Would you consider the US military presence in Afghanistan comparable to it's presence in the US? How about knowledge of the landscape, ability to understand local cultures, having local contacts, having working transportation routes, resources in place, and the fact that none of the people fighting back are going to be backed by foreign governments? These two scenarios are incomparable.
They're absolutely comparable, notwithstanding their being different. One could just as well argue that it was a lot easier for the military to do drone strikes or call in CAS on the Taliban with zero risk of political blowback. You remind me of someone who was seriously arguing with me in 2004, telling me the Iraq war would not turn into a quagmire because Iraq was arid desert whereas Vietnam was semi-tropical and forested.
Something you didn't say, something significant, is the US military is made up of US soldiers.
A good many of those soldiers will have "Patriot Sympathies" (of many kinds).
This will lead to a great deal of information leakage, "lost" equipment going to militias, sabotage, etc.
Regardless of oaths to US military, an innate sense of duty to some personal ideal of USA will over weigh for a significant number, and a good percentage of those will remain embedded, organized, and difficult to root out.
They will also exist in various numbers from the lowliest boot to the highest general.
Sure, that could be a factor. Didn’t really seem to stop soldiers from steamrolling through American cities during the civil war, doesn’t seem to stop cops from messing people up during protests, and doesn’t stop genocide in other countries. We, as a species, are pathetically easy to manipulate through in-group, out-group thinking, which honestly is much of the basis for patriotism anyway.
True, but it goes the other way around as well - the Taliban had absolutely no way to infiltrate the ranks and do damage to the military operations from within.
