Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

[NattyBohChamps04]

No, Bush gets a pass. He invaded to go after Biden and those who attacked us. For ONCE, we invaded because we were attacked first.

I know Obama sometimes gets blamed for letting 9/11 happen, but this is a new one.

[a fan]

No, Bush gets a pass. He invaded to go after Biden and those who attacked us. For ONCE, we invaded because we were attacked first.

I know Obama sometimes gets blamed for letting 9/11 happen, but this is a new one.

Hey, I"m told TeamTinFoil servers donuts at their meetings...so I'm gonna give the Team a try!

(whoops, thanks for the correction)

[DocBarrister]

There's a lot of blame to go around there though, kram.
Any way you look at it, we can build another wall like the
Vietnam one and list more American GIs who died in vain.

Agreed. And I've said this a couple times before-
Every administration since we got involved there is to blame for this mess.
I just look forward to MD and others being as outspoken about Doc's one-sided blame.

Making a deal with the Taliban while completely excluding the putative Afghanistan government from the process pretty much declared to the world that the United States didn’t see any other conclusion to the war other than a Taliban victory.

There was no way America’s war was going to end in Afghanistan without chaos. Trump’s deal with the Taliban made things worse than it had to be.

President Biden did what his three predecessors utterly failed to do … he got us out of Afghanistan.

There is plenty of blame to go around. W incompetently managed the first 8 years of the war, diverting crucial resources to a wasteful war in Iraq. Obama should have listened to Biden and decided against a surge in Afghanistan. Trump screwed things up in Afghanistan, pretty much the way he has failed in everything he has ever tried in his life.

We are finally out of Afghanistan, whose cowardly men were not willing to fight for their freedom against the Taliban.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

DocBarrister
Making a deal with the Taliban while completely excluding the putative Afghanistan government from the process pretty much declared to the world that the United States didn’t see any other conclusion to the war other than a Taliban victory.

There was no way America’s war was going to end in Afghanistan without chaos. Trump’s deal with the Taliban made things worse than it had to be.

President Biden did what his three predecessors utterly failed to do … he got us out of Afghanistan.

He did so using the time table set by tRump who betrayed the puppet government installed by Bush. But what is really interesting is how the treasonous right wing used that as an excuse to attack Biden rather than to attack Bush. And, not surprisingly, the Democrats failed to swing back with the truth that Biden was only adhering to tRump's policy and time table.

[DocBarrister]

DocBarrister
Making a deal with the Taliban while completely excluding the putative Afghanistan government from the process pretty much declared to the world that the United States didn’t see any other conclusion to the war other than a Taliban victory.

There was no way America’s war was going to end in Afghanistan without chaos. Trump’s deal with the Taliban made things worse than it had to be.

President Biden did what his three predecessors utterly failed to do … he got us out of Afghanistan.

He did so using the time table set by tRump who betrayed the puppet government installed by Bush. But what is really interesting is how the treasonous right wing used that as an excuse to attack Biden rather than to attack Bush. And, not surprisingly, the Democrats failed to swing back with the truth that Biden was only adhering to tRump's policy and time table.

Biden had to extend the absurd Trump timeline by several months.

And Trump, who had basically abandoned his duties in order to try and steal the 2020 election, did little to prepare for the American departure.

There was never going to be a neat and tidy departure from Afghanistan. Afghanistan has brutalized invaders and occupiers for over 2,000 years since the days of Alexander the Great.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

Biden had to extend the absurd Trump timeline by several months.

And Trump, who had basically abandoned his duties in order to try and steal the 2020 election, did little to prepare for the American departure.

There was never going to be a neat and tidy departure from Afghanistan. Afghanistan has brutalized invaders and occupiers for over 2,000 years since the days of Alexander the Great.

DocBarrister

None of those invaders had any right to attack Afghanistan. Same with Bush. No surprise that nobody has held the traitor accountable for starting the needless war which created so many billions in profits for his corporate puppet masters.

[DocBarrister]

Biden had to extend the absurd Trump timeline by several months.

And Trump, who had basically abandoned his duties in order to try and steal the 2020 election, did little to prepare for the American departure.

There was never going to be a neat and tidy departure from Afghanistan. Afghanistan has brutalized invaders and occupiers for over 2,000 years since the days of Alexander the Great.

DocBarrister

None of those invaders had any right to attack Afghanistan. Same with Bush. No surprise that nobody has held the traitor accountable for starting the needless war which created so many billions in profits for his corporate puppet masters.

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

The Taliban offered OBL to USA before 9/11 took place:


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/1 ... l-before-9



The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar ... Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.



9/11 was just an excuse for launching the profit making war. Not an honest justification.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Ignatius in the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... y-lessons/

"A year after the fall of Kabul, the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan looks better as a pragmatic decision to end a costly war. But haunting images remain from an unnecessarily chaotic exit that reflected a chain of policy misjudgments.

“The last year has borne out the wisdom of getting out,” argues a senior White House official. Though I was skeptical at the time, his judgment seems correct. Imagine if we were still fighting the Taliban when Russia invaded Ukraine in February, or as China threatened Taiwan. As for the terrorism threat, last month’s drone killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri suggests it might be manageable from a distance, as the administration has argued.

What’s still agonizing, though, is the decision-making process, in which different parts of the administration pursued what amounted to contradictory policies. The Pentagon wanted to get out as fast as possible once President Biden decided in April 2021 to withdraw. But the State Department sought to maintain its embassy and diplomatic presence in Kabul, even as the country was crumbling.

The Pentagon and State timetables didn’t match, and nobody ever forced a reconciliation. As a result, State pressed ahead with a diplomatic mission for which it didn’t have adequate time or resources. The military, which had opposed Biden’s withdrawal decision, opted to protect its troops. “Speed is safety” was the Pentagon mantra, while at State it was something closer to “stay the course.”

“They wanted an elegant solution while we were withdrawing, and sometimes those things don’t go together,” says retired Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., who as commander of the U.S. Central Command was in charge of U.S. forces during the withdrawal.

The war in Afghanistan from the beginning was a story of overly optimistic assumptions about our Afghan partners’ ability to contain the Taliban, and that continued to the end. Nobody predicted that a panicked President Ashraf Ghani would flee the country and that the Afghan army would suddenly collapse — and perhaps nobody could have. But the Biden administration could have hedged better against the possibility of such “black swan” disasters — and, indeed, some officials tried, unsuccessfully, to do just that.

U.S. officials began developing plans for an emergency evacuation in March 2021, knowing that Biden, long a critic of the war, might want a rapid departure. All the senior Pentagon leaders argued against complete withdrawal, proposing instead to keep 2,500 troops in Kabul as a “term insurance policy” against a terrorist resurgence, as retired Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. put it in a recent interview.

When Biden decided in April that he wanted to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of August, despite Pentagon objections, the generals grudgingly saluted. Commanders wouldn’t ask troops to die for a mission that the president had decided wasn’t worthwhile. But State resisted open discussion of U.S. evacuation. “That would have been a profound sign of lack of confidence in the Kabul government,” a senior State Department official told me.

The Pentagon completed its speedy removal of troops and equipment in July, leaving only a small force of 650 U.S. troops to protect the Kabul embassy and airport. By then, the Taliban was rapidly seizing provincial capitals. National security adviser Jake Sullivan called a meeting in early July to ask whether the United States should try to retain control of Bagram airbase, long the center of American power about 40 miles north of the capital, as an alternative escape route.

Pentagon officials argued that maintaining Bagram after withdrawal of the main 2,500 U.S. troops wasn’t realistic. The Afghan military was no longer capable of providing perimeter security there, the generals explained, and the United States would have to send 3,000 troops back to Afghanistan to keep the base open, McKenzie recalls. Kabul airport would be a better exit point, the administration decided.

Looking back, the failure to plan earlier and better for possible civilian evacuation was a critical mistake. As the situation deteriorated over the summer, administration officials should have tried to “extend the timetable for withdrawal” or called a temporary “timeout,” argued Carter Malkasian, a former State Department official, in a recent interview. Malkasian served extensively in Afghanistan and wrote a superb history of the war, published last year.

The Taliban surge accelerated in late July and early August. But still, officials resisted issuing a “NEO,” the term for a “noncombatant evacuation operation.” The National Security Council held deputies and principals meetings on Aug. 8 and 9 to urge consideration of the NEO, and the consensus at those meetings was against issuing the order — and that the Afghan army could hold Kabul, according to one participant. Days later, senior leadership of multiple agencies came around to believing the NEO was necessary.

The pyramid of illusions crumbled on Aug. 15. Ghani fled the presidential palace at midday, as Taliban fighters streamed into the capital unopposed. The unthinkable had happened. The State Department had quit the embassy two days before and regrouped at the airport. An emergency evacuation was finally inescapable.

McKenzie traveled to Doha, Qatar, that day to meet Abdul Ghani Baradar, the most senior Taliban official in contact with America. McKenzie carried a map that showed a 30-kilometer circle around Kabul. He planned to ask the Taliban to withdraw to that line until the evacuation was complete. But on his way to Baradar’s suite on the 23rd floor of the Ritz-Carlton in Doha, McKenzie was told that Ashraf Ghani was gone and the Taliban was in downtown Kabul.

McKenzie altered his pitch. If Taliban fighters let the evacuation proceed safely, then U.S. military forces gathered at the airport wouldn’t attack them. Baradar threw a wild card: “Why don’t you secure the city?” McKenzie, knowing that retaking Kabul might require tens of thousands of U.S. troops, demurred. His mission was to secure the evacuation.

The Taliban agreed, and the chaotic final airlift began, with U.S. forces eventually evacuating more than 80,000 civilians — at a cost of 13 American troops killed in a terrorist attack by an Islamic State bomber.

Writing an epitaph for a failed 20-year war — and its chaotic last months — is difficult. But McKenzie, the last commander of American troops in this too-long conflict, offers this: “We wanted out. We got out. We subordinated everything to the desire to leave.”

And a year later, for all the mistaken judgements that were part of leaving, it’s good that America’s longest war is over."

[DocBarrister]

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

The Taliban offered OBL to USA before 9/11 took place:


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/1 ... l-before-9



The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar ... Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.



9/11 was just an excuse for launching the profit making war. Not an honest justification.

And you think that was a serious offer?

You think al Qaeda would have ever permitted anyone to put Osama bin Laden on trial?

You think the Taliban would have been willing to go against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Even if the Taliban and al Qaeda agree to put bin Laden on trial, do you think it would have been a fair and objective trial?

Do you actually believe any of that?

OMG.

By the way, you also misread the article … the Taliban NEVER “offered OBL to USA.”

Let me know when you are willing to have a serious (or simply lucid) discussion on these issues.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

The Taliban offered OBL to USA before 9/11 took place:


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/1 ... l-before-9



The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar ... Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.



9/11 was just an excuse for launching the profit making war. Not an honest justification.

And you think that was a serious offer?

You think al Qaeda would have ever permitted anyone to put Osama bin Laden on trial?

You think the Taliban would have been willing to go against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Even if the Taliban and al Qaeda agree to put bin Laden on trial, do you think it would have been a fair and objective trial?

Do you actually believe any of that?

OMG.

By the way, you also misread the article … the Taliban NEVER “offered OBL to USA.”

Let me know when you are willing to have a serious (or simply lucid) discussion on these issues.

DocBarrister

LOL. The clear import of all this is that the Talibani would have done so if there was a conviction. But of course, no trial took place as your heroes were hellbent on having more troubles arise so as to "justify" another war.

[DocBarrister]

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

The Taliban offered OBL to USA before 9/11 took place:


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/1 ... l-before-9



The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar ... Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.



9/11 was just an excuse for launching the profit making war. Not an honest justification.

And you think that was a serious offer?

You think al Qaeda would have ever permitted anyone to put Osama bin Laden on trial?

You think the Taliban would have been willing to go against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Even if the Taliban and al Qaeda agree to put bin Laden on trial, do you think it would have been a fair and objective trial?

Do you actually believe any of that?

OMG.

By the way, you also misread the article … the Taliban NEVER “offered OBL to USA.”

Let me know when you are willing to have a serious (or simply lucid) discussion on these issues.

DocBarrister

LOL. The clear import of all this is that the Talibani would have done so if there was a conviction. But of course, no trial took place as your heroes were hellbent on having more troubles arise so as to "justify" another war.

OMG … you really do believe that BS.

Wow.

That is completely detached from any semblance of reality.

DocBarrister

[Brooklyn]

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

The Taliban offered OBL to USA before 9/11 took place:


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/1 ... l-before-9



The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar ... Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.



9/11 was just an excuse for launching the profit making war. Not an honest justification.

And you think that was a serious offer?

You think al Qaeda would have ever permitted anyone to put Osama bin Laden on trial?

You think the Taliban would have been willing to go against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Even if the Taliban and al Qaeda agree to put bin Laden on trial, do you think it would have been a fair and objective trial?

Do you actually believe any of that?

OMG.

By the way, you also misread the article … the Taliban NEVER “offered OBL to USA.”

Let me know when you are willing to have a serious (or simply lucid) discussion on these issues.

DocBarrister

LOL. The clear import of all this is that the Talibani would have done so if there was a conviction. But of course, no trial took place as your heroes were hellbent on having more troubles arise so as to "justify" another war.

OMG … you really do believe that BS.

Wow.

That is completely detached from any semblance of reality.

DocBarrister

Yeah, almost as crazy as believing the fairy tale about WMD, a 45 minute attack capability, and that there was an impending attack that was about to bring on Armageddon. One million dead people later, so many of you still believe all the bullshhhtt your lame brain leadership gives you.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nonsense.

The Taliban gave safe harbor to al Qaeda, which attacked the United States. That’s more than enough justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

W was justified in launching the invasion of Afghanistan. The problem was his horrendous mismanagement of the war.

DocBarrister

The Taliban offered OBL to USA before 9/11 took place:


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/1 ... l-before-9



The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar ... Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.



9/11 was just an excuse for launching the profit making war. Not an honest justification.

And you think that was a serious offer?

You think al Qaeda would have ever permitted anyone to put Osama bin Laden on trial?

You think the Taliban would have been willing to go against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Even if the Taliban and al Qaeda agree to put bin Laden on trial, do you think it would have been a fair and objective trial?

Do you actually believe any of that?

OMG.

By the way, you also misread the article … the Taliban NEVER “offered OBL to USA.”

Let me know when you are willing to have a serious (or simply lucid) discussion on these issues.

DocBarrister

LOL. The clear import of all this is that the Talibani would have done so if there was a conviction. But of course, no trial took place as your heroes were hellbent on having more troubles arise so as to "justify" another war.

OMG … you really do believe that BS.

Wow.

That is completely detached from any semblance of reality.

DocBarrister

Yeah, almost as crazy as believing the fairy tale about WMD, a 45 minute attack capability, and that there was an impending attack that was about to bring on Armageddon. One million dead people later, so many of you still believe all the bullshhhtt your lame brain leadership gives you.

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

[Brooklyn]

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

The reality is that the failure to believe any of it or to even try to negotiate led to 9/11 and to a needless war that cost us trillions of dollars and one million dead Afghanis. While those of you who own stock in the military industrial complex celebrate all that, people like me wish there had been some effort to avoid it all.

[MDlaxfan76]

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

The reality is that the failure to believe any of it or to even try to negotiate led to 9/11 and to a needless war that cost us trillions of dollars and one million dead Afghanis. While those of you who own stock in the military industrial complex celebrate all that, people like me wish there had been some effort to avoid it all.

Who is the "those of you"?

Doc, me?

I'm not arguing whether terrible errors were made, I'm just objecting to your ongoing smear attempts at your fellow posters, without sound basis to suggest these things...my suggestion? take the diatribes to Twitter where you can be rewarded with retweets and likes...

[Brooklyn]

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

The reality is that the failure to believe any of it or to even try to negotiate led to 9/11 and to a needless war that cost us trillions of dollars and one million dead Afghanis. While those of you who own stock in the military industrial complex celebrate all that, people like me wish there had been some effort to avoid it all.

Who is the "those of you"?

Doc, me?

I'm not arguing whether terrible errors were made, I'm just objecting to your ongoing smear attempts at your fellow posters, without sound basis to suggest these things...my suggestion? take the diatribes to Twitter where you can be rewarded with retweets and likes...

"diatribes"

Funny how these critics call into question my sense of reality and that's perfectly ok to them. Somehow that does not constitute "diatribes" in their little minds. I could say more but don't want to risk any difficulty with the Admin.

[MDlaxfan76]

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

The reality is that the failure to believe any of it or to even try to negotiate led to 9/11 and to a needless war that cost us trillions of dollars and one million dead Afghanis. While those of you who own stock in the military industrial complex celebrate all that, people like me wish there had been some effort to avoid it all.

Who is the "those of you"?

Doc, me?

I'm not arguing whether terrible errors were made, I'm just objecting to your ongoing smear attempts at your fellow posters, without sound basis to suggest these things...my suggestion? take the diatribes to Twitter where you can be rewarded with retweets and likes...

"diatribes"

Funny how these critics call into question my sense of reality and that's perfectly ok to them. Somehow that does not constitute "diatribes" in their little minds. I could say more but don't want to risk any difficulty with the Admin.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't push back, I'm just saying that you keep generalizing insults that simply aren't on point...they're just insults and off-base generalizations.

[Brooklyn]

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

The reality is that the failure to believe any of it or to even try to negotiate led to 9/11 and to a needless war that cost us trillions of dollars and one million dead Afghanis. While those of you who own stock in the military industrial complex celebrate all that, people like me wish there had been some effort to avoid it all.

Who is the "those of you"?

Doc, me?

I'm not arguing whether terrible errors were made, I'm just objecting to your ongoing smear attempts at your fellow posters, without sound basis to suggest these things...my suggestion? take the diatribes to Twitter where you can be rewarded with retweets and likes...

"diatribes"

Funny how these critics call into question my sense of reality and that's perfectly ok to them. Somehow that does not constitute "diatribes" in their little minds. I could say more but don't want to risk any difficulty with the Admin.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't push back, I'm just saying that you keep generalizing insults that simply aren't on point...they're just insults and off-base generalizations.

^ projections

[MDlaxfan76]

Except that I doubt Doc is in that group who still believe that there were WMD...they are indeed unwilling to face reality...as you clearly are unwilling on this...

The reality is that the failure to believe any of it or to even try to negotiate led to 9/11 and to a needless war that cost us trillions of dollars and one million dead Afghanis. While those of you who own stock in the military industrial complex celebrate all that, people like me wish there had been some effort to avoid it all.

Who is the "those of you"?

Doc, me?

I'm not arguing whether terrible errors were made, I'm just objecting to your ongoing smear attempts at your fellow posters, without sound basis to suggest these things...my suggestion? take the diatribes to Twitter where you can be rewarded with retweets and likes...

"diatribes"

Funny how these critics call into question my sense of reality and that's perfectly ok to them. Somehow that does not constitute "diatribes" in their little minds. I could say more but don't want to risk any difficulty with the Admin.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't push back, I'm just saying that you keep generalizing insults that simply aren't on point...they're just insults and off-base generalizations.

^ projections

For instance?