> didn't have the will to obliterate everything.

Had they "obliterated" everything then the US + Allies (or what allies they might have still got left after said obliteration) would have lost even more on the grand scale of things compared to a remote war in Central Asia. No amount of Hollywood + Western Media white-washing would have managed to get that stink off.

This is thankfully still true.

I hope this is true, but we’ll see how people treat Russia in a decade.

>The US + Allies lost because they didn't have the will to obliterate everything.

Hasn't the US carpet bombed Vietnam and still lost?

You can't win when you don't know what winning means

That was the issue with Vietnam (and with Afghanistan in a certain way)

Not exactly. They did bomb North Vietnam, but not carpet style, and they never actually invaded North Vietnam. Basically, just like in Afghanistan they were fighting with self inflicted penalties.

The US won vietnam. They're just disingenuous about what their goals were.

International laws also prevented that. You can't carpet bomb civilians.

I was under the impression that Russia has been doing something akin to that?

Yes. There is a tribunal waiting for them.

Doesn't seem all that preventative though.

Not for some people.

Nope, Russia has not been able to achieve air superiority and can't use the full force of its air power. Both sides' air defenses are too robust. This has mostly been an artillery/land war.

I see your point, doing what was required to "win" was not politically feasible. On the other hand, much of the fighters in Afganistan were already accustomed to fighting from rubble. I don't think carpet bombing the mountains would have much affect. Finally, another commenter made this great observation, you can't win when you don't know what winning means.

> Finally, another commenter made this great observation, you can't win when you don't know what winning means.

Winning means you installed/recovered democracy.

Well, success then. But the patient went into relapse as soon as the IV line was cut.

To add to that:

Both the US and the Soviets lost because Afghanistan isn't a country in a traditional sense; it's just an area of land with _lots_ of regions countrolled by war lords that doesn't have allegiance to anything central (i.e. "the country Afghanistan").

It's impossible to win a war against something like that, unless - as you correctly points out - you obliterate everything.

> The US + Allies lost because they didn't have the will to obliterate everything.

The Soviet Union did that and also lost. The only way to win in Afghanistan is by fighting in Pakistan. And that means a full invasion, not a half-measure as was tried and failed in Laos and Cambodia.