When will the americans admit defeat in Afghanistan?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/25/taliban-poised-seize-key-cities-afghanistan/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

When your mother dies in her sleep if you don't send this to 10 friends via text.

We won the Iraq war even though there was an insurgency there. We'll also win Afghanistan, it's just going to take a lot of resources.

The fact that Trump has decided to send more troops means that an exit strategy already exists. Else he would have just pulled out if he thought it was unwinnable.

No one wins in that area of the planet ever...

Alexander the Great won.

Are you autistic? We BTFO Al Quaeda (less than 100 fighters entire country as of 2009) the Taliban is too buisy having a civil war with each other and ISIS to make any substancial kenetic moves against the ANA, Bin Laden is dead, we colonized the country and have been harvesting opium and rayre earth minerals for the past 16 years with a fraction of the casualties the USSR sustained. When are you going to stop shilling for ANTIFA?

theres no defeating, only occupying. for the poppy fields/oil nigger

talibans rule 40% of the country, lmao.

Preventing the Taliban from gaining even more territory is what we're trying to do at this point. Some people act like endless war is genuinely a bad thing.

Elders choose which side they're on depending on who is nearby. They're entirely opportunistic. This is why alleigance shifts are so common there.

Also, controlling the countryside is good, but you won't be able to effect any sort of policy unless you control the major economic hubs, the cities.

It's not going to be endless. What's going to happen is that once the institutions and people who hold power now have existed for one generation they're going to be harder to dislodge. That's when we're going to leave.

And the "Afghanization" is growing heavily. I'm pretty sure all US forces are operating while embedded with the Afghan Army. Soon the Afghans are going to take more and more responsibility.

>you won't be able to effect any sort of policy unless you control the major economic hubs, the cities.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/25/taliban-poised-seize-key-cities-afghanistan/

lol

We were only defeated if you believe that our real intention was to bring democracy and stability to the region.

In reality, we accomplished exactly what we wanted to by invading Iraq/Afghanistan.

Am I reading this right?A smart comment from an american?This seems to be quite rare lately

After we have all the oil duh

Why are you being such a faggot. You disgrace your fellow countrymen. I fought alongside Romanians overseas and they were cool dudes, you seem like an utter fucking faggot though.

Never, we killed off most of the important leaders of Al Qaeda.
To the U.S. govt. that's a win, on the other hand others will fill their place and more people will die all over again.

Its a never ending cycle OP, the war in the middle East technically wont ever end.

If you the telegraph really thinks pashtuns with kalashnikovs can really take a major city while the Afghan Army has APCs and tanks, they're beyond retarded.

I'm not saying Taliban isn't going to do it's usual terrorist attacks, but the idea that they're going to do an ISIL and actually take a city is preposterous.

Alexander the Great was also not constrained by mass media and """"""""""""human rights"""""""""".

The only way to make sure that Afghanistan doesn't fall to the Taliban is to colonize the country with American rednecks and push native Afghans into Iran and Pakistan. Afghanistan does have the mineral resources to attract the now dormant restless American spirit.

>I fought alongside Romanians overseas
they should be forced to play jump rope over IEDs for this

If we played by the Taliban's rules there wouldn't be any people left in Afghanistan. The whole nation would be a graveyard

>defeat

They've successful destabilized multiple countries for the foreseeable future

It's because the US is constrained by human rights that it took this long with this many resources. We could have easily ended them in 2002 and just wiped everyone out if human rights weren't an issue.

One way or another we're going to end up winning. Truth be told if it weren't for the Obama administration's terrible decisions I think we would be much closer to ending it.

>The greatest military in the world has problems with a bunch of apes in a cave

also
>an exit strategy already exists
LMAO, Trump is just doing whatever he thinks is right, he has no fucking plans. He's too afraid to be seen as a coward and would rather kill more american soldiers than come up with an actual strategy.

When they are all dead.
t. Trudeau

>If you the telegraph really thinks pashtuns with kalashnikovs can really take a major city while the Afghan Army has APCs and tanks, they're beyond retarded.
They already took Kunduz a few years ago for a few days. The only reason they were driven back is because of American forces holding the Afghans' hands. The Iraqi Army also shit the bed and ran away from underequipped and outnumbered ISIS forces when they rolled up to Mosul.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq and Afghanistan do not have armies capable of maintaining their own security.

the afghan meme army is full of junkies who defect when the taliban come to town.
the talibans have been winning hearts and minds in the last years. it's why they rule half of the country now.

>Trump is just doing whatever he thinks is right

Even you have to admit that he's not a warhawk neocon, Pedro. The fact that he decided to send 4000 more troops means that there is an exit strategy. What this is or how reasonable it is I can't tell you. But there is a strategy in place or he would not have sent people in.

>apes in a cave
If you're referring to Iraq, where those were trained foreign fighters as well as former Iraqi army regulars I wouldn't exactly call them apes.

You have to remember than many of the taliban are mujaheddin. They were trained to fight soviets in the 80s and they've passed that training on. Only now, after 16 years, has the taliban been reduced to farmers with guns.

ISIL had a lot of foreign support. Taliban doesn't have that. People from UK and Sweden aren't travelling to Afghanistan en masse to join the Taliban like they did for ISIL.

Afghanization is a relatively new program. It's going to take time before the Afghanis can fight for themselves. If you rush it its just going to end up like ARVNs in Vietnam.

They control the countryside and they can only do so under force. They don't have a PR campaign, they literally just kill anyone who disagrees with them.

And they can only do that if they can safely operate in a given area. This is why eventually we're going to win the war. We don't need to kill people who disagree with us, we could just bribe them with economic opportunity.

>They don't have a PR campaign, they literally just kill anyone who disagrees with them.
a classic example of might is right. based taliban.

>eventually we're going to win the war
said the american after 16 years of fighting

truth of the matter is nobody in that country likes you. that's why you can't win with guns or money.

Afghanistan is prime western supremacy in action. Afghanistan objective is to make it chaotic so China can’t get pipelines from Iran. Now it serves the purpose of disrupting the Belt and Road Initiative project. Also Get the opium. stop the Chinese and the Russians…and also the rare earths materials.

When we actually lose. Mattis just recently outlined a new plan for what we're going to do there.

i just don't buy this theory.
if the chinese were so desperate for oil/minerals/whatever they could have taken it from russia. even at a higher price.
they wouldn't have to mess around with terrorists blowing up the infrastructure.
me thinks the americans are trying to creep closer to russian heartland up north.
from the west through ukraine.
from the east through japan/Sk/now nork land.

>ISIL had a lot of foreign support. Taliban doesn't have that. People from UK and Sweden aren't travelling to Afghanistan en masse to join the Taliban like they did for ISIL.
I think one of the reason why the Taliban has been so successful in Pakistan and Afghanistan is because they're the "local boys". Additionally, they do not have manpower issues. Financially, the Taliban are also secure because of the drug trade in southern Afghanistan -- particularly Helmand province.

>Afghanization is a relatively new program. It's going to take time before the Afghanis can fight for themselves. If you rush it its just going to end up like ARVNs in Vietnam.
We've been rebuilding their country and training their army/police for 16 years now. They have neither the skill nor the heart to drive out the country even though they have the treasure, equipment, and numbers to do so.

Best realistic strategy imo: Rent brutal anti-Taliban warlords in trouble areas. Afghan government needs to let these warlords run their areas as they see fit unless they start becoming more of a problem than an asset.

>truth of the matter is nobody in that country likes you. that's why you can't win with guns or money.
Okay, you don't know anything about the tribal/ethno-religious makeup of the country.

if i don't know anything about it then you clearly have no idea

Than please tell me about the difference between the social organizations of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Pashtuns. Also, please tell me about the differences between the Ghilzais and Durranis, and how these differences manifest themselves in the current fight.

they all hate you