Not all contractors were intended to leave. A large part of the US fighting force in Afghanistan (possibly more than half) are private military contractors (mercenaries). So while we removed the troops for publicity reasons, many American contractors were to remain and assist the Afghan government and military in an ongoing role beyond the US military withdrawal.
I actually have to
agree with this,
in general ...
PMCs are in another category. PMCs that
'get into trouble' aren't always
'rescued' by US military personnel. Benghazi is a perfect, recent example, especially when working for the CIA and, as a by-product, State.
Of course, there are caveats to this too ...
In the case of Benghazi, they were protecting State personnel, even at the original compound (part of the reason why State, let alone CIA, didn't want the PMCs to leave), and t
he RoE there was supposed to be that the US military protects them. Even US agreements with Libya allowed such, but State screwed it up ... bad. The CIA
'walked out' on State over the
'talking points,' and that said everything ... it was a
'CYA' game, and they knew it.
Hence all the questions of why US forces in Italy, let alone the US had 50 ships, including 2 carrier groups (Enterprise and Eisenhower), all within support and direct striking range. There is a reason why no one likes Hillary on foreign policy, she's more
'America [knows better] first' (and gets people into wars) than Trump.
So what promises were given to PMCs in Afghanistan for support, let alone Afghani v. American contracts, who paid, etc... is all added considerations.
The US notified personnel in April of the pending withdrawal and told non essential personnel to leave the country. It didn’t sneak up on anyone. Those who remained had faith that they would have continuing roles in support of a hypothetical Afghan democratic state. That crumbled quickly and this is the fallout we are all seeing now.
But that's the same argument with Vietnam. But Vietnam went on for just under 2 years more.
This crumbled a lot faster, only 4-6 months, and ...
A lot of that has to do with
Biden's engagement and messaging. One of the reasons the Taliban started violating certain agreements is because
the Biden administration violated them first. If anything, Trump had very good advisors and secretaries, not just Mattis (totally owned ISIL), but others with and even after Mattis.
Biden's foreign policy has been utterly smacked around by objective Americans and most non-American analysts, but Afghanistan is the latest that even got the apologists and US Media to note.
Even in Iran, Biden has taken an
even more 'hardliner stance' than Trump, which is pissing off Germany who is utterly dependent on foreign energy more than anyone else even close to their size in the EU. France is heavily nuclear, while Germany shut down all theirs, or are in the process and they are not producing power.
Germany is like California on the
'Sierra Club-like stupidity-level' of self-defeating energy policy. Although California takes the cake in costs as it's totally government and special-interst driven (the storage architecture is just dead special interest, 10x the cost, 1/10th the effectiveness), whereas Germany actually is trying to get the market to do things, and that will eventually result in less foreign dependency over 2030-2040.