I’m not sure it’s fair to speak of Afghanistan (or even Vietnam) as defeats of the U.S. military.
Germany and Japan were unified countries with strong central governments. When the authority decided to surrender, the war ended immediately. (Is this also why Alexander conquered the Persian Empire with relative ease?) Moreover, Japan and Germany were encouraged to surrender by bombing of cities, with about half a million civilians deliberately killed in each of those two countries. The U.S. has avoided such wholesale massacres in subsequent wars. And in the aftermath of the Axis defeats, the same national unity that made them formidable enemies was at work to give them stable pacifist governments.
These conditions are not present in Afghanistan. If Afghan society isn’t capable of forming a strong stable government with acceptable values, the only U.S. military solution would be aggressive long-term occupation.
I recall reading several articles (Foreign Policy, Economist, FT?) over the years about how the US was, as late as the summer of 2001 (IIRC), actually in negotiations with the Taliban over the development of a Eurasian pipeline. There are apparently estimated to be large untapped reserves of natural gas and there are probably are natural minerals as well.
As Bear_Neno (?) posted, we’ve had a rather odd state of war with the Taliban all along, almost as if to acknowledge from the start that we both might have something to gain if we can come to an agreement. I would agree that the Taliban lost something as a result of our invasion: they lost unfettered power for a generation. But they and other tribes and militias in Afghanistan own the land, and they will eventually retake it, I predict.
The US cannot offer the Afghan people a peaceful, stable democratic government, but we can perhaps offer the people there a formidable resistance to the Taliban and other ruthless militia indefinitely, so maybe that’s a bargaining chip. Or stated differently, we can offer resistance until our own military runs out of money and/or political support for this intervention. And in 2019 deficits don’t matter anymore, and our death toll there is relatively small, so Afghanistan seems to stay under our radar. Our relations with neighboring allies - being able to use airspace and air bases for logistics - also matter.
It seems that the Taliban generally has no use for Islamic State, which seems to have its roots in Sunni Arab religious extremism. Al Qaeda survived there because they were actually, if you can believe it, considered more moderate – maybe pragmatic is a better term. Al Qaeda isn’t just religious; it’s a geopolitical militia. That doesn’t constitute a threat to the Taliban, which hosted them. ISIS represents a clear and present danger to the Taliban, because ISIS unites all of the world’s Muslim extremists under the same basic conditions: the creation of a global caliphate under very strict interpretations of the Quran.
How and in which universe was Vietnam not a fair defeat ?
The US started the war with clearly stated goals and means to reach those goals. So did North Vietnam (South Vietnam is a different story). By the end of the war the North had ticked each and every last of its checkboxes (free popular elections, complete sovereignty, no foreigners on the ground, no foreign-backed politicians in office and no arbitrary partition. Throw in land reform in there as well as some of the VC did some of that as they went along, kindasorta and with varying levels of success or propriety).
The US forces, for their part, ticked zero boxes and left the country. There is no metric whatsoever that makes this anything other than a military defeat. It was not a draw in any shape or form, and it sure as fuck wasn’t a victory. You might argue that the US had a sizable advantage in body count in the end, but here’s the thing : that’s not and has never been the point of a war. It’s not even a metric by which victory lines are drawn.
It’s absolutely fair, and failure to see that it is fair represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what war is and what militaries do when they prosecute wars.
Wars aren’t simply contests between armies; they’re not boxing matches with guns, tanks, ships, and airplanes. Wars are inherently political. Wars are another political tactic that one party uses to impose its will over another in a political dispute. Wars are essentially conducted for the same reasons that economic sanctions are: to get one side to feel enough pain that they will give in to whatever the other side demands. The only difference between economic sanctions and military warfare is in the type of pain that it inflicts, and the degree to which it is inflicted. But that is why I have said on other threads - North Korea, Russia, for instance - that economic sanctions are a type of warfare, which got some snickering and snide remarks, but I stand by what I said because it is fundamentally correct, and it demonstrates that Americans - maybe because of our economic and political might - repeatedly fail to understand what war is, and what sanctions are for that matter.
No, it’s absolutely fair to view Afghanistan and Vietnam as defeats - in fact it is crucial that we understand them in this way, because otherwise we will continue to get suckered into these conflicts without understanding the consequences. The fact is that in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we had political objectives. We had demands that we wanted our opponents to meet. War may or may not have helped us achieve those objectives for a limited time, but we fell short in terms of our ultimate blueprint for what success was supposed to look like. Moreover, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, increased militarism and dropping massive amounts of ordnance in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos not only failed to achieve capitulation of the North Vietnamese, but it actually empowered communist insurgencies in Laos and Cambodia. Thus, demonstrating more of our military might actually backfired politically. Okay, so maybe we could have nuked the entire region into oblivion, because we have nukes - but nobody takes that seriously as an option, fortunately.
Well aware of that, but the Taliban doesn’t take kindly to their presence, and they are trying to drive them out, which is not to say that you couldn’t have specific tribes that enter into alliances with ISIS over Taliban, but as long as the Taliban remains the dominant militia there, they’re going to be regarded as a political rival.
That said, Afghanistan is tribal and has lots of space.
Coward? What would I be scared of, exactly. It’s a fucking message board. I manually typed Mr. Dribble because, as I stated, I thought that was your fucking name. And I apologized for it. Had I manually typed the correct name, then that would have been evidence of me being callous. Instead, I made the mistake consistently. And for fucks sake, I apologized for it. In the Pit. Even where such things are okay, and often encouraged, I admitted my mistake and offered an apology. And you call me a coward for it. Go fuck yourself.
Will you ever stop making up your own meanings for words? Chimera said,
Militarily. He was talking about military. He used the word military to specify that he was talking about military. There is nothing “implied” since he was being specific, not implicit. You’re inferring your own meanings and definitions when others are clearly specifying what they are talking about. Had he instead said, “Politically? We are THE unchallenged superpower” or, if he said, “Economically? We are THE unchallenged superpower” then the discussion would not have been about the military strength.
Sure, mate. I completely believe you. Especially the way you got that space and period in there too. So convincing. :rolleyes:
And I give a fuck for your apology. You attacked me, motherfucker. And then want to play nice afterwards, and pretend it was all a mistake, when you get called on it? There’s a familiar pattern to any student of international relations…
Since I’ve spent enough energy on the hijack, I supposed it would only be fair to address the OP.
Personally, I think it’s just normal Home Team pride. I’d almost expect any Mayor or Governor, (or really any leaders or citizens of other countries as well) to boldly claim their city or state or school or whatever is “The Greatest!”. People from Sanford will say they go to the greatest university in the world. So will people attending University of Florida, etc. People will state that their football or athletic team is the best in the world, despite not having the records to justify it.
I’ve traveled all over the world and I’ve found amazing things about almost every country I’ve ever visited. I’d have no problem hearing the citizens or leaders of those countries proclaim that they live in The Greatest Country in the World. I’d almost expect that sort of attitude.
So when I hear someone say America is “The Greatest Country”, I just think to myself, “Of course it is… just like all the others”. It’s like restaurants advertising that they have the Worlds Best Coffee or Worlds Greatest Pizza. It’s just meaningless pride.
And he also used the word “superpower”, which has its own definitions. Let’s see Wiki’s take on it, shall we?
A superpower is a state with a dominant position characterised by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the combined-means of economic, military, technological, and cultural strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence.
I would have included the same concerns if someone called America the dominant, say, “economic superpower” without recognising the role its military played, and continues to play, in that status.
Defeats, yes, but not “defeats of the U.S. military” which is what I wrote. With twice the aircraft, twice the munitions and even, perhaps, twice the troops the result would have been the same.
In the context of the thread, the U.S. has the greatest military, but there are many geopolitical problems for which military is not the solution.
Our own health care system is the 3rd leading cause of death in this nation behind heart disease and cancer. They say, “you get what you pay for”, but health care in America is expensive as hell, so we’re NOT getting what we pay for. In fact, if you’re poor, you’re hardly getting anything at all.
We are cutting education and human services while spending even more money on a military industrial complex that is already sucking up a huge part of our budget.
I’m not even going to bother listing anything else. CASE CLOSED. Next candidate, please.
Why? That’s a hijack. If someone wants to talk about a country being an economic superpower, why would you counter their statement by pointing out their weak military?
I know it isn’t as prestigious as Wikipedia, but the Encyclopedia Britannica says that a superpower is "a state that possesses military or economic might, or both, and general influence vastly superior to that of other states. "
Military or Economic might. Not necessarily both.
