War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Kondor3]

Since no one is talking about the U.S. going to war with Syria, the pretense of this poll is bogus.

This same objection has been covered time-and-again within the past 50-or-so video pages...

Given any knowledge whatsoever of current events, and given any flexibility whatsoever in comprehension of what constitutes 'war'...

Generally speaking, the audience here seems content to leave the original tag-line intact...

War, in this context, means any war-like activity, military intervention, etc; all of which constitute an Act of War against a foreign and sovereign power...

My suggestion... think of the tagline as "Military Intervention - Yes or No?" - if that will make the thing go more smoothly for you.

Or not...

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!

Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday. There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent. Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of. They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert. Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.

Democrats need to be destroyed. Now and for the foreseeable future. Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years. Who knows, we might actually have a border!

 

[Vox]

no it is not.

it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.

IT IS NOT.

CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.

Besides, what is this virginal outrage nonsense? Germany invented poison gas; Britain and France quickly followed suit; the United States made so much poison gas of many kinds that we had tons and tons and tons of mustard gas stored up till a couple years ago, not to mention all the other modern stuff we STILL have; and Russia made just as much and is now selling Sarin to these godforsaken Syrians.

And the Syrians are using it. Well, duh, what do we expect? Everyone else made it, sold it, used it. Why the sudden outrage?

This genie is out of the bottle and is being used to depopulate enemy strongholds, and it is a weapon well-suited for that, clearly.

Whatever. S.E.P., as it says in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Else's Problem.

yep.

definitely NOT OURS

 

[Vox]

Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.

It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.

Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.



They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.

They won't.

It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.

It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?

NO, it is not.

everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
starting with fall of the USSR.
Then - with Saddam's fall.

 

[U2Edge]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!

At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.

Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?

I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.

Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.

Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.

All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.

In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.

Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.

Success in both cases!

 

[U2Edge]

Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.

It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.

Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.



They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.

They won't.

It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.

It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?

NO, it is not.

everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
starting with fall of the USSR.
Then - with Saddam's fall.

This does not involve the USSR. Were not talking about nuclear weapons. Were talking about chemical weapons, specifically the use of chemical weapons. Using them is a violation of the chemical weapons convention that we agreed to enforce in 1997.

 

[Geaux4it]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!

At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.

Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?

I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.

Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.

Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.

All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.

In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.

Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.

Success in both cases!

You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face. That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long, and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come. That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.

Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!

Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday. There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent. Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of. They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert. Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.

Democrats need to be destroyed. Now and for the foreseeable future. Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years. Who knows, we might actually have a border!

If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!

 

[Geaux4it]

It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?

NO, it is not.

everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
starting with fall of the USSR.
Then - with Saddam's fall.

This does not involve the USSR. Were not talking about nuclear weapons. Were talking about chemical weapons, specifically the use of chemical weapons. Using them is a violation of the chemical weapons convention that we agreed to enforce in 1997.

Self cleansing.. I support that

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!

Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday. There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent. Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of. They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert. Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.

Democrats need to be destroyed. Now and for the foreseeable future. Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years. Who knows, we might actually have a border!

If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!

How about Africa, they get American after their name so are they more American than an Irish immigrant?

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!

At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.

Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?

I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.

Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.

Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.

All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.

In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.

Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.

Success in both cases!

You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB

-Geaux

By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.

Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!

If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!

 

[U2Edge]

Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday. There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent. Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of. They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert. Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.

Democrats need to be destroyed. Now and for the foreseeable future. Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years. Who knows, we might actually have a border!

If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!

How about Africa, they get American after their name so are they more American than an Irish immigrant?

-Geaux

Irish American, African American, Russian American, were all American citizens.

 

[Geaux4it]

If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!

How about Africa, they get American after their name so are they more American than an Irish immigrant?

-Geaux

Irish American, African American, Russian American, were all American citizens.

Let me repeat the question, since African descent people get 'American' after their heritage name, does that make them more American than other cultures that do not?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.

Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.

All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.

In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.

Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.

Success in both cases!

You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB

-Geaux

By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.

Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!

If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!

Why did the U.S. Fail in Afghanistan? | Stephen M. Walt

Why did the U.S. fail in Afghanistan? (I know we are pretending to have succeeded, but that's just camouflage to disguise what is in fact an embarrassing if predictable defeat). The reasons for our failure are now being debated by people like Vali Nasr and Sarah Chayes, who have offered contrasting insider accounts of what went wrong.

Both Nasr and Chayes make useful points about the dysfunction that undermined the AfPak effort, and I'm not going to try to adjudicate between them. Rather, I think both of them miss the more fundamental contradiction that bedeviled the entire U.S./NATO effort, especially after the diversion to Iraq allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. The key problem was essentially structural: US. objectives in Afghanistan could not be achieved without a much larger commitment of resources, but the stakes there simply weren't worth that level of commitment. In other words, winning wasn't worth the effort it would have taken, and the real failure was not to recognize that fact much earlier and to draw the appropriate policy conclusions.

First, achieving a meaningful victory in Afghanistan -- defined as defeating the Taliban and creating an effective, Western-style government in Kabul -- would have required sending far more troops (i.e., even more than the Army requested during the "surge"). Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached the ratio of troops/population observed in more successful instances of nation-building, and that deficiency was compounded by Afghanistan's ethnic divisions, mountainous terrain, geographic isolation, poor infrastructure, and porous borders.

 

[U2Edge]

Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.

You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing.

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars. Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.

Where's your proof that Asaad has used chemical weapons?

Everywhere! Take a look for yourself:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GPTqxf8rE&bpctr=1378150074]Syria chemical weapons - Sarin gas attack near Damascus? - Truthloader - YouTube[/ame]

A very broad area was hit, too broad an area and concentration levels too great for it to have been rebels with their limited delivery means!

Where's your link for the above opinion?
It's at least as likely the latest "attack" in Ghouta was due to rebels mishandling neurotoxins supplied by Bandar Bush.

Mint Press News | Independent advocacy journalism. Thought-provoking political analysis.

How would your opinion of this situation change if the UN comes to the conclusion that BOTH sides have used chemical weapons in this conflict?

 

[Geaux4it]

Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.

You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing.

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars. Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.

United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.

I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.

I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would not be in anyones interest.

Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated

-Geaux

 

[U2Edge]

You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB

-Geaux

By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.

Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!

If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!

Why did the U.S. Fail in Afghanistan? | Stephen M. Walt

Why did the U.S. fail in Afghanistan? (I know we are pretending to have succeeded, but that's just camouflage to disguise what is in fact an embarrassing if predictable defeat). The reasons for our failure are now being debated by people like Vali Nasr and Sarah Chayes, who have offered contrasting insider accounts of what went wrong.

Both Nasr and Chayes make useful points about the dysfunction that undermined the AfPak effort, and I'm not going to try to adjudicate between them. Rather, I think both of them miss the more fundamental contradiction that bedeviled the entire U.S./NATO effort, especially after the diversion to Iraq allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. The key problem was essentially structural: US. objectives in Afghanistan could not be achieved without a much larger commitment of resources, but the stakes there simply weren't worth that level of commitment. In other words, winning wasn't worth the effort it would have taken, and the real failure was not to recognize that fact much earlier and to draw the appropriate policy conclusions.

First, achieving a meaningful victory in Afghanistan -- defined as defeating the Taliban and creating an effective, Western-style government in Kabul -- would have required sending far more troops (i.e., even more than the Army requested during the "surge"). Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached the ratio of troops/population observed in more successful instances of nation-building, and that deficiency was compounded by Afghanistan's ethnic divisions, mountainous terrain, geographic isolation, poor infrastructure, and porous borders.

The Taliban has essentially been defeated. Just because they pop out from time the time to make attacks is no victory at all. Just because the IRA remained in existence in Northern Ireland for 40 years does not change the fact that the British remained in charge just as the Afghan Government and not the Taliban remains in charge of the capital and every provincial capital through out the country.

There were people who wanted the mission to fail because they did not believe it was necessary or could succeed. These are the same people claiming it was a failure which it wasn't.

FACT: The US installed government remains the government of Afghanistan. If and Until the Taliban remove that government the United States has succeeded.

FACT: The Soviet Union's effort failed because the the government they installed was overthrown in 1992!

 

[TooTall]

War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.

One out of three is not good enough. The UK and the Arab League said NO. I want a YEA vote from the House and the Senate, a UN resolution and 47 other countries like Bush II had to go into Iraq?

 

[Geaux4it]

By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.

Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!

If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!

Why did the U.S. Fail in Afghanistan? | Stephen M. Walt

Why did the U.S. fail in Afghanistan? (I know we are pretending to have succeeded, but that's just camouflage to disguise what is in fact an embarrassing if predictable defeat). The reasons for our failure are now being debated by people like Vali Nasr and Sarah Chayes, who have offered contrasting insider accounts of what went wrong.

Both Nasr and Chayes make useful points about the dysfunction that undermined the AfPak effort, and I'm not going to try to adjudicate between them. Rather, I think both of them miss the more fundamental contradiction that bedeviled the entire U.S./NATO effort, especially after the diversion to Iraq allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. The key problem was essentially structural: US. objectives in Afghanistan could not be achieved without a much larger commitment of resources, but the stakes there simply weren't worth that level of commitment. In other words, winning wasn't worth the effort it would have taken, and the real failure was not to recognize that fact much earlier and to draw the appropriate policy conclusions.

First, achieving a meaningful victory in Afghanistan -- defined as defeating the Taliban and creating an effective, Western-style government in Kabul -- would have required sending far more troops (i.e., even more than the Army requested during the "surge"). Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached the ratio of troops/population observed in more successful instances of nation-building, and that deficiency was compounded by Afghanistan's ethnic divisions, mountainous terrain, geographic isolation, poor infrastructure, and porous borders.

The Taliban has essentially been defeated. Just because they pop out from time the time to make attacks is no victory at all. Just because the IRA remained in existence in Northern Ireland for 40 years does not change the fact that the British remained in charge just as the Afghan Government and not the Taliban remains in charge of the capital and every provincial capital through out the country.

There were people who wanted the mission to fail because they did not believe it was necessary or could succeed. These are the same people claiming it was a failure which it wasn't.

FACT: The US installed government remains the government of Afghanistan. If and Until the Taliban remove that government the United States has succeeded.

FACT: The Soviet Union's effort failed because the the government they installed was overthrown in 1992!

More from the link I posted

-Geaux

In short, the U.S. was destined to lose because it didn't go all-out to win, and it shouldn't have. Indeed, an all-out effort would have been a huge mistake, because the stakes were in fact rather modest. Once the Taliban had been ousted and al Qaeda had been scattered, America's main interest was continuing to degrade al Qaeda (as we have done). That mission was distinct from the attempt to nation-build in Afghanistan, and in the end Afghanistan's importance did not justify a substantially larger effort.