8 ms·

In terms of cutting costs, the way we exited Afghanistan is the best way to do it. Pull out overnight, abandon all the equipment, and the rapid takeover by the

In terms of cutting costs, the way we exited Afghanistan is the best way to do it. Pull out overnight, abandon all the equipment, and the rapid takeover by the Taliban means we don't need to keep running bombing missions to support a slowly retreating national army. In that regard I'd see the current situation as a success, not a failure. It also seems like the Taliban have chilled out a bit, since we're not seeing widescale reprisals.

swader999 5y ago
Probably should have got the civilians out before the military but what do I know...
- jrsj 5y ago
  Allegedly the “government” of Afghanistan (its really just been a sham and a U.S. puppet state for the last 20 years) didn’t want this to happen because they wanted to avoid demoralizing the Afghan army which…subsequently refused to fight anyways. Or at least that’s how I understood some of what Biden said earlier today. For all we know that was the idea of our own military or intelligence community & now we are conveniently placing the blame for our mistakes on a government that no longer exists
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Dunno about that. Establishment, such as it is in the form of various talking heads, appears to be somewhat angry. I am not sure it is all a show.
    - jrsj 5y ago
      Yeah I think the argument the administration made is a retcon and they made decisions based on bad intelligence that the government would hold up long enough to get everyone and everything out. This idea that their government made a bad suggestion and we listened is silly — they were essentially a puppet state so it’s on us either way.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    This is a plausible argument. But even more, no matter what group was making the decision, no one could have admitted, no matter how much they expected it, that the whole structure was going to rapidly disintegrate. Because the structure was their product - they produced and managed the thing.
redandblack 5y ago
in that sense Biden's legacy is cleaning up the mess and not leaving it to the future president
- khuey 5y ago
  He was pretty adamant about that in his speech today.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Did you happen to catch his press conference last week? "The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way" "I also assured Ghani that U.S. support for the people of Afghanistan will endure" "I intend to maintain our diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, and we are coordinating closely with our international partners in order to continue to secure the international airport" "the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable." "The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable." https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
    - enkid 5y ago
      If anything, the events of the last week have proven it's the right choice.
- bitexploder 5y ago
  You are being downvoted heavily and I know it’s against HN etiquette to meta comment like this, but it feels worthwhile. I don’t even think you are wrong. However clumsily this is going it’s not even hindsight to say this was a probable and even a more likely outcome. Realistically, there wasn’t much Biden could have done, unless we endorsed another trillion plus dollars to maybe effect some change that would let a more democratic government possibly survive. It was always a tall order. The military industrial complex thrives on this permawar and it’s a net loss because that machine is greased with blood and pain.
throwawaysea 5y ago
We also literally left giant weapon caches for the Taliban to use. We will pay for that, but in a different way.
- api 5y ago
  Or not? Maybe it’s China’s turn to burn trillions in Afghanistan.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    China is likely to gain trillions from their belt and road initiative expanding into Afghanistan and from getting involved with the mining of the $3T in mineral resources identified previously in Afghanistan. China has already recognized the new Taliban government and the Taliban previously welcomed a new relationship with China that would protect Chinese interests, as they put it. China literally met with the incoming Taliban leader earlier this year to forge that friendship.
    - tyre 5y ago
      Yes. They have also invested heavily in their relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan protected Bin Ladin and are deeply involved in Afghanistan. China can lean on Pakistan to compliment its direct relationship with the Taliban. Not to mention that the Chinese are significantly more motivated to make Afghanistan work. As a sign of their influence, the Taliban has said that whatever happens in China’s borders is their business. This was in response to questions about the Uighurs, which, you know, if you’re an Islamic regime you might at least pretend to care about.
      - secondaryacct 5y ago
        Also they dont humiliate you day and night calling your culture backward, a bonus when you want people to work with you.
        sul_tasto 5y ago
api 5y ago
If the Taliban are smart they won’t do reprisals but instead will offer amnesty in exchange for service. The dumbest thing we did in Iraq was to do the functional equivalent of the Taliban doing reprisals by disbanding the military, government, and Ba’ath party. It created a mass unemployment problem and swelled the ranks of the opposition with listless now unemployed people.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Disbanding Baath was far from a dumb thing, the dumb thing was disbanding them, and then just letting them go
  - adventured 5y ago
    We needed them to operate the structures of the government and military. They commanded loyalty from the people under them in the hierarchy. Most of those people - except for the worst of the leadership - should have been given government jobs, a steady paycheck, and amnesty. Instead the US had to attempt to rebuild all of those structures of command largely from the ground up anew, which takes years of time and tremendous resources. During those build years, you get constant intense chaos and instability fighting you while you attempt to make progress. It was exceptionally stupid.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      > Instead the US had to attempt to rebuild all of those structures of command largely from the ground up anew, The problem is exactly that it didn't. Instead the US mounted all kinds of compromised personas into power, hoping that they can do without proper state institutes
  - cnlevy 5y ago
    Removing the heads of power is one thing. Disbanding an entire administration is always a bad thing to do. It only creates chaos. Show me one change of power that disbanded the administration which was successful.
- 5y ago
standardUser 5y ago
If the Taliban were to attack US forces or otherwise enrage the West right now, they would likely be bombed. If they wait a week, they can do literally whatever they want with no reprisals. They haven't "chilled out", they've just won.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  But neither has there been a lot of resistance; most places surrendered without a fight, from what I can tell. That suggests that the Taliban, for good or ill, have more legitimacy in the eyes of Afghanis, than the government we created and supported for the last 20 years. But, Afghanistan has changed, and who really knows what is going to happen. Cell phones are ubiquitous. They hardly existed in 2001. A whole generation of Afghani women are now educated. We'll just have to see. And the Taliban may just have to figure out how to swim with the sharks of that region, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China.
  - boplicity 5y ago
    > That suggests that the Taliban, for good or ill, have more legitimacy in the eyes of Afghanis, No, I would say that the Afghanis were literally told that they were going to eventually lose the war and that the Taliban would eventually win. The people put in the position to fight the Taliban made the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause. I wonder how long they cashed their checks, knowing full well they were going to surrender immediately as soon as the US was going to pull out. Or better, despite not ever having the intention of fighting (or even agreeing with the Taliban), claiming persecution to hustle a western visa/passport when they would inevitably lose.
      - mason55 5y ago
poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
I've seen too much to underestimate the MIC, as Afghanistan's hard fall could easily become "the taliban can't run a nation, we must war", as endless wars resume.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  Afghanistan will be busy waring itself. For the past 20 years they probably recruited off the fact that dirty Americans were occupying their glorious country. Now that they're gone, it'll be a straight civil war. They'll be too busy attacking each other. Now that the US is gone, the people who blindly followed will realize that the US wasn't the one in the way of their magical muslim Utopia, and life sucks more than it did before.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    It's really going to break our hearts when they just have a relatively peaceful and increasingly prosperous nation...
    - juanani 5y ago
      As if we can allow that to happen. My guess is some CIA backed Afghani Death Squad can go on murdering sprees causing unrest, so we can I told you so roll eyes 'savages'. https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/18/cia_death_squads_afghanistan https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/18/cia_death_squads_afg...
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Why would we have to do support bombing runs? What we chose to do could not appear any more embarrassing than letting the ANA get slaughtered/immediately disbanding.
busymom0 5y ago
The proper order to pull out is to: 1. Remove the diplomats, embassy staff, translators and other Afghani helpers who were promised safety in return of helping the Americans first. 2. Remove the military equipment - guns, drones, choppers, humvees etc second so that it doesn't fall in the Taliban's hands. At least destroy these equipment if it can't be logistically brought back. Destroy the bases so Taliban can't use them. 3. Lastly pull out the droops as all the important soft targets have already been taken out. These 3 should have been done in winter before May (original deal was for May) because the Taliban has problems in the winter weather. Instead of this order, they did the exact opposite. US sat on its ass, didn't remove the soft targets or even take care of those who helped the US. US just pulled out the troops and we ended up with videos of Afghanis running and falling off of aeroplanes and Taliban getting hold of humvees and choppers. And now to take out the soft targets, they have sent 9000 troops back in along with the UK. The Afghanis who had helped Americans for 2 decades got abandoned. And since summer time is when Taliban is at its easiest to move around, the airports have also been taken over.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > translators and other Afghani helpers who were promised safety in return of helping the Americans first. Assuming they didn't harbor double allegiances.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    Fair point but we are talking about thousands of people who were promised safety for their help. Safety doesn't necessarily mean a visa straight to America - it could even mean safety in safe 2nd country or something else. Even diplomats and others were left in embassy for the last moment to be taken out. This abandonment of trust is exactly what ruins the reputation and will then get used as propaganda by the Taliban.
watwut 5y ago
It drives the point home that USA will use you and then abandon you. > It also seems like the Taliban have chilled out a bit, since we're not seeing widescale reprisals. Yeah, all those people are totally safe now. /s

swader999 5y ago

Probably should have got the civilians out before the military but what do I know...

jrsj 5y ago
Allegedly the “government” of Afghanistan (its really just been a sham and a U.S. puppet state for the last 20 years) didn’t want this to happen because they wanted to avoid demoralizing the Afghan army which…subsequently refused to fight anyways. Or at least that’s how I understood some of what Biden said earlier today. For all we know that was the idea of our own military or intelligence community & now we are conveniently placing the blame for our mistakes on a government that no longer exists
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Dunno about that. Establishment, such as it is in the form of various talking heads, appears to be somewhat angry. I am not sure it is all a show.
  - jrsj 5y ago
    Yeah I think the argument the administration made is a retcon and they made decisions based on bad intelligence that the government would hold up long enough to get everyone and everything out. This idea that their government made a bad suggestion and we listened is silly — they were essentially a puppet state so it’s on us either way.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  This is a plausible argument. But even more, no matter what group was making the decision, no one could have admitted, no matter how much they expected it, that the whole structure was going to rapidly disintegrate. Because the structure was their product - they produced and managed the thing.

redandblack 5y ago

in that sense Biden's legacy is cleaning up the mess and not leaving it to the future president

khuey 5y ago
He was pretty adamant about that in his speech today.
- nradov 5y ago
  Did you happen to catch his press conference last week? "The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way" "I also assured Ghani that U.S. support for the people of Afghanistan will endure" "I intend to maintain our diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, and we are coordinating closely with our international partners in order to continue to secure the international airport" "the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable." "The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable." https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
  - enkid 5y ago
    If anything, the events of the last week have proven it's the right choice.
bitexploder 5y ago
You are being downvoted heavily and I know it’s against HN etiquette to meta comment like this, but it feels worthwhile. I don’t even think you are wrong. However clumsily this is going it’s not even hindsight to say this was a probable and even a more likely outcome. Realistically, there wasn’t much Biden could have done, unless we endorsed another trillion plus dollars to maybe effect some change that would let a more democratic government possibly survive. It was always a tall order. The military industrial complex thrives on this permawar and it’s a net loss because that machine is greased with blood and pain.

throwawaysea 5y ago

We also literally left giant weapon caches for the Taliban to use. We will pay for that, but in a different way.

api 5y ago
Or not? Maybe it’s China’s turn to burn trillions in Afghanistan.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  China is likely to gain trillions from their belt and road initiative expanding into Afghanistan and from getting involved with the mining of the $3T in mineral resources identified previously in Afghanistan. China has already recognized the new Taliban government and the Taliban previously welcomed a new relationship with China that would protect Chinese interests, as they put it. China literally met with the incoming Taliban leader earlier this year to forge that friendship.
  - tyre 5y ago
    Yes. They have also invested heavily in their relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan protected Bin Ladin and are deeply involved in Afghanistan. China can lean on Pakistan to compliment its direct relationship with the Taliban. Not to mention that the Chinese are significantly more motivated to make Afghanistan work. As a sign of their influence, the Taliban has said that whatever happens in China’s borders is their business. This was in response to questions about the Uighurs, which, you know, if you’re an Islamic regime you might at least pretend to care about.
    - secondaryacct 5y ago
      Also they dont humiliate you day and night calling your culture backward, a bonus when you want people to work with you.
      - sul_tasto 5y ago

api 5y ago

If the Taliban are smart they won’t do reprisals but instead will offer amnesty in exchange for service. The dumbest thing we did in Iraq was to do the functional equivalent of the Taliban doing reprisals by disbanding the military, government, and Ba’ath party. It created a mass unemployment problem and swelled the ranks of the opposition with listless now unemployed people.

baybal2 5y ago
Disbanding Baath was far from a dumb thing, the dumb thing was disbanding them, and then just letting them go
- adventured 5y ago
  We needed them to operate the structures of the government and military. They commanded loyalty from the people under them in the hierarchy. Most of those people - except for the worst of the leadership - should have been given government jobs, a steady paycheck, and amnesty. Instead the US had to attempt to rebuild all of those structures of command largely from the ground up anew, which takes years of time and tremendous resources. During those build years, you get constant intense chaos and instability fighting you while you attempt to make progress. It was exceptionally stupid.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Instead the US had to attempt to rebuild all of those structures of command largely from the ground up anew, The problem is exactly that it didn't. Instead the US mounted all kinds of compromised personas into power, hoping that they can do without proper state institutes
- cnlevy 5y ago
  Removing the heads of power is one thing. Disbanding an entire administration is always a bad thing to do. It only creates chaos. Show me one change of power that disbanded the administration which was successful.
5y ago

standardUser 5y ago

If the Taliban were to attack US forces or otherwise enrage the West right now, they would likely be bombed. If they wait a week, they can do literally whatever they want with no reprisals. They haven't "chilled out", they've just won.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
But neither has there been a lot of resistance; most places surrendered without a fight, from what I can tell. That suggests that the Taliban, for good or ill, have more legitimacy in the eyes of Afghanis, than the government we created and supported for the last 20 years. But, Afghanistan has changed, and who really knows what is going to happen. Cell phones are ubiquitous. They hardly existed in 2001. A whole generation of Afghani women are now educated. We'll just have to see. And the Taliban may just have to figure out how to swim with the sharks of that region, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China.
- boplicity 5y ago
  > That suggests that the Taliban, for good or ill, have more legitimacy in the eyes of Afghanis, No, I would say that the Afghanis were literally told that they were going to eventually lose the war and that the Taliban would eventually win. The people put in the position to fight the Taliban made the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause. I wonder how long they cashed their checks, knowing full well they were going to surrender immediately as soon as the US was going to pull out. Or better, despite not ever having the intention of fighting (or even agreeing with the Taliban), claiming persecution to hustle a western visa/passport when they would inevitably lose.
    - mason55 5y ago

poorjohnmacafee 5y ago

I've seen too much to underestimate the MIC, as Afghanistan's hard fall could easily become "the taliban can't run a nation, we must war", as endless wars resume.

ehsankia 5y ago
Afghanistan will be busy waring itself. For the past 20 years they probably recruited off the fact that dirty Americans were occupying their glorious country. Now that they're gone, it'll be a straight civil war. They'll be too busy attacking each other. Now that the US is gone, the people who blindly followed will realize that the US wasn't the one in the way of their magical muslim Utopia, and life sucks more than it did before.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  It's really going to break our hearts when they just have a relatively peaceful and increasingly prosperous nation...
  - juanani 5y ago
    As if we can allow that to happen. My guess is some CIA backed Afghani Death Squad can go on murdering sprees causing unrest, so we can I told you so roll eyes 'savages'. https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/18/cia_death_squads_afghanistan https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/18/cia_death_squads_afg...

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

Why would we have to do support bombing runs? What we chose to do could not appear any more embarrassing than letting the ANA get slaughtered/immediately disbanding.

busymom0 5y ago

The proper order to pull out is to: 1. Remove the diplomats, embassy staff, translators and other Afghani helpers who were promised safety in return of helping the Americans first. 2. Remove the military equipment - guns, drones, choppers, humvees etc second so that it doesn't fall in the Taliban's hands. At least destroy these equipment if it can't be logistically brought back. Destroy the bases so Taliban can't use them. 3. Lastly pull out the droops as all the important soft targets have already been taken out. These 3 should have been done in winter before May (original deal was for May) because the Taliban has problems in the winter weather. Instead of this order, they did the exact opposite. US sat on its ass, didn't remove the soft targets or even take care of those who helped the US. US just pulled out the troops and we ended up with videos of Afghanis running and falling off of aeroplanes and Taliban getting hold of humvees and choppers. And now to take out the soft targets, they have sent 9000 troops back in along with the UK. The Afghanis who had helped Americans for 2 decades got abandoned. And since summer time is when Taliban is at its easiest to move around, the airports have also been taken over.

908B64B197 5y ago
> translators and other Afghani helpers who were promised safety in return of helping the Americans first. Assuming they didn't harbor double allegiances.
- busymom0 5y ago
  Fair point but we are talking about thousands of people who were promised safety for their help. Safety doesn't necessarily mean a visa straight to America - it could even mean safety in safe 2nd country or something else. Even diplomats and others were left in embassy for the last moment to be taken out. This abandonment of trust is exactly what ruins the reputation and will then get used as propaganda by the Taliban.

watwut 5y ago

It drives the point home that USA will use you and then abandon you. > It also seems like the Taliban have chilled out a bit, since we're not seeing widescale reprisals. Yeah, all those people are totally safe now. /s