4 ms·

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tact

by genman 3y ago

Actually no, it is not what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam there was constant foreign infiltration by the enemy and they used quite nasty "tactics" to gain local influence. Afghanistan is not much different. In principle the side that was more willing to instill more terror into local populace won. The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. If you run out of weapons or ammunition then you are done. If your supply lines are cut then you are done. It is also the main reason why the two wars mentioned were lost - incapacity of political will to cut the enemy supply lines.

suoduandao3 3y ago
The best rebuttal I've heard to this line of thinking is: "Some say we lost Afghanistan because we weren't willing to be brutal enough. Well, the Russians were willing to be brutal enough, yet they also lost Afghanistan."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thriftwy 3y ago
  I don't think so why there is this underlying assumption that Russians were "brutal", but when USSR took their forces from Afghanistan, they actually left a secular regime there that has survived for a few years and actually significantly outlived the USSR itself. Maybe it would hang around longer if USSR was intact and assisting.
  - genman 3y ago
    Possibly, but Russia internally felt that they lost. And this was significant contributing factor to the collapse of their empire.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I think it was different and more like the Vietnam fallout, "with the new reconassiance data, it turns out we fought against ourselves" The idea which ended both wars was that continuing this war is a war crime against our own nation even as we continue to score victories.
      - genman 3y ago
        USSR simply ran out of resources to continue the war. They would have happily continued if they could have been able to afford it. In the end the country had dire deficit of even basic everyday items including food. But similarly to the Vietnam war it was not able to "sell" the losses to their own people, especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics), where it was seen as another Russian expansionist invasion.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        > especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics) A majority of these republics were founded by the USSR by carving them out of RSFSR, without the regard of wishes of people who ended up split by these borders. I guess its karma when USSR wanted to be the example of affirmative action socialist state ran by ethnic minorities, only to get framed for imperialism by the autonomous republics it has created.
        genman 3y ago
        I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Soviet Republics (SSR) post WW2 e.g. the occupied territories that were not in RSFSR. These "autonomous" republics were anything but autonomous. They were autonomous within the very strict framework provided by Russia. Puppet states would be the closest description, but even then not fully accurate. On top of this there was no need for Russian help to "create" these fake republics. Nations were completely capable to create their own governance like was for example the case with Ukraine. All what Russians did was to use the cover of communism to continue their imperialist ambitions. RSFSR contained ASSR (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics) and these had even less autonomy. Most of these nations should have also been given the opportunity to have statehood as they wanted. If you were talking about ASSR before WW2 that were transformed into SSR then again, see the previous point.
- genman 3y ago
  In both cases, Vietnam or Afghanistan, US won, until it lost its sight and pulled out, leaving everything on the shoulders of a demoralized and ill-equipped local governance. Now this was unfair fight because this replacement was not willing nor capable to project any actual force and they crumbled fast. This is what I was talking about. Afghanistan government resistance failed because they were terrified about the perspective of them losing in the fight and then receiving the wrath of Taliban. This perspective looked real enough for them after Taliban had broken the agreements and no US retaliation followed. Finally all of it spiraled into humiliating cowardly escape of the remaining US forces. US lost because their top of the command was irresolute coward who didn't understand the consequences of his policy, short term nor long term. One bombing raid against Taliban positions may have changed everything. Now we got war in Ukraine and greatly worsening situation in Middle East and Africa because the enemy understood very quickly what the US leader really is and took their changes. We are lucky that Taiwan was not lost and this is only thanks to the bravery of Ukrainians, but all of this is again on the edge because of the insurmountable stubbornness and stupidity of US politicians.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The US lost in Vietnam, in fact the Paris treaty came as close to unconditional surrender as it gets without using the term. Same in Afghanistan, NATO lost hard after being slowly kicked out of the country. In both cases, none of the US or NATO strategic goals were achieved, while almost all of the opposing sides were. If you think the US won in Vietnam, Iraq won the Gulf War (number two, in the 90s).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - nulld3v 3y ago
      The parent is claiming "the US won until they lost", which I guess doesn't contradict your post lol.
      - hef19898 3y ago
michaelt 3y ago
> The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. Do they? There's a reason they call it asymmetric warfare. An occupying army of 200,000 needs 200,000 guns. An insurgent force that wants to shoot up one bus/shop/school/whatever per day only needs one gun a day.
hef19898 3y ago
The US were extremely willing to cut North Vietnamese supply lines, including illegal operations in neighbouring countries. The only thing not tried was flattening cities in the North by air (that approach didn't work in WW2 neither, so no big loss). True so, the South received billions in support from the US, including a full troop deployment for years. The North did the same from China and the USSR. Still, at the core, it was as much a conventional as it was an unconventional war. One the US lost. The Vietnamese did deploy a ton of cutting edge weapons so, from top notch fighter jets to air-to-air missiles. And no, you do not win those kind of wars by brutality. People love to believe that, it just doesn't work that way.
- genman 3y ago
  I would disagree. The most US was willing to do was to cause some inconvenience. If US really wanted to stop Viet Cong infiltration then they should have built a proper demilitarized zone between Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
olau 3y ago
I think you're right in so far that the US never really wanted to do what it would take to convert the whole of Afghanistan to a friendly state, like say Japan after WWII. Urbanization statistics for Afghanistan place them at something like 20-25% with most of the population being rural. So even if you occupy the cities and stay for a generation (19.9 year according to https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/mothers-mean-age-at-first-birth/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/mothers-mean-ag...), you haven't really won the war. The first source I found says that in 2017 about 50% of the population was still under Taliban control or where Taliban openly moved about.

by genman 3y ago

suoduandao3 3y ago

The best rebuttal I've heard to this line of thinking is: "Some say we lost Afghanistan because we weren't willing to be brutal enough. Well, the Russians were willing to be brutal enough, yet they also lost Afghanistan."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thriftwy 3y ago
I don't think so why there is this underlying assumption that Russians were "brutal", but when USSR took their forces from Afghanistan, they actually left a secular regime there that has survived for a few years and actually significantly outlived the USSR itself. Maybe it would hang around longer if USSR was intact and assisting.
- genman 3y ago
  Possibly, but Russia internally felt that they lost. And this was significant contributing factor to the collapse of their empire.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I think it was different and more like the Vietnam fallout, "with the new reconassiance data, it turns out we fought against ourselves" The idea which ended both wars was that continuing this war is a war crime against our own nation even as we continue to score victories.
    - genman 3y ago
      USSR simply ran out of resources to continue the war. They would have happily continued if they could have been able to afford it. In the end the country had dire deficit of even basic everyday items including food. But similarly to the Vietnam war it was not able to "sell" the losses to their own people, especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics), where it was seen as another Russian expansionist invasion.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        > especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics) A majority of these republics were founded by the USSR by carving them out of RSFSR, without the regard of wishes of people who ended up split by these borders. I guess its karma when USSR wanted to be the example of affirmative action socialist state ran by ethnic minorities, only to get framed for imperialism by the autonomous republics it has created.
        genman 3y ago
        I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Soviet Republics (SSR) post WW2 e.g. the occupied territories that were not in RSFSR. These "autonomous" republics were anything but autonomous. They were autonomous within the very strict framework provided by Russia. Puppet states would be the closest description, but even then not fully accurate. On top of this there was no need for Russian help to "create" these fake republics. Nations were completely capable to create their own governance like was for example the case with Ukraine. All what Russians did was to use the cover of communism to continue their imperialist ambitions. RSFSR contained ASSR (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics) and these had even less autonomy. Most of these nations should have also been given the opportunity to have statehood as they wanted. If you were talking about ASSR before WW2 that were transformed into SSR then again, see the previous point.
genman 3y ago
In both cases, Vietnam or Afghanistan, US won, until it lost its sight and pulled out, leaving everything on the shoulders of a demoralized and ill-equipped local governance. Now this was unfair fight because this replacement was not willing nor capable to project any actual force and they crumbled fast. This is what I was talking about. Afghanistan government resistance failed because they were terrified about the perspective of them losing in the fight and then receiving the wrath of Taliban. This perspective looked real enough for them after Taliban had broken the agreements and no US retaliation followed. Finally all of it spiraled into humiliating cowardly escape of the remaining US forces. US lost because their top of the command was irresolute coward who didn't understand the consequences of his policy, short term nor long term. One bombing raid against Taliban positions may have changed everything. Now we got war in Ukraine and greatly worsening situation in Middle East and Africa because the enemy understood very quickly what the US leader really is and took their changes. We are lucky that Taiwan was not lost and this is only thanks to the bravery of Ukrainians, but all of this is again on the edge because of the insurmountable stubbornness and stupidity of US politicians.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The US lost in Vietnam, in fact the Paris treaty came as close to unconditional surrender as it gets without using the term. Same in Afghanistan, NATO lost hard after being slowly kicked out of the country. In both cases, none of the US or NATO strategic goals were achieved, while almost all of the opposing sides were. If you think the US won in Vietnam, Iraq won the Gulf War (number two, in the 90s).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nulld3v 3y ago
    The parent is claiming "the US won until they lost", which I guess doesn't contradict your post lol.
    - hef19898 3y ago

michaelt 3y ago

> The same problems of logistics also do apply to the local opposition. Do they? There's a reason they call it asymmetric warfare. An occupying army of 200,000 needs 200,000 guns. An insurgent force that wants to shoot up one bus/shop/school/whatever per day only needs one gun a day.

hef19898 3y ago

The US were extremely willing to cut North Vietnamese supply lines, including illegal operations in neighbouring countries. The only thing not tried was flattening cities in the North by air (that approach didn't work in WW2 neither, so no big loss). True so, the South received billions in support from the US, including a full troop deployment for years. The North did the same from China and the USSR. Still, at the core, it was as much a conventional as it was an unconventional war. One the US lost. The Vietnamese did deploy a ton of cutting edge weapons so, from top notch fighter jets to air-to-air missiles. And no, you do not win those kind of wars by brutality. People love to believe that, it just doesn't work that way.

genman 3y ago
I would disagree. The most US was willing to do was to cause some inconvenience. If US really wanted to stop Viet Cong infiltration then they should have built a proper demilitarized zone between Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

olau 3y ago

I think you're right in so far that the US never really wanted to do what it would take to convert the whole of Afghanistan to a friendly state, like say Japan after WWII. Urbanization statistics for Afghanistan place them at something like 20-25% with most of the population being rural. So even if you occupy the cities and stay for a generation (19.9 year according to https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/mothers-mean-age-at-first-birth/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/mothers-mean-ag...), you haven't really won the war. The first source I found says that in 2017 about 50% of the population was still under Taliban control or where Taliban openly moved about.