[Trumpinator]

Read Dr Wheeler's article also:

Won? Huh? The Soviets lost in Afghanistan, didn't they? They were humiliated and defeated in the Afghan quagmire that the US would helplessly sink into if it invaded now, right?

Nope - the Soviets won in Afghanistan. The famed Mujahaddin had slunk back to the refugee camps in Pakistan, demoralized, dejected, and defeated. I was there, I saw it. It was August, 1986, and the Mujhaddin had given up. The Soviets had won.

So in the modern sense, these ISIS and Taliban can be beaten - as long as they don't have anti-aircraft capabilities. The USA is not into the game of scorched earth and dirty warfare (SEALS tying up Afgahns rather than shooting them dead, etc).

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

The only people who can’t beat them are the lawyers.

[Dr. Sivana]

The famed Mujahaddin had slunk back to the refugee camps in Pakistan, demoralized, dejected, and defeated.

No. Demoralized and dejected, but not defeated. A retreat, even one generations long, is not a permanent defeat. It took Spain 600 years to kick the Mohammedans out of Spain, but they ultimately won.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: “Nope - the Soviets won in Afghanistan. The famed Mujahaddin had slunk back to the refugee camps in Pakistan, demoralized, dejected, and defeated. I was there, I saw it. It was August, 1986, and the Mujhaddin had given up. The Soviets had won.”

But that wasn’t the game. Territory wasn’t the game. Bleeding the Soviet Union was the game. This is what I mean by history in a vacuum. Absent the U.S. facing the Soviet Union, in a world where it was the Soviets v. the Taliban and Mujahaddin, yes, the Soviets win!!! But that wasn’t the world they were in. The Soviets were in a world where they could ill afford a scintilla of blood or treasure, not one scintilla.