That was a very small and misleading dim and flickering tinted 60w bulb.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires - its a moniker created through historical myths and fluff.
Alexander was not defeated in Afghanistan - otherwise he would not have made it to Porus - Alexander was defeated by overextended logistics and disease. The Afghans as always did the EXACT same thing they do when they see outsiders invading - go to guerrilla warfare and wait it out. While it taxed Alexander’s forces quote a bit - it wasn’t any “nail in the coffin” nor the facade of “Graveyard of Empires”.
The Soviets were defeated by overspending in defense during the Reagan Era and constrained by political and diplomatic considerations of going beyond Afghanistan. The Afghans had a massive Haven in Pakistan which if taken away from them would have meant(as it was getting to until the Stingers came in) getting chopped up by hinds regularly. Combined with the mostly conscript Soviet Army that was poorly motivated for the invasion (Ukraine is a near repeat in some ways).
The US after pounding mincemeat of the Taliban day in and day out realized that unless it put even close to the equivalent Soviet boots on the ground or used the scorched earth tactics which its political and world opinions would never allow - its alliance with a corrupt Afghan leadership meant there was no will from the locals to accept any of the usual democracy tripe that was the ideal of the US leadership.
Militarily, the U.S. forces and their allies maintained overwhelming tactical superiority throughout their engagement in Afghanistan. They successfully conducted numerous operations against the Taliban and other insurgent groups, demonstrating significant capabilities in terms of intelligence, technology, and logistics. These military efforts often resulted in the decimation of insurgent leadership and significant disruptions to their operations.
However, the challenges in Afghanistan were not purely military but also political and social. The U.S. was faced with the task of not only defeating a resilient insurgency but also supporting the establishment of a stable government and the reconstruction of a nation ravaged by decades of conflict. The complexity of tribal politics, the pervasive influence of corruption within the Afghan government, and the difficulty of building national institutions were factors that no amount of military might could easily overcome.
The decision to withdraw U.S. troops was driven by a recognition of these complexities and the realization that a sustainable peace would require political solutions that military strategies alone could not achieve. This shift in strategy reflects a broader understanding that success in such conflicts is not measured by military victories alone but by the achievement of long-term political stability and development.
So, framing the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan as a military defeat ignores the broader strategic context and the nuanced realities of modern conflicts where military action is just one component of a much larger and more complex approach to trying to Fix Afghanistan… that was the folly .. fixing a mess.
Otherwise the US military-industrial complex is happy to provide all the JDAMs and MOABs to kill as many Taliban as needed.
Imran Khan being the king of faux pax Pakistani Trump he is - would constantly go around rehashing his Taliban-khan statements without realizing the impact they have once you are leading a country versus being an agitator politician. Combine that with what is generally spineless Pakistani establishment - a simple memo and some backhand messaging and poor IK was out…
I see the points you are making, however you can’t ignore certain truths.
1. The Taliban persisted for 20 long years, some of the leadership themselves participated in the war and if they directly didn’t then at the very least their sons did.
2. The Taliban were very serious about their cause, to the point that they were willing to blow themselves up.
3. The political fallout in Afghan society was inevitable… it is as the saying goes, “easy come, easy go”, the Afghans never built themselves up, everything was given to them, their infrastructure, their weapons, even the territory which was retaken for them, how would they be expected to hold it?
Consider Ukraine, after the Soviet collapse they had to do everything for themselves, there was no support group that they were totally dependent upon (key word here, totally), which is no surprise they are holding against Russia, their only drawback is fundings and arms. The Afghans on the other hand, completely different scenario, they were totally dependent upon America, which is why once they left everything just fell apart.
4. Alexander was not defeated in Afghanistan, but he did spend a considerable time there (4 years) and in the end had to marry a tribal elders daughter (Oxyartes) to secure his supply line, something his father Philip of Macedon also did.
5. The US was concerned more about breaking the resistance, not about whether or not Afghanistan had a functioning government, US has bases in nations that don’t have a functioning government.
With all these points, I truly believe the US lost that war, not because they couldn’t go on fighting or because they weren’t winning battles, but more because it was becoming costly, even if they did decide to win that war it would have been a pyrrhic victory, their image would have been completely tarnished if they went to those lengths and and it would have cost them monetarily and internationally. In truth their decision to pull out, although a defeat, was the best decision because any other decision would have been a bigger defeat.
Sometimes it’s not about winning battles, but more about persevering until the end, something the Palestinians are doing as we speak, and waiting it out to win the war.
. Only people he united were future beneficiaries of Napak mafia.
