Peace deal with Taliban

[Crunch]

KABUL — The United States is set to sign a peace deal Saturday with the Taliban, its adversary in Afghanistan's 18-year war. The deal marks a major turning point in a conflict marred by years of both military and diplomatic stalemate.

This deal includes a significant draw down of US troops in the region and “the Taliban will pledge to enter into talks with the Afghan government and not to harbor terrorist groups intent on attacking the West.”

Looks like we have a really good shot at actually ending this thing. Pretty incredible

[DJQuag]

I'm happy if that particular war is coming to an end.

However.

I am really skeptical on how positive you would have been if Obama had gotten the same deal. I'm sure we would have been bombarded with Facebook "surrendering to the terrorists," memes.

And now that I've said all that, what's the deal here? Are the Taliban going to allow young women to be educated now? If not, I'm not exactly happy.

[DJQuag]

I mean I was never a big fan of the Afghan war to begin with, but if we were going to do it to begin with, can we at least make sure the theocratic dictatorship has been removed before we piss off and call it a win?

[Kasandra]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.  Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.  He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.  That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance. 

He gets nothing from Mexico except dirty immigrants.  Watch for him to close the border with Mexico as protection against coronavirus.

[Fenring]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.  Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.  He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.  That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance. 

Man, it is so sad to see how neo-liberalism is the new normal.

[DJQuag]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.  Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.  He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.  That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance. 

He gets nothing from Mexico except dirty immigrants.  Watch for him to close the border with Mexico as protection against coronavirus.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that if we were living in the world of Clinton the 2nd you'd be talking like this given the same circumstances.

Obama droned a whole bunch of civilians when he was president, I don't really think a Dem president in this environment would pass on ending a 20 year war, details or not.

Edit - Meant this for Fenring, sorry.

[Fenring]

Edit - Meant this for Fenring, sorry.

Meant what for me?

[Kasandra]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.  Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.  He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.  That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance. 

Man, it is so sad to see how neo-liberalism is the new normal.

Well, what would you expect when Democrats are hoping that millions of people will die from the coronavirus?  But if you want to discuss what I wrote, give it a shot.  Otherwise, your comment can stand as your last and most well-informed thought on the matter.

[Fenring]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.  Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.  He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.  That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance. 

Man, it is so sad to see how neo-liberalism is the new normal.

Well, what would you expect when Democrats are hoping that millions of people will die from the coronavirus?  But if you want to discuss what I wrote, give it a shot.  Otherwise, your comment can stand as your last and most well-informed thought on the matter.

Are you saying that your OP that I replied to was snark? I took it for your legitimate opinion. If that is so, then you (a liberal) would seem to be bummed that the U.S. hasn't been more aggressive or concrete in occupying foreign countries. That is not a classic liberal position, and I am referring to it using a term that I did not coin, "neo-lib", which means a liberal with neo-con foreign policy aims (i.e. using force abroad when peace is an option). Back in Clinton's time any possibility of peace arrangements was hailed as a good thing; but that is no longer to be assumed from certain liberal quarters. The idea that "U.S. influence in the world" must come at the point of a gun is IMO a shocking position for liberals to take, notwithstanding the fact that I understand the "peace through strength" doctrine.

What my comment has to do with the Coronavirus would be up to you to explain. I wasn't even discussing the Democratic party, but rather people of a liberal persuasion.

[Kasandra]

Are you saying that your OP that I replied to was snark? I took it for your legitimate opinion.

Of course it was.

If that is so, then you (a liberal) would seem to be bummed that the U.S. hasn't been more aggressive or concrete in occupying foreign countries.

That's a very shallow opinion for several reasons.  First, you label me a liberal and argue that that makes me "bummed" that the US isn't waging wars more aggressively.  Second, you don't bother to inquire what might be behind the viewpoint that I stated.  Don't think so highly of your ability to see into my thinking if all it conjures up are labels like libreral and neo-liberal.

That is not a classic liberal position, and I am referring to it using a term that I did not coin, "neo-lib", which means a liberal with neo-con foreign policy aims (i.e. using force abroad when peace is an option).

No, that's not what the term means, and I don't accept you labeling me with your notion of how that defines me.

Back in Clinton's time any possibility of peace arrangements was hailed as a good thing; but that is no longer to be assumed from certain liberal quarters.

You're just full of these leaping conclusions.  Facts matter, grasshopper.  Which "certain liberal quarters"?  Or are you talking like Trump when he says "A lot of people are saying"?  Clinton and Obama both tried to avoid wars and end wars with diplomatic solutions, which oddly enough, Republicans excoriated them for attempting.  Do you honestly see anything but "cut and run" in Trump's new and improved Syria, Russia, Iran and NK policies?  What is Trump's diplomatic principle behind his changes in direction in those countries.  Check Bolton, Mattis and a host of other military and diplomatic leaders in this and other countries for reference, if you care to. Most obviously, he's in love with Kim Jong Un, could care less what happens to the people of Syria and won't confront Putin over election meddling.  Not to mention he's done a heck of a job in Venezuela, right?

The idea that "U.S. influence in the world" must come at the point of a gun is IMO a shocking position for liberals to take, notwithstanding the fact that I understand the "peace through strength" doctrine.

Brainless over-simplification, but not uncommon from people on the right.

What my comment has to do with the Coronavirus would be up to you to explain. I wasn't even discussing the Democratic party, but rather people of a liberal persuasion.

It's just the latest example of the pattern.  You can figure out what it means if you want to learn what I might have meant.

If you want to have a real conversation about any of these things, I'm hoping somebody around here might want to.

[TheDrake]

I'm all for this peace deal. I'm in favor of a "take all our marbles and go home" military deployment strategy around the world. Go Trump Go!

[Fenring]

Kasandra, you can play word games all you like, I stand by my brief comments. Your reply seems to boil down to "nuh-uh!" and yet you didn't deny the view I attributed to you, that you think more force or occupation is necessary in Afghanistan and was necessary in Syria. If that is your view, then I think I have the right to name that view whatever I like. The rest of your comments seem to be deflection and stuff about Trump, which I didn't bring up and wasn't discussing. I also like how my presumably peace-loving comments that are anti-occupation have been classified by you as "brainless over-simplification[...]from people on the right" even though the literal content of my post was that in the past peace-loving positions were those on the left.

Are you quite sure you have a foreign policy position other than "whatever Trump doesn't do"? While he is busy pissing off right-wingers who wanted Syria under U.S. influence, you're calling people supporting the withdrawal right-wingers. Inconsistent.

[Kasandra]

You can say anything you want, but I don't have to take you seriously when you slap labels and mistakenly assign me to a group that you have disdain for.

Are you quite sure you have a foreign policy position other than "whatever Trump doesn't do"? While he is busy pissing off right-wingers who wanted Syria under U.S. influence, you're calling people supporting the withdrawal right-wingers. Inconsistent.

It actually would require a conversation for you to know what I think in specific terms.  In absence a more open exchange, don't let that hold you back from deciding what I think.

[Fenring]

You can say anything you want, but I don't have to take you seriously when you slap labels and mistakenly assign me to a group that you have disdain for.

The most basic point of contention seems to be me calling you a "liberal." Is that off-base? Or do you just not like labels at all?

It actually would require a conversation for you to know what I think in specific terms.

Of course, that is true of anyone. All we have to go on here is posting content. The content I was remarking on was your view on Syria/Afghanistian. I was obviously not in a position to comment on any undeclared views on other matters.

[Crunch]

I mean I was never a big fan of the Afghan war to begin with, but if we were going to do it to begin with, can we at least make sure the theocratic dictatorship has been removed before we piss off and call it a win?

Well, I’m not exactly excited about this deal. Lots of mixed feelings here. Yeah, I’d like to see things turn out better for those people. The taliban is a horror show that should be eliminated. Giving any people back to them sucks.

But, it’s been 18 years. It’s time to recognize that this crappy deal may be the best deal we can get unless we’re willing to extend this into a forever war to impose western values on a people that refuse them at all costs.

There was no winning this, not in the traditional sense of winning a war. There never was. At this point, I can’t see spending more money and more lives only to get the same results 5, 10, or 18 years from today. Continuing this would just be a waste of lives and money, we gotta stop.

If this is the deal that gets us off the merry go round, well, *censored* it. Ok.

[Kasandra]

You can say anything you want, but I don't have to take you seriously when you slap labels and mistakenly assign me to a group that you have disdain for.

The most basic point of contention seems to be me calling you a "liberal." Is that off-base? Or do you just not like labels at all?

It actually would require a conversation for you to know what I think in specific terms.

Of course, that is true of anyone. All we have to go on here is posting content. The content I was remarking on was your view on Syria/Afghanistian. I was obviously not in a position to comment on any undeclared views on other matters.

No, the main point of contention is you assigning values and opinions to me based on the labels that you assign to me.  You don't seem capable of understanding that that is not an effective way to argue.  I get that you think highly of yourself as an open minded and analytical thinker.  That's your biggest handicap in a conversation where you are invited to be open-minded and analytical, as you don't seem to be able to rise to the challenge. 

I do give you credit for sticking with this conversation so far, but up 'til now you just keep repeating yourself as if repetition is somehow convincing.  You should really try harder to think about the issues I'm raising and what my viewpoint about them is before you respond again.  Or, you could just keep asking me to admit that I'm the kind of liberal you want me to be.  Or, you could ask me to expand on the terse commentary I have made about Trump and respond to those points.

[ScottF]

No, the main point of contention is you assigning values and opinions to me based on the labels that you assign to me.  You don't seem capable of understanding that that is not an effective way to argue.  I get that you think highly of yourself as an open minded and analytical thinker.  That's your biggest handicap in a conversation where you are invited to be open-minded and analytical, as you don't seem to be able to rise to the challenge. 

I do give you credit for sticking with this conversation so far, but up 'til now you just keep repeating yourself as if repetition is somehow convincing.  You should really try harder to think about the issues I'm raising and what my viewpoint about them is before you respond again.  Or, you could just keep asking me to admit that I'm the kind of liberal you want me to be.  Or, you could ask me to expand on the terse commentary I have made about Trump and respond to those points.

Your troll game is strong. Respect.

[Kasandra]

You see a troll, I see an enabler. 

[Seriati]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.

That's a big claim.  It's certainly one way to describe the Afghan situation, though it ignores actually defining the goal.  What are we "giving up" on? 

Conquering the country?  We both did that and gave up on that a long time ago.

Defeating the Taliban?  We both did that and gave upon it a long time ago.

Bringing permanent peace?  Wasn't ever possible to impose from the outside, and as you can tell from our around 18 k soldiers, something we gave up on a long time ago.

So what new thing is Trump giving up on now?  I'm guessing, nothing really, or nothing that you'll be able to articlate that isn't belied by the facts on the ground.

Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.

There's no objective evidence that Trump is "shriveling" US influence.  In fact, I think the evidence is that he's deploying more influence.  He's definitely seeking to reduce hard engagement and influence operations - ie American soldiers, American money (in the form of foreign aid), but he hasn't remotely been shy at expanding American influence through his policies on trade, the EU, even the killng the Iranian deal and providing a lot more regional support to our allies.

He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.

He's Trump, as far s I can tell, branding things Trump may have been one of his biggest business lines.

No evidence at all that he's done that in politics.

That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance.

Lol, no evidence he's "pissed" at Ukraine.  Flat out lie that military assistance with delayed.  Still bizarre to me that people that defended Obama not providing military hardware while Russia invaded Ukraine because they didn't want to offend Russia, get all worked up over Trump delaying non-combat aide to Ukraine when there are no serious active operations ongoing.

Believing this is because they "wouldn't give him Biden's head on a platter," just goes to show how easily people convince themselves of what they want to believe.  Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well, as was aid to other countries than Urkraine.  Trump's opposition to foreign aid was something he campaigned on.  Nothing in the Dem's case was anything but circumstantial and vague at that.  There's a reason the Dems refused to allow due process, they knew if the public heard the defense at the same time as the Democrats (rather than months after the Dems got to make their case) there would be no case - and everyone would know it.  Instead you got to listen to a prosecutor trying to cheat for months by biasing the jury and never did hear from the defense.

Think that's immaterial? Roger Stone is STILL UNDER A GAG ORDER because defending himself in public might "inproperly" influence his proceedings.

It's also revealing that investigating corruption by the Bidens is more offensive to you than corruption by the Bidens.  If there were any consistency to your outrage, the existence of this situation would make Biden an unacceptable candidate.

He gets nothing from Mexico except dirty immigrants.  Watch for him to close the border with Mexico as protection against coronavirus.

He negotiated a new trade deal with Mexico, notwithstanding the lack of any support from the left (love how they time their impeachment walk to steal the thunder on the treaty execution). 

But I told my wife, that if Congress really does fund the coronovirus defense to the extent they were claiming (and remember the left almost immediately criticized Trump for not asking for enough), I'd be willing to bet he'll find a way to use it to build or improve his border wall.  It's not even much of a stretch if the virus gets out of control in South or Central America.

[Kasandra]

We're giving up in Afghanistan, just as we did in Syria and are trying to do in North Korea and most certainly with Russia.

That's a big claim.  It's certainly one way to describe the Afghan situation, though it ignores actually defining the goal.  What are we "giving up" on? 

Conquering the country?  We both did that and gave up on that a long time ago.

Defeating the Taliban?  We both did that and gave upon it a long time ago.

Bringing permanent peace?  Wasn't ever possible to impose from the outside, and as you can tell from our around 18 k soldiers, something we gave up on a long time ago.

So what new thing is Trump giving up on now?  I'm guessing, nothing really, or nothing that you'll be able to articlate that isn't belied by the facts on the ground.

So, you see this as a good thing.  If Republicans hadn't excoriated Obama for trying to reduce the US effort 10 years ago (8 years into the unwinnable war effort), I'd almost believe you are being fair minded about this. 

I see that we're throwing in the towel, as Trump did in Syria.  As for the US military goal in Afghanistan, it clearly shifted over time.  I was originally in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11, but the mission lost focus almost immediately.  Bush applied the usual American strong arm tactics to try to dominate the country and neighboring Pakistan militarily to "rid" Afghanistan of the smallish cult-like Taliban.  At the same time he wanted to turn both countries into "friends" of the US, which really just means vassal states. 

The Afghanistan mission failed miserably due to the support and legitimacy the Taliban had in Pakistan.  As Perfez Musharrif said about a US-Pakistan alliance, "Countries don't have friends; they have shared interests." Turned out Pakistan's interests aligned more with the Taliban than with the US.

But gosh darn it, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't going to be stopped by that abject opposition and doubled down.  While predicting (and claiming) victory repeatedly, they settled in for a long siege war of attrition.  They lied continually about the progress of the war to the US public and caused the needless deaths of thousands of US soldiers, and more importantly, hundreds of thousands of Afghanis.  The overall cost of the war in Afghanistan is somewhere between $1T and $2T.  Money well spent?

With all that, pulling out now leaves the Taliban in a position to accomplish the mission they had all along, to install their tyrannical regime on a country that has no ability to defend itself.  As you point out, there's winning and losing, except I don't see much winning.

Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.

There's no objective evidence that Trump is "shriveling" US influence.  In fact, I think the evidence is that he's deploying more influence.  He's definitely seeking to reduce hard engagement and influence operations - ie American soldiers, American money (in the form of foreign aid), but he hasn't remotely been shy at expanding American influence through his policies on trade, the EU, even the killng the Iranian deal and providing a lot more regional support to our allies.

This part of the discussion would require more than would fit in the margins of this post.  I'll just point out that an even modest effort to read what other countries are saying about Trump and what their citizens are saying about the US these days gives the lie to your viewpoint.

He will sell his name in exchange for acquiescence and support in return.

He's Trump, as far s I can tell, branding things Trump may have been one of his biggest business lines.

No evidence at all that he's done that in politics.[/quote]

His self-interest never leaves his thoughts.  At the risk of you falling into another endless back-and-forth, I'll just point out that there was no plausible reason behind withholding military aid to Ukraine other than getting dirt on his potential opponent in the upcoming election.  I predict that "weaponizing" the Biden-Biden Ukraine issue during the campaign will backfire bigly on Trump and may cost him the election all by itself.  That assumes that widespread condemnation over his handling of coronavirus haven't already accomplished that well before then, of course.

That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance.

Lol, no evidence he's "pissed" at Ukraine.  Flat out lie that military assistance with delayed.[/quote]

That is an utterly clueless statement.  You have to close your eyes and cover your ears to sustain that belief. 

Still bizarre to me that people that defended Obama not providing military hardware while Russia invaded Ukraine because they didn't want to offend Russia, get all worked up over Trump delaying non-combat aide to Ukraine when there are no serious active operations ongoing.

Whenever Trumpies jab Obama it's a sign that they can't actually defend him on his actions.  It's a combination of what-aboutism and projection.  Trump has blamed Obama for nearly every one of his own failings so far, so why not for his extortion attempt in Ukraine.

Believing this is because they "wouldn't give him Biden's head on a platter," just goes to show how easily people convince themselves of what they want to believe.  Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well, as was aid to other countries than Urkraine. 

Proof that "Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well"?

Trump's opposition to foreign aid was something he campaigned on.  Nothing in the Dem's case was anything but circumstantial and vague at that.  There's a reason the Dems refused to allow due process, they knew if the public heard the defense at the same time as the Democrats (rather than months after the Dems got to make their case) there would be no case - and everyone would know it.  Instead you got to listen to a prosecutor trying to cheat for months by biasing the jury and never did hear from the defense.

Sad, I fear that Kool-Aid has sugar-coated your brain.

Think that's immaterial? Roger Stone is STILL UNDER A GAG ORDER because defending himself in public might "inproperly" influence his proceedings.

.  He's under a gag order because he was trying to work the press.  It's rather astonishing that you can't bring yourself to understand his very simple motive there.

It's also revealing that investigating corruption by the Bidens is more offensive to you than corruption by the Bidens.  If there were any consistency to your outrage, the existence of this situation would make Biden an unacceptable candidate.

It's a Trump-inspired fantasy that the so-called investigation of the Bidens has anything to do with exposing crimes.  If the country was so corrupt for so long, how come that is the only thing Trump wanted investigations of?  Also ask yourself how come Zelensky couldn't bring himself to give Trump what he wanted?  How come Zelensky hasn't come forward with any even a hint of evidence about the Bidens since Trump pushed him last summer?  Ukraine has said there's no evidence of corruption by either Biden, but there is evidence of other corruption within Burisma.  If you don't want to hear that, prove me wrong.

He gets nothing from Mexico except dirty immigrants.  Watch for him to close the border with Mexico as protection against coronavirus.

He negotiated a new trade deal with Mexico, notwithstanding the lack of any support from the left (love how they time their impeachment walk to steal the thunder on the treaty execution).

Anytime "the Democrats" do anything, something is going on.  The treaty was under review by Congress for a long time before impeachment, if you recall.  OTOH, I do like how Republicans are claiming that the impeachment hearings were timed to distract Trump from tackling the coronavirus spread just so they could blame him for all the deaths that would (and may yet) result.  Don't forget that Pence won't criticize Don Jr for saying that Democrats want millions of Americans to die from COVID-19 just so they can win the next election.

But I told my wife, that if Congress really does fund the coronovirus defense to the extent they were claiming (and remember the left almost immediately criticized Trump for not asking for enough), I'd be willing to bet he'll find a way to use it to build or improve his border wall.  It's not even much of a stretch if the virus gets out of control in South or Central America.

I'm not sure what to say about this.  Trump dismantled the pandemic/epidemic office and delayed taking prophylactic measures against the spread of the coronavirus, so that now it is taking a completely new ground-up effort to fight against it.  He has no idea how little he understands.  You can easily tell that from his recent comments that there were only 15 cases of COVID-19 in the US (there were over 60 at the time) and all those people would get better soon (6 have died so far).  Or his comment yesterday that "scientists" were working on a cure for the disease and might have it soon.  At least he was right about one thing, that it will take a miracle for the disease and the many deaths it will cause to go away any time soon.

[Crunch]

Whew, that was a long winded way to say orange man bad.

It’s always amazing to see who suddenly becomes a warhawk.

[Kasandra]

Whew, that was a long winded way to say orange man bad.

It’s always amazing to see who suddenly becomes a warhawk.

It's even more amazing to see warhawks suddenly become peaceniks when a God-like man takes office and tells other countries to take care of their own problems.  I'd very much like to see US troops out of every country where there is no direct threat to the US, but you have to change course wisely, grasshopper.  You'll notice that Trump hasn't replaced military operations with diplomatic missions in any country he's abandoned so far.

[rightleft22]

Whew, that was a long winded way to say orange man bad.

TDS, Orange man bad... what clever rhetoric to defend ones possession

I mean position

[Kasandra]

Whew, that was a long winded way to say orange man bad.

TDS, Orange man bad... what clever rhetoric to defend ones possession

I mean position

No worries, it's all goof.

I mean good.


[Edit, goof works better than goop]

[wmLambert]

Tpp much posturing/ Seriati's posts were dead on.

I saw the Coronavirus press conference and heard the best doctors and health leaders in the world praise Trump for every action he's taken. There is no wiggle room to claim he erred in any way.

[Kasandra]

Tpp much posturing/ Seriati's posts were dead on.

I saw the Coronavirus press conference and heard the best doctors and health leaders in the world praise Trump for every action he's taken. There is no wiggle room to claim he erred in any way.

You are a riot!

[Fenring]

No, the main point of contention is you assigning values and opinions to me based on the labels that you assign to me.  You don't seem capable of understanding that that is not an effective way to argue.

I wasn't arguing with you in the first place. I made a comment about the general state of things, of which your post was but one example.

I get that you think highly of yourself as an open minded and analytical thinker.  That's your biggest handicap in a conversation where you are invited to be open-minded and analytical, as you don't seem to be able to rise to the challenge.

I suppose the summary of this is that I think, wrongly, that I'm an open minded and analytical thinker. So you are making a statement about what I think of myself, and what you think of what I think of myself. And this comes in context of you taking offense to me referring to an actual post you made about your actual opinion, and critiquing it. Do you see the inconsistency of your offense, since I'm commenting on your actual statements and you don't like it, but you get to comment on statements I don't make but rather than I'm presumably thinking, that are not just critiques but personal attacks? I'll note that I'm not taking offense at this, but rather pointing out that you're not arguing in good faith here.

I do give you credit for sticking with this conversation so far, but up 'til now you just keep repeating yourself as if repetition is somehow convincing.

Well it is hard to avoid repeating oneself when the other side isn't responding directly...

You should really try harder to think about the issues I'm raising and what my viewpoint about them is before you respond again.

I should think harder about the issue you're raising, that you disapprove of Trump pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan? What exactly am I supposed to glean by thinking harder about that? And for that matter, how do you know I haven't already thought a lot about this topic? Or do you just 'know' that too?

Or, you could just keep asking me to admit that I'm the kind of liberal you want me to be.

I'm don't particularly *want* you to be any kind of liberal. My comment, if you may recall, but about what I see as the new state of liberalism in the U.S. What I want really has nothing to do with that fact (if it is one), although incidentally I do have wants on the subject, but they are not directly pertinent to my observation. Changing the subject for the moment, I do, in fact, want both sides to stop feeding the military machine, but I see it as especially the onus of the "helping those on the bottom" side of politics to take the positions for care and against violence.

Or, you could ask me to expand on the terse commentary I have made about Trump and respond to those points.

I could. My OP was not an outright demand for answers, although it was perhaps foreseeable that it would generate a dialogue anyhow.

[Kasandra]

I suppose the summary of this is that I think, wrongly, that I'm an open minded and analytical thinker. So you are making a statement about what I think of myself, and what you think of what I think of myself. And this comes in context of you taking offense to me referring to an actual post you made about your actual opinion, and critiquing it. Do you see the inconsistency of your offense, since I'm commenting on your actual statements and you don't like it, but you get to comment on statements I don't make but rather than I'm presumably thinking, that are not just critiques but personal attacks? I'll note that I'm not taking offense at this, but rather pointing out that you're not arguing in good faith here.

I had the context of how you responded to my comments, whereas you had no context to judge my remarks.  You made a number of rushed judgments about how I think and how I should be labeled.  As an analogy, if you commented in a new thread that you don't like to eat venison, I could respond that that is certainly true of many vegans and other vegetarians and opine that people like you think poorly of hunters and, perhaps, guns.  Why shouldn't I make those assumptions?  I suppose if you said I was wrong and explained that you don't like to eat venison because you're not confident about how the deer might have been processed, but you do like grass-fed beef, then I might imagine that you are a new-agey namby-pamby who thinks food animals should have at least that modicum of freedom before they are slaughtered.  If you tried to clarify further and explained that you grew up on a farm that raised grass-fed cattle, I could assume that you're a redneck who thinks cities are dangerous.  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

In our little discussion, you lack any context for my remarks and still see no need to find out more about my views before labeling me as a neo-liberal and dismissing as sad what I therefore must think.

Your concern for people like me is almost touching, but either make the effort to engage me in a conversation or drop it.  I'll be busy the rest of the afternoon reading gun ads trying to find a model that kills other people humanely; sadly, that's what neo-libs do these days.

[Fenring]

I will quickly point out that my remark was about neo-liberalism, which is a sphere of concepts that are now open to people calling themselves "liberal" that weren't really before. You issued a concept that I feel safely fits within the confines of that set of beliefs, which is neither complete (i.e. you did not issue a 'complete' set of those beliefs, whatever they would be) and is not strictly defining of your own views on things. Meaning, a view of yours can nestle easily into 'neo-lib' without me needing to also defending defining you personally as being a strictly neo-liberal person, whatever that would mean. If you can't see the difference between me pointing out an intersection of your view on Afghanistan and that sphere, and me labeling you as something as if to completely define your beliefs, then I can't help you. As for "sad", the context of "it is sad" being re-interpreted by you as me calling you sad is an SAT fail.

[Kasandra]

For all you peaceniks who support Trump's bold initiative to sign a peace deal (it can't be a treaty, since the Taliban aren't a legitimate government), immediately after the deal was signed Trump had an encouraging 30 minute phone call with some Taliban leader.  Right after the call the Taliban carried out multiple attacks against Afghanistan government forces.

[Kasandra]

I will quickly point out that my remark was about neo-liberalism, which is a sphere of concepts that are now open to people calling themselves "liberal" that weren't really before. You issued a concept that I feel safely fits within the confines of that set of beliefs, which is neither complete (i.e. you did not issue a 'complete' set of those beliefs, whatever they would be) and is not strictly defining of your own views on things. Meaning, a view of yours can nestle easily into 'neo-lib' without me needing to also defending defining you personally as being a strictly neo-liberal person, whatever that would mean. If you can't see the difference between me pointing out an intersection of your view on Afghanistan and that sphere, and me labeling you as something as if to completely define your beliefs, then I can't help you. As for "sad", the context of "it is sad" being re-interpreted by you as me calling you sad is an SAT fail.

That was a very artful deflection.  FWIW, I've never doubted your ability to push words around on a page.  OTOH (2 four letter acronyms in a row, sorry), I have many times observed how you slip out of responding with this same kind of statement.  You defend your unfounded characterization of me by saying that my "concept...safely fits within the confines of that set of beliefs"....?!?  In other words, you aren't saying I believe those things, but the things I say mean that I believe those things, else why would I say them...right?

Are you a lawyer or lobbyist?

[Fenring]

I will quickly point out that my remark was about neo-liberalism, which is a sphere of concepts that are now open to people calling themselves "liberal" that weren't really before. You issued a concept that I feel safely fits within the confines of that set of beliefs, which is neither complete (i.e. you did not issue a 'complete' set of those beliefs, whatever they would be) and is not strictly defining of your own views on things. Meaning, a view of yours can nestle easily into 'neo-lib' without me needing to also defending defining you personally as being a strictly neo-liberal person, whatever that would mean. If you can't see the difference between me pointing out an intersection of your view on Afghanistan and that sphere, and me labeling you as something as if to completely define your beliefs, then I can't help you. As for "sad", the context of "it is sad" being re-interpreted by you as me calling you sad is an SAT fail.

That was a very artful deflection.  FWIW, I've never doubted your ability to push words around on a page.  OTOH (2 four letter acronyms in a row, sorry), I have many times observed how you slip out of responding with this same kind of statement.  You defend your unfounded characterization of me by saying that my "concept...safely fits within the confines of that set of beliefs"....?!?  In other words, you aren't saying I believe those things, but the things I say mean that I believe those things, else why would I say them...right?

Are you a lawyer or lobbyist?

Let me help with the text analysis, then. It means that if you say "I believe X" I can point out that the one belief you mention falls within a belief system, without also having to imply you believe the entire belief system. And further, assessing one view of yours as being consistent with that belief system, is not the same as calling you by a label in the form of "you are a Y". There is concretely different meaning in saying that your belief on that topic is a neo-lib one, from calling you a neo-liberal. It completely leaves room that this belief is otherwise an outlier among your other ones; or that your beliefs are internally inconsistent; or that you just believe a variety of things, among which is this non-peacenik one. Your main thrust was about me attaching labels to YOU which in fact I did not do directly. You may infer that I was doing so indirectly, but that's not textually supported. And all this, while you outright made comments about my unstated beliefs about myself, just to put things in their proper perspective. Clear?

I am clarifying what's going on, not obfuscating it.

[Kasandra]

I am clarifying what's going on, not obfuscating it.

Like I said, lawyer-speak. If I say you accuse me of having views of a denigrated group, I'm not saying you believe that I do, only that you are saying it. I hope I'm being clear.

[Crunch]

For all you peaceniks who support Trump's bold initiative to sign a peace deal (it can't be a treaty, since the Taliban aren't a legitimate government), immediately after the deal was signed Trump had an encouraging 30 minute phone call with some Taliban leader.  Right after the call the Taliban carried out multiple attacks against Afghanistan government forces.

And ....? What? Drop some nukes? I get it, orange man bad, but if that’s all you’re gonna say why don’t you just say that?

[yossarian22c]

... I get it, orange man bad, ...

Are you a bot stuck in a OMB, TDS, loop?

[Kasandra]

And ....? What? Drop some nukes? I get it, orange man bad, but if that’s all you’re gonna say why don’t you just say that?

Are you a bot stuck in a OMB, TDS, loop?

Pavlov?  Yes, Pavlov.

[TheDrake]

if trump_disparaged()
    print("OMB")
else
    print("MAGA")

def trump_disparaged():

    if trump_questioned() || trump_criticized() || !trump_loved():
        return true;
    else
        return false;

[Kasandra]

At least there's some logic to his responses instead of blind knee-jerking.

[Crunch]

if trump_disparaged()
    print("OMB")
else
    print("MAGA")

def trump_disparaged():

    if trump_questioned() || trump_criticized() || !trump_loved():
        return true;
    else
        return false;

No surprise that you'd go for a brute force solution. Very liberal of you. As a conservative, I prefer much more elegant and easier to maintain solutions:

Function NPC (TrumpIsPresident)
   If TrumpIsPresident = True Then
           Print("Orange Man Bad!")
           NPC(True)
   Else
          NPC(False)
   End If
End Function

 

[Wayward Son]

You do realize, Crunch, that saying "Orange Man Bad" is just another way to dismiss someone else's argument without actually addressing the argument.  Just like accusing them of TDS.

[Kasandra]

You do realize, Crunch, that saying "Orange Man Bad" is just another way to dismiss someone else's argument without actually addressing the argument.  Just like accusing them of TDS.

The pattern is strong in this one.  OTOH, it's easier to always be in attack mode and never engage in a, you know, discussion.

[Seriati]

So, you see this as a good thing.  If Republicans hadn't excoriated Obama for trying to reduce the US effort 10 years ago (8 years into the unwinnable war effort), I'd almost believe you are being fair minded about this.

That's an interesting redirect.  Almost like you didn't want to answer the question about what exactly Trump is giving up on that we haven't previously already given up on.  Actions speak louder than words, nothing about our posture was showing that we had a specific goal we were still working towards.

And no, I don't see it as a good thing, just not as some kind of new departure from an existing status or strategy or for that matter from Obama's policy.

I see that we're throwing in the towel, as Trump did in Syria.  As for the US military goal in Afghanistan, it clearly shifted over time.  I was originally in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11, but the mission lost focus almost immediately.  Bush applied the usual American strong arm tactics to try to dominate the country and neighboring Pakistan militarily to "rid" Afghanistan of the smallish cult-like Taliban.  At the same time he wanted to turn both countries into "friends" of the US, which really just means vassal states.

So you literally wrote that the mission failed during Bush's time, what exactly was the mission during Obama?  or Trump's first 3 years?  and what was this agreement somehow changing?

You seem to simultaneously believe that the mission was run as failed from immediately after the invasion and that acknowledging the reality you argue for by pulling out is wrong.

I'm hard pressed to believe that any Trump status change would have been correct in your eyes (it also would have been wrong to keep the status quo), and yet if it had been Obama doing the exact same thing you'd be complimenting it.

Do you have a basis for this criticism that's indepedent of the persons that engaged in it? 

With all that, pulling out now leaves the Taliban in a position to accomplish the mission they had all along, to install their tyrannical regime on a country that has no ability to defend itself.  As you point out, there's winning and losing, except I don't see much winning.

Except, I think this is demonstrably false.  The Taliban, without outside help, is not in any position to install a tyrannical regime.  They are diminished, and if they can't just silence the other side (which they won't be able to) then their ideas will be exposed over time.

Trump wants to shrivel the US influence in the world, except in the form he does with his investments.

This part of the discussion would require more than would fit in the margins of this post.  I'll just point out that an even modest effort to read what other countries are saying about Trump and what their citizens are saying about the US these days gives the lie to your viewpoint.

Not in a serious analysis does your position make sense.  You need to consider that diplomats often lie and mislead and say things for public consumption or to influence the situation.  The fact is so long as countries are "saying" Trump is ineffective and conceding one thing after another to him with their actions your point is wrong.

He's Trump, as far s I can tell, branding things Trump may have been one of his biggest business lines.  No evidence at all that he's done that in politics.

His self-interest never leaves his thoughts.

Lol, did you add professional pyschic to your resume?  Gotta love the motive speculation, but I will point out this is exactly why the impeachment failed.  To the Dems its impossible to conceive that Trump is acting out of anything BUT self interest, and when the evidence doesn't show that and does directly support other reads they literally can't compute it.

Or to put it another way, so far your arguments are not doing much to disprove Crunch's TDS hypothesis.  In fact, that comment almost makes it certain.

At the risk of you falling into another endless back-and-forth, I'll just point out that there was no plausible reason behind withholding military aid to Ukraine other than getting dirt on his potential opponent in the upcoming election.

There are several plausible reasons that were actually documented in the record, so that statement is just a lie.  Sorry to be harsh, but that ones just a lie.

In fact, there is no evidentiary reason to to believe it was connected to getting the dirt, other than TDS.  Or can you cite to the evidence that ties it to Trump?

That's why he's so pissed at Ukraine; they won't give him Biden's head on a platter, so the hell with giving them military assistance.

Lol, no evidence he's "pissed" at Ukraine.  Flat out lie that military assistance with delayed.

That is an utterly clueless statement.  You have to close your eyes and cover your ears to sustain that belief.

Okay, then please cite to the evidence that shows he's pissed at the Ukraine.  Show the evidence linking it to them not giving them Biden's head on a platter.  Show the evidence that aid didn't flow.

The last claim is provably false.  There is zero evidence on the first 2.  So pretty much, your claim is either naked motive speculation based on an inconclusive record or TDS, you can tell me which.

Still bizarre to me that people that defended Obama not providing military hardware while Russia invaded Ukraine because they didn't want to offend Russia, get all worked up over Trump delaying non-combat aide to Ukraine when there are no serious active operations ongoing.

Whenever Trumpies jab Obama it's a sign that they can't actually defend him on his actions.  It's a combination of what-aboutism and projection.

Nah, but every time an anti-Trumper makes a claim that it's just whataboutism it's literally just a statement that they can't actually explain why the situation is different without everyone seeing they have no consistent principals.

In any event, this really is an odd one. It's appalling that you can't explain why Obama withholding lethal aid during the actual fighting, notwithstanding that the US and the EU both committed to defend Ukraine not just provide aid as part of the deal to get Ukraine to surrender it's nuclear arms is okay in your book, but a timing delay on nonlethal aid by the President that had already and was still providing lethal aid is a problem.

Can it really just be that using the magic word "whataboutism" means you don't have to actually have a principle behind your arguments?

Trump has blamed Obama for nearly every one of his own failings so far, so why not for his extortion attempt in Ukraine.

Honestly don't have an opinion on this one.  Doubt your claim is provable (and that's not criticizing it in the hyperbolic sense it was intended - I think).  But it is one of Trump's great failings that he can't admit to mistakes, so I'm sure there are some instances of this.

Believing this is because they "wouldn't give him Biden's head on a platter," just goes to show how easily people convince themselves of what they want to believe.  Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well, as was aid to other countries than Urkraine. 

Proof that "Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well"?  Lol, read it several times before but hard to find what the media doesn't want out there.  In any event, it's my understanding that specifically aid to Urkaine was not obligated until September in 2018, but also in 2017 and 2016.  Should be easy to prove me wrong.

While you wait, heres's a 2017 article that talks expressly about the Congressional fear that OMB will be used by Trump to facilitate his policy to cut foreign aid (what what was it you said about no other plausible reason again?)..

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/fears-grow-trump-will-ignore-congress-spending-241768

Trump's opposition to foreign aid was something he campaigned on.  Nothing in the Dem's case was anything but circumstantial and vague at that.  There's a reason the Dems refused to allow due process, they knew if the public heard the defense at the same time as the Democrats (rather than months after the Dems got to make their case) there would be no case - and everyone would know it.  Instead you got to listen to a prosecutor trying to cheat for months by biasing the jury and never did hear from the defense.

Sad, I fear that Kool-Aid has sugar-coated your brain.

Yeah, I'm the problem.  You can't explain reasonably why due process that every American is entitled to at law, which is deemed so fundamental a right that conviction for any crime will be overturned if it's not provided, wasn't provided by the DNC House in what should have been one of the most important activities in which they can engage.

I never even asked for them to be neutral, but there is literally no excuse for this failure.

Think that's immaterial? Roger Stone is STILL UNDER A GAG ORDER because defending himself in public might "inproperly" influence his proceedings.

.  He's under a gag order because he was trying to work the press.  It's rather astonishing that you can't bring yourself to understand his very simple motive there.

Isn't this where I'm supposed to stare at you sarcastically till you realize what you just said?

Lol, yes that's exactly why he's under a gag order, even though his ability to "work the press" was tiny compared to Adam Schiff's, Jerry Nadler and the whole gaggle of press working facists.

It's also revealing that investigating corruption by the Bidens is more offensive to you than corruption by the Bidens.  If there were any consistency to your outrage, the existence of this situation would make Biden an unacceptable candidate.

It's a Trump-inspired fantasy that the so-called investigation of the Bidens has anything to do with exposing crimes.

Hunter is guilty, and honestly Joe is too.  Any honest review of Hunter's career has to acknowledge that it's virtually all political trading in violation of the principals and sometimes the letter of the law.  As far as Joe, pretty hard to explain what exactly he did that was legitimate to get his drug addicted son admitted into the Navy over the age of 40, or why he shouldn't be held accountable for either knowing what his son was doing or deliberate and willful blindness.  I mean the records show that even DNC admin officials were concerned (and given their tolerance for DNC corruption) that says a lot.

This is why this is TDS.  If you had a consistent principle, you could not just be "outraged" at Trumps "corruption" and at the same time pretend this corruption doesn't exist.

If the country was so corrupt for so long, how come that is the only thing Trump wanted investigations of?

It's not, he asked for other investigations, even in the call what you said isn't true.  But moreover, it was his express policy and the express policy of his state department (remember all those "heros" that testified, they'd tell you the same).

Also ask yourself how come Zelensky couldn't bring himself to give Trump what he wanted?

Ask yourself why, and maybe follow that up with why a Ukrainian judge recently ordered them to investigate the situation.

How come Zelensky hasn't come forward with any even a hint of evidence about the Bidens since Trump pushed him last summer?

Because he's not an idiot.  Everyone knows what the Dems do to those that rat on them.  If he tanks Biden his country loses it's aid, there's not even a question.  The Dem Senators sent him a letter threatening him if he gets involved.

Ukraine has said there's no evidence of corruption by either Biden, but there is evidence of other corruption within Burisma.  If you don't want to hear that, prove me wrong.

Give me the citation first.

Anytime "the Democrats" do anything, something is going on.  The treaty was under review by Congress for a long time before impeachment, if you recall.

Yes, for no reason since it had broad bipartisan support.  Nancy held it simply to deny Trump the victory.

OTOH, I do like how Republicans are claiming that the impeachment hearings were timed to distract Trump from tackling the coronavirus spread just so they could blame him for all the deaths that would (and may yet) result.  Don't forget that Pence won't criticize Don Jr for saying that Democrats want millions of Americans to die from COVID-19 just so they can win the next election.

Never heard that conspiracy theory of yours.  Have you met these"Republicans"?

I'm not sure what to say about this.  Trump dismantled the pandemic/epidemic office and delayed taking prophylactic measures against the spread of the coronavirus, so that now it is taking a completely new ground-up effort to fight against it.  He has no idea how little he understands.

If you're not sure what to say, then I'd recommend cutting out the half truths and mischaracterizations.  Just state the facts, then add your analysis, instead of trying to tilt the field by making misleading claims.

[Kasandra]

That was book excerpt length worthy, so I won't respond to most of it.

That's an interesting redirect.  Almost like you didn't want to answer the question about what exactly Trump is giving up on that we haven't previously already given up on.  Actions speak louder than words, nothing about our posture was showing that we had a specific goal we were still working towards.
...
So you literally wrote that the mission failed during Bush's time, what exactly was the mission during Obama?

We should have gotten out by 2005, but we stayed and got bogged down just as the critics said we would.  Ever since then the mission has been to figure out how to get out.  There's no good solution, but handing things over to the Taliban at this point is a particularly bad one.  Crunch seems to think it's ok that the Taliban carried out 43 separate attacks in the days after signing the so-called peace accord with the US (note the Afghan government wasn't even party to the discussion or treaty), but to me it's just another example of Trump's inability to wrap his mind around any hard problem - particularly any international ones - and willingness to back out of any situation where he can't proclaim himself a God-like genius.

The Taliban, without outside help, is not in any position to install a tyrannical regime.  They are diminished, and if they can't just silence the other side (which they won't be able to) then their ideas will be exposed over time.

We disagree.  That has been their mission all along, and the US is finally giving them permission to pursue it.  Remind me what exactly the Taliban are getting out this deal if taking over the country isn't their goal?

You need to consider that diplomats often lie and mislead and say things for public consumption or to influence the situation.  The fact is so long as countries are "saying" Trump is ineffective and conceding one thing after another to him with their actions your point is wrong.

Our diplomats (such as there are still some left under Trump) hew the Trump line, and internationally other countries have to tiptoe around him to avoid making him an even bigger ass towards them.  Zelensky is a good case in point.  My guess is that he would love to tell Trump to go to Hell, but he needs weapons from the US and can't afford to piss him off any more than he already has by refusing to go along with the Biden extortion scheme.

Lol, did you add professional pyschic to your resume?

Trump is so shallow that anyone who isn't a devoted follower can see through his actions to his motives, which lie barely beneath the surface.

Proof that "Ukraine aid was delayed in prior years as well"?  Lol, read it several times before but hard to find what the media doesn't want out there.

I trust that if it happened you could find it, since nothing on the Internet ever goes away.  In other words, you made it up because whataboutism feels sooo good and so much better than defending Trump's actions.  That, of course, is why Trump and his media outlets spend so much time doing the same thing.

Ok, I'm done.  Need to wrap the coins I've been keeping under the sofa cushions and wash the cat.

[Fenring]

Ever since then the mission has been to figure out how to get out.  There's no good solution, but handing things over to the Taliban at this point is a particularly bad one.

Are you just saying this because you figure it must be right, or do you have a source on this that demonstrates a clearly better plan that Trump avoided choosing? This isn't sarcasm, I'd actually like to read something you've got showing what 'the right' plan would have been, compared to just throwing in the towel and leaving.

[rightleft22]

History of Afghanistan is that any occupation or intervention ends the same way - throwing in the towel and leaving.
Its always been a lose lose. 

One thing Trump does understand is 'insanity' of doing the something over and over (that doesn't work) and hoping that just maybe this time it will.  Of course there is some security in a 'not working' status quo but that will never change anything.

[TheDeamon]

Ever since then the mission has been to figure out how to get out.  There's no good solution, but handing things over to the Taliban at this point is a particularly bad one.

Are you just saying this because you figure it must be right, or do you have a source on this that demonstrates a clearly better plan that Trump avoided choosing? This isn't sarcasm, I'd actually like to read something you've got showing what 'the right' plan would have been, compared to just throwing in the towel and leaving.

The "right plan" for there, and Iraq as well, was not to intend to go in "on the cheap." Plenty of stuff written at the time making it quite clear at the onset that both endeavors were going to be Generational in nature and duration. The problem with a "generational duration" is that reeks of "Imperialism" so we can't have that, so we avoided addressing that elephant in the room. And instead we've been doing half-measures for the past 17 years pissing even more blood and treasure down the drain.

It should have been a go in, conquer and hold operation. Instead it was a go in, destroy the objective, and GTFO writ dozens upon dozens of times. Rather than wait for local institutions to get some legs under themselves, acting in close support with them for years.

Instead we rushed their people through training, and before those organizations had a chance to learn to walk across the proverbial room unaided we'd declare victory and pack up to leave.  Only for us to wonder why we found them sprawled across the floor with a broken nose when we checked up on them later in the proverbial day.  Except the proverbial damage done was much worse than just a broken nose, even as that is exactly what we kept trying to treat it as, only for us to rinse and repeat, over and over and over again.

[TheDeamon]

History of Afghanistan is that any occupation or intervention ends the same way - throwing in the towel and leaving.
Its always been a lose lose. 

One thing Trump does understand is 'insanity' of doing the something over and over (that doesn't work) and hoping that just maybe this time it will.  Of course there is some security in a 'not working' status quo but that will never change anything.

The damage we've done (to ourselves) in Afghanistan is lasting and significant. At this point, I don't see a path forward for Afghanistan (from the US perspective) that doesn't take 40+ years(from today) to bear much fruit. We have a hard enough time carrying out a 2 year plan, as has previously been demonstrated. Whatever is to be done in Afghanistan, it needs to be done by somebody else, we're obviously not suited to the task and I would be amazed if anybody trusts us over there. They might like us well enough, and a number of other things(like our money and weaponry), but trusting us to have their back at some point in the future? Not happening, that's a legacy that's likely going to take the better part of a century to repair.

[Kasandra]

TheDeamon:

The "right plan" for there, and Iraq as well, was not to intend to go in "on the cheap." Plenty of stuff written at the time making it quite clear at the onset that both endeavors were going to be Generational in nature and duration. The problem with a "generational duration" is that reeks of "Imperialism" so we can't have that, so we avoided addressing that elephant in the room. And instead we've been doing half-measures for the past 17 years pissing even more blood and treasure down the drain.

Don't let this get out, but I agree with you, with the exception that we should never have gone into Iraq at all.  Not even the first time under Bush pere.

Ever since then the mission has been to figure out how to get out.  There's no good solution, but handing things over to the Taliban at this point is a particularly bad one.

Are you just saying this because you figure it must be right, or do you have a source on this that demonstrates a clearly better plan that Trump avoided choosing? This isn't sarcasm,

I'd actually like to read something you've got showing what 'the right' plan would have been

, compared to just throwing in the towel and leaving.

I don't know how to parse this.  In my brief post I said there is no "right plan", so why are you asking me what it would be?

As Clemenceau said, "War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."  Except when it's a series of catastrophes that results in a realization that it can't be won and never should have been fought.

[Fenring]

If there is no right plan then how is Trump to blame for doing the wrong plan? Or putting it differently, why wasn't your post above to the tune of "Trump isn't doing the right thing, however since there is no right thing I can hardly blame him." To whit it sounds like you do indeed blame him.

[yossarian22c]

If there is no right plan then how is Trump to blame for doing the wrong plan? ...

Not to put words in someone else's mouth but if I understood his critique before it wasn't so much a critique of Trump's decision but frustration that after hearing for the last 8 years how Obama is solely responsible for Iraq being screwed up and ISIS forming. All because Obama pulled combat troops out on the schedule set forth by the agreement put in place by Bush. He was also criticized for not leaving his surge of troops in Afghanistan there long enough and for negotiating the release of Birddog with the Taliban. All these same people who thoroughly criticized all those policies seem okay with Trump cutting a deal with the Taliban that didn't include the Afghan government in the negotiations and for agreeing to leave.

Who are we going to blame when parts of Afghanistan fall to the Taliban and it becomes a haven for extremists again? Bush? Obama? Trump? An argument could be made for any of them. Bush (IMO) is most responsible. If Afghanistan had been (and stayed) the primary focus of American intervention in the region and we had committed 50,000+ troops for solid for a decade there may have been a chance for a different outcome. So Trump has the option to maintain the status quo, leaving enough troops around to prevent the Taliban from gaining anymore territory, increase the number of troops by a factor of 5 (realistically probably 10x for real results) for 5+ years to help control and protect areas of the country, or leave. He picked leave, I think he should have negotiated the withdrawal with the Afghan government instead of the Taliban. But I agree with the assessment that all the options suck.