Read on Twitter
I’ve said before that not withdrawing from Afghanistan based on the terms of the deal would be accompanied by calls for an increase in US troop levels. And here is the WaPo on cue: “It’s possible, too, that more troops would be needed to prevent a collapse of government forces”1/
3/ So maybe more troops. Ok, then what’s the theory of meeting the ends staying should secure? There isn’t one. The Post admits that this war is lost! “The alternative is not to reembrace a military strategy of defeating the Taliban; it is clear that war cannot now be won.”
At root, there is a faith in calls for staying that time & more support to government will help at peace table. But they also admit that there is no path to defeating the TB or significantly changing the balance of power within AFG. Which makes this a recipe for forever war......
5/ Isn’t it amazing that after nearly 20 years in Afghanistan, fighting the TB and spending billions on the AFG government, that even supporters of the US war admit the AFG govt could collapse if we don’t increase our troop levels?
6/ “Without such a deal, a delayed withdrawal could cause the Taliban to resume attacks on U.S. forces, which it has stopped in the past year.” Could? They should be square with the American people and their readers. The TB will resume attacks on US troops if no deal.
Ask yourself honestly, without the CT/security rational that was our sole reason for going into AFG in the first place, would you risk lives of America’s sons and daughters for marginal gains in “rights for women, a vibrant civil society and the rudiments of democracy.”
