no that kinda makes sense to me too, taliban is busy filling the vacuum so if you want some territory grab it while they're busy and when you're not going to get third-partied by an airstrike.
ISIS-K is not capable of holding territory, they're a tiny tiny splinter faction. If they wanted a vacuum, they should have waited until US was gone. Instead, they attack as US was still there. They are only capable of terrorist attacks but not capable of holding territory. They never did any major attacks until the day America is leaving, then they attack an airport with both Taliban and US present to try and drag US back into Afghanistan for "counter-terrorism". This is the ISIS-CIA playbook, and I think you're a fool if you deny it. If you didn't pay painstaking attention to detail in the Syrian War, I would advise you not to speak where you are not educated.
If they wanted to exploit a vacuum and avoid US airstrikes they would have waited a day or two and not struck right when they did. The only plausible reason for the strike was desperation to keep their allies around. This was a common and repeated tactic in Syria to allow US to get a foothold
Yet they wait until the day the US is withdrawing to do it? Come on
no that kinda makes sense to me too, taliban is busy filling the vacuum so if you want some territory grab it while they're busy and when you're not going to get third-partied by an airstrike.
ISIS-K is not capable of holding territory, they're a tiny tiny splinter faction. If they wanted a vacuum, they should have waited until US was gone. Instead, they attack as US was still there. They are only capable of terrorist attacks but not capable of holding territory. They never did any major attacks until the day America is leaving, then they attack an airport with both Taliban and US present to try and drag US back into Afghanistan for "counter-terrorism". This is the ISIS-CIA playbook, and I think you're a fool if you deny it. If you didn't pay painstaking attention to detail in the Syrian War, I would advise you not to speak where you are not educated.
i'm just saying it's operationally plausible to act on that day from the perspective of a local belligerent, not that it definitely wasn't the CIA.
If they wanted to exploit a vacuum and avoid US airstrikes they would have waited a day or two and not struck right when they did. The only plausible reason for the strike was desperation to keep their allies around. This was a common and repeated tactic in Syria to allow US to get a foothold