There is no question that he got it wrong. The question is how bad was the Intel.
Your link's point about 4,500 is interesting food for thought though.
I looked at the report they cite, it says:
"Expert consultations indicated that around 4,500 troops are required to secure U.S. interests under current conditions and at an acceptable level of risk. This number allows for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy—all of which are critical to our interests.
From the same report:
"Although the U.S. military presence slows the rate of Taliban ascendance,
it cannot reverse it. Prolonging the U.S. military deployment much beyond May 2021 will not significantly moderate the Taliban’s demands, but it will risk intensifying the fighting and precipitating the end of negotiations."
Also from the same report:
"It is difficult to predict whether Ta
There is no question that he got it wrong. The question is how bad was the Intel.
Your link's point about 4,500 is interesting food for thought though.
I looked at the report they cite, it says:
"Expert consultations indicated that around 4,500 troops are required to secure U.S. interests under current conditions and at an acceptable level of risk. This number allows for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy—all of which are critical to our interests.
From the same report:
"Although the U.S. military presence slows the rate of Taliban ascendance, it cannot reverse it. Prolonging the U.S. military deployment much beyond May 2021 will not significantly moderate the Taliban’s demands, but it will risk intensifying the fighting and precipitating the end of negotiations."
Also from the same report:
"It is difficult to predict whether Taliban ascendancy would be rapid as a consequence of a government implosion; or would be resisted and prolonged if the government—facing an existential crisis—found the resources to unite against a common enemy; or Afghanistan would become bogged down in a complicated, multiparty, and regionalized civil war."
But nowhere in this report do they cite the fact that Afghans leaders were selling their equipment to the Taliban in 2020. Ignorance = bad intel.
This report basically says "you could try just 4,500 but you risk intensifying the fighting". But even they didn't predict that the Afghans would fold in days. - Bad intel.
So this "4,500" feels like a WAG given all the other mixed "Intel". EVERYONE underestimated the true strength of the Taliban and true weakness of the Afghans. Based on the Taliban strength we now see, it would've meant WAR if we stayed, bad outcomes no matter what path Biden chose.
liban ascendancy would be rapid as a consequence of a government implosion; or would be resisted and prolonged if the government—facing an existential crisis—found the resources to unite against a common enemy; or Afghanistan would become bogged down in a complicated, multiparty, and regionalized civil war."
But nowhere in this report do they cite the fact that Afghans leaders were selling their equipment to the Taliban in 2020. Ignorance = bad intel.
This report basically says "you could try just 4,500 but you risk intensifying the fighting". But even they didn't predict that the Afghans would fold in days. - Bad intel.
So this "4,500" feels like a WAG given all the other mixed "Intel". EVERYONE underestimated the true strength of the Taliban and true weakness of the Afghans. Based on the Taliban strength we now see, it would've meant WAR if we stayed, bad outcomes no matter what path Biden chose.
