"Rushed Afghanistan Drawdown Likely to Benefit Al-Qaeda" Topic

"Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller announced last week an order to reduce U.S. troops in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500, to be completed by January 15, 2021. Justified as a move to end "perpetual war," the decision ignores the risk of an al-Qaeda resurgence and that the U.S. military has already drastically reduced its presence in Afghanistan while transitioning to an emphasis on supporting local partners in the fight against terrorism.

The withdrawal order follows President Donald Trump's firing of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and installation of senior officials eager to scale back U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. In his initial message to the force, Acting Secretary Miller wrote, "This war isn't over. We are on the verge of defeating Al Qaida and its associates, but we must avoid our past strategic errors of failing to see the fight through to the finish."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

As soon as the USA leaves that place it is going to go back to old times. It is a failed state. With all the religious, tribal, warlord, etc., affiliations, add the Taliban, AQ, ISIS, etc. What could possibly go wrong ?

Regardless we must keep all intel assets, drone, orbital assets watching closely. If it looks like AQ, etc. want to try to attack Western assets, etc., eliminate the threat(s). As long as they keep it there, slaughtering each other, etc. Go ahead … knock yourselves out !

It is way past time to get our men and women out of that 8th century hellhole.

BB

The "drawdown" isn't happening fast enough.
When you run on pulling the men out, and win, pull the men out.

What Bronco Betty and John the OFM! Bring them home.

Water is wet, the sky frequently is blue, AND gravity works.

Next………………………

Yes we need to leave the many places in the World that are failed and failing states. There is absolutely nothing we can do. Until they decide to at least to move into the 20th. They are very much wedded to religion, tribes, warlords, etc., etc., which is very much keeping them centuries behind the much of the world.

"You can't free a fish from water."

The "drawdown" isn't happening fast enough.
When you run on pulling the men out, and win, pull the men out.

The previous guy ran on that and after his 8 years we were still there. The myriad of bureaucrats in government are hard to move no matter who the President is. The establishment, the swamp, or whatever you want to call them have a big say in the matter.

And most of those that have a say in it … don't have anyone serving in the military. But since there is no draft[and I think that is great!] that makes volunteers almost even more expendable IMO.

I don't have a problem with a drawdown, but I do think we need to remain very actively engaged in the country, militarily and economically. We have seen in too many places in the world what happens when failed states create vacuums for extremism to flourish – and especially in Afghanistan itself.

But I don't agree that Afghanistan today, right now, is a failed state, or that US and NATO involvement there has not had major beneficial effects. Just to look at the most basic level, average life expectancy in the country jumped something like 20 years compared to the Taliban era. They have the first democratically elected government in their history. It's messy and corrupt and frequently gridlocked, but that sounds like a lot of places in the world. Millions of Afghan young people are more engaged with the outside world than ever before. They're all over social media, and absorbing foreign cultural products. I once met a couple of cousins from Kunduz, a northern town that periodically sees dramatic Taliban attacks, and tried to talk to them about politics, but they only wanted to talk about Game of Thrones. Afghan culture itself is changing, slowly and in ways nobody can control, but changing.

The Afghan Army is an extremely mixed bag, with high desertion rates and many units unfit for combat, but some pretty capable units as well. And on the whole, compare them to the army built in Iraq. Those guys cracked and disappeared on first contact with Islamic State fighters. The Afghans take massive casualties from year to year, but they don't collapse. They keep showing up for the fight, even if that fight is often not conducted very well.

You have to bear in mind where they were starting in 2001. Constant warfare since 1978 had destroyed so many government and cultural institutions. It was just about the poorest and most brutal place in the world to live. Twenty years later is not a long time in the context of that level of devastation.

For the last almost twenty years the press has reported that each new seeming crisis is the death knell of the government there. In reality, statehood looks a little different over there. No entity in the history of Afghanistan has had what we would think of as total control of the territory. It is too rugged and culturally varied and yes, poor a country for that to be otherwise. But too many people look at the mess and say "well they're hopeless, they just don't want to improve their lot in life." The reality is just vastly more complex.

As for the length of our commitment over there, it's pretty much par for the course. We came out victorious in the Second World War – and have maintained troops and bases in Europe ever since to help keep the region free from threats. We're still in Japan too. We preserved the independence of South Korea – and still have almost 30,000 military personnel there, after almost 70 years. And Korea too was a terribly impoverished region blighted by many years of brutal warfare. Transformation takes a long time, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

I do think we need to remain very actively engaged in the country, militarily and economically. We have seen in too many places in the world what happens when failed states create vacuums for extremism to flourish – and especially in Afghanistan itself.

True but I think to much blood & treasure had been lost in 20 years.

The Afghan Army is an extremely mixed bag, with high desertion rates and many units unfit for combat, but some pretty capable units as well. And on the whole, compare them to the army built in Iraq. Those guys cracked and disappeared on first contact with Islamic State fighters.

Yes again very true … but again I think that the people are tired of the loss to us. Most units in both armies had/have a hard time running independent operations. And sometimes take losses as they really are not up for the job, for a number of reasons.

Constant warfare since 1978 had destroyed so many government and cultural institutions.

And is still having a hard even with the Trillion + dollars we have spent and the losses to our own and our allies. It just does not look like a good risk to continue. If nothing else for the expense in money and blood.

I don't think we can afford any more losses. We are only really reinforcing failure. Theirs not our … The best we can and should do IMO is keep our eyes in the sky, intel, etc., on the place. And if need be use drones and missiles to take out any problems with AQ, ISIS, etc. If they look like they may want to attack the West again.

I do think we need to remain very actively engaged in the country, militarily and economically. We have seen in too many places in the world what happens when failed states create vacuums for extremism to flourish – and especially in Afghanistan itself.

But why? The issue in Afghanistan with extremism is a local one. It only becomes a problem to the rest of the world when close American allies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan used Afghanistan as a training base for terrorists.

And today they have so many other countries to do that in – Libya (courtesy of US), Yemen (courtesy of US), Syria (courtesy of US allies), Somalia etc etc to train terrorist scumbags in.

The USA is really Islamic terrorism's number 1 friend – they support KSA, Qatar and other islamo-fascist states and they destabilise secular regimes to make them susceptible to fundamentalist revolts.

The US destruction of Libya was the best thing ever to have happened to AQIM. It allowed them to spread their rancid wings of death into Mali, Nigeria, Chad, Central African Republic etc.

But I don't agree that Afghanistan today, right now, is a failed state,

It's a failed state. It is only propped up by the American presence there and even then the government is slowly losing control of the country side to the Taliban.

It is no different than when the Soviets were there.

Once US leaves, it will fall apart again and await a new empire to come in and get bogged down.

or that US and NATO involvement there has not had major beneficial effects. Just to look at the most basic level, average life expectancy in the country jumped something like 20 years compared to the Taliban era. They have the first democratically elected government in their history. It's messy and corrupt and frequently gridlocked, but that sounds like a lot of places in the world. Millions of Afghan young people are more engaged with the outside world than ever before. They're all over social media, and absorbing foreign cultural products. I once met a couple of cousins from Kunduz, a northern town that periodically sees dramatic Taliban attacks, and tried to talk to them about politics, but they only wanted to talk about Game of Thrones. Afghan culture itself is changing, slowly and in ways nobody can control, but changing.

Yay!

And meanwhile life expectancy in America has been falling for several years now.

link

One wonders how much the trillions spent on Afghanistan could have been better spent on ensuring Americans aren't going backwards!

As for the length of our commitment over there, it's pretty much par for the course. We came out victorious in the Second World War – and have maintained troops and bases in Europe ever since to help keep the region free from threats. We're still in Japan too. We preserved the independence of South Korea – and still have almost 30,000 military personnel there, after almost 70 years. And Korea too was a terribly impoverished region blighted by many years of brutal warfare. Transformation takes a long time, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

The difference is the Koreans wanted you there. And the Japanese surrendered and after 1945 no longer tried to kill Americans.

There are other massive differences. Korea and Japan are ethnically and ethnically homogenous and collectivist societies with well established civil societies and sense of nation.

Afghanistan is a ethnically fragmented pseudo state where conflict is endemic be it religious, ethnic, clan or within communities.

[B]Finally what gives you Americans the right to intervene in the futures of other peoples?

It's a gross violation of the UN Charter.

It has caused instability and destruction of numerous countries – Iraq, Libya, Syria and chaos elsewhere. It has resulted in Laos being the most bombed country in human history. It has resulted in toppling of democratically elected governments in Chile, Syria, Iran, Guatemala and their replacement with brutal right wing governments. It has resulted in millions of dead in purges ala Indonesia in 1965 or due to US trained death squads.

And this hypocrisy has helped further US decline as the leading power. Hard to preach morality when you are covered in the blood of innocents.

Agree with much of you posted … but not all …

Finally what gives you Americans the right to intervene in the futures of other peoples?

It's a gross violation of the UN Charter

I think everyone would agree getting rid of radical jihadis/terrorists would only make the world a better place. That was why the US went there in the first place. Rid the world of AQ and their supporters e.g. the Taliban. Then train the local forces to keep a lid on those types. But again for all the reasons mentioned and more. That did not and will not occur in our lifetimes.

But the big thing I don't disagree with you is …

Hard to preach morality when you are covered in the blood of innocents.

Are you just pointing to the USA or all the moslem on moslem on deaths? They clearly have killed more of their "own", than anyone else. But again, as you mentioned, they are not a monolithic group with all their differences with religion, tribes, warlords, etc., etc. Until they overcome all that then they may be able to move into the 19th or 20th Centuries. So again IMO they have much more blood on their hands then the USA.

The US is very circumspect when it comes to collateral damage. Regardless it will occur in this type of warfare. If not there would places there on planet, e.g. A'stan, Iraq, etc., that would look like the dark side of the Moon. Without the use of nukes/WMDs.

And as far as I am concerned the word "morality" is very hard to use anywhere there are jihiadis/religious inspired terrorists … IMO …

"And this hypocrisy has helped further US decline as the leading power. Hard to preach morality when you are covered in the blood of innocents."

Really?

Hows that special forces scandal working out in Australia?
Let he who is without sin…

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk

I.e. TMP link …