Yup. Mish is right. I’m convinced that we could stay and spend another trillion, 20 years, and x-thousands soldiers’ lives and be in exactly the same place as we are today OR we can suck up the ‘Saigon exit’ moment, the calls for American abandoning its friends and cut our losses. We should grant asylum to Afghanis that truly helped the effort. They are sitting ducks.
Bigger picture, after Vietnam, I sense that the US doesn’t like to admit that our military serves one purpose only: to destroy foreign enemies. We like to think we are morally “above that”, but we should acknowledge and embrace that clarity. Sparingly, and for defensive purposes only. We don’t need them to send fridges full of food (as we did in 2012/3). Kill our (true) enemies, then leave. Beyond that, we can’t ‘build nations’ where the people don’t want to rebuild them in a western mold. Not every culture is the same. Not everyone defines life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the way that we do.
I can be persuaded to have stayed a few 2-3 years for training and to allow elections. After that, Afghanis need to make their own choices as long as those choices don’t involve attacking us.
LM2022
2 years ago
We could have stayed in Afghanistan for 100 more years and this still would have been the outcome the moment we left. A total and complete waste of lives and (borrowed) trillions.
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
The photo at the front of this article shows Taliban soldiers standing guard over Afghan soldiers.
Question: how many of these Afghan soldiers will be alive this time next week?
Answer: that is how you win a war in Afghanistan.
If you are not prepared to fight like that, do not bother going to war in Afghanistan.
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
But, but Biden said he was a master of foreign policy. Losing Kabul is surely part of his genius plan.
FYI to WSJ. Wars are not won by winning points with progressives. They are won by having the best soldiers, the best equipment, and the best strategies, inflicting casualties and damage on the other side. The US Military has the wrong mission if victory is desired.
Which begs the question about the ‘mission’, doesn’t it?
If the mission is to destroy the Taliban, clearly the US failed miserably. Responsibility falls on the Joint Chiefs, the presidents, and their advisors.
You can’t destroy an idea. The Taliban are an ideology going back to the beginning of human time. The roots of most of civilization have their DNA traced back to Afghanistan. See the Genographic project for migration patterns originating in Afghanistan. All of Asia and native Americans in North and South America all have the Afghani gene in their DNA.
What do you do when the ‘idea’ requires your destruction? That ancient ‘ideology’ is directly opposed to your way of life!
As for your ‘Afghani’ gene argument, a human has over 20,000 genes, most of which go back to ancient times, and beyond. Expecting anything but a genetic-stew makes zero sense.
More interesting than a genotype approach, is the Afghan phenotype, where the environment plays a substantial role in trait selection. A harsh terrain, tight-knit communities closed off from the most of the world, a warrior culture, male-dominant society–there are reasons why Afghani soldiers have always been among the fiercest. That said, the Taliban has whipped the ‘superior’ Afghani army in a couple of days (with the same geneotype/phenotype).
Which brings us to the fundamental and radicalized tenets of Islam. Now, you have a culture that is antithetical to western culture in control of a country, able to spread it’s web. Eventually, the ideologies will clash again.
Long term survival requires the destruction of the other. That was not the US mission–it should’ve been.
…Long term survival requires the destruction of the other. That was not the US mission–it should’ve been….
Not as long as our leaders lovingly hold the glowing balls of the Islamic world and trade country for cash…
bobcalderone
2 years ago
And the Afghan government has just fallen to the Taliban today! Guess it WAS too late to save the situation, WSJ!!
jiminy
2 years ago
All the blaming, its Biden’s fault, no Trump caused this etc. The real villain in this, is Bush. Bush is the idiot who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to satisfy American blood lust after 9/11.
Mr. Cricket, wouldn’t you think it normal that the US would have a blood lust after what happened on 9/11? Not having a wish for revenge after something like that would have been highly abnormal.
…Americans, never good at geography it seems, ‘unfortunately’ attacked the wrong countries WITHOUT wmd… and continue doing so, SUPPORTING terrorists when convenient….
But bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time. We had every right hunt him down. Once he fled to Pakistan, or at least once we captured/killed him, our reason for being in Afghanistan ceased to exist and we should have left. Changing the status quo ain’t easy. The incentive to policy makers is to avoid taking blame. You never need to worry about blame when you just keep doing what the last guy did.
You didn’t know that North Carolina was a big as Belgium, had the same population but a 25% higher GDP so maybe you should learn a bit of humility when it comes to geography. Most Europeans couldn’t name major American cities or states if their life depended upon it.
….. I am beginning to ‘know ‘ you very well, so I did expect a similar remark…I wouldn t call it ‘recent’ history , however I do admit atrocities took place at the beginning of the colonisation, atrocities were still part of life at the time(1880) I am afraid, thank gowd we are all ‘siphilized’ now or at least we think so and I sincerely hope that in my lifetime I won t have to face that civilization is merely a thin veneer that might dissipate when shtf… That being said, I do remember a documentary somewhere in the eighties or nineties even, with old black people begging for the belgians to come back, unless of course you think their situation improved since we left sixty years ago….Don t know why,… a song pops up in my mind all of a sudden : “we were all wounded at wounded knee”, it was a song by Red Bone, I quite liked it at the time… Nice day Dough…this was my first and last comment of the day… got other things to do urgently… Read you !
If you live in a glass house you better not throw rocks. The Belgium Congo was more the work of the Walloons since they had the economic power in Belgium at the time. Flanders was the poor backwater but the roles are switched now so the Flemish can go back into Zaire, change the name back and manage them.
Afghanistan was justified vengeance. Iraq was a bullsh.t experiment concocted up by neocons to change the Arab world into something never defined. Definitly a mistake.
You do not know history. Bush did not attack Afghanistan initially. The first target was Iraq, but not because of WMD (the excuse). It was low-hanging fruit in order to send a message to terrorists, and their host countries. ‘This is what will happen to you.’
The Bush plan for Afghanistan, was to support and train the local war lords to fight the Taliban. Since Russia could not defeat them, why would the US do any better. Any one who knows the terrain, knows victory is next to impossible unless you take drastic action–which the US is not capable of (but, China is). Kill, enslave/imprison enough people, Afghanistan will be defeated.
Bush invaded Iraq not to satisfy any American blood lust after 9/11, but because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. Trillions of dollars down the drain thanks to Shrub’s daddy issues.
Drivel. No different than saying it was about Iraq’s oil.
However, there was discussion in certain places, not well known, about changing the culture of Iraq, in a similar fashion to that tried for Iran with Shah Pahlavi. Basically, by liberating one generation of Iraqi women, the hard-liners would be pushed out. Strategically, it was part of a grander plan to subdivide the Moslem crescent–from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia–by creating a few westernized/liberated countries.
I’m amused. Bush said this at a fund-raiser in Texas–cowboy talking to other cowboys. It was never intended as the reason to attack Iraq, but to follow his previous statement… “But there’s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. (USA)”
So yes, still drivel. Reporting this as a reason for attacking Iraq is only to be expected from the biased reporting of the Sydney Morning Herald.
BTW, the same article within a few lines says, “US president Bill Clinton cited the plot as justification for a June
1993 US missile attack on Baghdad’s intelligence headquarters.”
hhabana
2 years ago
Agree with you Mish. I did not vote for Biden nor a supporter of his, but this is the first decision in my eyes that he did right. I see people on other boards criticizing him, but what else can you do? The country is broke, and we need to focus on rebuilding here. Next stop should be Syria.
The Wall St. Journal is made up of neocons and neolibs too. They have no skin in the game (children serving the military) so they can care less about the human cost. Also, they support this scam of financial madness from the Fed called “brrrrrr.” F them too.
Webej
2 years ago
Afghanistan is humanitarian tragedy, but the United States cannot cure every such tragedy in the world
Americans, ever since their first foreign interventions in Haïti etc., just never get it.
Every time they think they will meet support by the local people and be hailed as liberators.
Nobody wants to be invaded, not even Canadians (1812, and other occasions).
Nobody wants humanitarian bombs dropped on them.
The US should stick to international law and the UN Charter instead of going rogue time and again.
Aggression against another country is not only a war crime, but the root of all war crimes.
Fighting communisms or R2P or terrorism are all just excuses.
The US leaves a mess every time.
other than the capture of Bin Laden had no legitimate business in Afghanistan either
Legitimate?
Osama was never charged with a crime, and their is no evidence that would stand up in a court of law for ???
Osama was another CIA “asset”, as was Saddam Hussein before (& after?) he became president.
The mess in Afghanistan was largely created by the CIA.
ajc1970
2 years ago
“registered voters — 59 percent — support Biden’s plan to withdraw the troops… 25 percent said they are opposed”
Yeah, continuing occupation without an end game is definitely a creature of the swamp.
Establishment politicians in both Parties have one important rule: until they have the perfect, proven way to change something, they won’t touch it, status quo is their way to go. They have to know the new imperfect is better than the old imperfect and it takes insurmountable evidence to convince them.
Meanwhile most American’s don’t give a d*n about the damage we have or will do on foreign soil but they know it’s their wallet funding it and just want to waste less money.
I’ll give Biden (or whoever told him to do this) credit where due… I don’t expect he’ll have many wins before Kamala takes the reigns, but this is one of them.
yooj
2 years ago
Occupations do not always fail, BUT think about what it takes to succeed. The occupation of Japan succeeded. It was, however, preceded by the total destruction of the Japanese military and all governmental institutions except the symbolic ones. Even against a popular endogenous insurgency a foreign occupier can prevail. The Soviets quelled ones in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, for example. The British Empire and other colonial occupations were relatively stable, provided the occupier was willing to brutalize. The French failed in Viet Nam and Algeria arguably because they turned down their brutality in the face of changing western norms and attitudes about national self-determination. Still, if the French had been willing and able to mass murder insurgents and collectively punish, maybe they’d still have those colonies. (They did remain plenty barbaric until the end.) Importantly, the advent of TV and film made it difficult to do the dirty work of imperial occupation. The catch to successful occupation is that the occupier has to be willing to brutalize and dominate in ways that, thankfully, the U.S. is not willing to do. Hearts and minds is more palatable, but is ineffective. Liberal democracy doesn’t just break out, catch on like a pop song in premodern societies.
“preceded by the total destruction of the Japanese military and all governmental institutions”
Times have changed. Even that isn’t enough now. We did that in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc… Now there’s a blueprint for when your state is attacked and fails. They probably copied and then modified it from the US Revolution. And you just have to hang on until the US or Russia or whoever decides it’s just not worth it any more.
A quarter of a million buildings were destroyed in Tokyo. Compare pix before and after U.S. finished with of Tokyo to before and after it occupied Baghdad. Tokyo looks like a sea of twigs, ash, and rubble, Baghdad, looks like a normal city.
a) total destruction, or close to it (much Japanese culture retained)–eliminates all resistance. (did not happen in Afghanistan)
b) created dependence on the US for survival, yet incentives to rebuild and start new industries.
c) highly intelligent people with an advanced culture understand how to move forward, eg Japan and Germany (however, this is not true with Afghanistan)
The same approach applied to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc is doomed to failure.
Yes, destruction is necessary but not sufficient for externally directed transformation to succeed independently. Mere destruction suffices for stable occupation indefinitely, but to transform destruction plus preconditions including those you list are necessary. The U.S. is not willing to totally destroy. This is a good thing, not that the delusional democracy-will-just-break-out after moderate force has not been tragic.
WarpartySerf
2 years ago
“Remember, this is not Saigon. We went to Afghanistan 20 years ago with one mission and that mission was to deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. And we have succeeded in that mission,” Blinken told CNN.
Wow You mean we went to Afghanistan to attack Israeli Mossad, Saudi Arabia, and George Bush/Dick Cheney ????
They’re the ones that dropped the 9-11 Towers …
If theirs lips are moving – They’re lying
njbr
2 years ago
And the dumbness…Sen. Joni Ernst, laments Afghan collapse: ‘It is all on President Biden’…
No mention of the republican demi-god president that negotiated the withdrawal for May 1, 2021
Biden has overturned every other Trump policy, yet retains one that he is supposed to know more about (ie Biden claims to be the expert in foreign policy).
Sorry, this is on Biden’s shoulders. As is the immigration debacle.
PostCambrian
2 years ago
What will happen in Afghanistan will not be either good or pleasant but it is inevitable. If the country cannot stand on its own two feet after twenty years it won’t ever happen in the way we want it to.
yeah, but get out of Syria too, will you ? STOP supporting terrorists there, will you ?
Greenmountain
2 years ago
Agree completely – but the disaster unfolding also reflects the incredible incompetence of our military, intelligence and diplomacy. This was truly the emperor with no clothes. There was no government, there was no Afghan army, there was no commitment to what we were trying to achieve on the ground. And three presidents saw that but fortunately as you point out only Biden had the ‘b…s’ to stand up to the establishment brass’s lies and bullying and finally call this sham out for what it was. Biden is the hero – and unfortunately for all of us our military leadership is not the heros we thought we had.
Um, I don’t think the military is supposed to lose a ‘war’. You win wars by killing and inflicting damage, not scoring progressive points.
FYI, 40% of today’s officers would not qualify in WW2. The average IQ of officers is way down. That means they lack critical thinking, for example, and the ability to develop creative strategies. In the ranks, standards are dropping across the board with the progressive invasion. Only Special Forces have substantive standards, and those are under attack.
Doug78
2 years ago
The Afghan Army voted with it’s feet and we should as a people who believe in democracy accept their decision.
Biden is right. You have to fight for your freedom. They were handing weapons over, surrendering, and fleeing.
They had to fight with determination like the Taliban and they’d still have their country. The people there want everything with no sweat or blood.
njbr
2 years ago
It was inevitable–every analysis said it wasn’t working. Decades of waste.
-The only thing preventing this was the ego of the former presidents who could not stand the replica of of the image of the last helicopter off the roof at the Saigon embassy.
Biden breaks free. But 76 years without a clear victory for the US military. Hopefully the right lessons arebeing learned at the Pentagon.
A lot of commentators say….very sucessful policy and achieving precisely the goals wanted?
Could you elaborate on those comments for a country that fell apart in a matter of a couple weeks?
whirlaway
2 years ago
National Pentagon Radio is also saying the same thing. I see them posting article after article about all the bad things that will happen if the US leaves.
Seriously, leading up to the 2016 election, NPR went from reporting to becoming a player in the game.
I’m not sure if the impetus was Donald Trump or the loss of Click (rip) & Clack, but fast forward to 2021, the station puts out 90% garbage now.
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Just shameful the way the press is calling this Biden’s defeat. It’s the one thing he’s done right so far.
And it’s silly. Do people remember Nixon for losing Vietnam? I can tell you, as somebody who was in the draft lottery with a random sequence number of 17 at the time, I strongly supported his decision. Just like I support leaving Afghanistan now.
Not being there should save the country some money that can be better spent elsewhere. As Mish said, we should have left in 2011 after Bin Laden was killed.
The local populace doesn’t want whatever the US was peddling or they would have fought harder against the Taliban.
Stay Informed
Subscribe to MishTalk
You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.
But bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time. We had every right hunt him down. Once he fled to Pakistan, or at least once we captured/killed him, our reason for being in Afghanistan ceased to exist and we should have left. Changing the status quo ain’t easy. The incentive to policy makers is to avoid taking blame. You never need to worry about blame when you just keep doing what the last guy did.
1993 US missile attack on Baghdad’s intelligence headquarters.”
Yeah, continuing occupation without an end game is definitely a creature of the swamp.
Times have changed. Even that isn’t enough now. We did that in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc… Now there’s a blueprint for when your state is attacked and fails. They probably copied and then modified it from the US Revolution. And you just have to hang on until the US or Russia or whoever decides it’s just not worth it any more.
“Remember, this is not Saigon. We went to Afghanistan 20 years ago with one mission and that mission was to deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. And we have succeeded in that mission,” Blinken told CNN.
Wow You mean we went to Afghanistan to attack Israeli Mossad, Saudi Arabia, and George Bush/Dick Cheney ????
They’re the ones that dropped the 9-11 Towers …
If theirs lips are moving – They’re lying
These are policy issues, put it on the policy makers.