3 ms·

>They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are

>They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them. This is incorrect. The United States military became very skilled at dealing with them to the point that Taliban activity was near-zero. Analyzing the causes of death of US servicemembers during the conflict, a surprisingly low number was due to firearms. All of the AKs in the world were useless against the US military and the Taliban knew it so they decided to wait the US out instead. The moment the US left? That’s a different story. The moral of this should be that patience is more empowering than firearms.

prometheus76 4y ago
Patient use of firearms and other guerrilla tactics, I would say. If they weren't armed, it wouldn't have mattered how long they just sat there and waited for American troops to leave.
robswc 4y ago
>The moment the US left? That’s a different story. So in what scenario can the US military "leave" the US? You are pretty much proving the guy's point, no? Yes, the US military could scorch earth its backyard. Nobody really denies that. What would be impossible is maintaining that control for any meaningful amount of time. This is also assuming somehow that 100% of the military and 100% of its assets are on board with whatever "regime" comes to be, which I just don't see happening.
int_19h 4y ago
Guns don't cause that many deaths in military conflicts in general, not even in a fair fight. The kill count is dominated by artillery, air strikes, and other such things that cover a lot of ground at once and can get thru cover much better than those tiny bullets. But your example of Taliban is a curious one, because, for all their expensive toys, US forces in Afghanistan never really controlled much ground outside of their bases. That's why the Taliban could wait them out - because most of the country out there was already theirs to wait in. To control all that territory would have required a lot more US troops, precisely because of all those lurking Taliban fighters with their measly AKs.

prometheus76 4y ago

Patient use of firearms and other guerrilla tactics, I would say. If they weren't armed, it wouldn't have mattered how long they just sat there and waited for American troops to leave.

robswc 4y ago

>The moment the US left? That’s a different story. So in what scenario can the US military "leave" the US? You are pretty much proving the guy's point, no? Yes, the US military could scorch earth its backyard. Nobody really denies that. What would be impossible is maintaining that control for any meaningful amount of time. This is also assuming somehow that 100% of the military and 100% of its assets are on board with whatever "regime" comes to be, which I just don't see happening.

int_19h 4y ago

Guns don't cause that many deaths in military conflicts in general, not even in a fair fight. The kill count is dominated by artillery, air strikes, and other such things that cover a lot of ground at once and can get thru cover much better than those tiny bullets. But your example of Taliban is a curious one, because, for all their expensive toys, US forces in Afghanistan never really controlled much ground outside of their bases. That's why the Taliban could wait them out - because most of the country out there was already theirs to wait in. To control all that territory would have required a lot more US troops, precisely because of all those lurking Taliban fighters with their measly AKs.