Fascinating account of the collapse of Kabul. But the Twitter commentaries on it have been more telling. Kabul was surrounded and destined to fall. But the US didn't expect it and neither did the Taliban. washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/…
2/ Ghani's flight - at least partly based on false reports that Taliban were inside the palace looking for him - precipitated the collapse in Kabul. That disrupted a plan to create an interim power-sharing govt. Now there's no govt in Kabul. Taliban contacts US and ...
3/ says either you take over security in Kabul or we'll have to. The US response was that evac was our only mission. So we would only hold the airport. So the Taliban went into the city and took over. A stunning turn of events. But almost certainly the right decision.
4/ It also suggests a level of comms and coordination between the US and Taliban that is greater than most have allowed. On its face you might say, why didn't the US take over security in Kabul? I'm seeing many here say just that. The idea that you have a few thousand US ...
5/ soldiers/marines take over direct security control for a city of 5 million during a state collapse is frankly insane. The article portrays it as Biden remained adamant abt leaving. That's clearly part of the equation. But again, if you think holding an airport ...
6/ in this situation is fraught, vulnerable and dangerous, consider holding and taking responsibility for the security of a whole city in this situation. Multiply IED attacks by splinter factions by 10x or more and what happens when Marines are responsible for maintaining ...
7/ order in a panicked city when everyone knows Taliban rule is right over the horizon. This was the right and frankly the only decision.
1a/ Let me add that the responses to this article reveal a deep lack of understanding of the dynamic nature of both military operations and state collapse situations - ones that are now standard with the 'there had to be a better way' crowd as well as those who say why didn't ...
2a/ we just evac a few hundred thousand people before leaving and allowing the US backed govt to stand on its own. You can't take over security for a city of 5m in a climate of panic like this with a few thousand troops. Force protection alone requires a lot more people ...
3a/ as does responsibility for protecting civilians, making sure people keep running things as they expect an imminent Taliban takeover in weeks or months. In a dangerous and dynamic situation you're either establishing security or relinquishing it, moving toward ...
4a/ greater control or less. There aren't any timeouts. Trying to do both at the same time or apply the brakes a bit as the situation moves toward state collapse is a recipe for bombing attacks on US troops, civilian collateral damage as US troops try to defend ...
5a/ themselves and establish order. It's like standing on a dock as the boat leaves. You stay on the dock or you leap into the boat. You can't do both.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
