Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

1101 wrote:

nonequals wrote:

In the interest of time, for now I'll address just the "institutional" aspect of your post. With all due respect, it seems to lack an appreciation of the very wide and deep experience our federal government has with AFG by now. 20 years is a long time. The mid and senior levels of the U.S. military (including intelligence), non-military intelligence, our diplomatic corps, etc., etc. are absolutely chock-full of LOTS of folks with LOTS of experience in Afghanistan. Some of them may not be smart, might be (far) too ambitious/careerist, too dishonest, etc., etc. But they truly have "Been there, done that," often many times. So they're not ever close to utterly dependent on what any given person or briefer is telling them about AFG at any given moment. And in the defense of many, it's not even close to all about "lying." In many, many cases it's about being hopeful that SO much effort and goodwill (and indeed, billions) could create functioning state - however naive or ignorant that might appear.

That Marine Captain's view is certainly worth something. But tens or hundreds of thousands of people with as much or more AFG experience might not agree with him. In the end, of course, it's about the quality of the argument.

FYI, I served in the military for about 30 years, and did 3 tours in AFG. All of us should be plenty modest about whether or not we have the answer.

Lastly, more broadly, even if we deluded ourselves and/or misled others for far too long about our ability to build AFG, it does not necessarily follow that we should have pulled out. We could have stayed there for reasons (e.g., counter-terrorism) having nothing to do with establishing a sustainable AFG government/military. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Biden endorsed back when he was VP. But that seems to have morphed into "Get out entirely."

To see all of that blood, sweat, tears (and indeed, billions) UTTERLY gone in the matter of weeks is profoundly sad.

Also in the interest of time:

1) I respect the thoughts expressed in your post. I may not agree on all counts but it was a good post.

2) Thank you for your service. You have undoubtedly earned the thanks of all Americans.

3) While I agree that seeing "blood, sweat, tears and hundreds of billions of dollars go up in smoke" is profoundly sad I would caution against that fact coloring any judgement as to what the best course of action was more recently and going forward. All that blood, sweat and tears are sunk costs.

I may be wrong but I believe getting the F out was indeed the right thing to do - as it has been for the last 15 or more years. We should not be in the business of occupying other countries indefinitely. That is only an opinion but I believe that it is an opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle.

nonequals wrote:

1101 wrote:

Also in the interest of time:

1) I respect the thoughts expressed in your post. I may not agree on all counts but it was a good post.

2) Thank you for your service. You have undoubtedly earned the thanks of all Americans.

3) While I agree that seeing "blood, sweat, tears and hundreds of billions of dollars go up in smoke" is profoundly sad I would caution against that fact coloring any judgement as to what the best course of action was more recently and going forward. All that blood, sweat and tears are sunk costs.

I may be wrong but I believe getting the F out was indeed the right thing to do - as it has been for the last 15 or more years. We should not be in the business of occupying other countries indefinitely. That is only an opinion but I believe that it is an opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle.

Thanks for the nice reply. Refreshing - and rare - to see!

Regarding #3, absolutely, one has to be very careful about not using that as a reason to stay. And I did mean it as a stand-alone thought. And one that I suspect that a lot of other AFG veterans have (and others who worked there and otherwise "sacrificed" for the effort to some extent).

About getting out, a few things:

1) As mentioned previously, there was a defensible reason for maintaining a presence (CT almost certainly #1 on the list) even if one completely accepted that we'd never make the Afghan government/forces self-sustaining.

2) Semantics - War. Biden, and most others, call it a "war," including with respect to our participation. Arguably (and to a degree, technically, I believe, in 2014 at the end of OEF), it hasn't largely been that for us for some time. The Afghans are certainly in a war, and we're helping them. But we've managed, lately, to do it with relatively few troops and very low casualties. Just one example, but we've had thousands of Americans in serious harms way in South Korea for decades. Ditto for troops in Western Europe throughout the Cold War.

3) Semantics - Occupation. I think that we've been REASONABLY respectful of Afghanistan's sovereignty since we handed over the reigns to them. They've certainly been OK with our presence and military and financial assistance there. Not sure what the threshold is for "occupation"? Plenty of Okinawans don't want us on Okinawa, but we generally don't say that we're still occupying Japan. No doubt true for many of the dozens of other countries with a U.S. military footprint. If it helps us and we think it's worth it, and the country is OK with it, do it. We certainly have gone this route in LOTS of places, many of which don't have fully lovable/admirable governments (e.g., Turkey, Iraq, other Gulf States, Djibouti, Balkans....KSA in the past.....). Although yes, admittedly, none of them are/were fighting full-fledged insurgencies.

In a nutshell, here's what could be on the Powerpoint slide arguing for having maintained a small footprint:

- Maintain/facilitate CT/intelligence gathering in and around AFG (a uniquely isolated and troubled location)

- Absolutely maximize force protection (been true for a long time)

- Support AFG efforts against the Taliban in as minimal of a way as possible (intel, airstrikes, training, reduced funding) while still securing at least the main population centers.

- A useful and irritating presence for neighbors and more-or-less U.S. enemies Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan (uniquely isolated AND uniquely surrounded by bad actors!).

- Maintains options. Could decide in the future to help more, help less. Now there are essentially NO options. And again, despite what many will say and our neato intel/surveillance capabilities, it's still freakin' hard to know what's going on in there with no footprint.

Admittedly "emotional" and far less defensible comment regarding "Sunk Costs": NOT on the slide.....and only perhaps whispered: "Doing the above means that you DIDN'T, for now, throw EVERYTHING of 20 years of lives, blood, effort earnest goodwill, and money away in a few weeks!!!"

One last thought regarding public sentiment. As many have noted, if you ask Americans about AFG, they'll give you an opinion. But do I think that many really care? No. Not castigating that a lot, just a fact, I think. Not sure you need all of the fingers on one hand to count the number voters for whom that was or will be a big consideration in recent or near-future elections. Additionally, silly me says that we should expect careful deliberation and leadership from our elected officials - particularly POTUS - not the citing of polls.

Thanks again. And sorry for the length.

Racket, PhD wrote:

nonequals wrote:

Thanks for the nice reply. Refreshing - and rare - to see!

Regarding #3, absolutely, one has to be very careful about not using that as a reason to stay. And I did mean it as a stand-alone thought. And one that I suspect that a lot of other AFG veterans have (and others who worked there and otherwise "sacrificed" for the effort to some extent).

About getting out, a few things:

1) As mentioned previously, there was a defensible reason for maintaining a presence (CT almost certainly #1 on the list) even if one completely accepted that we'd never make the Afghan government/forces self-sustaining.

2) Semantics - War. Biden, and most others, call it a "war," including with respect to our participation. Arguably (and to a degree, technically, I believe, in 2014 at the end of OEF), it hasn't largely been that for us for some time. The Afghans are certainly in a war, and we're helping them. But we've managed, lately, to do it with relatively few troops and very low casualties. Just one example, but we've had thousands of Americans in serious harms way in South Korea for decades. Ditto for troops in Western Europe throughout the Cold War.

3) Semantics - Occupation. I think that we've been REASONABLY respectful of Afghanistan's sovereignty since we handed over the reigns to them. They've certainly been OK with our presence and military and financial assistance there. Not sure what the threshold is for "occupation"? Plenty of Okinawans don't want us on Okinawa, but we generally don't say that we're still occupying Japan. No doubt true for many of the dozens of other countries with a U.S. military footprint. If it helps us and we think it's worth it, and the country is OK with it, do it. We certainly have gone this route in LOTS of places, many of which don't have fully lovable/admirable governments (e.g., Turkey, Iraq, other Gulf States, Djibouti, Balkans....KSA in the past.....). Although yes, admittedly, none of them are/were fighting full-fledged insurgencies.

In a nutshell, here's what could be on the Powerpoint slide arguing for having maintained a small footprint:

- Maintain/facilitate CT/intelligence gathering in and around AFG (a uniquely isolated and troubled location)

- Absolutely maximize force protection (been true for a long time)

- Support AFG efforts against the Taliban in as minimal of a way as possible (intel, airstrikes, training, reduced funding) while still securing at least the main population centers.

- A useful and irritating presence for neighbors and more-or-less U.S. enemies Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan (uniquely isolated AND uniquely surrounded by bad actors!).

- Maintains options. Could decide in the future to help more, help less. Now there are essentially NO options. And again, despite what many will say and our neato intel/surveillance capabilities, it's still freakin' hard to know what's going on in there with no footprint.

Admittedly "emotional" and far less defensible comment regarding "Sunk Costs": NOT on the slide.....and only perhaps whispered: "Doing the above means that you DIDN'T, for now, throw EVERYTHING of 20 years of lives, blood, effort earnest goodwill, and money away in a few weeks!!!"

One last thought regarding public sentiment. As many have noted, if you ask Americans about AFG, they'll give you an opinion. But do I think that many really care? No. Not castigating that a lot, just a fact, I think. Not sure you need all of the fingers on one hand to count the number voters for whom that was or will be a big consideration in recent or near-future elections. Additionally, silly me says that we should expect careful deliberation and leadership from our elected officials - particularly POTUS - not the citing of polls.

Thanks again. And sorry for the length.

Afghanistan is a waste. Yes, it was all pretty much for nothing and we need to stop sugarcoating it or convincing ourselves that it was something more. It hurts, it sucks, it's sad for the men and women who died or returned home injured, but that's what it was - a big fvcking waste of time and money after about 2003 or so.

Yes, we have troops stationed elsewhere. We get value from that, whereas we get nothing from staying in Afghanistan except more money down the drain. Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the rest are all relatively self-sustaining and we get value and security from our presence there - more of a partnership if you will. We asked for the same buy-in from the Afghan forces, just a little skin in the game. They said no. Why should we continue to fight for their country if they won't?

You say we have no options. The USA always has options - always. That's assuming we even need or want options.

We can deploy all those resources anywhere else in the world, maybe even to a country out there that actually wants to fight for it's freedom. There's more pressing threats in the world right now like China and maybe even Russia, and I think the pivot towards that focus is the correct thing to do.

nonequals wrote:

1101 wrote:

Also in the interest of time:

1) I respect the thoughts expressed in your post. I may not agree on all counts but it was a good post.

2) Thank you for your service. You have undoubtedly earned the thanks of all Americans.

3) While I agree that seeing "blood, sweat, tears and hundreds of billions of dollars go up in smoke" is profoundly sad I would caution against that fact coloring any judgement as to what the best course of action was more recently and going forward. All that blood, sweat and tears are sunk costs.

I may be wrong but I believe getting the F out was indeed the right thing to do - as it has been for the last 15 or more years. We should not be in the business of occupying other countries indefinitely. That is only an opinion but I believe that it is an opinion shared by the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle.

Thanks for the nice reply. Refreshing - and rare - to see!

Regarding #3, absolutely, one has to be very careful about not using that as a reason to stay. And I did mean it as a stand-alone thought. And one that I suspect that a lot of other AFG veterans have (and others who worked there and otherwise "sacrificed" for the effort to some extent).

About getting out, a few things:

1) As mentioned previously, there was a defensible reason for maintaining a presence (CT almost certainly #1 on the list) even if one completely accepted that we'd never make the Afghan government/forces self-sustaining.

2) Semantics - War. Biden, and most others, call it a "war," including with respect to our participation. Arguably (and to a degree, technically, I believe, in 2014 at the end of OEF), it hasn't largely been that for us for some time. The Afghans are certainly in a war, and we're helping them. But we've managed, lately, to do it with relatively few troops and very low casualties. Just one example, but we've had thousands of Americans in serious harms way in South Korea for decades. Ditto for troops in Western Europe throughout the Cold War.

3) Semantics - Occupation. I think that we've been REASONABLY respectful of Afghanistan's sovereignty since we handed over the reigns to them. They've certainly been OK with our presence and military and financial assistance there. Not sure what the threshold is for "occupation"? Plenty of Okinawans don't want us on Okinawa, but we generally don't say that we're still occupying Japan. No doubt true for many of the dozens of other countries with a U.S. military footprint. If it helps us and we think it's worth it, and the country is OK with it, do it. We certainly have gone this route in LOTS of places, many of which don't have fully lovable/admirable governments (e.g., Turkey, Iraq, other Gulf States, Djibouti, Balkans....KSA in the past.....). Although yes, admittedly, none of them are/were fighting full-fledged insurgencies.

In a nutshell, here's what could be on the Powerpoint slide arguing for having maintained a small footprint:

- Maintain/facilitate CT/intelligence gathering in and around AFG (a uniquely isolated and troubled location)

- Absolutely maximize force protection (been true for a long time)

- Support AFG efforts against the Taliban in as minimal of a way as possible (intel, airstrikes, training, reduced funding) while still securing at least the main population centers.

- A useful and irritating presence for neighbors and more-or-less U.S. enemies Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan (uniquely isolated AND uniquely surrounded by bad actors!).

- Maintains options. Could decide in the future to help more, help less. Now there are essentially NO options. And again, despite what many will say and our neato intel/surveillance capabilities, it's still freakin' hard to know what's going on in there with no footprint.

Admittedly "emotional" and far less defensible comment regarding "Sunk Costs": NOT on the slide.....and only perhaps whispered: "Doing the above means that you DIDN'T, for now, throw EVERYTHING of 20 years of lives, blood, effort earnest goodwill, and money away in a few weeks!!!"

One last thought regarding public sentiment. As many have noted, if you ask Americans about AFG, they'll give you an opinion. But do I think that many really care? No. Not castigating that a lot, just a fact, I think. Not sure you need all of the fingers on one hand to count the number voters for whom that was or will be a big consideration in recent or near-future elections. Additionally, silly me says that we should expect careful deliberation and leadership from our elected officials - particularly POTUS - not the citing of polls.

Thanks again. And sorry for the length.

nonequals wrote:

Racket, PhD wrote:

Afghanistan is a waste. Yes, it was all pretty much for nothing and we need to stop sugarcoating it or convincing ourselves that it was something more. It hurts, it sucks, it's sad for the men and women who died or returned home injured, but that's what it was - a big fvcking waste of time and money after about 2003 or so.

Yes, we have troops stationed elsewhere. We get value from that, whereas we get nothing from staying in Afghanistan except more money down the drain. Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the rest are all relatively self-sustaining and we get value and security from our presence there - more of a partnership if you will. We asked for the same buy-in from the Afghan forces, just a little skin in the game. They said no. Why should we continue to fight for their country if they won't?

You say we have no options. The USA always has options - always. That's assuming we even need or want options.

We can deploy all those resources anywhere else in the world, maybe even to a country out there that actually wants to fight for it's freedom. There's more pressing threats in the world right now like China and maybe even Russia, and I think the pivot towards that focus is the correct thing to do.

You haven't even tried to address or refute the arguments for keeping a presence there.

It's a planet. It's geopolitics. One doesn't necessarily always have the luxury of going where one will have awesome allies/partners.

And yes, we have essentially no footprint options in AFG, now. It would probably take another 9/11 for anyone to decide to do so. Without the Taliban in power, we could (and perhaps did) say to the Afghans, "We're mostly here for CT and surveillance. We're going to provide you with the absolute minimum in support against your insurgency. Do you want that, or do you want us to go home? Your choice." We no longer have that choice, that option.

I don't know if AFG will turn into a dangerous safe haven again. Hopefully it doesn't. But if it does, we're not 10 feet tall. Maybe we won't know until it's too late. And once we learn, we likely will have a much harder time addressing it than if we were there in a modest way. I do wonder how many people even bother to glance at a map and see where it sits (and who's around it)?

I'm sure that plenty good arguments can be made for not keeping a footprint in AFG. But if the necessary footprint there was as small as I think it could be, it would not substantively decrease our readiness against the peer/near-peer foes.

nonequals wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Yes, but this means Dems are really bad at politics, really bad. They mean well and their integrity is light years better but they really suck at winning elections. They never take credit, their gloves never come off, and they don't unite enough. I'm also not convinced the country has fully opened its eyes about the real danger to democracy, the GQP.

I'm a life-long conservative and never a member of either main party, and so I'd have no trouble criticizing D political abilities. But this conclusion makes no sense to me. Especially coming from someone who thinks, justifiably, that the Trumpers are utterly unfixable (or thereabouts). A large fraction of those who voted for Trump in 2020 knew at least one utterly disqualifying thing that he did while or before being president (e.g., lie every day and not only about small things, shake down a world leader, set the stage for stealing an election, neglect and facilitate the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, utterly abuse executive power, mock ALL POWs, show off about sexual assault, etc., etc.). And yet they still voted for him. And when the alternative was a thoroughly known-quantity moderate Democrat.

Political competence - or indeed wizardry - can do VERY little, if anything, with people who think like that. Which thing would change that voting calculus? Taking credit? Being more "tough"? Being more "united"? Nope, none of that, and no combination thereof. When roughly half of the voting population of the country watches that guy for 5 years and wants 4 more, you're simply f******. You can and should still do everything that you can to prevail, but there's no justification for beating them/yourselves up for being "really bad politicians." The problem is fundamentally with the people.