4 ms·

I was all for this withdrawal until I found out it was only 3000 soldiers that we had in Afghanistan. If 3000 soldiers can keep a whole country from going Tali

I was all for this withdrawal until I found out it was only 3000 soldiers that we had in Afghanistan. If 3000 soldiers can keep a whole country from going Taliban, then it seems worth it to keep them there.

sobellian 5y ago
The thing is, they can't. Under those troop levels the Taliban was already taking more territory every year. The choice was between a US troop surge (for an indefinite period), a slow death, or a quick death.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  They never could have moved in mass as the moment they would US and Afghan aviation. But not only did US pull intel support, air support, they pulled logistic support so the Afghan aviation is in complete disrepair.
msoad 5y ago
comparing what's going on in Afghanistan to the Korean Peninsula and how the American forces helped South Korea become a prosperous country make me think the US has lost its core values about its role in the international scene.
- dtwest 5y ago
  Afghanistan and Korea are vastly different scenarios, perhaps the main difference is the situation the US put themselves in rather than a change of core values.
- tootie 5y ago
  Yeah and Vietnam is why. Really, America as the world police was a pretty short-lived experiment. We had to be dragged in to WWII. We mostly sat out the Maoist revolution even though we did have a presence in China at the time. Korea ended up being politically fraught and the public just didn't have their heart in it. No one wanted to help a backwater Asian country. It's hard to sell a 70-year investment to help them become a first-world democracy when the outcome isn't guaranteed. Vietnam really broke a lot of people's spirits to the point that we carefully avoided nation building in the 1991 Gulf War. Our biggest success since Korea was the Balkan Wars which just aren't prominent in the public consciousness for some reason.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Definately 'statebuilding' has succeded before and totally failed in afganistan But its not just about guns - the key difference is that south korea has recieved more financial aid than all of africa combined. Thats is probably thr key difference
- randomopining 5y ago
  They are quite possibly 100% different scenarios. Your oversimplification is ridic lol.
MattGaiser 5y ago
And none were involved in active combat operations either. Just logistics and intelligence support.
umvi 5y ago
I don't think it's worth it. Afghanistan is classic example of scope-creep. We went in because al-qaeda blew up two of our buildings. We dismanted al-qaeda leadership including killing its founder. But then instead of leaving we decided to stay because of scope creep and we are still there 20 years after initial deployment fighting against a totally different adversary (Taliban). So what, we pump more soldiers in and destroy Taliban leadership too? But then I'm sure the vacuum will be filled by the next religious-militia organization and we will be stuck like this forever. I am in favor of helping countries that genuinely want freedom from an oppressive regime. South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom. But Afghanis were not like South Koreans. They didn't seem to care much that they were ruled by oppressive regimes. We had a lot of friendly fire problems where Afghani security forces would go rogue and start killing random personnel on base.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Scope creep is always a problem when wars are a jobs program.
- ausbah 5y ago
  characterizing the Korean War like that is a bit simplistic. the South Korean was another one of the many proxy governments the US supported in SE Asia during the Cold War that committed their own share of atrocities, political repression, and otherwise authoritarian behavior - which the US tolerated because they were "anti-Communist"
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom" The First Republic [of Korea] was characterized by Rhee's authoritarianism and corruption, limited economic development, strong anti-communism, and by the late 1950s growing political instability And the second and third republics were dictatorships too.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre > The Bodo League massacre (Korean: 보도연맹 학살사건; Hanja: 保導聯盟虐殺事件) was a massacre and war crime against communists and suspected sympathizers (many of whom were civilians who had no connection with communism or communists) that occurred in the summer of 1950 during the Korean War. Estimates of the death toll vary. Historians and experts on the Korean War estimate that the full total ranges from at least 60,000–110,000 (Kim Dong-choon) to 200,000 (Park Myung-lim). The massacre was wrongly blamed on the communists. The South Korean government made efforts to conceal this massacre for four decades. Survivors were forbidden by the government from revealing it, under suspicion of being communist sympathizers; public revelation carried with it the threat of torture and death.
eplanit 5y ago
That 3000 you're seeing reference to in the past day or so is about new troops being sent now to rescue the US Embassy staff as the Taliban approaches.[1] We have not been this embarrassed or humiliated since Saigon. It's pathetic foreign policy, and a stupid military withdrawal -- capping off a monumental waste of lives, time, and money. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/afghanistan-us-urges-citizens-to-leave-immediately-as-taliban-nears-kabul.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/afghanistan-us-urges-citizen...
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Rumsfeld said we weren't going to do nation building. Mission accomplished. He did a heck of a job.
- randomopining 5y ago
  How is Biden continuing Trump's deal and pulling out pathetic? We need to realign all resources to point towards the CCP and probably Russia. Wasting time to have the resources available if Afghan war operations need it is a colossal waste.
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    Continued presence was at a minimal cost while keeping the freedom of ten's of millions. Instead we chose to create a horrible human catastrophe to save very little.
    - randomopining 5y ago
      You realize that we had to keep soldiers and all of the logistical and air support assets on hand. What benefit will the freedom of these people that mostly don't want it badly (or their 300k fully equipped soldiers would fight well) have for us in the future? Most likely we will have a global conflict with CCP, Russia, NK, Iran in about 5-10 years time. I highly doubt the Taliban will influence the outcome of that.
      - 5y ago
Lev1a 5y ago
> If 3000 soldiers can keep a whole country from going Taliban Probably more like the expectation that in response to any substantial Taliban coup and thus danger to NATO soldiers, (tens of) thousands more soldiers with vehicles, tanks, aircrafts could be there in a matter of days.
randomopining 5y ago
We need to realign to face the CCP and probably Russia and NK. Having stuff there is a waste. In WW3, the Taliban will be nobodies and one or two minimal terrorist attacks in Europe will be the least of our worries.

sobellian 5y ago

The thing is, they can't. Under those troop levels the Taliban was already taking more territory every year. The choice was between a US troop surge (for an indefinite period), a slow death, or a quick death.

onepointsixC 5y ago
They never could have moved in mass as the moment they would US and Afghan aviation. But not only did US pull intel support, air support, they pulled logistic support so the Afghan aviation is in complete disrepair.

msoad 5y ago

comparing what's going on in Afghanistan to the Korean Peninsula and how the American forces helped South Korea become a prosperous country make me think the US has lost its core values about its role in the international scene.

dtwest 5y ago
Afghanistan and Korea are vastly different scenarios, perhaps the main difference is the situation the US put themselves in rather than a change of core values.
tootie 5y ago
Yeah and Vietnam is why. Really, America as the world police was a pretty short-lived experiment. We had to be dragged in to WWII. We mostly sat out the Maoist revolution even though we did have a presence in China at the time. Korea ended up being politically fraught and the public just didn't have their heart in it. No one wanted to help a backwater Asian country. It's hard to sell a 70-year investment to help them become a first-world democracy when the outcome isn't guaranteed. Vietnam really broke a lot of people's spirits to the point that we carefully avoided nation building in the 1991 Gulf War. Our biggest success since Korea was the Balkan Wars which just aren't prominent in the public consciousness for some reason.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Definately 'statebuilding' has succeded before and totally failed in afganistan But its not just about guns - the key difference is that south korea has recieved more financial aid than all of africa combined. Thats is probably thr key difference
randomopining 5y ago
They are quite possibly 100% different scenarios. Your oversimplification is ridic lol.

MattGaiser 5y ago

And none were involved in active combat operations either. Just logistics and intelligence support.

umvi 5y ago

I don't think it's worth it. Afghanistan is classic example of scope-creep. We went in because al-qaeda blew up two of our buildings. We dismanted al-qaeda leadership including killing its founder. But then instead of leaving we decided to stay because of scope creep and we are still there 20 years after initial deployment fighting against a totally different adversary (Taliban). So what, we pump more soldiers in and destroy Taliban leadership too? But then I'm sure the vacuum will be filled by the next religious-militia organization and we will be stuck like this forever. I am in favor of helping countries that genuinely want freedom from an oppressive regime. South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom. But Afghanis were not like South Koreans. They didn't seem to care much that they were ruled by oppressive regimes. We had a lot of friendly fire problems where Afghani security forces would go rogue and start killing random personnel on base.

wonderwonder 5y ago
Scope creep is always a problem when wars are a jobs program.
ausbah 5y ago
characterizing the Korean War like that is a bit simplistic. the South Korean was another one of the many proxy governments the US supported in SE Asia during the Cold War that committed their own share of atrocities, political repression, and otherwise authoritarian behavior - which the US tolerated because they were "anti-Communist"
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"South Korea is a great example, they fought tooth and nail alongside the Americans to secure their own freedom" The First Republic [of Korea] was characterized by Rhee's authoritarianism and corruption, limited economic development, strong anti-communism, and by the late 1950s growing political instability And the second and third republics were dictatorships too.
pessimizer 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre > The Bodo League massacre (Korean: 보도연맹 학살사건; Hanja: 保導聯盟虐殺事件) was a massacre and war crime against communists and suspected sympathizers (many of whom were civilians who had no connection with communism or communists) that occurred in the summer of 1950 during the Korean War. Estimates of the death toll vary. Historians and experts on the Korean War estimate that the full total ranges from at least 60,000–110,000 (Kim Dong-choon) to 200,000 (Park Myung-lim). The massacre was wrongly blamed on the communists. The South Korean government made efforts to conceal this massacre for four decades. Survivors were forbidden by the government from revealing it, under suspicion of being communist sympathizers; public revelation carried with it the threat of torture and death.

eplanit 5y ago

That 3000 you're seeing reference to in the past day or so is about new troops being sent now to rescue the US Embassy staff as the Taliban approaches.[1] We have not been this embarrassed or humiliated since Saigon. It's pathetic foreign policy, and a stupid military withdrawal -- capping off a monumental waste of lives, time, and money. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/afghanistan-us-urges-citizens-to-leave-immediately-as-taliban-nears-kabul.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/afghanistan-us-urges-citizen...

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Rumsfeld said we weren't going to do nation building. Mission accomplished. He did a heck of a job.
randomopining 5y ago
How is Biden continuing Trump's deal and pulling out pathetic? We need to realign all resources to point towards the CCP and probably Russia. Wasting time to have the resources available if Afghan war operations need it is a colossal waste.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  Continued presence was at a minimal cost while keeping the freedom of ten's of millions. Instead we chose to create a horrible human catastrophe to save very little.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    You realize that we had to keep soldiers and all of the logistical and air support assets on hand. What benefit will the freedom of these people that mostly don't want it badly (or their 300k fully equipped soldiers would fight well) have for us in the future? Most likely we will have a global conflict with CCP, Russia, NK, Iran in about 5-10 years time. I highly doubt the Taliban will influence the outcome of that.
    - 5y ago

Lev1a 5y ago

> If 3000 soldiers can keep a whole country from going Taliban Probably more like the expectation that in response to any substantial Taliban coup and thus danger to NATO soldiers, (tens of) thousands more soldiers with vehicles, tanks, aircrafts could be there in a matter of days.

randomopining 5y ago

We need to realign to face the CCP and probably Russia and NK. Having stuff there is a waste. In WW3, the Taliban will be nobodies and one or two minimal terrorist attacks in Europe will be the least of our worries.