Yes, both military forays were in the long term major debacles. It's obvious we and the world did not have the heart to win the war but the some rural mountain people had the heart to win. You should ask , why the Afghans could not put an army in the field in 18 years with the will to right.. It reminds me of South Vietnam for they could not put an army in the field with the will to fight.
We need to ask in 18 years, we could not win the Afghan people over to our side. There was something wrong with our message to them.
We need to go... If the Afghan did not want the Taliban, they would have turned on them but they never did.
We could have just paid each Afghan a few thousand a year and I bet there would have been no fighting. It would have been cheaper.
You know this is one time I am with Trump...
That's a good question as the Soviets even after several decades could not create a competent Afghsn army.
Some ARVIN units fought very well such has the Marines and Paratroopers. During the Tet Offensive many ARVIN divisions fought well on the defensive.
Paying the Afgahns and VC may or may not of worked but it would of cost less money.
One major problem for the ARVIN was drafting a majority Budist army led by Roman Catholic Officers who didn't always treat their men properly.
The corruption level of both the ARVIN and ANA is high .
Afgahns tend to have a higher tribal, ethnic or religious identity I.e.Shia vs Sunni then a national identity.
Vietnam had major religious schism's Roman Cato vs Budist vs ethnic Vietnamese vs Proto Maylay and Khmer.
Kirk's Raiders