Which conflict are you referring to? Pick one objective for each:
Okay so I wasn't who you asked, but I do think it's fair to point out that three objectives you listed relating to Afghanistan were sort of connected to each other. Osama bin Laden was a dangerous individual who needed to be dealt with in some way or another, and by extension the Taliban as well for providing shelter to him and his wider network. The third objective was necessary in the face of a power vacuum, but that turned out pretty disastrous in the end.
Agreed that conventional weapons are causing the greatest number of civilian casualties. However, reports from the ground say that drones are proving very effective at targeting Ukraine's infantry. Both in direct attacks, and acting as spotters for directing conventional fire.
A direct line can be drawn from the Iraq war to ISIS and to the bloody civil war in Syria. After Iraq western countries were loath to intervene there and elsewhere, when it might sometimes have been better if they had. This led Russia to take a big role in Syria and probably also to conclude more widely that they could move on Ukraine and elsewhere without any serious consequences. Also the optics of Iraq damaged the reputation of the west in non-aligned countries.
Not half as much but I'd suggest enough. Similar to Hitler, Putin isn't looking for a hot war with western European countries but wants us weak enough that he can do what he likes further east. So quite apart from the moral duty to divert a small part of our resources to aiding the eastern European countries that are trying to sustain their pro-western outlook, there is still some practical benefit to keeping Putin down.
This is what Russia did in the Donbas, stoking disaffection in the indigenous Russian population, that it then used as the pretext for its full-blown invasion. It is why the Baltic countries in particular are worried, as they too have significant indigenous Russian populations that quickly went from being top-dogs to under-dogs after the split from Russia. They are not worried about imminent invasion, but they can see the same tactic being used against them in the medium to long-term.
It's an old playbook, offering the expansionist power plausible deniability if it goes nowhere and a convenient ratchet if they gain traction.
I was referring to Vietnam, where I'd have said the strategic objective was to defeat the Viet Cong, while supporting and training the South Vietnamese army and ensuring a two state solution were part of how the strategy was delivered, and the overall engagement in Vietnam formed part of a wider Cold War strategic objective of preventing the spread of Communism.
And where I am at a tangent to you - I think there was a narrowly military objective, but no one thought what achieving that might actually mean.
Why can't we do what we have been doing, i.e. make the gains not worth the price for Russia, a fact likely privately recognised by Putin, and reach a settlement which relies upon this fact to deter a future invasion?
Um, Russia doesn't have any cruise missiles that could be launched from the main Russian territory that could hit the U.K.
I cannot see any situation where the USA would allow Russia to attack the UK and refuse to get involved. Not to mention, a Trident sub can really ruin one's day.
No imminent threat but if Britain had stayed neutral and then Germany proceeded to defeat both France and the Soviet Union (a distinct possibility if the Soviet Union was fighting the war alone), Nazi Germany would then be a major direct threat to Britain.
I can. Just as that position was the default 85 years ago - and that was with a supportive President with activist advisors, not the America First President supported by similar advisors.
