Now it's time for the US to vacate the rest...

wish their protection is well guaranteed. — javi2541997

Taliban leaders are saying women can continue working. Maybe they're different now.

My real kvetch with StreetlightX is that he'll take preliminary shots at my nearest allies, the aforementioned "bleeding heart liberal" pacifists, before engaging within any debate — thewonder


The reason why left wing politics is failing in a nutshell. — Isaac

It's always been that way, though, right? Too much fury, too little rational thought.

Maybe they're different now. — frank

Yes, probably they are different or... They are just acting beacuse they are intelligent enough to understand all the pressure from social media and news Afghanistan is having.

They are just acting beacuse they are intelligent enough to understand all the pressure from social media and news Afghanistan is having. — javi2541997

I thought of that too. There are reports of summary executions and homes being raided for child brides. Their leaders are saying this wasn't authorized. We'll see.

It's always been that way, though, right? Too much fury, too little rational thought. — frank

Yeah, you're probably right. It didn't feel that way at the time, but I expect it was. That's probably why we didn't get anywhere then either. Remember Scargill and Solidarity?

Remember Scargill and Solidarity? — Isaac

I've been reading about that time period. There's a view that this was an opportunity to enter more maturely into socialism in the west, but they sort of fumbled and gave liberalism a chance to reorganize the economy. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

Hoping that the Taliban will change their ways is hoping the US will change theirs. A fool' dream.

If legit, give that 2nd guy a medal and interview him as a role model showing the right thing to do.
The thread has comments on Australian forces.

Anyone who expects America to 'learn a lesson' has not learnt the lesson that Americans don't learn lessons. — StreetlightX

Street, I can always count on you to put me in the terrible position of sounding like Stephen Pinker.

But you agree, I think, that there are differences between the American invasion of South Vietnam and Gulf/Iraq Wars in terms of popular resistance. There was none whatsoever in the 50s. There was resistance to the Gulf and Iraq Wars -- clearly not enough, but it was there. In other cases, like the early 80s protests against "intervention" by the Reagan administration in El Salvador and Nicaragua is another example, which was abandoned and driven underground. Etc. Much different than under Eisenhower or Kennedy. I attribute that to the memory of Vietnam and the anti-war movement.

It disappears when the money making potential dries up, and boy has the money making potential not dried up.

Or put differently: the lessons to be learnt from Afganistan are not moral. They are political and economic. — StreetlightX

Yes, but moral as well. Political and economic power is fragile, as you know, and without the consent of the population it's very limited, especially in a semi-free country like the US.

In the 1950s no one cared about what the government was doing in Vietnam, and today far more people do. That matters to the government, especially if there's mass protests. So you have to try even harder to convince them - - through propaganda -- that it's moral, righteous, that we're on a "war against terrorism," that we're going after those who attacked us because they "hate our freedom," and so on. I'd argue this is the moral component, and has indeed changed -- it's less successful than it was a few generations ago.

We'll see how this increased dissidence manifests, if at all, when the US decides to invade its next country. I'm not very hopeful about that.

Indeed. I'm generally against war, but can't we at least start with an honest and frank cost-benefit analysis--beyond how much military suppliers will make? Congress should be a much more tight-fisted grantor of largesse to the military. — Bitter Crank

True, but this industry has essentially bought the politicians. There are also other interests involved. The military contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin make fortunes, but there's also the most obvious motivation of the energy companies.

If there weren't resources to extract, or some other economic reason for invasion, then we wouldn't invade. It's that simple. The government doesn't care about anything it says it does -- about spreading freedom or slowing communism or "defending" itself or liberating the women or any of the many pretexts used over the years to justify (to themselves as well) the purely predatory nature of these decisions.

But you agree, I think, that there are differences between the American invasion of South Vietnam and Gulf/Iraq Wars in terms of popular resistance. There was none whatsoever in the 50s — Xtrix

In the 50s perhaps, but the anti-war sentiment that grew during Vietnam was legendary and historical. Perhaps the filter though which I understand the scale of those movements is through rose colored-glasses, but if there's a difference in popular resistance it strikes me as exactly the opposite today. I'm not sure that one can, in fact, speak of a coherent anti-war movement in the US today at all. It strikes me that the population there is even more, and not less docile than before. Moreover, the anti-war movement back then also had the advantage of linking across class and race issues as well. MLK was as much a beacon of the anti-war movement as he was paragon of civil rights and a socialist.

What dribs and drabs of any anti-war movement in the US today remains cloistered in it's own little issue-hole (most forcefully it seems, by conservative voices who want to 'bring our boys home'), and while everyone is now crawling out of the woodwork when the stakes have evaporated, Afghanistan was more or less a matter of resignation among the population than any sort of resistance, as far as I can tell. And this translates to the fact that the the Afghanistan post-mortem that everyone is conducting has barely been made to bear on America's other existing forever-war in Iraq. Yet if Afghanistan was a wealth transfer and a fuck-up, what does anyone think Iraq is? Where the the voices clamoring to say: now do Iraq next? But business there is still too good.

I'd argue this is the moral component, and has indeed changed -- it's less successful than it was a few generations ago. — Xtrix

Yes, but I also think it's less relevant. I think Americans realize now just how little say they have in anything their state does, and even those who buy the moral argument realize how little purchase it has. It's cynicism all around. Again, the overwhelming affect seems resignation and impotence, not resistance. And especially not compared to the anti-war movement against Vietnam. I still remember the smugness with which Bush assessed the early anti-war demonstrations against Iraq as a 'celebration of America's freedoms' of some such - he may as well have told all the protestors to pound sand for all he gave a shit. And they kind did after that. So I'm really not convinced by this point that popular resistance is more charged. If anything, it seems far less so.

Also worth quoting a bit out of Raymond Geuss' essay back in 2004:

"For a brief moment after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in 2001, it seemed as if the shock of these events might bring about a general process of reflection by Americans on the place of the United States in the wider world. Unfortunately, the form this reflection eventually took was self-defeating. One normal way of going about determining why someone did something is to ask the person in question. The question why Al-Qaeda bombed the Pentagon and the World Trade Center has a relatively clear answer: “They say they did it because of U.S. support for the corrupt Saudi monarchy and the garrisoning of American troops in Saudi Arabia.” One might then expect people to start asking why U.S. troops should be in Saudi Arabia anyway, why exactly control of this region is so important, and finally, how much real power the United States has and how it can be best deployed.

Instead public discussion almost immediately began to focus on elaborating various fantasies about Islamic fundamentalism, “their” hatred of “our” values, freedom, and way of life, etc. The creation of imaginary hate figures may give some immediate psychic satisfaction, but in the long run it only spreads and increases confusion and aggression. Troops can in principle be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, policy toward the Saudi monarchy can change, but how can one deal in a satisfactory way with inherently spectral “Islamic terror”? It no doubt suits some political circles in the United States that the population continue to be fearful, mystified, and frustrated, the better to gain their acquiescence in various further military operations, but it is hard to believe that this kind of emotional and cognitive derangement of the population contributes to increasing U.S. political power."

That was back in 2004. Has the end of the Afghanistan adventure prompted the kinds of questions Geuss asks above? Still no. And where is the vindication of Julian Assange? Where is that conversation? The wrong questions are still being asked. Americans don't learn. They won't. Not until their population is starving and on the edge of utter destitution will any of these questions even begin to be asked.

In the 50s perhaps, but the anti-war sentiment that grew during Vietnam was legendary and historical. Perhaps the filter though which I understand the scale of those movements is through rose colored-glasses, but if there's a difference in popular resistance it strikes me as exactly the opposite today. — StreetlightX

I don't think you're wearing rose-colored glasses. I think the anti-war movement of the late 60s was indeed legendary and historical. Nothing like that had occurred before in the United States, even if we count the isolationist resistance during WW1.

But I don't see today as being exactly the opposite, in part because of the scale of US crimes. At the time when the anti-war movement gained steam, as you know, there were hundreds of thousands of troops in Vietnam, thousands of American casualties and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese deaths. I don't think any such levels would be tolerated today. It's a disgrace that we tolerate any war crime, no matter the degree, but it's still a fact that the scale has been less and the propaganda has been much more sophisticated (which is an indicator of popular sentiment). JFK didn't need any real justification for ramping up troops, for example, because no one cared. No president would be able to get away with that today, in my view. I could be wrong about that, but I think the memory of Vietnam and the general distrust in government still lingers.

What dribs and drabs of any anti-war movement in the US today remains cloistered in it's own little issue-hole, and while everyone is now crawling out of the woodwork when the stakes have evaporated, Afghanistan was more or less a matter of resignation among the population than any sort of resistance, as far as I can tell. — StreetlightX

Many Americans were in favor of invading Afghanistan because it was in the wake of 9/11, when everyone was scared and completely irrational, in part because they were told that there was a direct connection between this military action and the 9/11 attack: that Bin Ladan was operating out of Afghanistan, with the help of the Taliban, and so we needed to go in and kick ass. So of course everyone rallied around that, as they felt it was just. They should have known better even then, given it was a obvious war crime, but I'm perhaps more understanding of their acceptance.

By the time of Iraq, only a year and a half later, there was much more protest -- even with the false claims of WMDs and Saddam's connection with 9/11. A lot of this protest wasn't reported, but it was there.

And this translates to the fact that the the Afghanistan post-mortem that everyone is conducting has barely been made to bear on America's other existing forever-war in Iraq. — StreetlightX

I think both wars have now proven, in nearly every American's mind, to be utter failures, went on for decades, wasted resources and lives, and in the case of Iraq at least were done under false pretenses. That's the sentiment out there, on the left and right -- in my estimation. Which is why you even had Trump talking up what a disaster they've been. You correctly point out that they have not been disasters, but giant successes for those in charge of making the decisions (corporate interests), but I doubt many Americans see that. What they do see (now) is that both wars were morally wrong, in the same way Vietnam was, and that in each case we were told it was a noble cause -- like a WW2 -- and were lied to. I'd argue that this is still significant.

So when I say that Americans have hopefully (and I stress that word) learned a hard lesson, it's about these smaller scale military actions and their pretexts.

I'd like to see the population get to the point where almost nothing the US military does is supported. But whether we get to that level of dissent and whether it manifests in mass demonstrations, I couldn't say. But this disaster is unlikely to help war hawks.

It's cynicism all around. Again, the overwhelming affect seems resignation and impotence, not resistance. And especially not compared to the anti-war movement against Vietnam. So I'm really not convinced by this point that popular resistance is more charged. If anything, it seems far less so. — StreetlightX

I see a lot of cynicism and defeatism too. But take the protests over Trump's "muslim ban," or the Women's March (the largest in US history), or earlier in the decade with the Occupy Movement. BLM also had some of the biggest demonstrations on record. There have also been plenty on the right -- hell, they just sacked the Capitol.

How any of that energy will look in response to the next war crime, I don't know -- but there are still reasons to think it would be significant. Perhaps not if the crime is on par with Grenada, of course, but even there I would hope more than before. Baby steps, I guess.

Has the end of the Afghanistan adventure prompted the kinds of questions Geuss asks above? Still no. Americans don't learn. They won't. — StreetlightX

Some Americans have, at least more than other decades. Will enough of them to make a difference? I fear not.

What do the people of Afghanistan want? Why doesn't this get discussed? I don't hear much about it. — Xtrix

Just as it would be obvious when asking the question "What do the people of the United States want?", you are not going to get one thing shared by all if the question is something political.

And notice this is similar in Afghanistan as it was in Vietnam. There is a huge difference between the people of the city and the people of the countryside. And if especially now some are commenting just how tribal Afghanistan is by nature, the flag incident, people openly defending the use of the current Afghan national flag, shows clearly that there is also a national Afghan identity, just as there is one in Iraq too, even people constantly remind how artificial the country is.

I remember once in the 1990's going to the bank here in Finland (when there were banks you could go into) and seeing an odd flag on the employees nametag, which basically tells what languages he or she can use. I had to mention the young Asian looking man "Hey, that the flag of South Vietnam?" He turned all smiles and proudly stated that yes, it indeed was.

And it's a bit telling of Afghanistan just how many flags has the poor country gone through. It tells a story of a country basically endlessly trying to reach some common unity or identity:


Yet the idea of Afghanistan does exist, even if it might not be so strong as other national identities. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan would surely make a huge error if they after everything drop the use of Afghanistan in the name. Would remind too much of the Islamic State (Caliphate).

I think Americans realize now just how little say they have in anything their state does — StreetlightX

If only that were so. True: American citizens have little say in what their nation-state does. This applies across the board around the globe. It's true for Australians, Bangladeshis, Chinese, Danes, Egyptians, Fijians, et al. The consent of the governed is a pious fiction of critical importance. The more powerful the state, the less say of the citizenry.

I'd like to see the population get to the point where almost nothing the US military does is supported. — Xtrix

The population at that point would be much closer to a general revolution. We would be closer to the collapse of the governed's consent. Now, that might be a good thing, depending on the shape the revolution took. Were it to bring about @the wonder's "teleological project of anarchism, which I define as "libertarian socialism" that might be worth dreaming about. No need to detail how badly a revolution might turn out to be.

Remember, too, that the economic system at the heart of the United States prevails around the globe. A revolution in the US wouldn't automatically bring about global liberation. Anyway, tasing about a revolution in the USA is ridiculously premature.

I'd like to see the population get to the point where almost nothing the US military does is supported. — Xtrix

Try smoking more crack.

And uh, how long we thought about these events finally bringing on a long awaited peace? Like, there wasn't any time? Back to the old ways of the old days? Just now with perhaps not the Americans anymore (at least openly).

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that armed resistance to the Taliban is forming in Afghanistan's Panjshir Valley, led by deposed vice-president Amrullah Saleh and Ahmad Massoud, the son of anti-Taliban fighter. "The Taliban doesn't control the whole territory of Afghanistan," Lavrov told reporters at a press conference in Moscow following a meeting with his Libyan counterpart.

"There are reports of the situation in the Panjshir Valley where the resistance of Afghanistan's vice president Mr Saleh and Ahmad Massoud is concentrated," he said.

Lavrov also reiterated his call for an inclusive dialogue involving all political players in Afghanistan for the formation of a "representative government".

The Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul is Afghanistan's last remaining holdout, known for its natural defences. According to images shared on social media, Saleh and Massoud, the son of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, are pulling together a guerrilla movement to take on the Taliban.

Yeah, controlling Afghanistan is difficult. But being in the role of an insurgent is surely easy.

There is real irony if Russia would start backing groups operating from Panjshir Valley.

I'd like to see the population get to the point where almost nothing the US military does is supported. — Xtrix

I kinda have to agree with @frank on this one. America's fetish is their military culture. There are few other countries in the world which has a culture so militarized as America's, and it's not surprising given that America's prosperous existence depends on its brutalizing of other countries. They prey on school children and the poor. I'm not even sure Americans can see how fucked up it is until they actual step out from it. And my point is just that materialist one: this is not a war of 'ideas'. No amount of 'war bad!' moralizing is going to effect an iota of change. Until the very structure of American political existence is altered - the structure of material incentives and compulsions - is changed, appealing to 'values' and 'morals' is a lost cause. When Biden's cabinet is filled to the brim with former Lockheed and Raytheon execs, the idea that a bit of tut-tuting will make a difference is indistinguishable from, well, smoking crack.

So what else might you have been able to do with 5.6 trillion dollars...? — Banno

Invest heavily in nuclear and geothermal along with storage for wind and solar. Might have made that 1.5ºC target by mid century a little more realistic. Hell, with that kind of money, we might even have commercial fusion reactors by now. And that kind of energy would definitely make a dent in climate change. Might as well throw room temperature superconducting in as well. 5.6 trillion is s shit ton of investment money.

. Hell, with that kind of money, we might even have commercial fusion reactors by now. — Marchesk

Or not.

Somehow that narrative of creating economical fusion energy production if only there was enough money is like the narrative of "turning the page" and finally "seeing light of the end of the tunnel" in fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan...if only more troops and resources are given. Of course the difference with fusion research that fails to reach efficient fusion energy production is that it all expands our scientific knowledge: at least this or that approach doesn't cut it. That knowledge isn't wasted like the effort to build up the Afghan government, which evaporates in a wild panic.

But I guess there might be the nuclear scientist who behind closed doors tells how these huge fusion projects are not working at all. Just like many generals were quite open of that Afghanistan was a failure years ago, and were perfectly correct.

Until the very structure of American political existence is altered - the structure of material incentives and compulsions - is changed, appealing to 'values' and 'morals' is a lost cause. — StreetlightX

My statement about what I hope to see shouldn't be interpreted as what I believe will happen. I'd like to see our modern state capitalist system dismantled altogether, I'd like to see the electoral college abandoned, etc. I have no illusions that these things will come to pass in my lifetime, or perhaps ever. There's a good chance we wipe ourselves out before that.

My point was that the level of popular dissent for military action -- especially major military action -- has increased since the Vietnam war. This may sound ridiculous, but look at the scale of Afghanistan compared to Vietnam, and look at the protests surrounding the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Far more resistance than what Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson received. True, it wasn't reported much in the media, but it was there. That's a significant difference.

I think the sentiment (reflected by polling) is clear that Americans view the Afghan war (which was supposed to be the more "just" war and which had more support than Iraq) as a failure. Like I said, I don't know if a lesson was learned from this, or how it will play out when the US decides to invade another country, but I doubt very much it helps the government's credibility.

A bit o' history, if you like.

https://www.redpepper.org.uk/afghanistan-a-brief-history/?fbclid=IwAR3zIKDShvh2XTt6kk55QxUAeO_MQAzZCn9myIxC1_Yyp63z1LTAYAxNC2A

And on a lighter note ...

"THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK." :victory:

This was so embarrassing... :groan:

Vox? The Spanish fascists? That's to be expected.

If people want to really look at how FUBAR (Fucked up beyond all reason), there's great insight into this done by an independent audit team supervising the process of how the Afghanistan-project was going for the US, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR. There webpage https://www.sigar.mil/ is still up and has a multitude of information that is basically ...quite accurate.

Usually reports like this are basically propaganda, but still what the US government has is independent auditors who openly show the errors (unlike the EU, for example). Of course, their observations and recommendations are rarely listen to.



The main reason the Special Inspector gives for the failure of the US in it's efforts in Afghanistan:

1. The U.S. government continuously struggled to develop and implement a coherent strategy for what it hoped to achieve.

2. The U.S. government consistently underestimated the amount of time required to rebuild Afghanistan and created unrealistic timelines and expectations that prioritized spending quickly. These choices increased corruption and reduced the effectiveness of programs.

3. Many of the institutions and infrastructure projects the United States built were not sustainable.

4. Counterproductive civilian and military personnel policies and practices thwarted the effort.

5. Persistent insecurity severely undermined reconstruction efforts.

6. The U.S. government did not understand the Afghan context and therefore failed to tailor its efforts accordingly.

7. U.S. government agencies rarely conducted sufficient monitoring and evaluation to understand the impact of their efforts.

And there are incredible stories. Like a helicopter pilot being to train the Afghan police. Or other people put to train the police and having no experience in police training and simply watching NCIS or Cop. Or then that the US Embassy personnel, putting "safety first", rarely if ever ventured outside the Embassy or the Kabul green zone. This lead to a case that the US command in the Southern Region had nobody from the US Embassy (or State Department) to tell what they should do with the vast reconstruction and civilian projects.

Yet there obviously is a structural issue at play here.

Reconstruction programs are not like humanitarian aid; they are not meant to provide temporary relief. Instead, they serve as a foundation for building the necessary institutions of government, civil society, and commerce to sustain the country indefinitely. Every mile of road the United States built and every government employee it trained was thought to serve as a springboard for even more improvements and to enable the reconstruction effort to eventually end. However, the U.S. government often failed to ensure its projects were sustainable over the long term. Billions of reconstruction dollars were wasted as projects went unused or fell into disrepair. Demands to make fast progress incentivized U.S. officials to identify and implement short-term projects with little consideration for host government capacity and long-term sustainability. U.S. agencies were seldom judged by their projects’ continued utility, but by the number of projects completed and dollars spent.

In the end it is no wonder that with this kind of inefficiency, mismanagement and basic sloppiness, it will feel all as this is a giant racket. There surely is a racket when you have "ghost soldiers" and such high levels of corruption. And the simple fact is that when there is free money being given away, there are many takers. Yet a lot of people tried their best, yet the system didn't work. Let's remember that for example the Balkans are peaceful, so the idea that there is no reason for help or "nation building" isn't a simple question.

War is the most wasteful and spendthrift thing human beings have come up. War profiteering simply happens. In any case when something has to be done quickly, without the formal contracts and auditing, criminals do get to the scene. Hence even in natural disasters or things like a pandemic, criminals try to get the money governments are throwing at the disaster. In societies where there is less or no social cohesion it's a big problem.

(A contractor showing abandoned firearms and equipment in Kabul)

I am worried if one day they achieve some parts of the State. Imagine these dudes as ministers of justice, economy, taxation, international affairs, etc...

Investigation of alleged Australian war crimes could be hindered by fall of Afghan government

The long-running Brereton inquiry found “credible information” to implicate 25 current or former Australian Defence Force personnel in the alleged unlawful killing of 39 individuals and the cruel treatment of two others in Afghanistan.

Brereton said that the circumstances of each, were they to be eventually accepted by a jury, would constitute the war crime of murder.

Let's see what is going on with this issue in the following months...