|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 17 2021 10:31 riotjune wrote:
I've disagreed on Biden's stance on many issues ever since he took office. But on this, he has my full support. Thank you for bringing the troops home.
I really hope Biden doesn't cave with the media as well as both Democrats and Republicans shitting on him from both sides of the aisle.
Is the American memory really this short? Trump set this plan in motion. Troop levels were already a skeleton crew in January when Biden took office. Trump promised we would be out by Christmas. Then it got pushed back to May. The only thing Biden did was say fuck it we're not pushing the date back again.
There is something deeply concerning about the GOP removing their failed stances on the Taliban from media and everyone trying to throw Biden under the bus now. I realize that politics is all theatrics, but everyone just going along with it is pathetic.
|
On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties.
And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that.
Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out)
Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine.
|
... you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion
Was there ever a chance with you? xd
|
On August 17 2021 19:58 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was blabla blabla blabla but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed So, maybe in an effort to raise the level of the conversation here. Why would using flamethrowers specifically make it less likely to die for the attacking soldiers as compared to what I would understand to be the standard military equipment available to them, i.e. grenades, assault rifles, tear gas, etc.?
Depending on the size you can for example use FT's without having to go inside, obviously there's still going to be exposure to the danger presented by those hiding/covering, but tools like that can definitely reduce the risk. Also it reduces the numbers you need. Using small arms tactics and CQB needs a bigger number of guys going in, which has caused the Taliban to be smart and ambush people into a collapsing tunnel/cave (same goes for them knowing we weren't doing such a thing as callouts so they used a sandbagged position deeper inside the structure aimed at the door, until the higher ups forced everyone to apply callouts when it was applicable, many ridiculed it on our side until we saw the positive effects of doing callouts instead of explosive or mechanical breaching). Using devices that are DEFINITELY prohibited such as FT's doesn't require the same numbers. Just a small and simple example. Let me make this clear though, the example about FT's has been used by a lot of vets, by people who've been there and done that. Having a guy coming at me trying to lecture me about something he has no experience with is simply insulting to everyone who did experience the war, which is why I replied the way I did.
Maybe it was wrong for me to expect everyone regardless of their background to understand the perspective and the point being made.
Politics have definitely caused more casualties, there were a lot of instances where an HVT was allowed to walk away only to cause more casualties on our end the next day or week or whatever, so it's not just literally about not being allowed to use FT's, it's also about not being allowed to do x y z (DA's regarding HVT's being the main one).
Anyhow I hope I just don't have to talk about FT's any longer on here and people can just focus on what's happening now, which is a very bad situation that'll have consequences down the line for a lot of people involved.
|
On August 17 2021 22:10 Salazarz wrote:Was there ever a chance with you? xd
Definitely, but not when you're elaborately missing the point. "xD"
Now move on.
|
On August 17 2021 22:10 Salazarz wrote:Was there ever a chance with you? xd
To be fair he's very good at discussing why people are on his list of people he won't discuss things with.
|
On August 17 2021 22:23 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 22:10 Salazarz wrote:... you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion Was there ever a chance with you? xd To be fair he's very good at discussing why people are on his list of people he won't discuss things with.
Awww, so kind.
|
On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns.
They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions.
It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years.
Here's how I remember this last 20 years:
"Wow, America, world police apparently. Can't these imperialist douchebags mind their own business?"
"Yeah, I totally agree, every moment the US spends in the middle east makes it worse!"
"If only the US would let the middle east find their own way and live their own lives"
***US trains Afg folks for 20 years and then decides if they aren't ready, they'll never be***
***Afg army completely crumbles, surrenders, joins Taliban within like a fucking week LOL***
"Wow, the US is so negligent! How could they turn their backs???"
Truly insanity.
|
Take a chill pill buddy.
On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:
Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed
I'm talking about those peoples and the likes of the afghans traductors.
I don't understand how you read my post and translated that into "the us is so negligent" ?
|
On August 17 2021 23:32 Erasme wrote:
Take a chill pill buddy.
I wouldn't be me if i could chill. I am witnessing the most extreme 180 of my entire life. This forum in particular, it is amazing how many of these people whined about imperialism for as long as I have posted here. And now the US leaves and its "abandoning". To me, this says the US did such a good job managing the world that people stopped even entertaining the possibility that they can determine their own destiny. Its like when a kid is told they need to wipe their ass for the first time. They can't imagine a world where they wipe their own ass. Their parents have done it for so long. In this instance, people are saying the parents abandoned their child for asking they eventually wipe their own ass.
|
On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years.
The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight.
https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19
Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win.
|
On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win.
They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them.
The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban.
They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban?
|
Leaving isn't really the low point here, it's how they left. The US has an habit of promising safe haven to locals who work with them. I've read that only 2.5k out of 80k locals were brought back. It's no less shameful than what Trump did with the Kurds. Sure that can be explained by how fast kabul fell, but wouldn't you bring the locals back before your soldiers ?
You can be for leaving afghanistan but criticize the execution.
|
On August 17 2021 23:47 Erasme wrote:
Leaving isn't really the low point here, it's how they left. The US has an habit of promising safe haven to locals who work with them. I've read that only 2.5k out of 80k locals were brought back. It's no less shameful than what Trump did with the Kurds. Sure that can be explained by how fast kabul fell, but wouldn't you bring the locals back before your soldiers ?
You can be for leaving afghanistan but criticize the execution.
I firmly believe the military should have been the last ones to leave. It isn't clear to me what world it makes sense to pull troops first. That is 90000% a blunder. But that's really just not the bulk of what's going on. The thing few people seem willing to recognize: It is reasonable to expect the Afghan government to defend itself against the Taliban. If they can not, they simply aren't able to fulfill their duty as a government. They were invalid as a government once they had insufficient support to defend its citizens. It is self defined. It wasn't legitimate.
If the US military pulling out early causes societal collapse, there was nothing there to begin with.
|
On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. Here's how I remember this last 20 years: "Wow, America, world police apparently. Can't these imperialist douchebags mind their own business?" "Yeah, I totally agree, every moment the US spends in the middle east makes it worse!" "If only the US would let the middle east find their own way and live their own lives" ***US trains Afg folks for 20 years and then decides if they aren't ready, they'll never be*** ***Afg army completely crumbles, surrenders, joins Taliban within like a fucking week LOL*** "Wow, the US is so negligent! How could they turn their backs???" Truly insanity.
Drone mentioned that resistance during WW2 earlier so I'll parallel that there are 10% nazi collaborators. 80% status quo will follow the leader. 10% resistance.
Back during the Bush administration, the Taliban wanted to be a minority part of the government that was formed. This was denied and the Taliban becomes the 10% resistance. They have resisted the entire occupation. Then we have the 10% American collaborators. This is President Ghani and his loyalists. The problem is the American imperialists left so he stepped out of the way. He has no power to project without American assets. He was already losing to the Taliban prior to the American withdrawal. The 80% have now shifted towards the Taliban because they don't care who leads them they just want peace and safety.
What you're complaining about is that we supported the 10% Afghan puppet government that no one ever believed in when we should have had Taliban backing since the Bush administration. We should have realized at any point in the last 15-20 years and changed strategy.
On August 17 2021 23:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:47 Erasme wrote:
Leaving isn't really the low point here, it's how they left. The US has an habit of promising safe haven to locals who work with them. I've read that only 2.5k out of 80k locals were brought back. It's no less shameful than what Trump did with the Kurds. Sure that can be explained by how fast kabul fell, but wouldn't you bring the locals back before your soldiers ?
You can be for leaving afghanistan but criticize the execution. I firmly believe the military should have been the last ones to leave. It isn't clear to me what world it makes sense to pull troops first. That is 90000% a blunder. But that's really just not the bulk of what's going on. The thing few people seem willing to recognize: It is reasonable to expect the Afghan government to defend itself against the Taliban. If they can not, they simply aren't able to fulfill their duty as a government. They were invalid as a government once they had insufficient support to defend its citizens. It is self defined. It wasn't legitimate. If the US military pulling out early causes societal collapse, there was nothing there to begin with.
Trump had a meeting with the Taliban last year. Told them we were leaving and they've been building alliances and securing their power since. This is the paradox of liberalism in the region. We want the people to self determine and vote, but only for the US interests we want them to.
Problem is bombing people until they agree with you doesn't work.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Under current conditions, there was no way to "leave gracefully" that ends in a different outcome. The Taliban victory has been inevitable for at least a year and half, probably much longer. The Afghan government was a failure, and wasn't going to fight for American interests at any point after the US was gone. The only way to salvage this would be to start the entire nation-building thing from scratch, which is a commitment no one would agree to.
I believe the biggest reservation a lot of people have about withdrawing is that for these Middle East entanglements, we are meant to want to end them in the abstract, but whenever the question actually comes up about withdrawing, we're supposed to make an excuse for why we need to fight on? "Abandoning our allies" is a popular one these days, but the reality is that the US has a poor taste in allies that either a) is loyal only to the highest bidder and will drop support for all US interests the moment direct support stops, or b) groups that would, in the absence of the US pressuring them to punch above their weight class, cut a deal with the powers-that-be in the region and end up better in the long run. We're supposed to say that the Afghanistan invasion is a mistake and such, but apparently not to actually stop it.
|
On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban.
We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live.
To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure.
If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'.
|
On August 18 2021 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban. We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live. To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure. If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'.
Also, i want to go back to the predictions. If the most optimistic predictions are that Kabul falls in 18 months, would you die for that? Would you set your family up for repressions after the taliban inevitably win? Or would you make a deal? We are not talking about "fighting for democracy" or something like that. We are talking about dying to slightly delay the inevitable. I don't really think you can fault the afghan troops to not be really enthusiastic about fighting for that.
|
On August 18 2021 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban. We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live. To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure. If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'.
They shouldn't charge to their deaths blindly. That would be defending an illegitimate government. The rightful government is the Taliban because the Taliban appears to be the group that can defend the region. Whoever can defend the region wins. A government is not real if it can't defend its borders.
As you pointed out, citizens mostly don't care. They just want to live their lives. And what I am saying is that they didn't defend themselves because they didn't want to. If they didn't want to, there was no reason for the US to be there at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
