Who Lost Afghanistan?

 From Charles Coulombe at The European Conservative:

The horrific scenes from the fall of Kabul to the Taliban could not help but rekindle memories of the fall of Saigon in 1975 (which this writer remembers) and that of Mainland China to the Communists in 1949 (which he does not). After both catastrophes there were endless bouts of accusations as to on whom in the American political establishment responsibility for the given debacle could be pinned. In the second case, we had in several ways pulled the rug out from under Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists; in the first, it might well be argued that the stage had been set for final defeat over a decade earlier when President Kennedy green-lighted the overthrow and murder of President Diem. His own murder later in the same month did little to alter the situation: subsequent South Vietnamese leaders would be hard-pressed to present themselves as more than American puppets—especially to potential Viet Cong recruits.

So it is and shall be with Afghanistan, whose mishandling alongside Iraq by four successive presidential administrations was highlighted by the tragic sacrifice of thousands of American and allied—including Afghan and Iraqi—troops in the “Forever War.” This sea of blood was accompanied by enormous expenditures that cannot be recouped. One may blame Biden for the idiotic way in which the last few months were handled. His supporters might poke the finger at Trump, who began the drawdown—forgetting that for the most part, it was the children of Trump’s supporters who were providing the combat personnel doing the dying (as a rule, the children of politicians, media-folk, and academics no longer go into the all-volunteer forces). Trump’s partisans might in turn accuse Barack Obama of simply letting the pot boil pointlessly during his eight years in America’s most prominent government job. There is no doubt some justice in all of the charges that shall be made—and some injustice. But in this writer’s opinion, the War had been ultimately lost in 2002, by none other than the second George Bush who initiated the mess.

This might be considered a bold accusation, since he did after all preside successfully over both invasions that began the seemingly-endless conflicts now concluding. But the tragic truth is that in pursuing his “global democratic revolution,” he ensured not only the fall of Kabul, but the earlier rise of first an Al Qaeda-offshoot and then Islamic State (IS) in Iraq with their concurrent atrocities. When, in 2002, the Loya Jirga—Afghanistan’s traditional “estates general” so-to-speak—was poised to restore the country’s deposed King, Mohammed Zahir Shah, the move was very publicly vetoed by Bush’s envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad.

The tragedy here is not only that the King was popular among all the nation’s diverse ethnic groups, and so could have served as a powerful centre of unity (even the Nuristanis, whose ancestors were forcibly converted to Islam as late as 1898 and have little fondness for other Afghans, were loyal to him). It is that any regime that emerged out of this action would be seen by the majority of the population as a puppet of the United States, doomed to fold as soon as American support faltered—and so it has proved. Without a doubt, had we allowed the King to be restored, we could have then bidden the country a fond but quick farewell and left them to their own devices—with the renascent Monarchy to stand or fall on its own. But the urge to reconstruct the country in our own image was too powerful for President Bush to resist. (Read more.)

 

From PJB:

Hundreds of Americans are going to be left behind, along with scores of thousands of Afghan allies who worked with our military or contributed to the cause of crushing the Taliban. And many of those Afghans are going to pay the price of having cast their lot with the Americans.nAfter Aug. 31, the fate of those left behind will be determined by the Taliban, and we will be made witness to the fate the Taliban imposes. This generation is about to learn what it means to lose a war.

When the war for Algerian independence ended in 1962, and the French pulled their troops out, scores of thousands of "Harkis," Arab and Muslim Algerians who fought alongside the French, were left behind. The atrocities against the Harkis ran into the tens of thousands. Such may be the fate of scores of thousands of Afghans who fought beside us.

Biden's diplomats may be negotiating with the Taliban to prevent the war crime of using U.S. citizens left behind as hostages. But we are not going to be able to save all of our friends and allies who cast their lot with us and fought alongside us. Yet, while the promises of the Taliban are not credible and ought not to be believed, we are not without leverage.

As The New York Times writes, the Afghan economy is "in free fall." "Cash is growing scarce, and food prices are rising. Fuel is becoming harder to find. Government services have stalled as civil servants avoid work, fearing retribution." The Taliban's desperate need is for people to run the economy and for money from the international community to pay for imports of food and vital necessities of life. What will also be needed from us, soon after the fall of Afghanistan, is a reappraisal of America's commitments across the Middle East. We have 900 U.S. troops in Syria who control the oil reserves of that country and serve as a shield for the Syrian Kurds. How long should we keep them there? (Read more.)

 

From The Western Journal:

Kash Patel, Trump’s chief of staff at the Pentagon, detailed the former president’s plan in an Op-Ed for the New York Post last week. As the man responsible for bringing “the forever war in Afghanistan” to an end, Patel was “intimately familiar” with Trump’s plan. In his words, it was “a conditions-based, methodical exit plan that would preserve the national interest.”

Whereas Biden’s military appears to be scrambling to respond to terror attacks, Trump’s forces would have been prepared for that eventuality. And while the Biden administration essentially rolled over as the Taliban took control of the country, the Trump administration would have threatened the terrorist group with “the full force of the US military if they caused any harm to Americans or American interests in Afghanistan.” (Read more.)

 

From The American Thinker:

Is the Biden administration's messy withdrawal from Afghanistan incompetence, or is it exactly as planned?  Is there a hidden globalist plan aimed at empowering Islamic governments in the Mideast?  If yes, how would empowering the Taliban fit in the larger plan of globalists and believers in the New World Order?

Socialists and globalists, whose home today is in the Democrat party, have been speaking about their lofty plans for decades, constantly testing the waters of public opinion and speaking from both sides of their mouths.  They insert insane ideas in the American psyche, then quickly deny they really said what they said.  After speaking about her dream of an open border, Hillary Clinton denied her comments by saying she meant only to call for reforms but not open borders.  But if we dare take their comments seriously, we are branded conspiracy theorists. 

After decades of listening to the far left, by now we, the people of America, should more or less know where the modern-day Democrat party intends to take America and how these people envision the world.  Now it's up to us to put two and two together and start uncovering what the deceptive left is really telling us.  Those who reject globalism and the New World Order should start analyzing and exposing globalist policies.  We should stop accusing the left of being incompetent because it is not. 

All we need to do is listen to globalists — their plans, lies, hidden agendas — and expose them even when they give us double messages aimed at throwing us off if we take their words seriously.  We can't be intimidated when they accuse us of being conspiracy theorists.  It's time to put the socialist-globalist agenda into perspective and connect it with their policies and behavior, instead of just calling them incompetent or accuse them of not caring about the unintended consequences.  This is because the consequences are actually intended.  

Western globalists aim at eliminating borders between nations, and they have no problem starting themselves, in America and Western Europe.  Such an agenda, if fully understood, should explain why modern-day Democrats have no fear of China while fearing and hating their own patriotic citizens who oppose globalism and love American sovereignty.  It's unimaginable that Democrats defended China over their own President Trump, calling him "racist" after he referred to COVID as the "China Virus." (Read more.)

Share