> if we had just genocided everyone in the region preferable, but no. i'd consider it a victory if the war to remove the taliban from power didn't end with the taliban back in power before we even finished evacuating, but it didn't. and you're missing the point. afghanistan was a straight up invasion and occupation. we had a large number of troops on the ground, regular patrols, bases built, networks developed, etc., and it still wasn't enough. are we going to occupy mexico? do you think a jsoc only operation will be given that kind of budget? do you think it'll be given twenty years, or will it be over as soon as someone new is in the white house? this comparison is a big nothing. > right on our fucking backyard doesn't mean anything for the us. proximity is important for nations with limited logistics, the uk or russia can fight a war here but not there, that doesn't apply, the us can pretty easily fight anywhere it wants. there wasn't a single moment in twenty years where the us wanted to execute something in afghanistan but couldn't do it because of logistical concerns. being able to launch a drone from texas and being able to launch it from kandahar isn't that much of a difference. if you want to talk proximity, the real point is how you have mexican illegals serving next to the drone pilot, working in state government, living in the pilot's neighborhood, etc. very easy to see how it develops into drone pilots getting tortured, a school gets shot up in retaliation, etc. this country is infested top to bottom with an unironic 5th column, ever third guy in the army is chavez dimingo juarez garcia or whatever. it'll matter.
United States