To avoid getting the hose again all it has to do is put the lotion on its skin.
Easy-peasey!
You made it a discussion of war. Now you are backpedaling furiously.
OK, but then wasn’t it stupid of the Confederates to form an organized government and army to fight the Union? Why would they do that, when if they just stayed home with their rifles and took random potshots at Union soldiers they would have been invincible?
As I recall, the really funny gag from that episode involved Mapplethorpe.
how has Afghanistan worked out for the Soviet Union and the United States?
You believe a Taliban victory is inevitable then and they will eventually retake control of all of Afghanistan? And the Taliban doesn’t constitute a government (even though they previously were)? Why wasn’t the victory of the armed Afghan populace that opposed the Taliban before the US intervened assured?
What exactly counts as an “armed populace” in your book? So far we presumably have the US (although the Confederacy doesn’t count because they had an organized government) and Afghanistan (although it remains to be seen who is going to win that one, and the Taliban shouldn’t count because they at least formerly were the government). What other examples are you thinking of?
How did “Operation Werewolf” work out for Nazi Germany?
(Is “loaded questions” a valid debate technique? Tell me where all lost years are?)
The thing is, Afghanistan is utterly worthless. Yeah, we have made no progress turning Afghanistan into Switzerland. But we aren’t being kicked out of Afghanistan by the invincible fighting spirit of the common man and his trusty hunting rifle. If Afghanistan was a highly profitable part of our empire, we wouldn’t be talking about leaving, we’d be adding up the profit made by extracting Chemical X vs the cost of Y number of Kansas farmboys killed and maimed every year, and we’d decide to stay or go. Except in real life the profit side of the ledger is zero.
Afghanistan is a desperately poor country, and the only reason we’re still there is that the Taliban are a bunch of assholes who hosted Osama bin Ladin and we hate that sort of thing.
If you said that determined common men with rifles can make the cost of occupation higher, and perhaps tilt the ledger from profit to loss, and then the occupiers will sod off and go back home, then fine. But in the case of, say, the government of the United States becoming tyrannical and enslaving the free citizens of this fine country, well, even if the occupation gets more costly where are the tyrants going to go? They live here, therefore it’s victory or death for them as well as for the rebels. Never underestimate the fighting spirit of a patriotic tyrant.
Tyrants typically aren’t strung up by unorganized guys who grabbed their rifles and took care of business. They typically lose power when they no longer can command the loyalty of the regular army, and someone in charge of some faction of the army decides he’d rather run the show. Or they die in their sleep at 85, surrounded by beautiful ladies on top of a pile of money. That’s a pretty common way for tyrants to lose power.
Haven’t you heard? Afghanistan may have a trillion dollars in mineral deposits. So not completely worthless, although these estimates may be excessive, or the extraction cost too high.
I would say that the US kicked ass in Afghanistan. A few deaths here and there at the hands of the Taliban doesn’t change that. If the US has the political will to stay in Afghanistan then there’s no chance for the Taliban to win.
I thought the analogy was valid. the two most powerful armies ever assembled have found it difficult to deal with an armed militia of comparatively little strength.
Armies are great at breaking things but if you don’t have a target to aim at the ability to project power is limited.
Not really; it was U.S. support for the Mujeheddin that made Afghanistan unlivable for the Soviets. How many Stinger Missiles do you think the poor rebel tribesmen made for themselves up in their hillside smithies?
The missiles don’t really change the dynamics of control over people. again, an army is good at breaking things but it cannot easily control the populace. You can nuke the country into ashes but that is different than exerting control over the people.
What do you mean “control the populace”? The random guy with a gun taking potshots at US troops as the patrol Kabul is a problem, but he can’t force the US army to leave, and he’s much more likely to end up dead than the guys he’s shooting at.
The low level of violence against US soldiers means that the cost of occupying the country is X + Y, instead of X. We can stay in Afghanistan forever as long as we’re willing to pay X + Y every day. If it isn’t worth paying X + Y, then why would we stay?
But how does that mean that you and your buddies with your deer rifles and shotguns are the only thing that keeps Barack Obama from destroying America.
It means exactly what it says. We do not control the populace of Afghanistan and never will. It’s not possible. We can kill them all, but we cannot control them.
Not possible? That’s patently absurd. We could kill all but twenty of them, and hold those twenty in a prison compound. That’s control, innit? Reductio ad absurdam.
It’s as if you think there is something magical about Afghanistan. There isn’t. It’s rough terrain, but not impenetrable.
Red China controls Tibet, and that’s a lot rougher country.
There is nothing remarkable about Afghanistan.
Red China controls Tibet, and that’s a lot rougher country.
[/quote]
china has 1.3 billion people versus Tibet’s 3 million.
How did the Taliban control Afghanistan against an armed populace, many of whom were opposed to them?
Relevance? Are you conceding that smaller regions can, then, be controlled by invaders, and only large and populous regions are invulnerable? Why can’t large regions be divided into isolated areas of control?
I’m not saying that you’re moving the goalposts; the problem here is that I don’t really get what your point is at all. You ask questions, and throw factoids, but you’ve never really developed a coherent theme.