Re: LOLWUT?

The US might be losing less people and nominally remains in control of the ground in Afghanistan. That, under normal theory, is a victory. But it is not really looking to conquer Afghanistan or force it to accept a disadvantageous peace treaty - which are the goals for which normal theory works. It wants to root out insurgency. By that measure, it's losing, and losing big. The Taliban do not need to inflict ten thousand casualties in a week; and do not need to permanently control any piece of ground - much less do they need to strike back all the way to US bases in the Gulf. So they do not need to have the same weapons capability.

Nah. The Taliban have no real control of their country now. They have pockets of control. Big effin' deal. The stated goals of the NATO forces are, indeed, problematic to measure, but that sword cuts both ways. We don't exactly know if we're winning by the COIN standards, but nor do the Taliban and their supporters. Thus, traditional standards are all we can go by at this point, and NATO has accomplished its primary goals. Have we entirely defeated the Taliban? Not yet, but we could do with a few more years. The real enemy of our inevitable triumph is the American people, who have turned against the war in a big way. Not that I disagree with them; I frankly don't care if we bust up the Taliban entirely or not. We caused them mortal damage and they'll never be as strong as they were. More importantly, they'll think twice before aiding and abetting terrorist groups in the future. After all this is over, I reckon we'll see a kinder, gentler Taliban come into power legitimately at some point but nothing like what they were.

As for the US, well the gov't already has the tactical advantage here by already having in place everything they need. No need to build new bases or reallocate resources. Moreover, the Taliban fight dirty; they don't care to sacrifice their own civilians to accomplish their goals; NATO, in contrast, tries to avoid even foreign civilian casualties. Would an insurgency in the US fight a similar dirty war against the US, hiding amongst civilians like cowards? Maybe some of them would, but all or most of them? Americans are a different breed of people. There's no way a tiny civilian insurgency in the US could weaken the gov't enough to disable it, especially after the gov't shut down communications across the US except for those it was using. I'm certain the only way the US gov't could be taken over by force is via military coup, in which case this whole discussion is moot. Try again. :)