"I can be proven wrong but I'll believe in my own logic, thanks" reads remarkable similar to "I'm not a racist, but I just don't want my daughter to marry a dark
Because every problem with leaving Afghanistan wouldn't have been fixed in a day or a year or even another decade. The only options were leaving poorly now or leaving poorly later
Six months of securing facilities, evacuating civilian perosnnel, removing critical infrastructure would have halved the human and military cost of what is happening right now.
For which you've provided 0 reasons as to why another 15-20 years would provide any improvement over the last 20 or any reason why you wouldn't just shift the goalposts to "I think another 30-40 years would be reasonable "
Frankly, every specialist on reforming countries and communities will tell you you need at least a full born generation to reach maturity for lasting change. See: integrating Eastern Germany into Western Europe, we're 30 years on and not quite completely there; re-integrating white and black in South Africa which, twenty years on, is still very much a process often sliding backwards; the current situation in Iraq which is still being shaped and supportend and very fragile; the feuds heating back up in Northern Ireland 20 years after the Good Friday Accords because the old guard is still around to start trouble again and poison minds, etc.
Also check out Frank's I don't have a solution but you can't leave post cause that's pretty clearly arguing for an indefinite stay in Afghanistan.
I'm not responsible for Frank's opinions or statements. Also, while I'm
personally of the opinion that the USA should never have invaded and has handled large parts of the situation in the worst possible way, I'm willing to admit that a controlled pull out may be preferable from an American point of view to remaining to keep the region stable for another 20 years. I hold a different opinion, but I'm not trying to convince you the USA should stay for 20 more years - I'm trying to convince you that "leaving ASAP today and fuck everything else" was a dumb shit brick idiot thing to do and yes, even 6 months would/could have made a difference.
Indeed cause I see no other way of getting out of Afghanistan. If we stayed another 2 decades it still would have been last chopper out of Saigon that's unavoidable.
It is not. Again, there are plenty of other countries that have been invaded, political and societal changes made, and then left to fend for themselves. Most of Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia, etc. Or, compare to Korea; There's still a large military US presence there, but they're not actively at war and fighting the North. it's geopolitically important for the US to be there. Something similar could have worked in Afghanistan.
Considering how leaving a sizable military is the exact opposite of leaving Afghanistan I think we can conclusively say that this isn't what I'm arguing for.
It is not. There's still a big US military presence in Iraq, there's still a big US military presence in South-Korea, there's still a US military presence in Germany, there's still a US military presence in Turkey. Keeping a number of bases in a (weak) allied state in a volatile region to provide reassurance and deterrence is a proven tactic. I don't know why you're willfully ignoring that. Would it have worked in Afghanistan easily and quickly, would Afghanistan have suddenly and peacefully transitioned into South-Korea? No, it'd have taken time, diplomacy, money, strength, and learning to deal with (yet) another culture.
If leaving slowly meant taking people and materiel I would be 100% for it. But there is exactly zero reason to believe that leaving slowly would have done anything of the sort. All going slowly would have done is make the situation worse.
[citation needed]
