That oversaw an effort in which thr countries were trained for. It involved no nation building or rebuilding of Iraq: unlike Afghanistan.
Afghanistan War
- Thread starter gree0232
- Start date
Agreed. Back then you had an administration led by a guy with military training, combat experience, and service as an ambassador and head of the CIA.
Every POTUS since has been the domestic candidate, with little experience, knowledge or interest in foreign affairs. That's ultimately on the US electorate.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Travesty in Afghanistan leaves us where we were 20 wasted years ago
With the fall of Kabul, the war in Afghanistan comes to an ignominious end, the country exactly as it was when we invaded in 2001.
nypost.com
Well, even NY Post agree that 3 Administration before also do not really have definitive idea on how to win the peace and build Afghanistan. They even blame Bush Jr for moving to quickly to Iraq without building good policy for Afghanistan first. Something quite rare for conservative leaning NY Post.
Still they're roasting Biden more on how the miss calculation on the speed of pull over. Have to bit thinking on that. Could if US doing more coordinate effort with Afghan military, will prepare them at least to hold half of the country?
Watching their performance, I'm bit sceptics on that.
Note:
Put that mission accomplished picture just to emphasis how US Administrations (and not only Bush Jr), only thinking more on any quick win resolutions. Not really on hard breaking long term work after that.
Last edited:
I was referring to the realisation that deep economic and political changes were needed to defeat the Huks and a lot of the planning/advice cane from the Americans. Granted the circumstances were different compared to Afghanistan but this was an occasion where the Americans had a well thought out plan apart from the military aspects. Overall; things in the Philippines only started going very wrong much later in the 1970’s.
Is this debacle going to mark the end of the post-colonial 'world-policing' and towards deterrence, visible presence, and threatened 'butcher and bolt' type strikes without the ground holding commitment?
Clearly the initial phase is something Western armies are good at, the longer game...not so much.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Part of the issue with the current administration, at least in terms of how much the collapse was miscalculated, is just when the administration started getting access to the classified data, not just for Afghanistan, but for everything. With the transfer between administrations being what it was, I have been under the impression that the transition team which would normally have been getting access to materials and information shortly after the Nov. election, did not really start getting access until either late Dec or perhaps even early Jan. A two month loss of time for establishing an administration can have all sorts of impacts.
I would lay blame for the more recent modern failures of the US and others in Afghanistan to short-sighted Cold War era policies and thinking. In fact many of the more recent issues in the Mideast in places like Iraq can be traced back to Cold War policies adopted decades ago, or more recent policies which were adopted to deal with the aftermath of a Cold War policy that caused "unexpected" problems. TBH though it does seem that in many cases it was not so much that the problems created were unexpected, as it seems more likely that the policy hawks responsible did not both to stop and consider what some of the repercussions could be, being so focused on outcomes they deemed important.
At this point, a question I have is, "what is next?"
Western militaries are good at dealing with anyone delusional enough to attempt to take them on on equal terms like Saddam did. When it comes to situations like Iraq and Afghanistan it’s much more complex as various non military means have to be in place parallel to the military effort.
I have no idea what comes next but I do hope there’s some deep soul searching as to what went wrong and why. It’s not only highly damaging to the countries involved but also to the locals. This is not the first time that the U.S. has invested so much effort and resources into an ally; only to see it fall ..
I have no idea what comes next but I do hope there’s some deep soul searching as to what went wrong and why. It’s not only highly damaging to the countries involved but also to the locals. This is not the first time that the U.S. has invested so much effort and resources into an ally; only to see it fall ..
Last edited:
I'm sceptical too, after twenty years of effort and trillions of dollars they couldn't hold the country for two weeks.
Biden's decision to pull out so quickly was the catalyst for the rapid collapse, and he has to own that despite the (many) failures of previous administrations, but any withdrawal was likely to have the same eventual outcome.
More broadly, the sight of Western trained militaries collapsing quickly has become depressingly familiar. Large scale capacity building and training teams don't seem to work, are expensive, and don't deliver the policy outcomes desired.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Actually there's one place they're succeed big way, which is South Korea. However it's more to South Korean them selves manage to build strong leadership, and successful economy then latter on to democracy.
US don't push Korean for democracy right away, they let ROK to sort it by themselves. We don't see same kind of quality leadership come out from South Vietnam and Afghanistan. Talk to any South Korean, and they will tell you that the Military regime was corrupt, but manage to bring environment for the Chaebols to blossom. In the end that natural evolution on the overall steps that can bring successful transition to Democracy.
Relative stronger and unified leadership never manage to come out in South Vietnam and now Afghanistan. That's what North Vietnamese had, and now Taliban have. Even Iraq more or less have relative better leadership and administrative build up compared to Afghanistan.
I once asked whether the problem was the fact that the ANA was not equipped or structured the way it should have been; as case of the Americans creating something in rheir own image; an ANA which lacked ability to perform and sustain itself after its main benefactor left.
I think the answer is no.
The problem lay elsewhere. A lot of the issues faced by the ANA was a reflection of various issues faced by the country; as a whole; the result of highly flawed and short sighted decisions.
The expectation was that oil exports and a Iraqi public grateful to be given a chance to experience democracy; would suffice to get the country going again with minimal need for the time and resource intensive task of nation building which both the U.S. civilian leadership and military was extremely reluctant to conduct or get involved in.
In my view this quote, taken from a Small Wars Journal article (link previously posted); says a lot.
“In both instances, the U.S. entered the wars believing its martial superiority ensured victory and ended each war wondering what went wrong”
Last edited:
I doubt it within certain sections of the US political elite. Many of those who went all gung ho about going into Iraq in 2003 still have influence in US right wing political circles, either personally or through acolytes and supporters. Whilst the neocons are not as visible today, they haven't completely disappeared.
After Vietnam the US was quite risk adverse of foreign adventurism until the Reagan Administrator. Whether it becomes risk adverse of foreign adventurism again remains to be seen. I don't hold much hope though because it's had 40 years of it and old habits die hard.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
This is Twitter from Fox News White House correspondence. Even the conservative media outlets like FOX seems now open to get more Afghan refugees. Especially those that work with US. South Vietnam all over again.
Just add video on Kabul break down, with Afghan administrations latest empty effort to shown they still in control. If we see the video on Saigon capitulation, we can see much similarities.
Last edited:
Well the key difference is that unlike the case with Afghanistan; U.S. aid to Soith Vietnam had been drastically slashed due to U.S. domestic politics and unlike the case in Kabul which the government decided not to fight for; some ARVN units put up very determined and spirited resistance in Saigon.
Nobody expected it to end this fast. In fact watching the live feed from the palace; looks on many of the Taliban indicates that they too never expected to be there when they did. It’s surprising that 3 palace staff (clean shaven and in suits) even stayed to hand it over. I would have legged it.
Nobody expected it to end this fast. In fact watching the live feed from the palace; looks on many of the Taliban indicates that they too never expected to be there when they did. It’s surprising that 3 palace staff (clean shaven and in suits) even stayed to hand it over. I would have legged it.
Al Jazerrah are reporting that a column of Afghan Army Special Forces is heading towards Kabaul with the intention to fight it out with the Taliban. The column consists of approximately 1,500 personnel in 200 - 300 vehicles. The Taliban is responding with a column of its own comprising of about 6,000 Taliban Special Forces.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I feel sorry for those Afghanis that wanted to fight the Taliban but were let down by their government. I have no idea if these guys are actually going to fight it out or not, but clearly they have no chance given that they can't expect support from the former police/regular army. But I doubt they deserve that.
Without delving too deeply into politics, US foreign policy has a long history of swings between interventionalism and isolationism. IMO both sides of the political spectrum have become increasingly sceptical about foreign engagements, be they military, diplomatic, trade, etc., etc. over the last couple of decades.
To bring this back to a military focus, what would a weakening of US appetite for engaging in the Middle East for example mean for US allies? More self reliance in securing energy supplies and SLOC previously protected by the US for instance? Is structuring a military predicated on US or 'coalition' provision (which effectively means the same thing) of mass, technology, enablers, support, etc. a viable option going forward?
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
There seems to be some gunfire at the airport of Kabul. It is not clear if its fired by security personnel, passengers or someone from Taliban.
More information will follow.
www.wsj.com
Anyway, it seems to be a complete chaos at the airport.
www.bbc.com
- The Taliban has entered the Green Zone in Kabul.
- Germany has sent a second evacuation flight to Kabul.
- The Ministery of Defence of the Netherlands is planning to send several military aeroplanes to Afganistan to evacuate embassy personnel and Afgan translators.
Quite late.
nos.nl
More information will follow.
Violence Erupts at Kabul Airport as Afghans Try to Flee Taliban
Chaotic scenes at Kabul’s international airport turned deadly as thousands of people converged in hopes of getting on an evacuation flight after the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan.
www.wsj.com
Anyway, it seems to be a complete chaos at the airport.
Afghanistan conflict: The Air India flight out on a fateful Sunday
Air India's only flight to Kabul on Sunday circled for 90 minutes over the Afghan capital before landing.
www.bbc.com
- The Taliban has entered the Green Zone in Kabul.
- Germany has sent a second evacuation flight to Kabul.
- The Ministery of Defence of the Netherlands is planning to send several military aeroplanes to Afganistan to evacuate embassy personnel and Afgan translators.
Quite late.
'Evacuatievluchten vertrokken uit Kabul' • Nederland versoepelt procedure tolken
In dit liveblog praten we je de hele dag bij over de ontwikkelingen in Afghanistan, waar na de inname van Kabul door de Taliban veel mensen proberen weg te komen.
nos.nl
Last edited:
A fish rots from the head.
Nothing works when the leadership is as corrupt as in Afghanistan. How do you get an army to fight when the soldiers feel they aren't fighting for their country but to keep corrupt politicians & generals in comfort?