That’s such a disingenuous statement. The US getting out of #Afghanistan is complicated no matter how it’s done & he knows full well that’s what Americans want. To say we should’ve abruptly pulled out b/c the current approach doesn’t fit his forever war preferences is ridiculous.https://twitter.com/MujMash/status/1312279752762327040 …
-
Now I’m agreeing with you. Before, I was pretty sure the folks
@USFOR_A were well read-in on the drawdown to 4500, had planned for it, approved of it, etc. Not at all convinced that’s the case for this drawdown to 2500 (FWIW, I don’t think it’ll be zero by Christmas)
I'm curious what people like you guys, far better versed in the military mechanics make of the 2500 figure. What does that even do? Protect embassies in Kabul? Bagram and RS HQ remain...but how much weight does that have? I mean, it is still a deterrent(?) and deeply symbolic...
-
-
But what actually can they do? (versus what they could do at 4500) Instinctually, 2500 feels much more...tokenistic. But I have no idea what the tactical implications really are.
-
What I've been told is that counterterrorism capabilities remain fully functional, anywhere in the country, at 4500ish. Not sure if that remains true when cut in half. BUt I'm sure Jon and Jason have an even better idea of what this means.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.