Posted on Aug 25, 2021
In your opinion, should we have remained in Afghanistan or was the total withdrawal correct?
3.45K
256
77
12
12
0
For the purposes of this discussion, let's put aside the manner in which the final withdrawal was executed. We can discuss that issue separately as a matter of tactics. The decision to withdraw was more strategic, more political.
Here is your opportunity to respond anonymously. Active duty personnel tend to be rightfully circumspect in voicing political opinions. Veterans like me have no such restriction and can be the voice of those still serving, or simply shoot off our mouths with our own opinions.
IMO, we should have left a small force as we did in Europe following WWII to deter Soviet aggression, and in Korea following the fighting there to deter Communist expansion. In both of those cases, the presence of American forces worked to keep the peace and prevented Communist expansion. Given the resources of Free Europe and South Korea, and their contributions to free world trade, the US had a vital interest in maintaining the peace.
Given the vital mineral resources of Afghanistan, the US should have a vital interest in preventing them from falling into the hands of potential adversaries such as a resurgent Russia and an ever growing belligerent China. Also, it seems that a very small American force subjected to little risk was able, and could be expected to continue, to support the elected government in Kabul.
Still, that is one veteran's opinion. What is yours?
Here is your opportunity to respond anonymously. Active duty personnel tend to be rightfully circumspect in voicing political opinions. Veterans like me have no such restriction and can be the voice of those still serving, or simply shoot off our mouths with our own opinions.
IMO, we should have left a small force as we did in Europe following WWII to deter Soviet aggression, and in Korea following the fighting there to deter Communist expansion. In both of those cases, the presence of American forces worked to keep the peace and prevented Communist expansion. Given the resources of Free Europe and South Korea, and their contributions to free world trade, the US had a vital interest in maintaining the peace.
Given the vital mineral resources of Afghanistan, the US should have a vital interest in preventing them from falling into the hands of potential adversaries such as a resurgent Russia and an ever growing belligerent China. Also, it seems that a very small American force subjected to little risk was able, and could be expected to continue, to support the elected government in Kabul.
Still, that is one veteran's opinion. What is yours?
Posted in these groups: 
Afghanistan
Afghanistan
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 24
23
23
0
CPT Jack Durish Since the mission transitioned to a support role in 2014, the casualties in Afghanistan are commensurate to Soldier deaths in Texas. For less than 3K soldier presence, the peace was being preserved, with 2nd and 3rd order benefits of bases in the area, continued modernization. The war on "ideas" western vs islamic fundamentalism couldn't be won in less than several generations -- 1) the older folks weren't going to be won over 2) some of the middle age folks could be when their kids had a future to look forward to 3) and the new generation would grow up in the new hybrid culture --- Only until the new generation started having kids would the ideas have any gravitas. Less than 3K boots on the ground in a support role is not too great a burden to bear for the greatest nation on earth -- and now the 20 year investment is squandered -- just my $.02
(23)
(0)
SGT Randall Smith
In 1966my first duty station was Germany. WWII had been over about 25 years then. I went to high school in Seoul Korea in 1961 and that war had been over about 20 years. A basic force kept in Afghanistan would have prevented this.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CSM Chuck Stafford
PO2 Mike Shorey - For a multi generational solution, 20 years is barely 1 generation
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mike Shorey
We shouldn’t be in the business of nation building. Our foreign policy in the Middle East is the problem.
(0)
(0)
15
15
0
Under Bush we turned our attention away from the stated mission and started working on Nation Building. We then managed to invest billions of dollars into their infrastructure, education, etc. Tens, if not hundreds of billions! This continued under Obama and part of Trump's terms. Trump took the focus back off of nation building and put it back where it rightfully belonged - suppressing terrorism. If I remember correctly, the last 18 months we had ZERO casualties. And while he did promise to "get us out" his military advisors said no - and he did back off of that push.
Keeping a couple thousand troops on the ground should have been the call. Do we need 100,000+? No, we don't. But we need presence there so Afghanistan does not become the terrorist central it was 20 years ago. I won't even go into mineral wealth under that soil. And someone else mentioned - this would have to be a generational plan. 20 years barely made a dent. All we've done is show the prize then yank it away just as they start to reach on their own for it.
I would not be surprised to see Russia or China steamroll into Afghanistan now.
Keeping a couple thousand troops on the ground should have been the call. Do we need 100,000+? No, we don't. But we need presence there so Afghanistan does not become the terrorist central it was 20 years ago. I won't even go into mineral wealth under that soil. And someone else mentioned - this would have to be a generational plan. 20 years barely made a dent. All we've done is show the prize then yank it away just as they start to reach on their own for it.
I would not be surprised to see Russia or China steamroll into Afghanistan now.
(15)
(0)
SFC Kurt Brunken
We have troops in like 112 countries, why the hell stop at Afghanistan? Either start bringing them all home or shut-up about an advisory force and some air support.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Ann Smith
This is how we have always expanded our control . Kick but, rebuild, build a military base. Now you tell me one place, except Afghanistan where we didn't do that? We need more places to post our intelligence so we can keep a closer eye on the RUSSIANS. What a great ally that whole area would have been! (And turn them into Christians.)
(5)
(0)
SSG Doyle Hulse
I agree it would have taken generations, about 3 or 4, to permanently make a long lasting change. We still have troops in Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII. However, Afghanistan is a unique country. I was there 2010-2011 with the Army. Many people in the rural areas are tribal and have no idea what "Afghanistan" is. They know their village and maybe two or three more but that is their extent of geographical knowledge. Most cannot read or write depending solely on their elders for education and guidance. In the larger cities however, like Kabul and Kandahar, most citizens wanted and strived for a free democratic society. But as history teaches, the radical minority usually rule. Most of the German people in WWII were peaceful people yet look at the power that the minority of Nazi's had on the county. Same goes for Japan. Most Japanese were peaceful people but the radical minority was in control. I think it would be a hard call to judge the outcome of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan. In the rural tribal areas most people could care less about a free democracy. The Taliban capitalized on this just like the minority Nazis and radical Japanese. In my opinion, there would be a continued battle for years between the modernized Afghans and the Tribal Afghans. Would it be worth the free world's loss of life and financial expenses? I don't think so.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Nancy Wilson
SSG Doyle Hulse - it has been said that evil flourishes when peaceful people do nothing.
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
I think it was time to leave. BUT we didn't need to leave wholesale. I believe we could have kept a "small" advisory force in place with the embassy for the AFGHAN government. We could have kept Bagram open and running as the US hub and not had the out posts or FOB's...that way we still maintained a presence if we needed to thump every so often. It is strategic in nature because of the rare minerals and location.
(12)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
We know that terrorism can never be eradicated. It crops up as regularly as grass grows and just as regularly we must "mow the lawn." It's a helluva lot easier to mow if you keep the "mower" at hand and not run out to purchase a new one every week
(8)
(0)
(3)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
SGT Mary G. - Technically yes but the military are only there until everyone gets evacuated then they are gone...too late for equipment etc...it is scattered all over the country...especially by now.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google