...and with the asterik I wasn't referring to you Macky, I know you know the real deal.
I know who you are too, Mags. One of life's good guys (post the cheque air mail to outwit the Covid, the "latest study" shows the virus doesn't drift as high as 35,000 feet, um..I think)
The problem is with Biden-bashing is that many people who have very little to think with (and it's not their fault) take repeated statements as confirmation of blame on the whole Afghan withdrawal to just one person, when it's on the advice of the Chiefs Of Staff, his other advisors, input from outsiders etc.
It comes across as biased as me criticizing Trump all the time, when in fact you showed that there are some good things "he" has done. All right.
The thing is, Trump undermined his own military by what he signed last Feb and virtually rendered the military ineffective for the role which they were there for in the first place, and what they are trained for.
It follows that any criticism of Biden (and I'm not saying he's blameless) must also include previous administrations right back to Bush and perhaps beyond, and that certainly includes Trump who effectively knee-capped US and allied forces in a country threatened by a known vicious enemy trained by the US, and is a throwback to the days when armies fought for their god, whoever he is. Supposedly.
As far as the US and allied nations are concerned, the whole thing is just another money-earner to the PTB, and now that Biden has spoiled the game by withdrawing the troops, the MSM is getting stuck into him because the MSM itself is part of the PTB that gains a large part of its wealth (the main part for some) by warfare and the arms industry. Said people that have not much to think with sway the other way, as they always do, and start to look at someone on the "opposite side" that will deliver them from all that's wrong in the world, never accepting that it's only a few that hold the strings doing the damage, not voted-in puppets to the PTB.
That's not only an American thing, but it is more noticeable because America with less that a 20th of the world's population spends more than the next ten countries combined (including China) on the arms and the military.
And with Trump spoiling the game last year in Feb by effectively down-turning the revenue stream, the PTB made super-sure he didn't get back in to do more "foreign policy" changes.
Now Biden's done the same, for perhaps different reasons, and the MSM are going crazy blaming him for everything, said MSM owned by the PTB that includes the Money-manipulators, the super-rich, and the fascist/nazi CIA.
Afghanistan is only another debacle in a whole series of American "interventions" via the CIA and corporate interests. The last war which could be seen as a clear victory for the US was the Gulf war, where America did what it does best, mobilize large forces equipped with superior weapons against an enemy's large force, in stand-up battles.
The difficulty internally that America has always faced since the second world war is that politicians have interfered with military strategy, one way or the other. If Kennedy hadn't quashed Operation Northwoods, Cuba would be another US state, virtually. Military strategy in Vietnam would have been to take North Vietnam and THEN negotiate peace deals, not continue a shitty guerilla-type war that front-end troops were not properly trained for, and their senior ring-knockers didn't understand.
The other difficulty internally is that top military generals etc whose appointments have been more political than military (certainly not all) have never understood what guerilla warfare really is, and have continued to employ their forces the old way that worked well in WW2 (and the Gulf) but nowhere else, to any conclusive extent.
In other words, Vietnam was a defensive operation that American forces have never really trained for. American military was always on the attack/offensive in the second world war, wrecking Japanese strategic positions, taking islands on the way back to Japan, bombing the shit out of Tokyo, then the atomic blasts. The British/NZ and Australian forces took up the slack in the jungles when massive American offenses were not in progress, and the combined affect was certain as Japan ran out of resources, once again in large part to the relentless American submarine offensive against Japanese supply ships and trained Jap personnel like pilots unable to be replaced quickly enough. Europe was much the same, huge mustered forces attacking with enormous industrial might like the easily-replaced Sherman tanks for example. The German tanks may (may!) have been superior, but the Germans could never front them in such numbers, and the tanks were harder to repair and replace.
After all that was over, the "American" PTB decided to increase their influence over "third-world" countries that were relatively easy to control by subversion by the CIA, who stirred up enough of their people's to overthrow a basically democratic govt and help vicious dictators such as Saddam Hussein take over, said dictators conducive to American corporate plundering through deals that favoured the US PTB, and left many more of the "invaded" country's people even poorer than they were before.
The trouble is, that when the US suddenly found itself confronted with an enemy who only wanted their country back, free from "Colonial" rule, and who were absolutely resolute in gaining it, even at the cost of millions of its own people, the US still tried to fight them using the old tactics that worked before, so well. But major battles won by such a superior force in such a place as Vietnam do not necessarily guarantee the overall winning of the war, and still the VC and NVA forces kept on coming, kept on harassing their enemies until finally the people at home in the US got sick of it all and started to play up. We know what happened eventually.
Iraq wasn't such a place as Vietnam because it was ruled by a dictator that had a central force that could not stand up against American forces, except for the odd skirmishing here and there. The US went for the key men in Iraq (having put them there in the first place) and got them, one way or the other.
Afghanistan was different. A determined relentless resolute force of many leaders scattered around the country a la Vietnam, stretching the American military out into a prolonged war, just like Vietnam. Vast experience gained by the Russians trying it on, as well.
And in both countries, utterly corrupt govts that despite long years of American aid, were eventually unable to supply their own home forces with the necessary logistical support, because they had snaffled most of the goodies for themselves.
Very much like the fall of the Roman empire actually re the PTB of the day taking the bulk of the riches, the Roman military not getting the supplies they needed to continually fight off the Germanic (and other) local tribes that were always there trying to get back "their" lands, attacking the borders of the Roman Empire until it receded steadily back to the home country, with its disastrous results.
When Trump signed that deal with the Taliban last year, he effectively put the nail in the coffin of US military strategic achievement in Afghanistan, and with the Taliban finally able to muster its own forces, aided by a further 5000 men released from prison under the same Trump deal, we saw how a determined bunch of well trained and experienced fighters can so quickly overwhelm other forces that are not adequately resourced by their own govt.
What was Biden supposed to do ? Commit more American lives and blood to the defense of a country that is as remote from Western customs as could be, more years of prolonged military action to support a weak govt ensconced in its own corruption ?
The only ones who ever ultimately benefit from the war industry must have been furious last year when Trump thwarted a large part of their income. Now Biden's done it again by bringing the troops back home to their families and the PTB are going for him through their pipelines, the MSM.
Perhaps the PTB hope that Biden will succumb quietly from old age and its effects. Perhaps not.