Let's Get This Clear: Unlike the Greeks, the Brits and the Soviets, the United States Was NOT Chased Out of Afghanistan.

@TheArbitrator
The stated objective was to catch/kill bin Laden. That was done.

Nation building was always a secondary objective. And wasn't pursed as strong as it should have been. Hence the reason that failed.

@TheArbitrator The Taliban had safe haven in Pakistan this whole time.

@LeopoldBloom

Sadly yes.

@beckyromero So how were we supposed to "nation build" in a place that not only had no democratic tradition, but no concept of itself as a "nation?" Our problem is that we assume since our federal system works for us, it should work everywhere. Afghanistan would probably do better with a decentralized anarcho-communist system like in Rojava, with local citizen's committees handling the issues that affect people in their area. And with any luck, it could have been an eco-feminist system like Rojava had.

@LeopoldBloom

We founded a democratic country, didn't we?

Why are we to presume that other peoples can't yearn for the same freedoms we take for granted?

The problem was not wiping out the Taliban first, then nation-build.

@beckyromero The founding fathers of the US were coming from a very different tradition. Even though there were sectional differences, a person from Georgia and a person from Connecticut still thought of themselves as English colonists. That cohesion doesn't exist in Afghanistan, or at least, it's not comparable.

And of course people yearn for freedom, although what they have in mind might be different than what we have. For example, many Europeans don't consider Americans to be "free" because we have to worry about how we're going to pay for college or medical bills. The fact that we can walk into a store and buy a gun with almost no restrictions isn't an aspect of "freedom" that other people necessarily find meaningful.

Wiping out the Taliban would have resulted in the Afghan government controlling the capitol, with the rest of the country divided between various tribal factions. All that would have done is allowed us to make believe that we were successful because a few pro-American leaders would have become filthy rich. Think of the Barzani and Talabani families in Iraqi Kurdistan.

@LeopoldBloom

We could have started a process that would have gained substantial traction over a generation or two. Especially among women.

Nearly two-thirds of the Afghan population is under the age of 25.

Kabul, 1972

@beckyromero That would have required at least five to ten times the number of troops we sent there, along with the money we spent on the Iraq war.

The reason we didn't do that is because there was never any intention of turning Afghanistan into what it was before the Soviet invasion. We just wanted to kick some butt after 9/11.

By the way, you only saw girls like that in the cities. The countryside was always more religious and conservative.

@LeopoldBloom
I am aware that it would have taken a larger military commitment. I advocated for it.

I have been highly critical of how Rummy did everything on a shoestring budget. Not just in Afghanistan but Iraq as well.

@beckyromero We should never have gone into Iraq at all. That effort definitely diluted our commitment to Afghanistan.

We have a permanent military presence in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and other countries. Arguably, Afghanistan's position in relation to Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia also makes it a strategic location for a permanent American military presence. However, that was never considered as an option. Instead, "kick butt in revenge for 9/11" morphed into "set up the Afghan government as a democracy and bolster the Afghan military." Given the lack of national unity and tradition of corruption, that was guaranteed to collapse the moment we left. Trump even negotiated our withdrawal with the Taliban last year, not the Afghan government.

What do you think the Republican reaction would have been if Biden had cancelled the withdrawal and informed the American people that we were going to stay in Afghanistan permanently?

@LeopoldBloom
Margaret Thatcher was right.

We should have gone to Baghdad in 1991.


You do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Not because you are worried about what your political opponents will say.

In Biden's case, he was opposed to nation-building in Afghanistan. So worrying about the Republican reaction is a moot point.

@beckyromero We didn't go to Baghdad in 1991 because the UN mandate didn't authorize for Saddam's regime to be toppled. Keep in mind, that was back when the US led an international coalition. We couldn't do whatever we wanted. But that being said, we shouldn't have gone back to Iraq in 2003.

Biden was opposed to nation-building because that wasn't the original intention for our entry into Afghanistan. Bush 43, Obama, and Trump were also opposed to nation-building. Trump even promised to get us out of Afghanistan. The American public was ready for us to leave.

It's possible that Biden could have sold a permanent American presence by emphasizing Afghanistan's strategic importance, based on its position relative to Iran, China, and Russia, and the value of its rare earth metals. We have a permanent presence in Germany and Japan, so why not Afghanistan? But that would have required a pivot that Biden wasn't willing to do, especially with the infrastructure vote being a priority right now.

@LeopoldBloom
Such specific authorization wasn't necessary and the resolution allowed for it.


emphasis added

President Bush made a political decision not to do so because he was afraid Arab "allies" wouldn't have approved.

@beckyromero It depends how you define "restore international peace and security in the area." Certainly, toppling Saddam in 2003 led to the Islamic State and a decrease in "peace and security." Obviously, that outcome couldn't have been predicted, but in 1991 we didn't have enough troops to occupy the country if we had overthrown their government. A decade later, General Shinseki said that we would need one U.S. soldier for every 200 Iraqis, and he was fired for it.

Also, even if it was a political decision, it was the right one. Saddam was effectively contained and there was no reason for us to go back in 2003. All that did was sideline Afghanistan and make success there even less likely. Imagine where Afghanistan would have been today if the personnel and resources wasted in Iraq had been employed there instead.

@LeopoldBloom
Correct.


Which wouldn't have been necessary had we done the job right the first time.


As for Afghanistan, imagine if just a fraction of the cost of the last twenty years was spent after the Ruskies left. Perhaps no Taliban at all.

And don't forget, it was our presence in Saudi Arabia all those years to enforce a "No Fly Zone" that Osama bin Laden used as al Qaeda's reason for attacking us on 9/11.

Wonder would the Butterly Effect would have been if Saddam was hung after a fair trial in 1991 and we left Saudi Arabia?

How does al Qaeda seek recruits if we aren't "defiling" their sacred land?

@beckyromero Now we're getting into the realm of alternative history. If we'd have taken Saddam out in 1991, we wouldn't have had to go back in 2003. And if we'd immediately focused on Afghanistan after the USSR fell, the Taliban wouldn't have been entrenched there, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Speaking of alternative history, If Enver Pasha hadn't appropriated the German vessels Goeben and Breslau, the Ottoman Empire might have been able to remain neutral in World War One, and possibly wouldn't have broken up in 1922. The history of the Middle East would have been very different in that case. It's amazing how much of an effect that one decision had.