He has been commander in chief for almost four years, can you explain why troop withdrawal didn't move forward until the last two-three months of his term (and after he lost re-election)?

I'm all for the US getting out of foreign countries, but there's a right and a wrong way to do so. If you leave a power vacuum, we've historically witnessed that worse elements can occupy them (ISIS for a recent example).

I can't speak for the other wars he's trying to withdraw from, but the outgoing Syrian envoy lied about the number of troops remaining in Syria. Initially Trump wanted to withdraw entirely, but they recommended keeping 200 soldiers there to avoid that power vacuum you're talking about. Then they proceeded to lie about it.

Which will be very convenient for the upcoming conflict in Syria once Biden gets into office!

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-en...

> As long as Trump can withdraw the troops from the countries like Afghanistan, I'd say he's doing his job.

As someone who is extremely dovish and an immigrant, I always grimace a little bit when I see this sentiment. There is a way to leave the country you have chosen to occupy and it's not as simple as saying you will withdraw and then withdrawing all presence in the region. The absurd power vacuum left behind causes massive geopolitical instability in the region that often spills over into neighboring countries which themselves have existing relationships with other parts of the world.

Doing that is exactly how you alienate all allies in some manner as well as disregard the several lives who'll likely perish as a result of the instability. For better or worse, the US got itself into this mess and getting out of war is often much harder than entering it. This is exactly why people advocate for diplomacy over war.

I don't have strong evidence to counter your arguments. I do have my doubts. First, it's been 20 years. What have we achieved in there for the good of the US? If not now, then how soon? Again, I don't really know any in-depth details. On the surface, the longer it takes, the more it looks some people just don't want to withdraw the troops. Second, almost all the allies of the US opposed that US stayed in Afghanistan or Iraq years ago. What has changed? The third, how do we know the allies were being unreasonable? The more we agree to them, them more they will praise us. Again, not saying they are being unreasonable. I'm just saying that I have doubts.

The other argument may be that a deliberate and slow drawdown of troops could actually be a situation where an imperialist western country chooses the victor in a conflict of its own creation, in a manner where they can still be a hegemonic influence over the area and reap the associated benefits. Does the US truly deserve a friend in Afghanistan?

I don’t necessarily believe the above, but the thought came across my mind and I felt it was worth bringing up.

Reducing American deployments is necessary, but not sufficient to "do his job". He is not "doing his job" if that's the only thing he accomplishes.

Doing his job in the context of firing opposing officials. I didn't mean that was all he needed to do.

Truth should never be declared an opposing viewpoint.

Leaders want honesty from their subordinates. Narcissists want loyalty.