[flamberge]

...Our rules of engagement are what they are. I wish they were otherwise, but that’s not really changeable.

That is precisely why we fail.

Change the "rules". Or abandon the "game".

[Zhang Fei]

[That is precisely why we fail.

Change the “rules”. Or abandon the “game”.]

---

They hit us again and we spend $500b and lose thousands of KIA setting up anew, or we spend $10b and lose a few dozen KIA a year, until the Taliban is extinct, into the indeterminate future. Based on what we’ve seen, these movements can last for a while, but even decades is a long time for them.

You could argue one way or another, but I’d say the low risk option is to stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban is dead, whereas the high risk option is to leave. Trump enjoys excitement, so he’s taking the high-risk option. McConnell is more of a steady as she goes kind of guy, so he’d prefer to stay. We’ll see how it goes.

Either way, at least in the next few years, we’ll have enough firepower to respond if another 9/11 comes together. I’m risk averse, so I prefer staying.

The real problem with not staying is refugees. The Taliban will send millions fleeing, and we’ll be a prime destination. Republicans will reject them, but Democrats will open the door wide. The nice thing about a friendly Afghan government being in power is that wannabe Afghan refugees have far less cause to say they’re fleeing Taliban persecution.