What would Trump have done, re: Afghanistan withdrawal? - Joe Biden Discussion

[–] Crocodile (2954) 3 years ago

I believe it was planned for May. Then Biden wanted to do it in the 9/11 anniversary,then he changed it again in August 31. Trump also made some deals with the closest to Afghanistan countries,but I guess Biden threw those deal away.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Thanks, Crocodile.

Yes, I see that Trump's original date was May of this year. Would moving it forward have helped? If so, how?

I can't seem to find much on those deals with neighboring countries. Can you post a link?

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

I cant see how earlier would be better either.

also unless those other countries were themselves going to launch a war and offer air support there is nothing they could have done.

reply

[–] seagal72 (1833) 3 years ago

I think Trump would have pulled out gradually (leading up to his May deadline) as opposed to Biden effectively pulling out almost immediately? From what I've read and saw, Trump's deal had 'small print' consequences (solely designed to avoid what has now happened with the Taliban) Whereas, Biden's actions (and indeed, 'words' this evening) sound more like a complete, instant, walkway.

Plus. Given that Trump has been out of office since January, it seems rather 'moot' for the Dems to use DT's earlier date in May as some kind of political 'whataboutism' or justification of their own withdrawal date)

I actually think the withdrawal (per-se') is the right thing to do (for either political party and/or America) However, it does seem that Biden has acted in haste (and the speed of his actions seem to echo his initial 'over-writing' of all things Trump, as was witnessed immediately after his inauguration)

Methinks, Biden (or the Dems) would never do anything in accordance to how Trump would....so it's by *that* rationale, that I deduce DT would have likely met his May date, but eased out slower, which would have certainly prolonged the Taliban taking charge, with the rapidity that it (now) has done?

To be fair, if the Dems want Trump to go away (which thankfuly, he won't) then they need to (after 7 months in power) stop name-dropping him, when addressing the nation (as it totally contradicts their 'Build-Back-Better' or the 'Buck-Stops-With-Me' soundbites)

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Thanks, Seagal. A slower withdrawal. Makes sense. Do we know that for sure?

reply

[–] seagal72 (1833) 3 years ago

Trump is no longer in power, so it's all conjecture at this point. Although I do believe he brokered the deal (personally) with the 'small-print' forfeits in place to avoid what has now happened (from happening?)

As I said earlier (and to say "I'm no Biden supporter'' is putting it mildly) but this is probably the first decent decision the Dems have made (my only gripe is the speed in which they've gone about it)

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

I can see where a slower withdrawal would have been more orderly, but do you think the end result would have in some way changed? That is to say, a scenario whereby Kabul doesn't fall to the Taliban? I have no knowledge of the forfeits you mention, but assuming they were in place, would they have prevented what's happened, or merely delay it?

reply

[–] cyguration (3854) 3 years ago

Trump did sign some deals with the Taliban, likely to maintain some kind of peace and order in the region following the withdrawal, where the two would work together to adhere to an allegiance:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-sign-historic-deal-taliban-beginning-end-us/story?id=69287465

But all that went out the window when Biden was placed into office.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Wouldn't maintaining some kind of peace and order following the withdrawal presuppose that the Taliban would live up to its end of the deal? I didn't see anything in the ABC link that indicates they would have any incentive to do so, other than maybe the US hangs around a little longer and takes more military action against them. But isn't that what the US has been doing for two decades?

I'm struggling to envision an end that doesn't (eventually, whether sooner or later) put us right where we are today.

reply

[–] cyguration (3854) 3 years ago

Well, I suppose there were supposed to be some kind of sanctions if they broke the peace treaty. I'm guessing that's what the purpose of the treaties were for: they would receive financial aid and supplements, as per the agreement, so long as they maintain peace.

I'm guessing the Taliban would be allowed certain control of specific regions and if they avoided conflict, no sanctions would be applied.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Much of this deal seems to be conjecture from what I'm finding around various news outlets. Biden and his people are saying they abided by the deal Trump struck. As usual, one doesn't know what to believe. I'd love to know what the exact elements of the deal were. We'll probably never know. All in all, however, I'm not sure any deal would have made a difference in the long run.

reply

[–] cyguration (3854) 3 years ago

You're absolutely right. And sadly, given the dismal state the nation is in, I suppose we'll never truly know for sure what the deal entailed and whether or not the Taliban would have abided by those rules had Trump remained President.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 3 years ago

Spoiler alert: they wouldn't because they're the Taliban. There is a reason you don't negotiate with terrorists.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1648) 3 years ago

It's pretty simple. Normally insurgents are hidden. When insurgents are surrounding a city like Kabul they're exposed.

Trump would've simply bombed the insurgents when they were exposed and sitting ducks.

The Taliban were hiding for years. To have them all exposed in the open on the attack would've been a once in a lifetime gift to end oppression!

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 3 years ago

MOAB time! Trump wouldn't have been afraid to do it, either.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (1769) 3 years ago

One of the first things Trump did was to bomb the f out of a Taliban stronghold.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

I don't know about this. One, do we know that this would have "ended" the Taliban? Two, do we know this was Trump's plan?

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 3 years ago

Trump loves the bold, decisive finishing moves. I am certain he would have thought of it. Bombing the crap out of them when they were massed probably would not have "ended" them, but it would certainly have demoralized any survivors and set them back a very long way.

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

set them back how...... the Afghan government got curbed stomped. the Taliban are already negotiating to take power.

yaaa that would be smart. bomb the inevitable incoming regime of a country cause it'd set them back a week while simultaneously destroying any sort of foreign relations over the next decades..

that soo smart....

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 3 years ago

Errr... If they were annihilated with bombs while massed outside the city it would have set them back a lot longer than a week. Do you know what a MOAB can do? It would have set them back to hiding out in scattered caves in the mountains. Then just reorganize the ousted Afghan Government.

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

kabul. 1000km2. but the Taliban came up from one direction

again this isnt the age of moats and castles.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58232525

please telll me at what event it would have made the difference and where it would have been pivotal? it seems the afghan forces rarely put up any fights at all. and when they did quickly lost.

the afgan government had 183 military aircraft..... not even fighter jets... the Taliban took more districts in one week than the afghan government had jets. im trying to find out how many the US had in Afghanistan before pulling out to see if the air power was nearly enough

my point is this wasn't a standing army of 20 k vs 20k walking in columns towards each other to engage is a decisive single battle that would turn the war. it was literally thousands of mini offensives and skirmishes all around Afghanistan simultaneously

"then just reorganize the afghan government"

WHAT AFGHAN GOVERNMENT. within 10 days they went from controlling 100/400 districts to controlling 350 districts. 20 years of "nation building" and military training and it still wasnt enough .there was no stable Afghan government but by bombing some of the Taliban outside Kabul they would have just "reorganized the government" and accomplish in days what they couldn't in 20 years? magically creating a will to fight and resist and army competent and capable enough to take them on?

I am sorry but your logical faculties are not functioning properly

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

If Zaranj is in the South West, Faizabad the NorthEast and Sheberghan 600km away in the Northern Center and they all were taken by Aug 11th that kinda shits all over your "Taliban came up from one direction" theory

Nice to see you don't know shit about military tactics either.

They played the long game. They hid in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Afghan caves or blended in with the rural populace and waited. Then they sprung when the time was right from ALL SIDES and WITHIN taking major cities on the outskirts before pushing down into Kabul and up from Kandahar

You don't know shit about military strategy, fighting in Afghanistan or anything about what goes on over there so go back to playing Call of Duty and Fortnite

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

If you could read above a 4th grade level you'd see I never said the "Taliban came up from one direction". and in fact was arguing THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THIS.

honestly, do you even read my comments or do you just write replies based on what you want despite what the other person said?

"They played the long game. They hid in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Afghan caves or blended in with the rural populace and waited. Then they sprung when the time was right from ALL SIDES and WITHIN taking major cities on the outskirts before pushing down into Kabul and up from Kandahar
"

hence why I said "my point is this wasn't a standing army of 20 k vs 20k walking in columns towards each other to engage is a decisive single battle that would turn the war. it was literally thousands of mini offensives and skirmishes all around Afghanistan simultaneously"

come back when you've finished your grade 4 English online course. maybe then you will actually reply to what somone wrote. Rather than made up things in your head

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You got me I don't read your replies, anyone who does loses brain cells. Its much more fun to call you a fucking fortnite playing idiot and move on :)

Take your hormone injection you nonbinarybitchboi

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

I know its so much more fun embarrassing yourself by writing a reply to something someone never said. then claiming you'd lose brain cells reading what I wrote even though you agree with what I wrote.

you are unstable.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

What? I didn't read that either.

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

I know. imagine that. writing a response to something you dont even read. claiming you are the logical smart one and everyone else is dumb.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

What?

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

I know reading Is hard :(

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

What?

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

if you think that. you have no clue at all how modern wars are fought with these people. yes man the Taliban hid amongst the people. then all of a sudden all 100k of them and drove in a convoy and were lined up outside the "castle walls" in formation

me thinks you have watched far too many action/war movies and trying to apply it to war now. particularly ones outdated by over half a century

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 3 years ago

LOL. You think the Taliban are Ninjas? They were coming openly in a convoy to enter the city. Ever hear of "The Highway of Death" from The Gulf War? Look it up.

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

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Hi, whynotwriteme. So what would have happened afterward? I don't think we would have taken out the entire Taliban, right? It seems like it would then just become an ongoing game of whack-a-mole, essentially forcing us to stick around militarily, the one thing both presidents wanted to stop.

How does it end? Or, more relevant to my OP, how was Trump planning to end it?

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 3 years ago

Like I said, it would have at least broken them down to the hiding-in-caves state. The only thing you can do about Afghanistan is buy time and bombing the Taliban army would have been worth about a decade.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

A decade seems unlikely. But however long a delay, it's still speculation as to whether or not Trump would have attacked in such a fashion. And it's still speculation as to what long-term effect it might have had. The more I look into this, the more I'm seeing that the answer to my original question involves a lot of guesswork. It was probably not fair to ask it.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13372) 3 years ago

have you learned nothing from the last 20 years?

what you are suggesting is what has been happening for 20 years . It didnt work.

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

I wasnt aware the Taliban were in Iraq and involved the highway of death

"look at this other event in another country! decades apart involving a major different actor (the Taliban), involving totaly different military organization and strategy. but ya see they are the same and the exact same events would play out!"

also you know the highway of death casualties? 200-1000 max

and this ideal circumstance of a perfect military column on an 8 lane highway was going to play out the same vs the Taliban? and cripple them for weeks? cause afew hundred got killed if it played out like your totally incomparable other historical event?

like I said in my other comment. your logical faculties arent working.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1648) 3 years ago

100k of them and drove in a convoy and were lined up outside the "castle walls" in formation

Nobody said this but you. You have a low IQ.

I can tell because the low IQ always think in absolutes and exaggerate. In reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

reply

[–] LokiVariant264 (505) 3 years ago

whynotwriteme said this exact thing above when and even gave a link for the highway of of death confirming . something you claimed nobody said.

my post is literally the exact opposite of absolutes and exxaguration. its a nuanced and fact based explanation of how the Taliban's campaign went vs a made-up exxagurated and unrealistic account that whynotwriteme said which was "They were coming openly in a convoy to enter the city."

you didnt even bother to read what I or others wrote. claimed nobody said this. then just embarrassed yourself.

try again. this time address what me and others have said

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

IDK

I don't care what the Orange Fucker would have done.

ME> I want my country, USA, out of the Middle East for fucking EVER.

I don't give one flying little fuck how it happens either.

I don't care if Trump yanks them out.

I don't care if Biden yanks them out.

I don't care if the laughing hag yanks them out.

Get them the fuck out of there, FOREVER.

Now, let's bitch and moan about Trump some more.

Fucking Pathetic.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

You should tell us how you feel, Tim. ;)

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7128) 3 years ago

Ever hear the saying "Better to fight them over there than fight them over here?" Don't be surprised if the Taliban takeover leads to a new round of 9/11 style attacks at home.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11035) 3 years ago

Yep. Everyone bitches and complains. How many 9/11’s have there been since?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13372) 3 years ago

I dont think anything would be much different.

Trump might have done it earlier , to brag he kept his may1st deadline , and it would have been messier.
not much though.

I dont know why Bidens getting such a hard time , he *extended* Trump's plan and people are saying he rushed it.

reply

[–] hyperjet (637) 3 years ago

I doubt Trump would have handed the country over to the taliban with an extra set of keys like this 'administration' did.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Trump more than likely had a deal in place to get our people/equipment out and have whoever come to power with a peaceful transition that benefited both sides

This was retarded and more than likely Biden pushing the date back pissed off people who wanted us out a long time ago

This is 100% on Biden and its his shit bed to sleep in

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1648) 3 years ago

Biden saying 100 times in his election campaign “he doesn’t have a plan” was confessing through projection.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Hi, Randall. I've heard people talking about this "deal" that Trump had with the Taliban, various mentions of "peaceful" transitioning, etc. I'm trying to find some honest answers. Do you have any (credible) links or anything about this deal that Trump had that, presumably, Biden ignored? I've been looking, but probably in the wrong places.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Hi Richard, Here's what Mike Pompeo said about it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mike-pompeo-outlines-how-trump-admin-planned-to-handle-afghanistan-taliban/ar-AANpHzw

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Well, as with other sources I've seen, it's a little light on the details. Deterrence is a fine thing, but one needs to be realistic when negotiating with terrorists. If they don't live up to their end of the bargain, then presumably we strike back and then we're still in a military position for an indeterminate period of time, yes? It seems like a delay of the inevitable. Sooner or later we're gone, and any power-sharing agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government is going to fall apart right then and there. I'm just not seeing another ending to this that doesn't look a lot like the past few days have looked.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Trump released the guy who it looks like is going to be President. The agreement in place was to allow a power sharing situation where there was equal representation. They don't want us there, Trump didn't want us there yet a deal where all sides saved face and an exit with peaceful transition was possible. What happened after we were out is on the Afghan people to decide. After years of US saying we were leaving and not doing so Biden extending that date from May 1 was taken as more broken promises so instead of sharing power the Taliban took it and Biden didn't do shit. Left our people, left enough equipment to strengthen the Taliban and make us look stupid

Trump would have done much better. Biden is weak and an absolute disgrace on the world stage

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Again, I think it might be a bit naive to assume such a plan survives our withdrawal for any longer than about five minutes (or about how long it took with Biden at the helm, in other words). I'm not seeing that a peaceful transition was ever in the cards.

Near as I can tell, the biggest mistakes were made back in WWI when the West really got involved in the Middle East in the first place.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your perspective, Randall.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Five minutes or 50 years. The plan was a peaceful exit strategy not the soup sandwich we see now. Biden threw out completely what Trump had planned and we'll never know how that would have went but we most likely would have our people out and our equipment out.

I agree with that. When Britain and France started getting involved things went to shit. People should be left alone in their own countries.

Redrawing the maps. Britain and France in the middle East

https://youtu.be/qRsHqP-QHGQ

https://youtu.be/ZXfuqUhzESg

Np man, I appreciate your candor and politeness.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13372) 3 years ago

Its not made any difference
you'll get the troops and US civilians out without further casualties , the Taliban aint gonna bother fighting someone busy fcking off.

The fate of the Afghani civilians , especially the female ones is the true disataster here , and they are gonna be oppressed regardless of Trump or Bidens strategies

The only thing that could make this better is if all the shortly to be oppressed , torutured or executed afghanies could be offered asylum , and theres no way in hell that was part of Trumps masterplan - its totally the oppositte of his "Build a wall" ideals and would lose him half his supporters

I'm totally not buying the "Trump arranged for everyone to be friends and share power" story .
As soon as the US troops left , wether now or may1st , under Trump or Biden exactly the same thing would happen , which is what has just happended.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

This is the conclusion I think I'm arriving at as well. Abraham Lincoln in his best days wouldn't have made a difference, let alone Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

If that's what you choose to believe but I don't believe Trump would have let it get this bad

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Well, you bring up a good point. It all comes down to what we choose to believe, I reckon. I have noticed extremism on both sides. My guy right or wrong. Their guys sucks and can do nothing right. I'm trying to avoid this with myself. It's not easy. Like most things, I believe we come to our conclusion first, and then seek confirmation and evidence for it afterward, rather than the other way round. Just human, really. All we can do is try, eh?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13372) 3 years ago

wise words.
Theirs not many on this forum can see both sides

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11035) 3 years ago

Not screwed the pooch.

Any questions?

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Hi, Gd. Thanks for replying. Yes, as a matter of fact, if you read through the thread you'll see I have plenty of them. I'm rather hoping for some specific answers if you can help.

reply

[–] Galilguy (2329) 3 years ago

Trump agreed to a limited withdrawal if the Taliban stayed the course of the agreement. Trump never said I believe that all troops will be out by a certain date come hell or high water as Commander Zero did. Now we will put more troops into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban who now have state of the art weapons we have given them..

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 3 years ago

Hi Galilguy,

I've been searching around a lot today and I've found a few things about Trump's agreement that I found a little disappointing. As it happens, there were very few conditions. The Taliban agreed not to allow al Qaeda to gain a foothold and also agreed not to fire upon departing US troops. They haven't actually broken either condition at this point. Furthermore, even if they had, apparently there were no enforcement mechanisms in the agreement. Worse, the Afghan government was left out of the agreement altogether, severely damaging their authority and credibility. Trump agreed basically unconditionally to withdraw the troops by May. He claims to have had a good relationship with several higher-ups in the Taliban, but I can find absolutely nothing to confirm this.

All in all, I think it's possible that this vaunted agreement Trump made, which would have presumably stopped what is happening from happening, just might be a little overblown.

I'm wide open, though, if you have some (credible) links that conclude otherwise about the agreement.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

They are BOTH to blame for what we all knew already,
YOU CAN NOT MAKE DEALS WITH TERRORISTS.
They have nothing more to lose by not honoring it.

reply