Your question “at what cost?” is spot on. Where we differ is assessing the risks of withdrawal and the costs of staying.
Vehicle attacks are very hard to anticipate or stop, and they can do some serious harm. But they’re smaller in scale than the planned attacks trained and equipped operatives can pull off. The latter are much easier to prepare when terrorist groups have areas in which they can freely operate.
Also, when a group openly controls territory, it appears more successful — more like a cause worth joining — to a small, but not insignificant subset of the population, which acts as a greater inspiration to recruits and self-starters. That’s one of the main arguments for dislodging ISIS from the land it took in Syria and Iraq.
And if the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, there’s a risk we’d see something like a repeat of Iraq in 2014, in which American forces get pulled back in. I’m not saying that’s a guarantee, just that “ending the war” won’t actually end the war. The locals will keep fighting, and there’s a chance America ends up taking a pause and returning under less favorable circumstances, rather than making a sustained withdrawal.
That doesn’t mean the United States must keep a large contingent of forces in Afghanistan. Even with this escalation, the total will be a fraction of the peak.
And the exit strategy hasn’t changed: build up Afghanistan’s forces, including both regular troops that can hold territory and Special Operations Forces capable of executing complex offensive combat missions. However, they won’t be able to pull that off without international trainers, or maintain their security long enough to get there without American and allied air power, intelligence, and Special Operations Forces for a while.
The American footprint can be fairly light, and could get gradually lighter soon, especially if this escalation can reverse recent Taliban gains. But drawing down to zero would create more risk than the United States should accept.
P.S. Your comment isn’t a tear down. It’s thoughtful engagement. Glad you liked the article enough to think about it and respond.
(Also, I don’t get personally offended by attempted tear downs. Still, that’s not how I read your response. Regardless, I very much welcome reasoned disagreement).
