Is a Return to Colonialism Needed - Afghanistan and Haiti Events Sure Make it Seem So (regime, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blaming the Afghanistan debacle on Bush & Co. and saying we never shoulda been there is just silly.
That part of the conflict was over and there was a stable governing taking place. But that was a few weeks ago.
America, in the person of Biden, screwed it up and thousands of people who were safe last month are no longer safe.
Actually, I had no idea there were so many Americans living in Afghanistan. But there are, and their safety should have been a concern and consideration.
"Learning from history" is a point made by zealots on one side or the other. If everyone "learned from history" The American Revolution would never have taken place, WW2 would not have been fought, no one would ever go to the moon, and on and on.
The age of colonization should remain in the history books.
Stable? If it was stable it wouldn't have disintegrated in days. There was no stability. And no...no one man screwed it up. It's been a disaster for years, a drain of our tax dollars, and yet another adventure that cost American lives for a country that the vast majority of Americans can't even point to on a map.
First of all, the title of the thread suggests that Afghanistan could be solved by a return to colonization.
So you are suggesting that we stay what, another 20 years? Spend a couple of more trillion dollars? .............
I deleted the more nonsensical part of your post.
Yes. I think we should have stayed in Afghanistan. No one - not even you - believes it would have cost a couple trillion dollars to leave 2500 troops there for 20 years. No American soldier had been killed in 18 months.
Events as yet unfolded will tell us whether pulling out and leaving Taliban in charge was wise or not. It may turn out just fine. I know we both hope so.
Having a military presence in Afghanistan is not colonialism. We have military presence in lots and lots of countries, and no one calls those countries "American colonies".
Biden's Afghanistan move and his interviews this week may well be the event that costs the Democrat party everything in the next election. The entire debacle is on one man - him.
I deleted the more nonsensical part of your post.
Yes. I think we should have stayed in Afghanistan. No one - not even you - believes it would have cost a couple trillion dollars to leave 2500 troops there for 20 years. No American soldier had been killed in 18 months.
Events as yet unfolded will tell us whether pulling out and leaving Taliban in charge was wise or not. It may turn out just fine. I know we both hope so.
Having a military presence in Afghanistan is not colonialism. We have military presence in lots and lots of countries, and no one calls those countries "American colonies".
Biden's Afghanistan move and his interviews this week may well be the event that costs the Democrat party everything in the next election. The entire debacle is on one man - him.
The United States agreed to an initial reduction of its force level from 13,000 to 8,600 by July 2020, followed by a full withdrawal within 14 months if the Taliban keeps its commitments.[17]
14 months from July 2020 is September 2021.
The Taliban leadership said straight up they woukd resume attacks on U.S. personnel if the U.S. breaks the agreement. They consider the U.S. presence an "occupation." Their word.
Quote:
does your group intend to allow American citizens and Afghans who wish to leave to leave peacefully?
Yes, on the basis of the Doha agreement, the Americans should leave peacefully and they withdraw from Afghanistan peacefully. So during their withdrawal from Afghanistan, we will not attack them. That was written in the Doha agreement. But as you see, the Americans violated that agreement. It was until the 1st of May that they should have withdrawn all their forces and then President Biden said that we will withdraw until Sept.11. But still, we restrained our forces not to attack American troops because they are withdrawing from our country. And so we expect them that they withdraw until Sept. 11. And if they continue to station, furthermore, in the country, that could be considered, of course, occupation, continuation of the occupation.
Support for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan was about +40 points before last week. Suddenly some uncomfortable pictures come out and people reverse themselves. We have to choose one. We told them we would leave. We're leaving.
It was inevitable that those with a stake in the Western presence in Afghanistan were going to freak out. Now the tables are turned against them. Such is the fate of those who make a wrong bet on what appears to be the stronger side, but are far, far away.
The Doha Agreement didn't make big news because it was in the heat of the Democratic primary and also covid starting to ramp up. Biden's choice was to follow through with it, or break it, which would have required putting back the 10-15k troop levels at least since 2500 would not be enough. This time with zero NATO help, who also signed Doha.
If the Democrats suffer politically for doing what was necessary, so be it.
Biden made some mistakes, the key one appears to be believing the intel assessments that the Afghan Army would hold out for 1-2 years, so he decided to pull troops out before former interpreters and such. This is the same Intel community that has been wrong about so many things. Not least of which everything about our middle eastern wars. He shouldn't have believed them.
Same mistake JFK made with the Bay of Pigs. Believing bad intel. People don't learn from their history
Last edited by redguard57; 08-21-2021 at 05:19 PM..
First of all, the title of the thread suggests that Afghanistan could be solved by a return to colonization.
So you are suggesting that we stay what, another 20 years? Spend a couple of more trillion dollars? Perhaps we should stand guard over every Middle Eastern country where someone has come from that has conducted a terrorist attack: Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, and Yemen...and more. Just saturate the world with American troops, after all, it's worked so well thus far.
Not Iran, though. At least not far beyond their own borders.
I deleted the more nonsensical part of your post.
Yes. I think we should have stayed in Afghanistan. No one - not even you - believes it would have cost a couple trillion dollars to leave 2500 troops there for 20 years. No American soldier had been killed in 18 months.
Events as yet unfolded will tell us whether pulling out and leaving Taliban in charge was wise or not. It may turn out just fine. I know we both hope so.
Having a military presence in Afghanistan is not colonialism. We have military presence in lots and lots of countries, and no one calls those countries "American colonies".
Biden's Afghanistan move and his interviews this week may well be the event that costs the Democrat party everything in the next election. The entire debacle is on one man - him.
I think we would have to re-address why the US was there in the first place and whether 20 years of advanced intelligence and weapons technology can't do the same job 2500 foot soldiers and supporting troops can do.
But in fact, it would take more than 2500 troops (of which actual combat troops would be a minority fraction). After abandoning the agreement with the Taliban, that number would have to escalate to 10,000 or more.
I deleted the more nonsensical part of your post.
Yes. I think we should have stayed in Afghanistan. No one - not even you - believes it would have cost a couple trillion dollars to leave 2500 troops there for 20 years. No American soldier had been killed in 18 months.
Events as yet unfolded will tell us whether pulling out and leaving Taliban in charge was wise or not. It may turn out just fine. I know we both hope so.
Having a military presence in Afghanistan is not colonialism. We have military presence in lots and lots of countries, and no one calls those countries "American colonies".
Biden's Afghanistan move and his interviews this week may well be the event that costs the Democrat party everything in the next election. The entire debacle is on one man - him.
Hmmmm....it was the last president that committed to leaving Afghanistan by now.
Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Key decisions by two administrations determined to end America's longest war
By Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley
Posted on August 17, 2021
The blame game has begun over who lost Afghanistan.
The fact is, President Joe Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump, were both eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and end what Biden referred to in his Aug. 16 speech as “America’s longest war.”
The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal.
And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the Taliban leadership.
Our departure was doomed to be chaotic. There was no way around it. Could it have been less chaotic? Possibly. That will be the subject of congressional hearings.
The United States agreed to an initial reduction of its force level from 13,000 to 8,600 by July 2020, followed by a full withdrawal within 14 months if the Taliban keeps its commitments.[17]
14 months from July 2020 is September 2021.
The Taliban leadership said straight up they woukd resume attacks on U.S. personnel if the U.S. breaks the agreement. They consider the U.S. presence an "occupation." Their word.
Support for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan was about +40 points before last week. Suddenly some uncomfortable pictures come out and people reverse themselves. We have to choose one. We told them we would leave. We're leaving.
It was inevitable that those with a stake in the Western presence in Afghanistan were going to freak out. Now the tables are turned against them. Such is the fate of those who make a wrong bet on what appears to be the stronger side, but are far, far away.
The Doha Agreement didn't make big news because it was in the heat of the Democratic primary and also covid starting to ramp up. Biden's choice was to follow through with it, or break it, which would have required putting back the 10-15k troop levels at least since 2500 would not be enough. This time with zero NATO help, who also signed Doha.
If the Democrats suffer politically for doing what was necessary, so be it.
Biden made some mistakes, the key one appears to be believing the intel assessments that the Afghan Army would hold out for 1-2 years, so he decided to pull troops out before former interpreters and such. This is the same Intel community that has been wrong about so many things. Not least of which everything about our middle eastern wars. He shouldn't have believed them.
Same mistake JFK made with the Bay of Pigs. Believing bad intel. People don't learn from their history
I think you make some good points here.
I think there are two aspects to intelligence. The first is collecting information. Probably the easy part.
The harder part is predicting results.
Afghanistan is a problem that Biden inherited from 2 Republican presidents and one Democrat president.
I think there are two aspects to intelligence. The first is collecting information. Probably the easy part.
The harder part is predicting results.
Afghanistan is a problem that Biden inherited from 2 Republican presidents and one Democrat president.
There is also reliability.
Basically with intel you get a whole bunch of information and you have to synthesize and assess it best you can. There is always a bunch of conflicting and contradictory information and if you WANT to believe a particular narrative, there are likely sources to back up that view. It's kind if a b.s. industry if you ask me, especially when it comes to larger meta geopolitical issues they know little more than the media knows. On smaller tactical issues they are better, e.g. "does X commander have Y number of soldiers?" They know that stuff. They don't know more vague answers.
Biden was likely given briefings that presented the case for the ANA holding on for months or more and for the ANA collapsing quickly. From the reports now coming out, he was stuck between several rocks and hard places. If he'd have expressed lack of confidence in the ANA, they'd have collapsed sooner. It seems he made a bet on the intel that said the ANA would hold a while.
However there WAS consensus that the Ghazi government would fall sooner or later. Or maybe hold on and form some kind of power sharing agreement, best they could hope for. If the fall happened immediately or in a matter of months, either way Biden looks bad.
Basically with intel you get a whole bunch of information and you have to synthesize and assess it best you can. There is always a bunch of conflicting and contradictory information and if you WANT to believe a particular narrative, there are likely sources to back up that view. It's kind if a b.s. industry if you ask me, especially when it comes to larger meta geopolitical issues they know little more than the media knows. On smaller tactical issues they are better, e.g. "does X commander have Y number of soldiers?" They know that stuff. They don't know more vague answers.
Biden was likely given briefings that presented the case for the ANA holding on for months or more and for the ANA collapsing quickly. From the reports now coming out, he was stuck between several rocks and hard places. If he'd have expressed lack of confidence in the ANA, they'd have collapsed sooner. It seems he made a bet on the intel that said the ANA would hold a while.
However there WAS consensus that the Ghazi government would fall sooner or later. Or maybe hold on and form some kind of power sharing agreement, best they could hope for. If the fall happened immediately or in a matter of months, either way Biden looks bad.
The White House made a gamble that failed. They gambled that the Afghan army would hold up for a few weeks.
The way I know the intelligence community works, if there were any analysts predicting anything less than a month, that prediction wouldn't have made it to the Situation Room because it would prohibit a pull-out, and the president wanted a pull-out. Knowing what the president wants to hear bears hard on what the intelligence bureaucracy will allow to bubble all the way to the top.
The president is not going to hear conflicting opinions within the IC. The Director of Central Intelligence will tell him one story, and that's the only story the president hears. The DIA does not have a separate line to the president. If the DIA disagrees with the CIA (which happens frequently), the DIA has to convince the CIA or the president will never hear it (and the NSA doesn't have a separate line to the president either).
Unless every agency in lockstep agreement and very specific, telling the president that his plan absolutely won't work is very, very hard to do. If the intel said "30 to 90 days," the president will go with what is closest to what he wants.
There is also the problem that the voice of the Director of National Intelligence is no louder than the voice of the Secretary of State. If SECSTATE reports, "President Ghani says everything is well in hand," that assessment is organizationally equal to the Director of Central Intelligence saying, "Everything is a mess."
And I've seen the president say, "Nah" even when the IC was in lockstep agreement and very specific.
I've seen analysts run their careers into a wall when they are a lone voice arguing against what the president wants...even if they're proven right in the end.
From one of my favorite authors: "Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 08-21-2021 at 10:28 PM..
Countries that are fragmented along ethnic, religious, tribal, and linguistic lines, are very difficult to colonize. Many colonial powers e.g. British, Dutch, Belgian and French, learned that quite quickly, no matter if their "charges" were actual colonies, mandates or protectorates!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
