That's not what Biden said. Just over a month ago, on July 8th, he actually argued that the Afghan army could win:
Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not.
Q Why?
THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.
...
I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war.
What answer is he supposed to give to that question, even if he is relatively confident of an eventual Taliban victory? I don't mean to ask what the honest answer is. I mean to say, what is the sayable answer?
An honest answer, perhaps? Why is an honest answer not sayable?
And why tell a lie that will soon be disproven so spectacularly?
(To be clear, I'm not arguing whether he lied or really believed what he said. I'm responding to "even if he is relatively confident of an eventual Taliban victory")
It's a sad reality that there are some answers that the people are not ready to hear, even if they are true. If people rewarded politicians for being truthful, they would be more truthful. They are just responding to incentives, like everyone else. I wish it were different, but that doesn't mean I think it ever will be.
Be the change you wish to see. If you think Biden was lying here, don't defend him for it.
Even in terms of realpolitik this was clearly a mistake. He obviously didn't think his words would be disproven so quickly; it would be foolish to lie about what's going to happen almost immediately.
> Be the change you wish to see. If you think Biden was lying here, don't defend him for it.
Me criticizing Biden on an internet forum for offering comforting falsehoods will do nothing. He's responding to a tendency in human nature or perhaps American culture that is far too big to be moved significantly by so small an act, or even thousands or millions of such acts. So I'm happy to continue discussing this in realistic terms rather than idealistic ones.
Or the account of this former Army colonel who mentions how poorly managed Afghanistan was all this time, with basically no real attempt at establishing institutions over the last twenty years: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-americ...
There are plenty of ways this could have been handled better. It all comes down to having better leadership. The US hasn't had good leadership for a long time. Four different presidents came into office based on populist sentiments more than competence, and the result is they completely mismanaged all of this while we still incurred the immense expenses that a more successful plan would have required. Worst, they lied to the public and assured the public of how things were going well - this too came from multiple presidents.
That's not what Biden said. Just over a month ago, on July 8th, he actually argued that the Afghan army could win:
Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not.
Q Why?
THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.
...
I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...