President Biden's first term in office

[Vanoi]

Alot of rhetoric here, but your talking points are out of date.

Out of date? The fact that we have spent trillions of dollars for this war and yet much of Afghanistan remains outside of government control speaks volumes. And you say that's out of date?

A. The US has stationed troops abroad for decades, currently in 150 or so countries. Trillions of dollars spent, and what do we have to show for it? The answer can be virtually anything you want it to be.

Most Republicans and nearly half of all Americans - an increasing number - support a permanent presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though most don’t think the wars there were worth it.



Most Americans also believe military spending should be maintained or increased overall.

Nice graphs. Yet, not one of them states that Americans as a majority support staying in Afghanistan.

B. The US’ combat role ended in 2013-2014. If you’re going to bemoan the NATO/coalition presence in the country as a “war,” you might as well oppose all USM and allied military activities abroad on principle.
C. The Taliban are sickly peasants armed with scavenged weapons. Literally. The US may have underestimated their resilience for some duration in the past, but in the end, supporting the Afghan government with equipment, funding, training, and military assistance was always the only long term solution. The USG has simply abandoned the mission for domestic political reasons, throwing away what little gains were made and leaving our allies to be butchered.
D. By 2020, the US had more troops stationed throughout the Persian Gulf region than in Afghanistan. Servicing the national debt costs hundreds of billions a year. More US soldiers have died by suicide since 2001 than in combat in Afghanistan. Most Americans probably don’t know or care. The idea that Americans are legitimately war weary is a matter of individual political preference at best.

Sickly peasants that have managed to outlast the US military for 20 years.

Training and arming the same Afghan Army that is currently surrendering to the Taliban? The same Afghan Army that after 20 years of training still isn't able to take on the Taliban?

No point in fighting a war if it means staying indefinitely because the Afghans cannot defend themselves.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Out of date? The fact that we have spent trillions of dollars for this war and yet much of Afghanistan remains outside of government control speaks volumes. And you say that's out of date?


Nice graphs. Yet, not one of them states that Americans as a majority support staying in Afghanistan.


Sickly peasants that have managed to outlast the US military for 20 years.

Training and arming the same Afghan Army that is currently surrendering to the Taliban? The same Afghan Army that after 20 years of training still isn't able to take on the Taliban?

No point in fighting a war if it means staying indefinitely because the Afghans cannot defend themselves.

I mean sure, you can repeat the same empty phrases and swat at strawmen to avoid response. I got plenty of material. The same Chicago Council survey found 74% support maintaining or increasing the USM presence in the Middle East, 61% believe the region is the most important to national security interests, and over half believe US alliances in the region are mutually beneficial - all this, despite the consensus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not “worth it.” In any case, people were opposed to withdrawal when it was Trump’s idea, meaning current support for withdrawal likely has more to do with Biden’s popularity relative to Trump, than with opposition to the status quo. From 2019:



https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ruary-Poll.pdf

There is broad support for a long-term military base in Afghanistan, majority support for maintaining or increasing current USM presence in the region, as well as overall military spending. Most Americans report they don’t even follow news on Afghanistan. Given all this, as well as Biden’s relative popularity, he may have convinced the public it was worth staying in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. The Taliban’s rapid advancements and threats to US forces provide ample justification for applying contingencies to Trump’s terms. He just didn’t, other than to extend the deadline by a few months.

[Vanoi]

I mean sure, you can repeat the same empty phrases and swat at strawmen to avoid response. I got plenty of material. The same Chicago Council survey found 74% support maintaining or increasing the USM presence in the Middle East, 61% believe the region is the most important to national security interests, and over half believe US alliances in the region are mutually beneficial - all this, despite the consensus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not “worth it.” In any case, people were opposed to withdrawal when it was Trump’s idea, meaning current support for withdrawal likely has more to do with Biden’s popularity relative to Trump, than with opposition to the status quo. From 2019:



https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ruary-Poll.pdf

Love the survey. It asks about rapid withdraw, and not the general question. Sure people don't favor rapid withdraw but that doesn't mean they don't support a slower withdraw from the Afghanistan.

My argument is solid and your are ignoring it on purpose. Even you can't explain away the poor performance of the Afghan Army. The US cannot stay indefinitely in Afghanistan.

There is broad support for a long-term military base in Afghanistan, majority support for maintaining or increasing current USM presence in the region, as well as overall military spending. Most Americans report they don’t even follow news on Afghanistan. Given all this, as well as Biden’s relative popularity, he may have convinced the public it was worth staying in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. The Taliban’s rapid advancements and threats to US forces provide ample justification for applying contingencies to Trump’s terms. He just didn’t, other than to extend the deadline by a few months.

Broad support is not majority support. And that seems to conflict with the general idea of a long term presence in Afghanistan.

Yet none of that matters. What matters is can the Afghan Army secure the country by themselves? You keep ignoring that.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Love the survey. It asks about rapid withdraw, and not the general question. Sure people don't favor rapid withdraw but that doesn't mean they don't support a slower withdraw from the Afghanistan.

The US is currently withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at a rapid pace, months ahead of schedule.

My argument is solid and your are ignoring it on purpose. Even you can't explain away the poor performance of the Afghan Army. The US cannot stay indefinitely in Afghanistan.

You haven’t made an argument. You’ve made assertions. The USG isn’t withdrawing based on the performance of the Afghan army. As a deflection, it’s irrelevant to the withdrawal, which damaged the morale of government troops, and emboldened Taliban offensives with the near certainty of the latter’s victory.

Broad support is not majority support. And that seems to conflict with the general idea of a long term presence in Afghanistan.

And? As I said, broad support indicates the public is amenable to the status quo.

Yet none of that matters. What matters is can the Afghan Army secure the country by themselves? You keep ignoring that.

If none of that matters, why respond to it, only to change the subject? The Afghan army has proven capable of holding up against the Taliban, contingent on the support of USM advisors and soldiers. That support is now officially gone.

In conclusion, the author finds that if the United States were to withdraw the remainder of its forces from Afghanistan, the Taliban would enjoy a slight military advantage that would increase in a compounding manner over time. While the Taliban’s chief spokesman recently “said that the group’s primary goal is to settle the issues through talks and that a ‘military solution’ would be used only as a last resort,”138 the results of this analysis suggest that the United States and government of Afghanistan would be wise to vigorously pursue negotiations while U.S. forces remain and avoid tempting the Taliban to exploit the military advantage it would have in their absence.

https://ctc.usma.edu/afghanistans-se...et-assessment/

[Cope]

Love the survey. It asks about rapid withdraw, and not the general question. Sure people don't favor rapid withdraw but that doesn't mean they don't support a slower withdraw from the Afghanistan.

My argument is solid and your are ignoring it on purpose. Even you can't explain away the poor performance of the Afghan Army. The US cannot stay indefinitely in Afghanistan.

Broad support is not majority support. And that seems to conflict with the general idea of a long term presence in Afghanistan.

Yet none of that matters. What matters is can the Afghan Army secure the country by themselves? You keep ignoring that.

The Afghan army's vulnerabilities are the best argument in favor of staying, not leaving.

[enoch]

The Afghan army's vulnerabilities are the best argument in favor of staying, not leaving.

Afghanistan had to end sometime. One has to be realistic. Can't war forever. You get it.

[Coughdrop addict]

I just think it incredible that many of the same people who a few months ago were praising Trump for winding down Afghanistan, and claimed Democrats wanted a forever war, miraculously adjusted their positions a full 180 degrees once a Democrat was in the White House and wanted to wind down Afghanistan.

[Vanoi]

The US is currently withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at a rapid pace, months ahead of schedule

Doesn't change my point whatsoever.

You haven’t made an argument. You’ve made assertions. The USG isn’t withdrawing based on the performance of the Afghan army. As a deflection, it’s irrelevant to the withdrawal, which damaged the morale of government troops, and emboldened Taliban offensives with the near certainty of the latter’s victory.

No I did make an argument and you have no counter. Nor have I claimed once the US decided to withdraw over the performance of the Afghan Army.

And? As I said, broad support indicates the public is amenable to the status quo.

Still not majority support.

If none of that matters, why respond to it, only to change the subject? The Afghan army has proven capable of holding up against the Taliban, contingent on the support of USM advisors and soldiers. That support is now officially gone.

I made my argument clear on.my first reply to you. Trillions wasted, no real progress in Afghanistan, Afghan Army that can't defend itself. You decided to post a bunch of graphs and polls and not addressing anything I said.

The US cannot stay indefinitely. If after twenty years the Afghan Army is still unable to defend itself with decades of training and funding it's time to go. Stop throwing money at a problem that won't resolve it.

The Afghan army's vulnerabilities are the best argument in favor of staying, not leaving.

You're leaving out they've been trained for 20 years and still can't do it. No sense in wasting money on an Army that hasn't shown progress in 20 years.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The Afghan South Vietnamese army's vulnerabilities are the best argument in favor of staying, not leaving.

With that logic the US army would still be in Vietnam.

Sometimes a war is lost and a clear cut is needed.

[Vanoi]

With that logic the US army would still be in Vietnam.

Sometimes a war is lost and a clear cut is needed.

No let's just stay there for another 20 years and hope the Afghan government gets it's together.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Doesn't change my point whatsoever.

You have none. You’re just complaining and deflecting.

No I did make an argument and you have no counter. Nor have I claimed once the US decided to withdraw over the performance of the Afghan Army.

Spare me the usual games. When your assertions were challenged, you simply repeated yourself and declined to address what I said.

Still not majority support.

This might mean something if I hadn’t already said what I said.

I made my argument clear on.my first reply to you. Trillions wasted, no real progress in Afghanistan, Afghan Army that can't defend itself.

All of which is your personal opinion, and you haven’t backed it up with anything that would indicate the US must therefore withdraw and withdraw immediately, which is what I addressed and what is happening now. Your assertions could just as easily be used as reasons why it is irresponsible for the US to leave now.

It’s not true that there hasn’t been any progress in Afghanistan, or that the Afghan army can’t hold its own - with US support. They’ve been doing it for 6-7 years now. You can call spending money on anything a waste. I have substance. You have rhetoric.

You decided to post a bunch of graphs and polls and not addressing anything I said.

Not true.

The US cannot stay indefinitely. If after twenty years the Afghan Army is still unable to defend itself with decades of training and funding it's time to go. Stop throwing money at a problem that won't resolve it.

More empty rhetoric. The US isn’t committed to stay forever, though there is widespread support for a permanent base there, which would allow the US to scale operations up or down depending on the progress and credibility of intra-Afghan peace talks. It’s the most reasonable and responsible course of action.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Wouldn't help as Afghanistan is a tribal society, which uniting element was in the past the afghan monarchy, which doesn't exist anymore. Another charismatic figure, who could unite is not in sight.

The best, what people in Northern Afghanistan can hope, is that Dostum raise to power again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_...administration

[Vanoi]

You have none. You’re just complaining and deflecting.

No I'm presenting a valid argument you can't touch. That's why you're not discussing the state of the Afghan Army or the fact after twenty years it's still not able to fight on its own.

Spare me the usual games. When your assertions were challenged, you simply repeated yourself and declined to address what I said.

You mean all of your graphs none of which show Americans supporting by a majority to stay in Afghanistan?

This might mean something if I hadn’t already said what I said.

Oh it just means your entire point is moot and pointing out support American bases in Afghanistan isn't supported by a majority of Americans. Thanks for clarifying that.

All of which is your personal opinion, and you haven’t backed it up with anything that would indicate the US must therefore withdraw and withdraw immediately, which is what I addressed and what is happening now. Your assertions could just as easily be used as reasons why it is irresponsible for the US to leave now.

It’s not true that there hasn’t been any progress in Afghanistan, or that the Afghan army can’t hold its own - with US support. They’ve been doing it for 6-7 years now. You can call spending money on anything a waste. I have substance. You have rhetoric.

It's your own personal opinion yourself that the US should stay in Afghanistan which you haven't backed up with anything indicating the US must stay in Afghanistan.

And thank you for agreeing with me. The Afghan Army after twenty years of training is unable to hold its own without US support. That's a massive failure.

Substance? If you call a graph only showing a minority of Americans wanting a military base in Afghanistan them sure you do. Thank you for helping my point further.

Not true.

Very true.

More empty rhetoric. The US isn’t committed to stay forever, though there is widespread support for a permanent base there, which would allow the US to scale operations up or down depending on the progress and credibility of intra-Afghan peace talks. It’s the most reasonable and responsible course of action.

There's no majority support for a base in Afghanistan so widespread support like broad support means nothing.

No empty rhetoric here. Just valid criticisms you can't answer. Trillions of dollars plus years of training and the Afghans still can't fight on their own? That's a massive failure.

[Lord Thesaurian]

No I'm presenting a valid argument you can't touch. That's why you're not discussing the state of the Afghan Army or the fact after twenty years it's still not able to fight on its own.


You mean all of your graphs none of which show Americans supporting by a majority to stay in Afghanistan?


Oh it just means your entire point is moot and pointing out support American bases in Afghanistan isn't supported by a majority of Americans. Thanks for clarifying that.





It’s not true that there hasn’t been any progress in Afghanistan, or that the Afghan army can’t hold its own - with US support. They’ve been doing it for 6-7 years now. You can call spending money on anything a waste. I have substance. You have rhetoric.

It's your own personal opinion yourself that the US should stay in Afghanistan which you haven't backed up with anything indicating the US must stay in Afghanistan.

And thank you for agreeing with me. The Afghan Army after twenty years of training is unable to hold its own without US support. That's a massive failure.

Substance? If you call a graph only showing a minority of Americans wanting a military base in Afghanistan them sure you do. Thank you for helping my point further.


Very true.


There's no majority support for a base in Afghanistan so widespread support like broad support means nothing.

No empty rhetoric here. Just valid criticisms you can't answer. Trillions of dollars plus years of training and the Afghans still can't fight on their own? That's a massive failure.

Repeating yourself again and again while falsely claiming your assertions were not addressed is par for the course. I’ve already shown that public support for withdrawal is as fickle as to completely reverse from as recently as two years ago, that there is majority support for maintaining or increasing USM presence in the region, and even half support for a permanent base in Afghanistan. All you can do is deflect. You have falsely claimed there has been no progress in Afghanistan and that the Afghan Army can’t fight on its own. They’ve been doing that for years now, with the US/NATO in a support role.

Given your “criticisms” are based primarily on those false claims and could just as well be given as reasons why the US shouldn’t leave, I have absolutely addressed them to the extent they merit any at all. Furthermore, if an army’s inability to withstand, unsupported, a fight to the death with one enemy or another renders USM presence a failure and a waste, then the US should close most bases around the world, especially in East Asia and the Persian Gulf. You have no argument.

[Vanoi]

Repeating yourself again and again while falsely claiming your assertions were not addressed is par for the course. I’ve already shown that public support for withdrawal is as fickle as to completely reverse from as recently as two years ago, that there is majority support for maintaining or increasing USM presence in the region, and even half support for a permanent base in Afghanistan. All you can do is deflect. You have falsely claimed there has been no progress in Afghanistan and that the Afghan Army can’t fight on its own. They’ve been doing that for years now, with the US/NATO in a support role.

Fighting with US/NATO support isn't fighting on your own and you admitted yourself they can't fight without their support. That's the point. If after twenty years of training they can't fight by themselves than this war has been a massive failure. There's no reason after spending trillions of dollars and training them that the Afghans cannot fight on their own.

It is not the US's job to nation build. Afghans have to be able to fight and secure their country on their own. If they can't that's their problem.

Given your “criticisms” are based primarily on those false claims and could just as well be given as reasons why the US shouldn’t leave, I have absolutely addressed them to the extent they merit any at all. Furthermore, if an army’s inability to withstand, unsupported, a fight to the death with one enemy or another renders USM presence a failure and a waste, then the US should close most bases around the world, especially in East Asia and the Persian Gulf. You have no argument.

You haven't addressed anything. On fact you have avoided my main arguments time and time again.

You can't explain why after twenty years of of funding and training the Afghans are unable to fight without US support. You can't explain why after twenty years that the Afghan government has lost much of its territory to Taliban control and can't stop their offensives.

You even posted an article showing large amount Afghan soldiers surrendering to the Taliban. And you want the US to stay there and continue giving training and equipment to an army that can't stand on its own?

You simply don't want to leave Afghanistan out of pride. You'd have the US stay their indefinitely spending billions if not trillions of dollars propping up a corrupt government that can't even stand on its own.

Sorry, no forever wars for me.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Fighting with US/NATO support isn't fighting on your own and you admitted yourself they can't fight without their support. That's the point. If after twenty years of training they can't fight by themselves than this war has been a massive failure. There's no reason after spending trillions of dollars and training them that the Afghans cannot fight on their own.

It is not the US's job to nation build. Afghans have to be able to fight and secure their country on their own. If they can't that's their problem.

You’ve stated your opinion. You haven’t indicated why the capabilities of the Afghan army mean the US should leave. If the Afghan army can lead the fight with US/NATO support (as they have), but faces near certain defeat without it, that means the US should stay, not leave, for similar reasons why it stays in other dangerous countries you presumably have no problem with.

You can't explain why after twenty years of of funding and training the Afghans are unable to fight without US support. You can't explain why after twenty years that the Afghan government has lost much of its territory to Taliban control and can't stop their offensives.

You even posted an article showing large amount Afghan soldiers surrendering to the Taliban. And you want the US to stay there and continue giving training and equipment to an army that can't stand on its own?

Again, this isn’t an argument justifying withdrawal, it’s talking points. I don’t need to explain why the Afghan army can’t succeed without US support, any more than the Iraqi military or the Taiwanese one or the Philippine one, because the likelihood that they can’t is an argument against withdrawal, not in favor of it.

You simply don't want to leave Afghanistan out of pride. You'd have the US stay their indefinitely spending billions if not trillions of dollars propping up a corrupt government that can't even stand on its own.

Sorry, no forever wars for me.

Cue the ad hom strawmen. The US combat role in Afghanistan ended several years ago. The fact is the Afghan army and government is improving with western military support on the ground, but is likely doomed without it. This was always the only long term solution, and has been objectively explained in detail. Here’s another. 2015, 2021, same conclusions. To withdraw now is folly.

Taking into account all of the indicators mentioned above (the slow pace of security sector reform, economic perturbations, the uncertain political settlement with the Taliban, and warlords returning to power), it is nonetheless unimaginable that the international community could withdraw completely from sustaining the progress that has been already made with such significant military, human and financial effort. Politicians and experts agree that external support for Afghanistan will continue to be critical, in order to alleviate shortfalls in infrastructure, human capacity, security, and anticipated government budget revenues. In this context, the May 2015 decision taken by NATO foreign ministers, to prolong the Alliance’s presence in Afghanistan with a new mission (following the “Resolute Support” training and mentoring operation) with a predominantly civilian component must be praised, as it demonstrates the international community’s feeling of great responsibility.

https://www.pism.pl/file/9c34c616-48...8-dee20f207db4

[Vanoi]

You’ve stated your opinion. You haven’t indicated why the capabilities of the Afghan army mean the US should leave.

I have. We've wasted money and time training an Army that can't defend itself. And continuing to do so is useless so we should withdraw.

Big ideas hard for you to understand?

If the Afghan army can lead the fight with US/NATO support (as they have), but faces near certain defeat without it, that means the US should stay, not leave, for similar reasons why it stays in other dangerous countries you presumably have no problem with.

If the Afghan Army still requires US support after twenty years of funding and training then that's a failure. The US should not continue throwing money at this nor stay any longer.

Again, this isn’t an argument justifying withdrawal, it’s talking points. I don’t need to explain why the Afghan army can’t succeed without US support, any more than the Iraqi military or the Taiwanese one or the Philippine one, because the likelihood that they can’t is an argument against withdrawal, not in favor of it.

Oh yes you do. It makes absolutely no sense why after all this money and training that the Afghan Army cannot fight by itself. You simply don't want to admit the Afghan Army is a failure.

Cue the ad hom strawmen. The US combat role in Afghanistan ended several years ago. The fact is the Afghan army and government is improving with western military support, but is likely doomed without it. This was always the only long term solution, and has been objectively explained in detail. Here’s another. 2015, 2021, same conclusions. To withdraw now is folly.

Improving? They've lost ground in these last year's, not gained.

This is from 2017: https://de.reuters.com/article/us-af...-idUSKBN15G40M

And now the Afghan government only fully controls 33% of the districts in Afghanistan.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan

The Taliban fully control 19%. Is this the improvement you're talking about?

[enoch]

This isn't new. Cue Larkin 1969:


Homage To A Government

Next year we are to bring all the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.

It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it's been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds.

Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it's a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I have. We've wasted money and time training an Army that can't defend itself. And continuing to do so is useless so we should withdraw.

Big ideas hard for you to understand?


If the Afghan Army still requires US support after twenty years of funding and training then that's a failure. The US should not continue throwing money at this nor stay any longer.


Oh yes you do. It makes absolutely no sense why after all this money and training that the Afghan Army cannot fight by itself. You simply don't want to admit the Afghan Army is a failure.

Improving? They've lost ground in these last year's, not gained.

This is from 2017: https://de.reuters.com/article/us-af...-idUSKBN15G40M

And now the Afghan government only fully controls 33% of the districts in Afghanistan.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan

The Taliban fully control 19%. Is this the improvement you're talking about?

Your own source points out that Taliban control as a result of US retreat would guarantee a safe haven for al Qaeda terrorists to launch attacks against the US and our allies. Given that you continue to falsely insist the Afghan military is a failure and there has been no progress, the onus is on you to make that argument, not on me to part you with your assertions. The US has spent billions on allied militaries for years, in many cases precisely because they can’t defeat given threats on their own. Anyway, you continue to undermine your own case. If the Afghan army is struggling even with NATO support, that would mean more may be required, not less, as anticipated in an expert, official capacity when the US handed the reins to Afghan security forces in 2014-15.

We conclude that the security environment in Afghanistan will become more challenging after the drawdown of most international forces in 2014, and that the Taliban insurgency will become a greater threat to Afghanistan’s stability in the 2015–2018 timeframe than it is now.

We conclude that a small group of al Qaeda members, many of whom have intermarried with local clans and forged ties with Afghan and Pakistani in- surgents, remains active in the remote valleys of northeastern Afghanistan.

We conclude that, in the likely 2015–2018 security environment, the ANSF will require a total security force of about 373,400 personnel in order to pro- vide basic security for the country, and cope with the Taliban insurgency and low-level al Qaeda threat.

We conclude that if the United States and NATO do not maintain a training and advisory mission in Afghanistan, the absence of advisors in 2015 is like- ly to result in a downward spiral of ANSF capabilities—along with security in Afghanistan—unless the ANSF can find other patrons to fill the resulting “enabler vacuum.”

We conclude that a significant reduction in the U.S. and NATO commitment to Afghanistan or Pakistan will destabilize the border region, exacerbate ex- isting tensions between the two countries, and jeopardize fragile mechanisms for cross-border cooperation and de-escalation that have been built in recent years.

Finally, we conclude that sustained commitment of the international community in Afghanistan is likely to mitigate tensions in the region and increase prospects for regional cooperation, but that withdrawal of international community support is likely to have consequences up to and including a renewed civil war in Afghanistan and increased instability in the region.

https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/DR...6816-Final.pdf

Conditions-based was always the metric for withdrawal, precisely to mitigate the disaster currently unfolding as a result of the arbitrary and rapid withdrawal of US forces. The support of US troops is key to the Afghan peace process, as indicated by a bipartisan report to Congress earlier this year.

In addition to conducting coun- terterrorism operations and supporting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, a key objective of the ongoing U.S. military presence is to help create conditions for an acceptable peace agreement. The February 2020 Doha agreement and the subsequent troop reductions clearly demonstrated that the United States is prepared to withdraw from Afghanistan. It should not, however, simply hand a victory to the Taliban.

With the launch of peace negotiations, the conflict in Afghanistan has entered a new phase. This new phase requires a new understanding. Afghans must take primary responsibility for their own future. The United States must orient its efforts and resources toward shaping the condi- tions around the peace process—resetting and reframing it in ways recommended in this report—in order to give it the best chance to succeed. It should be reiterated, however, that our troop presence is a key point of leverage. U.S. troops play a vital role in ensuring the continuity of state structures, and thus their presence is essential to brokering a lasting peace. Success, it should be acknowledged, is not guaranteed. But there is a clear path forward. There is now a real possibility of the conflict winding down and Afghanistan becoming a country that needs far less help from the United States. If this happens, the United States can bring its troops home and both countries can move forward as sovereign nations with friendly relations based on shared values and sacrifices.

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/f...fghanistan.pdf

[Vanoi]

Your own source points out that Taliban control as a result of US retreat would guarantee a safe haven for al Qaeda terrorists to launch attacks against the US and our allies.

That sucks but fortunately we can target al-Qaeda in Afghanistan without ever having to step foot in the country. Those drones have proven their worth from Iraq to Yemen.

GIven that you continue to falsely insist the Afghan military is a failure and there has been no progress, the onus is on you to make that argument, not on me to part you with your assertions. The US has spent billions on allied militaries for years, in many cases precisely because they can’t defeat given threats on their own.

How many of those allies require constant billions if not trillions of dollars in order to function while American troops have to be stationed there to prevent their governments from falling to rebel groups?

I eagerly await your answer.

Anyway, you continue to undermine your own case. If the Afghan army is struggling even with NATO support, that would mean more may be required, not less, as anticipated in an expert, official capacity when the US handed the reins to Afghan security forces in 2014-15.

So the Afghan Army even with US support are struggling to take on the Taliban. Thanks for proving my point further that continuing to support the Afghan Army is useless.