US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3292
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 21 2021 09:33 JimmiC wrote: Its gone very wrong for the vast majority of Afganastan. It also has made all the Americans who lost loved ones feel like it was a complete waste and farce. It is a bad look when all the training support and $$$ amounted to nothing. I would argue it went exactly how it would have if the US was never there to begin with. The Taliban is the dominant ideology in Afghanistan. The US didn't make that happen. Sunk cost fallacy is reason for someone to feel like something is bad, but it doesn't make it bad. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
Biden Assured Allies in June U.S. Would Ensure Kabul’s Stability President Joe Biden told key allies in June that he would maintain enough of a security presence in Afghanistan to ensure they could continue to operate in the capital following the main U.S. withdrawal, a vow made before the Taliban’s rapid final push across the country, according to a British diplomatic memo seen by Bloomberg. Biden promised U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other leaders at the Group of Seven summit in Cornwall, England, that “critical U.S. enablers” would remain in place to keep Kabul safe following the drawdown of NATO forces, the note said. British officials determined the U.S. would provide enough personnel to ensure that the U.K. embassy in Kabul could continue operating. ... During the same period, the European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, was warning U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan risked giving the Taliban the upper hand and such a shift could pose a direct threat to European security. After dealing with more than a million refugees reaching the EU in 2015, the bloc’s leaders are anxious that a broader collapse in Afghanistan could lead to similar problems. NATO members agreed in May that they would maintain a civilian presence in Afghanistan after the military withdrawal to support the Afghan government, facilitate training for the Afghan military and work on contracts for Kabul’s airport as well as hospitals and communications infrastructure. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On August 21 2021 09:28 Mohdoo wrote: Can someone clarify for me what exactly went wrong so far? Have Americans died? From my perspective, nothing has actually gone wrong in Afghanistan yet. Frankly the most interesting development is that the ANA rallied with the Northern Alliance and took back some territory. Something I completely discounted as a possibility a few days ago. I think Biden is already in deep shit about his this won't be another Vietnam though. He has already mishandled several promises in that regard. The history books are already written with his very own Saigon Helicoptor pulling people out Kabul. + Show Spoiler [extra] + If you want to follow along I'd recommend this website: https://afghanistan.liveuamap.com/ Will show you a map with what is going on. On August 21 2021 09:36 Mohdoo wrote: I would argue it went exactly how it would have if the US was never there to begin with. The Taliban is the dominant ideology in Afghanistan. The US didn't make that happen. Sunk cost fallacy is reason for someone to feel like something is bad, but it doesn't make it bad. Not an accurate statement. The Taliban holds a plurality and if all the other forces rally then there should be a compromise of some sort at least. Maybe that compromise is just continued civil war though. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 21 2021 09:28 Mohdoo wrote: Can someone clarify for me what exactly went wrong so far? Have Americans died? From my perspective, nothing has actually gone wrong in Afghanistan yet. The seemingly overnight victory of the Taliban really puts into perspective how badly the entire occupation went. Makes it look like 20 years and 2 trillion dollars went down the drain, and Biden is in the driver’s seat when it happens. It’s not entirely Biden’s fault; there’s 20 years worth of often questionable decisions that can be litigated, and both parties deserve portions of the blame. But there’s no good look here for the president in charge when the entire operation falls apart in record time. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 21 2021 11:02 LegalLord wrote: The seemingly overnight victory of the Taliban really puts into perspective how badly the entire occupation went. Makes it look like 20 years and 2 trillion dollars went down the drain, and Biden is in the driver’s seat when it happens. It’s not entirely Biden’s fault; there’s 20 years worth of often questionable decisions that can be litigated, and both parties deserve portions of the blame. But there’s no good look here for the president in charge when the entire operation falls apart in record time. That's a bad occupation, not a bad withdrawal. I respect the fact that Biden is the one to rip the bandaid off. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 21 2021 11:43 Mohdoo wrote: That's a bad occupation, not a bad withdrawal. I respect the fact that Biden is the one to rip the bandaid off. You’re not wrong, but the optics still suck. I remember reading that some of Biden’s advisors recommended a much slower withdrawal because they were afraid this would happen, and he decided against it because they couldn’t come up with a good answer to, “what would materially change to make for a more graceful withdrawal?” Which suggests that this was inevitable for a long time - IMO at least for the last six years - so it was probably best to fold exactly like this despite the bad optics. | ||
|
brian
United States9632 Posts
i mean if the answer to that question is ‘nothing,’ then this is the right decision to make. should’ve been made long ago. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 21 2021 12:28 Introvert wrote: Given all the Americans who need to get out, the Afghan helpers that we need to get out, all the equipment we left behind, and the surprise of our allies, it's pretty hard to say it was just "pulling the bandaid off" or in any way a correctly executed strategy. This wasn't an act of courage or a soberly accepted trade-off. It was a failure and one they did not intend. Americans were told to leave a long time ago. Bunch of dummies. No sympathy here. Afghan helpers are unfortunate. It is unfortunate that they lost the war. There's nothing we can do about that. They surrendered. They were incompetent and didn't wanna fight. Only so much you can do. As for equipment, we were too optimistic. We should have just brought everything back if they weren't gonna fight anyway. I agree with you there. I am glad we tried to have faith, kind of, I guess. On August 21 2021 11:58 LegalLord wrote: I remember reading that some of Biden’s advisors recommended a much slower withdrawal because they were afraid this would happen, and he decided against it because they couldn’t come up with a good answer to, “what would materially change to make for a more graceful withdrawal?” Which suggests that this was inevitable for a long time - IMO at least for the last six years - so it was probably best to fold exactly like this despite the bad optics. I view this as particularly admirable. How many past presidents got conned into "just a little longer"? Biden was around for the Obama years. He knows this shit is just an endless charade. Telling everyone to fuck off was the right call and an example of actual leadership. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28712 Posts
However the main mistake happened in like 2003 or whatever, when it was decided that we should try to export democracy to Afghanistan without planning to stay for at least two generations. Ousting Al queda was mostly accomplished in a few years. Everything since then basically feels pretty wasted. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11632 Posts
On August 21 2021 12:31 Mohdoo wrote: Americans were told to leave a long time ago. Bunch of dummies. No sympathy here. Afghan helpers are unfortunate. It is unfortunate that they lost the war. There's nothing we can do about that. They surrendered. They were incompetent and didn't wanna fight. Only so much you can do. As for equipment, we were too optimistic. We should have just brought everything back if they weren't gonna fight anyway. I agree with you there. I am glad we tried to have faith, kind of, I guess. I view this as particularly admirable. How many past presidents got conned into "just a little longer"? Biden was around for the Obama years. He knows this shit is just an endless charade. Telling everyone to fuck off was the right call and an example of actual leadership. There is a lot you could have done for your afghan helpers. Like offer asylum to them, and ferry them out of the country before leaving. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 21 2021 14:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: The withdrawal has been poorly executed. The problem is not that the Taliban is retaking control (of course not ideal, but basically unavoidable), but that people who have collaborated with western forces are, to varying degrees, being executed. Whether you are a realist or a idealist, this is shitty from a precedence-perspective (gonna be harder to find local allies in the future), and from a be a decent human perspective, as many of these have no doubt been given assurances in the past. Had the Taliban spent 180 days instead for 180 hours retaking control, a lot more people could have been safely evacuated, thus this embarrassing miscalculation has had dire consequences. However the main mistake happened in like 2003 or whatever, when it was decided that we should try to export democracy to Afghanistan without planning to stay for at least two generations. Ousting Al queda was mostly accomplished in a few years. Everything since then basically feels pretty wasted. So the people who laid down their guns and bent their knees for the Taliban? Those are the people we should feel bad about not supporting? Do I have that right? if the idea is that they were doomed to fail and surrendering is just avoiding bloodshed, what is there to do? The whole point is that there was no non-Taliban future for Afghanistan. This entire thing feels insane. These are humans, grown humans. They have brains, mouths, hands, legs, just like you and I. I think you are so used to thinking of these people as victims that you aren't even able to see them as human anymore. The US will have no shortage of allies. Pretending Afghanistan's incompetence reflects poorly on the US is strange. These are actual grown ass adults. I'm not going to pretend they are sub-human. Afghanistan had 20 years to not shit the bed. Americans are not gods. They bleed just like everyone else. It feels like you have become so used to thinking of the US as some kind of world police that you have lost track of the fact that the people the US tries to defend are also humans. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28712 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 21 2021 15:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: Really struggling to politely convey that I think you seem to lack empathy in a way that makes me feel like it is impossible for us to see eye to eye on this, or many other issues. I do not want America to act as world police. But I also do not value American lives more than I value afghan lives (nor Norwegian lives, for that matter, unless I actually know them). No real interest in going further than this with you, tbh. I think what you are describing is easy to feel and hard to justify. I think it just feels good. I don't think any progress comes from the perspectives you are conveying. I'm not struggling to understand your ideals, they are common. Anyone can feel sympathy. Striving for something more than just sympathy takes effort. We can be sympathetic for marginalized groups while also recognizing failures within those groups. I think you are pretending I am some kind of monster while not actually contributing. This is just easy sympathy with no clear purpose. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 21 2021 14:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: The withdrawal has been poorly executed. The problem is not that the Taliban is retaking control (of course not ideal, but basically unavoidable), but that people who have collaborated with western forces are, to varying degrees, being executed. Whether you are a realist or a idealist, this is shitty from a precedence-perspective (gonna be harder to find local allies in the future), and from a be a decent human perspective, as many of these have no doubt been given assurances in the past. Had the Taliban spent 180 days instead for 180 hours retaking control, a lot more people could have been safely evacuated, thus this embarrassing miscalculation has had dire consequences. However the main mistake happened in like 2003 or whatever, when it was decided that we should try to export democracy to Afghanistan without planning to stay for at least two generations. Ousting Al queda was mostly accomplished in a few years. Everything since then basically feels pretty wasted. The precedent has long been set that alliance with the US is generally a one-way street. It’s just one more data point, but far from the first. What kind of evacuation did you have in mind here? Airlifting of key individuals, or a more general level of support for the larger displaced population? The former definitely happened, and the latter seems very much to be precluded by the fact that the Taliban went for the borders much sooner than it went for the cities. I find it hard to think up a realistic scenario in which US presence allows, say, a million Afghans to leave the country safely, without extending troop deployment for another year. As for being in there for two decades: that reminds me an awful lot of the 2008 presidential campaign, where Bush said 40 years in Iraq, and McCain said 100. The population at large was definitely not on board, and has only become less interested over time in that kind of thing. It’d be a political non-starter. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9718 Posts
On August 21 2021 09:41 Introvert wrote: Nevermind how it's roiled our allies, here's another story from a little bit ago. It would appear that the Brits are particularly angry. I could imagine it is even worse if it's true that Biden didn't call Johnson back for 36 hours. There may well be some angry brits in our political parties, but most of the anger in our media is turned inwards at our own politicians. Dominic Raab, who is responsible for this kind of thing, was on holiday and REFUSED to take the phone call that could have gotten a bunch of people out of Afghanistan. Because he was on holiday. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28712 Posts
On August 21 2021 15:47 LegalLord wrote: The precedent has long been set that alliance with the US is generally a one-way street. It’s just one more data point, but far from the first. What kind of evacuation did you have in mind here? Airlifting of key individuals, or a more general level of support for the larger displaced population? The former definitely happened, and the latter seems very much to be precluded by the fact that the Taliban went for the borders much sooner than it went for the cities. I find it hard to think up a realistic scenario in which US presence allows, say, a million Afghans to leave the country safely, without extending troop deployment for another year. As for being in there for two decades: that reminds me an awful lot of the 2008 presidential campaign, where Bush said 40 years in Iraq, and McCain said 100. The population at large was definitely not on board, and has only become less interested over time in that kind of thing. It’d be a political non-starter. To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of being there for 60 years. I would have preferred 2. But 20 is pointless, as that is an occupation that can easily be waited out, and it is not long enough to cause a cultural shift. A million sounds like too many, but a few thousand is far too few. I can't give a precise number, but I am reading stories about beheadings of collaborators that I believe are not isolated incidents, and I am inclined to argue that those designated for execution by the Taliban should have been helped. This is not just on the US, Norway should have granted asylum to more than we did, I'm guessing this holds true for most involved countries. | ||
| ||