Heads are mysteriously exploding into a pink mist. — James Riley

If the exploding heads spaw ferocious red blood in the light of an evening lantern, spewing its light in ignorant staticity into the mist, then the image conjured up is a delightful one! Especially in slomo. So let's look for some fresh heads to explode, a lantarn, and an old filmcamera. And a mist machine. Heavy conceptual art, imitating life. ☺

"You have the watches. We have the time." 
~ a mujahideen saying of captured Taliban fighters

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5652282001

Taliban doesn't like music.

This is a fun group.

This is a fun group. — frank

"said Masoud Andarabi, who was the Interior Minister under former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, in a Twitter post."

I would not put it past the Taliban. Then again, there will be all kinds of "news" rolling out from the former gubmn't and various parties.

Then again, there will be all kinds of "news" rolling out from the former gubmn't and various parties. — James Riley

Well, hopefully they'll put a sane government together soon.

Well, hopefully they'll put a sane government together soon. — frank

:pray: I worry about the boys, girls and women. But it's out of my control.

I worry about the boys, girls and women. But it's out of my control. — James Riley

Yep.

I worry about the boys, girls and women. — James Riley

Right, torturing children is very very bad, but what makes men a more tolerable victim of The Taliban and Islamic State than women?

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.

what makes men a more tolerable victim of The Taliban and Islamic State than women? — Bitter Crank

Nothing, other than they have a better capacity to fight back. In the U.S. we pride ourselves on having taken control of our own destiny and, while we have some sympathy for the victims of oppression, we also expect them to fight for their rights. We even go so far as to help them. Even nation building. Even spending countless dollars and the blood of our own. Sometimes this goes un-appreciated and those we try to help just cut and run.

I can understand that. As a boy I often thought that had I been around for the Civil War I would have cut out for the wide open spaces of the American West. I could not fathom the idea of walking into a wall of fire from men entrenched and defending a position. Today, when I see people leaving Syria and now Afghanistan, I understand that too. Why stay in a shit hole of violence? But in the final analysis, if you love the land itself, sometimes you have to fight for it. If you don't, then leave and start over.

I'm not saying women can't fight, either. In hindsight we should have spun up a couple of division of Afghan Amazons full of blood-lust for Taliban religious zealots. But that ship has sailed. Besides, in looking at what we had to work with, that might have been a big ask. (I always wondered what the Taliban, et al, thought about the fact some of them had been, and they might be killed by a female American service person. I never knew a Taliban that I could ask. Hmmm.)

In the final analysis though, men are expected to fight or run or take their place among the women and children. I'm sure the Taliban will treat them accordingly.

Another aspect of the propaganda that is repeated ad nauseam is that those who are waging the wars are 1) freedom loving but naive liberators who just failed to forsee and take into account even the basic realities of war and 2) were totally unaware that war is a profitable business for some.

Yes, that too. :grin:

I'm not saying women can't fight, either. In hindsight we should have spun up a couple of division of Afghan Amazons full of blood-lust for Taliban religious zealots. — James Riley

I think those Amazons would need to be non-Muslims.
Most Afghans agree with Islamic law, which is why the Taliban enjoy broad support.
So long as no alternative religion or belief system is enforced, there can be no alternative to Islam.

The Taliban have their main bases in Pakistan, where the movement started.
When on the defensive, the Taliban retreat to Pakistan from where they can launch new attacks.
To defeat the Taliban militarily, you need to sort out Pakistan.

As there is no political will in the West to do any of the above, the problem cannot be solved in a western sense.

So if the Taliban won't tolerate the sound of a woman's voice on TV or the radio (from some dubious report I read), then there are a lot of women who agree with that?

I don't think that would allow us to say their oppression of women is right, it just would mean that practically speaking, our opinions don't matter because we have no will to surgically alter their culture.

Nobody says that the oppression of women is right. However, in Islam (as it used to be in Christianity) men are supposed to be in charge. If the majority of the population believes in Islam, then you cannot avoid giving men a larger share of authority and power, including over women.

And yes, it does mean that "practically speaking our opinions don't matter because we have no will to surgically alter their culture".

Don't forget that the British went into Afghanistan to keep the Russians out, and the western position has been motivated by geostrategic considerations ever since.

If we are serious about "liberating women from Islam" then we need to sort out Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. by enforcing a new religion or ideology.

But we are not doing that. If anything, we are trying to do it piecemeal and that allows for pockets of resistance leading to a backlash.

The fact is that the West is on the retreat everywhere, and China and Islam are on the rise even in the West.

If we are serious about "liberating women from Islam" then we need to sort out Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. by enforcing a new religion or ideology. — Apollodorus

And I think that's what China will do eventually. Islam will be gone as anything but a museum piece.

Correct. Islam has fanaticism, China has the intelligence, and the West has (nearly) given up.

With regard to Afghanistan, the Taliban don't even have a banking system. Their foreign reserves are sitting in New York and England is printing their currency.

Unless the Taliban want to return to the stone age, they will need to make some deal with the West, giving us some leverage.

However, they can equally turn to Russia and China in which case the West will have zero influence on anything ....

With regard to Afghanistan, the Taliban don't even have a banking system. Their foreign reserves are sitting in New York and England is printing their currency.

Unless the Taliban want to return to the stone age, they will need to make some deal with the West, giving us some leverage. — Apollodorus

Theyre supposedly funded by heroin sales. How do they manage that if their assets are in NY banks?

It's all just corruption on top of corruption, isn't it?

Even Latin American gangsters fund themselves with cocaine. But they are not running a country. They are just buying themselves expensive cars, yachts, girlfriends, and guns.

However, to have a proper economy you need more than selling opium or whatever. You need a banking system with a central bank, foreign reserves, corresponding banks in other countries, etc. Otherwise you have no credit and investment and no economy.

This is where the West may get a chance to gain some influence. So we've got to wait and see. Unless Biden has some idea, which I tend to doubt :smile:

The Taliban are funding themselves with opium/heroin, not the Afghan state.

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

That has now been suspended.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/27/afghanistan-taliban-economy-aid-sanctions-united-states-west/

The Taliban government may not last more than a few weeks or months without foreign assistance. The question is who will assist and buy some influence ....

The Taliban government may not last more than a few weeks or months without foreign assistance. The question is who will assists and buy some influence .... — Apollodorus

It would be funny if Russia takes it over after all this time. Did they just want it for the port access?

Very funny. :smile:

England was a maritime empire. The British wanted to keep the Russians out of India and the Indian Ocean that was "their" water.

Of course, the Russians will now try to get in and so will China. It will be interesting to see how the Taliban are playing their cards.

Either way, I think western liberalism is beginning to look like a failed system.

Either way, I think western liberalism is beginning to look like a failed system. — Apollodorus

How so?

If the US Government actually cared about women's rights they'd be invading Texas right now

The anti-abortionists are trying to take ground from which they'll latter stage an invasion. It's an invasion that couldn't happen without the complicity of the women of Texas.

Vote like an idiot, pay the price.

EU plans big cash offer for Afghanistan’s neighbors to host refugees

Interesting. European Union is offering 600M € to avoid the refugees and keep them on Turkey, Pakistan or India.
Thoughts? Is this immoral?

:up:

How so? — frank

Well, western liberalism teaches that men are worthless racists and misogynists and all that matters is refugees, elephants, rhinos, and polar bears.

China and Islam think otherwise, and they appear to be winning.

This raises the question as to which system wins in the end? One that makes self-criticism into a cult or one that is more self-confident and knows what it wants and that gets what it wants at all costs?

The war in Afghanistan is a clash of ideological systems that may suggest an answer.

Well, western liberalism teaches that men are worthless racists and misogynists and all that matters is refugees,elephants, rhinos, and polar bears. — Apollodorus

This is simply correct, what's the problem?

:up: