[at-fates-hands]

>> This probably didn't suit the USA, who wanted real, bloody war, to justify trillions of dollars of military spending. Just like Vietnam: 'body count'.

The role of the US went from hunting and killing Taliban to not allowing them a permanent base from which to launch terror attacks to "nation building" where the military was then building schools and gas stations. The US never wanted a "bloody war". If they did, they could end the Taliban in the span of a few weeks, just like they did ISIS. It wouldn't be a war, it would be a rampage for which many in the US population and politicians wouldn't have the stomach for. Thus, we have "surgical strikes" and operations that go above and beyond protecting civilian casualties.

>> Rapid takeover by the Taliban instead of months of death and destruction is actually the best possible outcome for the country.

I'm not sure how replacing the US military with the Taliban is considered "the best possible outcome for the country."

[captain_price7]

> If they did, they could end the Taliban in the span of a few weeks, just like they did ISIS. It wouldn't be a war, it would be a rampage...

This whole paragraph seems utterly bizarre.

US did NOT "end" ISIS, certainly not alone. Most of the fighting and dying was done by Shia and Kurdi forces inside Iraq whose lives literally depended on stopping ISIS. US failed in Afghanistan precisely because no such ally existed.

And, what exactly do you mean by "rampage"? There seems to be an awful implication- "if US forces didn't bother about civilian casualties, Taliban could be surely defeated". Which I suppose is true, there can't be any Taliban if there isn't any more afghan.

[chillwaves]

That's the product of American exceptionalism, the dominance of war culture in our media and (perhaps) a poor history curriculum in public schools.

[ramblenode]

You're oversimplifying. It took the US a full decade, with countless military intelligence resources, to find and kill their #1 target, OBL. But somehow if we were just more aggressive, all the enemies could have been quickly swept up?

These are soldiers who don't wear uniforms. There is no standing army or targets to "rampage" through, unless you mean entire villages. You're saying if the US had just been less tolerant of civilians, more Taliban would be dead. And what of the relatives of the civilian dead? Now they are your enemy, and the Taliban regrows like a hydra. Keep killing without regard, and now whole tribes side with the Taliban against the clear enemy. Provinces flip, and eventually the whole country is filled with an enemy you created.

The mission changes character once a critical mass of the country supports the other side. Certainly it would not be "nation building", just outright occupation, which works exactly as long as an overwhelming force is present. The conclusion would have been the same in the end.

[jessaustin]

It took the US a full decade, with countless military intelligence resources, to find and kill their #1 target, OBL.

ObL might have been at "Tora Bora" at some point in 2001. After that, he wasn't even in Afghanistan. How hard could they really have been looking, if they didn't even look in the right country?

[watwut]

> Thus, we have "surgical strikes" and operations that go above and beyond protecting civilian casualties.

While US army is significantly better then Taliban, the surgical strikes killed civilians fairly regularly and wish to protect civilians is not exactly "above and beyond".

> I'm not sure how replacing the US military with the Taliban is considered "the best possible outcome for the country."

I think that OP meant "compare to 2 years long war after which Taliban takes power anyway". That was the estimation as America was leaving - that ANA will be able to hold off for two years. They were not expected to win, but they were not expected to fold that fast.

[ilammy]

> They were not expected to win, but they were not expected to fold that fast.

There was no way they did not know US assessment of the capabilities. Why would you fight a war that you know you're not likely to win anyway?

Only if you genuinely believe US advisers are delusional and your side will certainly prevail.

[watwut]

US advisors were delusional, that seem to be sure now.

I mean, I agree with that logic, theoretically. Theoretically, if you know you will loose in 2 years, it is better to not fight and hope your treatment will be better as result.

But, groups did hold up and fought lost or seemingly lost wars. It is not just that they logically concluded it is all helpless and gave up. That does not seem to be the only or primary factor here.

[at-fates-hands]

>> US advisors were delusional, that seem to be sure now.

The numbers the military were giving them were completely inaccurate.

Biden said the Afghan army was 400K strong. It was not. It wasn't even close. The most recent figures put the Afghan army conservatively at 170K. Imagine touting a 4:1 advantage and then realizing, it's more like a 1:1 contest.

The Taliban numbers were way off too. The media and politicians were saying they had 50-75K, when in reality their numbers are closer to 100K if not more. Even back in 2018 they were saying they were 85K+.

The military chiefs saying they had trained that many Afghans was also wildly inaccurate. One of my family members was part of the Marines who were tasked with training the Afghans. He said it was nearly impossible to train them because they never took it seriously. They never expected the US to leave them. For many, it was a cushy paycheck that put them on easy street - it was never about defending their country, or having a sense of patriotism or duty. He repeatedly called them "clowns" and after a year, he asked to be reassigned and told his superiors the training was useless and there was no way these men would fight anybody, even with the best equipment and training they provided.

The assessments being made were incredibly off base and not even close to being accurate. The information that should've been coming out of there was the Afghan force was very small, barely trainable, and would never fight the Taliban or any other group regardless of how much you pay them or equip them or train them. Instead, politicians were repeatedly fed a fantasy about how the Afghans had a huge force, were trained by the best and fully capable to defend their country when the draw down or withdrawal happened.

When you talk to people who were over there and ask them what they saw and experienced? None of them are surprised by what happened. When you ask the Joint Chiefs and politicians in Washington? Total confusion and shock.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> They never expected the US to leave them. For many, it was a cushy paycheck that put them on easy street - it was never about defending their country, or having a sense of patriotism or duty.

To be fair, it's hard to imagine any person with a sense of patriotism or duty accepting to be trained by the invaders of their country to become a kind of native garrison for them.

Although I don't pretend to understand how Afghans saw the war, the US, their allies, or the Taliban, or anything else. It can't have been simple.

[watwut]

All that amounts to evidently delusional US advisors, for years.

And on US side, it resembles corporations in a way. The more optimistic report you give, the more you are rewarded. If you talk about issues, you are sidelined. So people down on hierarchy know there are issues and high on hierarchy get to pretend how good everything is.

On afghan side, it amounts to organization capable people who have choice won't join. You join it to get free meal, to steal a thing or two. You join it if you don't have much perspective otherwise.

Patriotism can't be motivation either, because Afghan would be joining American led army. And expectations that US will be there forever was fairly reasonable too. It is atypical for US to leave I they can have influence.