Russia couldn't occupy Afghanistan, and it is clear after 20 years neither could we, or any

[JohnSJ]

other country.

That is an important lesson we should have learned from Viet Nam

It seems a lot of the coverage on the Afghanistan situation seems focused that we shouldn’t be leaving Afghanistan because the government will fall.

Leaving Afghanistan is not the mistake we made. Not evacuating those who helped us during the 20 years when we were there first before leaving is the mistake.

We are now trying to correct that mistake by sending troops back in to facilitate that evacuation

Sitting around criticizing what we coulda or shoulda done is an exercise for the media and politicians. The leaders are focusing on rectifying that mistake, and evacuating those that helped us during the last 20 years.

Staying there indefinitely is not the solution

[brooklynite]

1. We weren't occupying Afghanistan...

...any more that we're occupying Germany.

The "occupation" lasted only for about three years until the Afghan Constitution was enacted.

[JohnSJ]

4. Then why were we there for 20 years? You may not want to call it an occupation, but keeping

a government in power, who cannot stand without our presence is just another name for it.

Russia did the same thing

Viet Nam was the same thing

We went into Afghanistan because of one objective, they were giving sanctuary to bin Laden. Once bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, that objective was met

[McKim]

5. $600 Billion in Mineral Wealth

I read somewhere that there are $600 billions worth of minerals in Afghanistan so The War on Afghanistan would have been an ideological win and a big win for extraction industries.

[JohnSJ]

8. Even if it is just for economic reasons, it is a very costly investment

[JI7]

23. No

[brooklynite]

10. "that objective was met"

and at that point there was no government structure at all.

[JohnSJ]

11. There never was. The war lords always controlled that country

[Happy Hoosier]

13. We were trying to allow a stable government to establish itself.

We never had sufficient military power in that country to "occupy" it.

The plan was to establish an effective central government with sufficient loyal security forces to secure the nation's population centers.

Apparently, enough of the Afghan people do not want that.

[JohnSJ]

15. The history of Afghanistan should have made it clear that was very unlikely to happen.

[Happy Hoosier]

17. Perhaps...

... but again, it doesn't mean it wasn't worth any effort.

At least IMHO. I do think we probably tried rather longer than we should. If it ain't happening in 10 years, it ain't happening.

[JohnSJ]

20. Though our intentions may be good, I think a flaw in some of our foreign policy, is

trying to push Democracy in countries that aren’t ready or equipped for it

[Happy Hoosier]

21. I agree on that.

WE have often made the mistake of assuming everyone has the same values as we do.

Not to mention, it's hard to be seen as some righteous savior when we so clearly put our thumbs on the scale.

[JohnSJ]

22. Well said

[dclarston13]

19. Heroin thats why

[left-of-center2012]

2. You made some very good points

I expect someone will criticize you though.
Such is life.

[H2O Man]

3. Recommended.

I agree 100%. It is curious that anyone would try to say that we were not occupying Afghanistan. Clearly, by any and every definition, that is exactly what we were doing.

[JohnSJ]

6. When your presence is to support a government which cannot stand without our

presence, that is just another name for occupation in my view

If they cannot stand on their own after twenty years, I don’t know what else you would call it

In 2005 the military was telling us the same thing they told us in Viet Nam, there was a light at the end of the tunnel

[zuul]

7. We never should have been in Afghanistan.

Yes, I agree that we shouldn’t have pulled out without an immediate plan to evacuate our Afghan allies. That should have been the first priority.

But, in my opinion, the biggest mistake was the invasion. All the Afghan and American lives lost and all those devastating injuries!

Did we even have a clear plan 20 years ago? Did we understand the culture and politics of the region? Why did we think we could, or should, try to shove democracy down Afghan throats?

I have long thought that our military and the MIC view the Middle East as a guinea pig for new weaponry. It’s so far away that most Americans either won’t know or won’t care about all the devastation and lives lost as they play with their new toys of destruction. It’s obscene.

[JohnSJ]

9. It was important I think to go after bin Laden, but once that objective has been made in Pakistan,

our mission was over.

What Pakistan taught us was that you didn’t need to invade a country to accomplish your objective when dealing with terrorism

[FakeNoose]

12. All good points

Why should America even care if Afghanistan has a democratic government? We just need to keep our noses out of other countries, and take care of our own problems.

There's no definition of "patriotism" that includes invading and forcing our own system on other countries.

[Happy Hoosier]

14. I'll disagree there.

The Taliban government hosted and protected Bin Laden. That structure had to be dealt with.

It was.

We had hoped to establish a stable, secure government to prevent their return to power. We were not able to do that. And it's pretty clear that not enough of the Afghan people want that either. They are embracing the Islamist warlord model in sufficient numbers to make the second objective impossible.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a worthwhile effort.

[Johnny2X2X]

16. I think our military leaders expected this going back to Trump

They were working back channels to negotiate with the Taliban, this was the plan all along. And Biden simply followed through on it, that's why we're leaving our embassy there and will negotiate with the Taliban if they do what we want them to do.

[Happy Hoosier]

18. It's a pragmatic approach.

WE've managed to muck up a whole lot in South Asia, and learning to actually talk to people is a good first step.

[Johnny2X2X]

24. Maybe the Taliban is what the people want there

It's hard to prop up a government that the majority don't really want.

20 years and the fighters we trained are getting routed in a few weeks, and many of them are just surrendering and joining the other side. Wouldn't have mattered if we stayed 100 years, the Afghan people do not have the will to stand up to the Taliban.