Since when is failing to meet your objectives considered a military success then ? why do you think people compare it another vietnam ? how have you not failed militarily when even after 17 years the taliban still controls most of afghanistan and you have resorted to peace negotiations with them.
Taliban doesn't control most of Afghanistan.
SIGAR offer an accurate portrayal of spheres of influence in Afghanistan:
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2018-04-30qr.pdf
District-wise split in the spheres of influence in Afghanistan:
Afghan government have lost ground in Afghanistan since 2016 but this is not the failure of NATO because Obama administration shifted the responsibilities of countering Taliban-led insurgency to Afghan Security Forces in 2014 and
restricted the 'mandate' of NATO to develop Afghan Security Forces in large part.
Population distribution is more interesting:-
"As of January 31, 2018, roughly 65% of the population (21.2 million of an estimated 32.5 million total) lived in areas under Afghan government control or influence, up one percentage point since last quarter. The insurgency continued to control or influence areas where 12% of the population lived (3.9 million people), unchanged from last quarter, while the population living in contested areas (7.4 million people) decreased to roughly 23%, about a one percentage-point decline since last quarter."
People are shifting from contested spaces to government-held districts.
It's an open secret that you guys can barely leave kabul
Absolute nonsense.
Latest major clash between US troops and Taliban occurred in the provincial capital of
Farah, and guess what happened? US troops slaughtered Taliban there:
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/600746/airstrikes-farah
They are capable of conducting operations in any part of Afghanistan, and humiliate any force in a clash [should the need arise]. US Army hai, Afghan police nahin.
However, Obama administration
restricted the 'mandate' of NATO to develop Afghan Security Forces since 2014 in large part, and Afghan Security Forces are tasked with operations to restore law & order in the ungoverned/contested spaces across the country. Trump administration have not quashed Obama-era 'mandate' of NATO yet
but granted greater autonomy to NATO for COIN operations in Afghanistan since 2017.
US-led forces are busy routing ISIS-K in
Nangarhar at present:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...mic-state-from-eastern-district-idUSKBN1JY0HN
On the whole, NATO have adopted following strategy for COIN operations since 2017:
"A light footprint approach can allow the US to severely degrade the capacity of a terrorist group’s ability to function. It can allow the US to counter these types of threats with reduced costs in a relatively nonintrusive manner for local civilians in a region wary of the large presence of conventional US troops. However, as the Afghan experience has shown, often such conflicts will take years and do not end cleanly. When the United States considers what to do next, it should be clear that existing capabilities are better suited for limited-scope counterterrorism campaigns rather than any new attempts at nation building or any other objective beyond the capacity of the military."
Source:
http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-12_Issue-1/Salt.pdf
i'm sorry but your objective was to remove the taliban which is clear you have NOT been able to do which constitutes a FAILURE .
You need to look at the course of events to understand what is happening in Afghanistan.
Taliban controlled and governed 90% of Afghanistan prior to American invasion. Back then, Al-Qaeda Network [led by Osama Bin Laden] had a major footprint in Afghanistan and was an ally of Taliban. US commenced its operations against both forces in 2001:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9148/index1.html
Taliban-led government collapsed after suffering major losses and US-led forces cleared Al-Qaeda Network from its stronghold in Tora Bora mountains in 2002. However, survivors fled to Pakistan to regroup and seek new recruits. Search for Al-Qaeda Network operatives now shifted to Pakistan and it met its logical end with assassination of Osama Bin Laden and his allies in a compound in Abbottabad in 2011.
US was successful in closing the chapter of Al-Qaeda Network across Afghanistan and Pakistan by 2011 but Taliban have re-surged in Afghanistan since 2014.
Unfortunately, Afghan society is internally fractured, corrupt and tribal to large extent. Job opportunities are limited and US-backed Afghan government is unable to expand its footprint across the country in a meaningful way; one reason is that scores of Afghan warlords have territorial mentality, and make for unreliable partners. Taliban have taken advantage of these factors and re-surged in various sectors of the country and a large number of people have replenished its ranks. Due to this situation, Afghanistan, once again, finds itself in a state of Civil War. At this stage, US is exploring the prospects of peaceful settlement between Taliban-based elements and Afghan government.
However, resurgent Taliban are hardly in good shape either:
"As of 2017, the Taliban movement remains highly fractional and is largely suffering from a lack of cohesion and direction due to weak centralized leadership plagued by internal power struggles. Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada is the current primary leader of the movement, yet he is widely seen from within as being ineffective. This fragmentation within the movement has prevented the Taliban from capitalizing on some of its more successful combat achievements in 2016, as many subnetworks within the movement feel alienated from its leadership. Many within the Taliban have shown a deep dissatisfaction with the state of the movement and its position in the struggle for control of Afghanistan, and there is a growing sense that the conflict is losing a coherent sense of direction. Events such as the expulsion of Afghan refugees from northern Pakistan have placed further pressures on the movement. Now is the time to try to bypass the centralized Taliban leadership who wish to continue to obstruct the peace process and tap into the wider state of dissatisfaction within the movement.108 The United States has no need to fight the Taliban forever; it is a regional actor that lacks any global ambitions. By reaching a negotiated settlement with a sizeable portion of the movement, the US can further concentrate on eliminating terrorist networks from the region."
Source:
http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-12_Issue-1/Salt.pdf
You have doubts? Case study for you:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-story-of-iskp-in-jawzjan.571209/
---
US is not failing in Afghanistan due to Taliban being a superduper martian plutonian megalodontidian dinosaurian power that cannot be messed with. Taliban is an
elusive opponent, and in the position to sabotage activities of Afghan government via suicide bombings, planting explosives and assassinations.
US is failing to
reform Afghanistan. American politicians have
restricted the 'mandate' of NATO in Afghanistan, and their nation-building efforts may or may not bear fruit. US military doesn't specialize in nation-building efforts by the way; its job is to destroy and subjugate. It cannot deliver in a politically constrained environment.
@F-22Raptor is correct.
Alternative is to subject contested/ungoverned spaces of Afghanistan to heavy firepower and kill people without discrimination in such regions. However, American politicians are willing to go down this route?
---
In summary,
American politicians are at
fault for mismanaging war in Afghanistan because they imposed ill-advised restrictions on the activities of NATO in Afghanistan with the exception of Bush administration early on.
Nevertheless, Trump administration can change course in Afghanistan. US military is exceptionally powerful and capable by any measure - when assessed independently.
