Taliban Makes Gains in Afghanistan

As the Biden administration seeks to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September, the ...

By
42

As the Biden administration seeks to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September, the Taliban is already on the offensive. How should the United States respond? And how should the United States take care of the thousands of Afghans who have aided the United States against the Taliban? The gang discusses. Then, David brings up interesting statistics regarding how often each Supreme Court justice is part of the majority. Does this undermine the traditional categorization of justices along the ideological spectrum? Plus, they talk about the preliminary results in the New York Democratic primary, in which crime was the top voter issue according to opinion polls. What does this mean for the 2022 elections and beyond? Lastly, our hosts discuss the recent backlash from the left against musical actor Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Show Notes:

–FDD’s Long War Journal on the Taliban offensive

–Thomas Joscelyn on Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By
Comments (42)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Angie

    That was an interesting pod and I agreed with almost all of it, which is rare for me...lol

    Collapse
  2. WBS

    “What did you expect when you lose a war?”

    So easy to mutter by someone who has never spent a single day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    For those of us, like myself who spent 5 years fighting in both wars, it’s so deeply personal.

    But, hey, what do you expect?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Deb4711

    There was no armed conflict in the Nazi takeover of Austria -- they were welcomed with open arms.

    Collapse
  4. Stephen Nielson

    I'm going to listen to the rest of the podcast, but I finished the section on Afghanistan. Personally I'm torn. I'm from the same generation as Sarah Isgur. We were told that Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be quick ordeals to get Bin Laden and break up the terrorism so it didn't reach our shores. If we are going to keep troops there in Afghanistan in perpetuity, I would annex the whole thing and make it a U.S. territory. The whole airspace thing is a big deal as others have mentioned in this thread, so we might as well annex Pakistan while we are at it.

    I mean what is the goal here? I really resonate with Sarah's point there. If the goal as David, Steve, and Jonah are arguing is to defend U.S. interests and make the U.S. safe by fighting the terrorists out there, then the safest option in my view is to take over the countries that present our greatest threats. At least at that point there is a reason for why we are endlessly occupying these countries with our military might. In the same vein we protect the women and we put an end to this crazy nightmare where every major world power that goes into afghanistan (England, Soviet Union, USA) is stuck in a giant quagmire. Otherwise, what is the goal? Will the country be able to be safe and protected from terrorists in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years?

    At what point can they stand on their own two feet? If we can't come up with an answer, then maybe we need to take over the country in order to protect U.S. interests. I mean that would justify our occupation wouldn't it? Work to replace the culture and incorporate it in U.S. proper.

    I feel terrible for the plight Afghanistan is in, but we as the American people need concrete goals that suggest things are going to get better.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Just in case you were being serious I’ll point out that Pakistan has nuclear weapons mounted on missiles which could strike our bases and forces throughout the region. And even if we were some how able to successfully annex Pakistan without sparking a nuclear confrontation, doing so would destroy what remains the existing world order built after WWII. And then there is what comes after we annex them.

      Collapse
      1. Stephen Nielson

        I'm speaking more in jest as I seriously doubt we would consider annexing Afghanistan and I know Pakistan has nuclear weapons. I'm speaking from the point of view that if we are going to plan on staying in a country indefinitely then the point should be to turn it into a country we own. We benefit from the resources and the new citizens benefit from U.S. culture, protection, and all the other benefits that U.S. citizenship brings.

        The point I'm trying to illustrate is what is the goal here? Endless occupation is a very silly and fruitless expenditure of resources especially if our only entry point into the country is via an increasingly hostile nuclear armed country.

        Here's another great idea... before Iran gets nuclear weapons... invade and annex Iran. Now you can avoid Pakistan, eliminate a future nuclear threat, and likely decrease tons of terrorism in the future. There's the small pesky fact that we will lose tens of thousands to possibly hundreds of thousands of ground troops... Why wouldn't Americans be on board with that, I mean we would be protecting our citizens and stopping terrorism! I know this all sounds absurd and it is and it frustrates me greatly.

        In an idealistic world we would keep a small force in Afghanistan and hope that the people would eventually get strong enough and learn to take care of themselves to root out the terrorism completely from their midsts. As mentioned Pakistan is trying to give us the boot, many of the Afghan people don't want us there, and a large portion of Americans don't want us there. I just don't see how Steve and David can look at the facts on the ground and say that our country is in a safer spot by keeping our troops there. If we truly need to stay in Afghanistan in order to keep Americans safe then we darn well better be figuring out how to take out surrounding countries that will also avoid us getting into a nuclear war. Then we can pretty much be like modern Russia is today. I just don't think you can convince Americans to do that thing.

        So we lose the war and retreat which sucks, but I'm essentially where Sarah Isgur is at here. Unless we are willing to bite the bullet and muscle our way in the region in a whole hosts of unpalatable behaviors (I've read some commentators indicate we just glass the area with nukes to keep America safe), I just don't see anyway the United States can win here.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          Identity politics in the US can’t hold a candle to identity politics in Afghanistan. We have enough trouble addressing identity politics in the US, thinking we knew how to overcome it there was beyond foolish.

          I’ve also heard the “glass” notion from some before today. Another great way to destroy what remains of the global order created after WWII and thrust the world into dangerous, uncharted territory which may not, and probably wouldn’t, benefit us.

          Collapse
  5. Anonymous

    Collapse
    1. Anonymous

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CP

        So here's where I am, and where I think a lot of other people are who came of age during the Bush years. On the one hand, I was really attracted to the idea that we shouldn't be spreading ourselves too thin--shouldn't be all over the world trying to spread democracy--after all, there are plenty of other types of government in which people, historically, have found happiness, and some people, culturally, are just not ready for democracy. This is what folks on the anti-Bush left were saying (who reversed course during the Arab Spring), and I admitted they had a fair point.

        Meanwhile, of course, as Americans (including conservatives) are becoming more insular, preaching against neo-colonialism, Islamophobia, etc.--China and Russia are becoming increasingly aggressive on the world stage. They don't care a fig about being called colonizers or Islamophobes, or about doing the exact thing you're describing above, spreading their influence, colonizing not only African, Asian, and European nations, but American business. And so I begin to suspect there's been a slight bait-and-switch here: Do evil empires flourish when good empires do nothing (or stop building)? Democracy might not be for everyone, and colonialism is creepy...but isn't ours a bit less creepy, by virtue of being open to critique from within?

        Or am I simply using circular reasoning here--justifying the advancement of Western liberalism by appealing to Western liberal ideals?

        Sorry to be less than coherent--someone let the children loose, and I can't help but feel that I should be raising them instead of rambling on about half-formed ideas on the Internet.

        Collapse
  6. Alan

    One angle that's always missing from Afghanistan analysis is that the the American people have now elected 3 presidents who promised to do this. I don't believe in the Deep State as a conspiracy to overthrow the president. But, given that faith in our government is already so low, it's dangerous for democracy to have candidates promise to do X, which is totally within their power as president, but then to get to office and get convinced that X isn't actually a good idea. I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's worth a limited military presence in Afghanistan. But if you haven't convinced the voters after more than a decade, then maybe we should give the American people what they asked for, even if it is a bad idea.

    Collapse
  7. Alan

    One angle that's always missing from Afghanistan analysis is that the the American people have now elected 3 presidents who promised to do this. I don't believe in the Deep State as a conspiracy to overthrow the president. But, given that faith in our government is already so low, it's dangerous for democracy to have candidates promise to do X, which is totally within their power as president, but then to get to office and get convinced that X isn't actually a good idea. I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's worth a limited military presence in Afghanistan. But if you haven't convinced the voters after more than a decade, then maybe we should give the American people what they asked for, even if it is a bad idea.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    CP

    I've just written to my senators and my congressman about Afghanistan. Please consider doing the same, if you haven't already. I don't imagine it will do too much, but I'm naive enough to think it's worth bringing up. Thanks to The Dispatch for actually reporting on this.

    Let me know if there's something else that can be done, especially for these translators.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      If you don’t mind my asking, what did you call for when you wrote to them?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CP

        I mainly voiced my concern that we were withdrawing (rather than keeping a small presence there) and asking them to at least stand by our translators and expedite their immigration here.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          I agree on your second point entirely. The Guam option seems like it may be the best way to go at this point.

          Collapse
          1. Very Old Grumpy Guy

            I add my agreement to the second point. It seems insane that any other alternatives are even being considered for the translators.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Paul Hoover

    Maybe it’s just me and my iPhone, but I experienced a large number of “skips” and repeated segments (where the same portion of the recording plays again) in this episode. Despite the glitches, it’s an excellent discussion of all these topics.

    Collapse
  10. Sam King

    "Was the French family wronged by Dominicans?" Is one of my favorite questions asked on this podcast.

    Collapse
Load More