Trump administration installs advocate for quick Afghanistan withdrawal at Pentagon

[gorfias]

Little late in the game but here's to hoping for retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor's success.

Trump administration installs advocate for quick Afghanistan withdrawal at Pentagon | CNN Politics

An ardent opponent of the US military's presence in Afghanistan who once called for the use of lethal force against illegal immigrants and has made a litany of racist comments has been made a senior adviser at the Pentagon.

www.cnn.com

Of course, our legacy corporate media are outraged.

 

[Iron]

About time, over 20 years already.

 

[Silvanus]

Of course, our legacy corporate media are outraged.

Right... but not because of the withdrawal advocacy. Because he's a murderous racist otherwise.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, he had his entire run to do something like this, waits until he loses the election. Huh,

Oh, and evil racist, but that's to be expected of one of Trump's.

 

[Satinavian]

Nice. An "Eastern Ukraine is Russia" guy. Mind you, not just the Crimea.

 

[gorfias]

So, he had his entire run to do something like this, waits until he loses the election. Huh,

Oh, and evil racist, but that's to be expected of one of Trump's.

He tried to do it reaching out to others.. that basically bit him when he reached out to him, called him names, etc.. Then people implied they think a senile old whore will do a better job of not hiring people that will lie to him.

 

[Iron]

Nice. An "Eastern Ukraine is Russia" guy. Mind you, not just the Crimea.

There's a strong case behind the claim that the ukrainian and belarussian identity is manufactured, and that they're all "russians".

 

[Trunkage]

He tried to do it reaching out to others.. that basically bit him when he reached out to him, called him names, etc.. Then people implied they think a senile old whore will do a better job of not hiring people that will lie to him.

I remember when Obama tried to do a deal with the Taliban too. People didnt like it

 

[Agema]

He tried to do it reaching out to others.. that basically bit him when he reached out to him, called him names, etc.. Then people implied they think a senile old whore will do a better job of not hiring people that will lie to him.

Trump had four years where he could have just taken a grip and forced a withdrawal.

If Trump hired people who lied to him and he didn't have sufficient awareness on events to realise, he's incompetent. That is the incredibly simple reality. This is a man who apparently hasn't had an intelligence briefing for five months, and for whom the intelligence community had to work hard to get him to pay any attention in the first place. We might note that the Syrian liaison, Jeffrey, does say he effectively "tricked" Trump re the number of troops in Syria (more fool Trump for letting that happen), but the real issue is that they just came up with reasons to not withdraw, and Trump folded. Repeatedly. Because Trump had no real interest in making it happen, and no real aptitude to get it done. He's a child in playpen, making demands about things he doesn't understand and at the mercy of the whim of the adults caring for him for whether they happen

There's a strong case behind the claim that the ukrainian and belarussian identity is manufactured, and that they're all "russians".

It's about as strong as the notion that the Norwegians are Swedes, or the Belgians are Netherlanders. Or even that the Dutch, Swiss and Austrians are all just Germans. Which is to say, they aren't.

At one point far in the past, in the time when the Norse migrated and formed a ruling class over the Slavs to create the people we called the "Rus", and these were the proto-Ukrainians and proto-Russians, and maybe the Belarusians/ But then they went through a lot of divergence and different development after the Mongols, and they ain't the same any more.

The issue with Eastern Ukraine is really that it has a larger Russian ethnic minority, and stronger links with the neighbouring Russian state. In many ways, the fall of Russian influence in Ukraine also reflects Russians emigrating back to Russia, and that the Russian-connected areas also have a much higher population decline.

 

[gorfias]

Trump had four years where he could have just taken a grip and forced a withdrawal.

If Trump hired people who lied to him and he didn't have sufficient awareness on events to realise, he's incompetent. That is the incredibly simple reality. This is a man who apparently hasn't had an intelligence briefing for five months, and for whom the intelligence community had to work hard to get him to pay any attention in the first place. We might note that the Syrian liaison, Jeffrey, does say he effectively "tricked" Trump re the number of troops in Syria (more fool Trump for letting that happen), but the real issue is that they just came up with reasons to not withdraw, and Trump folded. Repeatedly. Because Trump had no real interest in making it happen, and no real aptitude to get it done. He's a child in playpen, making demands about things he doesn't understand and at the mercy of the whim of the adults caring for him for whether they happen



It's about as strong as the notion that the Norwegians are Swedes, or the Belgians are Netherlanders. Or even that the Dutch, Swiss and Austrians are all just Germans. Which is to say, they aren't.

At one point far in the past, in the time when the Norse migrated and formed a ruling class over the Slavs to create the people we called the "Rus", and these were the proto-Ukrainians and proto-Russians, and maybe the Belarusians/ But then they went through a lot of divergence and different development after the Mongols, and they ain't the same any more.

The issue with Eastern Ukraine is really that it has a larger Russian ethnic minority, and stronger links with the neighbouring Russian state. In many ways, the fall of Russian influence in Ukraine also reflects Russians emigrating back to Russia, and that the Russian-connected areas also have a much higher population decline.

Do you really think a President Biden or Harris will do better? Will they get us out of there? I doubt it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
ITMT, CNN, one would think would be against war but apparently what appears to be liberal bias is a ruse. They're pro war corporatists too.

 

[Satinavian]

Do you really think a President Biden or Harris will do better? Will they get us out of there? I doubt it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
ITMT, CNN, one would think would be against war but apparently what appears to be liberal bias is a ruse. They're pro war corporatists too.

I am pretty sure, they are far more likely to settle the problems with Iran. And to withdraw support for the Jemen war. They will also be more predictable with China and North Korea.

As for Afghanistan, i don't think it matters much who is president. No one wants to stay. No one wants to admit that the US has basically lost either. Negotiations are already happening and no has any reason to slow them down. As soon as there is an agreement the US will withdraw and try to forget it ever happened.

 

[Iron]

I am pretty sure, they are far more likely to settle the problems with Iran. And to withdraw support for the Jemen war. They will also be more predictable with China and North Korea.

As for Afghanistan, i don't think it matters much who is president. No one wants to stay. No one wants to admit that the US has basically lost either. Negotiations are already happening and no has any reason to slow them down. As soon as there is an agreement the US will withdraw and try to forget it ever happened.

Same MSM shilled HARD for "Iraqi Freedom" in 2003 and fired any dissenters.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Do you really think a President Biden or Harris will do better?

Yes. Significantly. Trump was an embarrassing failure, any half or quarter decent lukewarm attempt at being a real PotUS will be better.

Will they get us out of there?

This I can't say. As mentioned, nobody is keen on staying in Afghanistan, or has been for many years. It's just that pulling out without it being worse than staying might be difficult. By comparison, look what happened when the US (mostly) pulled out of Iraq, or going back a bit, Vietnam. Might be stuck there for some time to come.

 

[Agema]

Do you really think a President Biden or Harris will do better? Will they get us out of there? I doubt it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Probably not, honestly. I think as well one thing that is always at the back of the mind of Democratic politicians is the fear that they are seen as weak on defence. Thus I suspect they'll use force not only because that's just the way things have always been done and they go with the flow, but because of this concern that they need to look tough.

But my frustration is that Trump gets a ton of excuses he just doesn't deserve. Fundamentally, the welter of criticisms that come from ex-White House insiders, journos who have had WH access and so on is not some weird hate boner for Trump, it's fundamentally that the man really is incompetent and temperamentally unfit for the job. We even see this incompetence ourselves: it is the sort of reason he can go onto a major, televised debate, talk about this amazing healthcare plan he's totally going to give Americans, but has no semblance of an argument why he's done nothing about it for four years, no idea what form it will take (except the meaningless tickbox platitudes of "cheaper" and "cover existing conditions") or how he plans to pass it. This is because he doesn't know, doesn't care, hasn't even looked at it. He just bullshits through it like he's done for decades and keeps getting away with.

And that's the thing. Overall, Trump did precisely nothing to effectively end the USA's interminable conflicts. That's the only useful measuring stick. Not what Clinton would have done, not what Biden will do, not what the media and Congress may or may not want. He said he would end these wars, and the USA is as deeply embroiled in them as when he took office (in some cases more so).

ITMT, CNN, one would think would be against war but apparently what appears to be liberal bias is a ruse. They're pro war corporatists too.

I don't think they're against war. I think they're in favour of saying what they see in a way their viewers would like. CNN's key audience are middle of the road Americans, who mostly have no great objections to these wars.

 

[stroopwafel]

Probably not, honestly. I think as well one thing that is always at the back of the mind of Democratic politicians is the fear that they are seen as weak on defence. Thus I suspect they'll use force not only because that's just the way things have always been done and they go with the flow, but because of this concern that they need to look tough.

But my frustration is that Trump gets a ton of excuses he just doesn't deserve. Fundamentally, the welter of criticisms that come from ex-White House insiders, journos who have had WH access and so on is not some weird hate boner for Trump, it's fundamentally that the man really is incompetent and temperamentally unfit for the job. We even see this incompetence ourselves: it is the sort of reason he can go onto a major, televised debate, talk about this amazing healthcare plan he's totally going to give Americans, but has no semblance of an argument why he's done nothing about it for four years, no idea what form it will take (except the meaningless tickbox platitudes of "cheaper" and "cover existing conditions") or how he plans to pass it. This is because he doesn't know, doesn't care, hasn't even looked at it. He just bullshits through it like he's done for decades and keeps getting away with.

And that's the thing. Overall, Trump did precisely nothing to effectively end the USA's interminable conflicts. That's the only useful measuring stick. Not what Clinton would have done, not what Biden will do, not what the media and Congress may or may not want. He said he would end these wars, and the USA is as deeply embroiled in them as when he took office (in some cases more so).



I don't think they're against war. I think they're in favour of saying what they see in a way their viewers would like. CNN's key audience are middle of the road Americans, who mostly have no great objections to these wars.

Trump certainly backed the Nato countries in a corner to increase their military spending. So that is(minus Turkey) progress I guess. Russia effectively ended the Syrian conflict and Afghanistan and Iraq will follow the Vietnam scenario of just being left behind as an unresolved mess. To be honest I don't really know what difference Trump could have made, other than not abandoning the Kurds in their hour of need or his outspoken support of Erdogan. The refugee crisis, Assad's war crimes, the rise of islamic state etc all occured during the Obama administration. Also aggravated when Obama didn't back up his claim that Assad using chemicals weapons against his own people would be a 'red line'. The ghost of the 2003 Iraq invasion will continue to haunt the world for a long, long time to come. Biden looks like he's going to fall over any second. Don't see him making any kind of huge difference.

 

[dreng3]

The U.S. needs to take responsibility for how it messed up Afghanistan. You can't just waltz in, start a conflict lasting almost two decades then decide to say "peace out" and leave again.

If the U.S. wasn't willing to undertake the responsibility there never should've been any troops on afghan soil. I don't care how much it'll cost or how many lives it'll take, at this point the U.S. needs to massively invest in fixing the mess it created.

 

[Agema]

The U.S. needs to take responsibility for how it messed up Afghanistan. You can't just waltz in, start a conflict lasting almost two decades then decide to say "peace out" and leave again.

In terms of Afghanistan, I would argue the USA should try to leave a country roughly in no worse a state than it found it. In the case of Afghanistan, that means a complete mess.

Afghanistan is a clusterfuck of a country. Is there anything to fix there? I wonder whether it's a massive sunk cost fallacy, where the assumption is that so much effort has been put in, the job (whatever it is) must be completed. It is pretty much the least loved and least supported of any of the USA's conflicts. Possibly the Taliban will take Afghanistan over again. But if - even after all this time - the Afghan state is still not strong enough to resist them, what the hell are we doing wasting our time there?

 

[Iron]

In terms of Afghanistan, I would argue the USA should try to leave a country roughly in no worse a state than it found it. In the case of Afghanistan, that means a complete mess.

Afghanistan is a clusterfuck of a country. Is there anything to fix there? I wonder whether it's a massive sunk cost fallacy, where the assumption is that so much effort has been put in, the job (whatever it is) must be completed. It is pretty much the least loved and least supported of any of the USA's conflicts. Possibly the Taliban will take Afghanistan over again. But if - even after all this time - the Afghan state is still not strong enough to resist them, what the hell are we doing wasting our time there?

IMO Taliban taking Afghanistan is the best option. No more poppy fields and heroin-exporting operations.

 

[stroopwafel]

The U.S. needs to take responsibility for how it messed up Afghanistan. You can't just waltz in, start a conflict lasting almost two decades then decide to say "peace out" and leave again.

If the U.S. wasn't willing to undertake the responsibility there never should've been any troops on afghan soil. I don't care how much it'll cost or how many lives it'll take, at this point the U.S. needs to massively invest in fixing the mess it created.

Impossible. The tribes there have been at war with one another for centuries and will continue to do so long after western civilization itself ended on the trash heap of history. Military intervention there is as effective as pouring a stick in a beehive. That bloke Eric Prince from Blackwater/Xi or whatever his PMC is called now once suggested to turn Afghanistan into a viceroy. That probably says enough. Fortune guaranteed.

 

[dreng3]

In terms of Afghanistan, I would argue the USA should try to leave a country roughly in no worse a state than it found it. In the case of Afghanistan, that means a complete mess.

Afghanistan is a clusterfuck of a country. Is there anything to fix there? I wonder whether it's a massive sunk cost fallacy, where the assumption is that so much effort has been put in, the job (whatever it is) must be completed. It is pretty much the least loved and least supported of any of the USA's conflicts. Possibly the Taliban will take Afghanistan over again. But if - even after all this time - the Afghan state is still not strong enough to resist them, what the hell are we doing wasting our time there?

I'd agree if it wasn't presented as a desire to be less interventionist when really the politicians mean "we fucked up really bad and honestly have no idea of how to extricate ourselves from this in a positive manner, at this point it has a become an unwinnable war and we just don't want to deal with it because it doesn't enjoy popular support"