Post #1626208

2026-03-22 17:02 UTC

@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.

Replies (2)

@graydon@canada.masto.host 2026-03-22 17:04

@isaackuo @cstross There's also the definite problem that everyone making decisions on both sides is incapable of doing a quantitative analysis. (They may have access to such analysis; it might be quite good, even. That doesn't mean they have any ability to believe it or to incorporate it into their understanding.) Something does not have to have a high probability of success to be adopted as a strategic goal; it has to feel right to these specific terrible people.

Open ##1626209
@isaackuo@spacey.space 2026-03-22 17:21

@graydon @cstross Well, I can certainly believe that various people who are stupid (if not AS stupid as Trump) wishfully believing in that sort of genocidal theory. I just don't think it would actually work. I mean, of course the sort of people who would fall for this sort of theory tend to not be the most stable minds to begin with...

Open ##1626210