3 ms·
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 civi
by 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 agoI 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.