>>44047
You are thinking of the Mujahdeen or whatever their name was. They were a similar group but backed by the US that would later stop receiving any support from the US so they eventually dissolved, that would leave many of its members as dejected tools and disappointed. Talibans in the other hand were likely backed by the Russians but to a lesser extent.
Some members of the Mujahdeen would even join the Taliban as the puppet State imposed by the american forces wasn't what they had expected and had many disagreements with locals. The whole occupation in Afghanistan was a mess from the start and would have lasted less if not for the air support and the Taliban running back to the mountains, limiting their actions to ambush and snatching smaller groups of american forces.
From the Puppet Government who would only do things because they were cashing in, with little to no intention in buying out the american propaganda and re-education to the godawful topography. Afghanistan was a hard place to occupy, it favored guerrilla warfare greatly and even made it harder for the air force.
>half-urban towns with pretty much no vantage point and limited water supply/resources
>open plains surrounded by mountains that favors attack/retreat tactics
>unless you went back into the desert, increasing the cost of the occupation, you pretty much had no escape if you were ambushed
>mountains served as an untouched refuge to the Taliban, the US would rarely if ever go that far
>a culture that didn't give much of a shit about politics with the exception of radical muslim groups who saw the puppet State as traitors
>armored units were pretty much just bigger targets
>all of this against hordes of poorly equipped groups making the economic cost too high to maintain
Any form of advance done by the US was mostly gained thanks to the Air Force which once again, only increases the cost of the occupation.
Actual occupation was only possible in very specific areas. By the end of the occupation, the US had mostly been sending poorly experienced Hernandez and Pablo. The reason why so many veterans went back was exactly because they felt like they had achieved nothing over the years(sunken cost fallacy).
>>44061
Nah, there are many theories but besides the obvious, probably the biggest one was to have control over the production of opioids which placed Afghanistan as one of the world's biggest producers at the time.
a.k.a Opium Wars but done by the US
>>44062
>US had around 20k casualties during the Iraq-Afghan era
>victory over Iraq was mostly thanks to the expensive carpet bombing campaigns and in the name of Israel with little profit in return
>subsequent occupation of the urban areas had easy-access escape routes in case of anything
>meanwhile in Afghanistan
>the pull out was done out of panic and very improvised
>so badly executed that it left millions of dollars in equipment behind
>the US even had to pay the Pakis to get back some of the equipment that had been sold to them via Black Market by the Taliban
if that's a win to you, then you must be quite the naive neocon
>but we killed far more
according to the CIA, the difference between the Afghan and the US casualties was minimal, mostly due to the safe haven they had in the mountains and more familiarity with the zone.
Funnily enough that's the same issue the Soviets would encounter against the Mujahideen. Wars arent won by killing more but if it was worth the cost, see the Soviets in WW2.
Only reason why the US isn't mentioning it all the time is because it'd be a demoralizing hit into an already demoralized nation