Time-Line Leading Up To The Collapse of Afghanistan

[legumeofterror]

Pretty easy to find:

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Rel...levels-in-afg/

Statement by Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Force Levels in Afghanistan
JAN. 15, 2021
Today, U.S. force levels in Afghanistan have reached 2,500. Directed by President Trump, and as I announced on November 17, this drawdown brings U.S. forces in the country to their lowest levels since 2001. Today, the United States is closer than ever to ending nearly two decades of war and welcoming in an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led peace process to achieve a political settlement and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.

With a force of 2,500, commanders have what they need to keep America, our people and our interests safe. Working alongside our NATO allies and partners, the United States will continue to execute both our counterterrorism mission and the train, advise and assist mission in support of Afghan Security Forces working to secure peace in their country. Continued fulfillment of these two complementary missions seeks to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used to harbor those who seek to bring harm to the United States of America.

This force reduction is an indication of the United States’ continued support towards the Afghan peace process and our adherence to commitments made in both the U.S.-Taliban agreement and the U.S.-Afghanistan Joint Declaration. Moving forward, while the Department continues with planning capable of further reducing U.S. troop levels to zero by May of 2021, any such future drawdowns remain conditions-based. All sides must demonstrate their commitment to advancing the peace process. Further, the United States will continue to take any action necessary to ensure protection of our homeland, our citizens and our interests.

It says right there the intent is to completely withdraw from the country by the target date, with an aside that it will be "condition based" which is meaningless. The Afghanistan of today was an inevitability given the actions laid out and executed per the treaty. This administration certainly ****ed up the withdrawal, but if you think Trump was going to maintain a presence there indefinitely or would have somehow prevented the collapse of government there I can't agree.

[ViniVidivici]

You're right, he wouldn't have.

But he wouldn't have done things retarded ass-backwards like these useless cuunts have done (which was most likely purposefull), and left so many people, and so much shit behind...

[Sam]

This is what I've been looking for:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...edgdhp&pc=U531

As history repeats itself 46 years after the fall of Southeast Asia to communism, these Afghan pilots did the right thing when they knew their country was going to fall. They took as many of their people, family and friends and escaped in their aircrafts to a neighboring country. Just like the South Vietnamese and Cambodian air force planes and helicopters that flew to US Aircraft carriers and US Air Force bases in Thailand did in 1975. Those Afghan air force pilots will and should be brought to the US and given their green cards just like the Southeast Asians pilots.

Another point and the result of this is, the tallybaaans don't have as much donated American aircrafts left as some thinks they do.

[Todd.K]

It says right there the intent is to completely withdraw from the country by the target date, with an aside that it will be "condition based" which is meaningless.

Maybe in normal political talk it is meaningless, but Trump was not a normal politician.

Trump had four years to pull out like this, but he didn’t. Biden did.

[legumeofterror]

Maybe in normal political talk it is meaningless, but Trump was not a normal politician.

Trump had four years to pull out like this, but he didn’t. Biden did.

So was his word when he signed the treaty meaningless, or...? This is exactly what Trump agreed to, a total withdrawal (that was supposed to be months earlier per his timeline). Save for the absolute disaster that was the withdrawal itself, which may or may not have been handled better. You sure put a lot of stock in the word of a guy who lied and denied reality on a regular basis.

We could speculate on what he may or may not have done, but the fact is the terms of the treaty negotiated with the Taliban, with no input from or protections for the Afghan government, that released thousands of their members, unfroze their assets/lifted sanctions, and ensured they could begin operating as normal without any interference from the US basically assured the result we are seeing today. The SIGAR reports for years repeatedly indicated that the majority of the aid being sent to the Afghan military was being stolen and sold, and that the entire military structure was corrupt and incapable of providing any meaningful resistance to a Taliban take over. Neither Obama, Trump, or Biden acted in any meaningful fashion to prevent the disaster we witnessed that undid 20 years of fighting in a few months, but I am supposed to believe that Trump would have magically prevented it because he said so? in a few month undo decades of corruption, mismanagement, and lack of planning? No way.

[Todd.K]

The Trump agreement was indeed “condition based” but your position is BOTH:

That the conditional part is “meaningless”, as in unlikely to be enforced.

And Trump’s word would be “meaningless” if he had enforced the conditions in the agreement.

I don’t think everything was ever going to be rainbows... but it’s entirely possible that we could have gotten out with a reasonable chance the Afghan gov survives long enough to have a chance.

[legumeofterror]

Have you read the agreement? The Taliban never violated thier part. They actually had very little to do on thier part to be compliant. That is why I say thier statements are meaningless. Either they lied when they signed the treaty or they lied (not really lied i guess, made a very missleading statement moreso) when they said they were going to leave troops. Can't have it both ways. The "conditional" nature of the later commitment speaks to that. They knew there was no way the taliban wasn't going to uphold thier end of the deal.

Its also telling that the document offers no protections to the Afghan government whatsoever. Just a vague statement to promote dialog. Its like the didn't care that what we are seeing now would happen...

[AndyLate]

Have you read the agreement? The Taliban never violated thier part. They actually had very little to do on thier part to be compliant. That is why I say thier statements are meaningless. Either they lied when they signed the treaty or they lied (not really lied i guess, made a very missleading statement moreso) when they said they were going to leave troops. Can't have it both ways. The "conditional" nature of the later commitment speaks to that. They knew there was no way the taliban wasn't going to uphold thier end of the deal.

Its also telling that the document offers no protections to the Afghan government whatsoever. Just a vague statement to promote dialog. Its like the didn't care that what we are seeing now would happen...

All I can say is your boy got elected (?) and had the opportunity to draft a better agreement, but failed miserably. Lets be honest, Hunter Biden is a pretty good indicator of how well Uncle Joe handles pull outs.

Andy

[Hank6046]

This is another good read on the topic.

“Ghost wars : the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001” By Steve Coll

^^^Great book

[WillBrink]

Have you read the agreement? The Taliban never violated thier part. They actually had very little to do on thier part to be compliant. That is why I say thier statements are meaningless. Either they lied when they signed the treaty or they lied (not really lied i guess, made a very missleading statement moreso) when they said they were going to leave troops. Can't have it both ways. The "conditional" nature of the later commitment speaks to that. They knew there was no way the taliban wasn't going to uphold thier end of the deal.

Its also telling that the document offers no protections to the Afghan government whatsoever. Just a vague statement to promote dialog. Its like the didn't care that what we are seeing now would happen...

Have you read the article in the OP? Assuming it's accurate (and I personally trust that author's integrity and sources bigly...) it would appear as far as Trump was concerned, there were conditions, and and I suspect had he not felt the Taliban keeping up their end of it, both in spirit and as written, would have told them the deal was off, and Bagram would remain along with the required troops to secure it, etc. as long as required. I also think the Taliban aware Trump able and willing to tell them to blow out their ass being who he is, and knew Biden admin was utterly without backbone and would leave no matter what, and they could do what ever they pleased, which they did:

7 September 2019: Trump cancels US-Taliban peace talks after the group claimed responsibility for a car bomb that killed an American soldier. President Trump then calls the head of the Taliban and warns him that if he continues to kill American troops, he will meet the same fate as Iranian General Qasem Soleimani

29 February 2020: Trump announces a signed peace deal between the US and Nato allies, and the Taliban.

17 November 2020: In the final days of the Trump administration, the Pentagon announces plans to reduce troop numbers in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500, which was to be completed by January 2021.

Note: What’s the logic of why they chose 2,500? It’s the minimum number of troops required to conduct what the military on the ground in Afghanistan determined was needed to prevent the vacuum-effect that President Trump was warned about in 2017. What were those tasks: first and foremost: to operate and secure Bagram Air Base (an air base as big as many US Air Force bases in the US). Bagram would become the sole remaining “base of operations” for US Forces from which they would provide air support during and after the transition. In addition to operating and securing Bagram as an Air Base, it would also provide support to the small agile special operations liaison teams so they could deploy throughout the country to support and advise Afghan Special Forces at their bases and outposts around the country. Why did the Afghans still need US military liaison teams? Courage is contagious and so is common sense. Although the Afghan Special Forces had already proven themselves to their American Special Mission Unit advisers in battle, the Afghan military was a new army that hadn’t operated by itself (meaning without US units or other govt agency advisers). A key lesson learned from our all at once pull-out in Viet Nam was that we should have conducted a slower more adaptive draw-down. The Afghans did not have any experience or frame of reference for how to command and control themselves as an independent organization. These liaison teams were an integral part of the draw-down because they would allow for a gradual transition that would enable the Afghan military and its Political leaders to withstand what everyone predicted would be a full-scale attack by the Taliban as soon as the American main-body pulled out. If the Afghan military could hold the Taliban off during this period they would learn that they are strong enough to defeat the Taliban in battle, while also gaining confidence and experience to operate on their own.

Next date is Biden is sworn in, and it all goes to complete chit after that. Far as I'm concerned, that's 100% on Biden. He owns that.