Saigon All Over Again

[joe sod]

very hard for a negotiating team to negotiate terms with the taliban (we do this if you do that) when trump already showed his hand and told /tweeted he was gone by a certain date whatever happened

the taliban were not a sovereign government, it wasn't a sovereign trade deal like you would do with the EU so Biden was not bound by this deal, Trump had no problem ripping up agreements made by his predeccessor and Biden ripped up most of Trumps presidential orders. It is the execution of the withdrawal and the order of events that are key to how this went wrong and these were all decisions made by Biden. The closure of Bagram airbase in July by Biden looks critical now. Biden could very easily have told the Taliban we are keeping this , if you dont like it tough, the Taliban didnt have an airforce anyway so a very low risk option for the US.
we will never know how Trump would have handled this, he couldn't have done any worse than Biden though

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone ISIS are deadly enemies of the Taliban. The last thing they wanted was a peaceful transition to Taliban rule. The Taliban are probably the most upset at this breakdown in their control.
I note the rush of anti American sentiment in this obvious blunder of a senile president. But let us not forget that Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, Germany, France, the UK yes even Ireland etc. etc. owe their security to overwhelming US nuclear power. I read in the Irish Times that this is the beginning of the end of American influence. Thankfully that is oh so wrong, no matter what the leftie community are gloating about.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Massive bomb(s) going off in Kabul, or near Kabul with scores killed including 12 US Marines.
Sky news headline says ISIS claim responsibility. Although, it seems extremely quick to make that claim. Also, when your enemy is on the retreat after 20yrs occupation, why attack them? Why invite them to stay and continue the fight?

Isn't it just confirming what most analysts predicted - that the Taliban are not some organised army but rather a collection of disparate groups who came together when the opportunity arose but who will never be able to unite into one group to govern the country?
Given all that it is no surprise that the so called leadership of the Taliban are unable to control their so called members.
Sky News stating that ISIS are responsible for the bombing just shows how dumbed down news has become in these parts.

 

[Purple]

Isn't it just confirming what most analysts predicted - that the Taliban are not some organised army but rather a collection of disparate groups who came together when the opportunity arose but who will never be able to unite into one group to govern the country?
Given all that it is no surprise that the so called leadership of the Taliban are unable to control their so called members.
Sky News stating that ISIS are responsible for the bombing just shows how dumbed down news has become in these parts.

ISK, a more extreme splinter group of the Taliban, are responsible.

 

[odyssey06]

Isn't it just confirming what most analysts predicted - that the Taliban are not some organised army but rather a collection of disparate groups who came together when the opportunity arose but who will never be able to unite into one group to govern the country?
Given all that it is no surprise that the so called leadership of the Taliban are unable to control their so called members.
Sky News stating that ISIS are responsible for the bombing just shows how dumbed down news has become in these parts.

According to this while founded by ex-Taliban it is now more of franchise of ISIS who are rivals of the Taliban;

The Islamic State Khorasan Province, which is also known by the acronyms ISIS-K, ISKP and ISK, is the official affiliate of the Islamic State movement operating in Afghanistan, as recognised by Islamic State core leadership in Iraq and Syria...
ISIS-K sees the Afghan Taliban as its strategic rivals. It brands the Afghan Taliban as “filthy nationalists” with ambitions only to form a government confined to the boundaries of Afghanistan. This contradicts the Islamic State movement’s goal of establishing a global caliphate.
Since its inception, ISIS-K has tried to recruit Afghan Taliban members while also targeting Taliban positions throughout the country.
ISIS-K’s efforts have met with some success, but the Taliban have managed to stem the group’s challenges by pursuing attacks and operations against ISIS-K personnel and position.

Opinion: What is ISIS-K? Two terrorism experts on the group behind the Kabul attack

ISIS-K, an affiliate of the Islamic State group, claimed responsibility for the Kabul terrorist attack.

www.thejournal.ie

 

[joe sod]

Listened to John Simpson of the BBC on news talk this morning, he said that a small us presence in Afghanistan would have kept the Taliban at bay and maintained the Afghan government and army ,they were not dealing with the Viet cong here. The last 20 years were the best for the Afghan people over its troubled history and many people had returned to the country. Also very surprising that so many people with Irish passports were in the country so they obviously thought it safe enough.
Joe Biden last night said that it is us soldiers that are being continuously called upon to go to these troubled spots risking their lives, a very Trumpian argument. Trump wanted other countries to pull their weight I think Biden is saying the exact same thing although not as bluntly.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Listened to John Simpson of the BBC on news talk this morning, he said that a small us presence in Afghanistan would have kept the Taliban at bay and maintained the Afghan government and army ,they were not dealing with the Viet cong here.

It has similarities with the British and the IRA in 1974. The British would have no difficulty in containing the IRA but it would be at the cost of what turned out to be a "forever war". Garret Fitzgerald in his memoirs recalls a real fear that Wilson (no friend of the unionist "spongers") might pull out at around that time. Would the IRA have done a Taliban in that event and overrun the RUC/UDR? Probably not. Garret was more afraid that it would engulf the South in an all island civil war.
Of course the situations are not identical. Britain had a responsibility to its kith and kin unionists in NI as well as being aware that a civil war in Ireland would not leave the "mainland" unscathed. The US on the other hand were only in Afghanistan to contain the terrorist threat to it and Trump was probably right that that was no longer worth a "forever war".

 

[joe sod]

I wonder will there be a rethink in the democratic party now after this debacle and the image of Biden as an old man unable to impose his authority on the situation. Go back to the 2020 election campaign where most of the candidates were "progressives" or leftists , Biden entered the race very late when he saw that he was the only mainstream electable candidate even though he would be 78 years of age. Biden won the candidateture because he was the only electable candidate they had. Surely they now need to pull the whole party away from radicalism and back to American core values?

 

[Purple]

I wonder will there be a rethink in the democratic party now after this debacle and the image of Biden as an old man unable to impose his authority on the situation. Go back to the 2020 election campaign where most of the candidates were "progressives" or leftists , Biden entered the race very late when he saw that he was the only mainstream electable candidate even though he would be 78 years of age. Biden won the candidateture because he was the only electable candidate they had. Surely they now need to pull the whole party away from radicalism and back to American core values?

That would be great if they could agree on what those core values are but I think they are as far away from that as they have been in generations, possibly since the 1930's an certainly since the 1970's.

 

[WolfeTone]

Surely they now need to pull the whole party away from radicalism and back to American core values?

What are they? Is the withdrawal from Afghanistan a radical leftist policy?

 

[WolfeTone]

I read in the Irish Times that this is the beginning of the end of American influence.

It won't end their influence but it will certainly diminish it.
If Afghanistan is to descend into civil war, where will the US standing be now that they are retreating.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It won't end their influence but it will certainly diminish it.

I don't like to rain on your parade but explain in what way its influence will be diminished?

If Afghanistan is to descendreturn into civil war, where will the US standing be now that they are retreating.

I have corrected this comment, but can you answer your question as I am unsure where it is going.

 

[WolfeTone]

I don't like to rain on your parade but explain in what way its influence will be diminished?

Well for starters, with ISIS being a sworn enemy of Taliban. And the Taliban is the sworn enemy of the US, what influence do you think the US will have over affairs, political, economic and military, in Afghanistan?

Personally I reckon the US will be doing business with the Taliban in double quick time. US influence over the treatment of women in Afghanistan will become a sideshow of token gestures.

Outside of Afghanistan, what does the US retreat signal to China, Russia and Iran? Surely it only gives them an opportunity to extend their influence in the region?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well for starters, with ISIS being a sworn enemy of Taliban. And the Taliban is the sworn enemy of the US, what influence do you think the US will have over affairs, political, economic and military, in Afghanistan?

The US invaded Afghanistan as it harboured the 9/11 terrorists and therefore to punish them and prevent future similar attacks. The punishment was achieved. Prevention has also been largely achieved though it remains to be seen whether this has been compromised going forward. The invasion was never to do with women's rights etc. The US does not use military invasion to impose its culture. That is oh so 19th century.

Personally I reckon the US will be doing business with the Taliban in double quick time. US influence over the treatment of women in Afghanistan will become a sideshow of token gestures.

I'm sure you're right, they've been friends before.

Outside of Afghanistan, what does the US retreat signal to China, Russia and Iran? Surely it only gives them an opportunity to extend their influence in the region?

To take just one example. China claims Taiwan and would love to grab it. Only US threats prevent that happening. China will not be one iota less fearful of those threats because of this humiliation.

As I say, sorry to rain on your parade.

 

[WolfeTone]

The invasion was never to do with women's rights etc. The US does not use military invasion to impose its culture.

I know. But the plight of Afghani women was used as means to sustain support for the occupation for 20yrs.

China claims Taiwan and would love to grab it. Only US threats prevent that happening. China will not be one iota less fearful of those threats because of this humiliation.

That is one reason for sure. I'm not suggesting the US will have no influence, I'm suggesting that retreating out of Afghanistan with the Taliban and also ISIS operating business as usual after 20yrs, it sends a message to the rest of the world of how ineffective the US military occupation was.
It may have achieved the goal of preventing further attacks, but as far as I can recall the 9/11 attacks were the first and last on US soil by Al Qaeda?

As I say, sorry to rain on your parade.

I don't really get what parade you think I am on?

Other posters for instance, don't share your confidence of US protection for Taiwan.

problem is china forced expansion in south china sea with a possible invasion of Taiwan now more likely than ever before

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I know. But the plight of Afghani women was used as means to sustain support for the occupation for 20yrs.

I suppose

That is one reason for sure. I'm not suggesting the US will have no influence, I'm suggesting that retreating out of Afghanistan with the Taliban and also ISIS operating business as usual after 20yrs, it sends a message to the rest of the world of how ineffective the US military occupation was.
It may have achieved the goal of preventing further attacks, but as far as I can recall the 9/11 attacks were the first and last on US soil by Al Qaeda?

You agree with me? The world can certainly see that the occupation didn't work in terms of freeing that country from Taliban barbarism, except for 20 years. But I wonder will the Taliban be so keen in future to harbour anti US terrorism which resulted in the crushing of their predecessors.

I don't really get what parade you think I am on?

Oh it's just that your musings resemble those of TheBigShort before you. I guess she is drooling at this US humiliation. I am cautioning against TheBigShort constituency reading too much into it.

Other posters for instance, don't share your confidence of US protection for Taiwan.

I disagree with @johnwilliams. Do you think he knows?

 

[WolfeTone]

I guess she is drooling at this US humiliation.

If by that you mean I am anti-American you could not further off the mark.
I am anti-US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole affair was a total imperialist endeavour which I would consider has done more to reduce US standing and influence in the world than anything else.
Whatever the official line of the 9/11 attacks, no reasonable person could possibly ascertain that we have the full story or the whole truth.
And before anyone labels me as some conspiracy theorist, think about Iraq:
- no connection to Al Qaeda
- no WMD
- Powell & Rice testifying to Congress only a few months before 9/11 that Sadam has no WMD military capability to attack neighbours, only to change that line in aftermath of 9/11.

And thats just to begin with. It's 20yrs since 9/11. An event that changed the world. There will be some official commemoration of those events in US no doubt, but I get a sense that officialdom would rather just play the whole thing down nowadays.

 

[WolfeTone]

But I wonder will the Taliban be so keen in future to harbour anti US terrorism which resulted in the crushing of their predecessors.

That is the question. Now that the US has retreated, why would the Taliban be fearful of US at all?
My guess is that the US and Taliban will assume business relations, as was the case before 9/11.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

If by that you mean I am anti-American you could not further off the mark.

Some of your best friends?

The whole affair was a total imperialist endeavour

Ah! the favourite TheBigShortian slur. Except there was no expectation here of slaves from Britannia, gold from the New World or spices from India. This was to cost the American taxpayer dear but both wars were popular in the US. Not because of the potential for imperialist plunder or even to prevent future terrorism and nobody believed in WMD except Tony Blair. It was to satisfy one primeval human craving - Revenge - for 9/11. Even though senile Jo is a good Irish Catholic his reaction to the Kabul bombing was certainly not to turn the other cheek - and who can blame him? (except maybe TheBigShortians).
But, I hear you scream, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11", even some dark hints that 9/11 might have been an imperialist trick, rather like those fake moon landings.
Here's how Saddam Hussein reacted to 9/11:

The American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity.

Heck, maybe Saddam was TheBigShort.
This was unique amongst muslim leaders, even Iran was fulsome in its condemnation.
Imagine if Bertie Aherne had issued a similar statement. Maybe Ireland would not have been invaded but we would certainly have been made to pay dearly.
Saddam and Afghanistan were relatively easy targets for revenge even though neither were responsible; Saudi Arabia has more 9/11 blood on its hands. One wonders if the attack had originated from Chechnya in Russia or the Uighur province in China, would the Americans have invaded. And of course they had their reasons not to invade Saudi Arabia.

 

[WolfeTone]

It's hard to know where to start with that Duke, is it worth bothering?

Revenge was certainly the order of the day and who can blame the American people for wanting to extract revenge? It is after all, human nature. A concept you seem to accept, selectively.

Of course the purpose of government, good government should be to extract revenge on the people responsible. The US charged in hot-headedly.
The invasions of Iraq was far less popular than the urge to extract revenge. Protests of 300/400,000 in cities like New York and SF demonstrated that unpopularity.

And across the globe, the alliances not so hot. From the 1m people plus marching in London to the French refusal to join the baying mob. The invasion of Iraq, outside the US, was one of the most unpopular wars in living memory.

Here's how Saddam Hussein reacted to 9/11:

And?

Imagine if Bertie Aherne had issued a similar statement. Maybe Ireland would not have been invaded but we would certainly have been made to pay dearly.

Oh really, we get special treatment? How nice of them not to bombard our schools and hospitals on foot of the prospect of our Taoiseach making an outrageous, scandalous comment.

Saddam and Afghanistan were relatively easy targets for revenge even though neither were responsible; Saudi Arabia has more 9/11 blood on its hands.

Its quite nauseating really to read the casual nature of your justification for the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundred of thousands of innocent civilians as a consequence of a fabricated war. The displacement of millions from their homes, and all for what?
Because they were easy targets!
It is true, the US Military Industrial Complex has never targeted any nation other than easy targets.