"US losing in Afghanistan: Like Viet Cong, Taliban knows " Topic

…that waiting it out will defeat invaders

"The latest conflicting reports about whether or not the Taliban has taken the strategic city of Ghazni between the Afghan capital of Kabul and Kandahar reflect the dilemma and difficulties that the American forces face today.

The concerns come despite the firepower and technology that the US has applied against an insurgent force, which has taken over more than 50 percent of the country. This is despite America having almost completely driven out the Taliban when it first invaded Afghanistan in late 2001.

The battle for Ghazni and indeed the effort to defeat the Taliban in remote areas of the country suggest that, notwithstanding the intelligence, technology and communications capabilities at its disposal, the US is losing the battle to secure the country…."

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

But the author glosses over one simple fact: the Taliban are not the VC. They did one thing that the VC never did- they supported a direct attack against the US that killed thousands of Americans. Because of that the US simply can never turn its back on Afghanistan because of the danger that the Taliban DIRECTLY represent to Americans.

I suspect they were never really driven out, they just hid in plain sight, much like the VC, and/or ISIS.

In Afghanistan, much like in Iraq and Syria, it's easier for them to do too, since they can just don women's clothing and face covers, when needed.

The Taliban also seeks refuge in Pakistan when things get hot, and the cross-border strikes into Pakistan with or without the knowledge and permission of the Pakistani government only had mixed success.

The one thing the Taiban do have in common with the VC is that they view the US as outsiders who don't belong and the US-supported Afghan government as its illegitimate puppet. So they will try to drive these foreign influences out of their country like the Mujahadeen drove out the Red Army in the late 1980's.

Time is on their side while American patience always runs out eventually and policy can change with the political wind. US involvement in Afghanistan since 9/11 can be characterized as a quick and decisive punitive strike that "almost" defeats the Taliban, then gradual withdrawal with occasional "troop surges" when the Taliban rears its ugly head again. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

I don't think the Taliban want to end up like the Viet Cong. Anyone who has studied the Vietnam conflict knows that there was a difference between the communists in the north and the Viet Cong communists in the south. The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out during the Tet offensive. The NVA leadership didn't particularly care for the VC. The US did the NVA a favor by killing off the VC.

Well, "the Taliban" aren't a monolithic institution, either. There is the Taliban proper, some splinter groups, AQ in Afghanistan (who, incidentally, attacked the US, not the Taliban), the Haqqani crime network, various warlords, local tribes who pick up weapons whenever any outsider comes by, foreign fighters, unemployed locals who are temporary hires, etc., etc.

And all have different goals, motivations, and leadership. Good luck solving that.

Staying in because of past commitments is a sunk cost fallacy paid in blood and treasure. Preventing another 9/11 has been done a hundred times over…and it wasn't going to happen again anyway – AQ pulled off a big win, but that was the top of their game for a lot of reasons.

The Forever War.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

"The one thing the Taiban do have in common with the VC is that they view the US as outsiders who don't belong and the US-supported Afghan government as its illegitimate puppet. So they will try to drive these foreign influences out of their country like the Mujahadeen drove out the Red Army in the late 1980's."

Their country? The Taliban are not native Afghanis. They moved in after the Soviets were driven out. They're just as much, if not more so, outsiders. We drove them out then tried to put natives in charge. They took over from the natives.

who, incidentally, attacked the US, not the Taliban

Indeed, that was AQ. However the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden and allowed AQ to operate on their soil. So, like I said, they supported the attack that killed thousands of Americans. That's why we are there now and why we will probably be there for a long while longer. It's the "Whack-a-Mole" game that never ends.

And honestly, can we really allow them to take back over?

The Taliban are not native Afghanis. They moved in after the Soviets were driven out.

The ethnic Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen who comprise the Taliban are tribal peoples with a long history in various regions of Afghanistan spanning over centuries. They have more claim to this god-forsaken turf than we, or the corrupt government of Afghanistan, do.

The Taliban came about due to a split in the Mujahideen after the Soviets withdrew. The Mujahideen was once supported and armed by the US. It is unfortunate for the world that the more militant faction of the Mujahideen took over and morphed into the Taliban of which offshoots became Al Qaeda. And now we have ISIS there as well. One thing leads to another and we pay for the sins of our fathers.

At the time sticking it to the Russians was all we (and Charlie Wilson) cared about. The consequences be damned because they cannot be foreseen at the time.