Posted on 09/02/2021 9:46:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The withdrawal from Afghanistan has reinvigorated the discussion among conservatives over the Republican Party's foreign policy strategy. Some Republicans have laid the blame for the fall of Afghanistan on the shoulders of libertine isolationists like Senator Rand Paul.
They claim the "endless wars" slogan is an emotional argument and that proponents are culpable for the repercussions of the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan. On the other hand, Isolationists claim that neoconservative Republicans' support of indefinite forward-deployed military operations amounts to nation-building. Republicans traditionally support "peace through strength," but defining that and the parameters for deterrence of aggression is still under considerable debate.
The Republican base was clamoring for a foreign policy that puts America first and brings the troops home even before the 2016 presidential election. President Trump was elected based partly on his ability to listen to the Republican base. While he promised to get America out of endless wars, many elected conservatives are now advocating for an indefinite war on terror.
Their firm belief is that the U.S. never should have withdrawn from Afghanistan. But looking closer at the pro–indefinite war arguments shows that they are not as sound as their advocates claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Last one is nonsense
1st two are accurate. Like Obama and Iraq in 2011 there is a way to withdrawal without this absolutely disaster.
Virtually anything would of been better then what Biden did
The last one is not nonsense. China is already making promises to the Taliban, and a Taliban spokesman already said that China is their greatest trading partner.
We should have kept that base and kept supplying the ANA with intel and air support. Was costing us very little under Trump’s ROE.
Any further involvement in Afghanistan must have four requisite conditions met.
1) The dozen or so mountain passes to Pakistan will be closed and totally under US control.
2) The US will govern Afghanistan, and will train Afghans to be leaders for years, with western standards, before slowly integrating them in apprenticeships in government roles.
3) All orphans will be cared for and educated to western standards in boarding schools near Kabul.
4) All Afghan citizens will be issued picture IDs with their encrypted dot matrix biometric information on the back. Anyone detained without their ID will be held until their identity can be established. They will need their ID to obtain rations, fuel, to vote, etc.
Republicans failed to understand the essential interest of the US, which is deterrence, because they had a complex host of other agendae - support the MIC, spread democracy, WAR! - of course the democrats missed the whole point too.
The writer's point that US didn't seize the mineral assets so the Chinese won't either is quite the stretch.
Great summary. Also very true...
Just understand that the article is a rebuttal of these arguments, not a defense of them.
-PJ
What is this worship of China as if it is a superior nation that will succeed in Afghanistan where everyone else has failed? Too many China toadies on this site.
The last one is bogus. 20 years ago there were no western governments mandating electric cars. Now there are.
Give it a few days and the Americans left behind in Afghanistan will be abandoned and forgotten.
From what I understand, there were two airbases that could land the big planes and could be easily defended. They should have kept both, just like Gitmo. They could have paid the government, which should and would have still been in place. Biden PURPOSELY gave up the equipment and the country. Like Obama he wants the worldwide Kalifa to sweep the world. It serves the purpose of their master, Lucifer.
No, no, no, and Hell no.
L
The first one is ludicrous because the U.S. has no business occupying a foreign country that has no real government that can negotiate terms on behalf of a sovereign nation.
The second one is related to that. It's silly to establish a "forward operating base" as a hostile force without doing one of the following: (1) annex the area where the base is located and treat it as sovereign U.S. territory; or (2) operate the way we do in other countries, with the full approval and cooperation of that country's government.
I’m on board with the airbase concept in principle, but I don’t think it’s a simple matter in this particular case. My understanding is that Bagram was abandoned by the U.S. because it’s 25 miles from Kabul and the U.S. military simply couldn’t defend the base and maintain safe travel routes to and from the city with such a small force.
Good article, thanks for posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.