Not only does it have the power to come back, but it's still actively waging war against us and continues to kill U.S. troops and undermine both U.S. and Afghan efforts to establish any kind of stability in the region. So yes, that isn't a defeat, unless you're just desperate to beat your chest and chant "USA!" and have to stoop to calling what is only a temporary shift in power a defeat.
Tis the nature of an insurgency. As far as I am concerned the defeat is in regard to their rule of the country as it's official government. While they have the ability to fight in the south, I don't see much evidence for further strengthen in other regions. Mostly because ethnically they are not accepted in other regions. In my opinion, it's the defeatist opinion that simply states that the Afghan military and police will not be able to hold off the insurgency. I disagree. I believe the ANA and ANP will do fine. After all, they have been fighting this war for as long as we have. I'm sure they have learned something.
And? What is your point? It doesn't matter if they'll be well received or not, the Afghan military can't withstand them on their own, and without U.S. backing they will almost certainly be overthrown and a new Taliban regime will emerge (probably followed by more infighting and maybe even yet another civil war). You think the Taliban doesn't currently receive backing from Pakistan and money from outside sources?
I really don't understand what you're trying to get. I was stating that even prior to the invasion Afghanistan wasn't necessary a unified country, and essentially have been in continuous war for about as long as I have been alive. While Taliban claimed to be the official government since they ruled the majority of the country and controlled Kabul, I don't think in the near future the Taliban will have the ability to win again. In the last 18 years, there has been a massive geopolitical shift in the region on who supports which group and which tribe supports which leader. I don't believe the East, especially Laghman or Kunar will fall so willingly to another round of Pashtun rule.
They didn't have as much influence in the North, and that's largely because it is a different ethnic region than the rest of the Pashtun-dominated country. But guess what, ever since the invasion their presence there has grown stronger and stronger. I know who Ahmad Massoiud was, and he was killed by Al Qaeda long ago, so what exactly does he have to do with this discussion? Just throwing a name out there for fun?
Define dominate. Last check, approximately 40% were Pashtun and of which not all Pashtun share the same alliance. 25-30% as Tajik, with significant less in other regions. IRCC, Hazara would be the the only other ethic group that would support a radically fundamentalist state, . In the event of another civil war in Afghanistan, it's obvious that Kandahar, Kabul, and Herat will fall to any Pashtun uprising, with Kabul probably being the most difficult battle since Khost and Ghanzi are extremely difficult places to fight against. As for why I mention Ahmad Massoud, that should be rather obvious. It definitely relates when you mention the United Front. In fact, I find it hard to mention the UF without ever mentioning him, and I imagine most people do too.
Please, commence returning to your seat and sitting quietly.
As far as I am concerned, you're just speaking from your arse. You keep saying that the Taliban will return and Afghanistan will simply return to pre-2011 reign of terror. While history has a tendency to repeat, I don't believe that it's a necessary fact that should be accepted as gospel.
What I fail to see is how or why you disagree with Mr. Russ. Perhaps a difference in opinion of what the word defeat means, sure. However, I don't necessary believe that means anything Russ said is wrong. My key contention is the idea of little progress. From 2001-to 2006 the Taliban was essentially a non-started. Other misguided wars surely screwed us in this regard, but nevertheless the Taliban has been weaken if from no other point than a point of view regarding it's consolidation of power and freedom of movement. Nevertheless, I think further discussion in this vein with you would be rather pointless, because it's clear that you will choose to argue your case by your definition of what victory, defeat, success, and progress means without setting out a metric.
