The same question is asked about the Korean and Viet Nam War and responses by so called experts is mixed. The loss of life and financial cost of each of these wars was tremendous.
No. We had no business over there. Those people have been killing each other since time immemorial. If Russia, with all it's might, couldn't win the war there, what in God's name made us think we could?
It sure doesn't seem cost effective to me to invade another country without having a finite purpose and clear exit strategy and timeline. IMHO, we should have been done with Afghanistan when Bin Laden was found and killed. We should never have been in Iraq. There was no envisioned end point to Viet Nam. I think it weakens America's status in the world and makes our foreign policy less effective and credible to engage in these actions without well thought out strategy and contingency planning to start with.
We've been "almost out of there" a few times so I wouldn't hold my breath. When Trump wanted to get us out of there, lawsuits were filed, and the Democrats and their friends in the media cried that the world would come to an end if we did anything so reckless as to leave Afghanistan.
Of course you remember that when the Soviet Union was involved, we supplied arms to the same group that we don't like today?
I thought it was the Mujahideen I just looked at differences and the both originated during Soviet time. So i guess we're ok.
I just heard that the Afgan army is deserting by the hundreds. If they aren't willing to stand up for themselves, why the hell should we?
Not in my opinion. But it did seem to kill tthree birds with one stone so to speak.More deaths and injury's of conservatives and more on drugs given to troops andtheir families. plus more business for the military industrial complex. See why I try to stay out of poliics!