I am not missing your point at all; you are applying

I am not missing your point at all; you are applying
by WilfordBrimley (2024-02-05 23:16:58)
Edited on 2024-02-05 23:42:11

In reply to: You miss my point... posted by Kbyrnes

Cannot Reply Return to Political

an anachronistic viewpoint to what, at the time, would have been sound strategic decision-making and by every educated account in the long-term strategic interests of the country. There are hundreds - thousands - of factors that changed between the initial invasion and 6 - 8 years later when the war really turned for the worse; then there would have been a thousand more factors that changed between the late Bush and early Obama years and the mid-2010's when we started clearly signaling that we were going to exit; then there would have been a thousand more factors that changed in the interim between then and having former allies dropping out of the cargo doors of C-17's to their deaths thousands of feet below. Those are all inherently unknowable factors years and decades before the ultimate outcome was decided. That doesn't mean the actions theretofore were "performative".

Your use of "performative" in your original post implies a public relations element of military decision-making that potentially, at times, supersedes the operational and strategic goals. There are innumerable times in American military history where that has happened - the Doolittle Raid, Operation Linebacker, large chunks of the initial phase of Iraq in 2003 - 2004 up until Fallujah I, et al - but the idea of the initial invasion of Afghanistan being categorized as "performative" is preposterous.