“Unbeknownst to almost everyone,” Mr. Trump wrote in a series of tweets, Taliban leaders and the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, were headed to the United States on Saturday for what would have been a politically fraught meeting at the president’s official Camp David retreat in Maryland.
But Mr. Trump said that “in order to build false leverage,” the Taliban had admitted to a suicide car bomb attack on Thursday that had killed an American soldier and 11 others in the capital of Kabul. “I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations,” he wrote. “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway,” Mr. Trump added. “How many more decades are they willing to fight?”...
A surprise summit at Camp David with leaders of an insurgent group that has killed thousands of Americans since the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan would have been a sensational diplomatic gambit.... A senior administration official said the meeting had been planned for Monday, just two days before the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which were plotted from Afghanistan and led to the United States’ invasion of the country....
Several people familiar with the diplomacy between the Trump administration and the Taliban puzzled over Mr. Trump’s stated decision to cancel peace negotiations entirely in response to one American casualty, however tragic. The Taliban had not agreed to halt their attacks on Americans in advance of a formal agreement. That raised the question of whether Mr. Trump might have been looking for a pretext because the talks had run into trouble....
Afghan government officials who have been briefed on the negotiations privately said [Trump’s special envoy Zalmay] Khalilzad did not force enough concessions from the Taliban to ensure stability as the American military leaves Afghanistan... Rather than requiring a nationwide cease-fire, it calls for a reduction of violence in Kabul and Parwan.... If anything, said one Afghan official, the negotiations appear to have only emboldened the Taliban....
September 8, 2019
"President Trump said on Saturday that he had canceled a secret meeting at Camp David with Taliban leaders and the president of Afghanistan..."
The NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»How many more decades are they willing to fight? I don’t think they look at it that way. How many more decades are willing to live their normal lives? That's the question and I imagine the answer is, a lot.
Just a guess, but I'll bet Trump made his decision based on more information than was available to the press....
Best part of this: Trump tweeted out this news and scooped every News Organization.
I'm disappointed, a little, that Peace Negotiations didn't happen -- but I don't trust that anyone is actually in control of the Taliban. So a treaty with them would mean very little, IMO.
Several people familiar with the diplomacy between the Trump administration and the Taliban puzzled over Mr. Trump’s stated decision to cancel peace negotiations entirely in response to one American casualty, however tragic.
So, let's publicly remind the Taliban that standard does apply to NYT writers and editors.
What exactly are the Trump foreign policy wins that you all keep boasting about?
The taliban is just the latest iteration of the jezail bearing ghazi that plagued the brits in the 19th and early 20th century, which derive from deobandism, indian wahhabism
In the mid 19th century, these wahhabis were responsible for the assaaination of two indian governor generals, yet philby some 40 years later sought to ally with them
I see nothing to negotiate and I agree that the alleged "leadership" is not in control of the terrorists.
Fortunately, we have Inga and Steve Uhr who have volunteered to take up the battle as we evacuate our troops who should have been out of there ten years ago.
Obama decided that was "The Good War" and pumped up the slaughter.
"You have the watches, we have the time." - Taliban saying
A tweetcret meeting.
Freder Frederson said...
What exactly are the Trump foreign policy wins that you all keep boasting about?
Real "wins" are elusive in the most intractable foreign policy situations.
What you're used to is Obama the master of turning foreign policy retreats into illusory media-packaged "wins".
I'd typify Trump's work as expending political capital to make real progress addressing the greatest long-term foreign policy dilemmas US administrations have ignored for decades.
“How many more decades are they willing to fight?”...
Decades?
Freder Frederson asks what foreign policy victories Trump has. That's a fair question. I will answer Freder Frederson as soon as he lists the foreign policy victories of past presidents.
Obama?
Bush II?
Clinton?
Bush I saw the Soviet Union collapse and quickly beat the Iraqi forces back.
Reagan beat the Soviet Union. Reagan oversaw the rise of sympathetic politicians across the globe.
The Taliban is obviously waiting until we offer the airplane with pallets of cash.
That’s how they know America is serious about making a deal.
Can anybody name a foreign policy win that any of the last three presidents *garnered*?
This topic was pretty well covered in last night's cafe post, so I'll just reiterate that negotiations are a face-saving tactic based ultimately in the "credibility" argument that far too often leads the US wedded to foreign policy disasters for far too long. The Taliban does not recognize the Afghan government and will not respect human rights. Pushing for these things is a colossal waste of time. We don't need a negotiation. We need a helicopter, a wave, and a "lots of luck!"
“If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then t̶h̶e̶y̶ I probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway,” Mr. Trump added.
FIFY.
I guess we can add Field Marshall Freder to that expeditionary force that will take over in Kabul.
Show us how it is done, Field Marshal
Can anybody name a foreign policy win that any of the last three presidents *garnered*?
Reluctant to go down that path, since I can already anticipate the objections from the usual crowd, but the JCPOA was probably the most significant foreign policy achievement of that era.
I'm much more interested in learning Mueller's role in 9/11.
But former FBI investigators say their old boss didn’t feel the same concern when they uncovered multiple, systemic efforts by the Saudi government to assist the hijackers in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks — a far more consequential, to say nothing of deadly, foreign influence operation on America.
As the head of the FBI at the time, they say Mueller was not nearly as interested in investigating that espionage conspiracy, which also involved foreign intelligence officers. Far from it, the record shows he covered up evidence pointing back to the Saudi Embassy and Riyadh — and may have even misled Congress about what he knew.
9/11 victims agree. “He was the master when it came to covering up the kingdom’s role in 9/11,” said survivor Sharon Premoli, who was pulled from the rubble of the World Trade Center 18 years ago.
but the JCPOA was probably the most significant foreign policy achievement of that era.
Which couldn’t even be ratified by the Senate.
Biden tells us the greatest recent success was pulling out of Iraq.
Which really tells you how terribly the overthrow of Libya went...
@Kevin:
Which couldn’t even be ratified by the Senate.
Says more about the Senate than the deal.
Which really tells you how terribly the overthrow of Libya went...
Obama still does not get enough grief for that disaster. It was by far the biggest foreign policy blunder of his presidency. A close second that was his desire to give a sop to the Saudis in the form of massive armament sales and support for their war on Yemen. Ironically, Trump has doubled down on the Obama position on Saudi Arabia, despite defining so much of his presidency as anti-Obama.
Show us how it is done, Field Marshal
I have never claimed that my business acumen will result in worldwide peace and get us out of losing foreign wars (or force North Korea to give up their nukes). Or that such things are easy.
Afghanistan is an intractable problem. We can't leave and we can't stay. We're fucked.
I can name the defeat of ISIS and the quieting of NoKo.
But more importantly I can't name any serious blunders serious blunders like the too fast drawdown of troops in Iraq and the rise of the JV ISIS squad, the funding of Iran terrorism or the disastrous Libya policy.
So get off your fucking high horse.
@Freder Frederson:
Afghanistan is an intractable problem. We can't leave and we can't stay. We're fucked.
Why can't we leave?
Says more about the Senate than the deal.
I would say the negotiated non-ratification/non-rejection says more about the Senate.
That was a serious institutional nadir.
We have 1.4 million active military. All volunteer. Trump believes are defense budget should be increased substantially. But yet 5000 troops are too many to have in Afghanistan. The Taliban will assure us that it won’t harbor terrorists who might be planning another major attack on our homeland. Yet they won’t even renounce Al Qaeda. And we are supposed to believe them? And if they break their promise what then?
If we break bread with the taliban and pull out our troops fine. But it clearly goes in the L column and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
The problem is that the memories of 9-11 have faded. I guess we now wait for another one.
@Kevin:
Regardless of the domestic political machinations, my opinion of the deal remains unchanged. It was a good deal, and the US gave up practically nothing of value in exchange for it other than a lifting of some sanctions.
we negotiated a "successful peace treaty with N Vietnam, guaranteeing S Vietnam our support. This one will go about as well.
It was a good deal
If the goal was for the Iranians to build a bomb after Obama and Hillary left office, you are correct.
If the goal was to keep them from ever building one, not so much.
Afghanistan is an intractable problem. We can't leave and we can't stay. We're fucked.
You need to up your game, Freder.
Afghanistan=Pakistan. We have had the mistaken idea since Nixon that Pakistan is an ally. It's not.
The Saudis were allies until Trump and fracking made us an oil exporter again. That's why Bush and Mueller snuck the Saudis out of the country after 9/11. Now, they are just one more Arab shithole. Bush I fought Gulf War I because we thought Saddam was too dangerous to let him have Saudi. That was probably a mistake but understandable. Obama's Iran deal was insane.
The world has changed and, unless the Democrats can cheat their way into the presidency next year, it will continue to change.
Afghanistan is a refugee from 700 AD. Let them go back and if they try another OBL caper, bomb the shit out of them.
If the goal was for the Iranians to build a bomb after Obama and Hillary left office, you are correct.
Critics of the deal are always long on rhetoric and short on details. The deal blocked the pathway to a bomb. Iran’s only option would be to build one covertly. And they were unable to do this without being caught and that was without an inspections regime on the ground.
Real "wins" are elusive in the most intractable foreign policy situations.
What you're used to is Obama the master of turning foreign policy retreats into illusory media-packaged "wins".
I'd typify Trump's work as expending political capital to make real progress addressing the greatest long-term foreign policy dilemmas US administrations have ignored for decades.
This is very well put. I'd be very curious for a J. Farmer type who seems highly analytical, and also get impatient with Trump, to address seriously Wince's after point about Trump's strategy in geopolitics. What short-term markers of progress can one expect in the process of resolving multigenerational conflicts? I'm the analhsis, is what's missing actually meaningful, or is what's missing the artificial sense of progress created by manipulating a supportive media?
Supporters of the deal can’t explain why Iran doesn’t build up its economy and expand its technical know-how for ten years and then build a bomb in the open because the deal validates their inherent right to do so.
Where is the detail for year 11?
J. Farmer: "Ironically, Trump has doubled down on the Obama position on Saudi Arabia, despite defining so much of his presidency as anti-Obama."
Trump's policies are not based on doing the opposite of Obama, though it might sometimes seem that way--for good reason. Trump's policies are based on his perception of what's in America's interests. It's fair to argue he's mistaken in individual cases, as he surely is, but arguing he's in bad faith is TDS.
Frankly, I trust Trump more than all the Foreign Policy experts who've gotten us bogged down in a endless War that's gone on for 12 years (or it more?). I'm also getting tired of the NYT/WaPo/DC Establishment pretending their the fountain of Foreign policy wisdom and always being "puzzled" and "Dismayed" that any POTUS disagrees.
Being a foreign policy "expert" is a great job. You can be wrong - big time - but no one ever mentions it. that would be rude. And no matter how wrong you are, you're still an "Expert". Robert MacNamera fucked up big time. He was the biggest fuck up ever. But he was on TV posing as an expert till the day he died.
Ironically, Trump has doubled down on the Obama position on Saudi Arabia, despite defining so much of his presidency as anti-Obama.
Are you willing to consider that this is some of the tension between Trump, who cuts his losses, and the military chiefs who never do ?
I wonder if this was the source of Mattis' leaving ? Maybe Kelly, too.
I don't have a position on Afghanistan, except I'm against whatever Lindsey Graham is for.
Sometimes there are no good options. Which is the lesser of two evils, staying or leaving?
Ironically, if we leave, within a year or so, almost everybody in Afghanistan will hate the Taliban and want someone to stop them. If we stay, the same people will continue to hate the US presence in their country and support the Taliban's fight to oust us.
He did the same with Kimmeeee.
“If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway,”
Depends on what meaningful is. I suspect Trump understands that not agreeing to a ceasefire and killing people during negotiations is their way to make the result more "meaningful."
Not that it makes much difference, either way: they know we are going to leave, probably sooner rather than later, so the only thing being negotiated is the rhetoric of departure.
"Mr. Trump added. “How many more decades are they willing to fight?”"
Well, they are willing to fight as long as it takes. But the idea is to seize control soon, so that it won't take decades.
Though he has stood up to the conventional wisdom, Trump still seems stuck on needing to save face. But we now save face by saying: f*** it, f*** y'all, you're not worth our staying. Bye.
@Kevin:
Supporters of the deal can’t explain why Iran doesn’t build up its economy and expand its technical know-how for ten years and then build a bomb in the open because the deal validates their inherent right to do so.
Where is the detail for year 11?
The deal does not "validate their inherent right" to build a bomb. It does just the opposite. But the deal does recognize their right to produce nuclear fuel, which is a right recognized under the NPT. Most of the early safeguards sunset in 15-25 years, but even after that time, the Additional Protocols and modified Code 3.1 will be in force in perpetuity and will continue to give the IAEA access to inspect Iranian facilities.
@Pettifogger:
It's fair to argue he's mistaken in individual cases, as he surely is, but arguing he's in bad faith is TDS.
I did not say he was arguing in bad faith. But I do believe Trump suffers from ODS.
@daskol:
This is very well put. I'd be very curious for a J. Farmer type who seems highly analytical, and also get impatient with Trump, to address seriously Wince's after point about Trump's strategy in geopolitics.
Be happy too, but I am not exactly sure what his point is. He said that Trump's work is "expending political capital to make real progress addressing the greatest long-term foreign policy dilemmas US administrations have ignored for decades." What are the foreign policy dilemmas he is referring to, and what is the real progress that is being made?
@Michael K:
Are you willing to consider that this is some of the tension between Trump, who cuts his losses, and the military chiefs who never do ?
Certainly. Trump is much too enthralled with "the generals" for my taste, and he has made some pretty godawful personnel decisions. Who the fuck was pining for the incompetent John Bolton to be back at the helm of US national security?
I see a common thread in Trumps approach to long-term geopolitics: the reasserrtion of American might, economic and military, and the deployment of tactics such as tariffs that decades of restraint had effectively taken off the table. Nothing is off the table. He's showing the world that we are aware of our night and ready to use it in ways previous leaders have abjured. He's willing to take near term political risks, and shifting the Overton window with respect to tactics for projecting our power.
Certainly. Trump is much too enthralled with "the generals" for my taste
My point is the opposite, I can't believe you prefer Obama who took his advice from ValJar and Bill Ayres.
If he's notching success in that regard, it seems short-sighted to criticize the lack of "tangkble" results in strategic matters such as containment of N. Korea or our relations with China.
airplane with pallets of cash.
Bingo! Buy them off, as any respectable, decadent superpower would do.
Evidence that my point about generals was the correct one. From Andy McCarthy in NRO:
This week, we learned that former defense secretary James Mattis quit Donald Trump’s administration because, he told the president, he refused to be the Pentagon chief who lost to ISIS in Syria.
The deal blocked the pathway to a bomb. Iran’s only option would be to build one covertly. And they were unable to do this without being caught
"The deal worked because we (luckily) caught them breaking the deal."
@Fen:
"The deal worked because we (luckily) caught them breaking the deal."
We caught them in 2003, eleven years before the deal was done.
@Michael K:
My point is the opposite, I can't believe you prefer Obama who took his advice from ValJar and Bill Ayres.
If you've ever seen me saying that I "prefer Obama," please quote it.
He's showing the world that we are aware of our night and ready to use it in ways previous leaders have abjured.
Exactly.
Trump risks overplaying his hand, bombing an aspirin factory by mistake.
Farmer et al risk underplaying their hand, getting Tel Aviv nuked by mistake.
"A failure of imagination", 9-11 Commission Report.
@daskol:
I see a common thread in Trumps approach to long-term geopolitics: the reasserrtion of American might, economic and military, and the deployment of tactics such as tariffs that decades of restraint had effectively taken off the table. Nothing is off the table. He's showing the world that we are aware of our night and ready to use it in ways previous leaders have abjured.
I don't think that tariffs were taken off the table because of "restraint." The neoliberal agenda wanted them gone, and the ruling class has been enthralled with this agenda for many decades. And for natural reasons. It's worked out great for them. Their wealth has gone up and up and up. As for the communities it devastated in places like the Rust Belt, well fuck 'em. Learn to code.
I'm also not sure what this reassertion of American military might is supposed to mean. He's been using the maximum pressure, sledgehammer approach in places like North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. How many months ago did we declare that Maduro most go? The North has resumed ballistic missile testing, albeit short-range, and the Iranians are so far dismissing talks with the US, as other countries continue to purchase their oil, and the Europeans continue to try to get INSTEX off the ground.
I think you just confirmed that Trump has not been "using the maximum pressure, sledgehammer approach" anywhere."
Maybe he should try it sometime and see if it work?
"We caught them in 2003, eleven years before the deal was done."
So is it your position they haven't done anything else in (pulls out toes) 17 years?
You don't know what you don't know.
You don't even understand what is really at stake
These obstacles to terrorist capability are the sole reason that the War on Terror has not yet crossed the nuclear theshold, the point at which enemies fight each other with weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful. Early warning systems, from the DEW Line of the 1950s to the Defense Support Satellites were merely elaborate mechanisms to ascertain Soviet intent. That put the Cold War nuclear threshold rather high. Even the launch of a few multimegaton warheads at US targets or a nuclear exchange between forces at sea would not necessarily precipitate Central Nuclear War if American national command authority was convinced that the Soviet strike was accidental or could be met with a proportional response; in other words, without the intent to initiate an all out nuclear exchange, there would be none.
In stark contrast, the nuclear threshold against a terrorism may be crossed once they get the capability to attack with weapons of mass destruction.
Shorter: If Iran gets the bomb, there will not be a fallback to the MAD strategy that kept global thermonuclear war from launching. The Soviets had the Capability but lack the Will. That was the limiting factor, the restraint. Today's situation is the reverse - Islam lacks the Capability but has the Will. The moment they acquire nuclear weapons is the moment we will have no choice but to launch an all out nuclear strike that kills then all.
10^9
That's the shorthand that haunts the real foreign policy experts. Because it means we have no choice but to incinerate 1 billion lives.
Has that even occurred to you?
You don't know what you don't know.
‘Afghanistan is an intractable problem. We can't leave and we can't stay. We're fucked.’
‘Why can't we leave?’
Afghan women and children.
But hey, lets just tra la la our way through it. It's not like the inspectors missed that Saddam had moved his nuclear program to Libya to evade the IAEA, right? I'm sure everything will work out just fine this time.
Regarding Brexit and Afghanistan: Just leave!
There must be 50 ways to leave your lost war.
Funny how no one cared about the 'women and children' in Sudan.
"a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination."
@Fen:
So is it your position they haven't done anything else in (pulls out toes) 17 years?
No, my position is that no evidence has yet been presented to suggestion that they have done something else. Do you have any? Even the much ballyhooed Israeli document seizure indicated that the program had been shut down in 2003.
Has that even occurred to you?
Fantastical scenarios that you can conjure in your mind have occurred to me. But no, I do not consider the Iranian leadership to be suicidal, and I do not believe that if they developed a nuclear weapon, they would turn around and launch an attack on Israel.
Funny how no one cared about the 'women and children' in Sudan.
Or the ones we're aiding the Saudis in bombing and starving to death.
The Red Chinese killed 10x more Americans in Korea, yet Nixon going to China and meeting publicly with Mao is still his best achievement, according to the Establishment.
Farmer: No, my position is that no evidence has yet been presented to suggestion that they have done something else. Do you have any? Even the much ballyhooed Israeli document seizure indicated that the program had been shut down in 2003.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are going to bet against that with 1 billion lives on the table? And if you are wrong, ah shucks?
I bet you are more careful when changing an electrical outlet...
Fantastical scenarios that you can conjure in your mind
It's not a fantastic scenario, it's the only way this plays out once an Islamic state like Iran gets the bomb.
I do not consider the Iranian leadership to be suicidal
Do you even speak Farsi?
I do not believe that if they developed a nuclear weapon, they would turn around and launch an attack on Israel.
So all those old wise Jews in Tel Aviv are nuts? Because their entire foreign policy premise is based on the opposite assumption. All those experts are wrong and you are right? What special gift or knowledge do you possess that they lack?
It's like I said the other night: you're the guy on the bar stool popping off about Bill Belichick's play calling. And when asked about the Nickleback, you respond you can't make change for that.
Is this just an intellectual exercise for you? A hobby to amuse yourself with?
10^9
1,000,000,000 lives. I hope you are entertained.
The ease and dexterity with which we won our first Gulf war under Bush I has led to all these problems. That war was a complete success. The Kuwaitis really did greet us as liberators. That was the paradigm that we have never been able to duplicate. It led us to the false assumption that we were dealing with rational people instead of a bunch of psychotic assholes.....It's not us. It's them. They routinely produce leaders like Saddam, Qaddaffi, Assad to direct the affairs of people who consider it a holy and righteous act to blow up wedding party celebrants.....Five or ten thousand soldiers doesn't sound like such a high price. Maybe Trump should thank the Taliban for giving our military a chance to practice live fire military exercises and hone their fighting skills. Tell the Taliban that this endless war is good for the USA. Thank them for their sacrifices in helping to keep our forces in fighting shape.
‘Or the ones we're aiding the Saudis in bombing and starving to death.’
So why is Trump aiding the Saudis? How many times has Congress voted to get us out of this war and Trump pushed back?
“Funny how no one cared about the 'women and children' in Sudan.”
You?
If you've ever seen me saying that I "prefer Obama," please quote it.
I can already anticipate the objections from the usual crowd, but the JCPOA was probably the most significant foreign policy achievement of that era.
You're welcome
“Regarding Brexit and Afghanistan: Just leave!”
Screw the consequences, eh?
Maybe Trump should thank the Taliban for giving our military a chance to practice live fire military exercises and hone their fighting skills.
Except most US casualties are from IEDs and "blue on blue" attacks. We knew about them.
Inga is going over to rescue all those 7th century women and children. I would make a small contribution to an airfare. One way, of course.
Iran already has nukes. It has as many as 7 low-yield tactical nuclear bombs, of Russian origin, probably obtained from Russia. Refer back to the recent "explosion" in Siberia.
@Fen:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are going to bet against that with 1 billion lives on the table? And if you are wrong, ah shucks?
I cannot prove that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. You can't prove a negative. But if you want to assert that they do have one, then it behooves you to offer evidence for this position. What is the evidence?
It's not a fantastic scenario, it's the only way this plays out once an Islamic state like Iran gets the bomb.
It's fantastical because it would require Iran to obtain the nuclear material necessary, enrich it to a certain level, get into a workable bomb (which requires testing), and develop a delivery mechanism all without being detected. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for over 20 years.
Do you even speak Farsi?
No, do you. But if I quote someone who does speak Farsi and agrees with my position, would that change your mind?
So all those old wise Jews in Tel Aviv are nuts? Because their entire foreign policy premise is based on the opposite assumption. All those experts are wrong and you are right? What special gift or knowledge do you possess that they lack?
Efraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad and the Israeli National Security Council, is supportive of the agreement. Gadi Eizenkot, former chief of staff of the IDF, supports the deal. Uzi Arad, another former head of the Israeli National Security Council and Netanyahu's foreign policy adviser and National Security adviser, is also supportive of the deal. So to turn your question back around on you, what "special gift or knowledge do you possess that they lack?"
@Michael K:
You're welcome
Ranking the JCPOA at the top of the list for the period indicated is not a "preference" for Obama. Three posts below the one you quoted I also identified his worst foreign policy blunders.
@FrankiM:
Screw the consequences, eh?
Yes. The US cannot protect Afghanistan from Afghans.
Five or ten thousand soldiers doesn't sound like such a high price.
It's the logistics.
Do we know if foreign jihadis are in Afghanistan like they were in Iraq, or are they all in Syria? I know about the Pockies' involvement.
‘...all those 7th century women and children.’
Who are now able to go to school, to work, who have been allowed some freedoms, who still are fighting for more freedom and still risking their lives by doing so. Obviously you as a selfish jerk, care nothing for them.
@FrankiM:
Who are now able to go to school, to work, who have been allowed some freedoms, who still are fighting for more freedom and still risking their lives by doing so. Obviously you as a selfish jerk, care nothing for them.
If 9/11 had never happened, do you think would've supported an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in order to secure women's rights there? What is the state of women's rights in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What should the US military do about that?
Or, pull out of Afghanistan, but flood the country with cheap satellite receivers and interdict the the opium trade wherever and however we can. This is in every ones' interest and we ought to be able to get some help from otherwise hostile nations just from their self-interest.
Give Inga some credit, she's had significant skin in the game unlike you Trumpster divers
‘If 9/11 had never happened, do you think would've supported an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in order to secure women's rights there? What is the state of women's rights in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What should the US military do about that?’
We didn’t invade Afghanistan with the liberation of Afghan women and children in mind. It was a consequence of US presence there and to take away what these women and children have been given by US help and their own bravery would be unbelievably cruel. Are we a cruel nation under Trump? Trump doesn’t care bout the women and children of Afghanistan any more than he cares bout the starving women and children of Yemen, by aiding the Saudis in their war against Yemen. What has the US become? Maybe if Trump stopped aiding the Saudis, we could help women and children in the Congo.
For all he hostility about Pakistan, remember that is also the major Moslem country where Benazir Bhutto was elected prime minister twice. In a parliamentary system, that means she first had to convince her fellow politicians to elect her their party leader.
At that, Indonesia is an even larger Moslem nation, and there was also Sri Lanka with a woman prime minister so long ago she is quite forgotten about today.
Farmer: We caught them in 2003, eleven years before the deal was done.
And about that:
"In the 2000s, the revelation of Iran's clandestine uranium enrichment program raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The IAEA launched an investigation in 2003 after an Iranian dissident group revealed undeclared nuclear activities carried out by Iran."
Your 100% certainty that "we will catch them again" is based on us getting lucky. SMH.
You're a fool. Get off the Foreign Policy. Thanks.
Iran's nuclear weapons program was/is real but its effectiveness resides mainly in its utility as an exercise in geopolitical misdirection. While the West focuses on the program Iran has quietly obtained as many as seven tactical nuclear weapons from Russia. Everyone who needs to know this ... knows this. Ever wonder what's behind the recent appearance of articles on the threat and consequences of an EMP attack on the U.S.? Do the math.
The key is to maneuver Iran into a position of compliance (hence de facto support) of our nascent policy of exploiting enmity between Afghanistan on the one hand and China/Pakistan on the other. Easier said than done, of course. But worth trying -- and we have begun trying.
Wheels within wheels. The spice must flow.
"The deal blocked the pathway to a bomb. Iran’s only option would be to build one covertly."
@Farmer, Your arguments always rely on Iran not pulling out of the deal once it is convenient for them to do so. No covertly to it. That is why I think JCPOA was a bad deal. A glide path to attaining the bomb. While it does slow the process by a few years, Iran can pull out of it once they get the IR8's up and running. Why do you believe Iran is a good faith actor in this? They are nearing a point where they will get a bomb a year after pulling out. Some estimates put that at months. If I were intent on getting nukes at any cost I'd jump at a chance like JCPOA to mitigate risk as the sunsets take place and giving me time to work on delivery systems. Not buying your supply lines argument either.
Assuming Iran is not a good faith rational actor would be more likely imo.
Give Inga some credit, she's had significant skin in the game unlike you Trumpster divers
Belly fat, too. Chunky Monkey
Bush should have sent the Air Force.
Who are now able to go to school, to work, who have been allowed some freedoms, who still are fighting for more freedom and still risking their lives by doing so. Obviously you as a selfish jerk, care nothing for them.
I did my military service, unlike some of those here.
I already said I would make a contribution to your air fare. Go over there and kick ass. One way, of course but I suppose it will take you and all your fierce military daughters a while.
Go for it
No one cared about the women and children in Libya, Syria, Egypt. Or for that matter the open border immigration policies of the democrats that are creating millions of pathetic refugees, to be murdered, raped and trafficked.
So spare me the women and children excuse.
@Fen:
Your 100% certainty that "we will catch them again" is based on us getting lucky. SMH.
I never said anything about "100% certainty," and you once again put words in quotes that I never said. Stop making shit up. But there is this...
"Despite Iran's status in the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the United States is convinced Tehran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. To bolster its efforts to establish domestic nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities, Iran has sought assorted foreign fissile materials and technology. Such capabilities also can support fissile material production for Tehran's overall nuclear weapons program."
-Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, December 2001
You're a fool. Get off the Foreign Policy. Thanks.
Right. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. I've been so disastrously wrong. Thank god we listened to experts like Bob Kagan, William Kristol, Max Boot, Condi Rice, John Bolten, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power.
At that, Indonesia is an even larger Moslem nation, and there was also Sri Lanka with a woman prime minister so long ago she is quite forgotten about today.
Note Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, who both served as president of Sri Lanka, were Buddhists not Muslims.
Bush should have sent the Air Force.
Not enough hot showers.
Seriously, you should read "Jawbreaker" about what did work before "Big Army" arrived and told all the SF guys to "Shave and get in uniform." That's when it was lost.
I believe the Israeli gentlemen Farmer referred to above have also made it clear that, while they favor talks, they do not consider "talks" to be a substitute for action and certainly not an end in themselves. They could also move on to more direct, Bruce Willis style, negotiations if Iran should prove not to be serious about these "talks."
@pacwest:
@Farmer, Your arguments always rely on Iran not pulling out of the deal once it is convenient for them to do so.
Then snapback sanctions would kick in. Trump keeps saying that he doesn't want regime change but a "better deal." What deal would the Iranians not be able to pull out of?
Why do you believe Iran is a good faith actor in this?
The deal does not require Iran to be so. That's the point. I mentioned former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy (who supports the deal) in an earlier comment. Allow me to quote him: "Don't forget that the caption for the agreement with Iran is not trust and verify, but mistrust and verify. And there is a very, very deep well of mistrust towards Iran and justifiably so."
Assuming Iran is not a good faith rational actor would be more likely imo.
Assuming good faith on any nation's part is the worst of bad bets. Good faith is a mere tactic in the playing of the Great Game. The best players know this and plot their moves accordingly.
3 countries are key to moving forward in Afghanistan.
All have a shared interest in the drug trade.
Pakistan - massive addiction issue
Iran - Kill on site for smugglers
Russia - more drug issues
Unfortunately they are also helping out the Taliban.
If they stopped their support, the Taliban would become just a nuisance.
@Hagar:
I believe the Israeli gentlemen Farmer referred to above have also made it clear that, while they favor talks, they do not consider "talks" to be a substitute for action and certainly not an end in themselves.
What they favor is the US staying in the JCPOA. I could have also added Amos Yadlin, Uzi Eilam, and Ariel Levite. But apparently none of these people understand Israeli security as well as Fen.
Since he isn't here to do it, I thought I would repost Narr's comment from last nights thread:
"In 2001 I thought the Afghanistan reaction was justified, but it quickly spiraled out of control--and has remained there--for the usual reasons.
Our elected policy makers and the bureaucratic limpets they attract are NOT
repeat NOT our best and brightest. They are particularly ignorant of the history and culture of other places (and usually, being all-American elites) contemptuous of both.
Our professional military, on the other hand, are far better at their jobs than the amateur statesmen are at theirs. By being so good, and having such a competitive, can-do attitude, they end up encouraging the delusions of their bosses. And as in all institutions there are those more than willing to encourage delusion in furtherance of their own ambition.
Lacking any strategic goal ("Nation-building" is not a goal or even a process, it's a political fantasy pushed by people who weren't ridiculed enough as children) there can be no strategy. No strategy, no victory.
Leaving is at least an achievable goal; as to all this ridiculous "what about all the poor Afghan girls?!?" it is to laugh.
For 18 years we've tried the warcry of "We're Infidel Perverts and We're Here to Save You!"
and nobody is impressed.
Now if Trump did cancel, that's a real shame, because the reason for getting quit of that shithole war is that NO ONE CAN CONTROL THE PLACE. Does he expect the Taliban to control every crazy? Makes no sense, but then, see paragraph three above.
Narr
Reagan or Nixon would have declared victory and left"
J. Farmer,
It is naive to believe the JCPOA did anything to alter either the intent or path of the Iranians to achieve nuclear weapons. About the best I can say about the agreement is that it is irrelevant overall, and was a face saving exercise for both sides.
For 18 years we've tried the warcry of "We're Infidel Perverts and We're Here to Save You!"
and nobody is impressed.
And after 18 years, swelling up to more than 100,000 troops, the Taliban controls or nearly controls almost half the country.
Now if Trump did cancel, that's a real shame, because the reason for getting quit of that shithole war is that NO ONE CAN CONTROL THE PLACE. Does he expect the Taliban to control every crazy? Makes no sense, but then, see paragraph three above.
The Taliban did not even control the entire country before the invasion.
Now, m here is a well reasoned, if a bit excited, argument about our policies.
Note the plural. Qatar is a funder of terror second only to Ira. Why did Bush put all our ME marbles in that shithole?
One can understand President Trump's wish to leave Afghanistan. Whether the US can sustain its strategic and economic leadership in the context of an isolationist policy, is a legitimate debate. But this is the president's and Congress's purview. However, even if one opts for isolationism, there are ways to leave without losing people, respect, allies and more. But the way Mr. Trump is doing this is the worst possible way: instead of leaving unilaterally, while reinforcing the democratically elected government in Kabul without boots on the ground, he is empowering his Taliban enemy by protracted negotiations, where America makes successive concessions and ultimately throws its Afghan allies under the bus.
I am in favor of an immediate pullout. Let the lefties like Inga go fight for the women.
why would an enemy – Qatar – host the most important American base in the region? As opposed to what many Americans think, Qatar did the US no favors in building the base in the mid-1990s. It needed an American base for its own self-protection and this dependence still persists. Without this base, this Lilliputian energy Gulliver would be taken over by its neighbors (whether Iranian or Saudi) within a day. The US military establishment ignores this reality to its own detriment, and behaves as if America is in Qatar's debt rather than the reverse.
What happened was after 2001, when OBL's biggest issue was the presence of the US in Saudi, we had top leave. Bush chose Qatar, no friend of ours.
However, the Qataris won Trump's friendship the same way they purchase anything in the West from think tanks to World Cup competitions. They insinuated themselves into his good graces by promising a reported 85 billion dollars for rehabilitating America's infrastructure. President Trump's eagerness for American jobs and prosperity fed his enthusiasm for the Qatari emir: "Tamim, you've been a friend of mine for a long time, before I did this presidential thing, and we feel very comfortable with each other... Investments that you make in the United States -- one of the largest in the world -- but the investments that you make are very much appreciated. And I know the planes you're buying and all of the other things you're investing in. And I view it differently; I view it as jobs. Because for me, it's jobs. And today, we set a new record for jobs. We're setting it almost on a daily basis."
My suggestion would be to take the money and run. I am old enough to remember the angst when the Japanese bought Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center. What were they going to do ? Ship them to Japan?
‘No one cared about the women and children in Libya, Syria, Egypt. Or for that matter the open border immigration policies of the democrats that are creating millions of pathetic refugees, to be murdered, raped and trafficked.’
Just because you didn't care doesn’t mean no one else did. If you cared so much about women and children refugees, you and your fellow conservatives wouldn’t be so against taking them in and giving them asylum. Hypocrite.
@Yancey Ward:
It is naive to believe the JCPOA did anything to alter either the intent or path of the Iranians to achieve nuclear weapons. About the best I can say about the agreement is that it is irrelevant overall, and was a face saving exercise for both sides.
So continuous monitoring of Iran's uranium minds, 24/7 video surveillance of centrifuge production, electronic seals on stockpiles, monitoring of dual use materials, foreign inspectors on the ground at Iran's facility all does nothing? How the Iran Deal Prevents a Covert Nuclear Weapons Program is a decent overview of the mechanisms in place and how they inhibit Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons.
Re "Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons":
Iran's nuclear weapons procurement drive is a two-track affair. Development is one track; purchase is the other. The Iranians are not stupid. They're not putting all their eggs in the development basket. The development track offers two advantages: 1) it might succeed; and, 2) whether it succeeds or not, it serves as a distraction for the purchase track, which has succeeded.
J. Farmer,
The JCPOA explicitly lays out which facilities are open to spot inspection, and nothing more. Iran is a big country- doing this covertly would be easy to do, and proving they are doing it covertly would be difficult to do, and the Iranians know this. And, I will point out this- the facilities included in the JCPOA were agreed to by both parties after extensive, years long talks- this means that the Iranians had years to redistribute whatever materials they needed to before inspections actually began.
The proper assumption is that the Iranians were cheating from day 1, and likely prepared years in advance. It is the same as negotiating a withdrawl agreement with the Taliban- why would anyone trust their word on anything?
Do not feed the trolls.
A fed troll is a dead troll.
you and your fellow conservatives wouldn’t be so against taking them in and giving them asylum
90% nof asylum seekers at the US border are termed ineligible after a court hearing.
You idiot. Move to Honduras and give them the benefit of your concern.
You idiots want the whole world here attached to the American tit.
Like the ones who bombed the manchester theatre, i know that went down the memory hole.
The one who killed massoud was a moroccan based out of brussels, brobably malbeek.
Even if nobody here agrees with my assertion that Iran presently has in its possession market-purchased tactical nuclear weapons, you should assume that I am correct about this, and formulate your policies based on that assumption. Because someday, probably soon, I will be correct (if I'm not already).
I submit that the moves POTUS and his administration are making on the Great Game's board -- the opening gambits, if you will -- indicate that they share this assumption.
No one cared about the women and children in Libya, Syria, Egypt. Or for that matter the open border immigration policies of the democrats that are creating millions of pathetic refugees, to be murdered, raped and trafficked.’
Just because you didn't care doesn’t mean no one else did. If you cared so much about women and children refugees, you and your fellow conservatives wouldn’t be so against taking them in and giving them asylum. Hypocrite.
9/8/19, 12:31 PM
If you cared, you’d be thinking globally, not locally.
They need to join the modern world.
It’s been clear for many years that Afghanistan would end as one of those bogus peace-with-honor deals, where we high-tail it and then our antagonists slaughter their rivals and carry on as they were before we showed up. Since this outcome is pretty much written in stone, no American president wants to have it happen on their watch. Leave it for the next guy. Eventually Afghanistan will morph into a kind of unusually hostile Puerto Rico.
What exactly are the Trump foreign policy wins that you all keep boasting about?
Well, let's focus on what he didn't do. Like ship a pallet load of cash to the largest provider and supporter of state-sponsored terrorism.
If you cared so much about women and children refugees, you and your fellow conservatives wouldn’t be so against taking them in and giving them asylum. Hypocrite.
And if you cared, you'd be actually doing something about it instead of running your mouth on a website from which you've been banned.
Hypocrite.
@Yancey Ward:
The proper assumption is that the Iranians were cheating from day 1, and likely prepared years in advance. It is the same as negotiating a withdrawl agreement with the Taliban- why would anyone trust their word on anything?
For the umpteenth time, the JCPOA does not require us to "trust their word."
Iran is a big country- doing this covertly would be easy to do, and proving they are doing it covertly would be difficult to do, and the Iranians know this.
I linked you to a 5,000-word article that refutes this notion. Read it and tell me what it gets wrong.
@Roughcoat:
Even if nobody here agrees with my assertion that Iran presently has in its possession market-purchased tactical nuclear weapons, you should assume that I am correct about this, and formulate your policies based on that assumption. Because someday, probably soon, I will be correct (if I'm not already).
What is your source for this claim? Would you be willing to put money on it?
I bet Trump's evangelical supporters are thrilled to hear that the Don invited the Taliban to break bread with him at Camp David.
BBkingfish: What you know about Trump's evangelical supporters could be printed on the head of a pin [in other words, about the size of your head].
Afghanistan is a major, vital strategic asset. Look at a map. Afghanistan borders Iran, Pakistan, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The borders are porous. There are ancient trade and smuggling routes that are traveled by tribals with no allegiances except to gold, or the American dollar. It is an intelligence gold mine!
"Read it and tell me what it gets wrong."
It makes several assumptions and labels Iranian cheating as unlikely. As we have seen through out history when something seems unlikely that is precisely when the elephants start appearing on the other side of the Alps. It also assumes that the Iranians aren't very clever. They can't possible bring in raw materials covertly. The article assumes. They can't make new centrafuges covertly. The article assumes. To top it off it assumes that the monitoring will be diligent and thorough. it assumes that the Iranians won't subtly try and sabotage that monitoring.
Never assume the gun is unloaded. When people tell you they want you dead, believe them.
I think Trump did the right thing and cut off their source of money and raw materials. That way the kids can't get in any trouble.
J. Farmer’s reliance on facts and analytical approach is admirable to a point but I’ve finally put my finger on what is so wrong with it. Things which which can’t be established at the level of reliability and confidence he desires simply don’t exist. You make your arguments only on the substantiated facts, and all that other stuff below the confidence threshold does not exist. It’s like looking for your keys at night under the streetlights because it’s too dark to look anywhere else. If you happened to lose your keys in the right place, it’s a highly efficient strategy for finding them.
Any deal Iran would agree to isn’t worth a damn because there’s no reason, yet, for them to scale back their ambition for regional dominance: it’s axiomatic, but it’s an assertion based on a big picture view of Iran and Persian v. Arab struggle for the soul of Islam and control of the region. There are no specific facts or quotes from eminent players in the drama, so it is inadmissible to the debate. Except of course that absent such axioms we debate this in terms of details of the JCPOA and the people involved in its negotiation and the persuasion job of selling it in various interested societies.
Also axiomatic: any deal we agreed to before this relatively recent reassertion of American might can be renegotiated to terms more favorable to us. Call it previous restraint, call it the predominance of the neoliberal dogma, but there was a whole bunch is stuff—tariffs, bilateral talks, unilateral action to name three big ones—prior US regimes declared out of bounds that are now back on the table.
Well said, daskol at 2:54PM.
Me:
J Farmer will not be out-smugged.
No point trying.
J. Your tormentors rely on the precautionary principal, just like the climate Nazis
@Birkel:
J Farmer will not be out-smugged.
No point trying.
Never stopped you before ;)
@daksol:
You make your arguments only on the substantiated facts, and all that other stuff below the confidence threshold does not exist.
So if we do not make arguments on the basis of facts, then how do we draw conclusions?
Any deal Iran would agree to isn’t worth a damn because there’s no reason, yet, for them to scale back their ambition for regional dominance:
Even if Iran had such ambitions, so what? They have no capacity to achieve it. They are in no position to achieve regional dominance in any kind of relevant timescale. They are significantly weaker than the Gulf Arab states and have far less technologically advanced military capability. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are locked in a regional rivalry in which there is no clear path forward for any of them to achieve "regional dominance."
Also axiomatic: any deal we agreed to before this relatively recent reassertion of American might can be renegotiated to terms more favorable to us.
How? None of the other P5+1 members are interested in renegotiating the deal, and there is no way that Iran (or any other country) would concede to the demands that the administration is seeking. It's the same reason that diplomacy with North Korea has gone nowhere. The demand that one country unilaterally disarm and then will get sanctions relief is a godawful deal. Plus, the US has been attempting to overthrow the government in Iran for years. Why would you disarm in the face of that?
@Rusty:
I think Trump did the right thing and cut off their source of money and raw materials. That way the kids can't get in any trouble.
If anything, the sanctions help the IIRG because of their smuggling activities. The people who are mostly bearing the brunt of US sanctions are ordinary Iranians, the ones we claim to be on the side of.
Conclusions can’t be drawn on such matter or at least they aren’t worth much if based only on the facts. Conclusions such as you allude to are for arguments not real life. Probabilities can be assessed.
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Afghanistan?
Only thing I’d feel comfortable concluding is that nothing will be accomplished until after our elections. Our adversaries whether Iran, NKorea or Venezuela, have continuity in leadership and objectives while we have potentially directional changes every four years. JCPOA leveraged that to Iran’s advantage: Europe wanted trade, Obama wanted a foreign policy victory and, if you want to go further, his admin wanted to leave its mark on the region in terms of Arab and Persian rivalry.
the meeting had been planned for Monday, just two days before the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks
The timing alone is simply vile.
Well thats when they hit massoud, we found out about it a day later.
The example i pointes
https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=
Afghanistan can't be civilized by us and it's now obvious the effort to do so is a failure. What is left to do is go back to the Old School method of butcher and bolt. Get our non essential people out, get most of our gear out then burn all the poppy fields we can find and bomb the crap out of the Taliban and what other groups need killing and then just GO. As soon as we are OUT, put the maximum sanctions we can on Pakistan who are behind the Taliban and the others. Pull out of Quatr and let the Emir start sweating. All the foreigners working there to varying degrees loathe the Qataris. The Saudi's can be the regional cop, it's in their best interest and the Turks who have no love for Arabs or Persians will be forced to curb Iran on one end and the Saudi's on the other end if we just get out of the Islamic World.
Iran Smuggling? Say it ain't so.
You have a false narrative going there, J. The sanction are a direct result of Irans intransigence. Place the blame where it belongs. The mullahs. The Iranian people do.
@daskol:
Probabilities can be assessed.
How can probabilities be assessed without recourse to facts and data?
JCPOA leveraged that to Iran’s advantage: Europe wanted trade, Obama wanted a foreign policy victory and, if you want to go further, his admin wanted to leave its mark on the region in terms of Arab and Persian rivalry.
Iran's advantage? They agreed to limitations above even what they are permitted under the NPT, and the only thing the US offered was a partial lifting of sanctions. Read the hardline critiques of the deal from within Iran. They accused the negotiators of selling out to the West. They were skeptical of Iran's chief negotiator because he was educated in the US. Why certain factions were motivated to make the deal (i.e. trade, foreign policy victory, etc.) is wholly irrelevant to the question of (a) was it a good deal from the US perspective? (b) does the deal have a reasonable chance of security its objectives?
@Rusty:
You have a false narrative going there, J. The sanction are a direct result of Irans intransigence. Place the blame where it belongs. The mullahs. The Iranian people do.
The sanctions were reimposed despite the fact that the regime had been abiding by their end of the agreement. This is tomfoolery on your part. And given your obsession with "the mullahs," can you answer how, say, Saudi Arabia is substantially better than Iran? By pretty much every standard measurement, Iran is a freer and more open society than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that has no respect for human rights or rule of law and that derives its legitimacy from its endorsement of radical Salafism. The Saudis also fund radical Salafist group in the region, like the various groups under the umbrella Army of Conquest in Syria, and they are financially supporting and giving their American-provided weapons to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen.
@Hagar:
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Afghanistan?
Nothing is stopping you from writing about Afghanistan. Go ahead. I'll even serve up a topic for you: do you find it kind of odd that we are justifying our presence in Afghanistan on the basis of the Taliban's support for Al Qaeda while simultaneously supporting a Saudi war in Yemen that has, as one of its main strategic components, empowering and arming Al Qaeda in Yemen?
@cubanbob:
Get our non essential people out, get most of our gear out then burn all the poppy fields we can find and bomb the crap out of the Taliban and what other groups need killing and then just GO.
We've been trying to bomb our way out of Afghanistan for years, and it hasn't worked. For one thing, the Taliban is not organized like a centralized state with a recognizable hierarchical structure. How do you even identify who the Taliban are? They are intermixed with the population. That is the conundrum of asymmetrical, guerrilla warfare. The reason "the surge" worked, to a degree, was that it was able to co-opt the facts on the ground. Namely, that the local population had turned against Al Qaeda and were able to isolate them.
Think of the probabilities which can be assessed as Bayesian rather than classical statistical probability with strict confidence intervals. We have our priors—those are the axioms, about waiting out a current administration, about Iran’s regional ambitions, for example—which form the basis of a hypothesis, and we update our hypothesis as new info comes in. What are your priors? I see discussion mostly around the particulars of a recent event, but what if you don’t think that deal is all that significant? That appears to be Trump’s perspective.
It’s not necessarily smug to demonstrate a strong command of the details around JCPOA, but such command of these facts alone can’t lead to much insight except into the process of multilateral diplomacy.
There are things that are not quantifiable. They still exist.
@daskol:
We have our priors—those are the axioms, about waiting out a current administration, about Iran’s regional ambitions, for example
How do you assess Iran's regional ambitions? Facts? Evidence?
I see discussion mostly around the particulars of a recent event, but what if you don’t think that deal is all that significant? That appears to be Trump’s perspective.
Frankly, I don't think Trump has much of a grasp of the JCPOA. Nothing in his public statements have given the impression that he does. That is why I said earlier that I think he is far more motivated by Obama Derangement Syndrome than the relevant facts. He opposes the JCPOA primarily because Obama was part of it. It's the same as people who oppose anything Trump does (regardless of its validity) simply because Trump was the one who did it.
It’s not necessarily smug to demonstrate a strong command of the details around JCPOA, but such command of these facts alone can’t lead to much insight except into the process of multilateral diplomacy.
I earlier quoted a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and I'll do so again:
"Look, this is not a perfect agreement. The agreement has weaknesses, no doubt. But when you negotiate, you win some; you lose some. And the question is not whether on one specific issue the Iranians have not come up with the ultimate in terms of what is desirous for the five-plus-one and for Israel. But they have come up with a host of other methods in which they have, if you like, caved in almost. And on the issue of inspections which you raised, inspections are going to be handled by the U.N. agency in Vienna. They're going to extend the scope of their inspections, which will necessitate recruiting manpower in the numbers the like of which are without precedent. And how exactly these inspections are going to be carried out on military matters, on what is called the PMD, the previous military dimension - in other words, what it is Iran has done up to now - this has been a sticking point for years. And the Iranians have now worked out a model in which they would address this problem. And I think one has to reserve judgment on that and see how this pans out."
Qatar is the Taliban's sponsor, along with dissident members of the Saudi ulema, they are the touchstone of Sunni political islam, in the region, involved everywhere from west Africa deltas to the Turkish border with Syria,
"I see a common thread in Trumps approach to long-term geopolitics: the reasserrtion of American might, economic and military, and the deployment of tactics such as tariffs that decades of restraint had effectively taken off the table. Nothing is off the table. He's showing the world that we are aware of our night and ready to use it in ways previous leaders have abjured. He's willing to take near term political risks, and shifting the Overton window with respect to tactics for projecting our power."
In other words, Trump wants us to continue to be (and expand upon its role as ) the self-appointed boss of the world. The rest of the world is not what it was 50 years ago, and will not so readily sit back and take it.
"They routinely produce leaders like Saddam, Qaddaffi, Assad to direct the affairs of people who consider it a holy and righteous act to blow up wedding party celebrants."
You mean like we do?
There are things that are not quantifiable. They still exist.
While I completely appreciate daskol's push back and desire for a vigorous debate on the issues, I am quite puzzled when he says things like, "Conclusions can’t be drawn on such matter or at least they aren’t worth much if based only on the facts." On what basis does he draw conclusions on Iran if not "the facts?" I presume that he, like me, does believe his opinion is based on "facts." The difference is (a) do we agree that what we each consider "facts" are indeed "facts"; and (b) how do we interpret those facts? I am more than willing to pursue these differences with him and think that it can be a fruitful discussion for everyone involved. But I genuinely do not understand his criticism that I am overly reliant on "facts." What, precisely, is his alternate system of information?
@Robert Cook:
You mean like we do?
Our entire Middle East strategy for at least the last half century has been to support and prop up authoritarian leaders who use brutal methods to keep a lid on democratic and populist voices within their own country. And primarily for one reason: if given the choice, the populations of these people would elect governments we don't like. So we do everything in our power to make sure those populations don't have the opportunity to do that. Take Iraq, the great exemplar of democracy promotion in the Middle East. Here is the Iraqi Constitution:
'Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:
A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam"
And yet we claim that we have to support a military dictator in Egypt because the elected president was an Islamist. What the fuck do you think Iraqi democracy, which we helped to bring in existence is. Saudi Arabia, which has been attached the Pentagon hip for more than half a century, is not Islamist? Their monarchy's sole source of legitimacy, as the custodians of the two holy mosques, is based in their endorsement of the Salafist priestly class. And in exchange, the priestly class turns the other way while the renumerative princelings spend a lot of time in Europe fucking whores and drinking whiskey.
"If 9/11 had never happened, do you think would've supported an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in order to secure women's rights there? What is the state of women's rights in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What should the US military do about that?"
Those who advocate US military intervention into other countries "to protect the women and children" don't seem understand that, even in the unlikely event we ever truly wanted to invade a country to simply to "protect the women and children," that that is not a legal basis for us to invade another country. Any such unilateral action on our part would be illegal, (as was our invasion of Iraq).
Skipping way ahead, as I understood it, a number of Iranian military installations were off the inspection list. Also, did the JCPOA address ballistic missile issues? Apologize for my thread ignorance.
In other words, Trump wants us to continue to be (and expand upon its role as ) the self-appointed boss of the world. The rest of the world is not what it was 50 years ago, and will not so readily sit back and take it.
Cookie, I don't think Trump is the globalist that his predecessors were. But he does--and we do--need to be aware that when there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it. And I guess we'd prefer it wasn't Russia or China.
And please, Cookie, don't try to tell us that Russia and China have no such ambitions.
that's largely true, we derived the model from the arms control formula, devised for the soviets, which they sold to credulous sorts like joe biden,
@Milwaukie:
Skipping way ahead, as I understood it, a number of Iranian military installations were off the inspection list. Also did the JCPOA address ballistic missile issues? Apologize my ignorance.
The JCPOA includes a provision for the JCPOA to be able to inspect any site that it desires under an agreed upon timeframe. The maximum that the Iranians could delay such a request is 24 days, which would not be sufficient for eliminating evidence of nuclear research. This was an important concession to make to the Iranians because they had concerns that the inspections would be used as a cover for covert intelligence agencies to gain information on their military, as happened against Hussein during the 90's inspections.
No, ballistic missiles were not included, because the agreements from the start were limited to the nuclear program and not other aspects of Iran's military capabilities. It would not have been possible to obtain consensus among the negotiators if the scope had been expanded in that way. That is also why US sanctions on Iran over its missile activity remained and were not halted or altered by the JCPOA.
@Robert Cook:
Those who advocate US military intervention into other countries "to protect the women and children" don't seem understand that, even in the unlikely event we ever truly wanted to invade a country to simply to "protect the women and children," that that is not a legal basis for us to invade another country. Any such unilateral action on our part would be illegal, (as was our invasion of Iraq).
International law is only interesting to us when we can use it as a bludgeon against our enemies. We're never expected to abide by it because we're the city on the hill, the indispensable nation, the leader of the free world, blah blah blah
"Cookie, I don't think Trump is the globalist that his predecessors were. But he does--and we do--need to be aware that when there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it. And I guess we'd prefer it wasn't Russia or China."
Rather than assuming we must be the dominant power in the world or Russia or China will be, perhaps we should be thinking along the lines of cooperation and powers held in mutual check for collective benefit, with no one nation holding dominant power.
oh, really,
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/08/amy-klobuchar-trump-foreign-policy-game-show/
"Assuming Iran is not a good faith rational actor would be more likely imo."
Why assume we are a good faith rational actor?
thinking along the lines of cooperation and powers held in mutual check for collective benefit, with no one nation holding dominant power.
Yes, like the Soviet Union, which Cook still misses. And Bernie, of course, although I'm not sure the Soviets ever advocated cannibalism.
perhaps we should be thinking along the lines of cooperation and powers held in mutual check for collective benefit, with no one nation holding dominant power.
Uh-huh. And I know of some desert property you might be interested in...
"Let the lefties like Inga go fight for the women."
I well remember how the left applauded W for improving women's rights in Afghanistan.
"For the umpteenth time, the JCPOA does not require us to "trust their word."
That is being naive, J. Farmer. Sure, there are protocols for verification, but the very fact that you can't investigate a suspicious site at a day's notice should tell you, at the very least, that you are depending a great deal on the word of the Iranians. In any case, you can't even get the 24 day notice for a site you don't even know exists. The agreement is largely based on faith that the Iranians won't try to cheat, and I see no reason to believe that. My starting assumption is always going to be that Iranians moved most of the real work and materials long before the agreement was signed, and left just enough to make it look convincing.
The agreement might be better than nothing, but probably not by much a margin, and certainly not by enough to laud it endlessly like it was some sort of great breakthrough.
Uh-huh. And I know of some desert property you might be interested in...
Instead of merely mocking the idea, why not explain why you think it is incorrect?
@Yancey Ward:
Sure, there are protocols for verification, but the very fact that you can't investigate a suspicious site at a day's notice should tell you, at the very least, that you are depending a great deal on the word of the Iranians.
The link I posted eight hours ago, and that you still haven't read, addresses this issue with real world references to the Kalaye and Parchin facilities.
The agreement is largely based on faith that the Iranians won't try to cheat, and I see no reason to believe that.
It, in fact, does the opposite. It presupposes that the Iranians may try to cheat and erects several barriers to the Iranians being able to cheat. I would be much more open to listening to critiques of the deal if the critics actually demonstrated that they knew the first thing about it.
Isaac Ben-Israel, the head of the Israeli Space Agency, a former head of the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure, a former IDF general, and former advisor to Netanyahu said the folliwing: "It [the JCPOA] had weaknesses, but I didn’t believe we should fight what seemed like a reasonable opportunity to delay Iran’s nuclear program. Basically it is an inspection deal that gives us good monitoring of Iran’s nuclear efforts. That was the opinion of most Israeli experts, by the way. We didn’t want to see the deal fail."
My starting assumption is always going to be that Iranians moved most of the real work and materials long before the agreement was signed, and left just enough to make it look convincing.
Great. Provide some evidence for that assumption. Otherwise, it's just something you pulled out of your ass.
International law exists to the extent it can be enforced.
That is no different than other subsets of law, as noted in all introductory texts on the subject.
Nobody can enforce international law.
Therefore, it is not properly classified as "law" and anything that pretends it is cannot be fundamentally correct.
But the words might sound pretty.
Wait...
I just realized...
The Iranians, J Farmer concludes, are smuggling?
In contravention of some "law" or international agreements?
You mean they're cheating?
Can that be proven to a metaphysical certainty?
Or is that probabilistically "true" to some reasonable approximation of truth?
So now let us consider whether Iranians would cheat in other contexts.
How would we "know" if they did?
(For those keeping score, I reorganized J Farmer's points above and revealed internal inconsistency.)
In history grad school I took a lot of Race/Class/Genderized courses and seminars--that was the mode, and nobody over there at the time could teach me any political or military history anyway (the latter was near-extinct).
These arguments use the same rhetoric and tropes, to an uncanny degree, as those made in the 1890s and afterwards when US overseas imperialism went into high gear. The racism was pretty thick on both sides (back then! bad then!) and I couldn't help but think, eventually, that somehow it all revolved around protecting little brown women from their little brown menfolk.
We should recall that Twain and many other great Americans were vociferously opposed to most American overseas crusades, and ask in the long run which side was the more congruent with reality on planet Earth.
One last for the moment: it's an irony, but Trump's relationship to the Saudis looks a lot like FDR's. He loved him some manly warlord autocrats--the kind who could bring slaves to a summit meeting--especially when his class could make a whole lot of money from a cozy relationship. And not much evidence of concern for the oppressed womenfolk.
Narr
Saudi oil American/Iranian oil British/Iraqi oil American and British/crumbs Dutch and French, what could be more fair?
Well prince salman is michael corleone whereas his father the king is decidedly old school (the latter was in charge of the camps that trained the hijackers, for operations in bosnia)
Instead of merely mocking the idea, why not explain why you think it is incorrect?
Because I've read a lot of history.
@Birkel:
Therefore, it is not properly classified as "law" and anything that pretends it is cannot be fundamentally correct.
But the words might sound pretty.
The only comment I made on international law was to point out that it is largely used for cynical and propagandistic purposes. If you doubt me, then you will have to explain why our government complains about other countries violating it. Especially since it doesn't exist in the first place.
The Iranians, J Farmer concludes, are smuggling?
A subset of Iranians, yes. This has been well known for a long time. Sanctions tend to hurt average folks while the elites are able to skirt them. I was unaware this was a controversial point, but I can direct you to the examples of Cuba in the latter half of the 20th century and Iraq in the 1990s. Who do you think bore the brunt of those sanctions? The Castro and Hussein families or ordinary Cubans and Iraqis?
In contravention of some "law" or international agreements?
You mean they're cheating?
As opposed to the JCPOA, we do not have a robust monitoring and verification regime within Iran to determine that they are abiding by the economic sanctions we've placed on their country.
So now let us consider whether Iranians would cheat in other contexts.
How would we "know" if they did?
I guess you think this is supposed to be some kind of killer gotcha point, yet you ignore the fact that I've addressed this over and over in this very thread. The premise of the JCPOA is that the Iranians would try to cheat.
(For those keeping score, I reorganized J Farmer's points above and revealed internal inconsistency.)
Sadly, no, you've merely attacked various strawmen that betray your incredibly shallow understanding of the points I have attempted to make.
@mockturtle:
Because I've read a lot of history.
And this history has taught you that balance of power relationships don't exist?
What reaulted the last time we redeployed:
https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Former-top-Hezbollah-official-found-shot-dead-in-his-home-601039?fbclid=IwAR1oXDeIgAtO80b6sREBgwu1F46U0ERh_nu_Rwtd0AkW2WA810iekYX3LWQ
Interesring:
https://m.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antisemitism/Israeli-students-violently-assaulted-in-Warsaw-601017
And this history has taught you that balance of power relationships don't exist?
Actually, Farmer, I could write a long dissertation on the pitfalls of 'balance of power' relationships in history. But I won't.
Actually, Farmer, I could write a long dissertation on the pitfalls of 'balance of power' relationships in history. But I won't.
Fair enough :)
No, J Farmer, I just repeated the things you typed.
The only distinction you have made is that a subset of Iranians does not equal Iranians.
And that's the thinnest available reed.
Now, you admit the Iranians know how to do things outside the rules to which they have agreed.
So all the "verification" and "enforcement" depends on their not knowing their own will (they want to cheat as the JCPOA acknowledged, according to you) and they wouldn't know how to cheat in their own country - and no international "law" exists to prevent their cheating.
Again, all I am doing is reorganizing your very thoughts.
You're welcome.
Now you can Smug Smugly and pretend to have won the argument.
Smug away.
What is your source for this claim?
Sorry, Farmer.
Would you be willing to put money on it?
Be serious.
The sanctions were imposed despite.................... There is absolutely no way of knowing this with any certainty. None. Tomfoolery indeed.
@Birkel:
No, J Farmer, I just repeated the things you typed.
Nothing you wrote was a repeat of anything I wrote.
The only distinction you have made is that a subset of Iranians does not equal Iranians.
Right, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is something distinct from Iranians write large. For what it's worth, they are not nuclear scientists, either.
Now, you admit the Iranians know how to do things outside the rules to which they have agreed.
The Iranians have not "agreed" to economic sanctions on their country.
So all the "verification" and "enforcement" depends on their not knowing their own will (they want to cheat as the JCPOA acknowledged, according to you) and they wouldn't know how to cheat in their own country - and no international "law" exists to prevent their cheating.
A prison is designed with the assumption that people may try to break out of them. That does not mean that everyone sent to a prison will try to break out, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't use prisons since someone might try to break out of them.
Now you can Smug Smugly and pretend to have won the argument.
I don't have to pretend.
@Roughcoat:
Sorry, Farmer.
Sorry for what?
Be serious.
I'm 100% serious. I'm a big believer in putting your money where your mouth is. If you care to take me up on it, let me know.
@Rusty:
The sanctions were imposed despite.................... There is absolutely no way of knowing this with any certainty. None.
So we reimposed sanctions on Iran over a nuclear program that we have no way of knowing any even exists? That doesn't even make sense.
Tomfoolery indeed.
Indeed.
Here's a fun game:
Name a single arms treaty that has been respected by all signatories over any substantial period of time.
Anybody?
Isn't there an old adage that says, "Treaties are made to be broken"?
I seem to recall Sun Tzu's theory on strategic withdrawal.
Has America respected her own side of treaties?
No chemical warfare research?
What's the CDC doing?
No new ICBM tech?
What was NASA doing?
Iran has evolved to a situation of meaningful control over Iraq. This includes everything from sanctions evading smuggling routes using Iraqi physical proximity and access to global markets and actual “Iranian Iraqis” (Shia Arabs most often) holding high office at provincial and national level. Iran has continued to enhance it’s economic and political dominance of Iraq, which us not something reflected in facts J Farmer is considering, but is nonetheless a major factor in the region: massive infrastructure for sanctions evasion and illicit control of significant parts of the Iraqi state. They continued of course to develop this situation while negotiating JCPOA, an agreement premised on a fictional world in which these facts can’t be considered.
I seem to recall Sun Tzu's theory on strategic withdrawal.
I remember his comments on tactical withdrawal but not on strategic withdrawal. I do have the book, The Art of War but I'm too lazy to look it up. What does he say?
Iran runs a huge part of Iraq. Does JCPOA make sense if Iran can make Iraq do things it is not allowed to do?
@mockturtle:
Isn't there an old adage that says, "Treaties are made to be broken"?
That is the nature of change over time. It says nothing about what we should be doing in the present.
@daskol:
Iran has evolved to a situation of meaningful control over Iraq.
I think that vastly overstates the dynamic between the two countries. Yes, Iran has political influence in Iraq for a variety of historical and cultural reasons, but that is far from being able to make Iraq do whatever it wants. Iraq remains a fractured and relatively weak power.
This includes everything from sanctions evading smuggling routes using Iraqi physical proximity and access to global markets
Yes, when you try to economically attack a country to make it do what you want, it will try to find ways to avoid such attacks. That's pretty standard.
Iran has continued to enhance it’s economic and political dominance of Iraq, which us not something reflected in facts J Farmer is considering, but is nonetheless a major factor in the region:
Iran's nuclear issue is a particular one. There are other ones. Saying that the nuclear deal was bad because it did not address some other non-nuclear issue with Iran is measuring it by the wrong metric. Also, what Iran is doing is no different from what any of the other regional powers are doing. They all use a variety of overt and covert means for jockeying for influence and power in the region. There is no reason for us to be in the middle of this.
Post a Comment