|
|
|
Afghanistan has fallen
- Thread starter Roadghost
- Start date
Mad Mike
Well-known member
The Orange Man, along with the rest of the world, wanted to end international involvement in a never-ending battle that was consuming servicemen's lives and cash while enriching powerful Afghanis. The agreement was endorsed by the UN and NATO.
The deal outlined conditions for the drawdown of NATO troops and the uptick in responsibility for Taliban to control terrorist activity in the area. Afghans were supposed to continue talks with the Taliban to sort out their domestic issues without US interference, they had 2 years to do so. They sat on their hands.
Here are a couple of meaningful quotes from those at the table, they help rationalize the deal.
"US troops had been killing terrorists in Afghanistan by the thousands and now it is time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries. I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show we're not all wasting time If bad things happen, we'll (the USA ) go back with a force like no-one's ever seen."
“Afghanistan needs to begin to stand up on its own. … You have got Afghan leaders with beautiful homes all over the Middle East, in Europe. There’s corruption everywhere. It’s time for the Afghan people to do the hard work, the heavy lifting, and demand that they push back against the Taliban, not just militarily, but politically, exercise their own rights, secure their own freedom. We have provided all the resources the Afghan National Security Forces could possibly ever have dreamed of and all the training over two decades.”
What can one possibly say to the families of the servicemen that were just killed by terrorists while helping evacuate Afghans? Personally, I can't rationalize another soldier or dollar spent there until the locals step up to the plate.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
When would be the right time? The country has been upside down since the beginning of recorded history, do you think hanging around for a few more decades would make a difference? I think 20 years of funding and training ought to be enough investment to hand the keys back to the people. If they don't want them, what else can you do?
Sending mountains of cash and soldiers to die there had to end sometime.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
So is the corruption of Afgan gov't officials who channeled billions of US cash into their own pockets. As is the well-documented apathy of Afghan soldiers who regularly refused literacy training, habitually used drugs on the job, cowered in the face of their enemy, and deserted their fellow soldiers when the going got tough. Not debatable.
Not sustainable either.
J_F
Guest
if the goal was to bring security and stability to the place
and I still believe it was
the troop surge worked
but there was no need for 100,000 + soldiers long term
a small occupation, forever
or a better managed withdrawal
I see US and NATO are still reluctant to engage in war mongering dialogue with the Taliban
although the Biden admin talk of the sh1tty Trump deal
they are working out their own political solution with the Taliban
Last edited:
You have eloquently said what an Afghani told me years ago.
^^^This guy^^^ will be reinstated as President of the United States August 18th*
*sources
Some guy that sells pillows. I dunno.
What? It's the 27th? It'll happen. Just wait. Arizona audit.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Right, so why are we evacuating the very people who would bring about change? It seems we always do that. Steal all the intellectuals, the reformers, the democrats, then leave the country to burn. I said from the beginning of this mess that they should have told everyone, including the interpreters to pick up a gun and kill every Taliban and every ISIS POS they can see. Instead we get these people crying and snivelling in national broadcasts that they'll be killed if we don't rescue them. We've been rescuing them for 20 years.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Worked out in Japan, Germany and South Korea. The Romans occupied most of Europe for 1000 years, the foundations of that empire are still at the root of every European nation today, from the church to the government to the common law and the judicial systems. Granted, in a lot of cases occupations fail, but if it is indeed an occupation usually the conquering nation intends to annex the land. No so with Afghanistan. We never intended to stay, just deal a blow to the terrorists and set up (restore) a republic. Unfortunately, meddling from Afghanistans neighbours (Pakistan) contributed to the failure of the mission.
The initial expansion of Japan, and their war, was the first time in thousands of years they left their borders. It's easy to make an isolationist culture to go back to it's roots.
Germany was split, and all they longed for is reunification.
You mean by installing a dictator that killed ~100,000 people before the war started? And has led to the longest split of a nation, and longest de jure civil war, in modern history?
About 300 years before it was first split. And the Western Roman Empire lasted about 500 years in total. And the majority of it under constant warfare to suppress rebellions and keep their borders secure.
The Eastern Empire, known now as Byzantium, and by the Western nations Imperium Graecorum, lasted an additional 1,000 years. But also faced a great many rebellions primarily from it's non-Greek inhabitants.
The Protestants wouldn't agree.
Autocracy is pretty much dead in Europe today.
The Civil Law system most of Europe uses I'll grant you that.
Former Canadian military commanders explaining that we only got 3700 out because of layers of bureaucracy and political micro-management. 
I’m kind of torn on this one.Former Canadian military commanders explaining that we only got 3700 out because of layers of bureaucracy and political micro-management.
1. do you forego all due process in this situation? Where do you draw the line of what documents are / are not required?
2. Do you risk additional soldier lives to go search out those beyond the immediate vicinity of the airport?
3. Do you risk lives for Canadians that have a passport but choose to live elsewhere and then cry to Canada for help even though their only tie here is the passport?
4. Fairly easy to criticize the operation and make yourself blameless. No matter if it was 3,000…5,000…10,000 when will the effort be ‘sufficient’ to not be criticized?
If there weren't some safeguards would we have ended up with a bunch of queue jumping criminals?
It seems the planners have been watching too much TV drama. When things break the acceleration of the failure is rapid. It isn't like the Hollywood movie where the fraying rope breaks slowly, one strand at a time, getting slower as the strands break.
The Taliban onrush is no different. No one was ready with an effective rear guard if it was even possible.
As one of the commanders suggested, a reasonable middle ground could have been cursory check then evacuate to secure location (military base?). Complete the process there with background checks, interviews etc to attempt the limit undesirables in the rush.
We were already risking 5he lives sending planes. The planes were mostly empty as they left. You could have evacuated more people with very very little additional risk to Canadian troops.
There are a number of stories of people that were theoretically going to be evacuated by Canadians just outside the fence. You wouldn't have needed to scour the country to get thousands more out. I don't expect to get them all but the evacuation we did fit JT's pattern of talking while doing as little as possible. Remember, he said he was going to evacuate ~20,000 six months ago. Apparently he thought years to get that done was an acceptable timeline.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Yes, completely agree. We need to get away from the idea that it is Canada's job to go rescue every adventurer who goes off and gets themselves into trouble. Having said that, we do owe gratitude to the people who helped us, and we should be aiding them in whatever way possible because they are our friends. Friends don't let friends get slaughtered by terrorist thugs.
Former Canadian military commanders explaining that we only got 3700 out because of layers of bureaucracy and political micro-management.
"Earlier this week, another retired Canadian general, former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier told CBC's Power & Politics that Canada had "not shone greatly" and that the operation had been 'so cluttered by bureaucratic clumsiness, bureaucratic inefficiency, bureaucratic paperwork.'"
The buck stops here.
|
|
|
|
|