[rcxdude]

What is the point of a war if not to achieve the political outcome of the war? No-one starts a war to get a high K/D ratio, so it's only relevant to the extent that it helps with the political outcome, and on that front the US failed to achieve its goals. And I don't think this was something the armed forces had no part in: the manner in which they went about trying to achieve this goal certainly has an affect on the outcome, even if it was a lot more difficult than just applying their sheer technological superiority and direct combat capability.

[alex43578]

My point was a narrow rebuttal against the idea that the military lost against shepherds. They defeated them soundly, inflicting heavy losses while operating under a comparatively restrained ROE.

In the broader context of the discussion, the post I was replying to made it sound like US military might would be rendered ineffective against drones, just the same as it supposedly would against IEDs. That isn’t the case.

While IEDs accounted for losses, the US didn’t fail to accomplish war goals in Afghanistan because of technology, power, or IEDs, but just because of simple politics.

How would you propose the armed forces act differently in Afghanistan to change “hearts and minds” among a people that quite clearly support Taliban values and the existing way of life?

[Libidinalecon]

I don't totally disagree but there is large part of the US military machine that the point of war is to deplete the weapons inventory so that we need to replenish the inventory.

If you take that as a large variable then all the US wars of a last 50 years were mission accomplished.

I don't see the point in judging the wars from the obvious sideshows of "spreading democracy" or something of that nature.