Agree to Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan
By: IQUS Debates
Here is the content (audio only).
Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates: Agree to Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan on Apple Podcasts
★ This content is for adults capable of thinking for themselves sans emotion. ★
RED BOX RULE: Partisan trolling / taunting comments will be deleted.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Taliban have won.
Twenty years after the 2001 invasion, the U.S.-backed government in Kabul has fallen. The Afghan president has fled. Taliban leadership, which ran the country in the late 1990s, is now firmly in place within the presidential palace. Thousands are desperate to leave, literally clinging to departing aircraft as they rumble down runways, fearful of what reprisals may come. But after two decades of war, tens of billions spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost – including more than 2,300 U.S. military personnel – bigger questions have emerged: Is the cost of leaving greater than the cost of staying? And was pulling out the right decision?
Those who say “yes” argue that the world is a decidedly different place than it was in 2001, that the mission was never to nation-build, and that continued presence prolonged the violence and distracted energies and resources away from more pressing global challenges, particularly on those centered on China. But those who argue “no” point to the potential for a humanitarian and human rights catastrophe, the ceding of U.S. influence in Central Asia, and the likelihood for another terrorist safe haven.
As such, Intelligence Squared and its host John Donvan examine these competing perspectives in this special timely edition of Agree-to-Disagree: Leaving Afghanistan. First, a conversation with Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the social and political situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His first book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, explores the shadowy world of the Taliban and quickly became a #1 New York Times bestseller. Rashid has been called “Pakistan’s best and bravest reporter” (Christopher Hitchens). Then, a competition of ideas: Arguing in favor of leaving is Daniel Markey, Senior Research Professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Arguing against leaving is Kori Schake is a senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan is the moderator.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
For those who are willing to objectively listen and consider the views of those who have studied Afghanistan and the USA relationship with same.
Sounds interesting. I have listened to or watched a few of the Intelligence Squared debates in the past and they are usually pretty good.
My own personal opinion is that we needed to have gotten out of Afghanistan as it was time, but my big beef is not that we got out but how we got out? How many are going to suffer and how much blood will be spilled because of the ill advised and ill conceived way it was handled by President Biden and his administration?
What makes you think it would have gone any other way under any different administration.
Beside the people shot at the airport, I haven't heard of any bloodshed.
We have a timeline. They know it and we know it.
Tick Tock...
Yes, no doubt that this withdrawal was ill-planned. But I am quite concerned that this could happen under any administration. It is not as though Biden did all the planning and directed all the logistics. Biden made the big decisions. The military and civilian operational staff necessarily worked through the detailed intelligence, logistics, contingency plans, etc.
How is it possible, Ed, for the military to not provide a contingency plan for the failure of the Afghanistan government or early moves by the Taliban? How is it possible that, with all the capabilities and experience we have as a nation, we somehow managed to place ourselves into a situation where we are scrambling to try to save as many intended civilians as we can while being seemingly powerless to deal with any aggression that the Taliban might choose to enact? What is up with leaving only one functioning airport? How could we possibly allow a situation where our military equipment and supplies remained fully functional and able to be possessed by the Taliban? The incompetence is so over-the-top, how can anyone not be concerned about our system?
This is just inconceivable to me. Yes, Biden has his share of the blame as CiC, but I do not see how Biden could cause our nation's machinery to become so incompetent.
My point has always been that we cannot stay there forever and it will never work.
Why cannot other countries in the region step up and do something such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia or the UAE....
And a very strong case can be made backing up your position.
Afghanistan was and remains profoundly backwards sociologically, economically and politically. It is difficult enough to help a nation grow a stable, modern government with an effective economy. The USA has had mixed results in our attempts. Thus, since we are not especially talented in this regard, trying to accomplish this in one of the most sociologically backward nations on the planet is arguably a fool's errand.
Don't get me wrong. Afghanistan was kinda progressive at one time.
I just think countries better suited to the task would be taken and make a bigger point than us trying to make them like us...so to speak.
I just feel other Middle Eastern countries are afraid to take on the task. The risk and fallout that would come with it.
As noted in the seed, 60% of the work was handled by our allies; 40% by us.
When was Afghanistan progressive?
I thought I read and saw old pictures that showed cars and women dressed in 'modern' clothes. From like the forties or something.
I could be thinking of another country.
Western attire for women was not uncommon in Kabul as were boys and girls in schools together in the 60s, right along side women fully veiled. The countryside was a very different matter.
If that is what you meant then yes, during our occupation Afghanistan urban life was definitely more modern. Women were going to school, wearing regular clothes, etc. But that was side-effects of our presence. Afghanistan itself is, demonstrably, sociologically, economically and politically backward.
In the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Before the Soviet Union invaded and before the Taliban.
Photos Of Afghanistan's Past: Modernity Lost
The pictures alone will break your heart when you compare them to today.
Looks like Afghanistan has a brief (historically relative) period of modern urban life. One can only wonder how they might have progressed if the former USSR had not invaded them.
Of course not every picture you might have taken in Afghanistan in the 60s would look like that one. But still, the fact that this was even possible in one place is just amazing. In just that one photo, those women are committing several crimes in the eyes of the Taliban. Showing their faces, their hair, their legs! Reading?! Being out in the world without their husbands?
At minimum, the Taliban would flog these women.
True. Even back then the rural areas were quite backward and engaged in tribal wars.
But, as you note, it is sickening to see their progress set backward due to invading forces which enabled theocratic, authoritarian rule.
Incidentally, you can find numerous pictures like that of life in Iran before the Islamic Revolution...
I just feel other Middle Eastern countries are afraid to take on the task. The risk and fallout that would come with it.
And remember-- the Arab/.Muslim-majority countries in the area (at least the ones who aren't currently governed by Islamic extremists) have the own problems with terrorism. Why would they want to to add yet another group of extremists crazies to their problems?
Probably Iran.
Before the Islamic revolution they were even much more progressive than Afghanistan had ever been.
Check out these photos , on that page (seeded 4 years ago) and at the linked article, from that page. (seeded 4 years ago). Hard to believe its Iran (or rather, that it was Iran):
Iran Before The Revolution In Photos
I recently learned that when the US backed Afganistan government came to power tribal war lords were worried they may be tried for war crimes, but were instead allowed to join the country's security forces and were paid huge sums of money. Apparently bribing war lords isn't a good way to insure a stable army... who knew?
The biggest problem with government (always) is corruption. Power (and wealth) tend to attract opportunistic narcissists.
The short answer: Because they understand the predominant mentality of the people of the area better than we do!
It's about time the US left Afghanistan. We should not have been there so long and could not get out soon enough. The US is better off for leaving.
While attending Air Command and Space College at Air University, Maxwell AFB in 2003, we had many lengthy discussions and numerous "operational exercises" regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.
The overall consensus of the 587 military/civilian types, after George W. told the American people that U.S. involvement would only cost "maybe" $1B a year for three years and that we would have our troops home after a "successful" transition of power, was BS - we don't need to be there and we don't need to prop up some puppet government that will be overrun within 3 - 6 months of our injecting ourselves where we don't need to be.
Afghan has been in warlord battles for over 2,000 years - Iraq, pretty much the same. The U.S. has absolutely no reason to attempt to play god with countries that don't have nor want a "Democratic" style government.
But, the military suppliers/contracts saw HUGE, HUGE, HUGE money bins and opportunities and they wanted it. Since the suppliers spend tremendous amounts of funding on their lobbying efforts - guess who won - and it ain't the American people - nor the Iraq/Afghanistan people.
JMHO
From your lips to God's ears. (Directly to Him, because it will fall on deaf ears in America.)
Well, there was a reason that many here are not aware of. One word:
RARE EARTH ELEMENTS!
And in addition, a YUGE abundance of some not that rare but still valuable metals... iron, copper, gold, cobalt, etc.
(How come the politicians on the news seem to have "forgotten" to mention that?)
And many people are unaware of it-- the whole situation with China and rare Earth minerals is one of the main reasons China is so interested in their neighbour....
(For such large countries, the border between the two is amazingly short, IIRC only 60 or so miles long!)
You mean the rare earth elements that the Afghan government we put in place awarded to China?
Just like Iraqi oil development contracts didn't go to the US. Same with Libyan oil development contracts.
We are great at putting others in charge of countries; but we never profit from it.
China has owned the rights since 2007
How does anyone get Afghan oil and minerals out of the country? There aren't any seaports. And it's not possible to economically transport tons of ore by aircraft.
The logistics problem is why Afghanistan is of no value whatsoever to the United States. Yeah, the United States could threaten Iran from Afghanistan but absolutely everything must be flown in; the logistics are a nightmare. Even our current evacuation flights require the permission of Pakistan to fly through their airspace.
The whole point is Afghanistan is pointless.
Look at a map.
China and Afghanistan are connected by the Wakhan Corridor
one deadly truck route that the Chinese
intend to improve by their Belt & Road initiative
if the Taliban behave.
The corridor is a series of valleys between the Wakhan mountains on the edge of Turkistan
and the Karakoram mountains of Pakistan.
Very dicy place that China is very interested in.
Literally 3,000 years except when Genghis Khan ruled there.
Afghanistan has been the most corrupt country forever, ruled by bribery and tribal fueds topped off with Islamic icing.
That's one hell of a cake.
My brother sent me a link to this piece written by reporter Sarah Chayes who was embedded with coalition forces there from the fall of the Taliban in Kandahar in December of 2001, and then returned several months later to live there for another decade. Her story about the origins of the Taliban with the ISI in Pakistan is fascinating. The comments below, many from military veterans who were stationed in Kandahar and other places in Afghanistan are also fascinating.
Indeed, and to a significant degree, our own leadership over 4 administrations played right into or along with it, as did neighboring Pakistan.
One veteran who lamented the corruption of the Afghan government and said that " There was no good reason for the average Afghan to fight or die for it. This is why the Taliban’s success was so utterly fast. And it is why the U.S. and NATO needed to get out, and do so under President Trump’s negotiated timetable ", had a more optimistic outlook toward Afghanistan's fate based on his observations of the people there.
I sure hope he is right!
I also hope he is right.
And thank you.
Both seem to agree that the duration of the commitment was for the Afghan government to become strong by itself and the security forces be fully trained to combat "enemies" of Afghanistan and its government.
Both seem to have agreed that the Afghan government was corrupt and imo, has been for 20 years, with no real improvement or outlook for any significant improvement. That the security forces were "fully" trained, but were they really motivated? I doubt there was any loyalty to the Afghan government, considering the conditions they were working under. They were likely more loyal to the "coalition".
As to the pullout, I thought it was crystal clear that the U.S. was going to pullout. That the U.S. leaving Bagram under the cover of darkness, might be a surprise, but leaving at some point was widely known. When the U.S. gave the pullout date, the coalition members quickly announced their own pullout. The U.K. pulled their last troops out by July 8th, as did most of the coalition. Why didn't they bulk up troops to offset the U.S., instead of withdrawing. I don't recall anyone suggesting that idea until the airport fiasco.
The issue is the removal of coalition citizens and Afghan allies from Kabul. Could that have been done better? A surge in troop strength to secure all of Kabul, with a gradual exit over a short timeline. That would likely have cost American lives and human nature suggests those in Kabul and all of Afghanistan, would still wait until that late date in the timeline to evacuate (see Vietnam timeline) and ... it would be just like it currently is at this point. No one wants to leave until defeat is clear and then everyone tries to get out.
In any case, the Biden Administration put little effort into any type of plan and I doubt any thought was given by the previous administration.
I agree with you, I do. I just think, what thought is there to really put into it..
It is we are pulling out, by so and so a date. Like you said, there is always going to be people that wait until the last minute and then it is chaos.
You can plan for that yet when the shit hits the fan it is a lot harder.
Maybe you need to go back and reread what Biden was saying just 6 short weeks ago. He wasn't saying all US citizens get out. He didn't say all those that aided us be at the Kabul airport 2 weeks before the 8/31 deadline. What he said was:
Why would they leave when the PotUS told them it could be 2 or 3 years; or even never that the Taliban took over? Remember Biden stating he told the Afghan government he wouldn't pull out all US civilians and Afghans that aided us immediately as it would cause a national panic? He didn't change his damn tune once right up to the fall of Kabul. Of course we now know his comments 6 weeks ago- those outside of Kabul were already under Taliban control; so it was already too late then.
Also, between Trump and Biden they made the VISA application process damn near impossible. Biden also wanted to charge those being evacuated (including those from the US) $2000 a person. Considering the median income in Afghanistan is just over $4000 a year- how the hell was that going to work?
This blaming the victim shit by the left is getting more than old. The mighty mental midget in the White House is directly responsible current situation those US citizens and Afghans that aided us are in. Biden is not doing nearly enough to get them out; and the left's "They are on their own attitude; and it is all their fault" demeanor is beyond sickening.
We were already past the get out of Dodge due date. Nobody was yet aware how quickly the provisional Afghan government would disintegrate. For twenty years we have been stuck in the quicksand of George Bush's Great American Quagmire In Afghanistan. There never was and never would be a good way out because there were no good guys involved. All political parties in Afghanistan always have been and forever will be irredeemably corrupt. The only good option always has been and always will be to get the hell out of Afghanistan...
Get this straight. I was never in favor of the US invading Afghanistan. Bush Jr was a weak president (rather like Biden). He campaigned on no nation building; and what is the first thing he does after 9/11 just 8 shorts months in office- gets the US involved in the dumbest place on earth to try and nation build. I don't give a shit if his generals, intelligence agencies, and our NATO allies were all screaming the same damn thing at him. He should have stayed the course and gone it alone using search and destroy all the way. We could have played wack a terrorist forever and it would have cost us far less in terms of resources, lives, and political capital. Let the Afghans decide who would rush in to fill the power vacuum we created.
Obama was no better than Bush with his two troop surges that accomplished absolutely nothing and SOFA that tied the US to a weak corrupt Afghanistan government.
Trump should of had us out at the beginning of his term; but blow back from both parties caused him to delay. Maybe Trump really would have handled the withdrawal and evacuation differently than Biden. Who the hell knows; it is all partisan bickering now.
What I do know is that both Trump and Biden fucked up the VISA application process so that it nearly impossible to use; and took months if not years to complete.
So I have no problem leaving Afghanistan (to get the hell out as you phrased it). I have a problem with how we did it. If we were going to cut and run we should have been truthful to those relying on us to give them accurate information so they could have made the correct decision (Along with those that employed them. Employers are pissed at Biden for stranding their people in Afghanistan. I can't blame them- think that families won't be lining up to sue those companies if something happens to their loved ones in Afghanistan?)
As to the rest:
Better take a look at the leaks. The warning bells were sounding months ago; and Biden ignored them. Expect more leaks as people look to save their asses from the coming Congressional culling. Those who Biden listened to; (or maybe he just made the decision on his own); would be better off to resign- and hope that history forgets them.
So Biden says he doesn't trust the taliban. Was he stupid having faith in the government we propped up? I would say yes.
Can he predict what would happen? No. Maybe he actually didn't expect the Afghan forces to drop their weapons in a second..
What is sickening is people that only offer blame and pointing fingers at what we all knew would be a shit show.
Let me ask you something...In all of this, do you want us out of there or do you want us to stay?
As it seems to me, Biden set a date when we would be out. The date was set months in advance. There was plenty of time to get out of there.
You can blame and yell and scream all you want, it doesn't change the situation.
Also, if you are blaming Biden, you are also blaming the forces that are on the ground. As they are the ones that are there in the middle of it. Biden is not.
Your doubt is not backed up by facts.
In fact Trump clearly stated that he wanted the U.S. out and that hehad a plan for withdrawal of U,S, forces which he was going to adhere to.
(And remember-- Trump never lies!)
The fact remains...."the Biden Administration put little effort into any type of plan and I doubt any thought was given by the previous administration."
I can't open the podcast. but this was in the seed text...
"...that continued presence prolonged the violence and distracted energies and resources away from more pressing global challenges, particularly on those centered on China."
Yep, got to find SOMEWHERE to point to, blame and challenge in order to distract and deflect from America's problems and failures. After all, are there not many, including some members of NT, who say that China is America's number one enemy?
The podcast barely touches on China.
I wonder why it was even "touched on".
Chinese state media sets sights on Taiwan as US' Afghan retreat stokes nationalism
Good article. I doubt that China will physically invade, but I'm sure they will take advantage of every opportunity such as the Afghan withdrawal, as psychological warfare.
Chinese state media sets sights on Taiwan as US' Afghan retreat stokes nationalism
IMO that's all of secondary importance...
Why would they have to?
After the Taliban gains complete control of the country, IMO there will no neeed to use force and invade...the Taliban will welcome them with open arms!
(That relationship will be mutually beneficial).
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant invade Taiwan, not Afghanistan.
I guess I didn't read it carefully.
Some people assume that the way we botched the Afghan withdrawal will lead other countries to assume the U.S. has suddenly become very weak and all sorts of entities with therefore get very aggressive around the world-- from small groups of terrorists to various other countries.
I doubt it.
IMO China will decide its policies/actions towards Taiwan based of whatever their leaders think-- not based on the false perception that the U.S. suddenly went from a major world power to a third rate nation overnight!
I'm not too familiar with the thinking of China's leaders-- but I doubt that they would want to drag their country into a major shooting war!
If I'm not mistaken, China is already brokering some relationship with the Taliban.
Generally, US citizens don't consider this even if they know [and often they don't] -- Afghanistan and China share an international border. Of course China is involved. Imagine US agitation if China invaded, occupied, and established a puppet regime in either Canada or Mexico!
A half century ago, China was feared as a nation that was as unstable as it was strong. Today, China is more the stabilizing influence. With Lavrov [Russia], China ends up walking on diplomatic egg shells -- trying to avoid awakening a powerful yet senile Uncle Sam while cleaning up the soiling messes the old boy leaves everywhere.
That is so, with an eye on the rare earth minerals and oil. However, China is still quite cautious and will not get involved in the Belt and Road Initiatives in Afghanistan until they are quite certain of safety and stability there.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of U.S. vs China as to who is the "good guy" and who is "the bad guy".
But as I mentioned above, one key to understanding China's interest in Afghanistan can be mostly understood by understanding the situation with China and it rare Earth metals. And also that situation as it relates to the U.S....and also Afghanistan!
I've been avoiding this topic like the plague. Too much bad faith bullshit out there.
I would like to say this though -- The combat mission ended a long time ago, and there'd hardly been any casualties in the past 18 months or so. We were primarily providing security and training for the Afghan army (not that that mattered in the end).
I, for one, would have been perfectly fine with staying on as a occupying or security force indefinitely, much like we did in Germany and Japan after WW2, and in South Korea after the Korean War.
Not only would that have guaranteed the continuation of many personal freedoms for millions of Afghans, especially women, but it also would've given us a location for a permanent base in Central Asia, much like we have to this day in the aforementioned Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
It would have been a sustainable, strategic plus, IMO.
I'm not thrilled at all with how this turned out. I know the Afghan army wasn't supposed to just fold like they did, and local leaders weren't supposed to make deals with the Taliban and give up. But still, too much blood and treasure was invested for us to just walk away in this manner. Not to mention the many advances made by the Afghan people.
I mean, look at the difference between North Korea (where an oppressive regime won and took over) and South Korea (where we stayed on after the conflict). I know hindsight is 20/20, but it's really looking like we should have stayed on in Afghanistan as well, if only for security reasons.
Look at South Korea and imagine where Afghanistan might have been in fifty years time if we had. Instead, they're on their way back to the Middle Ages again. Even thinking about it turns my stomach.
Totally different cultural values.
How can you possibly compare an advanced Asian culture with a religious, Middle eastern, Muslim country?
Remember when people used to talk about "German Engineering"-- they had certain cultural values that made for that. Many westerners are unaware of it, but those with knowledge of Asia now refer to "Korean Engineering"-- in quite a complementary tone! (And its not all Asian countries-- but South Korea is one of the few that's in a class by itself!
Hyundai hired the best from Audi and Benz!
Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East, and I'm not comparing them directly. I'm saying look at the difference in North and South Korea. One is ruled by an idiotic, oppressive regime (just like Afghanistan is again), and the other is basically modeled on Western Liberalism, with broad economic connections to the wider world.
Our extended military presence in South Korea is what made that possible, and it could have done something similar for Afghanistan, given enough time.
And think of all the millions of people who would've enjoyed vastly better lives than they will under the Taliban (especially women). We're supposed to be a country that gives a shit about freedom and equality, and we've just left them to the wolves.
Well I think most Americans would agree with you (for example, look at how our actions caused Biden's previous good approval ratings plummeted since our incredibly stupid moves... )
First of all it isn't clear the Taliban have won. Ahmed Rashid ignores quite a bit of what's happened to weave a narrative that the Taliban have won. But the Taliban taking control (actually by default since government fled the country) doesn't mean the Taliban can hold power. There may still be an Afghan civil war. Afghanistan has changed over the last twenty years. Keep in mind that the Taliban controlled Afghanistan for only ten years. The United States was in power in Afghanistan longer than the Taliban were in power. The near term narrative is that government is once again controlled by Afghans and not by foreign invaders. But that euphoria will fade quickly.
The United States is not retreating and has not been driven out of Afghanistan. The United States has chosen to withdraw a small remaining military force; the United States was planning for the diplomatic and humanitarian activities to continue in Afghanistan. Since those diplomatic and humanitarian activities have been threatened, the United States is now totally withdrawing from Afghanistan. That was the choice of the Afghans and not the choice of the United States. Bluntly speaking Afghanistan isn't that important to the United States. With US diplomatic and humanitarian activities continuing in Afghanistan there was a reason for continued monetary aid to the country. The Taliban have given that up for the expedient political benefit of an illusion of power and control. But it's too soon to predict that the Taliban can retain that power and control.
The 'debate' between Daniel Markey and Kori Schake (to me) was nothing more than a rehash of neo-liberal nation building talking points. If the United States had expended the resources and effort to nation build, as Kori Schake suggests should have been done, Afghanistan would still be utterly unimportant to the United States. Afghanistan is so unimportant to the United States that any instability within the country outweighs any desire to modernize Afghanistan. Afghanistan simply is not worth the effort on its own merits. Daniel Markey and Kori Schake are not acknowledging the United States remaining in Afghanistan doesn't serve the interests of the United States. At best, continued US involved in Afghanistan would only be a 'nice thing to do'; a hobby for diplomats.
So... now that we've abandoned support of our Afghan allies . . . exactly who do you think will be able to effectively oppose the Taliban?
The only people on the planet who could effectively oppose the Taliban and establish a stable government have always been the Afghan people.
Everyone needs to understand that the Taliban came to power because of internecine fighting among the Afghan tribes. Not quite a civil war but internal war nonetheless. The Afghans chose the Taliban to be in charge to end endless war dividing the Afghan people. I'm not sure the Afghan people understood that Taliban were hardline fundamentalist Muslims; maybe the Afghans did and maybe the Afghans didn't.
The Taliban have always had an edge in anything the US or anyone else has tried to do in Afghanistan.
As I see it, democracy scarcely functions in the US.
The premise that democracy could be transported to an alien context on the other side of the world, planted in a world where there is neither precedent for or experience with it -- and yet expect it to take root and flourish in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., is a patent absurdity. Those claims never were believable. I refuse to believe that those responsible for entering Afghanistan were so stupid as to believe otherwise. The case [if it can be called that] for entering Afghanistan never persuaded me. I saw no integrity to it.
I put down the invasion as yet another in a long line of ventures driven by imperial interests from which no good would come. I feel I can say reliably that the US ruling class will learn naught from the experience. It looks like a has-been pack leader trying desperately to retain its spot on the highest rock.
Leaving was the correct decision because 1] going to Afghanistan was wrong from the get-go, and 2] it is folly to defend mistakes as nothing is thereby learned. With Afghanistan exploding in our collective face, the temptation will be to move against a far greater and more exploitable foe -- China. It is unclear why we should succeed there when we are bested by far lesser challenges. But the US 'pack-leader' drive runs strong and hot. And when the campaign against China fails, what then will be the US' lot?
The collapse of the Afghan government displays the utter social irrelevance of the US puppet regime to its society. What will be when the US ruling class that it has exactly that much relevance to the US working class?
Didn't the USSR try before the Americans invaded and didn't they fail as well? America's concept of democracy, with its damning divisiveness preventing progress, racism, highest incarceration rate in the world, inability to contain the virus, record gun violence and deaths, is hardly an example for the rest of the world, and it has not succeeded (nor will it) in converting Hong Kong notwithstanding its support of the protesters there. And no matter how much America provokes, bashes and disparages and tries to pressure China by rounding up its quad and five eyes puppets to joiin in, and interferes with China's sovereignty and domestic affairs in every way short of an actual shooting war (at least it knows it's not going to succeed with that other than to bring armageddon upon the whole planet) it will not succeed in thwarting the progress and advance of China.
I will most likely get taunted, insulted and criticized because I have told it as I see it, not being a loyal American but an independant person capable of being more objective of reality.
Now it's China's turn to try. China has it's own 'Muslim problem'. And Afghanistan can feed terrorists directly into Xinjiang province. Maybe you have heard of it?
China is trying to buy protection against Muslim unrest and terrorist attacks in Xinjiang by buying mineral rights. But there isn't any way to transport the mineral ores into China except through Pakistan. China's approach is, in reality, giving the Taliban leverage. Obviously China is hoping Pakistan can reign in the Taliban but at this point it's not clear that will happen. China may only be creating competition between Afghanistan and Pakistan which would cause the whole thing to unravel. That would make an alliance between the Taliban and Iran more attractive than continuing the alliance with Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes, Iran wants nukes, and Afghanistan is in the middle. Will Afghanistan turn east or west?
The complete and total US withdrawal from Afghanistan has created a headache for China. And Russia, for that matter. The Taliban will obviously try to leverage their position in the region but there's no way to tell how they'll flip.
The Soviets were 9 years in Afghanistan. After they left, the Taliban was 3 years bringing down the Afghan regime. Do we learn? NOOooo!
China has done civilization rather longer than some of us. And for its problems, China will continue to advance as you say. US Capitalism sees itself being nudged from its place as the world's largest economy. That has US Capitalists in a lather. They are utterly determined to thwart this. They mean to do so with the one sector where, for the moment, it has superiority -- it's military. A military is good at breaking stuff, but they build little that doesn't serve destruction. Economics matter far more for societal longevity. That is why it is so hostile to China's economic rise.
The US displays a tendency to see itself as the pinnacle of productive, political and social development. That's too bad, because time stands still for no one. Whether one likes it or not, the US is in ongoing decline; arguably, it is approaching collapse. Some day, the US will not dominate in the military realm. On that day, it might be good to have a few friendly nations in the world. I believe that should project should be initiated sooner, rather than later.
I have seen many people die. Some go peacefully in their sleep. Some gasp, thrash, kick, rage and lash out at those around them. The US need not die [unless it surpasses even its normal level of stupidity]. But it will decline. With its history, China knows this better than anyone. And China also knows that the attempt to prevent its descent will only worsen the trajectory and severity of its decline. History will record that the most astonishing thing about the US empire is the rapidity with which it fell from such an height.
Yes I have, and I know China is concerned about it. As well, China is being quite cautious about the Taliban, and intends to wait and make absolutely sure of both stability and safety before it extends its Belt and Road Initiative into Afghanistan, and will not commence mining and drilling until it is absolutely certain, notwithstanding Taliban assurances, of the issues of stability and safety.
I disagree. China and Afghanistan share a border, and China has proven itself to be very competent at tunneling through mountains and laying new rail lines and highways. The trillions of dollars worth of minerals and oil make it worth it, besides the massive employment of Chinese nationals. China has the money to create the access and the purchase price, and the Taliban need it since funds belonging to Afghanistan are being frozen where they are located elsewhere.
But down the road China might find itself propping up its biggest customer, which is a good reason why America is very stupid for trying so hard to curtail China's progress.
That's a feature of American democracy; not a flaw. The United States has a lot in place to protect the right of dissent which is almost always a minority position. Democracy scarcely functions in the United States because the country is not intended to function as a democracy.
Democracy has a very poor track record for protecting rights and freedoms.
The prerequisites for nation building are to either unify the people around a common cause (hearts and minds) - or - unify the people to oppose a common enemy (down with the USA) - or - subjugate the population (kill the opposition). Nation building won't work in a divided country or population.
Democracy cannot overcome a motivated resistance. The motivated resistance will use the tools of nation building to win hearts and minds, oppose a common enemy, and kill the opposition. Motivated resistance and division generally favors the minority and not the majority. Democracy sucks as a means of building coalitions or building nations.
The whole point is that Afghanistan is pointless. The US entered Afghanistan (or invaded if you prefer) to hunt and kill Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That's all there was and there wasn't going to be any more. The US did not enter Afghanistan to fight for human rights or to create a free, democratic nation. The US presence in Afghanistan was not benevolent and was never intended to be benevolent. The Taliban were shielding Al Qaeda so the Taliban had to go. The US only needed sufficient stability in Afghanistan to allow the military mission to succeed. And when the military mission was completed there wasn't any further need to remain in Afghanistan.
That was the choice of the Afghans. The US only needed stability for the military mission. That provided an opportunity for Afghans but Afghans rejected that opportunity. Afghans only saw the US as a gravy train. No more gravy and the Afghans jumped off the train. That was their choice.
'That's a feature of American democracy; not a flaw.'
Actually, it's all 'feature' and no democracy. The ruling class would never consent to the working class [i.e., the 90%] forcing its way directly into the stream of political events. That would be more 'democracy' than the bourgeoisie would allow. The ruling oligarchy [which is what we have] uses the term 'democracy' as a form of political attack. It is based on the premise as simple as it is effective -- that if you 'think' you're living in an open and 'democratic' society, you won't try to become one. You will be a nice, quiet, manageable, doting, respectful little taxpayer -- a model citizen who lives a second-hand life tailored to the interests of the ruling class.
'...the country is not intended to function as a democracy.'
Well that's what I said, isn't it. The pretense of political liberalism is a propagandic lie utilized participation by the effectively un-propertied working class. And from a [small 'r'] republican standpoint, it makes sense. Why would anyone be allowed to participate in this 'grand experiment' who doesn't have at least 500 million in assets? You can't possibly have any genuine stake in the republic unless you do. So the ruling class gets the property, and the rest get the propaganda about 'freedom' [fiefdom] and justice [just us].
'The prerequisites for nation building are to either unify the people around a common cause (hearts and minds) - or - unify the people to oppose a common enemy (down with the USA) - or - subjugate the population (kill the opposition). Nation building won't work in a divided country or population.'
But we don't actually believe that. Moreover while 'common cause' [however framed re: any given proposed invasion] is the STATED assumption on which we invade others [whether 'others' agree with us or not]. But we're not so good at discovering [let alone explaining] the geopolitical center of gravity around which that to-be-invaded nation is supposed to unite. For years, I hammered away on that re: the Iraqi invasion. Around what geopolitical center of gravity is this glorious new Iraq to be framed? For all my asking, for all my writing to public officials, I never received even one, solitary answer to that question.
'The US entered Afghanistan (or invaded if you prefer) to hunt and kill Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.'
Invasion because invasion is the proper term. If South Americans crossing the US border is an 'invasion,' you'll have an hard time making the case that Afghanistan and its erstwhile US puppet regime was anything less than an invasion. But al Qaeda [which we have supported] had nothing to do this invasion. It was always about minerals and Capitalism's geo-strategic interests in the region. Afghanistan is part of the coming Silk Road. That and minerals are why we invaded Afghanistan. The rest is brass-frocked impudence.
'The Taliban were shielding Al Qaeda so the Taliban had to go.'
These al Qaeda references need to be quantified. The organization operates in various places. In some, it is opposed to US [stated] intentions. In other instances, the organization functions as a strategic asset.
'The US did not enter Afghanistan to fight for human rights or to create a free, democratic nation.'
As I said -- the US ruling class doesn't support freedom or democracy in the US. Why would it support these elsewhere?
'The Taliban were shielding Al Qaeda so the Taliban had to go.'
We've heard that narrative in the past. No matter how often it is repeated, Afghanistan was about minerals and geo-strategic interests.
'...when the military mission was completed there wasn't any further need to remain in Afghanistan.'
And when that mission went belly-up, it was decided to regroup for planning the next objective in of the pivot to China -- China.
'That was the choice of the Afghans. The US only needed stability for the military mission.'
But then, you think that the US is a stable regime -- even though the ground shakes beneath your feet.
'Afghans only saw the US as a gravy train.'
The recipients of the gravy train would be the military contractor companies that extorted huge masses of public monies for stockpiled weapons that were never used. As it is said, if war wasn't profitable, it wouldn't happen. We all know this is the case. You included.
As I see it, democracy scarcely functions in the US.
Perhaps...but if that's true...do you think the majority of Afghan people are better off when we leave...and they're ruled by the Taliban?
I really can't answer that, Krishna. As I see it, that is not for me to decide. The Afghan people must decide that for themselves. But any progressive tendency, I suspect, has been set back decades.
.
I think I mentioned to you before... China will thwart itself. Yes, the U.S. is guilty of many outrageous things, but like so many other things, China seems hellbent in overtaking the U.S. in this regard as well. Signing treaties, breaking treaties, etc.
BTW... The Republic of Taiwan is NOT part of China's domestic affairs, no more than the original U.S. colonies are part of the U.K. domestic affairs or the Louisiana purchase is part of France's domestic affairs, nor most of Latin America is part of Spain and Portugal's domestic affairs. Not mention Russia could claim Alaska, but I don't worry about that, as I understand Sarah Palin is keeping an eye on Russia... or was.
Formosa was Formosan until the Dutch colonized it in the 17th century.
Taiwan? Did I mention Taiwan? Did I mention America's original promises to honour China's One Country Two Systems requirement? I purposely did NOT mention Taiwan.
So what are those domestic affairs and sovereignty issues?
Oh, I have to do your research since you don't believe America has been blacklisting Chinese businesses and individuals, banning investments in Chinese businesses, maintaining unfair tariffs that harm American consumers and farmers more than the Chinese, raiding the Houston Chinese consulate on the basis that it was spying with absolutely no evidence found, preventing Chinese students from studying STEM courses and doing research at American universities and institutions, attempting to prevent European nations from doing business with Chinese corporations, requiring its puppet regimes in QUAD and FIVE EYES to pressure China.......etc.
All of which are within the sovereign rights of the U.S. government.
A clarification item...
The original promises that were broken, were made by the People's Republic of China.
If I understand you correctly, everyone should lie down and allow The People's Republic of China to have dominion over everything. Australia should simply forget their sovereign rights and simply accept Huawei's 5G, or else. Vietnam must forgive China's continuing excursion into their territorial waters, which were agreed upon by both parties... or else. The Phillipines should roll over and allow Chinese vessels to swarm the exclusive Phillippine economic zone around Julian Felipe Reef.
Two of those 3 are supposed to China's buddies and even they are beginning to question their arrangements. Of course, China will threaten all sorts of bad things unless China gets its way. The People's Republic of China gets mad when the Republic of China or any of its citizens attempt to fly the Republic of China Flag. Even using the term "Republic of China" drives the mainlanders into hysteria.
I don't disagree with that.
Nothing you mentioned was aimed at the USA. Don't you think, though, that BOTH nations would be better off if relations were normalized between them?
Of course, but that would require trust, which is noticably absent and moving further away each day.
I do note that nothing you mentioned that China has done was aimed at the USA, but everything I posted that the USA has done was aimed directly at China - THAT was the issue, not whether it's a sovereign right to do it.
The U.S., as a part of the world, has made agreements, treaties, etc. It should be noted the U.S. has at times... failed. Afghanistan might be an example.
China, as a part of the world, has made agreements and treaties, etc. It is difficult to find any that China has not broken. China made agreements on joining WTO and has broken quite a few...
Breaking the above, has been detrimental to the U.S.
The United States has made defense agreements with many countries, which would impact the U.S. if those countries were attacked. Many of the agreements are structured in a manner that these countries would not develop nuclear weapons.
So yes, it could be stated the U.S. is interfering with these countries, but the other option is for them to have nuclear weapons. The People's Republic of China and you, have consistently brought up the 1st strike option if these countries were to even try to develop nuclear weapons. Which is bullying in the 1st degree and very much interference in those countries affairs... and by extension of treaties, with the U.S.
Have I? I didn't know that using the expression MAD, same as any other nuclear power, would be in terms of aggression rather than defence. I think the only comment I may have ever made that would fit that accusation even obliquely was in a comparison with the Cuba missile crisis if anyone attempted to plant nuclear weapons on Taiwan. But no matter, after all, the whole world is safe from being devoured by the fierce and uncontrollable Chinese dragon by..... who else than....
It's like a time warp to the 30s reading your posts.
I saw that as well , just change japanese expantionism to chinese expantionism , and things kind of explain themselves . only now its called sphere of influence .
And of course "sphere of influence" is not even DREAMED of by the USA. s/
How many military bases does America have around the world? How many nations does it provide aid to?
Including canada militarily ? too many to count really, but bases are closing and things are continually being looked at , but i attribute that as a reminent of the aftermath of WW2 and the cold war, now if you want to talk humanitarian aide , the number gets higher and should likely be whittled down to 2 things , those that are actually allies( by deed and not word ) and those that really need it financially .
as for the "sphere of influence " stuff , any idiot knows that the US got caught up in that going back to the monroe doctrine and it got kicked into high gear during the spanish -american war when they gained spanish posessions in the atlantic and pacific .
or teddy r's big stick policy with the great white fleet .
I think they can contribute a frigate to the cause, along with some fishing boats on the east coast.
i dont think anyone since alexander the great has been able to do anything with that region as far as trying to get it under somewhat control except the afghanis themselves on their own conditions .
I really have no problem supporting taiwan or the protesters in Hong Kong wanting their own autonimy on their terms seperate of the CCP, both places historically was were those the CCP persecuted and murdered during and after the chinese civil war ended up. both places are pretty much made up of apopulation of what during that civil war were nationalist chinese that lost the war to the CCP, and they have no less right to existance than the jews of europe that settled in what was once palistine or the trans jordan .
A couple of great uncles ( grandmothers brothers ) , had experiences with national ist chinese and had nothing but good things to say about them , one flew the "hump " anther was a member of the AVG with chenault .
Now i have a closer uncle , ( mothers brother ) who had dealings with the CCP chinese at chosin , i wont repeat his thoughts on those particular chinese.
For such a young country with old roots China under the CCP seems to be in an awful big hurry to make some mistakes like older countries , got their butts handed to them when vietnam decided they would not kowtow to party demands ( viets likely had enough of being played as a pawn like the french and americans and the chinese themselves attempted )
Their border skirmishes with india look like something to watch for the simple facts India is not tibet , and they have nukes , overtures to afghan
will be fun to watch as well with chinas treatment of muslims . and pakistan is right between the 2 , a simple thought process of how chinese treat muslims , could end up with egg fu yung on their face .
Lastly ? whats the tally of the dead from CCP control ? yeah 100 deaths are a tragedy , a million is a stastitic, but from the civil war through the great leap forward estimates are upward of 30 million or better dependent on who you read .
Like i said i have no problem supporting taiwan (old nationalists that have their own distinct identity within chinese history ) , or with supporting those in hong Kong deciding they want nothing to do with the tyrants s of the mainland with in the CCP . I will support them , justas readily as i do those in israel.
The difference with Israel is that Israel was the ancient homeland of the Jews for thousands of years, or was Jesus born in Alaska? In a little over two decades, who is going to stop Hong Kong being swallowed up as part of the Chinese mainland, under the CCP in its agreement with the UK, so why does China have to tolerate American incited insurrection (Americans have already proven competence with that on Jan 6)?
"will be fun to watch as well with chinas treatment of muslims"
There are 32 million Muslims in China, 31 million of them (including 10 million Uyghurs) living normal peaceful lives in China, carrying on their businesses, celebrating their festivals, educating their kids, praying in their Mosques (I live not far from the biggest Mosque I've ever seen, and its minarets are not chopped down like Switzerland did). It is unfortunate that China does not tolerate people having guns committing daily gun murders and violence, and is so uncivilized as to NOT have the world's highest incarceration rate?
But then I'm in China and you're not, so we do have different perspectives.
I understand, Mark, that your comment has to bring up history from a half century or more ago - I guess such a comment was necessary since America's covid-19 death numbers exceed 600,000 through delay and mismanagement, and I do feel for the loyal Japanese Americans who were incarcerated during WW2, but not as much as I feel for the women and children America vapourized in HIroshima and Nagasaki, but I thought our comments were about the present.
You do know i am laughing my ass off ? you mean the insurrection , that had little to no chance of being an insurrection i actually see what happened on 1/6 as the equivilant of a dog chasing a car , finally catching it and once they caught it , didnt know what the hell to do next .... if it truely was an insurrection , where were the force of arms ? where were the tarring and feathering ? why such a low body count ( sorry i dont count the 4 that had medical issues or those that committed suicide after the fact ) . American political kabuki theater for the unwashed masses is what it ends up being .
The best you will be able to convince me is that the jews are a semetic race just as all residents of the area are( arab , muslim and so on ) and all of them were transient and took advantage at one point or another of another groups weaknesses and took over , so "homeland" means crap , because every culture took over at some point another groups homelamd , human migration is rife with that .
And religion has caused a lot of human conflict and suffering , be the cult leader be jesus , mohammad , abraham , budda or kali/ shiva or whom ever .
Now politics likely falls in second to that but ,it wil and likely has caught up to religion .
the point you missed buzz is that even the smallest group has the right to decide against the larger group to decide not to be swallowed up and ruled by them, if every non jew turned west and walked to the sea pushing jews , jews would be in the sea in short order . , so yes we have a vast gulf of differing perspective , with many minute factors , such as you point out location , age , differing political or moral beliefs , but it good to understand the differences as well. It may mean nothing , and it may mean everything .
Like was asked , what is jerusalem ? the answer was nothing , then everything , depends on the person and their perspective .
well i do have thoughts on both hiroshima and nagasaki , i served with the unit that delivered those bombs to target in the USAF and i do contemplate the issue and its effects and i am thankful that they have been the only 2 times such has been used in war .
again perspective plays a large role , as you put it , the vaprization of 2 cities , vs the complete and total genocide of a national race with an added estimated casualty rate of over 1 million service members if mainland japan had been invaded like normandy, and the japanese people would have fought that hard in their own back yard . . remember up until that point , the japanese public was told they were winning .
Are you talking about the Japanese?
yes , i am , but it is with an understanding of the culture and society as it was at that particular time .
1. Interestingly, there have been incredible advances in genetics recently. One discovery? That the Arabs and the Jews have a common ancestor! (The original Arabs and Jews are biologically related... and both are accurately considered to be "Semitic Peoples"). . . It would be nice if more of them realized that!
.
2. A common misconception:
jews are a semetic race just as all residents of the area are ( arab , muslim and so on )
Probably most in the area are Semitic, but not all . But Many people assume that all Muslims (at least in that area) are Semitic. Yes, true Jews and Arabs are. But there are other groups who, while Muslim in religion are not ethnically Semitic.
Two of the most noteworthy non-Semites: Turks (IIRC Turkic peoples are descended from invaders originally from Central Asia, Mongolia, etc).
The other non-Semitic group of Muslims in the mid-East(mainly in the country now called "Iran") are neither Semitic nor Arab-- they are descended from a different group-- the ancient Persians)
There are also several other small groups of non-Semites as well....
The winner in afganastan was the defense contractors it’s the American way.
MIC xmas bonuses might be a little disappointing this year.
Wishful thinking.
Now that the Taliban have that nice US military hardware- especially the drones. They are going to allow the Russians and Chinese to reverse engineer it all.
The US government is going to need upgrades, and updated programming (especially on the drones), to ensure that we maintain our military advantage.
Defeat is just as good for the MIC as victory or sustain occupation.
True.
And while it may seem counter-intuitive at first, long periods of peace are not really all that bad for defense stocks.
Why? Because if a war suddenly breaks out, we can't all of a sudden produce Yuge numbers of new Planes, Tanks etc.
And if we decide to develop more advanced weapons when a war suddenly starts...well, it takes years from the idea of a new design 'till actual production.
So--- if you're an investor-- investments in defense stocks will be safe no matter whether there's war or peace!
OTOH, if you're a short-term trader, you can play even a short term expectation of defense stocks moving up on fears of increased chances of war-- or even fears of increased terrorism.
Yep, American armaments manufacturers and warplane manufacturers are the best investment in the world. It kind of goes along with "gun love" and even if a hiatus happens, it's an historical fact that America will not allow that hiatus to linger too long.
I think so. I mean let's face it, at his age another child would just be too much....
Tough room!