« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: When the allies leave and local people start being killed, what then?

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 24 Aug 21 5:39 AM | 13 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 43200 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 43199 by clo2)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Well, I agree that the Taliban wouldn't have liked it and would have been a nuisance for a while. But they are not capable of being more than that. And as things were beforehand, the Afghan army would have still been in operation and bearing the brunt, as it had done for years. The foreign presence gave it whatever spine it had.

So the situation would have returned to what we had until a few months ago pretty soon.

The Biden administration is making other options sound as bad as possible to justify its own decision. They've exaggerated the cost by using 20 year figures [$2tn!!!] because annual ones are small. They accumulate 20 years of casualties [more than 2,000 dead!!!!] because annual ones are very low. For myself, I didn't see Afghanistan as anything to panic about. I liked the fact that we - the western allies - were continuing to battle Islamic terrorism. The policy worked so well Americans forgot it existed and thought domestic terrorism was a much worse problem. It helped our relations with Russia and China for the western allies to show they would cooperate with one another and seem resilient.

And by the way, it wasn't only America that was there. You had allies there too. The UK was prepared to pay a share of the price. Canada was. France was. We lost some people, invested in Afghanistan like you did. And I would have been content to continue with that as a better option than stepping aside to let the Taliban back in. To put up with one sort of inconvenience to avoid a different, worse one.

It wasn't primarily about nation-building. It was about protecting ourselves from whatever festers over there. That's the cost of the decision to leave. And the execution of it emboldens the countries that wish us ill.

You can certainly say, I judge it is better to leave. But there's a price to it. The responsibility for the costs accrue to the folks who thought abandoning Afghanistan was a great idea. But everyone bears them. So if China attacks Taiwan or Russia takes over Ukraine or some nutty Moslem blows up buildings in NY, that's the corollary. Personally, I think those outcomes are much worse than staying and we have risked them by leaving.

We've shown again that as time passes, western democracies give up. Not a great precedent.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: When the allies leave and local people start being killed, what then?
By: clo2
in ALEA
Tue, 24 Aug 21 12:57 AM
Msg. 43199 of 54959

" But my judgement is that staying in the small numbers we had committed was better than leaving."

That wouldn't have been the option.

If we stayed, we'd need to send in thousands more troops.

I feel for the women & children & for the Afghans' that wanted a better life, not based on radical religion.
I hope they will fight for it.

But I live in a country that can't even get millions of adults to take a goddamn vaccine to protect themselves.

Forget nation building...


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next