77 Comments

The key problem here is that our political and senior military apparatus never articulates what it means to “win”, or does so in such expansive ways that winning is impossible.

Even in my own time in Afghanistan, it was never clear what our objectives were beyond platitudes about freedom for the Afghan people.

If we had instead articulated something tangible like: “dislodge the Taliban from national government in Afghanistan” we would have won in 2001.

Expand full comment

Thank you for pointing out that we never seem to have a clearly defined objective. Not only do we not have a clear and limited objective, but due to political interference we suffer from "mission creep." There is one clear winner from all of this combat - the military-industrial complex. It grows bigger every year, never loses any employees in combat, and has brought every politician it needs to continue its further growth. Every politician who retires from the public dole has a good chance of a well-paying position in the defense industry. This is far better than any retirement plan available to the public.

Expand full comment

A war is won when the objectives for the war are accomplished and then the war *ends*. The reason why people think the US loses all of its major wars is because the only ones of these that ever end are the ones where we lose. For example, the Vietnam war ended, US troops left for decades, and that was a loss. We left Afghanistan in 2021, there are no US troops there anymore, and that is chalked up as a loss.

On the other hand, we are STILL in Iraq because ISIS is still around. But ISIS is just al Qaeda in Iraq, which formed in response to the US invasion of Iraq, so ISIS is part of that war. And the Iraq invasion followed 12 years of military operations against Iraq after the liberation of Kuwait, so its all one big conflict that is not yet over. So, no wins there, yet.

Expand full comment

Fair, but then what? Not ever have the Taliban back? Make sure it can never ever aid terrorists again? How to enforce that? America can not enforce it with "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Expand full comment

Your missing point..America doesn't want them completely eradicated...good reason Startup again later if there's something to be gained

Expand full comment

But meanwhile there is much to lose, from money wasted to human lives ruined to political humiliation. Taliban's triumph will embolden America's challengers for years to come.

Expand full comment

Two Things:

1. Good post; nice job of delineating between military victory and more comprehensive victory.

2. Noam Chomsky thinks we actually won Vietnam. Not sure if his criteria or framing matches your own, Noah, but he’s a leftie and his judgement is contra to many others on the left. Looking for citation, but having a hard time...

Expand full comment

Interesting…When I took the military studies (the Vietnam War) I remember the upper brass of Vietnam looked at how devastated their country was and came to the same conclusion.

Expand full comment

In the words of Bruce Springsteen

"They're still there

He's all gone."

Expand full comment

"First, let’s go to the ultimate arbiter of truth: Wikipedia."

LMAO, but seriously, Wikipedia is an amazing resource and the prejudice that middle school history teachers instill against it is unfair.

Expand full comment

"That doesn’t mean it’s never worth it to go to war, of course; if someone tries to conquer you, it still makes sense to resist them."

Bryan Caplan has left the server

Expand full comment

What are Caplan's views?

Expand full comment

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/04/pacifism_defend.html

Caplan has argued that even inarguably defensive wars are still unjustified because even defending armies still recklessly endanger the lives of civilians they are charged to protect, and on its merits that seems hard to protest. One would have to still show that the benefits of resistance to invasion clearly outweigh the costs, but that's almost never the case.

To be sure, in hindsight it might seem obvious that in some cases, the defenders really should have resisted (invasion of Poland and subsequent holocaust, for example), but we don't have the benefit of hindsight: we always and everywhere can only minimize ex ante expected deaths.

Expand full comment

I see no references to lefties actually making this argument, though I'm sure there are some people on Twitter who do make it (since for every possible argument there is someone on Twitter making it). All I can say is that my experience growing up around a lot of actual lefties, most of them made basically the argument you are making here. Glad you are helping get that message across!

Expand full comment

As Keynesian stimulus goes, war is the worst—worse than burying gold to dig up again. In war, we actually pay to destroy capital, and most of the things we build to fight a war have no non-destructive use. Even the technology that might come out of war endeavors is often black-boxed for security reasons. Far better as stimulus to put a woman on the moon or just build a bridge.

Expand full comment

If you're being attacked then defending yourself is far better than putting a woman on the moon or building a bridge.

Expand full comment

It's very strange that you characterize the left as being defined by the position that America loses all it's wars. 1. your anecdotal experiences on twitter do not constitute "the left" and 2. I've never encountered any leftist in my entire life that's cared to make this argument. Sure maybe they exist or somebody has uttered this at some point. But leftists prefer to make the point that wars are unjust and immoral and therefore we shouldn't do them, not that American loses them or something.

You do this frequently where you open up a newsletter article about "the right says this and the left says that" to tee up why both are wrong and you are right. That sometimes works for you but this time it's just straight dumb and sloppy.

Expand full comment

The funniest thing is the example where there are…. 2 retweets!

Come on Noah, let’s not write 20 page replies to tweets you see

Expand full comment

I find this post and the comments quite good. I'd like to add two things. First, WW II was an anomaly for another reason than Noah lists: most of fighting in Europe was done by the Soviets, supported by us. If they had given up, the outcome would have been much much different. Second, I think most wars of choice have their ultimate roots in domestic politics. We're an empire, and we have interests around the world. Between WW I and WW II, we were a regional empire. Back then and since 1945, politicians have been able to manipulate us into going to war to deal with illusionary threats. To protect lives and property in the 1920s in the Caribbean and Central America and since 1945 to deal with commie insurgencies, terrorists, etc., the result is almost always unsatisfying, just as they were in dynastic wars in 18th & 19th century Europe.

Expand full comment

If the Soviets had collapsed quickly in 1941 as Hitler expected, then the results of WWII would have been very different.

If they'd been defeated slowly, say losing Stalingrad in 1942, and then a long bloody campaign in the Caucasus in 1943, and then Moscow falling in 1944, then there would still be a D Day, and the Allies would eventually, with a combination of forces on the ground in France and nuclear bombs over Germany, have won. Might have taken until 1946 instead of 1945, and it would certainly have cost far more American lives (and it would have even more thoroughly exhausted the UK), but the industrial advantages of the USA were far too great for Germany to be able to win.

The Nazis could only win quickly. If the USSR has a political collapse in 1941, as France did in 1940, then the US might have found it hard to fully commit to the war in Europe, in which case you get Japan First, Japan falls quicker (1944, probably) and then the chances of a negotiated peace in a war that has only been fought in Africa (if at all) for the last four years have to be pretty solid.

Expand full comment

“Second, I think most wars of choice have their ultimate roots in domestic politics“

Key point. Everyone should read up on Athen’s invasion of Syracuse.

Expand full comment

The Locus Classicus of foreign policy debacles. Excellent point!

Expand full comment

I mostly agree with you on this argument. However, I have two disagreements with you. One is specific to this piece, the other is about your general approach to political analysis.

My specific issue regards the lack of recognition of the institutional imperatives which encourage excessive reliance on military force. The defence and foreign policy establishment tends to view our possession of the "biggest hammer in the world" as sufficient justification for the exercise of military force for every foreign policy challenge. You don't have to view America as the Great Satan of the world to feel this results in unwise foreign policy choices. Indeed, your essay tends in that direction.

As noted, I find your broad general approach to issues aligns with my own views. However, I'm leery of your Strawman characterization of the "left." The only prominent public figure who coincides with your left label is Noam Chomsky. He has been dismissed by such notably left-wing sources as the New York Review of Books. The broad left in this country is more likely to identify with your approach to application of military force than the extremist views you characterize as Left. Perhaps your critique is influenced by the Bay Area political context. I'm sure there are some loonies out there.

Expand full comment

Woe to the statesman whose arguments for entering a war are not as convincing at its end as they were at the beginning.—Bismarck

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.—Karl Rove

Not only did WWII establish an unrealistic standard for victory, but the decades after WWII set a fleeting stage where eye-popping US power and ambition were aligned. They no longer are. We’ve evolved from super power to hegemon and now back to super power. By the end of the century, we might well find ourselves a mere great power. For post-WWII America, individual wars were not a game of chess, but more like a individual moves on a global chess board. Looking back, the question worth asking is just how realistic were our goals and how well did war serve them? Looking forward, we need to ask ourselves how our relatively reduced power can best serve us in a world where full-spectrum dominance no longer exists, and our list of allies grows thin.

Expand full comment

“Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war and now there ain't no goin' back. I mean, shit, it's what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight.“

-Slim Charles

Expand full comment

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.—Karl Rove"

That quote was attributed to an unnamed staffer, not Karl Rove.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-sleep-well-beast-karl-rove-662307

Expand full comment

Thinking that the second Iraq war could be declared a victory because regime change happened when it’s basically falling apart at the seams… I think you need to read some more.

And no, “Well North Korea is worse ain’t it” perhaps we need to read a book about material conditions, sanctions, and the history of South Korea as well.

“We bombed the hell out of a country and now it’s chaos” is in fact not a win! Yet it describes a lot of military interventions by the US.

The way you can qualify these as victories is through the pense of empire management. You should perhaps argue that that lens is in fact bad, instead of twisting yourself in a knot to reach the same conclusions.

Everything doesn’t need to be proven by graphs. Murdering a bunch of civilians for nebulous reasons, and refusing to clean up things afterwards, is bad.

Expand full comment

Re: And no, “Well North Korea is worse ain’t it” perhaps we need to read a book about material conditions, sanctions, and the history of South Korea as well.

I would choose SKorea, even under the dictators, over NKorea’s Commie regime 100 times out of a 100. Which would you choose?

Expand full comment

North Korea and South Korea are the closest thing we're gonna get to a controlled experiment on state intervention vs market liberalism. Why we have not absorbed and acted upon the findings is beyond me.

Expand full comment

Was just reading a bunch of early 90s wire service articles about Gulf I, and was mildly surprised to see how vocally Gorbachev advocated for the survival of Saddam's regime. Some articles attributed Gorbachev's preservationism to Iraq's weapons purchases, but it feels like there were a lot of other more subtle factors as well (in part surely genuine ideology opposing Western interventions and fiercely in favor of nearly unlimited national sovereignty).

Part of the reason wars were harder and murkier post WWII is that there was often a massive global power on one side with a client (ok, usually on both sides).

It sounds like there was a brief spirit of cooperation to roll up the brushfire wars in the early 90s and jointly pressure for resolutions, but I just don't think that was sustained. Maybe it was never really sustainable, given the lack of focus and commitment across leaders in both countries, and the actual policy costs to divesting from the outcomes of these conflicts.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/08/03/The-Cold-War-replaced-by-Third-World-Hot-Wars/2608649656000/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-19-mn-1526-story.html

I also am deeply curious how much of the Japan / Germany / South Korea results relied (1) on massive resource in-flows from the US, (2) on better postwar administration, (3) on re-constitutionalization (sometimes with radically reduced security spending allowing a peace dividend), or (4) on societies that were already heavily invested in radically transforming their economies pre-war anyway merely continuing that trend.

There are some million books and podcasts covering strategy and tactics for winning and losing wars. Then there's some paltry handful about postwar administration. If nobody cares about how to do a thing well it will probably not get done well. And if you utterly fail at the postwar stuff it's going to make the rest of it look more like a failure regardless of how it went tactically.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Japan didn't really become rich until the '80s.

Expand full comment

Two things.

1) I think almost everyone dramatically underates how positive the impact of the US intervention in Afghanistan was. Afghanistan in 2001 was not like Iraq in 2003. It was a in the midst of a civil war between the Taliban/Durrani Pashtuns and The Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks) and the US intervention changed which side won. If you just look at population, life expectancy, GDP per capita you can see how much better this situation is for Afghanistan than pre US intervention. The Taliban are now mostly a governing force only in Pashtun areas.

I think it's also a mistake to say that the Afghan government is an unsupported puppet government. Election turn outs are really high despite massive personal risk and people are even voting for candidates not in their ethnic group! (https://repository.upenn.edu/senior_seminar/13/)

Afghanistan is massively massively corrupt and there's huge amounts of intimidation around elections, but is by a long way more democratic than it's ever been (although there was a period in the late 60s-70s where is actually made a lot of progress.)

2) I think modern wars if done right can be pretty dramatically beneficial. The intervention is Kosovo is a great example of this, so is the British intervention is Sierra Leone. I'd also argue the first gulf war was pretty successful - limited loss of men and treasure for the US, helped to uphold the taboo against invading other countries, Kuwait wasn't occupied. I know much less about these, but Granada and Panama also seem good maybe?

I'd say that a better rule than 9/10 aren't worth it is that it's almost never worth starting a war in a stable country even with a monstrous regime, but can quite often be worth intervening when there's already a war going on.

This turned out to be more like one thing, but oh well.

Expand full comment

Ok, looks like I was wrong here, appears to be no change in the rate of improvement in health indicators from 1960 to now. Really, really surprises me that the Soviet invasion doesn't show up. Maybe a selection effect given number of refugees?

Expand full comment

Good points, not to mention this little-discussed factoid I found with a Google search:

"Afghanistan dominates the global opium markets. Last year, it produced 82 percent of the world's supply, according to estimates by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.Dec 9, 2019"

Expand full comment

The thing I've read about that is that because there are so many land mines there's a really big premium for farmers on farming stuff that doesn't very much land to make a given profit. It's also worked as currency, especially in Taliban controlled areas.

Expand full comment

as in the trend on those indicators changed in 2001 in Afghanistan

Expand full comment

Let's actually look up those indicators and see how true that is.

• Population: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=AF — looks to me like Afghanistan was already basically back at its exponential trend of the 1960s and 1970s in 2001, though it's hard to tell due to the 1980s dip. Since 2001 the trend has been linear rather than the naive exponential one might expect.

• Male life expectancy at birth: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locations=AF — trend got visibly WORSE after 2001.

• Female life expectancy at birth: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.FE.IN?locations=AF — trend got visibly WORSE after 2001.

• (PPP) GDP per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=AF — we don't even get to see pre-2002 data on this time series, though there was clearly decent growth after 2002.

None of these indicators shows a clear trend improvement from 2001.

You could argue that in the case of GDP per capita that's just because of missing data. But even if we focus on the upward post-2001 trend, it's not that impressive: GDP per capita is up 66% on its 2002 value, which is only 2.9% a year, and that growth was bought at the cost of at least $864 billion in spending (summing $815.7 billion in military spending and $48.5 billion in civilian spending from SIGAR's recent report at https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-01-30qr-section2-funding.pdf). Afghanistan's GDP is still only $20 billion a year!

Expand full comment

GDP does, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/afghanistan/overview,

but you're right health and population don't, I must have misremembered.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

“The fact that the Afghan government is collapsing so quickly to a guerrilla movement despite 20 years of US aid screams unsupported puppet government to me.“

Actually, that’s just normal warfare in Afghanistan. Read tgreer. Skins vs shirts.

Expand full comment

Good point about GDP (although I wouldn't have called Afghanistan a communist country given the level of state capacity), a test would be looking at Kabul probably given it's been by far the most market oriented part of Afghanistan and has been for a long time. I suppose I mostly trust GDP data to tell me at the least the trend in other very low income countries, although maybe I shouldn't.

My point with the high turnouts is not that they like the government but that the system of government has support, although in that case maybe it is fair to call it a puppet government. I think the Afghan gov collapsing is more a symptom of the very long run struggle between rural Afghanistan and Kabul for control + the presence of a well armed, well organised rebel group.

Expand full comment

Like I said above "f Course,I am NOT saying that the Kabul bombing was a false flag,to message Taliban,that they were vulnerable EVEN IN KABUL,and EVEN WHEN THE US WAS AT ITS MOST VULNERABLE"

It turns out that it was NOT a FALSE FLAG ! IT WAS JUST FALSE !

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000007963596/us-drone-attack-kabul-investigation.html

Like I said !

I must be divine ! dindooohindoo

Expand full comment

Is there a revival of Jehad across the globe ? Or is it Islamism ?

Houthis used a Missile,to attack a Saudi base,in Yemen on the 30th of August,2021 – just after a misifired rocket in Kabul today !

If the US does NOT recognise Taliban and aid them with food,funds and intel,Taliban will have no option but to let loose Daesh and others,in a few provinces.In essence,if the US and IMF do NOT release the funds of the Afghan state,FROZEN by the WEST,then doom is certain.dindooohindoo

It will NOT take much for the exodus of Muslims in EU and US to Afghanistan to join Daesh and others.

In any case,the Leon Uris Exodus from Kabul,has brought Daesh to EU and the US.

So long as Logar and other provinces with the mines are with Taliban – Taliban will not mind leaving Daesh alone, if they are confined to 1 province,using dry land farming,solar power and drip irrigation,for poppy farming – with the caveat that Daesh does NO attacks,after 1st September 2021.

Post 1st September,Taliban will start the REAL WAR in Panjshir and the TESTING WAR on ISIS.The Panjshir war will BURY THE INDIAN WEASELS AND RATS – of they do not aid Masood’s son and Saleh.I bet that the Indian weasels will NOT fund or arm the Panjshir.

Neither will the US,as there will be 1000s of US hostages in Kabul – post 31st August,2021.If the US does not release Afghan funds and unblock Afghan banks – then Taliban MAY NOT, also secure the Americans left behind in Kabul.

The Testing war with Daesh, is to test the western response in terms of rewards to the Taliban,Even when NATO was IN AFGHANISTAN,Taliban had spectacular successes w.r.t. Daesh.Now with no enemies left,Taliban can POTENTIALLY drive out Daesh – BUT ONLY if Taliban gets some benefits !

People write off Daesh too easily.The US had int on 9/11,Kabul airport but COULD NOT STOP IT.In 24 hours of the Kabul attack,the US drones killed the 2 planners – w/o Taliban int and w/o tipping off the Taliban.Such genius, coincidence and providence – just like the fables of the Bible.THE 2 PLANNERS WERE TRAVELLING IN A 3 WHEELED CONTRAPTION IN NANGHAR.- AND THE STORY GETS MORE WONDERFUL ! The Daesh attack ALLOWED THE USAF to drone a target in a soverign nation with a new govtt ! A US message that once they exit, they will do MORE.Of Course,I am NOT saying that the Kabul bombing was a false flag,to message Taliban,that they were vulnerable EVEN IN KABUL,and EVEN WHEN THE US WAS AT ITS MOST VULNERABLE.The Crux is that the US is playing POKER,till the 31st August,2021.

Americans have spent 20 years in Afghanistan.They will have assets and HUMINT,in every 1 square mile of Afghanistan – which they will use to prime effect,once they exit and CERTAINLY,after all US citizens are out of Kabul. – In essence,Anti-Taliban forces,will use Daesh and Fund Daesh – like in Syria and Iraq- where besides Mossad – even the Indians supplied arms,medicines and doctors for ISIS ! There are many nations and kings ,by the Taliban.Even the Americans are capable of using Daesh or false flagging them – especially as their int,on Daesh attacks,is so exquisite.

BEST OPTION is THAT US RELEASES AFGHAN FUNDS,AND TALIBAN TRIANGULATES AND QUARANTINES DAESH,IN 1 PROVINCE – AND THEN WAITS TO SEE THE RESPONSE OF the US AND EU.

ELSE,Taliban will need to bring in PLA,on the pretext of securing the mining concessions,and ore concentrate transportation.There will be a perpetual risk to Taliban,of financial freezes and sanctions. Hence,the time has come for Afghanistan,to adopt the Yuan and take Chinese aid.If every poor Afghan has free food,quality water,free education,free power and some economic employment – Taliban will win the elections – and that is the 1st step to get back the Billions of USD frozen,by the US/EU and Aid institutions.PLA is already in one Northern Province bordering PRC (Badkashan).

Then the next step is PLA ADS,to stop US drone strikes.

PROVIDENCE HAS BROUGHT TALIBAN,PRC,TURKEY AND PAKISTAN TOGETHER FOR 1 PURPOSE – GHAZWA E HIND !

Expand full comment

Y does the US leave a trail of destruction ?

US enters a nation, when it seeks decisive results, and in an emergency or an urgency !

So the 1st thing it needs to do, is to build, breed and maintain, a loyal force, of local military, politicians and bureaucrats

For that, these 3 targets have to ADOPT the ideology, of the US.

Thence, comes in the money to co-opt these 3 targets - by salaries,aid and infra projects - wherein the projects are given to cronies of these 3 targets, to pay off the 3 musketeers ! This is THE GENESIS OF CORRUPTION !

These 3 targets then spread the US ideology, to the masses and some bite - BUT MANY DO NOT - as there is NOT enough money to go around, and that some people, JUST DO NOT WANT ANY IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE - It is the comfort, with the OLD.

Then as time passes the majority are cut off the quasi American elite - and the seeds of permanent war are sown - and that makes the incumbent regime a US puppet.

In a few years,some local or global power supports the masses - and you have TOTAL WAR !

The war is fought by and among locals, with US strat and tech, and some US lives.

The Country is annihilated, and the regime exits and CHAOS resides.

It is the same movie - BUT THAT IS THE WAY THE DIRECTOR WANTED IT ! THE DIRECTOR =US !

The target nation is doomed and will always be a US puppet ,and the regime which exited, is a PERMANENT LONG TERM ASSET of the US,and if all goes well,THE TARGET NATION WILL BE PARTITIONED !

So the US Goals are always MET,albeit at the cost of a few US lives,The Financial Cost is not much !

In Iraq - the OIl offset the cost !

In Afghanistan - it was the 9/11 CAT insurance and the Drugs ! And now,unless the US aids Taliban,the drugs will resume.

Today in Viet - the Viet slit eyes love the Yanki as it is the Yanki alone which can save the Viets from PRC.

And the TRUTH is that the US does NOT CARE ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE.That India's Chabahar and Infra in Afghanistan are blown to smithreens - is of no concern to the US !

But then Y should the US care ? dindooohindoo

Expand full comment

Additionally, another weird condition that was met with WW2: the US happened to be in a position where running massive war-spending was necessary to get them out of a 10-year economic depression they otherwise had no plan to deal with.

Expand full comment