| HN Mirror

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17454723-no-good-men-amo...

papaf 1764 days ago

Thanks, that was an interesting read.

I read a book a while ago that was well researched and gave the impression that Afganistan would always belong to the Taliban. It was called "No Good Men Among the Living".

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/no-good-men-...

samizdis 1764 days ago

Thanks for your recommendation, too. I've just read an NYT review of it [1] and am definitely going to read it. From the review:

Gopal’s book is essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so wrong. It is a devastating, well-honed prosecution detailing how our government bungled the initial salvo in the so-called war on terror, ignored attempts by top Taliban leaders to surrender, trusted the wrong people and backed a feckless and corrupt Afghan regime. The book has its flaws, minimizing the role of neighboring Pakistan in the Taliban’s resurgence and letting the Taliban off too easy. But it is ultimately the most compelling account I’ve read of how Afghans themselves see the war.

BasDirks 1764 days ago

The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepower, it's not the soldiers, and it's not the organization. These are top notch. It's the **ing politicians dragging young men and women into wars not worth fighting.

selfmodruntime 1764 days ago

This is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany. They fought the hardest battles, lost the most soldiers, fought for the longer time and were first in Berlin.

The public just believes otherwise because of 70 years of US propaganda [1]. The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees of which we have to take care of and for which we are ridiculed by US politicians and their citizens alike.

[1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year...

StephenJGL 1764 days ago

Ahhh, hammer and anvil. The tools are different. They look different. The purpose and effect are different, but basically useless without the other in most circumstances.

The role of the US and Russia are inextricably linked at the end of WWII and to pretend either was irrelevant, or either "really did all the work", is to simply ignore history.

adwn 1764 days ago

> [The soviets] lost the most soldiers [...]

To be fair, the major reasons for this were that the Russian military leadership was utterly incompetent during the earlier stages of the war [1], and that they suffered from a serious lack of equipment and material. "Number of casualties" and "years spent fighting" aren't good indicators of military effectiveness.

[1] That's what happens when you liquidate your military elite or put them into gulags because they are on the wrong side of your class war.

BasDirks 1764 days ago

Without the soviets, the war would not have been won, but how about we celebrate and honor this without shitting on America?

yyyk 1764 days ago

I suspect the OP feels the US saved them (also) from the Soviets, and that there was no need to replace one murderous ideology with another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

> The only thing US soldiers left us europeans with are a massive influx of refugees

Don't forget the military bases and the half-secret spy networks linked to terrorist attacks.

https://www.italy24news.com/local/143373.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_o...

mejutoco 1764 days ago

Unfortunately in these topics there are rarely saints on either side. While acknowledging its importance, one should not idealize the soviet liberation.

rasz 1764 days ago

Occupied, not liberated. Does this look like US propaganda to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

WW2 was started by Germany and USSR hand in hand.

'Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September'

purple_ferret 1764 days ago

American Lend-Lease kept the Soviets afloat. Stalin couldn't even supply his own army with cars.

weimerica 1764 days ago

> This is a very ironic comment considering that the soviets, not the US liberated Europe from Germany.

You're responding to another human, such that its a locality sensitive sentiment. To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation.

As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...

eitland 1764 days ago

> As an aside, I wonder if there exist an Slavic-language HN where Eastern Europeans argue that American steel was the true winner in the war and the Soviets don't deserve glory...

At least it is sure that many of them wished the Americans had liberated them, not Soviet.

The USSR for all its achievements was a harsh place to be for everyone except the luckiest ones.

"In America there is huge differences between rich and poor - in USSR everyone is equally poor".

rvense 1764 days ago

> To a French, Belgian or Dutch national the US is the savior of that war - the Soviets being uninvolved in their liberation.

While the Soviet Union obviously never fought in Western Europe, the article that the person you are replying to quotes numbers from right after the war, where the majority of French people said that the soviets were the ones who were the most responsible for the outcome of the war. And that does make sense, considering for how long they bore the brunt of Nazi aggression, and the number of casualties speak for themselves.

There is a comparison with now, where of course most people would give most of the credit to the Americans. I think a lot of people in Western Europe aren't aware what the costs of the War in Russia were.

koonsolo 1764 days ago

The Taliban is absolute horrible. US tried to do a good thing here. For me this is a failure of the Afghan people who are not willing to fight for their rights, especially the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters.

At least US tried to make a difference. EU is very passive in that sense (I'm from EU).

BasDirks 1764 days ago

A failure of the Afghan people! Hahaha, OK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And ah, okay, the war in Afghanistan was to liberate women? Meanwhile the US is in bed with the Saudi's.

hintymad 1764 days ago

Exactly. Afghanistan people want Taliban, yet we're telling them no no no, you want our democracy. The US was "a nation of hypocrites", and still is.

kazen44 1761 days ago

some people in afghanistan want the taliban yes,

the mainy problem in afghanistan is the fact that not many people feel a common sense of being an afghani. The country is extremely decentralised and rural. Most people only look at their villages and community, not at the bigger picture.

The US approach will never work. It is just naive to think it will.

Chinese approach to radical islam will work. But West will never admit that.

Chinese see islam as totalitarian ideology that is incompatible with Chinese values and competing communist totalitarianism.

How would you like a foreign power invading and running your country? You better believe a large part of the Taliban are fighting not out of religious conviction but essentially (Pashtun) nationalism.

koonsolo 1764 days ago

US did it during WW2, and it seemed to work out fine.

Only thing is that when they left, we made sure the Nazi's didn't come back.

Right now they were training Afghans to have their own military, but it's all so corrupt that it is just an impossible task. Those who can will flee the country instead of fighting for it.

emilsedgh 1764 days ago

You are assuming Taliban _left_, and Afghans are letting them come back.

Initially, Taliban offered surrender. US denied their terms. So they kept on fighting and rebuilding.

They took over the country in less than a month. They never left. They were always there.

They are fighting for it. It's just hard to see from you perspective because they are fighting against who you want to win.

koonsolo 1764 days ago

So how do you explain all the Afghan refugees right now? Seems like they all love the Taliban so much they want to get out as soon as possible.

rualca 1764 days ago

I wholeheartedly agree, and the effect this has on the perceived military capability of the US in particular and NATO in general can't possibly be downplayed.

supergirl 1764 days ago

US only implanted itself in europe. that was a genius move. to this day they have huge military bases there. USSR fought the decisive battles though. 80% of german war casualties where in the eastern front. US just swooped in and filled the power vacuum in western europe

hintymad 1764 days ago

You simply can't foster a regime, for the fostered government is by definition a puppet that simply does not command enough support of its people. What's surprising to me is the US government never learns despite so many failures around the world.

And an honest question: why do American people think that it's so damn important to spread American democracy at the cost of waging wars? Pew Research said 94%+ of Afghanistan adults support Sharia laws. So why do we risk our own people's lives, kill thousands of people in a foreign nation, and throw trillions of dollars just to force other countries to buy our own ideology? Isn't it text-book definition of pure evil? Another case in point: According to the book Skin in the Game, the western countries removed Assad in the name of bringing democracy, yet triggered one of the most brutal civil war in a country, left dozens of cities in ruins, and ironically fostered the largest slave market in the world. Yeah, slave market. Isn't it ironic?

hintymad 1764 days ago

And for that matter, G.W. Bush is the worst president in the US as he occupied two countries for no good reasons. His occupation destroyed lives, weakened American economy, and fostered generations of anti-American extremists. It's a forever shame on the US and its people.

danielschonfeld 1764 days ago

Agreed and the answer to your question of why? This is the power engine of the American economy and dream. Our economy is based on us engaged in a conflict for which we print money and hand it to government contractors to later make its way to the rest of the economy. All the while sucking like a predator a far away land and people for every last juice they have.

This is the only way to keep the faux heaven looking as it does. Utopian.

It’s also the one topic you can have both sides of the aisle always agree on. No matter the political climate. When the military is working, it’s always at work in keeping us free.

Woodrow Wilson would have been proud at how we monetized his emotional button of American exceptionalism

underseacables 1764 days ago

This was not a failure of the Armed Forces, this was a failure of Washington policymakers. The same thing that happened in Vietnam, bureaucrats in Washington trying to run a war in Afghanistan but no clear objectives, and despite 20 years of death and destruction, no understanding of the region and its culture. Afghanistan was never going to be a democracy.

bjourne 1764 days ago

Remember that it was 20 very profitable years for some. Check the stock tickers, see what companies stocks have skyrocketed.

rjzzleep 1764 days ago

A friend of mine went to Afghanistan to help rebuild over a decade ago. He said some of the funds they received for schools were then allocated to lonely concrete blocks without teachers or equipment. But all the contractors involved would go there to show off their amazing progress.

Remember that the companies you talk about are not the only ones that profited here. It's not that different from when Hillary Clinton was laughing at the camera and saying the greatest thing about Lybia's liberation would be that they would pay for the reconstruction.

jacquesm 1764 days ago

This is very true. There are plenty of people that probably consider the Afghanistan war a resounding success.

sneak 1764 days ago

I think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves.

This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.

throwawaysea 1764 days ago

I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to recognize the Taliban government and invest in their infrastructure via their belt and road initiative (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-s...).

We should have at least kept a smaller force around as a presence to maintain continuity. See this “rescue plan for Afghanistan” from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for more suggestions that aren’t blindly exiting Afghanistan in a few short months: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...

fighterpilot 1764 days ago

I am also not fully sold on the idea that getting out is a good idea, but for different reasons. The growth of Afghanistan's economy (300-400% GDP) and the quality of life improvements since the Taliban were removed has been notable, and if this regresses then there will be a real human toll.

But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/destabilizing to the whole region, so I can understand doing it.

This isn't a commentary on the specifics of how it was done, merely on whether a withdrawal should have been done.

laurent92 1764 days ago

Social media is already reporting thousands of refugees walking in Greece.

sneak 1764 days ago

I have not seen one cogent argument why the US taxpayer should be funding the role of policeman indefinitely in faraway lands.

Terrorism in Afghanistan has zero to do with the US constituency.

A "foothold" is useless and unnecessary.

I feel badly for the Afghan people, but ultimately it isn't the US' problem, and never has been. If they'd like to have a civil war and get those assholes out, let them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm

rascul 1764 days ago

> It means a terrorist organization will control a nation

What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? I've mostly only seen them fight back against foreign invaders.

> and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!).

First they offered to look at evidence and consider extradition, then they offered extradition, both of which the U.S. refused.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...

> It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically.

Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?

throwawaysea 1764 days ago

> What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed?

Giving aid to a terrorist group that commits those acts doesn't make the Taliban less complicit. See this UN report from June about how the Taliban is still closely tied to al Qaeda (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-tali...). As for what atrocities they've committed, there's a long list on Wikipedia, many of which meet the definition of terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices).

> Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?

So many reasons. First, to contain China, which is the principal threat to America's prosperity and control in the future. Second, to support other democratic nations like India, who will suffer from the Taliban's resurgence. Third, to expand our economic interests. Fourth, to continue our mission to sustain human rights which the Taliban is already eroding. There are others, and I am certainly not a foreign policy expert, but my point is - there's something there.

Shacklz 1764 days ago

> remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!

But when the Saudis presumably financed some of the same/similar bad guys it wasn't even worth much of an investigation? I find such "they're bad guys!"-arguments to be applied very inconsistently

selfmodruntime 1764 days ago

> a terrorist organization will control a nation

those are the terrorists the US created by mercilessly bombing their civilian relatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen

Clewza313 1764 days ago

The US also directly funded the mujahideen, the forebears of today's Taliban, back when they were fighting the Soviets.

CapricornNoble 1764 days ago

>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system?

Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set.

Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics.

Can you articular which particular aspects of our nation-building and counter-insurgency techniques are distinct from our equally-failed predecessors? Have you considered that the objective may not have been to erect a fully-functional Afghan government and military, but instead to conduct a multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1989%E2%80%9...

yyyk 1764 days ago

The British actually got their war goals despite losing most of the time. That's why the Pashtun are divided by a line the British made. The Soviets managed to create a state that outlasted them, stopping the equivalent mujahideen attack in its tracks[0]. That state only fell when the USSR itself fell. The US failure is exceptional in the amount of resources cost, the quickness of collapse, and in failure to reach objectives.

https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166...

CydeWeys 1764 days ago

> Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics.

I recommend checking out this thread, as the whole Afghanistan = Graveyard of empires meme only applies to quite recent history.

bawolff 1764 days ago

Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose?

(I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh...

Because of this:

"Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say."

The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.

> freedom and democracy

Are you aware that one of the most cliché jokes told outside of the U.S. is some variation of "when an American says democracy, everyone ducks for cover"?

Not about that one but I heard one that I found relevant: How can the US promote Democracy abroad if it can’t even protect it at Home?

I don't think there were designs on Afghanistan, but these strategies usually work like chess, where having an opposing piece in one place constrains actions in another. Afghanistan is next to Xinjiang, where some subversive actions were demonstrated, so China ended up having to pay a lot of attention to the western front and therefore had less strategic flexibility in the near Pacific where her main interests lie.

Having said that, it didn't work at all. China patiently used those 20 years to develop its economy and infrastructure, locked down Xinjiang against subversion, set up Belt and Road, and gained strategic tempo in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait while the US got much too carried away in Central Asia.

Guthur 1764 days ago

Potentially with the belt and road initiative, which may now even expand into Afghanistan with the US redrawal.

powerapple 1763 days ago

China would be happy if US stayed and maintained stability in the region, so US didn't lose, they created a problem for China. The military industry made a lot of money, Afghanistan has been the training ground for terrorists attack in Pakistan (recently a bus bomb against Chinese), and Xinjiang. Let's see how Taliban manage the country. If Afghanistan become stable, then US might not be very happy about it.

temp8964 1764 days ago

Here is a quick review of the geopolitics: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/07/16/geopolitics-afgha...

naruvimama 1764 days ago

Unchallenged access to the west

baybal2 1764 days ago

> Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose?

To humiliate America

Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.

pjc50 1764 days ago

> multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?

That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years?

Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.

Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

laurent92 1764 days ago

China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering.

On the other hand, it seems a lot of Afghan soldiers deserted to the other side. They see no upside to the new Afghan regime.

a0-prw 1764 days ago

Americans love to say this:

"China, at least, is not limited by public perception, and will have no qualms about doing war crimes, and they will call it conquering."

But, really, China is pretty peaceful compared to US thuggery. I prefer China. At least they are rational.

CapricornNoble 1764 days ago

>>That wasn't in the original brief, and I've never heard it before in the 20 years?

Yeah it's one of those unspoken "national interests" that underlies how the US plays The Great Game, but rarely states explicitly.

>>>Frankly if it's an expensive unpacifiable area, let China have it. They can sink effort into an unwinnable war instead.

If we are lucky, that will be the outcome. If the Chinese find a way to balance transit routes and natural resource extraction without somehow pissing a conservative Muslim population (while they are simultaneously oppressing Muslims in their home territory)....that could turn into a problem. If they build out links to Iran, it will not only throw a lifeline to that economically-struggling adversary, it will help China pivot away from reliance on maritime lines of communication. That maritime reliance is key to the US's strategy of threatening economic strangulation of Chinese coastal industry in the event of a conflict.

>>>Also, having consulted a map, how do you expect China to physically get there?

Via their shared border? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord...

Via China's ally Pakistan, the same routes most of US military logistics took into Afghanistan for the first decade?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257931864_The_Afgha...

China won't fight a war in Afghanistan, but it'll be a lot easier for them to get there than the US.

The media narrative is only the cover story for the plebs and democracy/terrorism have been great ones over the years. US military actions around the world, especially decades long ones, tend to be strategic in nature. Although as some point out above, even that might be a cover story for Congress, and the real motive is private profit.

yalogin 1764 days ago

Your blurb further clarifies not just our deep incompetence but also our extraordinary arrogance. Even though there is a history of nations failing in Afghanistan we somehow thought we will succeed. This is nothing but a power and money grab by our politicians and defense contractors.

Certainly, Afghanistan was for the containment of China/Russia and Iraq was for the containment of Iran/Russia. Still, were those really successes?

CapricornNoble 1764 days ago

>>>Still, were those really successes?

Probably not. There's definitely something we are doing wrong. Personally I look at the Russian intervention in Syria as a model for "hybrid warfare done -r-i-g-h-t- well enough". I think they manage to prop up client states, accomplish strategic objectives, and do it all without completely breaking the bank.

a0-prw 1764 days ago

Ask yourself why US taxpayers keep pouring money into such a terrible, incompetent system.

THINkttwICE 1764 days ago

I did. So many times for so many years. As an Afghan I grew up with this question. I kept hearing this from our elders in their conversations. All of us keep thinking if we can see choosing bedfellows like Mujahedin in 80's and the later to be rebranded Taliban in 90's is akin to nourishing a viper in one's bosom. We the simpletons could see and predict any effort of nation building, establishing freedom, democracy and modern human rights is doomed to fail if your partners are the most corrupt murderous warlords Afghanistan had to offer. How could Pentagon, CIA and all the think tanks with their thousands of smart annalists and experts keep missing this? Year after year. For almost half a decade. So brother you're asking the right question, the only question that matters IMO.

mytailorisrich 1764 days ago

I think it shows that the US were no more than a foreign occupation force. Everyone knew how powerful their military was and how much money they had to distribute so perhaps the majority went with the flow but the current events show that this meant little to the workings of Afghanistan and its culture.

In my view there's always arrogance in thinking that GIs can literally fall from the sky and "save" the locals...

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizur...

NonContro 1764 days ago

US forces abandoned the country 'overnight' - leaving behind all of the military equipment the Taliban would need for their reconquest:

Why wasn't all this equipment repatriated or destroyed? Why were the bases just abandoned without proper transition to Afghan Control, so that in some cases they were even looted by civilians?

Possible explanations:

1. Extreme incompetence or total apathy by US Commanders/Politicians

2. There was no land/sea transport route through Pakistan to retrieve all the equipment

3. The US Military-Industrial Complex was happy for all this stuff to be lost, so it could be reordered

4. The US wanted the Taliban to reconquer the country quickly, so that any power vaccuum could not be filled by China or Russia

5. Managed decline of the US Empire, requiring deliberate humiliation and demoralization of the US forces, enabled by corrupt senior US commanders and politicians who have made deals with China.

You are too hard on US. Afgan Army had 300 thousand soldiers trained and well equiped.

If Afgans do not want to fight Taliban themselves what US can do?

U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey, after having destroyed their homeland and treated them like idiot children for an entire generation.

yellowcake0 1764 days ago

> U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey

Which of course has been the post-WW2 standard operating procedure for the U.S. in more countries than I care to count. And it always comes back to haunt us, god knows what the long-term ramifications of this latest fiasco will be.

There are 6 million people in Kabul plus some elite Afgan Army. That is enough to make a no passaran moment to Taliban. Theoretically.

But it seems like all Western-minded urban Afgans want to get evacuated to US, Europe, Canada rather then put up a good fight. So why the West shall fight for their freedoms?

How many more dead bodies do you want to add to your tally for your Hollywood movie moment? They don't want a civil war. How is that not obvious to you?

They do not want to fight for their freedoms so why shall we Westerners feel obliged to do the fighting for them? They can go back to Middle Ages.

They do not have 300,000 troops. It's a fiction.

https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corru...

cnlevy 1764 days ago

No idea why they dont want to fight ? Have a look at

bellyfullofbac 1763 days ago

The corruption is incredible, even this 6 year old article (discussing a book on corruption) knew about it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/corruption-rev...

E.g. an excerpt:

> [A]s Chayes studied the graft of the Karzai government, she concluded that it was anything but benign. Many in the political élite were not merely stealing reconstruction money but expropriating farmland from other Afghans. Warlords could hoodwink U.S. special forces into dispatching their adversaries by feeding the Americans intelligence tips about supposed Taliban ties. Many of those who made money from the largesse of the international community enjoyed a sideline in the drug trade. Afghanistan is often described as a “failed state,” but, in light of the outright thievery on display, Chayes began to reassess the problem. This wasn’t a situation in which the Afghan government was earnestly trying, but failing, to serve its people. The government was actually succeeding, albeit at “another objective altogether”—the enrichment of its own members. Washington supported Hamid Karzai and his ministers and adjutants in the hope that they could establish a stable government, help pursue Al Qaeda, and keep the Taliban at bay. But the Karzai government wasn’t a government at all, Chayes concluded. It was “a vertically integrated criminal organization.”

Overton-Window 1764 days ago

Biden would disagree:

> Q Mr. President, some Vietnamese veterans see echoes of their experience in this withdrawal in Afghanistan. Do you see any parallels between this withdrawal and what happened in Vietnam, with some people feeling —

> THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever. Zero. What you had is — you had entire brigades breaking through the gates of our embassy — six, if I’m not mistaken.

> The Taliban is not the south — the North Vietnamese army. They’re not — they’re not remotely comparable in terms of capability. There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...

SynasterBeiter 1764 days ago

> There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.

That did not age very well. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/15/1027806863/the-taliban-seize-...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1426900769656254468

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27800432

Look at my post in this thread basically 30 days ago...

fivefifty 1764 days ago

Some of the trucks etc were broken down or worn out and some might have been contractor or personal vehicles brought over that they probably decided wasn't worth the cost to take back.

The ammo, weapons and military vehicles I believe quite lot of it technically belongs (or belonged) to the Afghan national army or at least was donated to them, although from what others on here have said, they were barely functioning as a force with rampant corruption at all levels.

None of this is new, pretty much exactly the same thing happen after South Vietnam fell, with the North Vietnamese getting an even more massive stockpile of basically US military equipment that makes what the Taliban have captured pale in comparison. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/29/archives/arms-left-by-us-... https://militarymatters.online/weapons/vietnam-loves-america...

Not to mention all the helicopters they just pushed into the sea during the Saigon evacuation to make more space on the decks of ships.

Even back to end of world war 2 they dumped huge amounts of equipment into the sea or buried them or just left them in place to avoid the costs of taking them back. I suppose it does make some sense from an overall cost and logistical point of view, but on a personal level it does seem incredibly wasteful. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/wwii-ended...

natmaka 1764 days ago

> 3. The US Military-Industrial Complex was happy for all this stuff to be lost, so it could be reordered

... and if some group (Talibans?) fetches it then become a foe, he will be a serious one, and therefore the Complex will sell more stuff.

4. Profit!

Mullah Omar said:

“God has promised us victory, and Bush has promised us defeat. We’ll see which promise is more truthful”.

From the article itself:

"The fall of the last major city [Jalalabad] outside the capital secured for the insurgents the roads connecting Afghanistan to Pakistan, a Western official said."