🇳🇱
Biden really goes all in at proving himself wrong, almost like it is intentional.
@freemo @swiley Well it was his peace talks that set up the problem, right?
> Washington under then-president Donald Trump signed a deal with the Taliban in February 2020 that limited direct military action against the insurgents. That allowed the fighters to gather strength and move quickly to seize key areas when President Joe Biden announced his plans to withdraw all American forces by the end of this month.[[1]](https://cbc.ca/1.6141568)
> If the Taliban meet their commitments, all U.S. troops would leave in 14 months [from February 2020]. U.S. troops are to be withdrawn to 8,600 from about 13,000 in the weeks following Saturday's signing.[[2]](https://cbc.ca/1.5481070)
If the government agrees not to engage in direct action against you and to withdraw its military, you no longer need to take it on at all, with or without F-15s or nukes.
The Democrats criticised Trump for reneging on the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama entered into, so now that Biden was faced with a deal with the Taliban that Trump entered into, they had backed themselves into a corner politically. Had they not made such a big deal that Trump was setting a *bad* precedent, Biden could have followed the precedent without coming off as overtly hypocritical.
I think the broader point, that a force comprising solely small arms is almost certainly incapable of defeating the US military, still stands. If the Taliban had retaken the country while the US forces were still actively trying to hold it, you'd have a much better counterexample.
@freemo Were the Americans strongarmed into signing the agreement though? My understanding was they wanted out because an isolationist administration was in power, and they just wanted the Taliban to stop doing terrorism long enough that the army could leave without being accused of abandoning the civilians to the terrorists. @swiley
@freemo Sure but there's a wide gulf between "we can take on the US government with these weapons" and "we can raid villages and hide until the Americans get bored and go home". In particular, the militia types who think they constitute any sort of an effective check on the government can't feasibly pursue the latter strategy, because the military's already operating on its home turf. If you transplant the Taliban from the mountains of Kandahar to those of Colorado, there's no way they aren't completely overrun just as fast as they took power this week.
I think the militia might have a role to play in a hypothetical civil war scenario, if the army splits so nearly down the middle that they can tip the balance one way or the other, but then they're fighting alongside F-15s and nukes anyway.
Except that gulf doesnt actually exist here as you imply. In the event of a civil war is really no different. The people with guns raid villages and other attainable targets ont he other side, not large military bases. Its called a "war of attrition". Over time you weaken the spirit and will to fight of the other side and eventually win by having them give up or defect.
There is no reason to think that the same tactic used by the taliban in an american civil war lasting a decade or more wouldnt have the same effect, an inability to defeat the side with just guns and no F-15s and eventually needing to surrender or go on fighting forever.
Weve seen sides with no or little air superiority or missiles win wars (or stalemate them) so many times it amazes me people still use that old debunk trope that you need f-15s. The american revolutionary war, Vietnam, pretty much every USA backed conflict in africa.. in all cases our F-15s made little to no difference vs a few gorilla fighters with guns.
@swiley Not sure what Trump has to do with anything. But while I wouldnt be singing Trump's praises on foreign policy or anything else for that matter. But he did seem marginally better than democrats, at least he was willing to engage in peace talks at all with some people.