4 ms·

There are a few issues at play. The biggest one is that the Taliban overtook the country far, far faster than anticipated. The Afghan military crumbled and los

by tyre 5y ago

There are a few issues at play. The biggest one is that the Taliban overtook the country far, far faster than anticipated. The Afghan military crumbled and lost ground about as fast as the Taliban could move its army. So while there were and are plans to evacuate those who helped the US military, the visa process—tens of thousands of which are in process and which began in the sprint—they weren’t expecting for the situation to change in a matter of days. In June, the US intelligence community was predicting they could have six months post-leaving before the Afghan government collapsed. Instead, the past week did it. The US won’t be able to get everyone out, but they are making a good faith effort. They are adapting by, for example, asking allied countries to temporarily take people whose visas are in progress but not fully finished. It’s a horrible situation. Thousands if not tens of thousands will be left behind. They and their families will be in danger. But we also have to be careful of who we let into the country And the embassy and in-country forces have other priories as well like destroying sensitive documents—which will itself save lives of people who worked with us—and extracting allied diplomats, their families, etc.

publicola1990 5y ago
But US asking other countries to take in these Afgans instead of taking them to US territories isn't a good look for the US.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  Where do the Afghans themselves want to go? They don't all want to come to the US.
  - publicola1990 5y ago
    Well I got the impression that US is not taking them to US territories not because they don't want to go there, rather because US isn't able to make arrangements to do so in time.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
When the US abandoned Vietnam, we ferried people out by helicopter as Saigon fell. We rescued 5500 Vietnamese civilians this way. The ambassador wouldn’t leave until marines forced him to get onto a helicopter. How many did we rescue this time? Do we have fewer helicopters than we did in 1975? Do our helicopters have an interlock that prevents them from taking off if someone without a visa is onboard?
- nexuist 5y ago
  We are sending helicopters for evacuation. In fact, we are literally sending the same ones: the helicopter linked below also performed evac in Saigon. https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/ https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  There is much more diligence to be done. Hell hath no fury like accidentally letting a sleeper Taliban into a Western country who commits a terrorist attack.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    It happened in Europe quite a few times with ISIS-members. There has been no perceivable fury, so ... hell doesn't exist? Hell is a picnic? I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter.
- tyre 5y ago
  I’m not sure what your point is. The Afghani military and government collapsed far faster than anyone anticipated. We knew they would fail—our estimates (that were wrong) were still a question of _when_ the state collapses, not _if_. Did we ever have enough helicopters in the country? Sure, probably. But part of leaving the country involves taking our stuff out of the country. We left Bagram a week or two ago. Now the situation in the ground has changed. Yes, in retrospect, with information we didn’t have then, it would be nice to have more helicopters. But even though we have more in the US military, you can’t Amazon Prime overnight ship a helicopter. We are sending more troops. The comment about locks checking visas is snarky, but also uninteresting. We’re talking about an emergency evacuation in a failed state that’s a hotbed for terrorism. Of course we should know who we’re bringing into aircraft and prioritize people we know and who have been vetted for visas.
nradov 5y ago
You cannot be serious. The Biden administration has made only a token effort to protect and evacuate translators and other vulnerable Afghanis who worked for the US occupation forces. Biden abandoned them to their fate and their blood is on his hands. He could have simply issued orders to load them on US aircraft and fly them out, but chose to do almost nothing.

by tyre 5y ago

publicola1990 5y ago

But US asking other countries to take in these Afgans instead of taking them to US territories isn't a good look for the US.

CydeWeys 5y ago
Where do the Afghans themselves want to go? They don't all want to come to the US.
- publicola1990 5y ago
  Well I got the impression that US is not taking them to US territories not because they don't want to go there, rather because US isn't able to make arrangements to do so in time.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

When the US abandoned Vietnam, we ferried people out by helicopter as Saigon fell. We rescued 5500 Vietnamese civilians this way. The ambassador wouldn’t leave until marines forced him to get onto a helicopter. How many did we rescue this time? Do we have fewer helicopters than we did in 1975? Do our helicopters have an interlock that prevents them from taking off if someone without a visa is onboard?

nexuist 5y ago
We are sending helicopters for evacuation. In fact, we are literally sending the same ones: the helicopter linked below also performed evac in Saigon. https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/ https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/
reducesuffering 5y ago
There is much more diligence to be done. Hell hath no fury like accidentally letting a sleeper Taliban into a Western country who commits a terrorist attack.
- luckylion 5y ago
  It happened in Europe quite a few times with ISIS-members. There has been no perceivable fury, so ... hell doesn't exist? Hell is a picnic? I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter.
tyre 5y ago
I’m not sure what your point is. The Afghani military and government collapsed far faster than anyone anticipated. We knew they would fail—our estimates (that were wrong) were still a question of _when_ the state collapses, not _if_. Did we ever have enough helicopters in the country? Sure, probably. But part of leaving the country involves taking our stuff out of the country. We left Bagram a week or two ago. Now the situation in the ground has changed. Yes, in retrospect, with information we didn’t have then, it would be nice to have more helicopters. But even though we have more in the US military, you can’t Amazon Prime overnight ship a helicopter. We are sending more troops. The comment about locks checking visas is snarky, but also uninteresting. We’re talking about an emergency evacuation in a failed state that’s a hotbed for terrorism. Of course we should know who we’re bringing into aircraft and prioritize people we know and who have been vetted for visas.

nradov 5y ago

You cannot be serious. The Biden administration has made only a token effort to protect and evacuate translators and other vulnerable Afghanis who worked for the US occupation forces. Biden abandoned them to their fate and their blood is on his hands. He could have simply issued orders to load them on US aircraft and fly them out, but chose to do almost nothing.