Why defeat in Afghanistan?

[Marduk]

As far as being a staging area for a conflict with another country Afghanistan was always a bad proposition, due to the simple fact that for a staging area, one would expect to have good logistical access to it, while Afghanistan has the opposite of that. Geographically, the main way of getting troops and supplies to Afghanistan is landing them in Pakistan, an opportunistic frenemy country with not so great infrastructure, moving them few hundred miles through it, and then moving them around Afghanistan, a country with unfriendly terrain, unfriendly population, and terrible infrastructure.
All that to fight Iran? If you need an extra front to fight Iran that desperately, its not worth the effort to hold and supply such a vulnerable position, and if you don't need it, its also not worth it. For access to Iran, there's coast with nearby Gulf States who share the hostility to Iran, much more geographically convenient Iraq, and a NATO state of Turkey.
In the unlikely scenario Pakistan would turn out to be a loyal ally and support military operations, its own territory is probably more convenient than Afghanistan anyway.
China? The same massive logistical vulnerability applies, except more, due to China's influence in Pakistan and the border being on the other side of Afghanistan, and much harder battles ahead.

Basically, the only real purpose achieved by staying there so long was to make it harder for other state and non state actors to settle in, probably for one or two of trade routes, islamist friendly safe haven and mineral resources.

 

[Zachowon]

War with Iran is still on the table by the way

 

[LindyAF]

War with Iran is still on the table by the way

iran is still a neocon-industrial complex political goal, but I think it's increasingly likely it won't be realized. Trump didn't go for it, and IMO obama's iran deal means that biden and the other democrats probably are at least going to want to not be the ones to start it. Looking forward, I think supporting the latest endless desert war is going to be increasingly a losing issue within our own party as well.

 

[Zachowon]

iran is still a neocon-industrial complex political goal, but I think it's increasingly likely it won't be realized. Trump didn't go for it, and IMO obama's iran deal means that biden and the other democrats probably are at least going to want to not be the ones to start it. Looking forward, I think supporting the latest endless desert war is going to be increasingly a losing issue within our own party as well.

Iran is a place we may eventually go to.

 

[LindyAF]

Iran is a place we may eventually go to.

I mean if you have special knowledge here, okay. I'm not sure I buy enlisted knowing this as distinct from just drum-beating though. I guess we'll see.

 

[Spartan303]

Afganistan isn't a defeat, despite what some may say. However, if anyone thought there was going to be anything beyond a barely functional country, let alone a democracy when we left? You are sadly naïve. That country is the land that time forgot, and for good reason. Everything there is Tribal. You'd have one tribe against another and both would try to bring in a third party to gain advantage over each other. This tribe vs that one but that has Al Queda or the Taliban in their corner, so they used us to balance things out. Next month? Roll the dice, because everything was now different. None of them liked us, but they tolerated us for the most part because we were bringing the country economic benefits it otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

So what's likely to happen? The New Government may survive, it may not. But the Taliban is gone, mostly. Will the insurgents retake power? Doubtful. If they start getting up to old tricks the people know that brings Westerners back and they don't want that. No, they got a bigger cash cow now than exporting international terrorism and that is Opium followed by Meth and Heroine. So now we got what may essentially a functional...but a shithole Middle East version of a Narco state.

Not a resounding success but not exactly a defeat.

 

[Spartan303]

Iran is a place we may eventually go to.

that shit isn't happening any time soon. In order for Iran to kick off, Biden would have to reverse course, hard, policy wise. He won't. He's committed to protecting Obama's legacy there. Iran would literally have to detonate a Nuke or do something equally as bad to get Joey boys handlers to toss in the towel on Iran and just bomb em back to the stone age.

Trump wasn't having any of it. And should he win in 2024 I don't see that changing. Should Trump not run and DeSantis win I don't see it happening either.

 

[JagerIV]

As far as being a staging area for a conflict with another country Afghanistan was always a bad proposition, due to the simple fact that for a staging area, one would expect to have good logistical access to it, while Afghanistan has the opposite of that. Geographically, the main way of getting troops and supplies to Afghanistan is landing them in Pakistan, an opportunistic frenemy country with not so great infrastructure, moving them few hundred miles through it, and then moving them around Afghanistan, a country with unfriendly terrain, unfriendly population, and terrible infrastructure.
All that to fight Iran? If you need an extra front to fight Iran that desperately, its not worth the effort to hold and supply such a vulnerable position, and if you don't need it, its also not worth it. For access to Iran, there's coast with nearby Gulf States who share the hostility to Iran, much more geographically convenient Iraq, and a NATO state of Turkey.
In the unlikely scenario Pakistan would turn out to be a loyal ally and support military operations, its own territory is probably more convenient than Afghanistan anyway.
China? The same massive logistical vulnerability applies, except more, due to China's influence in Pakistan and the border being on the other side of Afghanistan, and much harder battles ahead.

Basically, the only real purpose achieved by staying there so long was to make it harder for other state and non state actors to settle in, probably for one or two of trade routes, islamist friendly safe haven and mineral resources.

Yeah, all of those add to the idea that the conceivable geological goals were well, unrealistic. And became increasingly unrealistic as the Neocon dreams died.

Like, if the timetable was invade Afghanistan in 2001, Invade Iraq 2003, and then Iran 2005, holding Afghanistan is relatively cheap: by 2005, total American casualties were only about 200 for 4 years of war there. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 only involved some 250 dead. Theorizing since I don't actually know what the plan was, and we may only at this point be getting an idea of what the actual plans were, If they hoped they had a casualty budget of at least 3,000, equal to the Sept 11 attacks, to maybe 30,000 including all the injured, but taking the 3,000 casualty budget, by 2003 they had only "spent" about 500 casualties, if Iraq was even 2x as casualty heavy in the occupation of Iraq, by 2005 there would only be about 1,000 casualties, maybe Iran is 4x as difficult to conquer as Iraq, you suffer a 1,000 casualties taking out Iran, then you still have a 1,000 casualty budget, and have American occupation from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2006 and have taken out 2/3 "axis of evil", who I think were seen as the cause of trouble in the region. Maybe Invade Syria as well as part of the Iran invasion.

Of course, if this was the plan, its viability had completely fallen apart by 2005. By that point, US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan had already reached somewhere around 2,500 to 3,000 dead. Total casualties overall was around 20,000. That's about 10% overall casualties of the 150k ish troops deployed. about 5% of the deployed force per year in 2005-6. With about 180 ish troops tied down in occupation between the two countries, a force about 40% of the size of the regular army, being able to bring together the half a million or more troops necessary to actually invade Iran was not possible, especially as it was clear more troops were really needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was why surges were necessary in both.

Up to about 2010 one could hope one was just a year away from resolving the Iraq problem. By 2010, Afganistan showed that Iraq was not a unique problem as the Taliban were able to inflict near equal casualties as was suffered in Iraq.

I can see the logic of it all, but it was all based on immensely hopeful thinking.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean if you have special knowledge here, okay. I'm not sure I buy enlisted knowing this as distinct from just drum-beating though. I guess we'll see.

I say the same thing about China.
It is me just calling out what I see. Biden is making war with Iran unlikely

that shit isn't happening any time soon. In order for Iran to kick off, Biden would have to reverse course, hard, policy wise. He won't. He's committed to protecting Obama's legacy there. Iran would literally have to detonate a Nuke or do something equally as bad to get Joey boys handlers to toss in the towel on Iran and just bomb em back to the stone age.

Trump wasn't having any of it. And should he win in 2024 I don't see that changing. Should Trump not run and DeSantis win I don't see it happening either.

Idk.
If Trump wins in 2024, and Iran does massive damage to something US oriented. I don't see Trump holding off after more sanctions are placed. You can only sanction so much, and with Pakistan bordering Iran, and China being both of thier friends.
Sanctions are kinda useless

 

[JagerIV]

Afganistan isn't a defeat, despite what some may say. However, if anyone thought there was going to be anything beyond a barely functional country, let alone a democracy when we left? You are sadly naïve. That country is the land that time forgot, and for good reason. Everything there is Tribal. You'd have one tribe against another and both would try to bring in a third party to gain advantage over each other. This tribe vs that one but that has Al Queda or the Taliban in their corner, so they used us to balance things out. Next month? Roll the dice, because everything was now different. None of them liked us, but they tolerated us for the most part because we were bringing the country economic benefits it otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

So what's likely to happen? The New Government may survive, it may not. But the Taliban is gone, mostly. Will the insurgents retake power? Doubtful. If they start getting up to old tricks the people know that brings Westerners back and they don't want that. No, they got a bigger cash cow now than exporting international terrorism and that is Opium followed by Meth and Heroine. So now we got what may essentially a functional...but a shithole Middle East version of a Narco state.

Not a resounding success but not exactly a defeat.

Aren't the Taliban setting up to have sieved everything by the time we leave and buddy up with China? The Taliban seems to be stronger than ever, so your coming at this from a very different perspective than mine of the situation.

edit: this is apparently about where things were back in 2020:

So, they allegedly already had about 12% of the population under their control, is contesting 30% of it, with 40% of the population in government control, but the government isn't particularly effective, and it looks like there's a bunch of strongpoints around big cities which may be divide and conquerable.

edit edit:

the recent press conferences on this:

MSN

www.msn.com

Taliban say they control 85% of Afghanistan, humanitarian concerns mount

Taliban officials said on Friday the Sunni Muslim insurgent group had taken control of 85% of territory in Afghanistan, and international concern mounted over problems getting medicines and supplies into the country.

www.reuters.com

For a non-existent entity, their putting out a fair number of press releases.

 

[LindyAF]

Yes, my understanding as well is that the Taliban is extant enough to be doing a victory lap, and that the DC government has the upper end of the “Afghanistan government’s” lifespan at 9 months. And some officials are saying this is optimistic.

If Trump wins in 2024, and Iran does massive damage to something US oriented. I don't see Trump holding off after more sanctions are placed. You can only sanction so much, and with Pakistan bordering Iran, and China being both of thier friends.
Sanctions are kinda useless

My read on it was that Trump’s hawkishness on Iran was a symptom of the establishment he was trying to take in and make peace with - people like Mattis, his SecDef for most of his term were famously hawkish on Iran.

Something pretty massive would have to happen for this to happen.

Guess this depends on what you mean by “massive damage to something US orientated,” though.

 

[LindyAF]

Also it’s basically an open secret that Iran is going for a nuke, and if they get one then war becomes much riskier.

 

[Airedale260]

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?

Part of the problem is that Afghanistan became a textbook case of “mission creep” in that, sure, we overthrew the Taliban, but between the tribal affinities (which make the place almost impossible to govern), the ludicrous levels of corruption, and the country in general being extremely conservative…it was an impossible task, especially when there’s elements in Pakistan who want to see you fall on your ass.

Realistically, the government is insanely corrupt and despite 20 years of trying, the current government is so bad it makes the Taliban look good. Morale among the Afghan military and police is atrocious, they haven’t been paid in months, and despite Ashraf Ghani being personally clean, he has no competent support.

Reinstating the monarchy was really a no-go as well: Understand, the place is less a country with a unified sense of identity and much more of a bunch of tribes that generally don’t give a fuck about the outside world. Oh, sure, Kabul is fairly liberal (relatively speaking), but it’s very much an exception to the rule. The Afghan military is incapable of launching any counteroffensives, and the leadership has screwed up so bad key logistics sites have already fallen to the Taliban, but rather than retake them or even destroy them just to deny them to the enemy, they’re off fucking around.

But also, there was a sense of “we broke it, we bought it” when it came to Afghanistan. Problem is, again, general cluelessness and inability to develop good governance.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

What is your definition of winning the war?

Military level it was won, and then we tied one hand behind our back, added a blindfold, and a sedative to ensure we could not be effective.

1) Some of out allies in Afghanistan added jack.... No worse they became logistic drain and did not do anything. Do not get me Wrong some of our allies kicked butt, surprised at the effectiveness of some of the former Warsaw pact countries. The Taliban did not like dealing with them.

- Not sure on Afghanistan deployments for allies if it is like Kosovo they are getting UN pay ontop of their regular pay, and double time towards retirement pay.

- But if you can not support your troops, and do not want to fight your not needed, your a drain.
When the EU wanted to attack Libya they took the lead and, lasted something like 30 hours before needing the US to provide logistics, hell they needed us to provide munitions.
Now that was Libya next to Europe, how do you think they supported their troops into Afghanistan?
They didn’t, all so the political hacks could have pictures taken at the big table, as they did everything possible to not fight, and share at Uncle Sugars pig trough.

Which leads upto

2) Political level it was a cash cow and never meant to be won. The reason Trump was hated by some other countries leaders.... He cut off the cash, lots and lots of cash stopped. Well he looked at the treaties and said you are not doing what was agreed. So no cash to skim for you!

- If we wanted to win beyond a military win, why did we not take steps to do it?

The Afghanistan military was set up to fail. How many years there and the aid sent is delivered in ways that make it not work.

Logistics designed by the STAR LEAGUE from BattleTech. The companies contracted to help set up logistic and repair never set it up for the Afghans. When 10 conexs of parts and equipment are documented in language not Afghan, and of they are lucky they have one English speaker to sort BOL, for which con ex has the parts you need.
But wait there is more.

Because it sounds like they need another contractor to come fix the system set up by the contractor still being paid to fix their logistics. ( translation to above is more contracts for allies, and skimming of dollars for everyone).

- I do not know maybe this nation-building might need the people who specialize in helping foreign countries ------
“Oh State Department where are you!”

“Turn your monitor on, Can you see us now? yea we are monitoring the whole nation-building from here in DC. We will be handing out cash by the pallet to the important people over there”.
“We are good, but can you send a platoon out to all the villages and take pictures of my district, and I Need that by Friday for my 800-page plan to make my districticts schools multicultural”.
( Only 3 soldiers wounded to get pics and ask survey questions for Department of State. Who do not use any of it because Narrative must be kept, besides all the pictures make my district look bad).

- Drug trade was a joke, so much poppy and for some reason we did not do anything to stop it.
Hell I was on COP’s that had poppy-growing on the post, watched tons and tons of it loaded up on tractors and sent to be processed into heroin.
The irony is the US ARMY was essentially guarding the drug crop for the drug gangs, because their competitors could not do anything to disrupt the local supply because we had soldiers there.
( Not sure how much the bribes had been for that). I do know a lot of soldiers did not like that much.


Cultural level, toss-up but we may have let the genie out of the bottle, and made changes that will in time change Afghanistan for the better.

3) Secondary effect all the knowledge and world view made changes in Afghanistan. Made people ask why their country is so underdeveloped? Why so much corruption?
- We would have done better to run schools and education system. You can not have any form of the democratic system when a majority of people are uneducated and uninformed.

- Honest opinion is, we could have done much more if we wanted at the same price point. But many people profited from not fixing it. Some of our “allies” worked to make it worse”.

And part of the problem is Americans' Hollywood view of the rest of the world. Different world different cultures and most Americans can not make the mental leap to how different it is.

All that said the genni is out of the bottle millions of people have cell phones and internet who never knew anything beyond their vally. Hopefully the seeds of a better life for them have been set.

 

[Bassoe]

some sort of campaign into Afghanistan Saudi Arabia after 9/11 was necessary

You know, the guys who actually did it.

 

[Marduk]

This touches upon a very general and far reaching problem in the whole region. The places there may formally be tucked into the formal system of sovereign states in international relations...
But realities on the ground care little for formalities in the UN. Tribes, ideologies and loyalties easily transcend the weak borders there.
Many AQ operatives were formally Saudi citizens, but that means even less than the citizenship of the many European citizens of immigrant heritage who went and left to Syria to fight for the Islamic State.
There's also a reason why AQ leadership hunkered down in Afghanistan, not in their technical homeland.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Not to mention that the main source of funding for AQ was Saudi Arabia (also Qattar) and they didn't do anything about it, until AQ started launching attacks in the kingdom.

 

[Bassoe]

...and Iran does massive damage to something US oriented.

Why? The Iranians aren't suicidal, they know what giving the American neocons the excuse they've been looking for would mean. At most, they might go for building a nuclear arsenal with the intention of using it as an 'if we get invaded, we're launching everything we've got and/or offering it to terrorist groups' deterrent.

 

[Captain X]

They probably think they can get away with it somehow.

 

[LordsFire]

Why? The Iranians aren't suicidal,

Given the history of islamic extremism, and the ideological blindness associated with it, I'm not as confident of this as you are.