The War on Terror
We haven't had a 9/11 happen for almost 18 years now. So, the war on terror has that on its record. I don't hear of anymore American casualties from terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan due to our now reduced presence there. Mind you, Afghanistan was predominantly the causal factor for 9/11 due to the bright idea by the late Brzezinski to radicalize or create the Mujahedeen, who then formed the corpus of the Taliban. This all happened after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was a bad decision and simply an opportunity for Bush junior to expand American presence in the region, and access their oil reserves. That's about as much as I know about Iraq.
I have heard from my Afghan side of my family that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The government there seems to be in shambles. Do any Chomsky fans on this forum have more up to date and accurate information about how is life in Afghanistan currently? I suspect that the Taliban and American presence have prevented ISIS from infiltrating the country to any significant extent.
Anyway, how is the war on terror progressing? Are things getting better or worse? Is it mission accomplished for America?
I have heard from my Afghan side of my family that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The government there seems to be in shambles. Do any Chomsky fans on this forum have more up to date and accurate information about how is life in Afghanistan currently? I suspect that the Taliban and American presence have prevented ISIS from infiltrating the country to any significant extent.
Anyway, how is the war on terror progressing? Are things getting better or worse? Is it mission accomplished for America?
Comments (105)
Invading Iraq was doomed from the get go and I said so at the time. I said we did not have the required knowledge to effectively reorganize iraqi society. That turned out to be true in spades. We invaded, we disbanded the Iraqi armed forces, and left the country a sitting duck for disorder which spiraled out of control. It did nothing to quell the terror; indeed, it set the stage for worse to come.
Was Afghanistan a required player in the attack on the WTC? Weren't the main operatives Saudis? Did the pilots learn to fly in Afghanistan? No. Maybe the terrorists trained in effectively deploying violence -- it seems like Afghanistan would be a good place to practice.
Does the Theater of Security being conducted at airports prevent terrorists from operating? It might keep people from getting on planes with explosives in their shoes and underwear, but there are other ways to blow up a plane. Airport drama has not/could not prevent the various attacks in France, UK, Spain, Norway, Germany, and US that have happened since 2001.
I'm far more worried about non-terrorist loyal Americans running around with guns, legal and not and shooting up bars, cafes, concerts, high schools, et al. With loyal citizens like ours, who needs terrorists?
9/11 won't happen again (I predict). Trucks mowing down people gathered for events are much more likely to happen. Explosives will probably come into play again. Gunfire, of course. Maybe something biological will be tried (already has been with anthrax and ricin (Japan).
The war on drugs and the war on terrorism are both sham operations which set up new profit making operations.
My memory is a bit fuzzy on the matter; but, I believe Afghanistan was the home turf for where Osama Bin Laden was radicalized via what Brzezinski orchestrated (I know he fought together with the Mujahideen against the Soviets). He did that and after the Soviets were defeated or withdrew, he next aimed at America. He took the Mujahedeen ideology and turned it into jihadism via Al Qaeda.
As to why almost all of the suicide bombers on 9/11 were Saudis is a mystery to me. They seem to have also been radicalized in Afghanistan or elsewhere (Pakistan?).
I don't remember a lot about the Soviet / Afghan war. Thanks for added info. I should probably reread some coverage from back then
Afghanistan has never been truly conquered in it's history. Armies invade but can never make it work, the Soviet occupation failed and so will the American one.
My mind is drawn back to the crusades where Richard the lion heart was reluctant to take Jerusalem. He knew that it was easy as a military target but he also knew his people had no long term capability to stay there and rule the place. US policy today is quite similar to the crusader policies as I see it.
The crusaders occupied, fortified, ruled and then left all of their conquests within a few generations. The natives know this about us and only need to be patient. So little has changed since the Roman times.
Some of that is in the cyber realm these days. Have you ever been approached by a recruiter online?
Oh, wow. I've never been approached by anyone, thankfully. How about you?
This is what I would have done! I don´t know if it would have worked, but what was actually implemented did not work so...
I don´t think the war on drugs or on terror are shams, because they respond to very real phenomena such as the dangerous cárteles in Colombia, México, Venezuela...and Islamic terror started in the VII century and it is global. However, it is true that the strategies followed have not worked at all.
What book is that? Something spawned from the pits of hell?
Hmm. I haven't read too much from those authors. I'm thinking more along the lines, of treating those people with such contempt, which is ridiculous due to our own actions that spawned their existence.
That very likely is the truth. The war hasn't gone anywhere, for example this year the US and the small Afghani Air Force have dropped more bombs in Afghanistan than any other year of the war. And a lot of the country isn't controlled by the government.
Quoting Wallows
As the US Military can (or could) fight a low intensity insurgency in a land blocked country basically without no end in sight, there is no need for American politicians truly to think what the real objectives are and what would be "mission accomplished". No politician has to think about this war, that's the basic problem. Trump hasn't even visited Afghanistan or any other frontlines and can easily just lie about the situation.
Just think a little about the present reasoning for the US being in Afghanistan: The Americans are in Afghanistan because if left to it's own, those fighting the current government could overthrow the present government and possibly provide a safe haven for terrorists that want to attack mainland US.
Now think how many ifs there are in this reasoning. And notice that the reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with Afghan objectives or take them into account. Neither what Pakistan or any other country has on it's agenda for Afghanistan and/or for the overall region is given any thought. And this creates the huge SNAFU here: the current strategy and objectives are made just for the American domestic political scene and doesn't take into account the realities on the ground in Afghanistan. This is basically the same thing that is wrong with the War on Terror altogether, be it in Mali or Somalia, Yemen or Iraq.
I'm sorry to say this, but it appears the Afghans have had 20 years to get their act together and have been unable to do so. And now America has run out of patience is about to bail. It's sad, but it seems that in many parts of the world only the psychopaths can put together a stable government.
This is presumptuous. The reason is that of foreign affairs and interest (interference) in the region.
What's the reason (not a sole factor; but, factor(s)).
Unfortunately the Taleban regime gave a safe have to the wrong people and the war has dragged on. Now if Osama would have still been in Sudan, then naturally the US would have gotten itself involved with Sudan and invaded the African country, not Afghanistan.
It's interesting how parallels can be drawn to what happened in Syria fairly recently compared to Afghanistan.
Not just these two countries.
When some country disintegrates to civil war, there has been this lure historically (and still is) for other countries to get involved in the conflict to further their agenda and objectives and to back up their favorite side. Happened with DiegoT's Spain when it had it's civil war and happened in Africa with the First and Second Congo War with African countries picking their sides. Hence this is not only something that Great Powers do, but basically an universal phenomenon.
Why do countries do that? Hasn't it been demonstrated ad infinitum that this is simply the wrong strategy to implement in trying to accomplish a goal? Or is it a sound and successful strategy? I'm not quite sure if, in the long run, it's a sound strategy to implement.
Suppose Canada (which wasn't a country yet) had territorial designs on the United States back in the mid-19th century. Suppose they wanted to seize the northern tier of states (Oh, would that they had!!!). What better time to make a grab than at the Union's low point during our Civil War?
Sometimes, if you back the winning side of the war. Of course it's a delicate thing to handle as people in the intervened country can have a long memory.
When I break down the idea of a "war on terror" I read that we are essentially trying to eliminate that feeling of being 'terrorized' from our experiences of 9.11 here in America or the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.
From our own personal experiences we can point to an event that made us feel so vulnerable, so unsafe, so under personal attack that we are "terrorized" to the inner core of our beings.
That same place within us where our heart holds our family safe, our sacred pledge of worship is free to bare, our deep interpersonal connections with our friends are strong and by extension our community thrives.
Which makes it seem like an impossibility to remove, declare "war" on or try to wipe off the face of the Earth, a human need that resides in all of us. I realize it might sound hokey but what is being "terrorized" is our place of safety, security and inner peace, not the actual Twin Towers or the head office of a satirical news paper.
I guess what I am trying to say is that to think that a "war" on a human experience is something that can be "won" would be to believe in folly. ssu is right in that both parties have very long memories and so I ask, who drew first blood and what is the score?
If the first is the case, then one need only look at Europe to realize that terrorists have simply switched to an easier target which doesn't require one to cross hundreds of miles of ocean. In other words, Europe is reaping the "benefits" of America's war on terror.
If the second is the case, then I guess the 2015 Paris attacks would provide a counterargument. In fact, given how easy it is to attain weaponry (and turn common objects into them) I find it miraculous that attacks haven't been worse.
Some defense is necessary. What I think would be more effective at airports are more intelligence operatives looking for certain types of behavior. People removing their shoes, getting personally scanned, swabbing hands, and manual frisking (as pleasant as that is) is just plain nonsensical. It's theater.
Perhaps allowing more proactivity on the part of prosecutors would help: Terrorists are often on various watch lists. But prosecutorial proactivity can be a problem too. Certainly intelligence gathering directed toward detecting plots is necessary.
Otherwise, I think people do need to get on with their lives, knowing that they are most unlikely to be the victim of terrorism. Overestimating ones personal risk is easy to do, of course. There are many more likely risks which we live with quite comfortably.
So Merry Christmas, or Glad Yule, or reasonably satisfactory late December days--whatever works--and Happy New Year.
I think I'll start a thread about the irreconcilable differences between Islam and democracy or whether democracy can exist with respect to Islam. I have a paper in a book that I want to address in regards to the issue.
Like the communists had done in the Saur-revolution? They surely wanted to "modernize" Afghanistan. What better way to bring "modernization" than to kill the "Islamists" (as we would call them today):
Hence I would propose first knowing Afghan history and culture before issuing that they simply have to have a new national meta-narrative. Above all, the answers have to emerge from inside Afghanistan itself, not from foreigners that have fought a war in their country for decade and a half.
It seems to me that there is no apparent threat to US soil as far as my limited knowledge spans. Yet, Europe is experiencing a crisis in my view of immigration, domestic nativism, and terrorism.
Trump doesn't seem to care much about what's going on in Afghanistan, and given the short attention span of most Americans on these issues, then I don't think much willpower exists to change Afghanistan or Iraq for the better.
I'd ask @ssu to chime in again, out of my curiosity, just what is Pakistan's role in all this. I know that Syria imploded, and is the next Afghanistan, Africa is fucking experiencing a profound ideological shift...
It seems to me, that the War on Terror is failing (relatively speaking, if not for the US, then for the world, which Trump doesn't give a shit about), not winning. Am I correct on this or is this just me stating some random anecdotal opinion.
Side note, some members of my family are linguists for the military, and they're jammed up with work on the issue. I even considered learning some Pashtu and Farsi from my family and asking my uncle if he could hook me up.
And thoughts, opinions, or ideas on the issue?
Huge.
Even before looking at the video you posted (have to watch it later), it's a historical fact that the Pakistani ISI created the Taliban and, just like a classic intelligence service would do, burned the candle from both ends.
Yet first one has to understand Pakistan and it's military. The military in Pakistan is truly a nation in a nation and the political leadership has had trouble of controlling the military... apart when the military itself has been in power through a military junta. In the case of Pakistan you can indeed talk about a 'deep state'. Pakistan feels threatened from India and hence it's primary objective now is to keep India and Afghanistan apart. Some Pakistanis (like former dictator Zia ul-Haq) have also dreamed about a confederation of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Next issue is the the Durand line, the border between drawn by the British that divided the Pashtuns into two and a border area that Pakistan has had difficulties in controlling. The strategic reason why the US hasn't been able to tackle the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is that Pakistan has offered a safe haven for the Taliban. Now the US and Pakistan have been for long allies, yet the friendship has turned sour and neither country actually believes anymore in trying to have friendly relations or even keeping up an appearance of being allies.
Thanks. The follow up question deriving from the above is how close are Iran and Pakistan, and Russia must be watching from the sidelines but have no idea who they're rooting for?
Iran was the first country to recognize the independence of Pakistan and both countries were members of SEATO, the Asian version of NATO. When an insurgency started in Pakistan's Balochistan province in 1973 (that neighbors Iran), Iran gave military and monetary assistance to Pakistan. Yet when the Shah was overthrown and the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the relations went sour. The Shia/Sunni divide, which hadn't been a problem earlier, started to be a thorny issue in the relations.
(Picture: Young Shah Reza Pahlavi with Pakistani President Iskander Mirza. I don't know who or what they are planning to shoot in the picture)
The Islamic Republic of Iran didn't like at all that Pakistan created the Sunni Taleban and used this proxy to gain hold of Afghanistan. And Pakistan has been very close to Saudi-Arabia, which itself is the nemesis of Iran. Pakistan even had an armoured brigade in Saudi Arabia to defend the Kingdom and routinely the two countries have military excersizes.
Iran on the other hand has then sought closer ties to Pakistan's enemy, India. So basically the two countries are good friends with the others worst enemy. Yet the two countries try to improve relations especially with trade and they have an oil pipeline project also. Perhaps if the US puts Pakistan firmly on the "Axis-of-evil" camp (or whatever it is called today), then perhaps Iran and Pakistan will find each other because of necessity.
After all, the US foreign policy is such a trainwreck in the Middle East and Central Asia that past strong allies of the US will in the end up as it's most hated enemies.
(close ties, which Iran doesn't like)
As for Russia, the country has closer ties to Iran than Pakistan. For example, when in 2015 Russia attacked insurgents in Syria with cruise missiles shot from the Caspian Sea, Iran didn't mind the missile flying over it's territory, even if one of those missiles hit an Iranian mountain by accident. (See here)
Thank you for offering your deep and edifying knowledge on the subject. Are you by any chance a history teacher or more with government? Curiosity asks.
Warm regards.
International politics has always interested me. One might think that international politics is so far from ordinary life and events happening on the other side of the World don't effect you, but actually it isn't so. Actually World events do have an effect, but many simply don't notice it.
Cool. Economic history sure sounds interesting. I majored in economics too.
And, yes, so it seems to me really paradoxical how US interests are misaligned with competing interests in the Middle East. Is this just a feature of US democracy as to create chaos and then declare the need for policing?
Great. Economics is important.
Quoting Wallows
No. I don't think so.
It's not Divide et Impera.
I think the basic problem is that as the sole Superpower, the US simply can do whatever it wants.
There's no Soviet Union who's countermoves it has to anticipate. The Soviet Union made Cold War US foreign policy to be far more cautious than now. Things like the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have been out of the question. Now the US doesn't have those limits. And there's no real budgetary or military constraints when interfering in the politics of Third World countries. What can they do if you shoot some cruise missiles there or have Predator-drones circling above? The US foreign policy establishment can be as illogical as it wants as it can be. It simply doesn't have to take into consideration other players: it can genuinely decide on policies that are totally based on domestic politics.
Let's take the policy of being in Afghanistan. Why does the US keep forces in Afghanistan? The reason is actually absurd, when you think of it: US forces are in Afghanistan in order for Afghanistan not to become a terrorist safe haven, from where the US could be attacked. This is the real reason. Nothing to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or other countries in the region. No thought is given to Afghanistan's own history or how Afghans view outside occupiers. No thought is given to what agenda the other players in Central Asia could have. No thought is given to the fact just why if left itself alone would Afghanistan constitute such danger to the US? Somalia has been in anarchy for decades and it doesn't present a terrorist threat to the US, the only threat it creates is to international shipping with piracy around the waters of Somalia. Besides, if Osama bin Laden would have stayed in Sudan, I guess the US would then have invaded Sudan. Perhaps then in an alternative universe Sudan would be the place where the US could not forgo, as otherwise it could turn into a safe haven for terrorists. After all, none of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan. (Or Sudanese)
But what is important is that the policy sounds good for the American voter. The American voter after 9/11 wouldn't have felt good if the US hadn't invaded Afghanistan, but started an arduous police investigation which would have ended years later in the FBI making a raid in Pakistan and Osama bin Laden been sent to jail in the US. Just like the US did with the first Twin Tower terrorists of the first terrorist attack. Nope, that would have been too lame when thousands died.
Hence these kind of policies are possible when a) there is the will to such aggressive politics and b) there is the capability to implement such policies. Let's look at how limited other countries are in comparison.
France can behave as dominant power only in it's former African colonies. There it can intervene with it's Foreign legion etc. and topple unfriendly leaders. Yet the country cannot operate in impunity anywhere else.
Russia can behave as a bully in it's near abroad and in Syria, but that's where it's limits can be found. With it's information operations and hybrid warfare the country punches well over it's actual weight, but this is more about Vladimir Putin's abilities as a brilliant intelligence director.
China has a lot of potential to be a classic imperialist, but it has one important factor limiting this: the United States. If China would start intervening militarily in some country, the operation would create an absolute shit storm for the country as a hysterical United States would react to any such action as it did to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Hence all they can do is to go on with their belt and road initiative.
It is the Church that dismantled the tribal and patriarchal network in Europe. For obvious reasons, this is not an option in Afghanistan. Furthermore, such network is of tremendous value to an individual. It dramatically increases the number of people who will object, resist, and fight back, when he gets attacked by outsiders.
There are real and good reasons why people tend to be tribal.
Quoting DiegoT
The more individualistic European social structure was shaped by Church policies, which dismantled the clans and the tribes, and by the same token spectacularly increased State -and Church power. Furthermore, it took almost a thousand years to achieve that; after which, the Church was no longer needed and was discarded.
Quoting DiegoT
Authoritarianism is not particularly viable when the other side does not hesitate to shoot back. You would need to convince them not to shoot back, but that requires them to believe that they shouldn't.
That is where religion kicks in.
In Europe, it was the role of the Church to preach against rebellion and in favour of accepting State power. There is no centralized Church in Islam. There is no organization with control over the belief system that has the credibility to do that.
Quoting DiegoT
Individuals benefit tremendously from tribal solidarity. Hence, they will not give it up, unless a power like religion manages to convince them to do that.
Islam protects tribal solidarity, and the tribes protect Islam.
For example, promiscuity and rampant divorce would substantially weaken tribal ties. However, they have an elaborate honour system to prevent exactly that. Anybody who dares to contemplate engaging in that kind of behaviour, is at risk of getting unceremoniously terminated by their own relatives. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Furthermore, it is clearly in their own interest to remain tribal and Islamic. What would they even gain from an atheist, individualistic alternative? Thanks to their tribal, Islamic ways, they have managed for almost twenty years to keep the upper hand on a superpower like the United States. Prior to that, they happily bankrupted the Soviet Union. Why would they give up that kind of power and ability? Would you do that? I admire them for what they have achieved.
The real problem of Afghanistan is that the country has a myriad of different people so that it resembles a Central Asian version of Yugoslavia. Afghanistan is of course much older and the present country can be traced back to the Durrani Empire if not earlier. If successful in denying the Soviets a victory, the Mujahideen were incapable of forming afterwards a functioning coalition and guiding the country back to peace. This has been difficult in many countries where similarly the insurgency hasn't been lead by one single actor, but a whole multitude of various groups with totality different agendas and objectives and that have been united only against the common enemy. So just to blame Afghans as people for not "getting their act together" after the Soviet retreat and the fall of the Communists is quite ignorant and rather condescending.
Let's not forget that the country has been in war now for 40 years and is one of the poorest countries in the World. The unstable situation gave the ISI the chance to create and use a proxy (the Taleban) to take control of the country and even then the Taleban couldn't secure control everywhere. Then the US swooped in after 9/11 determined NOT TO engage in nation building (as let's say in Bosnia), but to be there just to hunt "the terrorists". And hence Afghanistan has given the US it's longest war ever.
@Baden. This guy's been skirting around the edge of some pretty unpleasant stuff for some time, but this is open support for honor killing - enough is enough.
Well, I assume you are referring to Islamic radicalization in the continent. One area is of course the Sahel and especially Mali. If you have sometime the time to listen (for example when working, walking or jogging), here's a discussion of the situation at the present given last September. The situation is discussed by members of the US Foreign Policy establishment (and some others) and even listening to the start of the summit (by Judd Devermont, speaks 5 min) will give some picture of what is going on there and a really quick review what has happened in Mali:
Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS): the Sahel Summit (very long, 3h 20min)
Then there's Nigeria, Libya, Somalia...
It's amazing that ISIS hasn't yet infiltrated Afghanistan or Africa... Yet...
And you are not badgering me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
http://archive.is/fARjB
Horrific stuff.
Still, the point here is nation-building, not fighting a landlocked war between Pakistani, Saudia Arabian, and Iranian influence.
I think the structural problem is that if you go to war, your objective would be to win it. In truth, that hasn't been at all the objective. Nothing like that. Just fanciful rhetoric to pander the American voter. This is why American wars get so fucked up.
As the objective was to destroy a small cabal of terrorists and to do this a whole country was invaded and a regime that basically had nothing to do with the attacks apart from giving Bin Laden a refuge (just like Sudan had earlier given), the whole war was fucked up right from the start. This is because the occupation itself and the overthrow of the Taliban was the primary cause for the insurgency. It had nothing to do with the small Al Qaeda remnants that then did withdraw to Pakistan during the fighting. Yet if you remember at the time, Bush was not their to do nation building, but to fight Al Qaeda.
I would chalk the rationale behind the so-called "War on Terror" moreso up to a justification for the expansion of the security apparatus than I would to a placation of the American populace so as to secure votes.
I haven't followed the conflict too much as of late as I kind of quit reading the news.
I support the withdraw, despite that I think that the Taliban will continue to fight and eventually win. It's a sad and difficult situation within a country with a long and troubled political history.
The world's most powerful nation waged the longest war in its history against an organization primarily comprised of Pashtun tribesman and will probably have to consider it as a loss. There are just some things that people will never let go of, even if you can't agree with them. It's not much consolation, but I think that there is something to be learned from that.
Terror, it's claimed, is a demand for justice, a not so gentle reminder to redress a wrong done. War, though apparently a solution, actually adds one more item to the list of perceived unforgivable offenses. A vicious cycle of violence is inevitable: Terror -> War -> Terror -> War...and so on.
Well, it was entirely predictable, wasn't it?
Afghanistan is a heritage of the old “Great Game” rivalry between England and Russia. The idea was to keep the Russians out of India and the Indian Ocean. After the partition of India the focus shifted to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban was indeed the creation of England, America, and elements of the Pakistani military and secret service.
Of course Pakistan is playing a double game. It has long been an ally of China and has been pretending to be friendly with America whilst at the same time arming the Taliban and providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda and other terror organizations operating in Kashmir and other parts of India.
It is obviously impossible for the West to defeat the Taliban so long as it has a secure guerrilla base in Pakistan from where it recruits thousands of fanatical fighters and it gets unlimited financial and military support.
America and England know exactly what the situation is but they are doing absolutely nothing about it. So, China and Pakistan look set to be the winners of the Great Game, after which all they need to do is to ally themselves with Turkey and take over the Mid East, North Africa, and Europe.
Terrorism isn’t the biggest problem any more ....
The world and UN gave up on this country since 1991. Probably because they do not have oil.
Taliban forces are accurate for all of those who work in the world drug dealer market. It is a country which produces a lot of weed and heroine.
Why didn’t they (UN, NATO, etc...) remove all the plantations the Taliban forces have in their territories?
Very possible that a similar thing that happened with South Vietnam or more similar equivalent, the collapse of the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, is now taking place in Afghanistan. The US is already getting Afghans that have worked with them to safety. Things look bleak for the US. Another lost war I guess.
First it was half a year, now it's to estimates like these, that the government may fall eveb in a few weeks:
These kind of statistics just tel how bad it is:
For all that they claim has been a success in the beaten way of jurisprudence and arms proliferation, I would prefer to leave American military strategists with the existential crisis they are sure to now develop because of that they lost to a decentralized insurgency in a country whose only real natural resource is opium. All of the military technology in the world was no match for people who are still riding on horseback and believe in what they're fighting for.
On the special features of The Battle of Algiers, there's an interview with an American military strategist where he explains that they show the film to people within the military so as to highlight the importance of morale, something that they only consider as psychological operations, in determining the victor of any given martial conflict. Had the United States truly believed that they could establish a veritable Liberal democracy within Afghanistan, they may have been able to sway the Afghan populace so as to effectively secure an emergent state that could have protected itself from the Taliban for long enough for their organization to dissolve, not that any Western nation has a right to go around nation-building as such. It is because of the cynical self-interest in waging the conflict that we will eventually have to consider it as a loss.
I, clearly, think that we never should have been there in the first place. I just don't want for American military strategists to be let to deny what the conflict in Afghanistan should have revealed to them after having been there for a few years any longer.
The Taliban will live, fight, and die for their beliefs. Without some form of humanitarian catastrophe, they will continue to fight and they will eventually win. I don't agree with the American presence in the first place, but, with it did come a certain degree of hope for Afghan citizens, though this has always been sort of false promise, of creating a veritable Liberal democratic state. Were I to live there now, I would run to wherever it is that I could. Godspeed to those who must!
This is very cute assuming that said strategists had any say in the matter. The American miltary is a private militia for private interests masquerading as a public institution. Their role is to die when needed, that's all.
Eh, even if you just chalk it up to arms capital, which I wouldn't necessarily, people within those positions do occupy positions of power within whatever networks of influence. It's not as if American military commanders are mere puppets of Halliburton and Lockheed Martin. In order to become a military official, you have to come up through or be granted a position within the various networks of influence that comprise of the overarching martial order, and, so, the do have actual power.
Right, but what I'm saying is that, though some of said bureaucrats do only really have power in the formal sense, to even be given such a position, you have to come up through certain networks of influence, thereby making it somewhat requisite to accumulate power in an actual sense so as to maintain said positions. There are people who just draw up plans and look at forms, but, I'd suspect that the majority of military officials do actually have a certain degree of network-power.
Ok,
I think just first we have to think who we are talking about when we talk about "the students", "The Taliban".
Because in truth I don't think there is a highly controlled and organized fighting force as "The Taliban". How many of them are local militias, smugglers, groups controlled by some warlord that has been deemed to part of the Taliban? It simply seems an easy term to call every insurgent. I'm very sceptical about the idea that all of the fighters now fighting the Afghan government share the same beliefs and ideology and follow the same leaders. Some things are quite easy to understand: to fight the foreign invaders, to reinstate Sharia law and have an Islamic state. And that where it ends, basically.
I am sure that the group formed with the assistance of the Pakistani Intelligence Services that was called "The Taliban", that took a large part of the country decades ago, isn't the the same organization now. A proper question is how close is the "Taliban" to the "Mujahideen" fighters that opposed the Soviets and the Pro-Soviet Afghan regime? Once the Pro-Soviet regime fell, anarchy prevailed.
I think the worst outcome is that they indeed take control of Afghanistan...and then it's a pariah state that nobody wants to have any relations with. And the outcome can be similar anarchy as in the 1990's.
If there is not 'a highly controlled and organized fighting force as "The Taliban"', how can you explain
their success? And why is the current Afghan government's military so demoralized and helpless?
I am using "The Taliban" to refer to the entire loosely affiliated set of Afghan insurgents, more or less to avoid having to list any number of particular political factions within the region.
Quoting ssu
I don't think that the situation which we are about to face is either desirable or avoidable. They conquered the entire surrounding areas of the capitals, as well as, now, a third of the capitals themselves, in only three months and are only gaining momentum. All the hope in the world isn't going bring any form of peace or stability to the region. What I think that we need to begin to consider is how it is that we can provide living accommodations for the massive amounts of Afghan refugees that are about to become displaced.
Perhaps, the Afghan military is more capable than I am estimating, but, I think that the American estimates for the fall of Kabul, within one to three months, are nothing but accurate. There's an entire generation of Afghans who grew up believing that civil rights could be established within their country. They thought that the West was going to build schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. None of that is going to happen. They need to figure out how to leave the country as soon as possible.
The War on Terror unlike the War on Drugs is a war on the word "terror", liable to the fancies of powerful states. The latter war is a war with chemicals, and so far, the chemicals are winning - or at least not losing.
To fight a word though, is quite futile and leads to much misery and will continue to do so.
Just as I can explain the success of the "Mujahideen" when the Najibullah regime collapsed in Afghanistan. In the end they did take Kabul. When a government collapses, you don't have to have an large, organized and tightly controlled army to take over.
Let's take for example the rapid success of the ISIS in Northern Iraq. There the soldiers were from the South, mainly Shias in Sunni territory. Once when the officers fled, nothing else for the soldiers to do than flee also: not worth anything to kill themselves for nothing. The interesting part is that those fighters who then took control of large cities and regions didn't know they were actually ISIS.
Yet if the World sees everybody as "the Taleban", then it doesn't matter so much for the Taleban leaders. They firmly can talk on behalf of everybody. It's their problem only after they take power.
Quoting Number2018
Well, that's what you get when an army has corrupted high ranking officers pocketing the salaries of non-existent soldiers and troops that are high on drugs. If you look at any documentary about the ANA (Afghan National Army), it's quite miserable. The actual difference now is that the Taleban don't hide their faces to the news media (they aren't been tracked) and a lot of the equiment they use is American. That wasn't so five years ago. The Afghan National Army is collapsing now.
Quoting thewonder
This is how it should be viewed. I agree.
Quoting thewonder
The fall of Afghanistan would have serious consequences. It could be well the end of the US as a Superpower and the beginning of it being just the Largest Great Power.
The saying that Great Powers go to Afghanistan to die is so tempting.
It is called the "graveyard of empires" for a reason.
Considering the situation militarily, it seems to me that we could reengage within the conflict only to come to more or less the same conclusion in another twenty years and be faced with a similar situation, exceed the shock and awe utilized by the Soviet military, perhaps, fourfold and rack up a body-count approaching the number of lives lost during the Rwandan genocide, a strategy that I hope most people are willing to rule out, so as to ostensibly "win", or to, as Joe Biden has, leave it to the Afghan military to just kind of have at it on their own.
In the article you previously posted in this thread, Biden expressed faith within both the military and nation-building capacities of the emergent Afghan government. Perhaps, that'd be a better way of looking at the conflict? As bleak as it is for me to say, as well as even potentially damaging, I just simply don't think that the insurgency either can or will be quelled or even halted in any determinate future. I would advise the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to engage to what limited degree they have to so as to safeguard the livelihood of as many as possible and capitulate when the time comes to do so so as to limit the bloodshed of what is now a civil war as much as possible. Neither they nor anyone else wants to hear that, though.
in London has developed a cynical strategy of withdrawal from Afghanistan. It could be divided into
tribal and religious fractions. Then, the US could choose one of the sides and benefit from managing
a controlled civil war and anarchy. So, what is going on there can become an invitation ( a lure) for the next
Power (China) to get involved.
@ssu, what's Russia been up to with regards to Afghanistan?
Here's an informative news clip from Russia Today explaining the Russian view very well:
A video of the equipment. Training seems very Russian.
That's unlikely. The Chinese are fine with just putting their own muslims, the Uyghurs in concentration camps. And there are high mountains between Afghanistan and China, so the idea of a huge influx of Taliban to China is absurd.
Has anybody seen the The War Machine? I think it portrays extremely well just how the US has handled this war (even if it likely takes some artistics freedoms). Out of sight, out of mind.
It's easy to criticize the US; but, let's not loose track of Iraq, which was a spectacular victory for the US, yet with casualties estimated in a million people.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Taliban exist and are doing well. They're actually the only uniting theme for Afghanistan if nobody intervenes, and it just might be jihad against foreigners in the country.
Quoting Shawn
Spectacular victory? How can you state Iraq being a spectacular victory? The Iraqi government wants the US out. It basically has Iran backed militias as part of it's armed forces.
Even the Iranians have made missile strikes into US bases during the Trump era.
Have you followed the situation there? Just a quick Google-search brings up news articles like this FROM THIS SUMMER:
What is the spectacular success if the US is now basically fighting parts of the Iraqi military?
One of my favorite photos: an Iraqi Hezbollah fighter posing with their American M1 Abrams tank. Do note the Iraqi flag behind the yellow Hezbollah flag. Tells how fucked up the whole situation is.
I think there are genuine reasons for criticism for US foreign policy and the way it's fighting these wars in the Middle East. Biden hasn't made anything better in a situation that has been, well, a disaster after Bush had this great idea to invade Iraq and basically abandon Afghanistan. To say it's not fighting a war simply doesn't cut it. And to get Peace deal, there simply has to be an incentive to stop fighting and opt for peace. No side has opted for peace when the war's objectives are just in their grasp and seem to be easy to obtain.
Remember what the first policy was when the US invaded Afghanistan: It wasn't there for nation building. It was there only to get Osama bin Laden (who fled to Pakistan). And then, during the crucial time after, the Bush was interested in Afghanistan, it was busy invading another country.
I've come to the conclusion that American policy made sense only when there was a strong counter force, basically the Soviet Union, that made Americans to think twice about what they would do. Americans had to actually think about what would be the countermove done by the USSR. This actually put some sense into it's actions. The last "sane" foreign war was how older Bush created a grand coalition to respond to Saddam's Iraq annexing Kuwait. Then the US went to the UN, did asked from the USSR if it would be OK, gathered muslim nations like Egypt, Syria, Morocco, the Gulf States. ABOVE ALL, listened to it's Arab allies! It didn't march into Baghdad. The hubris hadn't taken over.
And from there onwards it has been an absolute disaster. American foreign policy deciders came punch drunk of the easiness of doing whatever and absolute idiots full of hubris as the neocons erased away everything what was left of a rational and cautious foreign policy. Nothing did matter anymore. What were the actual political situation on the ground in these countries? How would other nations react? That was totally meaningless. The US could do whatever it wanted and it went on into this crazy binge of being a bully. Making alliances simply wasn't anymore the goal, it was either you are with us or you are against us. Moronic stupidity overwhelmed everything. Because, why not? Nobody cared. There were no backlashes. War on Terror, war against a method. And once Bush the younger made it so, no President couldn't escape the trap as everything was already FUBAR.
Quoting ssu
The neocons are not in the current administration. But, it looks like you are right and even now American foreign (and others) policies are shaped by the logic of phantasmic and imagenary achievements. What makes it possible and even necessary? Likely, in the US there is no
place for a neutral and independent position that allows to make weighted and qualified judgements. That is why the narative of building a self-sustainable Afghan government
and military has been so persistent.
Had we merely waged a counter-terrorist operation against Al-Qaeda, that could also have been an effective strategy. It probably would have been the most sensible thing for the United States Military to have done.
That, of course, is not what happened, however, and, now, as the Taliban now control half of the provincial capitals, and American security advisors are evacuating the country and have even pleaded with the Taliban not to attack the United States Embassy in Kabul, it seems that their rule is imminent.
Clearly, this is not a great situation for the people of Afghanistan or the world at large. However, without the ever illusive "West" to fight against, I doubt that the Taliban will be capable of retaining power in Afghanistan for any considerable amount of time. It'll function as a hub for Islamic extremism for a period of time before returning to the land of feuding warlords that it more or less has always been, which, of course, is little to no consolation to the Afghan people, but not necessarily a concern of ours.
It's all a very tragic situation, particularly for the Afghan people, though I do think adds a certain credibility to Tolstoy's theory that morale is the decisive factor in military battles, even today.
This is so true.
Current administrations cannot avoid the utterly fucked up situations that the previous ones have put them. What seldom is talked is how slavishly Obama continued the Bush era War on Terror even with increasing the drone attacks all over.
The problem is that on many times when these generals and policy experts are interviewed, they are extremely rational, sound and totally aware of reality. So what happens? Why we get these insane ideas of going into Iraq to get the WMDs and it will be a cheap war and the we don't have to put much effort in nation building? How can the US get things so wrong when in the end many of the leading persons are quite intelligent?
I think the reason is this twisted delusional political discourse that is totally separated from actual reality: It's about getting the bad guys. It's "restoring democracy". It's these ideas that you have to invade and occupy a country because a small cabal of terrorists were financed by people that stayed in the country.
This simplified political rhetoric will simply avoid issues like what are the reactions of neighboring countries? How does the actions of the US play into the domestic politics of the country? Above all, when you have the hammer, the US armed forces, every problem looks like a nail. It's so easy. There aren't limitations in military interventions as other countries have: you have the SEAL team on stand by, the CIA armed drones in the air, the Submarine with the cruise missile just out at sea. Hence it's so easy.
How about treating the whole thing as you did treat the previous World Trade Center bombers? To make it a police matter. To get finally the FBI hunt them down from Pakistan. And to put them into an ordinary jail in the US? Osama bin Laden been put into prison like the previous terrorist, which actually were relatives to some of the 9/11 terrorists (such small cabal we are talking about).
How impossible would that would have been?
Quite impossible, I guess. Americans wanted, demanded, and had that 20 years war.
I agree, though, I think that there's a counter-terrorism branch, of what, who knows, in the United States that handles such things internationally.
Quoting ssu
You don't live here, and, so, don't quite see how the general mindset was sort of instilled. Sure, in any given democracy, even a flawed one like ours, people do still have some relative autonomy, and, so, some things are really autopoietic, but there was a certain element of the American populace having been driven to support the war, in part, by our news media, and, in part, by the Bush administration. I can't say that we would have invaded had even Joe Biden been in office back in 2001. Perhaps? It's all kind of speculative, though.
Edit:
According to Wikipedia, The Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism is a bureau of the United States Department of State, and, so, it is tied to the federal government and there is a counter-terrorism division within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but I think that they primarily handle domestic terrorism, whereas this organization, which doesn't really seem to be connected to the FBI, handles international terrorism. To call it a branch of our government may have been somewhat in error, as it could easily be a kind of free floating organization, if you will.
They could be the counter-terrorism division connected to the FBI or just some of administrative counter-terrorism bureau, but, in the general course of my life as an American citizen, I do remember encountering a counter-terrorism organization that didn't seem to be connected to our police, military, or intelligence service. I could have just remembered this incorrectly, but I think that there's some sort of organization that apparently has a certain degree of autonomy who does somehow handle international terrorism. I don't really know, though.
The news report from the calm of the eye at the center of the storm in Kabul on CNN is quite eerie. There are also conflicting messages that the United States is sending to the Afghan military with Pentagon representative John Kirby identifying the military advantages of the Afghan military, our officials urging the Afghans to fight, and our destroying documents in our embassy, and our rather immediate evacuation of personnel. Our security advisors have accepted defeat already and our probably already planning for a new phase in the so-called "War on Terror" and The New York Times merely states the obvious.
Years ago, I predicted this would happen. In my generalized madness, I tried to explain to our security forces and the associated press that they didn't understand The Battle of Algiers. It's about much more, you should consider that, but, on some level, the implicit purpose of the café bombings was to draw out the tanks and to bring them to torture, which Jean-Luc Godard, in The Little Soldier, was right to characterize as having been "so monstrous and so sad". It was a way of revealing to the world the brute truth to the French occupation and galvanizing support among the Algerian populace, a way of revealing just what was at stake for all parties involved. Because the National Liberation Front had something to live and die for, they could only win. It's as if, by writ of God, only those with faith in their cause can win.
The Battle of Algiers was Andreas Baader's favorite film. He, of course, was either assassinated or committed suicide in Stammheim Prison. It's our organizational structure, that of the decentralized network, one that was born out of terrorist cells, that groups like the Taliban have adopted, coupled, of course, with what they've learned from American intelligence. In a way, Islamic extremist groups are like a dark projection of fears over anarchism. There is just ruthless fanaticism and generalized chaos.
The Taliban, of course, are quite different from the FLN. Still, though I doubt that he watches many films, were you to ask Abdul Ghani Baradar what his favorite is, I'd bet that he'd tell you that it's The Battle for Algiers.
They still don't get it, and I just don't know how to explain it to anyone.
Just think about it.
Look at the following video below. It is the famous time when George Bush visited the Twin Towers site, ground zero, after 9/11. Notice the response when Bush says that "The people who knocked these buildings down, will hear from all of us soon". That response actually perfectly portrays the feelings then.
Now imagine if after this, then how Bush would have continued would have only been a police investigation and heightened security. No military involvement. Think about the reaction to that. How it would have been felt as Bush being totally indifferent.
Don't blame the Republicans on this. Madeleine Albright, a close member of the Gore team wrote in Foreign Policy that even if it would have been a Gore administration in 9/11, the democrats would surely would have invaded Afghanistan too. They likely wouldn't have gone to Iraq, but Afghanistan would have happened.
That's why I say that this was unavoidable. Only a larger than life politician could have followed the "respond to terrorism as a police matter" path when the US has the mightiest armed forces in the World. Above all, let's remember that Clinton had already fought against the Bin Laden group and had fired cruise missiles to some possible training camps in Afghanistan. The war on terror was actually started before 9/11.
(In response to Al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration destroyed a medical plant in Sudan in error. Oops! So the war on terror was already under way.)
Oh, I'm not saying that it was purely undertaken because of the Republican Party. What I'm saying is that the American state began to whip up the war drums nearly the day after the attacks occurred.
I was middle school at the time, and, so, I wasn't quite apt for detailed political analysis then, but there seemed to be a coordinated campaign of added security measures and pro-war propaganda even before we decided to invade Afghanistan.
Sure, you would see kind of a vengeful response from some people here and there. I recall seeing a bumper sticker suggesting that we should drop nuclear bombs in region. Without the military publicity campaign, coordinated security efforts, often to the point of outright absurdity, and, perhaps, most particularly, media sensationalism, I do think that the response to the attacks would have moreso been one of mourning.
In catechism, I remember watching a memorial video for the people who died in the attacks. Though I'm not really one to laud the Catholic Church, among the audience, there was no real anger or jingoism. It was all very solemn. That seems to have been a much more appropriate response from a populace who has born witness to one of the most successful terrorist attacks in all of human history, at least, in so far that we are to exclusive consider terrorism as having been carried out by some sort of insurgency as we do today.
There was also a notable push to recruit young people to join the military at the time, and, so, among the martial administration, I think that there was a generalized assumption that we were going to war before the war even began, rather in spite of that their own strategists must have known that such heavy-handed tactics tend to be fairly ineffective in countering terrorism.
In a way, I think that the Cold War American myth, that of the United States being a bastion of freedom and democracy in the world, one that I would have no qualms with it living up to were it, at all, to actually do so, engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of people all over the Earth, a somewhat messianic and expansionist enterprise in its own right, against the evils of totalitarianism, which we could lay some claim to on account of having won the Second World War, though, as, I think, we all know, effectively turned out to be any and/or everything that could be characterized as "communism", which, granted, did have some material basis within the form of control that any number of nations effectuated, proceeding from the establishment of the Soviet Union, transferred to spectral haunt of Islamic extremism, perhaps, in part, due to a cult pathology engendered by what American security advisors could no longer avoid coming to the realization of, namely that we had significantly contributed to the conditions for which it could occur.
In a way, the attacks on the Eleventh of September in 2001 were a godsend for the martial administration of the United States, as they provided both the legal and extra-juridical rationalizations and justifications for the mass expansion of fourth-generation warfare strategies and technologies, aside from the most obvious vindication in the form of another enemy to fight.
I don't think that anyone wanted for the towers to come down. The most abject and selfish reactionaries within the Central Intelligence Agency wouldn't have willed for such a tragedy to occur in the interest of accumulating power in the wake of a projected "war on terror". I do think that we were lying in wait for an attack, however. They knew that a bomb would go off somewhere eventually and were speculating upon which one could be utilized in crafting yet another noble lie and extenuating a form of conflict that exists everywhere, all at once, and is directed against a nameless enemy.
Oh, and, as much nuance as we can add to a critique of the American weltanschauung, in this country, there is the plain, pure, and political fact of a rather fervid and fairly intransigent partisan entrenchment that has relentlessly been carried out on the part of Fox News, who, leading up to and during the conflict, before, at least, the general populace became numb enough to lose interest and more or less forget that it was ongoing entirely, did absolutely nothing but deliberately incite a vengeful and jingoist fervor in favor of a war whose rhetoric increasingly came to be comparable to a crusade.
MSNBC and CNN both did more or less supported tacitly supported the war, with the caveat of the occasional detractor being given a minute and a half to voice their opinion, but there is no way to adequately assess the response to 9/11 without taking the decisive influence that Fox News hammered into the American populace into consideration.
Triple post, but, w/e.
While I appreciate your invocation of a "larger than life politician", as I think that elected leaders ought to aspire to live up to all of the lofty ideals of Liberalism, engage in the political process with deliberation in a calm and rational manner, and be capable of coping with situations that do arise so as to make difficult and decisive decisions in times of crisis, I do think that it points to a certain poverty of the American situation in that it would seem to require an extraordinary person, though, in so far that we entrust public officials with the effective facilitation of the democratic process, they kind of all ought to be somehow extraordinary, in order to respond to situation adequately. The attacks on 9/11 certainly created a crisis, the proper response to which would have been one of mourning and to deal with what was an act of terrorism as a security concern, i.e. the aforementioned "police investigation", though I think that international terrorism does ultimately require some form of intelligence, which, of course, in the United States, is a serious problem, because we have an intelligence service that not too many people trust, and, though they don't often know why, there is good reason for this. Clearly, a president, security advisor, or whomever else, would have had to have been able to adequately cope with the situation at hand, but, that is just simply precisely what we entrust to elected officials.
We should expect much more from politicians, at least, in so far that we're going to consider for them to extraordinary, than merely being capable of dealing with crises adequately. There are plenty of countries in the world, I think, where the suggested response, though difficult to enact, would have been effectuated. It is because of the poverty of the American political situation, that we should expect that only a person who was as a beacon of hope could have dealt with the situation properly.
I was very invested, though not terribly active, in my opposition to the war previously, and, so, do have a lot to say about it, but apologize for just kind of rambling. It's just kind of something that I think that people should talk about.
The extraordinary, or "larger than life" politician is simply the person who can make decisions when there isn't the obvious road map to be taken or chooses the best policy that goes against normal contemporary thinking. Then this person has to truly lead, to have the ability to influence and change thinking of people. The tactic of "Replying to terrorist strikes with bombing strikes" already happened with Ghaddafi and Reagan and the LaBelle discotheque bombing and the repraisal bombings of Libya with Operation Eldorado Canyon. In fact, the tactic or strategy resembles what Israel often does as it simply has had a low-intensity war against the Palestinians and the PLO with similar strikes.
(Eldorado Canyon in 1986. That NATO members (other than the UK) did not in any way participate can be seen from the flight routes from the UK to Tripoli. But guidelines how to react to terrorist strikes are made).
Antiterrorism in the UK, Germany, France or Italy has been quite different. With them of course the terrorism has been mainly domestic.
Prior to 9/11 there was already a debate in Foreign Policy circles about "new threats" where one of them was international terrorism. Hence there was already a road map of what to do if there is a successful terrorist strike. You are correct that this made the intelligence services to be "lying in wait for an attack", just like the CDC was "lying in wait" for a pandemic to happen. And this is way more realistic than the conspiracy theories of 9/11 being an inside job. Everybody that prior to that event flew in the US remembers how lax security was on domestic flights.
Except the small cabal of Islamist fundamentalists who wanted for the US to get involved in wars. It was evidently clear when they declared that "killing Americans, any Americans" is a really good thing to do and then they went on with the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. And let's not forget that 9/11 was the second time they attacked the Twin Towers.
Hence Ayman al-Zawahiri (on the right) has to be very happy about present events.
I was referring to the United States. I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the region to have celebrated the attacks. I even remember watching videos of them doing so afterwards.
This concept of a larger than life politician seems to play part and parcel to your philosophical mission, and, so, I am sure that you know more about it than I do, but I guess that the point that I was making is that a majority of, let's say, Finnish politicians, I think, would have adequately responded to a similar crisis. They would become transformed in that moment so as to be extraordinary, but, in the United States, you would already have to be an extraordinary figure to have made the near unilateral decision to respond to the crisis as such.
No, I don't think that Finnish politicians are better or would perform better than Americans or vice versa. When you start having a group of people more than 100, then simple laws of statistics start to apply. Because a group of 100 political leaders and top government officials will likely be quite similar in both countries: academic graduates, many with the highest mark and many these achievers.
Above all, put Finnish politicians in charge of US policy with US capabilities and then they will likely start thinking as their American counterparts. As I've said again and again, when you do have those seemingly unlimited capabilities of the US armed forces, you can get into all kinds of things where others simply would have to dismiss the issue because there is no capability. In a way, having limited ability and having to anticipate what others will do smartens politics by necessity. The politicians can be as smart as before, but they have limited power to yield.
Actually for Americans this is very important to understand: put into your shoes, a lot of other people would do the same as you. You can look at how for example France behaves in it's "backyard" in Africa, in it's former colonies. There it has many garrisons and it intervenes in the domestic politics of these countries, if necessary. I suspect there is a French equivalent of Noam Chomsky telling how awful the French government has been, but as I don't speak French, I don't know the author. It would be very interesting to compare US involvement in it's "backyard", in Latin America, and France in its former colonies in Africa.
The only thing where you will have really different kind of people in power is when the society isn't a democracy, but power is taken and held on by a gun. It's actually no wonder that criminal organizations end up with deranged psychopathic killers as their leaders hiding in a small cottage in the middle of nowhere, not only from the police, but also their former allies (who are still alive). When you can obtain power by killing others and everybody is basically OK with this, then that's what you will end up with.
Once political power is about using violence on your competitors, then you have different kind of people in power. Hence democracy is truly extremely important: you don't want your leaders to be homicidal psychopaths, but people who if they loose the elections, will bow out and uphold democracy.
This is a very strange thing to say in my opinion. If I'm not mistaken Finland would invite the UN peacekeepers along with diverting much more interest to the established UN in force.
It's almost as if Finland was a Republican member of the EU, and not Norway of Scandinavian countries.
IF THEY WERE FINLAND, NOT THE US!!!
Remember you are talking about a small country with 5+ million people who know that their country is quite expendable. Nobody would have given a fuck if Finland would have been occupied, Finns would have been deported to Siberia and Russians moved here after WW2... just like happened with the Estonians. Who the fuck cared about the Baltic States? But having two huge oceans on each side, a puny Mexico in the south and ever so friendly Canucks in the north, and then 320 million people really changes things!
Let's have a fictional mind game: What if Americans be modern-day Canadians?
Assume that George Washington would have been sent to India and a no-nonsense British officer would have gathered up the other founding fathers and taken them for a walk in the nearby forest and nobody would have heard anything from them later, or about any constitution or any other declaration. Then the British would have given representation due to taxation and Americans would have lived happily as part of the British Empire as Canadians did.
So basically then you would have gotten your independence in 1931 and basically full independence in 1982 or something like that. Or not even that, because the British (ahem...the English) are a truly shrewd lot. If in their shrewdness (and that they likely would have understood how important Northern American is to their massive Empire), they would have made the US-Canada to be part of the UK as Scotland and Wales are. So Americans, or British-Americans would be having votes now about being independent or not and still many thinking that they are proud members of the British Empire.
In this case the "new" country of the US really might be different, because nearly all of your history would be history of the British Empire. British-Americans or North American British might feel quite differently about their role is, should they have a large army now and so on. They might easily think that all that imperialism and Superpower stuff is done by the people in London and they are themselves pacifists and nice to everybody. Like, uh, Canadians today.
The actual point I'm trying to make is that there are huge amount of different factors that influence the way politicians act and what the political discourse is like. History, the economy, the geopolitical situation, the domestic situation, even the environment (and so on) all have an effect how politicians behave.
Hence Robert Kagan can make his famous observation:
I think that you make some good points, but haven't quite understood what I mean by a comparison of Finland to the United States. To my knowledge, Finland is at the top of the World Happiness Report and either at the top or close to it of the Democracy Index. The United States, at least considering its wealth and power, only does so well in terms of happiness and is now considered as a flawed democracy. It makes more sense for you to advocate civic engagement within the democratic process, as you live within a country that is still considered to have an equitable, efficient, and effective democracy. The cultural climate, there, is probably, though there's only so much stock to place in these U.N. reports, considerably better. Your quality of life and faith in your elected officials is probably considerably greater than both your average American citizen and whomever it is that is of equivalent social standing, all of which, I think, informs your appeal to sincere nonpartisan civic engagement within the democratic process. There's also that you have options, particularly within elections for the prime minister, as to who to vote for. In the United States, a responsible American citizen almost always has only one choice, that of the Democratic Party candidate. I would've liked to have seen a Ralph Nader or Jill Stein presidency. As our political system stands, however, a vote for either a Green Party or independent candidate really kind of is just a vote thrown away, particularly now that Bernie Sanders came close enough to winning the Democratic primary for people to believe that someone like him could be capable of doing so. Not voting, which I have done, is also just kind of irresponsible. Damage to our political process just simply needs to be minimized. The Democratic Party is well aware of this, though, naturally, subject to a certain degree of hubris, and, because of it, doesn't really have to do very much in order to retain voters amongst their support base. I'm sure that there actually are reasonable and responsible people within the Republican Party, but, they are now far too few and far between. All of which, of course, isn't terribly engaging for the average American voter. I agree to the democratic process to a certain extent. If a Republican president wins the popular vote, than, it would both be unethical and unwise to remove them from power without warrant. There, however, is just simply no way out of partisan politics within the United States, as the only way for things to change is for the Democratic Party to consistently win elections. All of this, of course, results in a certain degree of apathy and antipathy towards the process in general. I don't really have anything against all of the lofty democratic ideals. I am just pessimistic enough not to believe that they will be upheld in my country in any near future.
It's only really Godard. The rest of the French intellectuals just kind of speculate upon the United States. In a way, it's kind of a problem, actually, as even Godard still kind of celebrates France, and the French, to my estimation, at least, do seem to still have to come to terms with their colonial legacy.
Quoting ssu
I think that you've gotten kind of carried away with your example, but, as inclined as I am to view George Washington favorably as I am, I really wouldn't mind being Canadian right about now.
Quoting ssu
Let's consider a hypothetical Finland with a larger populace, military, military budget, and a history of operations within Central Asia. This hypothetical Finland, however, has, at least, a comparable socio-economic, political, and cultural climate to the one that exists in the actual Finland today. Let's even account for the military operations, larger military, and larger populace. I would contend that Sanna Marin would step up to the plate and deal with such a situation aptly. I would even contend that this would be true regardless of Finnish party affiliation, including some of those on the right. If you had an outside candidate from the Power Belongs to the People Parliamentary Group or even the Finns Party, maybe not, but, even then, I'm not so sure. I don't really know anything about Finnish political parties, though.
Sure, such thought experiments are only so useful, but the point that I'm making is that, were the attacks to have occurred in Finland, an adequate politician would have become extraordinary in the moment, which is to say that just a pretty good politician would have sufficed. I think that, in the United States, you would not only have to be a great politician, but one of the best to have been able to cope with our government as it stands.
You're really lucky to live in Finland, y'know? I've even thought about moving there whenever I can move somewhere before.
Quoting thewonder
I also wanted to explain this seemingly paradoxical statement. The Trump presidency, by that he declared the elections a fraud and was subsequently impeached for a second time, is indicative of that the Republican Party needs to be reformed quite radically. The only way that this either can or will happen is for them to have to. For them to have to, they would have to consistently lose elections until they just simply had to adapt to the sway of the American populace. They only can lose elections to the Democratic Party. Despite the seeming contradiction of that my resolution to the bipartisan deadlock is that the Democratic Party just consistently win for probably a good sixteen years, there is a certain degree of sense to it. In adapting to the adaptation of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party would also be reformed and American politics would generally improve.
Without really getting into any of the above text, though, as Fox News is the mouthpiece for the Republican Party, despite the aforementioned tacit support on the part of CNN and MSNBC, as they did kind of just bang their war drum for as long and as loud as it took to create the so-called "War on Terror", it would be somehow inaccurate to characterize support for the war as exclusively concerning the general mindset of the American populace outside of the domain of partisan politics. Like the Vietnam War, which was also undertaken, in part, by the Democratic Party, the War on Terror entrenched the population within partisan politics, the most fervid supporters of the war having been none other than the American Right.
"On 14 August 2021, the Taliban captured seven provincial capital cities; Gardez, Sharana, Asadabad, Maymana, Mihtarlam, Nili, and Mazar-i-Sharif, the fourth-largest city in Afganistan. Two long-time anti-Taliban warlords, namely Dostum and Atta Muhammad Nur, fled to Uzbekistan. Taliban forces also entered Maidan Shar, center of Maidan Wardak Province. At this point, the rebels had encircled Kabul, while the Afghan National Army had descended into chaos following its rapid defeat across the country. Only the 201st Corps and 111th Division, both based at the Afghan capital, were left operational.
Early on 15 August 2021, the Taliban entered Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar Province, unopposed, making it the 26th provincial capital to fall; leaving Kabul as the last major city under Afghan government control."
Conclusion: The war on terror does not work, and never ever worked even for a minute. Killing one terrorist creates ten more. Violence breeds violence. In other words war on terror breeds exclusively more terrorists. The proof of this is that after twenty years not only did that happen the west failed to stabilize Afghanistan, but previously stable countries are destabilized by war launched or provoked by west: Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc.. As result of war on terror those countries are considered a stronghold of terrorism, where they have never seen before.
One thing is achieved indeed. The Taliban is no longer a terror group, but the government of Afghanistan, again.
SP
I think a very important issue is just how those operations within Central Asia played out. (Btw, in reality Finnish troops left Afghanistan just last June.)
Because if they (the operations in Central Asia) would be somehow successful, perhaps Finland got a lot of praise and those relations with Central Asian states were beneficial to the country, there could be a political view that military boots in Central Asia is important to Finland. Even the social democrats could happily participate with it. Just like a female reserve officer friend of mine who served in Afghanistan once remarked "CIMIC (Civilian Military Cooperation) is basically military intelligence with Tarja Halonen (our social democrat President at the time) will accept. It's all for a good cause, right?
And why shouldn't it be? Isn't there value in that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis aren't in power and occupying Central Europe? Isn't it good that we have K-pop and South Korean gizmos rather than reports of famine across the Korean Peninsula? Do not forget that sometimes US foreign policy has been quite beneficial to freedom.
Or let's take an aspect that actually has been discussed: the safety of Finnish citizens abroad. There are several occasion where Finns have been kidnapped by Islamic militants (in the Phillipines and in Yemen) and there has been public discussion if Finland ought to have the ability to do something, to have the ability to rescue hostages from an non-state actor in a country where there simply aren't the police or security officials to co-operate with. The Finnish defence establishment is there to defend us from Russia and international operations are a secondary issue. Yet in some countries those international operations are the major emphasis.
This is the basic way you get involved into military operations abroad, just from starting from the safety of your own citizens. To participate in international peace keeping (and peace enforcing) operation. Take for example Sweden. The slippery slope can start from there. We can surely understand just what is now going in the minds of US officials with the Afghan collapse: the fall of Saigon or what happened to the hostage crisis Tehran during the Islamic revolution there.
(Pictures that Biden does not want to be repeated. That's why the US embassy is destroying all US logos, flags etc. in order for them not to be paraded around by the Taleban and troops are sent to guard the evacuation and B-52s and AC-130 gunship are trying to keep the Taliban off from Kabul as every other major city has already fallen.)
We live in interesting times...
For sure. Thanks for the exploration of Nordic foreign policy, international peacekeeping and whathaveyou. You always have a lot to say about international politics.
A lot of the associated press has made the comparison to the Fall of Saigon. I, too, am reminded of the images of United States troops throwing helicopters into the ocean. It's definitely something that people should pay close attention to and reflect upon.
Also, the Afghanistan president, Ashraf Ghani, reported to have left country as Taliban orders fighters to enter Kabul.