Your assumption is misplaced and/or you do not understand economics. I will try to elaborate in layman terms to you.
American economic system can be classified into two sectors such as
private and
government. Both sectors contribute to the American economy but the private sector is massive in comparison, and the largest source of revenue accordingly.
The private sector encompass a number of industries:-
01. Agriculture
02. Mining
03. Manufacturing
04. Utilities
05. Construction
06. Wholesale trade
07. Retail trade
08. Transportation and warehousing
09. Information
10. Finance
11. Professional and business services
12. Social services
13. Arts
14. Miscellaneous
You are highlighting deals in relation to the
Manufacturing segment (3) of the private sector - one of the sources for revenue generation.
You are assuming that US has acted against Taliban on a consistent basis throughout these years but this is not the case. Bush administration took Taliban seriously initially (i.e. Operation Enduring Freedom) but diverted its attention to the Middle East in 2003 (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom), and Afghanistan became secondary consequently. Obama administration also prioritized other conflicts (Iraq, Libya and ISIS) over Taliban, and altered the 'rules of engagement' for NATO in Afghanistan in 2014; from
combat-focused to
support-focused. Trump administration has revisited Obama-era 'rules of engagement' in Afghanistan in 2017 but results will take time to materialize, if sincere.
Meanwhile US exerted pressure on Pakistan to do heavy-lifting in regards to Taliban but Pakistan had its hands full with TTP and Indian-sponsored terror networks since 2007. When Pakistan commenced its crackdown on militants in North Waziristan (i.e. Operation Zarb-e-Azb), Obama administration had a golden opportunity to cooperate with Pakistan in this offensive-effort and crush all militants who would flee from North Waziristan but missed it.
American
politics is at fault for lack of results in Afghanistan - American military is not. In case of Pakistan, Pakistani military establishment acts on its own accord and political interventions are minimum. In case of USA, opposite is true - American military establishment is subordinate to the elected government and political interventions can be extreme at times.
"In all, Operation Enduring Freedom earned far more deserved accolades than demerits. First, never before in modern times had the United States fought a war from land bases and aircraft carriers positioned so far away from a combat zone. Distance required endurance: One B-2 mission lasted 44 hours from takeoff to landing, becoming the longest air combat mission flown in history. The logistics achievement of the campaign should also not be underestimated. Until the United States gained land access to Afghanistan through Uzbekistan, everything the military used had to be airlifted.
The war saw a further improvement of some important trends that began during the Gulf War a decade earlier. Precision weapons accounted for only 9 percent of the munitions expended during Desert Storm but nearly 70 percent in Operation Enduring Freedom. The war saw the first combat use of the new Global Hawk high-altitude, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the first operational use of Predator UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles, and the first combat use of the highly accurate, all-weather Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) by the B-1 and B-52. For the first time in modern warfare, airborne and space-based sensors provided a constant flow of information about enemy force dispositions and activity.
The greatest tactical innovation of the war was a unique air-land partnership that featured unprecedented mutual support between allied air power and ground-based SOF teams. Unlike traditional close air support that entails concurrent air and ground schemes of maneuver, SOF units in Afghanistan enabled precision air strikes against enemy ground forces even when there were no friendly ground forces in direct contact. This highly improvised partnership added up to a new way of war for the United States."
Source:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9148/index1.html
Emphasis mine. American war-machine has excellent power projection and COIN capabilities, and it is innovative in its methods of conducting warfare but
reforming a chaotic society requires a degree of dedication and coherence in strategy that was lacking in American politics in regards to Afghanistan.
We also need to concentrate on the ground realities of Afghanistan:-
Afghan society is internally fractured to large extent with scores of warlords vying for personal gains and benefits. It might not be practical for a
foreign entity to
reform this kind of society - only Afghans can address their internal problems. US can facilitate Afghans in developing institutions and matters of reconstruction, and exert pressure on warring warlords to cast their differences aside for the betterment of the society. However, Afghan conflict is of the nature that
democratic solutions might not be sufficient to settle it.
Americans themselves are conflicted in regards to what to do about Afghanistan. Some are of the opinion that US needs to stay away from internal issues of Afghanistan and let them duke it out. Others see an opportunity to benefit from the chaotic conditions of Afghanistan for political and/or business ends (i.e. war profiteering).
The resurgent Taliban is not disorganized; rather an evolved and
elusive opponent which adapted to the conditions around it. Taliban combatants do not wear uniforms and do not rely upon complex support structures to sustain their operations unlike a professional army. They rely upon civilian infrastructure to conceal their activities and also as a source of revenue. Above all, they do not fight in an honorable manner.
Afghan government is grounded in a conglomeration of warlords and mired in corruption. Taliban is able to infiltrate its ranks in order to extract meaningful information about its activities; these spies then identify 'targets of interest' and direct suicide bombers to them from time-to-time.
Back in 2001, Taliban was a visible adversary - a pseudo-conventional force with governmental responsibilities across Afghanistan. US decimated this force with its power projection capabilities in a span of 2 months; thousands perished; thousands were captured and suffocated to death in airtight containers; and others sought refuge in the Tora Bora region housing Al-Qaeda Network which feature a vast array of caves and tunnels but American firepower forced them to flee from this kind of region as well, into Pakistan. Bush administration did well to humble warring factions in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan became peaceful for a while (2002 - 2004).
Bush administration had plans to expand its theater of operations into Balochistan and NWFP in order to smash Taliban and Al-Qaeda Network remnants in these regions but then COAS Pervez Musharraf negotiated a way out for both stakeholders by allowing CIA to utilize armed drones for COIN operations inside Pakistan and instructed ISI to coordinate with CIA in this matter.
LOL
You agree then?
Hmm.
1) Russia is watching Afghanistan but unlikely to intervene in a proactive manner.
2) Wait, Pakistan is responsible for resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan?
3) Sure.
It is really shortsighted for you to assume that US will intervene in every Russian conflict. In case you didn't notice, US and Russia are not at war with each other.
US imposed some economic sanctions on Russia for latter's intervention in Ukraine. These sanctions have affected Russian businesses and economy to noticeable end.
Scores of people have misunderstood developments in Syria. US invaded Syria in 2014 to counter ISIS (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve), not to topple Syrian regime. Conversely, Syrian regime invited Russia to facilitate its efforts in curbing rebellion that began in 2011 and the latter obliged in 2015. Since American forces were operating in Syria to counter ISIS, Russia and US decided to establish a deconflicting channel of communications as in to not get in each other's way.
