US Agrees to Reduce Forces in Afghanistan ‘If Taliban Live up To Their Commitments’

TypicalRussian said:

Im ethnically Russian

Click to expand...

OK, and?

I am ethnically Indian, but I am a citizen and believer in the country I am a citizen of. And swear my allegiance to no other country but this one.

I guess when it comes to things like that, I am a huge believer in what Teddy Roosevelt said.

Oozlefinch said:

You mean like in Syria and Iraq?

This is the problem. You do not even see that Fundamentalist groups do not respect things like that. They have a "kill everybody that does not agree with us" approach, and there is no way a small internal group can rise up and defeat that kind of enemy on their own. History has proven this over and over again.

It took Vietnam to invade to topple the Khmer Rouge. It took another coalition to help defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. It took the Allied powers to defeat Germany in WWII. We know of the millions of deaths in North Korea, and it still stands decades later. When a government comes in that tyrannical and despotic, it simply can not be defeated from within.

Once again, you talk a great game, but all of history is against your claims.

Click to expand...

The European Wars of Religion were a bloody, protracted affair but Europe eventually set aside some of the sectarian violence and began to coexist. Then came the Enlightenment followed by the Age of Reason and a growing trend towards secularism. Some brave leader in Afghanistan will have the smarts, the strength and the wisdom to do as Henry of Navare did in France and say Paris is worth a mass. Kabul and Kandahar will one day be worth a Loya Jirga.

In China, the atrocity of the religiously driven Tai Pei Rebellion/Civil war killed many millions but eventually the Chinese grew sick of slaughter and settled down until destabilised again by outside empires and military intervention. Then ideology replaced religion and many more millions died until the Chinese grew sick of slaughter once again. Now China is stable and tending towards secular coexistence (unless you are a Uighur Muslim) and the slaughter has almost stopped.

Death cults like the Taliban or ISIL or the Khmer Rouge have a very short historical shelf life before they either reform and moderate from within or unleash so much atrocity that they alienate all non-fanatical support and are isolated and overthrown by their neighbours or their own population.

History does not care about how fanatical a group is. At some point history eradicates or hobbles them all.

Your examples only prove my case. The Khmer Rouge grew so repugnant that the Cambodian refugee crisis drove Vietnam to intervene. The Nazi Germans grew so greedy that they arrogantly attacked the Soviet Union and brought about their own destruction with the help of Western Allied Strategic Bombing, peripheral military campaigns and Lend Lease. Japan's atrocities in Asia triggered their down fall primarily by the USA.

The Taliban will eventually self destruct.

North Korea is a bit different, but discussion of that will likely hijack this thread, so I will set it aside.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Oozlefinch said:

And my response to anybody that thinks this is "Are they nucking futs"?

Click to expand...

POTUS wants out, and he and Khalizaid are apparently willing to accept almost any argument that let's them leave. If it makes you feel any better, it's actually worse than it sounds.

Just look at what the Taliban was like the last time they were in control of Afghanistan. I know most completely ignored Afghanistan in the time between the Soviets leaving and 9-11, but I did not.

I watched in horror as they destroyed 1,400 year old cultural artifacts which were part of a UN protected historical and cultural site. I watched as they would stone women simply because divorce was not allowed and their husband wanted to marry somebody else. I watched them turn women into essentially slaves, unable to do things like go to school, drive, or work.

I watched as they used assassination to kill the leader of the organization that was successfully fighting against them.

I do not trust the Taliban. Like Hezbollah, they will make any promise, and feel free to break it at any time in the future if it serves their goals. And their goal is nothing less than making Afghanistan into a fundamentalist nation that follows their version of Sharia law. And it is not even Sharia Law I am distrusting. If they were to somehow become a Theocracy, which allowed all an equal say and guaranteed the rights of everybody regardless of faith I would probably support it. But history has shown us that they would not do that, they would take total control and exclude or kill anybody that does not accept their beliefs.

I am a huge believer in "Self Determination", so long as it takes into consideration the rights of others who do not follow the majority. The framework of the country actually matters little to me, only that the rights of all are respected. We have seen benevolent dictators, Marshal Tito comes to mind there. He largely left Yugoslavia alone, so long as they did not try to persecute those in other regions. A brutal dictator, who even went after those of his own region if they stepped out of line.

Democracy, Republicanism, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Dictatorship, even Communist. To me it does not matter, so long as the rights of individuals are protected and guaranteed. And the biggest laugh in the idea of trusting the Taliban is that they ultimately are the inspiration for those other more radical groups like ISIS we have seen in the last decade. ISIS started as a bastard stepchild of al-Qaeda, but it must be remembered that al-Qaeda was essentially the intelligence and Special Operations arm of the Taliban government. And groups like ISIS (regardless of claimed paternity) are essentially following the framework of the original Taliban government.

It would be like overthrowing the government of North Korea, but leaving the party in control. Anybody thinking they would not install another dictator as brutal as the Kim Dynasty (or even another surviving member) and not continue exactly as it has for the last half century is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Evilroddy said:

The European Wars of Religion were a bloody, protracted affair but Europe eventually set aside some of the sectarian violence and began to coexist. Then came the Enlightenment followed by the Age of Reason and a growing trend towards secularism. Some brave leader in Afghanistan will have the smarts, the strength and the wisdom to do as Henry of Navare did in France and say Paris is worth a mass. Kabul and Kandahar will one day be worth a Loya Jirga.

Click to expand...

Once again, historical fail.

The "Wars of Religion" were many, and the most well known is the Thirty Years War. And it is also not a conflict by a single power, but by over a dozen. With various nations entering and leaving the conflict, as they decided at the time. From 1618 to 1648.

The Age of Enlightenment, started most accept at around the 1750s. Over 100 years later. And lasted for over 100 years, a period of time which also includes the French Revolution. How enlightened.

Oh, and the "Age of Enlightenment" was not followed by the "Age of Reason". They are one and the same, just two different names for the same era.

Please Roddy, oh please start to do some research before making such posts. It is getting really boring having to correct you almost every single time.

But here, let me challenge you to show I am wrong. Tell me when the Age of Enlightenment ended, and where the Age of Reason began. And include at least some kind of verifiable and reputable reference to verify this. Because literally you just gave 2 different names for the same era, and tried to claim they are different and one followed the other.

And great, some French person said something, that did not make Europe break out into peace. And I can tell you exactly what would happen if somebody tried that in a returned Taliban in Afghanistan.

Said individual will be brought before a tribunal, and shot. Or Stoned. Or in some way executed, as they were not agreeing with the Government.

Funny how you keep making these "belief statements" over and over, and each time completely miss the historical facts.

And please, Henry of Navarre is your claim to ending the "Wars of Religion"? Heck, he died before the worst of those wars even started! In essence he denounced his Protestant faith and accepted Catholicism, and asked all others to allow others to keep their own beliefs. That did almost nothing to keep France out of the 30 Years War, in which a quarter million combatants died, and almost half a million non-combatants died.

So if that is your claim to "peace", you failed. Big time. A peace in a single country, that ended around 20 years later in one of the largest bloodbaths in European history before the modern age.

cpwill said:

Yup.

Click to expand...

At that time, there were no forums like this. But I was active in many Usenet, FidoNet, and other groups, and spoke out often against things like this. I am actually a big supporter of that era of Charlie Wilson, and think we should have taken a more active role in helping to rebuild Afghanistan. To me, it was pretty much a crime to help them gain liberation from the Soviets, then just ignore them and do not a damned thing as they sunk into almost 2 decades of anarchy and civil war.

To me, some of the worst words combined that some use for political reasons are "Exit Strategy". Essentially, it means they want us to cut and run. I found it disgusting when Republicans used it against President Clinton in former Yugoslavia and Somalia, I find it disgusting today when Democrats use is when referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. We stay as long as needed until things are stable and it is a viable government, period. Anything else to me is a betrayal of those people who we should be protecting.

Oozlefinch said:

At that time, there were no forums like this. But I was active in many Usenet, FidoNet, and other groups, and spoke out often against things like this. I am actually a big supporter of that era of Charlie Wilson, and think we should have taken a more active role in helping to rebuild Afghanistan. To me, it was pretty much a crime to help them gain liberation from the Soviets, then just ignore them and do not a damned thing as they sunk into almost 2 decades of anarchy and civil war.

To me, some of the worst words combined that some use for political reasons are "Exit Strategy". Essentially, it means they want us to cut and run. I found it disgusting when Republicans used it against President Clinton in former Yugoslavia and Somalia, I find it disgusting today when Democrats use is when referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. We stay as long as needed until things are stable and it is a viable government, period. Anything else to me is a betrayal of those people who we should be protecting.

Click to expand...

The way I put it, usually, is that time is irrelevant. Either there are endstates that we wish to accomplish which are worth our investment of risk, manpower, resources, money, and time, and so we need to continue to achieve those endstates, or there aren't, and we need to leave immediately. Either way, the "it's been X years" makes no more difference than "Last year it reached a low of Y Temperature"

cpwill said:

The way I put it, usually, is that time is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

By what metric? Even the most successful military and political actions do not always produce instantaneously noticeable results. At numerous times, especially in large scale wide sweeping endeavors, even favorable results may not materialize within a short period of time.

Westmoreland's search and destroy strategy was a failure, and it should have been noticed sooner, but even his efforts couldn't have been declared a failure after just say two battles.

Jredbaron96 said:

By what metric? Even the most successful military and political actions do not always produce instantaneously noticeable results. At numerous times, especially in large scale wide sweeping endeavors, even favorable results may not materialize within a short period of time.

Click to expand...

By any metric. Either a thing is worth doing, or it isn't. It isn't "worth doing for 18 years, but not 19 years".

cpwill said:

By any metric. Either a thing is worth doing, or it isn't. It isn't "worth doing for 18 years, but not 19 years".

Click to expand...

I'm sure that makes for a nice bumper sticker but strategy is not something that will always deliver results instantaneously, nor will the knowledge be pre-ordained.

Committing to a course of action only to discover it's ineffective is hardly taboo.

Oozlefinch:

Oozlefinch said:

Once again, historical fail.

The "Wars of Religion" were many, and the most well known is the Thirty Years War. And it is also not a conflict by a single power, but by over a dozen. With various nations entering and leaving the conflict, as they decided at the time. From 1618 to 1648.

Click to expand...

I said in my previous post the people of Europe, not one Erupean state. The people of Europe grew tired of killing in the name of religion and the killing slowed down as both secularism and deism supplanted blind faith and adherence to institutional religion. So no fail here.

The Age of Enlightenment, started most accept at around the 1750s. Over 100 years later. And lasted for over 100 years, a period of time which also includes the French Revolution. How enlightened.

Oh, and the "Age of Enlightenment" was not followed by the "Age of Reason". They are one and the same, just two different names for the same era.

Click to expand...

The Enlightenment is usually pegged as beginning by the mid 1600's (Rene Descartes' book "Cogito, Ergo Sum" - 1637) although many set the date later in the 17th Century. It most certainly did not start in the middle of the 18th Century even if that is when the French Enlightenment is pegged to have reached its zenith due the publishing of the first volumes of "The Encyclopaedia" in 1751, so you're incorrect in that assertion. The Thirty Years War ended in 1648. That puts the Enlightenment's start just before or just after the end of the Thirty Years War, not 100 years later.

The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are not the same things, although they converged towards each other and are now often confused and conflated as being the same thing. The Enlightment was at its heart a shift in thinking about religion, cosmology and the role of mankind in that cosmos. The theism of the Middle Ages and the Reformation plus the Humanism of the Renaissance were being supplanted by new ways of seeing the cosmos and man's role in it. Deism replaced theism shifting God from an active supernatural force in the cosmos to an abstract, passive prime-mover which created and watched over the cosmos but did not directly intervene in it anymore. This was married to a gradual (and very dangerous) repudiation of institutional religion and religious institutions and their grip on learned human minds. Skepticism, deductive and inductive reasoning, logic, trust in the human mind and senses to understand the cosmos and the divine and critical analysis were valued over adherence to literary authority, doctrine and blind faith. That was the Enlightenment.

The Age of Reason was born out of the Scientific Revolution of the 14th to late 17th centuries and focused on understanding the natural world, unlike the Enlightenment which had its roots in cosmology, the divine, religion and the role(s) of man in the cosmos. The Age of Reason is pegged as starting about 1687 with the first printing of Sir Issac Newton's "Principia Mathematica". This movement had to do with using rigorous logic and reason to solve the mysteries of the Natural World. This "Natural Philosophy" stressed the precision of mathematics and the structured thinking of an emergining "scientific method" to analyse the natural world through human senses and to discover the rules and principles by which it worked through the human mind. This Natural Philosophy would later become called Science.

So the Enlightenment dealt with the epistemological and ontological cosmos, divinity and the role of mankind while the Age of Reason dealt with the natural world, logical reasoning and empiricism. Since both movements occurred in close historical proximity to each other and since they ran parallel to each other, they have been fused together despite being very different intellectual movements. I chose to differentiate them in my previous post for clarity. You chose to come off like a smug know it all. That is the essence of this facet of our disagreement.

Enlightenment | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia

Continued next post.

Please Roddy, oh please start to do some research before making such posts. It is getting really boring having to correct you almost every single time.

Click to expand...

Why should I do more research when you are the one who is wrong? You hit the books, Bucko. I've studied this stuff for years.

But here, let me challenge you to show I am wrong. Tell me when the Age of Enlightenment ended, and where the Age of Reason began. And include at least some kind of verifiable and reputable reference to verify this. Because literally you just gave 2 different names for the same era, and tried to claim they are different and one followed the other.

Click to expand...

The Enlightenment has never really ended although is has waxed and waned over time. Many claim that the French Enlightenment ended with the French Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars. Some claim that the wider European Enlightenment persisted until done in by Romanticism later in the 19th Century. Still others claim the postmodernism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries may be ending it right now, but the jury is still out on that. It's a mushy question with no clear temporal answer.

The Age of Reason may have ended with the rise of the mathematics of infinite series or the emergence of Quantum Theory in the early 20th Century. Or it may have ended with the Birth of Chaos Theory later in that century. All of these scientific fields challenge classical reasoning and have spawned the rise of mysticism within many of the students of science in these and other related fields. Others argue that computers and computer modelling which are replacing empirical approaches to science are bringing about the end of the Age of Reason. So no clear chronology here either.

And great, some French person said something, that did not make Europe break out into peace. And I can tell you exactly what would happen if somebody tried that in a returned Taliban in Afghanistan.

Said individual will be brought before a tribunal, and shot. Or Stoned. Or in some way executed, as they were not agreeing with the Government.

Click to expand...

You are correct about the Taliban's methods but not about the eventual historical outcome. One day the Taliban will go too far and either provoke an internal uprising or an invasion from one of its neighbours. The other very real probability is that it will faction and then factional in fighting will weaken itself enough to be overthrown.

Funny how you keep making these "belief statements" over and over, and each time completely miss the historical facts.

Click to expand...

Hogwash.

And please, Henry of Navarre is your claim to ending the "Wars of Religion"? Heck, he died before the worst of those wars even started! In essence he denounced his Protestant faith and accepted Catholicism, and asked all others to allow others to keep their own beliefs. That did almost nothing to keep France out of the 30 Years War, in which a quarter million combatants died, and almost half a million non-combatants died.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that Henry of Navarre ended the Wars of Religion. I said one day an Afghan leader will show the courage and wisdom to break the hold of fundamentalism in Afghanistan like Henry did in France. So please stop putting words in my mouth by projecting what you think I said onto what I actually said.

So if that is your claim to "peace", you failed. Big time. A peace in a single country, that ended around 20 years later in one of the largest bloodbaths in European history before the modern age.

Click to expand...

Never claimed it ended the religious strife in Europe. That's your misreading of what I said. Henry just reduced, not eliminated, the violence by doing something which previously had been thought to be unthinkable.

On a final note, you are a very unpleasant person on this forum with a very inflated sense of your own learning and knowledge. You are arrogant and rude in debate. You might try some humility in discourse here.

Tepid cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Why should I do more research when you are the one who is wrong? You hit the books, Bucko. I've studied this stuff for years.

Click to expand...

Some folks here are just know-it-all's. Similar to Donald Trump knows more than all his Generals know-it-all's.

Rogue Valley said:

Some folks here are just know-it-all's. Similar to Donald Trump knows more than all his Generals know-it-all's.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

Sorry for hijacking your thread with esoterica from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. In all fairness I can come off as a bit of a know it all, only to fall flat on my face, in error too. But then I admit my mistakes, apologise for wasting other's time and then learn so as not to repeat past errors.

Apologies and cheers.
Evilroddy.

Re: US Agrees to Reduce Forces in Afghanistan ‘If Taliban Live up To Their Commitments’

Not to forget the civilian casualties:

More Than 10,000 Civilians Injured Or Killed In Afghanistan Last Year, U.N. Says
Huo JingnanFebruary 22, 20204:52 PM ET



Abdullah, 13, lost his left leg when he stepped on an improvised explosive device. He takes a break from walking practice at the International Committee of the Red Cross physical rehabilitation center in Kabul on Dec. 1, 2019.
Altaf Qadri/AP

More than 10,000 civilians were killed or injured in armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2019, continuing a six-year streak and putting total casualties in the past decade over 100,000, a United Nations report said Saturday.

The report comes as the U.S. and Taliban's seven-day "reduction of violence" went into effect early Saturday in Afghanistan. U.S. General Austin "Scott" Miller said the U.S. has stopped offensive operations against the Taliban, multiple outlets report.

Among the more than 3,400 civilians killed and nearly 7,000 injured last year, the Taliban was the single group responsible for the largest share of casualties, at 47%, and more than 1,300 deaths. It was followed by the Afghan national security sources, at 16% and 680 deaths, according to the report produced by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, or USAMA.

International forces, including the U.S., were responsible for 8% of the civilian casualties with 559 deaths, the report says.

Click to expand...

More Than 10,000 Civilians Injured Or Killed In Afghanistan Last Year, U.N. Says : NPR

Remember when people called Obama a traitor for even suggesting a time table for withdrawal of forces? And crickets from those same people when a cease fire is reached after negotiating with the very group that helped to bring the WTC down killing thousands, hit the Pentagon and kill those people on the airplane (their choice, but you know that I mean) because Trump is doing it.

I thought our "colors don't run".

Rogue Valley said:

US Agrees to Reduce Forces in Afghanistan ‘If Taliban Live up To Their Commitments’

The tests will begin with a seven-day ceasefire to start “very soon,” a senior U.S. administration official told reporters.

Who are they crapping?

Kabul is the next April, 1975 Fall Of Saigon.

Related: Taliban kill five Afghan soldiers despite violence reduction hopes

Click to expand...

Afghanistan is the definition of ungovernable. It has drained the strength of every empire foolish enough to try.

We need to leave and let whatever happens happen. It doesn't matter to us.

There is an old adage that goes something like: Military power and conflict do not solve problems, they just determine who gets to solve the problems and who gets to clean up the mess after the fighting has ceased. Military intervention has never solved Afghanistan's problems. America needs to learn these two lessons and come to terms with the limits of its hard power in the world. Leaving is the right thing to do. Afghans will suffer in large numbers no matter whether US forces stay or leave. But in leaving you will force the Afghan onto a trajectory where they themselves will have solve their own problems or die in the attempt.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

cpwill said:

By any metric. Either a thing is worth doing, or it isn't. It isn't "worth doing for 18 years, but not 19 years".

Click to expand...

But it cant be done in 19 years. There is no evidence that it can be done in 29. If we arent committed to staying there forever, then there is really no reason to stay another minute.

We should get the hell out of there and save lives and money.

Why should the youth of America have to pay for the incompetence of the last 2 administrations anyways?

Oozlefinch said:

At that time, there were no forums like this. But I was active in many Usenet, FidoNet, and other groups, and spoke out often against things like this. I am actually a big supporter of that era of Charlie Wilson, and think we should have taken a more active role in helping to rebuild Afghanistan. To me, it was pretty much a crime to help them gain liberation from the Soviets, then just ignore them and do not a damned thing as they sunk into almost 2 decades of anarchy and civil war.

To me, some of the worst words combined that some use for political reasons are "Exit Strategy". Essentially, it means they want us to cut and run. I found it disgusting when Republicans used it against President Clinton in former Yugoslavia and Somalia, I find it disgusting today when Democrats use is when referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. We stay as long as needed until things are stable and it is a viable government, period. Anything else to me is a betrayal of those people who we should be protecting.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, defines who, among of the world's 7.6B people, we should be protecting by using our military force?

When the most powerful military force on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, after 18+ years of sustained effort, against an enemy which has no naval or air power and a rag tag, at best, army then we obviously have a very bad battle plan. The US military is not designed to govern, act as a 'global' police force or to 'build a nation' out of warring tribal factions. It is designed and well equipped to destroy things required by an enemy to continue to fight against them and is extremely good at doing so under proper leadership.

Fletch said:

But it cant be done in 19 years. There is no evidence that it can be done in 29. If we arent committed to staying there forever, then there is really no reason to stay another minute.

Click to expand...

You are somewhat correct, though I think you are incorrect on "ever".. Either a thing is worth doing, or it isn't. If "no more attacks on the West from VEOs in Afghanistan" is worth keeping troops in Afghanistan until such time as that can be reasonably assured without our presence there, then they stay until it can be. If not, then, as you say, they should leave immediately, so long as we recognize and are willing to accept the consequences for ourselves and others.

ttwtt78640 said:

What, exactly, defines who, among of the world's 7.6B people, we should be protecting by using our military force?

When the most powerful military force on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, after 18+ years of sustained effort, against an enemy which has no naval or air power and a rag tag, at best, army then we obviously have a very bad battle plan.

Click to expand...

That is correct. For example, for several years, we didn't target them. We also never had a whole of government strategy, the way we spent money encouraged the corruption that riddles GIRoA, we never really addressed Pakistan, the Afghan Constitution seems designed to create conflict by over-centralizing decision making, and when we tried to fix some of this, the President at the time was so conflicted on it, he cut the effort off at the knees and doomed it to failure.

ttwtt78640 said:

When the most powerful military force on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, after 18+ years of sustained effort, against an enemy which has no naval or air power and a rag tag, at best, army then we obviously have a very bad battle plan.

Click to expand...

What on earth makes you think that?

And no, there has not been "18+ years of sustained effort". We are barely using enough force in that theater to advance, trying to keep the enemy off-position and minimizing civilian casualties. Do not even begin to think that they are the same thing, look no further than what we did to Iraq in 3 days. The US could crush any opposition if desired, but the issue then becomes civilian casualties, which would be unacceptable.

So tell us, what would you have us do? It is all so easy to be snarky, but much more difficult to actually come up with your own idea.

Oozlefinch said:

look no further than what we did to Iraq in 3 days.

Click to expand...

You mean, compare a conventional armor engagement against an incompetent enemy force that was hopelessly outclassed and outnumbered versus a counterinsurgency campaign in some of the most rugged terrain on Earth? Totally different situations.

What's sad is that the Gulf War is kinda a microcosm in all that goes wrong with American efforts in the Middle East, turning a decisive operational victory into a strategic misstep with ultimately disastrous consequences.

The actual war went off splendidly, Iraq's air defense system fell apart within a week (a big part of it was Iraqi troops not knowing the capabilities of their own equipment), and by the time the ground war began attrition had reduced Iraqi front line forces to almost 50% of their nominal strength. Most of those divisions, composed of the atrocious Popular Army forces, Shia conscripts and street urchins, fell apart at the seams once the shooting started. Once the Iraqi General Staff realized they were being overwhelmed (despite the fact that their commanders usually completely failed to inform them of developments, ala the 52nd Armoured Brigade's CO flat out not telling his Corps command that he was being attacked), they actually executed a difficult but smart decision, throwing the bulk of the Republican Guard into the path of VII Corps in an attempt to save the rest of the Iraqi Army.

It actually worked, though it destroyed most of the Republican Guard as a fighting force. Despite being the best trained Iraqi forces they were still largely incompetent; the Iraqi commander wasn't aware his OPs had been overrun until his reserve was already in flames, and subsequent counter attacks consisted of open maneuvers by isolated tanks that just served as target practice. During the entire 23 minute engagement between Eagle Troop at the Republican Guard at 73 Easting the Iraqis managed just four shots. Not four hits, but they fired only four times in total. By comparison, a Polish mechanized infantry company could empty out their main gun, deplete their arsenal of ATGMs, dismount their troops, and a second company would already be in position to take over. Instead the Iraqis collapsed, just as the did in 1982 against the Iranians, in 2003 against the Americans, and in 2014 against ISIS. The Republican Guard fought hard, but they didn't fight well.

But ironically enough they succeeded; the bulk of the Iraqi Army managed to escape from Kuwait through the sacrifice of the Republican Guard. Despite the crushing victory the US then proceeded to bungle the peace; political leadership seemed to have no idea what to actually do once they had won, and thus despite being in a position of strength to demand almost anything, Schwarzkopf conceded several key points, including letting the Iraqis fly their helicopters which they then used to crush the Shia uprisings in southern Iraq. Subsequent Iraqi reprisals against the Kurds eventually invited US response (no such luck for the Shia, at least at first) in the form of Provide Comfort and later Provide Comfort II and finally Northern Watch, to be complemented by Southern Watch in 1992. Combined these operations ultimately reached 150,000 sorties by US and allied air power. But Saddam remained in power, and US involvement in Iraq remained despite a supposedly crushing victory.

To be fair, keeping Saddam in power did have one benefit, and if this had been Bush Senior's plan all along then his commitment to grand strategy, while not perfect, is worth noting. Keeping Saddam in power kept Iraq as a counter-balance to Iran, which fit in nicely with H. W's desire for stability above all else. Ultimately his son rendered it irrelevant, but if anything the continued US presence in Iraq aptly demonstrated that despite a crushing victory in Desert Storm, real success in the Middle East continued to elude the USA.