Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Options
1275276278280281696

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,348 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    As I said, I don't believe the Republicans will even try to make this a 'major' issue in upcoming elections. It will get a paragraph, along with signs of the supposed 'incompetence' of the Biden administration, but given that Biden and Trump are in agreement about the core policy of getting out ASAP, I don't see any great payoff in making a big song and dance about it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,406 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    You mentioned Trump more times than Biden in that post. So, it's really Trump's fault, am I right?


    Look, you know it's bad if MSNBC and CNN, who are usually friendly to Biden are hammering him today.

    Not many people are disputing the fact that the US had to get out, but the manner and execution of HOW they did it, falls squarely on Biden. After all, Biden says, the buck stops with him.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,406 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Possibly, but we live in the age of a 24x7 news media now and the manner of this withdrawal is many times worse and graphic.

    Time will be the judge.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Who cares? This won’t even be a topic of debate at the mid terms. The usual losers will continue to try and make noise about it and wont have any issues with the inherent hypocrisy in doing so after supporting Trump but everyone else will move on. I think it was a very Trump style move from the Biden administration tbh, just pull them out and be done with it. It might be different for Biden if the Taliban were instigating an ISIS style reign of terror, the optics of that would be bad but it doesn’t appear to be happening, yet at least.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,977 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,594 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So you accept that far from the blinkered and biased news organisations that you love to claim them to be likes of CNN etc are at the forefront of calling Biden out over this? How does that fit with the narrative that 'msm is anti Trump'?

    As for mentioning Trump, I have stressed, a number of times, that I hold Biden fully accountable for this. However, that doesn't mean that I simple forget that this is exactly what Trump wanted, but as usual given his incompetence and laziness, he failed to deliver. I am pointing out the hyprocisy of Trump supporters calling that Biden to be held to account when it is clear that this is exactly what they actually wanted.

    So far from some type of political bombshell, this won't even be an issue in a few months, and can't be used in 2024 as Biden simply has to drag out Trump own words to say Trump would have done the same exact he never bother to get around to it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Maybe if it was more organised and gradual over a month or so there would have been less chaos at the airport. But we saw how long the state apparatus and military lasted without US support, the end result would have been the same.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,594 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The exact opposite is true I fear. One thing we learned during the previous POTUS, is that 24x7 news means that no scandal last longer enough to make a real difference. What cost Trump was that Covid would simply not go away, it was impossible to ignore as it was impacting thousands of lives every day.

    There will be mass shooting, a player will kneel before an NFL game, some young girl will be pregnant and be found to have been fond of having a joint, something really important will take over.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,348 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Well the argument of the Trumpists would be that their man might have intended the same but he would have managed it much better, given his legendary administrative skills and attention to detail. But I doubt even they believe that in their heart of hearts



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,615 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    In normal times maybe, but you can see the blood pressure has risen in all the QGOP numbskulls and they want to shout all about it in an attempt to get all the hot air out of their system.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,411 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Jfc - really? Hunter Biden again?

    Am I quoting Hunter's viewpoint? If not (and I am not) wtf are you talking about him for?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,406 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    OK, so we agree. Biden is fully responsible for this debacle.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,705 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Do you honestly think Trump would have pulled out all of the troops when the Taliban had repeatedly broken the conditions of the treaty ?



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,321 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    With respect, you said "The only US military/intelligence advice I have seen evidence of...."

    There was certainly mililtary advice, and it presumably was given for a reason known at the time. Further, it was not even military advice to "not pull out" it was things like "retaining the current force of 2,500 troops while stepping up diplomacy to try to cement a peace agreement" so that a pull-out could be better performed.

    Everyone wanted out, and everyone is rightfully arguing over how we pulled out. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, himself a retired military commander for the region, shared the concerns of the senior officers, cautioning that withdrawing all U.S. troops would suspend what amounted to an insurance policy for maintaining a modicum of stability in the country.

    A "modicum" of stability. We certainly don't seem to have seen any modica over the last two weeks. An "insurance policy". Just in case things go wrong in the long-term plan. Biden announced an arbitrary date which a blind man could see was selected for political consumption despite being told conditions were more important. Even in the late Trump era, Milley's saying "conditions", not "arbitrary".

    This entire takeover has been based on psychological, not physical conditions. The last decade has shown that the ANA will fight the Taliban when supported. The ANA didn't want to fight large scale operations when they were feeling abandoned. The Taliban felt there was nothing stopping them. The US did nothing to disavow either side of this belief which has been engendered over a period of months, it wasn't as if something just happened "last week" and a switch was flipped.

    Note the difference between what happened in Iraq after ISIS took over parts of the country including the city of Mosul, and what happened in Afghanistan. The Americans supported the Iraqi military in a conventional operation to recapture the city. It was a watershed moment for the Iraqi Army which had been run out of town by a bunch of folks very much like the Taliban. They realised that not only could they take on ISIS in small skirmishes, they could undertake a major combat operation, but it took the Americans to encourage them. The US apparently did not offer the ANA the same opportunity.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    With respect, you said "The only US military/intelligence advice I have seen evidence of...."

    Yes, in regards to how to fully evacuate Americans from Afghanistan.

    And I agree with everything else you said above, well put. 🙂



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    While the withdrawal looks like a sh1tshow was it ever going to be any other way? Its not like there was ever going to be a friendly ceremony with the Taliban shaking hands with some US General. If the Afghan army werent willing to fight and at least hold back the Taliban for a few weeks then it was always going to be a chaotic withdrawal of some description.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,348 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Absolutely, once he had initiated the process he was never going into reverse. Only significant thing he might have done differently, purely for the optics, was launch major bombing raids to stop the Taliban in their tracks for a while. But I don't believe this would have helped anything except Trump's poll ratings.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    That 300,000 is a paper stat only. And of the real number, whatever that was, only a portion were actually trained.

    I think the real problem is the fact that the majority of Afghans aren't as opposed to Taliban rule as we think they are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    If this had happened under Trump last May, the poster you're replying to would be on making all sorts of excuses for him and saying he did a great job.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Probably true but we are seeing a lot more of the opposite.

    Basically we have a unilateral as far as we know plan, carried out against expert advice, strong statements given that are proven to be spectacularly wrong, chaotic results, lots of screw ed over brown people, the president is of on his holidays and nobody is around to answer the press, and when a speech is given the vast vast majority of it is blaming other people.

    Extreme Partisanship is a hell of a drug!

    On the long impact thing, might not have a huge impact in terms of establishment Republicans direct strategy but it will definitely be used for attack ads and on social media.

    Nice little montage of the chaos and Bidens speech in the background about how Saigon won't happen again, take about ten minutes to do.

    Or too try work at the negative campaigning aimed at trying to get democrats to stay home, get a camera friendly Afghan young one who's relatives didn't get out to give some heart felt words.

    Tons of possible material and methods to use it without Republicans having to talk directly about what their policy would have been.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,456 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,321 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran



    I'm not really sure. The first indicator that things were not going to go well, I think, was the sudden evacuation of Bagram airbase overnight a couple months back without telling the local CO. The only reason you try to leave without anyone noticing is that that is when you are most vulnerable to attack. But who was going to attack them? The only people around were the Afghan military, indicating a specific lack of trust or confidence. I do not know who came up with that plan, it seems very counter-productive to me and would not have sent positive messages to the ANA.

    The ANA seemed happy enough to fight when they believed they were going to win. That said, they generally only fought skirmishes, not full-on battles. Near as I can tell, in the "crawl, walk, run" progression, we got them crawling well enough, skipped over demonstrating that they could walk (i.e. conducting a battle under US supervision), and expected them to go straight to running. No wonder there was a fall flat on the face.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Basically we have a unilateral as far as we know plan

    This isn't a "unilateral plan" at all though. The agreements with the Taliban have been going on for over a year. Trump released a Taliban leader from prison and his envoy signed an agreement document with him. His idea was to have this fiasco happen last May and it would have gone down exactly the same way. Biden carried out Trump's plan. It isn't something that was designed under his watch.

    Biden certainly needs to accept his part, however, and he did. That's what "the buck stops with me" means and, frankly, I was surprised he said it. It's certainly not an admission that Trump would have made if he was still in the White House, that's for damn sure.

    Could this have been handled better. Of course it could. But it's funny seeing all the Trump cockroaches come back out from under the fridge now to take their cheap shots.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,989 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Given Trump's history of breaking contracts, reneging on deals and stabbing partners in the back, yeah I do.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Ah it clearly could have been handled a lot better. It’s hard to know what really went on behind the scenes there, in hindsight the quote from some intelligence official a week or two ago saying “Kabul is in no immediate danger”, or whatever it was, looks incredibly strange now, how does that happen? It could have been smoother but no Americans were hurt and the end result was inevitable regardless of how the withdrawal was handled.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭francois


    It will be "the economy l stupid" that will determine elections. Tragic as it is, the Afghanistan situation won't make a jot of difference.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,647 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    I agree it could have been handled better but the question is how much better would have been possible. To evacuate thousands of people in an orderly fashion would have taken a few weeks so they needed the Afghan army to fight and hold off the Taliban for that period. When they didnt and laid down their weapons all bets were off. If the Afghans werent willing to fight any withdrawal was always going to be rushed and chaotic.

    Obviously the US intelligence reports that Kabul was in no danger were way off the mark, its a bizarre underestimation of conditions on the ground. However even if they knew it would fall quickly they wouldnt be saying it publically anyway so maybe the intelligence reports were deliberate disinformation aimed at the Taliban



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,321 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Currently on the front page of CNN. Wouldn't be the first time two different departments in the US government have come to different conclusions.

    Military officials, in turn, have said they were actually prepared for the worst and had been urging the State Department for weeks to begin withdrawing embassy employees in Kabul. Pentagon officials used the words "frustration" and "sh*tshow" to describe their feelings about Washington and Kabul.

    [...]

    A State Department official acknowledged there had been real friction with the Pentagon in recent weeks as the department resisted the military's advice to close the US Embassy in Kabul sooner. A senior administration official, however, said they were operating off the intelligence community assessments that the fall of Kabul was not imminent. The State Department, therefore, felt it was making appropriate decisions, the official said.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Polls to date showing that Biden's approval rating hasn't taken that much of a hit.



Advertisement