Winning against a force like the Taliban requires you to be able to operate with much looser ROEs than the US as well as operate against their enabled in the region and outside of it which the US was unable and or unwilling to do.
The Taliban was formed in Pakistan and it drew many of its fighters from there it was true in the late 80’s and it’s true today.
Winning a war and sustaining occupation are also completely different things, and most importantly this is about a peer or near peer enemy.
An occupation that is actually being opposed can only be won by extermination or expulsion whilst wars are won by making it too costly to continue fighting and allowing for or forcing a surrender.
The same people who were there ruling under US occupation are now ruling as Taliban - same game with a different name.
Highly recommend Steve Coll’s work on this topic.
To finish them off the US had to invade Pakistan or make it so costly for them to support the Taliban that they would have to give them up and they weren’t willing to do that for obvious reasons.
An occupying force can win the war by convincing people that resistance is no longer worth it. That tends to require clear goals, a clear vision of the future, and selling that vision to the people.
They certainly don't look defeated now. I would say the opposite is actually more likely.Hint: the loosing team was scrambling to evacuate.
>> US deterrence very much remained in place until it began to withdraw.
Or you could simply admit that the U.S. lost the endurance test...what does it matter if the U.S won the first rounds if it threw the towel in the 12th round? I wonder what kind of signal is this for a more advanced enemy (i.e. China, Russia or even Venezuela).
I wonder this. If you think of it as memetic warfare, what weapons were brought to bear? The US had 20 years to reprogram a whole generation of Afghans. Did they supervise school curriculums? Force kids to attend? Shut down religious schools hostile to the government? Create entertaining TV programs with empowered women?
Sure, that sounds Orwellian, but this is an occupied country. Wiping out certain cultural practices sure beats wiping out the humans.
The level of support that the Taliban has in places like Kabul is pretty darn low, the problem was always that none of their opposition was ever strong enough to effectively oppose them mainly because of just how much external support the Taliban gets from Pakistan and many other regional actors.
The Northern Alliance successfully opposed the Taliban for nearly a decade, its quite likely that some new iteration of it would also successfully oppose them today. (Tho in the past and most likely present that opposition would more likely to be some mutually agreed on stalemate with some periodic skirmishes than a live opposition).
But until you deal with Pakistan the Taliban will always be there to stay.
No form of social engineering would solve this, the tribal areas didn’t had night clubs or girls robotic teams under the US occupation either. And other than in Pakistan that’s where Afghanistan was lost.
The literacy rate in Tsarist Russia was ~50% in 1916. The Soviet Union managed to raise it to 75% in two decades, despite a largely rural population, near-zero infrastructure, going through a civil war, famine, gross government mismanagement, being flat-broke, and having incredibly incompetent, and ideologically-bound leadership, that was more concerned with waging a war against its people, than actually governing them.
If you're telling me that the United States, with an unlimited budget couldn't accomplish the same in two decades of occupying Afghanistan, I'll tell you it's not because it couldn't do it. It's because it didn't try.
> No form of social engineering would solve this
No form of social engineering if you don't actually try to build a national identity is going to solve that. National identities don't arise by an act of God, they arise out of focused top-down propaganda and education and cultural efforts. Every country that has a national identity built one through such a manner. Afghanistan didn't develop one in the past twenty years, because the occupation couldn't be assed to.
so now that the us couldnt beat them we promoted them to the status of a … “force”? illiterate, barefoot, malnourished, lacking an economy, and education, the taliban are now a “force” op thinks.
> formed in Pakistan
yeah mighty Pakistan, the country with a thriving economy and the mightiest tech innovation machine
> winning a war and sustaining occupation
the caliban simply moved from place a to place b and waited it out
it’d much more beneficial to admit defeat and learn from it. there is no amount of tech that can wash the shame away and hide the fact that the us has been loosing wars despite trillions and gazzilions of dollars invested in useless tech. as the would be dictator of the us would put it: sounds good, doesn't work. the us lost to illiterate barefoot folk hiding in caves. period.
The mujahideen that the US supplied weapons to in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation are not the same as the Taliban. The mujahideen also existed prior to the US supplying weapons to them.
The Taliban were a strict Islamist student group, the foundation of which consisted largely of refugee students in/from Pakistan, not from soldiers that fought the Soviets.
The Soviets had already been pushed out of Afghanistan years prior to the creation of the Taliban by Mohammad Omar. The US involvement in Afghanistan had dropped to practically nothing by that time. The Taliban easily stepped into a power vacuum post Soviet occupation, which is what they're doing again.
Here you go:
"Mullah Mohammad Omar in September 1994 in his hometown of Kandahar with 50 students founded the group. Omar had since 1992 been studying in the Sang-i-Hisar madrassa in Maiwand (northern Kandahar Province). He was unhappy that Islamic law had not been installed in Afghanistan after the ousting of communist rule, and now with his group pledged to rid Afghanistan of warlords and criminals. Within months, 15,000 students, often Afghan refugees, from religious schools or madrasas – one source calls them Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run madrasas – in Pakistan joined the group. "
Here you go, from USA government
But you clearly have a worldview that will not be changed, no matter what the situation may be.
They go after vulnerable people like schizophrenics and wholesale devise terror plots, motives, and means and convince the vulnerable person to go along with it. These are people who would have no inclination or means for terrorism in the first place. And in a recent case the FBI paid the leader of a satanic pedophile cult to take over another organization and use drugs and brainwashing to entrap its young members.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-fbi-knew-oklahoma-bomb-p...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment...
https://www.unz.com/estriker/exclusive-the-fbi-paid-leader-o...
There is no reason to think the US government wouldn't turn technology talked about in this article against its own citizens if it was deemed necessary. It's clear that the American government sees its own citizens as a threat.
What the fuck. This makes Qanon sounds sane by comparison: https://nypost.com/2021/08/26/fbi-funded-neo-nazi-book-publi...
They're trying to manufacture domestic terrorism so they have an excuse to chain the population. It's meant to bury any rebellion risk to their forever war and foreign adventurism agenda.
How many people around the world understand the US war machine is now being turned on the US domestic population? I don't think enough people outside of the US understand what's being set up here.
The monsters in charge didn't like the populism they saw rising up with Trump and Bernie Sanders, challenging the post WW2 order (the ideological group that is pro foreign adventurism - the thing that unites them is the globalist US superpower agenda - which has had dominance politically for ~80 years in the US and spans both major political parties). This is their response to that populism, their intention is to force a domestic war on terrorism, which enables them to pass further draconian security and espionage laws. If there isn't enough domestic terrorism (there isn't), they will spur it.
Biden is a lot more like George W Bush than he is Bernie Sanders. Biden and Bush are political siblings, part of the same empire ideology. Sure they'll disagree about abortion all day long, and then they'll both sign on to furthering the war machine agenda the next day.
In order to "win" in Afghanistan it would have required slaughtering a substantial percentage of the population, which is not a particularly popular way to operate.
However, if the Taliban was actually a threat to the U.S. then the Taliban would have been eliminated, and eliminated quickly.