It cost trillions, was paid for on credit rather than with taxes and soldiers died only to see a chaotic withdrawal and the restoration of Taliban rule. So was it worth the cost in blood and treasure?
It wasn't "trillions", although I heard 2 trillion, but most commonly, 1 trillion. No modern war has been on a taxed basis. The closest to that is World War 2 - not very close. As to seeing soldiers' die but having bad results ultimately, the model is the British soldiery since forever. The US is a volunteer force. The US has wide-ranging interests, some of which won't turn out well. But forces will be deployed and engage with the enemy nonetheless. It would have been very unlikely for any party but the Taliban to prevail. The Pashtuns are the majority. As to territory, Kandahar in the south would have fallen early, and did. Pashtun central.
As to "worth it", the US had to be there until Osama bib-Laden was killed or captured. So, that is ten years - May 2011. The rest was a waste, although as some of the comments here state, the changes made due to the US "rule" may already have influenced the Taliban going forward, but will make their rule more difficult in any case if their approach remains 7th century desert Arabian. Cannot get the genie back into the bottle, so to speak. As to benefits, the US can now fight at altitude, and knows its limits against an insurgency of a clever foe in scruffy terrain. Plus it has field tested a great deal of equipment over the years.
Some observations to stimulate discussion:
1) Throughout the time the coalition was there opium production was promoted by the Taliban feeding Western markets. There is a chance now the Taliban may now end this drug supply.
No chance that the Taliban scraps the opium trade. It will be disguised. They need the money.
2) The death rate during the occupation .... No comment.
3) Afghanistan is now Sunni again and a natural ally of Pakistan with repercussions for the balance of power in the Indian subcontinent.
The country was always Sunni. I doubt Pakistan is any role model to the Taliban, nor will India be harmed by a Taliban Afganistan.
4) As with Vietnam it has again been demonstrated .... No Comment.
5) The willingness to die for a cause is more evident for those who subscribe to Islam than secularised liberal democrats. Is the credibility of the West undermined by its secularism and its commitment to immoral causes like LGBTQ? Does the West have the tools to deal with Islam e.g. compared to Russia or China?
The US didn't lose because the Taliban were willing to die. The Taliban were willing to wait out the US, and to the extent that failed, were willing to harass the US and the "government" forces so induce the US to leave. Now, Islam loves to kill, and the mythology of it says that warriors are especially rewarded, so given a cause (a necessary component) an Islamic force will be a determined foe - until it isn't, such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Both Russia and China are more brutal in an occupation role, but as the exit of the USSR from Afghanistan shows ("Charlie Wilson's War" film), faced with a financed effort, Russia gave up. China would last longer but unless the stakes are too high (Tibet), it too would exit.
6) Corruption undermines governance in this country and the Coalition failed to control it and indeed encouraged it. Why was the Occupation so blind to the corruption it actively encouraged?
To control corruption, the Coalition - the US - would be fighting on two fronts. After Osama was killed, that is when the US should have shut it down. Corruption in an environment of corruption is nearly an impossible to meaningfully stifle. There are plenty pf tax chats in the US, so it cannot be eliminated.
7) At the moment it looks like the primary objective of eliminating Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists was achieved as the Taliban do not want any foreign fighters on their soil.
