https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...S07?li=BBnb7Kz
As the last American forces left Kabul, many pundits,  especially those who wanted to paint the withdrawal as a success, drew  parallels to the infamous British retreat from Kabul after the first  Anglo-Afghan War.  
     

    © Provided by Washington Examiner      MSNBC’s Rick Stengel 
said,  "Here’s a disastrous withdrawal. When the British left Afghanistan in  1842, 4,500 troops left Kabul and one Englishman 11 days later arrived  in Jalalabad. That was a disastrous evacuation." The Washington  Institute for Near East Policy’s Simon Henderson 
repeated the analogy at the
 Hill.  "A famous painting depicts William Brydon, a British surgeon and the  only survivor, reaching the safety of Jalalabad," he writes. 
             
  While Henderson, unlike Stengel, is correct that the withdrawal was  to Jalalabad and not out of Afghanistan entirely, he is wrong that  Brydon was the only survivor. Notwithstanding, that is, Elizabeth  Thompson’s 1879 oil painting, the late Peter Hopkirk’s flowing 
Great Game narrative, or the fictionalized account narrated by 
Flashman, the character made famous by the late George MacDonald Fraser. 
 While  it is true that several thousand British soldiers, family members, and  their camp followers departed Kabul, and only Brydon arrived in  Jalalabad, he was not the only survivor. Several dozen British citizens  survived the long march from Kabul, but they were taken hostage en route  during the multiple hit-and-run attacks led by partisans of Dost  Mohammad, the once and future Afghan king. Dost Mohammad was, at the  time, the nemesis for British strategists who sought to prop up Shah  Shuja and turn Afghanistan into an important piece of informal empire.  (Prior to his death, Taliban propaganda likened Mullah Omar to Dost  Muhammad and implied that post-Taliban Afghan Presidents Hamid Karzai  and Ashraf Ghani were like the hapless Shuja). 
 Over the next  several years, Dost Mohammad’s forces ransomed off (and, in some cases,  married off) his British hostages, much to the benefit of his treasury  and to the continued humiliation of the British Empire. The retreat from  Kabul would mark one of its worst military defeats, at least until the  loss of Singapore a century later. 
 Herein lies the true parallel with Afghan history.  
 President  Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken left behind more than  100 Americans. The true figure may be much higher: No one has confirmed  how the White House and State Department generated that number and are  simply assuming its accuracy. National security adviser Jake Sullivan  suggested the United States has leverage, although 
the only leverage it might have is the up to $9.4 billion in Afghanistan’s foreign reserves that American banks physically hold. 
 However, the disaster of the American withdrawal might be worse despite Stengel’s potted analogy or, separately, 
Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin’s 
effusive praise  of the State Department’s efforts. There is a pattern not only in Iraq,  Syria, and Yemen but also in Afghanistan where tribesmen and criminals  kidnap foreigners for profit. Sometimes, as in 19th-century Afghanistan,  they seek to ransom hostages themselves, but today, they also often  sell them to transnational terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. While  Biden, Blinken, and Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad differentiate between  the Taliban on one hand and al Qaeda and the Islamic State’s Khorasan  branch (ISIS-K) on the other, no American official has ever shown any  evidence to suggest that the Taliban have disassociated themselves from  such groups. 
 Simply put, as the White House seeks to turn a new  page, it is likely that the Taliban will flip an old one: The Taliban  will negotiate for as much of the $9.4 billion as they can get but will  keep the pressure on Biden’s White House by selling American prisoners  sporadically to groups that might make a spectacle of their execution.  In that scenario, Washington spin will be irrelevant, as will Biden’s  angry rhetoric and blame-shifting. The withdrawal was strategic  malpractice. Leaving Americans behind was unforgivable, but what comes  next could be even worse. 
Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's
 Beltway Confidential. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
minions won't read this - it is not consonant with their marxist revolutionary rhetoric/narrative
No additional comment needed
fiden , and LSM - Lie!