On 7/15/24 1:20 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:jd359jhnmcn9obn694t4e2br3bs3gegpgn@4ax.com, Governor Swill
> <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:02:25 -0700, "max headroom" wrote:
>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>typed:
>>>> On 7/11/24 10:08 PM, max headroom wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>>>> His withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan speaks volumes
>>>>> still... and that wasn't an emergency.
>
>>>> Nope.
>
>>>> It was an emergency, because it was already August, whereas the
>>>> treaty deadline for the USA to have gotten completely out was May.
>
>>> Biden had been Commander in Chief since January. If it was an
>>> emergency, it was an emergency of Biden's making.
>
>> The withdrawal and it's schedule were negotiated by September the
>> year before. The withdrawal itself began before Biden was elected.
>> Most of the troops to be withdrawn were already gone before Biden was
>> even sworn in. The due date was May but Biden delayed that until
>> September in order to have more time to get more people and equipment
>> out.
>
> So Biden felt no hesitance toward ignoring the schedule.

Except that it wasn't. That's why in the end the final date was moved
up to 8/31, rather than the announced 9/11 date. The Taliban were
worried - and rightfully so (see DoD recommendation to stay) that the US
wouldn't actually depart as they had promised, which is why there was
increasing tension after 5/1, which motivated the suicide bombing.

>> The Afghanistan debacle was of Trump's making. To start with, he
>> ignored the internationally recognized government and negotiated with
>> terrorists who repeatedly broke the terms of the agreement.
>
> So the agreement was null and void.

Two separate issues there, bud: Trump made the Doha Agreement without
the internationally recognized government of the country, which was
clearly wrong. Once that agreement had been made, there were various
claims about who broke what but these were never legally resolved, and
because the clock was ticking, effectively became moot. For the most
part, pointing out the Taliban violations (which were actually more of
them not having full control over their militia) was what bought the USA
the deadline extension from May (when we weren't ready, due to no plan
written before 2021) until August, but as can be seen with the suicide
bombing, not everyone agreed with giving the US that time accommodation.

>>>> Plus that whole situation was set up by Trump. Not just the treadty
>>>> but also including the US troop withdrawals completed before 20 Jan
>>>> 2020, which left the main base tactically indefensible.
>
>>> And yet, after the treaty was signed, the only U.S. troops to be
>>> killed in action were the 13 killed at the Kabul airport.
>
>> Others were killed in other parts of the country....
>
> Nope.

Correct: the only US military active duty casualties in 2021 were from
the August bombing. However, there were non-US casualties. Here's one
summary listing, but note that the "who" varies (both sides), plus many
are quite ambiguous as to who the perpetrator was:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2021_Afghanistan_attacks>

Two of note:

Kabul school bombing (May 2021): killed 85, mostly young school girls
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Kabul_school_bombing>

Kabul airport attack (Aug 2021) where there was also at least 182
civilian deaths in addition to the 13 US servicemen:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Kabul_airport_attack>

Plus let's not forget the the USA's drone retribution strike which
targeted & hit the wrong people, killing ten (10) more civilians:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2021_Kabul_drone_strike>

>
>> ... But that sad loss ensured the evacuation of thousands from the
>> country....
>
> How did being the victims of a suicide bomber ensure anything other than jihadi
> celebrations?

It enabled those thousands of civilians to successfully escape
repression and likely death at the hands of the Taliban regime.

>> ... There were far fewer casualties leaving Afghanistan than there were
>> evacuating Saigon.
>
> The evacuation of Saigon wasn't scheduled months in advance.

Try actually reading the history. Specifically, the prior evacuations
which occurred in the weeks prior to the embassy helicopter airlift:
in addition to Operation Frequent Wind, there was also at least
Operation Babylift and Operation New Life:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Babylift>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_New_Life>

Also insightful to show timelines:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon#American_administration_plans_for_final_evacuation>

>>>> Such as how your above statement hinges on how there were a ~dozen
>>>> casualties, but ignores how many were rescued in return:
>
>>> Thirteen U.S. personnel and ~170 others.
>
>> What others?
>
> Afghan civilians.

Which suddenly you now care about. How convenient.

>>> How many were left behind?
>
>> How many got out?
>
> How many fell from the wings of departing jets? That's the image the world
> remembers of the American exit from Afghanistan.

Superficially so, as subsequent reports are estimating that ~30,000
Afghanistani's who didn't successfully escape (or die trying) have since
been systematically hunted down & murdered by the Taliban regime.

FYI, simply look back to the history of the Berlin Wall for parallels of
people willing to take huge risk (& die trying) to escape repression.

>>> I don't recall Nixon or Ford or Goldwater or even Reagan ever
>>> commenting on Joe Biden's incompetence.
>
>> Yet the top line Republicans today plus two Presidents have sure
>> talked about Trump's.
>
> And the top line Democrats today plus a president have sure talked about
> Biden's..

Of course, the real question is what part of "talk" is actually true. /s

>>>> **I defy you** to name any other similar US military operation
>>>> conducted under fire which had a better ratio of (civilians
>>>> rescued):(troops lost) than this one.
>
>>> Why was it conducted under fire? It could have been executed months
>>> earlier in an orderly manner from the Bagram airfield, an American
>>> stronghold.
>
>>> https://thehill.com/policy/defense/574283-top-generals-contradict-biden-say-they-advised-leaving-2500-troops-in/
>
>> That article details a pentagon recommendation for an occupation
>> force to be left in country long term pending negotiations between
>> the Afghani government and the Taliban....
>
> The article details Biden's top generals telling the U.S. Senate that Biden lied
> when he said that he followed their advice to evacuate Afghanistan.

Official recommendations have a documentation trail: where is it?

I don't doubt that some may have verbally offered alternatives (and
groused about it later) but in the end, a Commander receives all of
those inputs, considers & weighs them in context, & then issues orders.

>> ... There is no mention of Bagram or alternate withdrawal plans. Fail.
>
> "Fail" is a good word choice to describe Biden as Commander-in-chief. Chairman
> of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, described Biden's
> withdrawal plan as a "strategic failure."

Afghanistan was already a strategic failure long before Biden or even
Trump were elected as POTUS. If you actually know your history its
historical genesis goes back to ~October 2002.

By 2021, terrorist attacks were ramping up. Had we stayed, we were at
risk of casualty rates rising up to be comparable to 2011-14, with also
the risk of a catastrophic base overrun because the remaining forces
were below minimum sustainable for base security: Milley's being a
hypocrite because that occurred on his watch in 2020 under Trump.

>>>>>> For one thing, Nixon and Reagan fought against Russian domination.
>>>>>> Trump will embrace it.
>
>>>>> You're deluded.
>
>>>> Trump has already embraced Putin. And North Korea's Kim Jong Un
>>>> too.
>
>>> It's the art of the deal, baby! Butter 'em up, knock 'em down.
>
>> Mr Chamberlain tried that in 1938. We know now that doesn't work.
>> You can't deal with a dictator itching to use the army at his back.
>
> Yet Putin invaded no one and Kim curtailed missile tests while Trump was prez.

Because they didn't have to, because Trump was giving them what they
wanted without having to fight. Recall how Trump suspended arms
shipments to Ukraine under the _claim_ of corruption which has never
been found.

>
>> Putin thinks we're weak.....
>
> No, Putin and Xi and Kim think Biden is weak.

Its not Biden who's weak: its Americans overall who are greedily
sucking away on their propaganda machine, causing self-division.

>> ... It's important to show him we are not. That our allies are not. That
>> we're willing to go to bat even for non NATO nations. Biden's resistance also
>> signals to China to leave Taiwan alone. Selling nuclear submarines to
>> Australia reinforces that.
>
> Those are nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear armed.
>
>> Trump would give Taiwan to Xi and Ukraine to Putin leaving us to
>> wonder in a generation how Russia came to dominate Europe and China
>> came into possession of its neighbors.
>
> You're deluded.

Nah, he's right: Ukraine is a critical test of US resolve and if we
fail here, China *will* take Taiwan. Naturally, they'd prefer to do it
through subterfuge/etc without having to start a literal war, but they
are working towards that. Case in point, they already have a "warm"
conflict ongoing with the Philippines (& others). That campaign has
been underway since at least 2012, so if you're unaware of it, blame
yourself for not paying attention to world affairs.

-hh