Most are questions about warfare, counter-insurgency, military tactics or strategy. Very few people on this site have the experience or education required to answer those questions.
I would say that these are political questions even if they involve subject-expertise that transcends knowledge about governmental politics.
The primary reason why these questions should be allowed on Politics is because governmental politics will have to make decisions about the questions you describe in the quote above. Most certainly politicians will consult subject matter experts, but a decisions will have to be made at the political level.
In a democracy, that also means citizens should have some knowledge about these subjects. If you cannot make an informed decision, how can you know what questions to ask (your political representatives) and how can you determine what they stand for vis à vis military conflicts?
Similarly, questions about the coronavirus pandemic also involve subject-expertise. For example, virologists and epidemiologists are domain experts but they will have to explain their expertise to politicians who are (in many cases) the ultimate decision makers, for example when it comes to choosing which advice to follow if there are conflicting recommendations.
At best they will recycle civilian sources or quote selected military commentators.
In some cases there might be classified information, that's true. If someone is only asking for classified information (and it's not possible or extremely unlikely that an objective answer can be given) then there is the 'speculation' close reason. This applies for example when you ask what one politician said to someone else in a private conversation. There might be a recording, but without evidence to suggest that it will remain unanswered or it might attract speculative answers (e.g. pundits guessing what might have been said).
In questions about broader conflicts, I don't think that normally applies. countries often publish about military and intelligence matters, there are public hearings and there is expert analysis and journalism. All these sources can be used to answer many questions about military matters without needing classified information.
This stack exchange would not allow similar questions about World War 1, World War 2 or other conflicts that are not in the immediate news cycle.
For instance we would not accept a question asking about historical battles and losses of the allies at the Maginot Line. It would be redirected, however we have a question asking for Afghan Army losses during Op Resolute.
Such questions wouldn't be on-topic here because there is no relation to contemporary politics. They would, however, be eligible for History.SE assuming they meet their scope. That also shows that these questions can be a good fit for the Stack Exchange Q&A format.
For example, History.SE has 859 questions tagged 'military', 457 questions tagged 'war' and they have many more tags for specific wars. They also have 22 questions tagged 'Afghanistan'.
One of the questions has a HIGHLY suspicious answer claiming that NATO increased drug production to Russia and China by 20 fold and I am not surprised to see it has been marked as answered.
I assume you are referring to this answer. It has attracted a few flags but generally we, as moderators, don't delete highly upvoted answers if they don't violate the Code of Conduct and otherwise attempt to address the question.
It may be a wrong answer and it may be worth deleting nevertheless, but I'm not sure about that. One way of getting it deleted might be to ask a meta question specifically about that, tag it with specific-answer to see what the community thinks. In that question you should lay out your argument why it should be deleted and other users can vote on the merits of your reasoning. Normally the procedure would be to down vote it so that high-rep users can cast delete votes when the score is low enough, in this case the post may have too high a score to get there so putting it to meta might be warranted.
