US general admits Afghan war cannot be won

[Anler]

It only took 17 years and 16 commanders, but the new US commander of the war on Afghanistan has finally admitted that the US cannot win the Afghan war militarily. Trillions spent, thousands killed, and the best the US can hope for is some kind of graceful exit. Meanwhile the Taliban control more territory than at any time since the US invasion in 2001. Interventionism loses every time.

Bring on Iran!

The US 'Cannot Win Militarily' In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Interview

written by tyler durden

monday november 5, 2018

Historians of the now seventeen-year old US war in Afghanistan will take note of this past week when the newly-appointed American general in charge of US and NATO operations in the country made a bombshell, historic admission. He conceded that the United States cannot win in Afghanistan.

Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban — the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001. 

"This is not going to be won militarily," Gen. Miller said. "This is going to a political solution."

Miller explained to NBC:

My assessment is the Taliban also realizes they cannot win militarily. So if you realize you can't win militarily at some point, fighting is just, people start asking why. So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the political piece of this conflict.

He gave the interview from the Resolute Support headquarters building in Kabul. "We are more in an offensive mindset and don't wait for the Taliban to come and hit [us]," he said. "So that was an adjustment that we made early on. We needed to because of the amount of casualties that were being absorbed."

Starting last summer it was revealed that US State Department officials began meeting with Taliban leaders in Qatar to discuss local and regional ceasefires and an end to the war. It was reported at the time that the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not invited; however, there doesn't appear to have been any significant fruit out of the talks as the Taliban now controls more territory than ever before in recent years. 

Such controversial and shaky negotiations come as in total the United States has spent well over $840 billion fighting the Taliban insurgency while also paying for relief and reconstruction in a seventeen-year long war that has become more expensive, in current dollars, than the Marshall Plan, which was the reconstruction effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.

Even the New York Times recently chronicled the flat out deception of official Pentagon statements vs. the reality in terms of the massive spending that has gone into the now-approaching two decade long "endless war" which began in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

As of September of this year the situation was as bleak as it's ever been after over a decade-and-a-half of America's longest running war, per the NYT's numbers:

But since 2017, the Taliban have held more Afghan territory than at any time since the American invasion. In just one week last month, the insurgents killed 200 Afghan police officers and soldiers, overrunning two major Afghan bases and the city of Ghazni.

The American military says the Afghan government effectively “controls or influences” 56 percent of the country. But that assessment relies on statistical sleight of hand. In many districts, the Afghan government controls only the district headquarters and military barracks, while the Taliban control the rest.

For this reason Gen. Miller spoke to NBC of an optimal "political outcome" instead of "winning" — the latter being a term rarely if ever used by Pentagon and officials and congressional leaders over the past years. 

Miller told NBC: "I naturally feel compelled to try to set the conditions for a political outcome. So, pressure from that standpoint, yes. I don't want everyone to think this is forever."

And ending on a bleak note in terms of the "save face" and "cut and run" nature of the US future engagement in Afghanistan, Gen. Miller concluded, "This is my last assignment as a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't think they'll send me back here in another grade. When I leave this time I'd like to see peace and some level of unity as we go forward." 

Interestingly, the top US and NATO commander can now only speak in remotely hopeful terms of "some level of unity" — perhaps just enough to make a swift exit at least. 

[f7ben]

But but .....Farakhan shouted death to America.....DERP

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, f7ben said:

But but .....Farakhan shouted death to America.....DERP

Ask Afghanistan if they thought it was worth it. Ezderp...

[Jimmy Snacks]

Dopo better tell that General to get  the fuck out for talking bad about Merica!!!!!!

[jtssrx]

The only reason we invaded Afghanistan was for the heroine. The CIA basically controls the poppy trade which the Taliban at all but shut down. Why do you think they’re such a massive supply of cheap heroine

Edited November 5, 2018 by jtssrx

[steve from amherst]

Even if it could be won do they even know what a win would be? The war was about revenge . We got that in month one. Should have cut out then.

[Mileage Psycho]

Afghanistan is a treasure trove of minerals, trillions of dollars worth.

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 minute ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Afghanistan is a treasure trove of minerals, trillions of dollars worth.

So what...we need to GTFO.

 

[hayward]

Best thing to do now would be to pull out EVERYTHING, leaving with our tail between our legs and admitting defeat, and hopefully that'll please everyone their and both sides can just stick to their own for a while.

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, hayward said:

Best thing to do now would be to pull out EVERYTHING, leaving with our tail between our legs and admitting defeat, and hopefully that'll please everyone their and both sides can just stick to their own for a while.

I'm for a full withdrawal from the ME.  FULL!  If we can't move it, leave it.  Just get out.  Leave them alone to do their own thing.  They can hail the UN to resolve "spats".

[revkevsdi]

4 hours ago, Anler said:

It only took 17 years and 16 commanders, but the new US commander of the war on Afghanistan has finally admitted that the US cannot win the Afghan war militarily. Trillions spent, thousands killed, and the best the US can hope for is some kind of graceful exit. Meanwhile the Taliban control more territory than at any time since the US invasion in 2001. Interventionism loses every time.

Bring on Iran!

The US 'Cannot Win Militarily' In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Interview

written by tyler durden

monday november 5, 2018

Historians of the now seventeen-year old US war in Afghanistan will take note of this past week when the newly-appointed American general in charge of US and NATO operations in the country made a bombshell, historic admission. He conceded that the United States cannot win in Afghanistan.

Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban — the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001. 

"This is not going to be won militarily," Gen. Miller said. "This is going to a political solution."

Miller explained to NBC:

My assessment is the Taliban also realizes they cannot win militarily. So if you realize you can't win militarily at some point, fighting is just, people start asking why. So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the political piece of this conflict.

He gave the interview from the Resolute Support headquarters building in Kabul. "We are more in an offensive mindset and don't wait for the Taliban to come and hit [us]," he said. "So that was an adjustment that we made early on. We needed to because of the amount of casualties that were being absorbed."

Starting last summer it was revealed that US State Department officials began meeting with Taliban leaders in Qatar to discuss local and regional ceasefires and an end to the war. It was reported at the time that the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not invited; however, there doesn't appear to have been any significant fruit out of the talks as the Taliban now controls more territory than ever before in recent years. 

Such controversial and shaky negotiations come as in total the United States has spent well over $840 billion fighting the Taliban insurgency while also paying for relief and reconstruction in a seventeen-year long war that has become more expensive, in current dollars, than the Marshall Plan, which was the reconstruction effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.

Even the New York Times recently chronicled the flat out deception of official Pentagon statements vs. the reality in terms of the massive spending that has gone into the now-approaching two decade long "endless war" which began in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

As of September of this year the situation was as bleak as it's ever been after over a decade-and-a-half of America's longest running war, per the NYT's numbers:

But since 2017, the Taliban have held more Afghan territory than at any time since the American invasion. In just one week last month, the insurgents killed 200 Afghan police officers and soldiers, overrunning two major Afghan bases and the city of Ghazni.

The American military says the Afghan government effectively “controls or influences” 56 percent of the country. But that assessment relies on statistical sleight of hand. In many districts, the Afghan government controls only the district headquarters and military barracks, while the Taliban control the rest.

For this reason Gen. Miller spoke to NBC of an optimal "political outcome" instead of "winning" — the latter being a term rarely if ever used by Pentagon and officials and congressional leaders over the past years. 

Miller told NBC: "I naturally feel compelled to try to set the conditions for a political outcome. So, pressure from that standpoint, yes. I don't want everyone to think this is forever."

And ending on a bleak note in terms of the "save face" and "cut and run" nature of the US future engagement in Afghanistan, Gen. Miller concluded, "This is my last assignment as a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't think they'll send me back here in another grade. When I leave this time I'd like to see peace and some level of unity as we go forward." 

Interestingly, the top US and NATO commander can now only speak in remotely hopeful terms of "some level of unity" — perhaps just enough to make a swift exit at least. 

USA USA USA!

[revkevsdi]

2 hours ago, steve from amherst said:

Even if it could be won do they even know what a win would be? The war was about revenge . We got that in month one. Should have cut out then.

But then the Republicans wouldn’t have been able to funnel billions to Halliburton and Devos’s family. 

[Zambroski]

10 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

USA USA USA!

Emotional and helpless betaness noted.

[revkevsdi]

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Emotional and helpless betaness noted.

Is that how you felt when your general said you couldn’t beat a bunch of mud hut dwelling Muslims?  

You sure are a bunch of fuck ups. 

 

[Mainecat]

Another soldier was killed the other day. FOR WHAT?

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Is that how you felt when your general said you couldn’t beat a bunch of mud hut dwelling Muslims?  

You sure are a bunch of fuck ups. 

 

Helpless, emotional beta response noted.

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

Another soldier was killed the other day. FOR WHAT?

How many died when Obama decided to take down gone daffy?  Vs Saddam and Bin Laden?

hold that.....  Republican plans didn’t get Bin Laden. 

You right wing fucktards only talk about it. Democrats get the job done. 

[Zambroski]

5 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

How many died when Obama decided to take down gone daffy?  Vs Saddam and Bin Laden?

hold that.....  Republican plans didn’t get Bin Laden. 

You right wing fucktards only talk about it. Democrats get the job done. 

Moronic.  Normal.

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

Another soldier was killed the other day. FOR WHAT?

Yep...by an Afghani Security Forces Member....he was there training Afghans.

 

http://time.com/5444889/utah-mayor-brent-taylor-killed-afghanistan/

[Mileage Psycho]

2 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

So what...we need to GTFO.

 

I don't know if that's the best option.

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

I don't know if that's the best option.

The sad reality is it isn’t.  But the results of a full withdrawal would be fun to watch.  Here and there.

[Mileage Psycho]

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

The sad reality is it isn’t.  But the results of a full withdrawal would be fun to watch.  Here and there.

I think General Miller made an honest assessment when he says we can't win militarily and that the Taliban can't win militarily, so that leaves a political solution; and part of that political solution should be that the US and Afghanistan share a favored nation status in regards to investment and trade.

The Vietnamese love us, who would have thought that 40 or 30 years ago.

[Jimmy Snacks]

2 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

I think General Miller made an honest assessment when he says we can't win militarily and that the Taliban can't win militarily, so that leaves a political solution; and part of that political solution should be that the US and Afghanistan share a favored nation status in regards to investment and trade.

The Vietnamese love us, who would have thought that 40 or 30 years ago.

Comparing Vietnam with Afghanistan is ludicrous IMO.

Not talking militarily.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Jimmy Snacks

[Cold War]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

USA USA USA!

Remember when you constantly touted the Afghan war as the right, sane choice, along with most other liberal American idiots?  

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Cold War

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

I think General Miller made an honest assessment when he says we can't win militarily and that the Taliban can't win militarily, so that leaves a political solution; and part of that political solution should be that the US and Afghanistan share a favored nation status in regards to investment and trade.

The Vietnamese love us, who would have thought that 40 or 30 years ago.

Well, like Vietnam, there’s really nothing to “win” here...or, even less.  It’s another “good” vs. “evil” conflict.  Stability is all we are really bringing to the ME, and even that is hard to believe at times (I’m not digressing into that).

I’d agree with the “political solution” concept but I don’t feel it’s real possibility, every attempt is one failure after another.  That region is a mess and will continue to be a mess.  The radicalized religious tribe mentality is just not going to go away.  It’s embedded in the culture and people.  If we drop it all and  let it do what it wants, it’s a regional collapse that will be even worse to try and fix....and I know we will be back in the shit again.

There just isn’t an easy answer...but it’s fun to play an ignorant, non-caring jack-hole and pretend there is.