• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US, NATO Outta Afghanistan 2021

Money is fungible, and I have government more in mind than private enterprise.

The US supposedly spent $2T (roughly $100B per year), and the GDP of Afghanistan is approximately $20B.

Next time, just run the numbers and decide whether to pay off some of the locals to see off the ones we don't like. Canada could have footed that whole bill by sacrificing only a little bit.
 
Not being sarcastic when I say this; people who had stock in KBR, DynCorp International, Washington and so on didn't really lose out.

I guess we can argue they might be losing out now because they're losing their golden cows, but they've had 20 years of solid contracts, probably single sourced too.

In 2006 KBR was charging the US Gov over $2 million a day for food alone, just on one base (KAF).
I know you're no being sarcastic. You are correct - they made tons of $$$ off the backs of 158 soldiers KIA and thousands wounded from our nation.
 


And so civil war it is, 10k troops massed north of Kabul
Like I said earlier,leaving the fighting aged men with military training alive was a grand strategic blunder on the part of the taliban who will now struggle to hold their gains, dame as anyone who tries to rule Afghanistan
 
How do you say "Scrooge McDuck" in Pashto?
The Russian embassy in Kabul alleged Monday that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has fled from Kabul with four cars and a helicopter full of cash, Russia’s state news agency RIA Novosti reported.

The report quoted embassy spokesman Nikita Ishchenko as saying that “the collapse of the regime ... is most eloquently characterized by how Ghani escaped from Afghanistan: four cars were filled with money, they tried to shove another part of the money into a helicopter, but not everything fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac.”

Asked by The Associated Press about how he knew the details of Ghani’s departure, Ishchenko said “well, we are working here,” without offering any more details. The AP couldn’t independently verify his claims ...
Still posting on his FB account, tho - for now, anyway ....
 
Round Two, ding ding....


The mujahideen resistance to the Taliban begins now. But we need help.


Ahmad Massoud is the leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan.

In 1998, when I was 9 years old, my father, the mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, gathered his soldiers in a cave in the Panjshir Valley of northern Afghanistan. They sat and listened as my father’s friend, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, addressed them. “When you fight for your freedom,” Lévy said, “you fight also for our freedom.”

My father never forgot this as he fought against the Taliban regime. Up until the moment he was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001, at the behest of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, he was fighting for the fate of Afghanistan but also for the West.
Now this common struggle is more essential than ever in these dark, tense hours for my homeland.

I write from the Panjshir Valley today, ready to follow in my father’s footsteps, with mujahideen fighters who are prepared to once again take on the Taliban. We have stores of ammunition and arms that we have patiently collected since my father’s time, because we knew this day might come.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ZMSmkWBDvpGX6jDtXNpmo5L3-tv8rLuEcHcWiMuYxTA-U
 

CNN and David Axelrod are not my preferred sources of information.

However,

Precisely because of that, the net tendency of bias at CNN and the particular position that David Axelrod held in the Obama-Biden administration, I find this article particularly insightful.


Axelrod: These are the battle scars Biden brought to Afghanistan decision​

David Axelrod  Super Tuesday election results reported from CNN's Washington DC bureau on Tuesday, March 1, 2016 in Washington, D.C.  Photo by John Nowak/CNN
By David Axelrod, CNN Senior Political Commentator


'I do not regret my decision': Biden on US military withdrawal from Afghanistan 02:01
David Axelrod, a senior CNN political commentator and host of "The Axe Files," was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and chief strategist for the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion on CNN.
(CNN)Joe Biden was always a skeptic about what was possible in Afghanistan. I was a witness to that skepticism.

In 2009, President Barack Obama convened an intensive review of US strategy in Afghanistan. After seven years of war, the allied effort there was floundering. Attention and resources had been shifted to Iraq, while the war in Afghanistan drifted. Obama wanted to chart the way forward.

He led nine fateful meetings in the Situation Room, in the basement of the White House. The Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated for sending 40,000 troops to repel a resurgent Taliban. They said it would create space for democracy and civil society to take root.

Central to the strategy was training the Afghan army and police so they could defend the country themselves.

Biden didn't buy it. In an animated conversation in his office before the meetings began, he told me that the mission was drifting from its origins and that the Pentagon plan, pointedly leaked to the media before it even hit the president's desk, would result in a quagmire.


"Our objective in going there was to destroy al Qaeda so why the hell are we plunging into COIN here?" the vice president asked, using the acronym for the type of elaborate counter insurgency program the military was proposing. "The president asked me to play the bad cop here and that's what I'm going to do."

In sometimes heated exchanges over the coming weeks, Biden sharply questioned Gates and the military architects of the plan. Capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda should remain the focus, he argued, and could be accomplished with a much smaller counter-terrorism force in the region. To commit to a larger counter insurgency would bog us down in a costly, open-ended war.

Biden's passion sprung from hard experience. He entered the Senate during the final years of Vietnam, when that long and painful war was effectively lost but not over. He had cast a vote in 2002 authorizing the war in Iraq that he quickly came to regret.

In the end, Obama agreed to send 30,000 additional troops but with benchmarks, including for the training of Afghan military and police, and a timetable for winding down the surge and handing responsibility for defending Afghanistan to the Afghans.

It wasn't the outcome Biden had hoped for, and he bore some scars from the fight. The Allied Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was fired after a reporter overheard the general's aides crudely ridiculing Biden in McChrystal's presence. Gates would write in his 2014 memoir that while Biden was "a man of integrity," who was "impossible not to like...he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."

I've thought a lot this week about the deliberations I witnessed.

The concerns Biden expressed then have been more than vindicated today. We did get bogged down in Afghanistan. Yes, there has been enormous progress there on some fronts — most notably for women and girls, who suffered under the Taliban's repressive rule. Yes, our own military served with extraordinary courage and sacrificed greatly to give Afghans the chance for freedom denied by a brutal and repressive theocracy.

Yet this wasn't the mission that drew us to Afghanistan. Bin Laden was captured and killed a decade ago. Al Qaeda has been degraded. And, after 20 years in which so much American blood has been spilled and treasure lost, it was time to pass the task of securing those gains on to the Afghans themselves.

As Biden said in his televised remarks Monday, the fact that the Afghan security forces in which we invested so much were abjectly ill-prepared and unwilling to take up their own defense was a pretty fair sign that they never would be.

Yet the argument for leaving doesn't explain or justify the chaotic manner in which we did. There is shame in those images of Afghans who for years had helped support our efforts, chasing US military aircraft down runways in a desperate attempt to escape Taliban reprisals.

Maybe the explanation for the debacle lies in faulty intelligence, misjudging the warp speed at which the Taliban would advance and Kabul would fall. Perhaps there were other institutional errors. There will be plenty of reporting and after-action reviews on Capitol Hill and within the administration itself to get to the bottom of that.

But I wonder if Biden didn't also carry some of the scars of his past battles over Afghanistan into his decision-making as Commander-in Chief. Was he so determined not to be cowed by the Pentagon, as perhaps he felt Obama was, that he ignored warnings he should have heeded? Was he so eager to deliver a final rebuke to Gates and others, who dismissed his concerns 12 years ago, that he moved too fast?

And did his resolve to finally end this Endless War blind this famously empathetic President to the humanitarian crisis that was unfolding on his watch?

No exit from Afghanistan was going to be easy or without a sense of pain and betrayal from Americans who served and sacrificed there and Afghans who have come to rely on the US and its allies and have been left to fend for themselves.

And any regeneration of Afghanistan as a staging area for al Qaeda, ISIS and acts of terrorism against Americans or our allies also will invite new debate about the President's decision.

But as Biden argued, and events have proven, to remain after the Trump administration's withdrawal agreement with the Taliban last year, and Trump's subsequent drawdown of US troops, would have required reengaging and placing more Americans in harm's way to shore up a corrupt and feckless government.

Biden made a strong case for his decision to leave Afghanistan after two decades. It is one with which polls suggest most Americans agree.

Yet in stubbornly insisting that he was right all along, without fully acknowledging the pain of this withdrawal and botched execution of the endgame, Biden diminished the power of his argument.


Good intentions and personal experience are a powerful combination.
 
Last edited:

CNN and David Axelrod are not my preferred sources of information.

However,

Precisely because of that, the net tendency of bias at CNN and the particular position that David Axelrod held in the Obama-Biden administration I find this article particularly insightful.





Good intentions and personal experience are a powerful combination.
This is what I have been saying. Even CNN and other outlets on the center left are criticizing the execution of this “withdrawal”.
 
Round Two, ding ding....


The mujahideen resistance to the Taliban begins now. But we need help.


Ahmad Massoud is the leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan.

In 1998, when I was 9 years old, my father, the mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, gathered his soldiers in a cave in the Panjshir Valley of northern Afghanistan. They sat and listened as my father’s friend, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, addressed them. “When you fight for your freedom,” Lévy said, “you fight also for our freedom.”

My father never forgot this as he fought against the Taliban regime. Up until the moment he was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001, at the behest of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, he was fighting for the fate of Afghanistan but also for the West.
Now this common struggle is more essential than ever in these dark, tense hours for my homeland.

I write from the Panjshir Valley today, ready to follow in my father’s footsteps, with mujahideen fighters who are prepared to once again take on the Taliban. We have stores of ammunition and arms that we have patiently collected since my father’s time, because we knew this day might come.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ZMSmkWBDvpGX6jDtXNpmo5L3-tv8rLuEcHcWiMuYxTA-U


So which principles do we decide to uphold? Those of the internationalist order? In which case we have a duly negotiated and agreed contract between the US and the Taliban and we support the Taliban government. Or those of the liberal order? In which case we have a racist, mysogynistic, theocracy to oppose and we support the Massoud's Northern Alliance. Again.

To be honest my heart is with Massoud's rising and supporting him. But only with a variant of the original 2001 strategy. Air Power, Intelligence, Logistics, Comms and Special Forces.

The problem is that the only country with Air Power legs long enough to support Massoud is the US. Unless he can hold a few airfields or some of the Stans can be convinced to supply bases.
 
Back
Top