Yes, there is. People want to believe that orderly evacuation is merely a function of planning. It isn't. * Diplomats -- needed to show support for the governm

Yes, there is. People want to believe that orderly evacuation is merely a function of planning. It isn't. * Diplomats -- needed to show support for the government we put in place until it fell. It was always going to fall, so there was always going to be a scramble to get them out. This dynamic has happened before and it will happen again. It's a function of diplomacy, not planning. * Afghani Allies -- we have to draw the line somewhere at who we evacuate, the line was always going to leave some people out who thought they should be evacuated, and that was always going to be a tragedy. The tragedy is a function of line drawing, not planning. * Equipment -- we left equipment for the Afghani government. We could have taken it or destroyed it, but that would have been a vote of no confidence in the government we notionally supported, so diplomacy says we leave it and the taliban gets it. Again a function of diplomacy, not planning. If you try to throw planning and resources at problems that are actually fundamental, what happens is that you announce a troop surge and then 8 years later your presidency is over and you are no closer to leaving Afghanistan.