Why defeat in Afghanistan?

[LordsFire]

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.

You know, as I read your post, I was wondering if there's another dark chapter of American history that I just wasn't familiar with.

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.

...Oh wait, no, it's just the usual 'blame whitey' BS. I honestly did not expect this of you.

Maybe there's a darker part of America's involvement in Korea I'm not aware of. But if you're going to try to push the idea that the US taught Japan imperialism, and then *goaded* Japan into WWII, I'm not inclined to trust anything else you have to say about the era either.

 

[Zachowon]

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.

The North were doing better for a decent while after Korean wr

 

[Yinko]

The North were doing better for a decent while after Korean war

Exactly, the North was better. Now, maybe this could be attributed to the Soviets propping them up, or the first dictator being pretty smart. Either way, the South didn't become successful merely due to being overseen by the US.

 

[Zachowon]

Exactly, the North was better. Now, maybe this could be attributed to the Soviets propping them up, or the first dictator being pretty smart. Either way, the South didn't become successful merely due to being overseen by the US.

The US helped them get better by being the main military there so the South Koreans can build up everything else.
And yes they were being propped up by the Soviets. Once 91 hit, North Korea started falling

 

[prinCZess]

Optimism and naivety.

Or, perhaps more appropriately, an insufficient application of pessimism that accounts for the local culture and society.
As mentioned, the US went in and made the goal nation-building a Western-style democratic state--in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither are well-suited to the endeavor, and Afghanistan least of the two.

An appropriately pessimistic program would've seen the former King returned to the throne or another such figure elevated into the position of a strong-man in the country and left to deal with the Taliban with oodles of CIA assistance according to the country's own...decidedly non-Western...standards. Shah 2.0, SAVAK harder...With the vague hope/outline of a corresponding 'White Revolution' of its own in the future at some nondescript point that might see the dictatorship and military/secret-police repression gradually loosened.

American activity in that vein has been (rightly--it's pretty monstrous) condemned for nigh-on three decades since the USSR that provided the umbrella-justification for it went up and died on us, and the 'Global War on Terror' frankly isn't/wasn't a sufficient justification. In that case, TRYING to nation-build a Western-style democratic state is about the only 'moral' option--outside of the somewhat intentionally-amoral decision that would've been 'just pull out after Bin Laden's death and wish the tribes a good day killing each other again'.

 

[King Arts]

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'.

Hey genius a few things first off some sort of campaign into Afghanistan after 9/11 was necessary. Now you can argue that just a quick slap on the wrist would have been fine, but you need to show the American people and others that there are consequences to attacking America. You can debate how severe those consequences are, either bomb the taliban strongholds to punish them, kill an equal number of Afghanis as to how many Americans dies on 9/11, kill 10x as many, or just keep hunting for Bin Laden but leave on a high note once he is captured or killed. The second part Afghanistan does not have oil.

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.

That would have probably been better, but the thing is Afghanistan is tribal, so you have to be smart about who you pick as dictator you want someone who is indebted to you so not too strong, but you want them to have a loyal tribe around them so that his security forces don't pussy out like the Afghan national army does against enemies.

...Oh wait, no, it's just the usual 'blame whitey' BS. I honestly did not expect this of you.

Maybe there's a darker part of America's involvement in Korea I'm not aware of. But if you're going to try to push the idea that the US taught Japan imperialism, and then *goaded* Japan into WWII, I'm not inclined to trust anything else you have to say about the era either.

Yeah you have a problem with reading comprehension don't you?
Yes we can blame the greed of colonialism for causing us future problems. Cock suckers in the south were lazy and greedy for money from cotton they imported black slaves, now we have to deal with a large black underclass that commits crimes and riots and causes racial strife.
If Admiral Perry left Japan to still be isolated they would not have been a threat 100 years later. Same way the Sentinelese are not a threat now and no one feels the need to bring them into the modern world.

We can hate the retards in the past who caused problems in the future for different reasons than the libtards do.

 

[Cherico]

Exactly, the North was better. Now, maybe this could be attributed to the Soviets propping them up, or the first dictator being pretty smart. Either way, the South didn't become successful merely due to being overseen by the US.

The northern part of the country was the part that was industrialized under japanese rule and the part that was resource rich.

The south was rural and poorer, then the communists came down and utterly trashed all of the things and then made sure to trash more as they retreated out of spite. Then the north had two sugar daddies in China and the soviet union who they played off each other to get more gibs.

Between all of this it not surprising the north did better for a period of time, but capitalism improves things incrementally and eventally the south caught up and then got richer then the north.

 

[Marduk]

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?

Yes, it is politics, but not in the same way many would put it. One cannot discuss victory and defeat without first establishing the victory conditions and then answering whether they have been met or not. And that's where the problem starts, USA did not set itself clear and realistic victory conditions. Instead, there was a loose bunch of insanely ambitious desires combined with more and less self inflicted handicaps.
To some degree these desires were not met, and most of the parameters that were, only on temporary basis and will revert once US forces withdraw.
Defined as such, this is a defeat, at least on strategic or political level.
On purely military tactical\operational level USA was doing fine and given political will, could continue to do so with little effort.

Then again, the question goes back to defining victory conditions and politicians who do so. If you listened to the stories of building a democracy in Afghanistan, establishing women's rights, human rights etc, its definitely going to be a defeat.

If you ignore them and say that the minimal victory conditions were to get Osama, AQ, and the rest of this merry bunch to decide that Afghanistan is no longer a good place to take shelter in, then you could call it a minor victory, and you also have to say that US forces have stayed there for several years too long and invested too much into the place, which is wasteful.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The northern part of the country was the part that was industrialized under japanese rule

There wasn't much of that industry remaining after american bombing campaign though, they only managed to save part of it by moving it underground, starting their tunnel mamia.

 

[King Arts]

Another option would be looking to see if any tribe is amenable to converting to Christianity. If you can make this happen, then you put that tribe in charge, and give them weapons and training, and they won't have the terrible performance of the Afghan army because they know their fate for apostasy is death. But since GWB and the neo cons suck off the concept of democracy they can't be seen favoring or disfavoring one religion over others.
There are much better ways to make Afghanistan stable, and friendly to America, making it into a liberal 1st world democracy in one step no, even if people here wanted to do that, it would be a generational project change takes time cultures, unless they are decayed don't just change.

 

[Zachowon]

Another option would be looking to see if any tribe is amenable to converting to Christianity. If you can make this happen, then you put that tribe in charge, and give them weapons and training, and they won't have the terrible performance of the Afghan army because they know their fate for apostasy is death. But since GWB and the neo cons suck off the concept of democracy they can't be seen favoring or disfavoring one religion over others.
There are much better ways to make Afghanistan stable, and friendly to America, making it into a liberal 1st world democracy in one step no, even if people here wanted to do that, it would be a generational project change takes time cultures, unless they are decayed don't just change.

The amount of Christians would be so small they would be wiped out before the US even leave

 

[PsihoKekec]

Christian crusade in Afganista would make Pakistan go apeshit and shut down supply line. It would be a bit difficult to prosecute war there without supplies.

 

[Marduk]

Christian crusade in Afganista would make Pakistan go apeshit and shut down supply line. It would be a bit difficult to prosecute war there without supplies.

That is one of the major political handicap in this war. The going got tough for Afghan Taliban several times over the course of the war, and they were in danger of getting wiped out, so what did they do? They fucked off to lick their wounds in Pakistan, restocked supplies, recruited some local Pashtuns, and returned when conditions got better.
In a setup like this, it was impossible to destroy the Afghan Taliban for good.

 

[Firebat]

Or, to save us some layers of questions, what do you think is the root of the US losing in Afghanistan?

Media presentation?
Afghanistan has been remade. Before 2001 Taliban had to deal with powerful opponents like Northern Alliance. Now they are set to rule unopposed. Before 2001, opium production was 3000 t/a. Now it's over 9000. Before 2001 Taliban had to make do with old leftovers and Pakistani handouts. Now there are mountains of military equipment all over the place.
In short, a great nest for criminals and terrorists, a horde of violent people who would have to be sent somewhere else by their bosses now that the war is over, enough arms for another ISIS, a tidal wave of drugs to finance the venture and a budding refugee crisis just to keep things interesting. And this geopolitical Chernobyl is happening right near China's Xinjiang and right across 900-km long Irani-Afghan border.

A great loss for Uncle Sam.

 

[Zachowon]

Media presentation?
Afghanistan has been remade. Before 2001 Taliban had to deal with powerful opponents like Northern Alliance. Now they are set to rule unopposed. Before 2001, opium production was 3000 t/a. Now it's over 9000. Before 2001 Taliban had to make do with old leftovers and Pakistani handouts. Now there are mountains of military equipment all over the place.
In short, a great nest for criminals and terrorists, a horde of violent people who would have to be sent somewhere else by their bosses now that the war is over, enough arms for another ISIS, a tidal wave of drugs to finance the venture and a budding refugee crisis just to keep things interesting. And this geopolitical Chernobyl is happening right near China's Xinjiang and right across 900-km long Irani-Afghan border.

A great loss for Uncle Sam.

We basically destroyed them but we decided to stay instead of leave

 

[History Learner]

Honestly, should've restored the King, accepted a non-centralized government, and accepted the surrender of the Taliban and brought them into the fold as part of the de-centralized government. Cut deals to keep the poppy fields suppressed and exclusive contracts for access to Afghanistan's natural resources by funding the infrastructure for it and linking it into Pakistan.

 

[King Arts]

The amount of Christians would be so small they would be wiped out before the US even leave

No I know that there are basically no Christians in Afghanistan now. But I mean not every person in the middle east is an ideological zealot, most of them are Muslim because their society is muslim. Now sure there are many who believe it. But they are people, and people can be converted. If you used a carrot and stick approach you could get quite a few people to convert. The reason none of them have is because America never pushed it, but if it was pushed as a condition to receive good reliable weapons and supplies, there might be some tribes that accept. Also it would be similar to when Cortez had the ships burnt. Right now in Afghanistan all of our "allies" are muslim. They won't leave the religion because there is no bennefit and it will only make them a target. However if there was a bennefit for them to leave Islam, and they did it that means that they can't come back to the Taliban and there Tribe will be in our pocket for all time since they will actually have to fight with bravery since they can't just run away or surrender and expect good treatment from the Taliban.

Christian crusade in Afganista would make Pakistan go apeshit and shut down supply line. It would be a bit difficult to prosecute war there without supplies.

This is actually a good argument. We needed the Pakis for our supply lines, since any other routes like China, or Russia, or Iran aren't as trustworthy to the American power structure. Thought Pakistan is not trust worthy either.

 

[Cherico]

No I know that there are basically no Christians in Afghanistan now. But I mean not every person in the middle east is an ideological zealot, most of them are Muslim because their society is muslim. Now sure there are many who believe it. But they are people, and people can be converted. If you used a carrot and stick approach you could get quite a few people to convert. The reason none of them have is because America never pushed it, but if it was pushed as a condition to receive good reliable weapons and supplies, there might be some tribes that accept. Also it would be similar to when Cortez had the ships burnt. Right now in Afghanistan all of our "allies" are muslim. They won't leave the religion because there is no bennefit and it will only make them a target. However if there was a bennefit for them to leave Islam, and they did it that means that they can't come back to the Taliban and there Tribe will be in our pocket for all time since they will actually have to fight with bravery since they can't just run away or surrender and expect good treatment from the Taliban.


This is actually a good argument. We needed the Pakis for our supply lines, since any other routes like China, or Russia, or Iran aren't as trustworthy to the American power structure. Thought Pakistan is not trust worthy either.

There was no trust worthy partners in the region thats one of the reasons why we left it alone until you know they fucked that up.

 

[LindyAF]

Media presentation?
Afghanistan has been remade. Before 2001 Taliban had to deal with powerful opponents like Northern Alliance. Now they are set to rule unopposed. Before 2001, opium production was 3000 t/a. Now it's over 9000. Before 2001 Taliban had to make do with old leftovers and Pakistani handouts. Now there are mountains of military equipment all over the place.
In short, a great nest for criminals and terrorists, a horde of violent people who would have to be sent somewhere else by their bosses now that the war is over, enough arms for another ISIS, a tidal wave of drugs to finance the venture and a budding refugee crisis just to keep things interesting. And this geopolitical Chernobyl is happening right near China's Xinjiang and right across 900-km long Irani-Afghan border.

A great loss for Uncle Sam.

I've heard this theory before, that the fact that the DC governments keeps destabilizing the middle east is actually a big-brain strat to create a mess in Russia and China's backyard that they then have to expend more resources trying to fix than the DC government spend "democratizing" (destabilizing) in the first place.

But it doesn't seem to me to really match up with what happened in Iraq. Like, the DC government destabilized Iraq - a country boardering Iran and Syria, the later of which is a client state of Russia and the former of which is generally hostile to DC government and aligned with Russia and China. This resulted in the formation of ISIS, right near Russia. And Russia did have to go in and expend resources against ISIS... but so did DC government forces, since DC government forces went back to wipe out the fruits of the destabilization. And at least per wikipedia, Russia committed the same number of troops to fight in Syria as the DC government forces did in Iraq... except this is only counting direct forces from the DC government, not other NATO countries, etc, or the forces deployed in Syria. And sure, boots on ground isn't the best measure of resource expenditure, but given these numbers + the greater logistical issues working on the other side of the world vs. practically in your backyard.

Additionally, if there was an intended end result and it was this, why didn't the DC government elect to pull out back in the Obama administration? The end result would have been the same (or would have been the same quickly after they pulled out).

 

[JagerIV]

I do believe that there were geological considerations in operation as well, at least at the higher levels, regarding Iran or China, which was partially brought up in the recent China news thread. This picture for example is fairly famous:

Now, we know there was quite a bit of drumming for war with Iran since, well, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Which did strongly ramp up under Bush II and McCain and others seem to have kept war drums going through most of the Obama administration. So, if there was a regular expectation that was with Iran was going to happen, or at least you wanted to be able to threaten War or sanctions on Iran from a position of greater strength, having Afghanistan and Pakistan gives one a wider front to threaten from and invasion corridors. It also may hopefully serve as a justification and staging area for projecting power into all those other countries, such as Turkmenistan, a major gas producer. I could see some having hopes that wrapping in Pakistani may have pulled Pakistan into the American Orbit, and out of the Chinese Orbits.

None of that seems to have actually happened: the longer war with Iran doesn't happen, the harder it is to justify expensively maintaining Afghanistan as a staging area to invade Iran. Especially as it get more expensive as Taliban capacity grows. Throughout the Bush Administration, Afghanistan casualties per year for the US was under a 100 per year. Perfectly sustainable, at least compared to the Iraqi casualties, and a small price to pay if your planning to embark on an even bigger war with Iran in 5-10 years.

By Obama's term, Iraq looked somewhat under control, Afghanistan was seen as the just war (I remember Obama discussing that) and Obama was making some noise to a pivot to Asia, in which case Afghanistan's important shifts from being a staging area for an Invasion of Iran (the democrats in general seemed more pro Iran) to something that can be used against China in some vague way. I could see the surge being done in a vague hope that it would allow a faster draw down to do the Asian pivot. We also saw and increased dependence on Drone strikes.

By the end of Obama administration, the pivot to Asia failed, Iraqi was more or less a failure, and the surge and drone bombing were failures, and finally holding Afghanistan was showing to be totally useless in countering China or Iran in any meaningful way: Pakistan if anything seems to be more in China's camp than before, they were perfectly capable of going around into Turkmenistan to do their things, and seems to have built no reliable friends in that area to resist any Iranian or Chinese influence. Even if there was still a desire to maintain Afghanistan as some sort of staging area, the surge showed that maintaining it as such would cost hundreds of lives a year, which was harder to justify for a potential war in 5-10 years than a couple dozen a year.

And, well, I think its clear at this point Afghanistan serves no useful military role against china or Iran at this point, though we still have a great deal of dragging of feat: at this stage, deploying 50,000 men to Afghanistan in the case of War against china (or maybe even Iran!) is just setting up for handing one of them 30,000 American prisoners when Pakistan shuts them off and the local rebels wear the isolated garrisons down.

So, in war it seems whatever benefit holding Afghanistan is not going to be worth the cost of holding it, especially as the cost rises and the chance of war seems more remote (what constituency remains for a war with Iran at this point?). In peace time, holding it seems to have provided virtually no counters to the enemies operating in the area, with relations with Pakistan if anything seeming to get worse, and Iranian and Chinese influence seemingly undeminished.

So, to whatever degree Afghanistan was invaded with geopolitical interests in mind as part of some great chess games, other events made the moves being set up (say an invasion of Iran) increasingly mute, and as a move it turned out to be quite ineffective (Chinese and Iranian power not meaningfully limited by either, Central Asia/Pakistan not meaningfully brought into the American sphere of influence).