If it weren’t for bad faith there would be no defenses of the Afghanistan occupation at all
By 
Today’s person who thinks you are an abject moron is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations:
The alternative to withdrawal from Afghanistan was not “endless occupation” but open-ended presence. Occupation is imposed, presence invited. Unless you think we are occupying Japan, Germany, & South Korea. And yes, withdrawal was the problem. https://t.co/FceI02wWNF— Richard N. Haass (@RichardHaass) August 27, 2021
To call this “specious” would be charitable. I mean:
1)How many bombing campaigns has the US conducted in Japan, Germany and South Korea over the last 20 years?
2)How many military and civilian casualties have resulted from the American troops being stationed in these countries?
3)Would these states instantaneously collapse if American troops were no longer there?
And if you ignore these dispositive flaws with the analogy it’s still stupid! And as for the idea that our “presence” in Afghanistan is “invited”:
excuse me, but how can i possibly be “trespassing” if i was invited to stay by who i regard as the home’s proper owner: the buddy of mine i boosted through the window so he could unlock the door for me from the inside https://t.co/ze4eeqWQHG— Albert Burneko (@AlbertBurneko) August 27, 2021
They don”t want to defend what they actually want (i.e. escalation with permanent occupation) because there is no defense for it, so we get these ridiculous fairytales and null analogies instead.
In related news, there’s a reason even other members of the Republican leadership considered Kevin McCarthy a hopeless dumbshit:
McCarthy thinks we should have continued to maintain an airbase in the middle of a country controlled by the Taliban? For what strategic reason? And how would that possibly be a stable or secure situation for the US troops at Bagram? https://t.co/KExoxOwsYp— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 27, 2021