the argument used back in 2010 was that it would threaten the lives of many who work for US security services, particularly in Afghanistan.
I believed that to be a real concern.
this is, imo, why its become such a fraught and divided discussion. much less about those locals who worked in the countries and more about the American security services. I don't understand the full implications. I'm not invested in the security industries. but sure, it was a reasonable concern.
as it is, as reported, none of US security people have been threatened. whereas Afghans who worked for the US were routed out and killed by Taliban. probably much the same result in Iraq.
theres often a double standard when it comes to security.
