Military units often used 'red-amber-green' charts that inevitably showed progress during their deployment, regardless of the reality on the ground. This created a cycle of self-reported success that masked the fact that security gains were temporary and territory reverted to enemy control as soon as troops left.

The core justification for the 20-year military engagement in Afghanistan was preventing terrorism in the West. However, the years since the U.S. withdrawal have seen no major surge in attacks, fundamentally questioning the validity of this long-held strategic assumption.

The military fails to effectively transfer knowledge between rotating units in a conflict zone. Incoming units often discard their predecessors' experience, believing they can do better, thus repeating the same errors and failing to build on crucial, hard-won lessons.

The policy of rotating commanders on one-year tours was a critical strategic flaw in Afghanistan. Each new commander arrived believing they had the "recipe for success" and would change the strategy, resulting in a series of disconnected, short-term plans that prevented long-term progress.

The relative calm in Afghanistan should not be mistaken for successful governance. The primary reason for peace is simply the end of the war itself: the insurgency won and the counterinsurgency collapsed, thus eliminating the main driver of violence for two decades.

Once a symbol of American power, US bases are now vulnerable, above-ground targets for Iran's precision drones. This undermines the US's role as a regional protector and causes allies like Saudi Arabia to seek security guarantees elsewhere, turning assets into liabilities.

The US effort was fragmented among three groups: conventional forces, partnered Special Operations (CJSOTF), and direct-action kill/capture teams (JSOC). These 'tribes' often pursued incompatible goals, with JSOC night raids sometimes undermining the relationship-building efforts of infantry commanders in the same area, hindering the overall mission.

To avoid casualties, the U.S. military became increasingly reliant on heavy, road-bound vehicles and heavily fortified bases. This made forces less flexible and unable to access areas that earlier, more nimble units reached with pickup trucks and ATVs. The focus on protection ultimately overextended forces and ceded initiative to the enemy.

Unlike in past conflicts, soldiers from "Five Eyes" nations operate under strict rules designed to minimize civilian casualties. This focus, while moral, creates a significant tactical disadvantage, as adversaries do not adhere to the same constraints and can exploit these rules.