7 ms·

What a failure of the US armed forces here. 20 damn years staying in the country with the only 2 goal - to help Afghans build an army and help defend themselve

What a failure of the US armed forces here. 20 damn years staying in the country with the only 2 goal - to help Afghans build an army and help defend themselves and to eradicate the Taliban. They failed miserably in both. Trillions spent and many lost lives. Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Of course, the cycle keeps repeating itself and we keep growing the military.

sneak 5y ago
I think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves. This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to recognize the Taliban government and invest in their infrastructure via their belt and road initiative (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/china-taliban-welcome-back-belt-road-afghanistan https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-s...). We should have at least kept a smaller force around as a presence to maintain continuity. See this “rescue plan for Afghanistan” from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for more suggestions that aren’t blindly exiting Afghanistan in a few short months: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-taliban-joe-biden-11628890626 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    I am also not fully sold on the idea that getting out is a good idea, but for different reasons. The growth of Afghanistan's economy (300-400% GDP) and the quality of life improvements since the Taliban were removed has been notable, and if this regresses then there will be a real human toll. But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/destabilizing to the whole region, so I can understand doing it. This isn't a commentary on the specifics of how it was done, merely on whether a withdrawal should have been done.
    - laurent92 5y ago
      Social media is already reporting thousands of refugees walking in Greece.
  - sneak 5y ago
    I have not seen one cogent argument why the US taxpayer should be funding the role of policeman indefinitely in faraway lands. Terrorism in Afghanistan has zero to do with the US constituency. A "foothold" is useless and unnecessary. I feel badly for the Afghan people, but ultimately it isn't the US' problem, and never has been. If they'd like to have a civil war and get those assholes out, let them.
  - Shacklz 5y ago
    > remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda! But when the Saudis presumably financed some of the same/similar bad guys it wasn't even worth much of an investigation? I find such "they're bad guys!"-arguments to be applied very inconsistently
  - j-krieger 5y ago
    > a terrorist organization will control a nation those are the terrorists the US created by mercilessly bombing their civilian relatives.
    - Clewza313 5y ago
      The US also directly funded the mujahideen, the forebears of today's Taliban, back when they were fighting the Soviets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen
  - rascul 5y ago
    > It means a terrorist organization will control a nation What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? I've mostly only seen them fight back against foreign invaders. > and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). First they offered to look at evidence and consider extradition, then they offered extradition, both of which the U.S. refused. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... > It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      > What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? Giving aid to a terrorist group that commits those acts doesn't make the Taliban less complicit. See this UN report from June about how the Taliban is still closely tied to al Qaeda (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-taliban-afghanistan-al-qaeda-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-tali...). As for what atrocities they've committed, there's a long list on Wikipedia, many of which meet the definition of terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices). > Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world? So many reasons. First, to contain China, which is the principal threat to America's prosperity and control in the future. Second, to support other democratic nations like India, who will suffer from the Taliban's resurgence. Third, to expand our economic interests. Fourth, to continue our mission to sustain human rights which the Taliban is already eroding. There are others, and I am certainly not a foreign policy expert, but my point is - there's something there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set. Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics. Can you articular which particular aspects of our nation-building and counter-insurgency techniques are distinct from our equally-failed predecessors? Have you considered that the objective may not have been to erect a fully-functional Afghan government and military, but instead to conduct a multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?
- bawolff 5y ago
  Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? (I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? To humiliate America Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.
  - Guthur 5y ago
    Potentially with the belt and road initiative, which may now even expand into Afghanistan with the US redrawal.
  - belter 5y ago
    Because of this: "Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afghanistan-sits-1-trillion-minerals-n196861 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh... The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.
bjourne 5y ago
Remember that it was 20 very profitable years for some. Check the stock tickers, see what companies stocks have skyrocketed.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  This is very true. There are plenty of people that probably consider the Afghanistan war a resounding success.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  A friend of mine went to Afghanistan to help rebuild over a decade ago. He said some of the funds they received for schools were then allocated to lonely concrete blocks without teachers or equipment. But all the contractors involved would go there to show off their amazing progress. Remember that the companies you talk about are not the only ones that profited here. It's not that different from when Hillary Clinton was laughing at the camera and saying the greatest thing about Lybia's liberation would be that they would pay for the reconstruction.
samizdis 5y ago
There's a sobering assessment of US performance in Afghanistan, What we got wrong in Afghanistan [1], in The Atlantic from a few days ago. It was written by a retired veteran: Mike Jason retired in 2019 as a U.S. Army colonel, after 24 years on active duty. He commanded combat units in Germany, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It pulls no punches and, in my opinion, is worth reading. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-america-failed-afghanistan/619740/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-americ...
- papaf 5y ago
  Thanks, that was an interesting read. I read a book a while ago that was well researched and gave the impression that Afganistan would always belong to the Taliban. It was called "No Good Men Among the Living". https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17454723-no-good-men-among-the-living https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17454723-no-good-men-amo...
  - samizdis 5y ago
    Thanks for your recommendation, too. I've just read an NYT review of it [1] and am definitely going to read it. From the review: Gopal’s book is essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so wrong. It is a devastating, well-honed prosecution detailing how our government bungled the initial salvo in the so-called war on terror, ignored attempts by top Taliban leaders to surrender, trusted the wrong people and backed a feckless and corrupt Afghan regime. The book has its flaws, minimizing the role of neighboring Pakistan in the Taliban’s resurgence and letting the Taliban off too easy. But it is ultimately the most compelling account I’ve read of how Afghans themselves see the war. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/no-good-men-among-the-living-by-anand-gopal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/no-good-men-...
NonContro 5y ago
US forces abandoned the country 'overnight' - leaving behind all of the military equipment the Taliban would need for their reconquest: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizures-massive-boon-for-taliban-as-cities-fall https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizur... Why wasn't all this equipment repatriated or destroyed? Why were the bases just abandoned without proper transition to Afghan Control, so that in some cases they were even looted by civilians? Possible explanations: 1. Extreme incompetence or total apathy by US Commanders/Politicians 2. There was no land/sea transport route through Pakistan to retrieve all the equipment 3. The US Military-Industrial Complex was happy for all this stuff to be lost, so it could be reordered 4. The US wanted the Taliban to reconquer the country quickly, so that any power vaccuum could not be filled by China or Russia 5. Managed decline of the US Empire, requiring deliberate humiliation and demoralization of the US forces, enabled by corrupt senior US commanders and politicians who have made deals with China.
- chewz 5y ago
  You are too hard on US. Afgan Army had 300 thousand soldiers trained and well equiped. If Afgans do not want to fight Taliban themselves what US can do?
  - smhost 5y ago
    U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey, after having destroyed their homeland and treated them like idiot children for an entire generation.
    - yellowcake0 5y ago
      > U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey Which of course has been the post-WW2 standard operating procedure for the U.S. in more countries than I care to count. And it always comes back to haunt us, god knows what the long-term ramifications of this latest fiasco will be.
    - 5y ago
BasDirks 5y ago
The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepower, it's not the soldiers, and it's not the organization. These are top notch. It's the **ing politicians dragging young men and women into wars not worth fighting.
- rualca 5y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree, and the effect this has on the perceived military capability of the US in particular and NATO in general can't possibly be downplayed.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  The Taliban is absolute horrible. US tried to do a good thing here. For me this is a failure of the Afghan people who are not willing to fight for their rights, especially the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters. At least US tried to make a difference. EU is very passive in that sense (I'm from EU).
  - BasDirks 5y ago
    A failure of the Afghan people! Hahaha, OK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And ah, okay, the war in Afghanistan was to liberate women? Meanwhile the US is in bed with the Saudi's.
    - hintymad 5y ago
      Exactly. Afghanistan people want Taliban, yet we're telling them no no no, you want our democracy. The US was "a nation of hypocrites", and still is.
      - kazen44 5y ago
        some people in afghanistan want the taliban yes, the mainy problem in afghanistan is the fact that not many people feel a common sense of being an afghani. The country is extremely decentralised and rural. Most people only look at their villages and community, not at the bigger picture.
a0-prw 5y ago
Ask yourself why US taxpayers keep pouring money into such a terrible, incompetent system.
- THINkttwICE 5y ago
  I did. So many times for so many years. As an Afghan I grew up with this question. I kept hearing this from our elders in their conversations. All of us keep thinking if we can see choosing bedfellows like Mujahedin in 80's and the later to be rebranded Taliban in 90's is akin to nourishing a viper in one's bosom. We the simpletons could see and predict any effort of nation building, establishing freedom, democracy and modern human rights is doomed to fail if your partners are the most corrupt murderous warlords Afghanistan had to offer. How could Pentagon, CIA and all the think tanks with their thousands of smart annalists and experts keep missing this? Year after year. For almost half a decade. So brother you're asking the right question, the only question that matters IMO.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
I think it shows that the US were no more than a foreign occupation force. Everyone knew how powerful their military was and how much money they had to distribute so perhaps the majority went with the flow but the current events show that this meant little to the workings of Afghanistan and its culture. In my view there's always arrogance in thinking that GIs can literally fall from the sky and "save" the locals...
danielschonfeld 5y ago
Agreed and the answer to your question of why? This is the power engine of the American economy and dream. Our economy is based on us engaged in a conflict for which we print money and hand it to government contractors to later make its way to the rest of the economy. All the while sucking like a predator a far away land and people for every last juice they have. This is the only way to keep the faux heaven looking as it does. Utopian. It’s also the one topic you can have both sides of the aisle always agree on. No matter the political climate. When the military is working, it’s always at work in keeping us free. Woodrow Wilson would have been proud at how we monetized his emotional button of American exceptionalism
underseacables 5y ago
This was not a failure of the Armed Forces, this was a failure of Washington policymakers. The same thing that happened in Vietnam, bureaucrats in Washington trying to run a war in Afghanistan but no clear objectives, and despite 20 years of death and destruction, no understanding of the region and its culture. Afghanistan was never going to be a democracy.
hintymad 5y ago
You simply can't foster a regime, for the fostered government is by definition a puppet that simply does not command enough support of its people. What's surprising to me is the US government never learns despite so many failures around the world. And an honest question: why do American people think that it's so damn important to spread American democracy at the cost of waging wars? Pew Research said 94%+ of Afghanistan adults support Sharia laws. So why do we risk our own people's lives, kill thousands of people in a foreign nation, and throw trillions of dollars just to force other countries to buy our own ideology? Isn't it text-book definition of pure evil? Another case in point: According to the book Skin in the Game, the western countries removed Assad in the name of bringing democracy, yet triggered one of the most brutal civil war in a country, left dozens of cities in ruins, and ironically fostered the largest slave market in the world. Yeah, slave market. Isn't it ironic?
- hintymad 5y ago
  And for that matter, G.W. Bush is the worst president in the US as he occupied two countries for no good reasons. His occupation destroyed lives, weakened American economy, and fostered generations of anti-American extremists. It's a forever shame on the US and its people.

sneak 5y ago

I think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves. This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to recognize the Taliban government and invest in their infrastructure via their belt and road initiative (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/china-taliban-welcome-back-belt-road-afghanistan https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-s...). We should have at least kept a smaller force around as a presence to maintain continuity. See this “rescue plan for Afghanistan” from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for more suggestions that aren’t blindly exiting Afghanistan in a few short months: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-taliban-joe-biden-11628890626 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I am also not fully sold on the idea that getting out is a good idea, but for different reasons. The growth of Afghanistan's economy (300-400% GDP) and the quality of life improvements since the Taliban were removed has been notable, and if this regresses then there will be a real human toll. But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/destabilizing to the whole region, so I can understand doing it. This isn't a commentary on the specifics of how it was done, merely on whether a withdrawal should have been done.
  - laurent92 5y ago
    Social media is already reporting thousands of refugees walking in Greece.
- sneak 5y ago
  I have not seen one cogent argument why the US taxpayer should be funding the role of policeman indefinitely in faraway lands. Terrorism in Afghanistan has zero to do with the US constituency. A "foothold" is useless and unnecessary. I feel badly for the Afghan people, but ultimately it isn't the US' problem, and never has been. If they'd like to have a civil war and get those assholes out, let them.
- Shacklz 5y ago
  > remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda! But when the Saudis presumably financed some of the same/similar bad guys it wasn't even worth much of an investigation? I find such "they're bad guys!"-arguments to be applied very inconsistently
- j-krieger 5y ago
  > a terrorist organization will control a nation those are the terrorists the US created by mercilessly bombing their civilian relatives.
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    The US also directly funded the mujahideen, the forebears of today's Taliban, back when they were fighting the Soviets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen
- rascul 5y ago
  > It means a terrorist organization will control a nation What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? I've mostly only seen them fight back against foreign invaders. > and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). First they offered to look at evidence and consider extradition, then they offered extradition, both of which the U.S. refused. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... > It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world?
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > What terrorist acts have the Taliban committed? Giving aid to a terrorist group that commits those acts doesn't make the Taliban less complicit. See this UN report from June about how the Taliban is still closely tied to al Qaeda (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-taliban-afghanistan-al-qaeda-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/middleeast/un-report-tali...). As for what atrocities they've committed, there's a long list on Wikipedia, many of which meet the definition of terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices). > Why does the U.S. need a foothold in a region on the other side of the world? So many reasons. First, to contain China, which is the principal threat to America's prosperity and control in the future. Second, to support other democratic nations like India, who will suffer from the Taliban's resurgence. Third, to expand our economic interests. Fourth, to continue our mission to sustain human rights which the Taliban is already eroding. There are others, and I am certainly not a foreign policy expert, but my point is - there's something there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

CapricornNoble 5y ago

>>>Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Not that the US DoD is in any way a model of efficiency, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the problem set. Over the past 200 years, the British, Soviet, and American empires have all failed to pacify Afghanistan. Probably the Mongols and Alexander the Great struggled too, I need to dig into the history of those campaigns for more specifics. Can you articular which particular aspects of our nation-building and counter-insurgency techniques are distinct from our equally-failed predecessors? Have you considered that the objective may not have been to erect a fully-functional Afghan government and military, but instead to conduct a multi-decade delaying action to stymie Chinese expansion for as long as possible?

bawolff 5y ago
Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? (I mean this as an honest question, i don't know that much of the geopolitics of the region)
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Does china really have designs on Afghanistan? For what purpose? To humiliate America Other than the Khybar Pass, Afghanistan is a piece of land of very little value, and only 38 million of very proud, and militant people.
- Guthur 5y ago
  Potentially with the belt and road initiative, which may now even expand into Afghanistan with the US redrawal.
- belter 5y ago
  Because of this: "Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say." https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afghanistan-sits-1-trillion-minerals-n196861 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afgh... The Chinese will ask no questions, will do the work, and wont bother the Taliban with annoying issues like freedom and democracy. A perfect match.

bjourne 5y ago

Remember that it was 20 very profitable years for some. Check the stock tickers, see what companies stocks have skyrocketed.

jacquesm 5y ago
This is very true. There are plenty of people that probably consider the Afghanistan war a resounding success.
rjzzleep 5y ago
A friend of mine went to Afghanistan to help rebuild over a decade ago. He said some of the funds they received for schools were then allocated to lonely concrete blocks without teachers or equipment. But all the contractors involved would go there to show off their amazing progress. Remember that the companies you talk about are not the only ones that profited here. It's not that different from when Hillary Clinton was laughing at the camera and saying the greatest thing about Lybia's liberation would be that they would pay for the reconstruction.

samizdis 5y ago

There's a sobering assessment of US performance in Afghanistan, What we got wrong in Afghanistan [1], in The Atlantic from a few days ago. It was written by a retired veteran: Mike Jason retired in 2019 as a U.S. Army colonel, after 24 years on active duty. He commanded combat units in Germany, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It pulls no punches and, in my opinion, is worth reading. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-america-failed-afghanistan/619740/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/how-americ...

papaf 5y ago
Thanks, that was an interesting read. I read a book a while ago that was well researched and gave the impression that Afganistan would always belong to the Taliban. It was called "No Good Men Among the Living". https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17454723-no-good-men-among-the-living https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17454723-no-good-men-amo...
- samizdis 5y ago
  Thanks for your recommendation, too. I've just read an NYT review of it [1] and am definitely going to read it. From the review: Gopal’s book is essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so wrong. It is a devastating, well-honed prosecution detailing how our government bungled the initial salvo in the so-called war on terror, ignored attempts by top Taliban leaders to surrender, trusted the wrong people and backed a feckless and corrupt Afghan regime. The book has its flaws, minimizing the role of neighboring Pakistan in the Taliban’s resurgence and letting the Taliban off too easy. But it is ultimately the most compelling account I’ve read of how Afghans themselves see the war. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/no-good-men-among-the-living-by-anand-gopal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/no-good-men-...

NonContro 5y ago

US forces abandoned the country 'overnight' - leaving behind all of the military equipment the Taliban would need for their reconquest: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizures-massive-boon-for-taliban-as-cities-fall https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210814-weapon-seizur... Why wasn't all this equipment repatriated or destroyed? Why were the bases just abandoned without proper transition to Afghan Control, so that in some cases they were even looted by civilians? Possible explanations: 1. Extreme incompetence or total apathy by US Commanders/Politicians 2. There was no land/sea transport route through Pakistan to retrieve all the equipment 3. The US Military-Industrial Complex was happy for all this stuff to be lost, so it could be reordered 4. The US wanted the Taliban to reconquer the country quickly, so that any power vaccuum could not be filled by China or Russia 5. Managed decline of the US Empire, requiring deliberate humiliation and demoralization of the US forces, enabled by corrupt senior US commanders and politicians who have made deals with China.

chewz 5y ago
You are too hard on US. Afgan Army had 300 thousand soldiers trained and well equiped. If Afgans do not want to fight Taliban themselves what US can do?
- smhost 5y ago
  U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey, after having destroyed their homeland and treated them like idiot children for an entire generation.
  - yellowcake0 5y ago
    > U.S. could have not cynically installed the most pliant pro-American corrupt thugs to be in charge and told the people to obey Which of course has been the post-WW2 standard operating procedure for the U.S. in more countries than I care to count. And it always comes back to haunt us, god knows what the long-term ramifications of this latest fiasco will be.
  - 5y ago

BasDirks 5y ago

The US played a pivotal role in saving our asses over in Europe, and we are eternally grateful, but ever since, the US has been bad at war. It's not the firepower, it's not the soldiers, and it's not the organization. These are top notch. It's the **ing politicians dragging young men and women into wars not worth fighting.

rualca 5y ago
I wholeheartedly agree, and the effect this has on the perceived military capability of the US in particular and NATO in general can't possibly be downplayed.
koonsolo 5y ago
The Taliban is absolute horrible. US tried to do a good thing here. For me this is a failure of the Afghan people who are not willing to fight for their rights, especially the rights of their wives, sisters and daughters. At least US tried to make a difference. EU is very passive in that sense (I'm from EU).
- BasDirks 5y ago
  A failure of the Afghan people! Hahaha, OK. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And ah, okay, the war in Afghanistan was to liberate women? Meanwhile the US is in bed with the Saudi's.
  - hintymad 5y ago
    Exactly. Afghanistan people want Taliban, yet we're telling them no no no, you want our democracy. The US was "a nation of hypocrites", and still is.
    - kazen44 5y ago
      some people in afghanistan want the taliban yes, the mainy problem in afghanistan is the fact that not many people feel a common sense of being an afghani. The country is extremely decentralised and rural. Most people only look at their villages and community, not at the bigger picture.

a0-prw 5y ago

Ask yourself why US taxpayers keep pouring money into such a terrible, incompetent system.

THINkttwICE 5y ago
I did. So many times for so many years. As an Afghan I grew up with this question. I kept hearing this from our elders in their conversations. All of us keep thinking if we can see choosing bedfellows like Mujahedin in 80's and the later to be rebranded Taliban in 90's is akin to nourishing a viper in one's bosom. We the simpletons could see and predict any effort of nation building, establishing freedom, democracy and modern human rights is doomed to fail if your partners are the most corrupt murderous warlords Afghanistan had to offer. How could Pentagon, CIA and all the think tanks with their thousands of smart annalists and experts keep missing this? Year after year. For almost half a decade. So brother you're asking the right question, the only question that matters IMO.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

I think it shows that the US were no more than a foreign occupation force. Everyone knew how powerful their military was and how much money they had to distribute so perhaps the majority went with the flow but the current events show that this meant little to the workings of Afghanistan and its culture. In my view there's always arrogance in thinking that GIs can literally fall from the sky and "save" the locals...

danielschonfeld 5y ago

Agreed and the answer to your question of why? This is the power engine of the American economy and dream. Our economy is based on us engaged in a conflict for which we print money and hand it to government contractors to later make its way to the rest of the economy. All the while sucking like a predator a far away land and people for every last juice they have. This is the only way to keep the faux heaven looking as it does. Utopian. It’s also the one topic you can have both sides of the aisle always agree on. No matter the political climate. When the military is working, it’s always at work in keeping us free. Woodrow Wilson would have been proud at how we monetized his emotional button of American exceptionalism

underseacables 5y ago

This was not a failure of the Armed Forces, this was a failure of Washington policymakers. The same thing that happened in Vietnam, bureaucrats in Washington trying to run a war in Afghanistan but no clear objectives, and despite 20 years of death and destruction, no understanding of the region and its culture. Afghanistan was never going to be a democracy.

hintymad 5y ago

You simply can't foster a regime, for the fostered government is by definition a puppet that simply does not command enough support of its people. What's surprising to me is the US government never learns despite so many failures around the world. And an honest question: why do American people think that it's so damn important to spread American democracy at the cost of waging wars? Pew Research said 94%+ of Afghanistan adults support Sharia laws. So why do we risk our own people's lives, kill thousands of people in a foreign nation, and throw trillions of dollars just to force other countries to buy our own ideology? Isn't it text-book definition of pure evil? Another case in point: According to the book Skin in the Game, the western countries removed Assad in the name of bringing democracy, yet triggered one of the most brutal civil war in a country, left dozens of cities in ruins, and ironically fostered the largest slave market in the world. Yeah, slave market. Isn't it ironic?

hintymad 5y ago
And for that matter, G.W. Bush is the worst president in the US as he occupied two countries for no good reasons. His occupation destroyed lives, weakened American economy, and fostered generations of anti-American extremists. It's a forever shame on the US and its people.