upvote
The US spend 20 years in Afgan fighting to remove the Taliban from power only to hand power to the Taliban.

The US spent years fighting north Vietnamese forces only to sign a peace treaty, leave south Vietnam and then 2 years later have North Vietnam take over South Vietnam and unify the country.

You don't consider completely failing your objectives failure?

reply
No. Both cases were wins. Saigon fell 2 years after US combat forces left for example.

In both cases, Washington chose to stop sustaining a local government that could not survive on its own.

Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, which was a little over two years after the last US combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. US did not lose Afghanistan on the battlefield. US military overthrew the Taliban government, dismantled al-Qaeda’s sanctuary, killed Osama bin Laden, and prevented another major foreign-directed terrorist attack from Afghan soil for nearly twenty years. American forces were not defeated or driven out; they left because elected political leaders decided the mission was no longer worth continuing.

In both cases, the threats were eliminated. Hanoi is now friendly to the US. Iraq is friendly to the US. Syria is friendly to the US.

reply
Bac Ho took back the country he liberated from the french, renamed the capital city, instituted a communist regime that held its own against china.
reply
Saigon fell, and the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.
reply
Yeah, because the USA pulled out.

The USA apparently sees these little wars as investments or something. It's getting too expensive: cut losses and pull out the troops.

A real "USA loses" scenario involves the White House flying a foreign flag. A real defeat of the USA would probably shock americans to the core. Fully expect them to lash out with nuclear weapons if such a thing ever happens.

reply
> Yeah, because the USA pulled out.

Is that and act of victory or defeat ?

reply
It's not victory, but it sure as hell isn't defeat either. More like a tactical retreat or something.

Defeat is the US military getting routed and decimated. Defeat is US aircraft carriers sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Defeat is Washington getting nuked.

What actually happens is the opposite. Americans show up and inflict staggering casualties while suffering a relatively small anount. Then they suddenly leave for some idiotic reason like the president wanting reelection.

America's enemies don't need to actually win, they just need to resist as long as possible and drive up the costs of the war via asymmetric warfare.

reply
That just means the military, aircraft carriers, all that, were so ineffective that the enemy didn't even need to bother destroying them to achieve victory. It doesn't matter what would have happened if various parameters were different, if only we had gone all out this one time, and the point of war isn't the act itself of making cool trucks shoot at each other, and it's silly to argue that your home isn't insecure after a thief absconds with your valuables, but failed to pick the lock you put on the chest-high fence gate. (Pardon my silly phrasing, I mean no hostility or condescension!)
reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
Definitions of "lose" have been updated by firesteelrain to exclude retreating after failing to achieve anything.
reply
The nation-building project ultimately failed. That is not the same as achieving nothing, nor is a political withdrawal the same thing as being militarily defeated.
reply
You can also do Victory parades regardless of losing.
reply
And you can label every political withdrawal a military defeat regardless of what happened on the battlefield.

US achieved major objectives, failed at building self-sustaining governments, and eventually withdrew.

reply
Who rules Vietnam? Who rules Afghanistan? Tell us.
reply
I remember when I was young all the boat refugees from Vietnam. I could not understand why people said USA lost, but all the refugees were Vietnamese. If USA lost, whay were they not American?
reply
In part because the communist government actively targeted former South Vietnamese military personnel, civil servants, and anyone who had collaborated with the United States.

It was a civil war that the US got involved in, and they supported the side that lost.

reply
Communist Hanoi and Taliban.

Who governs those countries matters, but America cannot spend unlimited blood and treasure ensuring that every country is governed by people we approve of.

The threats were eliminated. Mission accomplished.

reply
Which is it, Taliban controls Afghanistan, or the threats were eliminated? Doesn't sound like mission accomplished to me. Americans can cope all they want, but those conflicts were utter failures.
reply
The USA completely failed to eliminate the threat of a communist takeover of French Indochina.

Ask Pakistan if the threat of Afghanistan-based terrorism has been eliminated.

reply