• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. Is Starting To Evacuate Some Embassy Staff From Afghanistan With Military Help

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So far as I'm aware, the Afghans are not pressing the US to leave: quite contrary.

So you are teaching a lesson to the wrong people, aren't you?
I'm just reflecting a sediment that people have including opinions voiced in this forum, that the US needs to pull out of countries that it inhabits because it's doing no good.


Let it fester on its own and the reason why we are there in the first place becomes woefully apparent.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Pakistan Under Pressure as Taliban Advance in Afghanistan (msn.com)

For decades, Pakistan has served as a sanctuary for the Afghan Taliban, who have often crossed the countries’ rugged, 1,660-mile border with ease. Officials have acknowledged that Taliban fighters maintain homes and families in Pakistan, at a safe distance from the battlefields.

Now that the American military has declared its part in the Afghan war over, and the Taliban increasingly look as if they can capture the country, Washington is applying pressure on Pakistan to push for a negotiated settlement.

While voicing support for a peaceful solution globally, however, the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan has been quieter at home. It has not spoken out against pro-Taliban rallies within Pakistan. It also hasn’t condemned reported Taliban atrocities as the group marches toward Kabul.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I'm just reflecting a sediment that people have including opinions voiced in this forum, that the US needs to pull out of countries that it inhabits because it's doing no good.


Let it fester on its own and the reason why we are there in the first place becomes woefully apparent.
So what do you think was the reason NATO occupied Afghanistan?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So what do you think was the reason NATO occupied Afghanistan?
9/11

We vowed to go after them and we did.

Also a note for the memory loss that the left is so prone with.

As Bush Jr stated....."and the country's that harbor them.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
We had no clue what our mission was in Afghanistan when we first went in there. Bush and his advisors and subsequent presidents never got a handle on their reason for being there. Maybe if they had applied the Powell Doctrine we could have avoided this disaster.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]
Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

I found this part of the article somewhat interesting:

“What made the U.S. strong, powerful and rich was that from 1918 through 1991 and beyond, everybody knew we could depend on the U.S. to defend and stand up for the free world,’’ said Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

“The sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years and so much investment in lives and effort will see allies and potential allies around the world wondering whether they have to decide between democracies and autocracies, and realize some democracies don’t have staying power anymore,” he added.

I would say that this indicates a very serious misreading of U.S. foreign policy and what we've been doing in the world during the period in question (1918 through 1991).

For one thing, a major criticism of the U.S. is that we entered both World Wars far too late. And U.S. support certainly wasn't a blank check that Britain or France could cash at any time.

Another thing is that our support of the so-called "free world" really meant (in practice) support of the non-communist world, which should never be confused for the "free world." The non-communist world included many murderous dictatorships which were definitely not free (including medieval Saudi Arabia and Iran under the Shah). Even Afghanistan's current government is considered "not free" by Freedom House standards: Afghanistan: Freedom in the World 2020 Country Report | Freedom House

The U.S. government's only consistent policy throughout all this time is to support capitalism no matter what. Our government and military has worked to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, so the idea that U.S. is some kind of Captain America to bring freedom to the world has been nothing but propaganda.

For those who think that U.S. may lose credibility, whatever gave them the idea that we ever had any credibility to begin with?

If one takes an honest, hard look at how America's foreign policy has been made since 1945, one would find extremely little credibility. From the early days of the Cold War to the present, we've seen nothing but lies and propaganda, along with policies which only benefit big business and the super-wealthy, not the common people and certainly not for freedom in the world.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
What should the U.S. do if the Taliban regain total control of Afghanistan?
Not our problem. The Afghan people can free themselves from the Taliban if they want. We shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

And, anyway, aren't our thousands of mercenaries still there? It's just the servicemen leaving and I read there's only 2,000 of them there now. I notice the warmongering establishment media is trying to drum up sympathy for us staying there, to save them from the Taliban. :rolleyes:
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
U.S. Is Starting To Evacuate Some Embassy Staff From Afghanistan With Military Help





I wonder if this will be like the fall of Saigon, where they showed the last U.S. personnel at the embassy on the roof leaving by helicopter.

Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg


What should the U.S. do if the Taliban regain total control of Afghanistan?
In desperation, U.S. scours for countries willing to house Afghan refugees

The US is also struggling to evacuate people from Afghanistan. Part of the problem is that unless people are already in Kabul its much harder to get them out. There are other logistical obstacles.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not our problem. The Afghan people can free themselves from the Taliban if they want. We shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

I agree that we should have stayed out to begin with. At the time, the U.S. was in the heavy throes of war fever.

I do believe the government should at least accept responsibility and acknowledge their own role in bringing this all about and keeping it going for as long as it's been going. They should have been more prudent. Just the public was gripped by war fever, that didn't mean our leaders had any excuse for acting so rashly and irrationally.

And, anyway, aren't our thousands of mercenaries still there? It's just the servicemen leaving and I read there's only 2,000 of them there now. I notice the warmongering establishment media is trying to drum up sympathy for us staying there, to save them from the Taliban. :rolleyes:

That's what it appears to be, at least looking at the articles which have been coming out lately. They all paint doom and gloom for Afghanistan, predicting a complete Taliban takeover - just as it was before we invaded in 2002. I think they're sending 3000 back there to assist with the evacuation. It's not over yet.

But it is pretty telling, considering how rapid the Taliban are taking control. I guess the Afghan people aren't too keen on supporting a US-backed regime and would rather go with the Taliban. The whole battle for "hearts and minds" seems to have turned into another abysmal failure.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
We had no clue what our mission was in Afghanistan when we first went in there. Bush and his advisors and subsequent presidents never got a handle on their reason for being there. Maybe if they had applied the Powell Doctrine we could have avoided this disaster.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]
Powell Doctrine - Wikipedia

Well, at the time, they were saying that it was due to Bin Laden purportedly hiding in Afghanistan and being sheltered by the Taliban. After 9/11, Bush said "They hate us for our freedom." Statements like that make me wonder if Bush could even understand any of the questions listed above.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Taliban Prepare to March on Kabul as U.S. Hastens Pullout (msn.com)

After 20 years of war, much of what the U.S. sought to accomplish in Afghanistan crumbled in just one week. The insurgent movement controlled none of Afghanistan’s provincial capitals until it seized the remote city of Zaranj just a week earlier, Aug. 6.

During that advance, Afghan security forces, meant to number 350,000 men, often surrendered without a fight, with soldiers giving up American-bought weaponry and taking advantage of Taliban promises of amnesty. Politicians in the U.S.-backed government in Kabul continued to squabble, with some senior officials quietly slipping abroad, at a time when unity was required the most.

An army of 350,000 men surrendering without a fight, giving up their American-bought weapons, in exchange for Taliban promises of amnesty. Meanwhile, their government politicians are squabbling, and some officials are leaving the country.

By Friday night, when the first American units began to arrive to secure the airport to evacuate the bulk of U.S. diplomatic personnel, the mood in Kabul was mostly of resignation that the nation’s capital, like so many provincial cities, would soon come under the Taliban’s sway, too.

“Kabul will fall sooner or later because the morale of security forces is so weak. The government doesn’t really support them,” said Staff. Sgt. Khaluddin, one of the Afghan soldiers defending Kabul. He was on leave in his hometown of Kunduz when it was overrun by insurgents this past week. He managed to escape with family members to Kabul on a moto-rickshaw and resumed service in his Kabul-based unit.

The advance of the Taliban forces poses a significant foreign-policy challenge to President Biden, some four months after he said that all U.S. forces would leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11, implementing agreements that the Trump administration struck with the Taliban in Doha in February 2020. The Taliban launched their offensive soon after Mr. Biden’s announcement.

Mr. Biden, who started out Friday at his home in Wilmington, Del., and then traveled to Camp David, received a briefing on the drawdown of the U.S. civilian presence in Afghanistan, the White House said.

The president said earlier this week that, after so much American support in the two decades since the post-9/11 attack on Afghanistan, the nation’s leadership and people now must summon the will to fight. The administration has pledged to maintain a high-level of diplomatic, development and other assistance and some military support to the Afghan government, throughout the pullout and afterward. But the quick drawdown this summer deprived the Afghan military of the crucial airstrikes, maintenance and other support it needed to fight, according to former officials and foreign-policy specialists.

“The Afghan military was designed to have a very strong plug-in of U.S. firepower,” said retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, a national security adviser to former President Donald Trump who previously served as a deputy to the commander of the NATO-led force in Afghanistan. “Without that, they’re in trouble.”

The arrival of U.S. troops —some of whom flew in Black Hawk helicopters, shooting flares over Kabul’s diplomatic quarter Friday afternoon—shifted the focus firmly on the dismantling of the large international presence that dominated the Afghan capital during the past two decades.

The U.S. and other Western embassies, which have already urged their citizens to leave Afghanistan immediately, began the process of drastically scaling down their presence. That has left thousands of Afghans who fear for their lives under the Taliban scrambling to find ways to leave the country at the time when one foreign mission after another stopped accepting visa requests.

As those lucky enough to have a way out crowded Kabul’s airport, tens of thousands of other Afghans streamed into the capital from the provinces, seeking shelter in city parks and in mosques.

“The Taliban don’t care about people, they just like war, and now you see the city filling up with displaced people,” said Yama Rashid, a 29-year-old seller of mobile-phone cards. “They say that the U.S. is going to help people who worked for them. But what about the rest of us? Should we just burn?”

For the Taliban, the biggest triumph in the war so far was Friday’s seizure of Kandahar, which is where Taliban founder Mullah Omar donned the cloak of Prophet Muhammad and proclaimed himself the commander of the faithful in 1996, conquering most of the country soon after.

Pashtana Durrani, a female university student who runs an education organization, said she had to leave all her possessions behind as she escaped Kandahar on Friday.

“The city was taken with no resistance. There was celebratory fire, and people are also so scared,” she said. “We’ve left behind all the books that my father and grandfather had given me, every memory, and we’ve had to burn all our pictures.”

Many other Kandaharis, however, reacted with joy. Hundreds of locals took their motorbikes to the streets now that the Afghan government’s ban on them, imposed to deter the Taliban, no longer applied. Shops and markets were opened, residents said.

“Now the situation is totally normal,” said Syed Mohammad, a Kandahar shopkeeper. “On each square there are 10 to 15 Taliban standing with guns, flags and walkie talkies. But everyone can go to any part of the city without constraint.”

The Taliban’s new governor for Kandahar, Haji Yousaf Wafa, issued a message announcing a general amnesty for government employees and members of security forces, and urged everyone to return to work as normal, including in schools and universities. In a radio announcement, the Taliban also asked traffic police officers to resume their duties and alleviate Kandahar’s traffic jams.

Despite promises of amnesty, the city’s new rulers raided the homes of several anti-Taliban commanders and former security officials, particularly those close to Gen. Abdul Raziq, the Kandahar police chief and warlord who was assassinated by the Taliban in 2018, residents said. Footage shot around the Kandahar prison, which used to house Taliban detainees, showed bodies of several police officers strewn in the field.

Kandahar and nearby Helmand, whose provincial capital Lashkar Gah also fell Friday, were the main focus of the U.S. military surge in 2010-14, accounting for a large part of the 2,450 American military deaths in the country. On Friday, the Taliban also entered Pul-e-Alam, the capital of Mr. Ghani’s home province of Logar, just south of Kabul, and captured its governor and several other senior officials. The only big cities that the Afghan government still holds besides Kabul are Jalalabad in the country’s east and the northern hub of Mazar-e-Sharif, which is surrounded by the Taliban.

Some of the provinces that have fallen to the Taliban over the past week were surrendered in negotiated deals, as happened Thursday in Ghazni, whose governor was subsequently arrested by Kabul. In the western city of Herat, however, commando troops and a militia led by warlord Ismail Khan initially put up stiff resistance. That resistance collapsed Thursday night, and Mr. Khan and top provincial security officials were taken into custody by the insurgents.

Photos released by the Taliban on social media showed Mr. Khan—a checkered turban above his gray beard, an ammunition rack on his chest—sitting on a blue plastic chair, with barriers usually used to secure military bases in the background. The Taliban’s spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, said in a statement that Mr. Khan, thousands of his men, the governor of Herat and other senior officials had switched sides and joined the Taliban. In a short video interview released on social media, a dazed Mr. Khan—who was a Taliban prisoner in the 1990s -- said he hadn’t prepared for the city’s sudden collapse. He said his message to Afghan government forces was that “we have to finish this war and have a peaceful life.”

The scenes of triumphant Taliban fighters conquering city after city, parading their Humvees, artillery pieces and U.S.-made drones, have unnerved many of America’s allies. In an unusual criticism of America’s rush out of Afghanistan., U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace described the Doha agreement in a Sky News interview as “a rotten deal” that “effectively told a Taliban that wasn’t winning that they were winning.”

“We will all, in the international community, probably pay the consequences of that,” he added.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I do believe the government should at least accept responsibility and acknowledge their own role in bringing this all about and keeping it going for as long as it's been going. They should have been more prudent. Just the public was gripped by war fever, that didn't mean our leaders had any excuse for acting so rashly and irrationally.
They wanted war from the beginning. It was planned. Look at Project for a New American Century.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Well, I suppose it has bought us 20 years with no more Al-Qaeda terrorism from Afghanistan. And The US did manage to bump off Bin Laden. And just maybe we have given the Afghans, especially a generation of women, a taste of what life can be like, which may eventually lead to the Taliban having to become more moderate.

But I agree that will be little satisfaction to the families of dead soldiers.
Not that this solves anything, but I've long thought what might help solve the intolerance of our neighbors son being killed in action would be to form penal units. The Germans and Russians did this in WW2. It's probably illegal, but I'd not have a problem with setting up military units with criminals who have little to lose.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not that this solves anything, but I've long thought what might help solve the intolerance of our neighbors son being killed in action would be to form penal units. The Germans and Russians did this in WW2. It's probably illegal, but I'd not have a problem with setting up military units with criminals who have little to lose.

I think you're right in that it's probably illegal, although I think there was a time when criminals could opt for military service. I would presume there would be some conditions and limitations with that. I don't think they would take Charles Manson into the army. (Or...maybe they would, I don't know.)

The Germans and Russians were desperate for manpower, so I guess they'd take anyone they could get.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Afghan women fear return to 'dark days' amid Taliban sweep (apnews.com)

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — It was early evening and Zahra, her mother and three sisters were on their way to dinner at another sister’s home when they saw people running and heard gunshots on the street.

“The Taliban are here!” people screamed.

In just a few minutes, everything changed for the 26-year-old resident of Herat, Afghanistan’s third-largest city.

Zahra grew up in a mostly Taliban-free Afghanistan, where women dared to dream of careers and girls got an education. For the past five years, she has been working with local nonprofit organizations to raise awareness for women and press for gender equality.

Her dreams and ambitions came crashing down Thursday evening as the Taliban swept into the city, planting their white flags emblazoned with an Islamic proclamation of faith in a central square as people on motorcycles and in cars rushed to their homes.

Like most other residents, Zahra, her parents and five siblings are now hunkering indoors, too scared to go out and worried about the future. The Associated Press chose not to identify her by her full name to avoid making her a target.

“I am in big shock,” said Zahra, a round-faced, soft-spoken young woman. “How can it be possible for me as a woman who has worked so hard and tried to learn and advance, to now have to hide myself and stay at home?”

Amid a lightning offensive over the past several days, the Taliban now control more than two-thirds of the country, just two weeks before the U.S. plans to withdraw its last troops. And they are slowly closing in on the capital, Kabul.

The U.N. refugee agency says nearly 250,000 Afghans have fled their homes since the end of May amid fears the Taliban would reimpose their strict and ruthless interpretation of Islam, all but eliminating women’s rights. Eighty percent of those displaced are women and children.

The fundamentalist group ruled the country for five years until the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. During that time, it forbade girls an education and women the right to work, and refused even to let them travel outside their homes without a male relative to accompany them. The Taliban also carried out public executions, chopped off the hands of thieves and stoned women accused of adultery.

There have been no confirmed reports of such extreme measures in areas the Taliban fighters recently seized. But militants were reported to have taken over some houses and set fire to at least one school.

At a park in Kabul, transformed since last week into a shelter for the displaced, families told the AP on Friday that girls riding home in a motorized rickshaw in the northern Takhar province were stopped and lashed for wearing “revealing sandals.”
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I think you're right in that it's probably illegal, although I think there was a time when criminals could opt for military service. I would presume there would be some conditions and limitations with that. I don't think they would take Charles Manson into the army. (Or...maybe they would, I don't know.)

The Germans and Russians were desperate for manpower, so I guess they'd take anyone they could get.
I don't think anyone would want a Pvt. C. Manson in their unit. I actually really like the idea of offering prisoners a chance for military service in exchange for a sentence. the worse the sentence the more dangerous the service, and more restrictions. But given the intolerance of families losing their husbands with a newborn at home society would be more tolerant for inmates to sacrifice themselves. I might be a fool and have seen The Dirty Dozen too many times.
 
Top