Failure is an orphan: the generals testify on the Afghanistan withdrawal
Generals Milley and MacKenzie testified yesterday that they told Biden that such a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was not recommended and would lead to disaster:
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee Tuesday, head of U.S. Central Command General Frank McKenzie confirmed that he initially recommended President Biden maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, contradicting the president’s claim that the military unanimously recommended total withdrawal.
McKenzie also warned that a full withdrawal would lead inexorably to the collapse of the Afghan forces and government.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, also present at the hearing, echoed McKenzie’s assertion, saying they both believed that a small footprint should be maintained until the Taliban complied with certain conditions for withdrawal. While neither general would say explicitly that they conveyed that opinion personally to President Biden, McKenzie said it “would be reasonable to conclude that” their evaluations were delivered to Biden ahead of the withdrawal.
This has been treated as bombshell news, because in a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Biden had said something quite different, which is “No one said that to me that I can recall.”
So here we are, in the land of the liars in which we have to figure out who, if anyone, is telling the truth. Of course an argument can be made that all of them are, because it’s certainly possible that they told Biden at the time and that he cannot recall it anymore. But actually, that doesn’t matter in terms of Biden’s decision-making process at the time, and what responsibility the generals have for the disaster.
They are obviously trying to say, “Don’t blame me!” But it’s possible they’re lying, too. I happen to think they’re telling the truth, though, for two main reasons. The first is that although they are boot-licking CYA cowards and lying is certainly something they’re willing to do, I don’t think they would give military advice that was obviously insane, or insanely stupid, as our military withdrawal from Afghanistan actually was. That plan bears the mark of the stupid, corrupt, and somewhat delusional president – with the help of some of his advisors such as Blinken.
The second reason I think the generals are telling the truth about their advice is because of something I wrote on September 20, which I’ll reproduce here:
…I think it’s instructive to look back and see what people in government were saying. For example, consider this article from April 22, written very shortly after Biden announced his withdrawal schedule.
One of the most curious bits of Congressional testimony to reflect on now was by General MacKenzie [emphasis mine]:…
“’My concern is the ability of the Afghan military to hold the ground that they’re on now without the support that they’ve been used to for many years,’ Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“‘I am concerned about the ability of the Afghan military to hold on after we leave, the ability of the Afghan air force to fly, in particular, after we remove the support for those aircraft,’ he added.
“Pressed later in the hearing on continuing to fund Afghan forces when U.S. troops withdraw, McKenzie said that without ‘some support,’ the Afghan forces ‘certainly will collapse.'”
So MacKenzie didn’t just supposedly say this to Biden. He said it in public, to Congress, in April of 2021, and this was reported in the news at the time. So it’s a matter of public knowledge. I’m not sure why I seem to have been the only one who is noticing at this point, but MacKenzie’s prior public statements seem worth considering as evidence that this is indeed what he also told Biden.
That hardly absolves either MacKenzie or Milley, however. As I’ve written from the beginning of the debacle, they should have resigned if they knew they were carrying out orders that weren’t just some small or even big error of judgment on the part of Biden (or whoever was giving them), but were insanely destructive and so against even common sense that even a small child could see that disaster would follow. They should never have been part of carrying them out, but not only did they implement them but then they made excuses and claimed things were going well. Now they are in CYA mode.
As for Biden, the main issue isn’t what he remembers now, although that of course is an issue. The more important question is what he knew then, back when he made his decisions, and why he made them in spite of both advice and ordinary common sense reasoning. The other issue is, of course, whether it was Biden who made the decisions at all.
What a horrific mess.
Surely you mean “Success is an orphan” (at least in this case).
In any event, the blame game begins. (Gentlemen, start your excuses…)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-leaders-blame-state-department-chaotic-afghanistan-evacuation-of-non-combatants
Well you gotta blame SOMEBODY…
(Wonder if this will be the impetus for Blinken to play his own deflection/distraction game and finally give Iran what “Biden” has intended to give them all along….)
Personally, I think we should have left in 2010 and said so in 2009. That was before the “George Floyd” mural and the Gender Studies degrees. The American elites that run our country have lost their minds and should not be allowed out without adult supervision. They thought Afghanistan was a game that they could play like “Monopoly” or “The Game of Life.” Those are real people who still live in the 7th century except for AK 47s. They will suffer tremendously as they sink back into the previous state. All the leftists complaining about colonialism should take note of that example.
Among other things, you can’t go wrong presuming State screwed(s) things up.
I know two adults who have had, for the decades I’ve known them, a contrarian streak. Tell each that a particular course of action is not productive, and he doubles down. Not a big deal. Just…without being secretive, goes ahead. Tell him another course of action is a good idea and…you’ll never see it.
Individual One, told he needs to lose weight–indeed walks around leaning backwards so as not to fall forward on his pregnant-looking tummy–and he makes some clam chowder with whipping cream and full-fat butter. In your face without much in the way of advertisement.
The other… sort of the same. The first is suffering from dementia and his issue is worse and thus his health deteriorates faster than otherwise would be the case.
Confirmation bias is a tricky item, but maybe I can see the tendency in Biden and is it accelerating? Told what is the best idea by guys who, as a professional matter, know more than he does and so….
Otherwise, the combination of lies and flawed advice and numbers of people who have to be involved to screw up the plan–presuming it was the plan the generals have explained–would be excessive. Too many cooks to ruin the broth.
With any other POTUS and any other plan–hard to think of such a brainless catastrophe in our history–this possibility would never have occurred to anyone. Yet here we are.
My guess: Up until the last few weeks or so; the Biden team was letting him make decisions; such as to abruptly leave Afghanistan without consideration for all the things that could go wrong.
NOW, my guess is they will never again let Joe-Mentia make an important decision. They’re done with his leadership. They will says “Yes Joe” to his face but then make decisions predicated what they think is actually best; particularly the military without bothering to tell him they’re not taking his leadership anymore.
I think Biden was looking back to the “last helicopter out of Saigon”, which was ugly at the moment but had no long term consequences for the Dems despite a million people smuggling themselves out of Vietnam over the next five years due to the oppression of the Communists. He figured it would blow over in a few weeks and could then move on.
Of course, no one involved in this “chit show” will ever face any punishment for it.
But, the marine who publicly spoke out for accountability is now in military prison:
Marine in brig awaiting charges
Color me NOT surprised!
If some military advisor advised Biden to do what he did—-why hasn’t that advisor been fired?
(Hint—no military advisor so advised).
Milley’s response to Sen. Hawley’s question as to why he didn’t resign was particularly reprehensible. It also demonstrated an enormous amount of gall on four points.
1) Milley rightly claimed that resigning is a political statement. In not resigning, he thus implied that politically, he is at best, indifferent to the abandonment of thousands of American citizens, tens of thousands of our Afghan allies and the gifting to the Taliban of 80 Billion dollars worth of military equipment. In doing so, he spit upon the sacrifices of thousands of American military personnel and their loved ones. Milley admits to no personal responsibiity for the predictable destruction those weapons will wreck upon future innocent lives.
2) In his response to Hawley’s question, Milley lectured Hawley on the indispensable importance of civilian control of the military. Given Milley’s prior usurpation of control of our nuclear arsenal in the last days of the Trump administration, Milley exhibited an utterly shameless hypocrisy.
3) Milley said that since enlisted personnel cannot resign, his loyalty to his fellow warriors prevented his resigning as it would in effect be an abandonment of them. Apparently he holds the lives of military personnel of greater importance than that of US civilians. An utter repudiation of the very reason for the existance of the military.
4) I found Milley’s attempt at derailing criticism by bringing up his father’s death and sacrifice in WWII to be beneath contempt. Given his treasonous and despicable behavior, his father has to be rolling in his grave.
The ongoing question who is running the country looks like it was given to Sundowner in Afghanistan, he wanted out probably thinking as Paul in Boston says with no repercussions and a covering media behind him.
A change in that, maybe .
Neo wrote:
“That plan bears the mark of the stupid, corrupt, and somewhat delusional president[.]”
Absolutely perfect! Very well said, and I tip my hat to you!
As for Milley’s reason for not resigning, I’m with Geoffrey Britain on that. If he had any honor, he’d fall on his sword right after resigning. It is time for everyone in his presence to turn their back when he walks into a room.
I don’t think they would give military advice that was obviously insane, or insanely stupid, as our military withdrawal from Afghanistan actually was. That plan bears the mark of the stupid, corrupt, and somewhat delusional president – with the help of some of his advisors such as Blinken. — Neo
For what it’s worth, there are some reports that our DoD geniuses Milley and Austin are blaming the State Dept. in classified briefings.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/29/report-mark-milley-privately-blames-state-dept-for-deadly-afghanistan-failure/
https://www.axios.com/milley-state-department-afghanistan-evacuation-ebb00a6b-a59d-42b9-b5e0-348b0227b89b.html
Richard,
Why would Biden listen to those more knowledgeable? After all, if they were so smart… they’d be President!
That’s ‘proof’ that Biden’s smarter than them all. He doesn’t have to listen to anybody.
Someone gave the order to abandon Bagram overnight . If the President did it against the advice of his military advisers, he should be impeached-at a minimum. If it wasn’t the President, somebody should be court-martialed. Or tried for treason.
Boatbuilder:
Biden gave the order to cut back to 700 troops while the evacuation proceeded. The generals knew that 700 was insufficient to keep Bagram plus the embassy, so they jettisoned Bagram.
they should have resigned if they knew they were carrying out orders that weren’t just some small or even big error of judgment on the part of Biden (or whoever was giving them),
And they still should have resigned, if they had a speck of feeling for the worldwide consequences of the disastrous bugout, or for the thousands of Afghans who’d supported their military operations in-country for twenty years, or for the ‘unlucky’ Americans who’d be left behind by the ill-organized bugout (BLINKEN!). But no, they didn’t, their careers as polished butt-kissers would be damaged, and those were paramount.
General Milley’s explanation of what he said and the circumstances around it and who knew, about alerting the Chinese before an attack, sounds less like treason and more like he was smooth talking them than what was first reported.
Depends on who you believe.
Why did they not resign? Well, the adults are now back in charge! I don’t know what the psychological condition is called, but the idea of resignation was never even considered cuz Milley and Austin concluded that all those other uber smart adults must have known what they were doing. Those same guys hired Austin and kept Milley, so they must be smart, right? Yes, just a long, roundabout way of me saying that those guys are weak.
I love the I will not resign because that is political, but talking to an author and making political decisions is not political. I wish I was a general, they can have their cake and eat it too.
While the testimony of the Generals skewers Biden, it does not absolve them.
Regardless of what they recommended, they knew that Biden was hellbent on leaving. So, they needed to develop and execute plans to make that happen in an orderly fashion. They failed miserably.
Like recalcitrant school boys, they should be required to publicly assess their leadership in response to a surprising and stressful situation viz a via that of earlier Generals in worse straits. Off hand, I think of the 1st Marine Division’s withdrawal from the Chosin River after the surprise Chinese attack. And, earlier, the stand at Bastogne, and elsewhere, during the Battle of the Bulge. Not to mention Patton’s race across France to relieve the pressure of the surprise German offensive.
This public display should occur after they are summarily fired.
While the testimony of the Generals skewers Biden, it does not absolve them.
Regardless of what they recommended, they knew that Biden was hellbent on leaving. So, they were obligated to develop and execute plans to make that happen in an orderly fashion. They failed miserably.
Like recalcitrant school boys, they should be required to publicly assess their leadership in response to a surprising and stressful situation viz a via that of earlier Generals in worse straits. Off hand, I think of the 1st Marine Division’s withdrawal from the Chosin River after the surprise Chinese attack. And, earlier, the stand at Bastogne, and elsewhere, during the Battle of the Bulge. Not to mention Patton’s hastily organized race across France to relieve the pressure of the surprise German offensive.
This public display should take place after they are summarily fired.
I so agree with Geoffrey Britain & others concerning Milley’s cop-out for not resigning. Politics? LOL!!!!!!
A truly appalling, absurd cop-out!
Those military advisors represent all the self-serving “leaders” who have too secure a status.
The Stephanopoulos interview takes on added significance given the congressional testimony from this past week. Go back and read that transcript- Stephanopoulos’ question on this topic was extremely precise and detailed– this question no doubt was arranged prior to the interview for the explicit purpose of having Biden say, again precisely, that he couldn’t recall contrary advice. Note that Biden didn’t flat out say there was no contrary advice- only that he couldn’t recall any. This was the Biden team’s attempt at getting out in front of any leaks from within that Biden had completely ignored such advice.
“…why hasn’t that advisor been fired?”
Because to fire someone would be to admit failure and responsibility, fecklessness and incompetence.
THAT simply can’t be done because of, well, THE GOAL.
And so that gang hangs together, accuses together, prevaricates together, DESTROYS TOGETHER.
That is, when your overarching goal is to full-steam “transform” (IOW destroy) your country, then you blame everyone else but yourselves. You hang together. You lie about EVERYTHING. (Palestinian Rules.)
And no, you CANNOT admit failure.
Keeping in mind:
“The Afghanistan operation [i.e., strategic and tactical catastrophe] was a great strategic and tactical success.”…
…and “It was ALL Trump’s fault.”…
…and “We don’t admit nuthin’.”
We are through the looking glass (and a most sinister one at that) where everything is FALSE, where NOTHING makes sense because EVERYTHING HAS TO be true and EVERYTHING HAS TO make sense…
…in order to achieve the OVERARCHING, GLORIOUS goal…
“He couldn’t ‘recall’ contrary advice….”
Ah yes, the tried and true “James Comey” defense! (Works every time!!)
OTOH, that Afghanistan “business” WAS indeed such a long time ago….
Shorter version: Let’s put that behind us for the GOOD OF THE NATION…. Can’t see the point of those Republicans (and those Trumpists who support them) POUNCING on the government of OUR GREAT COUNTRY, picking at that scab. WHAT FOR? Except to weaken OUR GREAT COUNTRY and denigrate our BRAVE ARMED FORCES… Simply DEPLORABLE, indefensible, anti-American behavior…..
“We don’t admint nuthin'”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-administration-denies-entry-chartered-rescue-flight-carrying-american-citizens
The coverup continues apace…
Plus:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/generals-confess-pentagon-knew-within-hours-drone-strike-killed-afghan-civilians
But let us never forget that 13 of our finest and 10 innocent Afghans (at least) died because of these people’s actions. I’m sure their loved ones won’t so neither should all of us.
We were going to leave at some point, and it was going to be a mess.
Trump’s negotiations with the Taliban committed us to leave by May 1, and in return the Taliban agreed not to attack the US/NATO forces. Biden pushed that back to September 1, and the Taliban agreed to the extension, but insisted it was a hard deadline. If the US/NATO were still in country after 9/1, the war against them would be back on. We would be in the midst of heavy fighting right now if we had stayed.
A bigger issue is the claim by witnesses at the airport that after the bomb went off, guards at the airport gunned down dozens of people in the crowd. The claim is that most of the 200 dead were shot dead by guards.
We have abandoned a theater in a fourteen hundred year war. The benefit is…some people who know nothing think this is a good thing, leading to a greater peace.
Other than that, and the certainty of more casualties in the immediate future, nothing’s changed.
One of the generals mentioned Pakistan as a “sanctuary”. Post war history shows the usefulness of a sanctuary, from Yugoslavia in the Greek civil war to Pakistan. Including the Yalu River, off again, on again target restrictions in North Viet Nam, and China off limits altogether. You can’t win against a movement with a sanctuary.
Running an experiment with a variable; back in the day, Tito closed off the commie’s sanctuary and their movement in Greece collapsed.
bob sykes:
Trump’s agreement committed us to nothing unless the Taliban fulfilled their side of the bargain. He also says he would have kept Bagram and the 2500 the generals recommended.
Trump considers such agreements things which he has no trouble walking away from if the other side violates them.
To say it would have been “messy” is to say something pretty meaningless. Everything in war is at least somewhat “messy.” What happened under Biden wasn’t just “messy”: it was a stupid, senseless debacle, easily prevented by following the dictates of common sense.
neo
Is there a history of POTUS fixing the troop limit for an operation? See “Operation Kayla Mueller” on youtube. Massive resources. Were they limited by Trump’s diktats?
Why would anybody involved in the planning even ask. Isn’t it, “Mr. President, this is the plan.” POTUS. “More details, please.” Generals give details. POTUS says, “knock off two thirds of the troops”
Whoever it was who did whichever, it seems pretty unlikely.
The thing about a plan is that whoever reduces the commander’s requirements is taking responsibility for catastrophe which may well follow. Hierarchially, it may still be possible to blame the commander, but everybody knows anyway. But mostly you can’t duck it if you unilaterally pull requirements.
Richard Aubrey:
Was WHO limited by Trump’s diktats? The generals advised him, after he set the general policy, on how best to go about it, whether it was a good idea, what the pitfalls might be, and how many troops it would take. He could take or leave their advice. From what I’ve read about Trump, he tended to do what they recommended in terms of troops, although he set the goals.
Biden wasn’t limited by anything Trump agreed to.
I’ve read that LBJ tried to fine-tune things, even to the extent of choosing bombing targets, and that that was a problem. However, I don’t know whether it’s true.
Biden seems to have ignored his generals’ recommendations for troop numbers (and quite a bit else) and overriden them. As CIC he is allowed to do that, but most presidents haven’t done that as far as I know. They have respected the idea that generals probably know better than they how many troops it takes to accomplish a certain stated task.
I suppose Eisenhower could have been an exception, because he knew at least as well as his generals and probably better.
My question about limits was related to Operation Kayla Mueller. Massive assets. Delta operators, 75th Ranger Regiment, 160th Special ops Aviation Regiment, MC130 aerial refueling ships, fighter cover, and Navy ships in the Persian Gulf (presumably spinning up their missiles just in case). Did Trump cut down the planned resources? Why would he?
I doubt FDR told Marshall prior to D-Day that they didn’t need that many battleships for gunfire support. Or anything else.
Question more broadly is it true that Biden cut down the number of troops? It seems so nuts that it’s hard to believe.
It’s the sort of thing one would not think of in reviewing the plan. ” Troop numbers…? Got to rethink that one. What were the generals thinking? No, only need seven hundred.”
How did the subject arise? Did the generals object?
It would be like me telling the guy making the omelets that he’s cracking the eggs wrong and should have his wrist looser. Otherwise I’m leaving the restaurant.
I’m having trouble describing the idea of how unlikely it seems to me that any presentation of the plan would even be involving the numbers. Present the numbers almost by-the-way. “We’ve got eleven hundred at Bagram, fourteen hundred in Kabul securing the airport.”
Biden’s eyes light up?
Not. Getting. It.