Originally Posted by
mickjoebill
Rory Steward, former international development secretary, made interesting observations about the US withdrawal.
That the Afghan army were left without air cover
Afghan army had no maintainance capacity of helicopters
No US soldier been killed in previous 18 months or UK soldier for longer.
US keep troops in South Korea, why not Afghanistan, given the low cost of 2500 troops?
Already posted at #396. I comment at
#397 on his strange unwillingness to address the cost to Afghan forces of fighting the Taliban: about 10,000 dead per year, fighting to defend a corrupt government which didn't pay or feed them, and only controlled the district centres. Why would they keep doing that indefinitely?
As to the points you highlight:
- The Afghans asked for more Mi-8s, which they could already maintain themselves, and instead had contractor-supported Blackhawks foisted upon them. This was widely criticised at the time but happened anyway. Way to go, military-industrial complex
- No Western soldiers have been killed for 18 months because that was the one watertight commitment the Taliban made in its February 2020 deal with Trump and Pompeo. They had already threatened a resumption of attacks if the withdrawal deadline wasn't met. All the other clauses of the deal were loose enough for the Taliban to keep fighting Afghan forces and put in place the network of deals which eventually brought the government down. There was no incentive in the Doha agreement for either the Taliban or the individual kleptocrats in Kabul to actually reach a power-sharing deal.
- Surprising that a man of Rory Stewart's intellect can't see that Afghanistan is not like South Korea. The US did not face an armed insurgency in Korea; a ceasefire is not the same as an active conflict. Troops live sustainable, normal lives there with their families. It's a clear strategic interest for the US to contain China's influence on the opposite shore of their common ocean, and to provide a flank for their treaty commitment to the Japanese. By contrast Afghanistan is just one of several places worldwide that could host terror groups, and in any case the Chinese and Russians have no interest in allowing such groups to take root in their own back yards. Let them deal with it.