|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 18 2021 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban. We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live. To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure. If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'.
War of 1812?
No two countries or wars are the same especially ones so far removed between ww2 and the gulf wars. Not really worth comparing who would do what and what not.
|
On August 17 2021 23:56 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. Here's how I remember this last 20 years: "Wow, America, world police apparently. Can't these imperialist douchebags mind their own business?" "Yeah, I totally agree, every moment the US spends in the middle east makes it worse!" "If only the US would let the middle east find their own way and live their own lives" ***US trains Afg folks for 20 years and then decides if they aren't ready, they'll never be*** ***Afg army completely crumbles, surrenders, joins Taliban within like a fucking week LOL*** "Wow, the US is so negligent! How could they turn their backs???" Truly insanity. Drone mentioned that resistance during WW2 earlier so I'll parallel that there are 10% nazi collaborators. 80% status quo will follow the leader. 10% resistance. Back during the Bush administration, the Taliban wanted to be a minority part of the government that was formed. This was denied and the Taliban becomes the 10% resistance. They have resisted the entire occupation. Then we have the 10% American collaborators. This is President Ghani and his loyalists. The problem is the American imperialists left so he stepped out of the way. He has no power to project without American assets. He was already losing to the Taliban prior to the American withdrawal. The 80% have now shifted towards the Taliban because they don't care who leads them they just want peace and safety. What you're complaining about is that we supported the 10% Afghan puppet government that no one ever believed in when we should have had Taliban backing since the Bush administration. We should have realized at any point in the last 15-20 years and changed strategy. Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 23:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:47 Erasme wrote:
Leaving isn't really the low point here, it's how they left. The US has an habit of promising safe haven to locals who work with them. I've read that only 2.5k out of 80k locals were brought back. It's no less shameful than what Trump did with the Kurds. Sure that can be explained by how fast kabul fell, but wouldn't you bring the locals back before your soldiers ?
You can be for leaving afghanistan but criticize the execution. I firmly believe the military should have been the last ones to leave. It isn't clear to me what world it makes sense to pull troops first. That is 90000% a blunder. But that's really just not the bulk of what's going on. The thing few people seem willing to recognize: It is reasonable to expect the Afghan government to defend itself against the Taliban. If they can not, they simply aren't able to fulfill their duty as a government. They were invalid as a government once they had insufficient support to defend its citizens. It is self defined. It wasn't legitimate. If the US military pulling out early causes societal collapse, there was nothing there to begin with. Trump had a meeting the Taliban last year. Told them we were leaving and they've been building alliances and securing their power since. This is the paradox of liberalism in the region. We want the people to self determine and vote, but only for the US interests we want them to. Problem is bombing people until they agree with you doesn't work.
This is a good post and I largely agree. It appears the Taliban should have been incorporated a lot sooner. I am not a fan of the Taliban. But there does not appear to be any better option. The situation in Kabul is proof that there truly is no better option.
|
|
|
On August 18 2021 00:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban. We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live. To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure. If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'. They shouldn't charge to their deaths blindly. That would be defending an illegitimate government. The rightful government is the Taliban because the Taliban appears to be the group that can defend the region. Whoever can defend the region wins. A government is not real if it can't defend its borders. As you pointed out, citizens mostly don't care. They just want to live their lives. And what I am saying is that they didn't defend themselves because they didn't want to. If they didn't want to, there was no reason for the US to be there at all. The US probably shouldn't have been there indeed. But they were, and some might say that by having gone there you (and the rest of the international community that supported the attack on Afghanistan) have some obligation there.
You can call the Afghan government illegitimate because they can't defend themselves but that's because the US blew up the ones that could (well not entirely blew up it seems now...) and put this one in its place.
And that is where you also miss the supposed 180 you see in this thread. Its the same as has been explained to some Republicans that didn't understand it before.
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'.
|
On August 18 2021 00:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:10 Husyelt wrote:On August 18 2021 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban. We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live. To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure. If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'. War of 1812? No two countries or wars are the same especially ones so far removed between ww2 and the gulf wars. Not really worth comparing who would do what and what not. Us rowdy Canadians do not get enough credit for storming the US and burning down the white house!
You merely made it more beautiful. Our troops refused to invade your country, because we have more honor. We even gave up Detroit without a fight!
|
On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:10 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 00:04 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2021 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 23:44 Oukka wrote:On August 17 2021 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2021 19:31 Erasme wrote:
Let's hope the US doesn't abandon those people. But I don't see how they will evacuate friendlies when they already have so much trouble evacuating their owns. They abandoned themselves. They chose not to fight. It is truly bizarre seeing how many people view these people as helpless children with no ability to make their own decisions. It’s not that we didn’t try. We were there for 20 years. The Afghans fought those same twenty years, casualties of their security forces are around 60000. It's demonstrably false and ignorant to claim they didn't fight. https://twitter.com/xv40rds/status/1427439743982243841?s=19Just in case it is still unclear. Together with the US forces (you know, world's strongest military force) the Afghan forces were in a standstill against the Taliban. The US (+coalition) pulling out does not magically make the Afghan army stronger, or leave it at even the same strength. The weakened army could fight for a while, but even the more optimistic estimates were that Kabul falls in 18months. It was a question of when Taliban win, not whether they would win. They fought when they were essentially being forced to fight. They had a foreign power occupying them. The real indication as to how resolved they were is how long they fought after the US was gone. They didn't. They surrendered. We've all seen the videos of Afghans being trained. The problem was not the US. The problem was simply an insufficiently large movement against the Taliban. Not enough people supported the sham of a government against the Taliban. They were going to lose in 18 months because they were insufficiently large as a movement. It is self defined. It is one of the prime examples of failure in this situation. If the movement against the Taliban is insufficient, I guess that's all there is to it, right? Why are you advocating for installing a puppet government that has insufficient support to fend off the Taliban? Fortunately the US has never actually been invaded since its founding so I can't point to a local comparison for you. The closest we get is Europe. most of Europe surrendered to Nazi Germany pretty much as fast as the Afghans did to the Taliban. We all like to pretend our country would fight bravely and resist to the bitter end. The entirety of human history shows that the vast vast VAST majority of people simple want to live. To pretend like the Afghan people don't care because they didn't bravely charge off to their deaths is blind beyond measure. If you have a person you care about think about them and if you would want to spend more years with them no matter the circumstances or if you would bravely march to your death and theirs because some guy on the internet who has never seen the horror of war wants you to prove your part of 'a movement'. They shouldn't charge to their deaths blindly. That would be defending an illegitimate government. The rightful government is the Taliban because the Taliban appears to be the group that can defend the region. Whoever can defend the region wins. A government is not real if it can't defend its borders. As you pointed out, citizens mostly don't care. They just want to live their lives. And what I am saying is that they didn't defend themselves because they didn't want to. If they didn't want to, there was no reason for the US to be there at all. The US probably shouldn't have been there indeed. But they were, and some might say that by having gone there you (and the rest of the international community that supported the attack on Afghanistan) have some obligation there. You can call the Afghan government illegitimate because they can't defend themselves but that's because the US blew up the ones that could (well not entirely blew up it seems now...) and put this one in its place. And that is where you also miss the supposed 180 you see in this thread. Its the same as has been explained to some Republicans that didn't understand it before. The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded. 'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'.
That's fair. I completely disagree, but I think that's our point of disagreement: The idea that there was a benefit to the US remaining to keep the Taliban out. I reject that. I think this would have been the same situation 10 years ago or 10 years from now.
Sometimes, you don't have any good options. This was the least shitty option IMO. Even fully understanding what a tragedy this is, I think this was the best case scenario. Well the only thing that was flat out wrong and dumb IMO was not letting the military leave last.
|
On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'.
When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad.
|
|
|
On August 18 2021 00:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'. When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad. If I thought that money went anywhere other then the military now that its not needed in Afghanistan I might care a tiny bit, but we both know that is not how defence spending works.
Besides, you knew the price tag going in. Don't go if you don't want to pay.
|
On August 18 2021 00:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:36 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'. When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad. If I thought that money went anywhere other then the military now that its not needed in Afghanistan I might care a tiny bit, but we both know that is not how defence spending works.
Besides, you knew the price tag going in. Don't go if you don't want to pay.
This logic means the US should remain forever if nothing ever improved. This isn't how the world should work. This isn't how anything works. When it turns out you had a shitty plan, it isn't the obligation to keep making mistakes. It is totally acceptable to say "Ah shit, never mind".
Just to clarify: Are you saying that with more time, The Taliban would have been defeated and liberal democracy would have been a core value of Afghanistan?
|
On August 18 2021 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:45 Gorsameth wrote:On August 18 2021 00:36 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'. When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad. If I thought that money went anywhere other then the military now that its not needed in Afghanistan I might care a tiny bit, but we both know that is not how defence spending works.
Besides, you knew the price tag going in. Don't go if you don't want to pay. This logic means the US should remain forever if nothing ever improved. This isn't how the world should work. This isn't how anything works. When it turns out you had a shitty plan, it isn't the obligation to keep making mistakes. It is totally acceptable to say "Ah shit, never mind". Just to clarify: Are you saying that with more time, The Taliban would have been defeated and liberal democracy would have been a core value of Afghanistan? If you give it a 100 years? probably.
And yes, obviously the US has no interest in staying in Afghanistan for a century, that just points back to the "then you shouldn't have gone in to remove the existing government and create a power vacuum'.
But for a more practical answer.
If staying in Afghanistan is a mistake and the situation cannot be improved then surely a better more orderly transition then this could have been done?
There have been mentions of working with the Taliban. If the US wanted out could they have set up a coalition government between more moderates and the Taliban?
Perhaps one supported by International humanitarian and economic support as a carrot to try and get the 2 sides to work together in rebuilding the country in a stable manner and not just oust the other half once the Americans are entirely gone?
I find it hard to believe there was no better option 'this'.
ps.
"ah shit, never mind" kind of ignores the MASSIVE humanitarian cost as a result of the US taking their ball and going home.
|
On August 18 2021 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:45 Gorsameth wrote:On August 18 2021 00:36 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'. When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad. If I thought that money went anywhere other then the military now that its not needed in Afghanistan I might care a tiny bit, but we both know that is not how defence spending works.
Besides, you knew the price tag going in. Don't go if you don't want to pay. This logic means the US should remain forever if nothing ever improved. This isn't how the world should work. This isn't how anything works. When it turns out you had a shitty plan, it isn't the obligation to keep making mistakes. It is totally acceptable to say "Ah shit, never mind". Just to clarify: Are you saying that with more time, The Taliban would have been defeated and liberal democracy would have been a core value of Afghanistan?
The problem with this question is that defeating the Taliban and liberal values are mutually exclusive. You don't have a free thinking population if you align yourself with US interests.
On August 18 2021 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:
There have been mentions of working with the Taliban. If the US wanted out could they have set up a coalition government between more moderates and the Taliban?
A coalition didn't happen since the Afghan government was excluded from the talks with Trump last year, but something like this did happen.
|
On August 18 2021 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 00:45 Gorsameth wrote:On August 18 2021 00:36 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'. When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad. If I thought that money went anywhere other then the military now that its not needed in Afghanistan I might care a tiny bit, but we both know that is not how defence spending works.
Besides, you knew the price tag going in. Don't go if you don't want to pay. This logic means the US should remain forever if nothing ever improved. This isn't how the world should work. This isn't how anything works. When it turns out you had a shitty plan, it isn't the obligation to keep making mistakes. It is totally acceptable to say "Ah shit, never mind". Just to clarify: Are you saying that with more time, The Taliban would have been defeated and liberal democracy would have been a core value of Afghanistan? If you give it a 100 years? probably. And yes, obviously the US has no interest in staying in Afghanistan for a century, that just points back to the "then you shouldn't have gone in to remove the existing government and create a power vacuum'. But for a more practical answer. If staying in Afghanistan is a mistake and the situation cannot be improved then surely a better more orderly transition then this could have been done? There have been mentions of working with the Taliban. If the US wanted out could they have set up a coalition government between more moderates and the Taliban? Perhaps one supported by International humanitarian and economic support as a carrot to try and get the 2 sides to work together in rebuilding the country in a stable manner and not just oust the other half once the Americans are entirely gone? I find it hard to believe there was no better option 'this'. ps. "ah shit, never mind" kind of ignores the MASSIVE humanitarian cost as a result of the US taking their ball and going home.
I think all of the things you listed sound like great options. Lots of things have sounded like great options. At one point, it is appropriate to recognize you aren't the right person for a job and quit. I agree with a lot of the logic you are describing, but it doesn't feel like it allows for a bad idea to get canned.
Your ideas are great but do you want the US doing that? After this is what 20 years of the US gave us? Perhaps someone else would do a better job? From a technical/program management perspective, 20 years is acceptable to fire someone. There are plenty of times where an organization needs to just rip the bandaid off and move on. This is different because it is people's lives. I fully understand that. However, I am still not convinced the US would have been successful at any of those things. When has the US been successful at those things in Afghanistan? Ever?
I don't buy the idea that 100 years would be enough. I don't think it would be long enough.
|
Afghanistan could have been more successful, splitting the country into smaller states. Have a series of benefits if those smaller states showed progress or met certain requirements. As is Afghanistan is too large and already divided to have any sense of national pride. Let the tribal regions take in their own pride and fight for themselves. Than again, maybe that would have set off a series of catastrophe. Democracy can work in the Middle East. But I think you need a clean slate, and not force different tribes to be in the same place,
|
I don't know why people keep repeating this silly notion of Afghanistan not having any national pride. Just because they don't want to bleed and die for a foreign-installed, highly corrupt and ultimately useless government?
If China invaded the US, bombed the shit out of every major city and told you that Communism is now the order of the day, would you say that there's no sense of national pride in the US and that we'd be better off letting each state go its own way when Chinese-paid American militias decided to refuse to fight for Mao's noble ideals?
|
On August 18 2021 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On August 18 2021 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 00:45 Gorsameth wrote:On August 18 2021 00:36 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2021 00:31 Gorsameth wrote:
The US probably shouldn't be invading countries in the Middle-East. But you did and now your there you shouldn't abandon it just because its inconvenient and leave it in a worse place then when you invaded.
'don't throw stuff all over the floor, but if you do, clean it up so others don't step in it'. When the inconvenience is to the tune to $100 billion a year, give or take - maybe abandoning it isn't so bad. If I thought that money went anywhere other then the military now that its not needed in Afghanistan I might care a tiny bit, but we both know that is not how defence spending works.
Besides, you knew the price tag going in. Don't go if you don't want to pay. This logic means the US should remain forever if nothing ever improved. This isn't how the world should work. This isn't how anything works. When it turns out you had a shitty plan, it isn't the obligation to keep making mistakes. It is totally acceptable to say "Ah shit, never mind". Just to clarify: Are you saying that with more time, The Taliban would have been defeated and liberal democracy would have been a core value of Afghanistan? If you give it a 100 years? probably. And yes, obviously the US has no interest in staying in Afghanistan for a century, that just points back to the "then you shouldn't have gone in to remove the existing government and create a power vacuum'. But for a more practical answer. If staying in Afghanistan is a mistake and the situation cannot be improved then surely a better more orderly transition then this could have been done? There have been mentions of working with the Taliban. If the US wanted out could they have set up a coalition government between more moderates and the Taliban? Perhaps one supported by International humanitarian and economic support as a carrot to try and get the 2 sides to work together in rebuilding the country in a stable manner and not just oust the other half once the Americans are entirely gone? I find it hard to believe there was no better option 'this'. ps. "ah shit, never mind" kind of ignores the MASSIVE humanitarian cost as a result of the US taking their ball and going home. I think all of the things you listed sound like great options. Lots of things have sounded like great options. At one point, it is appropriate to recognize you aren't the right person for a job and quit. I agree with a lot of the logic you are describing, but it doesn't feel like it allows for a bad idea to get canned. Your ideas are great but do you want the US doing that? After this is what 20 years of the US gave us? Perhaps someone else would do a better job? From a technical/program management perspective, 20 years is acceptable to fire someone. There are plenty of times where an organization needs to just rip the bandaid off and move on. This is different because it is people's lives. I fully understand that. However, I am still not convinced the US would have been successful at any of those things. When has the US been successful at those things in Afghanistan? Ever? I don't buy the idea that 100 years would be enough. I don't think it would be long enough. I picked a 100 years because its an easy number for a significant meaning. It means no one is alive that remembers a time before.
Now obv its not as simple as just waiting, the point is to instil the new generations with the ideals and values that you want to grow. That means education, economic support, the works. That is what, imo, what it would take to change the core values of a people.
I understand wanting to rip the bandaid off, and that is what this is. The West failed and now we're running back hoping this won't end up biting us in the ass in months/years/decades. And I don't buy Bidens 'we were there to stop terrorist threats and we did that'. Don't see how you can say that when you went in to remove the Taliban and now your letting that same Taliban back in.
When a company or an individual has to rip the bandaid off its a cost of money, for a business worst case people end up getting fired. But most of us have society security nets. Its a limited group of people that is effected and they can only fall so far.
This is 38 million people, and there is no net to catch them.
We're running, and everyone gets to see what 'Western Democracy' is worth.
'We' should be better then this, its sad that we're not.
On August 18 2021 01:46 Husyelt wrote:
Afghanistan could have been more successful, splitting the country into smaller states. Have a series of benefits if those smaller states showed progress or met certain requirements. As is Afghanistan is too large and already divided to have any sense of national pride. Let the tribal regions take in their own pride and fight for themselves. Than again, maybe that would have set off a series of catastrophe. Democracy can work in the Middle East. But I think you need a clean slate, and not force different tribes to be in the same place, Based on past history of Europe carving up countries from far away with a ruler I'm going to go with "for the love of gods please don't".
|
Norway28923 Posts
A large part of the problem with that carving up with a ruler was that we didn't factor in which groups of people/ 'would-be-nations' lived where, though. So you both got countries with big tribal conflicts, and groups of people separated into different countries. I'm not really saying I agree with him - but Husyelt is arguing for doing it according to existing tribal regions, so that's already significantly different from how Africa was separated.
|
On August 18 2021 02:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
A large part of the problem with that carving up with a ruler was that we didn't factor in which groups of people/ 'would-be-nations' lived where, though. So you both got countries with big tribal conflicts, and groups of people separated into different countries. I'm not really saying I agree with him - but Husyelt is arguing for doing it according to existing tribal regions, so that's already significantly different from how Africa was separated.
One thing about Afghanistan that surprised me is the number of languages spoken. It really highlights how distinct all the various factions are. They can't even communicate with each other. I was reading an article about how Afghanistan isn't really a country according to any of our standard definitions. Another total mess, just like Israel.
|
On August 18 2021 02:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
A large part of the problem with that carving up with a ruler was that we didn't factor in which groups of people/ 'would-be-nations' lived where, though. So you both got countries with big tribal conflicts, and groups of people separated into different countries. I'm not really saying I agree with him - but Husyelt is arguing for doing it according to existing tribal regions, so that's already significantly different from how Africa was separated.
Yeah you would have to give them free agency, but still have benefits to give if they can maintain certain thresholds. If they don’t want to after a while, let them do as they please. But other new states can see the benefits to staying on a certain path.
|
I don't know really about Afghanistan. It's very clearly the last gasp of any sort of ideal the west has about improving the lives of people in oppressive states. No one is ever going to go back to Africa and it just feels like the middle east is going to be treated the same from now on.
I guess Chinese colonialism is what the people want and it's what the world just has to accept now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
