The media is expressing such concern with our departure from Afghanistan, interviewing all these

[JohnSJ]

generals and ex-generals, how the country is going to go into civil war when we leave

Hasn’t the country been in a civil war for the last 20 years?

[nykym]

1. Creating a

news cycle

[JohnSJ]

2. No doubt

[SoonerPride]

3. Clearly we should stay there until the end of time

As if trillions of dollars wasn't enough of a waste of money.

[tirebiter]

4. Lives lost didn't seem to be the big problem. How much is freedom worth?

[NQAS]

5. No country has survived its exploits in Afghanistan

Great Britain (And Russia) in the 19th century

Soviet Union in the 1980s

US 2000s

And no country ever will. There was a short window of opportunity after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan in the early 1990s, but the US pretty much left as well - after supporting the Mujahedin against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Turmoil ensued, as did anti-American sentiment (fickle Afghans), which led to the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which led to 9/11, which led to . . . .

Sure, there may be a civil war, but they have to sort this out themselves. It will not be pretty, and what emerges is not likely to be a moderate regime. But if we're smart, we'll stay out of it. Sure, maintain, to the extent possible, a diplomatic presence and apply whatever leverage/pressure, etc. is possible, but, to use the diplomatic vernacular, stay the fuck out militarily.

What's damn near criminal is that the generals and ex-generals know this. They know that "The Great Game" cannot be won by an outside power, so to make these pronouncements and to suggest that US is premature in leaving, is disingenuous and disgusting.