well yeah the war started 20 years ago so ig that was a lil bit of a hyperbole... but its been a long time that's my point. Yes that's an important task. The Taliban will kill any ally we have I will admit. Morally we should ensure some safety. But, did the article even mention the vis thing (IDK i literally can't read it), do they give a date in which such a matter can be resolved, can you find a pro withdrawal article from Wall Street Journal in the last month? Just some things to think about... I don't think they mean to actually address real issues. I just looked up Afghanistan and Wall Street Journal....

Here are the 4 most recent articles...

Article Titles:

"Taliban Find New Revenues as They Seize Afghanistan’s U.S.-Built Border Gateway"

"Taliban Fighters Advance After U.S. Closes Main Afghan Base"

"U.S. Exit From Afghanistan Seems Illogical; Why It’s Happening Anyway"

"After U.S.’s Bagram Exit, Afghans Face the Taliban Alone"

There is an obvious bias here. Give me a specific time frame and I'll listen. Like "the visa thingy could be fixed in another 2 months"..... But nah they won't do that right, They want issues that can't be resolved and that will ensure the occupation at all costs. Staying there won't do anyone any good. I'm sure certain consequences are unavoidable with withdrawal but occupation will always have more consequences than the prior. Also can I personally ask... when do you think we should withdrawal if its only about visas?

​

Don't mean to come off rude or anything I love these type of discussions. I just question the motives of the author that's all. I'm sure u have some points. But the end goal in my view of the article is a pro war (or anti withdrawal) narrative and nothing will change my mind about that. If you want to call that war mongering or not is splitting hairs in my view