Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 225 posts

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#91

Post by Freak_NL »

forgingahead wrote: post #43
yalogin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to blame this on the Biden administration? Seriously? What would you want to see happen?

Yes. Seriously yes. I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 2001, squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. "Explainers" are why this is happening - weak minded people who prefer marketing (appearance of performance) over results. Surprising to me considering the heated replies to the other thread on the front page a…

> […] squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy. So much resources have already been spent, that stopping now means those would have been wasted.

The problem is that no amount of extra resources will lead to a different outcome, and the resources are already lost, so stopping outright is the only sensible move. Current events (a somewhat peaceful transfer of power seeming imminent rather than years of (more) war) support this.

It would be different if some other outcome was possible; it doesn't look like anyone involved in the decision found this likely.

(Note that this outcome sucks for many Afghans, it just sucks less than the alternatives.)

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#92

Post by iratic0 »

jokoon wrote: post #54
throwawaysea wrote: post #37

The Taliban has already entered the capital ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghanistans-taliban-seize-jala... ). This is an utter disaster for Biden and America. We should instead have performed a slower withdrawal and also continued to maintain a military presence permanently at Bagram field. Instead it appears China and Pakistan will welcome a new Taliban government and build new economic ties while America loses i…

Remember that it was trump who initiated departure from afghanistan, and deals were signed.

Obviously Trump would not have exited in such a disastrous manner as this. Trump has said he would have made it a conditional withdrawal.

Trump was so close to peace with North Korea (to the point where NK and SK competed together in the Winter Olympics, and which no career politician would have been able to achieve). Yet he still did not sign a deal with NK due to their insistence of not giving up nuclear weapons first. Similarly Trump would have made withdrawal from Afghanistan conditional. This failure is all on the Biden Admin.

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#93

Post by iratic0 »

yalogin wrote: post #34
forgingahead wrote: post #27

I was told in January this year by many gleeful people they were so happy that "competence" was coming back into the US administration. What an absolute bunch of morons and their failures. *Edit: to answer the questions about "what should have been done instead", here is my reply from further down the page: I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 200…

Are you trying to blame this on the Biden administration? Seriously? What would you want to see happen?

A conditional withdrawal, like Trump said.

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#94

Post by laurent92 »

fighterpilot wrote: post #77
throwawaysea wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to reco…

I am also not fully sold on the idea that getting out is a good idea, but for different reasons. The growth of Afghanistan's economy (300-400% GDP) and the quality of life improvements since the Taliban were removed has been notable, and if this regresses then there will be a real human toll. But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/de…

Social media is already reporting thousands of refugees walking in Greece.

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#95

Post by temp8964 »

bawolff wrote: post #53
CapricornNoble wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set. Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those cam…

Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? (I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)

Here is a quick review of the geopolitics: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afgha...

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#96

Post by Shacklz »

throwawaysea wrote: post #49
sneak wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves. This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.

I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to reco…

> remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!

But when the Saudis presumably financed some of the same/similar bad guys it wasn't even worth much of an investigation? I find such "they're bad guys!"-arguments to be applied very inconsistently

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#97

Post by CapricornNoble »

pjc50 wrote: post #62
CapricornNoble wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set. Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those cam…

> multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible? That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years? Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead. Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

>>That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years?

Yeah it's one of those unspoken "national interests" that underlies how the US plays The Great Game, but rarely states explicitly.

>>>Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.

If we are lucky, that will be the outcome. If the Chinese find a way to balance transit routes and natural resource extraction without somehow pissing a conservative Muslim population (while they are simultaneously oppressing Muslims in their home territory)....that could turn into a problem. If they build out links to Iran, it will not only throw a lifeline to that economically-struggling adversary, it will help China pivot away from reliance on maritime lines of communication. That maritime reliance is key to the US's strategy of threatening economic strangulation of Chinese coastal industry in the event of a conflict.

>>>Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

Via their shared border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord...

Via China's ally Pakistan, the same routes most of US military logistics took into Afghanistan for the first decade?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afgha...

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#98

Post by NonContro »

yalogin wrote: post #32

What a failure of the US armed forces here. 20 damn years staying in the country with the only 2 goal - to help Afghans build an army and help defend themselves and to eradicate the Taliban. They failed miserably in both. Trillions spent and many lost lives. Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Of course, the cycle keeps repeating itself and we keep growing the military.

US forces abandoned the country 'overnight' - leaving behind all of the military equipment the Taliban would need for their reconquest:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizur...

Why wasn't all this equipment repatriated or destroyed? Why were the bases just abandoned without proper transition to Afghan Control, so that in some cases they were even looted by civilians?

Possible explanations:

1. Extreme incompetence or total apathy by US Commanders/Politicians

2. There was no land/sea transport route through Pakistan to retrieve all the equipment

3. The US Military-Industrial Complex was happy for all this stuff to be lost, so it could be reordered

4. The US wanted the Taliban to reconquer the country quickly, so that any power vaccuum could not be filled by China or Russia

5. Managed decline of the US Empire, requiring deliberate humiliation and demoralization of the US forces, enabled by corrupt senior US commanders and politicians who have made deals with China.

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#99

Post by reducesuffering »

bArray wrote: post #40
forgingahead wrote: post #27

I was told in January this year by many gleeful people they were so happy that "competence" was coming back into the US administration. What an absolute bunch of morons and their failures. *Edit: to answer the questions about "what should have been done instead", here is my reply from further down the page: I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 200…

> I was told in January this year by many gleeful people they were so happy that "competence" was coming back into the US administration. I share your frustration - this withdrawal literally couldn't have been done worse. They were so ill prepared they left weapons for the Taliban to pick up, seemingly had zero plan for evacuation of their embassies and failed to tell allied embassies. A withdrawal was definitely on…

> Trump had zero involvement in their withdrawal planning.

Trump had a deal signed with the Taliban, in which a withdrawal of half the troops was already initiated, funding was cut, and 5k Taliban prisoners were released. Immediately after that deal, Taliban went on a huge offense and the end was set in motion.

Biden inherited a signed deal that had US completely withdrawn in May, and he even extended it to August.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Agreement_(2020)

Re: Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse

#100

Post by pishpash »

leereeves wrote: post #6
Clewza313 wrote: post #3

Fall of Saigon v2. Although I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support.

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…

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