[dragonwriter]

> That isn't what happened

Yes, it is.

> and there was no surrender.

Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender.

> The commander in chief made primarily a political decision

Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision. It is, in fact, the political decision that every act in war is directed at getting the enemy to make.

There's this weird and frankly dolschtosslegende-ish trend in America post-Vietnam to characterize American victories in war as military and American losses as “political” as if the two were orthogonal categories, but the only military victory is achieving the desired political end, and if you feel like you were “winning militarily” and didn’t do that, then you just didn’t understand the context of the war and your sense of victory was misplaced.

[kennysoona]

> Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. Wow, that was easy!

> Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender.

No, it was a retreat. For it to be a surrender, the Taliban would have had to be in a position of power. They were not.

> Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision.

Except for the times it is solely a military position.

[surgical_fire]

> Taliban would have had to be in a position of power.

They control the territory. The Taliban is in fact in a position of power. Doubly so now that it forced the US to retreat.

It is a weird definition of "victory", when the end of the war was a hasty and poorly executed retreat.

[kennysoona]

> They control the territory.

Only after a voluntary retreat, so that is irrelevant since they didn't have power at the time of the treat, and were not a factor in the decision to retreat.

> It is a weird definition of "victory", when the end of the war was a hasty and poorly executed retreat.

Of course it was a victory. The Taliban were ousted within weeks and then the place was under US control for 20 years. If it wasn't a victory, the last 20 years would have been like the last year instead of what they were like.

[surgical_fire]

> Only after a voluntary retreat

A voluntary retreat is not a victory. You are arguing it is, which is extremely odd.

> Of course it was a victory. The Taliban were ousted within weeks and then the place was under US control for 20 years.

If the victory conditions were to be bogged down for 20 years wasting resources in an occupation that netted no benefits, only to have your enemy be back in the following day when you do your voluntary retreat, those are the most retarded victory conditions ever spelled out.

It would be like claiming victory against the Nazis if after some years both the US and USSR left Germany, and in the following day the Nazis were setting up concentration camps again.

[kennysoona]

> A voluntary retreat is not a victory. You are arguing it is, which is extremely odd.

If I come in to your country, invade it, and have complete dominion for 20 years, than I've successfully invaded your country. Victoriously.

If I then change my mind and decide to leave, after 20 years of having a provisional government because I got bored, then yeah, my victory still stands, and the rest is details and semantics.

> It would be like claiming victory against the Nazis if after some years both the US and USSR left Germany, and in the following day the Nazis were setting up concentration camps again.

If they had held dominion over the Nazis for the entire time they were there and left voluntarily because they felt all of a sudden it wasn't there fight, it wouldn't be wrong to do so.