Win At Life said:

---

When 85% of the men in a country are incorrigible murderers and rapists, to whom do you turn the country over when you leave?

---

In 2015 it came to light that US soldiers were being told to ignore the rape of little boys by Afghan men in the name of cultural sensitivity and the US went so far as to destroy the careers of American soldiers who tried to intervene 1/ https://t.co/RpaVsIpZYi pic.twitter.com/V3y3dsvP1P

— Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) July 13, 2021

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

2021. There are many there that don't want that kind of rule. People/cultures can change. Change is inevitable..how much is the question.

Yes, you heard that kind of thing from veterans at various talks. Its one of the reasons can be assured the land is a write-off. Just forget it. The persistence with it may have something to do with the pipeline needs which even factored in some of the handling of it in 2000.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

We don't have the stomach anymore for what has to happen to defeat folks like the taliban.

---

Where have you gone, General LeMay?

The thought that you can't help those who don't want it and won't fight for it does have merit.

Pedro L. Gonzalez
@emeriticus
In 2015 it came to light that US soldiers were being told to ignore the rape of little boys by Afghan men in the name of cultural sensitivity and the US went so far as to destroy the careers of American soldiers who tried to intervene


That assumes that was AFGHANISTAN men and not Taliban. I doubt seriously that Taliban men would come out and say so.

titan said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

True. Especially for Afghanistan.

However, Eliminatus, in your opinion and experience, was that really as true of the Iraqis? If they had had a true occupation government, the kind that presides over both reform and restructuring of everything in iron-fisted fashion like the post Europe occupation --- given the day of the `painted finger' voting --- could the Iraqis in a few decades have learned to run a modern state? How far was Saddam really from running such ---- was the potential not there, if we had been willing to actually do the restructuring with the forcefulness of earlier eras? Are the Iraqis not a somewhat modernized lot --- at least conceivably capable of being a Turkey?

Honest question.

---

You're right. In everyday conversation with strangers it's easy to lump them together but of course there are huge differences.

Of the two, the Iraqis undoubtedly had the biggest chance of being and doing what we wanted them to do. I do believe that, with the right powerful and even ruthless ruler in place, that nation could have been Turkey or something similar. On black and white paper, Saddam was a strong enough leader to do that if he wanted. Tribalism is strong there of course but nothing like what I saw in Afghanistan. There is no doubt in my mind that of the two, Iraq would have been the best chance of a viable western standard nation state. In terms of living standard and economy I mean.

On a mental and cultural level the Iraqi people are difficult though. This is purely anecdotal but the one word I use to describe them is shady. They would sell out whatever they could for self gain. Even their nation. I almost like them to a nation full of mafiosos. Grossly inept description of course but can't help thinking it. A bunch of greedy opportunists with little self pride that every once in a while a ruthless member will raise to the top and rule through terror. I am biased though and I was around them when actively either trying to kill them or convince them not to kill us. I was also pretty young at the time so my perspective was more narrow.

I'll just use this as a first draft of jumbled thoughts until I get to an actual PC and keyboard. This subject needs more than a phone.

nu awlins ag,

But why would they care about covering up for the behavior of the enemy? Doesn't the context make more sense that it means by the forces on your `side'? Kind of like how we downplayed how bad some of the South Viet Nam forces were?

Eliminatus said:

---

titan said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

True. Especially for Afghanistan.

However, Eliminatus, in your opinion and experience, was that really as true of the Iraqis? If they had had a true occupation government, the kind that presides over both reform and restructuring of everything in iron-fisted fashion like the post Europe occupation --- given the day of the `painted finger' voting --- could the Iraqis in a few decades have learned to run a modern state? How far was Saddam really from running such ---- was the potential not there, if we had been willing to actually do the restructuring with the forcefulness of earlier eras? Are the Iraqis not a somewhat modernized lot --- at least conceivably capable of being a Turkey?

Honest question.

---

You're right. In everyday conversation with strangers it's easy to lump them together but of course there are huge differences.

Of the two, the Iraqis undoubtedly had the biggest chance of being and doing what we wanted them to do. I do believe that, with the right powerful and even ruthless ruler in place, that nation could have been Turkey or something similar. On black and white paper, Saddam was a strong enough leader to do that if he wanted. Tribalism is strong there of course but nothing like what I saw in Afghanistan. There is no doubt in my mind that of the two, Iraq would have been the best chance of a viable western standard nation state. In terms of living standard and economy I mean.

On a mental and cultural level the Iraqi people are difficult though. This is purely anecdotal but the one word I use to describe them is shady. They would sell out whatever they could for self gain. Even their nation. I almost like them to a nation full of mafiosos. Grossly inept description of course but can't help thinking it. A bunch of greedy opportunists with little self pride that every once in a while a ruthless member will raise to the top and rule through terror. I am biased though and I was around them when actively either trying to kill them or convince them not to kill us. I was also pretty young at the time so my perspective was more narrow.

I'll just use this as a first draft of jumbled thoughts until I get to an actual PC and keyboard. This subject needs more than a phone.

---

Eliminatus,
Thanks for that excellent overview. Kind of what was looking for. So indeed, the impression that there was at least potential and hope for "the Iraqis undoubtedly had the biggest chance of being and doing what we wanted them to do" -- that they might be able to be a Turkey -- was correct. But you also describe what gets in the way of that --- and who knows, maybe is what makes the strong man so integral and seemingly necessary. A mafiosa comparison makes alot of sense.

nu awlins ag said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

2021. There are many there that don't want that kind of rule. People/cultures can change. Change is inevitable..how much is the question.

---

You are right of course. The question is timing. We have literal millennia of history to look at with those two countries.

Hasn't happened yet.

A shift will start then will get crushed ruthlessly. Has happened more than once. Maybe one day it will stick but in our immediate future it won't. Or even our lifetimes probably. Just trying to be realistic when looking at the record and knowing how strong extreme Islam is and it's grip on them.

ETA: On second thought there HAS been times where light has shone in those areas. I was caught up in modern times and my mind was focused on them as they sit today. Nothing that stuck but that is the whole point of your post isn't it. I will retract my previous statement above in terms of history but will leave it for context to this addition.

titan said:

---

nu awlins ag,

But why would they care about covering up for the behavior of the enemy? Doesn't the context make more sense that it means by the forces on your `side'? Kind of like how we downplayed how bad some of the South Viet Nam forces were?

---

Not covering up, but more about not being outed as the sworn enemy. Added for clarity. Kind of like the Italian mob back in the day. Sure you were Italian, but you wanted not part of what they were doing. Likewise, the mob guys blended in as to not get caught. They are Afghans, but not necessarily brothers. You do what you can to protect what you believe, no matter how crazy that seems. My brother saw more than his share of death and he's just now opening up about that. In his words, "Day/Night it's hard to tell. What you think of as your friend is your enemy, what you think of as your enemy is your friend."

The best shot Afghanistan had was assassinated by Bin Laden the day before 9/11.

Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Tiger of Panjshir. Worked against Bin Laden and the Taliban. Very pro-American. Worked with our CIA for several years.

nu awlins ag said:

---

titan said:

---

nu awlins ag,

But why would they care about covering up for the behavior of the enemy? Doesn't the context make more sense that it means by the forces on your `side'? Kind of like how we downplayed how bad some of the South Viet Nam forces were?

---

Not covering up, but more about not being outed as the sworn enemy. They are Afghans, but not necessarily brothers. You do what you can to protect what you believe, no matter how crazy that seems. My brother saw more than his share of death and he's jut now opening up about that. In his words, "Day/Night it's hard to tell. What you think of as your friend is your enemy, what you think of as your enemy is your friend."

---

I understand. Your brother's testimony trumps utterly any second hand speculations or observations. So they were dealing with a fluid situation about even who might stay or not stay as an enemy at any given time. There are scenarios in history like that which that very much reminds of.

Often have wondered if Massoud was about to spill the beans on the attack--had somehow learned it. It looks rushed.

titan said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

titan said:

---

nu awlins ag,

But why would they care about covering up for the behavior of the enemy? Doesn't the context make more sense that it means by the forces on your `side'? Kind of like how we downplayed how bad some of the South Viet Nam forces were?

---

Not covering up, but more about not being outed as the sworn enemy. They are Afghans, but not necessarily brothers. You do what you can to protect what you believe, no matter how crazy that seems. My brother saw more than his share of death and he's jut now opening up about that. In his words, "Day/Night it's hard to tell. What you think of as your friend is your enemy, what you think of as your enemy is your friend."

---

I understand. Your brother's testimony trumps utterly any second hand speculations or observations. So they were dealing with a fluid situation about even who might stay or not stay as an enemy at any given time. There are scenarios in history like that which that very much reminds of.

---

It is very telling since our mother recently passed away last week. He didn't want to view her as in his words, "I've seen too many friends, soldiers and civilians dead. I need no see more." Very crushing to hear but I had to respect his decision as I couldn't comprehend what he's been through and he was a pilot. War never justifies the means, it only prolongs the inevitable which unfortunately could have many meanings to many people.

titan said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Fall of Saigon, Part Two

We flat out don't have the gumption to win a war anymore. As a populace and damn sure not our politicians who can't see past their next election.

Americans ****ing suck at foreign policy and proxy wars. I try so damn hard to not be bitter about it but as I get older the truth just keeps digging in harder and harder.

---

Saigon was worse, because in many ways what we were doing had started to work. Our MSM kind of threw that war, and that's not much exaggeration (the Cronkite hate, etc, all ties partly to that, but its just the best known example). One of the more interesting revelations learned is that part of the issue was the strategy first had to stabilize the logistics of the situation, then deploy, then begin actively rolling back things. They actually have the VC largely destroyed after Tet, but the press makes that into a defeat because they achieved surprise. But that's like CNBC calling Battle of the Bulge a defeat because we were surprised --- (true) --but you can see the catch-22. Anyway, the longer story is more complicated, but it was interesting to learn that by the early 70's it wasn't really failing as much as lit looked--- it had taken that long just to undo the behind 8 ball situation things were in when we intervened.

Afghanistan by contrast, is not winnable. Once again, if the Mongols couldn't subdue it, or Stalinists, none could. Bar maybe the Reich-- but we won't ever know that.

---

Tet set back the Vietcong but not the NVA. We were not winning Vietnam, it was civil war, there wasn't ever gonna be a US victory. The south wasn't ever gonna be able to hold their ground. They had neither the will or skill.

Afghanistan is different but the same outcome. We're not ever gonna win there. Unless victory is troops will stay there forever and US troops keep getting killed forever.

For those saying we don't have the stomach to win. Define what that is in Afghanistan? What does that look like, to wipe out a country, occupy it forever? How many troops will that take, how many deaths are you willing to take?

titan said:

---

Often have wondered if Massoud was about to spill the beans on the attack--had somehow learned it. It looks rushed.

---

Agree, but their plan worked to a T on that day. The absolute best weather you could have hoped for to carry out what they did. An operation like that had a leak or two no doubt. Pulling that off without a leak would have been the ultimate for them.

Quote:

---

The south wasn't ever gonna be able to hold their ground. They had neither the will or skill.

---

That may be true. I was just commenting on the military strategy of rebooting and giving a starting point was working. It wasn't a military failure --- it was a failure with the patient trying to rescue in the first place. They had expected to be free after the Japanese occupation, and that is where it needed to go. Careful diplomacy playing on the gratitude might keep that in turn from becoming a friend to Mao or Stalin. But the time for that was when the French went back in.

As for Afghanistan, it will vary for others -- to me winning meant making a half-way civilized place in some general sense. Futile and premature -- as Eliminatus pointed out -- -no sign of such a shift of even wanting a civilized setup. They have passed up opportunities.

titan said:

---

Often have wondered if Massoud was about to spill the beans on the attack--had somehow learned it. It looks rushed.

---

Actually, I don't think he knew about the attack. He knew something was going to happen but not the details.

BUT Bin Laden knew the chances Afghanistan was targeted for invasion by the US after the attack was high. He obviously couldn't lead the country as he was target number one. But he also knew Massoud would sniff him out for the US pretty damn quick. He was a direct threat to Bin Laden. He had troops that were experienced, armed and with great intel operations.

Massoud could have been the leader to get a majority behind him in a post war Afghanistan, in my view. Could have whipped Bin Laden's butt and the Taliban as well. Add that to his other reputations with fighting the Soviets and he's in.

There were those on this board defending the child rapists.
Really sad.

Eliminatus said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

2021. There are many there that don't want that kind of rule. People/cultures can change. Change is inevitable..how much is the question.

---

You are right of course. The question is timing. We have literal millennia of history to look at with those two countries.

Hasn't happened yet.

A shift will start then will get crushed ruthlessly. Has happened more than once. Maybe one day it will stick but in our immediate future it won't. Or even our lifetimes probably. Just trying to be realistic when looking at the record and knowing how strong extreme Islam is and it's grip on them.

ETA: On second thought there HAS been times where light has shone in those areas. I was caught up in modern times and my mind was focused on them as they sit today. Nothing that stuck but that is the whole point of your post isn't it. I will retract my previous statement above in terms of history but will leave it for context to this addition.

---

You are so true. Karen Armstrong wrote a book about the birth of Islam. My brother gave it to me to read as he headed out. Over 1400 years of fighting among them. It could take another few hundred years or so, depending on the will of those involved.

Kabul in the 60s.

TxTarpon said:

---

There were those on this board defending the child rapists.
Really sad.

---

What?

The media is constantly working to make sure we are divided, especially during a war. Now politics, rather than sound judgement rules the day. Lather, rinse, repeat. We have lost our will and our balls.

Why didn't the Taliban give up Osama when we asked? But they had nothing to do with it/ag4life

Onceaggie2.0 said:

---

Why didn't the Taliban give up Osama when we asked? But they had nothing to do with it/ag4life

---

Because Bin Laden had murdered Massoud. That's why.

aggiehawg said:

---

Onceaggie2.0 said:

---

Why didn't the Taliban give up Osama when we asked? But they had nothing to do with it/ag4life

---

Because Bin Laden had murdered Massoud. That's why.

---

Mulluah Omar refused to hand him over

titan said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

titan said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

agracer said:

---

A country has to want to be free in order to be free. You can't force it on them.

And IMO that was the biggest problem with both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their was no clear objective of when we were done (IE: Victory) when the war started, and really I don't see that there is one today either..

---

This is gospel in my eyes.

I worked with and around both Iraqis and Afghanis for years. I still cannot believe how naive we were towards them. We saw them harbor an enemy and we swooped in with solar panels, generators, and schools and thought all of these people would embrace us with open arms and convert to good democratic and capitalistic people!

My Lord we are such ****ing idiots .....

I'll say it again with conviction. We were never going to win those conflicts. Ever. We weren't allowed to.

---

True. Especially for Afghanistan.

However, Eliminatus, in your opinion and experience, was that really as true of the Iraqis? If they had had a true occupation government, the kind that presides over both reform and restructuring of everything in iron-fisted fashion like the post Europe occupation --- given the day of the `painted finger' voting --- could the Iraqis in a few decades have learned to run a modern state? How far was Saddam really from running such ---- was the potential not there, if we had been willing to actually do the restructuring with the forcefulness of earlier eras? Are the Iraqis not a somewhat modernized lot --- at least conceivably capable of being a Turkey?

Honest question.

---

---

Eliminatus,
Thanks for that excellent overview. Kind of what was looking for. So indeed, the impression that there was at least potential and hope for "the Iraqis undoubtedly had the biggest chance of being and doing what we wanted them to do" -- that they might be able to be a Turkey -- was correct. But you also describe what gets in the way of that --- and who knows, maybe is what makes the strong man so integral and seemingly necessary. A mafiosa comparison makes alot of sense.

---

Addendum to my earlier.

If Saddam has been a man of vision and forethought (and not quite as ruthless), he could have been amazing world leader. Alas, he wasn't.

This is one of the areas where I do have trouble separating what I know versus what I experienced. My anecdotal experiences color my macro level view of Iraq and Iraqis. I have a hard time not thinking of them as petty, self-serving, vindictive, devious to the nth degree, and serpentine in nature. Those are individualistic qualities in the main but it's how I see them. Obviously biased. But those experiences can't really be discounted either, especially when supported by historical events.

This will be unfair to some Iraqis of course, but on a macro level, I do see them as a people that have to be ruled by an iron fist. They have always done best under dictators ironically enough IMO. Looking at the past 100 years at least. They had their time and even had their Golden Age under the Abbasid Caliphate long ago. But fundamentalist Islam eventually compounded their tribalism and self serving nature and this is what we end up with today. Zero mystery in my eyes. The turmoils there in the past decade bear this out to me.

IOW, I don't think in the last generation or this current one, the Iraqis would ever be seen as what we would generally call a stable country due to their nature. Much less a stable western based country. It is disheartening to know we even tried looking back in hindsight. One of the greatest things that bothers me to this day. Iraq didn't stand a chance with us. I can separate myself to know that that is not 100% on them either. We on the ground level and most in Congress were so damn naive...

Onceaggie2.0 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Onceaggie2.0 said:

---

Why didn't the Taliban give up Osama when we asked? But they had nothing to do with it/ag4life

---

Because Bin Laden had murdered Massoud. That's why.

---

Mulluah Omar refused to hand him over

---

Because Massoud had been assassinated well before the request. Before 9/11 happened. Day before.

aggiehawg said:

---

The best shot Afghanistan had was assassinated by Bin Laden the day before 9/11.

Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Tiger of Panjshir. Worked against Bin Laden and the Taliban. Very pro-American. Worked with our CIA for several years.

---

I don't disagree, but he had his warts (that's the way of that part of the world)...

http://www.rawa.org/massoud_ussr.htm

There was a couple of books I read that went into greater detail about his relationship (of convenience) with the Soviets.

The Soviets may have been well on their way to winning the afghan war. They had bought off Massoud and were basically just going to wipe the pashtuns off the face of the earth. But then we (Reagan) bankrupted them before it could come to fruition.

This is really the only way to win in pashtunistan.


Edit to add: I looked for my old post about afghanistan, with about 10 good bullets, but couldn't find it. Couple of points were that:
Afghanistan isn't a real country. It was a british diplomats (durand) concoction. The pashtuns are one population that was seperated into parts of pakistan and "afghanistan." We should treat the northern alliance groups differently than the pashtuns.
We didn't fight a 20 year war in afghanistan. We fought 20, one year wars (winning the first one).
Our conventional army (big army) cant fight an unconventional war.

Troutslime said:

---

The media is constantly working to make sure we are divided, especially during a war. Now politics, rather than sound judgement rules the day. Lather, rinse, repeat. We have lost our will and our balls.

---

The media are more like useful idiots in this. The russians, chinese, NKs and iranians are doing this. The russians being the primary. (statement based on open source information).

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Hard to swallow pills: The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

Yes they did

InfantryAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The best shot Afghanistan had was assassinated by Bin Laden the day before 9/11.

Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Tiger of Panjshir. Worked against Bin Laden and the Taliban. Very pro-American. Worked with our CIA for several years.

---

I don't disagree, but he had his warts (that's the way of that part of the world)...

http://www.rawa.org/massoud_ussr.htm

There was a couple of books I read that went into greater detail about his relationship (of convenience) with the Soviets.

The Soviets may have been well on their way to winning the afghan war. They had bought of Massoud and were basically just going to wipe the pashtuns of the face of the earth. But then we (Reagan) bankrupted them before it could come to fruition.

This is really the only way to win in pashtunistan.

---

There is something kind of creepy about that. For any familiar with the Eastern Roman Empire's victorious war with Persia, after centuries of stalemate., and what that exhausting and shattering of the Persians did to set up to follow.... if you know, you know why the italics are creepy. And a bit disturbing. The way was made wide open for Islam's rise.

Anybody else reminded of the same things being said after Viet Nam?

Sucks for all of those who worked with us. I agree, it's time we got out, but damn...

BQ_90 said:

---

titan said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Fall of Saigon, Part Two

We flat out don't have the gumption to win a war anymore. As a populace and damn sure not our politicians who can't see past their next election.

Americans ****ing suck at foreign policy and proxy wars. I try so damn hard to not be bitter about it but as I get older the truth just keeps digging in harder and harder.

---

Saigon was worse, because in many ways what we were doing had started to work. Our MSM kind of threw that war, and that's not much exaggeration (the Cronkite hate, etc, all ties partly to that, but its just the best known example). One of the more interesting revelations learned is that part of the issue was the strategy first had to stabilize the logistics of the situation, then deploy, then begin actively rolling back things. They actually have the VC largely destroyed after Tet, but the press makes that into a defeat because they achieved surprise. But that's like CNBC calling Battle of the Bulge a defeat because we were surprised --- (true) --but you can see the catch-22. Anyway, the longer story is more complicated, but it was interesting to learn that by the early 70's it wasn't really failing as much as lit looked--- it had taken that long just to undo the behind 8 ball situation things were in when we intervened.

Afghanistan by contrast, is not winnable. Once again, if the Mongols couldn't subdue it, or Stalinists, none could. Bar maybe the Reich-- but we won't ever know that.

---

Tet set back the Vietcong but not the NVA. We were not winning Vietnam, it was civil war, there wasn't ever gonna be a US victory. The south wasn't ever gonna be able to hold their ground. They had neither the will or skill.

Afghanistan is different but the same outcome. We're not ever gonna win there. Unless victory is troops will stay there forever and US troops keep getting killed forever.

For those saying we don't have the stomach to win. Define what that is in Afghanistan? What does that look like, to wipe out a country, occupy it forever? How many troops will that take, how many deaths are you willing to take?

---

Some good reading on this subject is 'Vietnam; an Epic Tragedy" by Max Hastings. In short, the South Vietnamese were never going to fight to win en masse because they never truly had a government worth fighting for.