Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRA) was an artificial state that was established by interloper countries lead by the US and existed solely on its propping by those interlopers. It was a stopgap measure implemented after the ill conceived invasion of Afghanistan that amounted to a myopic, emotional desire by those interlopers for revenge for the 9/11 attacks. However much slower their withdrawal would have taken, the IRA would have nonetheless utterly, and abjectly caved.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. Had we continued to support Afghan democracy indefinitely, eventually democracy would have taken hold there permanently.

South Korea is a good example of this. They were hardly a model democracy for many of the decades that we supported them. But look at them now.

1 Reply

@snood,

Did you catch Nicole Wallace or Ari Melber tonight? He had both Howard Dean and Michael Beschloss on early in the show. They support what you and Frank have been saying...God knows it's a mess, but they are dismissing the Cassandras (inside the beltway 'experts') as being unrealistic and misremembering past conflicts. The both stated that Biden did what had to be done.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Progressives are traitors. It comes as no surprise that they support treason.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Wrong, these combats would have the explicit job of surround the embassy, airport and any other site US interest. They would escort personnel and vehicles as needed and they would pick up known people who were to be flown out of country. Any time their work was interrupted by any means, or any purpose; they would destroy that interference. Any force that confronted them would immediately be considered an enemy and destroyed in place. These actions would continue until all personnel and objects of interest, including these troops and their equipment were repatriated. Then, Afghanistan would be considered hostile and action would continue as long as any in country person or objects of interest remain until the Afghan government requested to become and create friendly actions with the US and prove they are adhering to peaceful actions with countries of the World, especially the US.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Had we continued to support Afghan democracy indefinitely, eventually democracy would have taken hold there permanently.

South Korea is a good example of this. They were hardly a model democracy for many of the decades that we supported them. But look at them now.

Wrong. The circumstances surrounding the creation of South Korea were very different from those surrounding the creation of the IRA.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

The circumstances are irrelevant. If we keep democracy in place long enough, it will eventually take hold.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Wrong, these combats would have the explicit job of surround the embassy, airport and any other site US interest. They would escort personnel and vehicles as needed and they would pick up known people who were to be flown out of country. Any time their work was interrupted by any means, or any purpose; they would destroy that interference. Any force that confronted them would immediately be considered an enemy and destroyed in place. These actions would continue until all personnel and objects of interest, including these troops and their equipment were repatriated. Then, Afghanistan would be considered hostile and action would continue as long as any in country person or objects of interest remain until the Afghan government requested to become and create friendly actions with the US and prove they are adhering to peaceful actions with countries of the
World, especially the US!

Now, take what could of been done above - requires more time, lives and capital compared to what has been done. I begrudgingly agreed with what theRump did except his council and agreements with the Taliban. It was stupid to council with a cheat. Of, I would never council with theRump either, he is a bigger cheat. When two cheaters bargain, nothing is gained!

I do believe we have to do something like the above, but lighter. Maybe 10,000 troops to do what is need with air cover from a couple of aircraft carriers. Also a well defined free fire zone; ie, anywhere not controlled by the US with clear orders when discharging of arms is permitted.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Training the Afghanis to fight for themselves was not costing very many American lives. That would not have changed.

Who cares how much time it took? Time is infinite.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Wrong, these combats would have the explicit job of surround the embassy, airport and any other site US interest.

Security for a few specific bases is not the same as going into combat to secure the entire country. Our troops were not engaging in combat, and that would not have changed.

BillW wrote:

Then, Afghanistan would be considered hostile and action would continue as long as any in country person or objects of interest remain until the Afghan government requested to become and create friendly actions with the US and prove they are adhering to peaceful actions with countries of the World, especially the US.

The Afghan government was already friendly towards us.

0 Replies

I would even include 5 or more passenger ships to put friendly Afghanis (who worked with us during the war) and their families. Put them aboard and start working visas for possible citizenship.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Ten thousand men is a small division. I would send the 1st Cav because I am prejudice. They would come in with army personnel carriers, tanks other armored vehicles, as small amount as to get the job done.

The distance from the embassy to the airport is a little over 4 miles. They would cordon the area around the embassy, the road to the airport and he airport. They would fly planes over head at times ready for instance call in missions. The air attack would also take out known Taliban Hq artillery and troops gathering points until the Taliban tells the US they will stand down. Of course, if they say they will and then don't, holy he'll will come wherever leaders and troops gathering points are known.

They should also send out helicopters missions to other areas in the country to pickup known allies. This mission really should not take long if done properly, 6 months at most.

Of course, high level negotiations must begin immediately - probably on background (that includes US press) with understanding that fighting and killing will be dealt with immediately with overwhelming deadly force!

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Wishful thinking.

1 Reply

@BillW,

You know you are wasting your time, there is no way in the world he could possibly understand anything you just said.

2 Replies

Trump on Afghanistan

David A. Graham, The Atlantic

Quote:

Donald Trump keeps flip-flopping on Afghanistan. It’s a reminder that the core values of Trumpism are whatever Trump needs them to be.

Donald Trump knows he’s against President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. He’s been saying as much, in harsh words, in the prolific statements he’s been emailing out since he got banned from Twitter.

His problem: The withdrawal follows a template that Trump himself set out. As I wrote earlier this week, Biden and Trump have both chosen to emphasize America’s narrow national interest by exiting Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Now the former president needs to figure out why exactly he hates Biden’s approach

On Monday, Trump railed against the United States for leaving behind civilians who’d helped American troops, a position that placed him in alignment with my colleague George Packer, many progressives, and some Republicans. “Can anyone even imagine taking out our Military before evacuating civilians and others who have been good to our Country and who should be allowed to seek refuge?” Trump wrote.

That humanitarian concern, however, placed him at odds with the MAGA movement. Tucker Carlson delivered nativist warnings about Afghan refugees (“First we invade, and then we are invaded”). Steve Cortes, a Newsmax host and Trump 2020 aide, tweeted a picture of Afghans on a transport plane with the caption, “Raise your hand if you want this plane landing in your town?”

Suddenly Trump changed his tune. He emailed supporters the same photo that Cortes tweeted, saying, “This plane should have been full of Americans. America First!”

The about-face is a reminder that although Trump holds a few core values (racism, anti-immigration, protectionism), he is otherwise ideologically flexible. His insight in 2016 was to endorse views widely held by Republican voters but rejected by other GOP politicians as deplorable, politically unwise, or both. But Trump sometimes misreads his supporters—and when he does, he often moves quickly to get back in line.

Trump is still trying to find the right angle to reconcile his xenophobia with his attacks on Biden. In yet another statement today, he offered a critique of the administration’s military logistics: “First you bring out all of the American citizens. Then you bring out ALL equipment. Then you bomb the bases into smithereens—AND THEN YOU BRING OUT THE MILITARY. You don’t do it in reverse order like Biden and our woke Generals did.”

In tactical terms, this makes zero sense. But then coherence has never been a requirement for Trump—or Trumpism.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

But, you can. And, I hate to illustrate the obvious solution that includes fighting and death - it is against my nature. However, I really believe there may be less death this way, but more Americans would. Also, I think world order would remain more fast with this solution.

Fast defined:

firmly fixed or attached.
"he made a rope fast to each corner"
synonyms: secure, secured, fastened, tight, firmly fixed, stuck, jammed, immovable, unbudgeable, stiff, closed, shut, to, attach, fasten, fix, affix, join, connect, couple, link, tie, tie up, bind, fetter, strap, rope, tether, truss, lash, hitch, moor, anchor, yoke, chain

Still think that Biden's solution may still be the best way. That is, with his people opening up talks with the Taliban. There is some indications this is happening! He could send a couple of jets over with smart bombs and take out a few lower level but upper echelon officials and tell the top leaders he knows where they are..............

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Some progressives are dim. They even think that Taliban forces are going to be behave well after seizing power. That's a harebrained view. The overriding goal of the Taliban and its partners in other Muslim nations is to bring religious extremism to every nation that has Muslim believers, whilst expunging dissidents and proponents of Western democracy.

Their first target is the Middle East, then China's Xinjiang and Central Asia. America and NATO still have to send troops to that region to put paid to terrorists' acts of terror in the future. America's withdrawl only increases the costs of its military operations in the Middle East and saps people's confidence about America's willingness to fight for freedom in foreign nations.

Indeed, it could be a prudent move if America decides to forgo its own national interests in the Middle East. Yet that doesn't mean America is going to insulate itself from Islamic radicalisation since America also has lots of Muslim believers who also happen to be BLM supporters.

2 Replies

@BillW,

The Taliban have come of age; they are actually equipped with American weapons. Plus, I think most Muslim nations support Taliban forces behind the scenes, despite proclaiming to be America's allies; the UAE is an exception.

In other words, you can't win this war if you get caught in a pincer movement.

1 Reply

@goldberg,

They even think that Taliban forces are going to behave well after seizing power.

0 Replies

Let's face it, such terrorist groups like Taliban will always be a threat. America's withdrawl only gives them a false sense that even America is terrified of Muslim radicals.

0 Replies

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know