We can win the war in Vietnam!

[Aresen]

I fully expect that, after the eventual pullout, there will be those who argue "We were winning, but we were stabbed in the back by the liberals/MSM/libertarians/etc."

There are miletry loiers who make this very argument about Viet Nam 1.0

I had that individual in mind. There are also several others who post similar comments in the same place.

[Hugh Akston]

I was worried that the horrific attacks on the Kabul maternity ward would kibosh America's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it looks like it's still on track.

US officials say they will reduce to 8,600 troops by July 15 and abandon five bases. By the second quarter of 2021, all foreign forces are supposed to withdraw, ending the US's longest war. Yet the outlook for peace is cloudy at best. In the absence of Afghan peace talks, the administration of US President Donald Trump may face the prospect of fully withdrawing even as the Taliban remains at war with the government.

Hopefully Trump's narrative obsessed myopic blundering will come in handy for once.

That has concerned some lawmakers, including Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican and member of the House Armed Services Committee.

She says the US needs to keep a military and intelligence presence in Afghanistan to prevent groups like al-Qaeda and the ISIL's Afghan affiliate from forming havens from which to attack the US

"Withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan won't end the war - it will just let the terrorists win," she told The Associated Press.

Bless your heart.

[Aresen]

She says the US needs to keep a military and intelligence presence in Afghanistan to prevent groups like al-Qaeda and the ISIL's Afghan affiliate from forming havens from which to attack the US

"Withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan won't end the war - it will just let the terrorists win," she told The Associated Press.

Bless your heart.

Yup, Liz. The terrorists will win because your dad & his boss set up impossible conditions for the US to 'win' in Afghanistan.

[dead_elvis]

"Withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan won't end the war - it will just let the terrorists win," she told The Associated Press.

Couple trillion dollars down the toilet, thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded. Whaddya mean, "will"?

[Warren]

"Withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan won't end the war - it will just let the terrorists win," she told The Associated Press.

Couple trillion dollars down the toilet, thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded. Whaddya mean, "will"?

Not to mention all the recruiting we're doing for them.

[lunchstealer]

[Pham Nuwen]

God that is depressing.

[thoreau]

If Trump gets his withdrawal from Afghanistan, what will it actually amount to? Will it be an actual emptying of bases and recall of all personnel who aren't stationed at the embassy or very deep undercover in the CIA? Or will it be that all "boots on the ground" are removed but the Special Forces, contractors, and other people in non-boot footwear will remain in the same old bases?

[Aresen]

If Trump gets his withdrawal from Afghanistan, what will it actually amount to? Will it be an actual emptying of bases and recall of all personnel who aren't stationed at the embassy or very deep undercover in the CIA? Or will it be that all "boots on the ground" are removed but the Special Forces, contractors, and other people in non-boot footwear will remain in the same old bases?

I'd take the latter if that was all we can get. Obviously, I'd prefer the former.

Someday, some POTUS is going to have to eat that shit sandwich.

[Hugh Akston]

As usual, don't trust Trump when he says he's going to pull out

Under the plan,which the sources said is being finalized. there would be about 2,500 U.S. troops total in each country once the drawdown is completed.

TBF, a lame duck session is the ideal time to order a withdrawl. But Trump is waiting long enough for Uncle Joe to reverse the order a few weeks later.

[Warren]

As usual, don't trust Trump when he says he's going to pull out

Under the plan,which the sources said is being finalized. there would be about 2,500 U.S. troops total in each country once the drawdown is completed.

TBF, a lame duck session is the ideal time to order a withdrawl. But Trump is waiting long enough for Uncle Joe to reverse the order a few weeks later.

You think he would? What's the percentage on that?

[D.A. Ridgely]

As usual, don't trust Trump when he says he's going to pull out

Under the plan,which the sources said is being finalized. there would be about 2,500 U.S. troops total in each country once the drawdown is completed.

TBF, a lame duck session is the ideal time to order a withdrawl. But Trump is waiting long enough for Uncle Joe to reverse the order a few weeks later.

You think he would? What's the percentage on that?

Pretty good. He wants to patch things up with NATO, etc. Pax Americana is better in their eyes than Pax Anybodyelsea.

[thoreau]

It's hard to say whether Biden would "reverse" immediately. If withdrawal means "Some regular troops leave but special forces, contractors, intelligence agencies, and whatever else is needed to support them stay" then Biden doesn't have to actually reverse much of anything to keep the US operating in Afghanistan. None of those people count as "boots on the ground" in the fictions accepted by journalists and the political class, so Dynamite Joe can keep things chugging along and even increase troops-that-don't-count-as-troops levels while proclaiming that we have no regular forces there.

OTOH, if Trump actually pulled everyone out (aside from people with such deep cover that they can stay without anyone knowing they're with the US government) then, yeah, Diamond Joe would have his hombres back there pronto to kick some ass and raise some hell.

[D.A. Ridgely]

It's hard to say whether Biden would "reverse" immediately. If withdrawal means "Some regular troops leave but special forces, contractors, intelligence agencies, and whatever else is needed to support them stay" then Biden doesn't have to actually reverse much of anything to keep the US operating in Afghanistan. None of those people count as "boots on the ground" in the fictions accepted by journalists and the political class, so Dynamite Joe can keep things chugging along and even increase troops-that-don't-count-as-troops levels while proclaiming that we have no regular forces there.

OTOH, if Trump actually pulled everyone out (aside from people with such deep cover that they can stay without anyone knowing they're with the US government) then, yeah, Diamond Joe would have his hombres back there pronto to kick some ass and raise some hell.

I think you're way overestimating the "boots on the ground" thing. Mercenaries aside, any deployed military forces have a long tail to tooth ratio but there's not much good in leaving the tail without the tooth. Plus, I'll repeat I don't think the overwhelming majority of Americans care that much about casualties, which is why we've been fighting the Forever War since the 1990s and you don't see demonstrations on the streets or even politicians making it an election issue.

[thoreau]

Regarding "boots on the ground", the people supporting the tip of the spear are usually less likely to suffer casualties, as long as they have safe ways to move supplies around. So even if they count as "regular" troops, the casualties are mostly people who don't count as "regular" troops.

As for public opinion, yeah, the general public is mostly OK with whatever they understand the status quo of US operations in Afghanistan to be. But both parties do have elements in their base that fancy themselves isolationist, so it's beneficial for a president to be able to say that they've ended some aspect of the war, or brought home some troops, or whatever.

If nothing else, Trump wants to leave office believing that he did something that Obama and Bush could never do.

[Aresen]

If nothing else, Trump wants to leave office believing that he did something that Obama and Bush could never do.

Well, he's made GWB look good by comparison, so he's already cleared that bar.

[D.A. Ridgely]

Regarding "boots on the ground", the people supporting the tip of the spear are usually less likely to suffer casualties, as long as they have safe ways to move supplies around. So even if they count as "regular" troops, the casualties are mostly people who don't count as "regular" troops.

As for public opinion, yeah, the general public is mostly OK with whatever they understand the status quo of US operations in Afghanistan to be. But both parties do have elements in their base that fancy themselves isolationist, so it's beneficial for a president to be able to say that they've ended some aspect of the war, or brought home some troops, or whatever.

If nothing else, Trump wants to leave office believing that he did something that Obama and Bush could never do.

Which is why I'm recommending mass pardons of nonviolent federal prisoners. That actually would own the libs.

[Hugh Akston]

1) If anything, Uncle Joe is gonna follow the example of his Black Friend Barry by promising no boots on the ground and ramping troop levels up so slowly that almost nobody notices.

2)

But both parties do have elements in their base that fancy themselves isolationist

No. Nobody inside the Overton Window is isolationist. Some of them may want to withdraw from the forever wars overseas, but that's not what isolationist means.

[Aresen]

1) If anything, Uncle Joe is gonna follow the example of his Black Friend Barry by promising no boots on the ground and ramping troop levels up so slowly that almost nobody notices.

*sigh* I think you are right: One team of 'special advisers' at a time.

2)

But both parties do have elements in their base that fancy themselves isolationist

No. Nobody inside the Overton Window is isolationist. Some of them may want to withdraw from the forever wars overseas, but that's not what isolationist means.

The definition of 'isolationist' is elastic. It is usually a smear aimed at someone who doesn't want to bomb another country. To John Bolton, if you don't want to nuke Iran, you're an 'isolationist'.

[Hugh Akston]

2)

But both parties do have elements in their base that fancy themselves isolationist

No. Nobody inside the Overton Window is isolationist. Some of them may want to withdraw from the forever wars overseas, but that's not what isolationist means.

The definition of 'isolationist' is elastic. It is usually a smear aimed at someone who doesn't want to bomb another country. To John Bolton, if you don't want to nuke Iran, you're an 'isolationist'.

It's actually not that elastic. It's always used as a smear. Nobody who is anti-war refers to themselves as isolationist. I don't know that actual isolationists even exist in America, so I have trouble imagining anyone using the term affirmatively in any circumstance. Anyone who applies the term to the United States or any political party or coalition therein is either a complete moron or a complete moron who wants to kill people.

[D.A. Ridgely]

It's a catchall term and, yeah, usually used as an insult. I'm an isolationist to Forever Warriors insofar as I don't support the Pax Americana but I'm an internationalist (almost as insulting) because I'm fine with global trade, At the far end, I guess you could say Kim Jong-un is the apotheosis of isolationism.

[Hugh Akston]

Australian Special Forces killed Afghani prisoners and civilians

Australia said on Thursday that 19 current and former soldiers will be referred for potential criminal prosecution for allegedly killing the 39 Afghan locals.

The report said the majority of those killed, which included prisoners, farmers and other Afghan locals, were captured when they were killed and therefore protected under international law.

“There is credible information that junior soldiers were required by their patrol commanders to shoot a prisoner, in order to achieve the soldier’s first kill, in a practice that was known as ‘blooding’,” the report read.

Once a person had been killed, those allegedly responsible would stage a fight scene with foreign weapons or equipment to justify their action, the report concluded.

The actions did not immediately come to light due to what the report concluded was a culture of secrecy and compartmentalisation in which information was kept and controlled within patrols.

Although it has been the subject of rumour, Australia’s official investigation only began after the publication of classified documents about alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

A former military lawyer, David McBride, has been charged with providing the classified papers to the Australian Broadcasting Corp. He admits that he supplied the papers, but says it is in the national interest.

[Eric the .5b]

I just call it non-interventionism to avoid the "oh, so you want economic autarky" business.

[Aresen]

I just call it non-interventionism to avoid the "oh, so you want economic autarky" business.

We have a large number of people in Canada who somehow think Canada can dictate terms to the US because 'they need our resources'. I try to point out to such people that the US is the country that comes closest to being able to cut off the rest of the world entirely. The US is richer because of trade, but that doesn't mean the US needs us.

[Eric the .5b]

I just call it non-interventionism to avoid the "oh, so you want economic autarky" business.

We have a large number of people in Canada who somehow think Canada can dictate terms to the US because 'they need our resources'. I try to point out to such people that the US is the country that comes closest to being able to cut off the rest of the world entirely. The US is richer because of trade, but that doesn't mean the US needs us.

Even ignoring that, suggest they ask the developing world how the resource extraction sectors of their economies put them economically in charge of the planet.

(If that doesn't work, try pointing out that there's a reason 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the border, but not so much in the US case.)