Who messed up Afghanistan?

[Westside Steve]

Let me Begin by saying I agree with most of the American public in that we are glad to be out of Afghanistan but think that the execution was horrible.

So...This is an honest question.

Do you believe that Joe Biden independently made this decision and disregarded his military advisors?

Do you think Joe Biden made the decision with the blessing of his newly appointed military advisors?

Do you think someone else made the decision, possibly the state department, the pentagon or someone else, and Biden is just defending it?

Without any the buck stops here rhetoric who in particular is responsible for the massive fail?

Or, does anyone believe as the president said everything went exactly according to plan?

I'm actually curious not looking for a bunch of name-calling.

 

(and yes this could have possibly happened to any president but it didn't; it happened to President Biden.)

WSS

 

[Browns149]

I don’t know for sure. As no one on here knows for sure

But I think it was Biden going it alone. Otherwise it would have gone A LOT smoother. IMO

[VaporTrail]

2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Let me Begin by saying I agree with most of the American public in that we are glad to be out of Afghanistan but think that the execution was horrible. 

So...This is an honest question.

Do you believe that Joe Biden independently made this decision and disregarded his military advisors?
Yes. US withdrawal from the global order has been happening gradually since W. left office and quite a bit more rapidly since Trump took over. When Biden was VP, Obama asked other NATO countries to commit their fair share, and this became a central platform of the 2016 Trump campaign. Biden doesn't have any love for our foreign allies that left his bro hanging. The writing is on the wall, and even Biden with his dementia, can see that Afghanistan was a losing proposition. 

Do you think Joe Biden made the decision with the blessing of his newly appointed military advisors?
Do you think someone else made the decision, possibly the state department, the pentagon or someone else, and Biden is just defending it?
Biden's military advisors sit on the boards of companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. In my estimation, he's had to deal with decades of these types during his tenure as VP - Obama wanted to get out of Afghanistan, but was not able to - now that Biden's the guy in charge, he is finally giving them the middle finger.

Is this a failure because now the Taliban has modern military equipment? Exactly how are all their humvees and blackhawks and .50 cal machine guns a threat to us? These are weapons for conventional war, and that is something that the USA is still better at than anyone else. They're more likely to be used against their neighbors in Pakistan, China and the chance of them being used on US soil is approaching zero. If they really wanted to hurt us, they'd do it like bin Laden did. 

Is this a failure because there are Americans trapped there? I have no sympathy for contractors who go to unstable countries to make a quick buck. Sorry, the reason you make so much is because there's a risk of bad things happening. If you're stuck there, that's on you and no one else.

There is nothing to be gained by being in Afghanistan. Good luck to China on their Belt and Road initiative into that country with a Taliban that's now loaded to the gills with top-of-the-line US military equipment. I figure we see history repeating itself with the Chinese getting expelled just like us and the Soviets.

Without any the buck stops here rhetoric who in particular is responsible for the massive fail?
The evacuation of Afghanistan was a tactical failure. Finally getting the hell out of the region is a strategic victory. The biggest failure was the decision to go there in the first place. If I had to place blame on one person for this situation, maybe Kaiser Wilhelm II could get the nod. 

Or, does anyone believe as the president said everything went exactly according to plan?
No.

I'm actually curious not looking for a bunch of name-calling.

 

(and yes this could have possibly happened to any president but it didn't; it happened to President Biden.)

WSS

 

 

[Westside Steve]

48 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

 

A little bit harsh but probably not that far from accurate. And of course 149 nobody here has the inside information but...

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I would say that all of the helicopters, humvee's and other equipment will be pretty useless fairly quickly.  They require a lot of maintenance and spare parts.  I doubt the Taliban have anyone capable.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, VaporTrail said:

Finally getting the hell out of the region is a strategic victory. 

It's actually just the opposite.  It's a strategic failure, a massive one.

[Westside Steve]

3 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

It's actually just the opposite.  It's a strategic failure, a massive one.

I would think if US casualties were kept at an absolute minimum having the bases there would be of great value.

WSS

[VaporTrail]

16 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

I would think if US casualties were kept at an absolute minimum having the bases there would be of great value.

WSS

The loss of Bagram is the only thing about this that could be considered a strategic failure. And that would only be the case if we plan on going toe-to-toe with China or having a proxy war with them. Both of those options would be bigger strategic failures for the US. 

[nickers]

5 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Let me Begin by saying I agree with most of the American public in that we are glad to be out of Afghanistan but think that the execution was horrible.

So...This is an honest question.

Do you believe that Joe Biden independently made this decision and disregarded his military advisors?

Do you think Joe Biden made the decision with the blessing of his newly appointed military advisors?

Do you think someone else made the decision, possibly the state department, the pentagon or someone else, and Biden is just defending it?

Without any the buck stops here rhetoric who in particular is responsible for the massive fail?

Or, does anyone believe as the president said everything went exactly according to plan?

I'm actually curious not looking for a bunch of name-calling.

 

(and yes this could have possibly happened to any president but it didn't; it happened to President Biden.)

WSS

 

No... I honestly believe Barrack Obama is running the whole show... JoeBloe and Kamel Toe are just window dressing...

[Westside Steve]

16 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

The loss of Bagram is the only thing about this that could be considered a strategic failure. And that would only be the case if we plan on going toe-to-toe with China or having a proxy war with them. Both of those options would be bigger strategic failures for the US. 

Well I can't help but think there will be some sort of bad s*** going on that we will be involved in especially if Israel is attacked. I realize everybody doesn't have the same take on Israel.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

4 minutes ago, nickers said:

No... I honestly believe Barrack Obama is running the whole show... JoeBloe and Kamel Toe are just window dressing...

Nah he's charismatic and somewhat well-spoken but I don't think he has the gravitas to run anything. He's an empty suit and a figurehead and I think he enjoys the Celebrity life more than the real job.

WSS

[nickers]

Just now, Westside Steve said:

Nah he's charismatic and somewhat well-spoken but I don't think he has the gravitas to run anything. He's an empty suit and a figurehead and I think he enjoys the Celebrity life more than the real job.

WSS

Well then why does Obama have a Mansion just a few blocks from the white house?... .. Elected presidents who finish their tenures leave Washington... Call me crazy but thats what I honestly believe...

[DieHardBrownsFan]

26 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

The loss of Bagram is the only thing about this that could be considered a strategic failure. And that would only be the case if we plan on going toe-to-toe with China or having a proxy war with them. Both of those options would be bigger strategic failures for the US. 

Wrong.

[VaporTrail]

Just now, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Wrong.

Care to elaborate?

[Westside Steve]

1 minute ago, nickers said:

Well then why does Obama have a Mansion just a few blocks from the white house?... .. Elected presidents who finish their tenures leave Washington... Call me crazy but thats what I honestly believe...

Oh I'm just saying I don't agree because I don't think he is that capable. He made Millions in office and I think that's the idea. He likes being a celebrity which is why he built his mansion among his sycophants.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Having bases there is a strategic advantage for us.  Close to our three enemies of China, Russia and Iran.  Cutting and running made us look like cowards after winning every major battle in Afghanistan.  Leaving behind billions in weapons which could just as easily have been destroyed if not returned to the US.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

24 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Well I can't help but think there will be some sort of bad s*** going on that we will be involved in especially if Israel is attacked. I realize everybody doesn't have the same take on Israel.

WSS

No ally trusts Biden.  He is obviously not only severely demented, but a coward to boot.

[VaporTrail]

Bagram is a strategic advantage for a proxy war or a conventional war. Entering either of those would be a strategic (financially, human life) loss much larger than the loss of an airfield. All 3 of those countries' existence, particularly Iran and China, is heavily dependent on the world order and open trade lanes that the US provides. We didn't beat the Soviets because we built bases close to their borders. We beat them because we outsmarted them financially. If we want to beat them again, the easiest way to do it is to simply withdraw from the world, as each of the last 3 presidents have increasingly done. Globalism is an anomaly, and it's on its way out. We are well on our way back to the normal swing of things. It's about to be 1915 all over again. Let those countries without blue water navies try to secure all the resources they need. Let them fight each other over it. The force projection of the US Navy is ironically the only reason these countries could exist in their current forms.

[Ibleedbrown]

2 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

Bagram is a strategic advantage for a proxy war or a conventional war. Entering either of those would be a strategic (financially, human life) loss much larger than the loss of an airfield. All 3 of those countries' existence, particularly Iran and China, is heavily dependent on the world order and open trade lanes that the US provides. We didn't beat the Soviets because we built bases close to their borders. We beat them because we outsmarted them financially. If we want to beat them again, the easiest way to do it is to simply withdraw from the world, as each of the last 3 presidents have increasingly done. Globalism is an anomaly, and it's on its way out. We are well on our way back to the normal swing of things. It's about to be 1915 all over again. Let those countries without blue water navies try to secure all the resources they need. Let them fight each other over it. The force projection of the US Navy is ironically the only reason these countries could exist in their current forms.

Maybe l’m not understanding the meaning of globalism here, but powerful nations have been trying to expand their reach since the 1400s, arguably even earlier than that. I recall our isolationism after WW I in part laid the foundation for the events of WW II and that was, in hindsight, seen as a mistake on our part. I would think going back to isolationism would be the anomaly. 

[Canton Dawg]

8 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Let me Begin by saying I agree with most of the American public in that we are glad to be out of Afghanistan but think that the execution was horrible.

So...This is an honest question.

Do you believe that Joe Biden independently made this decision and disregarded his military advisors?

Do you think Joe Biden made the decision with the blessing of his newly appointed military advisors?

Do you think someone else made the decision, possibly the state department, the pentagon or someone else, and Biden is just defending it?

Without any the buck stops here rhetoric who in particular is responsible for the massive fail?

Or, does anyone believe as the president said everything went exactly according to plan?

I'm actually curious not looking for a bunch of name-calling.

 

(and yes this could have possibly happened to any president but it didn't; it happened to President Biden.)

WSS

 

I’m sure there are at least 3 members of this board that would blame Trump…..just sayin’.

[Browns149]

4 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

A little bit harsh but probably not that far from accurate. And of course 149 nobody here has the inside information but...

WSS

That’s true. If I had to guess, someone else made this call and he’s taking the heat

He doesn’t seem capable of such decisions at this point

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[VaporTrail]

12 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Maybe l’m not understanding the meaning of globalism here, but powerful nations have been trying to expand their reach since the 1400s, arguably even earlier than that. I recall our isolationism after WW I in part laid the foundation for the events of WW II and that was, in hindsight, seen as a mistake on our part. I would think going back to isolationism would be the anomaly. 

Globalism is basically the world order where everyone agrees not to pirate each others' trade vessels because the US Navy will come and lay waste to your ass if you choose to do this anywhere on the globe. This status quo has only existed since the end of WW2. Up to this point, literally for the rest of history, the great powers of the world were in a constant state of war with each other. National colonialism was the rule of law. The post-WW2 Bretton Woods agreements that led to the decline of colonialism and the creation of a US-led global order.

As the European and Asian economies were destroyed by the war, the burgeoning US economy propped up everyone else as a hedge against the Soviet threat. The US guaranteed safety of free and open trade lanes to rebuild their economy in exchange for military alliances against the Soviets. These agreements led to the financial collapse of the Soviet Union and the longest era in written history where great powers did not war directly with each other. This is very much an anomaly. This has allowed many nations, such as China, to exist and prosper, when in any other era, they'd have been conquered by their neighbors. While the US led system was designed to economically cripple the USSR, it also ironically got abused by China ever since Nixon let them into the fold, leading to the problems we have today.

HW Bush was the last US president to give a damn about this system. The trend of every president since him was to back away from it more and more (with the exception of Dubya and Cheney getting their cronies wealthy by getting us into the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires). Biden and Trump are more on the same page than most people want to let on when it comes to foreign policy. For example, Biden placed additional trade sanctions on Iran 3 weeks ago. It really doesn't matter who's at the wheel, the trend in the last 25 years is pretty clear - the US is no longer interested in subsidizing the safety and economy of the rest of the world. It's going to get chaotic out there.

[hammertime]

First of all if that’s even the real Joe Biden I’d be surprised.

Skin puppet of some sort is my guess.

 

Never lose sight of the end game of globalism.

 We are in very bad shape on all fronts.  Think on a global scale when you think who really screwed up.

My advice.  Pray.  

[Axe]

 

 

Think this would have happened under Trump?

[calfoxwc]

for some reality about globalism...

https://conservapedia.com/Nationalism_vs._globalism

 

[Ibleedbrown]

4 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

Globalism is basically the world order where everyone agrees not to pirate each others' trade vessels because the US Navy will come and lay waste to your ass if you choose to do this anywhere on the globe. This status quo has only existed since the end of WW2. Up to this point, literally for the rest of history, the great powers of the world were in a constant state of war with each other. National colonialism was the rule of law. The post-WW2 Bretton Woods agreements that led to the decline of colonialism and the creation of a US-led global order.

As the European and Asian economies were destroyed by the war, the burgeoning US economy propped up everyone else as a hedge against the Soviet threat. The US guaranteed safety of free and open trade lanes to rebuild their economy in exchange for military alliances against the Soviets. These agreements led to the financial collapse of the Soviet Union and the longest era in written history where great powers did not war directly with each other. This is very much an anomaly. This has allowed many nations, such as China, to exist and prosper, when in any other era, they'd have been conquered by their neighbors. While the US led system was designed to economically cripple the USSR, it also ironically got abused by China ever since Nixon let them into the fold, leading to the problems we have today.

HW Bush was the last US president to give a damn about this system. The trend of every president since him was to back away from it more and more (with the exception of Dubya and Cheney getting their cronies wealthy by getting us into the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires). Biden and Trump are more on the same page than most people want to let on when it comes to foreign policy. For example, Biden placed additional trade sanctions on Iran 3 weeks ago. It really doesn't matter who's at the wheel, the trend in the last 25 years is pretty clear - the US is no longer interested in subsidizing the safety and economy of the rest of the world. It's going to get chaotic out there.

Good read and interesting points. I’ll ponder on that awhile.

I think what we did after WW II wasn’t so different than what the Roman empire did centuries ago (exert influence and oversee commerce to their advantage) except we were the first to be able to do it on a global scale. I’m certain our motivation was less about being the defenders of the globe and more because it was profitable. I imagine the power brokers of the world are still going to want to insure profits so some other mechanism would have to replace that. The world going to shit would be bad for business. 

[TexasAg1969]

14 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

Having bases there is a strategic advantage for us.  Close to our three enemies of China, Russia and Iran.  Cutting and running made us look like cowards after winning every major battle in Afghanistan.  Leaving behind billions in weapons which could just as easily have been destroyed if not returned to the US.

So you blame both Trump and Biden for first, making a withdrawal deal with the Taliban (Trump) and second, for poorly carrying it through (Biden) even though it was a few months later than the original plan of April 2021.

My whole thing all along is that it was a failure going back to the start as well. Americans have no understanding of history and went in a place where other outsiders before us failed with the egotistical notion that we could do it better. What is surprising is that so many involved with that military decision were also the ones burned in Vietnam for the same exact kind of thinking, though at that time they were junior officers.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

You really can't compare Vietnam and Afghanistan.  North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam after we pulled out, with only advisors and the embassy security detachment of Marines.  We only had a minimal amount of troops in Afghanistan most of the twenty or so years compared to Vietnam.  One thing they did have in common was corrupt governments out for the money.  Biden's failure to maintain Bagram Air Base was a huge blunder.  Not evacuating civilians first was a huge blunder.  Not destroying or returning military equipment was a huge blunder.  Biden is a major failure.

[calfoxwc]

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

You really can't compare Vietnam and Afghanistan.  North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam after we pulled out, with only advisors and the embassy security detachment of Marines.  We only had a minimal amount of troops in Afghanistan most of the twenty or so years compared to Vietnam.  One thing they did have in common was corrupt governments out for the money.  Biden's failure to maintain Bagram Air Base was a huge blunder.  Not evacuating civilians first was a huge blunder.  Not destroying or returning military equipment was a huge blunder.  Biden is a major failure.

THANK YOU !