“We Did It In Vietnam. Nixon And Kissinger Got Away With It.”

A story that emerged overnight offers some insight into President Biden's actual strategy for the Afghanistan pullout:

Joe Biden once snarled “F–k that” when asked if the US had an obligation to protect Afghans from the Taliban, according to newly resurfaced reports.

, , , At the time [2010], Biden reportedly was arguing that the US should leave Afghanistan despite the humanitarian costs, including the potential erosion of women’s rights.

“F–k that. We don’t have to worry about that,” he allegedly told [diplomat Richard] Holbrooke. “We did it in Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger got away with it.”

Two things jump out at me. The first is that Nixon and Kissinger weren't the ones who pulled out of Vietnam; that was Gerald Ford, and the images from Saigon were definitely a factor in Ford's 1976 loss. And Nixon nevertheless never got away with anything. That Biden misremembered history to suit his own views is revealing. But it also fits what I'm coming to see from this sort of offhand remark is Biden's view of himself as a skilled Machiavellian manipulator, operating in a behind-the-scenes dimension of Realpolitik beyond conventional expectations.

Thus we now see the administration's new backup Afghanistan defense line: asked about the US citizens, Western co-workers, women, and children to be left behind, the answer from Jen Psaki in the clip above is a wave of the hand and "we're working on it". Right. Pentagon flack John Kirby gave precisely the same story in his briefing yeaterday:

Mr. Kirby: (10:35)

Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah. Right now, as the general made clear, the mission runs through August 31st. The commander-in-chief made it very clear that we were to complete this drawdown by August 31st, which now includes the pulling out of American citizens and drawdown of our embassy personnel. So that’s what we’re focused on. That’s the timeline we’re on. And as the secretary made clear to leaders, even as recently as this morning, time is of the essence and we all share a sense of urgency here. But right now, the mission runs to the 31st of August. And I won’t begin to speculate what happens after that?

Courtney: (12:03)

And then one for General Taylor. Can you just on the numbers, so this is now 700 to 800 that have gotten out. So is that now a total of somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 to 1500 total people have been taken out since August 14th when this began?

General Taylor: (12:15)

Yes, rough numbers, yeah, to the SIVs.

We're working n it. We'll work on it until August 31. We aren't thinking past that date, which is our mission.

But this isn't the response of college-educated adults. Look at the numbers. August 31 is less than two weeks away. The current estimate of US citizens trapped in Afghanistan is 40,000; special visa applicants and others is 80,000, but almost none in either category is identifiable; many don't have papers due to the lack of serious planning for the pullout, and under current conditons, few can make it to the airport. But at this point, almost anyone who makes it to the airport will probably be put on a plane, papers or no.

Until, that is, August 31, quitting time. We'll be done. But consider this. Even if it's just a total of 120,000 refugees (which doesn't count Afghans who worked for other Western countries there), we've now got 13 days to fly out that number of people, which conmes to 9,230 per day. The last C-17 to leave Kabul Sunday, the one with people clinging to the wheel wells, carried something like 640 people who made it inside. To get this number of people out will require more than 14 C-17s carrying 640 people to fly out of Kabul every day. Nobody will allow that to happen.

Even so, US public statements acknowledge the need for this many evacuess to be flown out:

[Pentagon spokesman John Kirby] said that once full operations at the airport are up and running, there would be the potential to remove between 5,000 and 9,000 people per day.

But in any case, current reports are that planes are leaving Kabul half empty.

For Psaki and Kirby to say we're focused on the mission, when the mission as outlined is completely out of the realm of possibility, is cynical, callous, and utterly dishonest. I've heard mention of a "Dunkirk moment", but Dunkirk involved ordiniary citizens bringing troops back to the UK in yachts and fishing boats. A Dunkirk moment might happen in Kabul if the people who flew their private jets to Obama's birthday party volunteered them for extracting the Afghans, but that's, shall we say, unlikely.

The actual strategy is what it was for Biden in 2010: F--k that. We did it in Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger got away with it. Things'll be fine!