8 ms·
Afghan president flees the country as Taliban move on Kabul
- TekMol 5y agoWhy did the US leave Afghanistan in one big step? Shouldn't they have left some part of Afghanistan, see what happens, go back and fix it, repeat until they know how to leave the country in a stable situation?
- edgyquant 5y agoIt was done the way it was to please domestic voters.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoI think that’s exactly what they did. Both Obama and Trump removed significant numbers of troops from Afghanistan, and now Biden is removing what’s left. Obama went with the above approach, putting troops back in as needed (with surges and such) but we’d always come back to the same point. This just us finally giving up.
- bitexploder 5y agoThe superpowers never understood the war they were fighting here or how to fight it. This country, it’s terrain, history, and culture are just different from what western politics is willing to understand or have the stomach to address.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoNot just western. The soviets and the Chinese have suffered similar problems throughout history. And the Indians, Persians, etc… basically, no one is really good at conquering unless they simply colonize what they conquer (eg the normans in England, or the Europeans in America).
- gordon_gee1 5y agoThe point is to not then escalate back into having more troops once the taliban inevitably regained control. The ANA had 20 years to prepare for the countrys defenses. The US has spent 100s of billions propping this government up, and it has become clear today (and frankly for years) that it couldn’t stand on its own. It wouldnt matter if the us left in 5, 10 or 20 more years
- lotsofpulp 5y ago> and it has become clear today (and frankly for years) Decades. The US already did this in the 1980s.
- calvin 5y agoAnd before that the Soviets, British, and others for centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan
- dougmwne 5y agoLarge parts of the country have been handed back over to the Taliban for years. I just read an article an article from 2017 talking about daily life in a Taliban controlled region. The American government has known exactly what was going to happen for years, but had no remaining political will to continue occupying the country. There was also no political will in Afghanistan to continue the "western style" government the Americans has put in place without the continued support and payments from the US. This is just the final step in a years long surrendering process.
- bogomipz 5y agoThe US didn't leave Afghanistan in one big step. The US ended its combat mission in Afghanistan is December of 2014. That's 6.5 years ago now.[1][2]. This was widely covered by the international news media. At the time there was a big ceremony in Kabul to mark the occasion of turning security of the country over to the Afghan armed forces who were ~350k strong at that point. The drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan has been going on for over a decade now and began in 2010. By 2015 there were only 10K troops left and their role since then has been non-combat(advisory and training.)[3] More recently under Trump that number of troops was drawn down to just 3K. [1] https://time.com/3648055/united-states-afghanistan-war-end/ https://time.com/3648055/united-states-afghanistan-war-end/ [2] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/28/statement-president-end-combat-mission-afghanistan https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/1... [3] https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-t...
- drocer88 5y ago"The US ended its combat mission in Afghanistan is December of 2014" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#2015_Taliban_resurgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_War_in_Afghanis... The U.S. military carried out at least a dozen operations, including commando raids and airstrikes, in early March 2017, American and Afghan forces launched Operation Hamza to "flush" ISIS-K from its stronghold in eastern Afghanistan, engaging in regular ground battles. "In January 2015, United States Forces began conducting drone strikes in Afghanistan under the direction of the administration of the United States President Barack Obama against Taliban militants". American forces have increased raids against "Islamist militants" Throughout 2015, the US launched about one thousand bombs and missiles at targets in Afghanistan "Despite US airstrikes" "U.S. forces have been carrying out operations with Afghan forces" "According to Defense Department statistics 9 U.S. service members were killed in action" "US aircraft conducted around 30 air strikes in Helmand Province" You get the point.
- bogomipz 5y agoYou might want to look closer at your own link which clearly points out that post 2014 the US and Afghanistan began coordination on Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. The purpose of that mission was solely assisting the Afghan security forces with counterterrorism operations against local ISIS and Al-Queda affiliates as well as the Haqqani networks. All of your copy/pasted quotes are actually in support of these facts. Further, your link also explains that in 2015 began the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission whose purview was solely training, advising, and assisting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. So yes, pretty much what I said above.
- JamesBarney 5y agoEveryone knew what would happen. But if we can't create a stable Afghanistan in 20 years, would we have any success in 40?
- giantrobot 5y agoAfghanistan is never going to have a "stable situation" because it's not a single country with a single national identity. The various ethnicities (and tribal identities) are far more important to the people there [0]. It only has national borders because its neighbors enforce their national borders. Its border with Pakistan is another in a long line of the British Empire's poorly considered border delineations [1]. As for retaking areas, it takes a much larger force to take a defended region than to hold it. The same force holding that area doesn't have the strength or supplies to retake it once it's lost. The only reason the Taliban has moved in so easily is the ANA has folded at every encounter leaving regions effectively undefended once the US pulls troops out. [0] https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/photos/000/329/32912.jpg https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/photos/000/329/3... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line
- walkhour 5y ago> Afghanistan is never going to have a "stable situation" because it's not a single country with a single national identity. This applies to USA and it's a single country
- throwawaaaaay17 5y agoYour regular reminder that the Taliban offered to surrender in 2001, but Rumsfeld refused. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/news/rumsfeld-rejects-planto-allow-mullah-omar-to-live-in-dignity-taliban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/news/rumsfeld-rejects-pla...
- drocer88 5y agoIt's still a humiliating defeat for Mr. Biden. Regardless of your partisan status. This does not look good. Even CNN is questioning the administration: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/08/15/blinken-intv-biden-decision-on-afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-tapper-sotu-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/ https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/08/15/blinken-intv-... What do you think?
- dbbk 5y agoNot really, this was pretty assured to happen. The previous presidents just kicked the can down the road.
- leereeves 5y ago> this was pretty assured to happen That's not what Biden said. Just over a month ago, on July 8th, he actually argued that the Afghan army could win: Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not. Q Why? THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. ... I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoWhat answer is he supposed to give to that question, even if he is relatively confident of an eventual Taliban victory? I don't mean to ask what the honest answer is. I mean to say, what is the sayable answer?
- Afforess 5y agonow I wish we had the internet when Saigon fell. So many memes, lost.
- peterkelly 5y agoFor a fascinating insight into the disaster that was supposed to be the training of and transition to local security forces, I highly recommend the 2013 documentary "This Is What Winning Looks Like": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI
- drocer88 5y ago“This is manifestly not Saigon” Sure looks like it.
- gordon_gee1 5y agoSaigon was an actual government that stood for 2 years after the US disengaged. Kabul has proven itself to be an embarrassingly dysfunctional puppet administration. Its been made clear today the US should have left 10 years ago or earlier.
- dougmwne 5y agoSo even worse than Saigon then because after 20 years of support there wasn't even any significant Afghani interest in having any other government than the Taliban.
- AYBABTME 5y agoMore like a completely disfunctional government made up of a bunch of warlords of dubious background and character. AFAIK the Talibans massacred any possible opposition/contender around the 9/11 events, leaving effectively no cohesive group behind that could replace them.
- temp8964 5y agoSaigon could have stand longer if the US didn’t cut off financial support.
- MattGaiser 5y agoIt is more that nobody cares if it is Saigon.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoYeah, honestly this kind of navel gazing is super gross. Viewing the Vietnam war through that one moment really centralizes the Vietnam civil war as something American. It causes Americans to fail to examine Vietnam as the multi-decades long brutal nightmare that it was for the Vietnamese and makes it about American failure and shame. It sublimates the incredible devastation our government wrought, the brutal corrupt colonial puppet government they propped up and the multilateral atrocities committed beneath a made for TV venere of lost American glory.
- _red 5y agoLikely Gen. Mark Milley (Joint Chief of Staff) and/or Sec of Defense Lloyd Austin will probably lose their jobs over this. Maybe focusing on preaching about "White Fragility" wasn't the best use of their time.
- drocer88 5y agoCould go much higher than that.
- gordon_gee1 5y agothe ANA retreated from every fight they involved themselves in. I wouldn’t expect anyone to be fired because this is exactly what was expected when the US left, minus 2-3 months. Embarrassing photos for a few weeks sure, but saving the equivalent of the NHS budget every year by not spending it on a corrupt Afghan government and failed military project has its domestic benefits
- ALittleLight 5y agoBut wasn't it some US general's job to train the ANA? If you're training someone to do a difficult dangerous job and the moment you hand things off to the person everything blows up - you probably deserve a lot of the blame.
- gordon_gee1 5y agoThe US directly trained the Afghan special forces, who in fairness to them did their job well but were often left with hardly any ammunition or air support. The Afghan government was in charge of funding operations and recruitment of the ANA. You can find countless evidence of how they frequently betrayed their units, fled, sold their equipment or were otherwise immensely incompetent. Added to this, the taliban forces stand between 50-100k troops across the entirety of afghanistan with no air support,tanks, or heavy artillery. Its often simply 100 guys with AK-47s on motorcycles going into a capital and claiming it. You cant solve will to fight as a foreign entity.
- kiba 5y agoThis was a war that started in my grade school years and ended in my adulthood. And now it's going to end in a humanitarian failure because of a superpower's incredibly poor decisionmaking.
- marricks 5y agoPerhaps the US’ intentions were never good and they were never capable of “liberating” anyone there. It really seems like no matter when they pulled out this would have happened.
- treeman79 5y agohttps://apnews.com/article/religion-taliban-7ab054c063e4ea1c14be9e4811f42982 https://apnews.com/article/religion-taliban-7ab054c063e4ea1c... Letting 12 year old girls go to school instead of being forced into a marriage is good intentions.
- craftinator 5y agoSweet cherry pick. And now, since we created a government that could never be self sufficient, and have been slowly pulling our troop support from it for the last 8 years, all of those little girls will be punished for going to school. And we created that for them. Go USA..
- treeman79 5y agoThat was years of not being raped and being given an opportunity to succeed. You are a horrible person
- playguardin 5y agoThe us military is not a get girls to school organization. Try accepting the culture of others without interfering. Give up your global liberalization and homogenization campaign. Worry about your own country and culture.
- whydoibother 5y agoWhat about the death squads we trained and funded? The ones that went around killing children? Was that good intentions too? https://theintercept.com/2020/12/18/afghanistan-cia-militia-01-strike-force/ https://theintercept.com/2020/12/18/afghanistan-cia-militia-...
- 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- MattGaiser 5y agoThis was inevitable really as soon as the retreat happened. As soon as you set a hard deadline for something (in this case withdrawal) you are basically giving up on doing it well.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoWhy? How does putting a date on a calendar change anything? If the military had ooened up the mystery box and pulled out on oh say the random date of July 2nd or September 23rd this would still be hapoening. At the end of the day there just are the factions of a country which are better organized, better funded or more popular and they arw going to rise to power once external involvement has ceased to be the driving power.
- xrd 5y agoThis is sad. I'm assuming a new world crisis will be fabricated and we will find a way to spend trillions of dollars somewhere else instead of on US people or infrastructure. The stockholders of military contractors should not be worried.
- pcbro141 5y agoHow with all the advanced equipment, spy satellites, human sources and trillions of dollars is the US military and intelligence community so clueless? What a waste of money. 4 days ago, US intelligence officials revised their estimate for the fall of Kabul from 12 to 3 months. https://archive.ph/14OGH https://archive.ph/14OGH AUG 13: “Kabul is not in an imminent threat.” - John Kirby, Pentagon Spokesman AUG 15: Kabul taken by Taliban. https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1426936592573284353 https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1426936592573284353
- thesuperbigfrog 5y agoI think the assumption was that the Afghanistan army that the US funded, trained, etc. would fight back instead of running or surrendering. Looks like that was a bad assumption.
- andruby 5y agoSo we’re going back for a cycle of US-trained and armed people joining an extremist group that will turn on the US? I hope history doesn’t repeat itself completely :(
- owroomexorcist 5y agoNo proof to suggest this is true, but I assume they were lying through their teeth.
- drumhead 5y agoI was going to ask who, but then I realised everyone was.
- WJW 5y agoThat would not have aided in the policy goal of "leaving Afghanistan". This was already such a well known strategy in the 80s that the (absolutely fantastic) British comedy show Yes Minister explained exactly how to do it: Bernard Woolley : What if the Prime Minister insists we help them? Sir Humphrey Appleby : Then we follow the four-stage strategy. Bernard Woolley : What's that? Sir Richard Wharton : Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. Sir Richard Wharton : In stage one we say nothing is going to happen. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. Sir Richard Wharton : In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
- throwaway4good 5y agoAnd the US is paying the Taliban $$$ for safe passage out plus for an oil pipeline.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoNot to be glib but this is the kind of thing that happens all the time in regions where power is unstable. We have a few recent examples of countries (especially the U.S.) rat holding onto one particular power steucture. But more often, governments and business are eager to start wheeling and dealing with whoever it looks like is really holding the keys.
- gordon_gee1 5y agoI think its very straightforward to blame the US for the state of Afghanistan today, but the fleeing president had failed to collect any allies in the region, failed to get any formidable resistance to the taliban, and allowed warlords to spend US money lavishly on their homes and close compatriots. Ghani’s children benefited from immense nepotism by living in America working for thinktanks or going to university for phds, meanwhile taliban leaders planned suicide bombings involving their own children. They simply wanted it more.
- pixel_tracing 5y agoThe corruption in the government of Afghanistan is not to be underestimated. As much as we hate the Taliban here in the US, we should all also look into the government “we helped establish” in Afghanistan.
- svaha1728 5y agoThe Taliban walkthrough of General Dostum's house was a great example of the lavish spending https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1426624176073367554?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1426624176073367554%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_ https://twitter.com/bsarwary/status/1426624176073367554?ref_...
- pupdogg 5y agoChina is watching, laughing, they will take Taiwan when they feel like it. They know. The world knows. This is what American weakness looks like.
- gordon_gee1 5y agoOdd statement, Afghanistan was a pseuo-state at the best of times, Taiwan is a nation with incredible air, naval and ground defenses for its size that doesn’t bleed America financially dry. Embarrassing photos of one of its ‘allies’ losing aside, America leaving Afghanistan makes America financially stronger and more militarily flexible.
- drocer88 5y agoStronger and more flexible. So this is a actually a victory?
- chess_buster 5y agoLaughable. Under no circumstances will the US allow Taiwan's semiconductor industry to be absorbed by China.
- segfaultbuserr 5y agoOkay, assume it's true and an invasion is inevitable, this brings us back to the cliche question - would the people in power choose to destroy TSMC, instead of stopping the invasion?
- pupdogg 5y agoYeah sure, this https://youtu.be/2_e8oSxQtSk https://youtu.be/2_e8oSxQtSk is also laughable yet now a reality!
- CommieBobDole 5y agoWe should never have been there in the first place - twenty years ago, we should have engaged in whatever military action was needed to ensure that al-Qaeda could no longer freely operate against us from the country and then left; if I remember correctly, the Taliban leadership offered just that, and we invaded anyway. I don't really consider this a policy failure for the Biden administration; this outcome was a foregone conclusion once we decided to try to build a nation in a place where no nation-building was possible, and three administrations kicked the can down the road at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives because nobody wanted to be the one with the loss on their record. But the way we've treated the people who risked their lives to help and support us is absolutely criminal; we offered them protection, and instead we screwed around for years with bureaucratic bullshit while time ran out, and now a bunch of people are going to die because of it. Heads should roll over this monumental failure.
- drocer88 5y ago"Taliban leadership offered just that, and we invaded anyway." Do you have a link for this?
- CommieBobDole 5y agohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/10/15/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-on-bin-laden/bc0ec919-082b-40e6-91ca-55e5ca34a70a/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/10/15/b...
- drocer88 5y agoA little misleading there. The demand was to turn bin Laden over, not let him escape.
- steve76 5y agoIt was cover to keep the fight there. 20 years, no terror attacks. Marxist china is now a state sponsor of terror. Global embargo, and they miss out on a lot of new tech. They spread disease, and keep you from the mRNA cancer vaccine.
- yashap 5y agoI feel terrible for all the Afghans who aren’t religious extremists, who are going to live a life of terror and suffering under the Taliban. Afghan women especially, who are going to go right back to the brutal oppression they faced pre-9/11. However, I don’t really see a good alternative, either. Having your country constantly occupied by invading forces is a great way to breed religious extremism. The Taliban win because they have a lot of support in Afghanistan, and this isn’t likely to change anytime soon. From what I’ve read, it’s a minority of the population who support them, but the support of around 20-30% of the population, with many, many of those willing to fight and die for the Taliban, is still formidable. I believe the Taliban has more soldiers now than at any other point in their history? Also, it seems that in a massive number of cases, the Afghan National Army just quickly surrendered without even giving up a fight. They were bigger and better funded, but so many either wanted the Taliban to win, or at least felt that being ruled by the Taliban was acceptable and/or inevitable. The US had to pull out eventually. When you leave, you no longer control what happens … and in Afghanistan right now, this means the Taliban take over. Really, the US should never have invaded in the first place, so many lives lost so pointlessly.
- User23 5y agoThe US supported regime and even the US military command were literally on the side of child rapists[1]. One can easily find many many other examples with a search, so I won't provide them. Suffice to say the USA was not on the side of the angels here. Furthermore, the rapidity with which the Taliban turned the government forces and took Kabul strongly suggests a Napoleon's return from Elba[2] scenario. The evidence is now overwhelming that the puppet Afghan government and its US supporters were both evil and despised by the common Afghan who jumped at the chance to support the Taliban, actively or by acquiescence. I'm sure we'll see desperate propaganda attempts in the US news trying to spin it, but it's only going to work on people with absolutely no awareness of history. And as others here have already noted, on top of that it's probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American, or possibly any, people ever. In other news, China already informally recognized the Taliban[3] and the Russian embassy is not being evacuated[4]. We are witnessing the first stages of the collapse of the US led "international order"[5]. Fascinating stuff, although as a US citizen it may not be so great for me personally. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/green-beret-afghan-police-confrontation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/green-beret-afghan-p... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days#Return_to_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days#Return_to_France [3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-prepared-to-recognize-taliban-if-kabul-falls-sources-say-undermining-u-s-threats/ar-AANfznt https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-prepared-to-recog... [4] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/15/blinken-says-kabul-embassy-evacuation-orderly.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/15/blinken-says-... [5] Read: "empire"
- gordon_gee1 5y agoI think this is forgetting a few things: The US benefits immensely by no longer being in Afghanistan, its a landlocked nation with limited accessible resources. For the first time in 20 years the US will not be bogged down in an active warzone. This doesnt benefit China or Russia. It might even get the US to finally realize their biggest risk is cyberwarfare/sabotage instead of blindly spending the equivalent construction cost of a high school on an Abrams tank
- dennis-tra 5y agoWhile I’m also terribly sorry for what happens in Afghanistan and think the discussion on HN will be more thoughtful than in many other places on the internet, I believe these kind of submissions don’t belong here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- choeger 5y agoThis is a well-preparered and well-executed military operation by the Taliban. First, they negotiated a truce in exchange for a deadline on troop removal. Then they prepared a mobile military force, aimed at conquering big cities quickly (not even the Taliban can really control Afghanistan's countryside). They knew that this domino effect would kill the much larger ANA and the current administration. The media did exactly what they were supposed to do, btw. - this was a media campaign as much as a military one. This gives us some interesting observations: Someone must have aided the Taliban buildup. Logistics, intel, control and communication for such a wide-spread campaign ain't trivial. Taliban have no industrial base. US and, to a certain extend, Afghan officials must have known what was coming. They must have seen the buildup, intercepted communication, etc. The ANA was unable or unwilling to fight. The obvious counter to this offensive would have been to bolster the defense of a couple of important locations, let them be besieged and smash the local Taliban detachment with superior forces. Even four weeks ago such a strategy could have produced a stalemate. The Taliban likely cannot afford a long-lasting campaign. It looks like the ANA was completely corrupt and was out of the fight before it even began. What really troubles me is that the Afghan people want the Taliban back. No one seems to protest, let alone resist. There are no volunteers rushing to defend Kabul from the conquerors. No women in arms defending their way of life. It makes me think that the Afghan society as a whole demands and deserves the Taliban rule. Finally, I wonder why neither China or Russia seem very concerned. Yes, of course they will be happy when US helicopters evacuate burning embassies, but both have their own issues with radical islamists. So maybe they think they can use the Taliban to counter the IS?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cameldrv 5y agoYes. The strength of the Taliban was attrition. In an all out frontal assault on cities, the ANA on paper should have easily dealt the Taliban a huge defeat, but they just didn’t fight.
- playguardin 5y agoWhy would you deny the people what they want. It's there country not yours you poor troubled soul
- wesleywt 5y agoYou beat repressive regimes with blue jeans and rock music. The older generation of Taliban can never resist these weapons of mass destruction.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoI hear this cliche a lot. Can you explain how American pop culture actually has changed a regime? I'm curioua of the soecific mechanisms.
- forgingahead 5y agoBut that doesn't exist any more. Blue jeans and rock music/rebel culture has been replaced with Blue Checkmarks and Cancel Culture. The key is to be aspirational, which the current cultural fervour is decidedly not.
- echoradio 5y agoHas there been an explanation as to why there was so little resistance by Afghan forces to fight the Taliban? (Genuinely curious.)
- whydoibother 5y agoTo them, the Taliban is preferable to the US installed puppet government. Turns out people don’t like invaders in their lands.
- bogomipz 5y agoYes. On Friday PBS interviewed Ambassador Adela Raz, Afghanistan's Envoy to the United States and asked about this. Her response seemed a bit flimsy and not very convincing. You can see it here at 7:05 mark: https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/newshour/episodes/august-13-2021-pbs-newshour-full-episode-1628827233 https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/newshour/episodes/august-13-2...
- echoradio 5y agoThank you. Heartbreaking. When she mentioned air support being pulled back, I wondered if the U.S. could have still kept some order through that alone. It made me think of how the Americans maintained no-fly zones over Iraq for a dozen years after the Gulf War.
- reeealloc 5y agoThe US pulled out on purpose to give the taliban some ground so that they'll have an excuse to go back. My guess is troops will be back there soon.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoCan anybody back this up with anything?
- drumhead 5y agoA week, it took them a week. We were there for 20 years and it took them a week...