In reply to: Do you think we should still be there? * posted by Kali4niaND
Looked? It seems that at some level you'd have needed to surge troops into the country to actively fight and likely take casualties at a level we'd last seen under Obama. All to get out a little more slowly? Who was going to cooperate with us if that intervention was only going to be temporary?
to get the Taliban to cut the shit long enough to fulfill what ACross suggested.
Knocking the table over and leaving all of your chips on the ground after you spill them is not how you play poker or negotiate. Teddy KGB wouldn't do that with Grama sitting over his shoulder. An AC130 is a hell of a lot more of a power projection than an out of shape tough.
AC 130 would have made the terrorist suicide bombing look like a walk in the park.
Mr blutarski. 0.0
I’ve had the pleasure of being aboard an AC130 to see it first hand. It’s humbling.
And yeah…a downed AC130 would have been about number 1,897 on the list of things to be concerned about in an Afghanistan withdrawal.
I am just talking about getting interpreters (and other people to whom we owed a duty of loyalty due to their assistance to America) to get the hell out of dodge rather than abandoning them as they clung to landing gear.
Its an understandable criticism. Personally, I'm not sure there was a graceful exit to be made. But we could have certainly made much more of a concerted post-exit effort to get our Afghan allies to safety and situated here in the US. Still legislation pending to make that a reality, as I understand it. Bipartisan efforts in both chambers are underway to get it done. But nothing is getting through Congress these days, unfortunately.
And overestimated the ability of the Afgans to hold out against the Taliban.
If Joe was planning on getting out, expediting people getting out rapidly should have been a priority.
But once the collapse started it seems like it was too late to go back and slow down the collapse.