4 ms·

They didn’t though. This is just the same old tiresome revisionism. The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. What failed was remaking Afghanistan i

by Gud 2y ago

They didn’t though. This is just the same old tiresome revisionism. The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. What failed was remaking Afghanistan into a modern democracy. Money and patience ran out. But militarily, it was a total victory.

lostlogin 2y ago
If I was calling my campaign a victory, I’d be able to walk in my new territory without fear of being attacked and killed. It might be a military success by some sort of conventional military definition. But it was a complete failure and utter waste by pretty much every other measure.
- Gud 2y ago
  But that’s not how this works. It takes decades to subjugate the local population by the invading force and some local resistance will remain for a long, long time.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    What you are describing does not sound like a victory to me. If victory means "we are now bogged down in some decades-long occupation against guerrillas that drains resources and has no meaningful benefit".
    - Gud 2y ago
      The person I originally responded to claimed that "the people of Afghanistan"(Actually the Taliban) defeated the "worlds most powerful military". This is objectively false. Eventually, occupation became politically hard to motivate for an American public that was tired of war. But to claim the Taliban beat the US military is ridiculous. FWIW I was there.
      - Teever 2y ago
        I was under impression that the Taliban is in charge of things in Afghanistan in 2025. Is this not the case? And furthermore to my original point do you think that the ubiquity of cheap drones on the battlefield in 2025 would make similar attempts to conquer Afghanistan by the US easier or more difficult if the US were to try the same again?
        Gud 2y ago
        You are not at all addressing the point I made, that the military campaign against the Taliban was a swift and successful action. You stated that the Taliban beat the worlds most advanced military, which they didn't. That the subsequent occupation ended with the Talibans return to power has nothing to do with the war itself but has political reasons. In my opinion, the occupation could have ended completely different with a longer commitment. Unfortunately, the Iraq invasion happened and the American population had little long term interest in nation building, two nations at once. FWIW Iraq and Afghanistan are very different places. But this has nothing to do with the military campaign itself. When I was there and where I was(2010, northern Afghanistan), it was a fairly peaceful place. Things were progressing in the right direction. Regarding your second question, I don't think that the Taliban would have great use of drones considering that we could use essentially the same counter measures we used against remotely operated IEDs(jamming). Ukraine does not have access to the same equipment we did in Afghanistan. EDIT: This article pretty much reflects my views on what went wrong. The US government half assed the occupation and withdrew too early. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runaway-general-the-profile-that-brought-down-mcchrystal-192609/?RS_show_page=0 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runa...
        Teever 2y ago
        I'm not addressing the point you made because it's nonsensical. Could you imagine a different set of circumstances where the year is 1950 and Adolf Hitler is still Fuhrer of the Third Reich and someone is arguing that America won WW2? America lost in Vietnam, they lost in Iraq, and they lost in Afghanistan. The sooner you come to realize this and that your time spent in Afghanistan was a waste the sooner you'll have a more accurate worldview and can make better decisions than to sign up for what was at that point an obviously pointless war. > I don't think that the Taliban would have great use of drones considering that we could use essentially the same counter measures we used against remotely operated IEDs(jamming). Doesn't seem to be working out for either side in Ukraine.
owebmaster 2y ago
> The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. But I'm the end, who had to flee and who is in power in Afghanistan since then?
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > But I'm the end, who had to flee No one fled.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    They didn’t leave as winners.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      They did more so than they did as losers.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        It spent $2.3 trillion, lost 2,324 U.S. military and 3,917 contractors. And then there’s the hundred thousand afghan deaths. What did the US get? https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-lo...
        kennysoona 2y ago
        > What did the US get? It improved the quality of life and security for the people their immeasurably positively. If the withdrawal had not happened, and better leadership was displayed, the would have been completely wiped out. What they were trying to get, was another ally in the region. They could have to, if it weren't for poor leadership.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        I know some of the things they were tying to get, and I’m also not convinced it was as altruistic as that. But I’m not talking about goals. What was achieved? It isn’t safer and the US hasn’t made an ally. Those things have not been achieved. If those were the aims, the US lost and the Teliban won.

by Gud 2y ago

lostlogin 2y ago

If I was calling my campaign a victory, I’d be able to walk in my new territory without fear of being attacked and killed. It might be a military success by some sort of conventional military definition. But it was a complete failure and utter waste by pretty much every other measure.

Gud 2y ago
But that’s not how this works. It takes decades to subjugate the local population by the invading force and some local resistance will remain for a long, long time.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  What you are describing does not sound like a victory to me. If victory means "we are now bogged down in some decades-long occupation against guerrillas that drains resources and has no meaningful benefit".
  - Gud 2y ago
    The person I originally responded to claimed that "the people of Afghanistan"(Actually the Taliban) defeated the "worlds most powerful military". This is objectively false. Eventually, occupation became politically hard to motivate for an American public that was tired of war. But to claim the Taliban beat the US military is ridiculous. FWIW I was there.
    - Teever 2y ago
      I was under impression that the Taliban is in charge of things in Afghanistan in 2025. Is this not the case? And furthermore to my original point do you think that the ubiquity of cheap drones on the battlefield in 2025 would make similar attempts to conquer Afghanistan by the US easier or more difficult if the US were to try the same again?
      - Gud 2y ago
        You are not at all addressing the point I made, that the military campaign against the Taliban was a swift and successful action. You stated that the Taliban beat the worlds most advanced military, which they didn't. That the subsequent occupation ended with the Talibans return to power has nothing to do with the war itself but has political reasons. In my opinion, the occupation could have ended completely different with a longer commitment. Unfortunately, the Iraq invasion happened and the American population had little long term interest in nation building, two nations at once. FWIW Iraq and Afghanistan are very different places. But this has nothing to do with the military campaign itself. When I was there and where I was(2010, northern Afghanistan), it was a fairly peaceful place. Things were progressing in the right direction. Regarding your second question, I don't think that the Taliban would have great use of drones considering that we could use essentially the same counter measures we used against remotely operated IEDs(jamming). Ukraine does not have access to the same equipment we did in Afghanistan. EDIT: This article pretty much reflects my views on what went wrong. The US government half assed the occupation and withdrew too early. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runaway-general-the-profile-that-brought-down-mcchrystal-192609/?RS_show_page=0 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runa...
        Teever 2y ago
        I'm not addressing the point you made because it's nonsensical. Could you imagine a different set of circumstances where the year is 1950 and Adolf Hitler is still Fuhrer of the Third Reich and someone is arguing that America won WW2? America lost in Vietnam, they lost in Iraq, and they lost in Afghanistan. The sooner you come to realize this and that your time spent in Afghanistan was a waste the sooner you'll have a more accurate worldview and can make better decisions than to sign up for what was at that point an obviously pointless war. > I don't think that the Taliban would have great use of drones considering that we could use essentially the same counter measures we used against remotely operated IEDs(jamming). Doesn't seem to be working out for either side in Ukraine.

owebmaster 2y ago

> The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. But I'm the end, who had to flee and who is in power in Afghanistan since then?

kennysoona 2y ago
> But I'm the end, who had to flee No one fled.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  They didn’t leave as winners.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    They did more so than they did as losers.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      It spent $2.3 trillion, lost 2,324 U.S. military and 3,917 contractors. And then there’s the hundred thousand afghan deaths. What did the US get? https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-lo...
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        > What did the US get? It improved the quality of life and security for the people their immeasurably positively. If the withdrawal had not happened, and better leadership was displayed, the would have been completely wiped out. What they were trying to get, was another ally in the region. They could have to, if it weren't for poor leadership.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        I know some of the things they were tying to get, and I’m also not convinced it was as altruistic as that. But I’m not talking about goals. What was achieved? It isn’t safer and the US hasn’t made an ally. Those things have not been achieved. If those were the aims, the US lost and the Teliban won.