Asmongold victorious over broken-armed Karen

I'm a bit late to this topic but I had to chime in with a "well done". Asmongold successfully vanquished the Chicago Karen who got a broken arm and didn't want troops protecting herself. Why is this a good thing?  I'll let Asmongold explain it himself:

Stopped clock got it right on Afghanistan...in 2003

The guy in the video (who shall remain both nameless and without a title on this blog), like a stopped clock, was right.  Unfortunately you have to go back to 2003 for the correct view.

When president Trump announced he wanted to withdrawal all troops from Afghanistan, he made some valid points. In fact, I agree that there needed to be a timetable for withdrawal.  I think announcing the timetable was a rookie mistake however.  But the calamity and chaos was compounded immeasurably when the guy in the video started making the decisions.  The pullout under the cover of darkness, with no handoff of infrastructure and power, along with the announced delay, and his clear lack of a plan on how to do it, was done in the worst possible way. You would be hard pressed to think of anything that could have been done to make it worse.

Sure there were likely to be a lot of problems, even if president Trump was in charge during the pullout.  But you can bet it would not have been this bad.  It would have been manageable problems, not a total collapse and return to the Taliban.  

Beyond that, the guy in the video is lying now. But worse still, he continues to compound the problem, making it look like America's erstwhile allies in the country are on their own, with nary a chance to fight, flee or survive because, well, it is what it is.  The right wording might force the Taliban to at least pause before slaughtering more people.

All of that aside, was an Afghanistan war a good idea for America?  It made sense when they were trying to find Bin Laden. Not a war per se, but an invasion.  That's where they believed he was. The mistake was engaging the Taliban as enemy combatants as a side effort.  If they were in the way, take care of it, but do not put the country on a path towards democracy unless you are willing to stick it out for as long as it takes.  American forces are still stationed in South Korea and Japan and Germany.  It took decades for those situations to resolve into stable democracies that no longer needed American support. And to be fair, the purpose of continued American military presence in those locations has changed over time. But to think the situation would require any less in either Iraq or Afghanistan is foolhardy.

So the rationale for a pullout conflicts with some of the side goals of Afghanistan, but since they were decided as goals at one point, pulling out prematurely was an invitation to disaster. The only way to avoid that would have been that there was a plan made, to transition power to a self supporting Afghani government capable of at least suppressing the Taliban  if not eradicating it.  The plan should have started about 10 years ago.  It wasn't.  President Trump should have included it as part of his withdrawal model.  He didn't, even though he likely had more of a plan than this chaos.  The next guy should have at least had some basic plan for a transition of power and assets.  He failed spectacularly and Afghani people will pay the price for his colossal failure.

Obama Baghdad

President Obama made a surprise visit to Baghdad today. He went in part to announce the draw down, and hopefully get the positive press on the pullout - cheering troops.



The purpose of the visit is pure politics. It shows liberals he means business about the pullout but that he's going to do it 'smartly'. And it will show conservatives the troops are relieved.

Democrats will see this as a win/win for them. Interestingly, MSNBC called Iraq somewhat of a success. I don't recall them saying that when President Bush was still in office.

Mumbai - more analysis

In light of the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, it seemed possible that the United States could turn the problem into a renewed relationship opportunity with India. Given the timing and the impracticality of action during a lame-duck presidency, the opportunity may have been missed. Condoleeza Rice has demanded that Pakistan come clean and co-operate. Or else? Not much. There's no carrot, and no real stick in play here. And consequently, the U.S. offers little to India that India cannot get elsewhere and more to it's advantage. Meanwhile Pakistan has gone back to the path of denial. And now InterPressService is reporting that India is seeking support from China in dealing with Pakistan.

According to sources, Mukherjee has conveyed New Delhi's dissatisfaction to Washington.

"With six American citizens killed in the Mumbai attack, we expected that Washington would apply effective pressure on the Pakistani military,’’ Uday Bhaskar, leading strategic analyst and former deputy director of the Indian ministry of defence -funded Institute of Defence Studies
and Analysis.

"That Washington could not act beyond a point proves that the U.S. dependency on the Pakistani military for the safety of its supply convoys to support its troops in Afghanistan is a greater priority,’’ Bhaskar said. ‘’There is "an understanding on both sides that there are limits to the extent to which the U.S. can prevail upon the Pakistani military to deliver apropos of
terrorism.’’

So an opportunity has been squandered. At least in the short term, since I'm sure there's more the United States government could do in the region that would be of more benefit to India. And there is urgent reason to do so. The Cato Institute in an article from the Dallas Morning News, touches on the implications of reliance on Pakistan.

After months of increased attacks on supply trucks, U.S. and NATO officials are scrambling for alternative routes to sustain its forces in land-locked Afghanistan. Today, three-quarters of NATO provisions bound for Afghanistan must travel through the deteriorating security environment in neighboring Pakistan. If U.S. and NATO leaders intend to establish new routes
for the mission, they will have to make concessions to surrounding countries including Iran and Russia.

...

For the time being, the U.S. and NATO will have to rely on Pakistan. America's foreign policy in the region remains hostage to events in that increasingly unstable country. Washington would be wise to take steps immediately to repair relations with either Tehran or Moscow if it wishes to have another feasible option for sustaining the Afghanistan mission.

Stemming the rising tide of violence in Afghanistan is crucial to America's "war on terror." Success requires the ability to supply U.S. and NATO forces in that country, which in turn, requires the wisdom to engage in effective diplomacy with key powers, especially Iran and Russia.

Clearly the alternatives are unsustainable. Iran, Russia? Not good bets. Being able to leverage forward bases in India would be a way to mitigate the problem, but it requires considering their interest instead of just America's - the relationship has to be mutually beneficial. As it could be.

Instead, it appears India will look elsewhere for support, a supporter of Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute, and a competitor to the US on the world stage. Not a good triangulation for the US or India. For the US this seems like a lose, lose, lose scenario. They lose a potential relationship builder with India, they lose the opportunity to open a new forward supply station for Afghanistan-based troops and they drive a potential ally towards a potential economic and military threat. There's triangulation worth working around.