Lots not pretend we care about the Afghans. We don't even care about the people in our own country or the migrants and immigrants willing to take the hardest and lowest paid jobs in America just for the opportunity to be here.
To the corrupt officials we had displaying the illusion that things were under control (they folded swiftly for that reason as soon as we announced our evacuation)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d-states-still-has-promises-keep-afghanistan/ Opinion: The United States still has promises to keep in Afghanistan By Editorial Board Today at 8:00 a.m. EST President Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan led to chaos and bloodshed in Kabul, as well as the fall of a U.S.-backed government; the Taliban, the Islamist movement that the United States had fought for two decades, now rules. Given this debacle, it is perhaps understandable that administration policy toward Afghanistan since the last troops left Aug. 30 has seemed to be: The less said, the better. On Thursday, however, the State Department provided a much-needed update, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, on a key piece of unfinished business: the status of more than 60,000 Afghans who are eligible for special immigrant visas because they had helped U.S. troops, often as interpreters, and their family members. Some 33,000 Afghans have been vetted and are eligible to be taken out of the country immediately; because of logistical difficulties, though, they might not actually get out until “well into 2022,” the Journal reported. Another 29,000 applicants remain to be processed and would not be eligible to leave until after that. That’s a lot of friends the United States has left behind. The Taliban has so far shown restraint; the systematic violence that many of these people feared has not materialized. That is cold comfort however, because — meanwhile — Taliban units have summarily executed or forcibly “disappeared” more than 100 former police and intelligence officers, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. The organization also reports that the Taliban has been seizing land in central Afghanistan to give to its fighters. Those dispossessed are generally members of the country’s long-persecuted Shiite Muslim minority. And there is one clear and present danger facing all 40 million of Afghanistan’s people: economic privation, bordering on starvation in many parts of the country. International donors have pledged more than $1 billion in food aid, some $64 million of which is new money from the United States. The Biden administration has also taken steps to make it easier for Afghans abroad and humanitarian groups to send resources without violating continuing U.S. economic sanctions. The problem of how to make sure that relief reaches people who need it, rather than the Taliban — still not recognized as the legitimate Afghan government by most of the world — remains a real one, and it affects the flow of aid. The Taliban is calling for the United States to release more than $9 billion in the former government’s reserves held in U.S. institutions, blaming the Biden administration’s refusal to do so for the country’s economic plight. U.S. diplomats are continuing to talk about that with the Taliban in Qatar. Also on the agenda are U.S. concerns such as cooperation against terrorism, safe passage out for our former allies and human rights, including the fact that the Taliban insists on limiting education for Afghan girls. The United States’ goals should be to ease the Afghan people’s critical near-term needs, while securing the Taliban’s long-term commitments on human rights and terrorism. With tough but wise use of its leverage, the Biden administration could achieve both. The Post’s View | About the Washington Post Editorial Board Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom. Members of the Editorial Board and areas of focus: Deputy Editorial Page Editor Karen Tumulty; Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus; Associate Editorial Page Editor Jo-Ann Armao (education, D.C. affairs); Jonathan Capehart (national politics); Lee Hockstader (immigration; issues affecting Virginia and Maryland); David E. Hoffman (global public health); Charles Lane (foreign affairs, national security, international economics); Heather Long (economics); Molly Roberts (technology and society); and Stephen Stromberg (elections, the White House, Congress, legal affairs, energy, the environment, health care).
https://reason.com/2021/12/29/we-sa...-in-2021-unfortunately-its-not-actually-over/ We Said Good Riddance to the Afghan War in 2021. Unfortunately, It's Not Actually Over. Our drones still patrol the skies, and our tax dollars will be paying off the costs of failed nation-building for decades. On August 30, the last American troops pulled out of Kabul following two weeks of fraught evacuations of diplomatic and civilian staff. One month and a week shy of 20 years, America finally concluded what started as an attempt to destroy al Qaeda and track down Osama bin Laden and ended as a failed attempt at nation-building. The final days went poorly. A suicide bombing at the airport just days before the evacuation deadline killed 13 U.S. troops and at least 170 Afghan civilians. The U.S. military responded with an airstrike against what its intelligence analysts said was a terrorist preparing another strike on the airport. That intelligence was wrong. The drone strike killed an aid worker for a food charity and nine of his family members, including seven children. The Department of Defense lists 2,401 servicemembers killed during the two-decade effort in Afghanistan. The Department of Labor lists another 1,822 deaths among civilian contractors working in the country during that time. The financial costs are harder to calculate. The Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimates that the federal government has obligated the United States to spend $8 trillion post-9/11 in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other troubled countries. Much of this spending has been paid for by borrowing. By the 2050s, the Watson Institute predicts, we may have an interest bill of $6.5 trillion. We may have left Afghanistan, but Americans (including some not even born yet) will be paying the costs of the Afghan war for a very long time. America's military and political leaders argued that stabilizing Afghanistan's government and infrastructure was a crucial part of fighting the war on terrorism. But such stabilization simply didn't happen. Instead, according to years of reports from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the billions upon billions of dollars spent there went to poorly managed projects troubled with corruption. The money may have lined a number of people's pockets—the U.S. paid $43 million for a single gas station—but none of that construction work actually stabilized Afghanistan and neither U.S. troops nor Afghan police were able to protect the U.S.-funded infrastructure. As America finally began heading toward Afghanistan's exits in August 2021, SIGAR produced a damning report describing how poorly U.S. resources were managed and deployed. The problem wasn't that we weren't spending enough money. The problem was that American leaders never actually agreed on what "success" would or should look like in Afghanistan. The result, according to SIGAR: "The absence of periodic reality checks created the risk of doing the wrong thing perfectly: A project that completed required tasks would be considered 'successful,' whether or not it had achieved or contributed to broader, more important goals." Nor has the U.S. been kind to those Afghans now looking to flee their devastated homeland. Thousands of Afghan interpreters, engineers, and others who assisted American forces or contractors now seek to immigrate to the U.S., but harsh immigration laws and piles of red tape tape make it exceedingly difficult for them to do so. There's currently a backlog of
Documents reveal U.S. military’s frustration with White House, diplomats over Afghanistan evacuation https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/08/afghanistan-evacuation-investigation/ excerpt: Senior White House and State Department officials failed to grasp the Taliban’s steady advance on Afghanistan’s capital and resisted efforts by U.S. military leaders to prepare the evacuation of embassy personnel and Afghan allies weeks before Kabul’s fall, placing American troops ordered to carry out the withdrawal in greater danger, according to sworn testimony from multiple commanders involved in the operation. An Army investigative report, numbering 2,000 pages and released to The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request, details the life-or-death decisions made daily by U.S. soldiers and Marines sent to secure Hamid Karzai International Airport as thousands converged on the airfield in a frantic bid to escape. Beyond the bleak, blunt assessments of top military commanders, the documents contain previously unreported disclosures about the violence American personnel experienced, including one exchange of gunfire that left two Taliban fighters dead after they allegedly menaced a group of U.S. Marines and Afghan civilians. In a separate incident a few days later, U.S. troops killed a member of an elite Afghan strike unit that had joined the operation and wounded six others after they fired on the Americans. The investigation was launched in response to an Aug. 26 suicide bombing just outside the airport that killed an estimated 170 Afghan civilians and 13 U.S. service members. But it is much broader, providing perhaps the fullest official account yet of the evacuation operation, which spanned 17 nightmarish days and has become one of the Biden administration’s defining moments — drawing scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats for the haphazard nature in which the United States ended its longest war. Military personnel would have been “much better prepared to conduct a more orderly” evacuation, Navy Rear Adm. Peter Vasely, the top U.S. commander on the ground during the operation, told Army investigators, “if policymakers had paid attention to the indicators of what was happening on the ground.” He did not identify any administration officials by name, but said inattention to the Taliban’s determination to complete a swift and total military takeover undermined commanders’ ability to ready their forces. Vasely could not be reached for comment. The report includes witness statements from dozens of people interviewed after an Islamic State-Khorasan operative detonated a suicide vest at the airport’s Abbey Gate. Senior defense officials announced Friday that the investigation had determined that a single bomb packed with ball bearings caused “disturbing lethality” in the tightly packed outdoor corridor leading to the airfield. The operation evacuated 124,000 people before concluding about midnight Aug. 31. It required U.S. commanders to strike an unusual security pact with the Taliban and rapidly deploy nearly 6,000 troops to assist a skeleton force of about 600 left behind under Vasely’s command to protect U.S. Embassy personnel. U.S. officials have lauded the effort, but critics have said that although U.S. troops performed heroically, the evacuation was flawed and incomplete, leaving behind hundreds of Americans and tens of thousands of Afghans who supported the war effort and were promised a way out. John Kirby, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in response to questions about the report that while the airlift was a “historic achievement,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has acknowledged it was “not perfect.” “We are committed to, and are intensely engaged in, an ongoing review of our efforts during the evacuation, the assessments and strategy during the conflict, and the planning in the months before the end of the war,” Kirby said. “We will take those lessons learned, and apply them, as we always do, clearly and professionally.” Marine Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie, chief of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview Tuesday that he was “not surprised” commanders had different opinions about how the evacuation could have gone better. “But remember,” he said, “what did happen is we came together and executed a plan. There are profound frustrations; commanders, particularly subordinate commanders, they see very clearly the advantages of other courses of action. However, we had a decision, and we had an allocation of forces. You proceed based on that.” There “might have been other plans that we would have preferred,” the general added, “but when the president makes a decision, it’s time for us to execute the president’s decision.” Military officials told investigators that although the evacuation was in many ways cobbled together on the fly, planning within the Defense Department began months earlier. Initial discussions presumed the possible use of Bagram air base, a sprawling U.S. military installation 30 miles north of Kabul, and assistance from Afghan government forces to help secure the path there, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Farrell J. Sullivan, who was involved in planning and oversaw the Marines sent into the capital, told investigators. Those plans evolved from incorporating both airfields to “just HKIA,” the Marine general said, using the military’s shorthand for Hamid Karzai International Airport. U.S. officials have said previously that the decision to turn over Bagram to the Afghan government was made because it was deemed too far outside Kabul, where the majority of evacuees were expected to be, and because it would have required a significant number of U.S. troops. “Everyone clearly saw some of the advantage of holding Bagram,” McKenzie said Tuesday, “but you cannot hold Bagram with the force level that was decided.” Disagreement between U.S. military officials and American diplomats in Kabul about when to press forward with an evacuation appears to have gone back months. Vasely, who took command as the top officer in Afghanistan in July, said he was told by the departing four-star commander, Army Gen. Austin “Scott” Miller, that there would be opposition among senior officials at the embassy to shrinking its footprint in Kabul. Ross Wilson, the acting U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, was focused on maintaining a diplomatic presence there, Vasely said, and questioned how the United States was supposed to preserve its influence without an embassy, the admiral added. Wilson did not respond to requests for comment. Vasely told investigators that he was advised by embassy staff that he should provide those close to the acting ambassador with data illustrating the country’s rapid collapse to the Taliban, “so it could be sold as a collective approach and not a power grab by DoD.” Wilson wanted two weeks to evacuate the embassy and leave a skeleton staff at the airport, military officials said. But by Aug. 12, three days before Kabul’s fall, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan called Wilson and instructed him to move more quickly, Vasely told investigators. quite a bit more at the link, too much to quote in its entirety
it's mind-boggling that no one has been fired, or had the honor to resign, over this debacle. and a debacle it was, and one that has certainly emboldened Putin and "She".
Mind boggling is the trillions spent and millions lives lost in the name of wmds and blood for oil. What's mind boggling is that human garbage LIKE YOU would use the blood of 9-11 to war these people. NEVER FORGET
Talking about serious buyer/voter remorse. This is what happened when we have a braindead dipshiet- in charge who’ve always been wrong on everything during his 50 years in politics.
the inevitable consequence of incompetence and naïveté. Taliban Halts Further Evacuations, Rejecting U.S. Precondition for Lifting Sanctions https://www.wsj.com/articles/taliba...lifting-sanctions-11646077567?mod=djem10point "He said religious law prohibited women from traveling without a chaperone—dashing hopes of some that they could leave Afghanistan soon."
Biden was right to pull out. Afghanistan had all the support and training to do what Ukraine is doing now against a far weaker opponent, but had no will to fight. We only have so many resources. If defending freedom is the battle we are trying to win, Ukraine is the much more important battle. Also pretty amazing that the US got this much time to have the Taliban allow people to evacuate in some capacity. So far we’ve seen the Taliban being the Taliban but I don’t see a threat for them funding and organizing another 9/11. Seeing how we are still able to conduct in and out strikes with special forces units and we have 20 years of resources/intelligence some still left, I think we’ll be able to take out any serious threats. Biden was right about Afghanistan and I’m glad we now have more military support freed up to support the much more important battle for Ukraine.
look at a map. if the US still had forces in Afghanistan, there is no way Russia would have undertaken an invasion of this scale in Ukraine (2014 was much smaller, and didn't require Russia pulling forces from across the country. Moreover, the debacle that was the evacuation sent a clear signal to Putin (and Xi) that US leadership was weak and corrupt. Weakness emboldens ones enemies. Had we demonstrated greater competency and leadership in pulling out of Afghanistan, its possible Putin would not have miscalculated and proceeded with the invasion of Ukraine.
Again another example of how the right fetishizes “strength.” I don’t know what you think “strength” in Afghanistan really is and I doubt you can articulate it. The failure in Afghanistan happened well before Biden came into office. Look at Ukraine and Zelensky. Afghanistan was not led by someone or a government that the country could unify under and wanted to fight for. What Putin and Xi are afraid of is US and the rest of the world being United. Right now it’s pretty clear that at least for now, the US leading in the effort to keep our Allie’s together has been pretty remarkable. That’s where the US’ “strength” lies. Hollywood has polluted the mind of the right to think that the answer is some guy that looks like Chris Hemsworth going in with a small platoon of bad asses and shooting up an area overnight and boom!.. USA! USA! Staying in Afghanistan for another 20 years and using multi million dollar bombs on mountainsides where you’re more likely to kill goats than ISIS leaders is not “strength.” The “strength” long term we can show in Afghanistan is changing how the Afghanistan people see freedom, and the West. We werent there to be mall cops. We were there to produce a free society. You can’t produce that if the people don’t want it that bad.
strength in this case is not engaging in a precipitous pullout that showed the world that US leadership was rudderless.
The Ukraine comparison is incredibly tone deaf as is the double standard with respect to the citizens in both countries
So Trump pulling out faster as he had put plans in place to do would have looked “stronger”?? Please tell me when the Trump White House did anything with precision? Please tell me that Afghani people still wouldn’t have stupidly rode on the landing equipment of a plane? Would that Afghani citizen have said …”you know what… Trump sure is STRONG so I’m not going to ride on the outside of this plane.” Again… Trump had even faster plans to evacuate. We’re you hemming and hawing then about how “precipitous” that would make us look? The rights criticisms of Afghanistan are so insincere.
Citizens yes possibly. The Afghanistan military and its leadership… no way. The Afghani leadership fleeing like cowards tells you all you need to know. The Afghanistan military had some of the best training and equipment we’ve invested in any country. I don’t think the Afghanistan people deserve freedom less than the Ukrainians, but there are only so many resources around the globe and yes I do think Ukraine is the more important immediate country to make sure does not fold to an evil dictatorship. Putin is a far greater danger to the world than the Taliban. I feel very strongly about that.
