Joe Biden The New President Thoughts So Far?

[the_bloke]

The press in the US are upset because Boris ask for some impromptu press questions after a photo op whilst at the White House and all the US press were removed so they didn't try and ask Joe any off the cuff questions. Biden will only answer pre submitted and vetted questions where he has time to have his answer scripted, whereas the typical British process is just to ask anything and get an unscripted bumbling reply. Apparently the White House is blaming Boris for Biden's total lack of accountability to the press.

 

https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/white-house-press-pool-rages-as-biden-snubs-us-media-at-uk-meeting/

https://www.newsweek.com/jen-psaki-blames-u-k-boris-johnson-white-house-reporter-chaos-1631806

[trastrick]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

By making a deal with the Taliban for them to take over Afghanistan?

There was no such deal.

 

The U.S., after many months of consultations with NATO and our EU allies actually signed a conditional cease fire agreement with the Taliban, one side of the ongoing Afghan Civil War. It was endorsed by the U.N., and our NATO allies.

 

Here it is:

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/02.29.20-US-Afghanistan-Joint-Declaration.pdf

 

 "U.S. officials made clear at the time that the agreement was conditions-based and the failure of intra-Afghan peace talks to reach a negotiated settlement would have nullified the requirement to withdraw. One day before the Doha deal, a top aide to chief U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad said the agreement was not irreversible, and “there is no obligation for the United States to withdraw troops if the Afghan parties are unable to reach agreement or if the Taliban show bad faith” during negotiations".
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be

 

As the BBC reported, "(US Defence Secretary) Mark Esper  said: "This is a hopeful moment, but it is only the beginning. The road ahead will not be easy. Achieving lasting peace in Afghanistan will require patience and compromise among all parties." He said the US would continue to support the Afghan government".

 

As Trump said at the time, "I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show we're not all wasting time," Mr Trump added. "If bad things happen, we'll go back with a force like no-one's ever seen." - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51689443

 

But Biden unilaterally abrogated that agreement, for his own reasons, without consulting our NATO allies, by insisting that ALL U.S.forces would be pulled from Afghanistan by August 31. This precluded an orderly withdrawal, which left the shaky Afghan government without U.S. Military support, or even  giving the U.S. and its allies the means to enforce an orderly withdrawal.

 

With the Taliban controlling 70% of the country, it became everyman for himself, and the Afghani government immediately folded and the U.S. and our allies raced to get their own troops out as fast as possible.

 

Biden claims he "had no choice".

 

"All in or All Out? Biden Saw No Middle Ground in Afghanistan" - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/28/us/politics/trump-taliban-biden-afghanistan.html

 

And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

Biden claims to have had "A Plan", but other than a series of ever changing and contradictory public statements, such a plan was never produced publicly, where it could be reviewed and debated, by all the players.

Edited September 25, 2021 by trastrick

[Annie Bynnol]

The Pentagon had already told successive Governments that there was no solution to their civil war.

The original war aims had largely been met. 

The cost of supporting the corrupt regimes was unsustainable.

 

The question then is how to walk away with the least political damage at every level and how to manage the inevitable blame game. 

 

That Republicans and Democrats show little interest in pursuing a political battle over this and the indifference/relief shown by the majority of the American voters shows that Trump and Biden gambled correctly with American opinion. World opinion was/is irrelevant as are morals and ethics-the TV shows the boots back on American soil.

 

 

[Carbuncle]

3 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The original war aims had largely been met. 

By original war aims do you mean 'slaking a thirst for revenge by wreaking mayhem'? Though unstated, that aim has been met. On the other hand the aim of depriving 'Islamist terrorists' of a base was inevitably left unfulfilled because there never was a shortage of places for ne'er do wells to establish a camp and train with weapons. Idaho, for example, has a certain reputation for such things.

 

8 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The cost of supporting the corrupt regimes was unsustainable.

In what sense was the effort in Afghanistan unsustainable? The US had been doing it for twenty years and the flow of resources had (I think) been dwindling over time so while it was certainly burdensome I do not see why it was unsustainable. The question as to whether the Americans would ever find something constructive to do in Afghanistan is a different one.

[Annie Bynnol]

5 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

By original war aims do you mean 'slaking a thirst for revenge by wreaking mayhem'? Though unstated, that aim has been met. On the other hand the aim of depriving 'Islamist terrorists' of a base was inevitably left unfulfilled because there never was a shortage of places for ne'er do wells to establish a camp and train with weapons. Idaho, for example, has a certain reputation for such things.

 

In what sense was the effort in Afghanistan unsustainable? The US had been doing it for twenty years and the flow of resources had (I think) been dwindling over time so while it was certainly burdensome I do not see why it was unsustainable. The question as to whether the Americans would ever find something constructive to do in Afghanistan is a different one.

The American aims were indeed to deprive its terrorist enemies safe heavens and to make it clear to those who would provide these safe heavens that they were held responsible. 

Resolving the civil wars was not considered possible.

The inability of the Afghan factions to form any kind of united front without massive cash injections and a blind eye to the drugs trade led to the creation of 'islands' of resistance with no prospect of survival without American military support.

No doubt the failure of the NATO trained Iraqi forces hastened the withdrawal of support and supplies to the Afghan military.

 

America could indeed have continued its support, but what for and to what purpose. 

It was not their civil war.

 

[Carbuncle]

21 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Resolving the civil wars was not considered possible.

You have written this as if it were some established fact that had been handed down from on high. In reality: the US and it's allies had not managed to defeat the Taliban.

 

22 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

America could indeed have continued its support, but what for and to what purpose. 

It was not their civil war.

It absolutely was their war. Before the US went in the Taliban were in control of (almost all of the) country. Trying to redefine it as a civil war is just a rhetorical device to excuse the US's shabby behaviour.

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, Carbuncle said:

You have written this as if it were some established fact that had been handed down from on high. In reality: the US and it's allies had not managed to defeat the Taliban.

 

It absolutely was their war. Before the US went in the Taliban were in control of (almost all of the) country. Trying to redefine it as a civil war is just a rhetorical device to excuse the US's shabby behaviour.

Afghanistan is a huge and ethnically diverse country whose borders were defined by the Imperial Empires. The religious, cultural, linguistic, geographic and historic rivalries and jealousies have led to centuries of violence, often encouraged by a series of Imperial expeditions.

 

The American aims were different. The aim was to deprive its terrorist enemies safe heavens and to make it clear to those who would provide these safe heavens that they were held responsible. 

This they succeeded in doing using the factions which fought in the 1990s civil war.

 

They provided military and financial aid in attempt to create unified opposition to the Taliban groups, but the differences between the non-Taliban factions were insurmountable resulting in a totally artificial state with very little provincial control, propped up by American money and guns and a semblance of a modern state in Kabul.

 

Republicans and Democrats were quite relieved to see an end to the longest war in American history.

[Longcol]

14 hours ago, trastrick said:

There was no such deal.

 

The U.S., after many months of consultations with NATO and our EU allies actually signed a conditional cease fire agreement with the Taliban, one side of the ongoing Afghan Civil War. It was endorsed by the U.N., and our NATO allies.

 

Here it is:

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/02.29.20-US-Afghanistan-Joint-Declaration.pdf

 

 "U.S. officials made clear at the time that the agreement was conditions-based and the failure of intra-Afghan peace talks to reach a negotiated settlement would have nullified the requirement to withdraw. One day before the Doha deal, a top aide to chief U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad said the agreement was not irreversible, and “there is no obligation for the United States to withdraw troops if the Afghan parties are unable to reach agreement or if the Taliban show bad faith” during negotiations".

Can't see that in the agreement you've linked to.

 

Anyhow, it isn't an agreement with the Taliban as you state, it's an agreement with the Afghan Government (as was).

Edited September 25, 2021 by Longcol

[trastrick]

Just now, Longcol said:

Just now, Longcol said:

Can't see that in the agreement you've linked to.

 

Anyhow, it isn't an agreement with the Taliban as you state, it's an agreement with the Afghan Government (as was).

Anyhow, it isn't an agreement with the Taliban as you state, it's an agreement with the Afghan Government (as was).

Since you were referring to Trump's "deal with the Taliban", I assumed you were familiar with it.

 

But here is the actual Taliban Agreement.

 

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

[Carbuncle]

15 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The American aims were different. The aim was to deprive its terrorist enemies safe heavens and to make it clear to those who would provide these safe heavens that they were held responsible. 

This they succeeded in doing using the factions which fought in the 1990s civil war.

The World is a big place and the 'terrorist enemies' don't need their so-called safe havens to be all that safe because of their strong sense of motivation so there are just too many places for them to gather and train for the elimination of Afghanistan as a safe haven to be of much relevance. All this assumes that Afghanistan has actually been eliminated as a safe haven which seems rather debatable given the Taliban are the ones calling the shots there.

 

Of course, other nations might be deterred by the threats of a sabre-rattling US ... except of course the US is now visibly less credible as a threat elsewhere on account of their humiliation in Afghanistan pushing them towards isolationism. Simultaneously, the US have shown themselves to be irresolute and willing to abandon allies mid-fight. Also abandoned are the women of Afghanistan who were thrust back into a dark place by the US capitulation.

 

Meanwhile, US thrashing about in Afghanistan and the Middle East has proved a significant recruitment aid for Fundamentalist Islam which is now much stronger than it was before September 11th.

29 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Republicans and Democrats were quite relieved to see an end to the longest war in American history.

Yes, cutting and running was a bipartisan choice. Democracies have difficulty sustaining their enthusiasm for optional wars, the Americans particularly. They shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place as they never had any real plan for addressing a very difficult problem. Once in they should have seen the thing through.