It seems apparent to most all of us that somehow the administration got bad intelligence on the Taliban's ability and desire to move so quickly when the U.S. began withdrawing our troops. An investigation needs to be done to see how that happened, and corrections need to be made.

However, since the Taliban started their takeover, the administration seems to have moved quickly to handle the massive effort required to remove U.S. citizens as well as Afghan compatriots. Over 70,000 people have been moved out in less than two weeks. This effort required securing the airport, moving in U.S. troops, moving the right people to be evacuated into position, clearing and vetting all of them, arranging for transport, and then the sticky point of where all these people will go, who decides which people go where and then getting host countries to agree. All this while not knowing what the Taliban might try next and dealing with the press of thousands of Afghans who don't qualify to be relocated. To me, the fact that Biden's team has done this so well is amazing. I think credit is due, even though there is blame for the bad intel at the beginning.

Oh, and when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without notice (and we had intel that something was brewing), did the politicians spend their time criticizing the president, or did they roll up their sleeves and help in the herculean effort? As is evident every day, more so now than ever, it seems, it is much easier to be critical in hindsight than to be proactive and positive in the moment.

James Kellison, Humacao, Puerto Rico

•••

With the horrors in Afghanistan unfolding, I have a simple proposition. Would America's strategic and national security interests be better served if we maintained 2,500 military forces in Afghanistan to provide critically needed air and logistics support to the Afghan Security Forces? For 20 years, they and their Afghan allies have prevented terror attacks arising from that benighted country.

Our military remains in Germany, South Korea and Japan for decades after military operations. We do so because we believe that our minor footprint deters the monsters from aggression. However, the feckless, incompetent and cruel Biden administration has chosen to surrender the country to seventh-century barbarians. In the wake of our shameful withdrawal, Americans will die, and thousands of Afghans who believed in us will meet a terrible end. Their only mistake: believing that our country would stand by them, protect them and give them refuge from the all-too-cruel mercies of the Taliban.

Mark and Karen Reed, Plymouth

•••

State Department Spokesman Ned Price said Monday that the administration was working to expedite the screening process for Afghans but cited "rigorous vetting" that was required before admission to the U.S. So how's that vetting working on our southern border?

Steve Hayden, Eden Prairie

•••

Great plan, Mr. President. Create an artificial deadline for the Afghan exit so you can use it for a political speech. Then totally stumble into a massive evacuation crisis.

Result? At least 1,000 Americans still in harm's way, desperate to get out of Taliban control. You humiliated and embarrassed our country with your decision to lay down to the Taliban. Not to mention throwing NATO under the bus. And destroying U.S. credibility among world leaders.

Some hope, though. You have seen your poll numbers go south. And you have now decided to get the CIA and troops to conduct evacuation missions outside Kabul airport.

As soon as you clean up your own Afghan mess, you can then get back to equity, infrastructure, climate change and ice cream.

And our Vice President Kamala Harris can get back to her Christmas shopping speeches.

Neil F. Anderson, Richfield

•••

To not be in the current situation in Afghanistan, two semi-impossible things would have had to have happened within two months of Biden's inauguration:

First, the administration would have had to have known that the Afghan army would surrender the country over a short period.

Second, Biden would have had to institute a surge of some 20,000 troops, in my estimation, once No. 1 above occurred.

Even if someone was clairvoyant and predicted No. 1, in order to prevent the current chaos, U.S. and coalition forces would have had to provide the security that the Afghan army didn't. That means some sort of U.S./coalition defensive line (perimeter) would have had to be established to allow the refugees to approach Kabul safely. That means the defensive line would have had to be, what, 100 miles in diameter? That's a radius of only 50 miles. 200 miles in diameter is probably a more realistic figure.

Trump left 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It's now taking 6,000 just to put a perimeter around the airport, and the Taliban aren't even contesting it. To establish a perimeter 100 to 200 miles in diameter would probably take some 20,000 troops.

Because of No. 1 and No. 2 above, a non-chaotic withdrawal was never a possibility. The only options to avoid a chaotic withdrawal would have been:

Either, institute the temporary surge described above, in order to do what the Afghan army refused to do. One of the problems with this is: How much sense would it be to have a surge of 20,000 service members, when the whole object is to get all the troops out?

Or, status quo: Continue the token presence of 2,500 to make the Taliban think twice about an all-out war. This probably wouldn't have worked anyway, because the Taliban's vaunted patience wouldn't have lasted forever. Eventually, they would have begun an endgame offensive, because both former President Donald Trump and Biden made it clear that reversing course yet again and putting tens of thousands of boots on the ground again was not going to happen.

Stephen K. Partridge, Edina

I'm on Medicare and read Sen. Amy Klobuchar's solution to high drug prices ("Here's how we'll lower costs," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 24) with keen interest. Klobuchar is referring to a bill that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices under Part D directly with pharmaceutical companies. This economic disaster will lead to higher Medicare and supplement payments, scarcity of drugs (remember the EpiPen shortages?) and reduced new research. Government price "controls" failed with Richard Nixon and will fail here, too.

Instead, a combination of economy-based solutions could alleviate the problem. (1) Legalize purchases from other countries. I know people both on and off Medicare who get significant price reductions by buying the same drugs through Canada. (2) Change patent laws to allow generic production. Many patents are renewed, prohibiting generics from being sold at markedly lower prices. (3) Encourage competition among pharmaceutical companies. (4) Publish grant information. My cancer treatment drugs would've cost $4,000 per month. Prime Therapeutics referred me to the proper people and the cost dropped to $100 per month.

The lesson is clear. Politicians who know little or nothing about economics should not represent us for solutions to economic problems.

Donald M. Pitsch, Eden Prairie

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.