The strident media voices decrying the events in Afghanistan are hypocrites:

The Taliban were going to return to power sooner or later. If it had taken 90 days, far more people would have died.

The Afghan soldiers who exchanged their weapons for 150 bucks did the right thing.

The lightning fast, relatively bloodless takeover was the best possible outcome, given the reality on the ground.

The West has collectively lost contact with reality.

Why is this almost article entirely about KGB and not the CIA? I'd like to know more about CIA's involvement, which is mentioned as well as being in the title, but rather this is all about a story from a different era. Looks to me like whataboutism at its finest.

If the title says it's the CIA's "turn", then of course the article should be expected to draw a parallel with similar events in the past.

But it doesn't explain the similarity. Why are they similar? Do they take for granted that the reader already knows CIA's role in the Afghanistan war?

Is there evidence that the CIA as of recent had an inaccurate view of the situation in Afghanistan? I couldn’t find it in the article but it could be.

What happened in Vietnam was that the CIA had a very accurate view of the situation but the military loudly and repeatedly claimed everything was going well. Depending on the day, LBJ either wanted to believe that or felt he had to maintain the fiction in order not to lose in ‘68. I wouldn’t be surprised if history rhymes here.

So… I worked for the commander on a different deployment, and with many of his intel people. I can tell you that he is extremely conscientious about everything that he gets briefed with. The OGA reports were very detailed, and portrayed the full complexity of the situation, often lacking specific and actionable tactical recommendations. He would press on how to make them so. The subordinate command reports required immediate action. Hopefully you can understand what I’m getting at.

I have a little bit of history suggesting alternative COIN strategies to top brass. It’s been 60 years now. Maybe time to rethink.

Why didn’t the US pursue a different avenue - carve the country up, and give parts to the neighboring countries. Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran could each have taken a slice, incorporated the new areas under their control, and provided the stability the world is trying to achieve.

Why would Pakistan’s majority Punjabi people want to absorb more Pashtuns into their country? Pakistan is a democracy after all. Why would other countries do the same?

No one is trying to create stability.