• driving_crooner
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Americans with boots on the ground for 20 years in Afghanistan and could not beat the Taliban. But sure, this time will be different.

    • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      I hear this a lot, but what would beating the Taliban involve? While the US was there, the Taliban was at best in hiding, it was not holding territory. If you mean removing the very idea of the Taliban from the world? That is both hard to do and arguably also a genocide, at least a cultural one. The US has been good at that, but it’s also frowned on in the current world - see Gaza headlines.

      This is also why I’d suggest it’s kind of impossible to both not be the worst of the colonialist systems and stop terrorism (and it’s kind of unclear that even the colonial cultural suppression / conversion / excesses / crimes actually would stop terrorism).

      • driving_crooner
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        what would beating the Taliban involve?

        What about taking more than 5 minutes to the Taliban to come back in power after the us left?

        • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          That seems a strange definition to me - so if a boxer gets back up after losing the match, well his opponent didn’t beat him in that fight?

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Are you under the impression that the US military and the Taliban were engaged in friendly competition for no reason whatsoever, just a bit of international banter?