General Discussion

bhikkhu

(10,782 posts)

5. That's about what was predicted, and does represent the withdrawal of 90% of the troops

Reply to Gravitycollapse (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:47 PM

Nov 2013

since 2011.

Scaling it back to 7,000 or so means doing little but training Afghan forces and manning limited bases. Funding Afghan forces is a given, as the government would collapse otherwise. Of course, we could pull everything out and let the country collapse, but that would be hard call for any president to make, especially considering the many years of efforts there.

If there's an option of not declaring defeat and doing the cut-and-run, and if there's a chance things can stabilize, then it should be taken.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you fucking kidding me? [View all] Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 OP

I've known about this all along. tblue Nov 2013 #1

Have we ever completely left any country we fought a war in? Warpy Nov 2013 #2

good point - TBF Nov 2013 #3

And Germany gollygee Nov 2013 #4

Vietnam madokie Nov 2013 #7

We didn't win in Viet Nam, Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #10

The question I was replying to wasn't wars we won madokie Nov 2013 #12

No, just corporations Warpy Nov 2013 #16

That's about what was predicted, and does represent the withdrawal of 90% of the troops bhikkhu Nov 2013 #5

Well at least 90% are out - TBF Nov 2013 #6

from 80,000 to 7,000 scheming daemons Nov 2013 #8

All our past wars? former9thward Nov 2013 #14

For Empire. Octafish Nov 2013 #9

7k in troops isn't going to hold an 'empire.' nt msanthrope Nov 2013 #11

Right you are. Octafish Nov 2013 #15

We haven't finished dealing with Iran, yet. Laelth Nov 2013 #13

And what is your problem with this? They will be a skeleton crew compared to Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #17