> and abided by the previous commitment to exit Afghanistan.
Ummm, what? Biden moved the date for withdrawal back, to make it coincide with a 9/11 anniversary. Then, seeing that the US would just arbitrarily change treaties, the Taliban launched an assault and reconquered the country. I get that historical revisionism is popular with political partisans, but usually you wait until goldfish have forgotten the details before attempted to do so in such a blatant manner.
Just going to chime in with a non political fact: the withdrawal treaty was done by the previous administration, the planning by the military.
It was always going to be a shit show. Presidents are not all powerful gods who control things like the stock market, inflation, or pulling everyone out of a foreign country.
I voted for Biden in 2020. It feels better to say this wasn't his fault for those of us who voted for him. It was his fault, and primarily a failure of his administration, especially Jake Sullivan, who is the least qualified National Security Advisor I've ever seen, including those who advised GW Bush, which is saying something. His qualifications are primarily political and partisan, and he's incredibly thin on actual defense matters. Feel free to take a look at his background, and prepare to be depressed that he wasn't fired immediately after that fiasco. In fact, nobody was fired from the administration, which for me was the most horrifying part. Obama's administration NEVER WOULD HAVE LET THIS HAPPEN.
Specifically, "the planning by the military" was under constraints placed on it by the executive branch. (The constraints were that no more troops would be added on the ground to "cover the withdrawal" and that all civilian contractors had to be out of country months prior, which immediately destroyed all air capability depended upon by Afghan forces) And the idea that Biden was committed to any plan concocted in the Trump administration is absurd. (this treaty was already long in violation by Taliban as well) Nobody who voted for Biden, myself included, expected (or wanted!) him to cling to any plans developed by the previous administration. It's an excuse. I'm a former defense/intel contractor, I've been to Bagram on multiple occasions, and everyone in the DoD community knows that this was an executive branch mistake conflated with malignant obedience at the Pentagon command level.
In case I sound partisan (I'm not), let me be extremely clear in my statement:
The botched withdrawal of Afghanistan NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED under Obama. His administration was vastly more competent than the current one, on multiple matters.
Without a surge of troops to cover withdrawal, the US embassy in Kabul could not be secured simultaneously with Bagram. The decision was made to instead focus on securing the embassy AND HKI airport and to abandon Bagram instead. As is typical of decisions coming from the top levels of the Pentagon under intense executive pressure, all feedback from the ground of the plan's lack of feasibility was ignored, along with warnings of the rapidity of ADF collapse once civilian contractors were pulled from the hangars.
I'm stating this because, not unlike the highly partisan administration under GW Bush, when partisans get too much power in administrations, you get disasters like this. Partisans are selected for loyalty over competence, and it's a growing epidemic in US politics that partisans get more and more power in successive administrations.
1. We have zero way of knowing how any previous executive team would have handled this, but I find that mildly weird given this was a military operation.
2. Does the President have the ultimate responsibility for everything in the USA going on during his term? Yes, as any good leader is ultimately responsible for everything under him.
3. Does that mean the president has any control over it? Not really, the pullout was planned by the military and initiated by the previous administration.
You are very wrong here on every point. Mistakes were made, at what levels and by who is going to take a 200 page report from the Pentagon. And, a healthy amount are due to the fog of war.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and don't even understand the relationship between the executive branch and the DoD, which is a cabinet level department with the President as literal "commander in chief". You also don't understand the basics of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or anything else. When the Bin Laden raid was executed, it was Obama who evaluated the plan and risked his presidency by signing off on it. I, and most of the country, gave him credit for that.
Partisans will blame the person they didn't vote for if things go bad, and act like they had no control if they go well. If it's the person they voted for, if things go well it's due to strategic genius. Bad? They had no control over it and nothing to do with it. That's you.
The statement you wrote feels like extremely motivated reasoning by somebody who, like me, voted for a person, but unlike me, feels the need to defend said person and absolve them of all blame.
Nobody in the Pentagon was fired. Not one person. They couldn't be blamed, because the bad decisions came from the administration. "Check your facts" is a funny statement from someone who offered zero themselves.
I understand your desire that the world works with some ultimate leader but this is not how it works. In the end the President makes a decision based on recommendations/advice from the government agency. Symbolically they are responsible but obviously the Presidential team is not designing missions.
Why would someone at the Pentagon be fired? They got unlucky and made some mistakes, learn from them and get better. Why would you fire them? Last I checked the Pentagon is not fully in control over reality.
I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be insulting here just sharing my perspective as someone interested in this but not in the industry. Me and many people I talk to feel like you and your colleagues have been given trillions of dollars and 20+ years and accomplished nothing. You have no credibility as an industry or group and frankly nobody should listen to you about anything. It's honestly hard to hear someone from your community describing other people's actions as botched
It’s surprising to see people’s willingness to attribute everything that happens to the president.
Trump:
Stock market boom,
Jobs boom,
Covid,
Police violence
Biden:
Recession
The optimal Covid response will only be known a generation from now. The best government economic policy is something that has to play out over many years and has only a loose connection to broader economic performance. The cops are going to do what they’re going to do. Etc.
Sure, you can't attribute a recession or a boom to a president. But the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan is pretty much squarely on the shoulders of the Commander in Chief.
So things like that, that the president does or does not do, can be laid at the feet of the president.
But he does not control the economy, and does not know the perfect answer to a black swan event like Covid… since we don’t know what the perfect response looks like. For example, hard lockdown = possibly less Covid, more harm from the lockdown. No lockdown = possibly more Covid, economy keeps booming (unless everyone dies of Covid!). What’s the optimal mix? Nobody knows. The president, even if he knows, cannot snap his fingers and make it happen.
Isn't that a verifiable fact though, that Trump set the deadline to be fully out of Afghanistan and that it was going to be super messy with the aggressive timeline? Article from March 2021: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/2021/03/17/u...
Obama never would have withdrawn under the conditions. At the time of withdrawal, the Taliban was already long in violation of that treaty. Additionally, the US could have easily done as the Pentagon originally asked, and surged in troops to "cover the withdrawal" which is a standard tactic (and term) for withdrawing from war zones. By refusing to add boots on the ground to "cover the withdrawal" the US military was forced into a no-win situation, having to abandon Bagram and use HKIA, a completely indefensible airport with no controllable perimiter.
Let me be clear:
The withdrawal, if executed properly at a tactical level, was always going to end in a Taliban takeover. However, various tactical failures made it a vastly worse and accelerated affair than it needed to be.
I will again emphasize that this NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED UNDER OBAMA. It's important to state this, because we too often devolve to partisan comparisons on these topics, when the reality is that different administrations have highly varying degrees of competence in their personnel. Biden's biggest fault, in my opinion, is how loyal and kind he is to his team. They helped get him elected, he's very loyal to them for that, and as a result hasn't fired half of them the way he should have a long time ago, starting with Jake Sullivan.
Are you trying to suggest the taliban wouldn't have launched an assault if the date wasn't moved and the US pulled out? I feel your desire to throw a political punch has utterly blinded you here.
That is exactly what I'm claiming, as evidenced by the timeline and events as they occurred. To label a resounding defeat as a withdrawal, simultaneously claim the withdrawal treaty was Trump's plan (but not hold Biden to account for breaking it), and then also claim that this was a continuation of the previous administration's policy... I mean these responses are inline with the sort of "facts don't matter" tribal rage I expected. Yours however, that dismisses the US blatantly breaking a treaty, is the special kind of qualified US military apologist rhetoric (just so long as the president has a D by their name) that is truly contemptible. Hence why your comment got the reply.
I'll agree with one thing - the current administration did what they could to shake off the blame. However, your implications that the Taliban wouldn't have invaded if the timeline had been 4 months different seems to be "the sort of 'facts don't matter' tribal rage I expected".
I'd suggest stepping back and evaluating your political blinders.
How does withdrawing in late August coincide with 9/11 anniversary? And how does 'delaying the withdrawl since the other side was not keeping to the treaty by attacking local governments' become 'arbitrarily changing treaties'?
> Biden moved the date for withdrawal back, to make it coincide with a 9/11 anniversary. Then, seeing that the US would just arbitrarily change treaties, the Taliban launched an assault and reconquered the country.
Are you implying that not delaying the withdrawal would have resulted in the Taliban leaving the rest of the country alone and going about their business?
From what I understand about it, the treaty was falling apart from the very beginning due to the US Government conducting negotiations without involving the Afghan government [1].
Would you believe that the US policy of continually expanding NATO, combined with a military coup of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014 are more to blame for Putin attacking Ukraine? I wouldn't blame Biden. I'd blame Clinton, Bush, and Obama. But hey, you weren't actually asking to be informed about anything that wasn't CIA approved corporate news talking points. You just wanted a pithy straw man joke. (Side Note - Burning karma to put some truth where people might see it is the only good use for the stuff.)
I believe a citation is needed for the claim that the 2014 Ukraine revolution was a "military coup".
Anyway, it's not like the US demanded that Latvia, Poland, etc. join NATO. They are sovereign nations who hated Soviet occupation, and when they got a chance, they joined a mutual defense organization to keep Russia from re-invading them. If Russia didn't want NATO to expand, it shouldn't have been so aggressive towards its neighbors.
I would only believe that Putin is to blame for Putin attacking and brutalizing Ukraine. And Syria. And Chechnya. And Georgia. Sorry, apparently I’m brainwashed.
Funny you should mention Georgia, since they declared war on Russia. Every single one of my factual claims is just an internet search away. And yes, (though you said it in jest) I do believe you are brainwashed.
Ummm, what? Biden moved the date for withdrawal back, to make it coincide with a 9/11 anniversary. Then, seeing that the US would just arbitrarily change treaties, the Taliban launched an assault and reconquered the country. I get that historical revisionism is popular with political partisans, but usually you wait until goldfish have forgotten the details before attempted to do so in such a blatant manner.