this is an interesting point, because it highlights the difference in the two aspects of intelligence analysis. One one hand, they were probably accurate in their quantitative measurements of the Afghan army's resources and capabilities, but the strategic analysis of the human factors failed, just like it did in Vietnam. Just because an army can fight, doesn't mean they will. In both 'Nam and Afghanistan, the situation was that the army we left behind realized that without us, they could not win in the end, so there was no point in prolonging the conflict. And that is the perfectly rational analysis of the situation. The US top level strategic analysis simply assumed those armies would fight because if would be convenient for *us* and our domestic politics if they did, and that was the major failure of intelligence vision.