I don't believe it's the only viable tactic. It wasn't the only viable tactic in the early 2000s, when NATO won the war against the Taliban.
Look, I don't accept the war can't be won. But I'll tell you this, it can definitely be lost. The average American or NATO ally citizen doesn't have to worry about the consequences of losing that war. Makes it very easy to write them off. Which people in this thread have been doing.
I don't believe it's the only viable tactic. It wasn't the only viable tactic in the early 2000s, when NATO won the war against the Taliban.
Look, I don't accept the war can't be won. But I'll tell you this, it can definitely be lost. The average American or NATO ally citizen doesn't have to worry about the consequences of losing that war. Makes it very easy to write them off. Which people in this thread have been doing.
Then I submit that there's nothing further to be discussed on this topic, because that's exactly what a lot of other people are saying, and y'all seem unlikely to change each others' minds.
Thousands of civilians are already dying every year due to the war, thousands more are wounded. Thousands of Afghan military personnel also die. It's very nearly 1:1:1 for civilian military and militant deaths, from 2001-2014 roughly 30000 of each were killed
Propping up a government indefinitely also means accepting these casualty counts indefinitely
Thousands of civilians are already dying every year due to the war, thousands more are wounded. Thousands of Afghan military personnel also die. It's very nearly 1:1:1 for civilian military and militant deaths, from 2001-2014 roughly 30000 of each were killed
Propping up a government indefinitely also means accepting these casualty counts indefinitely
The plan would be to improve the situation by reducing civilian and military casualty counts, of course, to the position it has been previously (before improving futher on that). Also in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, there'd be consistent casualty counts due to internal conflict as well, and based on the figures from the last time, probably more, so it's not like it's that or nothing.
To be clear, I am not arguing that staying in Afghanistan will be easy, that people will not die, and that the situation is guaranteed to improve (although one would aim to try). I am arguing that to leave will result in a situation which is much worse than it has been, and therefore it is morally irresponsible to do so just because it's harder to stay involved and from a lingering sense of guilt at invading in the first place. The calculus for me is a comparison between two futures, not an attempt to get a return on previous investments. If the situation would be improved by NATO leaving the whole area alone then I would be 100% for that.
Am I under the delusion that Afghanistan will become a free utopia when we exit? Fuckin no. However military opposition to us won't be the taliban's primary recruiting tool anymore either. Oppressive theocracies are rough, but the only way to stop them from arising in places where they want to rise is genocide.
Our options are:
indefinite occupation, at which point we should desolve their government and treat them as a US territory because that's what it is at that point.
And/Or
Genocide the theocratic menace.
Both of those sound pretty fuckin terrible to me. Is there any solution other than those?
"Rough" is an interesting word to describe the deaths of thousands in the military defeat and overthrow of the government, and then the deaths of thousands more in the immediate aftermath as there are violent reprisals against anyone who is not in line with the new leadership, and the reduction of women in Afghanistan to essentially property status, and the existence of a warlord narcostate, and and and....
Sorry the world's garbage and you can't always murder your way out of it.
So to be clear, you are acknowledging here Solar's vision of what a withdrawal looks like? And that the basic calculus here is just to stop america and it's allies from being involved and that's it?
I think most of us are fairly in line with Solar when it comes to what a withdrawal probably looks like.
We just think it still happens after a forty year occupation
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I don't believe it's the only viable tactic. It wasn't the only viable tactic in the early 2000s, when NATO won the war against the Taliban.
Look, I don't accept the war can't be won. But I'll tell you this, it can definitely be lost. The average American or NATO ally citizen doesn't have to worry about the consequences of losing that war. Makes it very easy to write them off. Which people in this thread have been doing.
1. In 2002 the taliban was more or less surprised by the scale of the assault directed against it and wasn't prepared to deal with sophisticated combined arms tactics and if the US had used the full force of it's military to either forced them to accept terms or taken the time to erradicate them then and there we wouldn't be in this mess. But Bush and company underestimated the resolve, tenacity and innovation of the enemy while Really wanting to go after Saddam so they made the mistake of easing up the pressure.
2. Whether a war can be won is one of the most critical considerations for this conversation.
3. I don't think anyone is simply dismissing the consequences of NATO withdrawing so much as we've reached the conclusion that it's inevitable due to there being no signifigant changes to the conflict that would bring it to a favourable close.
And frankly, fighting in perpetuity in a war that has no path to victory is just a bit insane.
Eggs can neither be unscrambled nor transformed into oranges, if their nature is to be eggs.
A state cannot be imposed - particularly from outside - on people who have no interest in being part of one, and do not consider the state/the government to actually represent them.
(Not unless you're willing and capable of replacing the people with another who are - either by time and education, or eradication and resettlement (the Soviet model).)
1. Yes, and the Taliban lost, and were almost wiped out, and they can be beaten, as we have clearly shown. They were then allowed to regrow due to the lack of focus on keeping the situation stable and improving on it, which was a terrible mistake, and yet that is not a mistake which was inevitable and nor will it necessarily be repeated.
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
Thousands of civilians are already dying every year due to the war, thousands more are wounded. Thousands of Afghan military personnel also die. It's very nearly 1:1:1 for civilian military and militant deaths, from 2001-2014 roughly 30000 of each were killed
Propping up a government indefinitely also means accepting these casualty counts indefinitely
The trouble with liberal military interventionism in general is that it is rarely liberals giving the orders or doing the fighting. Genocide is an option as long as American troops remain, because American domestic politics is increasingly authoritarian and violent. If the next Donald Trump decides the solution to the Afghani Problem involves depopulating the countryside, the difference between being able to execute it or not depends not on liberal goodwill but on whether there are troops on the ground willing and able to carry it out.
I acknowledge there are things that I cannot personally make any meaningful difference in, whether I argue for or against or not at all, and focus on the things I can.
The alternative is insanity and/or suicidal depression. (I do not use hyperbole here.)
1. Yes, and the Taliban lost, and were almost wiped out, and they can be beaten, as we have clearly shown. They were then allowed to regrow due to the lack of focus on keeping the situation stable and improving on it, which was a terrible mistake, and yet that is not a mistake which was inevitable and nor will it necessarily be repeated.
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
This is not, I believe, acceptable.
I'm sure the Soviets thought the same thing, and they had the advantage of sharing a massive border with Afghanistan. Same with the British, who thought they could easily project power from their Indian territories to quell the Afghanis.
The American fallacy is that our technology and military prowess makes the difference, despite having to project force far beyond our borders. The Taliban are making a mockery of this, as they are increasingly consolidating control of the countryside.
Also, the idea that we "almost beat" the Taliban is akin to our certainty that we were almost winning in Vietnam because of our battlefield victories. Ultimately, what happened was that the Taliban had to give up their visible symbols of authority and regroup. They didn't go away, just blended back in the countryside and rethought their tactics.
American troop levels can and ebb and flow, but unless we are willing to re institute the draft and station a whole number percentage of our population in the country indefinitely, we are never going to do more than play whack-a-mole. While we do this, the Taliban consolidates their control over the nation's resources and cash crops, often with the active assistance of our "allies." There's a reason why the Taliban is increasingly using American weapons, night vision equipment, and body armor - they buy it in bulk from the supplies we send our allies.
I acknowledge there are things that I cannot personally make any meaningful difference in, and focus on the things I can.
The alternative is insanity and/or suicidal depression. (I do not use hyperbole here.)
None of us are in a position to make policy on this, we are just posters on an internet discussion thread, and yet here we are, discussing the topic! I do not expect to have an impact but I will still argue for what I believe to be right and against what I believe to be wrong, just like the rest of us. My argument is that the situation in Afghanistan is caused by a lack of willingness to focus on achieving a victory, that calling it an unwinnable war is a convenient excuse for not fighting it anymore and then not feeling bad about what happens next, and that the consequences of pulling out are worse than the consequences of staying in, even if we would rather just wash our hands of the 17 year old affair.
The issue I have Solar, and I think the real point of contention here is that you are justifiably concerned for the well being of the Afghan people but you aren't actually offering up any real alternatives beyond "just stay until you win" which isn't going to happen; the taliban have adapted to NATOs tactics and effectively fights there war by refusing to provide an actual target to shoot at while the government in Kabul is equal parts corrupt and flaccid.
So again: How do you see victory occuring and when?
1. Yes, and the Taliban lost, and were almost wiped out, and they can be beaten, as we have clearly shown. They were then allowed to regrow due to the lack of focus on keeping the situation stable and improving on it, which was a terrible mistake, and yet that is not a mistake which was inevitable and nor will it necessarily be repeated.
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
This is not, I believe, acceptable.
I'm sure the Soviets thought the same thing, and they had the advantage of sharing a massive border with Afghanistan. Same with the British, who thought they could easily project power from their Indian territories to quell the Afghanis.
The American fallacy is that our technology and military prowess makes the difference, despite having to project force far beyond our borders. The Taliban are making a mockery of this, as they are increasingly consolidating control of the countryside.
Also, the idea that we "almost beat" the Taliban is akin to our certainty that we were almost winning in Vietnam because of our battlefield victories. Ultimately, what happened was that the Taliban had to give up their visible symbols of authority and regroup. They didn't go away, just blended back in the countryside and rethought their tactics.
American troop levels can and ebb and flow, but unless we are willing to re institute the draft and station a whole number percentage of our population in the country indefinitely, we are never going to do more than play whack-a-mole. While we do this, the Taliban consolidates their control over the nation's resources and cash crops, often with the active assistance of our "allies." There's a reason why the Taliban is increasingly using American weapons, night vision equipment, and body armor - they buy it in bulk from the supplies we send our allies.
NATO would not need the draft to put half a million troops in Afghanistan, and that would defeat the Taliban and restore security to the country.
They just don't want to do it because it's too expensive.
But they could if they genuinely wanted to win the war. And they do want to win the war! They just don't want it that much. But it isn't unwinnable. It's just not winnable within the cost margins we consider to be acceptable for preserving a semblance of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. And therefore I object to the idea that it is not winnable pretty strenuously, because that's a cheap excuse. It's not been won, so far, but that is not the same.
The issue I have Solar, and I think the real point of contention here is that you are justifiably concerned for the well being of the Afghan people but you aren't actually offering up any real alternatives beyond "just stay until you win" which isn't going to happen; the taliban have adapted to NATOs tactics and effectively fights there war by refusing to provide an actual target to shoot at while the government in Kabul is equal parts corrupt and flaccid.
So again: How do you see victory occuring and when?
The Taliban increasingly holds the regions of the nation that are profitable. Opium and mineral extraction operations stay in business because they are either directly controlled or pay tribute to the Taliban.
That's the war done. The government exists only so much as the Coalition forces support it with arms and financial support. The actual productive capacity of the nation is in the hands of what probably shouldn't even be called the insurgency at this point, but the de facto government.
What this means is that the Taliban can continue to support themselves while the government exists only at the sufferance of the occupying powers. The Taliban doesn't even need to maintain supply routes for arms and munitions, because they can just buy our gear from our ostensible allies. We can't even protect our own generals, at this point, since even the Afghani government forces who aren't secretly working for the Taliban are willing to sell intelligence about our location and plans.
And that's where we are right now. We've lost, but we have the money and men to keep pretending we didn't indefinitely.
1. Yes, and the Taliban lost, and were almost wiped out, and they can be beaten, as we have clearly shown. They were then allowed to regrow due to the lack of focus on keeping the situation stable and improving on it, which was a terrible mistake, and yet that is not a mistake which was inevitable and nor will it necessarily be repeated.
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
This is not, I believe, acceptable.
I'm sure the Soviets thought the same thing, and they had the advantage of sharing a massive border with Afghanistan. Same with the British, who thought they could easily project power from their Indian territories to quell the Afghanis.
The American fallacy is that our technology and military prowess makes the difference, despite having to project force far beyond our borders. The Taliban are making a mockery of this, as they are increasingly consolidating control of the countryside.
Also, the idea that we "almost beat" the Taliban is akin to our certainty that we were almost winning in Vietnam because of our battlefield victories. Ultimately, what happened was that the Taliban had to give up their visible symbols of authority and regroup. They didn't go away, just blended back in the countryside and rethought their tactics.
American troop levels can and ebb and flow, but unless we are willing to re institute the draft and station a whole number percentage of our population in the country indefinitely, we are never going to do more than play whack-a-mole. While we do this, the Taliban consolidates their control over the nation's resources and cash crops, often with the active assistance of our "allies." There's a reason why the Taliban is increasingly using American weapons, night vision equipment, and body armor - they buy it in bulk from the supplies we send our allies.
NATO would not need the draft to put half a million troops in Afghanistan, and that would defeat the Taliban and restore security to the country.
They just don't want to do it because it's too expensive.
But they could if they genuinely wanted to win the war. And they do want to win the war! They just don't want it that much. But it isn't unwinnable. It's just not winnable within the cost margins we consider to be acceptable for preserving a semblance of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. And therefore I object to the idea that it is not winnable pretty strenuously, because that's a cheap excuse. It's not been won, so far, but that is not the same.
Would it? Or would the Taliban just hunker down across the border until everyone left?
The issue I have Solar, and I think the real point of contention here is that you are justifiably concerned for the well being of the Afghan people but you aren't actually offering up any real alternatives beyond "just stay until you win" which isn't going to happen; the taliban have adapted to NATOs tactics and effectively fights there war by refusing to provide an actual target to shoot at while the government in Kabul is equal parts corrupt and flaccid.
So again: How do you see victory occuring and when?
Increased oversight on the expenditure of financial aid to the government of Afghanistan in order to reduce corruption and audit ethical and moral responsibility. The government needs to be held to account more; if it is to be propped up then propping it up comes with more involvement in how it does it's business in order to improve the situation on the ground going forward.
Increased presence of NATO troops on the ground engaging directly with Taliban forces, rather than mostly just providing advisory and air support, with ground forces basically pulling the ANA's backside out of the fire when it goes to shit. Like, a lot more ground troops. I think this is key, the Afghan military won't beat the Taliban but the Taliban are not some sort of mythical guerilla warriors that can't be taken out. They can. They very much have been in the past. But I think a major expeditionary presence is required. The Taliban do control areas that are critical to their funding, but they took those areas and they can be taken back.
An acceptance of Pakistan's role in the support for the Taliban and the implementation of policies intended to cut off that support. This is an area in which I am not certain of what can be done but I believe that policy could be drawn up by experts and I have heard comments saying such in the past from people more in the know than I. Actually treating the Taliban as a Pakistani intelligence agency funded proxy force rather than knowing it but not really wanting to do anything with that would probably help.
1. Yes, and the Taliban lost, and were almost wiped out, and they can be beaten, as we have clearly shown. They were then allowed to regrow due to the lack of focus on keeping the situation stable and improving on it, which was a terrible mistake, and yet that is not a mistake which was inevitable and nor will it necessarily be repeated.
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
This is not, I believe, acceptable.
I'm sure the Soviets thought the same thing, and they had the advantage of sharing a massive border with Afghanistan. Same with the British, who thought they could easily project power from their Indian territories to quell the Afghanis.
The American fallacy is that our technology and military prowess makes the difference, despite having to project force far beyond our borders. The Taliban are making a mockery of this, as they are increasingly consolidating control of the countryside.
Also, the idea that we "almost beat" the Taliban is akin to our certainty that we were almost winning in Vietnam because of our battlefield victories. Ultimately, what happened was that the Taliban had to give up their visible symbols of authority and regroup. They didn't go away, just blended back in the countryside and rethought their tactics.
American troop levels can and ebb and flow, but unless we are willing to re institute the draft and station a whole number percentage of our population in the country indefinitely, we are never going to do more than play whack-a-mole. While we do this, the Taliban consolidates their control over the nation's resources and cash crops, often with the active assistance of our "allies." There's a reason why the Taliban is increasingly using American weapons, night vision equipment, and body armor - they buy it in bulk from the supplies we send our allies.
NATO would not need the draft to put half a million troops in Afghanistan, and that would defeat the Taliban and restore security to the country.
They just don't want to do it because it's too expensive.
But they could if they genuinely wanted to win the war. And they do want to win the war! They just don't want it that much. But it isn't unwinnable. It's just not winnable within the cost margins we consider to be acceptable for preserving a semblance of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. And therefore I object to the idea that it is not winnable pretty strenuously, because that's a cheap excuse. It's not been won, so far, but that is not the same.
Would it? Or would the Taliban just hunker down across the border until everyone left?
They don't even have to go across the border. They can just do what the North Vietnamese did and hide their guns while they blend in with the rest of the population.
After the intelligence clusterfuck of the early parts of the war where we rounded up a ton of randos due to our allies realizing they could tell the CIA that their hated neighbor was Taliban and pocket the reward money, Coalition forces realized that they cannot even reliably identity and arrest members of the insurgency.
"The war could be won if we completely eliminate and/or replace all the current actors with ones who will allow us to win it."
Yes, that's true. But we might as well be talking about a perfectly flat Afghanistan in the center of an infinite plane, with evenly distributed population, and perfectly spherical Taliban.
How about we focus on little things like, oh, replacing our own corrupt government, and getting rid of our violent right-wing fundamentalist militias? The mote in your brother's eye, and all that.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
1. Yes, and the Taliban lost, and were almost wiped out, and they can be beaten, as we have clearly shown. They were then allowed to regrow due to the lack of focus on keeping the situation stable and improving on it, which was a terrible mistake, and yet that is not a mistake which was inevitable and nor will it necessarily be repeated.
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
This is not, I believe, acceptable.
I'm sure the Soviets thought the same thing, and they had the advantage of sharing a massive border with Afghanistan. Same with the British, who thought they could easily project power from their Indian territories to quell the Afghanis.
The American fallacy is that our technology and military prowess makes the difference, despite having to project force far beyond our borders. The Taliban are making a mockery of this, as they are increasingly consolidating control of the countryside.
Also, the idea that we "almost beat" the Taliban is akin to our certainty that we were almost winning in Vietnam because of our battlefield victories. Ultimately, what happened was that the Taliban had to give up their visible symbols of authority and regroup. They didn't go away, just blended back in the countryside and rethought their tactics.
American troop levels can and ebb and flow, but unless we are willing to re institute the draft and station a whole number percentage of our population in the country indefinitely, we are never going to do more than play whack-a-mole. While we do this, the Taliban consolidates their control over the nation's resources and cash crops, often with the active assistance of our "allies." There's a reason why the Taliban is increasingly using American weapons, night vision equipment, and body armor - they buy it in bulk from the supplies we send our allies.
NATO would not need the draft to put half a million troops in Afghanistan, and that would defeat the Taliban and restore security to the country.
They just don't want to do it because it's too expensive.
But they could if they genuinely wanted to win the war. And they do want to win the war! They just don't want it that much. But it isn't unwinnable. It's just not winnable within the cost margins we consider to be acceptable for preserving a semblance of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. And therefore I object to the idea that it is not winnable pretty strenuously, because that's a cheap excuse. It's not been won, so far, but that is not the same.
If Americans won't do what it would take to win a war, then said war is unwinnable for Americans.
Neither I nor anybody here has the power to change that. Nobody's arguing that America doesn't have the capacity to win the war, if they wanted. There are only about 35 million Afghans. The US could draft the entire state of California, assign 1 Californian to each Afghan, and have them followed around for their entire lives. But that's not going to happen, and so there's no real point in calling the war "winnable" in that sense. Capacity means nothing* if you're not willing to use it.
What people are willing to do is part of the analysis of what will happen in the future. You can't just expect us to ignore the fact that the Americans will not do what it will take to win in Afghanistan.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
Maybe if you only look at the first X months. In the long run though?
"The war could be won if we completely eliminate and/or replace all the actors with ones who will allow us to win it."
How about we focus on little things like, oh, replacing our own corrupt government, and getting rid of our violent right-wing fundamentalist militias? The mote in your brother's eye, and all that.
Why not both? This isn't a zero sum game, and NATO is the most powerful military alliance that the world has ever seen. But again, this isn't saying it's unwinnable. This is saying that winning it is too expensive, too hard, the cost is too much and the voters don't like it. And I don't think you get to invade a country, install a regime, prop it up, and then seventeen years later say "nah it's too expensive for us to keep on trying" and get away with it without being dragged through the mud.
Or if you do, don't pretend that it is anything other than exactly that, like that you couldn't have won so why get into a sunk cost fallacy scenario? Yeah, we could have won. We could have! And we didn't, and now we are telling ourselves that's because we can't so let's just go and not watch the horror unfolding on the news tomorrow.
And that is morally repugnant to me. I dunno about anyone else but that is not... I cannot see people advocating that and not challenge it.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
Maybe if you only look at the first X months. In the long run though?
Hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan died violently during a few years of Taliban rule
If you can argue successfully that won't happen again then, well, I'm listening! But the evidence doesn't suggest that.
A proper “humanitarian” occupation would involve many more soldiers (like orders of magnitude more) and attendant money and materiel, a ground level pacification of the country and installation/maintenance of a government we find tolerable. Basically the “solution” is old timey British colonialism, only that’s politically untenable and we literally don’t have enough men under arms to do it even if it weren’t.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
EDIT: on second thought, I'm going to take my own advice from further up the page, and spend my own time and attention on something more productive and enjoyable.
Apologies to all for my part in continuing the pointless debate.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
The basic flaw in your reasoning is the idea that a permanent war is somehow more humane than a government led by the Taliban. In actuality, the data suggests the opposite. As hard a pill as it is to swallow, the actual humanitarian approach would be to let the Taliban win and use the carrot and stick of legitimacy and foreign aid to moderate their governance. Even that isn't a guarantee (see North Korea), but then again it is still better to be a North Korean citizen under the Kims than it was to be one during the height of the Korean War.
That's especially true in a region where the flows of authority are through tribal power structures. The Taliban is not going to institute a Western-style totalitarian dystopia. They are going to seize the cities, manage the poppy fields, and largely deal with the populace through tribal intermediaries (much like we do today). That alone is going to lessen civilian casualties.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
Maybe if you only look at the first X months. In the long run though?
Hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan died violently during a few years of Taliban rule
If you can argue successfully that won't happen again then, well, I'm listening! But the evidence doesn't suggest that.
Indefinite occupation just adds more bodies to that count by pushing it back. So I'm waiting for you to argue that you're proposing anything more than delaying the purges with blood.
"The war could be won if we completely eliminate and/or replace all the current actors with ones who will allow us to win it."
Yes, that's true. But we might as well be talking about a perfectly flat Afghanistan in the center of an infinite plane, with evenly distributed population, and perfectly spherical Taliban.
How about we focus on little things like, oh, replacing our own corrupt government, and getting rid of our violent right-wing fundamentalist militias? The mote in your brother's eye, and all that.
This is just whataboutism though, which might as well be the rallying cry for isolationism which swept the current president to power.
A better question is why NATO seems so bad at keeping corrupt governments from infesting its democratic experiments. Cronyism and corruption in NATO-backed governments is certainly an issue (the stories of the Brennan administration over Iraq are telling), but it also certainly seems like there's not a lot of real thought being given to the problems of transplanting democracy wholesale into environments it's not existed before - and the US tends to act somewhat desperate to chock up it's win even when you have petty power plays like Hamid Karzai forcing US generals to wait on his schedule (and them having to because the political directive is "cooperate").
What I'm saying is that you're envisioning a situation where we can "win", one which is different from where we are now in every respect, and arguing that we can get from here to there - as a practical matter, with no supernatural intervention.
Others do not agree this is possible, and the argument that "but it has to be, because otherwise all this is wrong" is not convincing.
That isn't my argument.
And also NATO put hundreds of thousand of troops into Afghanistan after 9/11, when it mattered to everyone. It was done, it can be done again. It's not a magical faerie land wish, it's a capability which NATO explicitly retains. The problems are numerous but one of them is apathy, nobody cares, nobody wants to be there any more, and nobody really is that bothered if we aren't. And that's not an insurmountable issue. Public opinion can change. Government policy can change. The money is there, the troops are there, the policy can be drafted, the politicians need to make the argument and win the argument.
I don't believe it's the only viable tactic. It wasn't the only viable tactic in the early 2000s, when NATO won the war against the Taliban.
Look, I don't accept the war can't be won. But I'll tell you this, it can definitely be lost. The average American or NATO ally citizen doesn't have to worry about the consequences of losing that war. Makes it very easy to write them off. Which people in this thread have been doing.
NATO did not win the war against the Taliban in the 2000s. If they had we would not be still fighting them.
If we go in with a half a million troops were going to depopulate the hinterlands. This is because there is no way to differentiate between a Taliban and a secularist. Their houses look the same, the guns they carry for personal protection look the same, their clothes look the same.
We can have their people on the ground tell us but that just piles on more bodies and not many of them are likely to be Taliban.
I mean we’re talking like, socialize a few generations of people under a vaguely western government, eventually graduate them to home rule and hope the emergent leadership is more Ghandi than Bose. Even dismissing all the troubling political/social/racial issues, it’s deeply impractical.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
The basic flaw in your reasoning is the idea that a permanent war is somehow more humane than a government led by the Taliban. In actuality, the data suggests the opposite. As hard a pill as it is to swallow, the actual humanitarian approach would be to let the Taliban win and use the carrot and stick of legitimacy and foreign aid to moderate their governance. Even that isn't a guarantee (see North Korea), but then again it is still better to be a North Korean citizen under the Kims than it was to be one during the height of the Korean War.
That's especially true in a region where the flows of authority are through tribal power structures. The Taliban is not going to institute a Western-style totalitarian dystopia. They are going to seize the cities, manage the poppy fields, and largely deal with the populace through tribal intermediaries (much like we do today). That alone is going to lessen civilian casualties.
I find the suggestion that letting the Taliban win is the most humanitarian solution to be vaguely repulsive, I have to say. Which is not to say that I do not understand your point and I'm not suggesting that you support the Taliban even remotely, but I do not believe that letting them win is in any way excuseable.
In any case my argument is not to try to continue the status quo but rather to try to win, and give the people of Afghanistan what they deserve, a place to live their lives freely and safely.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
Maybe if you only look at the first X months. In the long run though?
Hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan died violently during a few years of Taliban rule
If you can argue successfully that won't happen again then, well, I'm listening! But the evidence doesn't suggest that.
Wait, what? I'm Googling around as fast as I can, but I cannot find a cite for that magnitude of casualties under the Taliban. The conflict from the Soviet era to the Taliban rule, yes. The death toll from landmines apparently has gotten in the hundreds of thousands range, as well. The death toll from the start of the American intervention is also above 100k.
But for the Taliban themselves? I can find stories of ethnic cleansing, multiple massacres, but nothing that gets up to that range. Considering the level of propaganda around the war, I should be able to find references of multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Taliban easily. Keep in mind that American estimates of active Taliban combatants at the start of the war were around 15,000 (70,000 now).
I don't believe it's the only viable tactic. It wasn't the only viable tactic in the early 2000s, when NATO won the war against the Taliban.
Look, I don't accept the war can't be won. But I'll tell you this, it can definitely be lost. The average American or NATO ally citizen doesn't have to worry about the consequences of losing that war. Makes it very easy to write them off. Which people in this thread have been doing.
NATO did not win the war against the Taliban in the 2000s. If they had we would not be still fighting them.
If we go in with a half a million troops were going to depopulate the hinterlands. This is because there is no way to differentiate between a Taliban and a secularist. Their houses look the same, the guns they carry for personal protection look the same, their clothes look the same.
We can have their people on the ground tell us but that just piles on more bodies and not many of them are likely to be Taliban.
Looking at it from a purely military "kill the enemy" perspective sure? But it's not like the Taliban has that much internal structure. Break up their networks, force them to blend into the population for long enough and how many likely become regular citizens again? If there are regions where it's actually possible to live your life in peace (or at least, be associated with a local stable government and not murdered for it), then do people keep joining the Taliban or not?
Because Taliban recruitment isn't, I suspect, a particularly voluntary "fight the oppressors" sort of deal all the time.
And I would also say; while I will not pretend that any policies based around staying will guarantee victory, I absolutely believe that the alternative given here, i.e pulling out, will still be worse.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
The basic flaw in your reasoning is the idea that a permanent war is somehow more humane than a government led by the Taliban. In actuality, the data suggests the opposite. As hard a pill as it is to swallow, the actual humanitarian approach would be to let the Taliban win and use the carrot and stick of legitimacy and foreign aid to moderate their governance. Even that isn't a guarantee (see North Korea), but then again it is still better to be a North Korean citizen under the Kims than it was to be one during the height of the Korean War.
That's especially true in a region where the flows of authority are through tribal power structures. The Taliban is not going to institute a Western-style totalitarian dystopia. They are going to seize the cities, manage the poppy fields, and largely deal with the populace through tribal intermediaries (much like we do today). That alone is going to lessen civilian casualties.
I find the suggestion that letting the Taliban win is the most humanitarian solution to be vaguely repulsive, I have to say. Which is not to say that I do not understand your point and I'm not suggesting that you support the Taliban even remotely, but I do not believe that letting them win is in any way excuseable.
In any case my argument is not to try to continue the status quo but rather to try to win, and give the people of Afghanistan what they deserve, a place to live their lives freely and safely.
If the evidence says your intervention harms more than it helps, and you continue on because of how it makes you feel to admit failure, then I do not think you are actually operating from a moral perspective.
Posts
Look, I don't accept the war can't be won. But I'll tell you this, it can definitely be lost. The average American or NATO ally citizen doesn't have to worry about the consequences of losing that war. Makes it very easy to write them off. Which people in this thread have been doing.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Then I submit that there's nothing further to be discussed on this topic, because that's exactly what a lot of other people are saying, and y'all seem unlikely to change each others' minds.
Anyone got a new subject?
Propping up a government indefinitely also means accepting these casualty counts indefinitely
The plan would be to improve the situation by reducing civilian and military casualty counts, of course, to the position it has been previously (before improving futher on that). Also in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, there'd be consistent casualty counts due to internal conflict as well, and based on the figures from the last time, probably more, so it's not like it's that or nothing.
To be clear, I am not arguing that staying in Afghanistan will be easy, that people will not die, and that the situation is guaranteed to improve (although one would aim to try). I am arguing that to leave will result in a situation which is much worse than it has been, and therefore it is morally irresponsible to do so just because it's harder to stay involved and from a lingering sense of guilt at invading in the first place. The calculus for me is a comparison between two futures, not an attempt to get a return on previous investments. If the situation would be improved by NATO leaving the whole area alone then I would be 100% for that.
I think most of us are fairly in line with Solar when it comes to what a withdrawal probably looks like.
We just think it still happens after a forty year occupation
Come Overwatch with meeeee
1. In 2002 the taliban was more or less surprised by the scale of the assault directed against it and wasn't prepared to deal with sophisticated combined arms tactics and if the US had used the full force of it's military to either forced them to accept terms or taken the time to erradicate them then and there we wouldn't be in this mess. But Bush and company underestimated the resolve, tenacity and innovation of the enemy while Really wanting to go after Saddam so they made the mistake of easing up the pressure.
2. Whether a war can be won is one of the most critical considerations for this conversation.
3. I don't think anyone is simply dismissing the consequences of NATO withdrawing so much as we've reached the conclusion that it's inevitable due to there being no signifigant changes to the conflict that would bring it to a favourable close.
And frankly, fighting in perpetuity in a war that has no path to victory is just a bit insane.
A state cannot be imposed - particularly from outside - on people who have no interest in being part of one, and do not consider the state/the government to actually represent them.
(Not unless you're willing and capable of replacing the people with another who are - either by time and education, or eradication and resettlement (the Soviet model).)
2. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I think it can. I don't believe that the Taliban are so capable that they can't be defeated as long as they are combated in the correct way, as is shown by their previous defeat almost to the point of total non-existence.
3. I think that the fact it has been considered inevitable is in part due to a desire to not be there, it is convenient that a war that people do not want to fight cannot be won. If the same thing was happening in, say, California I do not believe it would be considered unwinnable or loss inevitable.
Fighting a war in perpetuity is by no means desirable but the alternative is not "and therefore there is no war, and peace reigns." Also the idea is not to fight the war in perpetuity, the idea is to win, with the caveat that we are a long way from winning and it may take a long time to get there.
I do not believe that if NATO was genuinely focused on victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban that it could not win that war; I believe that the political will and broad support needed to make that focus work is not currently there and I believe that this is in part because none of us need to worry about what will happen in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban roll in and take over. Essentially; lack of concern over the consequences of losing a war we started has allowed us to lose it, and losing it has allowed us to believe it is unwinnable and therefore it is morally excusable to withdraw and therefore our honour is saved when we do so, even when the images of what happens next comes in we will be able to console ourselves with the warming thought that nothing could be done, when it fact, we were just unprepared to actually do what could be done because we were distracted by other things.
This is not, I believe, acceptable.
The trouble with liberal military interventionism in general is that it is rarely liberals giving the orders or doing the fighting. Genocide is an option as long as American troops remain, because American domestic politics is increasingly authoritarian and violent. If the next Donald Trump decides the solution to the Afghani Problem involves depopulating the countryside, the difference between being able to execute it or not depends not on liberal goodwill but on whether there are troops on the ground willing and able to carry it out.
Here's a broom. There's the surf. Get to sweeping.
Right but do you argue for those things to happen? Or do you argue against them?
The alternative is insanity and/or suicidal depression. (I do not use hyperbole here.)
I'm sure the Soviets thought the same thing, and they had the advantage of sharing a massive border with Afghanistan. Same with the British, who thought they could easily project power from their Indian territories to quell the Afghanis.
The American fallacy is that our technology and military prowess makes the difference, despite having to project force far beyond our borders. The Taliban are making a mockery of this, as they are increasingly consolidating control of the countryside.
Also, the idea that we "almost beat" the Taliban is akin to our certainty that we were almost winning in Vietnam because of our battlefield victories. Ultimately, what happened was that the Taliban had to give up their visible symbols of authority and regroup. They didn't go away, just blended back in the countryside and rethought their tactics.
American troop levels can and ebb and flow, but unless we are willing to re institute the draft and station a whole number percentage of our population in the country indefinitely, we are never going to do more than play whack-a-mole. While we do this, the Taliban consolidates their control over the nation's resources and cash crops, often with the active assistance of our "allies." There's a reason why the Taliban is increasingly using American weapons, night vision equipment, and body armor - they buy it in bulk from the supplies we send our allies.
None of us are in a position to make policy on this, we are just posters on an internet discussion thread, and yet here we are, discussing the topic! I do not expect to have an impact but I will still argue for what I believe to be right and against what I believe to be wrong, just like the rest of us. My argument is that the situation in Afghanistan is caused by a lack of willingness to focus on achieving a victory, that calling it an unwinnable war is a convenient excuse for not fighting it anymore and then not feeling bad about what happens next, and that the consequences of pulling out are worse than the consequences of staying in, even if we would rather just wash our hands of the 17 year old affair.
So again: How do you see victory occuring and when?
NATO would not need the draft to put half a million troops in Afghanistan, and that would defeat the Taliban and restore security to the country.
They just don't want to do it because it's too expensive.
But they could if they genuinely wanted to win the war. And they do want to win the war! They just don't want it that much. But it isn't unwinnable. It's just not winnable within the cost margins we consider to be acceptable for preserving a semblance of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. And therefore I object to the idea that it is not winnable pretty strenuously, because that's a cheap excuse. It's not been won, so far, but that is not the same.
The Taliban increasingly holds the regions of the nation that are profitable. Opium and mineral extraction operations stay in business because they are either directly controlled or pay tribute to the Taliban.
That's the war done. The government exists only so much as the Coalition forces support it with arms and financial support. The actual productive capacity of the nation is in the hands of what probably shouldn't even be called the insurgency at this point, but the de facto government.
What this means is that the Taliban can continue to support themselves while the government exists only at the sufferance of the occupying powers. The Taliban doesn't even need to maintain supply routes for arms and munitions, because they can just buy our gear from our ostensible allies. We can't even protect our own generals, at this point, since even the Afghani government forces who aren't secretly working for the Taliban are willing to sell intelligence about our location and plans.
And that's where we are right now. We've lost, but we have the money and men to keep pretending we didn't indefinitely.
Would it? Or would the Taliban just hunker down across the border until everyone left?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Increased oversight on the expenditure of financial aid to the government of Afghanistan in order to reduce corruption and audit ethical and moral responsibility. The government needs to be held to account more; if it is to be propped up then propping it up comes with more involvement in how it does it's business in order to improve the situation on the ground going forward.
Increased presence of NATO troops on the ground engaging directly with Taliban forces, rather than mostly just providing advisory and air support, with ground forces basically pulling the ANA's backside out of the fire when it goes to shit. Like, a lot more ground troops. I think this is key, the Afghan military won't beat the Taliban but the Taliban are not some sort of mythical guerilla warriors that can't be taken out. They can. They very much have been in the past. But I think a major expeditionary presence is required. The Taliban do control areas that are critical to their funding, but they took those areas and they can be taken back.
An acceptance of Pakistan's role in the support for the Taliban and the implementation of policies intended to cut off that support. This is an area in which I am not certain of what can be done but I believe that policy could be drawn up by experts and I have heard comments saying such in the past from people more in the know than I. Actually treating the Taliban as a Pakistani intelligence agency funded proxy force rather than knowing it but not really wanting to do anything with that would probably help.
They don't even have to go across the border. They can just do what the North Vietnamese did and hide their guns while they blend in with the rest of the population.
After the intelligence clusterfuck of the early parts of the war where we rounded up a ton of randos due to our allies realizing they could tell the CIA that their hated neighbor was Taliban and pocket the reward money, Coalition forces realized that they cannot even reliably identity and arrest members of the insurgency.
Yes, that's true. But we might as well be talking about a perfectly flat Afghanistan in the center of an infinite plane, with evenly distributed population, and perfectly spherical Taliban.
How about we focus on little things like, oh, replacing our own corrupt government, and getting rid of our violent right-wing fundamentalist militias? The mote in your brother's eye, and all that.
I'm arguing from the position that policy can be enacted that will improve the situation, and you're saying "it won't improve, it'll be just as bad as it is now!"
To which I say, maybe, maybe not. But the way it is now is still better than the consequences of leaving.
If Americans won't do what it would take to win a war, then said war is unwinnable for Americans.
Neither I nor anybody here has the power to change that. Nobody's arguing that America doesn't have the capacity to win the war, if they wanted. There are only about 35 million Afghans. The US could draft the entire state of California, assign 1 Californian to each Afghan, and have them followed around for their entire lives. But that's not going to happen, and so there's no real point in calling the war "winnable" in that sense. Capacity means nothing* if you're not willing to use it.
What people are willing to do is part of the analysis of what will happen in the future. You can't just expect us to ignore the fact that the Americans will not do what it will take to win in Afghanistan.
* Or almost nothing. Deterrence counts.
Maybe if you only look at the first X months. In the long run though?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Why not both? This isn't a zero sum game, and NATO is the most powerful military alliance that the world has ever seen. But again, this isn't saying it's unwinnable. This is saying that winning it is too expensive, too hard, the cost is too much and the voters don't like it. And I don't think you get to invade a country, install a regime, prop it up, and then seventeen years later say "nah it's too expensive for us to keep on trying" and get away with it without being dragged through the mud.
Or if you do, don't pretend that it is anything other than exactly that, like that you couldn't have won so why get into a sunk cost fallacy scenario? Yeah, we could have won. We could have! And we didn't, and now we are telling ourselves that's because we can't so let's just go and not watch the horror unfolding on the news tomorrow.
And that is morally repugnant to me. I dunno about anyone else but that is not... I cannot see people advocating that and not challenge it.
Hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan died violently during a few years of Taliban rule
If you can argue successfully that won't happen again then, well, I'm listening! But the evidence doesn't suggest that.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Apologies to all for my part in continuing the pointless debate.
No, you cannot guarantee that. The reason you cannot is that there is ample evidence that external support of a side in an armed conflict increases casualties. This paper goes so far to say that even non-military financial support focused on a single side increases the casualties by 40 percent.
The basic flaw in your reasoning is the idea that a permanent war is somehow more humane than a government led by the Taliban. In actuality, the data suggests the opposite. As hard a pill as it is to swallow, the actual humanitarian approach would be to let the Taliban win and use the carrot and stick of legitimacy and foreign aid to moderate their governance. Even that isn't a guarantee (see North Korea), but then again it is still better to be a North Korean citizen under the Kims than it was to be one during the height of the Korean War.
That's especially true in a region where the flows of authority are through tribal power structures. The Taliban is not going to institute a Western-style totalitarian dystopia. They are going to seize the cities, manage the poppy fields, and largely deal with the populace through tribal intermediaries (much like we do today). That alone is going to lessen civilian casualties.
Indefinite occupation just adds more bodies to that count by pushing it back. So I'm waiting for you to argue that you're proposing anything more than delaying the purges with blood.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This is just whataboutism though, which might as well be the rallying cry for isolationism which swept the current president to power.
A better question is why NATO seems so bad at keeping corrupt governments from infesting its democratic experiments. Cronyism and corruption in NATO-backed governments is certainly an issue (the stories of the Brennan administration over Iraq are telling), but it also certainly seems like there's not a lot of real thought being given to the problems of transplanting democracy wholesale into environments it's not existed before - and the US tends to act somewhat desperate to chock up it's win even when you have petty power plays like Hamid Karzai forcing US generals to wait on his schedule (and them having to because the political directive is "cooperate").
That isn't my argument.
And also NATO put hundreds of thousand of troops into Afghanistan after 9/11, when it mattered to everyone. It was done, it can be done again. It's not a magical faerie land wish, it's a capability which NATO explicitly retains. The problems are numerous but one of them is apathy, nobody cares, nobody wants to be there any more, and nobody really is that bothered if we aren't. And that's not an insurmountable issue. Public opinion can change. Government policy can change. The money is there, the troops are there, the policy can be drafted, the politicians need to make the argument and win the argument.
NATO did not win the war against the Taliban in the 2000s. If they had we would not be still fighting them.
If we go in with a half a million troops were going to depopulate the hinterlands. This is because there is no way to differentiate between a Taliban and a secularist. Their houses look the same, the guns they carry for personal protection look the same, their clothes look the same.
We can have their people on the ground tell us but that just piles on more bodies and not many of them are likely to be Taliban.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I find the suggestion that letting the Taliban win is the most humanitarian solution to be vaguely repulsive, I have to say. Which is not to say that I do not understand your point and I'm not suggesting that you support the Taliban even remotely, but I do not believe that letting them win is in any way excuseable.
In any case my argument is not to try to continue the status quo but rather to try to win, and give the people of Afghanistan what they deserve, a place to live their lives freely and safely.
Wait, what? I'm Googling around as fast as I can, but I cannot find a cite for that magnitude of casualties under the Taliban. The conflict from the Soviet era to the Taliban rule, yes. The death toll from landmines apparently has gotten in the hundreds of thousands range, as well. The death toll from the start of the American intervention is also above 100k.
But for the Taliban themselves? I can find stories of ethnic cleansing, multiple massacres, but nothing that gets up to that range. Considering the level of propaganda around the war, I should be able to find references of multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Taliban easily. Keep in mind that American estimates of active Taliban combatants at the start of the war were around 15,000 (70,000 now).
The BBC, on the other hand, suggests that the civilian casualties now are the highest they have been since the war started.
Looking at it from a purely military "kill the enemy" perspective sure? But it's not like the Taliban has that much internal structure. Break up their networks, force them to blend into the population for long enough and how many likely become regular citizens again? If there are regions where it's actually possible to live your life in peace (or at least, be associated with a local stable government and not murdered for it), then do people keep joining the Taliban or not?
Because Taliban recruitment isn't, I suspect, a particularly voluntary "fight the oppressors" sort of deal all the time.
If the evidence says your intervention harms more than it helps, and you continue on because of how it makes you feel to admit failure, then I do not think you are actually operating from a moral perspective.
Plus, you know, we can’t “break up their networks”