That sounds like the US taught the Afghan military how to fight assuming the US would stay there forever. Seems like a either a shortsighted decision or a deliberately political one - "We can't possibly leave! Their military will collapse without US air support."
Either way, it's hard to describe anything about a 20 year occupation as "sudden" and having "no transition period". If the US was not able to establish a functional Afghan military after 20 years, what difference would a few weeks/months really make?
Edit:
> this is the equivalent of teaching some swim classes on the blackboard and then throwing the kids into the ocean and walking away.
If you've been teaching swimming exclusively on the blackboard for 20 years it's probably time to retire as a teacher - your students are never going to learn how to swim from you.
It doesn't matter how long you're there for, it matters how gradually you hand over to the locals, and that it be done in a way that supports their success.
This was an abrupt exit after 20 years of carrying the load. Of course it's going to get dropped.
Yes, but sticking to the analogy it says more about you as a teacher than about your students. I think we can agree the US failed pretty badly here to get the Afgans into shape to defend themselves.
They shouldn't have left until they achieved that goal. They were down to just 3500 soldiers. Hell they have a bigger troop presence in Germany, and dozens of other countries around the world. The death rate is comparable too, believe it or not. The last soldier to die there was back in 2020. There was no need for this rushed disaster.
There's no other way to describe this debacle except as a complete and utter fuckup by the current administration, specifically Joe Biden, because he made the call.