Obviously this isn't intended to be the entirety of the US response. Some really incisive analysis, there.
Let's not get baited into another long term conflict. We can save US service member lives by not sending them to foreign countries with hostile reception.
I would have preferred waiting until we were done evacuating before hitting them. Seems like a political move more than sound strategy. We don't need to go tit for tat everyday with Isis while we are in such a vulnerable state at the airport. A couple heavy mortars on the runway and we have a whole new set of problems.
Agreed. The appropriate and effective response to the terrorist attack is not merely a drone strike against an alleged planner (who really knows what this guy's role was in the attack), and certainly isn't rushed, indiscriminate bombing with massive collateral damage either. The response will very likely require the cooperation of Afghan (Taliban) officials.
About James Joyner James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.
They have been trying to portray a more moderate image to the world, even asking the US to keep a diplomatic presence after the US exit. The Taliban knows they need help to keep all the tribes together and happy under their rule. Sometime I think, what's so different between them and the Saudis. Heck, the Saudis privately fund the Taliban while publicly support the former Afghans government.
his credentials pale in comparison to prosecuted spy who had pleaded guilty / QAnon follower, General Michael Flynn
Taliban hate ISIS and have been in battle with them for sometime. The first thing Taliban did when they invaded Kabul was execute ISIS members on the street. Thats something the mainstream media wont tell you as they brainwash you about Taliban. Nobody is claiming the taliban are some moral political party but the fact is that they can control Afghanistan much better then we ever could. you know theres less violence and crime right now in Afghanistan then any other time in the previous 20 years right? Its so funny how the media is obessed about "womens right" for a select group but dont talk about the tens of thousands of young boys that were captured as sex slaves for afghan commanders and generals. Afghanistan is more at peace today then it ever has been in the previous 20 years. Leave other countries to themselves and get the fk out
OK. Then let’s discuss that. Reading it, I was frustrated with his analysis of the retaliatory strike while he neglected to address two obvious questions: Why would anyone think this will be our sole response to an attack that resulted in nearly 200 deaths by current estimates? What other retaliation against ISIL would have been feasible and appropriate at this stage, while we are still focused on evacuating as many people as safely as possible?
You're absolutely right. Your only mistake is getting angry. Trader_ J lives for that. He's a troll, so if he pisses someone off, it makes his day. What is really sad is the utter lack of calling him out for what he does here from the Right. That makes them complicit, in my opinion.
Trolling about benign **** is fine but once you cross the threshold of using dead people in your troll then you are an abject piece of human filth. I'm just trying to imagine the type of psycopath that does this type of trolling? Did his parents not love him?
