Here’s How to Stay in Afghanistan Forever: Listen to the WSJ Editorial Board

Another Plan to Stay in Afghanistan Forever

The WSJ editorial board has an alleged “Rescue Plan” for Afghanistan. 

In reality, it’s “Another Plan to Stay in Afghanistan Forever.”

Mr. Biden would like to absolve himself of responsibility for this looming defeat, but he cannot. He could have withdrawn U.S. forces in a careful way based on conditions and a plan to shore up Afghan forces or midwife an alliance between regional tribal warlords and the government in Kabul. The President did none of that.

Even now, however, it’s not too late to stop or slow the slaughter. A display of even modest renewed U.S. support would boost Afghan morale and give the Taliban pause on its march to Kabul. Once a rout is stopped, the U.S. can then work on a strategy that assists Afghans who oppose the Taliban to set up a resistance. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggests reconstituting a version of the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group to offer ideas for the Biden Administration. This would be an admission that Mr. Biden’s withdrawal was a mistake, but that would be a small price to avoid strategic disaster and perhaps a bloodbath that will stain America’s reputation and haunt his Presidency. Even the Democratic media has now picked up the Vietnam metaphor—“Biden’s Saigon”—that we warned about weeks ago.

So far Mr. Biden seems determined to stick with his hell-bent withdrawal, and perhaps he thinks Americans won’t care

Polling Data

For starters, Americans are sick of this war and mainstream media warmongering. 

The Hill cites a Politico-Morning Consult Survey

The survey found that a majority of registered voters — 59 percent — support Biden’s plan to withdraw the troops, ending the longest war in U.S. history. In comparison, 25 percent said they are opposed to his plan and 16 percent had no opinion.

Golden Opportunity to Leave

US troops have been in Afghanistan since 2001. 

US special forces killed Bin Laden on May 2, 2011, not in Afghanistan but rather in Pakistan.

That was a golden opportunity to declare victory and get the hell out. The WSJ was against it then, against it now, and against it every step in between.

Obama Announced Leaving 

On June 23, 2011, Obama Announced Exit Strategy

President Barack Obama announced Wednesday night that all the 33,000 additional U.S. forces he ordered to Afghanistan in December 2009 will be home within 15 months. 

In a nationally televised address from the East Room of the White House, Obama said 10,000 of the “surge” forces would withdraw by the end of this year, and the other 23,000 would leave Afghanistan by September 2012.

“America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home,” the president said.

Obama’s reelection promise was to get out of Afghanistan. 

At the first escalation by the Taliban, Obama reneged on his promise.

Trump: US will be out of Afghanistan by Christmas

On October 7, 2020 Trump announced US will be out of Afghanistan by Christmas.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. 

Trump lied too.

Reflections on Leaving Right

Understanding the Setup

The WSJ warmongers want to “leave right”.

That is what Obama promised and failed, then Trump promised and failed. 

The WSJ feins concern over those we left behind. A Tweet by Dave Smith gets it.

“The people who claim to be gravely concerned about Al Qaeda returning to Afghanistan had no problem fighting wars on their behalf in Libya, Syria and Yemen. They have no concerns about starting new wars, just ending one.”

On Military Force

The US should employ military force when it involves a vital national interest, when the objective can be attained, and with a strategy to depart after that objective is achieved. 

Afghanistan failed on all counts.

Afghanistan is not of strategic interest to the US. We never had a clear objective nor a plan to leave, Then the mission morphed into national building. 

On Human Tragedy

Afghanistan is humanitarian tragedy, but the United States cannot cure every such tragedy in the world – nor do we have much ability to even if we wanted as Afghanistan proves. 

There are many nations, many in Africa, where there are similar humanitarian tragedies, but the US cannot invade those countries as well.

War Mongering Mainstream Media 

Taliban Seize Control of Second Largest Afghan City, Kabul Is On Deck

On August 13, in Taliban Seize Control of Second Largest Afghan City, Kabul Is On Deck I made this easy-to-make prediction.

Expect Right wing media to blame Biden for this defeat. But this outcome was inevitable all along because as with Vietnam, support for the war in the US vanished.

Comparison to Saigon

Sure enough the WSJ pulled out the Saigon card.

The US had no legitimate business in Vietnam and other than the capture of Bin Laden had no legitimate business in Afghanistan either.

Instead of victory, this looks like defeat. This mess lingered for another 10 years at a cost in the trillions of dollars.

Whom to Blame?

Bush, Trump, Obama, neocons, and editorial warmongers on the Right and Left for perpetuating a mess we never should have been involved with in the first place.

Now the WSJ wants to stay in to leave right. It reminds me of Nixon’s “Peace With Honor” speech in 1968. US troops finally left on March 29, 1973. 

At the peak, the US had 549,000 troops in Vietnam with 2.7 million serving. Yet, the US lost the war. Occupations always fail as the opponent cares more about the outcome, has the luxury of time to wait it out, is willing to pay a greater price and plays on its home court.

Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. 

The WSJ seems to wish we were still there. 

F that. I congratulate Biden on leaving, assuming he does.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

64 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
threeblindmice
threeblindmice
2 years ago
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
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
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
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.
ajc1970
ajc1970
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
There’s nothing to win.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  ajc1970
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.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
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.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
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.
njbr
njbr
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
…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
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
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.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  jiminy
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.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
…Americans, never good at geography it seems, ‘unfortunately’ attacked the wrong countries WITHOUT wmd… and continue doing so, SUPPORTING terrorists when convenient….
ajc1970
ajc1970
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
US attacking Iraq was B.S.

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.

Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
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.  
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
…well, at least WE did not mess up places that we hardly know and that were NONE of our fn business….not in recent history anyway….
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
Have you heard of Zaire or formally the Belgium Congo? In recent history Belgium has been a very good highway for invading armies.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
….. 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 !
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
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.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
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.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
The Taliban were ready to give up Bin Laden if Bush the cowboy was willing to negotiate.
Instead he supported the Northern Alliance by bombing, and when they routed the Taliban, the US occupied the country.
Many Afghans were sick of the Taliban, so it was a good time, and there was a great deal of good will among regional players to fix the country.
It takes an extraordinary level of arrogance and stupidity to squander it all, but the US elites managed to do just that.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
You are giving the definition of Monday quarterbacking.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  jiminy
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.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Seems you have it backwards. The Taliban were defeated by Northern Alliance and bombing from five miles up.
Then, a certain group in the US got an idea to remake the whole region, starting with Iraq.
Heck, even Saddam probably thought Afghanistan was a mess.
LM2022
LM2022
2 years ago
Reply to  jiminy
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.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  LM2022
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.
LM2022
LM2022
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Yes, drivel… 
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  LM2022
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
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
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
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.
ajc1970
ajc1970
2 years ago
Reply to  ajc1970
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
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.  
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Reply to  yooj
anachronistic comparison !
ajc1970
ajc1970
2 years ago
Reply to  yooj
“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.

yooj
yooj
2 years ago
Reply to  ajc1970
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. 
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  yooj
The point is an excellent one.
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.
yooj
yooj
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
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
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
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
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  njbr
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
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. 
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Reply to  PostCambrian
yeah,  but get out of Syria too, will you ?  STOP supporting  terrorists there, will you ?
Greenmountain
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. 
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
2 years ago
Reply to  Greenmountain
This is also the uselessness of the UN.
ajc1970
ajc1970
2 years ago
Reply to  Greenmountain
“reflects the incredible incompetence of our military, intelligence and diplomacy”

These are policy issues, put it on the policy makers.

What has the military failed to do that was asked of it?
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  ajc1970
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
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. 
njbr
njbr
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
The worthlessness of the Afghan army is legendary. 
hhabana
hhabana
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
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
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.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Reply to  njbr
The funny thing is that all these “we have to stay there” people are pretending that the Afghanistan Papers never happened.
Webej
Webej
2 years ago
Reply to  njbr
People say the policy wasn’t working and was not successful.
But lot of commentators agree that the policy was very successful and was achieving precisely the goals the Pentagon etc wanted
njbr
njbr
2 years ago
Reply to  Webej
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
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.
WarpartySerf
WarpartySerf
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
I used to listen to NPR.   Until it all became propaganda.   NPR =  National Pravda Radio now.  A division of PRI – Pravda Radio International.
ajc1970
ajc1970
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
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
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.
WarpartySerf
WarpartySerf
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Back when the rich had to draw a number like everyone else.   Then you had buy out like Trump did 4 times ( flat feet, right?)
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  WarpartySerf
Biden received 5 draft deferments and then  when they ran out got a medical exam and was declared unfit to serve.
bobcalderone
bobcalderone
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Smart move, to avoid a stupid war!
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  bobcalderone
More like let the plebs die for us.
bobcalderone
bobcalderone
2 years ago
Reply to  WarpartySerf
Smart move on Trump’s part! Vietnam was an idiotic war.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
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.