The Saigon withdrawal was dissimilar because we had significantly more advanced warning than 11 days that Saigon was going to need evacuated. We moved our numbers in Saigon down to a level that could be airlifted out of the country solely by helicopter if necessary. This was in case the Saigon airport was shut down. When the actual fall happened, the Saigon airport actually had a plane crash into its main airfield that took the airport out of commission, so this contingency plan ended up working perfectly.
While I think specifically CENTCOM’s command Gen McKenzie has some serious questions he’s going to have to answer, I don’t think it’s apt to compare this to the evacuation of Saigon.
Our actual highest political (Kissinger, Nixon) and military leaders all knew that after the Paris Peace Accords were signed, it was an absolute certainty that South Vietnam would fall (publicly they both described the peace agreement as “Peace with Victory” or some nonsense, neither believed this privately.) There was 0 belief inside the Administration that South Vietnam was a stable regime. However we also knew it wouldn’t fall quickly, and it didn’t. We had fully withdrawn all of our combat forces two years before the fall of Saigon.
A similar timeline for Afghanistan would have seen Kabul fall sometime in 2023, and without any real doubt the planning for getting allied civilians and Americans out would have been far more robust due to that expanded timeline.
I don’t actually see any reason to assume it wouldn’t. Trump actually wanted out even faster than Biden, I think he only slowed down before the election to avoid a risk of something like this before voting happened. One of his few Presidential duties he continued to perform after he lost was to keep moving troops out of Afghanistan. I think Trump had a genuine, personal desire to get out of Afghanistan.
If you go back to the 1980s even, some of Trump’s first public political statements he would make were ones strongly criticizing U.S. military deployments abroad. He hated that we had bases in Japan, West Germany, South Korea etc. Why? Because he has a mafia mindset. He thinks if we’re “protecting” those countries they should be lavishing us with riches. He thought it was crazy we had corporations from all three companies that were vigorously competing with American businesses while we “protected” them.
I assume he took one look at Afghanistan, a far more expensive thing than our deployments to our Pacific and European Allies, that generates virtually no benefit for the United States, and thought it was the height of stupidity.
This guy?
“Former president Donald Trump — about two weeks before the 20-year anniversary of 9/11 — downplayed the threat Osama bin Laden posed to the United States, falsely claiming the founder and leader of al-Qaeda, which carried out the terrorist attacks, had just “one hit.” He also said his administration killed “bigger” terrorists.”
I believe that if Trump were still in charge, the withdrawal* would be going even worse than it is now. I have not seen any talent for strategy, tactics, or logistics from him; nor, indeed, any interest in those things. Trump, however, would be on Twitter saying how well the withdrawal was going, and the minor setbacks (suicide bombings and the like) were because someone else was incompetent, and they were being played up by the media who have always hated him.
* It’s possible, too, that the withdrawal would not be taking place at all. just because Donald promises that something will happen doesn’t mean that it will.
The withdrawal may well have ended up quicker under Trump, but mostly because his administration wouldn’t have been bringing any refugees back. Steven Miller et al had already undermined the Special Immigrant Visa program.
I personally think the withdrawal would probably going badly no matter who was in charge, to be frank. The core issue is the 11 day collapse of the government fucks all the planning and other ideas anyone has for this.
From a political perspective, the current President is basically always to blame for things that happen under his watch. I don’t feel bad for Biden in that respect, and nor did I feel bad for Trump / Obama / Bush when it happened to them. Lots of things that happen when you’re President, may have really been initiated or even caused by your predecessor, but the Presidency is a political job, and politics isn’t a fair game. Lots of my Trumper friends would cry about this endlessly during Trump’s Presidency–there were things Trump actually got bashed for that he didn’t really deserve the blame for (this gets obscured by the hundreds of things he did deserve blame for), but the reality is taking those hits is part of the job you signed up for and the cost of all the power and prestige of the office.
But from a “let’s actually try to fix this” perspective, I have a non-political concern with how some of these decisions were made, by whom, and for what reason. A lot of military issues frankly the President is only making high level decisions, it’s very unlikely Biden was making individual decisions about which bases to close and which units to move in or out of country or things like that. Some of those decisions were very poor, and we need to know why they were made and who made them.
A lot of times implementation details get fucked by people that are out of the limelight, and it’s the President that takes the hit. That’s 100% fine, but if our career military brass are making these mistakes, we have a public interest in knowing about it and fixing it.
Biden is actually known as being somewhat egotistical about things like this, so I think he probably had some high-level stubbornness about being willing to alter his plans for the withdrawal timeline whatsoever, and that high level stance absolutely contributed to the problems we’re seeing–and Biden deserves blame for that.
I would have to agree with you. Trump would never have made the decision. He would have talked a lot about it (as he already has), but would not have made any decision that resulted in direct action.
While it is unfortunate the way this whole thing has turned out, I believe we, as a country and as a member of the nations of the world, are much better off than promoting another 4 years (and more) of what has been going on for the past 20.
We expect our leaders to make the difficult decisions we don’t want to make. In the corporate world, executives who refuse to make difficult decisions typically end up being Peter-Principled and don’t go far. Those who make the tough decisions, even if some don’t work out, can excel. It isn’t a matter of how big a screw-up one makes, but more a matter of how many and as a result of the decisions made, good and bad, does the organization advance to better things.
Although the withdrawal from Afghanistan is messy, I truly believe, going forward, it will make a positive change in the foreign relations of the US with the rest of the world. While it has cost way too much, in terms of both lives and capital, the price tag was much less than what we’ve paid for the past 20 years. And, add to that, this decision will allow us to move forward, something we haven’t been able to do for decades.
Well, the big difference with Trump’s handling of Afghanistan is that he loosened the Rules of Engagement which led to a corresponding increase in civilian casualties. But certainly you aren’t suggesting that under Trump’s guidance US forces would simply kill their way out of Afghanistan and that this would somehow be perceived as better? Or is there some aspect of Trump’s ADD-style approach that is lacking currently? It would work better if someone who didn’t care was in charge?
At the end of the day nothing about the withdrawal has made me rethink even one bit my support for the idea that we should be withdrawing. Terrible things like the 13 U.S. service members dying yesterday in that bombing were routine and frequent during the first 14 or so years that we were engaged in “active” combat in Afghanistan (we wound that down significantly near end of Obama’s term.) In fact they were so routine we barely even registered notice of them in our press. It is highly likely to have kept the Afghan government functioning long term, we would have been required to actually go back to that at some point, with a large infantry deployment of tens of thousands of men going back in and actively fighting on the ground again. The situation with the few thousand care taker troops left there at the end of the Trump Administration was not realistically going to be sustainable.
I’m sorry but this is so over the top wrong. We could have kept Bagram open and used for a more secure airlift operation. We don’t have that in Kabul. We could have supported the Afghanis in their fight against the Taliban. Now we have nothing to work with. The release of prisons freed up the worst of the worst and now they have access to billions of dollars of military armaments to use against us in the current situation.
There is literally no way this could have been fucked up any worse.
Staying would have fucked this up way, way worse. What you’re advocating is different from GTFO NOW. GTFO NOW is the only reasonable option. I’m for fewer American lives wasted, fewer American dollars wasted, and that means getting out ASAP. Which is what we’re doing. The sooner we’re out, the fewer opportunities for assholes to blow up American soldiers in Afghanistan.
My understanding is that the increased commitments of troops and funding to keep Bagram open, and keep enough access to it to make having it useful, were steep enough that it couldn’t easily be accomplished. Using helicopters as the principle means of extractions back the base, given the numbers of people to be moved, and the experience of the hostile forces in routinely downing helicopters, seems unlikely and dangerous.
We should have left years ago. This whole thing has been a painful example of the fallacy of sunken costs. We were never going to get out of this clean. Every year we stayed made it worse. GTFO NOW was the right answer and we should have pulled that lever years ago.
Yep, exactly this. He would make an effort to get the troops and US citizen embassy staff out, maybe the defense contractors if they were connected to Erik Prince or another Trump donor. He would probably take other American citizens if they made it to the airport on their own, but anyone without a American passport? Fuck em.