[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.