it all depends

  I've heard those supporting the current administration attempting to justify leaving all those weapons and materials behind. The administration itself declared that they demilitarized all that stuff, or as much as they could. The common sentiment/explanation being that it was left to the Afghan army. It was the fault of the Afghan army that it is now in the hands of the Taliban. So, you see, it isn't Bidens' fault at all. Just because the Taliban has controlled about 75% of Afghanistan for the last few years there was no reason to believe the Afghan army would surrender. Just because the United States had withdrawn all air support, the only thing really that stemmed the Taliban advancements in any measurable way, was no reason to think that. And then having made an "arrangement" with the Taliban to allow flights to leave Kabul one couldn't expect they would take the United States storehouses full of equipment, along with vehicles, once the United States had left. No, that is the fault of the Afghan army which should have defended that stuff to the last man!

  Listen I'm no foreign policy man. no expert on global politics and all that but ask yourself a question, just who is in charge of Afghanistan? How much have you heard about the Afghan army? Who is the president of Afghanistan? Just who were we training? For the past twenty years we have supposedly been training the Afghans to defend themselves, to fight. I hear they are doing that, just a bit, here and there. I'm also hearing that there is civil unrest throughout the land. Gee, what a surprise as that is the way it has been for at least twenty years! As I said I'm no expert in any of that but it sure looks like we picked sides in a civil war. Just as it was during our own civil war each faction was looking for foreign support in their cause. Britain and France both recognized the Confederacy as "belligerents" The United States, lead by Abraham Lincoln made it clear, if you supported the confederacy that is the same as declaring war on America! Still, aid was given from foreign nations to the North and the South. It was the industrial might, and the fact that the north had more manpower, that resulted in the victory. 

  Now we have decided to quit, leave the civil war to the residents. We left a great deal of equipment and supplies. Was there a reasonable expectation that this would only be utilized by the Afghan army? If that were the case why did we disable it? Don't have to be tactical genius to understand why we disabled it. Was it because we were leaving it for the Afghan army? I don't think so. That begs the question then, why did we leave it? Was it because we couldn't transport it out of there? Or was a deal made? The official line is we have withdrawn all our troops. Have we also withdrawn all support? Have we really just thrown down our arms and walked away? I don't believe that, not for a second. There is too much money involved for that to happen. The only thing changing is the way that income is produced. The Taliban will soon exercise complete control over Afghanistan. that is a forgone conclusion. Thing is, the Taliban will have to receive international recognition in order to be successful in a global market. Can they secure that? Well, they recently received a vast storehouse of bargaining chips, that much is certain. Disabled technology can be reversed engineered easily enough. Listen, if investigators can determine the cause of an explosion that levels an entire building they can figure out how to activate that technology once again. The only issue being those nations that would be interested in securing that technology or equipment from them aren't meaningful enough to make a difference as far as world politics go. Still, it can be sold and help fill the coffers of the Taliban. And make no mistake, money is power. 

  The bottom line is for whatever reason we have decided to abandon Afghanistan, at least officially. I won't pretend to understand the reasoning behind that decision. It does appeal to our base instincts though, our people aren't getting shot anymore. We shouldn't be fighting some one else's civil war. I agree, makes sense to me. However if that is said out loud, verbalized, you do stand the risk of being called, gasp, a nationalist! Yes, that's wrong, you are not supposed to think about your own self interests, you should be empathetic to the plight of all peoples! But, not too empathetic. Not to the point that you get hurt! I don't know, just seems like a contradiction to me. But I suppose it aligns with this leftist thinking of Conditional Morality. Yeah, it all depends doesn't it?