David Roberts Profile picture
Aug 22, 2021 21 tweets 4 min read Read on X
OK, I will probably regret this, but I'm going to do a thread on Afghanistan, because something about the current discourse is baffling me. I'll lay out the situation as I see it & then hopefully someone smart can answer my question.
We've been in Afghanistan for 20 years. At first it was to diminish terrorist capacity, but that pretty quickly faded & the new mission was state-building: building a gov't & a military that could prevent the Taliban from taking back over.
Through all those 20 years, all the surges & drone strikes & wasted money & lost lives, we have failed utterly in that mission. The gov't was weak & lacked support outside Kabul. The military was a shitshow (often responsible for its own atrocities).
We've known for a while that the state-building is futile (Biden told Obama when he was VP), but in US politics, sticking w/ a disastrous military intervention is less politically risky than ending one, so no one actually did it until Biden.
More or less everyone knew that, when the US finally left, the Taliban would take back over. Worth repeating: everyone knew this. No one knew or proposed any way of avoiding it, other than staying there forever. Some hawks would be fine w/ that, but the US people weren't.
Now, Biden -- along with *everyone else*, including US intelligence agencies -- believed that, while the gov't & military were weak, they would, at least, fight off the Taliban for a few weeks or months. Everyone thought that Taliban takeover would take a while.
It is obviously clear now that the Taliban was more prepared, and the gov't & military even weaker, than anticipated. The takeover happened much faster than anyone (again: anyone) predicted. It made for some ugly imagery, though things have proceeded fairly well since.
So, here are some possible criticisms of Biden:
1. He should have prevented the Taliban takeover. But the only way he could have done that is by staying forever. Unless you support that, you're acknowledging that the harms of Taliban takeover were inevitable.
2. He should have evacuated Americans & allies before announcing the withdrawal. But as Biden has said, doing so would have been waving a giant red flag -- an unmistakeable signal to everyone that the gov't & military were going to collapse. He didn't want to signal that. Now ...
... in retrospect, given how rapid the takeover was, it probably wouldn't have made much difference. But again, no one knew it would be so fast. The admin wanted to give the gov't & military a sporting chance. That made sense given the info they had at the time.
3. Biden should have slowed down the Taliban takeover, to give more time for orderly withdrawal of Americans & allies. But the only way to do that would have been yet another "surge" of troops. As Biden asked, would you want your kid to be the last one to die in a futile war?
4. Given how rapid the Taliban takeover turned out to be, Biden should have evacuated more ... competently. But what does this mean? There have been comparatively few lost lives. People are getting out now. How, *specifically*, should Biden have evacuated differently?
The characteristic feature of Afghanistan discourse among pundits & VSPs is that virtually no one grapples with these questions honestly. You've got pundits who haven't said shit about a disastrous waste of money & lives for 20 years suddenly caring.
You've got Republicans who wouldn't piss on a refugee if they were on fire going on TV to weep crocodile tears about the Afghanis left behind. You've got people waving their hands around "competence" while refusing to say what could have been done differently.
You've got people still putting "Biden's catastrophe" in their headlines when, after one chaotic/ugly day, we've had five days of relatively orderly withdrawal, with very few casualties. You've got the Republican architects of this whole epic fuckup on TV backseat driving (😡)!
Here's what happened: we got hit on 9/11, it activated all our worst impulses, we lunged into an endless war with no chance of success, we predictably failed, and now an elite class with a lifetime of American-exceptionalism delusions just can't fucking deal with it.
It is tragic what's happening in Afghanistan. It's tragic what's *going* to happen, especially to women & girls, especially to Afghanis who put their lives on the line to help us. It's absolutely awful. But after 20 years, we have to accept: there's not much we can do about it.
Turns out we're not the world's Superman, just a blundering, violent oaf, stepping on rakes. It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially for a relatively insular US population that has had nationalist mythology blown up its ass for as long as it's been alive.
But it is dysfunctional & dishonest to take all that negative feeling, all that humiliation & impotence & rage, & channel it into ... bashing Joe Biden, the president who finally had the gonads to end this thing. Ending it was always going to be ugly. The choice ...
... was an ugly ending or staying there forever. Just once, I'd like to see this country grow the fuck up & take responsibility for its mistakes & acknowledge the limits of its power, to see itself from the outside rather than from within a haze of self-serving mythologies.
As it is, looking around at the way US elites have responded to this, I have no faith that we won't do something equally stupid in response to another attack. We refuse to learn.

Anyway, that's my Afghanistan take. Had to get it off my chest. You may yell at me now. </fin>

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Roberts

David Roberts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drvolts

Apr 15
Polls & surveys found that most Americans were amenable to civil rights back in the early 60s, but thought that *other* Americans *weren't*. Sociologists call this "pluralistic ignorance" -- ignorance about other people's views. Now pluralistic ignorance is back ...
... around climate change. A new study found that most people are willing to act to address climate change, but believe that *other* people *aren't* willing. "Respondents vastly underestimate the prevalence of climate-friendly behaviors and norms." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Now here's the good news: "Correcting these misperceptions in an experiment causally raises individual willingness to act against climate change as well as individual support for climate policies."

When people find out other people are on board, it strengthens their resolve!
Read 8 tweets
Apr 14
One of the main reasons renewable energy is going to triumph in the end is, IMO, not well understood by the general populace, so here's a quick 🧵on it.

Over time, the price of fossil fuels is determined by two forces pulling in opposite directions. On one hand ...
... there's the physical resource itself (oil, gas, or coal), which, all things being equal, will drive costs up. Why? Simple: it is finite and we harvest the easy stuff first. As time passes, we have to dig or drill deeper & exploit lower quality deposits.
This is why "peak oil" has been such a persistent concern over the years -- it's based on the (true) notion that oil is getting harder to reach & refine. But it keeps not happening. Why? Because of the other force: the advancement of the technology used to exploit the resource.
Read 14 tweets
Apr 13
Right-wing men: women will not stay with us voluntarily, because we are emotionally illiterate, violent assholes, so as a society we must force them.
I do feel sorry for RW men raised in RW households because at some point they conclude that becoming an interesting, thoughtful, kind person that people *want* to be with is impossible, so they start thinking about how to force themselves on people.
But of course, even if you can force a woman to stay with you, even if you can force social media sites to promote you, even if you can buy up media & force yourself into homes, you can't force people to *like* you & ultimately that's what humans want/need -- to love & be loved.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 11
The authors of White Rural Rage respond to critics: "scholars of rural politics bend over backward to avoid saying anything that might reflect poorly on rural whites—even when it means downplaying their own research."

newrepublic.com/article/180570…
I could thread on this subject forever but I just want to make one point: whenever this subject comes up, people who criticize the attitudes & behaviors of rural whites are accused of "looking down" on them. I think this gets it backward in important ways.
What does it mean NOT to look down on someone? Well, to me that means: taking the person seriously, treating them like a peer, an autonomous agent capable of making decisions & being responsible for them.

That's what it means to treat someone respectfully, as an adult.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 9
As usual, Rufo's play is obvious here (he always tells). With an AI that can review giant quantities of text quickly, you will inevitably find the kind of picayune citation issues that brought down Gay. It will find stuff of at least that level *anywhere* you point it. But ...
... of course Rufo is only pointing it at black women. Here's how things will/must go: this AI will be pointed at more & more scholars, and then book authors, & then popular writers, & soon we will discover that "plagiarism," by the strict current definition, is ubiquitous.
Then, eventually, we will find our way to new standards -- we will distinguish malicious plagiarism, the uncredited stealing of others' ideas, from the kind of sloppy or irresponsible plagiarism of which Gay (& I'm guessing virtually every other high-output scholar) was guilty.
Read 7 tweets
Apr 2
Some fascinating public-opinion research on EVs from Potential Energy. It's worth scrolling through the whole thing but here are a couple of things that jumped out at me. 🧵 potentialenergycoalition.org/wp-content/upl…
First & perhaps least surprising: EVs have been polarized. That cat is out of the bag. Image
This is the most interesting chart -- messages about EVs & who buys them, by party. This really shows the challenge. Most people, from both parties, believe that EVs cost too much & don't go far enough. And what's perhaps worse ... Image
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(