Big losses and high-profile US defeats in Afghanistan


This year marks the 19th anniversary of the start of the US military campaign in Afghanistan. For a period of 2 times longer than the period of the Soviet military presence, the Americans failed to win the conflict in this country.


Not so long ago, Harvard University professor Stephen Walt published an article calling on the American leadership to admit that the United States lost the war in Afghanistan. Of course, neither Donald Trump himself nor his inner circle will ever say so directly, but the constantly discussed idea of ​​withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan is just an indirect confirmation of the recognition of his defeat. After all, troops withdraw either when the goal is achieved, or when they cannot achieve more. Since the Taliban terrorist movement (banned in the Russian Federation) has not been defeated, the second option seems more justified.

Human and financial losses


For almost two decades, thousands of US troops and the armed forces of the US allies in Afghanistan have died in Afghanistan. Thus, losses of the US Armed Forces are estimated at more than 2400 people killed and 20 people injured until mid-000. At the same time, losses of private military companies are not taken into account, among the fighters of which there were also many American citizens. IRGC of Iran voices the figure of 2019 dead American soldiers, noting that the official data did not include US military personnel with foreign citizenship, which are not so few.

The cost of hostilities was also very impressive. According to official figures from the US Department of Defense alone, the military presence in Afghanistan from October 2001 to September 2019 cost the US budget $ 778 billion. Independent experts say much larger numbers - up to $ 2 trillion. The most difficult financially for the United States was 2010-2012, when the size of the American military contingent exceeded 100 thousand people. It turns out that the Pentagon kept in Afghanistan more than a tenth of the US armed forces.

Padded helicopters: the largest single loss of US forces


As we recall, the first steps of the American army in Afghanistan were quite successful. In 2002, the famous Operation Anaconda was carried out, which cost the US armed forces the lives of 8 troops.

But then the Taliban launched a real guerrilla war against the Americans and allies. The losses of the American army began to grow. So, in June 2005, the MN-47 helicopter was shot down, and 16 American commandos on board were killed. Since the outbreak of the war, this has been the largest lump in US personnel in Afghanistan.

The biggest one-time loss occurred in 2011, when on August 6, 2011, the NATO Chinook helicopter CH-47 was shot down by a Taliban missile in the Wardak province west of Kabul. 38 people were killed, including 7 Afghan commandos and 31 Americans (22 SEAL fighters from the Naval Special Forces, 5 soldiers from the 160th Special Purpose Aviation Regiment, 3 soldiers from the US Air Force combat dispatch control department, and a military dog ​​handler , civilian translator).


Assault on a checkpoint in Nuristan


Despite the efforts made and the concentration of a huge number of military personnel in the country, it was not possible to establish control over hard-to-reach areas. For example, in October 2009, the Taliban managed to destroy 8 American soldiers at once during an attack on an American roadblock in the province of Nuristan on the border with Pakistan.

This attack was enough for the US and NATO troops to leave Nuristan forever, completely shifting the responsibility for maintaining order in this mountainous province to the Afghan security forces. If we talk about the scale of the guerrilla war, then we can turn to the numbers: only in 2010, the Pentagon recorded 18057 cases of attacks on American troops and their NATO allies in Afghanistan.

In the end, the American military leadership headed for a phased withdrawal of troops and their partial replacement by fighters of private military companies. After the implementation of this plan, the losses of the American army, for obvious reasons, were significantly reduced. But the situation in the country became even more complicated.

Is the war lost?


At one time, military experts Pierre Allan and Albert Stahel argued that at least 300 thousand troops were needed to control Afghanistan. They called this figure in relation to the Soviet campaign in the DRA, but it can be argued that in the modern situation these figures would hardly have seriously decreased.

Naturally, even at the peak of their presence in Afghanistan, the Americans and allies were not able to expose 300 thousand people, and after the reduction in military presence began, control over most of the territories was completely lost. In fact, everything is "reset to zero." In fact, this is the loud defeat of the American army.

However, American analyst Elan Jurno blames the defeat of the United States in Afghanistan, not even the insufficient number of troops or their wrong actions, but the general philosophy of the American military presence in a distant country. Meanwhile, for the current government of Afghanistan, the final withdrawal of American troops from the country may be the beginning of the end, because in this case the Taliban will not miss their chance, which can hardly be called a single structure.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NordUral 6 May 2020 16: 31 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Big losses and high-profile US defeats in Afghanistan

    Yes, they lost, if we consider that the goal was to restore order in Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban.
    But if the goals were different, then everything is not so simple or straightforward, but with a different polarity.
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi 6 May 2020 18: 50 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      Quote: NordUral
      that the goal was to restore order in Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban.

      This is the most unimportant goal. The main goal is to create the infrastructure for the overthrow of the governments of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. The coup attempt in Uzbekistan was stopped immediately, the conspirators were shot, the American base was kicked out. The Americans moved to Kyrgyzstan. The result is two coups and an Islamic uprising in the Kyrgyz Ferghana. The corrupt Kyrgyz wanted to stand behind the base until the very end, but still $ 50 million for their bottomless pockets (from the payment for the military base in Kant, not a cent fell into the treasury!), But the Russians pressed and the Americans had to get out. The coup stopped. And the Taliban do not allow organizing full-fledged training camps to organize an army of Turkic Indians for a full-fledged war in the north.
      1. NordUral 6 May 2020 19: 42 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        About such thoughts in my head have long been revolving that the Taliban would be faithful allies to us.
        1. g1v2 6 May 2020 20: 05 New
          • 10
          • 1
          +9
          The Taliban are so white and fluffy towards us just because they need at least our neutrality. And our operation in Syria impressed the BV. . Plus there is infa that some of their units have become too well equipped and the American press directly said that they were supplied by us. But as soon as they win, it is far from the fact that they will not turn AGAINST US. Let me remind you that before the American invasion, we ourselves discussed the possibility of military operations against the Taliban and prepared to defend ourselves from them in Tajikistan. This is by no means a fact that we will not have to act against them in the future. request
          In general, in my opinion, the solution to the problem of Afghanistan is its division between neighbors. Populated by Uzbeks and Tajiks, the north is to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The center and west, where the Hazaras live, are Iran, and the Pashtun south and east are Pakistan. And let the new owners solve problems in their new lands.
          1. Usher 6 May 2020 21: 26 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            I agree, now the state of Afghanistan is drawn only on the political map.
          2. gsev 8 May 2020 00: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: g1v2
            In general, in my opinion, the solution to the problem of Afghanistan is its division between neighbors.

            When Iranian diplomats asked Ahmad Shah Masub at the negotiations: "What help will his troops give to Iran if Iranian troops are sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban?" They received this answer: "Then I will be the Taliban?" Great Britain broke its teeth about Afghanistan at the peak of its power, for the USSR the end of its war with Afghanistan was the beginning of the collapse. The United States, bogged down in Afghanistan, found that they did not have enough forces to seriously intervene in North Korea, Venezuela, Iran. For Iran, the intervention in Afghanistan will end in defeat: Pashtuns with US weapons will leave Iran without helicopters and armored vehicles. For Pakistan, when the Pashtuns appear to have Indian weapons, this will end with the emergence in the north of Great Pashtunistan, and in the West just the great Balochistan. And to cope with Uzbekistan, the Afghans will have enough left Soviet.
            1. g1v2 8 May 2020 10: 31 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Not even funny. Afghanistan is an elusive Joe from a joke. Everyone who needed to capture him, and then they realized that there was nothing to do stupidly there. As a result, the occupation corps remained there, which sooner or later was withdrawn. No one was going to conquer it. There are no Afghans per se. There are Pashtuns closely associated with the tribal zone of Pakistan. There is Tajik-Uzbek north, which the Taliban could not capture. Th, with the agreement of the neighbors - it will be stupidly divided.
              1. gsev 10 May 2020 13: 58 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: g1v2
                There is Tajik-Uzbek north,

                Do you know that there are more contradictions between Uzbeks and Tajiks than between Pashtuns and Tajiks? In addition, interethnic apostasy is fanned among Afghans by US propaganda. It is difficult for me to evaluate its effectiveness, but I hope that the Afghan culture is quite high and will be able to maintain the unity of Afghanistan. No wonder only Afghans and Chinese were able to assimilate Jews in their midst.
        2. Clerk 7 May 2020 21: 40 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: NordUral
          About such thoughts in my head have long been revolving that the Taliban would be faithful allies to us.

          I remember you still in the 39th joint parades with the Nazis held.
          1. NordUral 7 May 2020 22: 20 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            You have a distorted idea about this issue.
            1. Clerk 7 May 2020 23: 18 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              But what about Brest, the 39th, September 22nd ...
              1. NordUral 8 May 2020 11: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Everyone sees only what he wants to see.
          2. Oyo Sarkazmi 8 May 2020 18: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: clerk
            I remember you still in the 39th joint parades with the Nazis held

            And you, remember, in the 34th concluded a friendship agreement with the free transit of Nazi troops to the western borders.
            But Hitler even sent Goering to the Pilsudski funeral. And he himself defended the mass in the church.
      2. Doccor18 6 May 2020 21: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        "The military presence in Afghanistan from October 2001 to September 2019 cost the US budget $ 778 billion."

        That is, 39 yards per year, for 20 years.
        Where are the results?
        What kind of revolution? Where?
        What infrastructure?
        Or is it a control fee
        over the country, or something else ...
        But for nearly $ 800 billion, the goal should be
        well, very justify
        facilities. And about the fact that they lost and leave,
        something is not very hard to believe.
    2. max702 8 May 2020 16: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The United States had three goals in Afghanistan. 1 Landfill for testing and testing everything and everyone. 2 Control of drug trafficking in Europe and Russia 3 To be in the center of this region in order to influence the situation in the right direction .. With the first task, it’s all the less so that victims are not inevitable and in ordinary exercises the percentage of losses is laid down initially .. For the second, success is complete and absolute! For example, we lose about 100 people and 000 billion \ dollars of material damage a year from drug addiction. But we didn’t really deal with the third paragraph because we didn’t fully understand what it was for .. and it’s the third main paragraph in the direction of withdrawing the contingent from Afghanistan .. Regarding There is only one way to solve the military issue in Afghanistan .. The good old genocide of everyone and everything .. But it just does not pay for the operation and the presence of troops there .. In Afghanistan there is nothing that would have to use such methods ..
  2. Mitroha 6 May 2020 16: 36 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    But how they rejoiced at the departure of the SA from Afghanistan ....
    It is a pity that the American war in Afghanistan did not become that pebble colliding with an avalanche, unlike the USSR.
    1. Cyril G ... 6 May 2020 17: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      That is still unknown...
    2. Carnifexx 6 May 2020 19: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What was supposed to happen?
    3. NordUral 6 May 2020 19: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Alex, and in fact in life, that of people, that of states, nothing passes without a trace. Unlimited expansion will hiccup them.
      1. nikon7717 6 May 2020 20: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: NordUral
        . Unlimited expansion will hiccup them.

        Here the question is no longer about expansion. Look further. The world does not tolerate emptiness. Once one visible power is gone, it means that someone will try to take this place or put it under their control.
        Here would be an article with analysis. there are many interests intersect. this region. Plus, Afghans have been fighting and raising drugs for decades.
        1. NordUral 6 May 2020 20: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Microanalysis made g1v2 in response to me. And I wanted to write about drugs myself. For a long time this region will be a source of problems for all neighbors and the Afghans themselves.
  3. rocket757 6 May 2020 16: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Politicians "do not suffer defeats", they find consensus ..... tf-y, the word is what, immediately tagged remembered, this is not good ???
  4. Walking 6 May 2020 17: 02 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Honestly, I am glad about the loss of the Americans and their allies, no matter how cynical it sounds. I remember my fellow comrades who died and I remember who helped the souls at that time.
    1. ammunition 6 May 2020 17: 19 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Hiking
      I am glad about the losses of the Americans and their allies, no matter how cynical it sounds.


      Hm .. But if the Taliban were helped as dushmans?
      1) special training. where they taught the tactics and skills of guerrilla warfare.
      2) the supply of effective weapons.
      3) training of highly professional mercenaries. to help the Taliban.
      4) provision online exact ramified.
      etc. etc..
      1. gsev 8 May 2020 01: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: ammunition
        helped the Taliban as dushmans?

        Apparently enough to put modern mines, camouflage, thermal imagers, MANPADS and ATGMs.
        But it is more profitable for Russia to end the war between the central government of Afghanistan and the Taliban after the inter-Afghan dialogue. Now it is not American blood that is being poured, but Afghan blood from two sides.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Amateur 6 May 2020 17: 14 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    This year marks the 19th anniversary of the start of the US military campaign in Afghanistan. For a period of 2 times longer than the period of the Soviet military presence, the Americans failed to win the conflict in this country.

    From the seeds of democracy in 2001, thrown into the soil with the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, came the seas of scarlet poppies. During ISAF’s presence, Afghanistan’s cultivated acreage has grown one hundred times, and heroin production has grown forty times. (https://masterok.livejournal.com/1091451.html)

    Mattresses that, to their own enemies, “zero” such a stream of money.
  7. Tagan 6 May 2020 17: 16 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: NordUral
    Big losses and high-profile US defeats in Afghanistan

    Yes, they lost, if we consider that the goal was to restore order in Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban.
    But if the goals were different, then everything is not so simple or straightforward, but with a different polarity.

    Apparently, yes ...
    Drug trafficking from Afghanistan has increased tenfold, for example.
    1. Lopatov 6 May 2020 18: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Tagan
      Drug trafficking from Afghanistan has increased tenfold, for example.

      This is all debatable.
      Individual Americans are highly likely to profit from this.
      However, the US as a whole was more likely to lose
      1. gsev 8 May 2020 01: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        However, the US as a whole was more likely to lose

        US needs Afghan uranium. As they take all, they will leave.
  8. nb bnl 6 May 2020 17: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Big losses and high-profile defeats of the ussr and rf list please retire
  9. Pvi1206 6 May 2020 17: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Any war once ends ... if there is no surrender, then each side of the conflict ascribes victory to itself ... at least at the level of politicians ...
  10. Razvedka_Boem 6 May 2020 18: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The reason the Americans are still there is heroin and possible minerals.
  11. Lopatov 6 May 2020 18: 44 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Americans, as always, lose.
    And as always, they will try to declare the loss a great victory
  12. knn54 6 May 2020 19: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "Ability" to kill people is not enough to defeat the Taliban. And not only over them.
  13. Tagan 6 May 2020 19: 47 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Spade
    Americans, as always, lose.
    And as always, they will try to declare the loss a great victory

    Hollywood evens out losses and draws victory.
  14. 123456789 6 May 2020 19: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Big losses and high-profile US defeats in Afghanistan

    Michel de Montaigne. Not achieving what they wanted, they pretended to want what was achieved.
  15. veritas 6 May 2020 20: 24 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    To talk about whether the United States won or lost in Afghanistan, you need to understand what purpose they pursued. I doubt that the goals were good and they really wanted to destroy the Taliban and restore order. In general, they created and created this movement not in order to destroy it. But even the fact that the United States has been there for 19 years suggests that they will remain there forever. And that was one of the goals. They also achieved another control of drug trafficking.
    1. Lopatov 6 May 2020 20: 28 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: veritas
      I doubt that the goals were good and they really wanted to destroy the Taliban and restore order.

      The funny thing is that this is what they wanted.
      For the planes of September 11 had to respond.
      Nobody would understand Bush Jr. if he had not started the war.
      1. veritas 6 May 2020 20: 30 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        Quote: Spade
        For the planes of September 11 had to respond.

        I do not believe that the Afghans organized on September 11th.
        1. Lopatov 6 May 2020 20: 35 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: veritas
          Quote: Spade
          For the planes of September 11 had to respond.

          I do not believe that the Afghans organized on September 11th.

          Officially, they suffered for "giving shelter to al-Qaeda"
          In reality, the United States simply could not begin to fight with Saudi Arabia, therefore they chose the goal easier. Hoping for a quick victory in Panama.
          And with the wrong hands, the Northern Alliance did all the work and transferred power to the country of the occupation administration. Which completely failed its work.
  16. skobars 6 May 2020 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The Americans on narcotics repulsed all the money, poisoning the former USSR and Europe.
  17. businessv 6 May 2020 23: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Meanwhile, for the current government of Afghanistan, the final withdrawal of American troops from the country may be the beginning of the end, because in this case the Taliban will not miss their chance, which can hardly be called a single structure.
    Afghanistan has never had a single governance structure, which is why it is in a state of permanent war, so to speak. Thank you for the article, I didn’t know that such a small loss in relation to ours.
  18. G.K
    G.K 7 May 2020 00: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "In the history of Afghanistan, no one has ever been able to conquer this country. No one and never ..."
    1. Smoke 7 May 2020 02: 43 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      do not write nonsense ... Genghis Khan, Iron Timur conquered and quite quickly. And before Genghis Khan, Persian methods are of course considered not humane, but believe me, if someday someone from strong states like China really needs to seize the territory of Afghanistan as a new area of ​​resettlement of their peoples, then Afghans will be conquered very quickly - just all men over 12 years under the knife and all. And there will be the necessary formulations and the necessary justifications, and even the laws will be adopted as necessary.
      1. 2 Level Advisor 7 May 2020 05: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        you know, between conquering and capturing part of the territory (mainly cities, in a country where 5/6 of the population lives in the mountains), announcing that we all won, without even trying to build all the other villages in the mountains, is a big nuance ..
        and from the point of view - under the knife .. well .. you can still use chemical weapons, right? but in general you (all boys older than 12 years under the knife) offer the methods of Japanese fascists in the 2nd World War .. however .. you’re swept up in the mountains to catch them all .. sometimes you know “it’s not worth the game” from the word and for resettlement these mountains nobody fell ..
  19. Charik 7 May 2020 05: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Someone got their way, drug trafficking to Russia, they wrote about it here, that in small towns where everyone in the cemetery’s eye was “younger”.
  20. kplayer 7 May 2020 05: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For a period of 2 times longer than the period of the Soviet military presence, the Americans failed to win the conflict in this country.

    Victory in Afghanistan? And what was their contingent there, painted? For the sake of justice and objectivity, they would then be compared then with the strength and combat composition of the 40th Army. The dry language of numbers is more concise than caustic reasoning.
  21. Valentin spagis 7 May 2020 10: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In fact, the Americans did not try to revive the state in Afghanistan. They removed their more or less successful protege Kharzai themselves, because he began to look towards Russia. All of their innovations, such as the lifting of Muslim bans, also did nothing good. The population did not understand them. The Americans did not intelligently answer the main question. How people should live in Afghanistan, and what to do. Therefore, their activities in Afghanistan have come to a standstill.
    1. gsev 8 May 2020 01: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Valentin Spagis
      Therefore, their activities in Afghanistan have come to a standstill.

      USA is a very different country. And the US interacts differently with the Afghans. For example, in southern Afghanistan, where Soviet soldiers did not set foot, local agronomists test modern corn seeds and send reports to the United States on the progress of scientific testing. US doctors treat Afghans. Many Afghans received solar power from the United States and access to artesian water. After the entry of US troops in Afghanistan, there was an explosive population growth. In principle, most Afghans dislike the Taliban.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Dormidont Evlampievich 8 May 2020 09: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For not to win the "terrorist groups" the Americans were in Afghanistan, but to produce heroin and transfer it to Russia. For three hundred years, the Anglo-Saxons script worked out
  24. Vadim Petrov 8 May 2020 14: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    sit longer - the more you die there, the less work we will kill you.