4 ms·

> To be fair, the lack of strategic vision has also plagued the U.S. since WWII or Korea. We just keep losing wars because no one ever sets out clear achievable

by tivert 3y ago

> To be fair, the lack of strategic vision has also plagued the U.S. since WWII or Korea. We just keep losing wars because no one ever sets out clear achievable goals. > ... > The place we spent the most time in the 21st century, Afghanistan, somehow went from an objective of destroying Al Qaeda to ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights. I think in Afghanistan's case, the goal was clear but it was not achievable. A bombing campaign, some boots on the ground, and killing some leaders could not actually achieve the "objective of destroying Al Qaeda," because it would just re-form afterwards. You'd have to change the society so it wouldn't reform, hence "ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights." Though I suppose installing and supporting some brutal warlord as a secular dictator (e.g. a Saddam Hussein) would have achieved the objective too, but the US would have gotten so much condemnation for that I'm sure the option was not on the table.

michaelt 3y ago
> I think in Afghanistan's case, the goal was clear but it was not achievable. I suspect some people thought it was achievable because they looked at post-WW2 Germany and Japan and concluded that: 1. Cities reduced to rubble in a war with America and its allies. 2. Lengthy occupation, plenty of money & loans for rebuilding. 3. Occupation transitions to an democratic government. Some American forces stick around just in case, but they don't have to fight anyone. 4. ???? 5. Successful, stable, western-style democracy with an aversion to armed conflict, a strong economy and a renowned car manufacturing industry. Obviously it didn't actually work in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can see how politicians surrounded by yes men and pro-war types might have thought they had an achievable plan.
- Rinzler89 3y ago
  Germany and Japan were culturally different and scientifically, economically superior to how Afganistan was before they were invaded and bombed.
vkou 3y ago
> the "objective of destroying Al Qaeda," because it would just re-form afterwards. You'd have to change the society so it wouldn't reform, hence "ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights." How exactly does providing the latter do anything but piss off surviving conservatives and hardliners and reactionaries even more? If you want lasting change, the new regime either needs widespread support from its subjects (Why wasn't it in charge to begin with, then, why did it need to be installed by an occupier..?), or you need to scorched-earth, mass-graves liquidate every single participant in the old regime, and all of their supporters (And not just fire them from their jobs, as we did in Iraq. All the ex-Baathists went on to gainful employment in the various insurgent groups, instead.) Not doing it is exactly why Reconstruction failed. The slavers lost the war, but won the peace, and their politics reasserted as soon as they were allowed to govern themselves.
- gknoy 3y ago
  > scorched-earth, mass-graves liquidate every single participant in the old regime, and all of their supporters I feel like this would be an excellent way to speed-run the creation of a large group of people (and their descendants) who hate us _specifically_, and are even more motivated to cause us harm. I can't imagine many people would say "yep, I guess you won!" when you've killed their fathers, uncles, grandparents, and older brothers.
  - lazide 3y ago
    It takes a few generations of extreme overwhelming force, at a minimum typically. See: the Roman Empire. They had a timeline of several hundred years before the new territories were ‘roman’
    - bilbo0s 3y ago
      I don't know man? Everyone failed in Afghanistan. Not to put too fine a point on it, but even Alexander himself failed in Afghanistan. The Persians tried for centuries, and always failed. The Caliphate was the most successful, but only because they never wanted any kind of real change. The place is just unique. The thought that we were gonna go in there and change things was probably ill considered at the outset. When you objectively consider the historical record of the people of Afghanistan. Force was extremely likely to not work. I believe there doesn't really exist anyone out there with a good idea on anything that could have worked. In the end, we left. Just as everyone before us did. And I'd be willing to go on record now and say that everyone who goes into Afghanistan after us will leave Afghanistan in the end as well. It's never as simple as, "more bombs", "more money", "more education", etc etc. Afghanistan is a unique problem, that is uniquely resistant to all of the common solutions.

by tivert 3y ago

michaelt 3y ago

> I think in Afghanistan's case, the goal was clear but it was not achievable. I suspect some people thought it was achievable because they looked at post-WW2 Germany and Japan and concluded that: 1. Cities reduced to rubble in a war with America and its allies. 2. Lengthy occupation, plenty of money & loans for rebuilding. 3. Occupation transitions to an democratic government. Some American forces stick around just in case, but they don't have to fight anyone. 4. ???? 5. Successful, stable, western-style democracy with an aversion to armed conflict, a strong economy and a renowned car manufacturing industry. Obviously it didn't actually work in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can see how politicians surrounded by yes men and pro-war types might have thought they had an achievable plan.

Rinzler89 3y ago
Germany and Japan were culturally different and scientifically, economically superior to how Afganistan was before they were invaded and bombed.

vkou 3y ago

> the "objective of destroying Al Qaeda," because it would just re-form afterwards. You'd have to change the society so it wouldn't reform, hence "ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights." How exactly does providing the latter do anything but piss off surviving conservatives and hardliners and reactionaries even more? If you want lasting change, the new regime either needs widespread support from its subjects (Why wasn't it in charge to begin with, then, why did it need to be installed by an occupier..?), or you need to scorched-earth, mass-graves liquidate every single participant in the old regime, and all of their supporters (And not just fire them from their jobs, as we did in Iraq. All the ex-Baathists went on to gainful employment in the various insurgent groups, instead.) Not doing it is exactly why Reconstruction failed. The slavers lost the war, but won the peace, and their politics reasserted as soon as they were allowed to govern themselves.

gknoy 3y ago
> scorched-earth, mass-graves liquidate every single participant in the old regime, and all of their supporters I feel like this would be an excellent way to speed-run the creation of a large group of people (and their descendants) who hate us _specifically_, and are even more motivated to cause us harm. I can't imagine many people would say "yep, I guess you won!" when you've killed their fathers, uncles, grandparents, and older brothers.
- lazide 3y ago
  It takes a few generations of extreme overwhelming force, at a minimum typically. See: the Roman Empire. They had a timeline of several hundred years before the new territories were ‘roman’
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    I don't know man? Everyone failed in Afghanistan. Not to put too fine a point on it, but even Alexander himself failed in Afghanistan. The Persians tried for centuries, and always failed. The Caliphate was the most successful, but only because they never wanted any kind of real change. The place is just unique. The thought that we were gonna go in there and change things was probably ill considered at the outset. When you objectively consider the historical record of the people of Afghanistan. Force was extremely likely to not work. I believe there doesn't really exist anyone out there with a good idea on anything that could have worked. In the end, we left. Just as everyone before us did. And I'd be willing to go on record now and say that everyone who goes into Afghanistan after us will leave Afghanistan in the end as well. It's never as simple as, "more bombs", "more money", "more education", etc etc. Afghanistan is a unique problem, that is uniquely resistant to all of the common solutions.