|
|
|
|
|
|
by somenameforme
893 days ago
|
|
|
Looking at total deaths is only fair, because different situations are going to cause different attrition rates, including non-combat. Put another way, the non-combat death rate of those deployed in Afghanistan is going to be different than that for those on base at Pendleton. This is why, for instance, vaccine experiments compare all-cause mortality between the control and experiment groups. Whether one is a fan of losing a war, or not, matters not - when you can't win. The Afghanistan Papers were the military's own assessment. We were losing, and running out of Afghans. If you wanted to keep the war going then soon enough you'd start needing large numbers of American soldiers maintaining ground ops, and that's basically not possible - we'd be getting picked off like fish in a barrel. The politicians certainly knew the Afghan security forces would collapse. The idea was probably to try to paint it as a failure of those security forces, instead of a failure of America - as would happen if we started mass deployment, and then ended up having to retreat anyhow - minimizing humiliation. As for Vietnam, the number of initial refugees was quite low - hundreds of thousands in a country of tens of millions. And the earliest refugees were largely made up of collaborators who had every reasonable expectation of facing torture and death if they remained. It also says very little about ideology as China was one of the destinations for hundreds of thousands of the early refugees. |
|
|
You’re just taking literal communist propaganda at face value with takes like that. I can’t believe I thought you were arguing in good faith.