Would America have "won" in Afghanistan if not for Iraq?

[wimp]

That's been the standard talking point of Democrats since 2003; that Afghanistan was "the good war" and Iraq was "the bad war", and that if it wasn't for Iraq taking up resources we would have won at whatever goals we had there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Possibly, if we'd had goals in the first place.

[sting in the rafters]

the doctrine of USAF mandates air superiority for effective ground operations. This struggled vs the Taliban's guerrilla warfare tactics and only enhanced extremist recruiting. The insurgency knowledge of the Pakistan border created a logistics network which remained crucial throughout the war.


What would victory look like? The US entered the war with the objective of retribution against Al-Qaeda for terrorism on its own soil. While foreign expedition was justifiable, a more feasible operation involved legitimizing the judicial/security institutions in the North. The impulse for nation-building via winning "hearts and minds" without any understanding of Afghanistan's topography/culture made success untenable and only served to line the pockets of warlords/corrupt government officials.


The Brits and commies both tried to go there and failed, that place is a graveyard for imperialist ambitions. Only solace is now China's getting involved and they'll soon learn why that's a bad idea.

[Mr. Smith]

We did win, even with Iraq. The other half was excess time.

[Samof94]

That's been the standard talking point of Democrats since 2003; that Afghanistan was "the good war" and Iraq was "the bad war", and that if it wasn't for Iraq taking up resources we would have won at whatever goals we had there.

No, it was impossible. I think China will likely get sucked into it in the future.