Swift Taliban takeover leaves U.S. image in tatters

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Swift Taliban takeover leaves U.S. image in tatters

  • Aug 16, 2021

WASHINGTON – After two decades in Afghanistan, America’s longest war was ending with the image of the United States in tatters.

With the swift collapse Sunday of the government in Kabul, the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that triggered the U.S. invasion will be marked with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan, despite a cost to the United States of nearly 2,500 lives and more than $2 trillion.

To some observers, the debacle following the withdrawal of U.S. troops will inevitably weaken the United States on the global stage at a time when President Joe Biden was speaking of rallying democracies in the face of a rising China.

“America’s credibility as an ally is diminished because of the way the Afghan government was abandoned beginning with the Doha talks,” said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, referring to the deal last year in the Qatari capital with the Taliban in which the United States set a pullout timeline.

Haqqani, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, noted how U.S. diplomats in the end could do little more than send tweets urging the Taliban to stop.

“That envoys of the mightiest nation on Earth can be duped as they were in Doha, and its leaders ignored so easily as they have been in the final days, will encourage others to engage in duplicitous diplomacy,” Haqqani said.

Biden faced heated criticism that the withdrawal was mismanaged, with the United States racing to evacuate its sprawling embassy just a month after he played down fears the Afghan government would crumble quickly.

“It is going to have ramifications not just for Afghanistan,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican hawk.

“America’s adversaries know they can threaten us, and our allies are questioning this morning whether they can count on us for anything,” she said in an ABC interview.

Mixed message to China
The Biden administration is quick to point out that former President Donald Trump negotiated the Doha deal on the withdrawal and that a majority of the U.S. public favors ending “forever wars.”

Trump has repeatedly put the blame on his successor, however, calling for him to resign on Sunday “in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan.”

“What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary. It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!” he said in an earlier Sunday statement.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, also speaking on ABC, said the United States had “succeeded” in its primary mission of bringing justice to the al-Qaida perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“It’s also true that there’s nothing that our strategic competitors around the world would like more than to see us bogged down in Afghanistan for another five, 10 or 20 years. That is not in the national interest,” Blinken said.

China, which the Biden administration sees as the nation’s pre-eminent challenge, has already rhetorically pounced, with the nationalistic state-run Global Times publishing an analysis saying Afghanistan showed Washington to be an “unreliable partner that always abandons its partners or allies to seek self-interest.”

But Richard Fontaine, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, said it was simplistic to think that China would be emboldened, for example, to move on Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy claimed by Beijing that depends on U.S. weapons.

China may instead see the high cost that the United States is willing to pay in exiting Afghanistan as a sign of seriousness in shifting to the Pacific, Fontaine said.

But Fontaine, who opposed the withdrawal, said the United States was taking major risks by effectively ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban, who never formally broke with al-Qaida.

“Now that it looks like the Taliban will be running the country, I think the chances of a terrorist threat are pretty high,” he said.

“If that’s the case, it could well increase distraction from our focus on the bigger strategic challenges in China.”


New era on military?
Some policymakers argued for maintaining a residual force of some 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, but Biden decided the war was over and he should not risk further U.S. lives.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which supports U.S. military restraint, said the ones who have now lost credibility are advocates for a continued war.

“When you see that the whole thing falls apart in nine days, this was nothing more than a house of cards,” Parsi said.

He hoped the withdrawal would help end the view, in Washington but also among allies, that the U.S. military should be the first resort.

“Perhaps some of the external pressures on the United States to act as if it is the answer to everything in the world will reduce.”

 

Ravager

Contributor
Messages
1,034
Reactions
3 1,170
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
OK .... I'll bite this ....

So , in my understanding you chinese could do a better job in " pacifying " Afganistan should the need is arose ?? Is that what you were saying here ??
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Its easy to pacify Afghanistan, just buy some dudes off. China will just buy some dudes off and leave them to do what they want. Which is in the end what the British did in the great game with Russia.

Also no China couldn't militarily pacify Afghanistan, it would fall to 4th generation warfare. Just like the NATO forces did and Russia. The Chinese aren't that dumb, they are having a hard enough time with their western provinces at the moment. Let along the geo-political entanglement of Afghanistan. Where you have Russia/Pakistan/Iran all involved.

The US is doing the right thing leaving Afghanistan, even if the images are bad. The question is why now and where will those forces be re-directed. My guess is Russia. Rather than China or the US southern border. As the Neo-cons want no distractions for their revenge against the Russians.

We most also note that since WW2. The US hasn't won a war in Asia and has never won a war on the Asian land mass. Don't send your land armies into Russia or China, some British general once said. US neo-cons are idiots, who can't build or create anything, only destroy and corrupt it.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Why China needs to "pacify" Afghanistan, it's a sovereign country, China has no rights to interfere, their country, their rule.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,476
Reactions
5 18,091
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Its easy to pacify Afghanistan, just buy some dudes off. China will just buy some dudes off and leave them to do what they want. Which is in the end what the British did in the great game with Russia.

Also no China couldn't militarily pacify Afghanistan, it would fall to 4th generation warfare. Just like the NATO forces did and Russia. The Chinese aren't that dumb, they are having a hard enough time with their western provinces at the moment. Let along the geo-political entanglement of Afghanistan. Where you have Russia/Pakistan/Iran all involved.

The US is doing the right thing leaving Afghanistan, even if the images are bad. The question is why now and where will those forces be re-directed. My guess is Russia. Rather than China or the US southern border. As the Neo-cons want no distractions for their revenge against the Russians.

We most also note that since WW2. The US hasn't won a war in Asia and has never won a war on the Asian land mass. Don't send your land armies into Russia or China, some British general once said. US neo-cons are idiots, who can't build or create anything, only destroy and corrupt it.

Usa no longer cares about winning wars.

Iraq and Afghanistan were military victories same with Vietnam. But they lost politically.

Usa can rack up all those military victories it does not lead to outright decisive victory. After the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviets the Americans had free rein to do whatever they want as they have the world by the balls. Politicians backed by the MIC see wars as a racket who cares about winning when I can fill my pockets. Im wondering where the Neocons are going to choose their next target. Wars today are good for making billions forget boring ass victories.

American soldiers for decades have questioned themselves why arent we winning?? Why are we here for decades?
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Usa no longer cares about winning wars.

Iraq and Afghanistan were military victories same with Vietnam. But they lost politically.

Usa can rack up all those military victories it does not lead to outright decisive victory. After the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviets the Americans had free rein to do whatever they want as they have the world by the balls. Politicians backed by the MIC see wars as a racket who cares about winning when I can fill my pockets. Im wondering where the Neocons are going to choose their next target. Wars today are good for making billions forget boring ass victories.

American soldiers for decades have questioned themselves why arent we winning?? Why are we here for decades?
It also calls into question the military philosophy of clausewitz (war being the continuation of politics by other means). The newer Chinese unrestricted warfare concept is much more correct, where everything is war, just another aspect of the many faces of the war God.

Also it is of course about money, but there is an ideological aspect to it. The neo-cons are the descendants of the communist Jews who fled Europe in the early 1900's from Stalin and the NAZI's. They worked to gain control of the British and American military's to enact revenge on Russia. They are incredibly dumb, but subversive. Its like having the WASP elite taken over by monkey's, who know nothing about English civilization and just want to throw poo around and hit stuff. This is the level of people we are dealing with here. Allied with them you have the criminal class within the English civilization, the descendants of the Puritans/Parliamentary forces and House of Lancaster from the English civil wars. Today we can see them as industrialists or capitalists. Then you have the demographic mandate from the massive numbers of foreigners in the English civilization, meaning the English themselves can't form a united group to push back and defeat the criminal class as a whole. Lastly you have since Nixon's visit to China, the Chinese ruling class, who keep the criminal class out of the Chinese sphere, but allow the neo-cons to operate as stupidly as possible outside of that.

Also Iraq and Afghanistan were military defeats, to 4th generation warfare. Just nobody understands non trinitarian war within the criminal class, apart from the Chinese ruling class, who understand it very well. Effective the English civilization has been run by criminals and foreigners for the past 190 years. Also fascinating how the Taliban know who the neo-cons are and call them out in statements (the Zionists), but nobody mentions it. Hahaha.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom