The all things Political Topic - When the sun Rises, the shadows must retreat Fleeing in fear from the Fires of dawn

[Pidesco]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You right in some ways but where do you bring Colonialism into the reality of Afghanistan nowadays?

Lets focus on the last 40 years or  so to  understand why we are where we are. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and  left in 1989, they are the reason the Taliban came to power after the Cold War ended because their was a power vacuum and various Afghan tribes went to war with each other and the Taliban was victorious 

I am not sure if you are defining the various proxy wars and direct wars during the Cold War as Colonialism?

Because its unhelpful and inaccurate to define historical  events that arent directly related to what caused them ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

Secondly the primary mission in Afghanistan after 9/11 was the defeat of the AQ and the killing of Bin Laden , when you suggest " the war was lost the moment the US invaded Afghanistan " are you saying the US should not have acted after 9/11 ?

Outside interference was already common before 1979, and that interference has directly or indirectly fueled instability in the country. The British and the Russians vied for the region in the 1800s causing 3 wars and massive instability. During most of the 20th century, the USSR was the big political driver in the country, pushing for an implementation of a communist government. The upside was the modernization, and the rejection of extremist religion(all religion, but oh well), the downside was that they were turning Afghanistan into a puppet state that did not reflect the population on the ground. They invaded to "bolster" that government. This was the act that pushed religious extremism to the fore, I'd say, although the US providing military resources to that lot surely did not help.

No, the cold war wasn't, technically, colonialism. It was modern imperialism given cover by the Truman doctrine. As per usual.

To say that the rise of the Taliban was a direct consequence of USSR action in the country is a gross simplification, given the religious makeup of the region, and ignores the support the US and the Saudis gave the mujahideen.

The US should not have acted in the way it did, no. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pretty obvious choice internally, though. It surely did wonders for the GOP's popularity in that period.

[BruceVC]

40 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Outside interference was already common before 1979, and that interference has directly or indirectly fueled instability in the country. The British and the Russians vied for the region in the 1800s causing 3 wars and massive instability. During most of the 20th century, the USSR was the big political driver in the country, pushing for an implementation of a communist government. The upside was the modernization, and the rejection of extremist religion(all religion, but oh well), the downside was that they were turning Afghanistan into a puppet state that did not reflect the population on the ground. They invaded to "bolster" that government. This was the act that pushed religious extremism to the fore, I'd say, although the US providing military resources to that lot surely did not help.

No, the cold war wasn't, technically, colonialism. It was modern imperialism given cover by the Truman doctrine. As per usual.

To say that the rise of the Taliban was a direct consequence of USSR action in the country is a gross simplification, given the religious makeup of the region, and ignores the support the US and the Saudis gave the mujahideen.

The US should not have acted in the way it did, no. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pretty obvious choice internally, though. It surely did wonders for the GOP's popularity in that period.

You make some interesting points and some I agree with

What I dont agree with is where you  seem to conflate some  historical developments and attribute equal " blame " for outcomes. For example the US and the Saudis only intervened in Afghanistan because the USSR invaded Afghanistan so dont you think when we look at the events of history it has to start with what caused the event ?

The main point I was making was Colonialism was not the reason the Taliban came to power

But I am  much more interested in  your view that " the US should not have invaded Afghanistan and this was a mistake "

I am confused  when you say  "the US should not have acted in that way yet  it was an internal choice " ?

The US was attacked by AQ on 9/11 and 5k Americans more or less died. Any country that gets attacked from an external enemy will obviously decide how to respond through an internal choice made by the current government, thats how all foreign policy decisions are implemented. But it was an external reason that led to the understandable invasion

So what I want to understand is what should the US have done after 9/11 if you dont believe deciding that AQ was now the official enemy of the US and later on most of the civilised world including the entire ME. Considering the fact that AQ had been given refuge in Afghanistan and the Taliban were given the chance to hand Bin Laden over 

Would you have advised no action should be taken against AQ ? And if the Democrats were running the US at the time I  can guarantee you they would have also advocated an invasion ?

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

You are right especially about that last part. In retrospect the final outcome was never in doubt.

 

this outcome was avoidable. as much as people complain 'bout the costs o' twenty years, what is happening now was indeed avoided for two decades and coulda' been avoided much longer with an extreme limited counter-insurgency presence. leave 'cause twenty year costs were too high is not reasonable anymore than is stay 'cause so much had been invested and lost in twenty years. lord knows Gromnir ain't suggesting the past twenty years were handled well. am not suggesting if choice had to be made again that invasion and occupation were warranted-- keep in mind we has repeated many times now how the initial costs o' invasion and nation building were criminal undersold to the american people. am also knowing is impossible for those who fought in afghanistan to ignore the past, but am thinking the situational calculus for a withdrawal necessarily required a more dispassionate appraisal: as of 2021, did the costs o' leaving outweigh the cost o' staying? 

at the time trump maneuvered to let mullah baradar outta prison and negotiated with the freaking taliban and when biden made his choice to withdraw complete while announcing an actual deadline for such withdrawal, status quo were believed to be sustainable with as few as 3000 total troops and it were believed, in large part 'cause o' years o' decreasing lethality faced by US troops in afghanistan, that combat losses would continue to be extreme limited. perhaps those america soldiers and marines who would indeed die thousands of miles from home were too great a cost to bear when measured against the current and future chaos in afghanistan, but particularly if you genuine believed This would be the outcome, such requires cold blooded indifference to the plight o' the afghanistan people am unable to muster.

were admitted difficult, but the right choice were to ignore twenty years past. ignore the equal inappropriate twenty more years arguments. biden had to decide costs and benefits in 2021. perhaps you will continue to believe biden made the correct choice but just got the logistics o' withdrawal wrong, but regardless, this outcome were very much in doubt and coulda' been avoided.  

'course maybe those people clinging desperate to planes didn't realize just how "decent" is the taliban when dealing with prisoners and any who had aided the americans these past twenty years.

...

am also kinda annoyed every time we hear media refer to the dramatic increase in "forced marriages" already taking place. am gonna need assume gd is with us on this point 'cause if he thinks taxes is theft, then is no question he sees forced marriages as slavery, yes? call it what it is even if it makes it tougher to bear.

[Agiel]

On 8/13/2021 at 2:06 AM, Gorth said:

Building the odd water purification system for a village or a school here or there is not going to cut it. You have to really show them better alternatives worth striving for. So far, it hasn't happened.

Alternatives presented by the US would have sufficed when there was appropriate investment put into the project. The big kicker is that it was a hell of a lot cheaper for the ISI to pay angry, listless young men with few prospects at home in Pakistan (of which there are plenty) to wreck infrastructure, plant IEDs, and intimidate folks in places where ISAF and ANA forces weren't. 

Then there's the idea the ISI and generals have of the existence of a functional nationalist state with a reasonably trained and equipped army at its back being nothing short of a threat* to the survival of the Pakistani state. A firm belief in such tends to focus the mind.

*Mind you, I heavily disagree with the ISI's outlook.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Agiel

[pmp10]

29 minutes ago, Agiel said:

Alternatives presented by the US would have sufficed when there was appropriate investment put into the project. The big kicker is that it was a hell of a lot cheaper for the ISI to pay angry, listless young men with few prospects at home in Pakistan (of which there are plenty) to wreck infrastructure, plant IEDs, and intimidate folks in places where ISAF and ANA forces weren't. 

Is there any reliable estimation of how much ISI invested into the Taliban?
I'm really curious what the spending ratio was compared to US funding ANA.

[Guard Dog]

Biden’s comments were about what I expected. What else could he say? You can go back in time and there is no other way to unf—k this up. 
 

From now on if an enemy needs to be destroyed (and for Gods sake you had better be freaking sure that’s the way to go) then just do it and get out. Leave the Marshall plan where it belongs: history books.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Agiel said:

Alternatives presented by the US would have sufficed when there was appropriate investment put into the project. The big kicker is that it was a hell of a lot cheaper for the ISI to pay angry, listless young men with few prospects at home in Pakistan (of which there are plenty) to wreck infrastructure, plant IEDs, and intimidate folks in places where ISAF and ANA forces weren't. 

Then there's the idea the ISI and generals have of the existence of a functional nationalist state with a reasonably trained and equipped army at its back being nothing short of a threat* to the survival of the Pakistani state. A firm belief in such tends to focus the mind.

*Mind you, I heavily disagree with the ISI's outlook.

one reason (just one) why the trump administration efforts in negotiating with the taliban were flawed and self defeating is he didn't enlist international support. cutting the afghanistan government out of negotiations was unwise and arguable immoral, but international pressure were gonna need be put on pakistan for any peace with the taliban to have a chance o' success. international input and cooperation were kinda the obvious precursor to getting some kinda international agreement regarding pakistan. essential and obvious step ignored.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Zoraptor]

Previously I would have said that excluding the Afghan government from negotiations was moronic, but after their recent performance I'm way less sure about that.

And yeah, if the US wanted support for the Afghan government from a neighbour it would have to be Pakistan. It would have to be a pretty big offer to get them on board though, and chances are that anything significant enough would alienate India (Modi) who Trump had been courting extensively. OTOH, too much pressure would drive them to make a deal with India's other regional enemy, China. So, not easy to balance at all.

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

And yeah, if the US wanted support for the Afghan government from a neighbour it would have to be Pakistan. It would have to be a pretty big offer to get them on board though, and chances are that anything significant enough would alienate India (Modi) who Trump had been courting extensively. OTOH, too much pressure would drive them to make a deal with India's other regional enemy, China. So, not easy to balance at all.

Yesterday I was thinking the one good thing to come out of this is that we wouldn't need to keep paying off Pakistan. We've wasted enough money on that region for very little payoff. Better to focus on India.

[Zoraptor]

From the 'aged like milk files:

Ashraf Ghani: fixing failed states

Ashraf Ghani: Preparing for a Syrian Transition

but unfortunately this masterpiece from all the way back on Feb 15 1989 doesn't seem to be available online...

 

 

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, rjshae said:

Yesterday I was thinking the one good thing to come out of this is that we wouldn't need to keep paying off Pakistan. We've wasted enough money on that region for very little payoff. Better to focus on India.

I use to understand the financial aid to Pakistan to ensure their help in dealing with Islamic extremism and specifically the Taliban who  find refuge in western Pakistan in the tribal regions. The Pakistani government doesnt have complete control of this region which was always a challenge to them being able  to deal with Taliban in their own country and of course their is the historical support for the Taliban from some within Pakistan that created concerns around how committed Pakistan was to helping the US 

But the real question outside of these realities is " do you consider Pakistan a real  ally in the War on Terror "? Saudi Arabia and many ME countries are but I am not so sure about Pakistan. For example when Bin Laden was killed the Pakistan government seemed angry and criticised the US even going so far as arresting the local doctor who helped the CIA confirm it was Bin Laden

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49960979

So for me I agree with you, drop the aid to Pakistan. International aid should only be given to friends of any country or for important geopolitical reasons  but I would much rather support India if they need aid from the US

Edited August 17, 2021 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Biden’s comments were about what I expected. What else could he say? You can go back in time and there is no other way to unf—k this up. 
 

From now on if an enemy needs to be destroyed (and for Gods sake you had better be freaking sure that’s the way to go) then just do it and get out. Leave the Marshall plan where it belongs: history books.

I watched most of his speech and it was as good as it can be considering the decision the US already  took under his leadership 

He repeated the same points to justify the decision like

• He doesn't want to ask  any American families to continue to   fight this foreign war
• He doesn't want to pass on the responsibility  of this war to other presidents ( how magnanimous and bipartisan  ) 
• At some stage Afghanistan needs to address its own security

And all these points have some validity but their was something I didnt realize about the real cost and resources the US had currently invested in Afghanistan. The US  military resources  have been slowly,  strategically but steadily reduced over the last couple of years. Their were less than 5k soldiers and some air force  in Afghanistan 

So it begs a question, what is the real cost to keeping such a small force in Afghanistan compared to  the real human rights crisis that will be coming to the citizens and minority groups of Afghanistan?

 

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I watched most of his speech and it was as good as it can be considering the decision the US already  took under his leadership 

He repeated the same points to justify the decision like

• He doesn't want to ask  any American families to continue to   fight this foreign war
• He doesn't want to pass on the responsibility  of this war to other presidents ( how magnanimous and bipartisan  ) 
• At some stage Afghanistan needs to address its own security

And all these points have some validity but their was something I didnt realize about the real cost and resources the US had currently invested in Afghanistan. The US  military resources  have been slowly,  strategically but steadily reduced over the last couple of years. Their were less than 5k soldiers and some air force  in Afghanistan 

So it begs a question, what is the real cost to keeping such a small force in Afghanistan compared to  the real human rights crisis that will be coming to the citizens and minority groups of Afghanistan?

 

as much as am disgusted by what is happening in afghanistan, and as much heat as biden is taking today, his decision were political correct. President Ford, when he pulled troops outta vietnam, had a terrible approval rating, but afterwards his approval rating actual ticked upwards.  by the time ford left office, the withdrawal were one o' the few actions 'bout which he were consistent lauded. vietnam aint the same as afghanistan and am thinking is unfair to conflate, but if biden were looking for a worst case scenario as he reflected on an afghanistan withdrawal, President Ford's experience had to have come up in discussions. 

am hopeful am wrong, but am expecting a and this too shall pass reality is gonna settle in quicker than anybody wants to admit. yup, there will be horror stories daring reporters is gonna manage to capture and smuggle outta the new afghanistan, but is that new? for all the anger there were regarding the betrayal o' the kurds, how long did the anger last? for those persons on this board who so animated sympathize with the people in gaza, how many posts do we see each week reminding the rest o' us that the situation has not improved for the folks living in gaza?

no matter what your position is on this, the anger is gonna dissipate faster than is warranted... with one exception: veterans. last reputable poll we saw suggested better than 90% o' veterans were supporting biden's withdrawal choice and the poll were recent, after the collapse were occurring in real time... though 'course gd is always a curious take. biden resisted the advice o' his generals and numerous foreign affairs experts on both sides o' the aisle when he announced the withdrawal, but somehow gd sees this as another example o' biden being "feckless?" is another inigo montoya moment for Gromnir. whatever. point is that veterans as a whole is not gonna hold the tragedies yet to come in afghanistan against the President, and by the midterms am expecting the only identifiable voting group who will have a strong enough opinion on the matter to sway their votes is gonna be those veterans. 

we see tragedy in what is happening in afghanistan, but am having a hard time ignoring the recognition the political fallout is gonna be meh. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

as much as am disgusted by what is happening in afghanistan, and as much heat as biden is taking today, his decision were political correct. President Ford, when he pulled troops outta vietnam, had a terrible approval rating, but afterwards his approval rating actual ticked upwards.  by the time ford left office, the withdrawal were one o' the few actions 'bout which he were consistent lauded. vietnam aint the same as afghanistan and am thinking is unfair to conflate, but if biden were looking for a worst case scenario as he reflected on an afghanistan withdrawal, President Ford's experience had to have come up in discussions. 

am hopeful am wrong, but am expecting a and this too shall pass reality is gonna settle in quicker than anybody wants to admit. yup, there will be horror stories daring reporters is gonna manage to capture and smuggle outta the new afghanistan, but is that new? for all the anger there were regarding the betrayal o' the kurds, how long did the anger last? for those persons on this board who so animated sympathize with the people in gaza, how many posts do we see each week reminding the rest o' us that the situation has not improved for the folks living in gaza?

no matter what your position is on this, the anger is gonna dissipate faster than is warranted... with one exception: veterans. last reputable poll we saw suggested better than 90% o' veterans were supporting biden's withdrawal choice and the poll were recent, after the collapse were occurring in real time... though 'course gd is always a curious take. biden resisted the advice o' his generals and numerous foreign affairs experts on both sides o' the aisle when he announced the withdrawal, but somehow gd sees this as another example o' biden being "feckless?" is another inigo montoya moment for Gromnir. whatever. point is that veterans as a whole is not gonna hold the tragedies yet to come in afghanistan against the President, and by the midterms am expecting the only identifiable voting group who will have a strong enough opinion on the matter to sway their votes is gonna be those veterans. 

we see tragedy in what is happening in afghanistan, but am having a hard time ignoring the recognition the political fallout is gonna be meh. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Yes you  make some good points and accurate analogies like the reality of Gaza and is it really the US fault when Hamas refuses to recognize Israel has a right to exist so the " anger " tends to be selective and dissipate based on certain biases  people have and events in the region

So  I agree that the opinion of US citizens on Biden's decision will be more favorable as time goes on than the current views which are  " this was a  foreign policy disaster "  which much of the US media is suggesting 

But I dont mean to contradict myself when I say this is what I fear is the reality  for the future for women and minorities  ....even though I understand the decision Biden took

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/09/asia/afghanistan-girls-school-attack-intl-hnk/index.html

[Gromnir]

hope am wrong, but am expecting the most shocking thing 'bout the taliban returning to power is how quick the "unthinkable" is gonna be normalized. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

Taliban has succeeded in easy part, but they don't have forces to control Afghanistan (even combined forces of Talibans and AAF would not be enough), so they will face same issue they faced in 90s. Local warlords and tribe/clan leaders are the people which Afghans loyal to. Bribes and threats from Taliban, may get them public support of people, but if they want to keep criminals and terrorist organization out from Afghanistan then they will face fight that becomes more difficult by time, if they don't find some miracle that actually will unite Afghanistan. Because otherwise corruption and self serving will be same cancer that it has been for decades.

Of course this means just more suffering for Afghans who don't have position and influence to benefit from the situation which of course decrease how law-abiding people are. 

For rest of world if no one interferes these will mean that there is high likelihood that we will see increase in terrorist activity in all over the world in next decade, as Afghanistan will most likely become again safe haven to those who feel that world has not treated them as it should have. 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Elerond said:

Taliban has succeeded in easy part, but they don't have forces to control Afghanistan (even combined forces of Talibans and AAF would not be enough), so they will face same issue they faced in 90s. Local warlords and tribe/clan leaders are the people which Afghans loyal to. Bribes and threats from Taliban, may get them public support of people, but if they want to keep criminals and terrorist organization out from Afghanistan then they will face fight that becomes more difficult by time, if they don't find some miracle that actually will unite Afghanistan. Because otherwise corruption and self serving will be same cancer that it has been for decades.

Of course this means just more suffering for Afghans who don't have position and influence to benefit from the situation which of course decrease how law-abiding people are. 

For rest of world if no one interferes these will mean that there is high likelihood that we will see increase in terrorist activity in all over the world in next decade, as Afghanistan will most likely become again safe haven to those who feel that world has not treated them as it should have. 

If you correct, and the risk is real, and Afghanistan devolves again to a breeding ground of Islamic extremism dont you think someone has to interfere again? Or we do wait until another 9/11 until we act ? 

[Elerond]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

If you correct, and the risk is real, and Afghanistan devolves again to a breeding ground of Islamic extremism dont you think someone has to interfere again? Or we do wait until another 9/11 until we act ? 

Who has trillion for next war? Considering set example of how ineffective such efforts are?

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Who has trillion for next war? Considering set example of how ineffective such efforts are?

If its the money you are concerned about that is easy, we create a new tax for wealthy countries that have a  vested interest in stopping this type extremism. So we tax the EU countries, something reasonable like a 5 % increase on income tax or personal tax? 

I know someone like you wont mind this type of financial inconvenience considering how we all want a safer world and you have already identified the potential risk about the Taliban ruling Afghanistan?

[Gromnir]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/08/16/amanpour-tugendhat-afghanistan.cnn

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

If its the money you are concerned about that is easy, we create a new tax for wealthy countries that have a  vested interest in stopping this type extremism. So we tax the EU countries, something reasonable like a 5 % increase on income tax or personal tax? 

I know someone like you wont mind this type of financial inconvenience considering how we all want a safer world and you have already identified the potential risk about the Taliban ruling Afghanistan?

Aa you have seen majority doesn't want to be involved. Demand seem to be for extreme protectionism instead of global co-operation. My guess is that if Islamic terrorism starts to increase those demands gets stronger. 

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Aa you have seen majority doesn't want to be involved. Demand seem to be for extreme protectionism instead of global co-operation. My guess is that if Islamic terrorism starts to increase those demands gets stronger. 

You right, its a pity we dont have more global responsibility to deal with this type of extremism  

Edited August 17, 2021 by BruceVC

[Maedhros]

https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3203545

CNN Journalist in Kabul told to step aside because she's a woman. Proceeded to google her (Clarissa Ward), she seems to be a pretty ballsy lady.

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3203545

CNN Journalist in Kabul told to step aside because she's a woman. Proceeded to google her (Clarissa Ward), she seems to be a pretty ballsy lady.

She is a very good ME journalist and she speaks Arabic. She is one of the CNN journalists that typically covers the ME region in the  same way as Nick Paton Welsh 

[Hurlshort]

24 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3203545

CNN Journalist in Kabul told to step aside because she's a woman. Proceeded to google her (Clarissa Ward), she seems to be a pretty ballsy lady.

I like her response when he tells her it is in Islam to were the the niqab. Is it really in Islam? 

No.