[somenameforme]

I don't think people really understand or think about what happened in Afghanistan. Like maybe we were just holding back or something. The final drone strike we carried out in Afghanistan is both deeply symbolic and enlightening. We killed a guy, his family, and bystanders including 7 children. The reason is that somebody thought the water bottles the guy was loading into his truck looked suspicious, so that was a good enough reason to kill him and everybody around him - even knowing full well this strike was likely to receive far more attention than average.

The army initially claimed they took out a terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives. They blamed any 'collateral damage' on secondary explosive discharges. The excessive scrutiny on this, the final symbolic drone strike, revealed those water bottles were full of water. And not only were the target and his family not terrorists, they were aid workers literally working for a US NGO in the process of trying to get a visa to the US. Nobody was held accountable or punished in any way. [1]

The point of this is that we certainly weren't "holding back" or anything of the sort. We were absolutely brutal in Afghanistan, and this went on for 20 years. But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible. Afghanistan now has the honor of being the only country to have defeated both the USSR and the USA. And they did it, for the most part, with "obsolete" weapons and improvised explosives, all while kitted out in robes and sandals.

[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/afghan-targeted-us-drone-strike-wor...

[AdamJacobMuller]

> I don't think people really understand or think about what happened in Afghanistan.

I hope that's not true. I know it's more present for me because I lost family there, but, I was against the wars long before that and I'm against them long after he died.

> The point of this is that we certainly weren't "holding back" or anything of the sort.

You misunderestimate the power of the US Military. We could have reduced the entire country to ashes, and it probably would have cost a fraction of what it ultimately cost the US.

> But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible.

Yes.

[polski-g]

> But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible

Spain and the United States used to do that all the time. Just look at the indian tribes. You just have to be willing to be mean (wipe out nearly every male).

[mrguyorama]

You cannot wipe out a population that looks and acts identical to a population you are unwilling to wipe out.

[polski-g]

Which is why Spain and USA did what they did.