Well, well…
American citizens being named in a list might not be that dangerous - the Taliban wouldn’t kill them. But Afghan allies??? That’s going to…get them killed.
Asked and answered.
Slate has a good article on the hypocrisy of Republicans castigating Biden for carrying out the policies they voted for last year.
Awesome news. Special Ops veterans have saved an estimated 500 Afghan special forces and families.
They’re coordinating with active US forces at the airport. I can’t be any prouder of our veterans. They were determined to save as many of their former comrades as possible.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-special-operations-vets-carry-090023869.html
That’s nice, except why did we wait until basically the last moment to get Afghans who worked for or with the US military out of the country? Some of these people have been waiting years for the US to permit them to come here; there’s even a sitcom about it. Had we been bringing them (and their familes) to the US during the past decade, this mad rush would not be necessary.
Using volunteer veterans is a last resort. Politics has shackled our military. We have a lot of special ops that could be getting people out. They can’t do anything without orders.
It’s not only a humanitarian consideration. These are special forces we trained. Do we want them fighting for the other side? They’ll have no choice, change sides or your entire family dies.
We trained Osama Bin Laden and other Afghans to fight Russians. Look how that worked out later.
I feel like this has been answered like 20 times across 5 closely related threads in the last week.
-
Their job was to continue helping Afghanistan function. We weren’t giving them highly sought-after permanent residencies in the United States as some sort of largesse, it was something that would be offered if they were going to be in danger. So it makes no sense to evacuate them as long as it is believed the Afghan government was still viable.
-
The Afghan government wasn’t widely understood to be collapsing until basically the month of August, which created an incredibly shortened time frame for getting anyone out.
Getting the special forces guys out early would be an even bigger “wtf” idea, as you’d be actively starving the Afghan Army of its most valuable fighters at a very critical moment.
These people’s primary responsibility was to Afghanistan and the government they served. It is not inappropriate that they be expected to stay to almost the very end, most Afghans aren’t getting the option to flee the country at all.
Sure, we didn’t need to be evacuating those who were still working for the US military but I remember hearing during the first half of the year about the 17,000 interpreters who formerly worked for the US and wanted to leave and tried to leave. (At the end of several of the episodes of the sitcom I referred to, the two stars of the show made a statement about the need to get these people out.)
I’m not sure but I don’t think those people should have been allowed to leave at that point. The only reason I would support those people being brought over is if they were in imminent danger. Their primary obligation is to keep Afghanistan stable, not flee to the United States. Five months ago, based on the intelligence assessment we have been publicly told about, I do not believe it would have been reasonable to assume they were in imminent danger. Now with perfect foresight, we know those assessments were wrong, and they were. But that’s Monday morning quarterbacking. They have an obligation to their country and our only obligation to them ought begin when they have no options for safely remaining in country. It is unfortunate that situation developed so rapidly we have logistical barriers to getting them all out.
I’m not in any position to judge what those who helped deserve. Some of the people who are in that position in Canada are vocal in saying they should be afforded help.
I’d say the real problem is politics has shackled our immigration policy, to include our policies on refugees and asylum seekers. And FWIW, it’s not something that began under Trump. It’s been getting progressively worse for over a century, because would-be-but-not-yet immigrants are easily marginalized and exploited for political gain by both sides. After all, it’s not like they can vote, or even show up to protest.
And while you’d think there might be some political points to be scored in welcoming those who have supported US troops, that can be had merely by enacting some fig leaf of legislation that makes it theoretically possible for them to immigrate, never mind if the bar set is unrealistically high or the process ridiculously convoluted to the point of inadequacy. Anything beyond that, and god forbid someone who is admitted under a less draconian scheme does something bad, like gets caught selling marijuana to 17 year olds. Then pundits on the news start wondering “Why did we let such a terrible person into our country? Why wasn’t this person filtered out? Who vetted this person? What do you mean our immigration system doesn’t have safeguards to stop the sort of person who would sell ILLEGAL DRUGS to KIDS from entering the country? Won’t someone please think of the children!?” Next thing you know, some “totally not racist” special interest groups will be advocating the ousting of any politicians (either on the other side in a general election, or not far enough to a certain side in primaries) who may have happened to vote for whatever measure allowed “all these criminals” in.
Well, yes, but Stephen Miller was deliberately putting barriers in the way of getting Afghans out of the country. In addition, of course, to his usual “welcoming” ways for immigrants.
The ff. points have been raised by various sources:
-
The U.S. had no plans to nation-build but to go against terrorists, and the importance of that is also questionable.
-
The military is part of a military-industrial complex, which means its goal is to serve the interests of those in power, which in turn arms it.
-
The invasion was also meant to gain control of the region and thus attain strategic plus economic advantages, especially given the presence of mineral and oil resources. One mainstream media source has blatantly raised that.
Afghanistan’s young population has enjoyed some freedom during American occupation. Women have many new opportunities. They’ve gone to school and entered the workplace. Everyone is enjoying music, athletics, TV, and internet.
Do you really believe this young population will allow any government to take all of that away? This isn’t 1999. Banning music, TV and other activities won’t be accepted by this young population.
Think about what happened when the US banned alcohol. A significant percentage of the population refused to comply. The law became unenforceable and was revoked.
I realize the Taliban is willing to kill a lot of people to enforce Islamic Law. But will this young population fight back?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-population
A lot of those people who are enjoying the “Westernized” lifestyle are highly concentrated in a few cities. In rural villages, where 70% of the population live, they are still living largely along the traditional cultural lines they have lived by for hundreds of years.
… except that they all now have cell phones and internet access, especially the Taliban themselves. 
The picture isn’t quite so rosy:
According to figures provided by Afghanistan Telecom Regulatory Authority (ATRA), 301 telecommunication antennas worth $1 million were destroyed in the country last year, and in the first three months of the current solar year 28 telecommunication antennas in insecure parts of the country have been destroyed and 23 other antennas were partly damaged.
The statement criticized the Afghanistan Telecom Regulatory Authority, saying its weak management has doubled the telecom companies’ challenges.
With $3 billion in investment, telecommunication is one of the most important sectors in the country. But the lack of security and the extortion of telecom companies by local strongmen have limited telecom and internet services in many provinces across the country.
No prizes for guessing who systematically destroyed the cell phone towers.
This was all well before the latest developments. With no government left to speak of, who is going to rebuild the telecom network and how are they going to pay for it?
Note:
The U.S. Embassy reminds U.S. citizens that on April 27, 2021, the Department of State ordered the departure from U.S. Embassy Kabul of U.S. government employees whose functions can be performed elsewhere due to increasing violence and threat reports in Kabul.
Thus April 27 is about the time the U.S. should have made a major start to the evacuation. Naturally soldiers should not have been evacuated until the war was lost–but these are a minority of the people to be evacuated. Martin, I don’t think you understand considering how slowly bureaucracies operate how long a normal evacuation would take–that’s why you need an early, heavy start.
Afghanistan’s economy is already close to collapse. Destroying telecommunications will only hasten complete collapse.
Aceplace57: about 74% of the population live in rural areas. I expect to see the economies of the cities collapse and a substantial fraction of cities dwellers to move back to rural areas where they will have little more than a subsistence living.