Post #1626206

2026-03-22 16:51 UTC

@graydon @cstross Okay, I understand that as a theory, but I don't see how that would work in practice. It's hard to imagine being bombed back into the Stone Age more than the Taliban, and ... well, we saw how that worked out. And it's not like the Taliban was the darling of external helping superpowers or anything. And the terrain was - oops - yeah, similar to much of Iran. And the region - oh yeah, right next door.

Replies (2)

@isaackuo@spacey.space 2026-03-22 16:54

@graydon @cstross And that was WITH a huge invasion force, as well as pretty powerful warlords and stuff helping on the ground. ... Annnnnd we still lost. It's not like the locals liked the Taliban, they just had a (correct) expectation that the Taliban would stick around longer than the Americans. And that was that. Yippee.

Open ##1626207
@graydon@canada.masto.host 2026-03-22 17:02

@isaackuo @cstross The US adventure in Afghanistan was undertaken while trying to do nation-building and while following the laws of war. (the much-complained about JAG representatives checking legitimacy of airstrike targets, etc.) It was seen as a fight. If you don't do that and bomb power plants, food stocks, oil refineries, water infrastructure, etc. with specific genocidal intent, you get different results. There's a circulating narrative around "could have won if" about this approach.

Open ##1626208