The Pentagon gave Biden severe warnings, about the possibility of the Taliban overrunning the Afghan army

[Andrew Reeve]

 

(THE NEW YORK TIMES) – Top aides to US President Joe Biden admit they were taken aback by the Afghan army's collapse in the face of the Taliban strong, well-planned offensive.

There has been a continuous theme in Afghanistan's two-decade-long war, it is an over estimation of the results of the US$83 billion (S$112 billion) spent since 2001 on training and equipping Afghan security forces, and underestimating the Taliban’s strategy.

Even before President Biden assumed office, the Pentagon gave him severe warnings, about the possibility of the Taliban overrunning the Afghan army, but intelligence estimates were not accurate and they estimated that it would happen in 18 months, not in weeks.

Commanders recognized the Afghan forces' issues were not resolved: corruption, the government's failure to pay many Afghan soldiers and police officers for months, defections, and soldiers sent to the front lines without proper food and water and weaponry.

According to President Biden's advisers, the recurrence of those issues confirmed his judgment that the US could not continue to support the Afghan government and military indefinitely. He told aides in an Oval Office meeting in spring that remaining another year, or perhaps five, would not make a significant difference and that the risks were not worth it.

In the end, an Afghan military that did not believe in itself and a US effort that Mr. Biden and most Americans did not believe could change the course of events combined to end America's longest war.

The US stayed in Afghanistan significantly longer than the British did in the nineteenth century, and twice as long as the Soviets, with similar consequences. The discussion over a withdrawal from Afghanistan and the miscalculations over how to carry it out began the minute President Biden assumed office,.

"We were one tweet away from complete, precipitous withdrawal" under former President Donald Trump, according to Douglas Lute, a retired general who headed Afghan policy at the National Security Council for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

"Everyone who knew Biden, who watched him push for a drastically reduced presence more than a decade ago, understood he was intent to stop US military engagement, but the Pentagon believed its own viewpoint, that we would stay forever."

"The puzzle for me is the absence of contingency planning: If everyone knew we were headed for the exits, why did we not have a plan over the past two years for making this work?"

Source: The Straits Times

 

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

The same rag paper last year "warned" that withdrawing form Afghanistan would be "irresponsible" when Trump was in power.

[dmacarelli]

A good friend is a captain in the US Army. He wisely suggested it would have been prudent to have left 2000 to 4000 specialists in Kabul. It might have prevented this total takeover. The US has soldiers in Germany and South Korea. For decades now. 

Now, we are about at the same place we were 20 years ago, and how many lives and trillion of dollars spent? For what? 

[MrStretch]

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reeve said:

"The puzzle for me is the absence of contingency planning: If everyone knew we were headed for the exits, why did we not have a plan over the past two years for making this work?"

It wouldn't have mattered what contingency planning they put in place.  Without actual military presence and control, Afghanistan was already doomed to fall to the Taliban.

That's what they want...that's what they get.  Leave them to it.

It's time the US let countries like Afghanistan implode.  We should do our best to contain them inside their own borders, but if they want to be fundamentalist asses, let them be.

[gummy]

1 minute ago, MrStretch said:

It wouldn't have mattered what contingency planning they put in place.  Without actual military presence and control, Afghanistan was already doomed to fall to the Taliban.

That's what they want...that's what they get.  Leave them to it.

It's time the US let countries like Afghanistan implode.  We should do our best to contain them inside their own borders, but if they want to be fundamentalist asses, let them be.

Exactly, what they do in their own country is up to them. Same as any country. And as you say, within their own borders

[9S_]

According to Robert Games former CIA Director and Department of Defense, working under both the Bush and Obama administrations, said that 

Joe Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy decision in the past 40 years

For the record, Biden was a Senator when Saigon fell 

[Dedinbed]

Trying to impose western style values and principles on a largely tribal nation that has a way of settling things their own way was always likely to end in disaster .. 

Many employed into the Afghan security forces did so simply to be in receipt of a salary , not to fight for the future of the country and when the money , food and equipment started to run out as the U S began withdrawing it became inevitable that many would drop their arms and surrender when the Tal's came calling .. and call they did with reports emerging of Taliban calling local military commanders asking them to lay down their arms to avoid bloodshed with the commanders duly obliging .. For the 20 yrs and Christ knows how much money spent all that was achieved was to build a very expensive paper tiger .. 

What remains now is reputational damage limitation on the part of the West and the rather distasteful prospect of having to engage with the Taliban at some level on the diplomatic front with their only bargaining chip being money and aid ..  

[Poolie]

1 hour ago, gummy said:

Exactly, what they do in their own country is up to them. Same as any country. And as you say, within their own borders

Bingo. They'd better get used to it. Keep your f'in nose out.

[gummy]

16 minutes ago, Poolie said:

Bingo. They'd better get used to it. Keep your f'in nose out.

Yep they never learn though. every incursion into someone's country has always spelt disaster for them, ever the since the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba

[Rain]

On 8/16/2021 at 3:24 AM, dmacarelli said:

A good friend is a captain in the US Army. He wisely suggested it would have been prudent to have left 2000 to 4000 specialists in Kabul. It might have prevented this total takeover. The US has soldiers in Germany and South Korea. For decades now. 

Now, we are about at the same place we were 20 years ago, and how many lives and trillion of dollars spent? For what? 

And while they're at it - disband and remove the hundreds of U.S. military facilities the world over. 

[Stonker]

On 8/16/2021 at 5:24 PM, dmacarelli said:

A good friend is a captain in the US Army. He wisely suggested it would have been prudent to have left 2000 to 4000 specialists in Kabul. It might have prevented this total takeover.

"2000 to 4000 specialists in Kabul" to do what, exactly?

 

Simple question .....

On 8/16/2021 at 5:24 PM, dmacarelli said:

The US has soldiers in Germany and South Korea. For decades now. 

Yes, but in Germany they don't actually "do" anything, and in S Korea they patrol a clearly marked border, little else.

What, exactly, are you suggesting they do in Kabul?

On 8/16/2021 at 5:24 PM, dmacarelli said:

Now, we are about at the same place we were 20 years ago, and how many lives and trillion of dollars spent? For what?

For the Afghan "we", actually considerably worse off.

[Stonker]

On 8/16/2021 at 5:24 PM, MrStretch said:

It wouldn't have mattered what contingency planning they put in place.

To be fair, the one bit of contingency planning that could have mattered and made a difference was a leaving strategy.

 

If, two years ago, they'd started ferrying out those and their families who they're now trying (and failing) to ferry out, too late, at least there wouldn't be the embarrassment of the current chaotic scenes and the failure for all to see, and there wouldn't be so much scope for the Taliban to take revenge on those who mistakenly put their faith in the West.

But nobody, Republican or Democrat, did.

[Stonker]

On 8/16/2021 at 6:12 PM, Dedinbed said:

What remains now is reputational damage limitation on the part of the West (snip) ...

I agree with you, but after both Iraq and Afghanistan what possible damage limitation can there be?

[gummy]

2 minutes ago, Transam said:

1941-45..?

I can see reading and the calendar and not your pet subjects. I said since the Bay of Pigs, to save you googling that was 1961 which is a bit after the dates you mentioned . I can understand now why you were the POTY runner up twice on TVF 

[dmacarelli]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

"2000 to 4000 specialists in Kabul" to do what, exactly?

Simple question .....

Yes, but in Germany they don't actually "do" anything, and in S Korea they patrol a clearly marked border, little else.

What, exactly, are you suggesting they do in Kabul?

For the Afghan "we", actually considerably worse off.

I agree with most of what you say. I was simply stating what my nephew said. He implied that the specialists could run Bagram, and could have possibly delayed the overrun of Kabul, long enough to get out the people who have been most loyal to the allies, and give them the respect they deserved. 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, dmacarelli said:

I agree with most of what you say. I was simply stating what my nephew said. He implied that the specialists could run Bagram, and could have possibly delayed the overrun of Kabul, long enough to get out the people who have been most loyal to the allies, and give them the respect they deserved. 

Well ... umm ... how?

[longwood50]

On 8/16/2021 at 5:27 PM, gummy said:

Exactly, what they do in their own country is up to them. Same as any country. And as you say, within their own borders

The problem is that the USA will offer refugees asylum and of course the Taliban will infiltrate those refugees and enter the USA.  The terrorists will find their way to Mexico and sneak across the border undeterred by an open border policy.  The activities of those from the Middle East will not be subject to intense scrutiny and watchful eyes by law enforcement for fear of being labeled racist.  What the USA will eventually accomplish to to have more seeds of terrorism replanted in the USA.   

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Transam said:

1941-45..?

Goes back further than that.

Let's say...turn of last century.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Rain

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

The problem is that the USA will offer refugees asylum and of course the Taliban will infiltrate those refugees and enter the USA.  The terrorists will find their way to Mexico and sneak across the border undeterred by an open border policy.  The activities of those from the Middle East will not be subject to intense scrutiny and watchful eyes by law enforcement for fear of being labeled racist.  What the USA will eventually accomplish to to have more seeds of terrorism replanted in the USA.   

Naturally.

Imagined boogieman. 

The ever perpetuating creation of enemies.

[Stonker]

49 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

The problem is that the USA will offer refugees asylum and of course the Taliban will infiltrate those refugees and enter the USA.  The terrorists will find their way to Mexico and sneak across the border undeterred by an open border policy.  The activities of those from the Middle East will not be subject to intense scrutiny and watchful eyes by law enforcement for fear of being labeled racist.  What the USA will eventually accomplish to to have more seeds of terrorism replanted in the USA.   

Why would they bother?

Where do you think the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly?

How many terrorists in incidents in the West are "home grown" and how many are "imported"?

 

(sorry,@Fester, I can't help it)

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

Why would they bother?

Where do you think the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly?

How many terrorists in incidents in the West are "home grown" and how many are "imported"?

(sorry,@Fester, I can't help it)

The greatest terrorist threat to the world, historically, is not even recognized as such. 

[dmacarelli]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well ... umm ... how?

With hundreds of millions of dollars worth of state of the art aircraft, expert pilots, drones, and other weapons. Hello. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by dmacarelli

[Stonker]

40 minutes ago, dmacarelli said:

With hundreds of millions of dollars worth of state of the art aircraft, expert pilots, drones, and other weapons. Hello. 

Hello.

The question was "how", not "what with".

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

[longwood50]

3 hours ago, Stonker said:

Why would they bother?

Where do you think the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly?

How many terrorists in incidents in the West are "home grown" and how many are "imported"?

Yes and thank you for making my point.  They were terrorists but the USA let them in.  That is exactly my point.  If they were never let into the country, they would never have learned to fly, nor could they have boarded any of the planes in the USA.  Is that a concept you find really difficult to grasp? 

Also "home grown"  I would use the term "sleeper cell"  They come to the USA, live amongst the citizens, learn the system, even have children but they never divorce themselves from their radical ideology.  That is not "home grown"  That is a transplant. 

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by longwood50

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Yes and thank you for making my point.

No, that wasn't your point!

What you wrote was that the "problem is that the USA will offer refugees asylum and of course the Taliban will infiltrate those refugees and enter the USA.  The terrorists will find their way to Mexico and sneak across the border undeterred by an open border policy."

 

The 9/11 terrorists weren't refugees, and they didn't sneak across the border!

Please don't say I'm making your point when I'm showing that what you've said is nonsense.

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

They were terrorists but the USA let them in.

Yes - with visas, applied for, checked, verified, and approved.

Not as refugees and not sneaking across the border!

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

That is exactly my point.

No it's not!

Your point was to stop refugees and to stop people sneaking across the border - they did neither!

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

 

Also "home grown"  I would use the term "sleeper cell"  They come to the USA, live amongst the citizens, learn the system, even have children but they never divorce themselves from their radical ideology. 

 

 

Well, you can use whatever term you want and call a giraffe a mouse if you like, but that wouldn't make it one.

The majority of terrorist incidents in the USA aren't carried out by those who "come to the USA", etc, but by those born in the USA.

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

That is not "home grown"

That is transplanted.

Well, if they're born in the country then regardless of their ideology they're second generation and  "home grown".

You may not like it, but that's not a question of opinion but of fact.