imperialman
Admiral
Wish these OPs knew where to post their threads.
It was posted by the OP over a decade ago! Seriously though, thank you for the move, it should bring much more frequent contributions!
Wish these OPs knew where to post their threads.
I don't believe it is particularly widespread. I know quite a few people who are avid hunters and gun afficionadoes, but the most 'advanced' non hunting rifle between them all is a rather old hunting shotgun. Despite the impression you may get from the news, most American gun owners don't own automatic weaponry.Americans have access to automatic weapons, no?
It wasn't as though the Cuban Army was particularly powerful though.I mean Fidel castro invaded Cuba with 82 men on a rickety ship. Only 20 of those men survived and they fled up into the mountains - they still managed to defeat the Cuban army .
There is quite a bit of difference between 'extremely hard to defeat' and 'managing to engage the enemy regularly'. The Taliban can do the latter, but I have a hard time believing that an American militant group could do that.It seems to me, if you have a cause people are worth dying for, territory favourable for guerilla warfare and access to some weapons - your extremely hard to defeat.
The Taliban are doing alright so far.
we've chosen to take them on where just about everything that could possibly be stacked in their favour is stacked in their favour, and everything that could be working against us is working against us.
It's hardly surprising that they're taking a very long time about losing.
I'm not so sure if about losing. So far in history every invader had to leave Afghanistan. Recently Russians.
The area that comprises modern Afghanistan was controlled at different times by realms who controlled different regions of her
and often very successfully at than.
Maybe we should invite them to fight in Britain or in Australia, for example? Maybe they will agree?
In an attempt of conquering & holding a small valley of Korengal US forces lost 50 killed only to abandon their positions after several months.
I'm not so sure if about losing. So far in history every invader had to leave Afghanistan. Recently Russians.
They might have controlled the most civilized regions of Afghanistan, but not the entire country - not the Pashtun territories.
That's mostly because Afghanistan as it exists today has never existed before and does not exist in any logical sense - it's a set of lines drawn on a map by British statesmen in the early 20th century. In general, empires until very recently conquered areas based on geography (for example, 'until the Rhine and the Danube' as the Romans) or ethnic groups, so it's almost always been divided between multiple states.
Uh, that's partially right. However there had been an Afghan proto-state since about 1747, when the Durrani Empire was formed. It covered just about the same areas and included the same ethnic groups as Afghanistan today, plus bits and pieces of what is now Iran and Pakistan at various stages. But previously, the Afghan state(s) was based on tribal connections with a sprinkle of Islam to add legitimacy; later it was centred on the rather fragile institution of the Barakzai Monarchy. So Afghanistan is not a British creation; what is a Western import is a European-style nation-state based on a national identity limited by an arbitrary border.
Thanks for that. However, the point stands that it's not a 'proper' country. Even in the times you're pointing out, it has been a confederation of different people rather like Czechoslovakia or Switzerland
a foreign power making an empire out of the area pre-1747 wouldn't have taken over the entire thing because there wasn't a thing to take over.
1747 is very, very young by country standards, besides; apart from America there are very few countries founded so recently which do not exist along pre-existing ethnic or religous lines - excepting, of course, other rather unstable former colonies.
Which is a good point. Then again, some of the newer polyethnic states aren't doing too bad; at least not as badly as Afghanistan. India and Indonesia are the greatest examples; you'd expect them to fall apart fifty years ago. In Africa, Tanzania and Ghana are probably the most well-known examples of polyethnic countries that haven't experienced multiple civil wars.
In an attempt of conquering & holding a small valley of Korengal US forces lost 50 killed only to abandon their positions after several months.
That's not too unusual or neccessarily a bad thing. We maintain FOBs - essentially small fortified camps - where they are useful, where they are needed to maintain security or where they give us good intelligence. If neither of these conditions are being met, we abandon them. This isn't about controlling ground
The difference is NATO isn't an invader;
it's the Taliban who are fighting against Afghanistan.
NATO are helping the government enforce sovereignty over their own country,
In general, empires until very recently conquered areas based on geography (for example, 'until the Rhine and the Danube' as the Romans)