Afghan troops sought safety in numbers – igniting a cascade of surrender

[Truthseeker]

Read the article and discuss.

Afghan troops sought safety in numbers – igniting a cascade of surrender

 

[Kooky]

I have a problem with the way the article frames its central argument because it claims that the commitment problem was the exclusive reason for the mass surrender, but does not actually explain why these soldiers thought that surrender was the most rational decision in the first place:

As the U.S. withdrawal began in May, the Taliban started gaining territory. As they advanced, the Taliban also negotiated with groups of Afghan forces stationed at outposts and in towns, and convinced some troops to surrender. Once the first bout of surrendering occurred and the news began to spread, others quickly followed, facilitating accelerating momentum to the Taliban as they advanced without facing major resistance. In the end, Afghan soldiers chose safety in numbers by surrendering together.

The article explains the snowball effect of mass surrender, but completely fails to present any reason why the Taliban could successfully negotiate the initial surrenders that would later lead to mass surrenders in the first place.

It's good to remind ourselves of the influence mass psychology can have on people's decisions, but I think other than for highlighting that - nonetheless important! - element, this article is a little thin on the ground.

 

[Revoltingest]

I found this part of the article interesting....
"In the months after President Joe Biden’s April 2021 announcement of the troop withdrawal, intelligence reports warned that the Afghan military might not fight on its own, opening the way for a Taliban takeover after U.S. forces withdrew.
Yet few expected that the Taliban would succeed so quickly."

It doesn't predict the astoundingly rapid collapse of the
Afghan military. If after 20 years the assessment is still
this grim, there's no point continuing.
It isn't clear at this point if Biden's policy even had any
errors. Sure, sure, some don't like how it's proceeding.
But this doesn't mean that we were able to have achieved
a better result.

Note that I'm not defending Biden's implementation of
the policy (I approve of rapid withdrawal). I just see no
reasoned & evidenced argument that it was poorly done.

 

[Truthseeker]

The article explains the snowball effect of mass surrender, but completely fails to present any reason why the Taliban could successfully negotiate the initial surrenders that would later lead to mass surrenders in the first place.

I don't know, maybe a promise the town would be protected if they peacefully surrendered? I seem to recall how Genghis Khan would utterly destroy a town after they fought his forces, but if they surrendered the town and the people in them would be intact. The Taliban have the frame of mind as Genghis Khan, it appears to me. It's a very effective tactic that Genghis Khan used that conquered an empire, though very cruel.

 

[Truthseeker]

It doesn't predict the astoundingly rapid collapse of the
Afghan military. If after 20 years the assessment is still
this grim, there's no point continuing.
It isn't clear at this point if Biden's policy even had any
errors. Sure, sure, some don't like how it's proceeding.
But this doesn't mean that we were able to have achieved
a better result.

Note that I'm not defending Biden's implementation of
the policy (I approve of rapid withdrawal). I just see no
reasoned & evidenced argument that it was poorly done.

This article doesn't address the way Ghani abruptly fled the nation, leading to immediate surrender. This is what really made Biden look bad. I thought we should withdraw at this time too. Why beat a dead horse?

 

[Ponder This]

I found this part of the article interesting....
"In the months after President Joe Biden’s April 2021 announcement of the troop withdrawal, intelligence reports warned that the Afghan military might not fight on its own, opening the way for a Taliban takeover after U.S. forces withdrew.
Yet few expected that the Taliban would succeed so quickly."

It doesn't predict the astoundingly rapid collapse of the
Afghan military. If after 20 years the assessment is still
this grim, there's no point continuing.
It isn't clear at this point if Biden's policy even had any
errors. Sure, sure, some don't like how it's proceeding.
But this doesn't mean that we were able to have achieved
a better result.

Note that I'm not defending Biden's implementation of
the policy (I approve of rapid withdrawal). I just see no
reasoned & evidenced argument that it was poorly done.

I suppose if everyone knew something was a mistake before they did it, then people would make far fewer mistakes. Alas, people often do not realize something is a mistake until after the fact.

One might call it 2020 hindsight.

 

[Kooky]

I don't know, maybe a promise the town would be protected if they peacefully surrendered? I seem to recall how Genghis Khan would utterly destroy a town after they fought his forces, but if they surrendered the town and the people in them would be intact. The Taliban have the frame of mind as Genghis Khan, it appears to me. It's a very effective tactic that Genghis Khan used that conquered an empire, though very cruel.

Maybe, maybe not; the article doesn't tell us!

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, who knows.