Petraeus Trashes Biden Decision to Quit Afghanistan....the generals really wanted us to be there for 50 years!

 via Defense One (SNAFU comments in red)

“I understand the frustrations very much that have led to the decision,”(No he doesn't)  said Petraeus. “Nobody wants to see a war ended more than those who have actually fought it, and been privileged to command it(Should read failed to win it when provided with a lavish budget and massive material/manpower) and also write the letters of condolence home every night to America’s mothers and fathers. But I think we need to be really careful with our rhetoric, because ending U.S. involvement in an endless war doesn't end the endless war. It just ends our involvement.(This dude has no off switch...he has no plan to win but wants to continue doing the same thing over and over that has provided suboptimal results) And I fear that this war is going to get worse.” 

Petraeus said he worries the Taliban will go on the offensive, ungoverned spaces will grow, and the terrorist organizations that use them will flourish. “I don’t see how you withdraw and maintain the capabilities that one would like to have there still.” 

“Frankly, we’re also going to lose that platform that Afghanistan provides for the kind of regional counterterrorism campaign,”(The Special Ops Olympics has been a failure...they had a free hand and still called upon the General Purpose Force to provide support...just like airpower Special Ops is NOT a war winner) he said. “I'm really afraid that we're going to look back two years from now and regret the decision and just wonder if whether we might not have sought to manage it with a modest, sustainable, sustained commitment that could have ensured that al Qaeda and the Islamic State would not re-establish sanctuaries(They will always have a sanctuary in Pakistan and Iran...I still don't know what the REAL OBJECTIVE was) from which they undoubtedly will try to figure out over time how to conduct operations that go after the us, our allies, and our partners.”

McRaven said any decision incurs risks. He added that if the U.S. military is still tasked to respond to terrorism inside Afghanistan, he hopes the U.S. will retain the necessary capabilities in the country and the region. 

“If you gave me the resources, I could figure out how to do this(He had the resources),” McRaven said, adding that he has spoken to key players close to the president about it. 

“I will tell you from all my conversations with folks that are kind of in the inner circle, they have considered all of those problems,” he said. “All of the warts have been exposed to the president. He understands the risk that he’s taken.”

“Now, are we going to need some people on the ground? Yeah, we are,” he said. “We’re going to need at least some small footprint at a Bagram [Air Base](McRaven should run for Congress...this dude is pure politician..trying to straddle the fence...kinda sad). We’re going to need a small footprint, obviously, in the capital. We’re going to need intelligence resources. I think the administration will figure out how to manage theat.”

Other Obama-era officials weighed in with support. James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, said, “I do have a lot of confidence in the growing capabilities that we have — that we didn’t have 10 or 20 years ago.”

"We are at a different level of capability" with intelligence and have "a lot of over-the-horizon" capability now, said Tom Donilon, former national security advisor. Meanwhile, the Taliban is not the same problem it once was, and if it grows anew, the U.S. can handle it, he said. “The Taliban is not an international threat to the United States.” And he noted that the White House is facing new global needs and changing priorities(I guess this means the campaign is over and the political class in Washington now views China as a legit threat...too little, much too late but that's politicians).

Story here