colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
That's quite the false dichotomy there. All or nothing is a silly way to go.We are either going to be interventionalists or we aren't. If we aren't then remove troops from around the world and see how that goes. If we recognize the fact that we must maintain a presence in some areas for peace and to protect certain groups then Afghanistan certainly qualified. A small presence was enough to keep the Taliban and the terrorists groups they shelter at bay. Even if you want to make the argument that we should have left, the fact that we pulled out leaving people, equipment and bases behind is even more stupefying. It was dumb no matter how it is spun.
We don't have troops engaged in combat zones around the world. Chilling in Ramstein isn't exactly the same as the ongoing and unending civil war in Afghanistan. We aren't propping up the South Korean government like we are propping up the Afghan "government".
As for a small presence, we don't really know that. We only reduced our troop levels from 13,000 (which I don't consider a "small presence") to 2,500 (which could be described as a small presence I guess) during which time the Taliban were making gains in the outer areas of Afghanistan.
The equipment left behind belong to the Afghan military.
The bases left behind, wait, how do we take a base with us?
The Americans "left behind" weren't really "left behind" since they're in Afghanistan on their own anyway. We didn't put them there. Leaving them behind implies we brought them there in the first place.