18 ms·

No, that never happened. The US was in control and then voluntarily left.

by kennysoona 2y ago

owebmaster 2y ago
so it won some battles but lost the war?
- kennysoona 2y ago
  I mean, they came in, held dominion, and just didn't proceed to fully transform the country as they should have. It's kind of like a UFC fighter pinning his opponent for 90% of the match and then suddenly forfeiting. I wouldn't call it fleeing or losing.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    We may be arguing semantics, but a UFC fighter forfeiting is the definition of losing, no matter how much his win was apparent beforehand.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      I think you're taking the analogy too far with that, although it's my fault for using an analogy that makes it so easy. My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy. If you don't want to call that a victory, fine, whatever, but it doesn't seem like a surrender or loss to me.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        > My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy. Losing money, troops and public support in the field and back at home is a very real definition of losing. It sure as hell wasn’t winning.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        This is such a silly argument. They held the place for 20 years uncontested. Retreating voluntarily because of nothing to do with their opposition, sure as hell isn't losing. Instead of going back and forth constantly with this semantic bullshit, can we just agree at the least the US didn't retreat because the taliban forced and pressured them to?
        lostlogin 2y ago
        I think you’re right about that and the semantics of it and that’s exactly the problem. The US approached Afghanistan as a battlefield, and a purely military problem. It was irregular warfare and a political problem that ground the US down. https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/learning-from-failure-afghanistan-as-a-microcosm-for-strategic-competition/ https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/learning-from-failure-...
dragonwriter 2y ago
Exhausting the enemy’s desire to continue a fight is not only a way of winning a war militarily, most military victories are achieved that way; the surrender to the Taliban was not unusual in that regard.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  That isn't what happened and there was no surrender. The commander in chief made primarily a political decision, and politics was the only motivation for the withdrawal.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > That isn't what happened Yes, it is. > and there was no surrender. Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender. > The commander in chief made primarily a political decision Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision. It is, in fact, the political decision that every act in war is directed at getting the enemy to make. There's this weird and frankly dolschtosslegende-ish trend in America post-Vietnam to characterize American victories in war as military and American losses as “political” as if the two were orthogonal categories, but the only military victory is achieving the desired political end, and if you feel like you were “winning militarily” and didn’t do that, then you just didn’t understand the context of the war and your sense of victory was misplaced.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      > Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Wow, that was easy! > Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender. No, it was a retreat. For it to be a surrender, the Taliban would have had to be in a position of power. They were not. > Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision. Except for the times it is solely a military position.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago

No, that never happened. The US was in control and then voluntarily left.

owebmaster 2y ago

so it won some battles but lost the war?

kennysoona 2y ago
I mean, they came in, held dominion, and just didn't proceed to fully transform the country as they should have. It's kind of like a UFC fighter pinning his opponent for 90% of the match and then suddenly forfeiting. I wouldn't call it fleeing or losing.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  We may be arguing semantics, but a UFC fighter forfeiting is the definition of losing, no matter how much his win was apparent beforehand.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    I think you're taking the analogy too far with that, although it's my fault for using an analogy that makes it so easy. My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy. If you don't want to call that a victory, fine, whatever, but it doesn't seem like a surrender or loss to me.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      > My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy. Losing money, troops and public support in the field and back at home is a very real definition of losing. It sure as hell wasn’t winning.
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        This is such a silly argument. They held the place for 20 years uncontested. Retreating voluntarily because of nothing to do with their opposition, sure as hell isn't losing. Instead of going back and forth constantly with this semantic bullshit, can we just agree at the least the US didn't retreat because the taliban forced and pressured them to?
        lostlogin 2y ago
        I think you’re right about that and the semantics of it and that’s exactly the problem. The US approached Afghanistan as a battlefield, and a purely military problem. It was irregular warfare and a political problem that ground the US down. https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/learning-from-failure-afghanistan-as-a-microcosm-for-strategic-competition/ https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/learning-from-failure-...

dragonwriter 2y ago

Exhausting the enemy’s desire to continue a fight is not only a way of winning a war militarily, most military victories are achieved that way; the surrender to the Taliban was not unusual in that regard.

kennysoona 2y ago
That isn't what happened and there was no surrender. The commander in chief made primarily a political decision, and politics was the only motivation for the withdrawal.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > That isn't what happened Yes, it is. > and there was no surrender. Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender. > The commander in chief made primarily a political decision Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision. It is, in fact, the political decision that every act in war is directed at getting the enemy to make. There's this weird and frankly dolschtosslegende-ish trend in America post-Vietnam to characterize American victories in war as military and American losses as “political” as if the two were orthogonal categories, but the only military victory is achieving the desired political end, and if you feel like you were “winning militarily” and didn’t do that, then you just didn’t understand the context of the war and your sense of victory was misplaced.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    > Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Wow, that was easy! > Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender. No, it was a retreat. For it to be a surrender, the Taliban would have had to be in a position of power. They were not. > Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision. Except for the times it is solely a military position.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago