TaliTalks

The Taliban has opened a new office in Doha, Qatar, and the U.S. has agreed to meet for negotiations. 13 years into America’s longest war, against a nation with 14th century technology, it’s a humiliating comedown for the United States.

9 Comments. Leave new

  • The humiliation delivered by VietNam should have been enough to last for centuries. U.S. government doesn’t learn from history or from the experiences of other “civilized” nations who’ve failed.

  • The reason the US keeps getting in trouble is that we don’t understand the difference between having an indomitable military which can crush any other military on Earth and winning a war. Winning a war requires, among other things, leaving behind a country (as opposed to a disintegrated country)

  • Not to mention, the US loses every war it starts. At least all of them since 1945.

  • Mr Rall: What about Korea? The US managed a clear draw. I suppose you’d say the North Koreans started that one?

    But the US won in Grenada, and it certainly started that one.

    And the US won in Panamá, and it certainly started that one.

    And the US won in Iraq. Once for sure, and the second time wasn’t exactly a loss.

    And both were planned and started by the US.

  • I have some cartoons from 2002, ‘When the Taliban win’

    One shows a Statue of Liberty with a burqa.

    Coming soon to an Island near Manhattan…

  • Mr. Rall,
    American corporate interests win every war, and they know and our government knows they’re the only Americans who really matter.

  • The war in Iraq is hardly over – we still have over 30,000 “advisors and trainers” on the ground there. It continues to cost us millions and billions and they are still a tar-baby we can’t let go of.

  • The U.S. didn’t win Grenada, Panama, or Iraq, even if you (CORRECTLY) use the tribe/class analysis proffered by Jack Heart. In order to win a war, you need a legitimate objective, where legitimacy is determined by the benefit to the class proffering war in the first place. Even, then, the U.S. couldn’t win those wars because those were wars of distraction for only the political benefit of the president. Even the rich lost out on those wars. A war of distraction means that “winning” is irrelevant, so you’re already in a loss-state.

  • Have to agree with Jack Heart – «winning» the war is irrelevant, since none of the protagonists on the other side ever constituted a threat to the United States (and none of them ever attacked the United States) ; what mattered and matters is conducting one war after another, so as to extract that million million dollars plus annually from US taxpayers and maintain the bloated US military and (in)security apparatus….

    Pecunia non olet….

    Henri

You must be logged in to post a comment.
css.php