Originally Posted by
medod
I don't really understand anyone in the media calling the evacuation a "disaster". It was a highly successful operation spun up in just a couple of days and sustained for a fortnight, and largely met its objectives (in fact I bet it exceeded what the planners thought was possible). Everyone involved should feel very proud. If they mean needing to perform the evacuation is a disaster, fair enough, but I wish they'd choose their words more carefully.
I agree, what they have pulled off in a short period of time is nothing less than startling, but the fact you have to evacuate is the disaster.
I can see why the press are calling it in parts a disaster, this should have started happening months ago, the Civilians should have been evacuated before the troops left, not the other way round where you have to bring the troops back in.
If they had then Kabul would not have yet fallen and an orderly evacuation could have taken place, however, some of those you needed to evacuate would still be in positions required to be working, military, embassy staff etc. .
It should have been planned to leave during the quiet season in the first place, and that goes way back to the negotiations.
Plans should have been put in place to destroy records at short notice etc too.
Think about the numbers compared to the last mass evacuation.
Kabul 100500 people approximately evacuated.
Dunkirk 338000 approximately evacuated
However those from Dunkirk needed moving about 40
miles, Kabul to Ramstien is a 2800 mile trip.
a superb effort by all involved.
..