There is a difference between agreeing on an outcome and the implentation to get there.
> Before the Afghan army could take control of the airfield about an hour’s drive from the Afghan capital Kabul, it was invaded by a small army of looters, who ransacked barrack after barrack and rummaged through giant storage tents before being evicted, according to Afghan military officials.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/bagram-afghanistan-airfield-us-tr...
The issue that everybody has is the scrambled and disorganized form of the exit, and that's what the administration is receiving bipartisan flak over. Biden said "this is not Saigon, there will be no helicopters evacuating people from the roofs of embassies," and that is exactly what occurred. This should've been higher on the administration's priority list, and evacuations should have begun much sooner.
Here's just a couple of the blaring issues:
- US forces should have protected Bagram air base from being surrendered to the Taliban, as it was much more defensible and capable of this scale of evacuations, and we would not be running so close to the August 31st deadline while also failing to evacuate Afghan nationals.
- General McKenzie should have stayed in Afghanistan to manage the operations rather than exiting early to CENTCOM in Tampa; our presence completely deteriorated without an effective chain of command.
- Maybe we could have spent the past few months working harder to give the Afghans better intelligence capabilities (intel and air support mattered more than our troops on the ground), and ensuring our own intelligence was accurate, as we failed to detect the Taliban's offensive plans.
Versus the past 20? It’s pretty amazing to me how quickly they’ve been defeated. It’s not clear there ever was a solid ground for them if it crumbled so easily.
The other two choices are ones I firmly believe were misguided, but it's tough to argue this one as we don't know what the US was unable to provide or why.
Good governance. Very clearly, nobody wanted to fight and die to protect the occupation-supported government.
My understanding is that the occupation won the war, moved in, and then picked the worst people money could buy to run the place.
I understand that from folks who want the political attack, or from folks who are personally invested in either the US military or intelligence.
I don't understand it from intelligent folks who can spend a minute or two thinking through the situation.
This is fantasy. Even if you could get divided government on board, how are you going to convince the Taliban to let them out? If you think it should have been done in "secret" beforehand, please explain how you get literally thousands of people, many in visible positions, out without being noticed.
This is just one example of a demand for something that could not happen.
They've evac'ed over 100K people so far. It is the largest such operation in history, and it is actually going relatively well.
It is amusing, but not surprising, to see all the 'savvy' media consumers here get rolled.
As for this specific situation: The Taliban didn't control the country until very recently. Thousands of people have been at the airport, waiting for planes - you may have seen pictures of them crowding the airstrip. The Taliban has not been preventing them from flying out, the lack of planes and lack of letting them on the planes has been preventing them. People have been applying for visas for months, in public, and not getting them. Some of these people have been waiting for years. There is no universe in which any of what you just said is a valid reason for letting everything turn into a dumpster fire in the first place, and there is no way to excuse the existence of this dumpster fire by praising how well they're handling the massive dumpster fire they created.
No, its not; immigration control is a power Constitutionally assigned to Congress and which Congress has extensively prescribed rules on. Courts have repeatedly in recent years invalidated executive immigration actions as violation of legislative rules, both substantive and procedural.
Easy. Don't let the country fall into the hands of the Taliban before getting people out. That would prevent negotiations with some of the worst people in the world.
This is the depths to which American credibility has sunk. We have to convince them because we have left ourselves no options[1]. Except that they have no interest in being "convinced", but every interest in demonstrating to friend and foe alike that the U.S. has capitulated[2].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28224405
[2]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9922849/Biden-tells...
If you want to blame some one for not listening to experts then blame Biden. He did not listen to his experts who said Afghanistan would fall quickly. [1] If he had maybe he would have evacuated people and weapons earlier.
If anybody is playing politics it is you. This is a complete disaster. Maybe you should take a minute or two a think through the situation. Anybody who thinks not even being able to get our own people out, let alone those who aided us, is not a disaster is ignoring the facts. If this happened under Trump would you be making the same argument? I know I would.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/us/politics/afghanistan-b...
> The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) months following announcement of this agreement
Perhaps they could have changed their minds and stayed, but then what? Really the evacuation plan should have been clearer from an earlier date.