Who Won in Afghanistan???

[Mujahid911]

America kicked out the Taliban,
America installed a new government, lets say its democratic,
America declared Taliban a terrorist organisation,
America developed a sore throat shouting "Do more" at Pakistan for 20 years,
America started peace negotiations with Taliban (terrorist group according to them)
America transformed the peace negotiations into a withdrawal agreement,
America changed its stance with Pakistan from "Do more" to please help
America spent trillions, yet negotiated with the Taliban and recognised Pakistan's importance for peace.
So, America lost.

Let's not play with words and pick and choose your own events, if you invade a country and declare the party that was in charge a terrorist organisation, and 20 years later, you sit with them to negotiate peace, and in the process bring down your forces from well over 100,000 to just a few thousands, that's called losing.

Lol, don't go too far man. Just tell me why the heck US is not living Afghanistan yet even after doha deals? US achieved for whatever reason they landed there. Fighting with Taliban is just a pretext to stay there for a longer period.

 

[shanlung]

Why did the United States of America fail to win the war in Afghanistan even after 17 years? Why does the lone superpower fail to defeat ...

Answer (1 of 47): Because Winning the war is not the goal. Have a look at this map Afganistan is one of the most strategic location the US could ever find to keep an eye on several countries. China being one of them other being Iran. US repeatedly announced that its military would be withdrawn...

www.quora.com

What was the military edge USA have over a bunch of separate goat herders in Afghan? Do not even need the entire fucking country of Afghan.
10,000 to 1 ?
Or is it the Afghan goat herders have military technology greater than USA??
I finished reading “the Outpost” by Jake Tapper. How a bunch of goat herders in Afghan with AKs and rpgs and IEDs (because they do not have billion dollar industry to make bombs like USA, can only make bombs in backyard on a DIY basis) taking out USA brave men despite they having 155 howizters , 120 mm mortars , Ma Deuces, A-10s, properly build bombs, B52s and helicopter gunships , AC-130 Spectre Gunships and billions of dollars backing them and not so good in protecting them.
If USA fought bravely with massive firepower behind them, then what about the goat herders with only AKs and RPGs fighting against USA knowing they fighting against 155 howizters , 120 mm mortars , Ma Deuces, A-10s, properly build bombs, B52s and helicopter gunships , AC-130 Spectre Gunships ?
Even more fucking brave is the least I can say of the Afghans goat herders. Who were untrained knowing only how to herd goats unlike the USA special forces who went through countless hours and weeks and months learning how to kill and kill.
Yet who won? And who left Afghan?
Maybe USA army should consider making their fighting folks do a course in goat herding . As who knows, maybe herding goats might be better to build up fighting skills.

USA got fucked when USA tried that in Afghan . Against a bunch of tribesmen when USA had 1000 the firepower over them. And after a trillion of dollars what have USA got to show in Afghan?
Why did the United States of America fail to win the war in Afghanistan even after 17 years? Why does the lone superpower fail to defeat a group of goat herders?

 

[peagle]

current condition of pakistan is to ponder on . what is the benefit of such support ?

Pondering is when you have the luxury of time and distance,
sometimes there is nothing more you can do in a given situation except to tackle it head on, and that has been the situation for Pakistan since the Soviet invasion.

Nations rarely do a cost benefit analysis (India in Sri Lanka being a prime example), it usually boils down to how we will be effected by a situation and how best we can deal with it. In the case for Pakistan in regards to Afghanistan, it has had to deal with it the best it can, the primary purpose has been to not allow third parties to threat Pakistan from its western borders, it has done that job rather well.

The rest is another debate for another thread.

Lol, don't go too far man. Just tell me why the heck US is not living Afghanistan yet even after doha deals? US achieved for whatever reason they landed there. Fighting with Taliban is just a pretext to stay there for a longer period.

lol
On that point I agree, but that's not the topic of this thread.
America will try damn hard not to leave Afghanistan altogether, but the fact remains the Taliban have already won, that win isn't based on if America leaves or not because of the facts I mentioned.

 

[colonel rajesh]

Sorry, but in every one of these Pakistan lost and the "other won". Not only did Pakistan lose but was left carrying the bill. All these events have had disaterous consequences on Pakistan with the latest event earning Pakistan the moniker "terroristan". Pull your passport out in any country of the world and watch the reaction. Even allies like China find India more inviting for their tourists with Pakistan being avoded as best as you can. This has had devastating effect on the image, economy and standing of Pakistan.

Just one example. What did Pakistan get out of 1980s jihad? On the other hand all of Eastern Europe gained freedom from the Soviets and most today are dens of Islamaphobic hate and revulsion for Pakistani's. All Pakistan did was help America consolidate the west while screwing Islamabad with sanctions post Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

very true analysis .

 

[Beast]

How can western countries can won afgan war when they did this kind of thing?

Sorry, but in every one of these Pakistan lost and the "other won". Not only did Pakistan lose but was left carrying the bill. All these events have had disaterous consequences on Pakistan with the latest event earning Pakistan the moniker "terroristan". Pull your passport out in any country of the world and watch the reaction. Even allies like China find India more inviting for their tourists with Pakistan being avoded as best as you can. This has had devastating effect on the image, economy and standing of Pakistan.

Just one example. What did Pakistan get out of 1980s jihad? On the other hand all of Eastern Europe gained freedom from the Soviets and most today are dens of Islamaphobic hate and revulsion for Pakistani's. All Pakistan did was help America consolidate the west while screwing Islamabad with sanctions post Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

Pakistan help China to take away the US focus from China and weaken the american on war in terror. When american realize their folly , it was too late. China has 15 years of peaceful rise.
Pakistan also removed all threat from other foreign factor and left with all effort focusing on India threat.

 

[Metal 0-1]

How can western countries can won afgan war when they did this kind of thing?

Pakistan help China to take away the US focus from China and weaken the american on war in terror. When american realize their folly , it was too late. China has 15 years of peaceful rise.
Pakistan also removed all threat from other foreign factor and left with all effort focusing on India threat.

Hey Tianmmen Square Massacre rings any bell.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

How can western countries can won afgan war when they did this kind of thing?

Pakistan help China to take away the US focus from China and weaken the american on war in terror. When american realize their folly , it was too late. China has 15 years of peaceful rise.
Pakistan also removed all threat from other foreign factor and left with all effort focusing on India threat.

Again it's the same story. China got a break from unwanted attention of the Americans which it used to build up itself. What did Pakistan get?

• It helped the Americans to kick Taliban out of Kabul in 2001 replacing them with India's friends the Northern Alliance. Mashallah.
• 
  
• then spent the next 18 years trying to secretly help Taliban to kick India's NA friends from Kabul which continues as of today. In the course of that 18 years Pakistan became a battleground for WOT, got OBL fiaso which was 100 times bigger damage to Pakistan's image then any Indian disinfo against Pakistan. Across the globe Pakistan became associated with global terrorists while India built the image around "Rising Shining India".
• 
  
• the Chinese who profited enormously can't spare a dime or two for Pakistan today to rescue it from economic doldrums.

All I can say is keep up the good work guys ...

 

[Beast]

Again it's the same story. China got a break from unwanted attention of the Americans which it used to build up itself. What did Pakistan get?

• It helped the Americans to kick Taliban out of Kabul in 2001 replacing them with India's friends the Northern Alliance. Mashallah.
• 
  
• then spent the next 18 years trying to secretly help Taliban to kick India's NA friends from Kabul which continues as of today. In the course of that 18 years Pakistan became a battleground for WOT, got OBL fiaso which was 100 times bigger damage to Pakistan's image then any Indian disinfo against Pakistan. Across the globe Pakistan became associated with global terrorists while India built the image around "Rising Shining India".
• 
  
• the Chinese who profited enormously can't spare a dime or two for Pakistan today to rescue it from economic doldrums.

All I can say is keep up the good work guys ...

CPEC USD 65 billion investment but your leader screw up. Can't blame us.

 

[Kingslayerr]

After talibans, pak would probably gain the most from afghanistan war in terms of peace and influence. But what did it cost? Became economically weak, sanctions, lost friends, lost kashmir, very less investment, had to sign projects with greater interest rates with china cause no body else was investing in us, bombings, targated killings, failed to counter indian narrative of pak is a failed state, world take's us a terrorist nation, extremism on the rise, warent able to focus on kashmir, decades of corruption and incompetent policie makers. The collateral damage is just so massive compare to the profit.

 

[VCheng]

well its a matter of perspective, if there is fire in your neighbours house, and there is no fire brigade available, will you wait for the fire to consume your property and threaten you family or will you try to deal with the fire. Off-course, you would try to deal with the fire.

You would not deal with the fire purely for your neighbours sake, but also to protect yourself. Please lets get the prospective right.

The correct perspective here is to ask for each of the "victories" whether Pakistan's national interests were served best or someone else's. A subsequent question would of course be how and why Pakistan ended up in a worse situation after each episode.

 

[peagle]

The correct perspective here is to ask for each of the "victories" whether Pakistan's national interests were served best or someone else's. A subsequent question would of course be how and why Pakistan ended up in a worse situation after each episode.

There is no correct perspective, because I simply stated the core essence of each scenario, which as per my statement are historical facts. What you have stated is an expansion on the discussion, and very valid.

It is a valid expansion but within it you have implied a statement incorrectly held to be truthful even before it has been examined. That's not fair.

"whether Pakistan's national interests were served best or someone else's"
This is an open ended query hence open to investigation.

"A subsequent question would of course be how and why Pakistan ended up in a worse situation after each episode."
You have made wild assumptions and concluded your query before it can be fairly investigated, that's rather unfair and conveys poor judgement.

 

[VCheng]

There is no correct perspective, because I simply stated the core essence of each scenario, which as per my statement are historical facts. What you have stated is an expansion on the discussion, and very valid.

It is a valid expansion but within it you have implied a statement incorrectly held to be truthful even before it has been examined. That's not fair.

"whether Pakistan's national interests were served best or someone else's"
This is an open ended query hence open to investigation.

"A subsequent question would of course be how and why Pakistan ended up in a worse situation after each episode."
You have made wild assumptions and concluded your query before it can be fairly investigated, that's rather unfair and conveys poor judgement.

Fair enough. I would to hear your arguments showing that Pakistan was better off after each episode. Please go ahead.

 

[peagle]

CPEC USD 65 billion investment but your leader screw up. Can't blame us.

Are you not making wild assumptions, how have they messed up, if it only started 5 years ago, whereas it was always envisioned to be a long term plan.
That is hardly messing up, and there is a lot of opposition largely due to fear of China's rise, but, Pakistan is facing the resultant pressure.

Rather then being simplistic, perhaps its better to see it for what it is. CPEC is moving along, but with a measured, calculated and a solid approach, which I think is a lot better then carrying on blindly, no matter what the world says or thinks.

 

[peagle]

Fair enough. I would to hear your arguments showing that Pakistan was better off after each episode. Please go ahead.

Again, you are making assumptions, that's very unfair, please read what I have said and not interpret a meaning because I have been very clear.

Where have I said Pakistan is better off? reading and learning from events does not necessarily mean you take one extreme view or the other, that's simply ridiculous, mostly it does not work that way. it was your claim that we gained nothing from each situation, I did not make any claims.

Just so you don't have to go back to recall what I had written, but I would recommend that you do. The sides supported by Pakistan won, that was my initial assertion, and factually correct.

Now, regarding the aftermath, Pakistan gained and lost, but hindsight is a beautiful thing, it allows us to feel clever, and impose judgement on those who had to make choices taking into consideration the realties of their time.

I am happy to answer a detailed contribution from you, because you have already made your claim, I have not done any such thing. I stand by what I have written, but I have not made any claims, you have, so please expand on your claims.
Please keep it concentrated so that the discussion may reach a conclusion of some kind.

 

[Khan vilatey]

I have been thinking a little about the Cold War and the Afghan wars, which were instrumental in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union, and influential in modern world history.

One thing struck me; it’s an inescapable fact of history and perhaps a little foretelling of the future.

America vs. the Soviet Union in the cold war
>> America won, supported by > PAKISTAN

America wanted to have good relations with China
>> America did, supported by > PAKISTAN

America wanted to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan
>> America did, supported by > PAKISTAN

India, Russia, Iran, CAR’s, all Afghan groups against the Taliban
>> Taliban won, supported by > PAKISTAN

American Invasion of Afghanistan vs. Taliban
>> Taliban won, supported by > PAKISTAN

America vs. China
>> To be decided, who will be supported by > PAKISTAN

It seems the only side that keeps winning is the side that is supported by PAKISTAN.

Please add

China vs India in border conflicts
>> China won , supported by Pakistan

In the future war between Pakistan and India
>> Pakistan wins, supported by Allah

K