1
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm somewhere between 2 and 3. No way it wasn't going to be messy, but it didn't have to be this bad. Also, it should have happened a long time ago.
-
"Shouldn't've been this bad, for values of 'should' that were, unfortunately, incredibly unlikely to play out in this universe" is about where I'm at, because I don't think the departments/agencies involved were capable of facing enough of reality no matter what orders came down.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Only real two options are 1. Smash-n-grab, decap strike on Al-Q, maybe three months tops 2. Convert FOBs to fortified hill-towns, encourage soldiers to take local women as brides
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How about #4....we never should have been there as an occupying force in the first place? Punative Raids were an option that we should have explored But the Smartest People in the Room
convinced us all otherwiseThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well it depends on what "We" means. If "We" includes the Taliban, then definitely it could have been done more smoothly. If "We" includes elected politicians and their direct appointees (and therefore not the Pentagon), then 2 is probably correct.
-
The conclusion rests on the assumption that the Pentagon is "we" in a way the Taliban isn't. Discuss.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.