An analyst on a defence and security podcast has said that the history books will “not look favourably” on the decision to abandon Afghans that helped British forces.
Host @DefenceGeek said:
“Afghanistan is, to all intents purposes, really a lost cause, probably, because there is not going to be political wil, certainly anytime soon, for Western troops to go back into Afghanistan. Ultimately, that’s never going to happen.
And unfortunately, at the minute, what we’re seeing, particularly in the UK, is that the British government has now become so involved in obviously the crisis in Ukraine and trying to support Ukrainian refugees, that, to all intents purposes, Afghan refugees, and those Afghans who supported British forces and allied forces in Afghanistan, who unfortunately didn’t make it out in the Kabul airlift seem to have more or less disappeared or have been forgotten about.
And unfortunately, it all comes down to the decision that Western governments made that they were no longer prepared to be in Afghanistan. Ultimately, I do firmly believe they left Afghanistan to its current fate. Absolutely. And I don’t think the history books will look particularly favourably on that decision.”
Co-host Kyle responded in agreement.
“Oh, and so they shouldn’t, you know, the state Afghanistan is in now was 100%, maybe not 100%. But 90%, the fault, of the decisions that were made in the last weeks and months prior to that kind of shambles of an evacuation. Yeah, definitely didn’t look good. And like you said. Definitely, I don’t think will be looked upon fondly in the history books.”
You can listen for yourself by clicking here.
What is the OSINT Bunker?
The OSINT Bunker is a defence and security-based podcast aimed at expanding people’s knowledge of the geopolitical landscape using open-source intelligence. It fills a niche that most people (most people reading this anyway) have for up-to-date, accurate and balanced information on ongoing conflicts.
What is OSINT? For those who don’t know, OSINT stands for open-source intelligence, which refers to any information gathered from public sources about an organisation, event, individual etc. In practice, that tends to mean information found on the internet, but technically any public information falls into the category of OSINT, whether it’s books or reports in a public library, articles in a newspaper or statements in a press release.
Episodes typically cover the UK and international defence matters.
Exactly – but, thank God we transported a bunch stray dogs half-way around the world from Kabul to the UK. *Sarcasm alert*
Can’t really blame the government on that. The news were running back to back coverage of the horror that the dogs would be left behind, and then immediately after they were taken out, the same news sites were running stories of dogs taken out instead of humans.
If true, the official line was that there was spare space caused by delays in processing people and so no one was left behind because of it. I would like to believe that, but does beg the question on why there were delays.
Unfortunately, we Germans did the same. A shameful and stupid move.
Unfortunately history won’t remember them either way, as the world moved from one crisis to the next and no one really talks about it anymore, as it doesn’t directly impact on the general population of the west. For better or worse it’s just how society works, every topic, even covid where people continue to die in their thousands, get boring after a while and people stopped talking about it and move on to something new.
History will also show that many, including the British Government, were opposed to the withdrawal but that American politicians will make decisions that have permanent consequences so as to ensure that they have a shot at being King of the World for a four year slot.
I don’t know about many but HMG certainly.
The current US administration chose the Vietnam model of abandoning an ally in need, rather than the Korean model of maintaining a sufficient presence to ensure stability and peaceful development of a democracy. Video will preserve this act of perfidy and humiliation for generations. Believe a direct line can be drawn from manner of US withdrawal from Afghanistan to Russian invasion of Ukraine and current ChiCom behavior re Taiwan. West will collectively reap the whirlwind generated by this tragic decision.
The difference is the South Koreans put in the graft to stand up for themselves. Enough to stop the North on their own? No, but they showed that they were prepared to pull their weight.
Other than a few special forces and admistrators in Afghanistan, they either only cared for themselves or even supported the Taliban.
I’m sick to death of this narrative that we (the UK) left the poor Afghans in the lurch. That we somehow haven’t taken those who helped the British in, please allow me to set a few records straight:
1) The Uk went into the country in 2001 and ended all combat operations in Oct 2014.
2) From 2014 to 2020, Uk forces help run training establishments such as Sandhurst in the Sand, which ended in Oct 2020.
3) As mentioned, the UK (along with others) was in theatre these past 20 odd years and since 2014 trained the Afghan military to a much higher standard (And with more money thrown at it) than we did the Ukraine under the same time frame and yet The Ukraine facing the so-called 2nd strongest military in the world is still in the game 6 months down the line, and before anybody wants to contest that statement, the Taliban were, are light infantry at most.
4) If the Afghans can’t be arsed to defend their own, their loved ones, why is that my countries fault?
5) But you know what really get me, is how so many so called Asylum seekers who ran to the Uk for sanctuary on receiving shelter and a passport, have no problem visiting the country they claim they had to leave on Holiday, to live and ran to the media after they got caught out when their besties decided to take over the country via the bullet and the bomb and not the ballot box.
As I started, sick to death of how everything is our fault, it isn’t, over at the Guardian there’s a similar article about how the floods in Pakistan is down to…the British Empire. (whilst failing to mention that since 1950 there have been 21 serious floods in the indus valley) How about we tell people that they are responsible for not getting their act together. The Afghans had all the training, the manpower and the equipment to defeat the Taliban, they didn’t and they should be told that. Finally I will admit the UK is partly to blame in that it had no problem taking anybody who had a postcard from London, so when terry faced with, hmmmm work for a living, pay the bills, or live the life of riley in the Uk, it a no brainer is it, especially when I read yesterday that the Home office spent £2.5 million in June to pay a company to pick up jundies in the channel and bring them to shore.
Gets my goat.
Farouk, goat well and truly “got”. It’s not often on any site that someone will speak their mind in an intelligent and factual way. Well done from me.
Bravo for Farouk.
As always. How many thousands did we take out again? And how many interpreters supported the British Army? One per private?
Daniele wrote:
One of the claims used to berate the British Gov with was:
“”The French started earlier and took out all their citizens and the people who worked for them in June.””
I did a little checking, the french took out…1400 I quote from the FT
https://i.postimg.cc/PxqtC0ts/Untitled-1.jpg
add the around 3000 they took out a year ago and they took out in total around 4500 roughtly a 1/4 of what the Uk took out,
Although I respect your opinion and the way its constructed I have to agree with the sentiment that we in the West as a collective must share some of the responsibility for the events that have led to the Taliban being allowed back to rule in Afghanistan. We have not covered ourselves in any glory whatsoever regards our exit. There will be many there who will feel severely let down and they (and we) are exactly back where we started 20 years ago. It ultimately begs the question What it was all for-?
What was the long term strategy as I for one fail to see what we have achieved.
If you feel we share no culpability whatsoever in that regard then I will respectfully agree to disagree.
As for the article I read it slightly differently it seems to me the gist was the forward planning the French undertook prior to the rush to get out – not how many they actually took.
I blame the countries that armed sheltered and funded the Taliban.
Al-Qaida have been sidelined and are unlikely to try any terrorist attacks against the West again.
It was also an expensive mistake. But we can learn from that. If the population of the country invaded for whatever reason show know signs of wanting better themselves as a society, then we should just do what we went in for and leave them to wallow in their own mess.
It was Trump’s decision to pull the plug and to state a timeline for withdrawal (a gift to Terry T) despite the fact that it was a NATO (ISAF) operation; Trump showed his lack of respect for NATO and the other nations in the coalition by unilateral decision.
Biden delayed the exit date a bit but went along with Trump’s plan. The West as a whole should not feel guilty. Trump and Biden should.
The strategy was to defeat Al-Qaeda, but mission creep expanded it to defeating the Taliban, then to train the Afghan security forces, then to engage in provincial reconstruction….
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but to be honest the hard number doesn’t matter: Did we leave interpreters and their immediate families behind, or SF or other partners that fought alongside us. What matters is the percentage of those that deserve to be here- if we’ve left a significant proportion of them behind then that’s bad.
Even before the mess that was America’s unilateral drawdown, there were reports that the MOD were trying to duck their stated commitments to Afghans and Iraqis who supported us. I don’t know what the answer to my question above is, but comparing raw numbers with the French doesn’t tell the story. If they were only committed to taking 4500, then they did the job better than us if we only took 70% of the ones we committed to.
Joe,
I don’t think anybody has no issues with taking in interpreters (of which the Uk employed 7000) But and a big but, the Uk quite rightly refused to take in those who were sacked, dismissed or who left of their own accord during employment, a lot of those who are moaning come from that demographic , then there’s the somewhat stretching of boundaries as who qualifies as helping the British forces so we had:
Any MP
Any teacher
Any sports man or woman
Anybody who worked for the Afghan government on a project funded by the Uk
Anybody who is a first cousin of any of the above.
Now the reason I know a lot more than the average person, is because my mate (still serving) did a tour where he worked in the locally employed civilian cell and as somebody I know very well , (worked together, know his family well and we even send our respective cats presents) I know hes not a racist, who will embellish his words in which to look good.
Morning Farouk, I’ve read your posts on here before and I’ve never got the impression that you’re a racist or have any time for racists- sorry that I came across as implying that.
You’re right, we have specific commitments to those that served alongside us with good behaviour. Those that behaved more like the Taliban and those that didn’t fulfil their duty have no right to claim via the scheme.
That said, I would say that there are those, particularly women in roles that the Taliban don’t approve of, who should qualify for asylum, but then that should/would be handled by the standard refugee process. Unfortunately, because of the crappy way the US handled the drawdown, those people never got a chance to make application.
STOP READING THE GUARDIAN.
Why?
Well said that man 👏
F I honestly can’t disagree with pretty much all of what you said however I don’t believe the West (US) ever really tried to defeat the light infantry Taliban just like they didn’t really try to defeat the NVA ( all the hands tied rules of engagement nonsense) the whole thing is a scam it’s all smoke and mirrors being orchestrated from behind the scenes with all the special interests and global corporatism money making. Wars can be prosecuted with extreme prejudice but they aren’t so the end result is exactly as you described.
but apart from that angle your pretty much spot on
🏴🇬🇧
Thank you for saying it how it is. I too, will make no apologies for British involvement and outcomes in matters Afghanistan.
Spot on as normal, spoken by someone who has pounded that particular ground! 👍!
Australian Defence Minister/Deputy PM Richard Marles visiting Govan yesterday to see Type 26 construction (sisters to the Hobart class) and at Barrow today for the commissioning of HMS Ansom.
Interesting Times is reporting that while French and Norwegian sailors have served on RN submarines before they have been barred from entering the reactor compartment unlike future Australian submariners.
To be fair there was always going to be a point when we actually had to leave. If we stayed for another two years would it have made any difference? Would the Afghan army have performed differently? I doubt it. In my opinion it was always going to be messy. The Russian exit was pretty much the same.
The pull out was a shambles. No getting away from that.
But.. short of keeping troops there forever I can’t see any other different outcome to what we have now.
When it came to it, the afghan people put more effort into running away than fighting for the freedom they allegedly want so badly.
Sorry for the lack of empathy, but the Afghans received billions of dollars worth of aid, infrastructure, weapons, and military training over 20 years, but despite all that, they put up no fight whatsoever against the resurgent Taliban.
Leaving was the correct thing to do you cannot force western style democracy where it is not wanted, if the Afghans had wanted that they would have fought for it.
We should not have been in Afghan trying to force western style democracy down their throats. We were there to eliminate AQ and write down the Taliban who were their backers.
Biden’s fault for pulling the plug without a staged plan for withdrawing. Threw so many Afghans to the wolves. Absolute disgrace, as was allowing Putin to invade Ukraine again in February declaring we’d send no troops(Boris too). What did they think would happen?!!!
Nuclear armageddon.
Trump made the deal.
Bigly deal indeed.
Trump, a man who should never be allowed anywhere near power. Biden’s failure for implementing it suddenly without due process: A carefully staged plan, allies informed, ensuring all friendly Afghans safeguarded & not hung out to dry.
HMG was willing to keep troops in Afghanistan if others agreed to stay too. The answer from the rest was deafening silence.
I wish this woke nonsense that Britain somehow has a responsibility to ever Afghan that breathed the same air as a British soldier would come to an end. The Afghans were happy for other people to die for them for 20 years, but wouldn’t spill a drop of their own blood to defend their country and the President ran away on day 1 with a plane full of money. They deserve the Taliban.
The Afghan Army and Police lost 70k killed over 20 years – thats more than a few drops of their blood.
They gave up following loss of US air support and being very poorly guided by political leadership – the President fled the country with a stack of gold, rather than rally the troops.
Your answer typifies the level of knowledge of the woke generation. How many lives do you think were lost in the UK or France during the revolutions (fight for democracy), we are talking about a significant proportion of the adult male population, some estimates say 30%, not a few thousand over 10 years. The Afghans threw down their arms and surrendered to a numerically inferior force, who had no “air cover”. I say again, why should western countries give their lives for Afghans, if Afghans won’t fight for their own country? (democracy).
Approaching my 67th birthday I am somewhat bemused to be regarded as a member of the woke generation.
More importantly, I consider it rather horrifying that you treat the deaths of 70,000 of Afghan National Defence & Security Forces (ANDSF) (and at least 350,000 wounded) so lightly.
Referencing revolutionary wars held in Europe centuries ago and being critical of the proportionally lower Afghan losses is not a great argument. You suggest it is some ‘badge of honour’ to have an obscenely high death rate during revolutionary wars or wars of national survival.
When I was COS Camp Bastion (Nov 08-May 09) and worked alongside ANSF they were trying hard, doing their best and suffering far higher casualties than the west’s ISAF troops. They did lead a number of successful operations.
The UK and the US officially ended their combat operations in Afghanistan on 26 October 2014; it was no coincidence that Taliban resurgence soon followed.
The situation clearly worsened further in the year the US and her Allies pulled the plug completely in 2021 – and the Afghan President (Comd-in-Chief of the ANA) demonstrated weak leadership and ultimately zero leadership. Numerically inferior forces engaged in insurgency and terrorism can win against numerically stronger Government forces or at least drive them to negotiations.
The collapse of the ANDSF was a terrible thing and is unlikely to have happened if western nations had stayed the course – and we had not ‘cut and run’.
We have frequently had to aid militarily weak or militarily unsuccessful allies – that is not going to change. Should we have exited WW2 after France (who were supported by the BEF) capitulated to Nazi Germany?
UN troops (including Brits of course) are still in Cyprus after nearly 60 years; if they pull out, I would put money on a resurgence of inter-communal violence at the very least. Sometimes a military commitment lasts a very long time.
Woke state of mind is nothing to do with age and everything to do with “nothing is my fault” state of mind. If the Afghans want a prosperous democracy, then they and they alone will achieve this. Hanging in there for a bit longer, if 20 years is not enough what is? 50 years. There are enumerable countries around the world that believe “the West” should save them. This has been the authorised mantra for 70 odd years now. It has failed. Don’t need to be a genius to see this. The Taliban have never had superior manpower or weapons or training, but they have had more purpose, if you can’t see this perhaps this site serves no purpose. Many Afghans signed up to get paid and downed weapons at the first shot, some did not, but many did.
Best regards
No mention of ‘The Espionage Man’ Trump himself in this thread, or the article quotes, even though he’s the one that signed the peace deal with the Taliban (of all groups) in the year prior and set this fate into motion. Hammer the media all you want but get your historical facts straight.
Ron,
The peace deal that Trump signed stated that he would smash them into the ground if they reneged it.
Joint Declaration between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a member of the United Nations and recognized by the United States and the international community as a sovereign state under international law, and the United States of America are committed to working together to reach a comprehensive and sustainable peace agreement that ends the war in Afghanistan for the benefit of all Afghans and contributes to regional stability and global security. A comprehensive and sustainable peace agreement will include four parts: 1) guarantees to prevent the use of Afghan soil by any international terrorist groups or individuals against the security of the United States and its allies, 2) a timeline for the withdrawal of all U.S. and Coalition forces from Afghanistan, 3) a political settlement resulting from intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations between the Taliban and an inclusive negotiating team of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and 4) a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire. These four parts are interrelated and interdependent. Pursuit of peace after long years of fighting reflects the goal of all parties who seek a sovereign, unified Afghanistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States have partnered closely since 2001 to respond to threats to international peace and security and help the Afghan people chart a secure, democratic and prosperous future. The two countries are committed to their longstanding relationship and their investments in building the Afghan institutions necessary to establish democratic norms, protect and preserve the unity of the country, and promote social and economic advancements and the rights of citizens. The commitments set out here are made possible by these shared achievements. Afghan and U.S. security forces share a special bond forged during many years of tremendous sacrifice and courage. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan reaffirm their support for peace and their willingness to negotiate an end to this war. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan welcomes the Reduction in Violence period and takes note of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, an important step toward ending the war. The U.S-Taliban agreement paves the way for intra-Afghan negotiations on a political settlement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan reaffirms its readiness to participate in such negotiations and its readiness to conclude a ceasefire with the Taliban. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan furthermore reaffirms its ongoing commitment to prevent any international terrorist groups or individuals, including al-Qa’ida and ISIS-K, from using Afghan soil to threaten the security of the United States, its allies and other countries. To accelerate the pursuit of peace, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan confirms its support for the phased withdrawal of U.S. and Coalition forces subject to the Taliban’s fulfillment of its commitments under the U.S.-Taliban agreement and any agreement resulting from intra-Afghan negotiations.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States therefore have made the following commitments:
PART ONE
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States recognize that al-Qa’ida, ISIS-K and other international terrorist groups or individuals continue to use Afghan soil to recruit members, raise funds, train adherents and plan and attempt to conduct attacks that threaten the security of the United States, its allies, and Afghanistan. To address this continuing terrorist threat, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States will continue to take the following steps to defeat al-Qa’ida, its affiliates, and other international terrorist groups or individuals: 1. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan reaffirms its continued commitment not to cooperate with or permit international terrorist groups or individuals to recruit, train, raise funds (including through the production or distribution of narcotics), transit Afghanistan or misuse its internationallyrecognized travel documents, or conduct other support activities in Afghanistan, and will not host them. 2. The United States re-affirms its commitments regarding support for the Afghan security forces and other government institutions, including through ongoing efforts to enhance the ability of Afghan security forces to deter and respond to internal and external threats, consistent with its commitments under existing security agreements between the two governments. This commitment includes support to Afghan security forces to prevent al-Qa’ida, ISIS-K, and other international terrorist groups or individuals from using Afghan soil to threaten the United States and its allies. 3. The United States re-affirms its readiness to continue to conduct military operations in Afghanistan with the consent of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in order to disrupt and degrade efforts by al-Qa’ida, ISIS-K, and other international terrorist groups or individuals to carry out attacks against the United States or its allies, consistent with its commitments under existing security agreements between the two governments and with the existing understanding that U.S. counterterrorism operations are intended to complement and support Afghan security forces’ counterterrorism operations, with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people and the protection of civilians. 4. The United States commits to facilitate discussions between Afghanistan and Pakistan to work out arrangements to ensure neither country’s security is threatened by actions from the territory of the other side.
PART TWO
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States have consulted extensively on U.S. and Coalition force levels and the military activities required to achieve the foregoing commitments including through support to Afghan security and defense forces. Subject to the Taliban’s fulfillment of its commitments under the U.S.-Taliban agreement, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the United States, and the Coalition jointly assess that the current levels of military forces are no longer necessary to achieve security objectives; since 2014, Afghan security forces have been in the lead for providing security and have increased their effectiveness. As such, the parties commit to take the following measures: 1. The United States will reduce the number of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan to 8,600 and implement other commitments in the U.S.-Taliban agreement within 135 days of the announcement of this joint declaration and the U.S.-Taliban agreement, and will work with its allies and the Coalition to reduce proportionally the number of Coalition forces in Afghanistan over an equivalent period, subject to the Taliban’s fulfillment of its commitments under the U.S.- Taliban agreement. 2. Consistent with the joint assessment and determination between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the United States, its allies, and the Coalition will complete the withdrawal of their remaining forces from Afghanistan within 14 months following the announcement of this joint declaration and the U.S.-Taliban agreement, and will withdraw all their forces from remaining bases, subject to the Taliban’s fulfillment of its commitments under the U.S.-Taliban agreement. 3. The United States re-affirms its commitment to seek funds on a yearly basis that support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of Afghan security forces, so that Afghanistan can independently secure and defend itself against internal and external threats. 4. To create the conditions for reaching a political settlement and achieving a permanent, sustainable ceasefire, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will participate in a U.S.-facilitated discussion with Taliban representatives on confidence building measures, to include determining the feasibility of releasing significant numbers of prisoners on both sides. The United States and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will seek the assistance of the ICRC to support this discussion. 5. With the start of intra-Afghan negotiations, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan commits to start diplomatic engagement with members of the UN Security Council to remove members of the Taliban from the sanctions list with the aim of achieving this objective by May 29, 2020, and in any case no later than 30 days after finalizing a framework agreement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.
PART THREE
1. The United States will request the recognition and endorsement of the UN Security Council for this agreement and related arrangements. 2. The United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are committed to continue positive relations, including economic cooperation for reconstruction. 3. The United States will refrain from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan or intervening in its domestic affairs. 4. The United States will continue to work to build regional and international consensus to support the ongoing effort to achieve a political settlement to the principal conflict in Afghanistan.
Farouk said, “The peace deal that Trump signed stated that he would smash them into the ground if they reneged it.”
Lol you are full of crap ‘Farouk’. The lengthy text you have posted is NOT the peace deal the US signed with the Taliban nor does it mention anything about your hero Trump “smashing them into the ground if they reneged.”
If you’d like something coherent to read about the Taliban peace deal there is plenty of it out there. Here is one example:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3602087-former-afghan-president-agrees-trumps-deal-with-taliban-on-us-withdrawal-was-a-disaster/
Ron,
Thank you for your comment, please find the source for the above taken from the US gov website
Farouk do you think you can just post whatever document you want to justify whatever argument you are making? There is a serious cognitive disconnect going on in your brain if you think you have provided me with any evidence to back up your argument that Trump said he was going to “smash the Taliban if they reneged”. Nothing anywhere. You have posted an entire legal agreement that nobody on this board besides you has the time to read and nothing at all. Farouk, if you want to win an argument you have to back up what you are saying with specific facts that you can point to, not reference and post entire books. Now you have pasted yet another image (a favorite habit of yours trying to get readers of this site to click on your links) and again, nothing on this image of substance at all, let alone to back up your argument. So you are either just wasting everyone’s time trying to distract from Trump’s many crimes or are as dumb as a field mouse. As far as what Trump actually, specifically said, well here you go:
“Countries have to take care of themselves,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “You can only hold someone’s hand for so long.” Asked if the Taliban could eventually seize power, Trump said it’s “not supposed to happen that way, but it possibly will.”
Quoted in this article from 3/6/20:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/officials-u-s-has-persuasive-intel-taliban-does-not-intend-n1150051
From what he was saying at the time one could argue that Trump was in fact signalling to the Taliban that they have free reign now, which is the opposite of your deluded argument. Also Farouk, since you spend all day on this board, can you please find the time to share your thoughts on the current espionage investigation into Trump?
So after I put up regards this statement of yours:
By posting the direct link to the actual document on the US gov website, you simply ignored that and moved the goal posts, That is not how civilised people debate. I’m more than happy to admit when I am wrong, (which in the above I am not) but you do yourself no favours by being so abrasive and whats with the ” I demand you recognise trumps so called wrong doings” I’m British, I dont give a toss about US internal politics, and just because I dont doesnt mean I’m hiding something, it simply means I dont give a toss.
Also Farouk, besides the lengthy text you have cut and pasted to distract from Trump’s multiple crimes and disastrous decisions, do you have any comment on the current espionage investigation into him?
Trump made zero preparation for the withdrawal of US forces, and the Biden admistration had to extend the withdrawal (which everyone should have known was coming) due to that.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
Tams wrote:
Like what? The peace deal stated that the US would provide support to the Afghan Gov
The Peace deal was signed on the 29th Feb 2020 and situplated the US would withdraw all troops after 14 months. That date was the 1st June 2021. The US pulled all its troops out in the dead of night on Friday morning the 2nd of July which works out as…15 months. So you can have that
Please explain how quoting actual historial data is…rewriting History
I’m not concerned about history books written by Islamic Supremacists and their enablers.
Honestly, and you can call me as nasty as you like, screw ’em.
Ukrainians are actually fighting for their rights and freedoms. They are doing it as a nation. If they want to get their vulnerable out of the way (and the vulnerable are willing to go), then they are more than welcome.
Where was the big last stand in Afghanistan? There are a few good people who were there and hopefully they have gotten out. Other than that, they did very little to try and convince their fellow countrymen to stand up to the Taliban. Hell, many have been welcoming of the Taliban or just selfish about it.
Actually I think the Afghan army and police fatalities were about 70k for 20yrs fighting. It started off with just under 10% of USA population and ended with just over 10%; Lets say 10% throughout. So that is the equivalent of 700k USA dead or 35k a year.
They were still fighting and taking almost all the casualties when Trump’s bad deal shot them in the back. Biden to his credit delayed the withdrawal a bit but then the leaders we had forced on them ran away with their loot.
I do not blame the Afghan military for going home with all the weapons and ammo they could take to protect their families and home villages.
Trump’s decision meant the USA withdrew from ‘the war on terror’ after 7k US dead. Over the same period Americans have murdered 440k of one another. The Americans who were most strongly ‘bring the boys home’ are usually also the most pro-gun and the most anti-tax (the US police forces are under-funded by British standards while dealing with levels of violence closer to NI at the height of the troubles).
Until certain issues in the USA are resolved they are unreliably allies.
Sorry, but that’s no excuse for their utter lack of defence. The Taliban pretty much walked into Kabul.
The Afghan forces didn’t have the best weapons, but they had more than enough to fight the Taliban.
Only Afghan special forces units, and a few regular military and police stood up. And unlike in Ukraine, the vast majority of civilians didn’t stand up and fight when it came to it.
So no, you’ve not convinced me that I should have sympathy for the vast majority of Afghans, including those who fled/escaped.
Seems like everything could’ve just stayed the way it was indefinitely. The benefit of having a presence in Afghanistan was never mentioned, always presented as a forever war.