Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Collapse in Afghanistan

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

    That indeed was their policy, and apparently their intelligence analysis.
    Which leads to the question what the plan would be in such a case. Is recognition on the cards.

    How would they deal with Afghanistan.

    We're still following Trump's script there. All was worked out over a year back.

    Mike came up with a plan that was politically acceptable to the domestic audience and whatever came after.

    Leaving a mess behind in Afghanistan just doesn't gel with the way Trump handled other areas. Unless there was a purpose.

    If the adversaries have a problem next door they are less likely to create problems elsewhere. They are occupied. Same plan works for Afghanistan too.

    Trouble with this idea is it helps cause instability in more places. Counter productive.

    If the idea of going in was to fight terror then the last thing you want is for it to spread.

    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    The obvious failure was in intelligence, and that failure was catastrophic.
    So i heard this from a few people. The intel was not there.

    What difference would a heads up a few weeks in advance make ?

    You still have the same choices. Surge or withdraw.

    Can't push back the withdrawal any further. Can't stay put. Trump took away that option.

    As it turns out they had to send in more troops anyway to complete the withdrawal.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Sep 21,, 13:34.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
      Well, do we know how many got stopped by the Taliban?
      Well, they had checkpoints hassling everyone yet they were unable to catch this one.

      Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
      And ISIS-K & Taliban are sworn enemies.
      There were Taliban at the airport too. How come no TB casualties ? Were there any reported TB casualties.

      So there's two schools of thought here.

      One is the TB has factions and has elements that are difficult to control. These types cause the attack to underscore their victory against the west. Mihais alluded to this earlier on. Amrullah who was ex-NDS(Afghan intel) wondered how a leopard could change its spots.

      The other idea is because of the rivalry between the two camps, ISKP makes a good spoiler to get the TB back into line if they were to get too independent minded. I'm saying the Paks orchestrated this for numerous purposes. Their flock are not listening and it gets the west & Russia to concentrate on ISKP. Bonus is you guys thank them for their cooperation.


      Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
      We yanked the contractors when we saw the National level government not even providing basic support for their units. Widespread reporting of platoon size units with little to no ammo and barely enough food to last for long and poor quality at that. The Afghanistan IG told DOD it was a lost cause so recommended start pulling them out.

      The ANA had a LOT of very capable units...but even the best unit becomes ineffective withut resupply. And resupply was NOT a contractor responsibility.
      Which makes me wonder why more thought was not put into sustaining these contractors because they pretty much were keeping the whole show going.

      The heads up is right here. Moment the contractors were pulled you had at most a few months before the collapse.

      Lost cause. No need for intel in this case. It was there already.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Sep 21,, 13:59.

      Comment


      • After a lot of reading and talking to military and police who served in Afghanistan I long ago reached the conclusion that the Mr Miyagi had the right advice;

        'You Afghanistan do 'yes' or you Afghanistan do 'no.' You Afghanistan do 'guess so,' get squished like grape!

        Or if you prefer. Either get in, achieve your initial primary objectives and then get out asap or alternately stay, and I do mean stay committing to the long haul of occupying the place for a couple of generations at least.

        We did Afghanistan 'guess so' style and got squished.
        If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

        Comment


        • I'm watching commentary from a year ago. Trump's deal had a lot of American give and TB take. Very little TB give.

          As far as the US was concerned TB would cut links with AQ & IS. This it seems was good enough for the US if complied with.

          Commentators likened this to asking the thief to guard the house while keeping other thieves out (!)

          US agreed to facilitate power sharing talks between the then Afghan govt & the TB that got nowhere. US can't impose a solution here. Up to the Afghans.

          That was ok because in the end the US was ready to live with a TB govt. That seems to be the understanding at the end of the Doha deal.

          Should TB renege there are sanctions and the odd over the horizon attack.

          It's up to the regional powers now to keep things in check.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Sep 21,, 14:44.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Well, they had checkpoints hassling everyone yet they were unable to catch this one.


            There were Taliban at the airport too. How come no TB casualties ? Were there any reported TB casualties.


            So there's two schools of thought here.

            One is the TB has factions and has elements that are difficult to control. These types cause the attack to underscore their victory against the west. Mihais alluded to this earlier on. Amrullah who was ex-NDS(Afghan intel) wondered how a leopard could change its spots.

            The other idea is because of the rivalry between the two camps, ISKP makes a good spoiler to get the TB back into line if they were to get too independent minded. I'm saying the Paks orchestrated this for numerous purposes. Their flock are not listening and it gets the west & Russia to concentrate on ISKP. Bonus is you guys thank them for their cooperation.



            Which makes me wonder why more thought was not put into sustaining these contractors because they pretty much were keeping the whole show going.

            The heads up is right here. Moment the contractors were pulled you had at most a few months before the collapse.

            Lost cause. No need for intel in this case. It was there already
            .
            - Unsure on checkpoints and who was there outside of US forces so I will not speculate. However as the 2 groups (Talib & ISIS) were sworn enemies and it was in the Taliban's best interest to allow the Americans to leave unmolested, I would surmise if the Talibs knew or suspected something they would have notified the US forces are acted on their own. That's as far as I am willing to go.

            - Support contractors tied to DOD were pulled in the spring. Any other US government contractors I cannot report on as I have no first hand knowledge. If you as a private American citizen chose to go back in or hire your services to anything besides a US government/NGO contract AFTER all these warning a lot of your risk is on you. Those who hold American passports, visas or who helped we should keep working to get out.

            -As for no need for intel....I would say we always want intel, especially regarding transnational terrorist threats. We know we want to keep on ISIS of any flavor and any possible AQ. We want to keep an eye on the Taliban, especially if they turn out to be the follow on government. And that is who we will have to work with to keep getting Americans and allies out.

            How we get that intel, from me, is again speculation as I am not a professional intelligence staffer.

            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • UNSC Resolution 2593 (PDF) | UNSC | Aug 30 2021

              Back story to that resolution

              Afghanistan: Vote on Resolution on Recent Developments* | What's in Blue | Aug 30 2021

              The first draft circulated by the US, UK & France got tweaked by China & Russia. In the end these two couldn't get all they wanted and so abstained without vetoing.

              China and Russia broke silence yesterday (29 August) on an earlier iteration of the text and expressed concerns that the draft focused too closely on the Taliban. It seems that these concerns were addressed by removing language that expressed the Council’s intent to monitor the Taliban’s actions, particularly their respect for human rights. A reference to the Taliban’s condemnation of the 26 August attack near Kabul airport was added to the draft. It appears that language which noted that the Taliban will be held accountable for their commitments regarding Afghans travelling abroad and language that called on the Taliban to refrain from further activities that threaten the peace, stability, and security of Afghanistan was also not retained in the draft resolution in blue.

              An operative paragraph regarding humanitarian assistance apparently originally demanded that the Taliban allow unhindered access. However, the reference to the Taliban was removed from the draft in blue, which instead calls on “all parties” to do so. Text which specifically demanded that neither the Taliban nor any other Afghan group support terrorists was not retained and was replaced with language which notes the Taliban’s “relevant commitments” and reiterates the importance of combating terrorism in Afghanistan, including the individuals and entities designated pursuant to resolution 1267 of October 1999.
              So there are no UNSC penalties should Taliban not comply

              On 30 August, the Council adopted resolution 2593. There were 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia). Russia said in its explanation of vote that, among other reasons, it abstained because the resolution did not include language that referred to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Da’esh) and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement.
              Curious that ISIL & ETIM were left out.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                The obvious failure was in intelligence, and that failure was catastrophic.
                Fair points raised and questions asked by the Senator, who happens to be vice chair of the intel senate committee so no way was this an intel failure.

                It was more a policy & planning failure. Naturally. The fault begins and ends at Foggy bottom not Langley.

                unfortunately the answers given do not add much to what we know already



                All the comments below the video on youtube are bashing him. People really believe their govt could be this incompetent (!)

                It strikes no one that the US was double crossed. The US was played.

                The TB show up at various governors offices and tell them the US has dumped their govt and if they do not surrender forthright then they will all be slaughtered.

                And while they're thinking about it here's a pile of cash to help make up their mind.

                Where did that money come from ? some commentators mention Saudi intel.



                This next one with Senator Murphy brings across the inadequate number of troops that were available making the US vulnerable to the TB. And if the US was vulnerable then so too was the afghan govt.

                Trump reduced the number of troops serving there towards the end of his term. How many were left when he exited office ?

                Meaning you would have to add them back if any contingencies arose. You could not hold Bagram because you did not have the numbers to defend it.

                Questions asked here could only be answered by the Pentagon.

                The defense secretary declined to show up for this hearing, unfortunately.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 15 Sep 21,, 02:28.

                Comment


                • This next one with Senator Murphy brings across the inadequate number of troops that were available making the US vulnerable to the TB. And if the US was vulnerable then so too was the afghan govt.

                  Trump reduced the number of troops serving there towards the end of his term. How many were left when he exited office ?

                  Meaning you would have to add them back if any contingencies arose. You could not hold Bagram because you did not have the numbers to defend it.

                  Questions asked here could only be answered by the Pentagon.

                  The defense secretary declined to show up for this hearing, unfortunately.
                  1. The numbers were drawn down and those that remained were mostly SOF & Advise & Assist troops. Any evacuation, as Gun Grape and I said previously, would have to be done with forces brought in to execute that mission....which is exactly what we ended up doing. Bagram was untenable once we dropped troop strengths down...but that was going to happen regardless whether we did the January, May or September 21 withdrawal. it is a simple problem of number of lift assets available.

                  2. SECDEF testified to a closed hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday along with GEN Miller. SECDEF responds to SASC, CIA, NSA, DIA all respond to Senate Intelligence Committee. SECDEF can appear but it would be unusual.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    1. The numbers were drawn down and those that remained were mostly SOF & Advise & Assist troops. Any evacuation, as Gun Grape and I said previously, would have to be done with forces brought in to execute that mission....which is exactly what we ended up doing. Bagram was untenable once we dropped troop strengths down...but that was going to happen regardless whether we did the January, May or September 21 withdrawal. it is a simple problem of number of lift assets available.
                    All good but the key takeaway was the reducing of troops over the course of 2020 made the withdrawal more vulnerable isn't it. It put the US in a weaker position.

                    The magic number was 14,500 to ensure stability in Afg. Or for a withdrawal. NOT 2,500.

                    Unfortunately this advantage was given away at Doha. What was the tearing rush to reduce those numbers when you agreed to exit 14 months later ?!?

                    As Sushant said the Doha deal had loads of American give and TB take with very little TB give.

                    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    2. SECDEF testified to a closed hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday along with GEN Miller. SECDEF responds to SASC, CIA, NSA, DIA all respond to Senate Intelligence Committee. SECDEF can appear but it would be unusual.
                    I was a bit peeved when asked what the dollar value of arms left that Blinken replied it was $80 billion worth (!) C'mon man....

                    Too bad, a lot of what they discussed would have illuminated things more. Your senators were disappointed there could not be a public airing of views.

                    All i heard form Blinken was when they decided in April what to do the military said they needed 3-4 months to get it done.

                    Get it done with reduced numbers. Impossible situation. Make it happen
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 15 Sep 21,, 15:43.

                    Comment


                    • Posting this editorial for the record. It's the source of the weakening NATO narrative. If Trump was in charge they would have said worse.

                      How Biden Broke NATO | WSJ (Editorial Board) | Aug 19 2021

                      By The Editorial Board
                      Aug. 19, 2021 6:56 pm ET

                      Remember when candidate Joe Biden said America “needs a leader the world respects”? Apparently President Biden forgot. Of the many consequences of his misbegotten Afghanistan withdrawal, one of the more serious is the way it has damaged America’s relationships with its allies, especially in Europe.

                      Afghanistan was an operation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and America’s NATO allies have invested significant blood and treasure in the conflict. That includes tens of thousands of troops over 20 years, more than 1,100 of whom were killed, and billions of dollars spent on the military operation and reconstruction effort.

                      This was a fulfillment of their obligations after the Sept. 11 terror attack led to the first invocation of the mutual self-defense clause in NATO’s founding treaty. European allies also have a stake in preventing a nation of nearly 40 million people from collapsing into a failed state that could trigger more mass migration to Europe, or become a new breeding ground for terrorism.

                      Yet everything about Mr. Biden’s Afghan withdrawal has been a slap to those allies. They didn’t want the U.S. to leave, but he did. The botched execution has left them scrambling to airlift out thousands of their citizens and thousands more Afghan translators and others who assisted each nation’s war effort.

                      And the snubs keep coming from Washington. In his Monday speech, Mr. Biden made only a glancing reference to NATO and none to America’s European allies in his account of the conflict. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly had to wait a day and a half after requesting a call with the President to get Mr. Biden on the phone.

                      No wonder European leaders are apoplectic. U.K. Defense Minister Ben Wallace called the Trump -Biden agreement with the Taliban “a rotten deal,” in an interview this month after the Taliban started capturing chunks of the country. In Parliament on Wednesday, Tom Tugendhat —chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee who served in the British forces in Afghanistan—called Mr. Biden “shameful” for blaming the retreat on a supposedly pusillanimous Afghan military. Former Prime Minister Theresa May criticized Mr. Biden for following President Trump’s lead in a “unilateral” negotiation with the Taliban.

                      Press reports say German Chancellor Angela Merkel told her conservative party she believed Mr. Biden withdrew “for domestic political reasons.” Her potential successor, head of the Christian Democratic Union Armin Laschet, called the Afghan withdrawal “the biggest debacle that NATO has suffered since its founding, and we’re standing before an epochal change.”

                      French President Emmanuel Macron took considerable flak in 2019 for saying NATO is experiencing “brain death.” He warned that with or without President Trump in office, the U.S. was becoming a less reliable ally and argued that Europe would need to “reassess the reality of what NATO is in light of the commitment of the United States.” Mr. Biden has made him seem prescient, and the wonder is that Mr. Macron has been too polite this week to point it out. French leaders are now planning for the refugee crisis Paris fears Mr. Biden has unleashed on Europe.

                      European leaders have never demanded an open-ended U.S. commitment to Afghanistan. But NATO allies were justified in expecting that if the U.S. were to withdraw, it would do so in consultation with its partners. Mr. Biden’s failure here, and it’s a NATO-endangering one, is to offer stark proof that America’s supposedly grown-up liberal internationalists are as much in global retreat as some Trump Republicans.

                      Other allies are noticing. Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen warned this week that in light of the U.S. retreat, “Taiwan’s only option is to grow stronger and become more united, strengthening our determination to protect ourselves.” It’s a telling remark because Mr. Biden says he has withdrawn from Afghanistan in part to devote more resources to East Asia. Instead his chaotic, almost callous withdrawal is casting doubt on U.S. credibility.

                      A President who understood foreign affairs as well as Mr. Biden claims he does would grasp the damage his disgraceful Afghanistan exit has inflicted on America’s alliances and reputation. He will never be trusted the same way again.
                      The one article that got my attention was an earlier on about Macron which i think is pretty much spot on. Macron is turning out to be quite the visionary leader.

                      Assessing Emmanuel Macron’s apocalyptic vision | Economist | Nov 07 2019

                      Today’s Europe owes its existence to the United States. America fought two world wars on European soil; American diplomacy was midwife to what became the European Union; American arms protected western Europe from Soviet invasion; and American statesmen oversaw German unification. Now, in a dramatic plea to all Europeans, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, has warned that America is cutting Europe loose. The old continent is “on the edge of a precipice”, he warns. Unless it wakes up, “we will no longer be in control of our destiny.”

                      In his Elysée Palace office, Mr Macron spoke to The Economist in apocalyptic terms (see article). NATO, the transatlantic alliance, is suffering from “brain-death”, he says; Europe needs to develop a military force of its own. The EU thinks of itself as just a market, but it needs to act as a political bloc, with policies on technology, data and climate change to match. Past French presidents have argued that Europe cannot rely on America, and should look to France instead. Mr Macron is not just rehashing this view. He believes that America and Europe have shared interests and has worked tirelessly to keep good relations with President Donald Trump. But he argues that for the first time America has a president who “does not share our idea of the European project”. And even if Mr Trump is not re-elected, historical forces are pulling the old allies apart.

                      American priorities are changing. When President Barack Obama, who was intent on pivoting towards Asia, chose not to punish the use of chemical weapons in Syria it signalled that America was losing interest in the Middle East. Mr Trump’s recent abandonment of America’s Kurdish allies in Syria not only reinforced this, but also undermined nato. America did not inform its allies, and Turkey, a NATO member, promptly invaded Syria. “Strategically and politically,” Mr Macron says, “we need to recognise that we have a problem.”

                      Asked whether he is confident that an attack on one NATO member would today be seen as an attack on all—the idea that underpins the alliance’s credibility—Mr Macron says that he does not know. He acknowledges that NATO thrives operationally, but he calls for Europe “to reassess the reality of what NATO is in the light of the commitment of the United States.”

                      Europe, he says, has yet to grasp the immensity of the challenge ahead. It still treats the world as if commerce and trade alone were able to ensure peace. But America, the guarantor of world trade, is becoming protectionist. Authoritarian powers are on the rise—including Russia and Turkey on Europe’s borders. While America and China spend vast sums on artificial intelligence, which they see as an essential component of their hard power, the EUdevolves too much say to industry. Mr Macron warns that slow-moving, head-in-the-clouds Europe must open its eyes and prepare itself for a tougher, less forgiving world.

                      It is an astonishingly bleak picture for a centrist European politician and an avowed internationalist. But it is also unusually thought-through and, as far as Mr Macron is concerned, a spur to action. It is hard to overstate the scale of the change he is asking from his fellow Europeans.

                      Take defence. Mr Macron thinks that his new European Intervention Initiative and the EU’s Permanent Structured Co-operation, underpinned by the European Defence Fund, can integrate military operations and boost Europe’s capabilities, by implication providing a foundation for Europe’s post-NATO defence. But these building-blocks are rudimentary. America’s departure would leave vast holes in areas like air and missile defence, intelligence and surveillance, and aerial refuelling. Its military budget is twice as large as the rest of nato’s combined. European governments will be reluctant to plug the gap, since they have other priorities. It may be easier to adapt NATO, so that it both protects Europe and is also more useful to the United States.

                      And then there is diplomacy. Mr Macron thinks Europe can best establish its global influence as a power that mediates between the gorillas of China and the United States. Its role will be “to stop the whole world from catching fire”, he says. A first step would be to get a grip on its own region by rebuilding relations with Russia—a task that he accepts could well take a decade.

                      Again, however, that ambition assumes a unity of purpose that the EU seldom achieves. Many of its members tend to shun hard power for a foreign policy focused on human rights and commerce. As Mr Macron’s Russian proposal illustrates, power politics requires you to deal with people whose actions you deplore. For him, realpolitik is necessary for European values to prevail. It is not clear his fellow European leaders would agree.

                      Last is industrial policy. Mr Macron wants the state to take strategic decisions over key technologies, and favours a policy to foster European champions. This tends to channel funds and contracts to politically connected incumbents. A better way to create a thriving technology ecosystem would be to encourage more competition. If Mr Macron will not embrace that, why should others?

                      The EU’s formula is unique: an arrangement between states, without any hegemon, that keeps the peace. But how do you get 27 countries—plus Britain, a big power now in the eu’s departure lounge—to agree to build fully functional armed forces, let alone convince Europe’s foes that they would ever be used? Mr Macron’s critics scoff that he is “drunk on power”. Some countries, including Poland and the Baltic states, would be alarmed at the idea of parting with America and pursuing detente with Russia. Others, including Germany, Italy and Spain, are too embroiled in domestic woes to entertain a grand global vision.

                      Plenty of times in the past, pious calls for Europe to make its weight felt in the world have turned out to be empty. This time, Mr Macron argues, must be different. He is asking his fellow leaders to imagine how Europe will thrive in a dangerous world without a cast-iron American alliance. How should they deal with Russia, with the conflict and religious fundamentalism roiling the Middle East and north Africa, and with the authoritarian challenge of China? He deserves an answer.
                      That last bit sounds very similar to the Indian position.

                      If ever there was the time for the EU to develop "strategic autonomy" now would be good time

                      This feeling with the Euros isn't new. It happened after WW2 as well and is what compelled the UK & France to go nuclear.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 15 Sep 21,, 21:20.

                      Comment


                      • was a bit peeved when asked what the dollar value of arms left that Blinken replied it was $80 billion worth (!) C'mon man....

                        Too bad, a lot of what they discussed would have illuminated things more. Your senators were disappointed there could not be a public airing of views.

                        All i heard form Blinken was when they decided in April what to do the military said they needed 3-4 months to get it done.

                        Get it done with reduced numbers. Impossible situation. Make it happen
                        1. The dollar value is a red herring. hat was materiel which was provided to the Afghan government and military through the Foreign Military Sales Program. All that equipment belonged to the Afghans, no longer to the US. And the dollar value was new, out of the box. NONE of this equipment was new, out of the box. The Blackhawks were UH-60A models...about 30 - 35 years old. Same with the few C-130s. The MRAPs the same. I can go on and on. ALL of these items are available on the open market and do not matter in regards to giving away any secrets. This is akin to complaining about British ship, tank & aircraft losses of weapons provided to them under Lend-Lease in World War 2.

                        And the 12,500 was total NATO in country in 2014...US was less than 10,000. No way was 12,500 sustainable across the country....the sustainment infrastructure was long gone.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                          1. The dollar value is a red herring. hat was materiel which was provided to the Afghan government and military through the Foreign Military Sales Program. All that equipment belonged to the Afghans, no longer to the US. And the dollar value was new, out of the box. NONE of this equipment was new, out of the box. The Blackhawks were UH-60A models...about 30 - 35 years old. Same with the few C-130s. The MRAPs the same. I can go on and on. ALL of these items are available on the open market and do not matter in regards to giving away any secrets. This is akin to complaining about British ship, tank & aircraft losses of weapons provided to them under Lend-Lease in World War 2.
                          I meant Blinken should have corrected that figure quoted by the Senator. He does explain that there would be maintenance issues and all but this perception of $80bn is incorrect. The dollar amount of those weapons left behind is not more than $20 bn if that. The rest would have gone to paying salaries which towards 2019 worked out to $5bn annual.

                          Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                          And the 12,500 was total NATO in country in 2014...US was less than 10,000. No way was 12,500 sustainable across the country....the sustainment infrastructure was long gone.
                          You had more troops there in 2019 than at the beginning of 2021.

                          I'm arguing that the number in 2019 was adequate to ensure stability and a more orderly withdrawal than what Biden was left with.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            I meant Blinken should have corrected that figure quoted by the Senator. He does explain that there would be maintenance issues and all but this perception of $80bn is incorrect. The dollar amount of those weapons left behind is not more than $20 bn if that. The rest would have gone to paying salaries which towards 2019 worked out to $5bn annual.
                            .
                            Not Blinken's place to make the correction. FMS is a SECDEF responsibility. If he responded he would have been out of line.

                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • Unhinged Newsmax Host Cuts Off and Yells at Veteran for Mildly Criticizing Trump

                              Newsmax
                              Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield absolutely lost his mind Wednesday night when a veteran helping Americans and Afghan allies flee Afghanistan offered the mildest of criticism of former President Donald Trump.

                              Joe Saboe, an Iraq War veteran who recently founded the rescue organization Team America, appeared on Stinchfield’s eponymous Newsmax program to discuss his group’s efforts in assisting those looking to escape Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover.

                              The first few minutes of the interview went fairly cordially, as Saboe explained how his group’s “digitial Dunkirk” effort has helped hundreds of people get out of the country after Kabul fell last month. At the same time, he openly disagreed with Stinchfield’s claim that the small number of Americans still stuck in Afghanistan constituted a “hostage situation,” largely blaming the issue on coordination problems between the State Department and Taliban.

                              Eventually, the vehemently pro-Trump Newsmax host began prodding Saboe to criticize the Biden administration for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the evacuation crisis that followed.

                              “I think you and I can both agree this never needed to happen. If the government knew what it was doing, we wouldn’t have Americans in this situation,” Stinchfield said.

                              “Yeah, I agree with that,” Saboe replied. “I think multiple administrations leading up to this had multiple opportunities to try to set this up for success. And I think that’s not happened, and right now we as a country need to come together and help these people, our allies.”

                              Stinchfield, meanwhile, took that as an opportunity to heap more praise upon his MAGA icon, saying that “this didn’t happen under President Trump” even though Trump “wanted out of Afghanistan real bad.” He then added that the ex-president didn’t pull out of Afghanistan because “he knew this would happen.” (The Trump administration negotiated the peace agreement with the Taliban in Feb. 2020, which included a promise to reduce troops and eventually withdraw completely by May 1, 2021. It’s also been reported that Trump tried to fully withdraw by Jan. 15 of this year.)

                              The Newsmax star reiterated that he believes “this is a hostage situation,” and declared his respect for the work Saboe has done in getting Americans out of the country. But the tone wildly shifted as soon as the former Army captain brought up the fact that Trump drastically decreased the number of special immigrant visas given to Afghan allies.

                              “We do respect, Grant, that veterans—and I being one—and our friends are over there,” Saboe said. “We follow this closely from multiple administrations, and we know that Trump administration’s efforts here were fairly weak, that they were trying to limit the number of people that would get out and so there were coordination problems.”

                              An enraged Stinchfield immediately attempted to interject, first claiming they were running short on time before seemingly losing his temper and demanding producers ditch Saboe’s feed.

                              “Cut him off, please. Cut him off now! Cut him off now,” the conservative host shouted. “You’re not going to blame this on President Trump on my show!”


                              While pointing his finger into the camera, Stinchfield continued to scream:” I appreciate the work that you’re going. God bless you for being a veteran, god bless you for trying to get Americans out, but don’t come on this program and take the talking points of the left and blame President Trump! That’s not helping anybody.”

                              The former NRA-TV host would continue his tirade a while longer—despite previously claiming he was out of time. He complained that Saboe didn’t call Americans stuck in Afghanistan “hostages” while lecturing the war veteran, whom he had just kicked off the air, for not fully blaming the entire situation on the Biden administration.

                              “I’m mad about that, man. I really am!” Stinchfield fumed in conclusion.
                              _____________

                              Something very very familiar that about that screaming rant....
                              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X