America has been Defeated in Afganistan

[Dachs]

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.

Don't forget the Kušanšahs and the Sasanians. But yes. This "Afghanistan is unconquerable" garbage is ridiculous.

 

[Agent327]

The point wasn't that "noone ever conquered it", though.

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.

I wasn't suggesting that, merely stating the absence of any sort of democracy.

And the monarchy was ended by military coup. In '63 there was another and in '66 the Ba'ath party took control (later part of Saddam Hussein's supporting apparatus). So I'm not quite sure where you got that "liberalization" from, sorry.

 

[ace99]

Kušanšahs

I don't know what that hell that is. I put it in google and this thread is literally the only result. Yuezhi?

The point wasn't that "noone ever conquered it", though.

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 Once occupation forces are withdrawn, power will return to the local warlords again - the same warlords the US are willing to strike a deal with, despite their public insistence on Afghan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"...

"Historically only Alexander invaded the country successfully"

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And the monarchy was ended by military coup. In '63 there was another and in '66 the Ba'ath party took control (later part of Saddam Hussein's supporting apparatus). So I'm not quite sure where you got that "liberalization" from, sorry.

A book, actually. Was related to the Ba'ath party I believe. In fact, thinking more about it, I even believe to recall that some foreign funding helped to steer Iraq down the path of Hussein.

 

[christos200]

Neither Iraq or Afganistan can be ruled with Democracy. They need an Iro fist to stay united. under Saddam, Iraq had stability. Now it is a (democratic) hellhole and it is on the brink of civil war.

 

[Agent327]

That would have been the understatement of the year then; Hussein's dictatorship also traded freely with the West until the Kuwait invasion. One could see a similarity here with support for the shah regime in Iran...

"Historically only Alexander invaded the country successfully"

... and the point followed right after that: the Afghans know that no invader can hold their country indefinitely. (You bolded that yourself...)

 

[ace99]

Yeah and that's also wrong. Plenty of people have held it as I pointed out.

 

[Agent327]

Not indefinitely, no. (Though I probably shouldn't have mentioned Alexander in the first place, as I was thinking of post 1800...)

 

[Tee Kay]

Neither Iraq or Afganistan can be ruled with Democracy. They need an Iro fist to stay united. under Saddam, Iraq had stability. Now it is a (democratic) hellhole and it is on the brink of civil war.

Unlike when it was an authoritarian hellhole, when it had an actual civil war. Several, even.

 

[innonimatu]

Unlike when it was an authoritarian hellhole, when it had an actual civil war. Several, even.

Making new states usually turns out to involve nasty business. The wars during that authoritarian phase had at least made the iraqi state a little more stable than the original british construct had been. This latest war may have unmade that, but the jury is still out. Bad though it was the alternative is not democracy but one or more new authoritarian governments masking as democratic and possibly renewed civil war.
Toppling the previous dictatorship there produced a country de facto already divided in two and ripe for some future war to settle that. Not an outcome to be proud of, but who knows, perhaps they'll work something out.

 

[ace99]

Not indefinitely, no. (Though I probably shouldn't have mentioned Alexander in the first place, as I was thinking of post 1800...)

Well noting is indefinite. I mean come on man. I could say the US will be unable to sustain itself indefinitely as a coherent nation and that would be true given an infinite period of time. It's not a statement that means anything.

 

[Agent327]

Getting a bit off track here... The only point that matters is that any occupation needs to evacuate at some point. The Afghans know this, as did the Iraqis. So they will just bide their time. The current occupation - such as it is, as it doesn't even control the whole country, doesn't really compare with past occupations, except for the Soviet period - and they were there longer, and achieved just as much (or little).

 

[Mouthwash]

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

When did I say that? All I said was that just shooting Taliban until they were defeated (as critics of the war like to imagine it) was never the goal.

 

[Borachio]

For God's sake, war isn't so incredibly clear-cut and dry.

If you don't have a clearly defined military goal, you will never know military success. How can you?

It seems rather stupid to fight if you don't know what you're fighting for.

This isn't a criticism of you, of course. But of the military action in Afghanistan. And of war in general. I've really no time for it at all. Though you won't agree, I know that.

 

[innonimatu]

But wars don't have military goals, that's for battles or other military operations. Wars have political goals.

 

[Dachs]

I don't know what that hell that is. I put it in google and this thread is literally the only result. Yuezhi?

Yes, the Kushan Empire is usually described as having been created by the Yuezhi warlord Kujula Kadphises.

 

[Borachio]

But wars don't have military goals, that's for battles or other military operations. Wars have political goals.

Oh right! You might have a point.

But I thought the goals of WW1 and WW2, to name but two at random, were the defeat of the enemy. In the first case, at least to the point of negotiation. And in the second, to the point of unconditional surrender.

Now, you can call these political goals if you like. But since the idea was to achieve these militarily, I'd have thought they were military goals.

But, see, this isn't the case with Afghanistan. Nor was it with Vietnam for that matter.

Hmmm.

 

[Agent327]

In the first case, at least to the point of negotiation. And in the second, to the point of unconditional surrender.

Now, you can call these political goals if you like.

One can and one will, as those are political goals (negotiation and surrender are ultimately political decisions). The means were primarily military, ofcourse.

 

[Domen]

The Talibans are stronger than ever.

Isn't that a ridiculous statement given that they once ruled the vast majority of the country and were the de-facto internationally recognized government?

But hey, it's Couterpunch.

Size of territory over which one rules / international recognition and sheer military strength are 2 different things.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I was expecting a much more USA#1 response to this if I am honest. Folks seem to have got sick of it all.

Yeah, we lost.

Both parties want to do what is "Best" (I think its unlikely that it is actually the best, but even if it were I'd still oppose it) for every country in the world before our own.

Its our tax dollars, if you are going to steal a quarter of our yearly incomes at least use the money on us, and leave the rest of the world to live in peace.