No, what happened was the USA invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban and weakened al Qaeda significantly. Where the US failed was geo-strategically- in establishing a healthy, “democratic” regime in AFGHANISTAN
Yes. that is called winning the battle, losing the war. The objectives of the war were control of afghanistan, destruction of the taliban. They failed in both missions.
In terms of failures maybe, but in strict military terms, no.
Strategic failure *IS* strict military terms. Military terms is not just tactics.
They didn’t lose this war militarily at all. They lost it Becuase they were too pussy to understand the real effects of war. While they were active in SV, they repulsed all invasions of the NVA, even the tet offensive, which was supposedly the cause of the withdrawal, was beaten back with massive NV casualties. Wars are fought in objectives, USA political leadership is too corrupt to understand the cost and benefits, hence they are called “PHD in geostragetic failure”, but not military.
Failing at strategic objectives, is strict military failure - tactics are there to serve the strategic goal. Say if the gallic allies of vincengetorix had actually defeated caesar at Alesia but Alesia still starved and everyone in it died, it would STILL count as strict military failure, as it is failure of the strategic military objective ( to lift the seige).
USA failed in its strategic military objective in vietnam - to defeat the NVA an vietcong. No two ways about it.
Wars being won or lost are determined by strategic objectives being met/not met. Not by performance on the battlefield.
they are instuments to serving the strategic goal. Nothing more.
Same way, if i just show up and you surrender in fright and give in to my demands, i have won the war. Because my strategic objectives will be met and yours won't be.
The adversaries of USA in vietnam, Iraq-II, Syria and Afghanistan met their strategic objectives. hence they won the war.
USA failed in its strategic objective. Hence it lost the wars.