Milley, McKenzie say they recommended 2,500 troops stay in Afghanistan, after Biden claims he was ne

Again no.
U.S. lost Afghanistan war through miscalculations spanning administrations, Milley tells lawmakers scrutinizing withdrawal
By Karoun Demirjian and Alex Horton1 hour ago

Milley and McKenzie have told lawmakers they had advised both Biden and his predecessor, President Donald Trump, to keep at least 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, emphasizing their view that a reduction below that number would precipitate the eventual collapse of Afghanistan’s government and military. Ultimately, the administration elected to leave approximately 650 troops to secure the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and Hamid Karzai International Airport, a force that quickly swelled to several thousand when the evacuation was ordered.

 

blah blah blah...so long as you're basing your ideas on Milley's opinions I really don't think we have much to worry about regarding Afghanistan. You get the last word.

 

those that want to keep bringing up Trump cannot give proof that he would have withdrawn in the half-assed manner this clown did.

 

Biden's cowardly and dishonorable exit from Afghanistan will have a significant cost.
Hosea 8:7: "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

 

I don't work at the WH.

 

And yet you make a claim you can't prove.

 

That Biden took the wrong advice ?

 

round and round we go...

 

You provided the evidence. You just said you think the Chinese created COVID as a bioweapon.

And you're helping spread that bioweapon.

Thus, you appear to be doing the will of the CCP, at least according to your own standards.

The only person bringing up Trump in this discussion has been ... you. Most people have moved on from 2020, but Trump still lives in your head rent-free, and it seems your every waking thought is about Trump.

 

A family member recalled seeing Vietnamese officers at the Infantry School in the late 60s.
Vann died in a helicopter crash in 1972. The Communists insist they shot it down.

 

And crooked pols have to invest all the loot in something.

 

Sheehan makes the case that Vann was in effect covertly running the war on the ground from outside the direct military command structure before he was killed.
The account of the slow start of the war before the formal introduction of US ground forces is the most interesting part of the book. Vann's desperate efforts to avoid the eventual loss were just too depressing for me to finish reading. I already knew the ending.

 

Soviet occupation of Afghanistan served the national interest of the USA.
IMO, experience has proved that our interference in Afghanistan was a grave error.

 

The Soviet Union was a Cold War enemy back then and not Afghanistan.

 

Nevertheless, the Soviet pacification of Afghanistan served the national interests of the US.

 

Why? What was the threat to the US back then from Afghanistan that was greater than the Soviet threat?

 

Radical Islam became an existential threat to the West shortly after the death of Muhammed.
The USSR became terminal as soon as Lenin abandoned his "All Power To The Soviets!" pledge.
Without its alliance with the US it would not have survived WW II.
IMO, their continued occupation of Afghanistan would have hastened the decline of the USSR, just as it hastened the decline of the US.

 

So the Crusades in the 11th, 12th and 13th century made todays Afghanistan a real threat to the US? The Berlin Wall fell in 1991. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989. How much difference could it have made?

 

The Crusades were a reaction to the Jihad.
Google: Barbary pirates, skyjacking, suicide bomber...

As you point out the USSR did not come close to surviving for even 1 century.
"Progressive movements tend to eat their own.

 

I pointed out the USSR didn't last more than 2 years after they left Afghanistan in 89 in response to your claim the fall of the Soviet Union would have happened sooner if they had stayed in Afghanistan. Your belief is if the Soviet Union had stayed in Afghanistan they would have fallen sooner than when they did. 2 years wasn't soon enough? Just search the Crusades.

The Crusades were a series of religious and political wars fought between 1096 and 1291 for control of the Holy Land. Pope Urban II initiated the First Crusade (1096–1102) in order to aid the Christian Byzantine Empire, which was under attack by Muslim Seljuk Turks.

 

Are you saying that its defeat in Afghanistan caused the fall of the USSR?

Your observations about the Crusades are interesting, but they do not seem to contradict anything from my post.

 

Did you forget you said the USSR would have collapsed sooner had the US not interfered in Afghanistan? I'm asking if the collapse of the USSR within 2 years was not soon enough for you? Your quote from post #242.

"IMO, their continued occupation of Afghanistan would have hastened the decline of the USSR, just as it hastened the decline of the US."

The Crusades had nothing to do with pirates and whatever you said. It was a war between Muslims and Christians.

 

"The war was a strategic failure," Milley told a committee hearing

 

Yes. A dishonorable abandonment of our allies will always result in failure.

 

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989.