CNN — The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated faster than President Joe Biden and his most senior national security officials had anticipated, leaving the White House rushing to stave off the worst effects of a Taliban takeover.
The Biden administration launched a dramatic series of moves Thursday to reinforce Kabul and allow for the safe removal of a significant number of personnel from the American embassy there, as it becomes ever clearer to administration officials that the looming collapse of Afghanistan’s government and the fallout for its citizens could threaten to become a permanent stain on Biden’s foreign policy legacy.
The Pentagon announced 3,000 troops are being deployed to assist with the drawdown of the embassy to only a “core diplomatic presence” and CNN reported the US is considering moving its embassy to the Kabul airport.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: His remarks from July 8 (see above video) where he told the press that it was highly unlikely that the Taliban would seize the whole country is .... five weeks later .... an eye-opener on how wrong the White House has been on the security situation in Afghanistan.
A prediction.
In the coming months (if not sooner) there will be two images from Kabul that will define President Biden's foreign policy legacy. (1) A Saigon/Dunkirk-like evacuation from Kabul's national airport, and (2) Taliban fighters with their Al Qaeda allies storming a deserted U.S. embassy and hoisting their flags on top of the buildings.
13 comments:
Biden owns this.
Biden already broke the original deal. If he broke in a major way as the Taliban claims. The US was supposed to be out in May. In March Joe Biden flip flopped and said were getting out and chose September 11th as the exit date. So he broke the agreements by over 3 months or a quarter of a year. If you break it by 3 months why not break it by 9 months or a year?
Biden could have stayed. Both sides could have pointed to a number of breaches that would be just cause or cause enough for a diplomat to revoke the agreement.
Biden could have tried sanction against the biggest backer, if the Taliban, which is Pakistan. Obama could have tried sanctions against Pokiston, but maybe he did not because they have a Hunter Biden type of tape.
Just watched "The Hornet's Nest" is a 2014 American documentary film about the Afghanistan war. Early on in the documentary the 101st Airborne troops find Chinese made weaponry. It still had the new car smell. So Biden could have played hardball and put serious sanctions on Pokiston, China or somebody.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2611026/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hornet's_Nest
Did Obamas disastrous foreign policy stain his legacy?
No matter the reality is, it always be the Trump fault.
Your asking if a Democrat can do wrong? Hahahaha
Who got us in? How many presidents involved over the years? Not wise to blame one or another part when both parties accepted the war and both parties wanted to end it. Instead, here is what troops involved have to say:
Veterans of the Afghanistan War in United States, Britain, South Korea horrified by Taliban gains
What legacy?
Will this "stain" Biden's legacy? I would say no because between 98.5% to 99.99999% of the fault here lies with the Afghans themselves and their government. In other words even had we executed the mission flawlessly which we did not the end result was going to be the dame. For the leadership class to admit this would mean a recognition that the mission itself as well as the ally were/are fundamentally flawed. So the problem must lie in the execution. If only we had executed the mission better the outcome would have been different.
As such, someone must take the blame. Putting the blame where it actually belongs on the Afghan themselves doesn't score political points at home and there is an additional problem To conclude the mission itself was flawed and doomed to failure would mean they would be prevented from trying something like this again. Obviously Biden can't be "stained" as it doesn't get more leadership class than him and his family. Who will be chosen to pin the tail of blame on?
Right now the leadership class seems to be flailing about a bit not quite sure what to do. In the coming days and weeks they will decide on the culprit as former president Trump. This presents several advantages for them. 1.) Even among those who support him and would think of voting for him again his favorability ratings are low and he lacks big dollar donors who will come to his aid. 2.) He's essentially been banished to the backwater of the internet where his only contact with supporters consists of desperate emails and texts pleading for money. His funds have got be very nearly exhausted. Without an internet presence or any way to communicate with the public in any meaningful fashion there's no way he can defend himself. 3.) Due to multiple witch hunts against him he has massive legal expenses and the hospitality business has been hit extremely hard by the pandemic. As such, he has to be at or near bankruptcy. 4.) I could go on but the idea is clear. Essentially Republican and Democrat leaders and their backers are all in agreement they want Trump gone.
Fairly or not it is Trump and his presidency who will be "stained." This will be viewed as a win/win all the around by the leadership class. My prediction, Trump and anyone still with him becomes the proverbial goat.
Will that work? Since Trump is not well liked even by those who support/supported him and he lacks an outlet or the means to defend himself, I would say it is highly likely. The debacle is unlikely to alter US foreign policy very much as foreign leaders who aren't blinded by ideology and/or petty concerns are still getting what they want from America and they understand fully that the fault lies with the Afghans and their government.
An intangible factor the leadership class does not seem to be considering is the American people are now virulently anti war. As they seem unlikely to learn anything from this, they may try something like Afghanistan again. The leadership may be underestimating this anti war sentiment as they seem to underestimate most threats to their plans while over estimating their own abilities. The quick collapse of the Afghan government was easily predictable by pretty much anyone willing to look at the situation objectively. It's highly likely that team Biden looked at the overly rosy projections presented by the Pentagon and US (un)Intelligence when devising strategy.
2:20 STFU Bitch! Afghanistan was a holding pattern. No one had been trying to win since 2010. So why were we there?
WNU Editor,
I get what you saying about the defining images, however, as I point out above fairly or not any images will define former President Trump's legacy, not Biden. The media combined with Republican and Democrat leaders will overtime to try and ensure that and frankly without any means to counter it the probability of such a strategy succeeding is fairly high.
As for the embassy building, assuming the leadership class wants to this problem, while it may not be able to be eliminated, can be mitigated to a degree. It has to do with construction. The area where I live in Conroe, TX just north of Houston is experiencing massive growth. Oftentimes old buildings need to be torn down and new ones built. Within three weeks and sometimes less there's no evidence the old building was ever there!! I suppose they could plant their flag on a giant dirt pit but I don't think this would give the same image. The embassy building being of modern construction and by government contractors will likely be much easier to dismantle than those old well built buildings are.
At this point, the leadership class may want these images assuming the plan is to pin the blame on former President Trump. This way they get rid of a thorn in their side and don't have to be held to account. I figured out in late 2002 even though I didn't want to admit at the time that Afghanistan was/is a lost cause. The leadership class likely has as well. With adage of never let a crisis go to waste pin the blame on Trump meaning get out of Afghanistan and get rid of a domestic adversary as well.
^^^ Armchair general err troll hard at work ^^^
Anon (3:12PM),
I assume you directed your comment at me. Is there a flaw in my analysis? I spent much time and thought on this taking the time and making the effort to consult with men who have much military experience and have served in Afghanistan. The suggestion that the outcome of the war effort was inevitable from at least late 2002 on I believe to be a sound one.
Furthermore I have spent much time as a business owner observing human behavior. If you want to gain and retain clients it is vital that you understand them and what their needs and desires are. Also, based upon how people have behaved in the past and what they have done in the past, while not perfect, is a very good gage of how they are going to behave in the future. We can apply this to our leadership class. Based upon their previous behavior they will not learn from the mistakes in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Also, given the perceived benefit, the minimal risk, and their hatred for former president Trump they are going to try and pin all of the blame oh him. Will it succeed? Perhaps not as they do have a tendency to underestimate their and our adversaries.
Now, if there is a problem with my analysis, perhaps we can discuss it. After all this is how we learn and it adds value. Slurs such as yours are not helpful and add nothing of value.
Based upon an analysis of the nation building mission and an understanding of our "allies" which was gleaned from reading multiple sources and speaking at length with military personnel who served there this was the conclusion I reached but did not want to admit at the time. After all who really wants to admit that our military personnel are essentially dying for a lost cause. After further at length conversations with both military personnel who served there as well as contractors who worked there by mid 2005 it became impossible to deny.
Actually my eyes are blue. Before making comments about someone it is actually helpful to make the effort to get to actually know them. Now if you perceive a flaw in my analysis perhaps we can discuss. Otherwise this isn't productive.
They were blue before overflow.
Post a Comment