Afghanistan War

[ngatimozart]

Your right and I am wrong. I was looking for cases unfortunately my search was erroneous as I was in a hurry. Saudi Arabia breaks its own record for executions, beheading over 180 people in 2019

I didn't think that they would give up on their national past time so easily. If they had of it would have been big news globally. Be the same if the US gave up the death penalty permanently both at State and Federal level. Personally I cannot see that ever happening.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The government of the Netherlands has started the evacuations of the people way too late. After months of warnings and requests by the staff of the Netherlands embassy, the government just started the evacuations at the moment the Talibans already controlled Kabul. Combined with the fact that there were no coordination between american and allied troops, many translators and other people who worked for the Dutch troops could not left Afganistan on time.

Now these people and their family are in deep trouble. If the Talibans can not catch the translators and drivers, they will take the families, and will punish them.

Penerjemah Afghanistan yang Bekerja untuk Belanda Dipanggil Taliban

Para penerjemah Afghanistan yang bekerja untuk Belanda telah dipanggil oleh Taliban untuk hadir di pengadilan.

news.detik.com

Afghaanse tolken voor Talibanrechtbank gedaagd, ook familie bedreigd

Ook familieleden van Afghanen die voor Nederland hebben gewerkt, worden aansprakelijk gesteld.

nos.nl

 

[Ananda]

Taliban fragmentation: How real is the divide?

Several reports of friction in the Taliban leadership raised questions over the group's cohesion since it announced an interim government earlier this month, but analysts say, the Taliban is more united today since the fall of its regime in 2001.

www.trtworld.com

Try to look another perception from Countries that try to build it's influence with Taliban. So I look to Turkish media on this time. Sultan Erdo always put himself as the most influential leader on moeslem world, as his thinking that'sbalways the Turkish place.

Anyway this kind of articles from Turkish run media, that basically put 'praise' on Taliban as more united force in Afghanistan compares to other tribal warlords and previous US back administration. Despite their agenda, I do think this TRT article put one point that keep me thinking. Compare to their oppositions, Taliban do projects more stable force in the eyes of many Afghanistan, so far.

So, it is back to the question how the Taliban can feed the population and run the Economy again. Back to the question do they have the competence to rum an Administration. How far they can re-group the Bureaucrats that like it or not is essential on running day to day Administrations.

All the information that come out right now from various media on different sides, shown one thing. The previous administrations is a very corupt ones, and practically able to run due to constant injections from US and it's allies.

Thus if they manage (with the help of some relieve agencies or money from 'symphatetic' government), to put some sort of running government that able to put basic needs to most Afghanis. Then they have better chanches to run Afghanistan, for better or worse.

Off course it's Big 'If', too many deviations still can happen. Despite their shown of 'unities' within ranks, we all now it's much too early if that can unified to hold on challanges in governing ahead.

Still my point is, their threshold is not that high actually. Most Afghanis for long time has never seen a working stable Government. Perhaps most Afghanis that alive has not seen that. Thus as long as they manage to provide basic working stable Government, then it's already a good thing in the eyes of most Afghanis.

 

[John Fedup]

Afghanistan citizens will have to figure out what the corruption versus brutality/tyranny ratio should be. Probably doesn’t matter, their future will suck big time for a long time, nothing really new…..and the Taliban citizens will be doing the figuring out part.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Thus if they manage (with the help of some relieve agencies or money from 'symphatetic' government), to put some sort of running government that able to put basic needs to most Afghanis. Then they have better chanches to run Afghanistan, for better or worse.

Still my point is, their threshold is not that high actually. Most Afghanis for long time has never seen a working stable Government. Perhaps most Afghanis that alive has not seen that. Thus as long as they manage to provide basic working stable Government, then it's already a good thing in the eyes of most Afghanis.

So you mean we (the donorcountries) have to donate again our money to that country in order to make the Talibananas successful?

One of the reasons the Afghan government couldn't control and govern the whole country properly, was not only because of corruption, also because of Taliban.

 

[Ananda]

the reasons the Afghan government couldn't control and govern the whole country properly, was not only because of corruption, also because of Taliban.

If the previous administration is an effective government to begin with, even with Taliban they can control most of provincial government, thus cut significant influence from Taliban. South Vietnam also put down in History as corrupt and ineffective regime. Which give fuel to Vietcong continue insurgence thus give room for North Vietnam infiltration. However looking to historical comparison and the effectiveness of US back administration in Afghanistan, I do see even South Vietnam regime can work much more effectively as comparison.

After all it take few years for North Vietnam to conquer the South after US pull out most of it's ground troops, while it only take few weeks for Taliban to take control. Off course it's not Apple to apple comparison all the way (despite media try to picture that). However I just try to give comparison how bad the previous Afghanistan administration running the country even to failed South Vietnamese regime.

Afghanistan citizens will have to figure out what the corruption versus brutality/tyranny ratio should be.

We have seen many brutal regime but manage to provide relative stable government can survive all over the world. Like it or not, for most part of the world especially in impoverished nations, stability is sought out luxury then brutality of a regime.

have to donate again our money to that country in order to make the Talibananas successful?

That's the point that I would like to put, Taliban threshold to win over most Afghanistan population, is not that high. How far and long they need the donors money, is depends on how far they can bring the stability.

Many will not give money to Afghanistan now, even in the name of humanity due to Taliban factor. However there will be Nations that still want to give, due to their Geopolitical location. They do have something asside location to extract in their ground. All of that depends on how far stability Talibam can provide. Something that most Afghanis have not seen for long time.

Don't get me wrong, I have no illusion that Taliban will not be a brutal regime. They will be fundamentalist fanatical regime, base on their mostly pashtun tribal thinking. But at least more than a third of Government in this world are more or less a brutal regime (especially if we follow Western standard). So, the key is how far they can provide that stability.

 

[OPSSG]

Part 2 of 2: Does the Afghan civil war continue after the American surrender? Or is there a pause button?

South Vietnam also put down in History as corrupt and ineffective regime. Which give fuel to Vietcong continue insurgence thus give room for North Vietnam infiltration. However looking to historical comparison and the effectiveness of US back administration in Afghanistan, I do see even South Vietnam regime can work much more effectively as comparison.

6. Allow me to add my incoherent thoughts to support your post. IMO, the 20-year war in Afghanistan by the Americans was lost by Obama in 2014. In hindsight, the rotting collapse of the Afghan government in 2021 is actually inevitable -- what everyone in the West was wrong about was the speed of the collapse. This was in part also the reason Singapore wanted to quickly end its commitments to Afghanistan during the 2013-2014 transition period.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1444481703653699588

(a) Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said: "I think there's at least a very good probability of a broader civil war and that will then in turn lead to conditions that could, in fact, lead to a reconstitution of al-Qaida or a growth of ISIS or other ... terrorist groups." Emphasizing that he could not predict what would happen next in Afghanistan, he nonetheless gave a bleak assessment. "The conditions are very likely," Milley said, "that you could see a resurgence of terrorism coming out of that general region within 12, 24, 36 months." More than any other factor, factionalism within the Taliban movement (and the lack of pay for its fighters), is huge destabilising time bomb.​

​

(b) Even before the Obama surge (where Singapore was under pressure to contribute troops and resources), LKY clearly stated that the American post war-strategy in Afghanistan (after disposing of the Taliban) put the cart before the horse or doomed to failure. LKY understood that it really does not matter who decided what and when was what done in this NAO led war. NATO decided that for human rights concerns, it cannot bleed the sanctuary of rural Afghanistan into submission. "It wasn't lost in the last 20 days or even 20 months," Gen. Milley said. "There's a cumulative effect to a series of strategic decisions that go way back." The insurgency by the Taliban had only one strategy, to outbleed the occupier by getting as many of their own civilians killed as possible.​

​

(c) This is why Singapore took its dignified exit in June 2013, when the last Singaporean solider departed Multinational Base Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan in a RSAF C-130H -- with our Defence Minister saying in July 2013: ""Operations Blue Ridge (OBR) is the most complex and challenging mission the SAF has ever undertaken. As Defence Minister, I was conscious that we were putting our soldiers deployed there in harm's way for OBR. But the decision for the SAF to be part of international efforts against terrorism in Afghanistan, though difficult, was a right one."​

After all it take few years for North Vietnam to conquer the South after US pull out most of it's ground troops, while it only take few weeks for Taliban to take control. Off course it's not Apple to apple comparison all the way (despite media try to picture that). However I just try to give comparison how bad the previous Afghanistan administration running the country even to failed South Vietnamese regime.

7. Using Uruzgan as an example, research suggests that insecurity is largely the result of the failure of governance, which has exacerbated traditional tribal rivalries.

​

(a) A group of tribally affiliated strongmen was seen to have taken advantage of their networks to secure government positions, and then to have used those positions to further consolidate political and economic power and weaken or drive away their rivals. At times even involving ISAF by labeling their rivals as either Taliban (or involved in the narcotics trade).​

​

(b) In the context of the Dutch handover of Uruzgan and the 2014 transition, the research also raises the question of whether relying on Mohammad Khan (prior to him being killed in July 2011 in an attack on his residence in Kabul), was wise. Jan Mohammad’s main associate was his nephew Matiullah Khan, who took over the patronage network and engaged in war against his rivals that he eventually lost.​

​

(c) These warlords capitalised on their strong personal relationship with the former President Karzai, and status as trusted partner of the U.S. in the “war on terror.” Jan Mohammad’s main instruments of mis-rule before he was killed, were personal militias, as well as government security institutions.​

8. Given the characterization of American aid projects as having been monopolized by people who were seen as cruel and unjust, there was no likelihood that these aid projects could contribute to security in Uruzgan (see: https://fic.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/Uruzgan-Report.pdf). Correctly understood, the roots of American failure was laid by Bush, when former President Karzai was installed into a position of power. So plenty of blame to go around -- including with troop contributors like Singapore (whose troops served in the province that was one of the first to fall to the Taliban).

We have seen many brutal regime but manage to provide relative stable government can survive all over the world. Like it or not, for most part of the world especially in impoverished nations, stability is sought out luxury then brutality of a regime...

Don't get me wrong, I have no illusion that Taliban will be a brutal regime. But at least more than a third of Government in this world are more or less a brutal regime (especially if we follow Western standard). So, the key is how far they can provide that stability.

9. In Uruzgan, the Dutch employed experienced political and cultural advisers who conducted detailed analyses of local conflict dynamics and sought to shape and support positive forces with the use of aid and understand that Matiullah Khan was a cancer. The Amercians who took over after the Dutch (and the Australians who were still stuck in the province, at that time) were a lot less competent and the dynamics of being actively misled by Matiullah Khan, played out over time.

10. IMO, right now even Pakistan is having remorse for supporting the Taliban and it proves that President Biden got it right (when he was the only one who objected to the Obama surge). China and Iran wanted to give the US a bloody nose but what they did not expect was President Biden's decision that he would be willing to pay the political price of pulling out all American troops and allowing the state to collapse. Pakistan's ISI is doomed to failure in Afghanistan. This is similar to Obama's execution of the American withdrawal from Iraq, where after the full troop withdrawal, they were invited back in by the Iraqi Government (that was Shia dominated) to fight a Sunni insurgency. Likewise the client militias of IRGC, who had the biggest say in Iraq, after the Obama withdrawal, could not fight and win against ISIS.

 

[STURM]

Which give fuel to Vietcong continue insurgence thus give room for North Vietnam infiltration. However looking to historical comparison and the effectiveness of US back administration in Afghanistan, I do see even South Vietnam regime can work much more effectively as comparison.

After all it take few years for North Vietnam to conquer the South after US pull out most of it's ground troops, while it only take few weeks for Taliban to take control.

Even if the government in Saigon was an effective one and not corrupt, chances are it still would have fallen, given the flawed policies the Americans had at a poltical strategic level, plus all the dynamics at play.

The government in Kabul fell for a variety of reasons, corruption played a major part but it was not a deciding factor. A large number of Afghans simply resented the presence of foreign troops in their country and they saw their government as a foreign tool or puppet. Large numbers of civillian casualties also did not help shape perceptions, as did certain American actions/policies which made Afghan leaders look weak and ineffectual in the eyes of oridinary Afghans. What might have made the diffrence, even if the government had been corrupt, is the Americans coming up with a long term holistic coordinated poltical and economic policy that would have gone a long way in drawing support away from the Taliban and rebuilding the country, despite a highly flawed Kabul government.

These excerpts from an article I previously posted, say a lot.

"Meanwhile, the Afghans like these villagers and the Taliban fighters were often described as “stupid” by the Western soldiers, mistaking their lack of education for a lack of intellect. This endless underestimating of the abilities of Afghan partners and the Taliban was, I believe, a large factor in the ultimate outcome."

"It did not matter to regular Afghans whether the casualties were caused by coalition military blunders or Taliban “human shield” tactics; all they saw was a rising body count of their family, friends"

South Vietnam did last longer but then the NVA was badly hit in the Easter offensive, the NLF had all been decimated during Tet 1968 and the North Vietnamese leadership pstiently waited until the poltical situation was more conducive. Mistakes made at a strategic and operational level contributed to the South Vietnamese defeat but so did the American decision to cut back or even cease providing support [spares, fuel, etc] even when it was clear that the South Vietnamese had the will to fight. The Russians also pointed out that the government they left behind lasted longer than the one the Americans left behind but the circumstances were sonewhat disimilar.

The roots of American failure lay in the 2002-2003 period [this is when the foundations of the eventual defeat was first laid, irrespective of policies introduced by later President's] when the Americans with their overconfidence and hubris deviated from the script and failed to come up with a poltical and economic plan to run in parallel with military efforts, despite clear lessons from the past. Note that by 1969 the insurgency problem in South Vietnam had largely been won and American advise and aid provided to the Philippines led to the defeat of the Huk rebellion

 

[Ananda]

Even if the government in Saigon was an effective one and not corrupt, chances are it still would have fallen, given the flawed policies the Americans had at a poltical strategic level, plus all the dynamics

It is debatable whether the South Vietnam will survive after US ground forces pull out, if they have better government. Personally I do more to agree on assessment they will survive, if they have better capabilities on providing more stable, unified government to begin with.

North Communists government have charismatic Uncle Ho image to sell to the population (whether North or South). The South doesn't have that. Thus it's easier for the North and VC to sell the idea that the South Regime is the puppet created by US and Western Imperialism.

Abilities to win the heart and soul of most population only being projected by the North and not the South. On that sense there's kind of similarities between Taliban and previous Afghanistan administration.

Image of strong unified government is important for many nations that in fall into civil conflicts. People will go to whoever they see more able to provide relative stability. Stability in sense like it or not will be perceived better by most population, even they know it has to be paid with more 'totalitarien' regime as price. This's shown through out 20th -21st century historical development, especially in impoverish nations.

 

[STURM]

North Communists government have charismatic Uncle Ho image to sell to the population (whether North or South). The South doesn't have that. Thus it's easier for the North and VC to sell the idea that the South Regime is the puppet created by US and Western Imperialism.

It goes way beyond Ho Chi Minh. It was "easier" because the ocerwhelming majority of the population were convinced that the two halves had to be unified and that a major stumbling block was a government in Saigon supported by America. Both sides misread each other's intentions - the Americans believed the North Vietnamese were the willing pawns of the Soviets whose ultimate aim was to spread the revolution across the region. The North Vietnamese believed America had imperialist designs on the country. We know this because Americans who were decsion makers [including NcMamara] later had several meetings with their Vietnamese counterparts to gain an understanding of why they did what they did.

For a detailed assessment on how armies belonging to authoritarian regimes [including South Vietnam] performed and why, I highly recommend this book.

The Dictator’s Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in Authoritarian Regimes

Military analysts and historians have long held that variations in political systems can affect military effectiveness. For example, authoritarian systems tend to be bolder than democracies; for that reason, authoritarian leaders are more prone to strategic error. In line with other scholars who...

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[ngatimozart]

For a detailed assessment on how armies belonging to authoritarian regimes [including South Vietnam] performed and why, I highly recommend this book.

The Dictator’s Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in Authoritarian Regimes

Military analysts and historians have long held that variations in political systems can affect military effectiveness. For example, authoritarian systems tend to be bolder than democracies; for that reason, authoritarian leaders are more prone to strategic error. In line with other scholars who...

www.foreignaffairs.com

The link below gives a precis of the book's aim. From the looks of it it appears interesting, so I will add it to my list.

The dictator's army: battlefield effectiveness in authoritarian regimes | MIT Center for International Studies

cis.mit.edu

 

[Ananda]

The North Vietnamese believed America had imperialist designs on the country. We know this because Americans who were decsion makers [including NcMamara] later had several meetings with their Vietnamese counterparts to gain an understanding of why they did what they did

If we follow that logic, then North Korean should already unified Korean Peninsula long time ago. If we see what US try to do in South Vietnam, it's still base on the logic they are doing in South Korea. Putting pararel line as border, put the bulk of US Ground Troops on border. What North Korean try to picture their rival in South is not different with North Vietnam picturing their rival in South.

The difference was and is, somehow South Korean able to build strong stable government, which make their population stay with them, rather then the Dictator in North. Military wise, DPRK are much more stronger and provide much more threat compared to North Vietnam ever be for US. In that sense US will face much larger problem, if ROK somehow can't come out with a strong stable government.

ROK also only become democratic until in the 80's. Before that Park regime basically a brutal military dictactorship. However it's a strong government nonetheless, something that South Vietnamese never able to build.

South Korea: Authoritarianism, Democracy, and the Struggle to Maintain Inclusive Development

South Korea achieved dynamic export-led industrial growth that transformed the country from one of impoverished peasants in the 1950s to an urbanized country with a large and prosperous middle class. Korea’s gross national income (GNI), at US$30,180 (PPP), is...

link.springer.com

The Perfect Dictatorship? South Korea versus Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico

Domínguez, Jorge I. 2011. “The Perfect Dictatorship? South Korea versus Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico.” Harvard University Press.

wcfia.harvard.edu

US has backed several Dictactorship throughout times, some of them are strong ones, resulted what can be call successful Dictactorship. While others are weak, ineffective ones like South Vietnam and Afghanistan previous Administration (we can put it also as it's basically collective tribal authoritarian regime).

This is the point that I try to put. Whether you are Dictactorship, whether you are being pointed as 'puppet' regime by your rival, it doesn't matter. As long as you can build your self as strong, unified, and relative stable administration.

Look how West Germany (FDR) basically 'peacefully' dismantled DDR, as East Germans see DDR basically as brutal dictactorship but fundamentally weak and ineffective compared to the alternative in the West. Thus whether through power of arms or ballots, it's essentially the same. If you have two competing powers that try to regain unified power on the whole nation, the population in the end will go to where the option on which they perceived can provide stronger and more stable alternative.

Back to Afghanistan or South Vietnam, the US back regime were basically dismantled in relative 'fasten' pace not because only to the problem with US policies or Strategic, but because more on they can't come out with string stable relative effective government in the eyes of their population.

If South Korean can't build stable and strong government, the US will also not stay in Korean Peninsula for long. Because in the end they will face same problem like in South Vietnam and Afghanistan. Endless fighting just to save weak, ineffective allies that already lost the trust from most of population.

 

[STURM]

I'm not talking about following any logic and I have no idea what you're refering to. I merely pointed out that with regards to Vietnam, both opponents badly misread each other's aims/intentions and it only became apparent much later on.

Had the U.S. implemented an integrated poltical and economic policy from the onset in Afghanistan, it would have mitagated to a large extent, major failings on the part of the Kabul government. Note that although the Kabul government was highly flawed and corrupt, it was also handicapped by a number of flawed and self defeating policies the Americans themselves put in place.

South Korea is a diffrent matter as most Americans understand the need for troops there and it is located in an area of far more strategic importance for America. There is also the pertinent factor that actual ongoing conflict is not present in Korea.

 

[Ananda]

I'm not talking about following any logic and I have no idea what you're refering to. I merely pointed out that both opponents badly misread each other's aims/intentions and it only became apparent much later on.

That's the logic that I point out. All opponents are always guessing and try to read each other. However it is not what make one opponents crumbling fast or manage to survive.

I'm point out that it's not entirely due to flaw US Strategic implementation. However factor that your allies that's you're prepping to help is failing miserably to build their own working and strong government, is more the factor. Factor on how long US need to support.

South Korea is a diffrent matter as most Americans understand the need for troops there and it is located in an area of far more strategic importance for America. There is also the pertinent factor that actual ongoing conflict is not present in Korea

Are you certain if South Vietnam able to control their own country, that US public opinion will opposes continue US presence there ? Are you also certain that if Afghanistan manage to control their own internal governance, that US public will still oppose US present there ?

Vietnam has same Strategic importance with Korea for US Geopolitical. US domestic politics turn away from Vietnam not because it's less important then Korea, but because they see no way out. Same thing with Afghanistan.

My point is always that it's useless to continue prep out weak ineffective allies perpetually. Again the difference between Korea then Vietnam or Afghanistan now, is the ability of the ROK build working government and successful nation. While Vietnam and Afghanistan are failure governance in making.

Again will US public opinion willing to keep US troops in Korea, if ROK is failed nation ? Will US public opinion will keep prepping up ROK if most South Korean see the Dictactor in North is better alternative then their own government ? This will result with endless insurgence just like in South Vietnam and Afghanistan. Something that in the end US Domestic Politics see it as enough is enough.

 

[STURM]

Are you certain if South Vietnam able to control their own country, that US public opinion will opposes continue US presence there ?.

Vietnam has same Strategic importance with Korea for US Geopolitical. US domestic politics turn away from Vietnam not because it's less important then Korea, but because they see no way out.

By 1975 South Vietnam had a pretty firm grip on things, the insurgency problem with the NLF had been largely neutralised, pacification efforts were suceeding and apart from certain points along the DMZ and Cambodian border there weren't large numbers of NVA on South Vietnamese soil.

A "good war" was fought in South Korea, it is much more ingrained in the U.S. pysche than Vietnam or Afganistan was. Most Anericans understand the need for a troop presence in South Korea because it maintains the peace in an area for great strategic importance. This is/was unlike the situation in Vietnam and Afghanistan where there was no end in sight and where the U.S. failed in both its poltical and military aims.

 

[Ananda]

good war" was fought in South Korea, it is much more ingrained in the U.S. pysche than Vietnam or Afganistan was. Most Anericans understand the need for a troop presence in South Korea because it maintains the peace in an area for great strategic importance. This is/was unlike the situation in Vietnam and Afghanistan where there was no end in sight and where the U.S. failed in both its poltical and military aims.

It is a good war because it is clear cut adversarial thing. In Korea US only need to face North Adversary, not has to dirty themselves again internal struggle within ROK. If ROK is weak governance just like South Vietnam, then there'll be VC equivalent in South Korea.

South Vietnam ineffective governance that make strong local VC Insurgencies happen. Similar thing with weak Afghanistan administration that creates unending Taliban problem. By 1975 South Vietnam Army basically worn out by VC Insurgencies, that they don't have enough stamina left facing all out Invasion from NVA.

You keep saying most US domestic understand the need to keep US troops in Korea peninsula. Again will US domestic willing to keep US troops in Korea, if ROK is a failed state like South Vietnam and Afghanistan ? US domestic still want to support ROK, because they see it as strong successful allies. Something they not see in South Vietnam and Afghanistan. All indication shown Vietnam has same similar strategic value with Korea for US.

What US done with South Vietnam and Afghanistan are cutting umbilical cord to failed weak allies. It's more on enough is enough. There's no difference between South Korea and South Vietnam on US Strategic importance. The difference again the former is strong successful allies, the latter was weak failed allies that has no way out but to failed.

That's also what happens in Afghanistan. US cut the umbilical cord as they see no way out from a weak failed allies. This's why media put comparison between South Vietnam and Afghanistan. Both are failure from US to build strong working government, that US has no other choice to cut the cord.

 

[STURM]

It was seen as a "good war" because it kept South Korea from the clutches of communism and South Korea was attacked unporovoked by a Soviet supported state at the height of the Cold War . Both the political and strategic aims were met .... Unlike the case with Vietnam and Afghanistan, the loss of South Korea would have had more damaging effects, being next to Japan and other factors.

 

[Ananda]

was seen as a "good war" because it kept South Korea from the clutches of communism and South Korea was attacked unporovoked

What's the difference then with South Vietnam ? South Vietnam just like South Korea was both part of Communism containment. So strategically both are equally Important for US Cold War strategy.

Look we are already move too much from Afghanistan. Seems you don't accept that the main reason for Taliban swift win is more due to Afghanistan previous government failure and weakness as government and nation building.

I put the example as comparison between South Korea and South Vietnam as example there's limit that US can do to continue prepped up their allies. Again US stay in Korea until now, also more to the fact ROK is successful and strong allies that 'worth' to support.

Seems you don't accept the fact that US cut umbilical cord to both South Vietnam and Afghanistan more due to their realisation that both of them are weak ineffective allies. There's no changing on US Strategic concern on both area, but more US decision that enough is enough and US need to cut loss.

Seems you still see somehow both Afghanistan and South Vietnam before are actually still working government, thus the failure more to US side.

So let's agree to disagree, as we will not see eye to eye on this matter. Rather then continue debating.

 

[STURM]

- There were a whole host of reasons why the Taliban regained power. It's not about me "accepting" anything. Yes a flawed Kabul government played a major role but certain U.S. policies also handicapped the Kabul government. There is no "main" reason as you put it but a variety of reasons.

- South Korea by virtue of where it's located is of far more importance for the U.S. than South Vietnam ever was. America could and did afford to cut its losses and walk away in a way it could never or can do with South Korea.

- No I'm not suggesting that failure in both countries was "mainly" due to the U.S. side but mistakes made at a strategic level and also with regards to a coorfinated holistic poltical economic plan played a major role. In both countries it was the U.S. in the driver's seat, the U.S. which also could have applied the needed pressure to force its local conterparts to undertake certain reforms.

 

[Ananda]

South Korea by virtue of where it's located is of far more importance for the U.S. than South Vietnam ever was. America could and did afford to cut its losses and walk away in a way it could never or can do with South Korea.

Again similar thing also being talked by US Political circle that they will not leave Vietnam and they will not leave Afghanistan. Both in the end being left by US due to decision not to continue supporting weak and failing allies.

It can be argue that US will not leave South Korea, but that kind of thinking also already being forwarded by Trump. Again it will be much different discussion on US Politics on Korea if ROK is a weak and failing nation instead a strong and succesfull allies right now.

There is no "main" reason as you put it but a variety of reasons.

Yes there's variaty of reason but havimg continue to support weak and failing allies is still the main reason to cut the umbillical cord.