48 ms·

Taliban immediately takes control of Afghanistan leaving them with far more armaments than they began the war with. US faces many videos that are practically re

Taliban immediately takes control of Afghanistan leaving them with far more armaments than they began the war with. US faces many videos that are practically recreations of the liberation of Saigon. I mean there are always outcomes that were never on the table like invasion and occupation of the US by the Taliban followed by unconditional US surrender that you could consider "worst possible scenario" but as far as things that could have actually happened go? Complete failure to achieve objective and visual symbolic reminders of nations previous most notable defeat is right up there.

jacobolus 5y ago
The take-over was fast, orderly, and largely bloodless. The USA has managed to evacuate a large number of Afghans who were directly helping it. To date there has been not been any widespread campaign of executions, mass imprisonments of political opponents of the Taliban, or reprisals against the civilian population. Would a protracted civil war between the Taliban and the US-backed puppet government, ultimately leading to the former’s victory (but with more bloodshed and bad feelings) have really been a better outcome for the people of Afghanistan?
- austhrow743 5y ago
  The people of Afghanistan didn't end the war in Afghanistan so I didn't take the question to be asking "Is this the worst possible scenario for the people of Afghanistan?" They appear to be doing quite well.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    Would a protracted civil war ending in the eventual defeat of the puppet government after many more deaths have been a better outcome for the people of the USA? Seems to me like a swift, relatively non-violent surrender and transfer of power is better for everyone, if the outcome was inevitable anyway.
qrwe432 5y ago
First, it's an old (really old) tactic to leave the enemy "salted goods" (can't remember the correct expression in english, sorry for that). That said, something happened out of sight of the public, accords of some kind, maybe something changed and the US President took a decision. Speed was key it seems and the hardware left behind could be a bad thing, but clearly, the politics are sure that it doesn't really matter compared to other scenario (unknown for the public).

jacobolus 5y ago

The take-over was fast, orderly, and largely bloodless. The USA has managed to evacuate a large number of Afghans who were directly helping it. To date there has been not been any widespread campaign of executions, mass imprisonments of political opponents of the Taliban, or reprisals against the civilian population. Would a protracted civil war between the Taliban and the US-backed puppet government, ultimately leading to the former’s victory (but with more bloodshed and bad feelings) have really been a better outcome for the people of Afghanistan?

austhrow743 5y ago
The people of Afghanistan didn't end the war in Afghanistan so I didn't take the question to be asking "Is this the worst possible scenario for the people of Afghanistan?" They appear to be doing quite well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 5y ago
  Would a protracted civil war ending in the eventual defeat of the puppet government after many more deaths have been a better outcome for the people of the USA? Seems to me like a swift, relatively non-violent surrender and transfer of power is better for everyone, if the outcome was inevitable anyway.

qrwe432 5y ago

First, it's an old (really old) tactic to leave the enemy "salted goods" (can't remember the correct expression in english, sorry for that). That said, something happened out of sight of the public, accords of some kind, maybe something changed and the US President took a decision. Speed was key it seems and the hardware left behind could be a bad thing, but clearly, the politics are sure that it doesn't really matter compared to other scenario (unknown for the public).