I like the monkey and wonder about the dinosaur shoes. Interesting subject for a painting.

I never thought that I'd agree with Forbes Magazine.

US forces will take over air traffic control at Kabul airport

From Jennifer Hansler

The Departments of State and Defense have announced that US forces will now take over air traffic control at Kabul airport, in addition to expanding security there.

“Tomorrow and over the coming days, we will be transferring out of the country thousands of American citizens who have been resident in Afghanistan, as well as locally employed staff of the U.S. mission in Kabul and their families and other particularly vulnerable Afghan nationals,” the joint statement from the two agencies said.

“And we will accelerate the evacuation of thousands of Afghans eligible for U.S. Special Immigrant Visas, nearly 2,000 of whom have already arrived in the United States over the past two weeks,” the statement said. “For all categories, Afghans who have cleared security screening will continue to be transferred directly to the United States. And we will find additional locations for those yet to be screened.”

The military could have baited the Taliban into overextending themselves by attacking Kabul, and, perhaps, been capable of, at least, maintaining control for a while longer, if not long enough to bolster support for what would've been a rather lengthy civil war.

Once the Taliban marched through the second and third largest cities nearly unopposed, however, nothing could be done but surrender. It was a sage and difficult decision that will have ultimately saved a number of lives.

Granted, it isn't necessarily heroic to have fled the country, however.

The United States has closed the Kabul airport to commercial flights, stranding thousands of Afghans who supported them. You are right to suggest that the evacuations need to be carried out orderly, which is to say in as swift and efficient manner as possible. There's no changing our decision to have suspended commercial flights and prioritizing our own personnel, but the flights need to continue and the people there need to be granted safe passage.

I would also suggest that, due to the emergency situation of the evacuation, Qatar Airlines or whatever other companies there are at the Kabul airport, need to give people the chance to evacuate without at all paying for it. I would imagine that this could somehow be funded by the United States or even the United Nations. It is, however, doubtful that something like that will happen.

Perhaps, as per the negotiations for the peaceful transition, the Taliban could be convinced to extend amnesty to people there and to just kind of let people flee the country?

I can't say that I would've made another choice. The Afghan military just simply had no will to fight.

Hamid Karzai has requested that people stay in their homes and remain calm so that their coordination committee can ensure a peaceful transition of power.

The message that Ashraf Ghani left on Facebook translated with Google Translate:

"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Dear compatriots,

Today I came across a tough choice. I have to face the armed Taliban who want to enter the palace or leave the country where I have dedicated my life to protecting and nurturing it for the last 20 years. If left unchecked, countless patriots would be martyred and the city of Kabul would be devastated, resulting in a major humanitarian catastrophe in the six-million-strong city. The Taliban had made it clear that they were ready to carry out bloody attacks on all of Kabul and the people of Kabul Sharif. In order to prevent a flood of bloodshed, it was better to leave.

The Taliban have won the sword and gun judgment and are now responsible for protecting the honor, property and self of their compatriots. But the legitimacy of hearts did not win them over. Never in history has dry force given legitimacy to anyone and never will. They are now facing a new historical test. Either it will preserve the name and honor of Afghanistan or it will give priority to other places and networks. Many people and many strata are in fear and have no faith in the future. The Taliban must ensure that all the peoples, ethnicities, different strata, sisters and women of Afghanistan have a clear plan to win legitimacy and win the hearts of the people and share it with the people. I will always continue to serve my people in terms of ideas and programs. Lots more news for the future!


Long live Afghanistan!"

I was at work, and, so, not sure if they just declared victory. There's videos of them in the presidential palace now.


I think that the overall effect of the campaign for women's rights in Afghanistan will have been positive, even in the soon to be declared "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". I recall during the early stages of the war hearing stories of women committing suicide by self-immolation in order to escape the Taliban because of that they had no other means to do so, and, so, I would caution against becoming too hopeful. Inheritance is a start for sure, though.

To my estimation, Kabul has effectively fallen.. I could be wrong, though.

Well, personally, I think that Europeans ought to be fairly skeptical of any aristocratic involvement within their political process altogether. The aristocracy should now have a purely symbolic and ceremonial role. If they want to run for office like everyone else without being granted unfair advantages, then, that's fine, but that's kind of where the buck stops.

Sure, Denmark had a more efficient and effective government than that of Italy, but, there are inherent problems with involving the aristocracy within the political process.

My point the whole time is that the BBC did not present factual information in the article on Zahir Shah's death, which is somewhat suspect. He was a good king, but he was a king and not the prime minister of a liberal democracy. That's the point that I've been trying to get across.

If you read the constitution, though not quite so archaic, and consider the rights of the king, you will find that it is not a liberal democracy in the same way that a country like Denmark is and is more like a constitutional monarchy of the old aristocratic order.

It's not about imposing Western standards for excellence upon other countries; it's about reporting information that just simply is not true. The BBC Obituary effectively claims that Mohammed Zahir Shah not only helped his country to transition to, something that never happened, but established a "modern democratic state", which I do think we can all understand as a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy are not the same thing. Zahir Shah was one of the better, if not debatably the best, monarch in Central Asia in recent history, and, so, had they wanted to celebrate his life, that would have been fine. The claim that he established a form of governance that he did not, however, is kind of problematic.

We live in interesting times... — ssu

For sure. Thanks for the exploration of Nordic foreign policy, international peacekeeping and whathaveyou. You always have a lot to say about international politics.

A lot of the associated press has made the comparison to the Fall of Saigon. I, too, am reminded of the images of United States troops throwing helicopters into the ocean. It's definitely something that people should pay close attention to and reflect upon.

Also, the Afghanistan president, Ashraf Ghani, reported to have left country as Taliban orders fighters to enter Kabul.

I mean that it wasn't a liberal democratic state. Ostensibly, it was a constitutional monarchy à la the United Kingdom, whom I assume was the model for the constitution, but it does seem to have been a constitutional monarchy more in the sense that it was, well, a monarchy. Zahir Shah's reign was notably marked by peace and stability, and, so, probably to some degree laudable. If we are to consider Mohammed Daoud Khan's "bloodless coup" to have been without warrant entirely, I think that that'd play into a depiction of Afghanistan that promotes pro-Western narrative, but doesn't correspond to any sort of historical reality. It doesn't seem like Zahir Shah was just some symbolic and ceremonial figure of a king. It seems like he had the authority of a monarch. Daoud Khan wasn't terribly great, and even arguably worse, but there was a popular will to transition to a genuine republic. The Wikipedia article on Zahir Shah states that, "He was considered a relatively "mild" leader compared to previous Kings; Zahir Shah had never signed a warrant for execution of anyone for political reasons during his reign. He also used his power several times to reduce capital punishment given to some criminals convicted in court cases. At Zahir Shah's behest a new constitution was introduced in 1964 which made Afghanistan a modern democratic state by introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, women's rights and universal suffrage", citing the same obituary for its reference. There is no mention of women whatsoever within the entire 1964 constitution. It doesn't say anything about women, women's suffrage, or women's rights. Women are not mentioned at all. Perhaps, women were given a better place in Afghan society at the time? The constitution flat out does not establish any rights for them at all.

Sure, in Afghanistan, they could have transitioned to an actual liberal democracy under Zahir Shah, assuming of course, that, y'know, being ousted didn't happen to play into his later change of heart, and I do think that, perhaps, had he remained in power, that could have been a possibility.

What these monarchies in Central Asia seem, to me, to have been, however, is an experiment in both publicity and a fairly limited form of democracy, perhaps, somehow arbitrated by the United Kingdom in kind of particular, though I do think that the United States showed more initiative in the actual carrying out of the coup d'etats and whathaveyou, so as to establish a kind of synthesis between, oh, I don't know, Saudi Arabia and what some people seem to think that the United Kingdom should be run as.

One thing that's not mentioned about Zahir Shah is his invitation of German and Japanese businessmen to the country to develop infrastructure leading up to and during the Second World War, which he did eventually have to rescind and expel such people from the country, but only really after being threatened by the Allied powers. Granted, the Library of Congress does suggest that he was not really in control of over the country at this point in time in this article, but, who is really to say anything about that, really?

All in all, I think that Zahir Shah was probably a pretty alright guy who could have, in so far that he wasn't ousted, transitioned the country to a "modern democratic state" eventually, should he have been willing to, but the basic premise of the BBC article is just simply false. It wasn't a modern democratic state; it was a constitutional monarchy. The 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan, though I am sure the regime made some progress in this regard, makes absolutely no mention of women's rights whatsoever, which is kind of a focal point in the article.

Yes, I am agree with you. This is due to of how sticky the tribesmen and religion is in Asia. It is so difficult to put “West values” so randomly. I guess it is a process which takes some years if the country has a chance to do so. — javi2541997

I'm not sure that you fully do, but that's alright. We've gotten kind of off-topic, anyways.

In point of fact, when doing research for a paper for community college on the War in Afghanistan, I noticed a number of discrepancies in the general history and demographics of the country, such as the number of Pashtuns to live there, something the CIA World Fact Book formerly listed as 85 point something, I believe, which would seem to be a certain flaw in our general strategy there, but, y'know, I mean...

Anyways, some people say that less, even significantly less, Pashtuns live there and the Encyclopedia Britannica did seem a bit shy on information at times.

The point that I'm really making, though, is that, as much as some of the Arab monarchs were presented as reflecting Western values, democracy, as it always seems to be, being one of the key one of them, though true, perhaps, to some extent, ought not really to instill a sense of nostalgia within anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism of clandestine actions undertaken by the so-called "West" in the region.

To relate this to Afghanistan, check out this obituary. Zahir Shah did become a Liberal reformist late in life, but, the 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan establishes a constitutional monarchy, which, though I do understand how such a comparison could be drawn, also would seem to differ from that of the governance within the United Kingdom.

I'm pretty sure that it was, in point of fact, a monarchy, despite the White Revolution that did occur after the coup d'état orchestrated by the United States and United Kingdom, whom you may be able to consider as a monarchy, but was not a monarchy in quite the same sense that Iran under the Shah was a monarchy.

I followed him on bandcamp. Thanks for the recommendation!

Also, according to Wikipedia:

"On 14 August 2021, the Taliban captured seven provincial capital cities; Gardez, Sharana, Asadabad, Maymana, Mihtarlam, Nili, and Mazar-i-Sharif, the fourth-largest city in Afganistan. Two long-time anti-Taliban warlords, namely Dostum and Atta Muhammad Nur, fled to Uzbekistan. Taliban forces also entered Maidan Shar, center of Maidan Wardak Province. At this point, the rebels had encircled Kabul, while the Afghan National Army had descended into chaos following its rapid defeat across the country. Only the 201st Corps and 111th Division, both based at the Afghan capital, were left operational.

Early on 15 August 2021, the Taliban entered Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar Province, unopposed, making it the 26th provincial capital to fall; leaving Kabul as the last major city under Afghan government control."

I'm about forty-eight seconds in and hoping this is Post-Rock, but think that it's pretty good regardless.

Afghanistan is reputed to have vast mineral resources--minerals important in the current economy. Why hasn't some nation -- us, Russia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan started mining these riches? Such a move would have helped Afghanistan (under the best of circumstances) become richer. They might still be medieval fanatics, but at least they'd have a pot to piss in. — Bitter Crank

This is not true. They have vast amounts of opium and that's about it. There's some lithium there, which, I think, is used in the manufacturing of computers, and, so, a conflict mineral, but, not really enough to build a developed nation off of. We claimed that they had vast mineral resources so as bolster the ostensive nation-building project, but, in so far that some country doesn't legalize heroin, I wouldn't forecast any resource economy in any near future.

"Internally dissolve"? Surely not when the Taliban are an instrument of Pakistan intended to keep India and Russia out. — Apollodorus

People keep making digs at Pakistan's Inter-Intelligence Service, of which, there is plenty of reason to, but the Taliban really actually are a somewhat autopoietic Afghan, particularly Pashtun, though we kind of tried to play off the existent ethnic tensions there, phenomenon.

Precisely, this is what happens in 1979 with Iran... which would have been a very developed country but then, radical islamists showed up. — javi2541997

Wasn't Iran a monarchy at that point?

I suspect there is a French equivalent of Noam Chomsky telling how awful the French government has been, but as I don't speak French, I don't know the author. — ssu

It's only really Godard. The rest of the French intellectuals just kind of speculate upon the United States. In a way, it's kind of a problem, actually, as even Godard still kind of celebrates France, and the French, to my estimation, at least, do seem to still have to come to terms with their colonial legacy.

So basically then you would have gotten your independence in 1931 and basically full independence in 1982 or something like that. Or not even that, because the British (ahem...the English) are a truly shrewd lot. If in their shrewdness (and that they likely would have understood how important Northern American is to their massive Empire), they would have made the US-Canada to be part of the UK as Scotland and Wales are. So Americans, or British-Americans would be having votes now about being independent or not and still many thinking that they are proud members of the British Empire.

In this case the "new" country of the US really might be different, because nearly all of your history would be history of the British Empire. British-Americans or North American British might feel quite differently about their role is, should they have a large army now and so on. They might easily think that all that imperialism and Superpower stuff is done by the people in London and they are themselves pacifists and nice to everybody. Like, uh, Canadians today. — ssu

I think that you've gotten kind of carried away with your example, but, as inclined as I am to view George Washington favorably as I am, I really wouldn't mind being Canadian right about now.

The actual point I'm trying to make is that there are huge amount of different factors that influence the way politicians act and what the political discourse is like. History, the economy, the geopolitical situation, the domestic situation, even the environment (and so on) all have an effect how politicians behave. — ssu

Let's consider a hypothetical Finland with a larger populace, military, military budget, and a history of operations within Central Asia. This hypothetical Finland, however, has, at least, a comparable socio-economic, political, and cultural climate to the one that exists in the actual Finland today. Let's even account for the military operations, larger military, and larger populace. I would contend that Sanna Marin would step up to the plate and deal with such a situation aptly. I would even contend that this would be true regardless of Finnish party affiliation, including some of those on the right. If you had an outside candidate from the Power Belongs to the People Parliamentary Group or even the Finns Party, maybe not, but, even then, I'm not so sure. I don't really know anything about Finnish political parties, though.

Sure, such thought experiments are only so useful, but the point that I'm making is that, were the attacks to have occurred in Finland, an adequate politician would have become extraordinary in the moment, which is to say that just a pretty good politician would have sufficed. I think that, in the United States, you would not only have to be a great politician, but one of the best to have been able to cope with our government as it stands.

You're really lucky to live in Finland, y'know? I've even thought about moving there whenever I can move somewhere before.

There, however, is just simply no way out of partisan politics within the United States, as the only way for things to change is for the Democratic Party to consistently win elections. — thewonder

I also wanted to explain this seemingly paradoxical statement. The Trump presidency, by that he declared the elections a fraud and was subsequently impeached for a second time, is indicative of that the Republican Party needs to be reformed quite radically. The only way that this either can or will happen is for them to have to. For them to have to, they would have to consistently lose elections until they just simply had to adapt to the sway of the American populace. They only can lose elections to the Democratic Party. Despite the seeming contradiction of that my resolution to the bipartisan deadlock is that the Democratic Party just consistently win for probably a good sixteen years, there is a certain degree of sense to it. In adapting to the adaptation of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party would also be reformed and American politics would generally improve.

Without really getting into any of the above text, though, as Fox News is the mouthpiece for the Republican Party, despite the aforementioned tacit support on the part of CNN and MSNBC, as they did kind of just bang their war drum for as long and as loud as it took to create the so-called "War on Terror", it would be somehow inaccurate to characterize support for the war as exclusively concerning the general mindset of the American populace outside of the domain of partisan politics. Like the Vietnam War, which was also undertaken, in part, by the Democratic Party, the War on Terror entrenched the population within partisan politics, the most fervid supporters of the war having been none other than the American Right.

I think that you make some good points, but haven't quite understood what I mean by a comparison of Finland to the United States. To my knowledge, Finland is at the top of the World Happiness Report and either at the top or close to it of the Democracy Index. The United States, at least considering its wealth and power, only does so well in terms of happiness and is now considered as a flawed democracy. It makes more sense for you to advocate civic engagement within the democratic process, as you live within a country that is still considered to have an equitable, efficient, and effective democracy. The cultural climate, there, is probably, though there's only so much stock to place in these U.N. reports, considerably better. Your quality of life and faith in your elected officials is probably considerably greater than both your average American citizen and whomever it is that is of equivalent social standing, all of which, I think, informs your appeal to sincere nonpartisan civic engagement within the democratic process. There's also that you have options, particularly within elections for the prime minister, as to who to vote for. In the United States, a responsible American citizen almost always has only one choice, that of the Democratic Party candidate. I would've liked to have seen a Ralph Nader or Jill Stein presidency. As our political system stands, however, a vote for either a Green Party or independent candidate really kind of is just a vote thrown away, particularly now that Bernie Sanders came close enough to winning the Democratic primary for people to believe that someone like him could be capable of doing so. Not voting, which I have done, is also just kind of irresponsible. Damage to our political process just simply needs to be minimized. The Democratic Party is well aware of this, though, naturally, subject to a certain degree of hubris, and, because of it, doesn't really have to do very much in order to retain voters amongst their support base. I'm sure that there actually are reasonable and responsible people within the Republican Party, but, they are now far too few and far between. All of which, of course, isn't terribly engaging for the average American voter. I agree to the democratic process to a certain extent. If a Republican president wins the popular vote, than, it would both be unethical and unwise to remove them from power without warrant. There, however, is just simply no way out of partisan politics within the United States, as the only way for things to change is for the Democratic Party to consistently win elections. All of this, of course, results in a certain degree of apathy and antipathy towards the process in general. I don't really have anything against all of the lofty democratic ideals. I am just pessimistic enough not to believe that they will be upheld in my country in any near future.

I was referring to the United States. I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the region to have celebrated the attacks. I even remember watching videos of them doing so afterwards.

This concept of a larger than life politician seems to play part and parcel to your philosophical mission, and, so, I am sure that you know more about it than I do, but I guess that the point that I was making is that a majority of, let's say, Finnish politicians, I think, would have adequately responded to a similar crisis. They would become transformed in that moment so as to be extraordinary, but, in the United States, you would already have to be an extraordinary figure to have made the near unilateral decision to respond to the crisis as such.

Triple post, but, w/e.

While I appreciate your invocation of a "larger than life politician", as I think that elected leaders ought to aspire to live up to all of the lofty ideals of Liberalism, engage in the political process with deliberation in a calm and rational manner, and be capable of coping with situations that do arise so as to make difficult and decisive decisions in times of crisis, I do think that it points to a certain poverty of the American situation in that it would seem to require an extraordinary person, though, in so far that we entrust public officials with the effective facilitation of the democratic process, they kind of all ought to be somehow extraordinary, in order to respond to situation adequately. The attacks on 9/11 certainly created a crisis, the proper response to which would have been one of mourning and to deal with what was an act of terrorism as a security concern, i.e. the aforementioned "police investigation", though I think that international terrorism does ultimately require some form of intelligence, which, of course, in the United States, is a serious problem, because we have an intelligence service that not too many people trust, and, though they don't often know why, there is good reason for this. Clearly, a president, security advisor, or whomever else, would have had to have been able to adequately cope with the situation at hand, but, that is just simply precisely what we entrust to elected officials.

We should expect much more from politicians, at least, in so far that we're going to consider for them to extraordinary, than merely being capable of dealing with crises adequately. There are plenty of countries in the world, I think, where the suggested response, though difficult to enact, would have been effectuated. It is because of the poverty of the American political situation, that we should expect that only a person who was as a beacon of hope could have dealt with the situation properly.

I was very invested, though not terribly active, in my opposition to the war previously, and, so, do have a lot to say about it, but apologize for just kind of rambling. It's just kind of something that I think that people should talk about.

This thread needs some post-progressive music.

Here's "What You See Is What You Are" by Here and Now!

The early oughts, man...

In true former green anarchist, a political philosophy that I think we should now refer to as "eco-anarchism", form I give you "War Story" by Antimaniax.

Oh, and, as much nuance as we can add to a critique of the American weltanschauung, in this country, there is the plain, pure, and political fact of a rather fervid and fairly intransigent partisan entrenchment that has relentlessly been carried out on the part of Fox News, who, leading up to and during the conflict, before, at least, the general populace became numb enough to lose interest and more or less forget that it was ongoing entirely, did absolutely nothing but deliberately incite a vengeful and jingoist fervor in favor of a war whose rhetoric increasingly came to be comparable to a crusade.

MSNBC and CNN both did more or less supported tacitly supported the war, with the caveat of the occasional detractor being given a minute and a half to voice their opinion, but there is no way to adequately assess the response to 9/11 without taking the decisive influence that Fox News hammered into the American populace into consideration.

Oh, I'm not saying that it was purely undertaken because of the Republican Party. What I'm saying is that the American state began to whip up the war drums nearly the day after the attacks occurred.

I was middle school at the time, and, so, I wasn't quite apt for detailed political analysis then, but there seemed to be a coordinated campaign of added security measures and pro-war propaganda even before we decided to invade Afghanistan.

Sure, you would see kind of a vengeful response from some people here and there. I recall seeing a bumper sticker suggesting that we should drop nuclear bombs in region. Without the military publicity campaign, coordinated security efforts, often to the point of outright absurdity, and, perhaps, most particularly, media sensationalism, I do think that the response to the attacks would have moreso been one of mourning.

In catechism, I remember watching a memorial video for the people who died in the attacks. Though I'm not really one to laud the Catholic Church, among the audience, there was no real anger or jingoism. It was all very solemn. That seems to have been a much more appropriate response from a populace who has born witness to one of the most successful terrorist attacks in all of human history, at least, in so far that we are to exclusive consider terrorism as having been carried out by some sort of insurgency as we do today.

There was also a notable push to recruit young people to join the military at the time, and, so, among the martial administration, I think that there was a generalized assumption that we were going to war before the war even began, rather in spite of that their own strategists must have known that such heavy-handed tactics tend to be fairly ineffective in countering terrorism.

In a way, I think that the Cold War American myth, that of the United States being a bastion of freedom and democracy in the world, one that I would have no qualms with it living up to were it, at all, to actually do so, engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of people all over the Earth, a somewhat messianic and expansionist enterprise in its own right, against the evils of totalitarianism, which we could lay some claim to on account of having won the Second World War, though, as, I think, we all know, effectively turned out to be any and/or everything that could be characterized as "communism", which, granted, did have some material basis within the form of control that any number of nations effectuated, proceeding from the establishment of the Soviet Union, transferred to spectral haunt of Islamic extremism, perhaps, in part, due to a cult pathology engendered by what American security advisors could no longer avoid coming to the realization of, namely that we had significantly contributed to the conditions for which it could occur.

In a way, the attacks on the Eleventh of September in 2001 were a godsend for the martial administration of the United States, as they provided both the legal and extra-juridical rationalizations and justifications for the mass expansion of fourth-generation warfare strategies and technologies, aside from the most obvious vindication in the form of another enemy to fight.

I don't think that anyone wanted for the towers to come down. The most abject and selfish reactionaries within the Central Intelligence Agency wouldn't have willed for such a tragedy to occur in the interest of accumulating power in the wake of a projected "war on terror". I do think that we were lying in wait for an attack, however. They knew that a bomb would go off somewhere eventually and were speculating upon which one could be utilized in crafting yet another noble lie and extenuating a form of conflict that exists everywhere, all at once, and is directed against a nameless enemy.

I was basically suggesting that, if an organizations democratic process is like a Rube Goldberg device, then, you will necessarily have the problem of that there will only be a few people who understands how it works. It was just to suggest dynamic and adaptability without over-complexity.

There even are leftists, social democrats, and greens. Even just having a multi-party system in the United States would make me feel that much more inclined to be somehow engaged with the political system here. Granted, the so-called "partisan deadlock" does, in ways, prevent us from having to entertain tacit Neo-Fascists or only so former Marxist-Leninists. Still, I think that the multi-party system does allow for a greater respect for pluralism and is, quite obviously, much more open.

That's something, I guess.

I don't know. I just felt some sort of inspiration to do something upon witnessing this whirlwind of events, only to later realize that I could only give out half-baked, potentially detrimental, advice.

He does have a few years to recover, I guess, and, so, I may still my full eight years of apathetic bliss. It's no use thinking along the lines of the Democratic Party, anyways.

That's fairly comforting, but I'm still not entirely convinced that, as an Anarcho-Pacifist, I won't be considered as a domestic terrorist threat.

Upon having this rather revolting thought myself, which has led me to discover what really happens behind the scenes in American politics, what do you think think the chances of Joe Biden getting reelected are now, given the political fallout of the situation in Afghanistan, and, if they are slim to none, what kind of person do you think that we should prepare ourselves for four years from now?

I guess that the Taliban have seized most of the border checkpoints, and, so, leaving is probably kind of difficult. Every now and then, though, it probably couldn't hurt to try, y'know?

The Organization for World Peace more or less suggests that the United States has to take initiative so that people can safely leave the country, which who knows if will happen, particularly now?

In all seriousness, though, despite that that's not necessarily not serious, to answer @Apollodorus's question, we're about to have to cope with a refugee crisis.

I think that, as Western interference created the crisis, it would not only be ethical, but that we are also responsible for providing safe harbor for Afghan refugees. What narrative is likely for us to be told, and it is something that will happen, albeit to an extraordinarily limited extent, is that the Taliban, or, perhaps, more particularly either al-Qaeda or other Islamic fundamentalist groups, as the Taliban are more concerned with their territorial control, will exploit the refugee crisis by disguising potential terrorist threats as political refugees, thereby dismissing the problem of the refugee crisis and just kind of letting them fend for themselves. What we, as philosophers, should then do is to make an attempt to change the general mindset in these regards.

As Kenny Rogers put it...

You've got to know when to hold 'em
know when to fold 'em
know when to walk away
know when to run — Bitter Crank

There's this quote that Emiliano Zapata has, "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." @baker once said it to me here, which, in the general course of my madness, I wasn't quite sure how to respond to.

Anyways, there's this advice that I always give to people who had been brought into the now diffused situation created between the Mafia and I, which relates to this scene from the film, Catch-22, where Nately, played by none other than Art Garfunkel, has a conversation with an old Italian in a brothel.

As much as the Italian is extolling the virtues of cowardice, he is not necessarily incorrect. To suggest that "it is better to live on your feet than it is to die on your knees" is, in the general course of living within a fairly dangerous world, kind of better advice than the martial invocation of honor, glory, or self-sacrifice. I don't want to treat the people of Afghanistan like I used to certain people with cocaine habits, but, y'know, I would consider putting off the personal crisis of having left the country in a time of crisis until I, myself, had fled.

Not everyone can leave and there are probably only so many places to go, aside from that it's probably doubtful that too many Afghans read The Philosophy Forum, and, so, it's only so good of advice, but, even if the Afghan military begins to hold their own, it's going to be a long and difficult civil war. Otherwise, as I kind of see it, the Taliban are just kind of unstoppable at this point.

"Darklands" by Primal Scream