> Afghanistan would beg to differ.

You're not looking at this from the Afghan perspective. From the American and Russian perspective, yes, occupying Afghanistan is a painful deathtrap. But for the Afghans their occupation is...also a painful deathtrap. Eventually winning (or even sort of winning) a war of low-tech attrition involves sacrificing a lot of lives, losing political control, and having foreign soldiers soldiers patrol your territory imposing their own laws. Afghanistan has to go through all this because they don't have a credible way to deter an invasion. That's why they keep getting invaded!

The goal is not to get invaded in the first place. If you can make the conquest too expensive for the enemy then they won't try it, even if it's also expensive for you.

Obviously this didn't work for Afghanistan, but their example can help it work for others.

Edit: if you become part of a larger war then it can also be advantageous to make the occupation painful for the enemy when it happens. The more you hurt them, the easier and faster your allies will win. Consider Norway in the Second World War: they had no hope of overthrowing the German occupation themselves, but the resistance still contributed significantly to its eventual end.

Agreed that the goal is to not get invaded. That's why a country that has been recently invaded by two different countries is a poor example of someone for whom deterrence worked. Perhaps the threat of a war of attrition is an effective way to do this in general, but supporting that argument requires identifying countries for whom it worked, not a country for whom it failed spectacularly.

Afghanistan succeeded in getting the Soviets out in the end. With the US they made the mistake of badly provoking a powerful nation. It may not be the best example, but it works.

I'm having difficulty reconciling this statement

> The goal is not to get invaded in the first place

with this one

> Afghanistan succeeded in getting the Soviets out in the end.

The example of the Soviets losing is what would deter others. That's why I then had to explain away the US trying it not too long after.

His argument isn't that you need air and naval. Its that air and naval are, generally, more cost effective.

No, he flat out said that a bunch of dudes with guns are not a deterrent in this day and age. If that's not what he said, let him speak for himself.