You keep calling Trump's deal a "treaty", but was it ever ratified by the Senate? If not, I'd avoid the "T" word and stick with "deal". And given that it was not Senate-ratified, it's not clear to me why (other than wanting to cut and run) Biden couldn't "tear up" that deal the same way Trump bailed out of Obama's Iran deal.
Aug 16, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
Now here is an interesting one. When Bush 43 bailed from the ABM Treaty of 1972 in 2001. I remember when he did that, there being quite a debate about whether the President could do that. I think a Supreme Court case, Goldwater v. Carter, dealt with President Carter's decision to terminate the Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1979, which Carter did in order to recognize mainland China for diplomatic relations. The court voted like 6-3 to dismiss Sen. Barry Goldwater's lawsuit, calling it a political but not constitutional issue. But SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of Carter's actions, so no precedent was set. I remember hearing that the Bush people defended Bush's decision to withdraw from the ABM using Carter's example.
Aug 16, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
That's a good point. Checking the Senate roll-call vote history in 2020, I don't see any treaty ratification on there regarding Trump's deal with the Taliban. The interesting part about the Iran Deal is that there was a congressional vote in both houses, with a 2/3rds majority required to "veto" the deal for it not to go into effect. It was cast as some sort of an "congressional-executive agreement". This article covers some of the different nuances or what the article refers to as "gradations" of executive agreements. Another example of a congressional-executive agreement would be the trade deal NAFTA of 1993. The big difference between that agreement and the Iran Deal being the means of congressional approval. In this case, approval of it required simple majority votes in both House and Senate. What is interesting is that the Obama admin. referred to the Iran deal as "nonbinding". I guess because NAFTA required simple majority of both houses of Congress being a congressional-executive agreement. But probably because the Iran Deal didn't involve a ratification vote of either kind(treaty, congressional-executive), it was probably why Trump could "tear it up".
Aug 16, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
To hear stories of brave and noble Afghan citizens whom the Taliban found out that assisted Western forces getting slaughtered, among other things, is very difficult to hear about. As you mentioned David, many more will be killed mercilessly by Taliban forces. Also women's rights will take a huge hit backwards, along with a general loss of individual freedom these Afghan citizens have enjoyed to this point. I can't think of this as anything but a betrayal of the very Afghan people who have placed their hopes and trust in the United States. Seeing what is unfolding in Afghanistan is just very painful to watch. To call this an American policy debacle would be quite the understatement.
Notwithstanding what happened in Afghanistan, I hope the members of our military know that their service to our country will always have our gratitude, and that we will never forget their sacrifices and valor. What is happening in Afghanistan is not their fault. The blame goes to the men and women in suits, not the men and women in boots.
Even if one believed that pulling out of Afghanistan was the right decision, the manner of the pullout was poorly executed to say the least. It was atrocious. And that is on Pres. Biden. He and his administration deserve much of the harsh criticism headed his way. He can't blame Trump or anyone else but himself, especially when he made that decision early in April(I think). On the flip side, Trump and his sycophants really have no moral authority to blame Biden given what they did. To negotiate with the Taliban in a one sided peace deal while throwing the Afghan government under the bus, minus meaningful conditions and enforcement mechanisms, is flat out idiotic. That the Trump administration considered them partners for peace defies imagination. Like Biden, they also deserve a lot of blame for this.
While bipartisan consensus can and is often a force for good in terms of policy, it can sometimes not be the case. Our cutting and running from Afghanistan is sadly an example of the latter. While the effects of this extremely short sighted decision to leave won't be immediately felt, it will unfortunately have long term consequences. This is not one of America's finer moments, might I add.
Some kind words from someone who owes us none at the moment:
"Afghanistan’s first female ambassador to the U.S. expressed deep gratitude for the troops’ service over the last 20 years, telling Fox News that they provided unprecedented opportunities for Afghans."
"Many U.S. veterans of the Afghanistan war have become demoralized and are struggling with their mental health as the Taliban rapidly seized territory throughout the Middle Eastern nation, Fox News reported."
"'You made a huge difference … in lives of people you haven’t met and will never meet,' Roya Rahmani said in a message to distraught and frustrated U.S. veterans during her interview with Fox News."
"'It was the progress that was made,' she continued. 'It was the education [Afghans] received. It was the job they experienced. It was the opportunities that they enjoyed.'"
"'That has a life-changing impact,' Rahmani, who served as ambassador until July, said."
You keep calling Trump's deal a "treaty", but was it ever ratified by the Senate? If not, I'd avoid the "T" word and stick with "deal". And given that it was not Senate-ratified, it's not clear to me why (other than wanting to cut and run) Biden couldn't "tear up" that deal the same way Trump bailed out of Obama's Iran deal.
Good point. "Executive agreement" is a better description.
Now here is an interesting one. When Bush 43 bailed from the ABM Treaty of 1972 in 2001. I remember when he did that, there being quite a debate about whether the President could do that. I think a Supreme Court case, Goldwater v. Carter, dealt with President Carter's decision to terminate the Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1979, which Carter did in order to recognize mainland China for diplomatic relations. The court voted like 6-3 to dismiss Sen. Barry Goldwater's lawsuit, calling it a political but not constitutional issue. But SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of Carter's actions, so no precedent was set. I remember hearing that the Bush people defended Bush's decision to withdraw from the ABM using Carter's example.
That's a good point. Checking the Senate roll-call vote history in 2020, I don't see any treaty ratification on there regarding Trump's deal with the Taliban. The interesting part about the Iran Deal is that there was a congressional vote in both houses, with a 2/3rds majority required to "veto" the deal for it not to go into effect. It was cast as some sort of an "congressional-executive agreement". This article covers some of the different nuances or what the article refers to as "gradations" of executive agreements. Another example of a congressional-executive agreement would be the trade deal NAFTA of 1993. The big difference between that agreement and the Iran Deal being the means of congressional approval. In this case, approval of it required simple majority votes in both House and Senate. What is interesting is that the Obama admin. referred to the Iran deal as "nonbinding". I guess because NAFTA required simple majority of both houses of Congress being a congressional-executive agreement. But probably because the Iran Deal didn't involve a ratification vote of either kind(treaty, congressional-executive), it was probably why Trump could "tear it up".
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/09/iran-deal-and-executive-power-a-dangerous-precedent.html
To hear stories of brave and noble Afghan citizens whom the Taliban found out that assisted Western forces getting slaughtered, among other things, is very difficult to hear about. As you mentioned David, many more will be killed mercilessly by Taliban forces. Also women's rights will take a huge hit backwards, along with a general loss of individual freedom these Afghan citizens have enjoyed to this point. I can't think of this as anything but a betrayal of the very Afghan people who have placed their hopes and trust in the United States. Seeing what is unfolding in Afghanistan is just very painful to watch. To call this an American policy debacle would be quite the understatement.
Notwithstanding what happened in Afghanistan, I hope the members of our military know that their service to our country will always have our gratitude, and that we will never forget their sacrifices and valor. What is happening in Afghanistan is not their fault. The blame goes to the men and women in suits, not the men and women in boots.
Even if one believed that pulling out of Afghanistan was the right decision, the manner of the pullout was poorly executed to say the least. It was atrocious. And that is on Pres. Biden. He and his administration deserve much of the harsh criticism headed his way. He can't blame Trump or anyone else but himself, especially when he made that decision early in April(I think). On the flip side, Trump and his sycophants really have no moral authority to blame Biden given what they did. To negotiate with the Taliban in a one sided peace deal while throwing the Afghan government under the bus, minus meaningful conditions and enforcement mechanisms, is flat out idiotic. That the Trump administration considered them partners for peace defies imagination. Like Biden, they also deserve a lot of blame for this.
While bipartisan consensus can and is often a force for good in terms of policy, it can sometimes not be the case. Our cutting and running from Afghanistan is sadly an example of the latter. While the effects of this extremely short sighted decision to leave won't be immediately felt, it will unfortunately have long term consequences. This is not one of America's finer moments, might I add.
Some kind words from someone who owes us none at the moment:
"Afghanistan’s first female ambassador to the U.S. expressed deep gratitude for the troops’ service over the last 20 years, telling Fox News that they provided unprecedented opportunities for Afghans."
"Many U.S. veterans of the Afghanistan war have become demoralized and are struggling with their mental health as the Taliban rapidly seized territory throughout the Middle Eastern nation, Fox News reported."
"'You made a huge difference … in lives of people you haven’t met and will never meet,' Roya Rahmani said in a message to distraught and frustrated U.S. veterans during her interview with Fox News."
"'It was the progress that was made,' she continued. 'It was the education [Afghans] received. It was the job they experienced. It was the opportunities that they enjoyed.'"
"'That has a life-changing impact,' Rahmani, who served as ambassador until July, said."
https://www.foxnews.com/world/afghan-ambassador-roya-rahmani-veterans-devastated-taliban-insurgency
I think Tom Nichols nails it: each of Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden has blame to take in this debacle.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/afghanistan-your-fault/619769/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share