America's defeat in Afghanistan: reason n analysis

[hassan zohaib]

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.


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.


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


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.

From Unipolar to Multi polar world.
Could u imagine the world where AFGHANISTAN quagmire didn't happen?
Could u imagine the US if AFGHANISTAN quagmire didn't happen????

What US actions were which led AQ to attack on u?? Definitely, hatred bcz of your actions n i can't think this hatred has gone down today... So if this hatred leads to some other action by someone else, God forbid, then who will loose n who will win???

Comparison b/w US & USSR isn't compatible. When USSR attacked AFGHANISTAN, it was just a military power but when you attacked then u were simple Suprpowr-economic n military. U failed today, it's not only your failure but a whole world order's failure where ppl will b estimating costs in future.

This isn't something philosophical but damn reality where, if assumptions hold true, then this will b deadliest century in d History of mankind.




@VCheng

As i said, qualitative hidden costs are the most suitable criteria....

 

[gambit]

What US actions were which led AQ to attack on u??

The moment you allow a non-state agent to determine what is good or bad for your country, you opened the door for broad reprisals. That is where you went wrong in your thinking.

Is Al-Qaeda a duly representative for any Muslim country? If not, then ALL Muslims dominated countries are obligate to reject AQ.

 

[hassan zohaib]

The moment you allow a non-state agent to determine what is good or bad for your country, you opened the door for broad reprisals. That is where you went wrong in your thinking.

Is Al-Qaeda a duly representative for any Muslim country? If not, then ALL Muslims dominated countries are obligate to reject AQ.

I am sorry to say that u are not properly updated on this. Which muslim Country supported AQ?? Where ever u sniffed even a low-profile member u went there to nib him in the bud n the said country govt supported u wholeheartedly.
When u say that muslim Country supported AQ then u r accepting your failure n weakness here again. U had carrot n sticks which u usually used then what happened???

AQ didn't & doesn't represent whole muslims Ummah but yes they r the group of aggrieved individuals, ideologically n physically. Actually, not all get angry nor all get satisfied in a society. Aggrieved person will carry Gun not the one who is happy n living perfect life. Just realize it...

Not a single muslim Country could ever think to mess wd America great hence question of non state agent can't b arised. Who used them is a matter of debate n right now this should not be the topic of discussion here..

 

[gambit]

I am sorry to say that u are not properly updated on this. Which muslim Country supported AQ??

You seriously misunderstood my post. So badly am not going to continue with you.

 

[hassan zohaib]

You seriously misunderstood my post. So badly am not going to continue with you.

I think, it doesn't matter whether u or me continue to talk or not but thing is US was a once-dreamt country to live in but today it's the country which is continually trying to do away with things which it shaped n defntly this is the outcome of WAR which you were n weren't part of...

Actually, the modren day is day when everyone on this world is either winning or loosing just bcz of this war.. we are all soldiers. This is Solidaro world.

Anyways, thanks but no thanks.
Good to talk

 

[Sehnsucht]

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'.

There's confidence & there's arrogance.Your post reeks of the latter.During the invasion of Afghanistan, US was the SOLE global superpower.An economical & military powerhouse unmatched by any other countries in the world.With ability to influence almost any region in the planet.You had no one who would dare stand against you.
But now, it's different. The world has changed much since then. You're still THE superpower. But a declining one.Russia has emerged from the ashes of Soviet Union to contest your influence in Middle East & Europe.They swallowed Ukraine's territory. What did you do except sanctions? What did you do when Russia entered Syria to protect it's ally? Nothing. Except a few shots here & there.Not because you didn't want to.But because you couldn't.You're led by a man seen as a clown by many. Your influence is also declining. Nearly all over the world.Europe is beginning to think & act for it's own.One of your staunchest ally in Middle East, KSA is shifting towards Russia, albeit slowly.
I know you're a military professional.A vet.Especially since you use this card in many of your arguments.I believe you're certainly much more knowledgable than me.But you're also a very arrogant man.Perhaps that clouds your judgement.The world has changed much since your stint in the military.You should look into it.

It was our political restraint that Afghanistan remains recognizable enough for the world to call a region 'Afghanistan'.

US & restraint are two words that don't go together. That's how you have managed to kill 20-30 millions people since World War 2.

 

[VCheng]

This isn't something philosophical but damn reality where, if assumptions hold true, then this will b deadliest century in d History of mankind.

IF the ASSUMPTIONS hold true. Right. What "reality" can be based off assumptions?

All of your hypothetical scenarios will likely not come to pass, and US policies will continue to serve its national interests. What if China's population implodes? What if USSR still existed? The list of such dreams goes on and on.

 

[Sehnsucht]

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.

15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia , two were from the United Arab Emirates,one was from Lebanon , and one was from Egypt.

Tell me.Which actions were taken against these countries?Exactly nothing as far as I know.
Instead US is buddy buddy with KSA & UAE,sells hundreds of billions worth of weapons to three of them.

 

[VCheng]

15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia , two were from the United Arab Emirates,one was from Lebanon , and one was from Egypt.

Tell me.Which actions were taken against these countries?Exactly nothing as far as I know.
Instead US is buddy buddy with KSA & UAE,sells hundreds of billions worth of weapons to three of them.

And yet look at the changes that are happening in Saudi Arabia after 9/11. The whole region is on the path to be remade.

 

[Sehnsucht]

And yet look at the changes that are happening in Saudi Arabia after 9/11. The whole region is on the path to be remade.

Enlighten me.So far all I have seen is rise of extremist groups, sectarian divisions, death & destruction. I think saying that most of the region is on fire instead would be more apt.

 

[VCheng]

Enlighten me.So far all I have seen is rise of extremist groups, sectarian divisions, death & destruction. I think saying that most of the region is on fire instead would be more apt.

Well, all the existing structures need to be dismantled first. From the ashes rise the new ones.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Well, all the existing structures need to be dismantled first. From the ashes rise the new ones.

Now you're just making excuses.What you said sounds good on paper.But reality is different. Look at Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya.In fact, things often turn worse instead. Look at Iraq. Saddam was no saint.But he was the lesser of the two evils.Here, the old system being dismantled is what that allowed groups like ISIS/ISIL to emerge.
MENA region isn't changing for the better. If you'll look closely you'll see that as well.

 

[VCheng]

Now you're just making excuses.What you said sounds good on paper.But reality is different. Look at Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya.In fact, things often turn worse instead. Look at Iraq. Saddam was no saint.But he was the lesser of the two evils.Here, the old system being dismantled is what that allowed groups like ISIS/ISIL to emerge.
MENA region isn't changing for the better. If you'll look closely you'll see that as well.

Worse for whom? And good for whom? Like it or not, what I have stated is the blunt truth.

 

[hassan zohaib]

IF the ASSUMPTIONS hold true. Right. What "reality" can be based off assumptions?

All of your hypothetical scenarios will likely not come to pass, and US policies will continue to serve its national interests. What if China's population implodes? What if USSR still existed? The list of such dreams goes on and on.

I just tried to highlight what went wrong in Afghanistan, didn't try to invoke any prediction about future of US. Let me give u a quick review of my points.


US is there, will remain there. Gist of idea was to ascertain from technical prism the real underlying reasons for such a fiasco called Afghanistan. In this scenario, i highlighted that either it should b classified as a defeat or not. 2nd, i highlighted the 1 reason n that was AFGHANISTAN phobia or Past phobia which led US here..

Digression isn't beneficial all the time..

Anyways...

 

[VCheng]

US is there, will remain there. Gist of idea was to ascertain from technical prism the real underlying reasons for such a fiasco called Afghanistan. In this scenario, i highlighted that either it should b classified as a defeat or not. 2nd, i highlighted the 1 reason n that was AFGHANISTAN phobia or Past phobia which led US here..

USA went into Afghanistan and cleared up the structure that attacked it on 9/11. Nothing more and nothing less, and certainly nothing more complicated than that. Some may like to pretend it is a defeat, but to USA it does not matter. It will ALWAYS pursue its national interests as vigorously as possible, no matter what the cost or effort.