At The Hill Will Marshall rises to the defense of the Biden Administration’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan. He makes three points:
First, the U.S. intervention in 2001 was inevitable and unavoidable. Afghanistan was the base from which al Qaeda mounted the spectacular Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that demolished the twin towers, damaged the Pentagon and wantonly killed nearly 2,000 people while wounding about 6,000 others.
I disagree with that. He completely fails to make a case that invading and occupying Afghanistan was either a political or strategic necessity, preferring to rely on several fallacious arguments, e.g. tertium non datur, appeal to emotion, appeal to popularity.
Second, President Biden has made the hard but correct strategic call. The U.S. public has lost confidence in our Afghanistan mission. We long ago passed the point at which the costs of staying there outweigh the risks of leaving.
I agree with that but it is not a fact. It is an opinion. Given my preference (a sharp, severe, punitive raid in 2001), we would never have gotten into the fix in which the Obama, Trump, and the Biden Administrations have found themselves.
Third, how we disengage from military interventions matters. The longer we stay, the greater the debt we incur to the people who risked their lives helping our soldiers, diplomats, aid workers, administrators and contractors do their jobs.
Here the president’s policy is harder to defend. “The likelihood that there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and own the whole country is highly unlikely,†Biden declared confidently at a July news conference.
Again that’s not a fact but an opinion. And it’s not “harder” to defend. It’s impossible to defend. I fully acknowledge that, too, is an opinion but I don’t claim that it is a fact.
Do people no longer understand the difference between facts and opinions?
“Do people no longer understand the difference between facts and opinions?
Generally, no. But let us not discount that this isn’t a laboratory experiment with controlled variables etc. This is real life. However, despite the fact that these are opinions, one isn’t relieved of the task of making reasonable inferences.
Here is an example. The apologists are coming out of the woodwork: Marshal, Mathew Dowd, James Joyner – making (among others) the claim that this is Trump’s fault. They are certainly entitled to their opinions. But they fail to acknowledge some obvious issues a) Biden has reversed any number of Trump policies; he could have done whatever he wanted; Trump has not been in charge of anything for 7 months, b) Trump may have modified any or all plans in light of a changing environment on the ground, c) Biden set the current dates (a date, and not based upon a goal), d) Biden is directing this operation with his advisors and his judgments. And so forth. Its Biden’s baby, and the results speak for themselves. Is anyone impressed by Biden’s public performances?
These are opinions, not facts, but where are the alternative explanations? We ask public policy makers to make decisions under imperfect information. Its the job description. And we expect commentators not to be transparent shills.
Separately, the general contours of the Admin strategy are coming into full relief. Biden’s is a political strategy. Pure and simple. Behind closed doors they speak reality in congressional briefings (such information now being leaked); in public its deny, deny, deny. They believe its a news cycle and that this will pass. The people who will die and the knock on effects sure to follow be damned. (and note – the latest is that ISIS is targeting those attempting to exit the country) At least politically, they believe, “we get through.” What kind of horrible person(s) engages in such calculus? In my lifetime I can only recall such similar pure duplicity during the Viet Nam War.
This, too, is just an opinion. But one would have to resort to ascribing profound stupidity or incompetence, advanced senility or profound lack of judgment for alternative explanations. If you watch the obvious spinmeistering on TV I don’t think one would conclude the latter. Its a craven disregard for transparency.
One of the things missing from discussions of Trump is how situational, transactional he was. Also I find it a bit bizarre to complain that you are unable to change something Trump put into place while changing any number of other things that Trump put into place.
I had thought of posting on this subject but I’ll just put it here in a comment. I have never supported a president in my adult life. I support policies not presidents. IMO we have had a succession of genuinely awful presidents. More about that later.
In addition there are degrees of support for policies. It’s not “either/or”. It’s “how good”? Radicals, left or right, don’t see it that way.
“that’s not a fact but an opinion”
Yeah, but that’s what the advisors told Joe.
My son tells me this is a new, younger generation of Taliban. Taliban 2.0 if you will. I said, “they sure look, and dress the same”.
He says, “but they’re on twitter, media savvy.”
OK, says I, just watch and see.
What the new Taliban do will next will be old testament biblical.
It is understandable that the Taliban were attacked for sheltering Osama ben Laden. They did so even after the initial attacks.
But what about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. ben Laden and most of the attackers were Saudis, and ben Laden had a connection to the royal family. Pakistan subsidized the Taliban after we stopped (when the communist regime collapsed), and provided him with a safe house in Pakistan until the Seals killed him.
Many mysteries here.
And then there were “the dancing Israelis” across the river in NJ, filming the attack. Allegedly two of the five were Mossad.
“I support policies not presidents.”
I understand your point, but it also borders on saying I don’t support the the St. Louis Blues or the Chicago Blackhawks, I just like good hockey plays. Dispassion sounds good in theory. Very intellectual. But its impotent.
We all like good policies, and bemoan bad policies. That’s the easy part. But the fact of the matter is that Presidents – all politicians – for better or worse, tend to have a pattern of policy beliefs one aligns with in general, or not. That’s what one supports, taking the politician and his/her policies as a whole. (Perhaps you plan on incorporating thoughts in the future, but I find the transactional criticism overstated. “America First” weaves its way into a number of relevant policy issues.)
As I’ve commented, I think Joe Biden is truly an idiot and is currently incapable of executing his duties in the office. Yet I support (ed) his overall policy goal, but gasp at the execution and the callous attitude at the fallout. The southern border strategy is a disaster. Fiscal discipline is non-existent. He’s becoming increasingly authoritarian.
Leadership? None.
I may have supported one narrow policy goal, because I call them like I see them. There is no way I could support the man and the vast majority of his policy actions.
How was Biden going to modify the 5000 Taliban fighters for whom they negotiated a release? Not really understanding that one.
I repeat, Still haven’t seen anyone offer a beleivable plan.
Steve
Given my preference (a sharp, severe, punitive raid in 2001), …
That was the initial mission, and it was accomplished. Then, the idiots in charge decided to transform Afghanistan into Iowa, and when they saw how well that project was going they decided to upscale it in Iraq.
@steve
Evacuate civilians. Close airbase. Withdraw troops. Again, do you really believe the shit you throw at the wall?
The difference is that you have faith in the Afghan govt and military. I do not.
For years, I have said that the government & military would collapse. Why would I rely on them?
Are you talking about ours or theirs?
Maybe I am too naive, but I think the US is more resilient than most people think it is.
With his “trust busting”, TR saved capitalism. In the 1920’s, the US really was “going to hell in a handbasket”. In the 1930’s, there really were Soviet spies throughout the government, and again, capitalism was threatened. (Ayn Rand is easier to understand in this context.)
Most of today’s social upheaval artificial. The bathroom debate is a result of legalized gay marriage. Prior to that, you went into the bathroom your appearance suggested, and if you were the wrong biological gender, you did not flaunt your junk.
As usual, progressives get a little power, and they think they rule the world. The liberal, conservative, and libertarian philosophical frameworks are mostly self-regulating. Ruling the world is antithetical to their philosophies.