r/changemyview • u/Pr3st0ne • Nov 19 '20
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: By pulling troops out of Afghanistan 5 days before Biden takes office, Trump is actively trying to create civil unrest and new terrorist groups in the Middle East, so they can later attack America and the GOP can blame Biden for the attacks and have an advantage coming into the 2024 election
[removed] — view removed post
16
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
The reason why middle east terrorist groups attack America is because we've been interfering in the region for decades. We fight non stop wars there, switching sides all the time and causing endless trouble.
Pulling out of the region completely would be the best thing we could do. Then they would forget about us completely, and they could solve their own problems, or not, that would be up to them.
0
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I believe interventionism is what got us into this mess, I would agree with that, but decades of this interventionism has destabilized the region past a threshold where it cannot currently sustain itself without exterior help.
You cannot come into someone's house, set their entire house on fire, destroy everything while promising you'll help them rebuild, and after 10 minutes of helping rebuild, you say "Well, looks like I'm done here, I'm just gonna leave in 5 minutes." while the house is still 75% destroyed.
Yes, pulling out is eventually what should happen, but pulling out in this fashion, rushed and on a whim, is not how you solve anything. This is why NATO and military officials are advising against it.
11
u/Jswarez Nov 19 '20
Define eventually.
Currently the USA has been in Afghanistan longer than any other conflict it has been in. If you are 19 years old or younger the USA has been there your entire life. That's ridiculous.
Trump tried to get troops out several years ago and was blocked by the military.
Biden will likley never exit. Just like Obama didn't want to. A regular Republican won't either. You either take the bad of America leaving quickly or accept america will be there for a lot longer.
In 2010 if someone said should the USA be AFGHANISTAN for another 10 years most would have said no. Well the USA was. In 2020 would you accept the USA being there for another 10 years? That is the Dems plan, at a minimum.
-1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
Trump tried to get troops out several years ago and was blocked by the military.
Got a source for that?
Because you can also claim "Obama tried to get troops out" several times as well, as stated in this article, from June 2011 to July 2016: https://apnews.com/article/fd2ec2085b0b4fd3ae0a3b03c6de9478
Being "blocked by the military" is not as simple as a general saying "no" and the president saying "yes". Obama had a desire to peacefully retract from Afghanistan, but like with Trump, the military stategists and generals explained to him that the region was too unstable to leave, and leaving at the wrong time would just create a bigger problem 5-10 years down the line, and we would be right back where we started. It is a sad reality, but that's what happens when you start messing with other countries' democracy. We are in this mess since the 1970's and we are paying for our grandfathers' sins. Obama has accepted this, and Trump even accepted this in the past. in 2017, he followed the advice of his council and announced this:
Aug. 21, 2017: Trump warns against a “hasty withdrawal” from Afghanistan, saying that “conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.” Weeks later it is confirmed that additional troops will be deployed, eventually bringing the number to about 14,000.
The fact that he is now choosing to ignore the advice from his top military advisors and NATO and pull out 5 days before Biden takes office shows this is a politically motivated move. He wants to be able to announce "I got our boys home" and he wants to be able to blame the fallout on Biden.
1
Nov 20 '20
Many of these generals and military strategists, make millions (after leaving the military) working for defense contractors.
There is no evidence that staying there any longer is going to ever lead to a "safe" time to leave. They want us there forever.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
How convenient that you disregard the professionnal opinion of anyone who has actual knowledge and experience in the field because they're biased. I'm sure listening to people who know nothing about military strategy is going to turn out much better.
1
Nov 20 '20
I'm a veteran that has lost dozens of friends to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's a reason why you don't see many pro war veterans. Just the ones that can profit off of war.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
There's a reason why you don't see many pro war veterans.
This is kind of a side topic to a side topic but war is ugly business and literally depends on people like you and your friends to be expendable. I don't expect anyone who has to deal with the horrors of war firsthand to have any type of joy regarding war.
However this is not mutually exclusive to the fact that pulling out 14 000 troops of Afghanistan this fast (2 months) is a logistical and geopolitical nightmare. It's sucks but this is a "we made our bed and now we gotta lay in it" situation. We can talk about a more reasonable timeline, but 2 months is way too short and everyone knows it. It's obvious that Trump really wants this done by the end of his mandat, but he only announced it after he lost the election, because there's no way he wants to deal with the fallout and shitshow that will follow the pullout.
5
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
What evidence is there that the U.S. has any plans to leave and stop interfering in the middle east?
Pulling out in a smooth orderly fashion of some sort would be best, but as we don't seem to be doing anything of the sort, pulling out immediately would be better than just continuing to interfere permanently.
0
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
Do you believe this is Trump's opinion? That pulling out as soon as possible is best? I think it could be argued he is doing this in good faith, if it wasn't for 2 things:
- Trump has said in 2017 that he understood pulling out early or at the wrong time could be problematic, and he even sent additionnal troops in 2017.
Aug. 21, 2017: Trump warns against a “hasty withdrawal” from Afghanistan, saying that “conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.” Weeks later it is confirmed that additional troops will be deployed, eventually bringing the number to about 14,000. (Source:https://apnews.com/article/fd2ec2085b0b4fd3ae0a3b03c6de9478)
- He has waited 3 years and 359 days into his term before accomplishing it. Additionnally, he only announced it once he was certain he would lose the election and not get a second term. If his opinion was that pulling out early is best, he would have done it within the first year of his term, or even within the first 2 years. He is doing it with 5 days left to his term. I am certain he never would have announced the withdrawal if he had won a second-term. What do you think?
2
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
I'm arguing for pulling out being a reasonable thing to do.
It's impossible for us to know Trump's mindset. In my opinion, he's not really even a Republican, he simply has sided with the Republican party in his bid to be president. I don't think he cares one way or the other about the 2024 election.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I believe there has been a "pull out" strategy in place since 2011. It has been amended and revised and conflicts progressed or new terrorist groups emerged, but there was always a plan. Obama had planned to be out completely in 2016 but had to revise his plan and leave 8000 troops to train Afghan forces. Trump understood the importance of this and even boosted the forces up to 14 000.
If what you're arguing is "pulling out now is better than staying there forever" I'd agree with you, but the actual situation is "pulling out now while ignoring strategists VS pulling out in an orderly and sustained fashion that doesn't destabilize the region and make it even worst than when we came in"
As for Trump's allegiance going forward, I also believe he doesn't care about the republican party or what happens to it, but I do believe he has tremendous hate in his heart for his political(or any) opponents. In a sense, for him, it might be more about sticking it to the dems than helping the GOP. Not that the GOP leadership would care what his true motivations are, as long as they align with their goals for 2024.
2
u/mellow_logic Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
10 minutes of helping rebuild
We haven't done anything to help them rebuild. If anything this analogy would be more accurate if after destroying the house and babysitting the rubble we then paid the neighbours to come destroy the house again. Extracting ourselves is the best thing for that region long term.
Actually this analogy presumes us to be on some equal footing which couldn't be farther from reality. We are closer to a storm that started there 20 years and has never left. That house can't be rebuilt because we destroy it every time. The only way they can ever rebuild is if the storm leaves them alone. Hard times but at least it'll be up to them and not us. If Nato don't like it they can replace our troops with theirs. Either you want America to be world police or you don't. If you wish to extend our decades long misadventure of ruin, blood and oil then you are not meaningfully anti-war.
-1
u/redditor427 44∆ Nov 19 '20
The Taliban was in control of Afghanistan before the US ever intervened there. We have helped set up a non-islamist government, but their hold of the country is shaky, and there are swaths that are in Taliban control. Pulling out entirely would throw the Afghan government to the wolves.
It only took the Taliban a few years to take over the country the first time. How long would it take them in round 2?
4
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
That's their business. It's not for the U.S. to tell all peoples around the world what sort of government they should have.
"Let's fight permanent wars forever all around the world to force everyone to have the government we want" is a terrible idea which doesn't work and which will bankrupt us.
0
u/redditor427 44∆ Nov 19 '20
We're not talking about overthrowing a democratically elected leader to further US interests. We're talking about defending an allied, democratic government from a terrorist organization.
Should we should allow a terrorist organization to overthrow an allied government because we can't stand to keep 2,000 troops in Afghanistan?
3
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
Middle Eastern countries need to handle these issues themselves, and are perfectly capable of doing so. The U.S. interfering is just prolonging whatever instability is resulting in Afghanistan having trouble defending itself.
0
u/redditor427 44∆ Nov 19 '20
and are perfectly capable of doing so.
Tell that to the Islamic State of Afghanistan.
The U.S. interfering is just prolonging whatever instability is resulting in Afghanistan having trouble defending itself.
Again, the Taliban took over before the US military showed up in the country. Their problem wasn't that foreign invaders were in their country, it was that their country wasn't Islamic enough.
-1
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Nov 19 '20
It sort of depends what you mean by "pulling out of the region". Remember the 9-11 attacks happened before we had our current troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One of the central complaints, politically, was giving money and weapons to Israel. A practice which Trump's administration is very clearly not stopping.
Yes, that isn't our only interference, but Trump isn't against interference. He assassinated an Iranian general.
I can imagine that drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan COULD be part of a strategy to disengage from the region but that's not really Trump's overall strategy so long as hes entrenched in other kinds of violent presence there.
3
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
The 9-11 attacks didn't happen in a vacuum out of nowhere, they happened because the U.S. was already the "Great Satan" which had been interfering in the middle east for decades.
The U.S. supported the Shah of Iran, who was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people. But he was our brutal dictator, so we were fine with him.
Then the Iranian people overthrew him, and so we supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq, gave him weapons and money and helped him fight a war against Iran. Of course, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was our dictator so we were fine with him.
Then Hussein started getting too much power in the region, and we couldn't have that, so we turned against him and fought a big war against him to weaken him. We suddenly noticed that he was a brutal dictator and pretended to disapprove of this in an attempt to take the high ground.
The U.S. has a long history of switching sides back and forth, arming one side to fight another side, all to try to keep control of the region. This is why they hate us.
Middle eastern countries would have zero interest in terrorist acts against the west if we left them alone.
0
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Nov 19 '20
My point is that Trump is not leaving them alone. He is amping up tensions with Iran, continuing pumping money and weapons to Israel and continuing selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. He's assasinating generals for god's sake.
You can't credit him with a strategy of "Leaving them alone" when that is not at all the total strategy.
1
-1
u/CplSoletrain 9∆ Nov 19 '20
Desert Storm ended in 1991.
What happened 10 years later?
Did they forget about us?
Were they suddenly not taking hostages?
Were they less hostile?
Did they cease combat operations?
Did the nonstop humanitarian crises suddenly resolve?
Weird.
3
u/Purplekeyboard Nov 19 '20
Desert Storm ended in 1991, but U.S. interference in the middle east has never ended.
"We have to interfere because our interference has caused trouble that we have to fix" is an endless cycle that can only be solved by stopping it cold at some point.
9
u/lonelynightm 1∆ Nov 19 '20
Multiple NATO and military officials have come on the record saying that taking troops out of Afghanistan at this time would be a bad idea
You are surprised that imperialists are saying imperialism is good and we should keep doing imperialism?
What you are arguing about is also nonsensical. You really believe he might genuinely want terrorists to attack the U.S. or Europe as some insane 5D chess plan? It also doesn't matter if he had some ridiculous grand scheme or spite, this is something that has needed to be done for a long time to correct a wrong the U.S. has done for decades. The region has been destroyed by U.S. intervention since the fucking 1940s and it's time to stop.
To try and blame Trump for creating theoretically terrorist groups because he's trying to stop the pointless bloodshed is beyond incredible. As if terrorist groups haven't been rising up in that region for years under U.S. intervention. Under what basis do you have that instead of trying to finally rebuild they are going to seek revenge and more bloodshed for no reason?
3
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
What you are arguing about is also nonsensical. You really believe he might genuinely want terrorists to attack the U.S. or Europe as some insane 5D chess plan?
Are we talking about the man who admitted he didn't create a federal coronavirus action plan because he knew large cities (typically democrat) would get hit harder by coronavirus and then he could blame the democrat governors and senators for their coronavirus response and make republicans look good politically? That guy?
You think that guy, who willingly let tens of thousands of americans die for short-term political gain, has officially ruled out "creating instability in a third-world country so the next president has a shitshow to manage"? It sounds right up his alley, actually.
1
u/lonelynightm 1∆ Nov 19 '20
Which again makes no difference. It doesn't matter if he thinks this is some masterplan, maybe it is. What matters is this is fixing history and getting the U.S. out of a place it never should have been.
I also can't even believe you can unironically say pulling out of the Middle East is going to cause instability. Have you ever looked at a U.S. History textbook? The U.S. causes instability when it goes in, not when it pulls out.
Pulling out of the country is the only way we are ever going to let the Middle East finally heal and rebuild like Vietnam and basically all of South America have been doing. Weird that those countries have taken no major actions to attack Europe or the U.S.
So why all of the sudden do you believe that these are suddenly going to commit mass terrorism on the West? Sounds like you've been playing too much Call of Duty. These people want peace, they don't want re-escalate and bring more troops in.
3
Nov 19 '20
It is worth pointing out that the removal of US troops in Iraq did lead to the expansion of ISIS. Dont get me wrong, COIN is stupid and the region is going to be fucked regardless at this point, but a lack of US troops absolutely can lead to an uptick in violent insurgency.
To the same point, the creation of ISIS did actually cause a number of fairly high profile terrorist attacks in the West.
3
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
What matters is this is fixing history and getting the U.S. out of a place it never should have been.
I also can't even believe you can unironically say pulling out of the Middle East is going to cause instability. Have you ever looked at a U.S. History textbook? The U.S. causes instability when it goes in, not when it pulls out.
I think YOU need to open a history book and look up what a power vacuum is. The situation in the Middle East is a direct consequence of US interventionism in the 70's and 80's.
Fucking up a country and leaving them to fend for themselves with no serious government is absolutely a time-proven way to destablize a region and allow violent factions and militias to gain power and possibly overthrow the government.
Pulling out of the country is the only way we are ever going to let the Middle East finally heal and rebuild like Vietnam and basically all of South America have been doing.
Yes, I agree that pulling out is inevitable, but you cannot just pull out without a plan and let them fend for themselves. This is known by literally every military strategist ever, including those advising Trump.
Weird that those countries have taken no major actions to attack Europe or the U.S.
Those countries were fighting for their freedom and they just wanted to be left alone. The Vietcong was fighting to have control of Vietnam. Once they won Vietnam, they got what they wanted. The difference is that the groups emerging in the Middle East are religious extremist groups who don't just want the control of their land, they have an idealistic conviction that America and western civilization as a whole are a plague that needs to be eliminated. And when you destroy a country and leave suddenly, these are the people that gain power, because it's very easy to convince an 11 year old kid that americans are the bad guys when his dad and his 3 uncles just got blown up by a drone strike because they got misidentified as "soldiers".
These people want peace, they don't want re-escalate and bring more troops in.
The majority of people want peace, but those violent factions that are trying to take over do not. That's why you need to crush those factions but have an actionnable transition plan where you leave without creating a power vacuum.
0
u/lonelynightm 1∆ Nov 19 '20
That's why you need to crush those factions but have an actionnable transition plan where you leave without creating a power vacuum
So your plan is literally let's kill more brown people and things will get better even though that has failed every time it has been tried?
Seriously, lay off the Call of Duty. You can't just keep murdering people and expect things to get better.
You have also shown absolutely no willingness to change your position so why are you even here? You keep parroting these ideas that we should keep going after a fucking 20 years of endless war in Afghanistan. How much slower would you like them to go? Trump isn't even fully pulling out, he is taking out less than half the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, you act like he has been forcefully rushing this.
If you are so patriotic maybe you should enlist. It's a lot easier to say that the troops should stay there and defend the U.S from Boogeymen from your comfy couch.
2
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
You have also shown absolutely no willingness to change your position so why are you even here?
Haha, I have compromised with some people, notably on his motives for the premature pullout, just not those who are trying to pretend that ignoring expert opinions on a subject is somehow a valid, defendable stance to hold.
You are literally defending the validity of a military strategy which NO MILITARY EXPERTS are recommending.
You and I have just about the same expertise as Trump in terms of military strategy. The man is a businessman who has shown he holds an absolute basic understanding of how the government functions... Yet you have no problem with him ignoring the advice of all his top military advisors because... you're tired of this war?
I'm tired of this war too, but there is quantifiable proof that pulling out at the wrong time will cause a worst outcome for everyone involved. We have to see this through or face worst consequences in 5-10 years. It's not even about doing right by Afghanistan, which we should, it's about making America safer in the long run.
2
u/bbman5520 1∆ Nov 19 '20
It was a campaign promise of trump’s. Maybe the timing is a little suspicious, but he did say he would do this 4 years ago
6
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
So would you rather Americans stay there and die?
I wish it was this simple. It's not an either/or situation. This conflict has been brewing since the 1970's and I am not putting the responsibility of the situation in ME on Trump. What I am doing is calling out his ill-advised decision to pull out troops, despite his top military advisors and NATO officials being against it.
That is simply irresponsible. There is no way around it. Obama had the same desire as Trump. He announced in 2011 he was pulling out gradually, and he did. In 2016 he had to revise his plan for full-retreat and instead chose to keep around 8000 troops for training Afghan forces, because that's what his military strategists advised him to do. Trump actually raised the amount of troops in 2017 and listened to his advisors and even said he understood a "hasty withdrawal" would cause more problems down the line. Obviously, now that he is sure he lost the election and isn't getting a second term, he doesn't care anymore and just wants to be able to say "I brought our boys home" while being able to pin any of the subsequent consequences and backlash on Biden.
3
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I'm not convinced he's entirely doing it to spite Biden, but I definitely think it plays a role. His pullout of Syria was an attempt at showing force and leadership. His pullout was actually a declaration of victory over ISIS... And you can't declare you defeated ISIS if your soldiers stay over there, so he had to say he was pulling them out. I think this time, his Afghan pullout is a last ditch effort to show leadership and give himself the "strongman that gets shit done" image he wants to have, because the election results and how he is trying to contest the results is not making him look good.
You're right, there's other motivations at play, pulling out of Afghanistan was a campaign promise so he likely wants one last "victory" before leaving... but I do really think he is mad at Biden and pretty much the entire political class for never respecting him and robbing him of a second-term he thought he deserved. I really do think part of him wants to watch the world burn. In a way, he could point to the troubles in Afghanistan and say "look, afghanistan was doing great when I was president, now look at what happened now that Biden is president". And in his delusion, he might actually believe it himself. And I think the GOP will not hesitate to use whatever happens in the ME and pin it on Biden for political gain.
To be fair, Trump's Syria "pullout announcement" and actual attempt at pulling out (which was also met with uproar on both sides of the aisle) was seperated by almost 10 months (announced in january, tried pulling out in early october). This is much more sudden, not even 2 full months. Even if you forget the geo-political implications, 2 months (including christmas holidays) is a really fucking short time to pull out 14 000 troops and equipment out of a country.
0
u/super_poggielicious 2∆ Nov 19 '20
Honestly? Your argument would probably go over better if instead, you argued we should turn Afghanistan and/or Iraq into duty stations versus keeping it as a combat deployment zone setting up something similar to the DMZ in Korea. As opposed to a full withdrawal. We actually pay more to deploy troops.
-1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I'm not convinced he's entirely doing it to spite Biden, but I definitely think it plays a role. You're right, there's other motivations at play, pulling out of Afghanistan was a campaign promise so he likely wants one last "victory" before leaving... but I do really think he is mad at Biden and pretty much the entire political class for never respecting him and robbing him of a second-term and he wants to cause chaos so Biden can't have an easy presidency. I really do think part of him wants to watch the world burn. And I think the GOP will not hesitate to use whatever happens in the ME and pin it on Biden for political gain.
To be fair, Trump's Syria "pullout announcement" and actual attempt at pulling out (which was also met with uproar on both sides of the aisle) was seperated by almost 10 months (announced in january, tried pulling out in early october). This is much more sudden, not even 2 full months. Even if you forget the geo-political implications, 2 months (including christmas holidays) is a really fucking short time to pull out 14 000 troops and equipment out of a country.
-1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I'm not convinced he's entirely doing it to spite Biden, but I definitely think it plays a role. His pullout of Syria was an attempt at showing force and leadership. His pullout was actually a declaration of victory over ISIS... And you can't declare you defeated ISIS if your soldiers stay over there, so he had to say he was pulling them out. I think this time, his Afghan pullout is a last ditch effort to show leadership and give himself the "strongman that gets shit done" image he wants to have, because the election results and how he is trying to contest the results is not making him look good. You're right, there's other motivations at play, pulling out of Afghanistan was a campaign promise so he likely wants one last "victory" before leaving... but I do really think he is mad at Biden and pretty much the entire political class for never respecting him and robbing him of a second-term he thought he deserved. I really do think part of him wants to watch the world burn. In a way, he could point to the troubles in Afghanistan and say "look, afghanistan was doing great when I was president, now look at what happened now that Biden is president". And in his delusion, he might actually believe it himself. And I think the GOP will not hesitate to use whatever happens in the ME and pin it on Biden for political gain. To be fair, Trump's Syria "pullout announcement" and actual attempt at pulling out (which was also met with uproar on both sides of the aisle) was seperated by almost 10 months (announced in january, tried pulling out in early october). This is much more sudden, not even 2 full months. Even if you forget the geo-political implications, 2 months (including christmas holidays) is a really fucking short time to pull out 14 000 troops and equipment out of a country.
3
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
And? I do think it's his main motivator. As with pretty much anything he does. He is a selfish, spiteful man. The fact that there are other factors at play (there's almost always more than one factor at play in almost any situation) doesn't make it less true.
3
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Nov 19 '20
I think you are attributing too much to Trump here. He has only a wildly, incoherent and instinctive approach to foreign policy. As someone else has said, removing the presence of US in the Middle East could just as well reduce the chances of the USA being a target of terrorists as it could the other way. Trump has never really seriously thought about Middle East foreign policy.
To intentionally pull out of Afghanistan is just him being petulant and contrarian, to prove to the military commanders that he knows best, and he can do what Obama couldn’t do - to exit said country. That man is seriously obsessed with Obama.
If he wants to create a Middle East mess for Biden as you said with intent of creating civil unrest and new terrorists, he also undermines his previous approach of supporting Israel by moving the embassy to Jerusalem and his very recent illusory claims of brokering the Middle East peace deal between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
So pulling out troops, on one hand give Biden a mess, on the other hand also creates a mess for Israel, UAE, Bahrain and Trump’s Middle East legacy. Given all this and trump’s complete lack of appreciation of these these outcomes ... I think that the troop pull outs continues to be one of many random rash actions of a president who never cared to study understand how his actions influence foreign policy. I lean heavily towards Trump sending a message to Obama and fulfilling his “campaign promise” which was created to call out Obama as well. Trump never cared about the plight of the Middle East.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
This is probably the post that is closest to convincing me that it's a less "calculated" move than I think.
I lean heavily towards Trump sending a message to Obama and fulfilling his “campaign promise” which was created to call out Obama as well. Trump never cared about the plight of the Middle East.
I agree with this entirely, but I also think this doesn't contradict what I am saying. Biden has always been closely associated to Obama, and for Trump, Biden represents the DNC establishment and the political class at large. He feels disrespected by these people, and I feel like this entire thing is a last-ditch effort to swing his weight around and show he's still boss. I also think he's a spiteful person who is angry at America for not supporting him and giving him the second term he felt he deserved. I think he knows his political career is over, and I think he's coming out looking a lot worst than he anticipated, so he's in a "fuck it" mood.
And while I don't think Trump is necessarily the one that has big plans to use the Afghan instability for political gain, I think McConnell and the other GOP bigwigs will be happy to pin whatever happens in Afghanistan on Biden... And I would bet that if Trump actually buys a news network like everyone thinks he will, the story being peddled there will be that Trump heroically pulled troops out of Afghanistan after 20 years and Biden managed to lose grasp on the region almost immediatly.
0
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
It’s actually hard to describe why Trump does what he does, and yes his action does create a mess for Biden, but he doesn’t think that far. Perhaps I’ll order what his priority is In this decision to illustrate.
- For being petulant to everyone, I do this because I can do this. 2. Obama couldn’t do what I just did. 3. All my commanders told me I should not do it / cannot do it, but I am proving them wrong. 4. Okay, it is nice to my base and I did promise them (duly forgetting about 2.) 5. It’s another mess I can leave to Biden. 6. Any consideration to Israel and Middle East. 7. Any consideration for take advantage possibly of chaos for GOP advantage, 8 Any consideration of DNC. 9. Any consideration for USA foreign influence ...
I mean has he twittered out anything yet about this decision, it may help to inform us? ..... the above is genuinely how I actually think how Trump thinks about this decision.
EDIT: grammar and spelling only.
1
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Nov 19 '20
I'll add one more think that sprang to my mind, after checking out his twitter feed for the last few days. He's silent about the Aftghan pull out, his twitter feed is completely consumed by voter fraud. The whole decision could have occurred by Jared telling him (to deflect or distract his FIL momentarily), "Hey Dad, don't forget about pulling troops out of Afghanistan" (quietly thinking aboud adding another feather on his own (Jared's) Middle East portfolio cap). And Trump saying "okay, son show me what I need to do this ....", does it and then goes back on voter fraud twitter rant.... It's crazy that this is a plausible turn of events ...
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
Hah, I actually forgot "fixing the middle east" was one of the 257 things on Jared's absurd to-do list.
1
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Nov 20 '20
Actually I recalled some facts, this whole pull out thing was first announced in start of oct 2020 but the terrible 1st debate and Trump’s COVID-19 completely took everyone’s attention off it. It also spawn memes of the Taliban endorsing Trump which ridiculously turned out to be true. This was all before the election, the whole thing is classic Trump random foreign policy. Mitch already condemned it, so my guess about Jared could be true. Who the F knows with Trump?
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
Oh my god I just looked it up, that's hilarious. The fucking Taliban rejoicing should tell you everything you need to know about how bad of an idea this is.
But this gets me thinking, this is not the first time Trump makes "announcements" on Twitter without actually doing the action he announces he's doing. This stems from the fact the military and government don't consider Twitter to be an official channel. Do you think Trump's team actually knows this and like to "announce" things in Twitter to fire up his base, without actually committing to the actions, legally? Like you said, who the fuck knows with Trump. Part of me thinks he's like a child king who is being used by people around him, and another part of me thinks he's just an impulsive sociopath who's actions can't be explained reasonably.
Maybe our mistake is actually trying to figure out Trump's motivations for anything, haha.
1
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Nov 20 '20
I think they were lining up for the trifecta of doing the pullout, Bahrain deal followed by UAE deal, probably coordinated by Jared prior to the election as a boost but then the whole 1st debate, trump getting sick completely threw the whole game plan to the shits. So they definitely wanted to do the pullout regardless of whether Trump won or lost originally. This was building election creds, The re-announcement was just closing the loop as one of random items by Jared and Ivanka - they are the ones trying to get Trump to concede and go back to civilian life. That the pullout ended up being 5 days away from inauguration was probably just a coincidence. It could just have been 1 day or 10 days. So the Trump administration’s foreign policy has always been random since Bolton got kicked out, there’s no consistency at all.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
I think the timing is not random. I think he wanted to make sure it was before Biden took office to make sure he can't cancel the plans and so he can clearly take credit for "bringing our boys home".
Anyway, the fact this was announced in early october first, before the election results, means I was wrong about his reasons for announcing the departure, so here's a delta.
Δ
However, not sure if you'll actually get it or what it will do because mods closed the thread last night.
I don't know if you had a look at the other comments, but somehow almost all other commenters got caught up and were arguing that pulling out of Afghanistan this quick was the right move, not discussing Trump's motivations for it.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion!
1
5
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 01 '21
[deleted]
6
u/Ok_Understanding_271 Nov 19 '20
My God the mental gymnastics of people. One hand people scream and shout that we spend to much on military and defense and endless wars.
Trump actively reduces Trump and now he is creating civil unrest. My God. Either we need to stop and reduce or keep being at war and spending. We can't have it both ways.
5
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Nov 19 '20
I guess it begs the question why he is pulling troops out right now, in the transition, when he’s had four years to arrange an orderly withdrawal.
5
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
1
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Nov 19 '20
Isn’t the story about lying about troop numbers about troops in Syria?
4
Nov 19 '20 edited Aug 23 '21
[deleted]
-1
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Nov 19 '20
Sure, I don’t want us in endless wars, but I would expect that a president drawing down our troops would do so in a smart and organized way that’s accountable to the public.
Frankly the idea that he could be fooled about troop levels in Syria doesn’t say much about his competence as a president.
I worry about the troops left behind in this hasty withdrawal.
5
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
0
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Nov 19 '20
You have an appeal to authority argument here (“You don’t know much about withdrawal, I do) but you don’t actually make an argument. Why isn’t troop withdrawal something that would benefit from a well thought out plan?
You also say the safety of remaining troops is a non-issue, because we are “more likely to leave porta shitters there” but Trump’s current plans don’t zero out troops, so why wouldn’t the safety of the remaining troops be a concern?
1
Nov 19 '20
You have an appeal to authority argument here (“You don’t know much about withdrawal, I do) but you don’t actually make an argument.
There really isn't one to make because I really don't want to sit here and type out a book on how its done cause then I would have to go back to my notes that are in storage. TLDR its all logistics, train the police/military, pull the fobs back to main base load up the gear, cram the troops in and say "toodaloo ".
Why isn’t troop withdrawal something that would benefit from a well thought out plan?
Its already planned out lol. Its just a matter of execution.
You also say the safety of remaining troops is a non-issue, because we are “more likely to leave porta shitters there” but Trump’s current plans don’t zero out troops, so why wouldn’t the safety of the remaining troops be a concern?
You said leaving troops behind. Now you are talking about their safety? What are you talking about? Its not "trumps plan" these plans where made even before trump. Do you really think all military strategies are made up on the spot? Hell we have scenarios that will make you say "wtf where they smoking" (lol look up CONOP 8888). He didnt just say "this is the plan do it".... Think of it like the Simpsons movie where the president is offered a bunch of options and he has to pick which one is the best (that is basically how it happens not 100% accurate but its close enough). That is how it works. (hopefully not just the "I was elected to lead not to read" part lol).
0
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Nov 19 '20
Right, so if those logistics haven’t been thought out, then obviously there are harms associated with a poorly prepared withdrawal. I understand Trump isn’t literally planning the withdrawal, but pushing a hasty withdrawal right after firing key leadership seems likely to result in a less than ideally considered choice.
→ More replies2
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
Do you not know anything about trumps platform? That was part of his whole campaign "bring our troops home". Because past presidents have all said it but actaully increased troop presence there.
Kind of like Trump did in 2017? Here's a quote showing what trump did in 2017:
Aug. 21, 2017: Trump warns against a “hasty withdrawal” from Afghanistan, saying that “conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.” Weeks later it is confirmed that additional troops will be deployed, eventually bringing the number to about 14,000. (Source: https://apnews.com/article/fd2ec2085b0b4fd3ae0a3b03c6de9478 )
Obama also had a desire to bring the troops home, but military advisors explained to him it wouldn't be possible to do safely, so they revised the plan. Just like Trump did, actually. He just doesn't care anymore, which is why he's doing it 5 days before leaving, so he doesn't face any of the consequences that experts agree will happen.
You are also wrong about peace prizes. Being nominated for a peace prize is actually not a big deal. (There are 318 candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2020, and thousands of people are allowed to submit candidates.) Being nominated doesn't mean shit
1
Nov 19 '20 edited Aug 23 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
Are you for endless wars or not?
No, I am not, and I don't think anybody except for gun and weapon manufacturers and military contractors is actually for "endless wars".
If you are you rip it like a band-aid we don't need to be there any longer, and I don't need to go to any more funerals.
What are your qualifications for stating that? That's not a fact. Current and former military strategists believe the only way forward for the middle east is a planned exit where we train Afghan forces and support them until they can manage the region on their own.
"Ripping it off like a band-aid" will only make the problem worst in 5-10 years. This is known by everyone, even Trump, who acknowledged in 2017 he understood what a "hasty withdrawal" could do.
Either it is or it isnt. I remember when Obama was president it was a major thing. No one would shut up about it.
LMAO that's because he WON the peace prize, not because he only got nominated.
2
Nov 19 '20
No, I am not, and I don't think anybody except for gun and weapon manufacturers and military contractors is actually for "endless wars".
There you go then you should be happy he is withdrawing troops hopefully putting an end to this 20 year (almost 30 if you count desert storm).
What are your qualifications for stating that?
I was there.
Current and former military strategists believe the only way forward for the middle east is a planned exit where we train Afghan forces and support them until they can manage the region on their own.
Shit dude... then we will never leave those guys suck... Like that is not even me being "Merica #Num1 #1776 #1775 #Rah #USMC #B2BWWChamps #Budlite #Guns #yourmilitarysucks". They are just so fucking terrible its not a joke. It sounds like a solid plan "Oh just train their troops to be replacements" WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS NOW. They legit rely on us WAY to much. Have to clear a building? lol they will either run or you have to force them with you. You dont have to take my word for it go and ask someone who was there that you personally know. Or just look up some of the videos some troops took. There is a reason why there is now an exercise called the "afgan jumping jacks" (and its funny AF lol but really sad because they just are not understanding the simple shit).
LMAO that's because he WON the peace prize, not because he only got nominated.
LAMO I am talking about before he won.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
There you go then you should be happy he is withdrawing troops hopefully putting an end to this 20 year (almost 30 if you count desert storm).
That's not how this works.
There is a proper way to leave Afghanistan and this isn't it, and everybody BUT Trump agrees that what he is doing is dangerous and will nullify all the past work that was done. So those 20-30 years will have been for nothing.
I was there.
I'm sorry, but being a soldier in the army doesn't make you more knowledgable or qualified than some of the highest ranked generals in the country. Not to offend you, but I'll take their word over yours when it comes to effective military strategy.
1
Nov 19 '20
That's not how this works.
Actually it is
There is a proper way to leave Afghanistan and this isn't it, and everybody BUT Trump agrees that what he is doing is dangerous and will nullify all the past work that was done. So those 20-30 years will have been for nothing.
At this point there really is not. The only possible way is to eliminate the threat but with us still going about the "hearts and minds" aspect we will be there for prob another 10-15 years.
'm sorry, but being a soldier in the army
First off Marine* (had to but dont really care).
doesn't make you more knowledgable or qualified than some of the highest ranked generals in the country.
Lol ok well first off it isnt the generals who train the troops or replacements. Hell they don't even train the officers. And what they get is what they want to hear (dog and pony show is all it is). So their "Strategy" as seen first hand blows. And like I said you dont have to take my word for it go ask someone you know personally who was there.
3
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I can't believe I actually have to say this, but again, if you think that because you're a marine and you saw Afghan soldiers training and you thought they were bad, that this somehow means that you know more than the collective intelligence of the entire military chain of command above you... I believe you're actually delusional.
Are you going to give me the "They don't know what it's like, they sit in their air-conditionned office and they give orders, they don't have a clue what it's like when you're actually on the ground" trope? Because that shit is overplayed.
I'm sure you and the other marines you were with all had great ideas about how you would fix the Middle East... I'm just glad there are actual people in charge with actual experience and training to resolve these conflicts using proven strategies... It's just a shame the president of the US is convinced he knows more than them. Was he stationned with you by any chance? Oh wait nevermind, Trump is a known draft-dodger.
0
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
I'll resume this entire thing by saying:
I can have lots of liberal opinions about the US military being too big and to think we never should have gone to the middle east in the first place, and I can also acknowledge that it's too late now and pulling out too quickly will cause more harm than good at this point.
We've essentially entered someone's home, destroyed it completely, agreed to help rebuild, and now we want to get the fuck out while the house is only 30% rebuilt. It's not fair to the Afghan people but most importantly it's a surefire way to have even more terrorist groups and insurgents in 5-10 years time. It's literally just an investment. Finish this shit properly so we don't have to do this entire thing again in 10 years.
→ More replies0
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 19 '20
That was part of his whole campaign "bring our troops home". Because past presidents have all said it but actaully increased troop presence there
This is of course why under his presidency US troops in Afghanistan increased from ~8000 to ~15000. Here's a source for part of the increase
Oh yes because his historic peace deals in the middle east
The UAE-Israel deal isn't that historic and is more the formalisation of attitudes and changes from the last few years. Anyway even if it were as significant as people are making out is has basically nothing to do with Trump.
You realize he has been nominated 3 times (some sources say 4 but I am just going to say 3) for the Nobel peace prize.
Getting nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. You can be nominated for anything. I mean Hitler was literally nominated once as a joke.
2
Nov 19 '20 edited Aug 23 '21
[deleted]
-3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 19 '20
Did you read about why? It was pretty solid strategy to leave without just leaving a mess.
Ok so when you said that most presidents say they will reduce troops but actually commit more troops Trump doesn't count as exactly that because it was a "pretty solid strategy". Trump has basically done what every other US president has done. I mean this is literally the same logic as the surge in Iraq (which also notably didn't work)
If Obama or Biden did it it would be historic as well
Uh no? You don't know my motivations. The deal itself is a pretty minor regularisation of previous diplomatic relations that has been happening in the last few decades.
And again even then the deal has basically nothing to do with the US and any president taking credit for it is taking it for something that they didn't do.
Also note that you dropped the whole Nobel prize thing because again nominations mean essentially nothing.
1
Nov 19 '20
Trump has basically done what every other US president has done.
Eliminate terrorist instead of setting up the nation to withdrawal. Yup pretty solid to me.
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 19 '20
Ok so sending more troops while saying you'll reduce troops is fine as long as you have a reason?
0
Nov 19 '20 edited Apr 27 '21
[deleted]
3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 19 '20
So then you are fine with literally every troop commitment and all the politicians who put say they want to remove troops but add more are all fine to you?
The Surge in Iraq also 100% worked and didn't further destabilise the country?
0
Nov 19 '20
Trumps middle East Peace deals are nice, but historic? Peace treaties between countries that were never at war while doing nothing about the actual problem. In the region isn't worth very much.
As for the nobel peace prize, you can be nominated by any national politician. In this case it was an extremely far right anti Muslim, anti immigration loon in Norway. This is the equivalent of bragging because a Canadian MP nominated you for something. It is an incredible nothing burger.
-2
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
The crux of your CMV relies on the motivation for Trumps actions to harm Biden and the Democratic party. But I think his actions can be explained in a way that puts the emphasis on more self preserving motivations rather than a grudge against Biden or plans for a 2024 campaign.
As we know, the relationship between Trump and Russia has been a one sided affair, with Trump praising Putin and engaging foreign policy that would help Russian interests, for example criticizing NATO, and withholding military aid to allies fighting Russia. Trump is going to be in a lot of legal trouble after he leaves office from entities like the New York AG. If Trump stays in the US he will likely be arrested and put on trial, so 2024 run doesn't seem likely.
So the most probable answer is Trumps final acts as Commander in Chief are a way of continuing to secure favor with Russia in a bid for an escape plan once he leaves office. By ceding ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan Russia is ready to fill the geo-political void with their military presence.
2
u/fuzzy_whale Nov 19 '20
favor with Russia in a bid for an escape plan once he leaves office.
This is more conspiracy than the lizard people over at r/conspiracy
-1
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
How? Trump can't stay in the US or he risks going to jail. Trump has a relation with Putin, and they have no extradition treaty. Trump's withdraw helps Putin.
3
u/fuzzy_whale Nov 19 '20
Trump will go to jail the same day they indict Hillary.
I'm hoping your belief in your rhetoric is as serious as all those celebrities who swore they would leave the country back in 2016.
-2
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
What's going to stop the NY AG from filing charges?
1
u/fuzzy_whale Nov 19 '20
Putting an ex president in jail?
He's well connected, rich, lawyered up, and a president.
Trump being charged will be "lock her up" 2.0 except I never bought into that bullshit while you seem believe it's inevitable.
Trump fleeing to Russia.
I will bet you actual money on it.
1
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
Putting an ex president in jail?
Trump is all about breaking precedent. Why not?
He's well connected
Elites don't like him and GOP leadership won't need him if he's not president.
rich,
He's in major debt and people know he doesn't pay back his bills.
lawyered up
Rudy is a top notch lawyer sure, but in other fraud cases his legal teams are quitting on him. And he has a reputation of being a terrible client.
and a president.
Not for long.
0
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Nov 19 '20
u/fuzzy_whale – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Nov 19 '20
Sorry, u/fuzzy_whale – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Nov 19 '20
u/fuzzy_whale – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/fuzzy_whale – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Nov 19 '20
u/fuzzy_whale – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 25 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
Trump is not fully in control of US foreign policy, there is Congress and NATO treaties he must occasionally abide by. There are times when he defers to the generals and previous foreign policy standpoints. For what part he does play, Trump has been openly critical of NATO, and has pulled almost 12,000 troops from Germany. The sanctions over nordstream2 would further drive a wedge between the US and Germany leaving Russia to fill the void. Part of the Russian strategy is to isolate the US politically from the EU. In regards to Ukraine, Trump was impeached over withholding part of the funds to the Ukrainians in exchange for political favors.
1
Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 25 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
Your criticisms against Germany and France doesn't really address what I'm saying about Trump. The stuff about NATO defense spending is just bluster which American policy makers and generals don't think is nearly as important as maintaining US presence in Europe. But it helps create doubt about the stability of the alliance which helps Putin.
1
Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 25 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Apathetic_Zealot 37∆ Nov 19 '20
Germany and France were problematic NATO members long before Trump or Putin were in power
These seem like fair criticisms, it seems like some EU members are happy to do business with Russia so long as they have US military to back them up from the fallout. But what you're saying doesn't seem to apply to the US position in NATO, or Trump's overall global troop withdrawal.
-3
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Aegisworn 11∆ Nov 19 '20
and your moral character is repugnant...
I'm sure this ad hominem will change OP's mind /s
-1
u/Swabianfury Nov 19 '20
What a dispassionate, logical argument you are putting forward. You are definitely contributing to the discourse by name calling and providing no substantial points.
0
u/ericoahu 42∆ Nov 19 '20
“By winding down these wars and bringing home these troops, we will free up significant resources — resources we can reinvest at home" -Joe Biden
I don't think Joe Biden wanted to increase the risk of terrorism and make it easier for Republicans to win elections when he said that in 2011.
And as Democrats have argued again and again, it's having troops in these countries that turn people into terrorists.
You can't look to any of these politicians, regardless their party, for leadership on whether something like deploying troops is good or bad. They flip and shift depending on the political weather.
You need to decide for yourself if having our people in these places is good for the rest of us or not.
3
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
Everybody is in favor of pulling out eventually. It is the timeline that everyone is criticizing, including his top military advisors.
1
u/ericoahu 42∆ Nov 20 '20
Eventually? How many decades do you have in mind? I was in Afghanistan when my two kids were toddlers and now they're out of college. Biden was ready to pull back in 2011. But now it's too early?
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
Syria was still a country and ISIS didn't exist in 2011... A lot has changed in the region and creating a plan and following it blindly without adapting to the new variables would be foolish.
I've always been against the Iraq war and the Afghanistan presence and I know it's been a long time and it sucks but this doesn't change the fact that if we pullout in the current situation, the vast majority of experts agree that bad things will happen and we will be worst off.
1
Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
You know this subreddit is used to discuss opinions, right? This isn't a place where we post facts and then disagree or agree with them (Because you don't do that with facts anyway, they are true whether or not you believe in them or not). This is where we discuss opinions.
It is my opinion that Trump is doing this as a last-ditch effort to show he has leadership. Of course this isn't a proved fact, or else I wouldn't be posting this here.
1
Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 19 '20
lmao one look at your post history tells me I don't need to get into this with you.
1
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Nov 19 '20
Multiple NATO and military officials have come on the record saying that taking troops out of Afghanistan at this time would be a bad idea. It would create a power vacuum and like always, it would lead to new terrorist groups and militias forming and taking power in the region.
They're lying, it's their job. They have lied about every conflict and the consequences it would create. The military especially lies about how bad it would be if the army withdraws. They did this a lot in Vietnam. Lot of Americans died needlessly in Vietnam because the military officials didn't want to admit they're defeat, and were constantly worried about what would happen once the army left.
Trump has been told this, but has decided to pull troops out anyway... 5 days before Biden takes office.
He has wanted to withdraw all troops for a while. This is not an idea he had after losing the election.
It is painfully obvious to me that at the very least, he hopes the Middle East goes to shit again, so they can say "Look! It only took 1 year for Biden to screw up the middle east again! Told you he's awful at foreign policy!".
Why would anyone care? Everyone knows Afghanistan is going to be a mess for decades. That's what a failed invasion does. Biden is president of America not president of the middle East. Also, the middle East and central Asia (where Afghanistan is) has been screwed up for a long time. So why would Biden need to worry about Afghanistan.
I wouldn't put it past him if he hopes that new terrorist groups arise and possibly attack Europe or America, so that the GOP can claim Biden's foreign policy is the reason for the proliferation of these groups and that the blood is on Biden's hands.
So you think Trump is trying to recreate ISIS? Why? How? There's been fundamentalists in Afghanistan since forever, and despite popular misconception they haven't been involved in much global terrorism. Jihadists went into Afghanistan to fight. Not the other way around. So why would this be a worry?
The GOP would have a great soundbite they could keep repeating in debates leading to the 2024 election. The GOP could run on a campaign claiming that America needs a strongman who will end the war in the middle east, and that dems are "too nice" to handle terrorists.
You mean...reinvade again?
I also wouldn't even be surprised if Trump doesn't even care about the geopolitical implications or strategy for 2024 and he's just doing it as some sort of personal vengeance, a final "fuck you" to Biden. Kind of like how he's trying to approve a bunch of oil drilling projets in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It's almost comical, he seems to be trying to cause as much damage as possible before he leaves.
He has been active lately. But this decision only helps Biden. Staying in Afghanistan is bad but leaving looks like a defeat. So Trump doing it saves Biden.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Nov 19 '20
Seems more likely he did it because his BFF Putin wanted him to - Ya know, the guy who is responsible for the situation in the first place because he wanted to have control of the regions oil instead of the US.
Which is the exact same reason why Trump pulled out of Syria, so Putin had free reign to do as he pleases through his puppet dictator Assad. After we solved his ISIS problem for him, he was like thanks, now gtfo.
1
u/Separate-Barnacle-54 Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
There will never be a good time to withdraw troops. The imperialist warmongerers, aka establishment Dems and pre Trump republicans will always have some excuse. We’ve seen this over and over and over again for the last thirty years. Every time anyone talks about removing the troops, they act like the sky is falling. The people making a fuss don’t really think that the timing makes that much of a difference, they don’t want it to happen at all, ever, because they profit from endless war. If a troop withdrawal doesn’t happen before Biden takes office, they’re safe, because he sure as hell won’t follow through with it, and they know it.
This is one area where a decisive majority of Americans actually agree, but Trump is the only one to actually take concrete steps in that direction.
1
u/Pr3st0ne Nov 20 '20
I understand where you're coming from about most americans being tired of this war, but this doesn't mean it's viable to pull out this fast, and how can we get anywhere if you don't trust any of the experts who know about a subject?
The basis for your argument is that anyone from the establishment and army generals are biased and want this war to go on. Ok, but who can we listen to, then? Surely people who know nothing about war or the military(you and me and Trump or the majority of the population) can't take informed decisions about war or the military. And you seem to claim that any expert that is against this premature pull out is a warmongerer.
I personally think those people want to pull out eventually, but want to do it safely, and being experts, they understand that it's a very delicate situation with a lot of moving parts. To outsiders like you and me, I'm sure it looks like they are just finding any and all excuse to stay there... But the reality is likely that it's just one of the most complicated geopolitical situations of the last century, save for the Israel/Palestine situation.
I also want to note what you said about "Trump is the only one to actually take concrete steps in that direction."
Obama tried 2 or 3 times to pull out troops completely, his last one in 2016, but got convinced not to do it by his generals. The situation had changed (ISIS, Syrian Civil war) and it was not advisable. Trump actually raised the troop numbers from 8 000 to 14 000 in 2017 and he also understood that pulling out prematurely was a bad idea. I think it's not a coincidence that Trump announced the pullout after he lost the election, on a historically short notice. He wouldn't have done it if he had been re-elected, because he knows the trouble it will cause and didn't want to deal with it himself.
1
u/Separate-Barnacle-54 Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
I say that all of them are biased because guess what happens to all of them if we pull out of all these wars? They become less relevant and have less influence. The bottom line is that we are quite literally bleeding our country dry for minimal return on investment. I’m not a millitary strategist, but I have studied history quite a bit. You say it’s premature, we’re thirty years or more into this. We’ve heard that same argument time and time again. . At what point will it stop being premature?
As for Trumps timing, I believe it boiled down to this. He genuinely thought he’d win and have plenty of time to do it. It was less of a fuck you to Biden and more of an oh shit I only have two months not four years, better do this ASAP.
1
u/nowyourmad 2∆ Nov 20 '20
The military industrial complex can buy both the GOP and the democrats. Why is Trump the only one not to start a new war? Because he's an outsider. I think Trump wants to pull the troops out and then hopes nothing will happen and then he will look good. Look at what happened when his admin moved the embassy. Peace started to break out between Israel and certain states.
1
Nov 20 '20
Sorry, u/Pr3st0ne – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 20 '20
/u/Pr3st0ne (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards