US (and Pakistan) made it possible for the so-called Mujahideen to defeat Soviet Union in Afghanistan (google 'Operation Cyclone'). However, US (and Pakistan) didn't realize at the time that they were creating a Frankenstein Monster which will turn rogue one day and find a way to subsist on its own. This Frankenstein Monster continue to draw recruits from all over the world to its cause which is baffling to say the least.
as much as i know, this frankenstein monster never cross the said borderlines of afghanistan.
I cannot say for sure.
Bush administration chose to hammer Taliban into submission and its efforts produced desirable results for a while (Afghanistan remained peaceful for a few straight years from 2002 - 2005). Then Obama administration came to power and imposed silly restrictions on NATO in regards to engagements with Taliban and this stupidity made it possible for the Taliban to regroup and recover its strength over the course of years. At present, Trump administration has authorized NATO to contend with the resurgent Taliban as it see fit.
I'd say that Trump administration can produce good results in Afghanistan if it stay its course.
what if there were never any plan for peace in afghanistan..
Afghan Opium Production.
In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.
[17]The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264507/production-of-opium-in-afghanistan-since-1990/
Neither will they win.Taliban are helpless ,they can't take any major urban areas - moment they try conventional battle they will be massacred from air.So they contend themselves with guerilla attacks.NATO to win needs to deploy 500,000 troops but has never reached such troop levels.This is the amount needed to garrison afghanistan including the countryside.ANA only has 150,000 and thus can't take many provincial rural areas.The only other option for an army is to commit systemic genocide of all population like genghis khan ,but that is impossible in modern day.So its a stalemate.
be it 500,000 or 1,000,000 troops of NATO, you cannot control the local population as a foreigner.
and by the way what is the NATO forces want to do in afghanistan?
conquering afghanistan - not possible,
decimating rebellion - not possible, rebels are not outsiders that NATO can stop them, they are the local afghan resident who want to live free without foreigners in their country.
Not really.US can keep this up indefinitely,they have a few troops and advisors there,not really costly.Their main punch comes from drones and airpower which is unchallenged.They can keep this level of presence forever if they want to.
indefinitely. that's the real question here, why US wants stalemate for indefinitely, what is the point of having stalemate with locals.. its their country, your are an outsider.
Vietcong was a massive force and very well armed in comparison to Taliban. Not a valid comparison.
Vietcong was supported by the USSR, the Super Power of that time with active military and intel support.
Did Taliban has the same kind of support compared to vietcong?
