4 ms·

We could have re-invaded and secured Kabul at least. Sure it would have been expensive, yes it would have been politically toxic, yes it would have taken month

We could have re-invaded and secured Kabul at least. Sure it would have been expensive, yes it would have been politically toxic, yes it would have taken months. But it would have provided a secure jumping off point and time to evacuate the vast bulk of the civilians who helped us, not to mention American citizens trapped on the ground. Sounds like the powers that be read the most optimistic projections of what the Afghan Army could do on paper and ignored or suppressed any information to the contrary. Simply a lack of integrity and not hearing what they didn't want to hear.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> We could have re-invaded and secured Kabul And violating the agreements with the Taliban about withdrawal of forces to do that would make it easier or harder for people to get to Kabul to be evacuated? > Sounds like the powers that be read the most optimistic projections of what the Afghan Army could do on paper and ignored or suppressed any information to the contrary Given the already-executed surrender, the options were: (1) throw it out and start a new war, (2) rely on the Afghan Army providing security, (3) rely on minimizing offense/provocation to the Taliban in the course of the evacuation. I don't think there was much optimism about #2; there was projecting the right public image to avoid sabotaging what chances that held, but the fallback was #3, because #1 not only isn't viable for the withdrawal itself, but also is the worst possible thing to attempt for the post-withdrawal political situation.