Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Let's Get This Clear: Unlike the Greeks, the Brits and the Soviets, the United States Was NOT Chased Out of Afghanistan.

Just look at the casualty counts.

We pulled out because the American people tired of nation building. We lost the will to help re-build that nation.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

BalmyNites · F

Instead of America blowing its big trumpet as always, how about you go back to Vietnam & start clearing the thousands of land mines you’ve left for decades for innocent children to step on & be maimed

View 11 more replies »

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@BalmyNites [quote]ALLIES? LOOK AT YOUR POST TITLE, ATTACKING THOSE ALLIES! [/quote]

What are friends for if you can't speak honestly to them?

Or would you like to tell the class about the British debacle in its retreat from Kabul in 1842.

It's history. Not an "attack." It's history.

And the Soviets in the 1980s were hardly an ally. As for the Greeks? Really? We were an ally of Alexander the Great? I know that former President Donald Trump said "United States and Italy are bound together by a shared cultural and political heritage dating back thousands of years to Ancient Rome." But come on now. You're smarter than that! You don't really think the United States was an ally of Alexander the Great and the Greeks, do you? 😉

BalmyNites · F

@beckyromero Here we go, “friend” 😊

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@BalmyNites

MiGs, Scuds and tanks.

That's the Iraqi military supplied by the Soviets. That's the one we largely destroyed during the First Gulf War.

Even if we had knowledge that Saddam had WMDs, what would you have had us do? Intervene in the Iraq-Iran War to stop him? Oh, I bet the American public would really have gotten behind THAT idea. A few years after the Iran hostage crisis?

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Any of those empires could have stayed longer fought more if they thought the cost would ever have been worth it.

Same with America and France in Vietnam.

It is a defeat but the main point is that the war itself was a bad move.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

Soviet casualties were indefinitely sustainable, there was just no point in staying and nothing was being accomplished.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@QuixoticSoul homer

BigBulge · 41-45, M

IF YOU CAN'T BUILD A NATION IN 20 YEARS, IT'S TIME TO PACK UP AND GO HOME.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@BigBulge

As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day."

BigBulge · 41-45, M

The entire Middle East (with the exception of Israel) doesn't want us there. @beckyromero

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@BigBulge

Afghanistan is more properly described as being in Central Asia.

And I wonder why the don't want us there?

Maybe because the thought of democracy and freedom scares the crap out of the despots who rule those nations?

LeopoldBloom · M

The American people lost interest in Afghanistan as soon as the Iraq War began, and we only remembered that we still had troops there a few years ago.

We were never going to be successful in "nation building" there, by the way, because Afghanistan is not a "nation," it's a region where tribal loyalty dwarfs national unity. We were successful in Germany and Japan because those were coherent, unified countries. We wouldn't have been as successful with feudal Japan or Germany as recently as the 19th century if those two countries had been in those same states after World War Two.

We have no obligation to "rebuild" Afghanistan, other than providing humanitarian aid. There was no better chance of success if we stayed there another 6 months, or 6 years, or 60 years. Here's where we could have pulled out:

Bush, once the Taliban were toppled.

Obama, once bin Laden was killed.

Trump, once Abu-Bakr al Baghdadi was killed. Granted, he had nothing to do with Afghanistan, but most Americans don't understand that, so it would have been a good pretext.

Biden ripped off the bandaid. Yes, he screwed up by assuming that the Afghan army would hold off the Taliban, or more likely, that the Taliban would at least have the decency to wait until we were gone before conquering the entire country. Also, the mad scramble at the airport suggests that the Afghani people themselves didn't know the Taliban were going to take over that quickly, so how were we supposed to predict this? That being said, once Trump "negotiated" the "treaty" last year and withdrawal was inevitable, we should have been using that time to process visas for the people we wanted to save. It's too much to expect Trump to have done that, so Biden should have started the process.

cycleman · 61-69, M

I so bet the prime profiteers from the Bush/Cheney days have passed away. The new directors see new directions, and it ain't there or maybe they want the havoc for a later return. OR! .... well wait and see! 😊

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

The afghans dont care why America left. They only care that they left. Some city folk sad to see the wealth and protection leave town. And the non city dwellers glad this lot of "infidels" will leave them be.

BiasForAction · M

We failed. We shouldn’t have gone in. Bin laden wasn’t even in that country for long. A colossal waste of resources. Who the fuck cares if others wasted resources too?

Alison · 18-21, F

Most wars are won by people at home getting sick of it.
Same with the British in the US.

fun4us2b · M

@Alison Great reference!

patkaren1717 · 36-40, M

They just cut and ran out, just like in Ukraine.

LeopoldBloom · M

@patkaren1717 The US was never in Ukraine.

patkaren1717 · 36-40, M

@LeopoldBloom Just like the Russians were not in Ukraine.

LeopoldBloom · M

@patkaren1717 They were, just not officially. They're called "little green men."

I'm not saying no Americans were ever in Ukraine. Someone had to hand out the military aid that Trump eventually gave them. But it's not like we had an overt military presence in Ukraine where we were propping up the government.

The US needs to scale back its foreign involvement in general. If it's that important for there to be a military presence in the 700+ places where we have military bases, the rest of the world should step up and help out. In most cases there is almost no benefit for the US whatsoever to be there.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Hit another kid, they hit you back (harder than expected) . Walk away looking macho, and pretending it doesn't hurt.

"I so could have kicked his ass but it wasn't worth it!"

View 3 more replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero His comment was for that purpose. 2,000 people died on 9/11. It's a number dwarfed by the number of coalition troop losses which is again dwarfed by the loss of Afghan lives.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Burnley123 [quote]Walk away looking macho, and pretending it doesn't hurt.[/quote]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

LeopoldBloom · M

@Burnley123 We never count the deaths of the locals in the places we invade.

canusernamebemyusername · M

Americans are really more into the nation destroying business. Even their own.

cycleman · 61-69, M

@canusernamebemyusername Great Money is to be made!

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

That’s one way to look at it

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

TheArbitrator · 36-40, M

In warfare, a retreat without meeting the objective is a defeat. The US was defeated because they were unable to crush the Taliban.

View 13 more replies »

LeopoldBloom · M

@beckyromero It depends how you define "restore international peace and security in the area." Certainly, toppling Saddam in 2003 led to the Islamic State and a [i]decrease[/i] in "peace and security." Obviously, that outcome couldn't have been predicted, but in 1991 we didn't have enough troops to occupy the country if we had overthrown their government. A decade later, General Shinseki said that we would need one U.S. soldier for every 200 Iraqis, and he was fired for it.

Also, even if it was a political decision, it was the right one. Saddam was effectively contained and there was no reason for us to go back in 2003. All that did was sideline Afghanistan and make success there even less likely. Imagine where Afghanistan would have been today if the personnel and resources wasted in Iraq had been employed there instead.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@LeopoldBloom [quote]It depends how you define "restore international peace and security in the area." [/quote]

Correct.

[quote]Certainly, toppling Saddam in 2003 led to the Islamic State and a decrease in "peace and security." Obviously, that outcome couldn't have been predicted, but in 1991 we didn't have enough troops to occupy the country if we had overthrown their government. [/quote]

Which wouldn't have been necessary had we done the job right the [i]first[/i] time.

[quote]Imagine where Afghanistan would have been today if the personnel and resources wasted in Iraq had been employed there instead.[/quote]

As for Afghanistan, imagine if just a fraction of the cost of the last twenty years was spent after the Ruskies left. Perhaps no Taliban at all.

And don't forget, it was our presence in Saudi Arabia all those years to enforce a "No Fly Zone" that Osama bin Laden used as al Qaeda's reason for attacking us on 9/11.

Wonder would the Butterly Effect would have been if Saddam was hung after a fair trial in 1991 and we left Saudi Arabia?

How does al Qaeda seek recruits if we aren't "defiling" their sacred land?

LeopoldBloom · M

@beckyromero Now we're getting into the realm of alternative history. If we'd have taken Saddam out in 1991, we wouldn't have had to go back in 2003. And if we'd immediately focused on Afghanistan after the USSR fell, the Taliban wouldn't have been entrenched there, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Speaking of alternative history, If Enver Pasha hadn't appropriated the German vessels [i]Goeben[/i] and [i]Breslau[/i], the Ottoman Empire might have been able to remain neutral in World War One, and possibly wouldn't have broken up in 1922. The history of the Middle East would have been very different in that case. It's amazing how much of an effect that one decision had.

Add a comment...