this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
529 points (77.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3119 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He'd have to have sent troops back when he got into office. We weren't getting the interpreters out without controlling the ground ourselves.

That was politically and logistically unfeasible.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Look at the time span from Biden entering office and the withdrawal, then look at the time span from September 11, 2001 to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reversing the withdrawal months in advance was logistically well within the capabilities of the US military and would have been politically less risky since withdrawals are extremely hard to execute as well as the US military executed this one.

edit: Massive changes/reversals in military objectives are implausible on the scale of hours or even days, but making sudden changes, moving masses of men and material in a new direction to do a new thing on short notice is one of the abilities of a good military. The notion that the US military, a very good military, couldn't reverse itself when given months to do so isn't well thought out.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And what were we going to tell Pakistan? You realize the bulk of our supplies came by land through there?

What would the Afghan reaction be? Because at that point you lose credibility. They see it as a second invasion.

And yeah, what do you tell the American people who are severely war weary?

It was never about the military's internal ability. It was about the actual logistics chain and appearing to go back on a major deal in a county where that means people definitely start helping the terrorists because they lose faith in you ever leaving voluntarily.