4 ms·

So if we go back to the original objectives, I think they were (1) to destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and (2) replace the Taliban with a government that would n

So if we go back to the original objectives, I think they were (1) to destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and (2) replace the Taliban with a government that would never again provide a safe space for Al-Qaeda or any entity like that. On (1), sure, I think we can declare success. On (2), yes, we had full control within months (weeks?) of invading the country, but that was only true, at best, as long as we physically occupied every part of the country, and that wasn't the plan. The Taliban is back in power and arguably stronger than they were before we dislodged them and spent so many resources trying to sustainably replace them with someone else. Now, I agree that maybe we can make an argument that it's not the same Taliban anymore, and maybe this one wouldn't accept the presence of something like Al-Qaeda again. Indeed, we've actually worked with them to fight pockets of the Islamic State already. But this remains to be seen, and is still a pretty disappointing outcome if not a "failure."

_8j50 4y ago
I can agree that as a mission objective, installing a friendly government there was a catastrophic failure. But the war ended in like 2002. The Taliban and America were not at war for 20 years. Remnants of a defeated enemy were causing problems and engaging guerilla style attacks from hiding after being evicted from power. A war was declared against Afghanistan and the US controlled the land and government and dismantled the people in power and at the very least put them in a place where they cannot govern any aspect of the country. What failed was a mission objective part of the greater "war on terror" not the war against afghanistan.
- warner25 4y ago
  Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else use the phrase "war against Afghanistan" as opposed to the "war in Afghanistan," mostly describing a civil war that we were trying to stabilize in favor Hamid Karzai's and Ashraf Ghani's government. Anyway, saying that the war ended and the enemy was defeated in 2002 seems like saying that a doctor saved a patient's life, but only as long as the patient remains in the ICU hooked up to life support machines.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I am glad you said that last analogy. The purpose of war is to defeat an enemy not save a country. Doctors save, militaries defeat or lose. If you want to use a patient as an example, it would be a more "apples to apples" comparison to say "the patient is dead so the disease won the fight" saving and maintaining state are open endes. But defeating is a specific goal. Unlike "the war on terrorism" normal wars like the one against iraq and afghanistan involves two or more countries and militaries. One side has to be removed from power and control or accept defeat in order for the other side to claim victory. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US defeated and disbanded their militaries. At that point the US had victory. There was no obligation to stay there, historically it isn't uncommon for the victor to simply leave after acheiving victory. We stayed because of goals that were bigger than the war against those countries. The Taliban in 2001 was the legitimate government of afghanistan against which the war was declared. Victory can only be measured relative to the specifics of the declaration of war.

_8j50 4y ago

I can agree that as a mission objective, installing a friendly government there was a catastrophic failure. But the war ended in like 2002. The Taliban and America were not at war for 20 years. Remnants of a defeated enemy were causing problems and engaging guerilla style attacks from hiding after being evicted from power. A war was declared against Afghanistan and the US controlled the land and government and dismantled the people in power and at the very least put them in a place where they cannot govern any aspect of the country. What failed was a mission objective part of the greater "war on terror" not the war against afghanistan.

warner25 4y ago
Interesting. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else use the phrase "war against Afghanistan" as opposed to the "war in Afghanistan," mostly describing a civil war that we were trying to stabilize in favor Hamid Karzai's and Ashraf Ghani's government. Anyway, saying that the war ended and the enemy was defeated in 2002 seems like saying that a doctor saved a patient's life, but only as long as the patient remains in the ICU hooked up to life support machines.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I am glad you said that last analogy. The purpose of war is to defeat an enemy not save a country. Doctors save, militaries defeat or lose. If you want to use a patient as an example, it would be a more "apples to apples" comparison to say "the patient is dead so the disease won the fight" saving and maintaining state are open endes. But defeating is a specific goal. Unlike "the war on terrorism" normal wars like the one against iraq and afghanistan involves two or more countries and militaries. One side has to be removed from power and control or accept defeat in order for the other side to claim victory. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US defeated and disbanded their militaries. At that point the US had victory. There was no obligation to stay there, historically it isn't uncommon for the victor to simply leave after acheiving victory. We stayed because of goals that were bigger than the war against those countries. The Taliban in 2001 was the legitimate government of afghanistan against which the war was declared. Victory can only be measured relative to the specifics of the declaration of war.