And with respect to this, I want to evacuate as man allies as possible, there's a hard limit on how many more U.S. troops I'm willing to risk to do so. In addition to failures that include many agencies through 4 administrations, I'm angry with actors outside the U.S.
Start with blatantly corrupt Afghan officials. Guess what, your actions have consequences for your citizens. The Afghan force who took a paycheck for decades and bolted the moment shit got real, same.
Pakistan playing a double-game for 20 years, congrats assholes you've got an unstable neighbor. The GRU, you're about to have outlived your usefulness and you have an Islamic state on the border. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
We can always come back and take care of business later if need be, but someone else is going to have to try to rebuild the country and play the foil in the process.
I'm still glad we're getting out after 20 years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Personally, I think if someone is trotting out the old America's *standing* or *leadership* within the global community trope, that should be viewed as a tacit admission that they don't have good strategic arguments for staying.
But if we're going to place value on precedent...
Then we should look to the otherside of that coin.
1) What does it say if the American people want to end a foreign occupation, elect not one, but three successive Presidents to do that, and it still doesn't happen?
What incentives arise within our own military, IC, and private contractors when none of time, treasure, nor success of the mission are relevant factors because public support has been decoupled from their ability to continue?
Our plan was to leave, the Afghan government's plan was to continue to be corrupt, and the Afghan security forces' plan was to surrender rather than fight in the face of that corruption.
And there's just no way around the latter two problems which is why all of these op-eds, every single one of them, simply decide to disappear them.
I want to see the op-ed that offers a solution to the problem of the Afghan security forces preferring to surrender to the Taliban rather than fight for a government as corrupt as the last one.
I'd like to preface what I'm about to say by noting that I'm not unsympathetic to those who fought with us and were left out in the cold by their own countrymen.
I'd like Biden pursue all reasonable measures to rescue as many of those folks as possible.
The MSM can seriously go fuck itself right now. You want to know how we get stuck in places like Afghanistan for 20 years? You want to know why we never leave? Pick up a newspaper and read how national security conflicts are covered.
And the power to shape how we engage in foreign policy, particularly when the use of military force is on the table, is something emedia institutions cherish.
Three Presidents in a row operating as though they were actually elected to conduct FP has broken these people.
If you're of the opinion that the U.S. should've kept troops in a half a dozen forward positions to stave off collapse, and had half a dozen extraction points, you should say that.
You should also be clear about the risks that would present to our troops.
There are no free rides here, and once the Afghan security forces called it quits, there were no good options.
We should've evacuated our allies ahead of troops? Perhaps, but then you just took out a giant ad saying we have zero faith in the Afghan security forces to protect their countrymen.
We could've been watching this play out in May only our troops would've still been exposed.
This paragraph, on the other hand, underscores the problem.
You're not going to be able to thread the needle here. The pundits the cray segment of the base are listening to have more credibility with them than you. Sometimes when people are talking crazy, the best prescription is to tell them, flatly, that's crazy talk.