6 ms·

Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Keep their wits about them and keep fighting. If any

Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Keep their wits about them and keep fighting. If anything the war in Afghanistan has proven that technology is no match for resilience and grit.

onion2k 7y ago
Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Get saved by the French? ducks
- orbifold 7y ago
  It‘a kind of ironic, the French were so focused on screwing over the British, that they nearly bankrupted themselves and raised a generation of freedom fighting officers. Both eventually led to food shortages and revolution.
  - 24gttghh 7y ago
    >they nearly bankrupted themselves They did bankrupt themselves. The Crown treasury was completely empty in 1788.
- Ozumandias 7y ago
  Or rely on wars on other continents to drag their opponent's attention away?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Part of the strategy would be to resist long enough for international pressure to aid, be that UN sanctions or be that another country deciding to claim some more land while the US is too distracted to fight back.
chrift 7y ago
I'm confused - are you saying that Afghanistan triumphed?
- barsonme 7y ago
  Did we win Afghanistan? Did we win Vietnam?
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >Did we win Afghanistan? The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and the illegitimate communist government was ousted right?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Yes, and then? There was this US-vs-Taliban thing...
      - throwaway_law 7y ago
        Entirely different war and entirely different enemy. It would be like equating WWI Germany with WWII Nazi Germany...but who knows, maybe people do that.
- Redoubts 7y ago
  It's certainly not a win for the US there.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Or for the people there. Is it possible that all sides lost?
    - filoleg 7y ago
      I mean, the major difference is that with the Afghanistan, the US troops just get to return back home after fighting in the disaster that Afghanistan has become. I think it would be a bit more different when you have nowhere else to come back to, other than the place you just unsuccessfully destabilized and ravaged.
  - 7y ago
maxerickson 7y ago
Afghanistan is a fool's mission, not a war. If the US had the desire and stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan (gladly we do not), there would not be a lingering quagmire.
- Redoubts 7y ago
  I suppose civil wars and internal conflicts have a habit of being much more vicious, so this is something to consider.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    The point is that nation building exercises don't demonstrate anything about the capabilities of a modern military. If you are trying to win hearts and minds, you are behaving very differently than if you seek to kill or cow. Personally, I'd expect the main skirmishes in a US civil war to be factions of the military fighting against each other.
- Clubber 7y ago
  It didn't work out that way when the Nazi's invaded Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans >The partisans made significant contributions to the war by frustrating German plans to exploit occupied Soviet territories economically, gave considerable help to the Soviet Army by conducting systematic strikes against Germany's rear communication network, disseminated political work among the local population by publishing newspapers and leaflets, and succeeded in creating and maintaining a feeling of insecurity among German forces.[1]
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Not even close to the same asymmetry in capabilities.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  True. But if we don't have the stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan, why do you think we'd have the stomach to wage total war against (a portion of) the people of the US?
moate 7y ago
You're completely overlooking the fact that fighting a foreign war =/= fighting a domestic threat. The Afghanis greatest asset is their ability to use their land/people to hide and strike. I don't think you get that advantage in a US civil war, because who would know the US better than US citizens. Even the previous US civil war isn't a great example because that was a regional war before modern technology. You could have guerilla forces hiding out in southern backwaters that the Union wasn't familiar with. It would be much harder to do that in a country as massively surveilled as the modern US. These wars would not be the same, and this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the conflict.

onion2k 7y ago

Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Get saved by the French? ducks

orbifold 7y ago
It‘a kind of ironic, the French were so focused on screwing over the British, that they nearly bankrupted themselves and raised a generation of freedom fighting officers. Both eventually led to food shortages and revolution.
- 24gttghh 7y ago
  >they nearly bankrupted themselves They did bankrupt themselves. The Crown treasury was completely empty in 1788.
Ozumandias 7y ago
Or rely on wars on other continents to drag their opponent's attention away?
SkyBelow 7y ago
Part of the strategy would be to resist long enough for international pressure to aid, be that UN sanctions or be that another country deciding to claim some more land while the US is too distracted to fight back.

chrift 7y ago

I'm confused - are you saying that Afghanistan triumphed?

barsonme 7y ago
Did we win Afghanistan? Did we win Vietnam?
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >Did we win Afghanistan? The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and the illegitimate communist government was ousted right?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Yes, and then? There was this US-vs-Taliban thing...
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      Entirely different war and entirely different enemy. It would be like equating WWI Germany with WWII Nazi Germany...but who knows, maybe people do that.
Redoubts 7y ago
It's certainly not a win for the US there.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Or for the people there. Is it possible that all sides lost?
  - filoleg 7y ago
    I mean, the major difference is that with the Afghanistan, the US troops just get to return back home after fighting in the disaster that Afghanistan has become. I think it would be a bit more different when you have nowhere else to come back to, other than the place you just unsuccessfully destabilized and ravaged.
- 7y ago

maxerickson 7y ago

Afghanistan is a fool's mission, not a war. If the US had the desire and stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan (gladly we do not), there would not be a lingering quagmire.

Redoubts 7y ago
I suppose civil wars and internal conflicts have a habit of being much more vicious, so this is something to consider.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  The point is that nation building exercises don't demonstrate anything about the capabilities of a modern military. If you are trying to win hearts and minds, you are behaving very differently than if you seek to kill or cow. Personally, I'd expect the main skirmishes in a US civil war to be factions of the military fighting against each other.
Clubber 7y ago
It didn't work out that way when the Nazi's invaded Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans >The partisans made significant contributions to the war by frustrating German plans to exploit occupied Soviet territories economically, gave considerable help to the Soviet Army by conducting systematic strikes against Germany's rear communication network, disseminated political work among the local population by publishing newspapers and leaflets, and succeeded in creating and maintaining a feeling of insecurity among German forces.[1]
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Not even close to the same asymmetry in capabilities.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
True. But if we don't have the stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan, why do you think we'd have the stomach to wage total war against (a portion of) the people of the US?

moate 7y ago

You're completely overlooking the fact that fighting a foreign war =/= fighting a domestic threat. The Afghanis greatest asset is their ability to use their land/people to hide and strike. I don't think you get that advantage in a US civil war, because who would know the US better than US citizens. Even the previous US civil war isn't a great example because that was a regional war before modern technology. You could have guerilla forces hiding out in southern backwaters that the Union wasn't familiar with. It would be much harder to do that in a country as massively surveilled as the modern US. These wars would not be the same, and this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the conflict.