QuietObserver wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 5:02 pm
From Twitter...
"we should have done the withdrawal in the winter when cold weather, snowed in passes, and poppy cultivation would have kept the Taliban immobilized."
The end result would have been the same, but it would have given time for personnel to evacuate.
So last winter or this winter? Do you think they would have waited? When Biden came into office there were not enough US troops left in Afghanistan to hold Kabul, much less the rest of the country. The deal that Trump cut with the Taliban was for US departure by May 1st.
In any event, from what I understand, this isn't some outside force that would be "immobilized" There were Taliban all over the country building strength and when the final push happened a lot of them just dug their weapons out of storage and walked outside their front doors. They didn't come from anywhere, they were already there.
News reports are also starting to trickle out that a lot of top Afghan leadership in the army and government seem to have cut some sort of a deal with the Taliban to not fight. There were reports of the president of Afghanistan exiting Kabul with four helicopter loads of cash or some such. I expect there is going to be a whole lot more to this story that will eventually come out.
One point I would make. So far the transition to Taliban control seems to have been all but bloodless, with barely a shot fired. If this end was inevitable anyway, the question I would have for critics is how much bloodshed would have satisfied you? There were suggestions upstream that Trump would have used air strikes to delay the Taliban's advance. If fighting had been hard and fierce and had led to the same result in a month or so but with tens of thousands dead, would that have been a better result if it had given US personnel a more leisurely time to pack up and leave?