Afghan government collapse.

[Benjamin Frank]

The population of Afghanistan is only 40 million.  Time is obviously an issue, but the west could easily get the 'best and brightest' Afghanis out over several months.  I think Canada could easily take 50,000 Afghan refugees and immigrants.

This is especially true for the Afghani women.  The Taliban don't want them, and I think most Canadians would welcome them with open arms. That's a win-win.

[Benjamin Frank]

The population of Afghanistan is only 40 million.  Time is obviously an issue, but the west could easily get the 'best and brightest' Afghanis out over several months.  I think Canada could easily take 50,000 Afghan refugees and immigrants.

This is especially true for the Afghani women.  The Taliban don't want them, and I think most Canadians would welcome them with open arms. That's a win-win.

40 million isn't exactly small; indeed it's 37th out of 190something.

Nobody is suggesting getting them all out. I meant that it's possible to get the 'best and the brightest' out since there are only 40 million in total.

Are the Republicans going to start fearmongering over possible terrorists again, that one death is too many?

[Benjamin Frank]

The population of Afghanistan is only 40 million.  Time is obviously an issue, but the west could easily get the 'best and brightest' Afghanis out over several months.  I think Canada could easily take 50,000 Afghan refugees and immigrants.

This is especially true for the Afghani women.  The Taliban don't want them, and I think most Canadians would welcome them with open arms. That's a win-win.

So basically steal all of the intellectual resources from the country which will set them even further back from the rest of the world? What type of neo-colonialist nonsense is that?

First of all, what makes you think you have the right to do such a thing and second what makes you think Canadians want 50,000 Afghanis just dumped in their country? Incredibly arrogant policy, my lord.....

1.Yes, the Taliban has no interest in intellectual resources anyway. Why should they go to waste?

2.Canadians by and large were very supportive of taking 40,000 Syrian refugees 6 years ago.  

3.On this 'colonialism' nonsense. 
A.The Taliban aren't coming in through a popular vote with Constitutional safeguards for minority rights.
B.The best evidence suggests this is Pakistani colonialism behind the Taliban.

[Benjamin Frank]

I suspect that the Taliban are interested in retaining at least some ‘intellectual resources’, given that a Taliban ruled Afghanistan will still require doctors, engineers, jurists, finance people etc etc. On the other hand, the problem faced by most Western countries at the moment is arguably an overabundance of ‘intellectual resources’, ie graduates who cannot find work commensurate to the qualifications that they have received. Rather than exacerbating this problem (in the long term) by taking in the intellectual cast offs of Afghanistan, a better policy would be to redirect currently un and underemployed domestic graduates into graduate fields (medicine, engineering et al) where the demand cannot currently be met purely from domestic sources.

1.The Afghani people owe nothing to the Taliban. In a dictatorship, the only way people can express their opinion is by voting with their feet.

2.I realize there are dislocations for individuals and time lags, but immigration is not an economic zero sum game.  Economic myths die hard.

[Benjamin Frank]

I suspect that the Taliban are interested in retaining at least some ‘intellectual resources’, given that a Taliban ruled Afghanistan will still require doctors, engineers, jurists, finance people etc etc. On the other hand, the problem faced by most Western countries at the moment is arguably an overabundance of ‘intellectual resources’, ie graduates who cannot find work commensurate to the qualifications that they have received. Rather than exacerbating this problem (in the long term) by taking in the intellectual cast offs of Afghanistan, a better policy would be to redirect currently un and underemployed domestic graduates into graduate fields (medicine, engineering et al) where the demand cannot currently be met purely from domestic sources.

I don't think you realize but the Taliban are on living like it's the middle ages. They don't need doctor's, already have their religious scholars to serve as jurist nor do they care much if the infrastructure falls into despair. Their theocratic views reject any mordernization they aren't forced to accept by nesseciaty like mobile phones or weapons.

I mean, there were doctors in the Middle Ages (obviously nothing like today but hey ho). But that aside, even under the original incarnation of the Taliban regime doctors continued to practice and I would expect no less today. There is no doubt that opportunities for women will be curtailed in a Taliban dominated Afghanistan; nonetheless, the Taliban needs (and clearly has the support of at least some) educated people in order to produce some sort of workable regime. There are plenty of examples of countries run by Islamic fundamentalists that nonetheless churn out huge numbers of doctors, lawyers, engineers etcetera, and there’s no reason to expect that a stable (and this is the key factor), theocratic Afghanistan would be any different.

Nobody is obligated to support a dictatorship. If you can get out, do so.  

The Taliban are also brutal medieval dictators, even the Saudi and Iranian governments aren't that bad.

[Benjamin Frank]

We'll see what happens:
https://globalnews.ca/video/8111090/canada-to-accept-more-than-20000-afghan-refugees
Canada to accept more than 20,000 Afghan refugees

[Benjamin Frank]

Does anyone think there's a small chance its a feinted retreat?

The collapse is way too fast and arguably the best way to take out an insurgency is to group them up?

I thought of that.  Those things happen in fantasy films.

[Benjamin Frank]

Lots of claims above that the Taliban enjoy "massive" public support in Afghanistan.

Has there ever been any serious attempt to quantify this?

Have just seen somewhere else an equally serious claim that only about 10% of the population are strong supporters, and that what is happening is more akin to a military coup

I'd say it's that as well as a Pakistani colonial takeover.

[Benjamin Frank]

At the end of the day, if the Taliban can keep the streets safe, the shops stocked and the lights on, many will tolerate the other stuff.

They did precisely none of that in their previous rule of the country. I don't know why people pretend that Taliban governance is unknowable, we know they don't get the trains to run on time. Their governance was farcical and one of the most incompetent in the world.

There's a reason that the us was able to initaly take over the country with about special forces, local allies and air support. They didn't exactly have a solid hold of the country.

Now they've learned from their mistakes and their long years of hiding and fighting has taught them some very sharp lessons. I'd doubt those lessons will carry into peacetime governance.

The previous Taliban governance was impeded by constant civil war (they've taken almost all of the areas most likely to be hostile to them) and ethnic tensions that have been smoothed over by their opponents being backed by Western outsiders.

There has never been true peacetime governance in most Afghans' lives. If the Taliban can ensure that, they will seem competent in the eyes of many.

If you want to argue that the United States should leave Afghanistan for any number of reasons, that's perfectly valid, but you don't need to justify your argument by trying to rationalize what's going to happen.  Afghanistan is going to be an absolute hell hole for most of its citizens, and I highly doubt a single person here actually believes anything otherwise.

[Benjamin Frank]

At the end of the day, if the Taliban can keep the streets safe, the shops stocked and the lights on, many will tolerate the other stuff.

They did precisely none of that in their previous rule of the country. I don't know why people pretend that Taliban governance is unknowable, we know they don't get the trains to run on time. Their governance was farcical and one of the most incompetent in the world.

There's a reason that the us was able to initaly take over the country with about special forces, local allies and air support. They didn't exactly have a solid hold of the country.

Now they've learned from their mistakes and their long years of hiding and fighting has taught them some very sharp lessons. I'd doubt those lessons will carry into peacetime governance.

The previous Taliban governance was impeded by constant civil war (they've taken almost all of the areas most likely to be hostile to them) and ethnic tensions that have been smoothed over by their opponents being backed by Western outsiders.

There has never been true peacetime governance in most Afghans' lives. If the Taliban can ensure that, they will seem competent in the eyes of many.

If you want to argue that the United States should leave Afghanistan for any number of reasons, that's perfectly valid, but you don't need to justify your argument by trying to rationalize what's going to happen.  Afghanistan is going to be an absolute hell hole for most of its citizens, and I highly doubt a single person here actually believes anything otherwise.

I agree that Taliban governance will be crap. I'm just disputing that it will definitely be crap enough to allow civil war to continue on the scale that it previously did.

They are not as weak as they were in the 1990s.

They're as motivated by an extreme ideology as much as they ever were.

[Benjamin Frank]

So one thing I have been pondering over is that despite the facts on the ground where the Taliban effectively control militarily most of the country, including currently the Capitol of Kabul, the US still has effective leverage in multiple ways.

We hold the Airport with 6k US Troops effectively as trip-wires, with a complete red-line to the point that if the Taliban assaults US forces there will be massive retaliation.

Concept would be something like this.... we negotiate a period of time (say two weeks) and ALSO behind the scenes convince the Taliban political leadership in the Gulf Kingdom to allow not only foreign nationals, but ALSO Afghan Nationals a chance to leave, while meanwhile their paperwork can either be processed at the airport or within 3rd Party countries after the fact.

It could not only allow the US and NATO allies to evacuate individuals who are in the "highest risk" category from Afghanistan, but also potentially allow Taliban 2.0 to potentially remove future dissidents or even guerilla warfare in the future without having to risk the international consequences of a bloodbath against those Afghans who fought in the losing side of the Civil War.

Also, it is not unusual (Even in the post 9/11 era) for parents to have sons from their various Tribes and Villages / Towns join both sides, so that way in the event that one side or the other ends up winning, there is not retribution for the families and it allows easy deserting from the ranks in the event the other side in a Civil War becomes victorious.

Also, the Taliban would likely want a carrot, so let's say we give them a certain period before we freeze all of their foreign bank accounts, before the entire International Community takes over the former Afghan Government's treasury...

Thoughts???

1.I'm not sure exactly what has been negotiated:
"Tomorrow and over the coming days, we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals," the Department of Defense and the State Department said in a joint statement.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/568003-central-command-chief-taliban-leaders-reached

2.How long before Republicans who had previously argued on Covid that 'we all die ventually' and who had claimed concern for the fate of the Afghanis start to fearmonger again about potential Muslim terrorists and that 'one death is too many.'?

3.The first poll out on this shows a 20% drop in support for the U.S leaving, from 69% in May to 49% at present. I wonder  how many of those 20% who no longer support the withdrawal are Republicans who supported the withdrawal under Trump but not now that Biden completed it.  Republicans are collectively known too have one position when a Republican is President and a different position when a Democrat is President.  See also deficit spending, interest rates and many other issues.

[Benjamin Frank]

So one thing I have been pondering over is that despite the facts on the ground where the Taliban effectively control militarily most of the country, including currently the Capitol of Kabul, the US still has effective leverage in multiple ways.

We hold the Airport with 6k US Troops effectively as trip-wires, with a complete red-line to the point that if the Taliban assaults US forces there will be massive retaliation.

Concept would be something like this.... we negotiate a period of time (say two weeks) and ALSO behind the scenes convince the Taliban political leadership in the Gulf Kingdom to allow not only foreign nationals, but ALSO Afghan Nationals a chance to leave, while meanwhile their paperwork can either be processed at the airport or within 3rd Party countries after the fact.

It could not only allow the US and NATO allies to evacuate individuals who are in the "highest risk" category from Afghanistan, but also potentially allow Taliban 2.0 to potentially remove future dissidents or even guerilla warfare in the future without having to risk the international consequences of a bloodbath against those Afghans who fought in the losing side of the Civil War.

Also, it is not unusual (Even in the post 9/11 era) for parents to have sons from their various Tribes and Villages / Towns join both sides, so that way in the event that one side or the other ends up winning, there is not retribution for the families and it allows easy deserting from the ranks in the event the other side in a Civil War becomes victorious.

Also, the Taliban would likely want a carrot, so let's say we give them a certain period before we freeze all of their foreign bank accounts, before the entire International Community takes over the former Afghan Government's treasury...

Thoughts???

1.I'm not sure exactly what has been negotiated:
"Tomorrow and over the coming days, we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals," the Department of Defense and the State Department said in a joint statement.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/568003-central-command-chief-taliban-leaders-reached

2.How long before Republicans who had previously argued on Covid that 'we all die ventually' and who had claimed concern for the fate of the Afghanis start to fearmonger again about potential Muslim terrorists and that 'one death is too many.'?

3.The first poll out on this shows a 20% drop in support for the U.S leaving, from 69% in May to 49% at present. I wonder  how many of those 20% who no longer support the withdrawal are Republicans who supported the withdrawal under Trump but not now that Biden completed it.  Republicans are collectively known too have one position when a Republican is President and a different position when a Democrat is President.  See also deficit spending, interest rates and many other issues.

Deleted the post I was making, since maybe this isn't the right time nor place necessarily to go into the American partisan political scene when it comes to Afghanistan, and perhaps would be more appropriate in a US Domestic Politics thread.

Still, the chicken hawks are coming out in force on Afghanistan, despite their abject failures on so many other American Foreign Policy issues over the decades....

I don't agree because it's hard to believe that concerns over domestic politics didn't play into how the Biden Administration decided to handle this.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't know if there is much in here that people here don't already know about, but the Australian Broadcasting Company Radio National program  'Rear Vision' does a pretty good job of providing context to events.

This program that aired last week is about both the Taliban and how they were able to return to a position of strength:
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/who-are-the-taliban/13495212

The Taliban emerged from the rubble of the Soviet-Afghan war and in turn were ousted by the US led War on Terror. Twenty years on, the Americans and their allies gone and the Taliban are once again in control of Afghanistan. Who are the Taliban and what will their return to power mean?

And this program that originally aired in 2006 is about the failed attempts by foreign nations to control Afghanistan.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/afghanistan-a-history-of-invasion/13500760

Afghanistan has been invaded by foreign armies five times in less than 200 years. Every occupation ultimately failed. What can we learn from this history?

I think they're actually well worth a listen.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge? 

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

So not to disrupt the conversation you are both having, which has interesting merits and perspectives, but simply do want to make a point which one of my best friends and myself have been discussing for some (20) years, and the reality is that air power does not control territory, which requires active military ground forces.

Trying to think of an historical war where air power has actually *Won* a war, and certainly even looking back to WW II, which was arguably the first war where Air Power was used as part of combined operations, it did definitely impact events, for example the "Blitzkrieg" military tactics of the German military, the US/UK Air superiority on the Western Front certainly played a significant role there, but both were supplemented with a significant investment in ground forces to both defend, hold, and expand territory.

I digress slightly and do not want to distract from the conversation (and no disrespect to my USAF friends), but the concept that air power alone could have changed the balance of the war in Afghanistan alone does not make logical sense (look at Soviet Air superiority for example in the '80s).

I wouldn't care to speak for the person I'm arguing with here, but I suspect we both disagree with you on this.

1.The Northern Alliance quickly removed the Taliban from power with the assistance of U.S air support.

2.If you listen to the episode I linked to earlier from the Australian Broadcasting Company program Rear Vision, they make it clear that the Soviets lost in Afghanistan after the United States and the U.K provided the Mujahideen anti air craft missiles and the Soviets lost control of the air.

This is the episode:
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/afghanistan-a-history-of-invasion/13500760

Starting around 18:15
"Now the Soviets also went out of their way in the very first years to break what they perceived as the Islamic identity of Afghanistan and launched a persecution of the Islamic religion so severe as necessarily to provoke such an almost suicidal resistance on the part of the Afghan.

Until 1985, in a sense the Soviets were winning through genocide, they weren't politically winning but they were winning, I suppose  the way that the United States won against the Apaches, simply through overwhelming crushing force through genocidal policies.  

But when the United States was finally persuaded to deliver, along with the British, anti aircraft weaponry like the Stingers and the Blowpipes to members of the Afghan resistance, the Soviets as of 1986 lost control of the air, and as soon as they lost control of the air, they lost all control of the ground, and their expeditionary force was doomed and had to be withdrawn by 1989."


I agree with you that air support isn't sufficient when those on the ground really aren't motivated in fighting, as I think it's clear the Afghan military wasn't, but, air support can be critical otherwise.

[Benjamin Frank]

Obviously not the most significant thing now, but to combat the revisionist history (i.e lies) of the media and the foreign policy establishment, it's simply false that the Afghan military only fell apart after the U.S withdrew air support.

U.S offers further air support to Afghan troops amid Taliban offensive

The Taliban has escalated its offensive in recent weeks, taking rural districts and surrounding provincial capitals, after U.S. President Joe Biden said in April U.S. troops would be withdrawn by September, ending a 20-year foreign military presence.

"The United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces over the last several days and we're prepared to continue this heightened level of support in the coming weeks if the Taliban continue their attacks," U.S. Marine General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie told a news conference in Kabul.

Reeling from battlefield losses, Afghanistan's military is overhauling its war strategy against the Taliban to concentrate forces around the most critical areas like Kabul and other cities, border crossings and vital infrastructure, Afghan and U.S. officials have said

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-offers-further-air-support-afghan-troops-amid-taliban-offensive-2021-07-25/

So, the Afghan Army was in full retreat if not outright falling apart while the U.S was still providing air support.

This is very misleading. The US did ramp up air support after the Afghan army began to collapse, but the Afghan Army still only did begin to collapse in the first place with the withdrawal of air support, and even that later ramp-up was still (to my understanding) less than the air support that was provided prior to the withdrawals beginning in the first place.

Everything I posted there was quoted from the Reuters article.  The article mentions the Afghan army had suffered defeat after defeat to the Taliban and was in full retreat while the United States was still providing air support.  Far from me being misleading, it is you who are trying to continue the lying revisionist history.

Which is more likely to be true: an article that was written at the time that detailed what was going on, or neoconservatives speaking after the fact and trying to cover their asses and get revenge?  

I never said the US stopped providing air support: only that it ramped it down, which is true. (I did say withdrawal, so I see how that could be misinterpreted, but my reference was to the withdrawal of CAS for regular Afghan units -- not to a total withdrawal). I'm neither lying nor revising history.

The reality is that there was still significant air support at the time that the Afghan Army was being rapidly defeated and forced to retreat.  The claim that it was the loss of U.S air support that caused the Afghan Army to cave is a lie.

I'm sorry, this is really a strange debate. Are you claiming that the US withdrawal did not cause the collapse of the Afghan government?

How would you get that I said that when I have been continuously been referring to U.S air support.  I'll say it again then: it's a lie that the Afghan army collapsed because they did not have U.S air support.  The Afghan Army was already being steadily defeated and forced to retreat, if not already in a state of collapse, while they still had U.S air support.

Okay, so you're just talking about air support. The article you linked is from July 26. Here's a more in-depth article from two days before explaining what you're not understanding. Although the US did re-ramp up air strikes on July 26, that was only after the US withdrew from Bagram and other in-country airbases -- meaning that even that later ramp up was still less effective, less potent, and less sizable than prior to the US withdrawal. It remains an absolute fact that the withdrawal of US airsupport was correlated with the collapse of the Afghan Army. If you want to argue it wasn't the primary cause, fine -- but don't claim that the US didn't ramp down airstrikes prior to the fall of Afghanistan, because that's simply untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/07/24/how-can-the-us-maintain-over-the-horizon-support-for-afghanistan/

If you read the Forbes article and the Military.com article together, I think it is clear that the United States had been providing air support while the Afghan Army was losing and was in a full state of retreat back to Kabul.  I do not disagree there might have been a one week period where the Afghan Army was defeated in a number of provinces when no air support was provided.

While the U.S was in Bagram and other air bases and was providing air support

A significant amount of territory has been seized over the course of six, eight, 10 months by the Taliban, so momentum appears to be -- strategic momentum appears to be -- sort of with the Taliban," Milley said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/22/us-launched-several-airstrikes-support-of-afghan-forces.html

After the U.S military ramped up bombing again:
From the same article:
As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

I do not dispute there seems to be this one week period where the U.S did not provide air support, but the article also mentions that the Afghan Army had been losing for months while full air support was still being provided.  And, the U.S air force did ramp up air support again.

The US withdrew from Bagram on July 4. Your article is from July 26. I'm going to hit ignore and stop wasting time responding.

I think you have a genuine problem with reading comprehension.