Apparently not. Apparently you've followed it since the invasion but don't realize that there were up to 100,000 American troops at points before handing over the baton progressively to the Afghan government which was so lacking in legitimacy that the Taliban numbers were growing massively again in the last few years and controlled the country within weeks of US withdrawal. So somehow the handful of US troops could have just stayed for as long as they wanted without once again committing far more troops, despite the large and growing resistance to their presence.
controlled the country within weeks of US withdrawal.
Again, the decision to withdraw was made in DC and not in Afghanistan. We don't know why, and probably won't for some time, but "forced out by the Taliban at the point of a bayonet" wasn't it.
The generals and the DC blob were furious. They were adamant that the situation was fine and they could have maintained occupation for another 50 years. Those are the accounts that I read; maybe you can contribute some that said the Taliban have militarily defeated us and we must withdraw before there's a wholesale loss of tens of thousands of soldiers like it's Berlin 1945 or something.
There couldn't have been a loss of tens of thousands of soldiers because there weren't even that many there. That's exactly what I'm saying, there was absolutely no way of staying WITHOUT MASSIVELY INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF TROOPS.
How the fuck are you still not getting it?
They were adamant that the situation was fine and they could have maintained occupation for another 50 years.
And the entire point of the the Afghanistan papers is that even the exact same people who made these sorts of statements publicly years ago, were saying privately that the war was unwinnable. Inevitable loss.
Yes, they were forced out. The insurgency was strong and growing, there was no way to stay without massively increasing troop numbers. America lost a war once again to a bunch of farmers I'm so sorry that this hurts your chauvinist pride.
No, they wouldn't have, they could have set up permanent military bases and stayed for as long as they wanted if they had won. But they didn't, they lost.
They would have had to increase the number of troops to stay any longer, that's the answer to your question about why they didn't. Ramping up the war again after years of promising to end it was not worth it in any sense politically or militarily. The military industrial complex can be fed while doing something that at least has a chance of achieving other national interests, as in Ukraine or Taiwan or whatever.
The war in Afghanistan was lost, the US failed to accomplish it's objectives and eventually quit while it was behind.
Uh-huh. I would have heard about that. I don't suppose you can supply some sources on this from the DC blob.
Read the Afghanistan papers.
Apparently not. Apparently you've followed it since the invasion but don't realize that there were up to 100,000 American troops at points before handing over the baton progressively to the Afghan government which was so lacking in legitimacy that the Taliban numbers were growing massively again in the last few years and controlled the country within weeks of US withdrawal. So somehow the handful of US troops could have just stayed for as long as they wanted without once again committing far more troops, despite the large and growing resistance to their presence.
Edit: I misquoted you so editing to correct that.
Again, the decision to withdraw was made in DC and not in Afghanistan. We don't know why, and probably won't for some time, but "forced out by the Taliban at the point of a bayonet" wasn't it.
The generals and the DC blob were furious. They were adamant that the situation was fine and they could have maintained occupation for another 50 years. Those are the accounts that I read; maybe you can contribute some that said the Taliban have militarily defeated us and we must withdraw before there's a wholesale loss of tens of thousands of soldiers like it's Berlin 1945 or something.
There couldn't have been a loss of tens of thousands of soldiers because there weren't even that many there. That's exactly what I'm saying, there was absolutely no way of staying WITHOUT MASSIVELY INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF TROOPS.
How the fuck are you still not getting it?
And the entire point of the the Afghanistan papers is that even the exact same people who made these sorts of statements publicly years ago, were saying privately that the war was unwinnable. Inevitable loss.
Yes, they were forced out. The insurgency was strong and growing, there was no way to stay without massively increasing troop numbers. America lost a war once again to a bunch of farmers I'm so sorry that this hurts your chauvinist pride.
You're arguing against something I didn't say. The war wasn't to be won. It was to be continued. Forever. If they won they'd have to leave.
OK I am done with someone who is deliberately distorting and misstating what I'm saying.
No, they wouldn't have, they could have set up permanent military bases and stayed for as long as they wanted if they had won. But they didn't, they lost.
They would have had to increase the number of troops to stay any longer, that's the answer to your question about why they didn't. Ramping up the war again after years of promising to end it was not worth it in any sense politically or militarily. The military industrial complex can be fed while doing something that at least has a chance of achieving other national interests, as in Ukraine or Taiwan or whatever.
The war in Afghanistan was lost, the US failed to accomplish it's objectives and eventually quit while it was behind.