"At war with the truth" Topic

"U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

The documents were generated by a federal project examining the root failures of the longest armed conflict in U.S. history. They include more than 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Political pressure was applied to the military to blatantly lie, and/or stretch the truth beyond the breaking point, to make things look better for those in charge.

It was caught, and reported on back then, that much of what we were hearing was "wishful thinking".

Clearly, history has proven that to be correct, as even those not in the intelligence loop can tell, given our overly long presence there.

I ask this question based on historical precedent, as this is not the first time that this type of thing has happened. I keep hearing that the reason we don't pull out of Afghanistan is that we don't want to make the sacrifices of those that died be in vain.

However, based on history as a guide, are those that died better honored by sticking with a failing campaign and trying to find a way to make it work, or by acknowledging that even if the goal is achieved, the cost is too much and accepting what successes you did gain and going home?

Which would history deem the better option?

This is a general question not meant to be a political commentary since the linked article implies that both parties were guilty of making the same mistakes.

However, based on history as a guide, are those that died better honored by sticking with a failing campaign and trying to find a way to make it work, or by acknowledging that even if the goal is achieved, the cost is too much and accepting what successes you did gain and going home?

The way your question is phrased, I would say 'no'. The dead are not better honored by sticking with a failing campaign. They are honored for their service no matter the outcome.

Most would agree that the US was justified in attacking AQ in Afghanistan after 9/11. But mission creep occurred and it has turned into a forever war with no easy solutions. Sometimes it's just damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Sadly, we are still swatting at the bees, and not going in to eliminate their hives in Pakistan, where they are based.

A certain individual promised to do that, but then did nothing.

A certain individual is stuck under an authorization-for-use-of-force that does not allow attacks on US allies. And for whatever inexplicable reason, Pakistan is still a US ally.

I suppose the final discussion point would have to be the US telling Pakistan to either destroy those hives themselves or find themselves no longer a US ally (and therefore no longer protected from attack by that AfUoF).