Politico: How Biden’s team overrode the brass on Afghanistan
After two decades, troops have an end date on America's longest war. But it took a White House ready to pull rank on the military.
The military spent more than a decade urging three different American presidents to stay in Afghanistan. With President Joe Biden’s decision this week to withdraw all U.S. forces by Sept. 11, they finally lost the battle.
“We cannot continue this cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” Biden said Wednesday in a speech announcing the decision. “I'm now the fourth United States president to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth.”
As Biden weighed a full exit from the country this spring, top military leaders advocated for keeping a small U.S. presence on the ground made up primarily of special operations forces and paramilitary advisers, arguing that a force of a few thousand troops was needed to keep the Taliban in check and prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, according to nine former and current U.S. officials familiar with the discussions.
....
WNU Editor: If this article is accurate, there are some interesting points that caught my eye. For one ....
.... But behind the scenes, it is Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan who are truly “running the Pentagon,” according to two former officials familiar with the discussions. “The Pentagon is not making these decisions,” one of the people said.
This one is a doozy ....
.... As for US Secretary of Defense Austin, his role was primarily to implement the president’s goal and keep the Joint Staff from “going rogue,” one former official said.
This confirms what WNU said two months ago on why Gen. Austen (Ret.) was selected by President Biden to run the Pentagon ....
.... Experts say Biden chose Austin for his Pentagon chief precisely because he would follow orders. An “enormous part” of Biden’s rationale in selecting Austin was that during his time as a commander in Iraq, he “saluted” and oversaw the 2011 U.S. withdrawal from that country, Schake said.
Update #1: Former General/CIA Director Petraeus believes that when the U.S. is gone, the Taliban will likely overrun the country and allow terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State to reconstitute .... Petraeus Trashes Biden Decision to Quit Afghanistan (Defense One).
Update #2: My read on these phone calls is that even though he made his decision, President Biden still needed the reassurance of these two former Presidents that what he was doing was the right thing .... Biden Spoke to Bush, Obama Prior to Announcing Pullout of US Troops From Afghanistan (Sputnik).
Update #3: When U.S. and NATO forces leave, as bad as this war is, it is going to escalate into something far worse (see the BBC video below):
7 comments:
Civil war is not our business and, more than that, China is looking for Afghanistan. This because this country has borders with China and Iran. That said I'm happy for that. Taliban are nationalistic and religious....good luck for China!
WNU Editor - Under Trump, in favour of pulling out forces.
WNU Editor - Under Biden, critical of gestures to pull out forces.
Interesting...
President Biden still needed the reassurance of these two former Presidents that what he was doing was the right thing .... Biden Spoke to Bush, Obama Prior to
Obama and Bush could be public about being for a pullout. They could have endorsed it and given a joint press conference. Bush and Obama might make public comments to a news crew after the decision is announced but not before. They do not want to put down public markers.
6:22
The style and manner of how Trump did it and Biden did it are vastly different.
Trump campaigned on it, got an agreement, and was going to honor that agreement.
Biden during the campaign criticized Trump, said he would put a halt to it, did put a halt to it in his 1st 100 days and then reversed his decision in the 1st 100 days, but still trashing the agreement.
I see one silver lining/lead lining for Biden and the Demoncats. If the Taliban are kept form overrunning the country before the next winter, the fall won't happen this year, but next year. It will be in the rear view mirror by then and if need be the Demoncats can torch several cites or as many as needed for a distraction.
The lead lining is that next year is an election year. But some black man somewhere has assaulted a woman at gunpoint, has a warrant out for his arrest, will run and fight police and something will happen. There will be a dozen such incident, but the Demoncats, Soros and the usual suspects just need to get lucky with one per year and they can torch a dozen to 3 dozen cities.
But still it is an election year and occasionally the media will cover the death throes of civility in Afghanistan if for no other reason then coverage of America cities burning is brining down Demoncat poll numbers. The media will almost accidently swerve into such coverage and just as abruptly swerve out of it.
This has Saigon 1975 and Iraq 2011 written all over it. So desperate to get out for political posturing reasons that we are going to leave Afghanistan to their fate. Basically we didn't bother winning the damn thing, broke it and now are washing our hands of it until another ISIS shows up or the Sears Tower goes down, rinse and repeat. Interesting how we are still in Germany and Japan 75 years after the war. IMO this is a mistake and we are going to pay a price for it down the road.
Biden did what Trump promised but did not do. simple. to the point. America approves. You don'/t? that is why you and Trump lost
Liar
When there was a big effort in Afghanistan, things were put on hold in Iraq and vice versa. Projects, operations and logistics were put on hold in one country, when the other country had a surge. Been there done that.
Forget about a two ocean or two major wars. The Us cannot or will not do 2 regional or 2 country wars. there are budget constraints. The Duke of Marlborough fought and won during the War of the Spanish Succession, which was a time of fiscal constraint. He literally had to put his army in quarters, because Parliament was not funding active military campaigning. He was a winning general and he was forced to sit on his hands, which seems extremely stupid to me. Or was it? Britain had a budget. France did not. France was broke, which coupled with some bad harvest led to no more Louis's after the 16th.
John Churchill never had to deal with Pakistan. Am I wrong?
In Iraq, Syria and Iran were helping the Jihadis. Syria was allowing them to transit through Syria and giving them intel. Iran was funding and arming the jihadis big time. Still after 2007, we won. Then Obama came along in 2009, failed to negotiate on purpose, and we pulled out in 2011. I was against it. I was against Obama pulling out of Afghanistan, because I saw it as a repeat of his Iraq treachery. Plus he is a stupid, dumb ass "dove".
Obama did have a good Afghan military strategy in 2009/2010. But he 1/2 assed it. and Pakistan raised the ante. Obama folded. Obama should have raised Pakistan and see if they folded. But ignoring Obama's reign, by the time Trump assumed office we had been there 16 years. Now it is 20. At some time two things have to happen. The Afghans have to kick Taliban asses more often than the other way around and Pakistan has to be dealt with. We never dealt with Pakistan. Pakistan is doing for the Taliban, what the French and Spanish did for us during the Revolutionary war. With such a situation the Brits could not win and we cannot win in Afghanistan,. If nothing else the Pakistanis simply wait us out.
Why are we paying the Pakistani government a $100 per truck to move supplies to Afghanistan? Did the British charge us 100 per liberty ship that transited the English channel?
We simply cannot win with Pakistan funding, training, and bivouacking the Taliban. We have not tried something so simple as denying Pakistani students and businessmen visas to the US. If we have not tried that, we are not serious.
If we are not serious, why should we get some American soldier maimed or killed? Sunk cost fallacy.
There will be refugees. So? We are getting them in Europe and the US anyway, whether we are there or not. War or economic Refugees are a house specialty and source of power form the caring Von Muchausen monster that live among us.
Besides China will come in and kill the Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda. Those dirty boy fuckers will be seated at sewing machine right next to a Uighur making Nikes and Nike's C-Level will be telling us how racist Americans are.
Post a Comment