[sneak]

I think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves.

This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.

[throwawaysea]

I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to recognize the Taliban government and invest in their infrastructure via their belt and road initiative (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-s...).

We should have at least kept a smaller force around as a presence to maintain continuity. See this “rescue plan for Afghanistan” from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for more suggestions that aren’t blindly exiting Afghanistan in a few short months: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...

[fighterpilot]

I am also not fully sold on the idea that getting out is a good idea, but for different reasons. The growth of Afghanistan's economy (300-400% GDP) and the quality of life improvements since the Taliban were removed has been notable, and if this regresses then there will be a real human toll.

But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/destabilizing to the whole region, so I can understand doing it.

This isn't a commentary on the specifics of how it was done, merely on whether a withdrawal should have been done.

[laurent92]

Social media is already reporting thousands of refugees walking in Greece.

[sneak]

I have not seen one cogent argument why the US taxpayer should be funding the role of policeman indefinitely in faraway lands.

Terrorism in Afghanistan has zero to do with the US constituency.

A "foothold" is useless and unnecessary.

I feel badly for the Afghan people, but ultimately it isn't the US' problem, and never has been. If they'd like to have a civil war and get those assholes out, let them.

[rascul]

> It means a terrorist organization will control a nation

What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? I've mostly only seen them fight back against foreign invaders.

> and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!).

First they offered to look at evidence and consider extradition, then they offered extradition, both of which the U.S. refused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...

> It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically.

Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?

[throwawaysea]

> What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed?

Giving aid to a terrorist group that commits those acts doesn't make the Taliban less complicit. See this UN report from June about how the Taliban is still closely tied to al Qaeda (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-tali...). As for what atrocities they've committed, there's a long list on Wikipedia, many of which meet the definition of terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices).

> Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?

So many reasons. First, to contain China, which is the principal threat to America's prosperity and control in the future. Second, to support other democratic nations like India, who will suffer from the Taliban's resurgence. Third, to expand our economic interests. Fourth, to continue our mission to sustain human rights which the Taliban is already eroding. There are others, and I am certainly not a foreign policy expert, but my point is - there's something there.

[Shacklz]

> remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!

But when the Saudis presumably financed some of the same/similar bad guys it wasn't even worth much of an investigation? I find such "they're bad guys!"-arguments to be applied very inconsistently

[selfmodruntime]

> a terrorist organization will control a nation

those are the terrorists the US created by mercilessly bombing their civilian relatives.

[Clewza313]

The US also directly funded the mujahideen, the forebears of today's Taliban, back when they were fighting the Soviets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen