4 ms·

Just over a month ago [July 8] the President was actually arguing that the Afghan army would win: Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? TH

Just over a month ago [July 8] the President was actually arguing that the Afghan army would win: Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not. Q Why? THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. ... I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...

AdrianB1 5y ago
They have 300,000 troops that are either poorly trained, lead by incompetent officers and/or corrupt to the bone. It is expected to lose badly. This was known, that makes the speech a big lie as many speeches of most leaders of most countries.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  And wasn't there recently something shared here, that the afghan air force cannot really fly, because the US cancelled their contracted maintainance service? Also with the sheer size of the US embassy - it rather looks to me like there never was a sovereign afghan government in the first place, so of course they don't stand a chance on its own. It was all too artificial and US dependent.
rvense 5y ago
It's almost as though the American leadership doesn't really understand Afghanistan.
- hulitu 5y ago
  Of course they do. But is a nice playing ground for the army and the military industrial complex makes good profits. The lifes of milions do not matter for them.
  - meowface 5y ago
    I'm not necessarily doubting this, but I feel like this is always a convenient goto excuse to criticize any terrible, unethical military strategy the US is responsible for. Is there good evidence that certain powerful corporations/people made so much money and have so much power that they could and did successfully pressure politicians for two decades across a bunch of administrations into staying in Afghanistan? Not only successfully pressuring them to start the war but successfully pressuring them to stay there for so long? (I of course don't at all doubt that the big military contractors have been making a ton of money from the wars, but I'm specifically referring to their corporate influence being the primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. force behind why we were still in Afghanistan after two decades.) My own uninformed Occam's razor assumption would've been that it's primarily a matter of tangled geopolitics rather than a military-industrial complex scheme from day one to today. That is, that the State Department and top-level strategists and policy advisors are mostly the people to blame. Maybe it's all of the above or some complex mixture. But what I want to know is the actual individuals responsible, or at least where they're contained. Not just an opaque storm cloud labeled "the military-industrial complex" or "the Deep State". For example, it could potentially be the case that this narrative might actually unintentionally help to shield the people who are truly culpable.
    - juanani 5y ago
      Okay even if this is a serious question, do you think those actually responsible want their names easily known? The powerful ones? They know their heads would be on the chopping block. Ofcourse you ask to make your point - OMG look at these new conspiracists attacking these well off gentlemen, pfft peasants. eff off you monocle wanna-be shithead.
      - meowface 5y ago
        >OMG look at these new conspiracists attacking these well off gentlemen I'm definitely not at all defending arms dealers and military contractors. I'm no fan of the military-industrial complex, or war, or imperialism, or the US government. I just want to know - based on evidence - who's directly responsible for us staying in Afghanistan for 23 years. Everyone should want to know this. If the root cause is corrupt politicians and military contractors, that's extremely important information to know. And if it isn't, then the actual root cause is extremely important information to know. >do you think those actually responsible want their names easily known? The powerful ones? They know their heads would be on the chopping block. All the more reason to try to figure out who they are, then? >eff off you monocle wanna-be shithead. Good argument.
- drran 5y ago
  If a Muslim country will invade a Christian country, say Sweden, to improve democracy, what will happen when they will leave?
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Like Caliphate of Córdoba?
pomian 5y ago
Now, who's equipped? History repeats itself...
pishpash 5y ago
He was obviously posturing to make the question go away. Everybody knew this would be the outcome, the die was cast.

AdrianB1 5y ago

They have 300,000 troops that are either poorly trained, lead by incompetent officers and/or corrupt to the bone. It is expected to lose badly. This was known, that makes the speech a big lie as many speeches of most leaders of most countries.

hutzlibu 5y ago
And wasn't there recently something shared here, that the afghan air force cannot really fly, because the US cancelled their contracted maintainance service? Also with the sheer size of the US embassy - it rather looks to me like there never was a sovereign afghan government in the first place, so of course they don't stand a chance on its own. It was all too artificial and US dependent.

rvense 5y ago

It's almost as though the American leadership doesn't really understand Afghanistan.

hulitu 5y ago
Of course they do. But is a nice playing ground for the army and the military industrial complex makes good profits. The lifes of milions do not matter for them.
- meowface 5y ago
  I'm not necessarily doubting this, but I feel like this is always a convenient goto excuse to criticize any terrible, unethical military strategy the US is responsible for. Is there good evidence that certain powerful corporations/people made so much money and have so much power that they could and did successfully pressure politicians for two decades across a bunch of administrations into staying in Afghanistan? Not only successfully pressuring them to start the war but successfully pressuring them to stay there for so long? (I of course don't at all doubt that the big military contractors have been making a ton of money from the wars, but I'm specifically referring to their corporate influence being the primary/secondary/tertiary/etc. force behind why we were still in Afghanistan after two decades.) My own uninformed Occam's razor assumption would've been that it's primarily a matter of tangled geopolitics rather than a military-industrial complex scheme from day one to today. That is, that the State Department and top-level strategists and policy advisors are mostly the people to blame. Maybe it's all of the above or some complex mixture. But what I want to know is the actual individuals responsible, or at least where they're contained. Not just an opaque storm cloud labeled "the military-industrial complex" or "the Deep State". For example, it could potentially be the case that this narrative might actually unintentionally help to shield the people who are truly culpable.
  - juanani 5y ago
    Okay even if this is a serious question, do you think those actually responsible want their names easily known? The powerful ones? They know their heads would be on the chopping block. Ofcourse you ask to make your point - OMG look at these new conspiracists attacking these well off gentlemen, pfft peasants. eff off you monocle wanna-be shithead.
    - meowface 5y ago
      >OMG look at these new conspiracists attacking these well off gentlemen I'm definitely not at all defending arms dealers and military contractors. I'm no fan of the military-industrial complex, or war, or imperialism, or the US government. I just want to know - based on evidence - who's directly responsible for us staying in Afghanistan for 23 years. Everyone should want to know this. If the root cause is corrupt politicians and military contractors, that's extremely important information to know. And if it isn't, then the actual root cause is extremely important information to know. >do you think those actually responsible want their names easily known? The powerful ones? They know their heads would be on the chopping block. All the more reason to try to figure out who they are, then? >eff off you monocle wanna-be shithead. Good argument.
drran 5y ago
If a Muslim country will invade a Christian country, say Sweden, to improve democracy, what will happen when they will leave?
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Like Caliphate of Córdoba?

pomian 5y ago

Now, who's equipped? History repeats itself...

pishpash 5y ago

He was obviously posturing to make the question go away. Everybody knew this would be the outcome, the die was cast.