America's defeat in Afghanistan: reason n analysis

[hassan zohaib]

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.

Where were the resources located??? In Afghanistan??? Brother, u need to go through the basics first...

How many Pakistanis n Afghanis were involved in attack???
Where did the planning happen??

Where there's head of a snake, attack should b carried out there not where there's his tail...

 

[gambit]

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.

We fully expects you et al to furiously masturbate to the sarcasm of a US 'victory' in Afghanistan. We expects nothing else, really.

We do not rely on any assurance from the Taliban. If you really believe that, you are more naive about US than we thought. What we wanted was a public display of that assurance, no different than any diplomatic resolution, so that in case Afghanistan again becomes a haven for international Islamic terrorism, we have at least a public casus belli to return and wreak havoc. The Taliban are not stupid enough to think otherwise. They know they can easily give that public assurance. But they also know keeping that assurance is the hard part. So when you think about it, who is really in a bind here? Here is a clue: Not US.

In the international order, only states can be agents for their respective peoples, even if such an agent is not popular. If there is no state, there can be no country, at least not in the political sense, and if there is no country, the land is open for exploitation and the residents constantly harassed.

Note I said 'land' instead of country and 'residents' instead of people. There are important political contexts there. No state, no country, and if no country, no people.

The previous generation of Taliban allowed someone else -- Al Qaeda -- to act as agent for Afghanistan. The error ended up with a foreign power -- for 20 yrs -- dictating much of what the country and people can do. Do you have any idea how humiliating that is? Of course not. You are too busy enjoying your sarcasm at US to recognize it. You et al on this forum do not speak for Afghanistan, not even in rhetoric. Your sarcasm at US are lost in the ether. No one cares, least of all, the Afghanis as most of them are barely literate anyway.

So the current generation of the Taliban can publicly refuse US all day long and in the end, we will leave. The really sad part is that unlike Europe, JPN, and SKR, we leave a country no better than when we entered it. Sad not for US but for Afghanistan because the world have seen what we can do for a country when there are cooperation on all sides. If the US failed, so did Afghanistan and in the eyes of the world, the worse failure lies with Afghanistan in particular and the Muslims in general.

Short term, the failure is US, but that short term is a microsecond in history, so in the long term, the much greater failure is yours. Start laughing...

 

[Shafsins]

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.

Agree with you. I heard that OBL dead long before the US drama in Abbottabad and that he died a natural death in Afghanistan probably due to liver failure ( he was on dialysis) but never heard any of this on news or anywhere else.

Poor afghanis cant attack a superpower thousand of miles away.

The reason they attacked was more of a religious aspect IMO and they lost because of the same.

 

[VCheng]

Where were the resources located??? In Afghanistan??? Brother, u need to go through the basics first...

How many Pakistanis n Afghanis were involved in attack???
Where did the planning happen??

Where there's head of a snake, attack should b carried out there not where there's his tail...

After they were forced from their safe havens in Afghanistan, the head of the snake was killed in Abbottabad, and the planner was arrested from a basement in Rawalpindi. It would seem that USA pretty much got this right.

Sad not for US but for Afghanistan because the world have seen what we can do for a country when there are cooperation on all sides. If the US failed, so did Afghanistan and in the eyes of the world, the worse failure lies with Afghanistan in particular and the Muslims in general.

One can lead the proverbial horse to water .......

 

[Psychic]

We fully expects you et al to furiously masturbate to the sarcasm of a US 'victory' in Afghanistan. We expects nothing else, really.

We do not rely on any assurance from the Taliban. If you really believe that, you are more naive about US than we thought. What we wanted was a public display of that assurance, no different than any diplomatic resolution, so that in case Afghanistan again becomes a haven for international Islamic terrorism, we have at least a public casus belli to return and wreak havoc. The Taliban are not stupid enough to think otherwise. They know they can easily give that public assurance. But they also know keeping that assurance is the hard part. So when you think about it, who is really in a bind here? Here is a clue: Not US.

In the international order, only states can be agents for their respective peoples, even if such an agent is not popular. If there is no state, there can be no country, at least not in the political sense, and if there is no country, the land is open for exploitation and the residents constantly harassed.

Note I said 'land' instead of country and 'residents' instead of people. There are important political contexts there. No state, no country, and if no country, no people.

The previous generation of Taliban allowed someone else -- Al Qaeda -- to act as agent for Afghanistan. The error ended up with a foreign power -- for 20 yrs -- dictating much of what the country and people can do. Do you have any idea how humiliating that is? Of course not. You are too busy enjoying your sarcasm at US to recognize it. You et al on this forum do not speak for Afghanistan, not even in rhetoric. Your sarcasm at US are lost in the ether. No one cares, least of all, the Afghanis as most of them are barely literate anyway.

So the current generation of the Taliban can publicly refuse US all day long and in the end, we will leave. The really sad part is that unlike Europe, JPN, and SKR, we leave a country no better than when we entered it. Sad not for US but for Afghanistan because the world have seen what we can do for a country when there are cooperation on all sides. If the US failed, so did Afghanistan and in the eyes of the world, the worse failure lies with Afghanistan in particular and the Muslims in general.

Short term, the failure is US, but that short term is a microsecond in history, so in the long term, the much greater failure is yours. Start laughing...

Blah blah blah blah

 

[Acidius]

We fully expects you et al to furiously masturbate to the sarcasm of a US 'victory' in Afghanistan. We expects nothing else, really.

We do not rely on any assurance from the Taliban. If you really believe that, you are more naive about US than we thought. What we wanted was a public display of that assurance, no different than any diplomatic resolution, so that in case Afghanistan again becomes a haven for international Islamic terrorism, we have at least a public casus belli to return and wreak havoc. The Taliban are not stupid enough to think otherwise. They know they can easily give that public assurance. But they also know keeping that assurance is the hard part. So when you think about it, who is really in a bind here? Here is a clue: Not US.

In the international order, only states can be agents for their respective peoples, even if such an agent is not popular. If there is no state, there can be no country, at least not in the political sense, and if there is no country, the land is open for exploitation and the residents constantly harassed.

Note I said 'land' instead of country and 'residents' instead of people. There are important political contexts there. No state, no country, and if no country, no people.

The previous generation of Taliban allowed someone else -- Al Qaeda -- to act as agent for Afghanistan. The error ended up with a foreign power -- for 20 yrs -- dictating much of what the country and people can do. Do you have any idea how humiliating that is? Of course not. You are too busy enjoying your sarcasm at US to recognize it. You et al on this forum do not speak for Afghanistan, not even in rhetoric. Your sarcasm at US are lost in the ether. No one cares, least of all, the Afghanis as most of them are barely literate anyway.

So the current generation of the Taliban can publicly refuse US all day long and in the end, we will leave. The really sad part is that unlike Europe, JPN, and SKR, we leave a country no better than when we entered it. Sad not for US but for Afghanistan because the world have seen what we can do for a country when there are cooperation on all sides. If the US failed, so did Afghanistan and in the eyes of the world, the worse failure lies with Afghanistan in particular and the Muslims in general.

Short term, the failure is US, but that short term is a microsecond in history, so in the long term, the much greater failure is yours. Start laughing...

US is on the look out for a public casus belli?
Then what?
Another 20 years?

 

[gambit]

US is on the look out for a public casus belli?
Then what?
Another 20 years?

Try US and find out...The hard way.

 

[Hassan_Ishtiaq]

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'.

As much as I would hate to admit however this is the truth and at some point everyone must come to terms with the reality:

USA has the full potential to wipe out Taliban but it chooses not to do so and people interpret this as a weakness however USA is not weak as history has shown that is has completely annihilated countries in the past and if it wants to it can launch a major air offensive against the Taliban before withdrawing as a fairwell present and the Taliban can't do a thing about it except shoot at other puppet Afghans.

Those who think the US has "lost" in Afghanistan are deluded.

 

[delta2]

As much as I would hate to admit however this is the truth and at some point everyone must come to terms with the reality:

USA has the full potential to wipe out Taliban but it chooses not to do so and people interpret this as a weakness however USA is not weak as history has shown that is has completely annihilated countries in the past and if it wants to it can launch a major air offensive against the Taliban before withdrawing as a fairwell present and the Taliban can't do a thing about it except shoot at other puppet Afghans.

Those who think the US has "lost" in Afghanistan are deluded.

This is no longer the WW2 era. The USA can try to "wipe out" Afghanistan and then see what happens.

The world order they have worked so hard to build and maintain since WW1 will collapse overnight. The Russians and the Chinese will react immediately to cleanse and pacify their "back yards" as well as their "neighborhoods". The kings/presidents ruling resource rich countries in the Arab world, Asia and Africa will be removed. There would be a beginning of a reaction to this "wiping out" that will know no ending.

When people say Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, the meaning goes much deeper.

As much as the USA is strong militarily, it isn't God. The American society is at the brink of a total collapse, people are killing each other and over 65%+ don't have even $500 in their savings.

Not a single one of real aims was achieved by this war. It only made Russia realize more about modernising its weapons and ended up strengthening the hands it was intended to weaken.

A bunch of folks driven by their biblical fantasies of Armageddon and delusions of exceptions from Destiny thought they could wage a war against a bunch of goat herders to safeguard the priestly clerks in Isfahan and easily bring about specific results are left doubting what they believed in the very first place to the point that they are back to the drawing board to figure out when the messiah will come.

 

[hoursintel]

If you think their objective was to establish a strategic presence then there have been a little dent put on that plan.
But if you think their objective was to kill many innocent people then they didn't fail at that. Same goes in Iraq they say America failed, there is caos. What makes you think they didn't want caos. Maybe that was the objective, killing and caos. Even though many Americans know this war started on a false flag inside job. And sensible Americans who have even a little bit of humanity wants to end the unjust war. But military industrial complex and the likes of Mattis who are pushing for more war aren't gone yet. So I hope there will be peace. But judging by the ground situation I will only believe once it finally happens. I don't see what is there to celebrate so early. Within coming days it might become clear that no deal is happening.

 

[Vapnope]

US got OBL and dismantled AQ in this region (To some extent) so they can't attack US. However they end up legitimizing the very people they came after. Taliban govt in 1996 was recognized by only Three countries, now with US pulling out and peace process, the world has been made to believe that Taliban will be part of govt while they continue to attack Afghan and US forces.

For now US has no threat outside its boundaries but are american interests are safe anywhere else? The answer might tell us what US got out of this WoT.

 

[delta2]

US got OBL and dismantled AQ in this region (To some extent) so they can't attack US. However they end up legitimizing the very people they came after. Taliban govt in 1996 was recognized by only Three countries, now with US pulling out and peace process, the world has been made to believe that Taliban will be part of govt while they continue to attack Afghan and US forces.

For now US has no threat outside its boundaries but are american interests are safe anywhere else? The answer might tell us what US got out of this WoT.

OBL was a CIA trained asset till the last day he died due to kidney failure long before Obama got elected into office.

The USA didn't achieve any military objective other than scaring Russians into rearming themselves to teeth.

 

[hassan zohaib]

After they were forced from their safe havens in Afghanistan, the head of the snake was killed in Abbottabad, and the planner was arrested from a basement in Rawalpindi. It would seem that USA pretty much got this right.



One can lead the proverbial horse to water .......

Strange....

After having paid what costs???

What if US wouldn't attack AFGHANISTAN still then China would b facing US economically??

Here criteria of winning should not be achieved-goals rather the paid-cost....
Just try to please understand something which we are not really getting ontto right now...

 

[gambit]

This is no longer the WW2 era. The USA can try to "wipe out" Afghanistan and then see what happens.

We took over Afghanistan and what happened? Not a damn thing. Not a peep from the Muslims. Not like when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan when the Muslims raged at that invasion. But for US? None of you cared.

When people say Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, the meaning goes much deeper.

Spare everyone that stale argument. Unlike past empires, we did not take over Afghanistan to make it part of US. Yes, we tried to instilled a sense of democracy into the people and it failed, we have no problems admitting that failure, but that is what distinguished US from past conquerors who tried to incorporate Afghanistan into their rule.

As much as the USA is strong militarily, it isn't God.

No, we are not God, but in terms of sheer might, the next thing to the Big Guy.

The American society is at the brink of a total collapse,...

I have been on this forum since '09 and from that time, I have seen all kinds of predictions about US 'collapse'. It has gotten so common that on PDF, anyone who said that the US will 'collapse' is taken as an intellectual lightweight. Looks like you are in that group.

 

[VCheng]

Strange....

After having paid what costs???

What if US wouldn't attack AFGHANISTAN still then China would b facing US economically??

Here criteria of winning should not be achieved-goals rather the paid-cost....
Just try to please understand something which we are not really getting ontto right now...

As a percentage of the GDP, the costs of the WoT are far lower than previous wars for USA and entirely sustainable, and China's rise is due to trade with USA and both countries benefit from it. Nothing strange about either fact.