The argument's premise is that Trump left Biden and Kamala with no plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan. The fact is that Trump signed the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban on February 29, 2020. For graduates of Baltimore public schools and others challenged by mathematics, that is 534 days before the Kabul airlift began. If there was no plan for the withdrawal, that really isn't the direct responsibility of the guy who left office 207 days prior to the event. The responsibility for planning the operation lay with the Defense Department, specifically within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If Biden didn't have a plan, then it is the fault of service leaders who refused to do their duty and, in this telling of events, sat on their hands and refused to plan for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. (During the big drawdown of the Army after the USSR went belly up, the Army refused to plan for a force reduction because it was felt that if word got out that we were planning, then the political people would think we were fine with the idea and make us do it. If we didn't plan, the reasoning went, we might not have to do it. I can see the same logic in effect in executing the end of our adventure in Afghanistan.) That would mean the very people blaming Trump for the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan include some of the people who were responsible for that withdrawal.

Thanks to the efforts of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we know there was a plan, but Biden and the "last person" in the room overruled it. //

The real threat to our democracy are military officers who trade on their rank to tell lies in the name of partisan politics. //

Mike Ford
17 hours ago edited
One of AFNN’s best writers, COL Jack Tobin (rest his soul) wrote the initial plan well before Biden came on the scene….

It called for the use of Bagram as the evac base and its subsequent retention.

It also followed standard NEO doctrine whereby you evac the noncombatants and THEN extract troops.

You damned sure don’t put your evac point in a downtown version of Dien Ben Phu //

Hoover the Great
18 hours ago
This debacle really shows why we need to take a meat cleaver to the US army. And by that, I don't just mean replacing personnel, I mean reducing footprint and eliminating force and positions. Reduce the size by maybe 80-90%. As Eisenhower stated, a massive standing army like we have does not make America safer.

ECoolidge19 Hoover the Great
17 hours ago
I saw a post on RS sometime ago, it listed the number of 4 star Generals during WW 2 compared to now. It was like 1-8. I forget exactly but I remember being surprised. Sounds like a good starting point. At minimum, you don't fire but just put a freeze on hiring new //

Hoover the Great anon-x1lc
2 hours ago
There is no security benefit from maintaining a massive standing army like we have now. Or if there is one, it does not remotely approach the cost of it, both monetary cultural and spiritual. That position is essentially the one held by President and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Dwight Eisenhower.

We built this military machine after WWII. Before that, we had a skeleton military that we would quickly put the meat and muscles onto if we needed to fight a war. We never lost a war with that model. Since we built this military machine, the military's record is more mixed. That spans several decades, so is not just the result of bad people in leadership. It's the system itself.