Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,935 posts)
5. The original date WE agreed to was May 1 . . . .
Tue Aug 24, 2021, 07:19 PM
Aug 2021

. . . And we agreed to that in exchange for the Taliban ceasing attacks on American troops. Biden has already pushed the envelope by extending it to August 31, but so far, the Taliban have continued to honor their agreement. But the President knows that if the Taliban perceives the U.S. to be dragging its feet on the withdrawal, they will abandon the Doha Agreement, and will resume attacks on U.S. troops. That would require Biden to commit still more troops to the effort, and the whole, sorry mess would continue until God knows when!

It was never "their date." May 1 was the date mutually agreed upon by U.S. and Taliban negotiators. And what you don't seem to understand is that we have lost this war, and thus are in no position to say "the Taliban can suck theier date." Nor can Biden unilaterally ignore the Doha agreement, because whether we leave now or five years from now, our exit will require negotiations with the Taliban, whether we like it or not. Reneging on the Doha Agreement would render any and all future negotiations with the Taliban impossible.

As for our "fire power," even with that, there are only about 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, and there are an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 Taliban fighters. So no, we can't make "bad news for the incoming government" unless we are prepared to commit to a continued, protracted engagement!

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»New Yorker Editor: Not Po...»Reply #5