I mean, they came in, held dominion, and just didn't proceed to fully transform the country as they should have.

It's kind of like a UFC fighter pinning his opponent for 90% of the match and then suddenly forfeiting. I wouldn't call it fleeing or losing.

We may be arguing semantics, but a UFC fighter forfeiting is the definition of losing, no matter how much his win was apparent beforehand.

I think you're taking the analogy too far with that, although it's my fault for using an analogy that makes it so easy.

My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy. If you don't want to call that a victory, fine, whatever, but it doesn't seem like a surrender or loss to me.

> My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy.

Losing money, troops and public support in the field and back at home is a very real definition of losing.

It sure as hell wasn’t winning.

This is such a silly argument. They held the place for 20 years uncontested.

Retreating voluntarily because of nothing to do with their opposition, sure as hell isn't losing.

Instead of going back and forth constantly with this semantic bullshit, can we just agree at the least the US didn't retreat because the taliban forced and pressured them to?

I think you’re right about that and the semantics of it and that’s exactly the problem. The US approached Afghanistan as a battlefield, and a purely military problem. It was irregular warfare and a political problem that ground the US down.

https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/learning-from-failure-...