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

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Fester said:

..... which was enough reason for the US not to leave on 31^st August.  

I've said repeatedly that the US wasn't bound by the Doha agreement, so of course they could have stayed beyond 31 August if they'd wanted to get their arse kicked even more, but to do what?  With what?

[TopDeadSenter]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

I've said repeatedly that the US wasn't bound by the Doha agreement, so of course they could have stayed beyond 31 August if they'd wanted to get their arse kicked even more, but to do what?  With what?

To do what? How about ensure all US citizens were safely and calmly evacuated, along with Afghans that assisted the US, with rigorous checks which would be possible because it would not be a mad charge to the airport. How about to ensure each and every weapon, military drone, helicopter, aircraft, Hummer and computer containing US intel was either destroyed or taken abroad to safety.

 Just saying it's Trumps fault, or some convoluted garbage about various treaties is IMO intentionally missing the point. This was a clusterbang of epic proportions. We are already seeing the ramifications of a woke US military fleeing Afghanistan. Little Kim is firing rockets again. Wait and see what an emboldened China and Iran do. This is 100% Biden's fault, and the consequences will be disastrous for the west for many decades to come.

Edited September 15, 2021 by TopDeadSenter

[Fester]

7 hours ago, Stonker said:

The US made the commitment, due to take place by 10 March 2020.

That never happened.

If you want to blame the US and the Trump administration for breaking the agreement, knock yourself out.

You might guess that I do have the document so no need for all that.

And if you look at what I've said, I'm not blaming the US/Trump for breaking the agreement. The agreement was broken by the Taliban, which continued to fight Afghan government forces across Afghanistan. 

[Fester]

7 hours ago, Stonker said:

I've said repeatedly that the US wasn't bound by the Doha agreement, so of course they could have stayed beyond 31 August if they'd wanted to get their arse kicked even more, but to do what?  With what?

To retain control, only leaving Afghanistan after collecting and getting all of their own people and allies away, before the final miltary withdrawal. This would have meant a temporary increase in troop numbers and also retaining control of Bagram, at a minimum.  

[Stonker]

23 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Just saying it's Trumps fault, or some convoluted garbage about various treaties is IMO intentionally missing the point

Just a minor point, but I've far from said anything remotely like that or about it being "Trump's fault" but said repeatedly that the responsibility lies with every administration over two decades, all of which have failed totally and abysmally.

"Intentionally missing the point" is failing to answer the question "with what?"

There weren't enough troops in country to do anything except force protection, and to "ensure all US citizens were safely and calmly evacuated, along with Afghans that assisted the US, with rigorous checks which would be possible because it would not be a mad charge to the airport" would have taken up to two years so had to have been started two years before any withdrawal date, not two months!

 

"each and every weapon, military drone, helicopter, aircraft, Hummer" etc had been given to the ANSF between 2003 and 2017 - they weren't America's to "destroy" but belonged to the government that America had put in power, so destroying them would have been an act of war on the very government they'd installed, ensuring that the Taliban had no opposition!

The Soviets managed it, and left with calm and dignity - America simply stuffed it up under every administration of both parties from start to finish, encouraged by weak and toadying allies.

It's not Biden's fault or Trump's fault, which is childishly trying to avoid responsibility and pass the buck.

It's America's fault, plain and simple.

[Stonker]

8 minutes ago, Fester said:

And if you look at what I've said, I'm not blaming the US/Trump for breaking the agreement. The agreement was broken by the Taliban, which continued to fight Afghan government forces across Afghanistan. 

I realise you're not, but it's uninformed rubbish.

The US broke the agreement on 10 March 2020 when they failed to do what they'd agreed to by a set date.

Everything else in the agreement (steps 2, 3 and 4) was dependent on that, as the agreement very clearly spells out.

That isn't opinion but easily verifiable fact.

The Taliban's agreement to stop fighting government forces was conditional on the first step being met by 10 March 2020 - but the first step was never met at all.

You may not like that as it doesn't match your agenda, but the facts couldn't be clearer.

 

[Stonker]

10 minutes ago, Fester said:

To retain control, only leaving Afghanistan after collecting and getting all of their own people and allies away, before the final miltary withdrawal. This would have meant a temporary increase in troop numbers and also retaining control of Bagram, at a minimum.  

You've sidestepped / minimised the "with what".

What you write off in passing as "a temporary increase in troop numbers" to "retain control" would unavoidably have meant returning to the operational "control" that America had handed over to the ANSF in 2014 and returning to those troop numbers, so trebling the number of troops in country, as well as totally re-equipping them with vehicles and air support as all theirs had been given to the ANSF, and that would have had to last for two years as that's how long it takes to process the visas.

You can't have "control" without having enough troops to enforce control - it's obviously not possible.

If you think that putting 20,000 more troops plus all the support that had either been removed or handed over, plus thousands of vehicles and hundreds of aircraft, back into Afghanistan for two years would have been acceptable to the US or the coalition then I think you need to get in touch with reality.

[Fester]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

I realise you're not, but it's uninformed rubbish.

The US broke the agreement on 10 March 2020 when they failed to do what they'd agreed to by a set date.

Everything else in the agreement (steps 2, 3 and 4) was dependent on that, as the agreement very clearly spells out.

That isn't opinion but easily verifiable fact.

The Taliban's agreement to stop fighting government forces was conditional on the first step being met by 10 March 2020 - but the first step was never met at all.

You may not like that as it doesn't match your agenda, but the facts couldn't be clearer.

Certain points of the agreement are not specific enough to be "clear" and that is a failure of the US at the time. Another failure was America's assumption that the Afghan government of the day would go along with these points. 

What exactly do you mean by the remark "when they failed to do what they'd agreed to by a set date". Be clear. 

[dmacarelli]

On 8/30/2021 at 2:44 PM, Stonker said:

Just all the Directors of the FBI, the FBI Counter Terrorism Division, National Intelligence, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who gave testimony to Congress, under different presidents, at different times ...

... all liars

Your prejudices have now become abundantly clear, if that wasn't very much the case before.

"Muslims", wherever they're from, are NOT an "ethnic group". 

Ethnicity is something you're unavoidably born with, while religious belief is something you develop for a variety of reasons.

There's no direct link between the two.

That you're all too evidently focused on "ethnic groups" makes it all too clear what your own "mindset" is.

Correct. Every department in the US, with a 3 letter acronym is toxic, over reaching, and operates beyond their mandate. The FDA, CDC, FBI, DOI, NHS, ICE, etc. 

[Fester]

56 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You've sidestepped / minimised the "with what".

What you write off in passing as "a temporary increase in troop numbers" to "retain control" would unavoidably have meant returning to the operational "control" that America had handed over to the ANSF in 2014 and returning to those troop numbers, so trebling the number of troops in country, as well as totally re-equipping them with vehicles and air support as all theirs had been given to the ANSF, and that would have had to last for two years as that's how long it takes to process the visas.

You can't have "control" without having enough troops to enforce control - it's obviously not possible.

If you think that putting 20,000 more troops plus all the support that had either been removed or handed over, plus thousands of vehicles and hundreds of aircraft, back into Afghanistan for two years would have been acceptable to the US or the coalition then I think you need to get in touch with reality.

Your estimation of resources necessary for a controlled exit is obviously way more amplified than mine.  Perhaps it's you living in a dream world?

[TopDeadSenter]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

It's not Biden's fault or Trump's fault, which is childishly trying to avoid responsibility and pass the buck.

Trump is no longer President. Biden is. Biden cancelled or reversed pretty much every arrangement Trump made. Throwing open Trump's secure southern border, and killing the Keystone pipeline as 2 easy examples. Biden, as the President, and winner of (cough cough) 81 million votes, is responsible for the sudden and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Blinken and Milley are clearly unqualified and out of touch with reality and so need to accept blame for their dreadful roles in this deadly fiasco. But it is 100% Biden's fault. 

I would accept the argument that Biden is not responsible on grounds that he is mentally incapacitated and only parroting what his handlers are telling him. 

[Poolie]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

To do what? How about ensure all US citizens were safely and calmly evacuated, along with Afghans that assisted the US, with rigorous checks which would be possible because it would not be a mad charge to the airport. How about to ensure each and every weapon, military drone, helicopter, aircraft, Hummer and computer containing US intel was either destroyed or taken abroad to safety.

 Just saying it's Trumps fault, or some convoluted garbage about various treaties is IMO intentionally missing the point. This was a clusterbang of epic proportions. We are already seeing the ramifications of a woke US military fleeing Afghanistan. Little Kim is firing rockets again. Wait and see what an emboldened China and Iran do. This is 100% Biden's fault, and the consequences will be disastrous for the west for many decades to come.

I don't think China will be 'emboldened' as they didn't care one whit either way then or now. The thing it has done is expose the mighty America as all mouth and no trousers. Watching Blinken play the lbgtqxyz card was utterly cringeworthy following recent embarrassments.

Enjoy your day.

 

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Fester said:

Your estimation of resources necessary for a controlled exit is obviously way more amplified than mine.  Perhaps it's you living in a dream world?

It's "obviously way more amplified", but maybe it's a bit better informed as I at least know the numbers.

The US had around 8,600 troops in Afghanistan in 2020 /21 - the maximum allowed by the Doha Agreement, plus a couple of thousand or so more for the withdrawal, for a month, including coalition troops.

In order to have a "controlled exit", you obviously need to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control.  If you disagree and think you can have a "controlled exit" without  "controlling" the area then maybe you could explain how that can be done?

I suggested that in order to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control, you'd need to treble the number of troops in country, which is a conservative estimate considering how many troops were required to do so before, since that's little more than 25,000 all up (three times the 2020/21 level of 8,600).

Maybe you hadn't realised that the US had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2010 -11, so my suggestion of 25,000+ is only a quarter of that which seems pretty conservative.

If you think you could control Kabul and the area around it with less than a lot less than a quarter of the troops America had in country when it was doing so, on an operational footing, then a lot of military minds would probably be very interested to learn how.

 

[Rookiescot]

I'm starting to get irritated by this narrative that the US military was defeated in Afghanistan. 

It was not. The orders given to the US forces was to neutralise the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was achieved without doubt.

It was not to eradicate the Taliban. In order to do that the US would have had to invade Pakistan so they could go after the Taliban who had fled there. (its ironic Pakistan now complains about the Taliban being in control when they did nothing to get rid of them when they were sheltering in Pakistan).

So all this nonsense about the US (and allies) being defeated is an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job.

They won the war. The politicians lost the war. And by that I mean democrats, republicans but most importantly the Afghan government. 

[Fester]

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

It's "obviously way more amplified", but maybe it's a bit better informed as I at least know the numbers.

The US had around 8,600 troops in Afghanistan in 2020 /21 - the maximum allowed by the Doha Agreement, plus a couple of thousand or so more for the withdrawal, for a month, including coalition troops.

In order to have a "controlled exit", you obviously need to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control.  If you disagree and think you can have a "controlled exit" without  "controlling" the area then maybe you could explain how that can be done?

I suggested that in order to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control, you'd need to treble the number of troops in country, which is a conservative estimate considering how many troops were required to do so before, since that's little more than 25,000 all up (three times the 2020/21 level of 8,600).

Maybe you hadn't realised that the US had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2010 -11, so my suggestion of 25,000+ is only a quarter of that which seems pretty conservative.

If you think you could control Kabul and the area around it with less than a lot less than a quarter of the troops America had in country when it was doing so, on an operational footing, then a lot of military minds would probably be very interested to learn how.

 

By step:

In order to have a "controlled exit", you obviously need to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control.  If you disagree and think you can have a "controlled exit" without  "controlling" the area then maybe you could explain how that can be done? Agree about controlling Kabul and the surrounding provinces (especially Bagram) - could have been achieved by doubling existing coalition forces and maintaining full air support for the Afghan forces.   

I suggested that in order to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control, you'd need to treble the number of troops in country, which is a conservative estimate considering how many troops were required to do so before, since that's little more than 25,000 all up (three times the 2020/21 level of 8,600). See above and below.

Maybe you hadn't realised that the US had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2010 -11, so my suggestion of 25,000+ is only a quarter of that which seems pretty conservative. I had - I know the numbers too. If all allies had doubled their numbers temporarily for the exit then there would have been about 25k in total but this would mean that the "trainers" in country would have had to have become combat operational again. 

If you think you could control Kabul and the area around it with less than a lot less than a quarter of the troops America had in country when it was doing so, on an operational footing, then a lot of military minds would probably be very interested to learn how. Different operation and mission - this was about defensive action to secure passage and exit for all allies and then finally troops - not controlling the whole country. Could have been achieved region-by region with steady expatriation of Afghan friendlies over a few months.

 

[Poolie]

51 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I'm starting to get irritated by this narrative that the US military was defeated in Afghanistan. 

It was not. The orders given to the US forces was to neutralise the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was achieved without doubt.

It was not to eradicate the Taliban. In order to do that the US would have had to invade Pakistan so they could go after the Taliban who had fled there. (its ironic Pakistan now complains about the Taliban being in control when they did nothing to get rid of them when they were sheltering in Pakistan).

So all this nonsense about the US (and allies) being defeated is an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job.

They won the war. The politicians lost the war. And by that I mean democrats, republicans but most importantly the Afghan government. 

Who's politicians would that be? Country I mean? Not Afghanistan, the others.

Have a good rest of Wednesday.

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Fester said:

Certain points of the agreement are not specific enough to be "clear" and that is a failure of the US at the time. 

Maybe because you're trying to see it as an "Agreement", which is what it's dressed up as, while the reality is that it's simply a conditional surrender by the US to the Taliban, very similar to how the British conditional surrender to Jaysh Al-Mahdi in Basra in 2007 was dressed up as an "Accommodation".

The Agreement itself, as a conditional surrender, could hardly be clearer.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

7 hours ago, Fester said:

Another failure was America's assumption that the Afghan government of the day would go along with these points. 

Everything America assumed about the Afghan government was wrong and a "failure", from 2003 to 2021, so that was nothing unusual.

That they expected the Afghan government to go along with a complete and unconditional surrender on their part, though, was short-sighted even for the USA.

7 hours ago, Fester said:

What exactly do you mean by the remark "when they failed to do what they'd agreed to by a set date". Be clear. 

Difficult to know how to be any more clear when I've spelt this out before without talking down to you, but I'll try.

What they'd agreed to as spelt out in the Agreement, which is what they they failed to do, was Part One (C):

"C. The United States is committed to start immediately to work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides. Up to five thousand (5,000) prisoners of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and up to one thousand (1,000) prisoners of the other side will be released by March 10, 2020, the first day of intra-Afghan negotiations, which corresponds to Rajab 15, 1441 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and Hoot 20, 1398 on the Hijri Solar calendar.
The relevant sides have the goal of releasing all the remaining prisoners over the course of the subsequent three months. The United States commits to completing this goal. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban commits that its released prisoners will be committed to the responsibilities mentioned in this agreement so that they will not pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies."

The key part is that "The United States commits to completing this goal" - not to doing their best to persuading the Afghan government to go along with it, or anything else, but to "completing this goal".

That never happened - the US failed to do it, breaking the agreement.

It never started with five thousand prisoners on March 10, and it was never complete (or even started) within three months.

That was a clear breach of Part One of the Agreement, which meant that the entire Agreement was void, as the Agreement spells out and makes very clear:

"A comprehensive peace agreement is made of four parts:

1. Guarantees and enforcement mechanisms that will prevent the use of the soil of Afghanistan by
any group or individual against the security of the United States and its allies.

2. Guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and announcement of a timeline for the withdrawal of
all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

3. After the announcement of guarantees for a complete withdrawal of foreign forces and timeline
in the presence of international witnesses, and guarantees and the announcement in the presence
of international witnesses that Afghan soil will not be used against the security of the United
States and its allies, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United
States as a state and is known as the Taliban will start intra-Afghan negotiations with Afghan
sides on March 10, 2020, which corresponds to Rajab 15, 1441 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and
Hoot 20, 1398 on the Hijri Solar calendar.

4. A permanent and comprehensive ceasefire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan
dialogue and negotiations. The participants of intra-Afghan negotiations will discuss the date
and modalities of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire, including joint implementation
mechanisms, which will be announced along with the completion and agreement over the future
political roadmap of Afghanistan.

The four parts above are interrelated and each will be implemented in accordance with its own agreed
timeline and agreed terms. Agreement on the first two parts paves the way for the last two parts."

Your whole argument that "I'm not blaming the US/Trump for breaking the agreement. The agreement was broken by the Taliban, which continued to fight Afghan government forces across Afghanistan." is WRONG.

Part Four, which was for negotiations on a "permanent and comprehensive ceasefire", could ONLY happen as agreed subject to Parts One and Two being met.  Part One was never met as the US failed to do what they'd committed to, so part Four (the ceasefire) was automatically void.

You can blame the Afghan government if you want to, but they were never part of the Agreement - only "the Taliban and the United States of America" were.  It's like you thinking @Poolie's going to give you a Porsche but you never ask him, then you and I agree to swop that Porsche for my Ferrari but when Poolie doesn't give you his Porsche you still expect me to give you my Ferrari and you blame @Poolie !

 

 

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

I'm starting to get irritated by this narrative that the US military was defeated in Afghanistan. 

It was not. The orders given to the US forces was to neutralise the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was achieved without doubt.

It was not to eradicate the Taliban. In order to do that the US would have had to invade Pakistan so they could go after the Taliban who had fled there. (its ironic Pakistan now complains about the Taliban being in control when they did nothing to get rid of them when they were sheltering in Pakistan).

Well, you can be "irritated" as much as you want but it won't change the facts.

The US had neutralised the Taliban by the end of 2001, after a couple of months, with less than 10,000 troops and the loss of only 12 American lives.  They "won" that war. 

By the end of 2003 they'd finished mopping up the last of the Taliban, with the loss of 109 American lives and 3 British. They "won" that war.

After that they lost track of what they were supposed to be doing, shifted their attention to the war in Iraq, and there was no "mission" or clear "orders" in Afghanistan any more and they were just Fig 11 targets with no war to win but a lot of money to be made by some who weren't putting their lives on the line.

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

So all this nonsense about the US (and allies) being defeated is an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job.

No, "the US (and allies)"  had their arses kicked, and kicked badly. That isn't "an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job" but simple reality.

What's an insult to the guys who actually sweated blood and tears and did their job is pretending that they could have "won", as the war, whatever it had become after 2001 / 03, wasn't winnable.

Keep up that pretence and all you do is encourage it to happen again at a cost of yet more blood, tears and lives for no justifiable reason and it doesn't get much more insulting than that.

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

They won the war.

They won the war 2001-2003. After that there wasn't a war to win - just lives to be lost.

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

The politicians lost the war. And by that I mean democrats, republicans but most importantly the Afghan government. 

The "Afghan government" didn't "lose the war" - they were never in any position to win it.

The military lost it just as much as the politicians  - and by that I mean all the military commanders that agreed to continue a war without a mission, who didn't have the courage to ask "what the feck are we supposed to be doing here", and all the politicians from every country that contributed to the coalition and facilitated it who didn't ask the same question.

[Fester]

16 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Maybe because you're trying to see it as an "Agreement", which is what it's dressed up as, while the reality is that it's simply a conditional surrender by the US to the Taliban, very similar to how the British conditional surrender to Jaysh Al-Mahdi in Basra in 2007 was dressed up as an "Accommodation".

The Agreement itself, as a conditional surrender, could hardly be clearer.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

Everything America assumed about the Afghan government was wrong and a "failure", from 2003 to 2021, so that was nothing unusual.

That they expected the Afghan government to go along with a complete and unconditional surrender on their part, though, was short-sighted even for the USA.

Difficult to know how to be any more clear when I've spelt this out before without talking down to you, but I'll try.

What they'd agreed to as spelt out in the Agreement, which is what they they failed to do, was Part One (C):

"C. The United States is committed to start immediately to work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides. Up to five thousand (5,000) prisoners of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and up to one thousand (1,000) prisoners of the other side will be released by March 10, 2020, the first day of intra-Afghan negotiations, which corresponds to Rajab 15, 1441 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and Hoot 20, 1398 on the Hijri Solar calendar.
The relevant sides have the goal of releasing all the remaining prisoners over the course of the subsequent three months. The United States commits to completing this goal. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban commits that its released prisoners will be committed to the responsibilities mentioned in this agreement so that they will not pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies."

The key part is that "The United States commits to completing this goal" - not to doing their best to persuading the Afghan government to go along with it, or anything else, but to "completing this goal".

That never happened - the US failed to do it, breaking the agreement.

It never started with five thousand prisoners on March 10, and it was never complete (or even started) within three months.

That was a clear breach of Part One of the Agreement, which meant that the entire Agreement was void, as the Agreement spells out and makes very clear:

"A comprehensive peace agreement is made of four parts:

1. Guarantees and enforcement mechanisms that will prevent the use of the soil of Afghanistan by
any group or individual against the security of the United States and its allies.

2. Guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and announcement of a timeline for the withdrawal of
all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

3. After the announcement of guarantees for a complete withdrawal of foreign forces and timeline
in the presence of international witnesses, and guarantees and the announcement in the presence
of international witnesses that Afghan soil will not be used against the security of the United
States and its allies, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United
States as a state and is known as the Taliban will start intra-Afghan negotiations with Afghan
sides on March 10, 2020, which corresponds to Rajab 15, 1441 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and
Hoot 20, 1398 on the Hijri Solar calendar.

4. A permanent and comprehensive ceasefire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan
dialogue and negotiations. The participants of intra-Afghan negotiations will discuss the date
and modalities of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire, including joint implementation
mechanisms, which will be announced along with the completion and agreement over the future
political roadmap of Afghanistan.

The four parts above are interrelated and each will be implemented in accordance with its own agreed
timeline and agreed terms. Agreement on the first two parts paves the way for the last two parts."

Your whole argument that "I'm not blaming the US/Trump for breaking the agreement. The agreement was broken by the Taliban, which continued to fight Afghan government forces across Afghanistan." is WRONG.

Part Four, which was for negotiations on a "permanent and comprehensive ceasefire", could ONLY happen as agreed subject to Parts One and Two being met.  Part One was never met as the US failed to do what they'd committed to, so part Four (the ceasefire) was automatically void.

You can blame the Afghan government if you want to, but they were never part of the Agreement - only "the Taliban and the United States of America" were.  It's like you thinking @Poolie's going to give you a Porsche but you never ask him, then you and I agree to swop that Porsche for my Ferrari but when Poolie doesn't give you his Porsche you still expect me to give you my Ferrari and you blame @Poolie !

Again, this comes down to interpretations. You have yours and I have mine. And your assertion that my whole argument that "I'm not blaming the US/Trump for breaking the agreement. The agreement was broken by the Taliban, which continued to fight Afghan government forces across Afghanistan" is also wrong.

I have added more comment in subsequent posts about US failures. These goals were just that - targets that were not not hit due to a combination of failures, stalling and (more likely) lack of willingness by both the Afghan government and the Taliban. 

But you think that Taliban did not continue to fight Afghan forces across Afghanistan all through this? Total tosh! 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Fester said:

By step:

In order to have a "controlled exit", you obviously need to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control.  If you disagree and think you can have a "controlled exit" without  "controlling" the area then maybe you could explain how that can be done? Agree about controlling Kabul and the surrounding provinces (especially Bagram) - could have been achieved by doubling existing coalition forces and maintaining full air support for the Afghan forces.   

I suggested that in order to "control" Afghanistan, or at least Kabul and the surrounding provinces even if you leave the outer provinces under Taliban control, you'd need to treble the number of troops in country, which is a conservative estimate considering how many troops were required to do so before, since that's little more than 25,000 all up (three times the 2020/21 level of 8,600). See above and below.

Maybe you hadn't realised that the US had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2010 -11, so my suggestion of 25,000+ is only a quarter of that which seems pretty conservative. I had - I know the numbers too. If all allies had doubled their numbers temporarily for the exit then there would have been about 25k in total but this would mean that the "trainers" in country would have had to have become combat operational again. 

If you think you could control Kabul and the area around it with less than a lot less than a quarter of the troops America had in country when it was doing so, on an operational footing, then a lot of military minds would probably be very interested to learn how. Different operation and mission - this was about defensive action to secure passage and exit for all allies and then finally troops - not controlling the whole country. Could have been achieved region-by region with steady expatriation of Afghan friendlies over a few months.

It would be simpler if you'd used the quote function, but I'll try to respond:

 

2 hours ago, Fester said:

Agree about controlling Kabul and the surrounding provinces (especially Bagram) - could have been achieved by doubling existing coalition forces and maintaining full air support for the Afghan forces.   

No, that idea is simply and very obviously wrong.

The "existing coalition forces" there were doing force protection, nothing else - that was their only role, apart from a few SF units.  If you don't understand what force protection means, it means protecting themselves - nobody else.

The idea that you could have controlled Kabul and the surrounding provinces (especially Bagram) by adding another 8,000 troops when it had previously taken over five times that number (excluding the outer provinces) is absurd. What do you think the coalition troops were doing before, that required so many of them - having a picnic?

As for "maintaining full air support for the Afghan forces", the Afghan forces weren't interested once they saw the writing on the wall.  Once they knew the Americans were going there were no "Afghan forces" to give "full air support to" - do you seriously think they were going to put their lives on the line for the Americans who were deserting them?

... and whether you think they were going to or not hardly matters, as the unavoidable fact is that they didn't.

2 hours ago, Fester said:

I had - I know the numbers too. If all allies had doubled their numbers temporarily for the exit then there would have been about 25k in total but this would mean that the "trainers" in country would have had to have become combat operational again. 

There were no ""trainers" in country" - that had ceased months before the withdrawal and the ANAOA and assorted schools had been handed over in October 2020.

Simple maths will tell you that if you "doubled their numbers temporarily for the exit" that wouldn't have given you "about 25k in total" but no more than 18,000 which is nowhere near enough (unless, again, they were all having a picnic before).

A "controlled exit" would in any case, in terms of duration, need to be for far longer than just "temporarily for the exit".  The Taliban had already taken over, and you can't pretend that hadn't happened and then expect to fly in to another ten or twenty thousand troops unopposed to re-occupy the country or even just Kabul and the neighbouring provinces "temporarily for the exit" while the Taliban just stand by and say "help yourself"!!!

2 hours ago, Fester said:

See above and below.

I did. Apparently you think that the troops there before were on a holiday.

 

2 hours ago, Fester said:

Different operation and mission - this was about defensive action to secure passage and exit for all allies and then finally troops - not controlling the whole country.

I specifically said that it wasn't "controlling the whole country" as that had taken over 120,000!

 

2 hours ago, Fester said:

Could have been achieved region-by region with steady expatriation of Afghan friendlies over a few months.

Not according to all the assorted visa and immigration agencies (US, UK, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, etc) who all say, without exception, that the process would have taken two years.

Even ignoring that, it would still have required at least 30,000 combat troops, in a combat role which they hadn't had since 2014, for "a few months".

Would that have been acceptable as an alternative?

I'm not suggesting that it couldn't have been done infinitely better, with a bit of dignity and control and a lot more success, as the Soviets managed to do.

What I am saying, though, is that NO American administration did that in the preceding fifteen years, from 2004 to 2021, when they should have done it and had ample opportunity.

[Stonker]

44 minutes ago, Fester said:

Again, this comes down to interpretations. You have yours and I have mine.

No, I'm not "interpreting" anything - just telling you what the Doha Agreement says, which can be easily checked with the direct link I've given to it, as well as the troop levels.

Those are facts, nothing else.

47 minutes ago, Fester said:

And your assertion that my whole argument that "I'm not blaming the US/Trump for breaking the agreement. The agreement was broken by the Taliban, which continued to fight Afghan government forces across Afghanistan" is also wrong.

Well, that IS the "whole" basis of your argument about the Doha Agreement.

It's 100% wrong factually - it couldn't be more wrong!

50 minutes ago, Fester said:

I have added more comment in subsequent posts about US failures. These goals were just that - targets that were not not hit due to a combination of failures, stalling and (more likely) lack of willingness by both the Afghan government and the Taliban. 

No, they weren't "goals .. targets that were not hit due to a combination of failures" that could then be overlooked as long as everyone had tried.  They HAD to be completed, in full, otherwise the Agreement was void.

What part of "The United States commits to completing this goal" and "Agreement on the first two parts paves the way for the last two parts" are you unable or unwilling to understand???

56 minutes ago, Fester said:

But you think that Taliban did not continue to fight Afghan forces across Afghanistan all through this? Total tosh! 

WTF are you talking about?

OF COURSE they "continue[d] to fight Afghan forces across Afghanistan all through this?" - or at least the few Afghan forces that put up any resistance, which was very few.

Why wouldn't they have done so?

As the Doha Agreement was void within a fortnight of being signed they had no possible reason not to!

[Fester]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

It would be simpler if you'd used the quote function, but I'll try to respond:

No, that idea is simply and very obviously wrong.

The "existing coalition forces" there were doing force protection, nothing else - that was their only role, apart from a few SF units.  If you don't understand what force protection means, it means protecting themselves - nobody else.

The idea that you could have controlled Kabul and the surrounding provinces (especially Bagram) by adding another 8,000 troops when it had previously taken over five times that number (excluding the outer provinces) is absurd. What do you think the coalition troops were doing before, that required so many of them - having a picnic?

As for "maintaining full air support for the Afghan forces", the Afghan forces weren't interested once they saw the writing on the wall.  Once they knew the Americans were going there were no "Afghan forces" to give "full air support to" - do you seriously think they were going to put their lives on the line for the Americans who were deserting them?

... and whether you think they were going to or not hardly matters, as the unavoidable fact is that they didn't.

There were no ""trainers" in country" - that had ceased months before the withdrawal and the ANAOA and assorted schools had been handed over in October 2020.

Simple maths will tell you that if you "doubled their numbers temporarily for the exit" that wouldn't have given you "about 25k in total" but no more than 18,000 which is nowhere near enough (unless, again, they were all having a picnic before).

A "controlled exit" would in any case, in terms of duration, need to be for far longer than just "temporarily for the exit".  The Taliban had already taken over, and you can't pretend that hadn't happened and then expect to fly in to another ten or twenty thousand troops unopposed to re-occupy the country or even just Kabul and the neighbouring provinces "temporarily for the exit" while the Taliban just stand by and say "help yourself"!!!

I did. Apparently you think that the troops there before were on a holiday.

I specifically said that it wasn't "controlling the whole country" as that had taken over 120,000!

Not according to all the assorted visa and immigration agencies (US, UK, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, etc) who all say, without exception, that the process would have taken two years.

Even ignoring that, it would still have required at least 30,000 combat troops, in a combat role which they hadn't had since 2014, for "a few months".

Would that have been acceptable as an alternative?

I'm not suggesting that it couldn't have been done infinitely better, with a bit of dignity and control and a lot more success, as the Soviets managed to do.

What I am saying, though, is that NO American administration did that in the preceding fifteen years, from 2004 to 2021, when they should have done it and had ample opportunity.

 

To say "simply and very obviously wrong" is not proof that you are right.

 

"What do you think the coalition troops were doing before, that required so many of them - having a picnic"? Your condecension is endless. I said a total of 25k and that the mission was new. 

"The Afghan forces weren't interested once they saw the writing on the wall". Probably largely correct but again this is your unproven view. There were obviously elements that did fight and still are fighting. Air cover would have helped stop the rapid takeover of most of the country this year.

There were "trainers" in country" (RSM) and other troops this year but NATO planned to move most out from May (over a few months). This was obviously expected but not completed as agreed after Biden stuck to his 31st August deadline in July. From 1st May, the Taliban made the most rapid advances and gains, of course.

Simple maths will tell you that 18,000 would have been just the US contingent. If enough strategic territory plus Bagram had been secure by existing forces then, yes,  another "ten or twenty thousand" troops could have been inserted. The US, UK and Australia managed to put 4,000 into Kabul in just a couple of days in August!  

I have never thought that our troops there were on a holiday, before or after.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Fester

[Fester]

56 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, I'm not "interpreting" anything - just telling you what the Doha Agreement says, which can be easily checked with the direct link I've given to it, as well as the troop levels.

Those are facts, nothing else.

Well, that IS the "whole" basis of your argument about the Doha Agreement.

It's 100% wrong factually - it couldn't be more wrong!

No, they weren't "goals .. targets that were not hit due to a combination of failures" that could then be overlooked as long as everyone had tried.  They HAD to be completed, in full, otherwise the Agreement was void.

What part of "The United States commits to completing this goal" and "Agreement on the first two parts paves the way for the last two parts" are you unable or unwilling to understand???

WTF are you talking about?

OF COURSE they "continue[d] to fight Afghan forces across Afghanistan all through this?" - or at least the few Afghan forces that put up any resistance, which was very few.

Why wouldn't they have done so?

As the Doha Agreement was void within a fortnight of being signed they had no possible reason not to!

OK so I suppose we're down to: who broke the agreement first? Well I suppose this has been such a cluster flock it doesn't really matter now. 

[Fester]

9 hours ago, Poolie said:

I don't think China will be 'emboldened' as they didn't care one whit either way then or now. The thing it has done is expose the mighty America as all mouth and no trousers. Watching Blinken play the lbgtqxyz card was utterly cringeworthy following recent embarrassments.

Enjoy your day.

I'm sure China cares, it's a very caring country after all. To avoid similar embarrassments, then just hope that the likes of Biden and Blinken will not be representing the mighty USA for much longer.

 

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, Poolie said:

Who's politicians would that be? Country I mean? Not Afghanistan, the others.

Have a good rest of Wednesday.

Well given the armed forces in Afghanistan was a coalition of countries your point is valid.

But my point is the armed forces of those countries were not defeated. They were highly successful. They obtained the goals they were set. 

The politicians from many countries lost what had been gained.