No one is arguing that all admins since 2001 were involved in them being there. That's a different issue. The lunacy of trying to train illiterate goatherders to use technologically-advanced weaponry and promote wokeness bullsh!t amongst them was doomed from the start, as was thinking tribalism could be ignored when they have no national loyalty as part of their culture.

We're enraged that the Biden administration chose to not immediately start pulling them out upon taking office while Taliban was still wintered-over and instead choosing to seek the the "photo op" by deciding Sep 11 was the day.

We're enraged that they chose to not keep Bagram, not because it wasn't of importance, but because they wanted to secure the embassy while reducing troop levels.

We're enraged that they chose to reduce troop levels *before* evacuating civilians and Afghan collaborators and before destroying or shipping home surplus military equipment, leaving them to fend off the Taliban - in the middle of fighting season, who now have access to abandoned hardware ("I Got a case of US M-4s. Never been fired, only been dropped once.")

The Biden administration are all ivory-tower types who've never gotten their hands dirty and have zero understanding of real-world applied human psychology.

I understand that employing the term 'We're' is designed to add weight to the statement 'You're' (even if there are others who might feel a degree of said rage). Rage was part of the problem from the beginning. Frustration may be a more realistic term. Pretending that anyone other than Biden would have turned a clusterfook into something other than such is a delusion. Pretending his predecessor could have is even more so. So deal with the rage and frustration as best you know how since you don't really have anything productive you can offer, otherwise. :up:

With that Biden has seriously messed up the "How" I certainly can agree. I said so repeatedly.

In parts thats also heritage from the Donald. Because true is that Biden bases on a "deal" made by the Donald, and the Donald had a timetable listing May this year, and giving the Taleban evertyhing but getting nothing from them in return.

The only reason why I defend Biden is that it often gets painted as if he is the only one responsible for the outcome of the war. This damn US political polarization thing. The US has become a fully binary state, everythign jst zero or one, black or white, all or nothing at all.

One of my two most favourite quotes from Star Wars:

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Projecting your own ineffectually much?

Do you think you could rationally illustrate how? :)

The differences are that Biden didn't hold them to that May timeline (before the start of fighting season) and he is unable to carry through with any form of violence in response to any failure on the part of the Taliban to adhere to the agreed conditions. Everyone knows that the moment the Taliban violated the terms, Trump would have sent a bunch of them to the grave in response.

*THAT'S* the difference. Whether you like him or not, Trump negotiated from a position of strength backed by a willingness to do what is necessary to hold that other party to the terms of whatever agreement is reached or moving on and ending such agreements if the other party remains recalcitrant. He was also willing to demand that *new* terms be negotiated when presented with agreements that are one-sided and that gain the US nothing (NAFTA, Paris Climate, Iran nuclear deal, etc.). Every Dem administration going back to at least Clinton seems to always agree to things that were decidedly not beneficial to the US and it's citizens (but definitely beneficial to them personal finances of Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Obama, etc.) We deserve leaders who are more concerned with the well being off the citizens that are supposed to serve rather than in lining their own pockets.

Biden is a cuckold, even amongst other Dems.

You misspelled 'Trump.'

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...m-plus-169.jpg

The facts are no one knows what Trump would have done and your "everyone" is all a fabrication.

Boots on the ground was never on my mind. Either airstrike, cruise missile or sending navy seals to take out the terrorist(OK that would be boots on the ground so to say, but only for this task then leave)

What kind of weapon was used ? There are some where a soldier has to mark the target with a laser. Then there's those where two fighter jet/drones attack a target, where one of them mark the target with a laser.

Markus

I'm sorry, but that is not the timeline I live in. Trump agreed to pull out NO MATTER WHAT, by the time of May he wanted to be out, and he got NO/ZERO/RIEN con cessions by the Taleban. Nothing. What eh claims he would have done in some imaginery alternative future scenario, is his claim only, and nothign pof it was in any form bound in a legal olbiation or treaty.


The Taleban wwere given everything. And they had to give back nothing. Thats the simple truth in the universe I have live dfin ion the past months and years. The Donald claims a lot when the day is long. Its his hobby. No substance, just claims, and repeating them endlessly even if they have been proven wrong.

????? That's what I said drones not ground assault ???? There is a risk of civilian casualties

US will have used drones that dont need a ground based laser designator. Guessing that they must of had intel on the location from Afghans could even been from same source as the bombing warning

The headlines in a Danish news article

For 20 years they fought each other now they have a common enemy.

To make the story short-USA and Taliban is approaching each others, there has been meeting between these two.

Wow yesterday-Enemy....today soon to become my friend.

Markus

It has been drone strikes blowing up parties and weddings that have risen civilian casualty rates inflationary and made many Afghans so bitter about the Westerners.

America is overly optimistic on the reach of ELINT and high technology.

You need eyes and boots on the ground. You cannot do without HUMINT and infiltration of organisations. You just cannot. Especially in a technologically low profile place like Afghanistan.

Have the past 20 years really taught nothing?

Plus there is demography. In the eighties, during the Sovjet era, losses of Afghan fighters were compensated by a birth rate that made sure that at least three times as many young fighters were born than the Sovjets managed to get killed. When America invaded, it already stood against one million more young men than the Sovjets during their invasion stage.

The war index of Afghanistan (Gunnar Heinsohn) had climbed, the Sowjet war had not brought it down, quite the opposite. For the remaining years of this decade, this index will continue to fluctuate almost not at all and mark above 5.5, which makes Afghanistan one of the most war-ready places on this planet. Around 6 million young Afghan men in best soldier age are under weapons currently, more than ever during the Sovjet and American occupation, and until 2030, so says Heinsohn, another 1.4 million will add to that.

Party time.

Its not difficult to predict that the place will blow up in a huge flare of civil war between rivalling factions. Its for me the by far most likely scenario. War demographics, gentlemen. Nothing can keep up with the dynamics of war demographics. Its by far not only the geography and the rugged terrain, technology or scientific invention! ;)

Compared to the afghan war index, all western nations, China and Russia have war indices around and below 1.0

If you still do not know what the war index by Heinsohn is (I mentioned it many times over the years): its the ratio between old men dying and younger men growing into their places to replace them. A war index of 0.7 (Germany currently) means that for 1000 old combat-capable men leaving, 700 young men grow into that age where they could replace them in combat. The US is around 0.97.

Afghanistan has roughly 5500 young men growing into that age when 1000 older men leave the combat-ready age-range. That means you can massacre them at piecework speed, and they still would grow stronger. It was like this during the Sowjet invasion, and the Sowjets looked in disbelief, it was like this during the American occupation, and the Ameicans did not understand it either, and it is like this from now on. Its like in a scifi movie where they fire their lasers into a space monster, and by that feed it with energy and the monster grows and grows.

Heinsohn taught this, war demographics, at NATO command college in Rome.

You can defeat suc enemies only by a.) going after their high fertility, and b.) havignb a very long breath. Count such a war duration in generations, not years.

BTW, Islam since centuries counts cultural clashes and wars in generations, practically.

The people who don’t know are the ones too lazy or stupid to read history. ‘We know’ Trump’s withdrawal was scheduled for May 1st. Trump said that while leaving Afghanistan is "a wonderful and positive thing to do," he had set a May 1 withdrawal deadline and added that "we should keep as close to that schedule as possible."

‘We know’ Sleepy Joe desired to politicize the event and wanted to extend the withdrawal deadline to September 11th. IMO Joe should have stuck with the plan and gotten the hell outta there ASAP.

No matter who the president is, it was going to be a mess in the final days. But it seems by everything I’ve read with Trump it would have ended sooner.