Try to think a bit harder then. It is a well-known fact that there were major tensions between Hindus and Muslims in British India and that, for geostrategic (and cultural) reasons, the British have always sided with the Muslims. — Apollodorus

India?

I think you are confusing the topic that we were discussing.

If Kemalism was in any way inspired by Ataturk's agnosticism, and Ba'athism inspired by Aflaq's Christianity, it could be said that these types of Arab-nationalist ideologies (inspired by Western thought) were against Islamism in state affairs. — NOS4A2

I'm not an expert, but I would agree. During those time when nationalism (& socialism) were the new in the Middle East, Islamism likely was seen as negatively, even if religion wasn't dismissed (as in the West).

Once those failed, back to the "good 'ol ideas".

I think you are not paying attention. — Apollodorus

I think you lost me.

British Empire? Yes, Egypt was a protectorate. Yet don't forget the French in the wider picture. But anyway, decolonization is a rather different matter.

Yes.

I'm not so good in languages. :yikes:

Several members of the group write that they believe it was a strong wind picking up a small stone and that there are no other hypotheses being proposed that could explain it. — AndreasJ

Couldn't one reason from the above that anybody saying anything else than that will be instantly banned from the site? Just that "a strong wind" would be the only hypothesis that could explain it is so delirious that something has to be wrong with this picture.

What comes to mind are the over-enthusiastic applause and cheers the dictator gets with nobody daring to be the first person to stop cheering.

As you must be aware, we don't read history as written by the Arabs. — Olivier5

Who reads history in other language than English? I read naturally Finnish, but even Finnish or German would be difficult to follow.

E.g. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, by Amin Maalouf is interesting in that it present the Christians as the bad guys. — Olivier5

Actually, the real bad guys are the Mongols during that era. Saladin isn't the great hero, the Mamluk Sultan Baibars is the great here.

Another example of the West thinking always it's the center of everything. ( I remember even OBL himself was comparing the US invasion of Iraq to the Mongol invasion, not the crusades.)

I think you are mixing up your dates, and Arabs with Turks :smile: — Apollodorus

?

I was referring to the Egyptian revolution of 1952. the military coup that topple king Farouk. Egypt had already been a kingdom during the era of the British protectorate.

Vice versa, why the insistence (among some) on erasing Arabs from history? Give to Mohamad what belongs to Mohamad. — Olivier5

People look to find from history things that suite them for the present.

Very interesting! I want more information. How does this tie into a change of attitude that began during 1950-1960? * * * Not exactly by Muslims. - It still lasted another two centuries before it fell to the Turks, though. — Athena

The fall of Constantinople was what I referred to being "the last bastion of the Roman empire" to be conquered. And Turks then were muslims.

Why Pan-Arabism was so hip is because naturally you had had Middle East under Ottoman control, which then in WW1 had been taken away from them. The Arab revolt (with the famous Lawrence of Arabia) was a clear sign of Arab nationalism and that the people were not at all loyal and devoted subjects of the Sultan. And in the 1950's Nasser and the military coup that overthrew the King of Egypt were basically nationalists and later socialists, not at all islamists. So hardly the slogan would be to form a new Caliphate as the old Ottoman Empire with a Sultan hadn't worked, was revolted against and had lost to the West.

(Nasser trying to make Egypt and Syria one single country. At least the flags are similar still.)


Also, it should be noted, that Kemalism of Kemal Atatürk was for westernization as a way to defend Turkey from outside powers and the religious aspects of the Ottoman Empire was seen as a reason for the weakness of the Empire.

(A Kemalist propaganda picture. Down with the Old, back then...)

Sure. But the Roman Empire lasted much longer than 400 years. — Apollodorus

And were brought down by Muslims, who's state actually still exists even today. :wink:

The Abbasid Caliphate was a mixture of Greek, Persian, and Arab elements. Islamic philosophy, for example, was based on Classical Greek philosophy. There were attempts to combine Greek philosophy with Islamic teachings, but that did not make it "Arab". — Apollodorus

I agree with this. I think the obsession on things "Arab" is a far more modern issue and likely grew out of Pan-Arabism, which has it's origins in the 19th Century and was ever so popular during the 1950's and 1960's during Nasser's rule. I bet the Abbassids didn't think of themselves as Arabic. Islamic culture with a caliphate was naturally universal. And since the Prophet Mohammad was the first ruler of the Caliphate, the bond to a state is obvious in Islam.

So why the insistence of Arabs and Arabism?

Why so?

The answer of course is the most successful Islamic nation that is still among us, even if it doesn't have a Sultan as it's leader. The Ottomans, the Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey. The guys who actually conquered the last bastion of the Roman empire.

(The neo-ottomanism that a certain Recep Erdogan likes!)

Sure, and I didn't make clear in the OP, but I'm assuming good faith. If there are ulterior motives, then that's a different story — Xtrix

Many of those that have an agenda have the best intentions. They are there just to change your mind. :wink:

Yes, which is unfortunately what "debate" has often turned into: scoring points. As if it's a boxing match. That can be entertaining, but I for one am often left disappointed by interchanges like that. — Xtrix

And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them.

Back to the subject, we can censorship in many different things. Let's take for example this Forum. I believe there isn't de facto censorship here. But Let's look at the suite guidelines:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban.

Trolls: You know who you are. You won't last long

Sockpuppets

Now, how many of those who have been (and are going to be) banned because of the above will themselves think that they have been the victims of censorship? I presume many.

Besides, I remember when the old Philosophy Forums -site went down the first time, I wasn't alone in thinking that "Jesus! What did I say to get banned?". Yet the fact is that a discussion board without any moderation will become simply ugly. But what's the difference between moderation and censorship?

Our constitution tried to limit our wars to our defense and survival but that has not been the reason for the wars of the US since Eisenhower established the Military-Industrial Complex — Athena

Well, during the Spanish-American war the Spanish didn't actually attack you (likely the explosion on the Maine was an accident). Or what about the Mexican-American War? That too wasn't about defense.

(Map of Mexico prior to some events with the US)


Yet one should ask, which other country would have defended South Korea? It hadn't been a Western colony. I think that we have South Koreans that haven't seen starvation and don't live in a totalitarian state as their northern counterparts is great outcome for humanity. Or at least for the 52 million South Koreans. And if the 25 million now North Koreans would be similar as the South Koreans today and the division of Korea a sidenote in history, what would be so bad? Soviet Union tried a similar tactic in Northern Iran, made a puppet regime there, but the Iranians (South Iran?) defeated the puppet state. (And for some time Iran was the best and strongest ally of the US in the Middle East...before becoming it's enemy.)

Or how many would have died more in the Yugoslavian Civil War if it wouldn't have been for the US intervention? Is that so bad that actually there peace has prevailed and the hated "nation building" actually worked?

Just to say that the US has done good when it has engaged in war, so to think it is all bad is simply not true.

. The US was not in Afghanistan because it was a nation that threatened our nation. — Athena

Actually, the Emirate of Afghanistan tried to give Osama bin Laden to the US. That wasn't at all enough for the US. In fact, the Trump Doha peace deal is hugely more lenient than what Bush demanded in 2001. In 2001 the Taliban would have immediately jumped on such deal that Trump now gave them. And how much "diplomatic effort" there was can be seen that the war was started only a few weeks after 9/11.

The US went straight to war with the Taliban in 2001. It has been at war with the Taliban since then until now. The idea that "The US first went to fight Al Qaeda and then lost it's objective and wandered off to 'nation building' is simply wrong. It's that strategic narcissism, believing your own propaganda. A denial or basically a lie.

Hello wanderoff, wellcome to the Forum.

Outright censorship as a government action is quite rare especially in democracies. Hence as a tool of power it is quite rare. Perhaps the more interesting issue is self censorship and what norms the society has, not only what the written laws say. Things like the Overton window are interesting.

its quite clear that, nowadays, the proliferation of political discourses online and offline serve their own, possibly more potent programmes of control. — wanderoff

The extensive use of computer algorithms makes this apparent in the online realm. When the realm is created by computers themselves, it's so easy to then control by computer programs. It took some time for governments to figure out how to take control of the internet, but they surely have learned it. At least some countries. Now they know how to control the social media.

Control is simply baked into the system. It's simply that the service providers use extensively them from start and then that governments have urged them to control the discourse. To directly set limits to freedom of speech is difficult for especially the US government, hence it is far more easy to demand private companies to take care of it (somehow).

Trying to work with the US Congress while smiling happily:

Nope, they are not. — Olivier5

I'd disagree. Don't think that these countries are so obsessed with Afghanistan as the US is. Both have already dealt with their own internal "muslim problem" quite ruthlessly and successfully. The Second Chechen war was won and the Uighurs are in concentration camps.

Russia NATO expansion and US military bases in their near abroad is number 1 threat to Russia. They have stated this officially in their military doctrine:

8. The main external military dangers are:

a) the desire to endow the force potential of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) with global functions carried out in violation of the
norms of international law and to move the military infrastructure of NATO
member countries closer to the borders of the Russian Federation, including
by expanding the bloc;
b) the attempts to destabilize the situation in individual states and regions
and to undermine strategic stability;
c) the deployment (buildup) of troop contingents of foreign states (groups of
states) on the territories of states contiguous with the Russian Federation
and its allies and also in adjacent waters;
d) the creation and deployment of strategic missile defence systems
undermining global stability and violating the established correlation of
forces in the nuclear-missile sphere, and also the militarization of outer
space and the deployment of strategic nonnuclear precision weapon systems;
e) territorial claims against the Russian Federation and its allies and
interference in their internal affairs;
f) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missiles, and missile
technologies, and the increase in the number of states possessing nuclear
weapons;
g) the violation of international accords by individual states, and also
noncompliance with previously concluded international treaties in the field
of arms limitation and reduction;
h) the use of military force on the territories of states contiguous with the
Russian Federation in violation of the UN Charter and other norms of
international law;
i) the presence (emergence) of seats of armed conflict and the escalation of
such conflicts on the territories of states contiguous with the Russian
Federation and its allies;
j) the spread of international terrorism;

See how low in the threat level of international terrorism is? It's from point a to b at point j. Afghan Taleban aren't a problem. As Russians do follow their military doctrine, they are genuinely happy that the US is out of their back yard.

And as I noted far earlier before the Afghan government had collapsed, Russia was already holding large military exercises with neighboring countries Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Countries that earlier held US bases (but not anymore).

And China?

Here is what they say:

On the basis of fully respecting the sovereignty of Afghanistan and the will of all factions in the country, China has maintained contact and communication with the Afghan Taliban and played a constructive role in promoting the political settlement of the Afghan issue. On July 28, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with the visiting delegation led by head of the Afghan Taliban political committee Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Tianjin.

We hope the Afghan Taliban can form solidarity with all factions and ethnic groups in Afghanistan, and build a broad-based and inclusive political structure suited to the national realities, so as to lay the foundation for achieving enduring peace in the country.

The Afghan Taliban said on multiple occasions that it hopes to grow sound relations with China, looks forward to China's participation in Afghanistan's reconstruction and development and will never allow any force to use the Afghan territory to engage in acts detrimental to China. We welcome those statements.

The rhetoric is quite different from the US. Above all, even ISIS isn't now interested in China:

The Islamic State has most likely abandoned its aggressive stance toward China for these strategic reasons. To preserve the useful dynamic of a non-militarized China replacing a militarized United States in the Middle East and South Asia, the Islamic State appears to have abandoned its previous advocacy and adopted a near total, systematic silence on not just the Uighur issue, but also Chinese influence more broadly.

The US is the one who sees everything from the viewpoint of fighting muslim terrorism. China or Russia have not announced a "Global war of Terrorism".

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix

Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot.

Many say that they are engaging in a discussion and are open to ideas of others, but in truth they aren't. In fact, they can take your notes just as things to remember when winning the argument (in style). Philosophical debates can lapse into a competition about who knows best. Some think it's a contest of who is the most intelligent. Not that we can learn something from each other and different viewpoints and arguments are beneficial.

ISIS is a common enemy of the US and Taliban. I expect some collaboration on this front at least. The CIA and co. are pragmatic folks, they speak with whom they need to speak. — Olivier5

Yes they are. They ought to be.

But fun fact: The American voter isn't. The ordinary US soldier isn't either.

Hence policy is made by what the voter wants in a democracy. Or otherwise you would have to have politicians with real leadership skills to change and mold the views of the voter, to make him or her to understand that realpolitik is the way to go. For example to us Finns this is easy to understand as we know that we are the quite dispensable country, so for us foreign policy is not about right or wrong, but basically survival.

Yet I view this as an American virtue. Americans will deeply think of the morality of their actions and will constantly have a huge debate about their actions. But this makes extremely hard to do this kind of thinking what you referred to. I gather that the CIA is in no mood to have some clandestine thing exploding in their faces later after this debacle.

Large part of Americans don't see things from the viewpoint of realpolitik where former enemies suddenly can come to be your friends or totally normal once the fighting stops. The US has had truly ideological opponents with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The last time they actually had an enemy they didn't utterly loath (at least later) was the United Kingdom and actually Spain. Above all, the Blob, the Foreign Policy establishment has played only the fear card and a black and white picture to the Americans, that any kind of other discourse is extremely difficult.

This can be seen from that especially when faced with a fanatic enemy that doesn't share similar culture, even the old veterans rarely if ever meet their old enemies. There is a deep hatred against the Japanese and I'm sure that the Global War on Terror will never have a "get together meeting" of old Taliban fighters meeting their counterparts after many years.

US Domestic policy will lead to that the US will truly leave Afghanistan. As it has left already other Central Asian countries. The only reason would be perhaps an ISIS-K attack in continental US. The Russians and the Chinese can be happy how things are going now.

If we forget Afghanistan, just like we forgot Vietnam, that would be success. No news is good news. Because that "no news" means that the US won't do drone strikes into Afghanistan.

I think now success would be defined simply as peace: no bombs going off, war going on in some part of the country. The first obstacle is how the Emirate deals with Panshjir valley. And if other places become Panshjir valley, that would be a bad start. Likely life will be harder in Kabul. The economy will surely be worse.

It's easy to be an insurgent as you can pick your fights. Far more difficult to be the authority. At least now the Taliban is starting from a far better position than it was during the mid 1990's. It's up to them how they manage the situation.

In contrast, the parts of Eastern Europe under Greek control (Eastern Roman Empire) had no need to re-learn philosophy from the Arabs. On the contrary, it was the Arabs who learned from the Greeks and transmitted some of that knowledge to Western Europe! — Apollodorus

That is true, but by "the West" people typically forget (or ignore) East Rome.

My point is that the populations that the Muslims conquered likely knew the philosophy too. And just like noted, muslims quickly noted the importance of knowledge and philosophy. Unfortunately that "renaissance", if you can call it so, didn't last for much time.

Yet coming back to the subject, I'm really not very optimistic of how the Emirate of Afghanistan will succeed. Far too much of radical islam is against everything considered Western. And Western philosophy goes with it too.

Arab culture was inadequate to support an empire and dominate the more advanced cultures of the conquered territories. The only medical system was that of the Greeks. The only philosophy going was Plato and Aristotle — Apollodorus

That is way too dismissive of the early Muslim genius. — Olivier5

Or too dismissive of the prevailing culture in what just earlier had been part of the Roman Empire or the Sassanid Empire. Besides, this was many centuries later that Hellenism, thanks to Alexander the Great, had already influenced the area, so I assume Plato and Aristotle were quite well known already.

And let's not forget that the West re-learned it's philosophy and math basically from the muslims. The Dark Ages were quite dark, you know.

Because Afghanistan falls within their presumed geographical "sphere of influence". Every superpower eventually feels compelled to define it's sphere of influence, over which it asserts a paternalizing authority. The U.S. did way back in 1823, with the so-called "Monroe Doctrine". China might view this as it's chance to better define it's sphere of influence. — Michael Zwingli

China can use their proxy Pakistan to try to calm things down in Afghanistan. Then if there is peace or let's say enough stability, then the Chinese can make those investments to mine for raw materials. They don't have to worry about Western competition, that's for sure.

(And Chinese military bases? Very few of them. Basically they have one in Djibouti.)

I don't think the US still funds Pakistan. Does it? — Shawn

Of course.

From the US embassy in Pakistan internet page:

During Pakistan’s 2019-2020 fiscal year, the United States was once again the top donor country to Pakistan of on-budget, grant-based assistance. U.S. assistance to Pakistan is always in the form of grants, which does not add to Pakistan’s debt burden or balance of payments challenges.

This commitment reflects our belief that if Pakistan is secure and peaceful and prosperous, that’s not only good for Pakistan, it’s good for the region and it’s good for the world. A stable, prosperous, and democratic Pakistan that plays a constructive role in the region will remain in the long-term U.S. national interest.

Yep! I'm not making up that above. Constructive role. See https://pk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/us-assistance-to-pakistan/


The US trying to bribe Pakistan didn't work. What is utterly crazy is that Pakistan's strategy did work!

Anyone interested in a discussion would look at this with a raised eyebrow? What does that even mean that the Taliban were winning the war in Afghanistan? — Shawn

The usual. Gaining territory, holding cities, gaining the initiative in military operations.

Making their enemies (the US) to choose to withdraw without any concessions from the Taliban side.

That is meant by the Taliban winning the war.

This is, bluntly speaking, crazy talk. — Bitter Crank

:up:

Glad that we can have lived for so long in peace with other cultures, I guess.

If I'm not mistaken from the moment the Taliban started taking over Afghanistan to the point where the US made it's departure was 2-3 weeks. In that time they evacuated 120,000 people from Afghanistan. Only the US military could accomplish that without RPG's shooting at landing planes or grounded planes or guided missiles shooting at planes taking off.

Isn't that a success? — Shawn

I'm not sure just what year was it, but for a long time the Taliban was winning this war, not losing. If I remember correctly, someone put it to 2014. From that year or so, the US was losing. But the US was fighting an one-year war twenty times over.

Only the US military could accomplish that without RPG's shooting at landing planes or grounded planes or guided missiles shooting at planes taking off. — Shawn

13 American soldiers killed in action is not much. But then it's more than the crew of three in a C-17.

Yes, that did happen. Yet, what's this got to do with the US' failure. — Shawn

:snicker:

Do you know how else the US would have dealt with the situation especially under a republican tenure for a peace deal? — Shawn

Good question, glad you asked it.

Ummm...how about like, uh Iraq?

You left, but didn't. Is it catastrophic that you have 2500 US troops, similar amount actually that you had in Afghanistan? Is it intolerable that the US is in Iraq? And then how about forgetting that strategic narcissism, and face the reality.

The US for a time, actually, defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, but then snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and in the end you had ISIS. Do notice just how this was done. But I guess making an ally of part of your enemy is far too incomprehensible for the US. To find the political solution.

And let's start with the facts: You have been at war basically with Pakistan for all the time when it comes to the Taliban. But somehow you have not face this reality. So start at least from there.

You can run a guerrilla war on opium plantations but not a country. — Apollodorus

This is so true.

I think the former Afghan vice-President is back at his comfort zone when fighting now the Taliban as an insurgent in Panshjir Valley.

Actually, the Taliban were cooperating with the US by making promises to allow evacuations until the 31, which they even assisted in transporting and allowing US citizens to the airport. Yeah... — Shawn

The actual date was September 11th. But the Taliban conquered the country far more rapidly. So actually the US had to change it's timetable. Which I guess was OK for the Taliban.

Have you actually read the Trump Doha peace agreement?

Who wouldn't be in favor of such terms if you would be fighting the US?

I don't really know what your getting at here. Like I said, if helicopters flying near embassies in Afghanistan makes you think it's Saigon, then I don't know how that makes any sense. — Shawn

YOU don't see any similarity???

Sorry, but this was an even a more uncoordinated and a far more hasty withdrawal.

Within 45 minutes of watching the second plane go in the second tower, live, I knew what was going to happen (including Iraq). It did. I talked then, as did others. But to no avail. For the reasons you state. To do what I and others recommended would have taken real leadership. Not Dick and Donny and the MIC. I tried to dig up some of the analysis but I find it strangely lacking in open source. Hmmm. I'd wax on but I have to run to town. I assume if you care, you'll ask and I'll get to it. — James Riley

Yes, this is so true, James. :up:

Only a Houdini-level mastermind of a politician would have pulled it off in some other fashion. Falling Afghans that have climb to a jet (not understanding what the wind will be at 900 km/h) is one thing. But American leaping off to their death from a burning skyscraper is another. Try then as a leader to start with a police inquiry when everybody already know that an international terrorist organization is behind this!!!

Still, I will be optimistic. I think that the US can still learn from it's mistakes. Those in Foreign Policy establishment and those in the military. There should be that genuine American soul-searching. That makes you better!

:roll:
Yeah, unlike with the case of South Vietnam, you still had US ground troops in Afghanistan. Not so when in the pictures of the Saigon embassy. Then it was only the marines in the embassy. And note, the collapse happened before the planned September 11th withdrawal date. (How conveniently that is forgotten, actually.)

So yes, neither the withdrawal of US troops from South Vietnam and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan happened so hastily, in such chaotic manner as now. In fact, this war crumbled far quicker that the Vietnam war. Or the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Far more orderly event in 1973:


Just compare to this image. No lights, a picture taken with night vision. I bet the commander of the 82nd Airborne, major general Chris Donahue in the photo, had a full magazine of live rounds in his rifle. Just in case. It's really telling what a debacle this was as the enemy was just waiting few meters away to take the airport and would be in minutes looking at the US aircraft left in the hangars:



And compare the image above to the last Russian general leaving Afghanistan back to the Soviet Union, when Boris Gromov walked over the bridge (at the newsclip below).

Sure. A dismal future ahead then too for Afghanistan. Yet the Najibullah goverment actually survived until Soviet Union itself collapsed. Not something that the ex-Afghan president (that made his career in Western universitie, think tanks and the World Bank) did before general Donahue left Kabul. Ghani had already fled away with over 100 million dollars in cash. Here's a news report from February 1989. (Do note the interview of Zalmay Khalilhad, the Mazar-i-Sharif born US diplomat and Charley Wilson in the 1989 report)



What is obvious that the Islamic fighters will surely say that they beat both of the Superpowers. You just leaving for them is a victory in war.

The Afghan state is a separate issue. Until now it has been receiving Western aid amounting to 43 percent of its GDP. — Apollodorus

This actually is a primary reason why the house of cards fell down. All the money poured into Afghanistan made it simply totally impossible for the Afghan nation with it's own revenues to support such a large bureaucracy.

It's actually a similar thing the pro-Soviet administration of Afghanistan faced. They could keep out the mujahideen from the cities and fight the war and upkeep the administration until the Soviet Union collapsed and no money was sent into the country.

I don't know about the "officially saying one thing and anticipating another." — James Riley

Joe Biden was pretty sure that the Afghan government would not collapse. Events like in Saigon wouldn't happen. They happened. For starters.

Regardless, the couple of weeks of getting out the way and when we did was the best Presidential leadership in Afghanistan in 20 years. — James Riley

I assume then not going to Afghanistan would have been the best Presidential leadership decision. I agree.

If you would have given the Emirate of Afghanistan the Doha terms right back in September 2001, I guess they would have happily agreed. And even given OBL with it. And the 20-year war wouldn't have happened.

And then there would not have been this "global war on terror". Which is now likely to continue for at least a decade.

Only thing you would have had then are furious Americans hell bent on getting rid of the chicken-livered weasel of the President who was such a weak dick that didn't bomb the goddam terrorists that killed 3000 Americans, but only negotiated with them. What injustice!!!

No, no, no, I agree they are part of the Biden Administration. — James Riley

So officially saying one thing and anticipating another. But that anticipation didn't go deep enough and hence the withdrawal was chaotic. It's telling that military people or retired military people have as independent citizens tried to arrange for the evacuation of Afghans that they worked with. So marvelously was this evacuation anticipated by the administration.

Well, everything is about perception and nothing is about reality. Because who cares about reality? Besides, there really was no effort at all from Biden here. For Joe Biden the Afghan war had been a lost cause for years now. It's telling that the last call was made in the middle of the July. And when the collapse happened, Biden didn't even bother calling his allies. Who cares if there were more of their troops in total than US troops on the ground?

What we now should forget, according to this administration:

Here is good discussion about Afghanistan.

Rory Stewart, Former Secretary of State for International Development of the United Kingdom, is one of the people who have gotten it right for a long time is here talking with Dr Greg Mills, Dr David Kilcullen, adviser to Secretary Condi Rice and General David Petraeus. I would recommend listening to the whole debate. It may be so that the Biden gave more reason for the War on Terror going on for a decade more.



Stewart (starting from 28min 42s) makes the correct conclusion that basically the politicians (and generals in the case of Afghanistan) aren't in the job of describing reality, but are there to sell a story, either pump up the moral and win support home. Talking about the reality on the ground and about realistic goals, that at best Afghanistan could be like Pakistan, wouldn't simply have cut it. Hence crazy optimism takes over and the discourse is totally lacking realism. Why so? In my view what likely happens that this propaganda, repeated over and over by so many of the leaders turns those implementing policy to think that this is the reality. Hence lofty goals turn into actual policy implementation on the ground.

This explains why from the naive optimistic "we are turning the page" outlook in the Afghan discourse earlier and also why Biden has gone to extreme opposite describing Afghanistan as a failed caused and a forever war. Biden's approach is natural as he wants people not to understand what an embarrassing policy failure he (and Trump) have done. He has to repeat and repeat this line that nothing else could have been done in Afghanistan for the midterms. Again, the only issue here is the American voter. What other effects this line has in the US foreign relations doesn't matter at all. Unfortunately, there are broad consequences.

Former national adviser and general H.R.McMaster has called the phenomenon "strategic narcissism". This happened, which I agree, because of seeing the end of the Cold War as a victory for the US and the easy success in the liberation of Kuwait. McMaster writes (in 2020):

In retrospect, those victories, which held the promise of so much, marked the end of an era. They led to overconfidence and complacency. Many leaders forgot that the United States had to compete in foreign affairs and embraced three flawed assumptions about the post-Cold War era.

The first assumption was that the arc of history guaranteed the triumph of free and open societies over authoritarianism, making the expansion of liberal democracy inevitable. The second assumption was that the old rules of international relations and competition were no longer relevant, and that global governance and great power cooperation would displace historical rivalries. The third assumption was that America’s unmatched military prowess would guarantee victory over any potential enemy.

All three assumptions proved false.

Those that remember (the neocon) Francis Fukuyama and the "end of History" argument, will notice that McMaster is totally correct above. McMaster continues:

The flawed assumptions we made at the end of the Cold War stemmed from strategic narcissism: the tendency to define problems as we would like them to be rather than as they actually are. In its extreme form, strategic narcissism can lead to the pipe dream of easy war (as in Iraq in 2003) or the delusion that wars end when one side decides to leave (as in Afghanistan today).

(As McMaster wrote this last year, his forecast proved correct: the war continued ...and now the Afghan government lost)

When you combine Rory Stuart's and H.R. McMaster's insights, the madness in Afghanistan starts to make sense ...as madness can be understood. Selling the agenda to a leery domestic audience, be it the Congress or the US voter, gives the incentive. To believe the rhetoric, to justify the rhetoric, you need that strategic narcissism. Events in the past created the hubris that lead to actions that brought us here.

That is true. But what I'm talking about is the last few months in anticipation of what happened:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/30/how-evacuation-americans-is-going/ — James Riley

Now it seems you are separating the state department and the Biden administration.

And one could argue similarly that it was a success that only 13 US servicemen died and about 100 or so Afghans also. Plus those who died falling after clinging on to the undercarriages of C-17s (which has a cruising speed of 906 km/h).

Yet I think the real thanks for that above goes for the Taliban honoring the Trump surrend peace deal. Unlike some commentators argue, the Emirate didn't brake any terms of the Doha agreement (yet). Because with my reading of the short 3,5 page deal (link here), there was absolutely no part where the Taliban would have been made to stop to fight the Afghan administration. Only that it would engage with discussion with the government in talks. Well, I think they sat until in Doha with the Afghans...not doing anything.

So, should we similarly thank the Taliban for the minimum casualties for overtaking the country?

Any one who wanted out could have gotten out, when they were told, pleaded with, begged, months ago. — James Riley

I think Afghanistan has been on the official "do-not-go, try-to-avoid"-list for years now.

As long as the terrorists aren't threatening US interests, nobody cares. — frank

Unfortunately a kidnapped US citizen is a "threat to US interests".

1. Policy

The United States is committed to achieving the safe and rapid recovery of U.S. nationals taken hostage outside the United States. The United States Government will work in a coordinated effort to leverage all instruments of national power to recover U.S. nationals held hostage abroad, unharmed.

The United States Government will strive to counter and diminish the global threat of hostage-taking; reduce the likelihood of U.S. nationals being taken hostage; and enhance United States Government preparation to maximize the probability of a favorable outcome following a hostage-taking.

That's why the question as obviously guys like ISIS-K are looking for them.

The argument reeks of *if only more was done or at least in another way!!!* — Shawn

Well, the truth is that the Trump-Biden way to handle Afghanistan is a disaster. To argue that "any withdrawal would have been similar" is simply not true. This was immensely badly conducted. It's obvious from what Biden and his administration stated earlier this summer.

Classified assessments by American spy agencies over the summer painted an increasingly grim picture of the prospect of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and warned of the rapid collapse of the Afghan military, even as President Biden and his advisers said publicly that was unlikely to happen as quickly, according to current and former American government officials.

By July, many intelligence reports grew more pessimistic, questioning whether any Afghan security forces would muster serious resistance and whether the government could hold on in Kabul, the capital. President Biden said on July 8 that the Afghan government was unlikely to fall and that there would be no chaotic evacuations of Americans similar to the end of the Vietnam War.

Even the Soviets withdrew in a far better way. Their proxy, the Najibullah regime, collapsed only as the Soviet Union collapsed. Even the Obama withdrawal, that after ISIS actually didn't happen, was itself planned better.

And there are a lot of consequences.

As Kit MacLellan notes:

The problem is that the idea of a kind of universal multilateralism now looks more utopian than ever, especially when it comes to conventional security matters (as opposed to, say, climate change). Any hope the world had that Joe Biden would herald a new era of dialogue and trust in allies has been dashed by recent events.

I don't think that the World will be safer with present American unilateralism and disengagement. Biden is just following in his peculiar way Trump's foreign policy.

And America has left Afghanistan before the deadline. — Shawn

In Washington, Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, announced the completion of America’s longest war and the evacuation effort, saying the last planes took off from Kabul airport at 3:29 p.m. EDT — one minute before midnight Monday in Kabul.

“We did not get everybody out that we wanted to get out,” he said.

So how many American citizens were left to Afghanistan?

Of course I expect you to blame others for the failings of your guy. — NOS4A2

I'd say Trump & Biden are a toxic mix of US unilateralism and bad policy.

Of course, Biden upheld the surrender deal that Trump did with the Taliban. And naturally we go on from here to drone strikes. As obviously that unilateral counterterrorism works so well without any feet on the ground. Everything can be interpreted from a drone flying high above, as we know. :roll:

And the marvelous Leon Panetta said it all:

'We're going to have to go back in to get ISIS. We're probably going to have to go back in when Al Qaeda resurrects itself, as they will, with this Taliban. They've gave safe haven to Al Qaeda before, they'll probably do it again.'

He added: 'I understand that we're trying to get our troops out of there, but the bottom line is, we can leave a battlefield, but we can't leave the War on Terrorism, which still is a threat to our security.'

Ah yes.

I think the ex-national security advisor H.R. McMaster said it well. The US didn't fight a long 20-year war in Afghanistan, the US fought a one year war twenty times over in Afghanistan. And now Biden IS BACK TO THE GEORGE BUSH TALKING POINT: The US will only to fight the terrorists (and only with drones or so) and the US isn't going to "nation build".

Yeah, that worked wonders. But if it works in Hollywood movies, it has to work in real life!!!

I am hoping people who are better informed than I am, reply to my question of the chances of any Islamic group turning Afghanistan into a successful nation. — Athena

When it comes to Afghanistan, you should start by defining what success would be.

Yet basically Saudi-Arabia has it's legal system based on Sharia law and uniquely in the Muslim world, Sharia has been adopted by Saudi Arabia in an uncodified form. So basically yes, an Islamic group could theoretically turn the country into a successful nation. Saudi-Arabia has been run for a long time by Islamists. Then there's Iran as the other example.

(Saudi universities at least have money...even if there is sharia law.)


In realistic terms, this is extremely unlikely. Several reasons:

- The multitude of internal problems Afghanistan suffers from (that are too lengthy for this answer).
- That the West is totally against Taliban rule and will see the Emirate of Afghanistan as a "terrorist haven".
- That Pakistan basically wants to have a weak controllable Afghanistan. It's basic worries are that a) India might get a foothold in Afghanistan and have close relations with it and b) the Pashtuns, living on both sides of the Durand-line will create problems for Pakistan as there have been skirmishes all the time at the border and the Tribal areas of Pakistan (see here).
- The West has basically confiscated the foreign reserves of the country and the Emirate will see likely immediate economic problems. The banking sector has been already shut down.
- The Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban) is already burdened with a huge former Afghan government, which the country has no ability to pay for. This is the reason for the collapse of the Afghan government, basically similar happened with the pro-Soviet Najibullah regime.
- There is one of the biggest brain drains in anywhere in the World in Afghanistan as doctors and engineers are trying to leave the country. Not a promising start for a future "success".
- Joe Biden has reverted back to the old way of simply using drone strikes to fight "the Global War on Terror" already. It's quite likely that the attacks against ISIS-K aren't the last ones.

And finally, it's usually that the most radical, most fanatic elements of a group take power or have a far bigger role than the so-called "moderates". So back to home for women in Afghanistan, which will severely hamper the economic prospects of the country.

This is true, but I think it is more to do with the deep culture of China, I suspect, than anything else. They got a lot more history and politics than we do, and rather less of an obsession with individualism, such that communism makes more visceral sense. — unenlightened

Let's remember that there still is "the old" capitalist China. It's name is Taiwan.

I think the prosperity and the success of Taiwan clearly shows what the Chinese are capable of and so is also what Communist China has done. I think the real cause are the people themselves, not their "visionary" leaders. So I agree with you on the importance of Chinese culture. It's true we cannot say what would have become of China if the nationalists had won and Mao's insurgents would have been defeated and ended up as a footnote in history as did Soviet Bavaria. But with Taiwan we do have a glimpse.

Now it seems that Chinese leadership is viewing that they should now tighten the grip of the economy and the push they got form capitalism and the West can be now limited. I personally would call the Chinese model classic fascism, the tight control of industries important to the state. The "missing bilionaires" in China is a symptom of this: something similar to Putin reigning in the oligarchs in Russia. China won't either tolerate billionaires to be active in politics (in opposition of the CCP line). The street vendors can naturally have their "free market capitalism". Time will tell what will happen.

(Just look at Taiwan! But poor North Korea, even if it's stats might be too rosy here...)

Second, the whole Bundeswehr leadership from corporal to general were handpicked for their allegiance to the European project. — Apollodorus

:roll:

"Ich gelobe, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland treu zu dienen, und das Recht und die Freiheit des deutschen Volkes tapfer zu verteidigen."

Hardly allegiance to the European project, but if to "loyally serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to courageously defend the right and the liberty of the German people" is according to you the European project, so be it.

The Bundeswehr was expressly designed with a defensive role in mind and its armed forces were smaller than those of France. It had no capability for large-scale offensive warfare at any time in its existence. — Apollodorus

Apollorodorus...that is too thick! :snicker:

In the 1980s, the Bundeswehr had 12 Army divisions with 36 brigades and far more than 7,000 battle tanks, armoured infantry fighting vehicles and other tanks; 15 flying combat units in the Air Force and the Navy with some 1,000 combat aircraft; 18 surface-to-air-missile battalions, and naval units with around 40 missile boats and 24 submarines, as well as several destroyers and frigates. Its material and personnel contribution even just to NATO’s land forces and integrated air defence in Central Europe amounted to around 50 percent. This meant that, during the Cold War, by the 1970s, the Bundeswehr had already become the largest Western European armed forces after the US armed forces in Europe – far ahead of the British and even the French armed forces. In peacetime, the Bundeswehr had 495,000 military personnel. In a war, it would have had access to 1.3 million military personnel by calling up reservists.

Yeah, according to you an 1,3 million strong army with 7 000 tanks and 1 000 combat aircraft has "no capability for large-scale offensive warfare".

I remember in the conventional arms reduction talks the Soviets officially saying that "West Germany can produce tanks as they can produce sausages".

Call it mass delusion, but I genuinely think that the CCP members, especially the leaders, believe what they are saying. They truly think that they are Marxists.

For example, the current leaders Xi Jingping's father was one of the founders of the CCP. This meant that naturally under Mao his father was imprisoned during the Cultural Revolution (what is usual to all dictators) when he was 15 years old. Xi tried to join the CCP seven times before he was accepted (thanks to his father's imprisonment). Just like the Soviet leaders, they were communists. Yet the Soviet Union collapsed, Communist China didn't, but prospered.

Fast forward to the present when nobody cannot deny the historical advances China has made under the leadership of CCP. We might say it's the result of China's export industry, all the investments the West has made and capitalism and using markets rather Soviet style central planning. For the Chinese communists, this perhaps is the necessary "adaption to current situation", just like what we call the "socialism for the rich" many see as necessary to "help" free market capitalism.

So yes, there are words politicians like to claim, but the fact is due to the bubble they live in, they start to believe their mantras.