Much like Vietnam, the only victory we will see in A-stan is that which we are willing to indefinitely subsidize. We pull out, we lose. We stay, we will win.
It wont be won, because you cant win the hearts and minds of those people. they have to modernise themselves, they cant be ushered into doing anything. prehaps America did invade wrongly, but they could make the best of bad situation and make a decent socety, even if Americans are there, but they wont, they'll fight and such, if they all calmed down, the yanks would leave, yes the government would be a puppet, and they'd be US Army bases, but it would be like South Korea, but instead they keep fighting and want USA out, now look at North Korea, they are "Free", but the South Koreans who are stooges of the yanks have a much better society.
Schofield;5341390This is the longest lasing war in US history as I recall, I honestly don't think America can win. I'd state why, but you basically did for me. I think in a few years America will back out, their allies who have kept close to them (Such as Canada) are already leaving because it is a war that can't be won. The entire Middle East is a war that cannot be won, we should just ignore it and focus on a place that can be helped.
I don't think the reason why Canada is phasing itself out of the war is not because it "cannot be won", but because the Canadian media is so anti-war that people just seem to think that is the case. The media tries to make a big point about the number of Canadian casualties, and while its a tragedy that many have died, its still less than half the number of soldiers who died on a single day taking Juno Beach. You don't find many articles in the newspapers or on television about the successes of the war (whatever they may be), only the day-in, day-out gloomy reports on casualties and Taliban resurgence.
The war can be won, but its another case of politicians wanting to acquiesce to the voters (because deep-down politicians are whores for votes and will do anything to take one on the chin for the voters) who have once again flip-flopped on an issue and pull themselves out of a slightly misguided conflict. Say for example the allies back out of Afghanistan and it once again falls into the hands of even more warlords and fanatics, where women cannot go to school, and the idea of human rights is a mere afterthought, will we the voters once again just blame politicians for being pussies and bailing on Afghanistan after we pressured them into pulling out in the first place?
Afghanistan is a shit-hole, plain and simple, the government is corrupt, warlords rule the countryside, and those wacky Taliban don't want to go away, but we shouldn't give up. I'd be all for installing a military dictatorship to crush those fanatics and local warlords without hesitation if it meant that freedoms, prosperity and actual democracy (make them yearn for that democracy in the face of brutal authoritarianism) could be a result sometime down the line.
The problem with Afghanistan is many fold. The most important part is that the country cant be won over militarily because the 'country' as it were is not owned or dominated by any one entity. There is no 'President' of Afghanistan that controls the entirety of the country and commands the loyalty and respect of its populace. For every warlord and tribal honcho you put down, there are literally, a thousand others needing the same thing.
Secondly, what is there to win? The country has NO infrastructure to attack or control, its urban centers are NOT the culturals or economic hub of the country so taking control of Kabul for instances doesnt effect the day to day lives of anyone but the people living in Kabul (which is few). The US doctrine of 'break things, storm the capital and hold its cities is floundering upon the fact that the urban areas in A-stan arent worth a shit and are located so far from the pulse of 'the people' that you dont know wtf is going on in the rest of the country. The lack of infrastructure means all of your weapons designed to starve out a conventional force by way of interdiction and offense are worthless since the 'army' you are fighting is the salt of the land anyway.
The strategy for A-stan is one that the military applied in Iraq but it fails to counter these crippling disparages between iraq and a-stan
1- Iraq has a unified language. Despite all the tribal hoopla over there, the country is essentially at odds between 3 groups of people who all speak the same language and have the same culture. In A-stan you have about 4 dominant ethnic groups with another 3 in contention, 5 languages and a seperation in culture between them as deep as the difference between a German and a Korean.
2-Urbanization. Iraq is an urbane society. People utilize modern conveniences, are literate, and exist in what is basically a recognizable form of modern civilization. A-stan is tribal and by tribal i mean less than quarter of the populace has regular access to things like plumbing and electricity. 19th century Russia had more in the way of civilization than these guys. If you controlled the cities in Iraq, you controlled the country and the economy. As i said earlier, owning the urban areas in A-stan means nothing.
3-Conflict area. This relates to 2. If you own the cities in Iraq, you own the combat arena becasue outside of the cities is very inhospitable terrain for an irregular army. They cant survive in the desert and the waste and along the T-E rivers, easy to patrol, easy to keep an eye on. In A-stan, the countryside is the battlesphere and its the most rugged area on earth. you cant patrol it very well and you sure as hell cant keep surveillance of a meaningful type over it so it makes guerrila warfare highly effective.