The laughably unjustified hubris of the foreign policy/military blob

[Boats]

THE LAUGHABLY UNJUSTIFIED HUBRIS OF THE FOREIGN POLICY/MILITARY BLOB
By: Scott Lemieux - Lawyers-Guns-Money Blog - 08-15-21
Re: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...-military-blob

Titled: The laughably unjustified hubris of the foreign policy/military blob

The foreign policy and military establishment will do everything they can to blame Biden, but the bottom line remains that Afghanistan is a massive failure on their part, and Biden is being asked to believe the same lies he was told as vice president (which, unfortunately, the president believed, although to his credit he didn’t). And as with DEFICITS, this is one of those issues on which reporters are allowed to openly editorialize about, so long as they defend the blob:

Note: On this site only are six personal comments posted regarding the issues of Afghanistan: Go to the link below and read them.
Re: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...-military-blob

First of all note the rank demagoguery about invoking THE TROOPS, as if anyone is blaming them as opposed to the people responsible for making the decision to continue a war although it wasn’t accomplishing anything. But what’s especially amazing is the invocation of Saigon as an argument for continuing a war we all know that the brass has long since concluded in private was unwinnable. One more Friedman Unit and South Vietnam totally could have stood on its own!

Biden has his faults but one thing he’s good at is recognizing when bullshit artists are insulting his intelligence, which makes him well-positioned to deal with this.

And while I’m sure leaving could have been done better despite the lack of support for the policy — you can always say that — let’s remember who will always bear primary responsibility:

"Twenty years ago, when the twin towers and the Pentagon were still smoldering, there was a sense among America’s warrior and diplomatic class that history was starting anew for the people of Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world.

“Every nation has a choice to make,” President George W. Bush said on the day that bombs began falling on Oct. 7, 2001. In private, senior U.S. diplomats were even more explicit. “For you and us, history starts today,” then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage told his Pakistani counterparts.

Earlier this month, as the Taliban raced across Afghanistan, retired Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey, a two-time veteran of the war, stumbled across Armitage’s words. To Dempsey, the sentiment was “the most American thing I’ve ever heard” and emblematic of the hubris and ignorance that he and so many others brought to the losing war."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal Notes & Comments:

After 9/11 we wanted revenge and in beginning and then came about we thought this too; to be a good cause for revenge.
But 20 years later - we just had to bailout - But the bad guys are still in place. That doesn't smell right - nor does it feel right
- in many political heads in the US.
-
The Generals and the (former & current) President's have to carry this baggage the rest of their lives. Though they will blame -
everyone else but themselves - if questioned. The military will ponder the issues of the last 20 years - and will no doubt blame
Washington's actions - and not for taking their advice - once their boots were on the ground.
(And you can't blame them for that comment).
-
It's a maze of unfortunate decision making by those who have the power. Setting limits on what the field commanders were
allowed to do - will no doubt be written in the final chapters of the Afghanistan war-books.
-
The cost of American lives for a country that would not fight to win - is something we have to consider in the very near future.
And explaining this to the Families who lost their loved ones - or suffer permanent disabilities - during operations - they too
will not ever be forgotten - for their sacrifice of their husbands & kids.
-
The wounded will feel more compromised by their countries decision maker's - and the limitations issued to their Field Commanders.
-
Any future engagements will require explicate clarifications of the purpose for such movements - and with unlimited instructions
of how to control the issues at hand by our Field Commanders only! - Not the White House and not Congress.
-
If you send them in to do a job - they will do it - but not without complete control of the duties before them. We are military -
not a police operation - we are a waring machine - we enter in and eliminate the bad guys - at all cost.
-
You want a police action put badges on the their local citizens give them guns and see how long it takes for them to realize that
their country depends on them. If they care about their Country & their Families and Friends - they should fight to the death for them.
I'm sick and tired of seeing us sacrifice our men and women for other countries - that won't fight alongside of us - to the death - if need be.
-
It's their Country not ours - we are there to teach them - how to battle against the bad guys - not necessarily due battle for them
without their support. No local support - we should bale out and leave them - to their own devices. We are not the worlds police force.
-
Also what is the purpose of NATO? Did they send any of their troops and how long did they stay? I didn't hear much of anything about that.
-
As for the other NATO Embassies' over there did they send any of their troops? The Taliban are religious thug's who have no heart or souls.
Their Religious Zealous Leader's orders all non-believer's be eliminated. Their abuse in ungodly and unjust in most cases.
They also abuse their women for non-compliance to their eccentric religious rules.
-
How quickly we forget the event of 9/11 - a chance to stick it to them - 20 years of battling religious zealous personal - and we come back
home with unfinished business. Where in the hell was NATO during these 20 years? What are the statistics of NATO injured and KIA's.
Who in NATO was with us in the field for those 20 years? What support did they provide to lesson the ongoing issues. List the statistics
of all the NATO injured or KIA over there? I bet they are just thrilled to know we lost Afghanistan. If the big war comes will NATO
contribute or pander it off as none of their business or it doesn't concern them and claim neutrality? I wonder!
-
Boats

[Boats]

U.S. envoy's years of peace negotiations go up in flames in Afghanistan. What went wrong?
By: Dan De Luce - NBC News Investigative Unit - 08-13-21
Re: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u...peace-n1276811

Photo link: https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/i...SE_mn-1720.jpg
An Afghan security force member exchanges fire with Taliban militants in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, on July 23, 2021.Sanaullah Seiam / Xinhua via Zuma Press

This post is two days old - but you may find it interesting?

A year and a half since U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad brokered a “peace agreement” between the United States and Taliban leaders, there is no peace in Afghanistan.

Instead of negotiating a power-sharing deal with the Afghan government, the Taliban have unleashed a military onslaught to take power by force, seizing on the withdrawal of U.S. troops as their moment of opportunity.

As Afghanistan plunged into chaos in recent days, with civilians flooding into Kabul, the capital, to escape the advancing Taliban, Khalilzad made a last-ditch bid to try to stop the bloodletting.

But as he conferred with diplomats from Russia, China and other world powers in Doha, Qatar, this week, the Taliban seized more territory and overran the cities of Herat in the west and Kandahar in the south. In Washington, the Pentagon announced plans to deploy 3,000 troops to Kabul airport to oversee the evacuation of dozens of staff from the U.S. Embassy.

Although Khalilzad has said repeatedly there is no military solution to the conflict, the Taliban have concluded otherwise.

“For Taliban military commanders in the field, they sense victory and they’re going for it,” said Andrew Wilder, vice president of Asia programs at the U.S. Institute for Peace, a think tank.

The Taliban see no need to compromise or negotiate until “they have either achieved decisive dominance on the battlefield or determined somehow that they've gone as far as they can go, ” said Laurel Miller, a former diplomat and now director of the Asia program at the International Crisis Group think tank.

Khalilzad maintains the United States still has leverage over the Taliban because the insurgency wants international recognition, and Washington and other major powers will insist that any future government upholds democratic rule and fundamental rights.

“The Taliban wants to be recognized. They say they do not want to be a pariah state,” Khalilzad said last week at the Aspen Security Forum. He added: “They have their own reasons to seek normalcy with the rest of the world. Are they going to do what it takes? That's where the leverage comes in.”

At the talks in Doha, officials issued a statement urging an end to attacks on cities and “reiterated that they will not recognize any government in Afghanistan that is imposed through the use of military force.”

But as the Taliban’s military campaign builds momentum, some foreign governments may choose to accept the new reality on the ground and reach their own separate accommodation with the group, experts and former U.S. officials said.

Taliban delegations recently paid visits to Russia, China and Iran, where they were given respectful receptions from senior officials.

After holding talks with the Taliban on July 28, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the insurgents are “a pivotal military and political force” and secured a promise that the group would not allow Afghan territory to be used as a base for attacks on China, the foreign affairs ministry said in a statement.

Until recently, the Afghan-born Khalilzad has struck a relentlessly optimistic tone as envoy, though he was often vague about details, including how the Taliban would be held to account.

"It's clear all sides want to end the war. Despite ups and downs, we kept things on track and made real strides," Khalilzad tweeted after one negotiating session in March 2019.

At a congressional hearing in May, when lawmakers expressed alarm at the Taliban’s military push, Khalilzad said forecasts that the insurgency would quickly defeat Afghan security forces and take Kabul were too pessimistic.

“I personally believe that the statements that their forces will disintegrate and the Talibs will take over in short order are mistaken,” Khalilzad told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

After a round of discussions with the Taliban and the Afghan government earlier this month, Khalilzad tweeted: “There is more that unites than divides the parties.”

But now, with even Kabul under threat, some people inside Afghanistan have turned their ire on Khalilzad and his diplomatic efforts.

At a makeshift camp in Kabul for families fleeing the Taliban this week, people expressed fury at Khalilzad in interviews with an NBC News team.

‘A day for hope’

No U.S. official has spent as much time face-to-face with the Taliban as Khalilzad, a former ambassador to Afghanistan who assumed the role two years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In more than a year of talks, including late-night sessions in Doha hotel rooms, Khalilzad prodded Taliban representatives to sit down for negotiations with the Afghan government. In the end, they agreed, but only after Washington pledged to pull out all of its troops and contractors by this spring.

In February 2020, Khalilzad smiled and shook hands with his Taliban counterpart at a televised signing ceremony in Doha, saying: “Today is a day for hope.”

The deal he brokered, and that then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo fully endorsed, committed the United States to withdrawing all its troops in return for a pledge from the Taliban to enter into peace talks with the Afghan government and to guarantee Afghanistan would not be used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks.

The peace talks went nowhere, Trump began pulling out troops ahead of schedule and — according to the United Nations — the Taliban have retained close ties to Al Qaeda. But President Joe Biden, who had promised to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan as a candidate, chose to press ahead with the agreement, announcing a troop withdrawal in April.

Previous administrations had tried and failed for years to get peace talks started with the Taliban, as the insurgents refused to allow the Afghan government a seat at the table. But the Trump White House dropped that condition, and Khalilzad had a free hand to talk to the Taliban without any Afghan government officials present.

The Taliban wanted a guaranteed timeline for when U.S. troops would withdraw. Washington wanted a ceasefire and a peace process. Khalilzad was under pressure to move fast, as Trump made no secret of his desire to pull troops out unilaterally, with or without any peace deal.

Khalilzad developed a rapport with his Taliban counterparts, but the Afghan government in Kabul was skeptical of the talks. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s national security adviser accused Khalilzad in 2019 of selling out the Afghan government in the talks while lending the Taliban a veneer of credibility.

Former U.S. and Western officials say Khalilzad was given a nearly impossible task. Trump undermined his envoy’s efforts by repeatedly reducing the U.S. troop presence without concessions from the Taliban, signaling to the insurgents they could drive a hard bargain, they said.

Given the circumstances, and the desire of three successive presidents to pull up stakes, could another envoy have done any better?

“I think Ambassador Khalilzad was dealt a poor hand,” Wilder said. “I personally would not blame all of this on Zal.”

Both Khalilzad and the State Department declined to comment.

A senior administration official said the U.S.-Taliban agreement was “problematic” and severely limited the Biden administration's options.

“That’s what we inherited coming into office,” the official told NBC News.

The Taliban had refrained from targeting U.S. troops on condition Washington kept its word to pull the troops. If the administration had decided to keep troops in place indefinitely, “they would have had targets on their backs,” the official said.

It was “folly” to think keeping a small contingent of U.S. troops on the ground could fundamentally alter the course of the war, the official said, adding: “The idea that 2,500 troops could be a game-changer is not realistic.”

As Khalilzad portrayed it, the U.S.-Taliban agreement was supposed to launch both a gradual withdrawal of American troops and simultaneous peace negotiations between the insurgents and the Afghan government. The withdrawal, Khalilzad said frequently, would be “conditions based.”

He said the deal was not a withdrawal agreement but “a peace agreement that enables withdrawal."

Some experts and former diplomats say the time to have pushed for peace was years ago, when the U.S. had maximum leverage, right after American-led forces toppled the Taliban in 2001. Or when the U.S. had 100,000 troops on the ground during President Barack Obama’s troop surge more than 10 years ago.

But once the U.S. promised the Taliban it would out troops by a fixed deadline, without any binding commitment from the Taliban to reach a peace accord with the Afghan government, the chances for a negotiated end to the war began to unravel, experts said.

“As soon as the U.S. went down the road of making that concession to the Taliban, there was no more than a narrow window of opportunity to get a real peace process launched,” said Miller of ICG. “The window was already closing when Biden took office, and then the decision to withdraw quickly sucked all the oxygen out of peace efforts.”

The Taliban got the agreement they wanted, Miller said. And, she said, “there's nothing surprising about what's happened.”

About this writer: Dan De Luce is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.