|
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 |
Well they didn't really need this military airfield to cover the urban evac, all support could be provided from airfields in safe areas.
Having Kabul be the last place to evacuate from was always gonna be the correct call.
The problem the US faced was that many civilians didn't actually believe they were leaving and thus didn't want to silently and slowly be evacuated.
They also thought that if they were gonna mass evac there would be no way the ANA was gonna fight for anything, so they decided not to do that with the current situation as the result.
I honestly think that from a US military perspective the evacuation went entirely fine and that there was no real good way to handle the civilian evac.
|
On August 27 2021 06:02 Fildun wrote:
Well they didn't really need this military airfield to cover the urban evac, all support could be provided from airfields in safe areas.
Having Kabul be the last place to evacuate from was always gonna be the correct call.
The problem the US faced was that many civilians didn't actually believe they were leaving and thus didn't want to silently and slowly be evacuated.
They also thought that if they were gonna mass evac there would be no way the ANA was gonna fight for anything, so they decided not to do that with the current situation as the result.
I honestly think that from a US military perspective the evacuation went entirely fine and that there was no real good way to handle the civilian evac.
I agree, especially in light of the chaos that followed the US pullout from Vietnam. There is historical precedent for the lack of good solutions, that’s what makes these scenarios quagmires.
|
For the record, I do think the treatment of Afghan nationals has been horrible in this. Basically every Coalition country has been godawful on the bureaucratic side of things. Evac planes leaving with only 30 people on board is just completely inexcusable.
|
Biden’s press conference has been surprisingly good so far, he’s saying the right things despite awful circumstances
|
On August 27 2021 05:47 Fildun wrote:
Kabul was less safe 3 months ago, lol.
They've been telling the civilians to get out for 4 months+ now and yet there are still Americans running animal shelters in Kabul.
Of course the actual evac has been incredibly chaotic but they basically did follow your plans, except the 1 month was impossible with how the situation developed.
Americans weren't dying 3 months ago as I understand. Our own obligation is to Americans. Afghanistan (as Biden elaborated during his press conference) is not a country. It is a disaster of tribes fighting. The Taliban is the best case scenario for Taliban, which is quite grim. All we can hope for is to keep ourselves safe. We failed to do that.
That being said, it is impossible to get away from the fact that enlisting in the military does come with the risk of death. The entire idea is that you are a person who is willing to kill others and you understand you may be killed. The social contract is not broken when a president causes soldiers to die, it is an unfortunate reality of being in the military. The idea of "soldiers died, Biden sucks" is not valid IMO. But as I understand, some civilians died, and I see that as a military failure which makes it a Biden failure.
In my eyes, the military has an obligation to people living abroad to either say "yes, safe" or "no, not safe". In this regard, I think we failed civilians by not giving them a sufficiently aggressive/unforgiving timeline. We should have been throwing people over soldier's shoulders and tossing them on a plane. Or if we weren't gonna do that, we needed to make it clear and completely cut the cord the moment the timer runs out. I see the civilians in this situation as misguided and silly. I see the military as over confident and naive.
As a whole, taking this from a bird's eye view, I see Biden as an extreme hero for shoving this through the door. He is not the first president who was told to wait a sec. He did the right thing by ripping this out of the ground, blood and all. When you are given the choice between horrible and "less horrible", you don't have the right to whine about not being offered "amazing". The universe owes us nothing. Once the situation is what it is, we don't get to whine and pretend there's always a perfect answer.
I say this with a firm understanding that I am a completely buffoon (like all of us) regarding the military: I still see the decision to pull out even a single soldier before we fulfilled our obligations to American civilians. If they didn't trust the Afganistan military enough to tell them when we are leaving in the middle of the night, we shouldn't have trusted them with American lives. We failed in that regard, in my ignorant opinion.
|
|
|
On August 27 2021 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 05:47 Fildun wrote:
Kabul was less safe 3 months ago, lol.
They've been telling the civilians to get out for 4 months+ now and yet there are still Americans running animal shelters in Kabul.
Of course the actual evac has been incredibly chaotic but they basically did follow your plans, except the 1 month was impossible with how the situation developed. I am saying president Mohdoo would not have done this before the full evacuation https://apnews.com/article/bagram-afghanistan-airfield-us-troops-f3614828364f567593251aaaa167e623
But how do you think that means ISIS magically disappears? Your evacuation is going to have just as many suicide bombers as the current one.
On August 27 2021 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:
In my eyes, the military has an obligation to people living abroad to either say "yes, safe" or "no, not safe". In this regard, I think we failed civilians by not giving them a sufficiently aggressive/unforgiving timeline. We should have been throwing people over soldier's shoulders and tossing them on a plane. Or if we weren't gonna do that, we needed to make it clear and completely cut the cord the moment the timer runs out. I see the civilians in this situation as misguided and silly. I see the military as over confident and naive.
Every intelligence agency in the western world has said that an ISIS attack is imminent. It doesn't matter if you know it isn't safe.
|
On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward.
They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with.
|
On August 27 2021 08:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 05:47 Fildun wrote:
Kabul was less safe 3 months ago, lol.
They've been telling the civilians to get out for 4 months+ now and yet there are still Americans running animal shelters in Kabul.
Of course the actual evac has been incredibly chaotic but they basically did follow your plans, except the 1 month was impossible with how the situation developed. I am saying president Mohdoo would not have done this before the full evacuation https://apnews.com/article/bagram-afghanistan-airfield-us-troops-f3614828364f567593251aaaa167e623 But how do you think that means ISIS magically disappears? Your evacuation is going to have just as many suicide bombers as the current one. Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:
In my eyes, the military has an obligation to people living abroad to either say "yes, safe" or "no, not safe". In this regard, I think we failed civilians by not giving them a sufficiently aggressive/unforgiving timeline. We should have been throwing people over soldier's shoulders and tossing them on a plane. Or if we weren't gonna do that, we needed to make it clear and completely cut the cord the moment the timer runs out. I see the civilians in this situation as misguided and silly. I see the military as over confident and naive. Every intelligence agency in the western world has said that an ISIS attack is imminent. It doesn't matter if you know it isn't safe.
My understanding is that when the US government did this https://apnews.com/article/bagram-afghanistan-airfield-us-troops-f3614828364f567593251aaaa167e623
it indirectly allowed for a bunch of prison busts to happen. Tons of ISIS folks got broken out of prisons. Suddenly this happens. I don't buy the idea that this would have happened if the US had an entirely consistent military presence and didn't pull anything out.
|
On August 27 2021 08:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 08:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 27 2021 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 05:47 Fildun wrote:
Kabul was less safe 3 months ago, lol.
They've been telling the civilians to get out for 4 months+ now and yet there are still Americans running animal shelters in Kabul.
Of course the actual evac has been incredibly chaotic but they basically did follow your plans, except the 1 month was impossible with how the situation developed. I am saying president Mohdoo would not have done this before the full evacuation https://apnews.com/article/bagram-afghanistan-airfield-us-troops-f3614828364f567593251aaaa167e623 But how do you think that means ISIS magically disappears? Your evacuation is going to have just as many suicide bombers as the current one. On August 27 2021 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:
In my eyes, the military has an obligation to people living abroad to either say "yes, safe" or "no, not safe". In this regard, I think we failed civilians by not giving them a sufficiently aggressive/unforgiving timeline. We should have been throwing people over soldier's shoulders and tossing them on a plane. Or if we weren't gonna do that, we needed to make it clear and completely cut the cord the moment the timer runs out. I see the civilians in this situation as misguided and silly. I see the military as over confident and naive. Every intelligence agency in the western world has said that an ISIS attack is imminent. It doesn't matter if you know it isn't safe. My understanding is that when the US government did this https://apnews.com/article/bagram-afghanistan-airfield-us-troops-f3614828364f567593251aaaa167e623it indirectly allowed for a bunch of prison busts to happen. Tons of ISIS folks got broken out of prisons. Suddenly this happens. I don't buy the idea that this would have happened if the US had an entirely consistent military presence and didn't pull anything out.
So for example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57040713
This happened about two months before the US left the airfield. I think you're vastly overestimating how safe Kabul was with the US at that airfield. The difference between this event and the airport is that there is a soft target with a bunch of Americans to kill. It doesn't matter that the US abandoned an air field or some ISIS figure is out of prison.
|
|
|
On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked.
They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical.
Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum.
|
On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum.
Almost like asking you to have a reasonable opinion on any topic.
User was warned for this post.
|
On August 27 2021 12:27 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Almost like asking you to have a reasonable opinion on any topic. User was warned for this post.
It is easy to have "reasonable" copy paste philosophies that anyone could get from the top comment in a Reddit thread. I strive to be better and make use of the world that has been gifted to me. You're welcome to join me, but you don't seem interested. If you'd like to give this another whirl and be engaging, I'd look forward to it!
I think most people settle for easily justifiable perspectives that are generally cowardly. For example, most people on this board don't accept their complacency in the atrocities committed by the US government, while they pay their taxes and attend their cushy jobs. I strive for better. It is easy if you try!
|
I can only laugh at the fact people thought this was gonna end well. Such a massive fuckup.
|
On August 27 2021 13:55 [GS]PLACiD wrote:
I can only laugh at the fact people thought this was gonna end well. Such a massive fuckup.
If it was never gonna end well, we had a moral imperative to do it immediately.
|
On August 27 2021 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 13:55 [GS]PLACiD wrote:
I can only laugh at the fact people thought this was gonna end well. Such a massive fuckup. If it was never gonna end well, we had a moral imperative to do it immediately.
Could've been handled wayyyy better, the fact there was hardly any form of contingency is just mindblowing. Contingency planning is a basic thing and they didn't manage do to that. Genuinely at a loss for words when I go back to certain press conferences where it just makes me go either "that's the boldest lie anyone could come up with" or simply "wtf, no."
Ugh, just makes me wonder how bad things need to turn out before people stop trying to justify the way things were handled. There are zero excuses.
Don't get me wrong, I support pulling out troops, but definitely NOT the way in which it was executed.
|
On August 27 2021 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 05:47 Fildun wrote:
Kabul was less safe 3 months ago, lol.
They've been telling the civilians to get out for 4 months+ now and yet there are still Americans running animal shelters in Kabul.
Of course the actual evac has been incredibly chaotic but they basically did follow your plans, except the 1 month was impossible with how the situation developed. Americans weren't dying 3 months ago as I understand. Our own obligation is to Americans. Afghanistan (as Biden elaborated during his press conference) is not a country. It is a disaster of tribes fighting. The Taliban is the best case scenario for Taliban, which is quite grim. All we can hope for is to keep ourselves safe. We failed to do that. That being said, it is impossible to get away from the fact that enlisting in the military does come with the risk of death. The entire idea is that you are a person who is willing to kill others and you understand you may be killed. The social contract is not broken when a president causes soldiers to die, it is an unfortunate reality of being in the military. The idea of "soldiers died, Biden sucks" is not valid IMO. But as I understand, some civilians died, and I see that as a military failure which makes it a Biden failure. In my eyes, the military has an obligation to people living abroad to either say "yes, safe" or "no, not safe". In this regard, I think we failed civilians by not giving them a sufficiently aggressive/unforgiving timeline. We should have been throwing people over soldier's shoulders and tossing them on a plane. Or if we weren't gonna do that, we needed to make it clear and completely cut the cord the moment the timer runs out. I see the civilians in this situation as misguided and silly. I see the military as over confident and naive. As a whole, taking this from a bird's eye view, I see Biden as an extreme hero for shoving this through the door. He is not the first president who was told to wait a sec. He did the right thing by ripping this out of the ground, blood and all. When you are given the choice between horrible and "less horrible", you don't have the right to whine about not being offered "amazing". The universe owes us nothing. Once the situation is what it is, we don't get to whine and pretend there's always a perfect answer. I say this with a firm understanding that I am a completely buffoon (like all of us) regarding the military: I still see the decision to pull out even a single soldier before we fulfilled our obligations to American civilians. If they didn't trust the Afganistan military enough to tell them when we are leaving in the middle of the night, we shouldn't have trusted them with American lives. We failed in that regard, in my ignorant opinion.
I'd say that American soldiers were in more risky positions right now compared to 3 months ago. If you wanna argue that that means that Kabul is less safe, sure, but I don't think that's the usual way you'd use those terms.
Looking at some of the messages US citizens in Afghanistan received I think the urge to get out was definitely there. The problem was that you can't really abduct your own citizens in the way you're describing unless there's a clear and obvious threat to their safety, which there in many minds (both civilian and military) wasn't till the Taliban Kabul takeover.
Also the Taliban hates IS even more than we do, most IS prisoners in Bagram were immediately executed.
|
On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum.
Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere...
Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum!
|
On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum!
I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
