LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Why do you think we lost on the political battleground?
Or, to save us some layers of questions, what do you think is the root of the US losing in Afghanistan?
Why defeat in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter LordsFire
- Start date
Why do you think we lost on the political battleground?
Or, to save us some layers of questions, what do you think is the root of the US losing in Afghanistan?
Political need to satisfy the media for short term gain. Our leadership has stopped thinking about long term goals.
History Learner
Well-known member
I don't think there's any one thing you can pick and then everything in Afghanistan would've been different; there's a myriad of reasons and events that explain it but if I absolutely had to choose it was a mixture of over-confidence and indifference on the part of the United States. Afghanistan was and is effectively tribal in nature, so trying to build an extremely centralized government from the get go-without any real source of legitimacy for it-and literally within the space of a week was a pretty good example of this. There's others, such as refusing the Taliban offer to surrender in late 2001 or the refusal to return the King to power, which would've granted legitimacy and was fairly popular with the Afghans themselves. That the American-backed Government is also insanely corrupt is another factor, and related to the indifference aspect of this.
On the battlefield, the American Army was impressive as fuck and definitely had learned the lessons of Vietnam in terms of fighting insurgents. The problem was, however, that the war would be won or lost via the politics of it, not on the battlefield. I think it speaks volumes that Communist Afghanistan outlasted the existence of the USSR but the GIRoA will be lucky if it lasts long enough for the American pullout to be over.
Bassoe
Well-known member
Going into afghanistan in the first place was the first mistake. The second was to even attempt to set up some kind of self-ruling puppet goverment as opposed to simply 'we have the monopoly of force, so we're in charge, now get out of our way while we extract the oil or we will make you wish you had'.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
There can no victory with no (or nonsensical) victory conditions. The US military won at what militaries are supposed to do, defeating the enemy - that happened in a few months.
We stayed to long
Bassoe
Well-known member
We knew that the millisecond we left, our puppet goverment would collapse and a group dedicated to 'fuck the americans for invading us', far more against our interests than the original per-invasion afghanistani status quo had been would seize power. This is still true and will remain the case no matter how long we stay.
We should have left the second we destroyed 99% of them.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I believe that the mistake made, was the result of a cultural blind spot, one that I at the time (being about 15 years old) shared:
George W. Bush (and the political faction backing him) thought that if we just helped someone set it up, literally everybody in the world wanted a representative democratic republic with constitutional rights like we have. The 'victory condition' was based on the idea that if you scratch any oppressed people group in the world, they'll bleed Americanized cultural values. That was a blind idealistic fantasy, and it meant that the 'victory condition' set was impossible.
As Shieldwife put it, we had no meaningful victory condition.
American culture does not want to be militarily Imperial. We'd love to export our cultural values to the whole world (conservatives and liberals differing on what those values *are*) via commerce and media, but we hate the idea of being an occupying force. Hate it to the point where the US military let corrupt pedophiles run local governments rather than do the job better themselves.
Transforming Afghanistan (or Iraq) into westernized democracies was impossible from the start, but blind idealism kept many people from seeing that, and the sorts who profit without conscience from the business of war didn't care whether or not victory was possible in the first place.
George W. Bush (and the political faction backing him) thought that if we just helped someone set it up, literally everybody in the world wanted a representative democratic republic with constitutional rights like we have. The 'victory condition' was based on the idea that if you scratch any oppressed people group in the world, they'll bleed Americanized cultural values. That was a blind idealistic fantasy, and it meant that the 'victory condition' set was impossible.
As Shieldwife put it, we had no meaningful victory condition.
American culture does not want to be militarily Imperial. We'd love to export our cultural values to the whole world (conservatives and liberals differing on what those values *are*) via commerce and media, but we hate the idea of being an occupying force. Hate it to the point where the US military let corrupt pedophiles run local governments rather than do the job better themselves.
Transforming Afghanistan (or Iraq) into westernized democracies was impossible from the start, but blind idealism kept many people from seeing that, and the sorts who profit without conscience from the business of war didn't care whether or not victory was possible in the first place.
Yinko
Well-known member
The only nations that have ever successfully conquered Afghanistan have been utterly brutal to the point that no one wanted to risk rebellion. We were far too soft to do that, so were the Soviets (funnily enough).
Failing that, we didn't really pay much attention to the clan alliances and relationships going in, thinking that bribery and enlightened self-interest would pave the way for our success. It didn't work. The Taliban know the social landscape, we've just been fumbling around in the dark.
Failing that, we didn't really pay much attention to the clan alliances and relationships going in, thinking that bribery and enlightened self-interest would pave the way for our success. It didn't work. The Taliban know the social landscape, we've just been fumbling around in the dark.
Val the Moofia Boss
Well-known member
It is incredibly difficult to be an occupying force. Pandora's box has been opened. The Romans could effectively occupy by confiscating swords (which weren't easily made) and the Romans knew how to swing their swords. They could occupy well. Today, you can easily make a gun and you don't need years of training to use it effectively. The people of Afghanistan fought off the Russians in the 80s using bolt action rifles. A bolt action is nothing to scoff at; you can absolutely kill tons of people using a bolt action rifle. Talk to soldiers who went to Afghanistan about how useful tanks are; they really aren't. WW2 warfare doesn't translate into the occupation of an armed populace that hates you. If you have access to milling machines and 3D printers, you can make your own guns. You can make a matchlock out of pipes and using chemicals bought from the store. During WW2, the Allies dropped newspapers behind enemy lines teaching rebels how to make guns.
The US is historically terrible at occupations and PR. The military can't scale down their level of force, which antagonizes the population, and they cannot engender the trust of the populace. Do not underestimate the willpower of people who hate you.
The Americans sucked at winning the people of Canada over to their side before the British reformed and pushed the Americans out. They sucked at occupying the South after the Civil War, hence why Reconstruction was a failure and Jim Crow laws and such happened. The occupation of Korea was botched. I need not mention Vietnam and the Middle-East.
The only really "successful" occupations the US has conducted were the takeovers of countries with populations too small to meaningfully resist an occupation by an overwhelming number of tens to hundreds of thousands troops, ie the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, etc. Japan is the only exception to this trend due to unique circumstances that are unlikely to be replicated again.
- The Philippines tried to resist American occupiers, so the Americans just rounded up all of the men and had them shot, so there was no one left to resist.
- In Hawaii, the Americans garrisoned tens of thousands of troops, again making resistance hopeless.
- Once the Americans defeated the Spanish forces, the actual population of Cuba was too small to meaningfully resist at the time. American marines had to return to put down rebellions from 1906-1909 and 1917-1922.
- The only reason Japan didn't become Vietnam 1946 edition was because the beloved emperor was still alive and he bade the people not to resist.
With Middle-Eastern countries such as Afghanistan, the populations are too large to successfully occupy with the current size of the American military. Deploying the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of troops required would destroy the current narrative surrounding the US' involvement in the Middle-East. It would also cause a ruckus in Congress, as the US has been trying to cheap out on the military and has been laying off soldiers (pink slips), even while they were deployed. To get enough soldiers to make the occupation successful, the military budget would have to be massively expanded to incentivize young men to sign up. Or you have to pass conscription again, which won't happen, and if it did, you're going to get a repeat of Vietnam with occupational forces that are demoralized and ineffective. So it won't happen.
Last edited:
Bassoe
Well-known member
Also, the fact that the Japanese knew that if the American occupiers left, the Soviets would’ve jumped at the chance to take their place.
Why couldn't have the USA set up an interim dictator that could have been relied on to run the show, break heads that needed to, and to lay the groundwork for eventual democratization? As far as I know the most successful countries set up by the USA were dictatorships, juntas or authoritarian regimes of one stripe or another, and as I remember most of them did become democracies and did liberalize in their own ways.
We didn't colonize Korea.
Korea and Japan are two success cases of American occupation. Though technically Korea wasn't an occupation. We formed am agreement with the USSR to split the country from Japanese control until an agreement to unite the country could be made.
Of course things stalled when one wanted to be commie and the other didn't.
Re and Kim were not happy and basically both committed horrible crimes during the war, with the US and UN forces doing most of the fighting on the front, the KNP were doing a lot worse to any one they think was a commie. We also played a huge role in protecting the south from invasion and have only backed off once they have a big enough military. Which they do so we take more of a support role.
Japan...we his them with two A bombs and helped them rebuild.
Iraq was doing good until ISIS came in.
LindyAF
Well-known member
Well, ideologically neocons can't do that anymore. Doing this would also make it harder to justify to the American populace, although they stopped really doing that ten years ago or more anyway.
I think there might also have been issues with the heavily clan based society and a dictator.
Val the Moofia Boss
Well-known member
In the 19th century, the Koreans refused to trade with Western powers, similar to how Japan turned away anyone but the Dutch merchants who had earned their trust. In 1866, the American ship, the General Sherman, ignored the Korean's refusal and sailed down a Korean river, kidnapped Koreans, and fired upon coastal villages. Then in 1871, the US sent five warships to Korea and gave them an ultimatum to open up trade. The Koreans refused. The Americans began an assault on coastal forts, killing 200 soldiers.
As for the post-WW2 1940s occupation of Korea, general John Hodge ordered his men to "treat the Koreans as enemies". The Koreans had formed committees to runs cities and towns before the Americans arrived, but Hodge deemed them "communist" and forced them to be disbanded. The Americans flew in Syngman Rhee and made him leader of South Korea, even though he hadn't lived in Korea for 40 years. His "election" was fraudulent. He assassinated his enemies. The Rhee regime (with support from the US military) began a violet campaign against the people, imprisoning hundreds of thousands and executing tens of thousands of "suspected communists".
Mass executions conducted by South Korea, not the Communists.
Quite the understatement. The atomic bombs paled in comparison to the targeted firebombing of the densest population center in the country, in a war that began in no small part due to American expansionism, first by barging into Japan, teaching them imperialism, and then when Japan became too big to control, goading them into a war to kick them down a peg. This isn't to say that Japan wasn't led by crazy evil war cultists: it was, but that doesn't absolve the US.
As for the post-WW2 1940s occupation of Korea, general John Hodge ordered his men to "treat the Koreans as enemies". The Koreans had formed committees to runs cities and towns before the Americans arrived, but Hodge deemed them "communist" and forced them to be disbanded. The Americans flew in Syngman Rhee and made him leader of South Korea, even though he hadn't lived in Korea for 40 years. His "election" was fraudulent. He assassinated his enemies. The Rhee regime (with support from the US military) began a violet campaign against the people, imprisoning hundreds of thousands and executing tens of thousands of "suspected communists".
Mass executions conducted by South Korea, not the Communists.
Quite the understatement. The atomic bombs paled in comparison to the targeted firebombing of the densest population center in the country, in a war that began in no small part due to American expansionism, first by barging into Japan, teaching them imperialism, and then when Japan became too big to control, goading them into a war to kick them down a peg. This isn't to say that Japan wasn't led by crazy evil war cultists: it was, but that doesn't absolve the US.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
The Americans lost because because they picked an unwinnable war. The afghans dont want democracy. They want an islamic tribal confederation. The fact is, the USA should have gone in with suitcases of cash and bribed the Taliban.
I know South Koreans committed violent acts during the War.In the 19th century, the Koreans refused to trade with Western powers, similar to how Japan turned away anyone but the Dutch merchants who had earned their trust. In 1866, the American ship, the General Sherman, ignored the Korean's refusal and sailed down a Korean river, kidnapped Koreans, and fired upon coastal villages. Then in 1871, the US sent five warships to Korea and gave them an ultimatum to open up trade. The Koreans refused. The Americans began an assault on coastal forts, killing 200 soldiers.
As for the post-WW2 1940s occupation of Korea, general John Hodge ordered his men to "treat the Koreans as enemies". The Koreans had formed committees to runs cities and towns before the Americans arrived, but Hodge deemed them "communist" and forced them to be disbanded. The Americans flew in Syngman Rhee and made him leader of South Korea, even though he hadn't lived in Korea for 40 years. His "election" was fraudulent. He assassinated his enemies. The Rhee regime (with support from the US military) began a violet campaign against the people, imprisoning hundreds of thousands and executing tens of thousands of "suspected communists".
Mass executions conducted by South Korea, not the Communists.
Quite the understatement. The atomic bombs paled in comparison to the targeted firebombing of the densest population center in the country, in a war that began in no small part due to American expansionism, first by barging into Japan, teaching them imperialism, and then when Japan became too big to control, goading them into a war to kick them down a peg.
THEY know it. And yet look at what US did for them and how prosperous they are...
Also, it was not long after the US was there in the 19th century that they were soon conqured by Japan.
Rhee was a dictator and was not good, but he was still better then the commies.
It just took the South YEARS to recover after the war
Yinko
Well-known member
South Korean was just as prosperous than North Korea for decades. I'm not really that well versed in Korean economic history, but it doesn't line up with US involvement.