America has been Defeated in Afganistan

[Farm Boy]

Well, by way of example I think the lesson learned is merely gtfo.

 

[Ajidica]

My point was more as regards the different approach by the Dutch military during ground operations in Afghanistan, by way of example.

I wasn't aware the Dutch military conducted any significant ground operations in Afghanistan.

 

[Agent327]

They were trying to establish a zone of control in Kunduz (northern province) until their agreed withdrawal and takeover by US forces.

Well, by way of example I think the lesson learned is merely gtfo.

I guess that's the plan now.

 

[Mouthwash]

This article is not long, it is worth reading before you reply please (Scroll down to find it)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/31/afghanistan-the-smell-of-defeat/

Afghanistan: the Smell of Defeat​

by MIKE WHITNEY

Spoiler :

Not so fast, George.

The United States hasn’t liberated Afghanistan. It hasn’t rebuilt Afghanistan. It hasn’t removed the warlords from power, curtailed opium production, established strong democratic institutions, or improved life for ordinary working people. The US hasn’t achieved any of its strategic objectives. The Taliban are stronger than ever, the central government is a corrupt farce, and, after 11 years of war, the country is in a shambles.

This is what defeat looks like. The US military has been defeated by a poorly-armed militia which has demonstrated a superior grasp of modern warfare and asymmetric engagement. The Taliban has shown that they are more adaptable, more motivated, and smarter. That’s why they prevailed. That’s why they beat the world’s most celebrated army.

Americans don’t like to hear that kind of talk. They’re very proud of their military and are willing to pay upwards of $1 trillion per year to keep it outfitted in the most advanced weaponry on earth. But weapons don’t win wars, neither does propaganda. If they did, the US would have won long ago, but they don’t. What wins wars is tactics, operations, and strategy, and that’s where the emphasis must be if one expects to succeed.. Here’s an excerpt from an article by William S. Lind explaining why the US mission in Afghanistan failed:



The US military’s high-tech gadgetry and pilotless drones merely disguise the fact that America is still fighting the last war and hasn’t adapted to the new reality. Here’s more from Lind expanding on the same theory:



Lind does not underestimate the Taliban or dismiss them as “ignorant goat herders”. In fact, he appears to admire the way they have mastered 4-G warfare and routed an enemy that has vastly superior technology, communications and firepower. It helps to prove his basic thesis that tactics, operations, and strategy are what matter most.



TIME TO CUT AND RUN?

The persistent green on blue attacks have convinced US and NATO leaders that the war cannot be won which is why President Barack Obama has decided to throw in the towel. Here’s a clip from a speech Obama gave in May at a NATO confab in Chicago:



The political class is calling it quits. They’ve decided to cut their losses and leave. Here’s how the New York Times summed it up:



Notice how the Times fails to mention the War on Terror, al Qaida, or Bin Laden, all of which were used to garner support for the war. What matters now is “America’s global interests”. That’s quite a reversal, isn’t it?

What happened to the steely resolve to fight the good fight for as long as it takes; to liberate Afghan women, to spread democracy to far-flung Central Asia, and to crush the fanatical Taliban once and for all? Was it all just empty posturing aimed at ginning up the war machine and swaying public opinion?

And look how easy it is for the Times to do a 180 when just months ago they were trying to persuade readers that we should hang-in-there to protect Afghan women. Take a look at this August 2012 editorial titled “The Women of Afghanistan”:



Ahh, but lending a hand to “marginalized and oppressed” women doesn’t really hold a candle to “America’s global interests”, now does it? As one might expect, the Times most heartfelt feelings are shaped by political expediency. In any event, the Times tacit admission proves that the war was never really about liberating women or spreading democracy or even killing bin Laden. It was about “America’s global interests”, particularly, pipeline corridors, mineral extraction and the Great Game, controlling real estate in thriving Eurasia, the economic center of the next century. That’s why the US invaded Afghanistan, the rest is propaganda.

There’s one other glaring omission in the Times article that’s worth noting. The editors tiptoe around the one word that most accurately summarises the situation: Defeat. The United States is not leaving Afghanistan voluntarily. It was defeated. The US military was defeated in the same way that the IDF was defeated by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, by underestimating the tenacity, the skill, the ferocity, the adaptability, and the intelligence of their adversary. That’s why Israel lost the war in Lebanon. And that’s why the US lost the war in Afghanistan.

There’s a reason why the media won’t use the term defeat however applicable it may be. It’s because your average “Joe” understands defeat, the shame of defeat, the sting of defeat, the anger of defeat. Defeat is a repudiation of leadership, proof that we are ruled by fools and scoundrels. Defeat is also a powerful deterrent, the idea festers in people’s minds and turns them against foreign interventions, police actions and war. That’s why the Times won’t utter the word, because defeat is the antidote for aggression, and the Times doesn’t want that. None of the media do.

The truth is, the United States was defeated in Afghanistan. If we can grasp that fact, then maybe can stop the next war before it gets started. As it withdraws the Taliban are undefeated and will regain their power. Like Russia before it, the USA has been defeated and ejected from Afganistan

You do understand that the point of the invasion was never to "defeat" the Taliban, right? For God's sake, war isn't so incredibly clear-cut and dry.

 

[Borachio]

You do understand that the point of the invasion was never to "defeat" the Taliban, right? For God's sake, war isn't so incredibly clear-cut and dry.

If you don't know why you're going to war, perhaps you shouldn't go at all.

 

[Agent327]

If ousting the Taliban was the war objective, then it might be declared a success - in the same way that the Soviets succeeded in propping up their puppet regime when they invaded. Historically speaking only Alexander invaded the country succesfully; the Afghanis know that no invader can hold their country indefinitely. They will simply ally with the "winning" side - whichever that is. Once occupation forces are withdrawn, power will return to the local warlords again - the same warlords the US are willing to strike a deal with, despite their public insistence on Afghan "democracy"...

 

[Chiteng]

I hate to say it, but I saw this coming. I did too!

It's just the North-West Frontier all over again.

Public opinion after 9/11 demanded that something be done. Fine. Something was done with all that magnificent bombing of the Tora Bora and bin Laden apparently chased out to Pakistan.

That's where, imo, they should have stopped. Such things only really work if you have a clearly defined objective. And furthering the cause of democracy in a foreign land is not a clearly defined military objective.

If the aim was to defeat the Taliban, they should have made sure they had "right" on their side and not support a corrupt regime.

And using pretty standard military techniques against a decentralized "enemy" was surely doomed to failure from the start.

A proper hearts and minds mission where the Taliban could be clearly shown to be the "enemy" of the people of Afghanistan would maybe maybe have had some chance of success.

But what happens now to Afghanistan? Do the Taliban simply regain control? Or do we have some other foreign power intervention? Or does Afghanistan descend into civil war?

And of course the US must now spin the whole operation to make it look like this is mission accomplished. Do me a favour!

It was always possible to obtain a military solution. It still is.
It is merely that the US people are squeamish about killing their enemies.
Rome showed a policy of punitive expeditions to areas that refused to be reasonable.
They would go in to an enemy territory and simply kill every man/woman/child/dog
in the areas. And when they were done they would leave a message that if the
people in the area didnt calm down, they would come back.
The policy worked. Pax Romana.

The British did something similar during the Boer war. When the Boer simply refused
to stop fighting. They interned alot of people before the Boer realized that the Brits were not playing games. When Typhus hit the internment camps, the Boer realized the cost of continued fighting.

The USA had such a policy in WW2. They would kill civilians in Germany and Japan with impunity. LeMay didnt give a damn. He wanted the enemy to stop fighting.

But for whatever reason, the USA now is unwilling to kill its enemies. Which is sad, because our enemies are NOT unwilling to kill US.

It will take the loss of a major city, thru some type of attack, before the populous
recognizes that to win a war, you MUST kill the enemy.

 

[Bugfatty300]

They would go in to an enemy territory and simply kill every man/woman/child/dog in the areas. And when they were done they would leave a message that if the people in the area didnt calm down, they would come back.
The policy worked. Pax Romana.

So after murdering everyone and their dog, the Romans would actually write out and leave a message telling them to calm down or they'd kill them again?

That seems redundant if not a bit insane. Must have been all those lead pipes.

 

[Agent327]

Not too mention the Roman empire wasn't a democracy. But even the Romans negotiated with their "enemies"; in fact, they had quite a bunch of client kingdoms.

It was always possible to obtain a military solution. It still is.
It is merely that the US people are squeamish about killing their enemies.
Rome showed a policy of punitive expeditions to areas that refused to be reasonable.
They would go in to an enemy territory and simply kill every man/woman/child/dog
in the areas. And when they were done they would leave a message that if the
people in the area didnt calm down, they would come back.
The policy worked. Pax Romana.

The British did something similar during the Boer war. When the Boer simply refused
to stop fighting. They interned alot of people before the Boer realized that the Brits were not playing games. When Typhus hit the internment camps, the Boer realized the cost of continued fighting.

The USA had such a policy in WW2. They would kill civilians in Germany and Japan with impunity. LeMay didnt give a damn. He wanted the enemy to stop fighting.

But for whatever reason, the USA now is unwilling to kill its enemies. Which is sad, because our enemies are NOT unwilling to kill US.

It will take the loss of a major city, thru some type of attack, before the populous
recognizes that to win a war, you MUST kill the enemy.

Right. First off, when in either Iraq or Afghanistan, it's not always clear who "the enemy" is. So the policy is to negotiate with local leaders (not the population). That, obviously, doesn't guarantee a friendly regime.

As for killing civilians during WW II: that didn't stop the enemy from fighting. In effect, when fighting a dictatorship, that's probably the least effective way of going about it: it's not the people you want to kill, it's the regime you want removed. Which happened in Iraq during Gulfwar II. But then the problem just starts: you've removed the "enemy" regime, now what? Who's to rule the country? Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have anything resembling a democratic tradition.

Interesting, by the way, you should mention the Boer Wars: it was the British that "invented" the concentration camps, that is, before WW I even. And guess what? The British are gone, the Boers are still there. So who "the enemy" is depends both on time and location. It's not a fixed given, it shifts.

So no, a military "solution" doesn't actually exist.

 

[christos200]

Historically speaking only Alexander invaded the country succesfully

Greece # 1, Soviets and America # 0

 

[sophie]

Greece # 1, Soviets and America # 0

So we're better than you. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[red_elk]

Greece # 1, Soviets and America # 0

All of them #0, only FYROM succeeded.

 

[Chiteng]

So after murdering everyone and their dog, the Romans would actually write out and leave a message telling them to calm down or they'd kill them again?

That seems redundant if not a bit insane. Must have been all those lead pipes.

Killing the enemy is not murder. They would spare a few captured enemy and give them a message to be delivered.

 

[Winner]

What's going to stop it from moving right back, once we're out?

The other armed forces that control Afghanistan now.

 

[Farm Boy]

Historically speaking only Alexander invaded the country succesfully

Are we forgetting the Mongolians?

 

[sophie]

Are we forgetting the Mongolians?

Taliban #1!!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have anything resembling a democratic tradition.

Wasn't Iraq democratic before it got dictatorial?

 

[Agent327]

After the British left it was a kingdom.

Are we forgetting the Mongolians?

Mongolian rule lasted for over a century, yes. (And there was the Arabs as well, ofcourse.)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

After the British left it was a kingdom.

Yeah well til '58. I am very sure to have read how in the years after that some basic democratic structures were established and that there were pushes for further liberalization. Mind you I am not under the impression that Iraq ever was some kind of actually functional democracy. But the assumption that I find conveyed by you is that Iraq was somewhat naturally incompatible with democracy for the lack of democratic tradition. Which seems unfair.

 

[ace99]

I don't get where this whole "No one's ever conquered Afghanistan" thing comes from. In addition to Persians and lunatic Greeks who decided to live there the area known as Afghanistan has been held by a variety of different kingdom from the Mauryans, Gupta, Tibet had Kabul apparently at one point before the Umayyad showed, then you have the Ghaznavids and Ghorids (maybe you consider them Afghan?) Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, Safavids and so such. For some of these states Afghanistan was an integral part of their empires.