Apples and oranges. The topic under discussion is military tech and military ability. The strategic victories or blunders of civilian leadership and diplomatic corps are just as important -- indeed often moreso -- but they are somewhat orthogonal to military strength.

There are only a couple ways to lose a battle, but countless ways to lose a war.

That’s exactly my point - of course the former USSR and current US have a more powerful military than anything that exists or existed in Afghanistan.

It wasn’t solely a military problem but both chose a primarily military solution (as did the British before them).

You appear to be disagreeing with my disagreement with "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers with ak47 for 10 years"

How does your point support the original claim? You and I are in agreement that fighting alone can't solve the problem of Afghanistan, but I don't see how that bears any relationship to judging the fighting.

Sorry, I’ve completely missed your point (despite reading it. Sigh), and as you say, I’m agreeing with you.

I’ll leave my comments unedited unless you’d like them gone.

Not at all, brother, I appreciate the mutual respect and engagement. Thanks for making HN a great place :-)