Octopus Overlords

I don't think you can put all the blame on Biden here. Yes he has screwed up but I think this end (in hindsight) was inevitable.

The last thing we needed to do was give ammo to the Republicans. He should have just kicked the can down the road like a good boy. Or at least had a hell of a better plan than what was executed.

dbt1949 wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:20 pm I don't think you can put all the blame on Biden here. Yes he has screwed up but I think this end (in hindsight) was inevitable.

The road to today is paved with 20 years of foreign policy miscues, unrealistic expectations, a government kleptocracy, extremely poverty feeding more corruption, illiteracy, the lack of a strong single country identity vs regional tribalism, a secure safe haven in Pakistan, not paying your troops, the lucrative drug trade and feel free to add anything I’ve missed.

Of course, there will be the usual talking heads who will hang the whole thing on Biden.

Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

Biden was well aware of what he was getting.
He failed miserably in executing a plan to deal with it.
As he is so fond of saying, the buck stops with him.
He owns this mess.

dbt1949 wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:20 pm I don't think you can put all the blame on Biden here. Yes he has screwed up but I think this end (in hindsight) was inevitable.

In a way but I reject that too. I listened to former Trump NSA McMaster on BBC World. He obviously has some Trump taint but he has been a fierce critic of the Trump/Pompeo withdrawal agreement. He raised some points that really point a finger at Biden wanting to get out of dodge no matter what the consequences. He pointed out that the military gave up air bases all around Afghanistan. That funneled the exit of a large, hard to traverse, and dangerous country into just Kabul. That the Taliban took over so quickly exposed that as a huge mistake alone. We also essentially evacuated the military before civilians which reduced security and increased the risk of the chaos. Though much of that error belongs to Trump. And they planned for a single exit that was an undersized airport in the heart of a dense urban area. When you look at it that way - it circles back to just incompetence born of multiple masters but inevitable? It is unknowable but there is a lot to chew on there.

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:37 pm Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

Biden was well aware of what he was getting.
He failed miserably in executing a plan to deal with it.
As he is so fond of saying, the buck stops with him.
He owns this mess.

That’s reasonable. I may point out some nuances and spread the blame a bit but in the end he’s the guy in office. I think he’d have done a better job than the other guy but that’s irrelevant since the other guy isn’t in office.

As I said earlier, a shitload of things got us here. And an exit was always going to be messy since that’s a golden opportunity for hostile groups to attack. But he could have done better. Not asking for perfect but I think on this board most of us expected better.

Having said that, I still think the Republican Party can’t even be trusted to hold the office of dog catcher.

Octavious wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:29 pm The last thing we needed to do was give ammo to the Republicans. He should have just kicked the can down the road like a good boy. Or at least had a hell of a better plan than what was executed.

There are risks with that too, though. After the Trump / Pompeo agreement was signed the Taliban consolidated their control of a lot of areas in Afghanistan and started making deals with Afghan government military and officials to buy them off. If Biden had reneged on the agreement then the Taliban would've been in a very strong position to launch a major offensive (similar to what they did). Which then may have necessitated a U.S. "surge" or escalation if we weren't going to retreat at that point. Which likely means years of additional warfare and U.S. casualties.

$iljanus wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:49 pmI still think the Republican Party can’t even be trusted to hold the office of dog catcher.

Definitely not. That is what I tell folks. I'll probably never vote for another Republican ever. Not even for dogcatcher.

Personally in all this I just expected more competence than we are seeing. I care about it because I think loss of confidence by the public increases the risks our democracy faces.

malchior wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:08 pm Definitely not. That is what I tell folks. I'll probably never vote for another Republicna ever. Not even for dogcatcher. I just expected more competence than we are seeing. I care about it because I think loss of confidence by the public increases the risks our democracy faces.

Another thing I read was that Pentagon leadership pushed hard against withdrawal and expected Biden to back down, but that Biden didn't. And that that led to a delay in withdrawal planning.

Civilians knew we were going to withdraw, too.

Listening to NPR discussions of how things could go wrong on the drive home just highlighted how the situation in Afghanistan was always going to be uncontrollable.

Zarathud wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:10 pm Civilians knew we were going to withdraw, too.

Listening to NPR discussions of how things could go wrong on the drive home just highlighted how the situation in Afghanistan was always going to be uncontrollable.

I don't know if anyone expected control. More they expected that we weren't irresponsible.

Word is now that at least 4 Marines (per WSJ) were killed at the airport. The exit is going to be closed.

https://twitter.com/PentagonPresSec/sta ... 7541979141

Well with this and what will the winter of covid hell you can kiss the slim chances at the midterms good bye. Only took like 8 months for me to feel totally doomed again.

[quote="malchior"I don't know if anyone expected control. More they expected that we weren't irresponsible.[/quote]
What specifically was irresponsible?

Withdrawing at the end of a war has risks. It’s going to look bad at times, and people may die. More would die if we stay another 20 years.

It was unrealistic to expect we’d save all of our Afghan allies. It is even counterproductive to bring them all out — as they’re the seeds of internal resistance to Islamic extremism.

Octavious wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:23 pm Well with this and what will the winter of covid hell you can kiss the slim chances at the midterms good bye. Only took like 8 months for me to feel totally doomed again.

I don't know if this will impact the midterms directly. I think it's more likely ikn the short-term that it might impact Biden's ability to push his agenda through...which might impact the midterms. Covid hell is another weird one. It isn't clear that we won't put a lot of blame squarely on red state governors. I certainly haven't heard any serious criticism of the Biden administration for current outbreaks directly. Most of it has been laughable bluster along the lines of ,"Biden promised to end COVID" (No he didn't).

Zarathud wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:27 pmWhat specifically was irresponsible?

I'm not going to go point by point again. It is in the thread in detail. I'd just point out that this is essentially the current conclusion of dozens of experts, many of our allies, and the widespread base of the pundit class. Anyone serious points out the utter lack of planning and gives them credit for recovering. In time some of these issues will be looked at in detail but I took a moment to look back and McMaster pointed several of these issues out in April (from the outside). The military apparently warned Biden this was a huge risk. These risks were at some level foreseeable but he barreled on and took a risk. That risk has turned against him. That's the job.

Withdrawing at the end of a war has risks. It’s going to look bad at times, and people may die. More would die if we stay another 20 years.

This is unknowable but people will debate the wisdom of withdrawal for decades. I'm not going to get into it but there were good, valid arguments either way. Biden chose his course and he is getting panned on THE EXECUTION of that decision from a lot of directions.

It was unrealistic to expect we’d save all of our Afghan allies. It is even counterproductive to bring them all out — as they’re the seeds of internal resistance to Islamic extremism.

Sure and this is true to an extent but that isn't the argument. Irresponsibility is breaking a nation, carrying out a listless, goalless war, and then cutting and running in what is turning into a domestic and international debacle.

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:37 pm Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

This part of it is true, but it's also why the last few Presidents have avoided addressing the problem at all. The way the dealt with the problems they inherited has been to not deal with the problems. Whoever got the short straw and dealt with it was going to have a disaster. Biden could have (and should have) made it less of a disaster, but it didn't matter who was in the Big Chair when this went down, it was going to go badly.

The thing is, there is a list of these 'inherited problems' with ticking timers next to them that are all going to be disasters for whoever ends up dealing with them. It's like a game of hot potato - toss the problem back and forth until the timer dings, and if you're the one holding it, you lose.

malchior wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:40 pm

dbt1949 wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:20 pm I don't think you can put all the blame on Biden here. Yes he has screwed up but I think this end (in hindsight) was inevitable.

In a way but I reject that too. I listened to former Trump NSA McMaster on BBC World. He obviously has some Trump taint but he has been a fierce critic of the Trump/Pompeo withdrawal agreement. He raised some points that really point a finger at Biden wanting to get out of dodge no matter what the consequences. He pointed out that the military gave up air bases all around Afghanistan.

Yes, but as Sun Tzu famously put it…

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:39 pmThis part of it is true, but it's also why the last few Presidents have avoided addressing the problem at all. The way the dealt with the problems they inherited has been to not deal with the problems. Whoever got the short straw and dealt with it was going to have a disaster. Biden could have (and should have) made it less of a disaster, but it didn't matter who was in the Big Chair when this went down, it was going to go badly.

The thing is, there is a list of these 'inherited problems' with ticking timers next to them that are all going to be disasters for whoever ends up dealing with them. It's like a game of hot potato - toss the problem back and forth until the timer dings, and if you're the one holding it, you lose.

I think this is accurate to an extent. There is a strategy to deal with it. It won't universally work and it has shortfalls but it comes down to setting the right expectations. You have to talk about the risks in a realistic way. If that doesn't work out you adjust. Biden did the opposite of that. He talked about an idealized outcome and didn't adjust the messaging. That is why I believe Biden is taking on a lot of water. Though yes he would have taken lumps no matter what. There was no perfect outcome. Still that doesn't mean he didn't do a bad job here (lots of subjectivity in that obviously).

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:39 pm

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:37 pm Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

This part of it is true, but it's also why the last few Presidents have avoided addressing the problem at all. The way the dealt with the problems they inherited has been to not deal with the problems. Whoever got the short straw and dealt with it was going to have a disaster. Biden could have (and should have) made it less of a disaster, but it didn't matter who was in the Big Chair when this went down, it was going to go badly.

I dunno if that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Navy SEAL "Jocko" Willink provides an interesting alternative perspective on the message he would have conveyed if he were POTUS during the Afghanistan crisis:

And now with the reporting of US fatalities I think the mission has now shifted to force protection and military withdrawal. I don’t see how anyone else gets into the airport after this point but I could be wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... e-updates/

$iljanus wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:00 pm And now with the reporting of US fatalities I think the mission has now shifted to force protection and military withdrawal. I don’t see how anyone else gets into the airport after this point but I could be wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... e-updates/

That was my hot take. I heard several experts saying that we can't trust the Taliban to keep order. Either we do it or we leave because we can't protect the gates and we are inviting more suicide bombers. There are multiple wrinkles on top. The Germans are done. The Netherlands and UN are essentially done or unable to evacuate. The UK and (maybe) Canada are still trying to keep going. That effort will be undercut if we pull up stakes. The Turks are also about to pull up stakes and they've been running the airport. The smart money is betting right now that the evac operation ends early but it's obviously very fluid. I heard one live report that some Americans might have been advised to travel overland. Where? Who the heck knows.

The unofficial count is 10 Marines killed according to Fox.

https://twitter.com/FOX29philly/status/ ... 3482361861

If those numbers are right, it sounds like it targeted the US rather than us just happening to be where it happened. Was it just to make Biden look worse and embarrass the US? Did someone think that it would push us out faster? Or did someone think that making it look like the US was under attack would pull us back in (this seems unlikely, admittedly.)

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:25 pm If those numbers are right, it sounds like it targeted the US rather than us just happening to be where it happened. Was it just to make Biden look worse and embarrass the US?

According to experts I just heard, yes. [Edit: Specifically Douglas London and General McCaffery]. There was an opportunity. We don't have rings of security like we'd have at something like Bagram. It is just a tide of humanity at the gates. The jihadists likely saw the opportunity and took it.

Did someone think that it would push us out faster?

McMaster said this earlier arguing that the Taliban or Haqqani are involved. Other experts thought that was a stretch. They thought it makes the Taliban look bad and undermines their level of control.

Or did someone think that making it look like the US was under attack would pull us back in (this seems unlikely, admittedly.)

Right - this sounds like the least likely scenario. They don't want us there. If it was ISIS-K, they are competing for resources with groups like the Taliban or Al'Queda. This could have been fundraising.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:00 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:39 pm

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:37 pm Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

This part of it is true, but it's also why the last few Presidents have avoided addressing the problem at all. The way the dealt with the problems they inherited has been to not deal with the problems. Whoever got the short straw and dealt with it was going to have a disaster. Biden could have (and should have) made it less of a disaster, but it didn't matter who was in the Big Chair when this went down, it was going to go badly.

I dunno if that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Navy SEAL "Jocko" Willink provides an interesting alternative perspective on the message he would have conveyed if he were POTUS during the Afghanistan crisis:

I mean, that's functionally a declaration of war with the Taliban in the midst of nominally leaving. Just seizing all the airports in Afghanistan means sending in a lot more troops because you need (as stated in the declaration) to be able to fight any Taliban resistance (and you can bet that there would be).

On top of that, saying that any rebels fighting the Taliban will be militarily assisted and that the military will prevent any "human rights abuses" is either meaningless or a functional commitment to overthrowing the Taliban. Which means war, which means that we wouldn't be leaving.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:32 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:00 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:39 pm

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:37 pm Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

This part of it is true, but it's also why the last few Presidents have avoided addressing the problem at all. The way the dealt with the problems they inherited has been to not deal with the problems. Whoever got the short straw and dealt with it was going to have a disaster. Biden could have (and should have) made it less of a disaster, but it didn't matter who was in the Big Chair when this went down, it was going to go badly.

I dunno if that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Navy SEAL "Jocko" Willink provides an interesting alternative perspective on the message he would have conveyed if he were POTUS during the Afghanistan crisis:

I mean, that's functionally a declaration of war with the Taliban in the midst of nominally leaving. Just seizing all the airports in Afghanistan means sending in a lot more troops because you need (as stated in the declaration) to be able to fight any Taliban resistance (and you can bet that there would be).

On top of that, saying that any rebels fighting the Taliban will be militarily assisted and that the military will prevent any "human rights abuses" is either meaningless or a functional commitment to overthrowing the Taliban. Which means war, which means that we wouldn't be leaving.

I suspect he, of all people, is fully cognizant of the potential ramifications therein.

One of my co-workers in the Air Force reserves is currently over there helping get people out. Last I heard he was OK but it's a scary situation.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:55 pm One of my co-workers in the Air Force reserves is currently over there helping get people out. Last I heard he was OK but it's a scary situation.

Really puts the "Reserves" thing in perspective, right? I have had several employees and co-workers in the reserves and I sometimes heard people griping about them taking time off for reserve duties. If I was in a position to I'd nip that shit right in the bud. It is a serious commitment.

malchior wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:28 pm [quote=Blackhawk post_id=2844126 time=1630002303

Or did someone think that making it look like the US was under attack would pull us back in (this seems unlikely, admittedly.)

Right - this sounds like the least likely scenario. They don't want us there. If it was ISIS-K, they are competing for resources with groups like the Taliban or Al'Queda. This could have been fundraising.

I still don't think it was a likely scenario, but that isn't the someone I was talking about. Lots of Afghanis benefitted from having us there and for them, the last 20 years have probably been the best they've ever had. Now they're about to lose that and return to a nightmare.

There are reports that Biden and co. have gone full turtle mode. They've cancelled multiple meetings and briefings. It will be interesting if they emerge and call for an end to evacuations. The wailing and gnashing of teeth about bowing to terrorists will be fierce. The unfortunate reality is that the airport is just too risky for everyone involved now.

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:59 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:28 pm [quote=Blackhawk post_id=2844126 time=1630002303

Or did someone think that making it look like the US was under attack would pull us back in (this seems unlikely, admittedly.)

Right - this sounds like the least likely scenario. They don't want us there. If it was ISIS-K, they are competing for resources with groups like the Taliban or Al'Queda. This could have been fundraising.

I still don't think it was a likely scenario, but that isn't the someone I was talking about. Lots of Afghanis benefitted from having us there and for them, the last 20 years have probably been the best they've ever had. Now they're about to lose that and return to a nightmare.

Oh. I'd think almost no chance of that. The ability to pull off a complex attack like this is in the realm of trained jihadists.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:45 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:32 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 2:00 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:39 pm

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:37 pm Nobody is handed a perfect situation.
Each and every President has to find ways to deal with the problems they inherit.
Each and every candidate tout their grand ideas on how to fix the problems they inherit.

This part of it is true, but it's also why the last few Presidents have avoided addressing the problem at all. The way the dealt with the problems they inherited has been to not deal with the problems. Whoever got the short straw and dealt with it was going to have a disaster. Biden could have (and should have) made it less of a disaster, but it didn't matter who was in the Big Chair when this went down, it was going to go badly.

I dunno if that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Navy SEAL "Jocko" Willink provides an interesting alternative perspective on the message he would have conveyed if he were POTUS during the Afghanistan crisis:

I mean, that's functionally a declaration of war with the Taliban in the midst of nominally leaving. Just seizing all the airports in Afghanistan means sending in a lot more troops because you need (as stated in the declaration) to be able to fight any Taliban resistance (and you can bet that there would be).

On top of that, saying that any rebels fighting the Taliban will be militarily assisted and that the military will prevent any "human rights abuses" is either meaningless or a functional commitment to overthrowing the Taliban. Which means war, which means that we wouldn't be leaving.

I suspect he, of all people, is fully cognizant of the potential ramifications therein.

Oh I don't doubt that. He would understand better than I ever could what the resulting combat would look like. And I don't doubt his willingness to carry out most of the combat.

At the same time, functionally that's more of a declaration of war than a withdrawal plan, which isn't much of a plan for a President who wants to leave Afghanistan. And it's not something that's politically supportable or sustainable.

Pentagon briefing occurring. The bombings were followed with ISIS-K members firing into the crowd and on troops. The General briefing (edit: McKenzie) reported out TWELVE confirmed KIA and FIFTEEN WIA at the moment. It's really bad.

Zarathud wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:27 pm It was unrealistic to expect we’d save all of our Afghan allies.

Then Biden should have been more measured and cautious in his remarks.
Not that long ago he made it seem like this was going to be a very low risk evacuation and insisted no one would be left behind.
Anyone who wanted out would get out.
He seemed very nonchalant up until the point that things went to shit and then he became defensive and started finger pointing.

This was surprising statement from the briefing. It was both flippant and seemed to be taking on excess risk. Let's see.

https://mobile.twitter.com/brikeilarcnn ... 6868890624

stimpy wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:06 pm

Zarathud wrote: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:27 pm It was unrealistic to expect we’d save all of our Afghan allies.

Then Biden should have been more measured and cautious in his remarks.
Not that long ago he made it seem like this was going to be a very low risk evacuation and insisted no one would be left behind.
Anyone who wanted out would get out.
He seemed very nonchalant up until the point that things went to shit and then he became defensive and started finger pointing.

In all fairness he did say this in his Aug 20th remarks even though I thought he was over promising a bit considering the security situation.

But make no mistake: This evacuation mission is dangerous. It involves risks to our armed forces, and it is being conducted under difficult circumstances.

I cannot promise what the final outcome will be or what it will be — that it will be without risk of loss. But as Commander-in-Chief, I can assure you that I will mobilize every resource necessary.

One of my coworkers is a very solid Democrat. Not a progressive, but a socially liberal fiscally conservative college educated professional - a Biden man from the start, who has been very pleased with everything he’s done up until now.

He just told me “If Biden abandons Americans in Afghanistan…That would be fucked up, even for me. I don’t know if I could forgive him for that.”

This situation is tremendously fraught for Biden. I hope he’s up to the task.

Thinking about continuing operations I wonder if they'll back off only to full Americans. Figuring the risk of an American becoming a suicide bomber is very low risk.