Biden Thread

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/...76587946913798

[Viking]

Audre Lorde is of course one of the most celebrated philosophers and activists on the American left, and you clearly don't know enough about her contributions to venture which ones are dubious.

The article is about Cullors, not Lorde.

According to this invalid invocation of the concept of the normal distribution, I could speculate that 10-year-olds will present the same mortality distribution as 100-year-olds. And I am absolutely certain you know better.

Yes, they are part of the same distribution - mortality is not zero for ten-year-olds. An important thing to note about about mortality, is that it has a (skewed) U-shaped distribution: the mortality rate increases very steeply as the age approaches 0 from higher ages. Presumably due to the drastic change of environment birth represents.

U-shaped distributions are also natural candidates for various traits along political spectrums (and no, using binary categorization in the form of two political parties will not work as a substitute for an actual political spectrum).

What is advanced without evidence (or coherence) can be rejected without evidence. Notwithstanding that most of my positions have been evidenced. You're the one interjecting yourself with disconnected bald assertions and gnomicisms, so the onus to actually generate some sort of argument is on you. Trying to put it on me while you're being so evasive and illogical is bound to be taken as disrespectful.

I've given you so many opportunities up to now that I don't believe you have anything interesting to say.

Given the handicapping of the debate here, the continuing use of strawmen, the continuing assumption of bad faith, and the continuing use personal attacks, I am not going to be bothered with this debate.

[ReluctantSamurai]

What else would you expect from this guy:

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/statu...39629375496192

These sorts of stunts are so unbelievably off-putting and stupid

Says a man whose net worth is around $20 million...

And even from her own district:

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/edi...3f7ec6b5f.html

She is generating a lot of headlines but not necessarily for the right reasons, mainly because she clearly misunderstands the complicated process required to restore the moratorium. As with many progressive ideals, righteous-sounding aspirations never seem to take into account political reality.

Well, editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cori Bush obviously understands political reality better than you, because those very same headlines you poo-poo, got results, however temporary. And you folks miss the point...restoring the eveiction moratorium just kicks the can down the road a ways. How about you pundits, in all of your editorial wisdom talk about what's necessary to address the real problem here, which is multi-billion dollar cororations driving up the costs of housing for profit, and the fact that millions of Americans are paid poverty-level wages and can't afford the housing?

Progressives, for all their flaws, are trying to at least bring these root causes to the forefront, while you sit in your air-conditioned offices and dump on at least one Congresswoman who's actually earning her paycheck...

[Hooahguy]

A good-faith question about the eviction moratorium though: whats the end game here? Like we cant keep kicking the can down the road forever, but at the same time a lot of families wouldnt be able to afford to pay ~18 months of rent at one time, all but guaranteeing their eviction. My thought is that perhaps a rule saying that rent back payments be made in installments rather than all at once, but the moratorium has to end eventually.

[ReluctantSamurai]

My thought is that perhaps a rule saying that rent back payments be made in installments rather than all at once, but the moratorium has to end eventually.

Yes, it has to end eventually. Not all landlords are big corporations, and those people have bills to pay, as well. There's still roughly $44 billion in federal aid designated specifically to help with this, sitting unused. Delegating disbursement to the states was a mistake, IMHO, as few states have the infrastructure to do the said disbursement. And the language of the two bills that set up the funds to begin with, are overly complicated, and in some ways very vague.

Addressing the root causes for this mess is going to take a lot of time, if it ever happens at all. But in the meantime, get this money disbursed and pursue avenues like the installment payments you suggested...

[Hooahguy]

Pretty big news regarding the infrastructure bill: the Senate defeated a filibuster on the $1.2 trillion bill, with 18 Republicans defying Trump and voting for the bill. While the bill itself is much smaller than Biden's original infrastructure plan, its still a definite win. An infrastructure bill was joked about for four years, and now Biden will be able to add another big win before the midterms. Now the real question is what can/will be done regarding an infrastructure bill via reconciliation.

[Montmorency]

Pretty big news regarding the infrastructure bill: the Senate defeated a filibuster on the $1.2 trillion bill, with 18 Republicans defying Trump and voting for the bill. While the bill itself is much smaller than Biden's original infrastructure plan, its still a definite win. An infrastructure bill was joked about for four years, and now Biden will be able to add another big win before the midterms. Now the real question is what can/will be done regarding an infrastructure bill via reconciliation.

To be clear, the new spending in the bill is $550 billion; the contents are fairly close to the Republicans' initial offer. I'll have to think more about the policy drawbacks once it's passed, but in terms of optics I wouldn't expect much more benefit to accrue to Democrats than to Republicans (who naturally can have things both ways by denouncing the deal and appropriating any of its benefits). The signal concern remains whether Democrats can implement the agenda unilaterally. Maybe the right flank of the party would like another dip at the well depending on the polling for this bill, or on the other hand they could see their mission as accomplished (with the party losing all remaining leverage over them until at least the midterms).

[Hooahguy]

in terms of optics I wouldn't expect much more benefit to accrue to Democrats than to Republicans (who naturally can have things both ways by denouncing the deal and appropriating any of its benefits).

Considering the ranting and raving Trump is doing about Republicans who voted for the bill, Im wondering if that will negatively impact turnout for those who voted yes, much like how he negatively impacted the GA runoffs. But we shouldnt miss the forest for the trees here. Is it a perfect bill? Definitely not. Definitely doesnt go far enough about climate change for example, so we can hope that a reconciliation bill can rectify it. That being said, part of Biden's shtick was "I will move past the gridlock to get stuff done in a bipartisan way" and in that regard this is undoubtedly a win and something to campaign on.

[rory_20_uk]

The Bill that has been passed is barely enough to complete emergency repairs. If this is the best result that bipartisanship can manage then hard questions have to be asked whether another four years are squandered whilst significant infrastructure that was past its expected useful life roughly 20 years ago degrades further... or whether a more drastic approach is taken.

Functioning infrastructure in a country is a key facet of the country's ability to support the military in an old fashioned brute force approach, let alone economic war. And one could easily say that this is an emergency.

If it is an emergency, then perhaps utilise emergency powers and divert money from the military (or resources) to start repairing the infrastructure.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Two things:

How is the new spending being paid for? If the bulk falls on the average taxpayer through regressive taxes, and leasing public infrastructure to private business (which rarely turns out well for the public), the long-term effect on Democrats will not be so good, IMHO.

https://nrcne.org/a-guide-to-underst...guide_jan2017/)

If the bi-partisan bill passes first, then the attempt to pass further legislation through reconciliation is DOA.

[Montmorency]

Because the equation fundamentally remains that the most bought-and-paid-for Democratic senator can contract out their liberum veto to their "handlers" in order to pass legislation redounding to their party's and their own political benefit, while also watering it down to protect - even lard it to reward - whatever donors or constituencies they might need to. Whereas if no law, then no nothing.

btw this is the sort of thing I was talking about.

(Context: The 9 most conservative Dem Representatives refuse to support a party-line reconciliation package until the Senate compromise is passed in conference, among other things.)

Notably, the moderate House Democrats have been loading up the reconciliation bill with a series of conflicting demands. On the one hand, they have been complaining about its overall size and pushing to shrink down the headline number. On the other hand, they have been making their own costly demands. Josh Gottheimer, one letter signer, has been crusading for a restoration of the state and local tax deduction, a benefit for some of his affluent constituents. Jim Costa, another signer, wants to protect the heirs to massive fortunes from any taxation on their windfall.

These demands, notably, are not designed to protect the Democratic Party from the left’s unpopular baggage. Most of the broader debate has focused on the toxic brand damage of slogans like defunding the police and Green New Deal, but the moderate Democrats are, in this case, threatening to tank a highly popular agenda of taxing the very rich in order to give broad middle-class benefits. The moderate Democrats are the biggest obstacle to making the math work, simultaneously complaining about the size of the bill while ordering more expensive goodies for themselves.

Thaaaaat's the good old stuff.

[Furunculus]

not rory's biggest fan, but thought this was on point:

https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/st...47865933889543

[Pannonian]

not rory's biggest fan, but thought this was on point:

https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/st...47865933889543

You're blaming the wrong president.

Watch Rachel Maddow Highlights: August 20th | MSNBC

The Trump administration deliberately and systematically screwed the Afghans over.

"I started the process so the troops are coming back. 21 years is enough, don't we think? They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process...by a government that wouldn't last. The only way they'd last is if we were there for another 21 years, for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous, so we're bringing our troops back home from Iraq, we're bringing our troops home from Afghanistan."

Also testimony from insiders on how they deliberately delayed the visa processing so as to ensure that Afghans who worked with the US, who would be in line for reprisals that they knew were coming, would not get their visas before the US left.

[spmetla]

Both President's screwed up big time. Trump should never have dealt with the Taliban and Biden shouldn't have been over eager to pull out. I know both were eager to 'end the war' by closing our part in the war though that doesn't end the war at all.

The visa processing has been a joke since the program started. That's why I advised the two interpreters I worked with in 2013 to try and get immigration to Australian instead of the US (I was attached to a Australian led advisory team the 205th CAT), one of them is now in Australia and the other, no clue where he is.

Had a lot of turnover with interpreters though, some would steal shit and sneak off base, a lot go on leave and never return. Some would be intercepted on cell phones giving info to the Taliban about the base and Afghan Army and Police. Of the seven interpreters that worked for me directly in Afghanistan only two stayed with the linguist company all the way through my eleven months there.

It is crazy though the Trump amnesia so many are suffering, some hardline pro-Trump guys that are adamant that he would have made the withdrawal go better. They seem to forget Trump abandoned the Kurds from the actual battlefield without any warning after a phone call with Erdogan. He's also the guy that signed the withdrawal agreement without the Afghan government involved and then pressured the government to release thousands of Taliban prisoners.
Trump kept trying to just leave instantly with the DoD fighting him on it and wanting it to be conditions based and not just on a whim or timeline.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/polit...wal/index.html
Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper sent a classified memo earlier this month to the White House asserting that it was the unanimous recommendation of the chain of command that the US not draw down its troop presence in Afghanistan any further until conditions were met, sources familiar with the memo tell CNN.

The assessment from the chain of command -- Esper, US Central Command leader Marine Gen. Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie and commander of NATO's mission in Afghanistan Gen. Austin Miller -- stated that the necessary conditions had not been met. Others agreed, sources tell CNN, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
The memo is believed to have been one of the main reasons why outgoing President Donald Trump fired Esper last week.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/17/polit...ntv/index.html

Esper told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, "my concern was that President Trump, by continuing to want to withdraw American forces out of Afghanistan, undermined the agreement, which is why in the fall when he was calling for a return of US forces by Christmas, I objected and formally wrote a letter to him, a memo based on recommendations from the military chain of command and my senior civilian leadership that we not go further -- that we not reduce below 4,500 troops unless and until conditions were met by the Taliban."
"Otherwise," Esper continued, "we would see a number of things play out, which are unfolding right now in many ways."
Trump fired Esper in November 2020 in the wake of the presidential election.

Biden does still deserve the full blame for the conduct of the withdrawal this year though, he slowed it down by two months but that's about it, it could have been managed far better for the actual withdrawal so we weren't just making the ANA feel abandoned. The Afghan government could have gotten solid means of support short of the US fighting, the Taliban could have been at the least punished for continuing their violence and assassinations.

I'm really curious what Biden will do into the future, will the Taliban be a pariah state while whatever remainders that continue to resist get recognized? Will the Taliban be recognized as the legit government? There's a lot of questions that remain for the future that simply washing our hands of fighting do not answer.

[Montmorency]

not rory's biggest fan, but thought this was on point:

https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/st...47865933889543

"No US serviceman has been killed in Afghanistan in 18 months."

This is the kind of dishonesty we come to hate in our natsec mediocrities.

What happened exactly 18 months ago, one is compelled to ask.

The American government concluded a formal agreement with the Taliban provisioning, among other things, a path to US-Taliban armistice in exchange for a total American withdrawal.

That's why there were no American casualties* - Americans were hardly fighting!

From 2017 to 2020, when there were 8000-15000 American soldiers in Afghanistan, the Taliban continued to make gains, while killing tens of thousands of Afghan soldiers. Had we altered the 2020 deal too far, the Taliban would have besieged the remaining coalition forces, quickly overwhelming them absent reinforcement, entailing a fresh surge of thousands more troops and a reset in the "peace" process. There was no low-cost option in Afghanistan.

That's what we're talking about, Sir Lord Whoever-this-chump-is. By the way, South Korea hasn't been a warzone for 68 years; they trade with us, pay for our military presence there, and have even supplied their own armed forces to American campaigns. What a foolish thing to compare South Korea to Afghanistan.

*There were at least 2, but close enough.

Biden does still deserve the full blame for the conduct of the withdrawal this year though, he slowed it down by two months but that's about it, it could have been managed far better for the actual withdrawal so we weren't just making the ANA feel abandoned. The Afghan government could have gotten solid means of support short of the US fighting, the Taliban could have been at the least punished for continuing their violence and assassinations.

I'm really curious what Biden will do into the future, will the Taliban be a pariah state while whatever remainders that continue to resist get recognized? Will the Taliban be recognized as the legit government? There's a lot of questions that remain for the future that simply washing our hands of fighting do not answer.

I will disagree that there was any way to withdraw while still imbuing the Afghan government and military with the will to resist. Remember, the Taliban had been making covert deals for over a year already (that our world-class intelligence agencies somehow either couldn't uncover, or buried). Contagion dynamics had been at work on the ground for a long time already.

The main flaw in Biden's process is losing control of the process of evacuating Afghan partners and dissidents, which he should have been able to perceive was imminent no later than early July. Foreigners do fine, the Taliban has had little interest in harming them on its victory march.

See longer post in other thread.

Islamic Emirate will presumably be recognized by most countries by the end of the year as long as they can meet some minimal conditions of self-presentation. We watch how they handle the ongoing protests and civil resistance I suppose.



Useful Twitter thread recapping the past 18 months in Afghanistan:

Ok, since no one seems to know any of the history of Afghanistan before this week, a refresher:
2/29/20: There are 13,000 US troops there. Trump reaches deal with Taliban. Agrees Afghanistan Gov, which is not part of deal, will release 5,000 Taliban fighters. Requires Taliban...1
...to take action against al Qaeda, not to attack US troops or coalition forces, or launch high-profile attacks.
3/1/20: Afghan president freaks out, says US has no authority to commit to release prisoners held by Afghanistan. (Trump Admin forces it to happen anyway.)
...2
...
Despite there agreement not to attack any provincial capitals, Taliban unilaterally attacks Afghan forces in Helmand province.
3/19/2020: DOD IG says U.S. cut troop levels by more than 4,000, even though “Taliban escalated violence further after signing the agreement"...3
8/18/2020: DOD IG releases report saying Taliban didnt distance itself from terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. UN and U.S. "Taliban continued to support al-Qaeda, and conducted joint attacks with al-Qaeda members against Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.”...4
...in other words *every element of the agreement - dont attack, renounce terrorists, don't work with terrorists - had been violated.
9/3/2020: Afghanistan, pressured by Trump, has been releasing the 5,000 Taliban in jail. Last 400 released this day. They return to fighting...5
...9/16/2020: In continued violation of the Trump agreement, Taliban - reportedly working with al Qaeda - attacks 3 provinces in Northern Afghanistan....
...Immediately after election, Trump Admin leaks theyre going to do a massive, rapid withdrawal of US troops before inauguration. Distressed by reports, Rubio warns of “a Saigon-type of situation." McConnell says "would hurt our allies & delight the people who wish us harm"...6
11/17/2020: Without consulting with incoming administration, which is still being blocked from security briefings, Trump Admin announces rapid withdrawal of troops down to 2,500 by 5 days before inauguration. That's down from 13,000 the year before....7
...this was playing with people's lives. This was incompetence writ large. But here is where Biden screws up - by not more fully reversing the nonsense Trump had done.
2/3/2021: Afghan Study Group, created by Congress, urges Biden to abandon the Trump timetable, and set.../8
...withdrawal on all sides - both Afghan government and Taliban - meeting all commitments under a peace framework that had been reached. So, it would be based on status, not date.
3/25: Gen Richard Clarke of Central Op Command says Taliban has not met its obligations...9
...under treaties & frameworks.
4/14: Biden sets a deadline of 9/11 for getting out of Afghanistan, ignoring recommendation of the working group. This is the big mistake.
4/18: Trump rants and raves, saying Biden should start pulling everyone out beginning in about 2 weeks...10
...so yes, Biden made a mistake. But we are dealing with a situation where the former president pulled down troop levels to a ridiculous level just five days before inauguration, ignored attacks and violations of a treaty he hit, and pretended he had succeeded. He gave them...11
....5,000 fighters. I mean, look at this: The Taliban was violating *every term* of the treaty, and Trump pulled out 1000s of troops. Other than setting ourselves up for a firefight with the Taliban, the only options seemed to be bringing people back in, changing the timeline..12
...or this. I dont know. Its a cluster. Im not even sure I can call what Biden did a mistake. Did they have intel that the Taliban, which had been moving forward since Trump struck his stupid deal, was planning to attack our troops? Who were way outmanned? I dont know. But...13
...this idea that this had some other easy solution or if - instead, as Rubio & McConnell said in December - the rapid drawdown of troops by Trump set up a disaster, a Saigon-type situation that was handed off to Biden, I don't know. But this is what you get when you...14
...allow violations of treaties, petulant troop withdrawals, and media who seems to have no memory, and a political party hopeful that no one will remember. I am not excusing Biden. I just want experts to say,given the actual situation he was handed, how it should have been done.

[spmetla]

I will disagree that there was any way to withdraw while still imbuing the Afghan government and military with the will to resist. Remember, the Taliban had been making covert deals for over a year already (that our world-class intelligence agencies somehow either couldn't uncover, or buried). Contagion dynamics had been at work on the ground for a long time already.

I'll agree that with a total withdrawal it would be difficult perhaps impossible to give the ANA and government some spine. If perhaps, troops pullouts were put on hold when the Taliban still kept targeting everyone except the NATO forces that might have changed it, or if perhaps after the fall of the first provincial capital troops were put back in to Kabul and perhaps Kandahar airfield.
All the above however is simply more what ifs on my part. I was wrong completely on assuming the ANA would fight so my what ifs are worth nothing.
I won't however just accept that it was always going to be a debacle. The GIROA its ANA may have lost in the end but holding out for at least a few months would have allowed for the country to do decide its own future as those living under Taliban rule can weight their options versus those in GIROA rule, might even have won support for it. Instead this week and half of surrender without any major battlefield loss instead just conceding the battlefield completely has created a fait accompli for the Taliban. Even if the majority of the Afghans would have preferred the GIROA over the Taliban its a moot point now. Some resistance group may win some 'honor' for certain tribes and persons but the issue is already decided. The Afghan people now will only be able to vote with their feet if this 'bloodless' and quick victory for the Taliban would have been worth fighting against.
Biden however never seems to really have engaged in considering options or conditions there, he just wanted to be done with this war despite any consequences. Perhaps that call is the right one but I'd rather the US had stood by GIROA even if it meant our part in the war kept on in some limited capacity. We supported Iraq when it looked like ISIS would bowl them over and even sent in SOF again to assist the Kurds, if the collapse GIROA could have been slowed to the speed of Washington's decision cycle like ISIS in Iraq then perhaps some limited assistance could have been provided. The Iraqis learned the hard way that their Army needed some competent leadership instead of pure cronyism, the Afghans probably would have too if the endgame hadn't come so quickly.

The main flaw in Biden's process is losing control of the process of evacuating Afghan partners and dissidents, which he should have been able to perceive was imminent no later than early July. Foreigners do fine, the Taliban has had little interest in harming them on its victory march.

From what I've been reading it seems that he tried to keep the process slow at the request of the Afghan government because they imagined it'd be a complete flight of the entire bureaucracy and all intellectuals that would speed the collapse. Seeing as the collapse happened as quickly as the Taliban could drive a pickup truck I don't think it could have happened much quicker. Once Ghazni fell and Kabul was separated from Kandahar he should have sent troops to Kabul and Kandahar to speed the evacuation there. Allowing the Taliban to take Kabul before beginning the process was stupid. The decisions made in managing this crisis were horrendous and slow. Making big decisions like this aren't easy but clearly his people in the NSC and DoD made all the wrong calls or perhaps didn't voice their opposition or concerns strongly enough.

Esper and Mattis lost/resigned their jobs ensuring that Trump didn't just abandon the Afghans (both of them) and Kurds in Syria (only Mattis for Syria). The lack of anyone doing the same in Biden's administration makes me concerned about a culture of compliance. I welcome an investigation that will look into the decision making as well as the flow of the REAL info from the bottom up. One of the Democratic leaders in Congress should open such an investigation as it is merited and the administration should comply.

Islamic Emirate will presumably be recognized by most countries by the end of the year as long as they can meet some minimal conditions of self-presentation. We watch how they handle the ongoing protests and civil resistance I suppose.

Perhaps, but entry into all the international institutions that open up trade, finance, borrowing, etc will be a long time coming. The currently recognized Afghan government hasn't 'surrendered' and until it does we may end up in a Peoples Republic of China versus Republic of China situation except that the Afghan government has no more territory to retain any legitimacy. I don't think the Taliban will try for votes as with a battlefield victory from 'god' they don't need a mandate from the people.
Will be interesting for sure to watch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

None of the US administrations in this millennium handled Afghanistan flawlessly. There are plenty of miscues, misestimations, and not a little graft that can be spread around quite broadly across the tenures of each and every administration.

Oddly enough, it could be argued that Trump came the closest to fulfilling his vision for handling US involvement in Afghanistan -- he'd been arguing for a more or less complete and immediate withdrawal since 2011. Once in office, this was tempered by "the system," (I will set aside the argument over MilIndComplex greed v. inertia v. military organizational SOP's involved separately or in combination), but I think he was truly proud to have engineered the next thing to a sauve qui peut.

[Montmorency]

I just don't think the attempt to prop up the actually-existing client state was worth more effort and experimentation considering how much failure and lying the responsible American actors have to their names. It was a doomed project with any amount of time. As Senator Brian Schatz said on Twitter, "Maybe if you got all the wars wrong you are not an expert for a TV show but just a person who keeps getting foreign policy wrong."

Take this hypothetical: A certain Bernard S. is elected president in 2000. Unleashing his Communist sympathies, he declares 9/11 an opportunity to free the people of Afghanistan from the tyranny of brutal reactionary mysticism and redeem the fallen Democratic Republic. How long does this presidency, or its mission to export democracy, last?

Securing Kabul airport on August 13th (following the fall of Ghazni) vs. August 16th makes no difference, since either way we and our evacuees are at the mercy of the Taliban's designs and their pretense of securing the airport for us. It really should have happened a month earlier from the humanitarian standpoint. Because as I said in the other thread, the GIROA and Biden admin attempt to avoid mass panic and disintegration resulted in just that while stranding thousands of conceivably eligible Afghan refugees. By any means the primary criterion was unmet. July or very early August was the last chance to act on that end and physically remove as many people as possible before the extraction point fell behind the Taliban cordon. The Taliban had already taken the majority of the country by that time (which must have been unavoidable information for any intelligence briefing or briefer, or casual scan of mainstream news). As far as I'm concerned, for all that the Taliban are determined to weaken Afghan society, we may as well participate by Americanizing their "best and brightest."

In the case of IS we had a colorable excuse to intervene. The rise of IS as a conventional state was a larger threat to the international community and regional stability than the Taliban is now*, correspondingly drew in many competing international actors (allies/partners as well as competitors), involved comparatively-substantial anti-IS resistance from the Syrian and Iraqi states, and was logistically easier to manage as an intervention than Afghanistan.

There should be mass resignations in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA for - above all - their egregious abuses of this country's trust and resources.

Events have proven the Islamic Republic to be unpopular, which is not to imply a corollary of the Taliban's relative popularity. But remember, we deliberately designed GIROA and ANA to be a weak and dependent client state, rather than a self-sustaining cohesive nation. Maybe the latter wasn't feasible, but we did what we did.


*Anyone who would argue along the lines that the Taliban victory will eventually precipitate a revolutionary Islamist sweep across Pakistan and Central Asia, therefore necessitating a permanent American crusade against the Taliban, should be forced to make their case, among competing cases, to the public in no uncertain terms. Relentless coercive interventionism has received an objectively-disastrous level of affirmative action in this country's policy for over a century. It's time for a radically-different doctrine.

For decades, those charged with guarding U.S. national security have treated armed force as the ultimate form of engagement. The acid test of acting in the world — as opposed to retreating to contemptible (and mythical) “isolationism” — is possessing the capability and willingness to kill a lot of people in it. Whatever armaments may be necessary to defend the United States, this is a perverse ethic. In every other realm of human endeavor, we recognize brute coercion to be the antithesis of engagement among people; the resort to force, in the household or on the street, marks the breakdown of sociable interaction. Yet in U.S. foreign policy, when the call sounds to “do something,” the outcry is unlikely to stop until the bombs drop.

Do you know anything about US-Taliban refugee negotiations currently? Like so, but, you know, the opposite.

[spmetla]

I just don't think the attempt to prop up the actually-existing client state was worth more effort and experimentation considering how much failure and lying the responsible American actors have to their names. It was a doomed project with any amount of time.

We'll only see if the costly status quo was worth anything in the future. I think you overemphasize the client state nature, it was wholly dependent on foreign funding of course but was completely unaccountable to NATO forces. When Hamid Karzai wanted to restrict NATO operations to only the daytime that pretty much happened. When I was a mentor/advisor to Afghan security forces it didn't matter how ineffective or corrupt they were in my reports because no one on the NATO side could fire or hold Afghan forces to account. People like to think that the ANA and GIROA were puppets which they weren't, in a way it might have been in our interest if they were so we could actually tackle corruption instead of just wag our fingers against it. One could argue in Iraq and Afghanistan that by trying to hand over governance so early to the host population to gain legitimacy we lost the opportunity to regulate the competency of those governments which in the end meant they didn't gain more legitimacy. That's why I blame our injecting too much cash into their system which was already corrupt and remains so, it's not like NATO was running the show.
As for doomed, well the Taliban had only been in power for five years in 2001 and were far from popular in Afghanistan outside of of the south hence the Northern Alliance fighting against them and the help of lots of tribal leaders and fighters throughout the country to our SOF in defeating the Taliban.
One thing that made the British efforts in Malaya a success were the ability to control government and military efforts. In Afghanistan NATO has only had control of elements of the military part and not even the whole military strategy in regards to the ANA. They were a partner force, not a subordinate force.

Securing Kabul airport on August 13th (following the fall of Ghazni) vs. August 16th makes no difference, since either way we and our evacuees are at the mercy of the Taliban's designs and their pretense of securing the airport for us. It really should have happened a month earlier from the humanitarian standpoint. Because as I said in the other thread, the GIROA and Biden admin attempt to avoid mass panic and disintegration resulted in just that while stranding thousands of conceivably eligible Afghan refugees.

I was sort of advocating to secure more than just Kabul airport but some of the limits of the city. Kandahar airport however is completely separate from Kandahar city so that's a different matter. Reason I'd advocate for both is so that there'd be a 'port of departure' in the south as well. As for a month earlier, I'd agree for the most part, just it wasn't clear a month ago that the Taliban would sweep into power to even the Afghans.

Take this hypothetical: A certain Bernard S. is elected president in 2000. Unleashing his Communist sympathies, he declares 9/11 an opportunity to free the people of Afghanistan from the tyranny of brutal reactionary mysticism and redeem the fallen Democratic Republic. How long does this presidency, or its mission to export democracy, last?

Just like the last one Democratic Republic and the GIROA it'd last as long there was money to fund their army. Once the Soviet Union stopped supplying paychecks to the Afghan Army and spare parts for their equipment that government essentially fell. It'd be the same with this one as the size military needed to secure a country in turmoil is far larger than it would normally have if paid by their own means in peacetime.

In the case of IS we had a colorable excuse to intervene. The rise of IS as a conventional state was a larger threat to the international community and regional stability than the Taliban is now*, correspondingly drew in many competing international actors (allies/partners as well as competitors), involved comparatively-substantial anti-IS resistance from the Syrian and Iraqi states, and was logistically easier to manage as an intervention than Afghanistan.

It wasn't really a colorful excuse to intervene. Obama pulled out of Iraq willy nilly and dragged his feet on having to reenter the country as it was proof of his failure in not even attempting to keep some forces in Iraq. The slow collapse of ISIS was due in large part to not putting any boots on the ground besides SOF. Insurgents groups actually trying to fight conventional battles do really really poorly against a semi competent military which is why the ANA not even trying fight the Taliban driving up to Kabul was such a let down and surprise.
The efforts in Afghanistan have had the support of a much broader coalition than against ISIS, the only problem was that Pakistan was never really part of that coalition as they have tolerated/flirted/aided with the Taliban continuously since its formation.
We'll have to wait and see if the Taliban are going to be an international threat or not. They were beforehand which is why we got involved in the first place, the US didn't do anything to Afghanistan that warranted their support of Al Queda training for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.

There should be mass resignations in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA for - above all - their egregious abuses of this country's trust and resources.

I don't know about mass resignations, the career members generally do what they're told, the political appointees at the top however are the ones that need to come up with a strategy or plan. Congress keeps writing the checks and authorizing the troops yet has been completely hands off for a general strategy or any accountability. Like I've said, the military is quite competent at doing military things, expecting them or the state department to reform a foreign government we don't control is a bit beyond the pale.
The lack of a cohesive national policy in foreign relations is a US failure of every administration since the end of the Cold War.

Events have proven the Islamic Republic to be unpopular, which is not to imply a corollary of the Taliban's relative popularity. But remember, we deliberately designed GIROA and ANA to be a weak and dependent client state, rather than a self-sustaining cohesive nation. Maybe the latter wasn't feasible, but we did what we did.

The Afghans wrote their own constitution, they weren't given one by the US. I've always advocated that the US should have help reinstate the old King, he could have had more legitimacy with the tribal leaders than any elected person and led the creation of a constitution too. Their being weak and dependent has to do with the problems of insecurity. Can't have investment without security, can't create some security without spending some money, can't spend money without foreign handouts as naturally they can't raise that money on their own yet. West Germany was dependent on the US and the Marshal plan for quite a while too. As for the ANA, they were designed to be independent but as we've seen the corruption and low morale in the end made them completely ineffectual. They had all the tools needed to fight the Taliban as well as the training, just no will to fight it seems. Fighting a police action against an insurgency is difficult for every conventional military, it requires a whole of government approach not just a military approach. Fighting the insurgents in the open though a conventional military should do quite well.
As for self-sustaining and cohesive nation, yeah, the Taliban aren't going to create that either.

Anyone who would argue along the lines that the Taliban victory will eventually precipitate a revolutionary Islamist sweep across Pakistan and Central Asia, therefore necessitating a permanent American crusade against the Taliban, should be forced to make their case, among competing cases, to the public in no uncertain terms.

Who's advocating for a crusade? Not me. I think propping a weak and corrupt though relatively liberal government in Afghanistan is better than dealing with a Taliban government which is an unknown factor at this point and has a poor track record for human rights, support of terrorism etc... Revolutionaries, be they religious, communist, democratic tend to try and export their successes if for no other reason than their former revolutionary fighters don't know how to be docile 'good citizens' or some can't or won't be incorporated into the army and police with all the rules that usually goes with.

My opinion and what if isms is all pointless though. We are where we are and how the Taliban are dealt with now is the major issue at hand.

I'm not for trying to oust the Taliban again at all and I don't think anyone is realistically even hinting at that. My major issue is that Biden's administration and the Trump one beforehand just wanted to wash their hands of Afghanistan which I think is more irresponsible than supporting the 'light footprint' approach I support. US conventional forces cannot do a counter-insurgency for the Afghans but could have continued to provide the air cover and the ANA paychecks and spare parts. The most valuable support would have been intelligence support to the ANA as the Afghans don't have the technical means the US and NATO do.
US casualties in Afghanistan have been low well before Trump's 'peace deal' and small footprint would likely have continued that low casualty trend. I don't treat US casualties lightly either, I've lost friends there, recently too. The idea that Trump's peace deal is the only reason for a low casualty count is nonsense, the numbers have been down because for the most part NATO hasn't been in the front line of the fight for seven years now.

Do you know anything about US-Taliban refugee negotiations currently? Like so, but, you know, the opposite.

The refugee situation will be quite something in the next few months. Once the resistance in Panshir is crushed I doubt there will be any further resistance to the Taliban so they can then create security using brutal methods that religious fanatics always feel entitled to. I think they are keeping the gloves on in part to try and revamp their image as well as stall any support to resistance elements. All working women being order to go home is likely just the start.

The US position during the G7 talks is mind boggling though. Biden really just wants out no matter what it seems and a lack of clarity on his part is inexcusable at this point. The idea that we can't evacuate are own after the 31st because we're scared of the Taliban is pathetic, especially when our allies are willing to share the dangers to remain faithful to those that worked with us.

[Montmorency]

Yo, Pelosi shepherded the $3.5 billion bill (albeit only to the drafting stage) with zero defections, not even among the conservative pecksniffs I posted about earlier in the month. If the hostage-taking with the compromise bill can get it past Sinema and Manchin largely-intact, that would be a genuine victory. I forget, does the legislative session expire in only a month (fiscal year ending Sept. 30) or in December?

When I was a mentor/advisor to Afghan security forces it didn't matter how ineffective or corrupt they were in my reports because no one on the NATO side could fire or hold Afghan forces to account.

Someone put this very fact in the framing 'we built GIROA strong enough to do what we wanted but not strong enough to go its own way' (i.e. not strong enough to survive independently). This is what I mean when I say client state, and it's very well known that American foreign policy heavily emphasizes achieving compliance by many means from its engagement with other countries (though an accurate view of what the US government "wants" at a given time is required). In Afghanistan it was never really in the interest, and likely skillset, of the leadership to tackle corruption, which would involve heavily investing in creating a strong and demanding middle class with skin in the game; can you really say that was ever an objective in practice or on paper compared to the mere Afghanization of anti-Taliban operations? It was also of course the explicit project of PNAC, who argued - wrt Iraq - that the United States should overthrow Saddam Hussein and promote an anarchic (denationalized) Iraqi market in oil extraction/production in order to attain a pliant (to the US) oil market that would reduce prices for American consumers and undercut Saudi-led OPEC - all without regard to what would actually be going on with the Iraqi people. They literally campaigned on this! A lot becomes clearer when one views US policy as tending to be callous, self-absorbed, and exploitative, rather than serving some high ideal.

We never lost the war in Afghanistan (so not quite Vietnam), we just thoroughly lost the peace. We knew how to wage war, but we didn't know - and hardly tried - to build peace. The structure of the GIROA reflected that.

The truly radical and unselfish thing would be more in the vein of Lend Lease or the Marshall Plan, where we really try to build the other country up with few strings attached. Rediscovering that spirit is IMO the one and only path to American greatness, and something only America can do for the world besides.

just it wasn't clear a month ago that the Taliban would sweep into power to even the Afghans.

It might not be clear to an ordinary person on the ground, or to someone like me who read a few articles and reports on the region every so often to catch up. On the other hand, it's disgraceful if no one was bringing to the Oval Office: "Mr. President, the Taliban have tripled their territorial control over the past couple months with minimal resistance, holy crap! Any changes to our plans now that there's no reason to expect Kabul to hold indefinitely?"

Just like the last one Democratic Republic and the GIROA it'd last as long there was money to fund their army. Once the Soviet Union stopped supplying paychecks to the Afghan Army and spare parts for their equipment that government essentially fell. It'd be the same with this one as the size military needed to secure a country in turmoil is far larger than it would normally have if paid by their own means in peacetime.

I wasn't just using this hypothetical to remind everyone that the DRoA outlasted the Soviet Union itself with only a decade of Soviet support.

The point was that the hypothetical president and his party would get absolutely trashed by the media and the electorate for their exorbitant presumption, as liberals/leftists do, yet the Republican successor and the Blob under him would merely repurpose the intervention toward furthering their own institutional and financial interests while restraining public attention in the misadventure - so we still maintain the long-term occupation.

The efforts in Afghanistan have had the support of a much broader coalition than against ISIS,

I don't know about that, when comparing the resources and manpower committed by various state and non-state actors in the Fertile Crescent compared to Afghanistan: Israel, Iran, US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Russia, FSA, various other Kurdish and Arab groups, Hezbollah...

Other than the UK and US, I suspect all of the above invested more against IS than against the Taliban (who on the other hand were dealing with US, UK, and ANA forces almost exclusively). From a geopolitical standpoint the fight against IS was clearly more important to more actors than the details of continuing intervention in Afghanistan.

Congress keeps writing the checks and authorizing the troops yet has been completely hands off for a general strategy or any accountability.

Congress should of course take responsibility for more of the broad decision-making and goal-setting of armed conflict again, though I wouldn't expect their decisions to be much of an improvement anytime soon. At least theoretically the media could hold the more concretely accountable for emanations of policy they license. Abridging all the old AUMF from the War on Terror, and the Patriot Act, is the first step.

FIRST step, dammit!

House Votes to Repeal Two Older Military Force Authorizations
AUMFs relate to the 1991 Gulf War and a 1957 measure countering ‘Communist aggression’

The Afghans wrote their own constitution, they weren't given one by the US.

Set me straight here, but from what I can gather the Bonn Agreement established a Constitutional Commission that then presented a version of the old monarchist constitution to an inherently American-backed elite conclave (loya jirga) for approval. Under those conditions it's hard to say that the Afghan people confirmed this constitution, and its state, in terms of either Afghan-traditional or modern Western legitimacy.

But more to the point, we've been hearing for years that the GIROA was considered ineffectual by the population and was widely disliked and disrespected. This can be true even where most Afghanis distrust the Taliban. There's kind of an incestuous effect in foreign perceptions here, where foreign media and military were most closely interacting with those Afghans who were most Westernized or otherwise most committed to the success of the government, which could color one's impression of attitudes just as much as being in a Twitter bubble.

As for the ANA, they were designed to be independent but as we've seen the corruption and low morale in the end made them completely ineffectual.

But they literally couldn't operate air combat or transport missions without American logistics or contractors! To quote Col. Mike Jason(ret.) from the other thread again,

We did not successfully build the Iraqi and Afghan forces as institutions. We failed to establish the necessary infrastructure that dealt effectively with military education, training, pay systems, career progression, personnel, accountability — all the things that make a professional security force. Rotating teams through tours of six months to a year, we could not resolve the vexing problems facing Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s armies and police: endemic corruption, plummeting morale, rampant drug use, abysmal maintenance, and inept logistics. We got really good at preparing platoons and companies to conduct raids and operate checkpoints, but little worked behind them. It is telling that today, the best forces in Afghanistan are the special-forces commandos, small teams that perform courageously and magnificently — but despite a supporting institution, not because of one.

I think propping a weak and corrupt though relatively liberal government in Afghanistan is better than dealing with a Taliban government which is an unknown factor at this point and has a poor track record for human rights, support of terrorism etc...

In principle, so do most people, whether or not they agree with the intervention - but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride... We'd also like all the great powers of the world to set aside their petty jockeying and invest collaboratively in the greater good. Some outcomes just turn out to be unrealistic and unattainable in a set of parameters.

Revolutionaries, be they religious, communist, democratic tend to try and export their successes if for no other reason than their former revolutionary fighters don't know how to be docile 'good citizens' or some can't or won't be incorporated into the army and police with all the rules that usually goes with.

Speaking of which, what do we know of what IS alums have been up to - the ones who didn't stay behind?

US conventional forces cannot do a counter-insurgency for the Afghans but could have continued to provide the air cover and the ANA paychecks and spare parts.

Might have meliorated some of the issues I mentioned above, at low risk, but nevertheless we know for sure atp that the ANA was structurally crippled for a standup fight, the Taliban had become extremely proficient in combat and non-combat aspects of conflict against both the ANA and American-style capitalized opposition (I stand by "unit-for-unit martial superiority" against the ANA), and there wasn't popular will for a unified front or "total war." None of that would change in these nudges on the margins.

US casualties in Afghanistan have been low well before Trump's 'peace deal' and small footprint would likely have continued that low casualty trend. I don't treat US casualties lightly either, I've lost friends there, recently too. The idea that Trump's peace deal is the only reason for a low casualty count is nonsense, the numbers have been down because for the most part NATO hasn't been in the front line of the fight for seven years now.

The Taliban were advancing widely before the deal, under Trump, when there were 10000+ American soldiers present. I remember reading reports on the Taliban being in better shape than at any time since 2001 from the beginning of Trump's term. The math just doesn't work. This is a horned dilemma and someone was going to get impaled. That's what made it a boondoggle.

The idea that we can't evacuate are own after the 31st because we're scared of the Taliban is pathetic, especially when our allies are willing to share the dangers to remain faithful to those that worked with us.

Idk, it seems he expects the airport to be cleared out by then given the pace of evacuations, at which point we may as well charter repatriation of stragglers (and Afghan asylees) by block. In a way the current operation is like Dunkirk, a major strategic and operational defeat followed by wildly successful extraction of available human assets. As for Taliban recognition, the G7 tacitly admitted that there is a path to recognition when they said it will be a unified decision either way.

[Hooahguy]

Yo, Pelosi shepherded the $3.5 billion bill (albeit only to the drafting stage) with zero defections, not even among the conservative pecksniffs I posted about earlier in the month. If the hostage-taking with the compromise bill can get it past Sinema and Manchin largely-intact, that would be a genuine victory. I forget, does the legislative session expire in only a month (fiscal year ending Sept. 30) or in December?

Every 2 year block of time is a new Congress. We are currently in the 117th Congress. The two years are split into two sessions, with each session ending at in December of that year. Bills introduced in the first session are still "live" through the second session. Bills only "die" when the second session end, so in our case it would be December 2022. However momentum is a thing so its hard to say what will happen.

[Furunculus]

You're blaming the wrong president.

Watch Rachel Maddow Highlights: August 20th | MSNBC

The Trump administration deliberately and systematically screwed the Afghans over.

"I started the process so the troops are coming back. 21 years is enough, don't we think? They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process...by a government that wouldn't last. The only way they'd last is if we were there for another 21 years, for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous, so we're bringing our troops back home from Iraq, we're bringing our troops home from Afghanistan."

Also testimony from insiders on how they deliberately delayed the visa processing so as to ensure that Afghans who worked with the US, who would be in line for reprisals that they knew were coming, would not get their visas before the US left.

that is a separate issue.

it is entirely true that trumps Doha deal left biden with a turd - in presenting an agreement that that was not enforceable and merely a vehicle for the taliban to leverage the threat - but it was only a problem because it was what biden wanted; exit. if it wasn't what biden wanted then there was plenty of taliban non-compliance of doha to repudiate the deal.

but what rory talks about is specific and discrete to the actions of biden.

[rory_20_uk]

not rory's biggest fan

I think you might well be... competition isn't fierce

[ReluctantSamurai]

Katie Porter takes aim at Joe Manchin:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1917309.html

I swear to god, if this woman ever runs for President, she has my vote...

[Montmorency]

Corruption! from one of the more-screentimed Democratic critics of AOC in 2019.

Last week, Democratic senator turned anti-tax lobbyist Heidi Heitkamp, who represented North Dakota for one term before losing in 2018, appeared on CNBC to make a surprisingly emotional appeal against President Biden’s plan to close a notorious loophole for the wealthy. The loophole, called “stepped-up basis” or “the angel-of-death loophole,” allows capital gains to escape any tax at all as long as the owners pass the asset on to their heirs before they sell it.

Heitkamp’s thoughts were with the victims of this reform. She did not invoke the tax implications for the handful of extremely wealthy families that have been financing a lobbying effort to preserve their tax advantages, including the group that currently employs her as its public face. Instead, she cited the burden of an imaginary working-class man named “Sam.”

The scenario that troubled Heitkamp was that Sam, or people like him, would inherit a family-owned cabin that had become extremely valuable and now have to pay tax on the estate. “The truck driver — let’s say truck-driver Sam, who let’s say makes $100,000 a year — all of a sudden now has a tax that he owes on inheriting that property,” she complained.

In fact, the original Democratic proposal allowed for a $1 million exemption per spouse, and it allowed heirs a 15-year period to spread out the payments. So poor Sam would only have to pay tax on whatever value his cabin had over $2 million, which seems like a rather lavish spread for a working-class fellow, and he would have enjoyed a comfortable period over which to make those payments.

Even so, the pleas made by Heitkamp and other moderate Democrats on behalf of the rural petite-bourgeoisie heirs to landowning fortunes exceeding $2 million were felt. Democrats in Congress proposed to raise the exemption to $5 million per spouse. Surely, now that truck drivers inheriting cabins worth less than $10 million would be spared, Heitkamp would have softened her opposition.

But when I reached her on the phone, Heitkamp explained that these adjustments did not satisfy her. When you look at the polling, she told me, people “didn’t believe these exclusions” would really apply. The problem was public opinion. Democrats couldn’t run the risk of taxing extremely large fortunes because working-class folks like “Sam” think they would be targeted.

The fact that this belief was completely false seemed to be beside the point to Heitkamp. She likewise seemed untroubled by the possibility that the reason working-class people would get this false impression in the first place was that groups like hers would spread it. Heitkamp’s group is currently running ads making the case that Biden’s plan to tax the fortunes of the wealthy would hit regular folks. Heitkamp is arguing that even if the proposal won’t hit regular folks, the regular folks won’t believe them. Therefore, Democrats can’t take the risk of raising taxes on the wealthy people who are paying her.

Generally speaking, conviction is an underrated factor in politics. When you get a few drinks in a politician or an insider, what they’ll confide is usually the same talking point they say in public, or perhaps just a more unhinged and partisan version of it.

But sometimes, naked pecuniary self-interest does come into play. This appears to be one of those times.

A good test of when a political or policy stance is more principled or more venal:

Six months ago, Heitkamp described the angel-of-death loophole as “one of the biggest scams in the history of forever,” a view that comports with the analysis of economists on both the left and the right. The New York Times reports that Heitkamp was “recruited” to the anti-Biden side by “superlobbyist” John Breaux, who as a member of Congress once confessed, “My vote can’t be bought, but it can be rented.” (Cool story, Breaux.)

That's [Breaux'] a good line in the spirit of so-called "dishonest graft." Heitkamp lays claim to honest graft.

Heitkamp further explained that her primary concern is for the Democratic Party’s political welfare.

Conclusion:

It is probably true that enacting a big tax hike on the wealthy runs a political risk: The wealthy will fund a lot of television ads attacking you over it. The trade-off is that for every dollar in tax hikes Democrats give up, they have to give up a dollar in spending on popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and a universal child tax credit. Some of those programs serve social needs more serious than the travails of an imaginary working-class truck driver who inherits a cabin worth more than $10 million.

[rory_20_uk]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

lol

The Founders were relying on the common sense of most and the dedication to learning, logic, and reason of the more more moneyed.

[Montmorency]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

The Big S?

[rory_20_uk]

The Big S?

I think that Full-Fat Socialism is as sensible as "Defund the Police" - perhaps in a perfect society everyone would be equal and crime would be zero but that is something that has been achieved nowhere (apart from the smallest communities and even then only for short periods of time).

Social Democracy as seen in the Nordics IMO is a the target for now - how realistic rather depends on the country. There would continue to be winners and loosers, but society is a lot "fairer" and "kinder". How one encourages the winners in the current system to both give more and stop the propaganda that somehow the tax system is better as it is; if the general populace could grasp that socialism isn't communism that'd be great.

[Montmorency]

The USA has a system where both major parties are sitting in a latrine squealing that the other lot are dirty.

With no mechanism to improve matters.

I think that Full-Fat Socialism is as sensible as "Defund the Police" - perhaps in a perfect society everyone would be equal and crime would be zero but that is something that has been achieved nowhere (apart from the smallest communities and even then only for short periods of time).

Social Democracy as seen in the Nordics IMO is a the target for now - how realistic rather depends on the country. There would continue to be winners and loosers, but society is a lot "fairer" and "kinder". How one encourages the winners in the current system to both give more and stop the propaganda that somehow the tax system is better as it is; if the general populace could grasp that socialism isn't communism that'd be great.

It has to be noted that this exchange follows on relentless news of centrist liberals being corrupt or self-interested and trammeling the efforts of the center-left to craft responses to national priorities.

Just saying...