This is easier said than done, if it is possible at all.
Having recently taken a dive into the U.S.' involvement in Vietnam, this argument rings eerily similar the one that got us into and led to our escalation in Vietnam.
If it were truly an existential threat the US would remove the Taliban very quickly (that doesn't imply a safe orderly society would result).
But Afghanistan, like Vietnam is an optional and non-essential conflict at this point with unclear definitions of victory. Maybe "victory" is packing up and going home at this point.
The US' mistake was not capitalizing on Russia's failure, choosing instead to make exactly the same mistake.
In case of Afghanistan, it is not just "maybe". Packing up and go home - is a clear win for the US in Afghanistan.
No, no, no. The Taliban were broadly distributed throughout Southern Afghanistan, and they had a cross border sanctuary in Pakistan.
For its own reasons (Kashmir and the regional rivalry with India), Pakistan didn’t want to alienate the Taliban, and their military and ISI thus had extensive relations with the Taliban.
The US did not have enough leverage to get Pakistan to shut down the Taliban on its side of the border, and likewise did not want the destabilization of a nuclear state with borders on China and India that would accompany violations of Pakistani sovereignty inherent in large scale bombing.
I guess it depends on your definition of "remove". I don't doubt that a Taliban government could be very quickly overthrown by the US military. Probably within weeks. Now, the Taliban as an irregular militia is a completely different manner.
I remember watching a Vice documentary on Afghanistan called "This is what winning looks like". The line that struck me was a US Marine saying something like "the average Taliban fighter fights within 15 yards of their home". If that's anything close to true, no wonder the Taliban have been so hard to defeat.
The Soviet Union deployed over 115k for several years. The amount of fortune spent was a serious accelerator for the decline of the USSR.
Afghanistan is a large, dispersed, and landlocked country. With huge amounts of weapons from many sides. Decades of war. Little trust between population groups.
With what, nukes? Or by sending 5 million soldiers using $400/gallon gasoline https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-cost-of-gas-at-afghan-base... ? Like them or not, the Taliban are in their country and quite a few Afghani think like them. Let them be, with a major caveat--do not let anyone there attack us or our partners. I think they are rational enough to do that since USA did cause them a lot of problems.
They are so many problems in the world, USA cannot fix them. Not even make a dent.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/484979294/chart-how-the-u-s-t...
> work with the locals after the initial invasion
1) Isn't it an ongoing meme in the US military that ANA troops are useless and that the government is corrupt to an unimaginable level?
2) Didn't we also originally burn their opium fields, only to allow it to become once again one of there chief economic exports since it was so vital to the local economies?
3) Is it true we had a formal policy of allowing elder tribal leaders to systematically rape young boys in order to be more accommodating to their local customs? Including trading viagra for tips on insurgent activity?
I realize some of these questions are pretty sensitive and may be uncomfortable to answer. It just seems like it needs to be brought up whenever we talk about the Afghan war (while it's usually swept under the rug...).
With Pakistan providing huge financial and logistical support to the Taliban, it would never be eliminated. Geopolitical experts understand that so long as Pakistan has the India problem, Afghanistan will have the Taliban as a buffer state.
Pakistan is between Afghanistan and India. https://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Afghan_etc.h... I'm confused as to how it would be a buffer. Can you explain?
I think there's pretty good evidence that the ISI has (does?) financed/organized training camps for anti India groups (like Lashkar-e-Taiba) in Afghanistan.
1) Fear of Indian sponsored proxies and being squeezed from both sides. An India friendly Afghanistan presents an existential danger to Pakistan's interests. Pakistan does not want to be encircled by hostile powers.
2) An unstable Afghanistan means possible anti-Pakistan elements taking root. Better to sponsor known "pakistan friendly" elements like the Taliban instead of unknowns.
3) Defense in depth. Pakistani military and political doctrine would use Afghanistan as a redoubt. Most of Pakistan is extremely flat until you get to the Hindu Kush/Pamir mountains. The idea would be, let India steamroll the flat lands, retreat into the mountains and cross the durand line, coordinate the response from Afghanistan.
This hasn't been true as much recently because the Taliban and other groups became extremely powerful in Pakistan, especially in Pashtun tribal areas, and the Pakistani military was forced to intervene. However, the Pakistani military has never been able to completely corral their intelligence services, which is one reason why there isn't as much cooperation between the US and Pakistan anymore (they were once close allies), with US/India ties becoming closer and closer instead.
Re Obama: there clearly was a lot wrong with the Afghanistan policy. But I'm not sure I really buy the "low troop level" argument. Even at peak deployment levels (pretty darn high) under Obama the military operations weren't going particularly well. And that wasn't sustainable.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-ame...
https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-pop...
We then saw this play out to devastating effect with the de-Baathication agenda in Iraq.
I am extremely skeptical that any feasible amount of troops on the ground could have achieved such a goal.
1. Of course the military would ask for this, and complain after the fact.
2. It's easy for generals to make promises, but I have zero confidence that they would have actually delivered any results.