4 ms·

Afghanistan

DrewADesign 1y ago
Would you consider the US military presence in Afghanistan comparable to it's presence in the US? How about knowledge of the landscape, ability to understand local cultures, having local contacts, having working transportation routes, resources in place, and the fact that none of the people fighting back are going to be backed by foreign governments? These two scenarios are incomparable.
- I-M-S 1y ago
  True, but it goes the other way around as well - the Taliban had absolutely no way to infiltrate the ranks and do damage to the military operations from within.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Was that a significant problem during the civil war?
    - I-M-S 1y ago
      Excellent question. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on that subject can tell us more.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  They're absolutely comparable, notwithstanding their being different. One could just as well argue that it was a lot easier for the military to do drone strikes or call in CAS on the Taliban with zero risk of political blowback. You remind me of someone who was seriously arguing with me in 2004, telling me the Iraq war would not turn into a quagmire because Iraq was arid desert whereas Vietnam was semi-tropical and forested.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    You didn’t counter anything I said. You just said I was wrong and presented a couple of strawmen.
    - defrost 1y ago
      Something you didn't say, something significant, is the US military is made up of US soldiers. A good many of those soldiers will have "Patriot Sympathies" (of many kinds). This will lead to a great deal of information leakage, "lost" equipment going to militias, sabotage, etc. Regardless of oaths to US military, an innate sense of duty to some personal ideal of USA will over weigh for a significant number, and a good percentage of those will remain embedded, organized, and difficult to root out. They will also exist in various numbers from the lowliest boot to the highest general.
      - DrewADesign 1y ago
        Sure, that could be a factor. Didn’t really seem to stop soldiers from steamrolling through American cities during the civil war, doesn’t seem to stop cops from messing people up during protests, and doesn’t stop genocide in other countries. We, as a species, are pathetically easy to manipulate through in-group, out-group thinking, which honestly is much of the basis for patriotism anyway.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      Why waste the effort on a gish gallop? Your original comment was full of handwaving assumptions, it doesn't deserve more.
      - DrewADesign 1y ago
        oof… ok.
qcnguy 1y ago
The Taliban lost immediately and was suppressed indefinitely until the US decided to leave. It's a good demonstration of how well the US military can suppress even decentralized and suicidally fanatical movements for as long as it wants.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Suppressing them didn't cause them to stop fighting, though. In every guerrilla war the conventional army is nominally in charge, and generally never loses any sort of pitched battle. The whole military theory of guerilla warfare is to avoid shootouts in favor of hitting the enemy and running away.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    No it didn't, but the US military isn't going to get bored of the US and leave.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      Indeed not, but they could well get bored of who's ordering them around and make those persons leave.
      - qcnguy 1y ago
        You're admitting you're wrong? You're now agreeing that the US army could suppress an insurrection indefinitely and could only be stopped by a split within the military itself. A scenario that has nothing in common with what happened in Afghanistan.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    A/K/A the Fabian Strategy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy> Old as the hills ... of Rome, that is. Also exemplified in the Fabian Society's philosophy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society>.

Afghanistan

Would you consider the US military presence in Afghanistan comparable to it's presence in the US? How about knowledge of the landscape, ability to understand local cultures, having local contacts, having working transportation routes, resources in place, and the fact that none of the people fighting back are going to be backed by foreign governments? These two scenarios are incomparable.

I-M-S 1y ago
True, but it goes the other way around as well - the Taliban had absolutely no way to infiltrate the ranks and do damage to the military operations from within.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Was that a significant problem during the civil war?
  - I-M-S 1y ago
    Excellent question. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on that subject can tell us more.
anigbrowl 1y ago
They're absolutely comparable, notwithstanding their being different. One could just as well argue that it was a lot easier for the military to do drone strikes or call in CAS on the Taliban with zero risk of political blowback. You remind me of someone who was seriously arguing with me in 2004, telling me the Iraq war would not turn into a quagmire because Iraq was arid desert whereas Vietnam was semi-tropical and forested.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  You didn’t counter anything I said. You just said I was wrong and presented a couple of strawmen.
  - defrost 1y ago
    Something you didn't say, something significant, is the US military is made up of US soldiers. A good many of those soldiers will have "Patriot Sympathies" (of many kinds). This will lead to a great deal of information leakage, "lost" equipment going to militias, sabotage, etc. Regardless of oaths to US military, an innate sense of duty to some personal ideal of USA will over weigh for a significant number, and a good percentage of those will remain embedded, organized, and difficult to root out. They will also exist in various numbers from the lowliest boot to the highest general.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      Sure, that could be a factor. Didn’t really seem to stop soldiers from steamrolling through American cities during the civil war, doesn’t seem to stop cops from messing people up during protests, and doesn’t stop genocide in other countries. We, as a species, are pathetically easy to manipulate through in-group, out-group thinking, which honestly is much of the basis for patriotism anyway.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Why waste the effort on a gish gallop? Your original comment was full of handwaving assumptions, it doesn't deserve more.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      oof… ok.

qcnguy 1y ago

The Taliban lost immediately and was suppressed indefinitely until the US decided to leave. It's a good demonstration of how well the US military can suppress even decentralized and suicidally fanatical movements for as long as it wants.

anigbrowl 1y ago
Suppressing them didn't cause them to stop fighting, though. In every guerrilla war the conventional army is nominally in charge, and generally never loses any sort of pitched battle. The whole military theory of guerilla warfare is to avoid shootouts in favor of hitting the enemy and running away.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  No it didn't, but the US military isn't going to get bored of the US and leave.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Indeed not, but they could well get bored of who's ordering them around and make those persons leave.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      You're admitting you're wrong? You're now agreeing that the US army could suppress an insurrection indefinitely and could only be stopped by a split within the military itself. A scenario that has nothing in common with what happened in Afghanistan.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  A/K/A the Fabian Strategy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy> Old as the hills ... of Rome, that is. Also exemplified in the Fabian Society's philosophy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society>.