Tweet
Originally posted by tbm3fan
View Post
“There’s no denying America is the most powerful country in the world, but what we’ve seen over and over in recent decades is we cannot turn that into the outcomes we want. Whether it’s Afghanistan or Libya or sanctions on Russia and Venezuela, we don’t get the policy outcomes we want, and I think that’s because we overreach — we assume that because we are very powerful, we can achieve things that are unachievable.”
This is as good a statement of US power as you can get.
It is worth considering some counterfactuals for how our occupation could have ended. Imagine that the Biden administration, believing the Afghan government hollow, ignored President Ashraf Ghani’s pleas and began rapidly withdrawing personnel and power months ago. The vote of no-confidence ripples through Afghan politics, demoralizing the existing government and emboldening the Taliban. Those who didn’t know which side to choose, who were waiting for a signal of who held power, quickly cut deals with the Taliban. As the last U.S. troops leave, the Taliban overwhelms the country, and the Biden administration is blamed, reasonably, for speeding their victory.
An American withdrawal done French style would have guaranteed the present result. Worse is the US WOULD have been blamed for it. And i would consider that more credible than the criticism of the present withdrawal.
I could use this to counter the many charges i'm hearing of US abandonment. It was not total abandonment.
Trump's deal queered things for sure but that's the worst of it.
Let me offer one more: Even though few believed Ghani’s government would prevail in our absence, and the Trump administration cut them out of its deal with the Taliban, there’s widespread disappointment that the government we supported collapsed so quickly. Biden has been particularly unsparing in his descriptions of the Afghan Army’s abdication, and I agree with those who say he’s been unfair, underestimating the courage and sacrifice shown by Afghan troops throughout the war. But put that aside: Americans might have felt better seeing our allies in Afghanistan put up a longer fight, even if the Taliban emerged victorious. But would a multiyear civil war have been better for the Afghans caught in the crossfire?
They too are responsible in fact we could say completely responsible. Is any western govt slamming them ? No. because when you have people in country that would endanger them and be seen as reneging on the deal. TB gets to improvise. you don't. Or let's say you're at your best behaviour until your people are out.
Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, put it simply: “I think there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance, and smart people are struggling with how to rationalize defeat. Because that’s what we have here in Afghanistan — a defeat.”
As far as the US is concerned this does not matter because of the first quoted para. It does matter for others that were banking on a US win. They are the most upset with the present situation and will blame the US because a loss here is THIER loss.
I was a college freshman when America invaded Iraq. And, to my enduring shame, I supported it. My reasoning was straightforward: If George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell and, yes, Joe Biden all thought there was some profound and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein, they must have known something I didn’t.
“Look at the countries in which the war on terror has been waged,” Ben Rhodes, who served as a top foreign policy adviser to President Barack Obama, told me. “Afghanistan. Iraq. Yemen. Somalia. Libya. Every one of those countries is worse off today in some fashion. The evidentiary basis for the idea that American military intervention leads inexorably to improved material circumstances is simply not there.”
However this could be used as an argument against R2P in other situations. Read political interference.
This article does not mention Pakistan even once as the cause for failure. Until you recognise that you will continue to bleed and remain on the losing side.
Well, it is the NYT so that's to be expected
Comment