[echelon]

Should we have kept 10,000 US soldiers on the ground permanently to prevent this? Seems like a very small cost.

Perhaps the US could have purchased land from Afghanistan, which isn't so much of a unified country anyway. They could have established permanent bases from which they could aid the Afghanistan government and project power against other regional adversaries (ie. China, Iran, and "ally" Pakistan). The monetary injection would have helped too.

There's no way this pull out doesn't look bad for the Biden administration. This is going to be a major election year topic and we're going to hear how Democrats "hate women" and freedom. What a quagmire.

[dccoolgai]

No, that is the worst idea and the root of the problem.

Those "10,000 soldiers" are 18-year-old kids. With guns. In a place where they are scared, angry, bored and have no frame of reference understand the culture. What happens in that situation is about what you'd expect to happen, even when they are the "best trained in the world". The longer you keep them there, the more angry the locals are going to be.

[onepointsixC]

Taliban aren't the locals. Nor do the locals like the Taliban. More so this argument makes no sense when the Taliban had been suicide bombing Afghan civilians for decades and causing many times more civilian casualties.

[gunfighthacksaw]

Lets assume you are American and please humour me.

Your Midwestern state government collapses and loses the ability to defend its territory and the Feds cannot help you for whatever reason.

Two rival factions move in

- a Canadian warlord and his men: They terrorize the locals but otherwise spend time drinking light beer, listening to Steppenwolf and driving around in Pontiac Trans Ams hooting and waving guns around. They promise guts and glory to young men kicking dust in town.

- a division of the Pakistani military: they are generally professional, minus friction with the occupied population. They think fast cars, beer and stadium rock are impediments to a moral society, so they suppress these things and try to impose their values on the local population.

Do you imagine the local population would be happy with having either faction around? Do you think that they would all gravitate towards the more professional legitimate faction vs the Canadian warband?

[onepointsixC]

You're missing the part where you have a 50/50 chance of being considered cattle without rights and a sex prize for one of the faction's soldier.

[gunfighthacksaw]

You’re missing my point.

The Taliban are hardline, repressive and familiar. There is most definitely an overlap between the worldview of the Taliban and the local population, including how they view the role of women. They are just more extreme and militarily organized.

The US are foreign and have very little in common with (or knowledge of) how the Pashtuns live. Maybe they have a small amount in common with urban, secular Afghan society.

If the Taliban were grossly unpopular across the entire society, how are they able to make the gains they are?

[onepointsixC]

They were able to make the gains they could because the of the low national unity and moral of the ANA. The government that the US built was made up of tribal leaders who were corrupt and self interested with little real unity.

Just compare the incentives. If the Taliban win, Taliban fighters get to plunder cities, forcibly take wives, and get power. If the ANA forces win, they keep a nation which they don't identify strongly with free. Now add in that the ANA is completely demoralized from loss of all US support and which do you think is more willing to fight and risk their lives? It's little surprise how things are turning out.

[lotsofpulp]

> Should we have kept 10,000 US soldiers on the ground permanently to prevent this? Seems like a very small cost.

Is this sarcasm?

> There's no way this pull out doesn't look bad for the Biden administration. This is going to be a major election year topic and we're going to hear how Democrats "hate women" and freedom. What a quagmire.

I think it looks pretty good for him. A president that finally stopped wasting US taxpayer money for people US taxpayers do not prioritize.

[onepointsixC]

We've had much more troops in Japan, Korea, Germany for many more decades. The Taliban wasn't able to push into any major populated area with just 2,500 US troops.

[rtkwe]

Those troops are under essentially no threat with the exception of Korea and that is tiny. Having troops do more than occupy space is massively expensive and dangerous for them.

[lotsofpulp]

Keeping troops in developed, desirable countries is probably far cheaper than Afghanistan. Regardless, the point is what is the long term goal of keeping 2,500 troops, or even 1 troop in Afghanistan? There are lots of places in the world mired in conflict and poverty.