I saw a column this morning that mentioned this milestone. We’ve been there 8 years 8 months.
I suppose if you count the amount we actually engaged in combat in Vietnam that would be the case. But the time from when the first American was killed there to the last was about 16 years. And when consider that the U.S. had had a presence there since the early 50s you’re talking almost a quarter century.
So what say you? Has Afghanistan really been our longest war?
Depends how you define it. The Phillippine-American War officially lasted from 1899-1902, but the “insurrection” there dragged on for years, and finished up with the Battle of Bud Bagsak in 1913. That’d be 14 years.
And we had troops in Vietnam for more than 8 years.We started sending advisors in the 1950s, and we pulled out in 1975. How much of that you call a “war” is up to your definitions.
The Conquest of the West took the better part of half a century.
Eh - you know, I really don’t think that’s even a meaningful question. The US is a global hegemonic power - as close to a globe-spanning Imperium as we’re ever likely to see again. And global powers are almost always fighting somewhere - the Brits were, the French were, the Russians and the Spanish were, the Ottomans … and on and on.
If you’ve got enough interests spread over enough of the globe, someone, somewhere will have a gripe with you - and the cost of entry to becoming a guerilla fighter or a terrorist is low enough that if someone has enough of a gripe, there’s little stopping them from doing it.
For better or worse, it might be useful if we acknowledged that American troops will almost always be fighting someone, somewhere, so long as we remain a global power. But that doesn’t mean we’re always at war, as such - the Brits certainly never thought so, and I don’t think a day passed in Her Majesty’s Empire without bloodshed. It’s not war, it’s just the price of Empire - and whether it’s worth it or not is a decision to be made at the ballot-box.
‘empire’? That’s an outrage!
It’s (world) policing. And ‘nation-building’, and ‘peacekeeping’, and - in the case of Iraq - my favourite ‘pre-emptive self-defence’ 
. . . and the rest of the tired old bollox.
Well, we aren’t really an empire - empires actually govern subject nations, while we prefer to influence or dominate client states.
But I want to be clear on this - I don’t regard empire (or hegemony) as a bad thing. There are always great powers, and always lesser powers that fall into the orbit of great powers. We’re a better great power to be beholden to than most the world has seen.
Well, between 700 and 800 military bases in 156 countries suggests otherwise to me.
Does the Cold war count?
How about the Korean War? Started in 1950 and hasn’t ended yet - we’ve just had an extended cease-fire since 1953.
I reiterate: the Indian Wars west of the Mississippi, which began circa 1840 and ended with Wounded Knee in 1890, could be seen as a single extended campaign.
Why is the USA in Afghanistan anyway?
Bin Laden is dead.
The place is a dump. Not that the country itself is a dump. it could be a lovely country. However the idiot, Koran loving, women hating people there are the issue.
The people are from the 11th century and like being from the 11th Century. It is not like one can put ties on them, make them shave/shower and crap in a sanitary place, work in an office, then have a few beers at the club before riding the donkey back to the cave.
The freaks need their smack and hash.
Actually, the “freaks” mostly just need food, drinkable water, clothing, and that sort of thing. The “smack” (by which I assume you mean opium poppies; I’m not aware of a major Afghani marijuana industry) is just the only way most of them have available to get their food etc.
He is?
And it would be fine (assuming we ignore the internal human rights violations) if they stayed in their little backwater, but 21st-century technology allows them and their guests to fly to cities in other countries and cause damage there.
That would strictly speaking be Saudi Arabians, not Afghanis.
Um, cite?
The Seminole Wars dragged on for 40 years.
I know conservative Britons like to jibe that Americans are just parvenu imperialists, who practice it while squirming at the actual label. The Americans protest that what they’re doing is in no way imperialsm: our efforts benefit all humanity (and when haven’t we heard that before?). The counter-argument is that imperialism is an evolving concept:
Ancient Imperialism (Roman): conquer, rule with and iron fist, enslave the population
Conquistador Imperialism (Spain): destroy indigenous authority, replace it with a system that sucks up valuable raw materials and sends them back to the mother country (how is that an improvment on the Roman procurator system? Christianity, silly!)
Mercantile Imperialism (Great Britian) Captive markets but not captive peoples… who misunderstood and revolted as if they were captives. And just to be polite, the British would play along and shoot them.
American Model: Free trade, not mercantilism. Enforce that markets be open to the highest bidder (which coincidentally happens to be the USA…until that day when we’re sending aircraft carriers to protect ships running between China and its African colonies. Which was quite a few days ago, actually)
But the Seminole Wars, as well as all our Indian wars, were old-fashioned territorial imperialism in the Roman style. The aim was more purely selfish, but for some reason more inspiring than our current muddle. (Although I could be wrong, and someday an American general will have the name William Osama-bin-Laden Sherman.)
Maybe a trickier question, what is the longest period of peace where US forces weren’t involved in hostilities?
The US Civil War still isn’t over, mostly due to people who refuse to acknowledge that they were beaten.
And those would be the “guests” I mentioned in my post.
You mean the War of Northern Aggression?
