The Afghanistan Evacuation Goes Back to the Neocons
There is plenty of figure pointing these days about the withdrawal of our military and civilians from Afghanistan. There is not enough recollection of the W. Bush Presidency in the 1990's along with his VP Dick Chaney. The neocon (new conservative) view went like this, "We have a better intellectual understanding of those Eastern countries than weak-headed liberals. Those countries respect force, the more of it the better. Then, they need roads and bridges to build their economies. Once force and infrastructure are in place locals in the countries will take over and run them as good democracies."
Bush was so much a believer in the ideology of neocon he demanded daily briefings on a new highway the U.S. helped to fund. It, he thought, would change the country. He also had a roster with pictures of War Lord/Taliban leaders the U.S. was trying to assassinate. He put an X over the picture of each one killed. The road today speeds Taliban military operations around the country.
The U.S. had every modern weapon of warfare. It did not have input from the social sciences or historians about what was of value to locals and what was not. Democracy was not as important as the neocons thought.
While we were secretly funneling weapons into Afghanistan to fight the Russians, I remember reading an article by a journalist who said he would probably be fired for writing what he was about to write. While all the rest of the press was cheering our shoulder missile-fired rockets smuggled into the country which the Mujahideen used to bring down Russian helicopters, the journalist offer a bit of caution. He women in Afghanistan were much better off since the Russians arrived. The Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban and women's lives will be worse again.
I just finished a book about the invasion of Afghanistan. The author concluded the biggest force for going in there was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who died recently. Rumsfeld did not have the same neocon passion as the others but considered himself a management genius. He was convinced small fast moving armies could win wars in the Middle East and large military occupations were unnecessary. The locals will then run things and we can quickly leave, he believed. He wanted badly to demonstrate his genius so he was all in for the invasion. RIP genius.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm "and a tad irrelevant at this stage of the game."
ReplyDeleteYes, a tad. Yet, doesn't it seem like something new fires up every year or two somewhere far away and there is a reason given to send our troops there? Add to that, there is always some myth flying around making what goes on there "important" to us. So, in Vietnam it was the Communists. Then in Afghanistan it was "the Muslim terrorists." In Iraq it was the "weapons of mass destruction." None of these were actually threats to U.S. security in any important sense. That is why going back and looking at the neocons has some relevance today. Another version is somewhere ready to justify wading into some other part of the world.
Even if I believed your assertions, which I don't, the blame for the Afghanistan massacres and Taliban take-over falls squarely on Joe Biden (if one assumes he is mentally culpable) or those behind the scenes who orchestrated the events. I think it is a mix of those two. The benefactor of Biden's continued dementia display is none other than Kamala Harris and her accomplices. The thirst for power in the primary-last-place queen's faction of the Democrat-Communist party is obvious and expected. Joe was never meant to last for more than a year. He'll last long enough to pardon Hunter.
ReplyDeleteMatt--re Biden will only last a year. Ironic how precisely that mimics what many Democrats said when Trump was elected--he would only last a year.
DeleteNever heard that. Not ironic.
DeleteMatt "Never heard that."
DeleteYou must be kidding. During 2016-2017 there were pundits regularly speculating Trump would not finish his four-year term. These were national columnists, CNN and even this one, Republican Ann Coulter. I never speculated on this nor wrote about it. But, for some who disliked Trump intensely I guess it was way to cope with a bitter defeat. Now Republicans like you are using it to cope with your own bitter defeat.
https://www.inquisitr.com/5216330/ann-coulter-predicts-donald-trump-will-not-finish-current-term-no-second-term-over-wall/
Another article appeared today in the NY Times indirectly about Bush's favorite highway. It expedited illegal movement of goods through Afghanistan. A big part of the revenue the Taliban will have available is bribes to allow goods to flow through the country. Bush inadvertently gave the Taliban the ability to fund its mischief by supporting his favorite highway.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI literally felt like I was the only person who was opposed to Afghanistan in 2001.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are seeing now was inevitable, and it was precisely why I was against the war in the first place. The only possible resolution in a place like Afghanistan is indefinite occupation or a roughshod pullout. When the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan, they spent a good five years attempting to build trust with the rebels groups, and they continued to supply Afghanistan with military and economic support. As soon as that support stopped, the Afghanistan government fell.
I don't know how or why anyone ever expected anything different to happen.
But I'm not giving Biden a free pass on this. He announced that our surrender was unconditional back in April, and that was a huge mistake that emboldened the Taliban and cut our time table short. Don't get me wrong What we are seeing right now was inevitable, but Biden's comment significantly accelerated the urgency.
I'm not letting Biden off the hook, but the blame clearly goes to George W. Bush. What we are seeing now was inevitable from the moment the occupation began. People used to call Afghanistan "the Russian Vietman". That should have been a huge red flag for us, given that we already had our own Vietnam. I guess now we've had two Vietnams.
Bryan--It is asked, what alternative did W. Bush and Rumsfeld have after 9/11? They had the same option as Israel has all the time. It is to carefully screen all who fly. The only route to attack the U.S. is by air. Israel has a successful program of interviewing and vetting every passenger. The U.S. could do that. The U.S. public would complain, but it remains a better option than endless and pointless wars.
DeleteIn October, 2001, The Taliban offered to negotiate for the surrender of Bin Laden in return for an end to the bombing. They were asking for proof of his guilt. Bush's response: "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty"
DeleteThat's one of the most unAmerican thing I've ever heard a President say.
It's also the point where I realized that the war wasn't necessary.
Meanwhile, a careful read of the official 9/11 report that was created by Congress tells a much different narrative than the one that was sold to the public
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWas that me? Because if it was, I'd like to see some context.
DeleteThe way I see it, BIden has made one glaring, huge mistake since becoming president. The rest of his time has been spent trying to clean up Trump's messes.