America's defeat in Afghanistan: reason n analysis

[Yaseen1]

i think after u.s withdraw troops from afghanistan completely,there is a high chance that they will use nuclear weapons on them if they become threat to u.s again and new 911 occurs

 

[Blueskiez 2001]

USA had two main objectives in Afghanistan:

1. Kill OBL.
2. Ensure that the area cannot be used for any future attacks on the mainland.

Both goals accomplished.

Quite simple really, with no need for convoluted conspiracy theories at all.

If that was the only goal then US should have left Afghanistan long time ago, so there is more in it than these two reasons for coming to Afghanistan.

 

[VCheng]

But including USA, all nations must take IMO an important lesson from this which is, it is really no longer possible for anyone to win a war. Money, crazy lunatics and weapons & ammo are available aplenty for every fringe groups so local and national governments are under pressure and expected to keep these groups and crazy people under control.

Wars are so last century. It is all about economics and technology now and henceforth.

 

[Dual Wielder]

USA had two main objectives in Afghanistan:

1. Kill OBL.
2. Ensure that the area cannot be used for any future attacks on the mainland.

Both goals accomplished.

Quite simple really, with no need for convoluted conspiracy theories at all.

With your intellect, I'm surprised the PDF management haven't picked you for the 'Think Tank Analyst' post.
Seriously this is probably the most dumbest comment I've seen on this forum, your own ignorance and narrow minded vision only limits your mental capacity you dullard, don't try acting smart, because you come across as a narcissistic fool. You think the Americans spending nearly 2 decades there, and wasting trillions of dollars, was to just 'kill one man' and 'ensure Afghanistan couldn't be used for future attacks?' Yes.. that makes perfect sense, it's not like butchering over a million people, carpet bombing the afghan populace would produce more 'bad guys' I guess it took 20 years for the Taliban to behave themselves.. it's not like bombs have been going off all this time.

I have to give it to the American education system, seems it's is doing its job by producing zombies like yourself, if Kim Jong IL and Stalin were alive they'd be envious.. but who said the green card comes cheap right?

I wasted my comment on a pretentious idiot, you should feel honoured.

 

[Kabira]

Its not a military defeat. Its not like US is losing solders like in Vietnam either. Taliban fight other afghans. And even this peace deal taliban have said that they will not spare other afghans.

I do not know why it's being called a defeat. A defeat in my mind means the US surrendering to the Taliban as the French did with the Viet Minh in Vietnam. No doubt it was a strategic failure.

Where did US go wrong in Afghanistan? When it decided to become a nation builder; and relying on the incompetent and corrupt Afghans whom they called allies. Another mistake US made was starting a war in Iraq, which deprived resources from Afghanistan.

In hindsight, their actions should've been limited to destroying Al-Qaeda and denying them Afghanistan as a base. They should've of worked with the Taliban -- odious as they may be -- as they had the support of both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The goals after the peace deal and withdrawal of US/NATO troops will be the same when this whole started: counter-terrorism.

Agreed, looking back working with taliban would have been better instead of just ANA. There was no point in supporting northen warlords in their civil war against taliban. They proved to be utterly incompetent and corrupt to the core.

Even now civil war will continue. Federal system may work in Afghanistan if not then division of country would be better option as both groups are equally powerful in resources and numbers. Its not possible for one to subdue the other over the long period of time. It can only work if one is much more powerful. And even then its not worth it.

Taliban want to rule all of Afghanistan. Northerners will be happy with just their part of the land as long as taliban leave them alone. Both are essentially world apart in their thinking, one is urban farsi and other is rural pashtun.

 

[Psychic]

With your intellect, I'm surprised the PDF management haven't picked you for the 'Think Tank Analyst' post.
Seriously this is probably the most dumbest comment I've seen on this forum, your own ignorance and narrow minded vision only limits your mental capacity you dullard, don't try acting smart, because you come across as a narcissistic fool. You think the Americans spending nearly 2 decades there, and wasting trillions of dollars, was to just 'kill one man' and 'ensure Afghanistan couldn't be used for future attacks?' Yes.. that makes perfect sense, it's not like butchering over a million people, carpet bombing the afghan populace would produce more 'bad guys' I guess it took 20 years for the Taliban to behave themselves.. it's not like bombs have been going off all this time.

I have to give it to the American education system, seems it's is doing its job by producing zombies like yourself, if Kim Jong IL and Stalin were alive they'd be envious.. but who said the green card comes cheap right?

I wasted my comment on a pretentious idiot, you should feel honoured.

Regime change was one of the objectives -Failed
Permanent presence through military bases was one of the objectives -Failed
"Nation building" was one of the objectives -Failed

As we speak, the Americans are relying on Taliban's assurance that the Afghan soil won't be used for attacks and it shows how successful they have been - in begging for a face saving exit.

Following demands were made by the US:
1- Talk to the Afghan government instead of directly negotiating with the US
2- Democratic system
3- Permission to retain a few military bases
The Taliban rejected these demands and the US acquiesced.
What a "great victory." Reminds me of Normandy.

P.S - India was encouraged to spread her influence in Afghanistan and play dirty games against Pakistan. It has been grabbed from her ear and thrown out. Despite dehati aurat's protests, she was not allowed to be a part of Afghan peace process effectively throwing all her investments over the last two decades down the gutter.

 

[Reddington]

With your intellect, I'm surprised the PDF management haven't picked you for the 'Think Tank Analyst' post.
Seriously this is probably the most dumbest comment I've seen on this forum, your own ignorance and narrow minded vision only limits your mental capacity you dullard, don't try acting smart, because you come across as a narcissistic fool. You think the Americans spending nearly 2 decades there, and wasting trillions of dollars, was to just 'kill one man' and 'ensure Afghanistan couldn't be used for future attacks?' Yes.. that makes perfect sense, it's not like butchering over a million people, carpet bombing the afghan populace would produce more 'bad guys' I guess it took 20 years for the Taliban to behave themselves.. it's not like bombs have been going off all this time.

I have to give it to the American education system, seems it's is doing its job by producing zombies like yourself, if Kim Jong IL and Stalin were alive they'd be envious.. but who said the green card comes cheap right?

I wasted my comment on a pretentious idiot, you should feel honoured.

Just put him on ignore list like I have done. That way you won't have to waste your reply on idiots.

 

[hassan zohaib]

I do not know why it's being called a defeat. A defeat in my mind means the US surrendering to the Taliban as the French did with the Viet Minh in Vietnam. No doubt it was a strategic failure.

Where did US go wrong in Afghanistan? When it decided to become a nation builder; and relying on the incompetent and corrupt Afghans whom they called allies. Another mistake US made was starting a war in Iraq, which deprived resources from Afghanistan.

In hindsight, their actions should've been limited to destroying Al-Qaeda and denying them Afghanistan as a base. They should've of worked with the Taliban -- odious as they may be -- as they had the support of both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The goals after the peace deal and withdrawal of US/NATO troops will be the same when this whole started: counter-terrorism.

I really wonder sometimes that people attributes failure only when the goals aren't achieved. Sometimes achieving goals at a huge cost is also classified into a Biggest failure.

Infact, the core idea of my argument was something different but ppl have made them limited to only definition of Defeat. So lets analyze whether t wasn't defeat or not.

Suppose this isn't defeat of US then was the USSR'S defeat in Afghanistan really defeat of USSR???

This time US wasn't the only one who has paid price to this conflict. The whole world has paid price in terms of Economy, cascading effect of continuous violent involvement of different countries at different places n, imo, the actual cost world has to bear is something which analysts will try to calculate in years to come for forgone Int'l system, peace n harmony. So, a big heart is needed to calculate the actual cost n attributing this deafeat as a biggest defeat of mankind.

If there is another attack on the US mainland in the future, it may come from somewhere else, but highly unlikely from the AfPak region.

Even 9/11 wasn't garnered its resources from AfPak or AfPak wasn't involved in carrying out that act but it paid huge price...

@Thamizh Puli
@cloud4000 @Kabira

 

[Baburfromsarmarkand]

Rugged terrain. Rugged people. Same reason the British left.

 

[crankthatskunk]

USA had two main objectives in Afghanistan:

1. Kill OBL.
2. Ensure that the area cannot be used for any future attacks on the mainland.

Both goals accomplished.

Quite simple really, with no need for convoluted conspiracy theories at all.

1- How can USA Kill OBL, if he is already dead!!! Don't tell me that you believe what happened in Abbottabad. Nobody yet given the explanation how the remaning seals from the destroyed helicopter boarded remaining one!!

2- How poor Afghans can attack mainland USA without any resources!!! Oh I see, it would come back to the existence of the dead man. lolz

No Goal accomplished. Everything is up in the air. USA in fact is showing desperation to conclude the deal ASAP requesting help from Pakistan after failing in its mantra of "Do More".

What my concerns are that USA on the behest of some warmongers in its midst would listen to their twisted minds and hand over the security and control of Afghanistan to "Eric Prince" et al.
The real bloodbath would start then.

 

[gambit]

With your intellect, I'm surprised the PDF management haven't picked you for the 'Think Tank Analyst' post.
Seriously this is probably the most dumbest comment I've seen on this forum, your own ignorance and narrow minded vision only limits your mental capacity you dullard, don't try acting smart, because you come across as a narcissistic fool. You think the Americans spending nearly 2 decades there, and wasting trillions of dollars, was to just 'kill one man' and 'ensure Afghanistan couldn't be used for future attacks?' Yes.. that makes perfect sense, it's not like butchering over a million people, carpet bombing the afghan populace would produce more 'bad guys' I guess it took 20 years for the Taliban to behave themselves.. it's not like bombs have been going off all this time.

I have to give it to the American education system, seems it's is doing its job by producing zombies like yourself, if Kim Jong IL and Stalin were alive they'd be envious.. but who said the green card comes cheap right?

I wasted my comment on a pretentious idiot, you should feel honoured.

If you want to see ignorance and narcissism, go look in the mirror.

I will introduce myself...I am USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War), then F-16 (Desert Storm). So you are not looking at no 'keyboard warrior' here, which makes up the bulk of this forum participants.

Yes, the world learned that when pressed, the US will 'waste' unimaginable finance, 'butcher' a million people, and capable of bombing a country back to whatever age we want, just to get to one individual. The world learned that you do not f\/ck with that kind of power.

What is power? The ability and CAPACITY to make the rules, bend them, break them, and get away with it. And no one can do that better than US. You do not like it? Tough shit. I was no longer active duty on Sept 11, 2001 when I watched the towers collapsed on live TV, but if age was not a factor, I would have no problems re-up and be deployed to Afghanistan. I been to that part of the world before. I know how shitty it is.

Bad guys? As if what you produced is something to be feared. Three thousand Americans killed, so half the world got sent to chaos and despair. So bring on those 'bad guys', pal. See if you got the cojones to be in that group, else you are no more than the keyboard warriors that infested Internet forums.

Yeah...You wasted your comment, but if anyone is an idiot, it is YOU.

Putting asides the rhetorics and chest thumpings, the real reason why USA could not put up a good fight in Afghanistan is because of it's rough terrain. Afghanistan is a naturally built fortress and many empires and superpowers saw their end in Afghanistan due this very reason. USA also lost in Vietnam due to the same reason.

Wrong about Afghanistan and wrong about Viet Nam.

There are two components in a war, but before we get to that, we need to have a clear understanding of what is a 'war' to start.

A 'war' is a philosophical position. It is a state of hostility between parties. It does not mean there is a state of 'armed conflict' which is when there are actual fighting involved. Technically speaking, there is a state of hostility or war between North and South Koreas, even though no actual fighting involved.

To return to the components of a war. There are the political and military sides. They are intertwined but they are physically independent. It is always desirable to have submission without fighting, even Hitler wanted that. That is the political goal. It is the military objectives, such as taking a city or mining a harbor, that supports the political goal. In other words, the generals presented to the politicians the achieved objectives, and the politicians tries to convince the other side of the futility of continuing the armed conflict, which would hopefully lead to end of the war.

In a war, the political goals determined the military objectives.

In both Viet Nam and Afghanistan, the US military achieved all significant military objectives. In Viet Nam, it was the American politicians who meddled in the military planning, even dictating which targets could be attacked and even on what days. In Afghanistan, that tendency returned with the (now misguided) intention of creating a democratic Afghanistan.

The US military have every right to whip out our ginormous dick and thump it against our chest. We drove the Taliban out of power and forced them into the caves and even there, they were not that well protected. It was our political restraint that Afghanistan remains recognizable enough for the world to call a region 'Afghanistan'.

 

[VCheng]

Even 9/11 wasn't garnered its resources from AfPak or AfPak wasn't involved in carrying out that act but it paid huge price.

The AlQaeda leadership and its resources were based in the AfPak region, and KSM was a Pakistani. US retribution was directed correctly for the 9/11 attacks (and this includes the country whose citizens were the majority of the attackers). The entire region will be remade and we can see the process move forward already, slowly but surely.

 

[hassan zohaib]

Putting asides the rhetorics and chest thumpings, the real reason why USA could not put up a good fight in Afghanistan is because of it's rough terrain. Afghanistan is a naturally built fortress and many empires and superpowers saw their end in Afghanistan due this very reason. USA also lost in Vietnam due to the same reason.

In the wet dream of Pashtuns and Pakistanis, they have beaten Soviet Union and USA in Afghanistan, without taking into consideration that they had a massive geographical advantage.

Try fighting Russia and USA outside Afghanistan, we will see where you so called brave Pashtuns and Pakistanis. stand

After all, Pashtuns were sodomized by Sikhs and Mongols for hundreds of years. Did you forget the battle of Saragarhi?

Sir, i didn't bring in bravery or chest thumping here. I didn't idealize Pashtoon etc here. I simply talked about analysis n reasons.

2nd, if the army doesn't prepare itself before going into conflict then what really is this army for?? If they were going to attack a country which iss presented as a case study for wars then y didn't they get their selves ready???

In wars, strategies win not excuses.

I wonder on your comparison skills. How could u even think that Pashtoon n pakistani can defeat a technological n economical Suprpowrs? You're comparing apples with oranges. Let them fight with each other then we will say an equal match has been played.

 

[hassan zohaib]

If you want to see ignorance and narcissism, go look in the mirror.

I will introduce myself...I am USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War), then F-16 (Desert Storm). So you are not looking at no 'keyboard warrior' here, which makes up the bulk of this forum participants.

Yes, the world learned that when pressed, the US will 'waste' unimaginable finance, 'butcher' a million people, and capable of bombing a country back to whatever age we want, just to get to one individual. The world learned that you do not f\/ck with that kind of power.

What is power? The ability and CAPACITY to make the rules, bend them, break them, and get away with it. And no one can do that better than US. You do not like it? Tough shit. I was no longer active duty on Sept 11, 2001 when I watched the towers collapsed on live TV, but if age was not a factor, I would have no problems re-up and be deployed to Afghanistan. I been to that part of the world before. I know how shitty it is.

Bad guys? As if what you produced is something to be feared. Three thousand Americans killed, so half the world got sent to chaos and despair. So bring on those 'bad guys', pal. See if you got the cojones to be in that group, else you are no more than the keyboard warriors that infested Internet forums.

Yeah...You wasted your comment, but if anyone is an idiot, it is YOU.


Wrong about Afghanistan and wrong about Viet Nam.

There are two components in a war, but before we get to that, we need to have a clear understanding of what is a 'war' to start.

A 'war' is a philosophical position. It is a state of hostility between parties. It does not mean there is a state of 'armed conflict' which is when there are actual fighting involved. Technically speaking, there is a state of hostility or war between North and South Koreas, even though no actual fighting involved.

To return to the components of a war. There are the political and military sides. They are intertwined but they are physically independent. It is always desirable to have submission without fighting, even Hitler wanted that. That is the political goal. It is the military objectives, such as taking a city or mining a harbor, that supports the political goal. In other words, the generals presented to the politicians the achieved objectives, and the politicians tries to convince the other side of the futility of continuing the armed conflict, which would hopefully lead to end of the war.

In a war, the political goals determined the military objectives.

In both Viet Nam and Afghanistan, the US military achieved all significant military objectives. In Viet Nam, it was the American politicians who meddled in the military planning, even dictating which targets could be attacked and even on what days. In Afghanistan, that tendency returned with the (now misguided) intention of creating a democratic Afghanistan.

The US military have every right to whip out our ginormous dick and thump it against our chest. We drove the Taliban out of power and forced them into the caves and even there, they were not that well protected. It was our political restraint that Afghanistan remains recognizable enough for the world to call a region 'Afghanistan'.

What???
A power makes n breaks rules on ground & table. If it does only at one place then this should b called half-power.

I appreciate your feelings n fervor for your country but sir at least for understanding we need to analyze what it took for villagers to defeat a might... Luck, natural help are things apart but our man made strategies must b discussed as well...

 

[gambit]

This time US wasn't the only one who has paid price to this conflict. The whole world has paid price in terms of Economy, cascading effect of continuous violent involvement of different countries at different places n, imo, the actual cost world has to bear is something which analysts will try to calculate in years to come for forgone Int'l system, peace n harmony. So, a big heart is needed to calculate the actual cost n attributing this deafeat as a biggest defeat of mankind.

Very good. Looks like you are a bit more insightful than the guy in post 19.

The uber lesson for all dictators is this: If they want to remain in power, stay inside their borders.

The corollary to that lesson is that dictators in the ME should more resistant to Islamists with dreams of a global caliphate in their midst.

Here is something to ponder: Religion is real to the common people, false to the wise, and useful to the ruler.

Whiskeys, exotic cars, and pussies are more important than the Quran to the ME despots. There are no afterlife with virgins and lands flowing with milk and honey. If they want to enjoy temporal pleasures, stay away from the religionists.