Originally Posted by
NutLoose
And that has been a two way process, remember when the USA dragged us into Afghanistan they were courting countries to stand beside the USA to partly legitimise action.
There was never any question of legitimacy and no 'dragging' was involved. As I recall, we and other NATO allies were falling over ourselves to help. It was in our interests to do so as it strengthened the alliance.
The problem is having decided they were leaving, the USA more less threw those “allies” under the bus, that is the problem the USA now face.
No argument from me there, the withdrawal has been disastrously mishandled, but that's an execution error rather than an indication of some new strategic reality. The US has acted unilaterally before and will undoubtedly do so again. It's naive to think otherwise, seeing as they are (still) the globe's preeminent power. In any case, some argue that this kind of chaos was unavoidable; we've seen that the former Afghan government was a house of cards waiting to fall and an organised evacuation of selected Afghans could well have provided the necessary 'push' by itself.
In fact they are still in a way doing it as we all try to get our people out of Country we are being blindsided by the USA deciding when they have enough of their people out and they will then leave whether others have completed their missions or not.
Trump promised to 'end the forever wars' before he was even elected in 2016. His Doha agreement with the Taliban promised complete US withdrawal by 31 May 2021. Biden confirmed in April that the withdrawal would go ahead, with a new deadline for logistic reasons but still in time for the 9/11 anniversary. How much more warning did anyone need? The simple fact is that the UK and others dragged our feet because our policy elites didn't understand how precarious the Afghan house of cards was, and in their permanent state of optimism thought they would be able to pressure Biden into changing his mind. Which is a very arrogant stance to take when it's considered that 1) we drew down our combat missions years ago, 2) it would be US soldiers bearing the brunt of renewed Taliban attacks on NATO troops, and 3) we all drastically underspend on defence by comparison to the US. Why should the US have patience for those kind of games when it's facing the expiry of a ceasefire it negotiated 18 months ago, and has already extended once?
Why would any self respecting Country support or be caught in the same situation again where the USA want a coalition to go into any Country where there are problems.
Well, firstly I think the US (or indeed any other ally) will be unlikely to try anything similar anytime soon. But secondly, why would any self-respecting country continue to massively underwrite the homeland defence of a group of states who consistently fail to pay their share and do nothing but criticise? Moreover, one such state (Germany) has defied the US and undercut the East European allies by agreeing the Nordstream 2 pipeline with Russia. Respect is a two-way street.
Remember it’s not just Afghanistan, the U.K. supported the USA in Kuwait, Iraq, Libya etc
It was perceived to be in our interest to support in Iraq (however wrongly), and it clearly was in our interest in Kuwait - not just as a friend of the US but as a UNSC P5 member upholding the rules-based international order (oh, for those days...) And in Libya it was a reluctant Obama who had to be persuaded to support Cameron and Sarkozy's vanity project.
I feel this has become a game changer the world will not forget if called upon again.
What, like in 1956 when the Soviets threatened the UK and France with nuclear war over Suez, and the US said it wouldn't respond? Or when the French withdrew from the NATO command structure in the depths of the Cold War? Or when Harold Wilson refused to support the US in Vietnam? Or when Saigon and then Tehran fell, but the Cold War was won within 15 years anyway? Or when the French refused to support the US in Iraq? The alliance has survived all of these things, each of which were controversial at the time but are now footnotes in history. Well, apart from Suez, which was a defining moment: not that you'd think it from the ahistorical waffle about the UK's place in the world that we're currently hearing from our supposedly educated classes.
The US had no treaty commitment to Afghanistan (in fact, through the Doha agreement it had more of a commitment to the Taliban). It has treaty commitments to NATO in the North Atlantic region, to Japan, and to South Korea. It has no treaty commitment to Taiwan but has wisely maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity over whether it would intervene there. It shows no sign of backing away from any of those positions, and now has more resource available with which to uphold them.
Ultimately POTUS answers to the US electorate. We Europeans should beware of complaining unreasonably about their democratic wishes finally being listened to, because we increase the risk of the very rupture we profess to be so alarmed about. Calm heads need to prevail.