Probably something to do with disinclination to endlessly and pointlessly expand large sums of government revenues on fighting in Afghanistan
By what rational metric?
As far as I can tell, the West is in an endless game of making dents in a balloon. The ostensible national government is corrupt and fraudulent and all the factors that generated the Taleban are back.
Short and brief to let a Northern Alliance then fight it out on its own.
Doubtless there were Sov. Generals who said the same thing.
As the two are not remotely comparable on any indicators I can think of, why is this a useful comparison (although I think thinking the Americans “got” RSK up and running is a bit of American-centric fantasy).
You’re a teacher I seem to recall. I don’t think that makes a valid US-THEM, but … so the bloody fuck what? After 11 September the NATO alliance went to war. Now ten years on… what was achievable seems to have been achieved and other, rather more fantastical objectives remain, well, fantastical.
Is there some collective military mass-mind? I never noticed it myself.
Regardless, the generic observation of a ‘generation-long effort’ (vague and meaningless really) doesn’t make any given theatre of operation the place where blood and treasure should be spent.
Rather seems to me you’re engaging in a rather vulgar version of the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Because, presumably, the mere argument to a long effort does not in fact justify a specific action. See Sunk Cost Fallacy.
The other
Yes, they also pissed away vast amounts of GDP on a pointless war in Afghanistan seeking unobtainable objectives, when a more limited, hands-off approach would have been more efficient. Symptomatic of imperial over-reach / security over-reach relative to security, every new frontier of the security space generates new security needs, ever escalating security seeking spend.
No, the Sovs collapsed due to massive over-spend on military and huge under-investment in long-term productive industry (that and the disaster of central planning, but what is military spend if not central planning). McDo and Coke are merely symbols, they are not at the fundamentals of why the West could support a certain level of military competition and the Sovs couldn’t.
Given the US of A shows every sign of military over-reach, and the typical imperial addiction to keeping up status (not a swipe, UK, France, Spain all were there in the past, its not specific to anyone)
Uhuh. So… The weak quasi Puppet in Afghanistan has to now be destroyed to be replaced by "Something"that will allow in McDo and Afghanistan will magically have the economic infrastructure to support your vision of Westernisation? Despite it being land-locked and not having particularly great neighbours.
Destroying the “weak governments in the region”- which are those? Pakistan? India? Tajikstan? What in the disastrous political record in Afghanistan makes you belive that American and allied military are particularly capable of effecting regime change such that things will “change in a big way, and in our way” ? See also Iraq.
Again, a Sov general probably said something startling similar c. 1986.
Yes, admit mistakes, like thinking that knocking aside “weak governments” leads to the little American in everyone that Americans seem to genuinely believe exists jumping out.
The Afghanistan engagement is a classic example of Sunk Cost fallacy and needs to be wound down. The very presence of NATO troops props up the worst aspects of the client regime, which is not then forced to find its own support or compromise with the Taleban opposition (which by all accounts is as much generated by corruption and abuse as religious extremism).
Quite.