Destruction can be done via nukes too. The US has utterly failed at securing territory and bringing a better reality --- why else would they want a peace deal with the Taliban? They've spent over a trillion dollars against a force that doesn't have an air force, navy or even any real armor.
This story isn't as black and white as your comments seem to suggest. Foreign interventions and civil wars have turned Afghanistan into a backward society where warlords reign supreme and chances of
country-wide reforms are slim. It won't be far-fetched to declare Afghanistan a "wasteland." However, US is giving it a shot which is commendable.
Taliban was a
pseudo-conventional force back in 2001 when US-led forces invaded Afghanistan. US-led forces decimated conventional forces of Taliban and toppled Taliban-led government in Kabul in a span of 1 month. In-fact, US-led forces forced the remnants of Taliban to take refuge in Tora Bora mountainous region and subsequently routed them from there in 2002. Survivors fled to Pakistan in order to reassess their strategy and re-establish Taliban.
FYI:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9148/index1.html
US diverted its attention to Middle East in 2003 and Taliban re-surfaced in lawless sectors of the country in 2004. However, the resurgent Taliban did not achieve prominence in Afghanistan until 2014 when much of the ISAF had left the country. However, ISIS-K also reared its ugly head in Afghanistan in 2015. US
renewed its war-effort against both militias in Afghanistan in 2017 under Trump administration, and have softened both by now. However, resurgent Taliban is drawing support from Southern sectors of the country and does not have shortage of potential recruits.
Taliban, in its current form, is an
elusive opponent whose combatants do not wear uniforms and can easily blend in the public (Your neighbor might be a member of resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and you wouldn't notice). Taliban does not have military bases, logistics requirements, cities and institutions to safeguard -
targets which will attract attention and fall to US-led forces. Taliban can operate in remote sectors of the country and it is in the position to exert pressure on Afghan regime - all it needs to do is to destabilize population zones with suicide attacks and continue to bleed ANA.
Conversely, US is using Afghanistan as a
test-bed for new types of weapons and battlefield doctrines. This is good for business (i.e. American Military Industrial Complex) and Pentagon's interests. FYI:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/air-...-up-taliban-fight.540686/page-2#post-10202058
Therefore, it is a question of
motives and not the
capability to defeat Taliban in Afghanistan. US doesn't have shortage in firepower and resources but its policy in regards to Afghanistan is suspect.
Gotta love the military might of the "vanquished" adversaries.
North Korea and Iraq had professional armies in 1951 and 1991 respectively, and Vietcong received considerable amount of arms from USSR and China during the course of its war with the US. These were notable adversaries at the time by any measure.
US-led forces packed sufficient punch to make advances against the Wehrmacht across Africa and Europe and Japanese imperial forces across the Pacific back in WW2. Therefore, former's strength is also legit by any measure.
