Trump’s New Big Lie: Afghanistan - VietBF
 
 
 
News Library Technology Giải Trí Portals Tin Sốt Home

HOME

NEWS 24h

ZONE 1

ZONE 2

Phim Bộ

Phim Lẻ

Ca Nhạc

Breaking

Go Back   VietBF > USA NEWS > USA News in English


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old  Default Trump’s New Big Lie: Afghanistan
Biden has handled the withdrawal very badly. That doesn’t mean Trump would have done better.

By Fred Kaplan




Former President Donald Trump is telling lies about how he would have handled the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, opening a new avenue for Trump-dazed Republicans to attack President Joe Biden.

Trump issued the following statement on Thursday, amid the collapse of the Afghan army in the wake of Biden’s pullout:

Had our 2020 Presidential election not been rigged and if I were now president, the world would find that our withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a conditions-based withdrawal. I personally had discussions with top Taliban leaders whereby they understood what they are doing now would not have been acceptable. It would have been a much different and much more successful withdrawal, and the Taliban understood that much better than anyone.

This is false—a series of unmitigated lies—on every level. His opening reference to the “rigged” election is, of course, the Big Lie, but the other lies are pretty monstrous as well

First, the “peace accord” that Trump’s emissaries signed with the Taliban in February 2020, in Doha, imposed only a few conditions—and the Taliban are violating none of them at the moment. The Taliban merely agreed not to allow any “individuals or groups, including al-Qaida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.” The accord did not bar the Taliban from fighting Afghan government troops or from capturing Afghan provinces on its own.

Second, Trump’s claim that he had “discussions with top Taliban leaders” is overstated. A few days after the signing of the accord, on the phone, through an interpreter, he had a discussion with a leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was the Taliban’s delegate to the Doha talks. Afterward, Trump said he had a “very good” relationship with Baradar, lauded the Taliban for “killing terrorists…some very bad people,” and said of the war, “They’re looking to get this ended and we’re looking to get this ended.” A statement released by the White House said that Trump “emphasized the need to continue the reduction in violence” and “urged the Taliban to participate in intra-Afghan negotiations.” The statement said nothing about Barader’s reply, if any.

In other words, there is no evidence that a withdrawal under Trump would have been “much more successful” than it’s going under Biden. Trump’s swift withdrawal of a small contingent of peacekeeping troops from Syria in Oct. 2019, leaving Kurdish allies open to Turkish slaughter, suggests that Trump would have been no more discerning about protecting Afghans. (The Kurds had been instrumental in helping U.S. troops crush ISIS in northern Syria.)

The falsehoods notwithstanding, Trump’s statement will no doubt be parroted by congressional Republicans and conservative pundits in the coming weeks and months. When Biden first announced his withdrawal in April, his critics were nonplussed. Trump, after all, had long called for a pullout; in fact, he initially supported Biden’s decision. Even as the Taliban began routing Afghan security forces and taking over whole provinces earlier this summer, critics remained unsure of how to respond, especially since polls showed a vast majority of Americans agreed with Biden’s move.

Now, however, the critics have received the word from their leader-in-exile: withdrawal isn’t a bad thing, but withdrawal under Trump would have been “conditions-based”; it would have been “much more successful.” When things worsen in Afghanistan, as they almost certainly will, this will be their mantra for attacking Biden’s foreign policy—and for absolving themselves of complicity.

None of this is to deny that Biden has handled the situation badly. The latest evidence came on Thursday, when the Pentagon announced it would send 8,000 troops back to Afghanistan to facilitate the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Kabul—5,000 from bases in the Middle East, 3,000 (an entire combat brigade) from Ft. Hood, Texas. If the withdrawal had been more carefully planned, the evacuation—or at least a substantial drawdown of personnel—would have taken place earlier this summer, before the last few thousand U.S. troops in the country were withdrawn.

When the withdrawal got underway, U.S. officials were still saying the Afghan security forces could resist the Taliban for another six to 12 months—plenty of time to plan for an orderly transition. It would be interesting to know which intelligence agencies predicted that the Afghan army—and, with it, the government—could hold out for so long. Retired officers I spoke with at the time doubted the Afghan army could last for even a few months without U.S. and NATO close-air support, logistics, intelligence, repair and maintenance crews, medevac and surgical units, and helicopter transport—a view that the Biden administration now accepts.

The 20-year war in Afghanistan has been one misbegotten adventure after another, from nearly the beginning. The initial missions—rooting out al-Qaida, ousting the Taliban from power, and killing or capturing Osama bin Laden, in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11—were justified. The add-ons—establishing a central government (in a very decentralized country run by warlords), building a civil society, and fostering something like a Western-style democracy—were a pipe dream all along. The vision had a glimmer of hope and possibility early on, in 2003-04, when the U.S. commander, a creative three-star general named David Barno, set up small-scale counterinsurgency projects—recruiting volunteers from corporations and non-profits to train Afghan officials in the rudiments of governance and management, starting programs in economic aid and justice reform to win the hearts and minds of the people. But President George W. Bush scaled back resources, turned his gaze toward Iraq, and by the time attention drifted back to Afghanistan, the effort became all too militarized and all too huge. As money flowed in, corruption soared; the Kabul government never won the trust of the people; the Taliban moved in to fill the vacuums.



Former President Donald Trump is telling lies about how he would have handled the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, opening a new avenue for Trump-dazed Republicans to attack President Joe Biden.

Trump issued the following statement on Thursday, amid the collapse of the Afghan army in the wake of Biden’s pullout:

Had our 2020 Presidential election not been rigged and if I were now president, the world would find that our withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a conditions-based withdrawal. I personally had discussions with top Taliban leaders whereby they understood what they are doing now would not have been acceptable. It would have been a much different and much more successful withdrawal, and the Taliban understood that much better than anyone.

This is false—a series of unmitigated lies—on every level. His opening reference to the “rigged” election is, of course, the Big Lie, but the other lies are pretty monstrous as well.
Advertisement

First, the “peace accord” that Trump’s emissaries signed with the Taliban in February 2020, in Doha, imposed only a few conditions—and the Taliban are violating none of them at the moment. The Taliban merely agreed not to allow any “individuals or groups, including al-Qaida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.” The accord did not bar the Taliban from fighting Afghan government troops or from capturing Afghan provinces on its own.

Second, Trump’s claim that he had “discussions with top Taliban leaders” is overstated. A few days after the signing of the accord, on the phone, through an interpreter, he had a discussion with a leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was the Taliban’s delegate to the Doha talks. Afterward, Trump said he had a “very good” relationship with Baradar, lauded the Taliban for “killing terrorists…some very bad people,” and said of the war, “They’re looking to get this ended and we’re looking to get this ended.” A statement released by the White House said that Trump “emphasized the need to continue the reduction in violence” and “urged the Taliban to participate in intra-Afghan negotiations.” The statement said nothing about Barader’s reply, if any.

In other words, there is no evidence that a withdrawal under Trump would have been “much more successful” than it’s going under Biden. Trump’s swift withdrawal of a small contingent of peacekeeping troops from Syria in Oct. 2019, leaving Kurdish allies open to Turkish slaughter, suggests that Trump would have been no more discerning about protecting Afghans. (The Kurds had been instrumental in helping U.S. troops crush ISIS in northern Syria.)

The falsehoods notwithstanding, Trump’s statement will no doubt be parroted by congressional Republicans and conservative pundits in the coming weeks and months. When Biden first announced his withdrawal in April, his critics were nonplussed. Trump, after all, had long called for a pullout; in fact, he initially supported Biden’s decision. Even as the Taliban began routing Afghan security forces and taking over whole provinces earlier this summer, critics remained unsure of how to respond, especially since polls showed a vast majority of Americans agreed with Biden’s move.

Now, however, the critics have received the word from their leader-in-exile: withdrawal isn’t a bad thing, but withdrawal under Trump would have been “conditions-based”; it would have been “much more successful.” When things worsen in Afghanistan, as they almost certainly will, this will be their mantra for attacking Biden’s foreign policy—and for absolving themselves of complicity.
Advertisement

None of this is to deny that Biden has handled the situation badly. The latest evidence came on Thursday, when the Pentagon announced it would send 8,000 troops back to Afghanistan to facilitate the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Kabul—5,000 from bases in the Middle East, 3,000 (an entire combat brigade) from Ft. Hood, Texas. If the withdrawal had been more carefully planned, the evacuation—or at least a substantial drawdown of personnel—would have taken place earlier this summer, before the last few thousand U.S. troops in the country were withdrawn.

When the withdrawal got underway, U.S. officials were still saying the Afghan security forces could resist the Taliban for another six to 12 months—plenty of time to plan for an orderly transition. It would be interesting to know which intelligence agencies predicted that the Afghan army—and, with it, the government—could hold out for so long. Retired officers I spoke with at the time doubted the Afghan army could last for even a few months without U.S. and NATO close-air support, logistics, intelligence, repair and maintenance crews, medevac and surgical units, and helicopter transport—a view that the Biden administration now accepts.

The 20-year war in Afghanistan has been one misbegotten adventure after another, from nearly the beginning. The initial missions—rooting out al-Qaida, ousting the Taliban from power, and killing or capturing Osama bin Laden, in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11—were justified. The add-ons—establishing a central government (in a very decentralized country run by warlords), building a civil society, and fostering something like a Western-style democracy—were a pipe dream all along. The vision had a glimmer of hope and possibility early on, in 2003-04, when the U.S. commander, a creative three-star general named David Barno, set up small-scale counterinsurgency projects—recruiting volunteers from corporations and non-profits to train Afghan officials in the rudiments of governance and management, starting programs in economic aid and justice reform to win the hearts and minds of the people. But President George W. Bush scaled back resources, turned his gaze toward Iraq, and by the time attention drifted back to Afghanistan, the effort became all too militarized and all too huge. As money flowed in, corruption soared; the Kabul government never won the trust of the people; the Taliban moved in to fill the vacuums.

Biden, to his credit, recognized this all along when he was Barack Obama’s vice president. In the National Security Council’s debates of 2009-10, Biden was almost alone in opposing a massive troop surge or a campaign of nation building, arguing instead for a slight troop-increase to train and equip the Afghan army. Obama sided with the surge faction but, 18 months later, saw that Biden had been right. He backpedaled on the surge, abandoned the nation building, scaled back the troop levels to 5,800, and limited their missions to training and supporting the Afghan military while also countering terrorists along the Pakistani border.

Ten years later, entering the White House as president, Biden understandingly retained a certain allergy to all matters Afghan. Eager to deal with more urgent issues, domestic and foreign, he sought to get out of the place altogether and to downplay the whole region—again, understandably. There has long been a strong case for leaving Afghanistan. Had Biden kept a small number of troops there, and had the next three or four presidents done so as well, not much would ever have improved. But probably not much would have worsened either. Meanwhile, no American troops have been killed there since February 2020.

Was it necessary to get out so swiftly, so completely, and so thoughtlessly? Biden will likely be haunted by those questions for some time. And now that Trump has made it a partisan issue, however mendaciously, the Republicans will be pressing the questions as hard as they can.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tin tức
R4 Cao Thủ Võ Lâm
Release: 08-16-2021
Reputation: 9409


Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 919
Last Update: None Rating: None
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	a489b72cdd035c8c04ba6fac1834f31b.png
Views:	0
Size:	230.1 KB
ID:	1848452  
Tin tức_is_offline
Thanks: 77
Thanked 714 Times in 455 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Rep Power: 4 Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5Tin tức Reputation Uy Tín Level 5
The Following User Says Thank You to Tin tức For This Useful Post:
mrhtran1 (08-16-2021)
Old 08-16-2021   #2
8thui
R6 Đệ Nhất Cao Thủ
 
8thui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 2,619
Thanks: 1,243
Thanked 1,534 Times in 809 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Rep Power: 8
8thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 6
8thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 68thui Reputation Uy Tín Level 6
Default

What did he done when he was in White House before he been Kicked out. GOLF every week????
And took Bleach to cure COVID -19. Then Fake news.
8thui_is_offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools

Facebook Comments


 
iPad Tablet Menu

HOME

Breaking News

Society News

VietOversea

World News

Business News

Other News

History

Car News

Computer News

Game News

USA News

Mobile News

Music News

Movies News

Sport News

ZONE 1

ZONE 2

Phim Bộ

Phim Lẻ

Ca Nhạc

Thơ Ca

Help Me

Sport Live

Stranger Stories

Comedy Stories

Cooking Chat

Nice Pictures

Fashion

School

Travelling

Funny Videos

NEWS 24h

HOT 3 Days

NEWS 3 Days

HOT 7 Days

NEWS 7 Days

HOT 30 Days

NEWS 30 Days

Member News

Tin Sôi Nổi Nhất 24h Qua

Tin Sôi Nổi Nhất 3 Ngày Qua

Tin Sôi Nổi Nhất 7 Ngày Qua

Tin Sôi Nổi Nhất 14 Ngày Qua

Tin Sôi Nổi Nhất 30 Ngày Qua
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:17.
VietBF - Vietnamese Best Forum Copyright ©2006 - 2024
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Log Out Unregistered

Page generated in 0.09643 seconds with 13 queries