4 ms·

When the US abandoned Vietnam, we ferried people out by helicopter as Saigon fell. We rescued 5500 Vietnamese civilians this way. The ambassador wouldn’t leave

When the US abandoned Vietnam, we ferried people out by helicopter as Saigon fell. We rescued 5500 Vietnamese civilians this way. The ambassador wouldn’t leave until marines forced him to get onto a helicopter. How many did we rescue this time? Do we have fewer helicopters than we did in 1975? Do our helicopters have an interlock that prevents them from taking off if someone without a visa is onboard?

nexuist 5y ago
We are sending helicopters for evacuation. In fact, we are literally sending the same ones: the helicopter linked below also performed evac in Saigon. https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/ https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/
reducesuffering 5y ago
There is much more diligence to be done. Hell hath no fury like accidentally letting a sleeper Taliban into a Western country who commits a terrorist attack.
- luckylion 5y ago
  It happened in Europe quite a few times with ISIS-members. There has been no perceivable fury, so ... hell doesn't exist? Hell is a picnic? I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter.
tyre 5y ago
I’m not sure what your point is. The Afghani military and government collapsed far faster than anyone anticipated. We knew they would fail—our estimates (that were wrong) were still a question of _when_ the state collapses, not _if_. Did we ever have enough helicopters in the country? Sure, probably. But part of leaving the country involves taking our stuff out of the country. We left Bagram a week or two ago. Now the situation in the ground has changed. Yes, in retrospect, with information we didn’t have then, it would be nice to have more helicopters. But even though we have more in the US military, you can’t Amazon Prime overnight ship a helicopter. We are sending more troops. The comment about locks checking visas is snarky, but also uninteresting. We’re talking about an emergency evacuation in a failed state that’s a hotbed for terrorism. Of course we should know who we’re bringing into aircraft and prioritize people we know and who have been vetted for visas.

nexuist 5y ago

We are sending helicopters for evacuation. In fact, we are literally sending the same ones: the helicopter linked below also performed evac in Saigon. https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/ https://www.helis.com/database/cn/8983/

reducesuffering 5y ago

There is much more diligence to be done. Hell hath no fury like accidentally letting a sleeper Taliban into a Western country who commits a terrorist attack.

luckylion 5y ago
It happened in Europe quite a few times with ISIS-members. There has been no perceivable fury, so ... hell doesn't exist? Hell is a picnic? I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter.

tyre 5y ago

I’m not sure what your point is. The Afghani military and government collapsed far faster than anyone anticipated. We knew they would fail—our estimates (that were wrong) were still a question of _when_ the state collapses, not _if_. Did we ever have enough helicopters in the country? Sure, probably. But part of leaving the country involves taking our stuff out of the country. We left Bagram a week or two ago. Now the situation in the ground has changed. Yes, in retrospect, with information we didn’t have then, it would be nice to have more helicopters. But even though we have more in the US military, you can’t Amazon Prime overnight ship a helicopter. We are sending more troops. The comment about locks checking visas is snarky, but also uninteresting. We’re talking about an emergency evacuation in a failed state that’s a hotbed for terrorism. Of course we should know who we’re bringing into aircraft and prioritize people we know and who have been vetted for visas.