No, you’ve got it backwards—we’re negotiating *because* we’re not in a strong position. We’re over-invested strategically in #Afghanistan & our entire operational approach there has been a generational disaster. Negotiation’s been the only real option for years—it’s past due.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JJSchroden ja @DavidCloudLAT
Right...but unilaterally announcing that you're going to give your adversary 50% of what they want for free, as Trump did in Dec 2018 when he stated half U.S. forces would be out by spring, is an objectively terrible way to negotiate. All downhill from there.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
I'm old enough to remember tweeting this...5 days ago. Now, the president has given
#Taliban the other half of what they want, once again for price of...nothing. We can argue the merits all day, but it's time to reduce expectations (even further) for current#Doha negotiations.1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
To be clear, I should have stated "most of the other half" since roughly 2,500 U.S. forces would remain. The point is that it is now clear to
#Taliban that U.S. presence is REALLY no longer tied to progress on peace negotiations. Likely doesn't bode well for current#Doha talks1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHCampbell ja @DavidCloudLAT
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)1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JJSchroden, @JasonHCampbell ja
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...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @a_a_jackson, @JJSchroden ja
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.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @a_a_jackson, @JJSchroden ja
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.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @and_huh_what, @a_a_jackson ja
Beyond CT capabilities, I'd also be curious how/if this further reduction will impact security and (already severely limited) movement for diplomats.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ethrelkeld, @and_huh_what ja
The ability of US diplomats to move beyond Kabul has been severely constrained for years. While a move to 2500 would somewhat constrain that further, it wouldn't be a major change to the existing situation wherein they can mostly only attend meetings in Kabul or at the Embassy
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä
Yeah I think that's long gone...but that's all super helpful. Thank you!
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.