US Politics-2021

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lou said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I take it you didn´t listen to the podcast? It is 12 minutes long if you listen to it.

However if you want to save yourself 12 minutes his argument is that the reconciliation bill is the only thing on the table now, that in 2022 the democrats won´t risk legislation before the mid terms, that after 2022 it is unlikely that the democrats will control both houses, and then given the structural biases in favour of the Republicans (including the gerrymandering they are about to do) in the system that it is unlikely on the timescale of a 10 year period that the Democrats will control both houses and the Presidency again.

Not saying I agree with him, mind you. But that is the argument.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KLS52
I think I am going to give a few thoughts on Afghanistan, but keep in mind I don´t have a deep knowledge about this issue, just the headlines and articles and reports in mainstream media over the years.

On Afghanistan, I think the mission was a success, if judged by the aims of the mission that were set out at the start, and I think there has been insufficient media coverage of this fact.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan there hasn´t been a major terrorist attack on US soil that originated from that part of the world and it seems to me that there are less attacks on US interests (military installations and embassies) in recent years as well (as far as I can remember?). Major attacks did occur in Europe a few years after the invasions but overall terrorists attacks originating from that part of the world declined. Osama bin Laden was forced out of Afghanistan and eventually killed.

That doesn´t mean the war was justified or should have ever happened I am just saying that the aims seem to have changed over time.

Perhaps in retrospect they should have gone for air strikes and surgical operations with marines to assassinate Bin Laden and other leaders of his group without trying to take over the country. But that´s easy to say in retrospect, and it may not have worked.

It´s still an open question as to whether the war improved or worsened the lives of Afghanistan`s people, compared to if they had just not get involved and perhaps the Taliban would have governed and oppressed women for the last 20 years. It´s disappointing that the US media will only report about surveys of the opinions of Americans on whether the war should continue, and not survey the opinions of the people that live there.

It´s not clear whether the US has made sufficient effort to offer Afghans that need it a permanent visa to live in the US. I think they should offer a few thousand to the people most at risk of Taliban retaliation including women have worked for women´s rights. It´s not clear to me if this has already been done or whether the Taliban will take actions against people who have worked with the Americans or in support of a more liberal ideology.
 
Jamie in Chile said:
I take it you didn´t listen to the podcast? It is 12 minutes long if you listen to it.
Click to expand...

no I didn't. thanks for the summary.
Jamie in Chile said:
However if you want to save yourself 12 minutes his argument is that the reconciliation bill is the only thing on the table now, that in 2022 the democrats won´t risk legislation before the mid terms, that after 2022 it is unlikely that the democrats will control both houses, and then given the structural biases in favour of the Republicans (including the gerrymandering they are about to do) in the system that it is unlikely on the timescale of a 10 year period that the Democrats will control both houses and the Presidency again.

Not saying I agree with him, mind you. But that is the argument.
Click to expand...
That is a good argument but there are like 3 big assumptions there. I'm not even sure about them one a time but certainly not sure about all three.

I think the Democrats in the Senate have not totally given up on the voting rights bill. Not sure what their plan is but I think they are hoping for more direct action over the summer. I think the voting rights is maybe the most important bill moving forward.

maybe I should listen to it.
 
Well the taliban has taken full control of Afghanistan. What a tragedy, what a waste.

Republicans are trying to spin it as a Biden failure. We'll see how that goes but I don't think it will stick. The American public stopped caring about the war effort a long time ago, and I don't think claims that Trump and the Republicans could have achieved a different outcome will have any credibility.

Biden ripped the band-aid off. It's really sad for the Afghan people but it was the right call for US interests.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jamie in Chile
I've been against this war since day one.

But if you want or need to blame someone - blame the military.

You shouldn't start a war without a clear cut and attainable objective. But if you do, you should develop an end game.

the military has had 20 years to develop an endgame. and one would think that you don't need 20 years to implement one. Since Obama stated he wanted out, and Trump said he wanted out, they have had at least 12 years to develop and implement an end game.

The whole war was a stupid ill, conceived, poorly implemented thing. I praise Biden for having the guts to call it quits.
 
My views are evolving as more news comes out, and after what I've read today....Biden fucked this up.

I'm reading reports of Americans in Kabul, unable to get to the airport, hiding from the Taliban. The US military isn't able to properly secure the airport for efficient evacuations. Thousands of Afghans who helped US forces, and were promised safe haven, are now trapped and at best will have to suffer under Taliban rule, at worst will be caught and executed.

Nothing Biden could have done would have prevented the Taliban from taking over upon our withdrawal. And I don't think even the most pessimistic experts predicted such a rapid collapse of the Afghan government and military, with barely any fighting. But Biden didn't have to order such a rapid withdrawal, and didn't have to set an arbitrary date for our exit. He could have taken a slower, more cautious, conditions-based approach to our exit. Because he didn't, Americans and allies will likely die.
 
Sax said:
My views are evolving as more news comes out, and after what I've read today....Biden fucked this up.

I'm reading reports of Americans in Kabul, unable to get to the airport, hiding from the Taliban. The US military isn't able to properly secure the airport for efficient evacuations. Thousands of Afghans who helped US forces, and were promised safe haven, are now trapped and at best will have to suffer under Taliban rule, at worst will be caught and executed.

Nothing Biden could have done would have prevented the Taliban from taking over upon our withdrawal. And I don't think even the most pessimistic experts predicted such a rapid collapse of the Afghan government and military, with barely any fighting. But Biden didn't have to order such a rapid withdrawal, and didn't have to set an arbitrary date for our exit. He could have taken a slower, more cautious, conditions-based approach to our exit. Because he didn't, Americans and allies will likely die.
Click to expand...
Everything you said is true but this is not what I would have characterized as a "rapid withdrawal". the military and the State Department has know for years that we were withdrawing - what kinds of plans did they make? From here it looks like they started planning a few weeks ago.

Trump started the "withdrawal" years ago. Obama wanted it done 5 or 10 years ago. From the outside looking in it looks like the American military was caught by surprise. C'mon how much lead time is necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David3
Per BBC News:
www.bbc.com

Afghanistan: What has the conflict cost the US and its allies?

How much has been spent on foreign military intervention in Afghanistan over the past two decades?
www.bbc.com

The largest U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan was during Obama's presidency.

U.S. troop presence was reduced to its lowest level under Trump. This continued under Biden.

U.S. military tacticians already foresaw the overthrow of the Afghani government by the Taliban: Afghanistan’s Security Forces Versus the Taliban: A Net Assessment – Combating Terrorism Center at West Point

1629162501212.png
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell, the overthrow of the Afghan government was already foreseen by the U.S. military, even back in 2020.


In January 2021, the Combating Terrorism Center at Westpoint Military Academy published this statement:

"… without a peace deal, the further withdrawal of U.S. forces … will likely shift the balance of power in favor of the Taliban. With continuing support from Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups like al-Qa`ida, it is the view of the author that the Taliban would eventually overthrow the Afghan government in Kabul."

Link: Afghanistan’s Security Forces Versus the Taliban: A Net Assessment – Combating Terrorism Center at West Point


This same article published these troop estimates for the Taliban and the Afghanistan security forces:
Taliban: ~ 200,000 troops
Afghanistian security forces: 288,702 troops

U.S. troops (per BBC News): ~ 4,000 troops (year 2020)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lou
Lou said:
Everything you said is true but this is not what I would have characterized as a "rapid withdrawal". the military and the State Department has know for years that we were withdrawing - what kinds of plans did they make? From here it looks like they started planning a few weeks ago.

Trump started the "withdrawal" years ago. Obama wanted it done 5 or 10 years ago. From the outside looking in it looks like the American military was caught by surprise. C'mon how much lead time is necessary?
Click to expand...

Our military withdrew on Biden's orders and on Biden's timetable, leaving a force unable to adequately protect Americans and allies waiting to evacuate. That's too rapid.

The military owns a share of the blame for the general situation in Afghanistan, but not the blame for the past few days...they can't protect Americans and allies after the president has ordered them to leave.

Biden's plan bet on the Afghans holding the Taliban off longer. It turned out to be a bad bet.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: PTree15, KLS52 and Lou
  • Informative
Reactions: Lou
Reuter's news article about Taliban government in Afghanistan (see link below). Taliban claims it will allow women to be educated and to work, but "within the framework of Islamic law". To me, it sounds like women will become second class citizens.

The Torah, the Quran, and the Old Testament of the Bible all prescribe treating women like second class citizens. Modern Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much more progressive attitudes, but the Taliban seems to enforce orthodox Islam.

www.reuters.com

Taliban pledge peace and women's rights under Islam as they strike conciliatory tone

The Taliban said on Tuesday they wanted peaceful relations with other countries and would respect the rights of women within the framework of Islamic law, as they held their first official news briefing since their lightning seizure of Kabul.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

In my professional life, I've worked with several Iranian engineers who immigrated to the United States with the help of asylum organizations. According to these co-workers, these asylum organizations are all operated by Jewish professionals. By helping well-educated people and their families to leave Iran, the asylum organizations serve to weaken the Iranian government and its economy, which in turn (hopefully) helps to push government reform. We may see similar "brain drain" operations begin in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Trumpy Trumpy Trump, I made him out of clay. And when he's dry and ready, with trumpy I will play
 
I heard a podcast the other day (Sam Harris) and it was said that in reality the situation in Afghanistan was quite settled, not really much major war since 2014. And that the US only had 2,500 troops there. That´s actually a tenth of the number of US troops in Germany and South Korea. Not many are demanding those troops in Germany and South Korea come home, even though they´ve been there for over half a century, since they serve a strategic purpose.

The Afghanistan conflict obviously wasn´t as cold as Germany or South Korea, but perhaps in retrospect, they seem to be arguing on the podcast, it might have been worth keeping those 2,500 troops there to hold at least Kabul and some other parts of the country and give the Afghan forces the needed support. I don´t know whether they could have held Kabul and some other parts of the country in the long run with only such small numbers of US troops in addition to the Afghan forces, and with minimal lives lost.

If they could have it probably would have been worth if for women´s right, US reputation and so on.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer and Lou
  • Like
Reactions: David3, KLS52 and Sax
  • Agree
Reactions: Lou
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
Join Us on Kickstarter
Replies
0
Views
1K
Marketplace
goveganai
G
Graeme M
Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reformation?
Replies
15
Views
2K
General
Graeme M
Graeme M
B
The New Vegan
Replies
0
Views
1K
Introduce Yourself
bjaugust63
B
500channelsurfer
Switching Farming away from Dairy
Replies
19
Views
3K
Environment
VeganRachel
VeganRachel
Jamie in Chile
Plan B: Divide the USA Into Three
Replies
4
Views
2K
General Discussion
Sax
Sax
Top Bottom