[Goose]

The best and most recent comparison is the exit from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban in charge.  The United States left aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.  Also 2,000 armored vehicles, a variety of intelligence gathering drones, state-of-the-art night-vision goggles, and a wide array of communication gear.  Because the supplies to the Afghans was not closely monitored and inventoried there is undoubtedly a bunch more equipment in the hands of the Taliban.

Seriously?

Supposedly all the helicopters and drones were rendered not serviceable before we left. How true that is is probably debatable. The equipment we gave to the Afghan state was no longer "ours". We didn't inventory it or issue it to the end users, so we couldn't really monitor it no matter what we did. Probably lots of it got sold to or given to the Taliban long before we left. Fortunately there was nothing there that contained anything real technologically sensitive.
No matter one's politics, there are lots of things that happened during our tenure in Afghanistan that can be questioned and criticized. Keeping in mind the fact there is no subjunctive in history, such analysis can be useful. Probably it will be done and then ignored. One of the frequent "suggestions" voiced is to only enter into military operations when there is a defined set of achievable goals and thus a well-defined exit point. However, history has repeatedly shown us that oftentimes conditions arise where there is a status-quo that is deemed intolerable, even if there is no obvious "solution". NATO is kind of in that situation right now. NATO and the EU really can't let Putin win. If he does, no European nation is safe, and war crimes become meaningless. How does NATO/EU defeat Putin/Russia without widening the war? Further along those lines, accepting the Finns into NATO virtually guaranties Sweden follows. Finland brings a seriously long border with Russia and a threat to the Baltic fleet/Kalingrad. However, given what happened in Ukraine, can NATO even consider not admitting Finland? Day by day NATO military operations in Europe become more probable, even though their is no clear "exit point". The military sometimes apparently does have to fight wars where the end is uncertain.

[Goose]

The best and most recent comparison is the exit from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban in charge.  The United States left aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.  Also 2,000 armored vehicles, a variety of intelligence gathering drones, state-of-the-art night-vision goggles, and a wide array of communication gear.  Because the supplies to the Afghans was not closely monitored and inventoried there is undoubtedly a bunch more equipment in the hands of the Taliban.

Seriously?

Supposedly all the helicopters and drones were rendered not serviceable before we left. How true that is is probably debatable. The equipment we gave to the Afghan state was no longer "ours". We didn't inventory it or issue it to the end users, so we couldn't really monitor it no matter what we did. Probably lots of it got sold to or given to the Taliban long before we left. Fortunately there was nothing there that contained anything real technologically sensitive.
No matter one's politics, there are lots of things that happened during our tenure in Afghanistan that can be questioned and criticized. Keeping in mind the fact there is no subjunctive in history, such analysis can be useful. Probably it will be done and then ignored. One of the frequent "suggestions" voiced is to only enter into military operations when there is a defined set of achievable goals and thus a well-defined exit point. However, history has repeatedly shown us that oftentimes conditions arise where there is a status-quo that is deemed intolerable, even if there is no obvious "solution". NATO is kind of in that situation right now. NATO and the EU really can't let Putin win. If he does, no European nation is safe, and war crimes become meaningless. How does NATO/EU defeat Putin/Russia without widening the war? Further along those lines, accepting the Finns into NATO virtually guaranties Sweden follows. Finland brings a seriously long border with Russia and a threat to the Baltic fleet/Kalingrad. However, given what happened in Ukraine, can NATO even consider not admitting Finland? Day by day NATO military operations in Europe become more probable, even though their is no clear "exit point". The military sometimes apparently does have to fight wars where the end is uncertain.