationale for Bush’s two wars.

Both W and Trump completely screwed up. President Obama should have take Biden’s advice and withdrawn from Afghanistan a decade ago.

Nothing the United States could have done short of a permanent substantial deployment would have “saved” the Afghan government. W’s failed experiment in nation building and Trump’s reckless agreement with the Taliban were both doomed to fail from their initiation.

And you blame Biden for the failure?

If so, you haven’t learned a thing in the past two decades.

DocBarrister

What did Bush specifically do the wreck the economy? Wouldn’t be the wars. Is it leaving Greenspan in charge? Ethanol mandate? Or did you throw that in just cause? Tax code changes and profit repatriation (as well as ethanol mandate) required congressional approval and had fairly broad appeal (reducing cap gains was a huge mistake IMO but that’s not Bush that’s all of congress including Pelosi and Biden).

It could be argued that the deregulation of financial institutions, including gray market, led to the collapse and crisis. Incentives were all on volume, not credit. Yes, the wars also contributed to the juicing of the economy (which the Admin wanted) as did Greenspan's perspective on risk in the economy, all tragically overdone. Much of what was done, from deregulation to community investment and home ownership boosting lending mandates may have had positive intentions, but as things heated up and up and up, as we now know, it became a house of cards.

I'm not big on assessing 'blame' to a President when they're doing their honest best to muddle through hard choices, often without fully realizing the downsides, but there's no question that the crisis was built during the Bush years and Obama inherited its aftermath.

I'm more ok with 'blame' when those hard choices are being made solely for personal, political gain rather than because they were simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems.

That could be the understatement of the year on this forum... " simply mistaken in their recognition of the problems" When your planning a strategic withdrawal failure is not an option. Bidens people had months to come up with a cohesive plan. The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters. This wasn't a "mistake" it was an industrial strength foul up. The truth will come out after all of the congressional hearings and testimony in the months to come.

I hear all this, but I remain unconvinced that it was a 'failure'.
Not when you actually do accomplish the largest personnel withdrawal in history at the end of a failed war and the enemy is at the gates. The allies exited an enormous # of people over a short period of time. Fact.

At this point, we don't know what all the scenarios were that they incorporated in their planning, how they weighed various 'what ifs' and alternatives. I certainly wouldn't assume that they didn't plan for various scenarios, including the rapid fall of the government, the total capitulation of the Afghan allied military. Doesn't mean that they placed their primary bets on that scenario, especially with the speed of capitulation, but I'd think that it was more of a rolling shitstorm that they simply had to deal with as it came.

Now, I do agree with Salty that there's going to be books written about how it could have been done better, but it's really all going to be speculation as to various 'what if's' that may seem like good ideas, but there's always the reciprocal 'and then, this would've happened'...all unknowable.

That said, it will all make for interesting grist for the mill.

I know when Bidens people made the decision to abandon Bagram with no notice this situation was going to hell in a hand basket. A strategic withdrawal never allows for letting the opposition know you have pushed the panic button. The abandonment of Bagram was the catalyst for this entire chitshow. There was no longer any possibility of a strategic withdrawal. What followed was the chaos and confusion that would be expected. Biden made a smart decision to get out of Afghanistan. He himself chose to take the Harry Truman road and tell all of us that the buck stops here. No sooner had those words left his mouth when he said the buck stops with everybody except him. The endless congressional hearings into this monumental foul up will make the Benghazi investigations look like child's play. IMO the foolish decision to abandon a valuable asset like Bagram Airfield with no notice will come back to haunt Biden. The decision to abandon Bagram will come back to bite Biden in the ass. That is the single event that proved Biden had lost control of our exit from Afghanistan. It was a stunning example of stupidity on parade. I am dying to find out who was advising Biden on this decision. The buck stops here my ass... A strategic withdrawal implies that you actually have a strategy and perhaps a plan. Bidens people proved that they had neither.

Well, we know that you had no such disdain for Trump's promise to withdraw even earlier with zero plan for such. Not a peep.

Seems to me, other than the error to be occupiers in the first place, the next big error was to tell them we'd definitely leave, date certain, no matter what...and meanwhile cutting off allied Afghan departures. But hey, you want to focus on the 120+ thousand who did get out in the last weeks of withdrawal, with a single but deadly attack not by the winners, but by a terrorist group...and call that withdrawal, larger than any other previously accomplished, the singular error, ok, have at it.

Par for the course.

[old salt]

The decision to abandon Bagram will come back to bite Biden in the ass. That is the single event that proved Biden had lost control of our exit from Afghanistan.

Yep. The decision to close Bagram & reduce troop strength from 2500 down to 650, nearly 2 mos before we had to -- before we had our people & critical equipment out, was a green flag to the Taliban & a surrender flag to the ASF. It was totally unnecessary, as we subsequently demonstrated when we evacuated & retrograded 6000 troops & their equipment in 3 days, at the end of the massive civilian airlift, from just one urban airport under siege. Just imagine what we & our allied nations could have airlifted in those final days out of Bagram, Mazir-i-Sharif, Shindand, Herat & HKIA, had we planned it that way.

[tech37]

The decision to abandon Bagram will come back to bite Biden in the ass. That is the single event that proved Biden had lost control of our exit from Afghanistan.

Yep. The decision to close Bagram & reduce troop strength from 2500 down to 650, nearly 2 mos before we had to -- before we had our people & critical equipment out, was a green flag to the Taliban & a surrender flag to the ASF. It was totally unnecessary, as we subsequently demonstrated when we evacuated & retrograded 6000 troops & their equipment in 3 days, at the end of the massive civilian airlift, from just one urban airport under siege. Just imagine what we & our allied nations could have airlifted in those final days out of Bagram, Mazir-i-Sharif, Shindand, Herat & HKIA, had we planned it that way.

Thank you C&S and OS. So, whose suggestion was it and whose decision was it? Those questions need to be answered.

[old salt]

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

...or perhaps it's people of good faith who oppose killing a nascent human being with a beating heart.
Not all of them are men, by any means.

[youthathletics]

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

...or perhaps it's people of good faith who oppose killing a nascent human being with a beating heart.
Not all of them are men, by any means.

impossible....OS, there are no good people left, excpet RINO's. MD watched Handmade Tale and thinks its true.

[Farfromgeneva]

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

...or perhaps it's people of good faith who oppose killing a nascent human being with a beating heart.
Not all of them are men, by any means.

impossible....OS, there are no good people left, excpet RINO's. MD watched Handmade Tale and thinks its true.

Since we don’t believe in a secular state anymore I guess we should just let Islam rule in the us.

It’s not “good” or even “well intentioned” to impose ones own religious beliefs and will on another. That should be understood even by the loudest Bible thumper.

[MDlaxfan76]

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

...or perhaps it's people of good faith who oppose killing a nascent human being with a beating heart.
Not all of them are men, by any means.

impossible....OS, there are no good people left, excpet RINO's. MD watched Handmade Tale and thinks its true.

True? Hopefully will never be "true".
Prophetic, and darn good streaming entertainment.
Might want to spell it correctly though.

Want to actually argue about when life 'begins'? Or when life is viable without the mother?

Whole different topic...but this is about taking the decision away from the woman, before she even knows she's pregnant. Forcing her to bear the child, regardless of rape or incest. And deputizing absolutely anyone, with bounties and no legal recourse, to enforce whatever religious zealotry they feel. Or power they want to have over the woman or any helpers.

[youthathletics]

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

...or perhaps it's people of good faith who oppose killing a nascent human being with a beating heart.
Not all of them are men, by any means.

impossible....OS, there are no good people left, excpet RINO's. MD watched Handmade Tale and thinks its true.

True? Hopefully will never be "true".
Prophetic, and darn good streaming entertainment.
Might want to spell it correctly though.

Want to actually argue about when life 'begins'? Or when life is viable without the mother?

Whole different topic...but this is about taking the decision away from the woman, before she even knows she's pregnant. Forcing her to bear the child, regardless of rape or incest. And deputizing absolutely anyone, with bounties and no legal recourse, to enforce whatever religious zealotry they feel. Or power they want to have over the woman or any helpers.

I watched most of the show with my wife, reluctantly. Yes, my bad on the spelling. You and Commander have quite a bit in common around here, maybe that's why you enjoyed it so much?

Forcing her ....here we go again. So in your Commander world, a women that was raped would not get a pregnancy test in 6 weeks after a rape...she'd just wait to see if she missed a period....boy oh boy Commander you must really think women are stupid. End then, if a woman has consensual sex, I'd be willing to bet she already knows if she wants a child, which means she too would be taking pregnancy tests prior to heartbeat at around 6 weeks if she did not want children. This is why I argued that this Heartbeat Bill, is more about being accountable, prior to a heartbeat.

You can still have an abortion in Texas:

Q: If this law is in effect, can I still get an abortion?

A: YES. Planned Parenthood is here to provide you with access to health care — no matter what. We can determine if you are within the new legal limit to provide care under this law. If you are not, and we cannot provide abortion care for you in our health center, we can still help connect you with resources to obtain out-of-state care, including financial assistance.

State law requires all people seeking an abortion to have at least two visits to the abortion facility.

The first visit is for an ultrasound, and the second visit is for the procedure. Under SB 8, another ultrasound will be required at your second visit to ensure you are still within the new legal limit for abortion care in Texas. If the second ultrasound shows you are past this new legal limit, we can still help you access abortion care out of state.

[MDlaxfan76]

But thematically, it's a bunch of religious zealots who believe that men should be in the superior, preferred position in society, women should be forced to procreate, not simply enjoy sex with the same consequences, or lack thereof, of men. And that the State, run by these religious men predominantly but with the complicity of some of the women, should use its powers to control and punish any woman, and anyone who helps them, who attempt to make her own decisions. And, ohh by the way, they enlist the neighbors to spy upon and enforce the State's "laws".

Pretty gross. But painfully true.

...or perhaps it's people of good faith who oppose killing a nascent human being with a beating heart.
Not all of them are men, by any means.

impossible....OS, there are no good people left, excpet RINO's. MD watched Handmade Tale and thinks its true.

True? Hopefully will never be "true".
Prophetic, and darn good streaming entertainment.
Might want to spell it correctly though.

Want to actually argue about when life 'begins'? Or when life is viable without the mother?

Whole different topic...but this is about taking the decision away from the woman, before she even knows she's pregnant. Forcing her to bear the child, regardless of rape or incest. And deputizing absolutely anyone, with bounties and no legal recourse, to enforce whatever religious zealotry they feel. Or power they want to have over the woman or any helpers.

I watched most of the show with my wife, reluctantly. Yes, my bad on the spelling. You and Commander have quite a bit in common around here, maybe that's why you enjoyed it so much?

Forcing her ....here we go again. So in your Commander world, a women that was raped would not get a pregnancy test in 6 weeks after a rape...she'd just wait to see if she missed a period....boy oh boy Commander you must really think women are stupid. End then, if a woman has consensual sex, I'd be willing to bet she already knows if she wants a child, which means she too would be taking pregnancy tests prior to heartbeat at around 6 weeks if she did not want children. This is why I argued that this Heartbeat Bill, is more about being accountable, prior to a heartbeat.

You can still have an abortion in Texas:

Q: If this law is in effect, can I still get an abortion?

A: YES. Planned Parenthood is here to provide you with access to health care — no matter what. We can determine if you are within the new legal limit to provide care under this law. If you are not, and we cannot provide abortion care for you in our health center, we can still help connect you with resources to obtain out-of-state care, including financial assistance.

State law requires all people seeking an abortion to have at least two visits to the abortion facility.

The first visit is for an ultrasound, and the second visit is for the procedure. Under SB 8, another ultrasound will be required at your second visit to ensure you are still within the new legal limit for abortion care in Texas. If the second ultrasound shows you are past this new legal limit, we can still help you access abortion care out of state.

Ahhh, so rape and incest victims need to get over their trauma, escape from their circumstance, drive the hell and gone, and have two appointments, two different times, and maybe, just maybe that happens in the first 6 weeks...but otherwise, tough titties gal?

Heck, consensual sex happens every month, heck every week or more, with most young folks, does this mean the girls and young women have to get a pregnancy test every week or so? Really?

And, yeah, it's just fine that we deputize neighbors and religious whack jobs who can sue absolutely anyone, demand medical records of girls and women, and if falsely accused no legal recourse for the accused...yup, Gilead here we come.

Come on, youth...you want to discuss restrictions on women's choice after viability, we can talk reasonably, but not if you're going to force rape and incest victims to bear unwanted pregnancies. For that matter, any unwanted pregnancy is a serious problem and forcing women to bear them is flat wrong.

And absolutely awful precedent to empower private citizens to enforce governmental restrictions.

And yeah, you and the Commander do appear to share some thoughts in common...is your wife as good looking as his...that's be a "blessing"...