4 ms·

The goal of the US in Afghanistan was to deny Al-Qaeda the use of one third of a country to plan their operations. That required taking control of that territor

The goal of the US in Afghanistan was to deny Al-Qaeda the use of one third of a country to plan their operations. That required taking control of that territory from the Taliban, who were allowing Al-Qaeda to operate without restriction. The US did that. They harassed the Taliban and denied them complete control of territory for 20 years. Not sure how this could be viewed as a strategic defeat in any way

kumarvvr 5y ago
What happened to all the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing then? At the end of 20 years, US indirectly had to negotiate with them. So the other way of looking at it is, a bunch of un-educated, poorly trained, poorly equipped mountain people, who themselves are divided into many warring factions, stood their ground against the mightiest nation on earth, for 20 year, and in the end US negotiated with them for transfer of power. Now, I see this as sheer political and administrative failure. Militarily, sure, the US has an upper hand and can pile up bodies like no other, But it failed to win the "war on terror" in Afghanistan. It could not change the govt., it could not bring stability and democracy to the region, it could not transform the society, and it could not even change the idea of itself in the minds of the Afghan people. US is too powerful, militarily, to formulate effective strategies that further its goals. It is good in doing that economically, through sanctions, etc. But as a military force, it is too powerful for its own good.
- jlkuester7 5y ago
  Heh, you would think that after literal decades of (moderate) sustained success in resisting incursions from three superpowers (British, then Soviets and then the US) the Pashtuns would get a little more credit then just being called "a bunch of un-educated, poorly trained, poorly equipped mountain people." Even Churchill said of them: "Every man is a warrior, a politician and a theologian."
  - kumarvvr 5y ago
    To be fair, US has decades of high tech warfare experience, institutions that study war and constantly research about it, has best infrastructure, excellent means to project power and has virtually unlimited resources. The Afghans have no proper education system, no institutions other than local commanders directing their bunch of troops and have virtually no good infrastructure. They literally live among mountains and have no good networks for transportation. I am giving the Afghans a lot of credit, because what I said about them is true. They won in spite of that.
MikeTheGreat 5y ago
My recollection of how the conflict was presented was "We need to go to Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda" 20 years later we're still fighting that same war, which is how many people look at the situation and say that the US hasn't achieved it's goals (i.e., has been defeated) I suppose one could say that the US hasn't lost yet, but it's pretty tough to say that the US has won. Honestly, at this point it feels like any discussion of the US staying in Afghanistan seems like it should devolve into a discussion of the halting problem. (/s, but only slightly)
- afterburner 5y ago
  They definitely defeated Al-Qaeda, they just didn't wipe out the Taliban.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Al-Qaeda was defeated? How does that reconcile with ISIS popping up a few years later, and Libya and Iraq still being in the grips of civil war?
    - afterburner 5y ago
      Where do I even start with this. Do you just call all your favourite bad guys "Al-Qaeda" and group them all together as if they were all one organization?
teclordphrack2 5y ago
You lost. Deal with it. The level of immaturity... coming up with stories to tell yourself.
- badmadrad 5y ago
  We didn't lose though.
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    Who is pulling out? Who's puppet government is already falling? Who is taking back control of every area we pulled out of? What did you "win". Do you really like getting kicked in the nuts? Al-Qeada and other groups just shifted to other unrested regions and even caused unrest. At a global scale the war only caused other countries harm.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Tell someone in your social circle that you're considering a business deal with a company in Afghanistan and might be flying out there next month, see what sort of reaction you get.
badmadrad 5y ago
Agreed, We literally took over Afghanistan in a month and installed a government but somehow we lost? We just don't really have a dog in the fight anymore. This isn't defeat.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Yes, the US lost. The government in Afghanistan doesn't have much institutional depth or very firm control of the country. It's not a military defeat in the sense of having your army crushed, but an occupation that never achieves peacetime status is a failure by great power standards. Don't feel bad though, the US is the 3rd empire to make the exact same mistake in Afghanistan. It'd be comical if there weren't so much human suffering involved.
- BelenusMordred 5y ago
  Giving up isn't defeat? If this was sports would anyone accept that definition? The US just signed a peace deal with the Taliban agreeing to and withdraw all their troops and release aligned 5000 prisoners, the Taliban are also allowed back in government. Technically they could be in power at the next election. What actual goal was fulfilled here after two decades of war?

kumarvvr 5y ago

What happened to all the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing then? At the end of 20 years, US indirectly had to negotiate with them. So the other way of looking at it is, a bunch of un-educated, poorly trained, poorly equipped mountain people, who themselves are divided into many warring factions, stood their ground against the mightiest nation on earth, for 20 year, and in the end US negotiated with them for transfer of power. Now, I see this as sheer political and administrative failure. Militarily, sure, the US has an upper hand and can pile up bodies like no other, But it failed to win the "war on terror" in Afghanistan. It could not change the govt., it could not bring stability and democracy to the region, it could not transform the society, and it could not even change the idea of itself in the minds of the Afghan people. US is too powerful, militarily, to formulate effective strategies that further its goals. It is good in doing that economically, through sanctions, etc. But as a military force, it is too powerful for its own good.

jlkuester7 5y ago
Heh, you would think that after literal decades of (moderate) sustained success in resisting incursions from three superpowers (British, then Soviets and then the US) the Pashtuns would get a little more credit then just being called "a bunch of un-educated, poorly trained, poorly equipped mountain people." Even Churchill said of them: "Every man is a warrior, a politician and a theologian."
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  To be fair, US has decades of high tech warfare experience, institutions that study war and constantly research about it, has best infrastructure, excellent means to project power and has virtually unlimited resources. The Afghans have no proper education system, no institutions other than local commanders directing their bunch of troops and have virtually no good infrastructure. They literally live among mountains and have no good networks for transportation. I am giving the Afghans a lot of credit, because what I said about them is true. They won in spite of that.

MikeTheGreat 5y ago

My recollection of how the conflict was presented was "We need to go to Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda" 20 years later we're still fighting that same war, which is how many people look at the situation and say that the US hasn't achieved it's goals (i.e., has been defeated) I suppose one could say that the US hasn't lost yet, but it's pretty tough to say that the US has won. Honestly, at this point it feels like any discussion of the US staying in Afghanistan seems like it should devolve into a discussion of the halting problem. (/s, but only slightly)

afterburner 5y ago
They definitely defeated Al-Qaeda, they just didn't wipe out the Taliban.
- vkou 5y ago
  Al-Qaeda was defeated? How does that reconcile with ISIS popping up a few years later, and Libya and Iraq still being in the grips of civil war?
  - afterburner 5y ago
    Where do I even start with this. Do you just call all your favourite bad guys "Al-Qaeda" and group them all together as if they were all one organization?

teclordphrack2 5y ago

You lost. Deal with it. The level of immaturity... coming up with stories to tell yourself.

badmadrad 5y ago
We didn't lose though.
- teclordphrack2 5y ago
  Who is pulling out? Who's puppet government is already falling? Who is taking back control of every area we pulled out of? What did you "win". Do you really like getting kicked in the nuts? Al-Qeada and other groups just shifted to other unrested regions and even caused unrest. At a global scale the war only caused other countries harm.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Tell someone in your social circle that you're considering a business deal with a company in Afghanistan and might be flying out there next month, see what sort of reaction you get.

badmadrad 5y ago

Agreed, We literally took over Afghanistan in a month and installed a government but somehow we lost? We just don't really have a dog in the fight anymore. This isn't defeat.

anigbrowl 5y ago
Yes, the US lost. The government in Afghanistan doesn't have much institutional depth or very firm control of the country. It's not a military defeat in the sense of having your army crushed, but an occupation that never achieves peacetime status is a failure by great power standards. Don't feel bad though, the US is the 3rd empire to make the exact same mistake in Afghanistan. It'd be comical if there weren't so much human suffering involved.
BelenusMordred 5y ago
Giving up isn't defeat? If this was sports would anyone accept that definition? The US just signed a peace deal with the Taliban agreeing to and withdraw all their troops and release aligned 5000 prisoners, the Taliban are also allowed back in government. Technically they could be in power at the next election. What actual goal was fulfilled here after two decades of war?