"U.S. Allies In The Middle East Now Questioning Its..." Topic

…Reliability.

"The United States' chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan has raised questions for its Arab allies in the Middle East about whether or not they can continue to rely on Washington, a senior Gulf Arab official said on Monday.

U.S. allies fear the Taliban's return and the vacuum left by the West's chaotic withdrawal will allow militants from al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Afghanistan 20 years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

"Afghanistan is an earthquake, a shattering, shattering earthquake and this is going to stay with us for a very, very long time," the Gulf Arab official said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the diplomacy…"

Main page
link

Armand

I don't blame them.
With regards to allies being less than savory, remember "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch."

Does that include US Allies like Qatar who were providing at least some assistance to Taliban including using US supplied C-17s to transfer Taliban leadership to Afghanistan?

As for "our son of bitch", chumming it up with war criminals and human rights abusers does more damage to west than China or Russia especially in an age of instant communication.

it is popular to point to the current administration & blame it for all the problems. But keep in mind it was the previous administration that agreed to the pull-out, & the admnistration before that that decided to escalate the conflict, & the administration before that that decided nation building in Afghanistan would be a swell idea…& then got distracted with nation building in ANOTHER country.

In the end, the failure in Afghanistan has less to do with the current administration, & more to do with the failures of the last 3.

Damon.

But keep in mind it was the previous administration that agreed to the pull-out, & the admnistration before that that decided to escalate the conflict, & the administration before that that decided nation building in Afghanistan would be a swell idea…& then got distracted with nation building in ANOTHER country.

In the end, the failure in Afghanistan has less to do with the current administration, & more to do with the failures of the last 3.

Nah. The last Admin had a defined plan that would roll out in stages, contingent upon things "on the ground." That plan called for removing civilians first, then drawing down US bases by decommissioning them and handing what's left to the ANA, then withdrawing most of the remainder of US forces except for embassy security and a QRF stationed at Bagram, over which the US would have maintained a management interest. And by "conditions on the ground," it means if the Taliban were aggressive the plan would change and Taliban stuff would be blown up until they stopped being so aggressive.

But this is not what the Biden Admin and his best bestest brainiacs did. No. The Biden team canned the negotiated deal and abandoned withdrawal plans upon taking office. I think they didn't want to leave, actually. Then when the ANG objected the Biden admin blew off their concerns and weakened their standing and showed many in Afghanistan that as a US puppet the ANG had no actual or moral authority, and the announced a Sept 11 withdrawal date (huh!?!?). Then when criticized they changed it to an August date. And during this time period of pronunciamentos and such the Biden team made zero effort to remove US assets and plan for withdrawal, they signaled weakness globally by deed and word.

So the Taliban figured – heck, let's push and see what happens! In the first week of the Biden presidency the Taliban abandoned the multi-party peace talks, and reneged on their promise to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing bases in Taliban-controlled territory. No reaction. Pakistan followed suit by releasing Taliban leaders "in jail," releasing Daniel Pearl's killer and resuming open support for the Taliban. No reaction.

No reaction where the prior POTUS would blown some stuff up. So the Taliban kept going -- not much reaction to continued advances except some brow furrowed press conferences and finger wagging. The Taliban began toppling district after district, to no reaction from the Biden Admin (except we have learned, phone calls to the Afghan president to tell him to say all is well). So the Taliban went all in on victory. And then everyone associated with the ANA/ANG figured game over, I'd better run for the hills -- and did.

And I've heard a good explanation of why the ANA collapsed so quickly – it wasn't that they weren't willing to fight, since they had fought and died in large numbers against the Taliban and other factions.

The US trained the ANA to mirror US joint operations warfare with on-call air and artillery support, intel/drone support, etc., with the US as a senior partner. When the Biden admin decided to suddenly leave they cut off ALL US air, arty and intel support. The US cut off most airlift capabilities that supplied ANA FOs and outposts. Furthermore, the ANA had only a limited ability to maintain their aircraft without US and foreign contractor support -- the Biden admin cut that off as well. So the entire foundation for their military structure was gutted, they were suddenly dumb, deaf and blind and unable to supply their units, and unable to maintain the sophisticated equipment and aircraft. No wonder most decide, game over, time to ditch the uniform and change sides! I've always supported the Taliban yes siree!

The US did the same thing to South Vietnam, precipitating the collapse of that country in 1975. Oh -- and then Senator Joe Biden supported cutting off aid to South Vietnam, so there are more similarities than pictures of helicopters hovering above a rooftop…

So no, the failure in Afghanistan is all the current admin's fault, despite the failings of prior presidents. This is just reality, not politics.

The last admin's pullout was conditional based on the Taliban's actions. The Taliban when they saw the current admins weakness, incompetence, etc. They went on a general offensive with logistical, Intel, etc. + 15,000 troops from the Paks. Those 15000 were mostly Paks & Arabs.

The decisions made by the current admin, IMO :

Ignoring the Intel

Abandoning Bagram

Pulling out Troops before the civilians

Trying to use the Kabul airport as an evac point

Starting the evac too late

What the admins did before had nothing to do with this level of incompetence, poor decision making, etc. With the situation on the ground that was occurring.

Yes it would take a lot of Troops to use Bagram. There were about 2500 US troops, + the ANA & ANP at Bagram. Plus 7500 NATO troops in country.

When it was decided to use to use Kabul, the US sent 5800 troops. + many allies sent troops to support that withdrawal. If we still held Bagram, the 5800 US + the 2500 already there. Would have a pretty big force to hold & use Bagram as an evac point. Plus 7500 NATO allies in county. We had no plan on staying in A'stan after everyone of our "people", our Allies, etc. Then we could abandon it.

I've personally talked to USAF pilots that flew in and out of Bagram previously. Confirmed my thoughts on the situation. And many in the media, soldiers, USMC, etc., etc., that were at Bagram in the past. Said what I and others are saying was a much better option. In the situation at the time … the best & only option, IMO.

Yes, decisions of past admin in many cases were wrong. But at the point this admin took over. Their poor decisions were their own, and had nothing to do with anyone but themselves. Costing the US 13 of our troops …

Agree with SBminisguy and Legion 4. Garand conflates the decision to leave Afghanistan with the absolute disaster that the current admin presided over. A shameful abandonment of Americans and our Afghan allies.

Weren't the military guys who did the planning for the current debacle the same guys who would have done it under the previous administration ? Not being American I have no idea of the level of political interference, but surely somebody in the military should have said "Hang on a minute …"

Yes, some were in both admins. But the POTUS is the CinC. In the US Military you take an oath to follow the orders of the POTUS, etc. [of course they have to be legal orders]

With the current military leaders, I hope to the Gods they gave him a number of Courses Of Actions[4 is generally the standard]. However, this option that the CinC choose IMO was his own for optics & political reasons. Based on his liberal civilian advisors' advice.

I can see No military leader from 1LT on up would go with the plan that this POTUS ordered. For all the reasons I posted and more …

AFAIK the POTUS and his admin wanted to get everybody out so on 9/11 he could give a speech on that day. Claiming the 20 Year War was over, claim victory, etc.

We know the war with fanatical, radical islamic terrorists/jihadis is not over … It just made them bolder. After all, they are claiming to have defeated the USA, the strongest military on the planet. Jihadis are flocking to "Talibanland" … We can expect more jihadi attacks in the West now.

As we know from history … politicians overrides the military in many cases. That is the way it works in the USA. And it should … But our Founding Fathers never thought anything like this would happen.

The current admin., despite the false propagandist mantra that "America is back" to support its allies, is really throwing them under the bus, and embracing our former enemies instead in a giant bear hug, and with a financial one as well:

- pallet loads of cash for Iran, and no doubt more promised;
- pallet loads of cash, AKA under the guise of "financial aid" for the Taliban in Iran, soon (as evidenced by ALL of the denizens in D.C. today calling for that in today's hearing) – doubling down on stupid;
- throwing our former allies under the bus by pulling out from Afghanistan without informing them we intended to do that first;
- cutting financial and military aid to our allies in the Middle East, while embracing the Iranians who call for our destruction and that of our ally, Israel;
- and, one of "our" (is he really a Chi-com agent?) generals secretly informing the Chinese government that everything is fine during/after the Jan. 6th protest, without the knowledge or permission of our President at the time, and his superior and Commander in Chief – surely, a treasonous offense.

"whether or not they can continue to rely on Washington, a senior Gulf Arab official said on Monday?"

After President Johnson, all Democrat Presidents are clueless in foreign policy. They think in short term or are motivated by news outlets.

They just don't have the right stuff.

Thanks!

Armand

Thresher +1 🥇

JMcCarroll +1 🥇

Too much blame on the civilians here.

The US military fed the US government BS for years. The ANA was meant to be far more competent than it was.

And the BS was incredibly stupid – eg one US general literally called providing the ANA with UH-60 Blackhawks a game changer that would massively change things on the ground.

IT DIDN'T especially as the Mi-17s the ANA was using and being forced to retire was actually more capable and easier to maintain.

And it was up to the military to have contingency plans on the withdrawal. They clearly didn't and it was a mess.

Indeed many ex-generals were criticising any withdrawal – according to their twisted mindset the US should have stayed in Afghanistan FOR EVER!

It's like I was talking about Basra – the British Army stuffed up and blamed the politicians.

It's like reading all those dumb accounts that the US military never lost the Vietnam war.

Basically same old story: POOR LITTLE ARMY GENERALS ALWAYS SCREWED OVER BY CIVILIANS.

Truth is like most other human beings, generals and intelligence types are:

1. Driven by the restraints of their own organisational culture.

2. Ambitious to the point of doing anything that furthers their own careers regardless of actual adverse impact on things.

3. Driven by a mindset that does not allow flexible thinking, compromise or admitting defeat and errors.

4. Even those that might have a different viewpoint are often by heavily restrained by organisational structure and hierarchy.

5. Promote people who think like themselves thus enforcing group think.

And not just the US military, most militaries, most organisations and most humans.

Leaders that learn from mistakes and implement meaningful change are a rarity.

And altruistic leaders guided by the common good are even rarer.

And just reading the article about General Milley's potential treason and it's evident the US military leadership is out of control and needs to be more restrained by civilian powers, not less.

LOSING SMALL WARS: WHY US MILITARY CULTURE LEADS TO DEFEAT

link

Armand

"The US military fed the US government BS for years".

To be fair to the military, the predecessor of the last guy in charge actually ordered them to do so, just like the current guy did to the head of Afghanistan, when he wanted the public news to be better.

In most cases, it isn't the military that is to blame, though perhaps some strategies could have been better.

Virtually ALL of the blame falls on the politicians, and their overly restrictive and onerous rules of engagement, which keep us from winning wars, like in the Middle East, Vietnam, etc., etc..

Agree…

Armand

Virtually ALL of the blame falls on the politicians, and their overly restrictive and onerous rules of engagement, which keep us from winning wars, like in the Middle East, Vietnam, etc., etc..

Short of genocide you were never going to win those wars.

Many other countries have fought insurgencies with no rules of engagement and have lost – this includes the French in the 1950s and early 1960s, the Soviets and even the Israelis.

‘Was right under their nose in Kabul': Taliban spokesperson divulges how he fooled US-Afghan forces

link

Armand

"Short of genocide you were never going to win those wars".

Sorry, but that is an unprobable hypothesis.

The Afghan Evacuation Disaster Leads To Minister Resignations And Reshuffling In European Governments But Not In Washington

link

Armand

Sorry, but that is an unprobable hypothesis.

But I would think genocide is SOP of the Taliban/AQ and ISIS of course. Just ask a Yazidi … if you can find one.

But Not In Washington

Normally some of the former admin's people have been told they are no longer needed in an number of positions by the current admin. 'nuff said …

Let's see….

Armand

Sorry, but that is an unprobable hypothesis.

Sorry but 20 years of GWOT has proven US methods in counter insurgency are worthless and will not defeat insurgents.

And then on the other hand you also had 10 years of Soviets getting their butts kicked too by the same mob.

Or Vietnam – first the French got their butts kicked then the Americans.

Clearly flawed tactics, flawed strategy, flawed goal formulation, flawed national policy etc etc.

Epic failure from the President/Premier right down to the privates on the frontlines.

Proof is in the pudding – ie Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia under Communist control and Afghanistan under Taliban control.