But the U.S. intervened and it was done in a hamfisted manner with almost zero consideration of the consequences. The U.S. owes the people of Afghanistan an answer and probably some sort of reparations or resolution.
Sometimes in life the only option left is the least worst option. Every dollar and life lost there was for nothing. There is really no other choice than just accept and move on. They don't call Afghanistan ''the graveyard of empires'' for nothing.
Then the that's what someone should bloody say.
I suspect the main advantage of the Afghan conflict is that the USA can do extensive live weapons testing on lots of its funky new military hardware.
Yeah sure, it'll happen again. They didn't learn from Vietnam, it's unlikely they'll learn from Afghanistan(or Iraq for that matter). It just needs to fade from public memory a bit and then it's back to square one.
Jets and other high-tech stuff they can fly back to carriers in the Arabian sea or something. Most other equipment is probably junk by now they can donate to the Afghan military. Hopefully not stingers this time around. xD
They don't at least blow up the stuff or scrap it? They'd just leave heavy equipment to be scavenged by anyone, including foreign adversaries who know when and where they stuff will be abandoned?
See the problem is that the US had so many successes with similar tactics. Indonesia, Rhodesia, most of South America etc. Even with Iraq and Afghanistan, doing incursion and invasion are VERY successful. You just gotta keep it off the TV, so the money and losses arent know.
Gotta prove a weapon is effective to make those profits. And no on invades countries as often as the US
Well, yeah. We've been doing it for forty consecutive years in Afghanistan. Where do you think the mujahideen got all that US funding and equipment when they were fighting the Soviets, conjury?
I thought we were there because they sheltered a terrorist and many of it's members. Bomb the heck out of them, make them fear making you come back, and leave. We didn't leave but stayed. That error should be corrected.
If the U.S. cared about stopping terror they'd have invaded Saudi Arabia. Instead they're getting deals on drones and weapons. Terrorism was never the reason, poll numbers and oil were.
They did learn from Vietnam: they learnt to control very carefully what the media is allowed to report in the field, and the overall narrative.
Broadly, peace is more profitable overall. The question is more whether the forces of peace have the right ears in the corridors of power. Although in practice Afghanistan isn't really a war in that sense. Dropping bombs all over the Afghan/Pakistani wilderness affects the USA economy barely at all, and it's not like the military isn't short of money.
Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but obviously a country can hardly put itself in a position where it can't defend something important because it is already fighting somewhere. Imagine if that law got passed tomorrow and Russia promptly invaded the USA, and the USA lost because it wasn't allowed to pay for its own defence.
No excuse for our relationship with the Sauds. They are the source of many of the world's problems, including 911. But I think today, the US cares less about oil for themselves than controlling who has it and what they do with it.
www.macrotrends.net
I can buy that, but it I'd think war focuses wealth in pockets that will seek influence. And it works. Heck, I think that we'd be better off without war. Right now, drop a bomb, someone makes money building another. But it is like the broken window fallacy. Break a window, someone has to repair it. But your society isn't wealthier. You just had to do some work to fix a window.
