[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.