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.

That is what I am talking about: a dismissive, almost racist attitude towards them. It's very common in some corners of the 'west', unfortunately. — Olivier5

Egyptians, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians, Malaysians, and many others are not Arabs.

You may find some elements of Arab culture in populations that Muslim Arabs invaded and occupied in the Middle Ages but this does not amount to “great Arab civilization”. That sounds more like a political concept to me.

DNA Analysis proves that Egyptians are not Arabs – Egypt Independent

You definitely have a bias. As I said, it's very common: the history you go by was written by Christians and Jews who had the same bias. You should try to read Arabic authors.

. The Russians and the Chinese can be happy how things are going now. — ssu

Nope, they are not. The Chinese were very happy with NATO troops keeping the peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban could get pro-Uighur, you see? The Russians pretend to laugh at the US (as their protégé, Najibullah, resisted for two years after the withdrawal of soviet troops, offering a sharp contrast with Ghani) but they are nervous. And Tajikistan has already aligned with the Northern Alliance.

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".

Okay, the Russians and Chinese have some satisfaction seeing NATO leave the neighbourhood. Fair enough.

the history you go by was written by Christians and Jews who had the same bias. You should try to read Arabic authors. — Olivier5

The fact is that Egyptians, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians, and many others are NOT Arabs. Even Syrians and some other Arabic-speaking populations are not strictly Arabs.

Arab language and culture did not reach the more distant areas of Islamic influence. By the time it reached Persia, Islamic culture was no longer Arab. Mahmud of Ghazni who invaded India was of Turkic extraction, born in Afghanistan, and spoke Persian. The Mughal Empire was ruled by people of Turkic and Mongol descent and its culture and language were Persian, etc.

The only thing that actually unites those populations is Islam. So, in historical and cultural terms you could say “the Golden Age of Islam”. But I wouldn’t group them under “Arab civilization”.

As someone noted already, this depends on how you define success. If their goal is to maintain age-old traditions unaffected by foreign influences, they might do well. — Olivier5

That is not exactly what they want. The first thing they accomplished is convincing Turkey to operate the airport. The airport is essential to receive foreign aid and International organizations are scrambling to get those who stayed in Afghanistan and those who have fled, food. The only way to feed the large populations today is with modern technology and never in history have people followed someone when they are starving. No one who has had modern plumbing and understands the control of disease is going to settle for living as people did before indoor plumbing. Bottom line, success means living in the 21 century also throughout the koran there are sentences that support learning such as "God will exalt those of you who believe and those who have knowledge to high degrees". This has a large part to play in the earlier success of Islam.

Islam comes out of an existing civilization and Mohammad was a trader. Succuss in trading and economics is a hallmark of the historical Islam, but not the Taliban who come from the backwoods and have been nomadic. The Sumerian story of Ishmael tells of the difference between those who live in the city and those who do not. We might want to apply that story to what is happening in Afghanistan. Even though the invaders are Muslim, they are not civilized Muslims and I think the International effort to change that region failed because it did not recognize the important difference between the nomads and city people.

History of Islam - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_Islam
Baghdad was home to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, in addition to the growing Muslim population. Like his father, Al-Hadi was open to his people ...
‎Early sources and historiography · ‎Early period · ‎Islamic Golden Age · ‎Islam in Africa

I think it is a mistake to think it is Islam that defines our enemy because the enemy is those nomadic hicks who have lived for war all this time. Another serious problem is they turned male children into warriors and they do not respect women and will be a social problem for a long time. But perhaps we should keep in mind so did the Germans resort to recruiting child soldiers.

Nobody said Pakistanis were Arab. I just said that there was once a brilliant Arab civilization. I don't think this is in dispute by any serious historian.

↪Apollodorus Nobody said Pakistanis were Arab. I just said that there was once a brilliant Arab civilization. I don't think this is in dispute by any serious historian. — Olivier5

Yes, and that civilization surpassed Christian Europe. My above post was too long so quickly I say in this short post, the enemy is not Islam. The enemy is backward people who think they are doing the will of God, not so different from some Christians. War is good for religion and religion is good for war.

That is not exactly what they want. The first thing they accomplished is convincing Turkey to operate the airport. — Athena

I guess you're right: they seem to be interested in keeping channels open with the rest of the world. Good sign, I guess.

As for enemies... The Americans always look for some enemy or another. I guess they're convenient to justify enormous military spending, huh?

As for enemies... The Americans always look for some enemy or another. I guess they're convenient to justify enormous military spending, huh? — Olivier5

Whoo, whoo, the US was known for its resistance to entering wars and coming up with the idea of a United Nations, to resolve conflicts with reason, a hallmark of democracy. It also has a history of using the military to defend its economic interest. Seriously, we need to understand the difference and why we were in Afghanistan in the first place and especially why we turned on Saddam and invaded Iraq. We made enemies and need to take responsibility for that, but as long as we believe the war is Christians against Muslims, we will not be living with the truth.

Sure. My point was that the US could dispense from looking for new enemies all the time. The books are now closed on Afghanistan, thanks to Biden. That was the longest war the US ever fought... and for what? What do they got to show for it?

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. — ssu

I love your statement. :heart: When in the 21 century has the US fought a war for survival? 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. The US was not in Afghanistan because God willed us to be there. The US was not in Afghanistan because it was a nation that threatened our nation. The US was not in Afghanistan to spread democracy. We do have politicians with real leadership skills. We are fed lies and still believe them.

I love Biden's move of delaying our exit until the anniversary of 9/11 so he could counteract the bad news that he knew would result from the withdrawal, and use television to hammer away at remembering 9/11 desperately hoping to rekindle the fear and lies that made us willing to support a war that never should have happened.

:rage: who here does not believe the enemy is Muslims? Our belief that the enemy is Muslims is US/ Christian propaganda. The enemy that gets us into war is the Military-Industrial Complex, the oil industry and banking, and Christians believing they are doing the will of God when the US commits acts of war.

↪Athena Sure. My point was that the US could dispense from looking for new enemies all the time. The books are now closed on Afghanistan, thanks to Biden. That was the longest war the US ever fought... and for what? — Olivier5

The US is unlikely to have a new enemy as long as fracking meets our oil needs. However, it could very well create new enemies. I so wish we would learn from Athens and Rome but that is another topic. I write to stir our conscience and raise our wisdom and I appreciate help in doing this.

But for the Taliban and ISIS what the US did in Afghanistan is like letting in the killer wasp that destroy all the bees needed for pollination. We screwed them over so badly because we did not have a good understanding of human reality. We were not there for any of the good reasons. We were there to maintain control of oil until fracking gave us independence from foreign oil. The idea of nation-building came after we were there and it was poorly thought out.

The nation-building may have succeeded had we used Islam for the foundation of that nation.

The nation-building may have succeeded had we used Islam for the foundation of that nation. — Athena

I happen to think that what was missing was Afghan own governance traditions, and in particular their reliance on communal decision making through institutions called shuras and jirghas. Very little of that tradition was reflected in the constitution drafted in 2004 or 2005 (after the US invasion and under the nation-building project), which was inspired from Switzerland...

The nation-building may have succeeded had we used Islam for the foundation of that nation. — Athena

Or, maybe, if you had stayed away. But 'we' and 'you' here are euphemisms. They take for granted that you, or the average folk in general, had a say in all this. You didn't.

I happen to think that what was missing was Afghan own governance traditions, and in particular their reliance on communal decision making through institutions called shuras and jirghas — Olivier5

There's nothing communal about them.

In general, anyone who makes this about Islam, either to attack Islam as the problem or to present it as the solution, is, at best, a useful idiot.

There's nothing communal about them. — hairy belly

Meaning?

Meaning what it says. Decisions made by an oligarchy are not communal decisions, they are decisions by few men which affect the 'community'.

Decisions made by an oligarchy are not communal decisions, they are decisions by few men which affect the 'community'. — hairy belly

Lots of folks show up in jirgas. It is innacurate to characterize them as a form of oligarchy. Of course only men talk.

I can characterize modern democracies as oligarchies, let alone tribal circle jerking.

Of course only men talk. — Olivier5

Of course.

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.

I let you to your jerking.

Nobody said Pakistanis were Arab. I just said that there was once a brilliant Arab civilization. I don't think this is in dispute by any serious historian. — Olivier5

I’m assuming that by “Arab civilization” you mean things like architecture, language, literature. and other cultural traits that are characteristic of Arab populations.

I’m also assuming that if this “Arab civilization” existed, then it must have had a timeline, geographic location, and evidence to confirm it.

If so, then I can see no “Arab civilization” in India.

Even the Abbasid Caliphate based at Baghdad that you mention, was not the beginning of an Arab ethnic and cultural Empire but the end of it, being the result of the Revolution of 750 AD against Arab domination - at the same time when other uprisings against Arab rule were taking place in Egypt, Spain (Battle of Covadonga), and elsewhere.

This is the true reason behind “Islamic tolerance”: Muslim Arabs, being outnumbered, were forced to recognize other cultures and religions, and over time were replaced by non-Arabs and their language, culture, and “civilization” disappeared. The only thing that was left is Islam.

The Arabs had no literature, science, or philosophy comparable to those of Greece, Persia, and India. This is precisely why Arab rulers started the Translation Movement that had hundreds of Greek manuscripts translated into Arabic, and this played an important role in the Islamic Golden Age.

I think the Arabs invaded Christian and other countries to bring Islam, not “civilization”. :smile:

Yes, and that civilization surpassed Christian Europe. My above post was too long so quickly I say in this short post, the enemy is not Islam. The enemy is backward people who think they are doing the will of God, not so different from some Christians. War is good for religion and religion is good for war. — Athena

I think there is a contradiction there. We condemn war as "good for religion" but we glorify a religion that was spread through war.

Plus, by definition, Islamic religion and culture are based on Sharia Law which means subordination of women to men, floggings, amputations, beheadings, stoning, etc. and in more strict Islamic regimes, imposition of burkas, prohibition of music and alcoholic drinks, etc.

Islamic states are based on Sharia Law. You can’t separate Islam from Islamic Law.

I can see no “Arab civilization” in India. — Apollodorus

Maybe you are not looking in the right place... Note that you can't see an Indian civilization in Arabia either.

Note that you can't see an Indian civilization in Arabia either. — Olivier5

I don't need to as I never claimed that there was one.

It was you who claimed that there was this "great Arab civilization". Unfortunately, you failed to explain where exactly it was, what it consisted in, and when it took place!

Ok, so you went looking for it in India, thus proving your total lack of bias... or clue perhaps.

I meant the Abbasid caliphate, as you must know. They lasted over 400 years, which ain't that bad. As well as Al Andalouz, at least the first few centuries of it were really brilliant culturally.

Islam succeeded mainly because of its geographical location as the centre of the world, between Europe, India and China. Trade brought through combinations of technology, philosophy and goods that nobody else had access to. This changed when boats began to replace carts as the major form of transportation for goods.

The complexity of Islam needs to be addressed also, theological interpretation is varied and ranges from a complete denial of free will and rationality to the celebration of free will and rationality. Those latter interpretations were more dominant during the 9th-12th centuries. Not only is Islam a varied religion today but interpretations throughout those times have changed.

The Islam of the Taliban is quite clearly counterproductive, compare them with the CCP who act like corporate overlords hellbent on efficiency, development and surpassing the West. The Taliban is more concerned about theological, philosophical and moral matters. To succeed, the Taliban could try to extract the resources of Afghanistan and use those funds for development but that would require collaboration with foreign powers. I don't think the leaders of ISIS or the Taliban are primitive, they're actually quite sophisticated but Islam isn't just supremely counterproductive, it's a distraction.

In the 9th century, a government can clumsily and ineffectively allow science to be practised in the ideal location and see positive results, while still practising backward traditions. They can outpace the other primitive and backward cultures of the world while doing that. Now, our expectations and standards are higher, meeting the standards of being a developed nation is an incredibly difficult task. Afghanistan had a chance, when it was becoming secularised and Westernised, Islam, corruption and communism ruined that chance.

Most importantly, ISIS and The Taliban are militia war groups and terrorists, even if they weren't Islamists, who would want such leaders? Who would expect anything from their leadership?

I meant the Abbasid caliphate, as you must know. They lasted over 400 years, which ain't that bad. — Olivier5

Sure. But the Roman Empire lasted much longer than 400 years. So Roman civilization must have been even better, and Egyptian civilization that lasted a few thousand years, must have been the best.

And as I said, the Abbasid Caliphate was not the beginning of an Arab ethnic and cultural Empire but the end of it, being the result of the Revolution of 750 AD against Arab domination. So it doesn't really qualify as "Arab civilization", nor could it have been, as most of its cultural features were non-Arab.

Plus, if this "brilliant Arab civilization" was so brilliant, why where the occupied countries rebelling against it in Egypt (Bashmurian revolts), Spain (Battle of Covadonga), and elsewhere?