Madness is rolling over Afghanistan
I don't think covid-19 is a particular concern thereabouts at the moment.
Refugee and humanitarian problems are likely to go haywire.
But what can be done?
Hope for the best?
Wouldn't it be strange if China stepped in?
Anyway, no light in sight it would seem, not a recommended vacation spot.
• The Guardian
• The New York Times
Refugee and humanitarian problems are likely to go haywire.
But what can be done?
Hope for the best?
Wouldn't it be strange if China stepped in?
Anyway, no light in sight it would seem, not a recommended vacation spot.
• The Guardian
• The New York Times
Comments (481)
Not that strange. China has been involved in Pakistan (where the Taliban have their bases) for many years and has done deals with the Taliban in the past. But probably China will wait first for the situation to settle and then get involved - probably via the Pakistan government - if and as necessary.
The question is, what solutions can philosophy offer?
There are a few historically and politically savvy people around here.
Afghanistan seems to be converging on a rough theocracy, basic human rights out the window, oppression of females, ..., while we watch, before switching over to the food'n'shopping channel.
Will the Taliban allow refugees to flee the country once it is in power?
Hopefully, but, y'know, not sticking around to find out is always an option, at least, when it's an option.
Yes, our politicians like to talk about our achievements in Afghanistan like enabling millions of girls to go to school, but of course that's all out of the window now, plus the billions wasted to "build the Afghan state" that is now collapsing like a house of cards.
But it isn't just Afghanistan, there is a totally new world order being forged as we speak, and this time around the West has little say in it.
China is the new global power in the making and the West's enemy No 1, along with militant Islam and other loony ideologies.
But I think the West has had it too good for too long and we have forgotten that sometimes you have to fight to defend your life, your country, and your freedom.
Maybe the pandemic should serve as a wake-up call and we need to realize that the dream is over and that it's time to start rethinking the whole situation and devising new strategies before it's too late ....
That's a nice sentiment and all, but, in Afghanistan, I think that we have to accept that it is already too late. The United States isn't going to reengage in the conflict and the ostensive dream of democratic Afghanistan isn't going to come to fruition in any determinate future. Though well aware that it could be potentially harmful to the morale of the Afghans fighting the Taliban now, I just don't think that anything can be done to stop them.
Quoting Apollodorus
An expression of solidarity in the word, "godspeed", and to figure out what to do about what is to become an influx of refugees, hopefully convincing other countries to give them safe harbor. As for everyone else there, I don't know. All that we can do is to acknowledge that it is a situation beyond our control.
Without the ever-illusive "West" to fight, I think that the Taliban will just kind of internally dissolve. Perhaps, in the aftermath, there will be hope for people there then?
True enough, sometimes we have to fight for our interests. That would seem to apply to the Afghan government and military forces. Once we said we were leaving, bombers and all, the Afghanis seemed to lose their will to fight. Assuming that our help over the last 20 years was actually useful, it seems like the Afghanis could have put up more resistance to the Taliban than they did.
I do not know what is the matter with the Afghanis. Is it Islam? History? Culture? What?
As Kenny Rogers put it...
You've got to know when to hold 'em
know when to fold 'em
know when to walk away
know when to run
Hope for the best, expect the worst.
There's this quote that Emiliano Zapata has, "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." @baker once said it to me here, which, in the general course of my madness, I wasn't quite sure how to respond to.
Anyways, there's this advice that I always give to people who had been brought into the now diffused situation created between the Mafia and I, which relates to this scene from the film, Catch-22, where Nately, played by none other than Art Garfunkel, has a conversation with an old Italian in a brothel.
As much as the Italian is extolling the virtues of cowardice, he is not necessarily incorrect. To suggest that "it is better to live on your feet than it is to die on your knees" is, in the general course of living within a fairly dangerous world, kind of better advice than the martial invocation of honor, glory, or self-sacrifice. I don't want to treat the people of Afghanistan like I used to certain people with cocaine habits, but, y'know, I would consider putting off the personal crisis of having left the country in a time of crisis until I, myself, had fled.
Not everyone can leave and there are probably only so many places to go, aside from that it's probably doubtful that too many Afghans read The Philosophy Forum, and, so, it's only so good of advice, but, even if the Afghan military begins to hold their own, it's going to be a long and difficult civil war. Otherwise, as I kind of see it, the Taliban are just kind of unstoppable at this point.
I think that, as Western interference created the crisis, it would not only be ethical, but that we are also responsible for providing safe harbor for Afghan refugees. What narrative is likely for us to be told, and it is something that will happen, albeit to an extraordinarily limited extent, is that the Taliban, or, perhaps, more particularly either al-Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups, as the Taliban are more concerned with their territorial control, will exploit the refugee crisis by disguising potential terrorist threats as political refugees, thereby dismissing the problem of the refugee crisis and just kind of letting them fend for themselves. What we, as philosophers, should then do is to make an attempt to change the general mindset in these regards.
The Organization for World Peace more or less suggests that the United States has to take initiative so that people can safely leave the country, which who knows if will happen, particularly now?
The people living in those better someplaces will not be thrilled to see hundreds of thousands or millions, of desperate refugees hiking down the road toward them. Europe, North America, China, Australia, Japan, and bits and pieces of the rest of the world will make up the destinations.
Japan may seem like a paradise compared to broiling SE Asia or India, but I don't see the Japanese being able to take on large numbers of refugees, given their limited energy, limited land resources and very homogeneous population.
Europe and the US can absorb a fair number of people, but that will depend on what local conditions are like in Europe and North America. The same goes for China.
I can easily imagine militarized borders to keep people out. The southern half of the globe will suffer first and more than the northern half. The cooler richer north may decide that the south is a lost cause. "Stay back, or we'll shoot you."
So, in the grand scheme of things, Afghanistan may not register as all that large on history's radar screen.
That's something, I guess.
I don't know. I just felt some sort of inspiration to do something upon witnessing this whirlwind of events, only to later realize that I could only give out half-baked, potentially detrimental, advice.
Not for nothing has Afghanistan been called 'the graveyard of empires'. No occupying power has ever gone in there and come out better off. It's heartbreaking to see all the effort, work and good intentions of all those who did try and nation-build being completely destroyed by barborous terrorism but I think that's exactly what's going to ?happen.
I hate to think of what a lot of those families will go through when the Taliban reigns. But who can do anything to stop it? The US spent trillions of dollars and shed a lot of blood, and as soon as they leave it will all turns to s**t. But they couldn't stand there with their finger in the dyke for the rest of history.
:fire:
We should've met when I was younger. Just my luck!
Really - the effort? Like ripping the fucking place to pieces out of a paranoid fear of communism?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan
1. Radical Islam, assuming there's another version of Islam
2. The Global Policeman, Uncle Sam, seems to get involved and stay involved in something only if there's profit to be made. Bad doggy! Bad, bad doggy!
In other words, we must make the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and network with them, co-exist, sharing tomorrow, etc.
We must get rid of war mentality and paranoia and begin to work smart toward a better Afghanistan. Why not use Artificial Intelligence for doing the nation-building the most intelligent?
I would avoid the term 'western' and simply call the culprits by their names: the United States and Israel.
Europe isn't to blame for this mess of power politics, yet it bore the brunt of the fallout. I'm sure that has suited the United States and Israel just fine.
Good initiative, but I guess it does not matter when Taliban group is so extremist. They do not want anything according to "west" nations or at least globalized world. They want to impose their own religious and political beliefs and ideas. We should not give up on them and still make some efforts to get Afghanistan a real free country.
Precisely, this is what happens in 1979 with Iran... which would have been a very developed country but then, radical islamists showed up.
Now, this may not mean gender equality by any stretch but it is better than nothing and in particular, it is better than what the previous crop of Taliban ever did in the 1990's. I have argued elsewhere that the Afghans I know well, the rural type, have rejected modernity several times during this and the past century. They are among the very few non-European people to never be colonized. They are firmly pre-modern, to this day. Even though they now own machine guns. But in a sense, rural Afghanistan is also pre-Islamic: the harsh tribal code known as pashtunwali predates Islam; it is HARSHER on women than the Shariah. (Let that sink.) No heritage for girls for instance, when Muslim law grants her half of their brothers' inheritance. Islam was pro-women back in those times, it represented progress for them, including in Arab tribal society. The whole Arab renaissance is made possible by the radical modernity (pro-science and to a degree pro-women) of Islam, back in the early days.
In effect, by still going by tribal law, rural Afghanistan rejected the modernity of Islam. It was only superficially converted.
Mohamad said: “The best amongst yourselves treat your women the best, and I treat my wives the best.” And he did.
I say: take them at their word. "Treat women according to Islam". Grant them inheritance, for a start.
Meaning, grinning while they cut your throat.
True. Good point. But not only rural areas but sadly the most part of Afghanistan except Kabul. This country was always ruled by tribal organizations, so I guess it is not easy to establish a normal/regular administration system.
SP
Either way, the movement was and is religiously motivated, and currently on a crusade.
They're not inherently Afghan, though, they have presence/networks in neighboring countries as well.
The UN has asked the Taliban to chill - not going to happen, probably hardly even heard.
With fairly well-defined borders and no external resistance/interference, their goal is in sight.
They have been confronted by whoever before, and cries for help ain't new.
Uncertain/unpleasant future for some, Sharia for all.
Hopefully, the Taliban caliphate won't be as bad as Daesh.
Many Americans understandably don't want to send their young people off into a fire across the globe, and return missing a foot.
Anyway, "the religious students" will have a country of their own, to do with as they like.
I think that the Taliban was purely a Pakistani thing to counter the anarchy after the Pro-Soviet regime of Najibullah had fallen.
Quoting jorndoe
Why would China step in? Isn't the example of the a) British Empire, b) Soviet Empire and c) US Empire that Afghanistan is not the place to go, if you don't want to kill your empire?
What's NATO going to do, now?
Nothing much?
It's all about tribal politics. And for the tribes to change sides. Otherwise such rapid collapse is hard to understand...especially Northern Afghanistan (which is non-Pashtun) falling quickly to the Taliban, which was the region where the Northern Alliance has it's roots.
A telling signal was that Ashraf Ghani went to talk...to ancient warlords like Dostum in order to get support. Dostum is basically the example that shows everything that is wrong in Afghanistan. Dostum started in the Communist Afghan Army as a Marshal, was honored as a "Hero of Afghanistan" by President Mohammed Najibullah, then defected to the mujahideen and became a warlord, then joined the Northern Alliance and was a friend of the US, then became the vice president of Afghanistan from 2014 to 2020.
Dostum now with President Ghani:
Quoting Shawn
Evacuate the embassies. Likely separately as countries, but naturally coordinating the operation.
Even if I cannot forecast the future, it's likely that Ghani's government will fall. Not much capability of getting through a siege of Kabul where there is from 4 to 6 million people.
"Internally dissolve"? Surely not when the Taliban are an instrument of Pakistan intended to keep India and Russia out.
And don't forget Iran's own mad mullahs who took over in 1979 and are still in charge.
Well, I doubt very much that the West made a serious effort to build a proper Afghan military. Plus, no Afghan army can beat the Taliban - who is getting unlimited manpower and materiel from Pakistan - without outside support.
Afghanistan has a population of about 30 million, Pakistan has 225 million. The Afghans don't stand a chance without Western backing.
So, it isn't the Afghans, it is Pakistan that has its own agenda in the region.
Tribalism is raised as an issue -- invaders / occupiers / technical assisters couldn't overcome tribalism. So, what did the Taliban do with tribalism? Apparently they found a way of using it.
Afghanistan is reputed to have vast mineral resources--minerals important in the current economy. Why hasn't some nation -- us, Russia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan started mining these riches? Such a move would have helped Afghanistan (under the best of circumstances) become richer. They might still be medieval fanatics, but at least they'd have a pot to piss in.
I expect that China will dig a few mines.
I suppose the ultimate solution would be to convert the entire nation to liberal protestantism. Let's see, where is the instruction book on that approach? Either that or use the nuclear option. But that's frowned upon.
It's only been lithium for Afghanistan in mountains.
Try and build a road that won't get blown up...
It all started with British India. First there were the Aligarh and Deobandi movements of the 1860's, then the All-India Muslim League, and the Caliphate Movement of 1919 that spawned Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan's Jamaat-e Islami (Islamic Congress) and other Islamist organizations.
All Taliban members (taliban literally means "students") were educated in Islamic fundamentalist schools (madrassas) in Pakistan.
THE MASSACRE IN MAZAR-I SHARIF
The Afghans are tribalist, patriotic, and at the most nationalist but they were fanaticized by Pakistan. There is still a large part of the population that is not Muslim fundamentalist. The Afghans would rather do business with India and retain their independence but Pakistan won't let them.
The problem in the region is not Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.
Wasn't Iran a monarchy at that point?
People keep making digs at Pakistan's Inter-Intelligence Service, of which, there is plenty of reason to, but the Taliban really actually are a somewhat autopoietic Afghan, particularly Pashtun, though we kind of tried to play off the existent ethnic tensions there, phenomenon.
This is not true. They have vast amounts of opium and that's about it. There's some lithium there, which, I think, is used in the manufacturing of computers, and, so, a conflict mineral, but, not really enough to build a developed nation off of. We claimed that they had vast mineral resources so as bolster the ostensive nation-building project, but, in so far that some country doesn't legalize heroin, I wouldn't forecast any resource economy in any near future.
They were ruled by the “Shah”. It was like a monarchy but no as extremist as ayatollahs.
I'm pretty sure that it was, in point of fact, a monarchy, despite the White Revolution that did occur after the coup d'état orchestrated by the United States and United Kingdom, whom you may be able to consider as a monarchy, but was not a monarchy in quite the same sense that Iran under the Shah was a monarchy.
To relate this to Afghanistan, check out this obituary. Zahir Shah did become a Liberal reformist late in life, but, the 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan establishes a constitutional monarchy, which, though I do understand how such a comparison could be drawn, also would seem to differ from that of the governance within the United Kingdom.
Anyways, some people say that less, even significantly less, Pashtuns live there and the Encyclopedia Britannica did seem a bit shy on information at times.
The point that I'm really making, though, is that, as much as some of the Arab monarchs were presented as reflecting Western values, democracy, as it always seems to be, being one of the key one of them, though true, perhaps, to some extent, ought not really to instill a sense of nostalgia within anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism of clandestine actions undertaken by the so-called "West" in the region.
The most important paragraph:
It is dramatic how extreme religion or politics can destroy a country’s future and development. Afghanistan looked so attractive to all the West countries and then, since 1979 Taliban revolt the tables had turned for the worst. When you see or hear something related to Afghanistan you would think as a third world country with violence due to toxic religion which destroyed what was a good starting point for society.
Yes, I am agree with you. This is due to of how sticky the tribesmen and religion is in Asia. It is so difficult to put “West values” so randomly. I guess it is a process which takes some years if the country has a chance to do so.
Sure, in Afghanistan, they could have transitioned to an actual liberal democracy under Zahir Shah, assuming of course, that, y'know, being ousted didn't happen to play into his later change of heart, and I do think that, perhaps, had he remained in power, that could have been a possibility.
What these monarchies in Central Asia seem, to me, to have been, however, is an experiment in both publicity and a fairly limited form of democracy, perhaps, somehow arbitrated by the United Kingdom in kind of particular, though I do think that the United States showed more initiative in the actual carrying out of the coup d'etats and whathaveyou, so as to establish a kind of synthesis between, oh, I don't know, Saudi Arabia and what some people seem to think that the United Kingdom should be run as.
One thing that's not mentioned about Zahir Shah is his invitation of German and Japanese businessmen to the country to develop infrastructure leading up to and during the Second World War, which he did eventually have to rescind and expel such people from the country, but only really after being threatened by the Allied powers. Granted, the Library of Congress does suggest that he was not really in control of over the country at this point in time in this article, but, who is really to say anything about that, really?
All in all, I think that Zahir Shah was probably a pretty alright guy who could have, in so far that he wasn't ousted, transitioned the country to a "modern democratic state" eventually, should he have been willing to, but the basic premise of the BBC article is just simply false. It wasn't a modern democratic state; it was a constitutional monarchy. The 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan, though I am sure the regime made some progress in this regard, makes absolutely no mention of women's rights whatsoever, which is kind of a focal point in the article.
Quoting javi2541997
I'm not sure that you fully do, but that's alright. We've gotten kind of off-topic, anyways.
1964 is a "recent" date in relation to women's rights. I guess, according to that time, there wasn't true women rights around the world. This is another issue which took years to establish properly. We are living in an era right now that most of the women in the world don't feel discrimination but this issue was not common at all both in West and Asia world.
To be honest, the 1964 Afghanistan constitution was better than nothing. At least it was written as a parliament monarchy with its advantages and disadvantages but you know we have to start in some point better than being ruled by tribal entities.
Quoting thewonder
This can be another thread or debate we can discuss separately. How can we consider a State as "modern"? What is the meaning of modern?
I mean that it wasn't a liberal democratic state. Ostensibly, it was a constitutional monarchy à la the United Kingdom, whom I assume was the model for the constitution, but it does seem to have been a constitutional monarchy more in the sense that it was, well, a monarchy. Zahir Shah's reign was notably marked by peace and stability, and, so, probably to some degree laudable. If we are to consider Mohammed Daoud Khan's "bloodless coup" to have been without warrant entirely, I think that that'd play into a depiction of Afghanistan that promotes pro-Western narrative, but doesn't correspond to any sort of historical reality. It doesn't seem like Zahir Shah was just some symbolic and ceremonial figure of a king. It seems like he had the authority of a monarch. Daoud Khan wasn't terribly great, and even arguably worse, but there was a popular will to transition to a genuine republic. The Wikipedia article on Zahir Shah states that, "He was considered a relatively "mild" leader compared to previous Kings; Zahir Shah had never signed a warrant for execution of anyone for political reasons during his reign. He also used his power several times to reduce capital punishment given to some criminals convicted in court cases. At Zahir Shah's behest a new constitution was introduced in 1964 which made Afghanistan a modern democratic state by introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, women's rights and universal suffrage", citing the same obituary for its reference. There is no mention of women whatsoever within the entire 1964 constitution. It doesn't say anything about women, women's suffrage, or women's rights. Women are not mentioned at all. Perhaps, women were given a better place in Afghan society at the time? The constitution flat out does not establish any rights for them at all.
I remember in the 1970's, I think it was, a Time Magazine account of something that had happened in Afghanistan, I think an overthrow or revolution or something of the kind, which purportedly was going to result in a greater degree of civil freedoms. I remember some internal commentator saying glumly that Afghanistan had just taken a great leap forward into the 14th century.
Debating about something as complex as the rule of law in Afghanistan needs to have a better empathic view. First of all, we don't truly know what is the history of Afghans and their territory. We just know some brief articles from Wikipedia or West newspapers. It is difficult to understand such complex culture and values. For this reason I guess we should not speak about west things as "liberalism" or "monarchy" in a country of the Middle East completely surrendered by Islam principles. I guess one of the errors made back then was to establish a very "modern" state according to West values. Good intention but it was an argument to radicals to say "they are selling our Islam value to the west. The real law of Afghanistan is developed by God or Muhammad! Etc..."
Sometimes, what we consider as "modernized" principles cannot fit at all in some countries beacuse they have a sticky religion and custom beliefs. If we, the western, go there trying to "impose" what we consider as "democracy" they would do exactly the contrary.
Also, Afghanistan had bad luck in geographical aspects too. It always been a country which Soviet Unión wanted to control.
It is interesting this news because what we consider as "XIVth century", for them, it is just living as how Quran or religion says. The talibans do not care about modernity neither civil rights. These concepts are something that we in the western have developed. It is not a real business in the Middle East.
That's what Afghans love to say. But the truth is that Afghan tribalism and factionalism have always attracted foreign meddling.
Not to be pedant but Afghanistan is a Central Asian state.
Don't worry and thank you for correct my mistake :up:
The fall of Saigon comes to mind, even if the South Vietnamese held up much longer after the withdrawal of US troops.
The Saur revolution cannot be said to have resulted in a greater degree of civil freedoms. Especially when it ended up with the Soviet Union having to invade the country.
The city of Khandahar, which has just fallen to the Taliban, is a version of the name of the ancient kingdom of Gandhara, which at the time of Alexander the Great was a centre of Buddhist civilisation and culture. I think the Bamiyan Buddhas, so casually destroyed by the Talibs a couple of decades back, were a relic of those times.
Quoting ssu
Biden said indignantly there would be no repeat of the shambolic last minute evacuation of Saigon this time around. I have a very bad feeling that's exactly what is going to happen. There is already smoke coming from the roof of the US Embassy where they're burning documents.
They are destroying all artifacts with US logos and such. Anticipating that the victorious Taliban would parade them around just like with the American firearms and trucks they are doing now.
Actually, when you having air support flying from a far away country (as none of the neighboring countries have anymore US bases) and you deploy troops to secure a withdrawal (or retreat), many things can go awry. What would it take? Some long range artillery strike on the Kabul airport runways and what would you do after that? Luckily the Taliban don't have those, I assume, but who knows if someone conveniently gave them some field howitzers or rocket launchers.
Anyway, a lot of things can go wrong here. Because even if officially the Taleban has said it will leave the embassies intact, there surely is the urge to bloody the nose of the invader.
In the end Biden (and Trump) really fucked it up. That they did get the Taleban to negotiate in the first place does seem that things weren't so good for insurgents couple of years ago. But now no need to even wait for the US to go home.
Let’s not forget the people who launched the whole debacle. The ultimate exploding cigar.
As on another thread I commented, Al Gore would have done the same thing as Bush and gone into Afghanistan.
There would be no Iraq, but still.
Might have worked.
Remember Yugoslavia? That peace there has held. So the "nation building" there was successful, something that the Republican commentators are quick to forget.
(This one worked, you know)
But why?
Why not just leave them to their own devices?
Simply put it, the US (and many in the West) has even a more obscure line of thinking than the famous "Domino Theory" (which was the reason for the US entangle itself in the Vietnam war) to be in Afghanistan.
Haven't you heard it?
It goes like this: if the US would withdraw from the country it has occupied, it will create a safe haven for terrorists to strike mainland US from the safety of having camps in Afghanistan.
That's it.
That is the pure insanity of this all.
And if Osama bin Laden would have stayed in Sudan when the 9/11 attacks happened, I guess you would have invaded and occupied Sudan. Because, why not?
And now the commentators would be saying how important our presence in Sudan is. And if we leave Sudan to the insurgents, then it will become a safe haven for more attacks against the West. The discussion would be now on how we failed in nation building in Sudan. And how there is a history of Sudanese resistance to Western Imperialism (remember the Mahdi and the death of Gordon of Khartoum). But no. Afghanistan was chosen because the financier of a successful terrorist strike (of whom nobody was an Afghani) was in Afghanistan. Not in Sudan anymore.
(Osama wasn't in Sudan anymore, so Americans didn't invade Sudan)
Of course, but notice that this was a game play that basically they couldn't avoid.
When Libyans (or possibly Libyans) exploded a bomb in a Berlin disco that killed Americans, then Reagan bombed Libya. When Al Qaeda attacked US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Clinton sent cruise missiles flying to Afghanistan and Sudan (and was accused of "tail wagging the dog" as there was the Lewinsky scandal there). There simply was a tradition how to respond to these kind of events.
This meant that there was also a procedure on how to react in such cases and as in 9/11 a lot of people died, not just six people as during the Twin Tower bombing of 1993, then military response would have been on every American politicians table. It would have been very difficult to do anything else. Likely only perhaps a Bernie Sanders or a Ron Paul as president could have thought out of the box and chosen something else.
And then there were a lot of mistakes done later in Afghanistan, starting from things like forgetting the tribal aspect of the country and trying to make a strong central government, creating and training the new defence force in the picture of the US army. And things like not understanding that going after "Al Qaeda" and ending up killing local people might not be the best way forward. Or thinking that when you inform that you are leaving on a specific date the government and armed forces you created yourself somehow wouldn't matter in peace talks.
I've not heard of any side in a war stopping an ongoing war and opting for a limited peace-deal when the military objectives are totally obtainable and the most realistic peace option is the total surrender of the enemy.
Mistakes like that above.
Well, of course foreigners have exploited existing local tensions, but have done so for their own reasons. And it does not mean they are not meddling.
In the days of the Empire the British meddled to keep Russia out of India, not because the Afghans were at each other's throats.
Pakistan has meddled to keep India out, etc.
So that's that.
It's not about imposing Western standards for excellence upon other countries; it's about reporting information that just simply is not true. The BBC Obituary effectively claims that Mohammed Zahir Shah not only helped his country to transition to, something that never happened, but established a "modern democratic state", which I do think we can all understand as a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy are not the same thing. Zahir Shah was one of the better, if not debatably the best, monarch in Central Asia in recent history, and, so, had they wanted to celebrate his life, that would have been fine. The claim that he established a form of governance that he did not, however, is kind of problematic.
Norway, Denmark, Sweden or Netherlands are not liberal democracies then?
The thing is: if Afghanistan neighbour X (say Pakistan) decides against meddling in Afghanistan, other neighbours (say India, China or Russia) might simply fill the void. The marches of empires are places like that, where influence gets sought and traded.
If you read the constitution, though not quite so archaic, and consider the rights of the king, you will find that it is not a liberal democracy in the same way that a country like Denmark is and is more like a constitutional monarchy of the old aristocratic order.
Yes, you are right according to Afghanistan context. But you wrote that quote referring monarchy in general concepts. There are plenty of monarchies that are more developed than republican countries :chin:
Well, personally, I think that Europeans ought to be fairly skeptical of any aristocratic involvement within their political process altogether. The aristocracy should now have a purely symbolic and ceremonial role. If they want to run for office like everyone else without being granted unfair advantages, then, that's fine, but that's kind of where the buck stops.
Sure, Denmark had a more efficient and effective government than that of Italy, but, there are inherent problems with involving the aristocracy within the political process.
My point the whole time is that the BBC did not present factual information in the article on Zahir Shah's death, which is somewhat suspect. He was a good king, but he was a king and not the prime minister of a liberal democracy. That's the point that I've been trying to get across.
In this point I am completely agree with you :up:
Let's remember what a certain US President answered a month ago on July the 8th 2021:
Interesting they didn't bomb Saudi Arabia, given that's where the hijackers were predominantly from.
To be fair, what were the operational directives of Afghanistan. If we treat the issue as purely definitional, I think final conclusions can be made about the war in Afghanistan.
In another thread I said that Iraq was a victory, according to what was intended to be the outcome of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
To win over the population in the Middle East isn't something that can be achieved militarily and is beyond the scope of achieving by war effort, which people often associate as some goal of winning a war, which never transpired in Vietnam, and will never transpire in Afghanistan, apart from the people already seeking refugee status from there.
What were they? Because the war continued on after OBL was killed. As I said earlier, it was and is the insane idea of "occupying a country, because it otherwise would possibly be a safe have for terrorists". That is the "operational directive", objective. And if you don't understand just how insane that idea is, then there you are.
Naturally the idea then was that to train "Afghans themselves fight the Taleban". Which end result we have seen: an Afghan National Army that simply couldn't get ammo or food for it's troops to fight, even if they would have wanted to fight.
In fact all the documentaries tell it so well. The only place in Afghanistan were you saw young males walking around was in Kabul. In the countryside if you notice, the villages were filled with old men, women and children. That told you what the people supported.
Quoting Shawn
And if you purpose that because Saddam was overthrown that it was a huge success,then just listen to why a certain American decision maker said that going into Iraq was a bad idea (during Desert Storm).
Yes. He obviously changed his mind. But in 1994 he was totally correct. It would be a Quagmire. So then Obama pulled the troops out and ISIS appeared. And now you are in a situation where the Iraqi leadership wants the US troops out. 2500 of them there now. Being attacked infrequently, but still. That simply isn't a huge success.
Let's say that the US has been in other parts of the world far more successful with it's foreign policy than in the Middle East and Central Asia.
I'm not really following you here. If the objective was to take down Bin Laden, then that was done in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan, where the US was.
Again, by most measures the Afghan war was won. The goal was never to defeat the Taleban, and if the Taleban turn out to prepare jihad against the US, then it seems that, that would be a reason to see it as a disaster.
If you make a simple extrapolation of what happens to previous US allies in the Middle East, that will happen. First you lost Iraq in the 1950's. Then Iran in 1979. Now Afghanistan. And ties with Pakistan have been very cold for long. Remember that there was an alliance called CENTO.
How US allies end up in the Middle East: The most successful F-14 ace ever (11 air victories), Jalil Zandi, from the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force.
When Saudi Arabia has it's revolution and it all turns into one giant shit show, I guess Americans will be extremely happy bombing the then ex-Saudis. Way things are going, that fiasco could easily happen. Because who care a shit what happens in the Middle East.
Doesn't this all depend on Pakistan?
Correct. He seemed to have slipped by paying bribes to the US allies. So why invade and occupy Afghanistan?
The reasons were valid at the time. Pakistan was funding training for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Hasn't that been dealt with or has the Taleban made statements that they aren't in it together with Pakistan anymore?
At the time. Yeah. That's the problem: reasons have to be valid for a bit longer. One has to anticipate what effects one's actions have.
So if a Mexican narco-group that has close ties to the Mexican government would for some insane reason make a terrorist attack in the US, that would be a valid reason to go AND OCCUPY Mexico and then start a fight "just to get the narcos"? Yep, I'm sure all Mexicans would eagerly support the US drone attacks and nightly raids by US Special Forces, even if they don't trust their own government. :shade:
Pakistan usually trains mujahedeen in Pakistan. Taleban and Al Qaeda aren't the same thing for starters. And do note that Pakistan has had to fight it's own Pashtun islamists too. And they are totally fed up about the War on Terror bullshit.
Sorry, but this is simply utter bullshit.
Just from the starting speech where Bush adressed the nation in 20th of September 2001:
In your years of observing the issue, how else would you would have dealt with Afghanistan?
Nothing in that speech includes the Taleban as the main threat. In fact you omitted to mention that since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban have participated in peace talks with the US behind closed doors with the Afghan government.
Almost anything is possible in that space, I agree.
But to recap my thoughts:
a) America has a long tradition how to deal terrorism with punitive military strikes since (at least) the 1980's.
b) The horrific death toll from the attacks made it quite unreasonable to make it a police matter like in the 1993 Twin Tower bombing. It would simply have been like the suffering and anger of the people doesn't matter.
c) Overthrowing the Taleban and installing the Northern Alliance looked to be a great idea. The rapid collapse of the Taleban then was similar what we have seen now, actually, hence this wasn't a bad thought.
d) Even if it would have been an Al Gore administration, the US would have gone in (because of a), b and c))
So you would have gone into Afghanistan. This is the tragedy. But even then all wasn't lost. Then you should have a) understood how huge and complex the issue would be, b) understand the motives and agenda of the various players and neighbors and c) be persistent.
Don't try a military solution when you need a political solution.
I was at work, and, so, not sure if they just declared victory. There's videos of them in the presidential palace now.
I think that the overall effect of the campaign for women's rights in Afghanistan will have been positive, even in the soon to be declared "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". I recall during the early stages of the war hearing stories of women committing suicide by self-immolation in order to escape the Taliban because of that they had no other means to do so, and, so, I would caution against becoming too hopeful. Inheritance is a start for sure, though.
Interesting. I wonder if the NA was weary of fighting themselves after seeing what the US was able to do with the Taleban.
1. Countries don't always deploy their military to achieve a solution. Sometimes they do it to test new weapons, train their troops, or boost their military industry.
2. I don't think any solution in Afghanistan is possible without first addressing the problem posed by Pakistan and its support for the Taliban.
Yes, because there WERE those talks that didn't go anywhere. Because....Americans wanted revenge.
Clearly the overthrow of the Taleban was the objective once the short negotiations were over:
On October 7th Bush stated:
Seeking to destroy the military capability of a regime is equivalent of destroying the regime.
And this is a case closed: destroying the Taleban's rule was a priority from the first cruise missile. Then to leave the Northern Alliance in charge...the administration that basically fell this Sunday.
"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Dear compatriots,
Today I came across a tough choice. I have to face the armed Taliban who want to enter the palace or leave the country where I have dedicated my life to protecting and nurturing it for the last 20 years. If left unchecked, countless patriots would be martyred and the city of Kabul would be devastated, resulting in a major humanitarian catastrophe in the six-million-strong city. The Taliban had made it clear that they were ready to carry out bloody attacks on all of Kabul and the people of Kabul Sharif. In order to prevent a flood of bloodshed, it was better to leave.
The Taliban have won the sword and gun judgment and are now responsible for protecting the honor, property and self of their compatriots. But the legitimacy of hearts did not win them over. Never in history has dry force given legitimacy to anyone and never will. They are now facing a new historical test. Either it will preserve the name and honor of Afghanistan or it will give priority to other places and networks. Many people and many strata are in fear and have no faith in the future. The Taliban must ensure that all the peoples, ethnicities, different strata, sisters and women of Afghanistan have a clear plan to win legitimacy and win the hearts of the people and share it with the people. I will always continue to serve my people in terms of ideas and programs. Lots more news for the future!
Long live Afghanistan!"
Yeah no. Their still is a political agenda. Some political agenda. What you are designing are just the perks and additional objectives.
Let's remember that just to have a peace time army as a deterrence, you need to test new weapons, train the troops and boost the military industry. The vast amount of military expenditure during the Cold War went to arms that never were used. General Curtiss LeMay didn't want his B-52s of the Strategic Air Command to be used in the Vietnam war. They were there sitting in the Continental US waiting to nuke Soviet Union, remember. But he was walked over on this one.
Training by going to war is a disastrous policy as you are then spending a lot of resources. Far better to train without your soldiers getting dead.
How much reprisals there will be is the question. At least Kabul will get now a fair share of looting before sharia law clamps down in earnest.
However, military service is not mandatory. And the USD trillions spent don't just disappear, they are going into someone's pockets.
Plus, the problem still remains that Afghanistan is impossible to sort out without first addressing the problem of Pakistan and its support for the Taliban.
I can't say that I would've made another choice. The Afghan military just simply had no will to fight.
Hamid Karzai has requested that people stay in their homes and remain calm so that their coordination committee can ensure a peaceful transition of power.
There might be a reason just why there wasn't any will to fight.
A military needs support, not only bullets and food, but also support from the people. Would you have a will to fight to the end and give your life for an extremely corrupt government whose leader ran away and then declared on Facebook that he did it to save lives? Well, you might think then about saving your life then too.
Besides, there are still thousands of Americans and Westerners in Afghanistan I guess. So things can get even worse from here. A true tragedy. Let's hope that evacuation goes calmly.
The military could have baited the Taliban into overextending themselves by attacking Kabul, and, perhaps, been capable of, at least, maintaining control for a while longer, if not long enough to bolster support for what would've been a rather lengthy civil war.
Once the Taliban marched through the second and third largest cities nearly unopposed, however, nothing could be done but surrender. It was a sage and difficult decision that will have ultimately saved a number of lives.
Granted, it isn't necessarily heroic to have fled the country, however.
The United States has closed the Kabul airport to commercial flights, stranding thousands of Afghans who supported them. You are right to suggest that the evacuations need to be carried out orderly, which is to say in as swift and efficient manner as possible. There's no changing our decision to have suspended commercial flights and prioritizing our own personnel, but the flights need to continue and the people there need to be granted safe passage.
I would also suggest that, due to the emergency situation of the evacuation, Qatar Airlines or whatever other companies there are at the Kabul airport, need to give people the chance to evacuate without at all paying for it. I would imagine that this could somehow be funded by the United States or even the United Nations. It is, however, doubtful that something like that will happen.
Perhaps, as per the negotiations for the peaceful transition, the Taliban could be convinced to extend amnesty to people there and to just kind of let people flee the country?
Madness
From Jennifer Hansler
The Departments of State and Defense have announced that US forces will now take over air traffic control at Kabul airport, in addition to expanding security there.
“Tomorrow and over the coming days, we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals,” the joint statement from the two agencies said.
“And we will accelerate the evacuation of thousands of Afghans eligible for U.S. Special Immigrant Visas, nearly 2,000 of whom have already arrived in the United States over the past two weeks,” the statement said. “For all categories, Afghans who have cleared security screening will continue to be transferred directly to the United States. And we will find additional locations for those yet to be screened.”
All US Embassy personnel have evacuated, the State Department said
From CNN's Jennifer Hansler
All personnel have evacuated from the US Embassy in Kabul and are now at the Kabul airport, the State Department said Sunday night.
“We can confirm that the safe evacuation of all Embassy personnel is now complete. All Embassy personnel are located on the premises of Hamid Karzai International Airport, whose perimeter is secured by the US Military,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement.
US Ambassador still at Kabul airport, has not left country – AFP
On The Guardian's blog, Afghanistan live news: Taliban declare ‘war is over’ as they take control of Kabul
The state department has confirmed to AFP that US Ambassador Ross Wilson is still at Kabul airport.
Senior Taliban official: 'too early to say how we will take over governance'
On The Guardian's blog, Afghanistan live news: Taliban declare ‘war is over’ as they take control of Kabul
A Taliban leader said on Monday that it was too soon to say how the insurgent group will take over governance in Afghanistan, Reuters reports.
“We want all foreign forces to leave before we start restructuring governance,” the leader told Reuters by phone. He did not want to be named.
He also said that Taliban fighters in Kabul had been warned not to scare civilians and to allow them to resume normal activities.
The US embassy in Kabul is telling its citizens and Afghan nationals not to travel to the airport unless they are told to, that it is unsafe.
On The Guardian's blog is posted an image from The United States Embassy in Kabul's twitter which reads:
"We remind all American citizens and Afghan nationals that the security situation in Kabul remains unsafe. Please do not travel to the airport until notified."
U.S. joins 60 countries in urging safe exit of citizens from Afghanistan
The U.S. and over 60 countries issued a joint statement Sunday saying Afghans and international citizens who wish to leave the country should be allowed to do so, with airports and border crossings remaining open.
Driving the news: The statement was issued as the U.S. completed its evacuation of American Embassy staff and prepared to take over Kabul airport's air traffic control to fly personnel out of Afghanistan after the Taliban swept into the capital earlier in the day.
Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Qatar and Japan, along with the European Union and several of its member countries, were among the statement's signatories.
What they're saying: "Given the deteriorating security situation, we support, are working to secure, and call on all parties to respect and facilitate, the safe and orderly departure of foreign nationals and Afghans who wish to leave the country," the statement reads.
"Those in positions of power and authority across Afghanistan bear responsibility — and accountability — for the protection of human life and property, and for the immediate restoration of security and civil order," it continues.
"The Afghan people deserve to live in safety, security and dignity. We in the international community stand ready to assist them."
Oh you mean that the US would open it's borders to anybody wanting to come to the US from Afghanistan? Or those with visas? I think those that worked with the Westerners would be enough. Besides, if the Taleban sits idly by and lets the former enemy board planes and fly away, it would be a really positive thing that they truly want to end this conflict.
And open door solution is not a good solution.
Happened here in Europe few years ago. Not a good outcome with Brexit and all that. And I guess one or two Al Qaeda members might want to sneak in too. And once you have those one or two making a terrorist strike... who cares about the 150 000 decent, hardworking Afghans wanting to become taxpaying Americans?
Sorry, but that's how people view these things today. You can blow the terrorism threat to all sizes you want.
Anyway, I think the real issue are the Westerners now in Afghanistan: there were a lot of Americans in the country, for example.
[quote]Earlier on Sunday, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued an urgent alert warning American citizens to "shelter in place" amid reports of gunfire at the airport on the outskirts of Afghanistan's capital city. - In the coming days, "we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals."
I mean everyone. We owe it to all of those Afghans.
You are most certainly correct that the Taliban letting everyone leave would be a very good sign. It would, ultimately, be beneficial to them, I think, as well.
It'd certainly be an odd situation for the Taliban to have to wait for everyone to leave the country, one that they can't quite avoid due to the American military presence at the airport, but it would work wonders for them diplomatically and ultimately soften them to a certain extent, I think. It is a deal that could be made.
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” - Emma Lazarus
It says that on the Statue of Liberty.
:up: :100:
Let’s see what the future holds to the Afghan citizens. I wish they would not live the same experience as Syrian refugees. Now Afghanistan is a mess but we wish Taliban forces do not go mercenary against their own population. If most Afghans want to leave I wish they do it because the situation is unbearable not because their lives are in huge risk.
Also, it is important protect women in this context. Taliban forces will not have complain about abuse and slave them. Now, UN and all international organizations should protect children and women in this weak situation.
Oh, most definitely.
Had I any real bargaining power, I'd push for women's rights, civil liberties, and whathaveyou. The only things that I think can be somehow guaranteed at this point, however, are safe passage and a certain degree of asylum. Everything else, the status of women in Afghan society in particular, will have to be met, as it very well should, as the new nation develops.
Hamid Karzai can probably suggest that, as per the peaceful transition, the Taliban should be understanding of the situation that women there are in, offer them some liberties, and show restraint in the use of force, but he can't very well demand that the Islamic Emirate be established as if it were the nation that the United States was going to ostensibly build there.
This complex and sensible situation will not be easy because of their religious belief. I guess they will even need an international refereeing or something similar to guarantee the women’s rights and security.
It is true that we don’t know how Afghanistan will look like afterwards yet but there are big probabilities that will be a chaos in different levels: some could be easy of repair, others don’t. I wish nobody has their life in risk again.
The status of women there is certainly something that the international community ought to pay attention to. As to what it either can or can not do, that is anyone's guess.
The inclusion of some of the merited aspects of the former Republic of Afghanistan, the elevated status of women, the increase in civil liberties, etc., would also be beneficial to the Taliban, as it would make less people likely to want to leave and for them to be more approachable on the world's stage. Those sort of things, however, can only be approached within a rather uncertain future.
The point of my above post was to initiate, among whomever there is that is even capable of doing so, some sort of plan for the safe withdraw of foreign nationals and Afghans who would like to leave the country. That, which is kind of a lot in its own right, is all that I think that we can bargain for at this point in time.
The world expects for the Taliban to create a fanatical chaotic authoritarian state that functions as center for terrorist activity. They assume that the early days of their reign will be marked by humanitarian catastrophe.
I am not so pessimistic. I hope that the Taliban will prove us wrong, and even think that they will to a certain extent.
We do still have to keep in mind who they are, however. There are grains of truth to fears of what the upcoming state will be like.
There has never been a state akin to the soon to be created Islamic Emirate, which leaves us without precedent. Both we and they will have to learn to engage and adapt to one another as their country develops.
As I see things, the Taliban will have to either have to gradually reform or internally dissolve should they want for their state to last for a long period of time. If I am correct, then, in ways, in the long run, there isn't really a reason for us to be too concerned with them at all.
I hope so but it will be so difficult the fact the would no act as authoritarian as we tend to think. They are literally taking the power by the force and they do not care all the mess of Afghanistan. Something which starts in this way will not end up pretty well... who knows if the Western needs to take the place again like in Gulf War 1991. I wish not because this was one of the worst failures that the western democracies ever did... Irak and Kuwait! Oh boy... many years wasted and death bodies in the street. But it is true that now Irak is administered under USA agencies right? Probably it was somehow worthy at all. I wish Afghanistan will not live the same experience as Irak’s.
Quoting thewonder
This issue still be a big problem in Syria but nobody cares now :sad:
Quoting thewonder
Completely, this is the real XXIth century issue. Most of the countries are developing a lot of rights toward women. But in Islamic world are more “slower” than the rest...
So what else might you have been able to do with 5.6 trillion dollars...?
It would be a start. I seriously doubt they will grant inheritance to women as required by the Shariah...
Tragically, Afghan women have used many ways to leave this world: their husband's gun, drinking pesticide, throwing themselves into a well, or setting themselves on fire... Yes, more of that is to be feared.
Or read: Songs of Love and War, by Sayd Bahuddin Majrooh.
But the conversaion needs to be changed from any sense of 'lack' or 'absence' into a positive one: the US does not, and never has, given a shit about what happens to Afghanistan. The US had twenty years, two decades, to make plans. The fact that any semblence of Afghan government all but evaporated in under a week tell you all you need to know. The descent into disorder was something that was allowed to happen. It was, if not planned for, then at least expected and totally foreseeable.
As for the 'waste of trillions of dollars' and/or 'time', again, you have to be a totally propagandized moron to think a single dollar was wasted. All of it went straight out of the pockets of US citizens to American arms manufacturers and opiate producers - or else the local warlords with whom deals were cut to prolong the madness. It's not an accident that in every photo of the Taliban now circulating, their weapon of choice is no longer the AK-47 but the m4. Look at the guns these people are holding:.
That will be the lasting US legacy in Afghanistan. Just as it was the last time around, when US intervention created the same terrorist groups that flew planes straight into the heart of downtown NY. Every time some naive idiot bleets about or sheds crocodile tears about 'saving woman and children' without at the same time pointing the finger straight at the toxic and malevolent complicity of the US in creating the situation in which those precious women and children will be subject to inhumanity, they can be safely ignored. They do not, and have never, given a shit about Afghani women and children.
To think that one can speak of 'madness rolling over Afghanistan' - as if it hasn't been twenty years of madness of which this is simply the culmination - is political moronism in the extreme.
I was not speaking in an American perspective but an European one... Europe Union did a recognizable effort about women and children’s rights in Syria crisis. I wish they do the same in this context towards Afghanistan.
Anyone who actually gives a shit about 'women and children' needs to ask about the sway of the arms industrial complex in the US. Its status as the No#1 weapon exporter in the world. The fact that it spends half its budget on wars that are not won, but end up in the hands of corporations and warlords. The US leaves a trail of death everywhere it goes. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows this. Even now, its only response has been to continue to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, because well, the money spent on those bombs may as well go somewhere, considering everyone knows they will be entirely ineffective - apart from probably killing more civilians and further radicalizing more locals:
"But what of the United States? Its deployment of B-52 bombers, Reaper drones and AC-130 gunships are a brutal response by a failing, flailing imperial power to a historic, humiliating defeat. The United States does not flinch from committing mass murder against its enemies. Just look at the U.S.-led destruction of Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq, and Raqqa in Syria. How many Americans even know about the officially-sanctioned massacre of civilians that Iraqi forces committed when the U.S.-led coalition finally took control of Mosul in 2017, after President Trump said it should “take out the families” of Islamic State fighters?
Twenty years after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed a full range of war crimes, from torture and the deliberate killing of civilians to the “supreme international crime” of aggression, Biden is clearly no more concerned than they were with criminal accountability or the judgment of history. But even from the most pragmatic and callous point of view, what can continued aerial bombardment of Afghan cities accomplish, besides a final but futile climax to the 20-year-long U.S. slaughter of Afghans by over 80,000 American bombs and missiles?".
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/08/13/biden-must-call-off-the-b-52s-bombing-afghan-cities/
Agreed with you and good argument. I think political and lobby power do not care about Afghanistan anymore because probably is not so profitable that it used to be. You mentioned the important lobby of weapons not only dangerous but how rich many businessmen went due to this amazing “business”. Here, in this context, we have to mention other powerful market: drugs. It is so known that Afghanistan is country where marijuana or heroine are planted and then sold in Western countries. There are a lot of powerful institutions clearly connected with this because it is easy money.
The sad part of this situation is the people who is suffering it when they are not collaborating neither connected with the issue and I give you examples: the Afghan kid which sadly is raised full of violence in a broken state. The teenager who sorrowfully takes drugs that were planted in Kabul and were purchased by a rich Western ambitious businessmen.
Conclusion: here lose all the weak and civil citizens.
There is a multitude of issues here that really undermine the US in ways that the US simply doesn't care to think because it is so wrapped around in itself. It didn't care about the Afghan government, or it allies in Afghanistan, or the neighbors of Afghanistan. Basically it just got tired of Pakistan a long time ago, because who cares what the Pakistanis want. Bush emphasized for very long that they weren't in the "nation building" business. And there simply wasn't a Taleban insurgency in the first years. Even now talking heads on Fox blame "nation building" for the failure. As if that former region of Yugoslavia has still peace doesn't show that "nation building" can work.
Unilateralism has become so endemic with the US that American politicians didn't care about it. Let's just remember that when Trump made the absolutely disastrous deal with the Taleban the vast majority of western forces in Afghanistan were non-American. Just three countries, Germany, Georgia and Turkey had more troops in Afghanistan than the US last February. Didn't matter. Who cares about 37 other countries.
In November 2020, Jens Stoltenberg, head of NATO, made this rare comment about the Trump plan:
And he was right. Nobody (that I have heard of) of the NATO members or even a non-aligned country like Finland was demanding rapid pullout from Afghanistan. Because, just as with Russia's Middle Eastern policy, NATO countries understand that foreign interventions are long, and you have to have limited obtainable objectives.
Didn't matter. The US doesn't think of it's allies. American politicians only think of their domestic politics, domestic debate and don't care at all about anything else as the World is their oyster.
And once the US put the deadline for withdrawal, the other countries withdrew too. They don't have the logistical ability to support troops in a landlocked country in Central Asia. Especially as all relations to neighboring countries were shredded and none offer bases anymore. In fact, the war in Afghanistan has been supported from another continents, basically Romania and Qatar. Now actually Operation "Resolute Support Mission" has troops only from the US, UK, Azerbaidjan and Turkey.
Then, as usual, the US didn't care much of it's own invention, the Afghan government. Just as it doesn't care a shit about the similar one it created in Iraq. After leaving them totally alone, then the US leaders have the audacity of being surprised that everything collapses. At least South Vietnam put up a fight for a few years. But they were left out in the cold also. So would have happened to South Korea too, if suddenly the US would have decided during the Korean War to withdraw it's forces and would had the great idea of South Korea fighting it out with North Korea, China and the Soviet Union alone. And when the poor South Korean army would have fallen, then they people would say a-ha, they weren't worth it.
Nowdays the inability of the US to lead alliances is noteworthy. We have already, during the Trump era, had serious debates in Europe if the US leaves Europe. Then naturally there is a huge void that countries have to scramble to replace. The tidal waves just put everything on the move.
It will be interesting to see what the tidal waves will be here. We can hope that everything will go smoothly, and the Taleban can have their Emirate and the World will forget them. No news is good news, usually. Now, unlike in the 1990's, the Taleban controls 100% of Afghanistan. It has a chance to pacify the country.
But I think that the collapse of Afghanistan will encourage muslim insurgents everywhere and IS will also reappear. And that is the last thing the Biden administration wants to admit.
US intervention anywhere has always perpetuated cycles of violence and end up coming home to roost. It's an iron law of the universe no different to e=mc2. The tragedy is not that the US is pulling out now but that it didn't do it a decade earlier when they found Osama in *check notes* Pakistan.
Interesting argument but if the collapse of Syria or Libya did not encourage IS at all, why Afghanistan would do it then?
As I debated with a PF member, right from the start the Taleban was a military objective to defeat for the Bush idiots. So simply just taking out Osama wouldn't do. Besides, there is still doctor Aiman Al-Zawahiri around.
There started the slippery slope of killing ordinary Afghans as "students".
Quoting javi2541997
Uummm...what???
IS has been both in Syria and in Libya, so what's your point? Both collapses gave way to IS earlier.
Taleban and IS are different entities. And I assume that the Taleban doesn't want to be linked to the remnants of ISIS (IS). Notice that these organization are top down structures with a religious leader in charge, be it a "Caliph" or an "Emir".
I am agree on Libya context... But what's the real impact in Syria? It is true that IS is around there and having army prepared to fight but I guess they not should consider as a terrorist cell or similar because they do not overtake all Syria territory yet so they are not powerful enough to make impact aspects as we are used to know. Furthermore the fact that Al Assad won his 4th elections. We can or cannot like him but he is literally the ruler of Syria. IS is there just an "enemy" and I guess Syria doesn't fall at all...
Also, even the fact that IS can have some control over Libya, they are not dangerous as other countries closer like Morocco. This country did not fall at all, is ruled by their king but at the same time IS is having a very important role over there. Barcelona attacks in 2017 or Paris 2015 were perpetrated by a terrorist cell in Morocco territory. Here is when you know the IS has a real power not in a broken country wihout control like Libya.
There's always someone with a scary exotic name around. The US doesn't need an excuse to be shitty, murderous nation. They will find one regardless.
Not as before. The IS doesn't hold any large cities or regions as before.
Situation in February 2021:
Quoting StreetlightX
Printed on a playing card. As if taking them out does do anything.
Quoting javi2541997
This is simply wrong. Individuals being terrorists doesn't make the country dangerous. A lot of terrorists are from the UK. Morocco can control it borders. Morocco isn't a failed state with competing governments and internal disarray. Morocco doesn't have armed groups roaming around. If you want to find them, you have to go to the area of Spanish Sahara annexed by Morocco, and there is the Polisario. And they aren't islamists, even if they are muslims.
Libya is quite different.
When Biden told allies, “America is back”, he wasn’t kidding. It’s more of the same piffle that got us into this mess in the first place.
It actually is.
Apart from parts of the South Vietnamese army fighting to the end.
Thanks for sharing. IS clearly lost a lot of power in Syria, so can we already speak about Al-Assad´s victory over there?
Quoting ssu
Well this is so interpretable... if you say is not failed state when is a feudal monarchy with zero human rights I do not understand you then. They do not even have the chance to have internal disarray because their king controls everything already. To be honest, I do not think they control the borders so efficiently. Do not remember when they allow to enter all their citizens in Spanish territory with zero reasons? or maybe the reason was not caring about the life of many moors and then, make Spain responsible if a disaster occurs both humanitarian and politically. So I do not think Morocco is a "normal" or "progressive" state. Their king does not give certainty about the defense or security so we cannot speak in general terms arguing that Morocco has not armed groups because we do not know it yet neither what is going on inside their power.
Quoting ssu
This territory, sadly, is a mess. Some say is part of Morocco, others say belongs to as an autonomy country as "Saharawi"
Thus, a poor, bare, harsh, sad, and luckless country, Afghanistan, enters the 21th century as the cockpit of world history.[/i]
Kings of Afghanistan
Say, don't prevent whoever (not just mothers with children) from leaving, and taking their belongings with them. Allow anyone to discontinue membership of their religious ideology, implement opt-in. Set up a reasonably fair and impartial court/legal system, equal for all. ...
Wikipedia » Taliban » Condemned practices
Somewhat. And it's worth noting that Russia succeeded in it's goals with the intervention in Syria.
American commentators hoped that Russia would find a quagmire in Syria. It actually didn't. It basically just has one airbase from where it operates a modest number of various combat aircraft. Then it uses mercenaries as foot soldiers. It's losses have been sustainable and the objective was to keep Assad in power. Assad has stayed in power.
And unlike the Americans, let's remember that Putin won the war against Chechen insurgents...namely by getting one Chechen insurgent to run the country.
Grozny then:
Grozny now:
The idea of the US simply choosing one of it's fiercest enemies, like Haqqani, and making part of the Taleban run the country would have been impossible for Americans to stomach. But that's usually the way that insurgencies are dealt with: with a political solution and in the best solution, having former enemy insurgents joining your ranks. If you choose a guy who (or whose father) fought you well, that person as your friend might end the insurgency:
Left alone to it's devices and without political leaders guidance, even the US Armed Forces successfully did win over Al Qaeda with "the Sunni awakening" in Iraq... in order to snatch defeat from victories jaws and leaving the Shiite regime in charge. And ISIS happened later.
(Unfortunately, then the US left and a new bullshit chapter was written in history:)
Our definitions are here different. Perhaps here instead of using a "failed state" the name could be "a collapsed state": a former country without the ability to implement rule on it's territory would be here what I'm looking for.
For example Saudi Arabia isn't a failed state. But surely not a democracy.
All in good critique, but it's not as if Americans and completely lacking in empathy. I'm not sure what anyone else thinks that we can even do about our arms industry.
I have continued a conversation here so as not to derail the Biden thread.
Both Russia and, more particularly, China, have left personnel in their embassies in Afghanistan, which, I think, will ultimately, despite whatever, be beneficial for the facilitation of international discourse. The Taliban are about to become an actor as a nation on the world's stage and there do need to be people who are willing to engage them in dialogue. China's effective support for the regime may become problematic for the general discourse on human rights, but, at least, there is some party there now to mediate the general discourse.
To my understanding, the next generation of Taliban are considerably less intransigent and fanatical than the previous one, and, so, the fears of what the upcoming regime will be like are kind of overblown. It will ultimately be a religious and fairly authoritarian regime, however, and, so, there are certainly concerns to be had.
And a bit of ranters ranting. :)
Afghanistan Falls To Taliban Couple Hours Earlier Than Expected (Aug 16, 2021)
Afghanistan's untold story: Stability, tourists, miniskirts (Aug 19, 2009)
Quoting thewonder
Let's hope so. (y) They now have iPhones, not quite a rejection of non-archaic/medieval life. Involving them, talking, showing, etc, might help some.
Yes, it is true that both Russia and China left their embassies but I think it was “just in case” context. I was watching the news and they are not clearly saying that are against talibans. Probably there will be many chances that Russia or China would start making some contacts and see which are the real interests of Afghanistan.
To be honest, I feel they win. This mess is now focused in the failure of the Western. I totally think that Russia and China are planning something but is not the appropriate moment yet.
Quoting thewonder
It is true that the focus of human rights will be around China again but it looks like this country never ever cared so much about the issue so it is not effective at all…
Well, the rather naive anti-imperialist narrative is that things like so-called "human rights" are just a "liberal" pretext for humanitarian intervention, i.e., as per their general indistinction, "imperialist" wars.
China, I am sure, wants to secure lithium for the manufacture of laptops, and to gain a certain extra-juridical stake in the opium trade, and, so, can only be considered as so sincere, but I do think that they, to some extent, mean to genuinely counter the narrative of the Taliban as a barbaric people, which, considered aptly, ought to be somehow done, and to facilitate dialogue with the emergent nation.
The glimmer of hope that former Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, can facilitate a safe withdraw and peaceful transition is more or less all that anyone any longer has.
I wouldn't bet on those guys, especially Hekmatyar (he has to be very old). Gulbuddin and Hamid are the people who always are trying to bounce back into power or some role in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar is one of those mujaheddin that CIA sponsored during the Soviet war through Pakistani Intelligence Services and then was one of the main warlords responsible of the anarchy in the 1990's.
(These Afghans didn't like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar)
The glimmer of hope is that basically you have now had for many hours US and Taleban forces quite close to each other and no firefights have been broken between them.
No takers?
I wonder what the situation might now be if, say, one of those trillions had been used to foster a very large number of Afghani teenagers for a few months in a western country.
It's a very real possibility that what could happen within the negotiations is that the people there will become a mere cynical vying for some form of formal administrative position within the new coalition government.
What I mean to, however, point out is that Karzai, regardless as to what anyone wants to say about his presidency, is the only person there, the only person within any position of any form of authority whatsoever, and the only person who may have any will to change the course of what the transition to Taliban rule could look like.
In a very practical consideration of the situation on the ground, there are thousands of people waiting for, and often in an unfortunate desperation, and interfering with flights taking off from the airport in Kabul. A situation that I think is avoidable, but that we can't rule out, is that, upon reaching a critical mass of foreign nationals and the occasional Afghan, the United States, and the rest of the world long with it, will just simply abandon everyone else there. What is going to happen to those people once they leave? Should the Taliban imprison or execute them, what kind of precedent will that set for their regime?
Quoting ssu
I agree with that this is a very good sign. It would terrible to see an attack by the Taliban motivated by impatience and subsequent "swift" retaliation of "devastating force". Let's hope that it holds out for longer than anyone could possibly hope for.
And quickly. That's what Karzai and guys want too. Not to have anarchy. Because if you have anarchy, implementing sharia law publicly is a quick way to stop theft. I assume that the Western mood isn't open for public executions and hands been cut off with all the smartphone cameras around.
I think that Karzai's appeal to the Taliban was quite sincere. I'm not saying that he's Mahatma Gandhi; what I am saying is that he has made a difficult decision to deal with the situation as he has, one that I do think was noble on his part, and just simply is who is negotiating with the Taliban right now. Regardless as what anyone thinks about anything, he is who is there whom we can even trust.
There are plenty things that can happen as the new nation develops. The facts on the ground now, however, are that there are thousands of people stranded at the airport. I don't think that this should happen, but it is quite possible that the United States could just simply abandon them on the runway surrounded by the Taliban. If, and I hope it does not, that happens, they are going to have to granted some form of amnesty. If they aren't granted amnesty, though the Taliban has thusly done nothing to lead us to suspect that something like this could happen, we may end up as witnesses to a massacre of thousands of people on the tarmac. This is a situation that requires some form of mediation.
I have no faith in Gulbuddin Hekmatyar either. Abdullah Abdullah, whom I previously just hadn't considered, and Hamid Karzai, who does seem to have initiated that the peaceful transition can be brought about as such, are the only people who are even capable of mediating the situation. It is only they whom we even can have faith in that they will do so. No amount of political analysis can change that.
Of course. Especially when the acting President went AWOL.
You see it's really important to get SOMEBODY to surrender. Nearly anybody will do. So I guess Hamid and gang opted to do it.
(These kind of moments are important. Notice that it didn't happen now in Afghanistan.)
Great idea.
Use some on mining, farming (not opium), schools, teachers.
Don't know how easy/difficult all that would have been some 20 years back.
A decade ago, it might have been easy enough, maybe.
"The Exodus from Kabul"
[tweet]https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1427006329328226305[/tweet]
Chaos at Kabul Airport
[tweet]https://twitter.com/NicolaCareem/status/1427122975971561475[/tweet]
"Inside a US transport taking off from Kabul. Extraordinary."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1427373587296657414[/tweet]
I see what you're saying, but think that you are mistaken.
Perhaps you, and maybe even I, ought to prefer Abdullah Abdullah?
As I estimate the parties involved, however, while Abdullah may be moreso inclined to petition for the demands of the international community, something of which there is much to say of and really ought to be done, Karzai is the only one of the two of them whom the Taliban are all that likely to listen to. This is all fairly speculative, but, the point that I am making is that he is the only person who can do anything about the current situation whom we even can trust.
Whether the United States stays at or leaves the airport in the immediate future, some sort of negotiations need to be made. Perhaps, there is a way to facilitate dialogue with the Taliban so as to do so that I haven't considered?
I am, in part, though I'm trying to be understanding, frustrated by the Afghan people at the airport presently. People need to get off of the runway and organized within an orderly enough fashion for the planes to be able to take off as quickly as they possibly can. I don't even know that they're even capable of evacuating people at this point in time.
The crisis at the airport is going to take a lot longer to resolve than either the Taliban or the United States are willing to admit. At the very least, Karzai and Abdullah can buy them both some much needed time.
Apparently, we are negotiating with them, and, so, we don't have put all of our faith in Karzai and Abdullah, though I do think that, they too, in some small way or another, may be able to ease the transition, despite whatever there is to say about whatever.
The people at the airport need to be made calm and to become organized enough to get on to the planes in an efficient manner. The only way that I can see this happening is for them to become convinced that they will, in point of fact, make it onto one of the planes. Somehow, some people out there are going to have make some sort of negotiations so as to resolve the crisis.
Reports suggest that the airport has now reopened and that the West has two weeks to fully withdraw, and, so, the lucky few who make it on the planes in that amount of time will probably be the only ones to get out. If a cargo plane can hold a maximum of 640 people, though let's cut it down to 500, take off once an hour, two planes per hour, that's a thousand people an hour, and, if the airport stays running for 18 hours in a day, there's a maximal potential of evacuating around two-hundred thousand people. That's, of course, in a purely hypothetical and perfect world where the Kabul airport is run as efficiently as humanly possible.
I can understand and empathize with anyone wanting to get the hell out of Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, but chaos at the airport will backfire badly.
Biden said, "there is never a good time to leave" which seems to me very true. I don't think it is terribly surprising that suddenly the Taliban was in a position to take over. Any complex organization can fall apart very rapidly if the people lose faith in the long-term stability of 'the situation'. And clearly the Taliban had been moving into position to take over.
Another quote: "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." J. F. Kenney. I don't know whether he made that up or remembered it from reading. It's true, anyway.
We need to find the cure for reactionary religion, whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or anybody else. Reactionary religion is nothing but trouble. Some would include all religion as troublesome, and that may be the case.
Of, most definitely. I was just suggesting that the current airport situation doesn't have to be looked at as something that we will ultimately abandon. The question as to what to do about the Afghan refugees, I think, is something that the international community should have begun to prepare for more or less as soon as the Taliban entered the presidential palace, if not, as there have been consistent reports put forth by various human rights organizations and the United Nations, much earlier. People will need to be granted asylum within and outside of Afghanistan. It is my hope that people in the West will be willing to take them in with open arms.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree with the withdraw and Joe Biden's statements that it wouldn't have made a difference as to whether we left ten years ago or ten years later. I think that this conclusion was inevitable.
I didn't like that Biden shifted the blame onto the Afghan military like he did during his speech, however. They did lose the war because of that they lost their will to fight, which was because of that they knew that they were partaking within a half-hearted nation-building project and spurious counter-terrorism operation undertaken by an invading Western military, but he just kind of took the easy way out of slinging mud at our nearest ally so as to shirk what the larger questions of our motivations for being in the war and what the contrary insurmountable political will of the Taliban ought to have brought us to ask.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I am highly doubtful of that there is a catholicon to any form of ideology whatsoever. In my opinion, people ought to just simply create a world outside of the various cults that comprise it and hope that others are willing to join them. There's no talking anyone out of religious fanaticism or political ideology. They can only discover a world otherwise.
In the words of Winston Churchill, or was it Chico Marx, "What could possibly go wrong."
How long does it take for an invading power (like the British Empire, say) to accomplish a major cultural change in a colony? A lot longer than 20 years. A rule of thumb is that it takes 40 to 50 years for a completely new technology to be introduced, be accepted, and mature. A lot had to happen over 40 or 50 years to develop a good telephone system after the first telephone call.
It takes a lot longer to alter cultural patterns. Some people say that the problem with some of Britains former colonies is that they weren't colonies long enough. India was, however, a colony for a long time and did absorb a lot of western culture. Bad thing? Good thing? People will have different opinions, but one thing for sure is that one can not "build" or "remodel" a nation in 20 years. More like 100 years, minimum.
Well, I don't have a "How To' book on curing religious fundamentalists. "Fundamentalist leanings" along with a number of other social diseases, seem to be established very early in life--maybe at conception. It isn't that I know of a gene for fundamentalism. What there probably is a gene that codes for "seeking security in rigid doctrine". The doctrinally rigid can be believers, atheists, pro-science, anti-science, leftists, rightists, vegans, or carnivore. What's common to them is the rigidity, not the doctrine.
Some people have a much higher tolerance for ambiguity than others. Could be genetic.
Like as not, the Taliban, Wahhabists, Southern Baptists, paleo-Roman Catholics, et al attract people with a certain disposition, and then exaggerate it. There is predisposition on the one hand, and imposition on the other. The Taliban didn't have to defend themselves against hordes of eager islamic fundamentalist children. They IMPOSED their views. Ditto for Southern (and worse varieties of) Baptists, paleo-Catholics, far-out Hindus, etc.
Fortunately, 8 billion people are not afflicted with RDD (Rigid Doctrine Disease); it might be as low as 1 billion; maybe 798,000,000. It's hard to know precisely, because when you do scientific surveys of belief and you ask people if they have fallen hook, line, and sinker for some stupid crazy religion, they tend to get defensive.
What does that quote mean?
I'm not quite so sure that I agree. I think that, had we really believed that we were building a liberal democratic Afghanistan so as to offer the people there a better quality of life and that we were justified in doing so, we could have easily won the war.
It is that this Western exceptionalist savior mentality can only be considered as either a façade or a delusion, as can only be revealed when faced with the brute reality of occupation, that dooms such neocolonial ventures to failure. In the closing scene to Werner Herzog's masterpiece, Aguirre, the Wrath of God, itself based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, Lope de Aguirre is left on a raft with his dying expedition reciting to himself entirely delusional plans for further conquest before closing with the repeated mantra, "I am the wrath of God." This is a metaphor for the culminate end of any colonial project.
We come to understand the impotence of authority when we watch our president deliver empty threats of "swift" and "devastating force" and witness our entire political apparatus engage within clear attempts at deferring responsibility through vicious slander while our news media streams videos of Afghan refugees being chased off of the runway by helicopters and our press issues declarations demanding the safe withdraw of their journalists from the now fallen Republic of Afghanistan. Satire does no justice to the behavior of an occupying nation in defeat.
I'm not quite sure that I agree, either.
One always has to remember that "The State" part of the United States, like "the State" part of any country, always has in focus what it thinks its own interests are. Afghan people "matter" the same way other people matter: Either you are 'a potential' or 'a problem'. [i]If you have something we want, fine. Otherwise, what earthly good are you?[/I].
The calculating ego and mind of The State isn't warm and fuzzy. What goes for The State of the US goes for every other State too. Some states camouflage their nature better than others do. The most powerful states (Russia, USA, China, India) don't usually worry about camouflage too much.
Quoting thewonder
In some ways the US is a liberal democracy, in other ways we are not. We have elements of a plutocracy, the military/industrial combine does not tend to be overly liberal, we have a practically permanent underclass. Our electoral system is rigged to always reelect the capitalist-supporting parties in power, which invalidates the idea of 'democracy'. etc., etc., etc.
So when we march off to bestow the blessings of democracy on people ruled by frank authoritarians and worse, don't get your hopes up.
It means whoever is in charge of a war that has been won can expect a ticker tape parade with several marching bands. (ticker tape is kind of a rarity these days, I guess they'd use confetti or shredded documents.). Whoever is in charge of a war that has been lost can expect to arrive home with only his wife, dog, and a small circle of friends to greet him.
Nobody wants to politically associate with the war-loser. Recriminations follow on his heels.
That's a good point, but I'm not entirely sure that you read the latter half of my post.
What I'm suggesting is that, were it possible to believe in the motivations for nation-building within an occupied territory, then, an occupying nation could actually win a war within a relatively short period of time. It is because of the impossibility of ignoring the realities of an occupation that an occupying nation will necessarily become demoralized. Biden was right to suggest that without the will to wage a war, a war can not be won. He could not, however, in good faith, have believed that the reason for the Taliban victory was a lack of determination on the part of the Afghan military. The Afghan military had no will to fight; that much is obvious. Their lack of resolve is a symptom of that our presence there can only have been carried out cynically. Though certain aspects of the Taliban are certainly autopoietic, much of the blame for the past forty odd years of political fallout in Afghanistan rests solely on the shoulders of the network of influence that comprises political power in the United States and the response to that power and its effect on the world on the part of American citizens.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, if you read the post, you will find that I am speaking of "liberal democracy" in an idealized sense. I'm not suggesting that the Republic of Afghanistan lived up to all of the lofty ideals of Liberalism or even that the United States does, which, as we are considered as a flawed democracy by the United Nations, I don't think that too many people could any longer argue. In context, I was referring to what people would like to invoke by "democracy", without any consideration of the facts on the ground.
hmmm, not sure I agree.
Quoting thewonder
The Soviet Union was there until 1989. Was the US responsible for the USSR being there for 10 years?
I said forty-odd to harken back to the creation of the mujahideen, but, yeah, of course, the Soviet presence also had an extraordinary effect.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why not?
Quite literally yes.
(I can't figure out how to quote Tweet the Afghanistan stuff alone without the Somalia stuff, but consider the Somalia stuff bonus content for how shit the US is):
[tweet]https://twitter.com/louis_allday/status/771068897386717186[/tweet]
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/12/02/afghanistan-another-untold-story
The best thing America can do for Afghanistan right now is to continue to stay fucked right off and continue staying fucked right off forever until the US sinks into the sea.
I'll bite, kinda. The problem with this is that you assume that that money didn't go exactly where it was supposed to go. Straight into the hands of military contractors and pharmaceutical execs for whom the war has been a financial bonanza, paid for by tax dollars. People keep talking about this money as though it was a waste, or misallocated. It wasn't. It went precisely where it was designed to go. People asking 'where else could it have gone?' miss the point. Why anyone would even think it could have gone anywhere else, is the mystery.
I'm not sure that your above posts are to the point.
All of the stuff about the mujahedeen is fine, but the Common Dreams article includes the Afghan conspiracy theory that Hafizullah Amin was on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency.
There's also that, following the Saur Revolution, Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in a coup d'etat led by Hafizullah Amin, who, because of that the Soviet Union feared that he would become a Western ally, was, in turn, assassinated in another coup d'etat orchestrated by the Soviet Union, installing Babrak Kamal as a pretext for their invasion of Afghanistan, which is how they did incite the war. After the Saur Revolution, the United States began aiding the mujahedeen, but I don't think that they had done so before then under Mohammed Daoud Khan in the "years before" that the tweet mentions.
The Soviet War in Afghanistan resulted in an estimated million civilian casualties, and, so, the Central Intelligence Agency and Reagan administration did end up with the humanitarian catastrophe that they had always hoped for.
I also just simply don't quite know if it was the actual Carter administration, as Jimmy Carter had changed much of our Cold War policy as well as to have been active within intelligence reform, or our intelligence service who had initiated our involvement with the mujahedeen. That could have been an administrative decision on the part of Carter, himself, or something that the CIA just kind of did without any real oversight whatsoever.
I guess that Carter did approve Operation Cyclone, and, so, it's wholly incorrect for the above articles to invoke the "Carter administration".
He had promised to reform our intelligence service during his campaign, anyways, though.
I don't particularly think the distinction is of any import. Weather the CIA or Carter himself, if not one than the other, as has always been the murderous nature of US foreign policy. Petty bureaucratic squabbling about the internal mechanics of empire make no difference to those dead and immiserated as a result of it. No one particularly gives a shit about assigning more or less blame to the SS or the Wehrmacht.
I edited that post, as the Church Committee was effectuated under Gerald Ford. Reforming our intelligence community was just a campaign promise of Carter's.
It would be relevant had the internal mechanics of our legal system actually have effectively been designed to facilitate limiting of operations of our intelligence service, as, as they never have nor will have any regard for international law, they would be the only means by which that could be effectuated.
What might you have done with it?
I'm not sure it would matter other than a game of speculative fantasy.
Sounds good to me. A trillion dollars is enough to give everyone in Afghanistan... twenty-five thousand each? A decent weekend on the Gold Coast, that.
If you think about the CIA and what can be done about it for long enough, that is the only conclusion to be drawn.
Consider the absurdity of a few alternatives. There's convincing all of the rest of the entire world to put the International Criminal Court to the effect of reforming the organization, but, in order to do so, you would need something like the support of around seventy-five percent of the voting age global populace or to be capable of collaborating with the international intelligence community, neither of which are really all that viable. There's protest, which is sure to be unanimously regarded as conspiratorial by our news media, aside from that having five people picket the pentagon or stand on some street corned does absolutely nothing whatsoever. You can print leaflets and table and make it about as far as any minor Trotskyist sect. There's revolution, which relies upon the sine qua non of that the United States Military decides not to fire upon a civilian populace and defect to them, thereby entrusting the transfer of power to an organization that is not at all likely to be taken by any form of so-called "radicalism" whatsoever. There's guerilla insurrection, which, given the scope of security apparatus is just completely suicidal. There's détournement, which could be utilized to bring awareness to their activities to the general populace, but, at that point, what the general populace even can do is to either stage mass protests, which, like those against the Iraq War, won't do anything other than raise awareness and very slowly reform the Democratic Party at all, or convince whomever there is in whatever position they have which grants them the potential to do so to put the aforementioned mechanisms to the effect of reforming our intelligence service.
What anyone thinks about anything else doesn't matter as that is all that can be done.
Furthermore, as I edited the above post to clarify, staging mass protests just raises awareness and, at least, in these regards, very slowly reforms the Democratic Party, which, in turn, leads us, again, to the only possibility of utilizing whatever legal regulatory mechanisms there are to have proceeded from the Church Committee.
As I'm sure you're quite interested in what I think about all of this, as to what we can do about our arms industry, I have absolutely no ideas whatsoever. Our military budget could be taken to by someone who was willing to go at it like the most notorious of all Thatcherites, but they'd have to somehow include within their campaign promises not to cut into soldier's salaries and actually do so in order to get anywhere whatsoever. They'll complain about their equipment, but, I'm sure that that is also somehow able to be dealt with.
I think that they should divert the funds into things like free healthcare and education, but, I do honestly not care if some Libertarian gets into office and just decides to pay off a portion of our debt to China.
The point being, here, is that, aside from the very time consuming gradual reform of the Democratic Party, what can, otherwise, be done is to find a senator, congressman or presidential candidate who is willing to wage a unilateral campaign that relies upon putting every potential legal prohibitive measure into effect against the Central Intelligence Agency and convince our Congress to approve a defense budget that may have even been reduced by a tenth.
Contrary to the wisdom of the Left, which is to offer castigating critique of the Democratic Party, what should instead be done is to find, among its members, a person who is willing to engage in their role as an executive or legislator as if they were on a mission from God. It is the very idealistic bleeding heart liberal whom they present as representative of pure ideology who can change American foreign policy.
It's also, perhaps, notable that they would happen to be a pacifist.
The democratic party is the graveyard of Left politics in the US. It exists to coopt, diffuse, and suck-in any viable left energy. It's a black hole. It can rot for all I care.
You just make snide remarks like this so that you can score more acolytes of whatever your particular left-wing cult is. Anyone on the left who is with it enough to figure all of this out just does the same thing.
I suppose that they could be a Green Party or independent candidate. Assuming that they come from one of the two parties, though, there's only one likelihood.
I don't really like the Democratic Party either, but, in so far that our foreign policy is to change, it is probably them who even can effectuate that.
You probably have some communization inspired invocation of insurrection or something. It's très chic, but what it ultimates in is either starting a terrorist cell à la the 2 June Movement or starting a terrorist cell à la Action Directe.
Besides, what difference would there be were we to trade places between the United States and Australia, anyways?
People praising Biden for finally putting an end to the game of Afghan hot potato are like those praising Jeffrey Dahmer for promising to finally stop dismemebering young boys; except Biden was responsible for deaths on an order of magnitude worse, and far more horrific. Along with the rest of the US state.
Fair enough, but that quip is pretty goddamn clever if you ask me.
There was no justification for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place and we were there for long enough for even me to forget about it, and, so, there is no real reason to applaud Biden for the withdraw, though it is kind of a relief that we finally left.
I don't know. The transition seems to be going fairly well at least.
:up:
:down:
Who would benefit if the USA continued on in the land of the Afghans?
Women, children, atheists, moderate muslims, secularists, and so on.
Who would gain if the USA hightailed it out of Afghanistan?
Extremists, the Taliban and other radical Islamists who'll find safe haven there.
Who made the decision to pull out American troops from Afghan territory?
USA.
Ergo,
The USA isn't interested in the welfare of women, children, atheists, moderate muslims, secularists, etc. OR, this is scary shit, the USA wants the Taliban back at the helm of Afghan affairs.
:chin:
Yeah, it's great name for the Taliban (used erroneously Taleban) above, but now perhaps we should use the de facto name Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. But just look at what the Emirate had to agree with, their side of the deal.
Just think of this. Now I don't agree with @StreetlightX often, but he is dead right about the US fucking the Afghans. And it's allies. The many American individuals, those who have served in Afghanistan, can have really tried to help the Afghan people and the wavering government that the US put in place. But that is not the official US I'm referring to. Just look at "the peace deal" above. It's basically "Don't attack us and please don't let Al Qaeda use your territory, and we will withdraw and forget that we made this government in Kabul and tried to hold elections etc".
The Taliban didn't attack the US. And the tiny original Al Qaeda has basically been in Pakistan since the start of the war. How goddam easy is it to agree with those kind of demands? In fact, they even aren't any demands. To do something you don't have as an objective means you aren't giving up anything.
AND THERE HAS BEEN NO INTRA-AFGHAN DIALOGUE. Would you put something like demands to negotiate and accept the other side in to a deal? No, then this above would be an actual peace deal. Such sidelining of the government, that you first created, is really one big Dolchstoss im Rücken. Stab in the back. No wonder the Afghans were demoralized.
In fact, for the Taliban to conquer more territory was and is totally OK as...they didn't attack American troops. Because it's quite vague when you just refer to "US and allies". That might be only US and other foreign militaries as the agreement doesn't state anything about the Afghan government. Nothing.
And this of course is how the US (Trump, basically) fucked it's allies, NATO or Non-NATO. You see, there was at first ISAF, established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001 by Resolution 1386 and then it's continuation with Resolute Support Mission. Those intended really to to train the Afghan National Security Forces and assist Afghanistan in rebuilding key government institutions. Unlike with the Republican mantra of "nation-building" not working, actually nation building like in the Balkans, or Namibia etc. has worked. International participation can work. Left totally alone, then civil wars can continue.
But fuck them. Fuck those other countries that have been participating in the effort as they were not signing the bullshit deal Trump made. Those other countries weren't intending to leave, because let's remember at the time it wasn't 100 000 force as earlier, but a 18 000 force with not so many US personnel. But of course with a Doha deal as above, there wasn't anything else to do. Because...who the fuck cared about Afghanistan?
Pakistan Under Pressure as Taliban Advance in Afghanistan - The New York Times
Pakistan's leaders clearly see the Taliban's occupation of Afghanistan as a "victory" and a "liberation from Western slavery". Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban.
Taliban have broken ‘the shackles of slavery,’ says Pakistan PM Imran Khan – The Independent
So, the more pressure is put on Pakistan and other rogue states in the region, the better.
Turkey has lost all their chances to be part of the Western world with this action. Erdogan is a crazy and incompetent leader...
One retired Army Sergeant 33 years started in Vietnam ending in Operation Desert Storm.
One young freshly graduated college student among classmates who dedicated their lives to the service of our country.
One conclusion:: extract as many people as possible now and understand the up and coming ranks will not fight their ancestors war.
I note Trump's text (which is no excuse for Biden or the UK). Trump went to Fordham.
Correct. Erdogan is the Hitler and Stalin of the Mid East.
He dreams of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire that included the Mid East, North Africa, and Southeastern Europe and has forged close alliances with other Muslim Central Asians in an attempt to create a Turkish zone from China and Pakistan to the Mediterranean and beyond.
Show us the announcement.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-08-11/turkey-still-keen-to-run-kabul-airport-despite-taliban-advances-officials-say
Of course Erdogan is not going to miss the opportunity to fill some of the power vacuum created by the US withdrawal, is he?
Nowhere in that quote says that "Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban" or anything remotely close to it. Do you not understand what you're reading or are you distorting willingly?
Who is putting pressure on Pakistan? I guess nobody is. And let's remember that Pakistan was an ally the US. Sort of. But who cares. The US didn't care about it's security concerns, so why would then Pakistan care about concerns that the US has? It has nuclear weapons, so it has that deterrence. And a committed intelligence service. When the Pashtun people are divided by the Durand-line, then it's natural to try to keep the taps on them.
Guess they are very happy on how things have gone at this agency:
Too bad that general Hamid Gul, the former leader of the ISI and the godfather of Taliban didn't see the victory his creation. He would surely have been happy.
Quoting Apollodorus
I think this more of play of closer neighbors to Afghanistan. Turkey is likely genuinely trying to salvage the little it can do in this debacle. My country got out from Afghanistan in June, the Turks have a somewhat large contingent there still, remnants of the "Resolute Support Mission". And yes, Erdogan tries to be active everywhere: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan.
Well, what you read there is diplomatic language.
Of course Erdogan is not going to say openly what his intention is. But he's got troops in many countries and once they are in, under any pretext, they will carry out Erdogan's plan as instructed.
There are people of Turkic origin in Afghanistan that Erdogan may be able to exploit. And he may make a deal with China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and Turkic states like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan that are allies of Erdogan.
https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-08-11-erdogan--i-may-receive-the-taliban-leader-in-the-coming-period.BJGKZYa-gK.html
I for one can't imagine Erdogan staying out of it. Who's going to stop him, you?
Certainly not the West. And that's where the problem is and has been for a very long time. There is a US-Pakistan-China connection that works against Western interests and that some people refuse to see.
Quoting ssu
Exactly. That's his plan. This is why he got elected, to make the Turkish Empire great again. And he's got to do it (1) because he likes being a great leader, (2) because he is an Islamist who wants Turkey to be the leader of the Muslim world, and (3) because that's what his own people expect him to do. And he's got powerful allies like Russia and China.
The West's world order is falling apart and the Turkish and other vultures are circling in the sky ....
Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s and has already formed an alliance (Turkic Council) with Turkic speaking Central Asian states like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
But the idea of a Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China was in fact the idea of Kissinger who was Turkey’s and China’s best friend:
From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV
How to deal with Pakistan has been the real failure. Or put it another way, Pakistan has outwitted the US. How to be an ally of both sides in a war has been quite amazing feat.
Quoting Apollodorus
And Erdogan has had as an example Putin and Russia on how to "punch over one's weight limit".
Quoting Apollodorus
It's great that people notice this, as you have. This is truly the West's world order collapsing. Many people don't see it.
I wouldn't use that metaphor of them being vultures. Basically the US Middle Eastern policy has been such a disaster, so totally alienated from the regional countries that it is more like they have been forced to take things into their own hands. Yes, they don't ask anymore from the US what to do. The Nasser's of today won't ask Kermit Roosevelt (of the CIA) if it's OK for them to stage a coup.
Apart from the early 1950's, the height of US power was the liberation of Kuwait. The US got the green light from the Soviet Union, the UN, and got 35 countries including muslim nations like Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Morocco and the Gulf States to join the alliance. This was the height and the end of US leadership in the Middle East. It all has gone down from there. Libya was a mess and in Syria, not even trusty Old UK backed Obama after Syria crossed the red line. In Syria the US has been one actor among many. That in Libya US allies chose different sides to back up tells that the US is in no control.
Pakistan, the old US ally which was both in CENTO and SEATO, then an important ally to the US when Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, is the most interesting case here. It has portrayed itself as an ally in the war on Terror and yet basically founded the Taliban. Yet it didn't fall into the category of a "Rogue Nation". Perhaps it's nuclear deterrent helped in this. The Doha deal was success for them. Especially when the now extinct Afghan government started to have ties with India.
In Afghanistan now Pakistan seems to be the winner for this round. And so is Russia basically in Central Asia. At the height of the Global War on Terror, there were US bases in nearly all Central Asian countries, the 'Stans. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan had all American bases. And now there is nothing. No bases. The Russians simply waited for the US interest in the region to collapse. It did.
Last to fall was Afghanistan. Other simply just were closed.
So, Turkey didn't announce what you said they announced. And Erdogan wanting to meddle with Afghanistan's current situation in order to increase his influence has nothing to do with him showing willingness to put Turkey's military at the disposal of the Taliban. That's just a misunderstanding of the basics of what has happened. To understand beyond the diplomatic language, one has to understand the diplomatic language (and the diplomatic relations) in the first place. Here are the ABC's of the situation. It's the opposite of what you suggested almost in all respects.
Does that mean that a future cooperation between Erdogan and the Taliban is out of question? No. Erdogan is wildly opportunistic and a pragmatist. Does that mean that he wants to see the Taliban succeed? No. They're foes and regional rivals, so in the long term Erdogan could benefit more from an Afghan government that's subservient to the USA. And even though Erdogan wants to stand his ground as much as possible against the USA, he still needs USA infinitely more than he needs the Taliban.
That was what I had heard on the news, that Erdogan offered to deploy Turkish troops at Kabul if the Taliban agreed. And Khan was offering to put Erdogan in touch with the Taliban. This seems to be supported by the articles I posted. I will post more when I find them.
Of course Erdogan has plans for Afghanistan. I think @ssu understands the situation much better.
None of that is supported by the article that you linked me to. Erdogan said nothing about securing the airport "if the Taliban agreed". That's not what your article says, neither what any other articles I've seen say. He was in talks with Biden, not with the Taliban. And Khan was "mediating" because the Taliban reacted negatively to Erdogan's attempt to "secure the airport", which they called an "occupation".
Correct. Personally, I think there is more to it and Kissinger is one of the links that connects certain US interests with China and Pakistan (in an old alliance against Russia-friendly India). I think you will find more stuff on this in the US National Archives.
But you are right that the Russians are in a much better position in the region, first because it's their backyard and second because Russia's political situation makes long-term planning much easier than the US political system where short-term objectives tend to come first and presidents come and go every few years.
Unfortunately, America and Europe seem to be on a warpath with Russia whilst at the same time leaving many weak spots exposed and allowing China, Turkey, and Pakistan to exert too much influence to the point that the situation is becoming dangerous for the whole Western world.
The Western world order took a long time to establish and once it starts unraveling it can go downhill very fast.
Westerners tend not to understand and not to care. "Human rights", "the environment", and "wild life (in the Third World)" is all that matters to most of us.
It was irrational of Britain in the 1850s not to stay neutral, let Russia try to fend off France while perhaps learning a small lesson about whatever that was about, not bolster Turkey (which would have genuinely benefitted from modernising then and not in the 1920s). Instead Russia got so weakened it had to sell off Alaska where Russians had been more humane than their successors became, receiving only enough money to pay landlords / nobility and nothing left over for the serfs, who fell to the agitators. Neglecting Germany and Austria into the bargain and look what happened there.
Also from the Guardian:
On women’s rights, Mujahid said the issue was “very important”. He told journalists in Kabul:
"The Islamic Emirate is committed to the rights of women within the framework of sharia.
Our sisters ... have the same rights, will be able to benefit from their rights. They can have activities in different sectors and different areas on the basis of our rules and regulations, educational, health and other areas.
They are going to be working with us, shoulder to shoulder with us, and the international community - if they have concerns - we would like to assure them that there is not going to be any discrimination against women, but of course within the frameworks that we have."
Who knows as to with what degree of veracity we can consider these claims?
If we take them at their word, I think that the conference is more promising than anyone could have hoped for. That's, of course, if we take them at their word.
Spencer Ackerman has written a piece on his blog in favor of "a life they can live, resettling them in the United States if they so choose" and "reparations", though I'm not entirely sure what reparations could even look like, given the transfer of power.
In a less humane appeal, Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, has attacked none other than former Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for posting on Twitter, "the President must urgently rush to defend, rescue, and give and expand asylum."
After a lengthy analysis of the war and American society, he concludes:
"Now is the time to listen to the Afghan people, to support refugees, to support aid organizations, and to rail against those responsible for the catastrophe of the past twenty years—to open our hearts to new possibilities and new potential accomplices—to develop the skills and mindsets that will keep us safe as we go forward into the unknown."
Totally right.
Above all, in this region the Russians simply tolerated to waited for the American to "self destruct" in the region because...there is no long term planning when it comes to the US. They didn't panic when Bush was building bases in the various countries across Central Asia and training their militaries. Now the countries are eagerly participating in joint-exercises with Russia to prepare of instability leaks over from Afghanistan (or to just show the Taliban that they are prepared).
In fact, it is a tragedy that Putin didn't follow the same waiting policy in Ukraine. If Putin hadn't seized and annexed Crimea when Ukraine was down for the count, Russia would be in a far better situation. They would still have vast support in Ukraine, Russian foreign policy would seem extremely good (yes, people forgot the Russo-Georgian war quickly) and NATO countries would have continued to dismantle their armed forces. Because let's face it, Ukraine would never had joined NATO even then. The country was (is) a dumpster fire that the US wouldn't and couldn't do anything about as it's economic problems are extremely deep. Here American promises are very empty. Ukrainian NATO membership is like EU membership of Turkey: a lot of talk of something that will never happen.
But the Imperial glory of annexing Crimea back got to Putin, and this finally woke NATO from it's deep stupor. Before that NATO was all about international operations and nothing about deterrence and defence of it's member states. Now it's not. Crimea and the civil war in Ukraine made things worst.
Unfortunately there are now many who have this "Imperial Glory" aspect that they want to enjoy (as you noted about Erdogan).
Yes, the British always had a fear of being invaded by Continentals who were secretly digging tunnels under the sea to get them. So, British policy was dictated by the "balance of power" doctrine that aimed to side with the weaker continental power against the stronger.
After the unification of Germany in 1871 the situation was reversed and Germany was seen a competitor on the Continent and in other parts of the world like Africa and the Pacific.
Russia became Britain's other chief enemy and all because of the struggle for resources. Instead of having a united Europe we got two European civil wars, America replaced England, and now China is replacing America and the rest of the Western world. I think we need to wake up a.s.a.p. before it's too late.
Oh yes, war is a racket. Well known for ages.
It's natural to see everything especially now in an dismal light. Because hard questions should be asked.
I think the real tragedy would be, if we would forget that the US, even in it's foreign & security policy, has done much good. Yes, Afghanistan is a catastrophe made by four US president together and surely much soul searching is needed, but not everywhere the US flies armed drones to kill suspected terrorists. It's something that when looking at the US actions in the Middle East, Cental Asia or Latin America we might forget.
NATO found it's original roots back after Putin annexed Crimea and here in Europe just to have the US as guarantor of peace would be a great thing. Without the war in Ukraine, NATO would be clueless and lost, especially now. (If only politicians would understand that success is NOT using military force, but having the forces only as deterrence.)
It may be hard to understand perhaps when there is this utter shit show in Afghanistan and failures in the Middle East. Yet with Europe it would be fine as here the message is still not tainted. Especially in the countries that did endure Soviet totalitarianism. Many Americans assume that they are hated in Europe, when they are not. Not all Europeans are leftist intellectuals. And even all of those aren't stereotypes. Leader of the Free World hasn't got such a sarcastic vibe as some think.
(How American military convoys were greeted in the Czech Republic few years ago:)
(And in Poland:)
It's destabilizing!
I agree with your statement to some extent. But I tend to see EU and NATO expansion as the primary cause of friction between the West and Russia.
The EU's idea was to gradually incorporate all former Communist Bloc and Soviet republics into its own economic and political system. This would have isolated Russia too much, creating an intolerable situation. For many Russians it was unthinkable to lose Ukraine. And the West was beginning to meddle in Russia itself.
The EU-US should have been more restrained toward Russia. West-Russia conflict can only benefit our enemies like China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey. We can't keep attacking Russia and letting China and others get away with murder just because it's good for business. That strategy is going to cost us dearly one day and I think it's going to be very soon.
Of course! In it's Military doctrine Russia sees NATO expansion as the most dangerous threat ever. International terrorism is on 11th place or lower. Remember that the siloviks view everything they do as a defensive measure. And being on the offense is the best defense.
But notice that it's the response you get after Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. East European ex-Warsaw Pact countries are like those ex-wives of a violent alcoholic (called Russia). It's no wonder that they gang up and never let the old man close anymore. Unified Germany doesn't seem like this bully with imperialist aspirations, because it hasn't got them, at least when it comes to others lands or territory. But Russia, especially under Putin does look like the old bear everybody knows. Especially after beating up that ex-wife/girlfriend called Ukraine and earlier another one called Georgia. That's two wars, two annexations of territory. Likely my country has among the best relations with Russia (and yes, we have had wars with it and it has annexed parts of our country also). So it's no wonder that the Finnish defense and security policy is basically about the threat of Russia. And that's why NATO is so important to Eastern Europe, especially when now international operations aren't (and after this catastrophy) won't be the new hot thing to get yourself into.
Bill Clinton might have thought about East European immigrant voters when he expanded NATO, but for the countries NATO was a blessing after WP. That's the thing the US ought to understand: the US might have it's own agenda why it does something, it's allies might look for something else. This is also true in the Middle East and Central Asia. Not understanding that and things will get worse.
I thought that it was an interesting perspective to present and fairly good analysis from the ground of the war. I also liked his concluding remarks.
As much as I have political qualms with Crimethinc, such as the naivete of their approach to being "home free" or their interpretation of the "diversity of tactics" in that it ultimately does preclude strict nonviolence, I think it rather laudable of them to have published a piece written by a former intelligence analyst and veteran of the War in Afghanistan. You couldn't find such a voice of dissent anywhere else.
You are correct in that a focus upon the actions of the United States in Western and Central Asia and Central and South America, of which the reasons for being critical of and in active opposition too are many and justified, does too readily omit the reasons for our support amongst people in Europe, primarily located in what was formerly called "Eastern Europe", though, albeit lacking in an alternative term, I think the characterization of the world as having been divided into a somewhat mythic "East" and "West" was motivated by an odd kind of what you might call "occidentalism". The support of dissidents, publication of banned texts, aiding and abetting of expatriates fleeing the former Soviet Union and its satellites, offering of amnesty, support for human rights, and even, I would argue, to a certain extent, creation of Radio Free Europe were all very beneficial to the people there. There were a lot of things that we did during the Cold War that I don't agree with, but, it's not as if the United States' presentation of itself as a bastion of "freedom and democracy" in the world was a complete façade. On some level, it was to an extent, as I kind of suspect for activists to both have taken more initiative and better followed through with some of the aforementioned virtues of Western exceptionalism than any Americans in office, occasionally without or even in opposition to them, but it is the case that we do, at least, have some American policy to thank for certain gains that have been made in the protection of the free press, international amnesty, and, though I would express more caution in this regard, the development of human rights.
There is an interesting review of Frances Stonor Saunders's, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, "The Cultural Cold War: Faust Not the Pied Piper" ultimately, as I am, in favor of the so-called "third camp", that adds some interesting nuance nominally inapt dispute between the "East" and "West", that I will post here if you are curious.
Alas, however, I have staged this press junket for long enough and now must attend to my life outside of The Philosophy Forum, and, so, either now or after another post or two, will be off.
If anyone reads any of this, thanks to whomever I mentioned in my previous posts for their support of Afghan refugees. Here is an op-ed piece published by New York Magazine.
I think a unified Germany without a proper military is a bigger problem for Europe than a properly armed Germany with realistic foreign policies.
Germany is Europe's largest country, with the strongest economy, and sitting right in the heart of Europe. It should logically be Europe's strongest defender. Instead, it is a giant with feet of clay that gives in to China, Turkey, and others before they even ask.
This puts Europe, the world's largest economy, in the ridiculous position of a military midget and political non-entity that is being colonized and taken over by others, just like America was once colonized and taken over by Europeans.
The West is turning itself into the laughing stock and doormat of the world.
So long, The Philosophy Forum! Best of luck to everyone in Afghanistan!
It's all a wallowing of sorts.
That, too, of course.
Anyways, I'll be off. It's been fun, in ways. All that we can do now is to hope for the best. I, or one, am somewhat hopeful. So long!
Was this chain of events preferable?
"I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment. ... The overwhelming impression I got — it didn’t occur to me that we were purposefully delivering this equipment into the hands of al Qaeda, or whatever. But the sense that I got was: Oh, well, the purpose of us being here is to justify pouring mountains of cash into the pockets of contractors — the manufacturers of this equipment. The incentive structure was, “Lose shit, because then it’ll have to be replaced. We’ll have to send more out there.”
I would sit in staff meetings where we would talk about, OK, this month we sent 14 armored Humvees down to Helmand Province for the Border Patrol. And 12 of those 14 Humvees along the way went missing — or, quote unquote, broke down — and were disabled. And that was a regular thing. Like the majority of shit we were adding to the inventory of these Border Patrol units, just wasn’t even making it there. I mean, it seemed like the whole thing was just a big setup for contractors to be given license to fleece us. As far as the US military presence there — I just viewed it as a big money funneling operation."
https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operation-afghanistan
It was an absolute success.
Every time someone calls it a failure, they have no fucking clue what the purpose of the colonial occupation of Afghanistan was for.
Unfortunately I don't have enough time, right now, to continue in the climate change and other debates.
But I'm wondering how you square this statement with your view that "Western capitalism" and, in your very next post, NATO and US imperialism, are on the whole good things.
Now, please reflect: is your argument "well, could be worse" (sure, NAZI's could have been worse and used their nerve agents all over the place; you need to get to literally satan to have a "bad as it gets"), or is your argument that despite environmental and social catastrophes the system is still somehow "good" and has no fundamental flaws.
Lol, those enlightened vets are so funny. In a way, funnier than redneck vets that still suck Uncle Sam's dick. Their "Eureka" moments are precious. It only took the guy a couple of wasted Afghan generations to conclude that it is now time to listen to the Afghans (whatever that means)! It only took the other one a shitload of lost Humvees to realize that war mongers profit from the war! Fortunately, they are here to tell us.
No, no, no, you don't understand.
It's a time for "soul searching", intentions were pure, nothing was predictable in advance, zero reasons to have plausible audits of anything at anytime during these 20 years; serious organizations don't do audits, they soul search after the mission fails in every possible way in the most spectacular fashion.
Because in something that has bad sides has also some good.
Yes capitalism and using market mechanism is far better that centralized planning in Marxist-Leninist socialism. That kind of central planning sucks. That said, our current financial market and debt-based system might collapse in the near future. That shouldn't be confusing. You see, in reality you can see both benefits and negative aspects in things. We don't have to be spokespeople for some ideological cause and not see both positive and negative aspects.
And why do I then say US foreign policy (US Imperialism?) is good in Europe. Well, sometimes the agenda of the US and other countries can emerge. Then that "Imperialism" is just fine. With @Apollodorus we had an interesting exchange about just who was promoting European integration post WW2 in the ECP thread. He said it was the US and it's intelligence services, I remarked that it was actually European politicians that lobbied for the agenda and found similar minds in Washington.
And this explains when US foreign policy, ie "US Imperialism", can be very effective: when it takes into account the agenda of other nations and then goes on with the issues that everybody can agree with. Then suddenly the US finds itself in the leader position and countries wait what the US does.
Yet if US policy is totally unilateral and driven by the whims of domestic politics and discourse without any interest on things like the reality on the ground, then you get a mess like this. The facts on the ground don't matter. I think the basic reason is that the US after the Soviet Union collapsed, didn't have to think at all what it actions would make the Soviets do. Without a counterbalance, they could do the hell they wanted. Especially when you get idiots like the neocons in charge.
If the withdrawal from Iraq backfired with the emergence of the IS, I wonder what now will happen with this catastrophe?
After the possibility of Soviet tank armies coming through the Fulda Gap evaporated, they don't know what to do with their army. There is now NATO Poland between them and Russia, so nothing to worry about I guess.
But the Bundeswehr is extremely expensive and in very bad condition. They pour many billions into defense and basically they can deploy one battalion outside of their borders. Talk about wasting resources and money. Not because of corruption, but because of cluelesness.
Pls America kindly fuck off from the face of the Earth outside of America kthx.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1427622847443243009[/tweet]
And those stock prices tell something? Lol.
Do notice that during that time the DJIA has gone up well over 400% during that time and the Nasdaq 900%. So basically Raytheon has been a shitty investment, General Dynamics and Boeing average. Nothing close to Internet companies.
In fact, the real cash cow wasn't the Global War on Terror. It was by any real measurement, the Cold War. And the vast majority of those weapons were never used. Arms races are the real thing, not 20 years of low intensity conflict.
(The picture earlier from antiwar isn't of US troops. Likely it's of MONUSCO troops, one of the largest peacekeeping missions headed by the UN in the DRC, who nobody cares about. But who cares about details.)
OK sure, dead American soldiers died for not just defense stocks but incredibly shitty defense stocks. Excellent point comrade. Didn't think they could have died in more vain than they already have, but there you go.
A good recruitment slogan, no? Join the military! Die for below-average ROI.
Your graph doesn't show what it purports to show. That defence spending is a lower proportion of GDP is not the same a defence spending being 'low'. If GDP goes up, then defence spending goes up even when it remains the same proportion.
Arms manufacturers aren't interested in the proportion of GDP they get, they're interested in the actual cold hard cash.
US defence spending has never been higher https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget. I don't see what difference it makes that other industries have also benefitted from American expansionism.
Yeah, well, actually the numbers of killed don't tell the real picture of the fighting. Advances in medicine, you know.
And if people don't know, the troop levels had been for westerners quite low for some time. The Afghans were doing all the dying stuff. Until the US didn't even help anymore for them to fight the Taliban.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/world/asia/afghanistan-whatsapp-taliban.html
Yet another excellent point comrade. Keep 'em coming.
Not for the US politicians.
If your argument that the US Army shouldn't ever have been in Afghanistan then sure, it's all irrelevant. But as there will be a debate about just what went wrong, the commitment to have Afghans fighting the Taliban and the US assisting with air power, logistics and intelligence is going to be the issue. It wasn't so costly as it was when there were 110 000 US troops in Afghanistan.
Has anyone btw noticed how lax the Doha peace deal requirements were for the Taliban compared to Bush original demands? Please don't have anything to do with Al Qaeda like the Doha peace deal states might have been a deal that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2001 would have gladly accepted.
Quoting Isaac
Yeah, but so goes inflation and salaries. And then you are talking of the largest economy, which hasn't grown extremely rapidly as it's already quite prosperous. Only poor countries can get long periods of double digit growth.
Besides, one infantry division cost a lot less in 1970 than in 2020. Yet put the two in a jungle or into the mountains and the division with 1970's equipment would do surprisingly fine against the one with modern equipment, actually. Like, uh, the Taliban has shown us.
It's not about inflation, spending has gone up even in real terms because GDP has gone up in real terms. It's no good trying to make it about the poor squaddie's wage packet, it's not. It's about the massively lucrative deals the arms manufacturers have.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2079489/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2021-budget-proposal/
Among morons, sure.
This is Afghanistan. Let's not lose perspective here.
It is so beautiful. Sad of how humans can destroy the nature and earth just for religious or political beliefs, right?
So, your argument is basically that Afghanistan should have never been invaded? Of course this is some fantasy argument, you realize?
I think it's much the way its always been. It looks like a section of the moon.
It's really faux pas that you mention this with respect to a war waged with the Taliban, who behead, execute, and punish due to tribalism and barbarism.
Much of which has been ongoing since they took over Kabul as of recent.
But I'm a big tent kinda guy - Taliban, Americans, rubbish one and all. Although only one of these is running a world empire that continually props up dictators and genocidal states all across the globe. Which includes, of course, the very Taliban whom the US helped to usher into existence, with great fanfare.
Except it isn't.
Perhaps it just feels a bit awkward to write about the destruction of the environment in a country that has seen 40 years war.
And Afghanistan has exceptional environmental problems, which are far more dangerous than your average contamination and waste problems: mines and ammunitions.
You see, the Soviet used landmines as a counter-insurgency weapon: Spread landmines in the crop fields and the farmers have to flee the area. Once no population in the area, nobody for the insurgents to get assistance. Basically the old Roman and Mongol tactic of creating artificial deserts to pacify some region. Then the Soviet had these wonderful ideas of surrounding cities with land mines. Huge fields:
And as this is Afghanistan, it's telling that the landmines sown to the ground during the previous war over twenty years ago pose a threat still. Even today.
Yesterday, Veterans were willingly leaving this Earth at a clip of 22 souls a day.
Now we and they are wondering if it was worth it.
It didn't have to end this way :broken:
Except the US didn't care a shit about Afghanistan in 1994 as Soviet Union had left years ago. Hekmatyar and the famous Haqqani (now known as the Haqqani network) were the CIA backed warlords that rose to power thanks to CIA money. The Taliban itself is an invention of the ISI, which is now likely proud how they have succeeded finally. Basically the Taliban pushed away the squabbling ex-CIA financed warlords. Haqqani then changed sides later, wasn't a founder of the Taliban.
There is an incorrect meme that in this picture Reagan is meeting Taliban leaders. The "Freedom Fighters" met in 1983 are mainly the CIA backed warlords and other opposition leaders of that time.
Quoting frank
There are many desolate areas. But minefields make Afghanistan even more desolate.
I was under the impression that the CIA backed the mujahedeen to battle the Soviets that then became the Taliban. Is this true of Brzezinski's idea?
Correct. @ssu is largely talking out of his ass.
CIA wasn't interested in gaining power in Afghanistan in 1994. Pakistani ISI was.
And it's worth mentioning, that the ISI policy is quite the policy of Pakistan today:
Quoting StreetlightX
For you there all just a bunch of ragheads and everything happens because of the evil Americans. Everybody else are just pawns or victims of the US for you, as usual.
Interesting projection there. You must be confusing me for @frank's overt racism.
But yeah, almost everything that is shit in the Middle East is a direct result of American interference.
Yep
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
That simply is your bias. Not to think of others as important actors with their own agendas.
Better get used to it when the US backs away. Oh, I forget, then events don't matter to you.
I have a cynical view. As others have already noted, the Afghan war can be seen as a massive money-funnelling operation. The best way to erase the evidence of such a scheme, in my mind, was what happened. Hence the horrendous intelligence and the Biden lies.
Well the Afghan people had modernizing agendas before the US decided that the opium growers and feudal landlords ought not be displaced because the US hates democracy and fucked them. And of course the said opium growers and feudal landlords had their own agendas which found common cause with the US, all too happy to accept their support in fucking over the Afghan people. So you're quite wrong.
I would assume that one could make an even bigger argument about that when it came to war in Iraq. You see, that was a far more of a White House chosen war than attacking Afghanistan. Let's remember that between 9/11 and the start of the war in Afghanistan was less than one month. The war in Iraq was a far more planned thing. Do note the role in that war that the former CEO of Halliburton had.
Afghanistan was a sideshow back then.
Quoting StreetlightX
You make my point perfectly: others are either pawns or victims of the US for you. And nobody else exists, basically.
Well, those times certain neighbor of Afghanistan had in reality a lot to do with what happened in Afghanistan. And it's interesting to note that even the monarchy of Afghanistan had close ties with that neighbor.
The Afghan king with his friendly neighbors:
Indeed. The Afghans appealed to the Soviets for help because the Americans were doing such a good job at helping the reactionary feudal opium growers who were trying to fuck over the nation - and who eventually succeeded, thanks to the US.
It's fun to watch you try and cast about and blame on every other agent but the US - but what else to expect from a bootlicking shill for power.
https://centralasiainstitute.org/womens-voting-rights/
Well, the picture is from December 1955. Some thirty years before the time of "reactionary feudal opium growers helped by Americans" and some twenty or so years before Afghanistan and Pakistan even became large opiate producers. But I assume your idea of Afghanistan and the friendliness of the "Soviet assistance" is simply ignorance of history.
Quoting StreetlightX
Lol. Obviously you don't read what others write, which is typical for you. And then when you are out of anything to say, the ad hominems start.
Eh, @StreetlightX just wants his place in the sun among the left-wing European intelligensia. Without their mythic Goliath in the form of the United States, they would have to concern themselves with politics in their countries, thereby ultimately abandoning their favored catholicon of revolution in favor of peaceful protest and civic reform, all of which is wildly out of vogue within the far-Left. If there was a broad-based grassroots movement in the United States that stood a decent chance of changing its foreign policy, you'd hear nothing but excessive and castigating critique from them, for fear that the success of such a movement would challenge their cultural hegemony and result in a decrease in sales from the likes of semiotext(e). They have an entire industry of critique that completely relies upon their fascination with politics in the United States and generalized invocation of anti-Americanism.
Anyways, I came back to again divert this thread to the attention of the refugee crisis in Afghanistan before leaving, which I will do in the following post.
Who is Welcoming Afghan Refugees?
The coming U.S. political fight over accepting refugees from Afghanistan
Advocates Call on Biden Admin to Move Faster on Resettling Afghan Refugees
Afghanistan Refugee Crisis Explained
It seems that there needs to be a global effort to get whomever there is that is willing to to take in as many refugees that they can. I would suggest that the international community should work together with human rights organizations, charities, and activists in order to welcome as many Afghans as we can bring to wherever it is that they will be welcome. In the United States, we will need Republican support to adequately cope with the crisis, and, so, will have to hope that the sentiment of the likes of Mitt Romney will win out over that of the sixteen Republican members of congress who voted against extending greater support to the people there in the wake of the Taliban victory.
As I have said before, I think that we should welcome the former people of the Republic of Afghanistan with open arms.
@StreetlightX, whom, I am sure, like most people somehow taken by Giorgio Agamben, along with any number of anarchists, is probably not an actual terrorist, however, and is correct to have stated that this is "wildly off-topic". As I am just going to leave at this point, he will just have accept that I will have the final say in this manner and carry on otherwise. As I have put more time, effort, and thought into this than he has, he can, at least, be left with the quiet consolation in the eventual revelation that I am just simply correct.
Anyways, I will be leaving now and just wanted to say that The Philosophy Forum should support Afghan refugees and convince other people to do so as well. Let's hope that the international community will both be welcoming of them and apt in their response.
That, I guess, will have to suffice as my closing remarks.
So long, everyone!
I think that would be in the millions perhaps to the 2,6 million or so Afghan refugees. Already what can happen is that Afghanis become again the largest refugee group (now there are more Syrian and Venezuelan refugees). People can have a lot of empathy towards Afghan refugees now, but never underestimate how quickly people forget. Empathy can easily turn on it's head and turn into hostility.
Likely those that the media is concentrating on, the people who worked for the Western forces, is the realistic group that doesn't instill a debate.Their best supporters are the soldiers that worked with them.
And of course, one should hope that in the new Islamic Emirate somehow things wouldn't go even worse. Best case scenario is that we would forget the whole country in the media just like Vietnam was forgotten afterwards. The more refugees flee, the more dismal it is for the country. Last thing that the Taliban need is for all of the government and educated class to become refugees. If they would be smart, they would understand that they do need those educated people. But we shal see.
Still, if the Taliban keep their promises and Afghanistan would see peace and be now forgotten, there is one bad consequence here. Every islamic group sees this victory as a sign that they can be victorious too and every government fighting islamic rebels will assume this. Nothing creates more support for militants than actual success. Joe Biden is already promised to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, and basically in Iraq there are only 2500 soldiers. Wonder what the IS will do in Iraq. In the end you can have more violence for example in Africa, which has been the case already there.
Also, huge numbers of refugees for example in the neighboring Central Asian countries could destabilize them too.
Well put. And it's so nice to keep things easy. If you give an answer with "On the other hand..." you seem to be confused and weak.
Quoting thewonder
As an Australian, he enjoys freedom of speech. Just like you and me.
The first thing when you don't have democracy, free speech simply dies. People simply don't talk about politics. Not even anonymously in the internet. It's creepy when someone comes to this site and says has he or she is (Mainland) and wants to talk politics. You immediately start to assume you are talking either to a troll or a Chinese security person checking the site for actual Chinese citizens.
Quoting thewonder
Let's hope for the best.
So long.
It's a difficult point to get across as I ultimately think that @StreetlightX is pretty alright enough of a person and am emphatically against excessive counter-terror measures and spurious definitions of "terrorism". Nonetheless, however, regardless as to what nuance and clarifications there are to such theories, when Theorie Communiste speaks of "communinising [sic] measures", what they do effectively turn out to be is to do something like purchase a black leather jacket on consignment, somehow find an Israeli sub-machine gun, and make an attempt at an armed robbery. They, I am sure, would never do so themselves, as I assume for them to be left-wing intellectuals who live with a certain degree of luxury, and ought to, like anyone else, be able to say or write whatever they feel like doing so, but it is kind of a problem that left-wing intellectuals generally aspire towards a somewhat mythic furthest left, as, following all of the way through, which almost no one would ever dare to, with any revolutionary, insurrectionary, or transformative political project that advocates for extreme, which is to say coercive, direct action will just result within the needless loss of civilian life, the eventual suicides of members of groups who carry out such acts, and the excessive expansion of various security apparatuses globally, and, so, out of concern for people within the far-Left, so as to retain a veritable ethic, and even in a pure consideration of an effective strategy, I think that people not only should have rejected such notions, but, also, that they should have done so some fifty years in our political past. Convincing the Left to give up on revolution is like engaging someone on a street corner prophesizing annihilationism in a debate on atheism, however, and, so, there's no real point to even going on about this.
My real kvetch with @StreetlightX is that he'll take preliminary shots at my nearest allies, the aforementioned "bleeding heart liberal" pacifists, before engaging within any debate, which is, I guess, fair enough on his part, but that people on the left are likely to do this does kind of leave me stranded without allies. There's no real talking anyone into anarcho-pacifism, anyways, though, and, so, I really ought to just follow through with my plan to become somehow a-political.
I just felt a need to clarify all of this for some reason.
As before, and finally this time, I will be taking off. Do support Afghan refugees, The Philosophy Forum. 'Til we meet again!
The reason for this is that I would, first, have to abandon both the teleological project of anarchism, which I define as "libertarian socialism", but, here, am willing to invoke the more common "abolition of all hierarchy", and the political praxis of civil disobedience, which, though my status as a law abiding citizen could be used to my advantage, would ultimately alienate a number of my nearest allies, particularly within the libertarian Left. I, then, wonder, in the beaten way of pragmatism, if I wouldn't someday end up as the kind of person to engage in lengthy political debates with other middle-of-the-road would be political analysts on the comments sections of New York Times articles. I will say that my doing so is both a matter of principle and praxis. Within the context of this thread, however, all of that is neither here nor there.
As I have stated before, I think we ought to support Afghan refugees. It'd seem to be the only thing that any of us can really do about any of this, anyways.
Anyways, I will be taking off now. So long!
@StreetlightX, you really should open a new post about the follies of the US.
The evil presidents, "world police", pandemic mis/handling, war profiteering, (mad) political system, leaked (otherwise withheld/denied) wickedness, colonialist empire-building, "Big Pharma", fascist discrimination, genocidal'ish foreign policy/action, ... Plenty (sub)topics to analyze.
The Taliban are kind of disparate, in that what the "top" states in public don't reflect what some (tribal) Taliban guys actually do without repercussions.
What might be done in the interest of the regular Afghan? Nothing?
• The fall of Afghanistan is the result of a financial judgement (upd Aug 16, 2021)
• Afghanistan’s all-girls robotics team ‘begging’ Canada to help escape Taliban (Aug 17, 2021)
The parallels to Vietnam are striking. Both invasions, both war crimes, both devastating to the invaded country, and both treated by the media as "blundering efforts to do good." Not morally wrong, but "mistakes."
I hope the American population once again learns a hard lesson. With Vietnam, the claim was that we had to defend against the spread of communism. With Afghanistan, the spread of terrorism. Perhaps we'll begin to understand that there will always be pretexts for war, and always ulterior motives (particularly the resources of the countries being invaded, or the boon to defense contractors).
Reich gets it right here:
"Total stock returns for the five biggest defense contractors since September 2001:
Boeing: 974.97 percent
Raytheon: 331.49 percent
Lockheed Martin: 1,235.6 percent
General Dynamics: 625.37 percent
Northrop Grumman: 1,196.14 percent
These defense stocks outperformed the stock market overall by 58 percent during the 20-year war in Afghanistan, lining the pockets of defense executives and shareholders as hundreds of thousands perished. The only winner here was the military-industrial complex."
Streetlight needs the new catagory, "Philosophy of Hating the US", shortly to be added as his personal comfort station. If you need/want the latest edition of his views on how piss poor and shitty the USA is, that will be the go-to toilet stall for his content.
They want a society that works for the benefit and wellbeing of its citizens
food in the markets, clean water
the absence of marauders (any stripe) prowling the streets
access to whatever cultural resources they like
an effective education system roughly K-16, or its local equivalent
a working economy (based on the usual goods and services)
an honest effective government
the ability to exercise personal executive agency
Stuff like that.
Can they have it? Given time, and an absence of violent conflict and disruptive interference from outside agents (al Qaida, Pakistan, US, USSR, China, et al) perhaps.
Anyone who expects America to 'learn a lesson' has not learnt the lesson that Americans don't learn lessons. That the US is having a redo of Vietnam is not an accident. It will take nothing less than the crumbling of US empire for this kind of thing to stop. Imperialism doesn't disappear overnight because people have a change of heart. It disappears when the money making potential dries up, and boy has the money making potential not dried up.
Or put differently: the lessons to be learnt from Afganistan are not moral. They are political and economic.
Indeed. I'm generally against war, but can't we at least start with an honest and frank cost-benefit analysis--beyond how much military suppliers will make? Congress should be a much more tight-fisted grantor of largesse to the military. Demand and get detailed explanations of how spending $5,000,000,000,000 in XYZ target country next year is going to benefit say, Des Moines, Portland, Abilene, and Ft. Lauderdale? Don't see any reasonable benefit? Then don't give them the money. Even ask them how spending 5 billion dollars is going to benefit the average person int XYZ target country? Not going to benefit them much? Then don't give them the money.
The reason why left wing politics is failing in a nutshell.
For a movement which used to unite under the banner of Solidarity, most are more interested in the intellectual equivalent of trend-spotting in Vogue than actually gaining any more ground in the fight against class oppression... only the left wing version of being found wearing last years hem-line is to be the recipient of a wall of abuse. My enemy's enemy...
Ah, fuck it. It's not worth it.
:up:
I wish their protection is well guaranteed.
Taliban leaders are saying women can continue working. Maybe they're different now.
It's always been that way, though, right? Too much fury, too little rational thought.
Yes, probably they are different or... They are just acting beacuse they are intelligent enough to understand all the pressure from social media and news Afghanistan is having.
I thought of that too. There are reports of summary executions and homes being raided for child brides. Their leaders are saying this wasn't authorized. We'll see.
Yeah, you're probably right. It didn't feel that way at the time, but I expect it was. That's probably why we didn't get anywhere then either. Remember Scargill and Solidarity?
I've been reading about that time period. There's a view that this was an opportunity to enter more maturely into socialism in the west, but they sort of fumbled and gave liberalism a chance to reorganize the economy. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.
The thread has comments on Australian forces.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jordan_bryon/status/1428263276111142913[/tweet]
Street, I can always count on you to put me in the terrible position of sounding like Stephen Pinker.
But you agree, I think, that there are differences between the American invasion of South Vietnam and Gulf/Iraq Wars in terms of popular resistance. There was none whatsoever in the 50s. There was resistance to the Gulf and Iraq Wars -- clearly not enough, but it was there. In other cases, like the early 80s protests against "intervention" by the Reagan administration in El Salvador and Nicaragua is another example, which was abandoned and driven underground. Etc. Much different than under Eisenhower or Kennedy. I attribute that to the memory of Vietnam and the anti-war movement.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes, but moral as well. Political and economic power is fragile, as you know, and without the consent of the population it's very limited, especially in a semi-free country like the US.
In the 1950s no one cared about what the government was doing in Vietnam, and today far more people do. That matters to the government, especially if there's mass protests. So you have to try even harder to convince them - - through propaganda -- that it's moral, righteous, that we're on a "war against terrorism," that we're going after those who attacked us because they "hate our freedom," and so on. I'd argue this is the moral component, and has indeed changed -- it's less successful than it was a few generations ago.
We'll see how this increased dissidence manifests, if at all, when the US decides to invade its next country. I'm not very hopeful about that.
True, but this industry has essentially bought the politicians. There are also other interests involved. The military contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin make fortunes, but there's also the most obvious motivation of the energy companies.
If there weren't resources to extract, or some other economic reason for invasion, then we wouldn't invade. It's that simple. The government doesn't care about anything it says it does -- about spreading freedom or slowing communism or "defending" itself or liberating the women or any of the many pretexts used over the years to justify (to themselves as well) the purely predatory nature of these decisions.
In the 50s perhaps, but the anti-war sentiment that grew during Vietnam was legendary and historical. Perhaps the filter though which I understand the scale of those movements is through rose colored-glasses, but if there's a difference in popular resistance it strikes me as exactly the opposite today. I'm not sure that one can, in fact, speak of a coherent anti-war movement in the US today at all. It strikes me that the population there is even more, and not less docile than before. Moreover, the anti-war movement back then also had the advantage of linking across class and race issues as well. MLK was as much a beacon of the anti-war movement as he was paragon of civil rights and a socialist.
What dribs and drabs of any anti-war movement in the US today remains cloistered in it's own little issue-hole (most forcefully it seems, by conservative voices who want to 'bring our boys home'), and while everyone is now crawling out of the woodwork when the stakes have evaporated, Afghanistan was more or less a matter of resignation among the population than any sort of resistance, as far as I can tell. And this translates to the fact that the the Afghanistan post-mortem that everyone is conducting has barely been made to bear on America's other existing forever-war in Iraq. Yet if Afghanistan was a wealth transfer and a fuck-up, what does anyone think Iraq is? Where the the voices clamoring to say: now do Iraq next? But business there is still too good.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, but I also think it's less relevant. I think Americans realize now just how little say they have in anything their state does, and even those who buy the moral argument realize how little purchase it has. It's cynicism all around. Again, the overwhelming affect seems resignation and impotence, not resistance. And especially not compared to the anti-war movement against Vietnam. I still remember the smugness with which Bush assessed the early anti-war demonstrations against Iraq as a 'celebration of America's freedoms' of some such - he may as well have told all the protestors to pound sand for all he gave a shit. And they kind did after that. So I'm really not convinced by this point that popular resistance is more charged. If anything, it seems far less so.
"For a brief moment after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in 2001, it seemed as if the shock of these events might bring about a general process of reflection by Americans on the place of the United States in the wider world. Unfortunately, the form this reflection eventually took was self-defeating. One normal way of going about determining why someone did something is to ask the person in question. The question why Al-Qaeda bombed the Pentagon and the World Trade Center has a relatively clear answer: “They say they did it because of U.S. support for the corrupt Saudi monarchy and the garrisoning of American troops in Saudi Arabia.” One might then expect people to start asking why U.S. troops should be in Saudi Arabia anyway, why exactly control of this region is so important, and finally, how much real power the United States has and how it can be best deployed.
Instead public discussion almost immediately began to focus on elaborating various fantasies about Islamic fundamentalism, “their” hatred of “our” values, freedom, and way of life, etc. The creation of imaginary hate figures may give some immediate psychic satisfaction, but in the long run it only spreads and increases confusion and aggression. Troops can in principle be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, policy toward the Saudi monarchy can change, but how can one deal in a satisfactory way with inherently spectral “Islamic terror”? It no doubt suits some political circles in the United States that the population continue to be fearful, mystified, and frustrated, the better to gain their acquiescence in various further military operations, but it is hard to believe that this kind of emotional and cognitive derangement of the population contributes to increasing U.S. political power."
That was back in 2004. Has the end of the Afghanistan adventure prompted the kinds of questions Geuss asks above? Still no. And where is the vindication of Julian Assange? Where is that conversation? The wrong questions are still being asked. Americans don't learn. They won't. Not until their population is starving and on the edge of utter destitution will any of these questions even begin to be asked.
I don't think you're wearing rose-colored glasses. I think the anti-war movement of the late 60s was indeed legendary and historical. Nothing like that had occurred before in the United States, even if we count the isolationist resistance during WW1.
But I don't see today as being exactly the opposite, in part because of the scale of US crimes. At the time when the anti-war movement gained steam, as you know, there were hundreds of thousands of troops in Vietnam, thousands of American casualties and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese deaths. I don't think any such levels would be tolerated today. It's a disgrace that we tolerate any war crime, no matter the degree, but it's still a fact that the scale has been less and the propaganda has been much more sophisticated (which is an indicator of popular sentiment). JFK didn't need any real justification for ramping up troops, for example, because no one cared. No president would be able to get away with that today, in my view. I could be wrong about that, but I think the memory of Vietnam and the general distrust in government still lingers.
Quoting StreetlightX
Many Americans were in favor of invading Afghanistan because it was in the wake of 9/11, when everyone was scared and completely irrational, in part because they were told that there was a direct connection between this military action and the 9/11 attack: that Bin Ladan was operating out of Afghanistan, with the help of the Taliban, and so we needed to go in and kick ass. So of course everyone rallied around that, as they felt it was just. They should have known better even then, given it was a obvious war crime, but I'm perhaps more understanding of their acceptance.
By the time of Iraq, only a year and a half later, there was much more protest -- even with the false claims of WMDs and Saddam's connection with 9/11. A lot of this protest wasn't reported, but it was there.
Quoting StreetlightX
I think both wars have now proven, in nearly every American's mind, to be utter failures, went on for decades, wasted resources and lives, and in the case of Iraq at least were done under false pretenses. That's the sentiment out there, on the left and right -- in my estimation. Which is why you even had Trump talking up what a disaster they've been. You correctly point out that they have not been disasters, but giant successes for those in charge of making the decisions (corporate interests), but I doubt many Americans see that. What they do see (now) is that both wars were morally wrong, in the same way Vietnam was, and that in each case we were told it was a noble cause -- like a WW2 -- and were lied to. I'd argue that this is still significant.
So when I say that Americans have hopefully (and I stress that word) learned a hard lesson, it's about these smaller scale military actions and their pretexts.
I'd like to see the population get to the point where almost nothing the US military does is supported. But whether we get to that level of dissent and whether it manifests in mass demonstrations, I couldn't say. But this disaster is unlikely to help war hawks.
I see a lot of cynicism and defeatism too. But take the protests over Trump's "muslim ban," or the Women's March (the largest in US history), or earlier in the decade with the Occupy Movement. BLM also had some of the biggest demonstrations on record. There have also been plenty on the right -- hell, they just sacked the Capitol.
How any of that energy will look in response to the next war crime, I don't know -- but there are still reasons to think it would be significant. Perhaps not if the crime is on par with Grenada, of course, but even there I would hope more than before. Baby steps, I guess.
Quoting StreetlightX
Some Americans have, at least more than other decades. Will enough of them to make a difference? I fear not.
Just as it would be obvious when asking the question "What do the people of the United States want?", you are not going to get one thing shared by all if the question is something political.
And notice this is similar in Afghanistan as it was in Vietnam. There is a huge difference between the people of the city and the people of the countryside. And if especially now some are commenting just how tribal Afghanistan is by nature, the flag incident, people openly defending the use of the current Afghan national flag, shows clearly that there is also a national Afghan identity, just as there is one in Iraq too, even people constantly remind how artificial the country is.
I remember once in the 1990's going to the bank here in Finland (when there were banks you could go into) and seeing an odd flag on the employees nametag, which basically tells what languages he or she can use. I had to mention the young Asian looking man "Hey, that the flag of South Vietnam?" He turned all smiles and proudly stated that yes, it indeed was.
And it's a bit telling of Afghanistan just how many flags has the poor country gone through. It tells a story of a country basically endlessly trying to reach some common unity or identity:
Yet the idea of Afghanistan does exist, even if it might not be so strong as other national identities. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan would surely make a huge error if they after everything drop the use of Afghanistan in the name. Would remind too much of the Islamic State (Caliphate).
If only that were so. True: American citizens have little say in what their nation-state does. This applies across the board around the globe. It's true for Australians, Bangladeshis, Chinese, Danes, Egyptians, Fijians, et al. The consent of the governed is a pious fiction of critical importance. The more powerful the state, the less say of the citizenry.
Quoting Xtrix
The population at that point would be much closer to a general revolution. We would be closer to the collapse of the governed's consent. Now, that might be a good thing, depending on the shape the revolution took. Were it to bring about @the wonder's "teleological project of anarchism, which I define as "libertarian socialism" that might be worth dreaming about. No need to detail how badly a revolution might turn out to be.
Remember, too, that the economic system at the heart of the United States prevails around the globe. A revolution in the US wouldn't automatically bring about global liberation. Anyway, tasing about a revolution in the USA is ridiculously premature.
Try smoking more crack.
Yeah, controlling Afghanistan is difficult. But being in the role of an insurgent is surely easy.
There is real irony if Russia would start backing groups operating from Panjshir Valley.
I kinda have to agree with @frank on this one. America's fetish is their military culture. There are few other countries in the world which has a culture so militarized as America's, and it's not surprising given that America's prosperous existence depends on its brutalizing of other countries. They prey on school children and the poor. I'm not even sure Americans can see how fucked up it is until they actual step out from it. And my point is just that materialist one: this is not a war of 'ideas'. No amount of 'war bad!' moralizing is going to effect an iota of change. Until the very structure of American political existence is altered - the structure of material incentives and compulsions - is changed, appealing to 'values' and 'morals' is a lost cause. When Biden's cabinet is filled to the brim with former Lockheed and Raytheon execs, the idea that a bit of tut-tuting will make a difference is indistinguishable from, well, smoking crack.
Invest heavily in nuclear and geothermal along with storage for wind and solar. Might have made that 1.5ºC target by mid century a little more realistic. Hell, with that kind of money, we might even have commercial fusion reactors by now. And that kind of energy would definitely make a dent in climate change. Might as well throw room temperature superconducting in as well. 5.6 trillion is s shit ton of investment money.
Or not.
Somehow that narrative of creating economical fusion energy production if only there was enough money is like the narrative of "turning the page" and finally "seeing light of the end of the tunnel" in fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan...if only more troops and resources are given. Of course the difference with fusion research that fails to reach efficient fusion energy production is that it all expands our scientific knowledge: at least this or that approach doesn't cut it. That knowledge isn't wasted like the effort to build up the Afghan government, which evaporates in a wild panic.
But I guess there might be the nuclear scientist who behind closed doors tells how these huge fusion projects are not working at all. Just like many generals were quite open of that Afghanistan was a failure years ago, and were perfectly correct.
My statement about what I hope to see shouldn't be interpreted as what I believe will happen. I'd like to see our modern state capitalist system dismantled altogether, I'd like to see the electoral college abandoned, etc. I have no illusions that these things will come to pass in my lifetime, or perhaps ever. There's a good chance we wipe ourselves out before that.
My point was that the level of popular dissent for military action -- especially major military action -- has increased since the Vietnam war. This may sound ridiculous, but look at the scale of Afghanistan compared to Vietnam, and look at the protests surrounding the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Far more resistance than what Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson received. True, it wasn't reported much in the media, but it was there. That's a significant difference.
I think the sentiment (reflected by polling) is clear that Americans view the Afghan war (which was supposed to be the more "just" war and which had more support than Iraq) as a failure. Like I said, I don't know if a lesson was learned from this, or how it will play out when the US decides to invade another country, but I doubt very much it helps the government's credibility.
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/afghanistan-a-brief-history/?fbclid=IwAR3zIKDShvh2XTt6kk55QxUAeO_MQAzZCn9myIxC1_Yyp63z1LTAYAxNC2A
"THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK." :victory:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1428989766100520969?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/tweet]
Usually reports like this are basically propaganda, but still what the US government has is independent auditors who openly show the errors (unlike the EU, for example). Of course, their observations and recommendations are rarely listen to.
The main reason the Special Inspector gives for the failure of the US in it's efforts in Afghanistan:
And there are incredible stories. Like a helicopter pilot being to train the Afghan police. Or other people put to train the police and having no experience in police training and simply watching NCIS or Cop. Or then that the US Embassy personnel, putting "safety first", rarely if ever ventured outside the Embassy or the Kabul green zone. This lead to a case that the US command in the Southern Region had nobody from the US Embassy (or State Department) to tell what they should do with the vast reconstruction and civilian projects.
Yet there obviously is a structural issue at play here.
In the end it is no wonder that with this kind of inefficiency, mismanagement and basic sloppiness, it will feel all as this is a giant racket. There surely is a racket when you have "ghost soldiers" and such high levels of corruption. And the simple fact is that when there is free money being given away, there are many takers. Yet a lot of people tried their best, yet the system didn't work. Let's remember that for example the Balkans are peaceful, so the idea that there is no reason for help or "nation building" isn't a simple question.
War is the most wasteful and spendthrift thing human beings have come up. War profiteering simply happens. In any case when something has to be done quickly, without the formal contracts and auditing, criminals do get to the scene. Hence even in natural disasters or things like a pandemic, criminals try to get the money governments are throwing at the disaster. In societies where there is less or no social cohesion it's a big problem.
(A contractor showing abandoned firearms and equipment in Kabul)
I am worried if one day they achieve some parts of the State. Imagine these dudes as ministers of justice, economy, taxation, international affairs, etc...
Let's see what is going on with this issue in the following months...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/world/evacuations-afghanistan-taliban-ramstein-intl/index.html
I think there are extremely large implications here just what is happening. Not only that every radical islamist group is likely to be emboldened by the victory over the US that the Taliban de facto got. Or that tens of thousands of US arms likely now go to the various militant groups or those who pay for them (as obviously the Emirate will be short of cash).
The issue is that now twice in row US Presidents have resorted to quite unilateral decisions. During the Trump administration there was serious discussion about the possibility that the US indeed leaves NATO. Trump being Trump might be understood. But now the unilateralism continues. Now it starts to be obvious that European country simply cannot put their faith in the US that is spooked from it's own shadow and rely that it will back up it's own team as it did earlier. Also it's very likely that the US will now avoid any international operations afterwards. Although nobody will dare to say it, US leadership is quickly eroding.
It's likely that several countries will look at having at least the capability that France now has for limited interventions. Especially if the 31st of August comes and goes and this ends in a larger debacle as it is now.
There can be even the possibility of NATO going the way as CENTO or SEATO, which were disbanded and the US later followed with bilateral defense agreements with it's former pact members.
As European countries have integrated their defense into NATO, it's likely then that the solution is a more a European lead NATO equivalent. Some might think this is a good thing.
Good.
The faster they fuck right off, the better.
Just as we saw with the war in Yemen, actually countries in the Middle East don't need the US to start wars. They can do it on their own. It's long time since the Middle East was a playing ground for the two Superpowers ...or earlier the victors of WWI, France and UK.
A genocide enabled and supported by US arms and money.
Quoting ssu
All the more reason for the US to fuck right off forever.
:100: :up:
Lack of empathy as I expected...
Spanish government admits it will have to leave some Afghan refugees behind
“
Control? What control minister? You don't have any kind of "control" anymore...
Then they shouldnt have put the first domino brick upright in the first place. Why is a first stone put up? Because the western scientific capitalist technological way of living is the best? Imposing it with the very products (high-tech weaponry, potentially able to wipe out of existence every culture in one fucking flash)? Which has already been done with a lot of cultures who just wanted to be left alone. Not only by the US (in fact the US offers in principle a safe haven for all of these and thats what I like about the US; but... thats all nice in theory...but in practice it seems this is not the case...as far as I can tell, because Im no part of that great (in principle and not ment ironic) country) but by all "civilized" countries who were in search of the new world (in accordance with the Enlightenment imperative to discover endlessly). They imposed their way brutally (like before not too long Aborigal children in Australia were taken away from their children to educate them "properly").
https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-failed-afghan-drone-campaign-against-taliban
I read a piece about how the MSM, in a rush to prove they could be critical of both sides, are making more out of this than is necessary. It's actually going swimmingly well, considering you are closing down a war zone. So far. Knock on wood.
Do notice that I was questioning the reasoning itself.
Let's not forget, intervention and the now so-hated "nation building" worked in the Balkans. Bosnia is peaceful. Croatia is peaceful. And so on. Now how many years would have that conflict which killed over 100 000 Europeans have gone on without the US taking charge.
The idea that any involvement in wars and crises is a doom attempt and will bring only more chaos and destruction is simply wrong. Especially UN operations can have been successful. They have been successful when the sides do agree in principle to have peace, yet have trouble to find the trust needed. The most successful operations are usually then one's people have never heard of.
Let's think about for example UNTAG, the operation in Namibia when the country finally got it's independence:
Were the Superpowers behind this? Oh yes:
Result? No news from Namibia, which is good news. The country has been quite peaceful since then. Just compare how difficult it has been for it's northern neighbor, Angola.
So some times these things work...
Nice answer, to begin with! Thanks! (ooooh, that damned phone! Ten times I dialed fthanks!). Yes you are right that it can bring chaos and war. And there are situations where its better. One has to be careful though not to introduce western democracy too fast. The whole face of the Esrth is virtually filled with that (which started in ancient Greece(. If thiss democracy means equal opportunities to live a full fledged culture than its allright.
It's not about speed. It's about having some sanity in what your objectives are and taking into account the objectives of the participants.
Let's talk about the insanity in the Afghan policy, the true madness here:
Perhaps the madness in Afghanistan is best seen how delusional some commentators are on the role the US played. Because the idea that "The US came just to hunt Al Qaeda and after the Osama was killed, the US should have walked away and not gone with the nation-building humbug." is really insane. Unfortunately some people don't see the insanity.
Let's make a thought experiment. Assume that homicidal Narco leader with close ties to the Mexican government gets so angry for some reason at the US that he orders and some in his narco organization to make a hideous terror attack in the US.
The US then responds with vowing to hunt the narco leader down and because he is so close to the Mexican government, the government has to go also. And just in case, the US attacks Mexican armed forces to destroy their combat capability. After all, they are untrustworthy. Then the US send combat forces to hunt down the narco leader and his organization and while doing it, why not all the drug organizations. War on drugs, you know. And a new Mexican government is installed with Mexicans that have made their life in Washington, so they are trustworthy and fluently speak English. Because, that's more easy.
Then after few years the narco leader is finally caught hiding in an outdoor lavatory and killed. Yet the violence, the bombings and US troops being killed doesn't stop. So the US politicians get frustrated why this is so.
Finally they make a peace deal with the "narcos" and the "remnants of the old Mexican government" and promise to leave Mexico only with the condition that they promise not to attack the US. As it was only this homicidal psychopath that attacked the US in the first place, the Mexicans have problem to give such assurances.
After this the new government put in place by the US quickly falls and seeks asylum and the old regime takes power again. And commentators in the US are horrified in that now the narcos have taken over Mexico and can attack the US. Because decades ago this insane m**f*cker of a narco leader did this hideous attack. And then there is a debate in the US where did things go wrong, and some say after killing the narco leader they should have left. That the US backed regime would have collapsed then also isn't remembered.
So let's just remember what George Bush really said in October 7th 2001:
To strike against military installations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime is an act of war. The US has been, right from the start, at war with the Emirate of Afghanistan. But this is conveniently forgotten. This is the madness, the hubris, to deny that the US has been in a 20 year war with a country and that the enemy has been, from start, the Taliban government.
This insanity isn't reality, it's just believing your own propaganda. It's like Soviet propaganda declaring literally in 1939 that the Red army will free the workers of Finland from their cruel oppressors and the Finnish proletariat will welcome them with open hands. The truth of course is that the Finnish proletariat fought for the "oppressors" just as everybody else did and the puppet regime got as far as a few kilometers inside Finland to declare themselves as the "rightful government of Finland".
(The Afghan president who fled the country, Ashraf Ghani, a Fullbright scholar, not only was in Berkeley and Johns Hopkins, but also even attended high school (Lake Oswego High School) in the 1960's. He basically made his career everywhere else than Afghanistan. And why not? Afghanistan a scary place!)
-- Tacitus
Thoughts? Would we see terrorist attacks again in our cities? I wish not... But it is true that the victory of Taliban over Afghanistan could give a lot of force to ISIS or other Islamic terrorists cells.
I think Afghanistan was an issue that all the "powers" would not care at all but now it is important just because the security system is trembling due to the amount of money and presence the emirate, DAESH or whatever Islamic organization is winning.
I do not care at all about politics and governments but people. Imagine being hurt or even die due to a terrorist attack because some incompetent asses did not solve anything after 20 years.
...American presence fucking up the region, and directly precipitating the rise of terrorism.
True but I guess there are other countries who are guilty. Remember the "bros" relationship between Aznar and Bush? Well this lead us in the terrorist attack of March 11th 2004. Despite this fact, Spain was still being there and probably we are a target again...
A lot of that happened. The Afghans have a nickname for all these expats who came back to Kabul to govern them after the US invasion: sag shui. It means "dog washers". I guess because in Afghan culture you don't wash dogs; they are impure by essence. Only a deeply Americanized 'Afghan' would have a pet dog, and wash it.
Remember that W only beat Al Gore by a couple of hundred hanging chads in Florida. WHat might have been, we'll never know, of course......
It's very well documented how Cheney and the neocons pushed for the war in Iraq.
I think the extreme hubris came from the fact that then there wasn't any other player that they had to anticipate countermoves from and the ease that Desert Storm had played out (let's remember that the US generals were anticipating many thousands of US casualties when pushing out Iraqi army from Kuwait). It all went to their head. And now you reap what they sowed.
Quoting Wayfarer
You would have still gone in to Afghanistan. Madeleine Allbright, who had a prominent position in the Clinton/Gore team, admitted that they would have gone in too.
But this outcome still then could have been avoidable. Intervening in the Yugoslav civil war was rather successful.
That's interresting. Albright was always someone I had respect for. And agree that the Yugoslav intervention was more successful. Still I think the hubris of the Bush neo-cons was disastrous. It was far too macho, too aggreived, too driven by rage. Unlike others here, I don't see the USA as an evil power, but I do wish they could be better than what they often are.
I'm mostly anxious about the Afghan situation, aside from the dreadful humanitarian consequences, because I'm hoping against hope that the Democratic Presidency is successful. I think the USA's biggest threat by far is from within, and anything which benefits those internal enemies of democracy and the rule of law is a threat to world freedom.
Another word I learned today. I never read the word "giddy" until today. In my language means mareado.
Yes, I also feel giddy due to this meltdown press and media of Afghanistan when they did not care in the last 20 years.
Quoting Maw
You probably just drank too much coffee.
Yes, but as I've pointed out earlier, you had a lot of same Republicans that managed the Gulf War quite decently: objectives were met, UN and Soviet Union showed green light, not only NATO participation, but a large coalition of muslim countries participated (even Syria). Above all, the US listened to it's Arab allies and didn't invade Iraq.
So basically during "dad" Bush, everything seemed to be "normal". Same actors were rational. Then it changed. Then somehow what earlier was brushed off as "would be a quagmire" became the line that "Iraqis would greet the US with open arms". The small cabal of neocons simply took the center stage and the more thoughtful and cautious US diplomacy and foreign policy was thrown out.
And I think once the boat veered off and the US invaded Iraq, nobody could put it back anymore to the earlier route. The train wreck has happened. And it's only getting worse.
Now with US servicemen being killed in Kabul among with Afghan civilians, for example.
The goal was to democratize the whole middle east starting with Iraq. It was supposed to build into a democracy snowball the way it apparently did in SE Asia.
No snowball.
That apparently happened when the US left SE Asia (Vietnam and Thailand etc.) Even if, we have to admit, they have been in South Korea (and Japan) all the time.
(The US in South Korea)
Sure. The plan was never to occupy the middle east. It was just: kill Saddam and run, leaving behind Vietnam on the Tigris. This was Wolfowitz's plan.
I know it must be hard for some people, perhaps like yourself, to understand that there are people out there who are sincerely happy for the conclusion of a "forever war" that was unjustifiable in the first place.
There's really something wrong with the "Blob", the Foreign Policy establishment of the US.
The US has a vibrant conservative streak. Bush appealed to that, I guess.
Quoting ssu
Lack of experience probably.
Well, seeing that America is holding Afghanistan's foreign reserves, cash will probably start being a problem pretty soon. And if I'm not mistaken, Afghan currency is printed in England :smile:
But I think the whole thing is a huge intelligence failure on the part of the West (i.e., US & UK).
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Taliban start taking hostages ....
I think there is and ought to be experience. Yet it simply doesn't matter. Those deciding don't have the experience, even if the establishment has collective knowledge.
Yes, the US lacks the long term planning as China, but in the end the Foreign Policy is quite similar if the political rhetoric is put aside and real policy decisions and actions are viewed. Notice how Obama continued the war on terror of Dubya Bush. And how when it came to Afghanistan, Biden continued with the Trump surrender (called a peace deal) with the Taliban. Trump bitched about many things, but in the end actual policy implementation was quite the same, excluding the Doha peace deal.
When you listen to Foreign policy analysts or the people that ought to know, they do know. Yet the closer they come to the TV media discourse, the less do they talk the same lines. Domestic policy or the political debate in the US simply brushes away any smart thinking.
The message is dumbed down to few punchline that actually don't make sense (if you have an idea of the reality), but sounds good for the ignorant. Then this punchline becomes policy.
Please keep in mind that were in the final stages of the 20 year war. The fact that ISIS-K is now some blip on the radar is interesting.
It's the same over there. Unfortunately we took out the last man made the trains run on time.
:up: It's an opportunity for the Taliban to show they are capable of adulting. Hopefully we weren't the only ones to learn a lesson. They suffered WAY more than we did over the last 20 years, and they know that if another 9/11 happens we won't worry about nation-building next time.
I have ideas about what the Iraq invasion was about, but I'm just a tiny ant on an anthill, so who knows? I think the ant colony perceived that somebody had stepped on the hill in 2001 and door flung open that most likely would have remained closed otherwise.
Was it too much? Was it not enough? Was it even close to addressing the problem that led to the disappearance of the world trade center and a hole in the pentagon?
It's interesting that you bring up China. If we examine the way they deal with Muslim extremism, it's absolutely abhorrent to the average American. But sallying forth with a bunch of bombers is just fine? Different values, for sure.
Yet the war was actually the Global War on Terror, which Afghanistan was only part of. Notice that you have fought that war also Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Niger. And so on...
So withdrawal from Afghanistan (and hence the Afghan mujaheddin can claim victorious about both Soviet Union and the USA) will surely boost the moral of quite a few islamist groups. Not just ISIS-K, I assume.
You're painting with a broad brush. There are no active warzone's in Africa or South Asia...
If the political base of the right was still interested in the war in Afghanistan, then I'm sure we would still be there.
In fact, what has the Taliban achieved? What do they represent, and whom do they represent are interesting questions in my opinion.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4724/the-war-on-terror
Ssu is the main contributor to it, thankfully
...and a guest, Stephen Wertheim.
In the introduction there's discussion of the notion that Afghanistan isn't a country so much as a gap between countries; a space between empires, defined by its boundaries, by what is outside of it, rather than what is inside it.
There's lots more in the podcast worth discussing, but here's a start.
:meh: Seems kinda like an imperialist take to me, where 'country' = 'centralized system which can be taken over easily by an invading power'. Don't like it at all as you've described it. That Afghanistan isn't an colonial-invasion-friendly country doesn't make it 'not a country' and just 'an empty space between countries'.
There's an argument to be made that the very idea of a 'country' is the kind of thing imposed on nations and communities all the better for empires to bat around at will, but that doesn't sound like what's at stake here.
But I'll listen to it if I have time.
Almost a perfect answer! :heart:
I spent most of my reading budget this year reading about state-formation and the contingency and fragility of the state-form so yes, very much so, and this is pretty uncontroversial except to those for whom history began in 1648. Most anti-colonial struggle is a struggle over geographic individuation among other things. Even your own comment - "Afghanistan is ungovernable" is of a piece with imperialist rhetoric. No, Afghanistan is perfectly governable, it's just not governable by a centralized state-system which would like to impose governance from above (at least, not governable very well by such a system).
Also, all individuation is political, which is the first thing anyone talking about individuation should know. Which rules out all of analytic philosophy quite nicely.
Taliban have captured more than 100 military helicopters
Jesus Christ the instinctive rhetoric people use to talk about Afghanistan is so fucking poisoned by colonialist bullshit.
And of course, if the choppers were so unimportant that they could just be dumped in the hands of terrorists, this tells you that their only function were as units for wealth transfer to arms manufacturers. What actually happens to them is completely irrelevant because the money has already changed hands, and that was the only purpose of the Afghan business venture.
The US invaded Afghanistan on behalf of Russian helicopter manufacturers?
Agreed. Now that Afghanistan failed as worldwide business nobody would care about women and kids living in Kabul. It is so disgusting how the "powerful" countries will leave a lot of citizens there dying or starving. What a failure.
That comes out in the Minefield podcast.
Quoting StreetlightX
:razz:
Actually, that is the conclusion to which analytic philosophy leads.
As long as I get my percentage, I don't care what's moving to whom. Sounds about right.
Never heard of Boko Haram in Nigeria? Or the Benghazi attack in Libya and the present situation in the country? Or Al-Shabaab in Somalia? Or about Nusrat al-Islam, the Al Qaeda branch in Mali?
Africa does have warzones and Islamist terrorist groups. US Special Forces personnel have died there in combat in Niger. Mali, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya continue to have quite active insurgencies. (And do notice in the map it's "counterterrorism training" Indonesia.)
If we assume that the "Global War on Terror" has ended, let's look at reporting from this year 2021 just what it is like in other places than
Here's a good report from Iraq. Now Biden is happy with Iraq. Somehow the model was accepted in Iraq, but not in Afghanistan. That model is that a small contingent of US forces gives intel and training to local forces and also air support. As the armed forces are trained to fight as the US forces, they rely on US air support. Iraqi leadership want US combat troops to be withdrawn, but likely the US personnel interviewed (or their counterparts) won't be leaving the country anytime soon:
And then Somalia. Trump withdrew US forces from Somalia. Yet the airbase in Djibouti is quite active. The withdrawal is seen as a victory by Al-Shabaab.
Then there is Mali. A country that was nearly captured by Islmamists (after Libya collapsed to anarchy) and a rapid French military intervention put the islamists on the defense. In Here's a documentary, again from this year, of British troops being sent to the war torn country.
That's only three countries that aren't in the news. There are more: Syria, Libya, Nigeria etc. So in all, the Global War on Terror is quite active; alive and kicking. Even if people don't know it anymore.
https://themountain.news/news/american-drone-strike-murders-ten-afghan-civilians-six-children
Americans braying about 'women and children' need to shut the fuck up forever.
:100: Over the last 20 years we have spun up an operation that many people don't know about. T's are waking up in the middle of the night with their throats slit. Heads are mysteriously exploding into a pink mist. You can't go out and take shit without wondering if a three foot missile is going to turn that boulder into 10k pieces of granite shrapnel. Any time, any place. You spend so much time on counter-intel and hiding that you can't plan ops; especially ops across the ocean with the Great Satan. It's a good thing.
Biometrics tracking, humint, it's gotten so much better than the Cold War days. Can it come home and be used against us? Let's hope not. But the private sector can pay so much more than service pay. We rely on honor, honesty, courage and humility to protect us from ourselves. Call it the Deep State or whatever you want, but it's better than having a wild card running the show.
If the exploding heads spaw ferocious red blood in the light of an evening lantern, spewing its light in ignorant staticity into the mist, then the image conjured up is a delightful one! Especially in slomo. So let's look for some fresh heads to explode, a lantarn, and an old filmcamera. And a mist machine. Heavy conceptual art, imitating life. ?
~ a mujahideen saying of captured Taliban fighters
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5652282001
This is a fun group.
"said Masoud Andarabi, who was the Interior Minister under former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, in a Twitter post."
I would not put it past the Taliban. Then again, there will be all kinds of "news" rolling out from the former gubmn't and various parties.
Well, hopefully they'll put a sane government together soon.
:pray: I worry about the boys, girls and women. But it's out of my control.
Yep.
Right, torturing children is very very bad, but what makes men a more tolerable victim of The Taliban and Islamic State than women?
Rory Stewart, Former Secretary of State for International Development of the United Kingdom, is one of the people who have gotten it right for a long time is here talking with Dr Greg Mills, Dr David Kilcullen, adviser to Secretary Condi Rice and General David Petraeus. I would recommend listening to the whole debate. It may be so that the Biden gave more reason for the War on Terror going on for a decade more.
Stewart (starting from 28min 42s) makes the correct conclusion that basically the politicians (and generals in the case of Afghanistan) aren't in the job of describing reality, but are there to sell a story, either pump up the moral and win support home. Talking about the reality on the ground and about realistic goals, that at best Afghanistan could be like Pakistan, wouldn't simply have cut it. Hence crazy optimism takes over and the discourse is totally lacking realism. Why so? In my view what likely happens that this propaganda, repeated over and over by so many of the leaders turns those implementing policy to think that this is the reality. Hence lofty goals turn into actual policy implementation on the ground.
This explains why from the naive optimistic "we are turning the page" outlook in the Afghan discourse earlier and also why Biden has gone to extreme opposite describing Afghanistan as a failed caused and a forever war. Biden's approach is natural as he wants people not to understand what an embarrassing policy failure he (and Trump) have done. He has to repeat and repeat this line that nothing else could have been done in Afghanistan for the midterms. Again, the only issue here is the American voter. What other effects this line has in the US foreign relations doesn't matter at all. Unfortunately, there are broad consequences.
Former national adviser and general H.R.McMaster has called the phenomenon "strategic narcissism". This happened, which I agree, because of seeing the end of the Cold War as a victory for the US and the easy success in the liberation of Kuwait. McMaster writes (in 2020):
Those that remember (the neocon) Francis Fukuyama and the "end of History" argument, will notice that McMaster is totally correct above. McMaster continues:
(As McMaster wrote this last year, his forecast proved correct: the war continued ...and now the Afghan government lost)
When you combine Rory Stuart's and H.R. McMaster's insights, the madness in Afghanistan starts to make sense ...as madness can be understood. Selling the agenda to a leery domestic audience, be it the Congress or the US voter, gives the incentive. To believe the rhetoric, to justify the rhetoric, you need that strategic narcissism. Events in the past created the hubris that lead to actions that brought us here.
Nothing, other than they have a better capacity to fight back. In the U.S. we pride ourselves on having taken control of our own destiny and, while we have some sympathy for the victims of oppression, we also expect them to fight for their rights. We even go so far as to help them. Even nation building. Even spending countless dollars and the blood of our own. Sometimes this goes un-appreciated and those we try to help just cut and run.
I can understand that. As a boy I often thought that had I been around for the Civil War I would have cut out for the wide open spaces of the American West. I could not fathom the idea of walking into a wall of fire from men entrenched and defending a position. Today, when I see people leaving Syria and now Afghanistan, I understand that too. Why stay in a shit hole of violence? But in the final analysis, if you love the land itself, sometimes you have to fight for it. If you don't, then leave and start over.
I'm not saying women can't fight, either. In hindsight we should have spun up a couple of division of Afghan Amazons full of blood-lust for Taliban religious zealots. But that ship has sailed. Besides, in looking at what we had to work with, that might have been a big ask. (I always wondered what the Taliban, et al, thought about the fact some of them had been, and they might be killed by a female American service person. I never knew a Taliban that I could ask. Hmmm.)
In the final analysis though, men are expected to fight or run or take their place among the women and children. I'm sure the Taliban will treat them accordingly.
Yes, that too. :grin:
I think those Amazons would need to be non-Muslims.
Most Afghans agree with Islamic law, which is why the Taliban enjoy broad support.
So long as no alternative religion or belief system is enforced, there can be no alternative to Islam.
The Taliban have their main bases in Pakistan, where the movement started.
When on the defensive, the Taliban retreat to Pakistan from where they can launch new attacks.
To defeat the Taliban militarily, you need to sort out Pakistan.
As there is no political will in the West to do any of the above, the problem cannot be solved in a western sense.
So if the Taliban won't tolerate the sound of a woman's voice on TV or the radio (from some dubious report I read), then there are a lot of women who agree with that?
I don't think that would allow us to say their oppression of women is right, it just would mean that practically speaking, our opinions don't matter because we have no will to surgically alter their culture.
Nobody says that the oppression of women is right. However, in Islam (as it used to be in Christianity) men are supposed to be in charge. If the majority of the population believes in Islam, then you cannot avoid giving men a larger share of authority and power, including over women.
And yes, it does mean that "practically speaking our opinions don't matter because we have no will to surgically alter their culture".
Don't forget that the British went into Afghanistan to keep the Russians out, and the western position has been motivated by geostrategic considerations ever since.
If we are serious about "liberating women from Islam" then we need to sort out Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. by enforcing a new religion or ideology.
But we are not doing that. If anything, we are trying to do it piecemeal and that allows for pockets of resistance leading to a backlash.
The fact is that the West is on the retreat everywhere, and China and Islam are on the rise even in the West.
And I think that's what China will do eventually. Islam will be gone as anything but a museum piece.
Correct. Islam has fanaticism, China has the intelligence, and the West has (nearly) given up.
With regard to Afghanistan, the Taliban don't even have a banking system. Their foreign reserves are sitting in New York and England is printing their currency.
Unless the Taliban want to return to the stone age, they will need to make some deal with the West, giving us some leverage.
However, they can equally turn to Russia and China in which case the West will have zero influence on anything ....
Theyre supposedly funded by heroin sales. How do they manage that if their assets are in NY banks?
It's all just corruption on top of corruption, isn't it?
Even Latin American gangsters fund themselves with cocaine. But they are not running a country. They are just buying themselves expensive cars, yachts, girlfriends, and guns.
However, to have a proper economy you need more than selling opium or whatever. You need a banking system with a central bank, foreign reserves, corresponding banks in other countries, etc. Otherwise you have no credit and investment and no economy.
This is where the West may get a chance to gain some influence. So we've got to wait and see. Unless Biden has some idea, which I tend to doubt :smile:
The Taliban are funding themselves with opium/heroin, not the Afghan state.
The Afghan state is a separate issue. Until now it has been receiving Western aid amounting to 43 percent of its GDP.
That has now been suspended.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/27/afghanistan-taliban-economy-aid-sanctions-united-states-west/
The Taliban government may not last more than a few weeks or months without foreign assistance. The question is who will assist and buy some influence ....
It would be funny if Russia takes it over after all this time. Did they just want it for the port access?
Very funny. :smile:
England was a maritime empire. The British wanted to keep the Russians out of India and the Indian Ocean that was "their" water.
Of course, the Russians will now try to get in and so will China. It will be interesting to see how the Taliban are playing their cards.
Either way, I think western liberalism is beginning to look like a failed system.
How so?
The anti-abortionists are trying to take ground from which they'll latter stage an invasion. It's an invasion that couldn't happen without the complicity of the women of Texas.
Vote like an idiot, pay the price.
Interesting. European Union is offering 600M € to avoid the refugees and keep them on Turkey, Pakistan or India.
Thoughts? Is this immoral?
:up:
Well, western liberalism teaches that men are worthless racists and misogynists and all that matters is refugees, elephants, rhinos, and polar bears.
China and Islam think otherwise, and they appear to be winning.
This raises the question as to which system wins in the end? One that makes self-criticism into a cult or one that is more self-confident and knows what it wants and that gets what it wants at all costs?
The war in Afghanistan is a clash of ideological systems that may suggest an answer.
This is simply correct, what's the problem?
:up:
:100:
I don't see how it could be "immoral."
By definition, a refugee is someone fleeing from a war zone to which he is supposed to return once the conflict is over.
So I think it makes sense for refugees to go to neighboring countries from where they can return home any time. Plus, those countries also are culturally closer to the refugee population than is Europe.
Yes, I am agree with you. I think the principle objective is keep them on countries closer to their culture. But I guess that is somehow immoral that those countries would not do anything to help them out without money...
I think that in a situation where there is a conflict of cultures and ideologies, the more self-confident ones will tend to have better chances of asserting themselves, as demonstrated by Afghanistan where the Taliban have beaten the USA .... :smile:
I see what you mean. Good point. Those countries tend not to like refugees any more than the West does. Or if they take them, they make the West pay for it.
And, of course, most of the cash invariably goes into the wrong pockets ....
Maybe we (all of humanity) should drop the term "refugee" and just call them what they are and will be: "Immigrant." What % are going back, want to go back, and, finally, will the reason they left ever ameliorate?
Immigrant is a dirty word (more so than refugee) for some folks. Better to rip off the scab now instead of letting them think these people are going back. Granted, they are going to scream and pull their hair anyway, but might as well give them the bad news now and get it over with.
Don Quixote could have used a little more self criticism. You need more Latin food in your diet.
This actually is a primary reason why the house of cards fell down. All the money poured into Afghanistan made it simply totally impossible for the Afghan nation with it's own revenues to support such a large bureaucracy.
It's actually a similar thing the pro-Soviet administration of Afghanistan faced. They could keep out the mujahideen from the cities and fight the war and upkeep the administration until the Soviet Union collapsed and no money was sent into the country.
I think Don Quixote had plenty of Latin food but, apparently, it did not help.
Or, perhaps, he had too much of it .... :smile:
Which is just: who will adapt to climate change most successfully?
Correct. Western liberalism (and any developed society in general) is an extremely costly project that can only be sustained with massive injections of cash from outside without a strong economy.
You can run a guerrilla war on opium plantations but not a country. So, Afghanistan was a bottomless black hole to throw billions into.
If you are serious about solving the problem, you introduce a more civilized culture or religion, build the economy, and put your political system in place after you've done that. Otherwise, you are building a house of cards and are kidding yourself just like it happened in Iran, Iraq, etc.
After WW2, Europe tried to impose socialism on the Mid East and North Africa from the top down. The result was that Islamic resistance started to form and it all ended in a huge anti-Western backlash.
I understand your point. Yes, they are immigrants but when they have the special condition of refugee the rest of the states are forced to help them out because they are leaving due to political or civil war issues. If we erase the refugee term we have to be aware that all of the persons from broken countries will no longer be protected anymore.
True. All of the European money goes to corrupt politicians in those countries. But what really surprises me is the fact that Erdogan does not want money neither refugees... What is he trying to? I guess geopolitical strategy towards Russia.
That's paella... I hate it as a Mediterranean dish :lol: Here I show you a good Latin dish we can share and probably Don Quijote liked it:
No one. Global warming means Latin America, Africa, and India will migrate further and further north. What will happen after that, no one can tell.
:up: Eso si. That's more like it.
Jamon iberico de bellota, my favorite. And it will keep the Taliban away, too! :grin:
This is so true.
I think the former Afghan vice-President is back at his comfort zone when fighting now the Taliban as an insurgent in Panshjir Valley.
Quoting Apollodorus
Quoting frank
Quoting Apollodorus
This is, bluntly speaking, crazy talk. AS IF we could surgically alter their culture. AS IF we could enforce a new religion or ideology. I would much prefer that right-wing fundamentalist Islam to
disappear, along with all other right-wing fundamentalist religious practice. But...
Crushing foundational religion in our own society, let alone in Afghanistan, would require a super-commitment, total control, a couple of centuries at least, and more money than there is. Further, we would have to be an authoritarian dictatorship like China to pull this off. Or, better, the intervention of enlightened aliens like in Arthur C. Clark's Childhood's End.
Maybe just nuke the lot of them?
Quoting Apollodorus
Description for the poor American?
China creates large re-education camps where they electrocute people with cattle prods until they repeat the Chinese perspective correctly. Then they do the same kind of job placement they did during the glorious revolution, or whatever it was where they mangled their own culture into a giant gaping wound
How is changing culture "nuking" them?
What I'm saying is that regime change doesn't work without culture change.
We did that in Germany after WW2, but we are no longer prepared to do that. So, we are kidding ourselves whilst someone is making billions of dollars in the process.
And it isn't you or me. Or the Afghan people ....
Jamón Ibérico is a Spanish dish which comes from the pig's leg. We season it at special stables. The prices of these pieces (depending on the pig's race) could be around 1.000 or 5.000 €. But this luxury food are only bought by the Japanese :sad:
You don't look poor to me. But here's the description:
Jamon iberico - Wikipedia
Basically, the pigs are allowed to roam around in oak forests and feed naturally on acorns, chestnuts, etc.
Just don't let the Taliban find out .... :smile:
:up:
Glad that we can have lived for so long in peace with other cultures, I guess.
It may be produced largely for export. But you don't need to be Japanese to enjoy it. :smile:
Germany was/is an archetypically western culture. Their Fascist episode was within the outer limits of the western tradition. Once thoroughly defeated by the Allies in 1945, the Germans returned to their normal national behavior.
Jamon iberico does sound superb. But most of us have to put up with less delicious mass-produced and overly wet ham. What is the etymology of "Jamon"? "Ham" comes from Old English, meaning back of the knee, or thigh.
They were under military occupation for ten years, divided into Eastern (Russian communist) and Western (US capitalist) zones, and subjected to systematic propaganda and brainwashing. Nothing "normal" about it IMO.
I think "jamon" is from French "gambon/jambon" (“ham”), from "gambe" (“leg”) and apparently cognate with English "ham".
jamón - Wiktionary
For the Taliban to have this kind of military success there must be substantial popular support. But here is an interesting perspective on the situation:
I was a combat interpreter in Afghanistan, where cultural illiteracy led to U.S. failure – Washington Post
That article is behind a paywall, but I can't imagine the basic idea.
Sometimes the bigger political beast takes precedence over treating humans like humans. I wonder if that's true everywhere.
I paid nothing to read it. Just click the "FREE" option on the left and close the ad window.
I think I read my allotment of free ones this month. They want cash. I have a subscription to the NY Times and the WS Journal, or I'd get the subscription.
Because Afghanistan falls within their presumed geographical "sphere of influence". Every superpower eventually feels compelled to define it's sphere of influence, over which it asserts a paternalizing authority. The U.S. did way back in 1823, with the so-called "Monroe Doctrine". China might view this as it's chance to better define it's sphere of influence. The question is, what might India, itself a burgeoning regional power, have to say about this, especially with Bharatiya Janata in control? Remember, that Proto-Hinduism (Vedic religion) originally entered the subcontinent with those Indo-Aryan tribes, proceeding from the region of Afghanistan, which in a sense makes that region a homeland, a kind of urheimat, for Hindus just as much as is the Swat valley. Besides that, many ancient Indian empires, I think including the Nanda and Maurya Empires, controlled the region of Afghanistan. For such reasons, India might feel some right to defend that region against any Chinese presumption of authority. A China-India conflict would have interesting ramafications, to say the least. If nothing else, such a possibility might give China pause.
Basically, it is saying that the West not only failed to bring any positive changes to Afghan culture but completely failed to understand the locals and turned them against the West:
This, of course, is not surprising as the military is not an institution designed for nation building.
Anyway, after 20 years out of government, it is doubtful the Taliban are able to run the country. With the banks closed, and the state unable to pay its employees, public services can collapse and civil unrest can start any time ....
Well, they'd be dead, mostly -- a major change.
Not only that, but China is aiming to build an economic corridor through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to Iraq and other Mid East countries where it can get its hands on oil fields.
China's "debt-trap diplomacy" entails making large loans to small countries in exchange for influence over their economy and politics.
See for example the case of Montenegro (Southeast Europe) where the government has bought into a Chinese-financed road construction project:
Montenegro learns true cost of China-backed $1 bn road to nowhere - France 24
Basically, a form of economic banditry ...
1. Never treat non-state actors like a state;
2. Never treat a non-state actor like a soldier.
China can use their proxy Pakistan to try to calm things down in Afghanistan. Then if there is peace or let's say enough stability, then the Chinese can make those investments to mine for raw materials. They don't have to worry about Western competition, that's for sure.
(And Chinese military bases? Very few of them. Basically they have one in Djibouti.)
The US did a lot of that. I wonder if China picked up the technique from the US or if it was convergent evolution.
Of course they did. This is what they founded the World Bank, the IMF, and other financial institutions for.
But you are right, the Chinese are quick learners and they have carefully studied the modus operandi of the British and Americans. They are highly intelligent, disciplined, and focused. They know what they want and they'll get it. They are like a larger and more lethal version of Nazi Germany. And because their main method of warfare (at least for now) is economic, it is very difficult if not impossible to stop them.
In a way, yes. At least they don't outlaw music.
Better late than never.
Last year, retired Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commanded American forces in Afghanistan in 2013 and 2014, joined the board of Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s biggest defense contractor. Retired Gen. John R. Allen, who preceded him in Afghanistan, is president of the Brookings Institution, which has received as much as $1.5 million over the last three years from Northrop Grumman, another defense giant. David H. Petraeus, who preceded Allen and later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for providing classified materials to a former mistress and biographer, is a partner at KKR, a private equity firm, and director of its Global Institute.
The generals who led the mission [in Afganistan] — including McChrystal, who sought and supervised the 2009 American troop surge — have thrived in the private sector since leaving the war. They have amassed influence within businesses, at universities and in think tanks, in some cases selling their experience in a conflict that killed an estimated 176,000 people, cost the United States more than $2 trillion and concluded with the restoration of Taliban rule."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/04/mcchrystal-afghanistan-navistar-consulting-generals/
WoMeN aNd ChIlDrEN.
:100:
I think Europe is the last place to understand this. Already Middle Eastern "allies" of the US are totally doing their own policies.
Next question: What will happen in Iraq?
Again there the situation is quite mad with parts of the Iraqi Army, the Shia militias, being hostile towards the US. Again the result of the actions of Trump (btw).
* * *
Here is in my view one of the best documentaries about the war in Afghanistan done in 2013, "This is what winning looks like". The meltdown of the Afghan Army is quite understandable after seeing documentaries like this. It really shows how badly the war was going even then. One of the excellent Vice-documentaries, when the news media was young and independent.
Pakistan's objectives are clear, if not perhaps obtainable. Yet as usual, the US wasn't interested in them (who cares to think about what other nations intend) and hence the defeat in Afghanistan.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
"Zeeshan Aleem: Was there a significantly better way to withdraw from Afghanistan?
Anand Gopal: Well, there was and there wasn't.
There was a better way to do it if Washington faced certain hard ground truths. What would have been the better way was if the U.S. government had secured a deal with the Taliban that began a process of transfer of power to them, while the U.S. was still in the country. But that would have meant completely undermining the Afghan government to do that; it would've meant recognizing the Afghan government, basically, is a creation of the U.S. entirely, and has no real legitimacy on the ground. So that would've been a pretty major paradigm shift, almost a greater paradigm shift than just simply cutting and running, I think.
What the U.S. did is kind of buy into its own fiction that the Afghan government was somehow a sovereign actor.
Because the way the Afghan government is structured is that almost all of the funding, something like 80 percent of its revenue, comes from international sources. This is what political scientists call a rentier state. It's a state that owes its very existence to foreign aid, so it's not a really sustainable state whatsoever. It's a creation of Washington and elsewhere.
What the U.S. did is kind of buy into its own fiction that the Afghan government was somehow a sovereign actor and try to treat it as such. So how they sequenced the withdrawal was, "We're going to have a deal with the Taliban, and one of the conditions of that is that the Taliban are going to have to talk to the Afghan government to come to a peace deal."
But why would the Taliban talk to a government that's not a sovereign entity, that has no real stake on the ground? The U.S. should've recognized that and used that leverage over the Afghan government to force the Afghan government and the Taliban to come to a deal before they withdrew. And I think, if they had done that — or, at least, if not come to a deal, come to some sort of mechanism that would've been better than what we see now — that could've also bought time for more orderly withdrawal, especially for all the Afghans who helped the U.S. and want to leave and things like amnesty measures [for people who worked with the U.S. or served in the Afghan government]."
Female Afghan students stopped by Taliban on way to Dubai
[sup]— Camilla Alcini, Somayeh Malekian · ABC · Aug 24, 2023[/sup]
:/
A bit of mass hysteria, too:
Taliban Suspend Swedish Activities in Afghanistan Over Quran
[sup]— Ayaz Gul · VOA · Jul 11, 2023[/sup]
Afghanistan was a real tragedy.
First, perhaps it would have been too much to ask from any US administration (Dem or GOP) simply not to attack Afghanistan, but simply use the FBI (as it had done in the first Twin Tower bombings). So there is the FIRST horrible tragedy: the American voters wanted revenge, and a police matter would be a weak-dick move from a Superpower with the largest armed forces that was capable of invading a land locked country on a different continent.
Secondly, once when the country had been occupied (on reasoning far less sound or logical than the domino theory), the objective would have been then to win the war. But it wasn't. US Presidents declaring that they are going to withdraw was the clearest sign of winning the war simply by waiting time. And since the Taliban were terrorists, the US couldn't win as the UK won the Boer war or Russia won the Chechen war by simply installing a turncoat Taliban leader as the president of Afghanistan and dividing the movement. Nope, the leader had to be American-Afghan with stellar career inside Washington.
The last tragedy was of course to totally leave the state that had been poured so much aid and training totally alone to face the Taliban with the Doha peacy (surrender treaty). As the Taliban werem't actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, they could easily agree to the terms of the US not to attack the US. And of course, they have kept that word to this day, which just clearly shows how insane the whole idea of being in Afghanistan for it not to become a terrorist safe haven was.
And because in the US only partisan issues are talked in the media, the silence about the whole train wreck is nearly total as an Republican President started this and a Democrat President followed this to the total collapse. With both of the two ruling parties being at fault here, there is no real discussion of just why it went so wrong.
Obviously people would prefer something else than a totalitarian dictatorship. You first had for a over an decade girls going to school and then that was stopped. That urban people in Afghanistan would have like to have a more prosperous Afghanistan that would be part of the World is obvious too.
But the Emirate is limping along (a documentary from Al Jazeera):
Three large earthquakes have destroyed Herat province. Between 1,000 and 1,294 people died. Fortunately, some countries pledged to help and give money. For example: Australia pledged AU $1 million in aid to the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund. The European Union approved a €3.5 million aid package too. Better than nothing, and I appreciate how some governments act with 'solidarity' in a country where most of them were there for twenty years. 2023 Afghanistan earthquakes
Do you know how much money the U.S. spent on helping Afghanistan in the recovery after the earthquakes? Zero. After being there for nearly 20 years, they value Afghanistan as zero. Nothingness. Emptiness.
Antony Blinken said: 'The United States is carefully tracking the impact of yesterday’s earthquake in northwestern Afghanistan. Our humanitarian partners are responding with urgent aid in support of the people of Afghanistan.'
Can't believe that they are ready to dry out the Federal Reserve for a country they have never been there - Ukraine - and they don't care about Afghanistan when it has been a key factor in their war against Al-Qaeda in the last decades...
It's almost like these actions are governed by convenient utilities rather than any kind of value commitment.
I agree, and I can't really know to what extent Zelensky is aware that, sooner or later, the U.S. and European Union will leave them there, not caring any more. A supposed admission to the EU is just a cherry-picking act.
"We" meaning NATO and the West left once the US decided to leave. Not that the issue was discussed with us, actually.
Yet, Afghanistan hasn't provided a safe haven for terrorists to plan and make attacks on the US.
Remember:
That was the reason given for the longest war in US history. Because if the US wouldn't be there, it would become a safe haven for terrorists.
All we can say, that the Taliban, sorry, now the Islamic Caliphate of Afghanistan has kept it's part of the peace deal with the US.
I am not angry about the indifference by the US to the new Caliphate - or whatever it is Afghanistan nowadays - but on the citizens and collaborators who helped us once. The fact that they are abandoned in the randomness of destiny is mithering me. They could be killed by the Taliban or by a natural disaster. An Afghan person is forced to live in continuous uncertainty.
Well, ask how the South Vietnamese feel.
The US isn't yet ready to have a discussion of how it basically lost the War in Afghanistan in the similar fashion as it lost South Vietnam.
After all, both reasons for the war were utterly bogus: After the fall of South Vietnam there was no "Domino Effect". Actually united Vietnam ended up being attacked by China! And with Afghanistan, where are those safe havens for terrorists planning to attack the US?
I agree.
Quoting ssu
Good question. It reminds me of the conspiracy theory of the hidden nuclear weapons in Bagdad. Bush said back then: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
The presumption that it always rings a bell...
That has been surprisingly not only debunked, acknowledged to have been wrong, but also accepted to have been a part of a campaign to have the war with Iraq. And actually the change in the discourse happened thanks to Trump, actually. Before there where even here in PF people that saw as their duty to defend President Bush with the half-truth "the intelligence given was faulty".
But the "we-are-in-Afghanistan-because-otherwise-it-will-become-a-terrorist-safe-have" absurdity was the official mantra given. In my view it is far more absurd and illogical than the domino theory during the Cold War.
It really, really made no sense. Even when they interviewed the very rare and few foreign fighters that actually had gone into Afghanistan and made it to fight alongside the Taleban, their answer to the question of what would they do if the Americans left was "We then would go home".
:up: