Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "The 4 KEY FACTORS in AFGHANISTAN'S COLLAPSE - VisualPolitik EN" video.

@johnsmith-fy6gl Pity that 'strict policy' doesn't stop them from launching wars that don't even involve retaliation. What did Iraq do to deserve being invaded? What did Vietnam do? Etc. Apparently retaliation isn't their only excuse for war.
8
@letecmig Women's rights was never the reason for the war. It's only being trotted out now in order to save face.
3
They didn't explain how to solve it. Just because they identified the flaws doesn't mean you now know how to solve it.
3
Got a link for that?
2
Because it is an American defeat, much like Vietnam was as well. The only thing the US achieved was killing Bin Laden, which they did years later in a different country via special operations. You don't launch a war just to kill a bunch of people, it's a tool to achieve long-term geopolitical goals. That's why the US stayed, not 'nation building'. That 'nation building' is more honestly described as stabilizing a client regime in power. And now said regime has fallen and the very people they tried to dislodge from power are back in power again, stronger than ever. The war failed at practically every geopolitical goal it had, just like Vietnam.
2
@garrettallen7427 And it was America and the Soviet Union that laid the groundwork for their rise in the first place.
1
@garrettallen7427 Technically yes. Those actions still destabilized the country, creating the very conditions the Taliban then fought and triumphed in. And both nations left plenty of hardware in the nation for whoever took control to grab. If Afghanistan had been left alone by the great powers from the start, Pakistan wouldn't have had anything to work with. The Taliban literally started as refugees.
1
@letecmig Fair enough.
1
Oh, and the Americans didn't leave on their own terms. They left cos they realized they could never win. In other words, they gave up. That's called retreating.
1
@playea123 "What would "winning" entail in your mind?" - Pretty much what the US has been trying to do for those 20 years. Establish a stable new regime. The people who're trying to deny the loss are merely shifting the blame onto said regime in order to not admit the US' failure. And losses are irrelevant - plenty of wars have been won by the side that lost more people. Even Vietnam was - the US lost about 58,000 people, but the Vietnamese lost over 3 million. Still counts as their win. "How is them leaving on their own terms after achieving all they could" - your phrase 'all they could' here is telling, it shows they didn't achieve all they wanted. Indeed they achieved very little of what they wanted. Hence they didn't leave on their own terms either, they left because they had to give up. They had to talk to an enemy they'd gone there to destroy, or at least permanently displace, and agree to leave with that enemy poised to take over. Another way to think of it is this - if you don't think the US failed in Afghanistan, then the previous Soviet invasion didn't fail either. Can't have one rule for them and another for yourself. And the Soviet occupation is widely considered a failure, including and especially by Americans. *cue attempts to invent some sort of very specific 'threading the needle' type excuse for why the Soviets failed but the US didn't
1
@playea123 "US citizens decided that..." - if the govt. has decided, it doesn't matter what the army feels. It's still a strategic failure. The Soviets weren't trounced there either, they too pulled back when it became more trouble than it was worth. Vietnam was also a govt. decision, thanks to the enemy showing it wasn't going away. Still a defeat. And you're inventing a very convenient explanation for why the American people left. Per your take, there was no reason to stay at all. And yet they did. So why're they leaving now? It has nothing to do with the 'original goal', as that has long since lapsed, the retreat is cos the govt. has given up on the cause. And that constitutes a loss. I would question why you're trying to use such mental gymnastics to try to deny it, when seemingly the rest of the world has concluded the same. Sounds more like you're trying to save face, which is ironically likely one of the biggest reasons the war has lasted this long to begin with. The US govt. knew how this would look, so it postponed it for as long as it could. The fact that it's finally given in just shows how bad things have gone in the end.
1
@playea123 Btw, if you think spending trillions of dollars to kill one man makes you look any better, it doesn't. It just makes you look silly. Osama was killed in a special operation in another country. Something that could've been done even without a war. Here's a nice quote from President Bush himself - "I’m not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt." Well, if you want to insist that this was all about Osama, you just end up making the US look even dumber than Bushs' quippy example. That doesn't do the US' image any favors either. Either admit the US lost, or admit the US are idiots. Your choice. Murderous idiots btw, as this also cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghans all just for the sake of capturing one man.
1
@playea123 Ah, I was wondering when you'd try to argue that Vietnam wasn't a loss either. Coupled with your insistence that the Soviet operation still was a loss, I think that makes it clear what's guiding your thinking here. Given that bias, I don't think I'll be able to convince you otherwise but I also doubt you'll be able to convince anyone else of your view who doesn't already share the same bias you do. As such, cheers! Good luck making your case for any of those wars. I suggest a good skin thickening regimen in advance, as you're likely going to face a lot of laughter.
1
@playea123 Here's a little light reading for you btw. Hopefully you'll find it helpful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
1
@playea123 No, you're speaking to defend America. The Vietnam war is widely acknowledged to be a loss, hell even its Wikipedia page acknowledges that. There isn't some huge controversy or disagreement over it. You're switching from military to political as and when it suits you to do so - favoring America and disfavoring the Soviets as convenient. This is literally a textbook case of motivated reasoning. But go on, feel free to try making that case more widely, see if it ever catches on. It's not gonna stop what's so evidently disturbing you - "Why do people keep calling this an American defeat?" They're still going to, because the counter-perspective is unconvincing.
1
@playea123 Sure, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. But even as per your own words, you're the outlier here, not me. I'm merely explaining the standard view to you. Though I'm sure you'll find plenty of support among fellow Americans. If you want to paint a very stereotypical image of what military losses look like, be my guest (fun fact: did you know that those cinematic pitched battles were a rarity in actual medieval warfare?). And of course conveniently ignore that even your own picture of loss means the Soviets didn't lose either. You can also keep telling yourself that the whole world is biased against America as well if it helps, including even on American sites. You can tell yourself that it's only cos you didn't achieve success "right away", even 20 years later, cos you're "so reputable". Whatever it is that makes you comfortable
1