I agree keeping nuclear power is probably necessary now because we can't transition to carbonfree energy fast enough as it is. — ChatteringMonkey

That's a good and simple way to put it.

Any historian can tell you that there was very strong French opposition to German participation in anything, let alone economic unification. — Apollodorus

After WW2, many wanted to make Germany an agrarian country incapable of being any kind of threat anymore.

Thank's for the response, Apollodorus. And thanks for the references too! I enjoy when people do take the time to give an well thought response.

you will see that the whole project was a top-down operation imposed on Germany, France, and other countries by vested interests, and that in many cases simply by-passed democratic process. — Apollodorus

And it might have been a very small cabal of people that wanted integration (prior to WW2), just like Konrad Adenauer himself, but the essence is that in the end it did work. It did not fail as, well, nearly everything the US has done in the Middle East. Once when those few Europeans turned the heads in Washington and the US was in favor of European integration, then things happened.

I agree that European integration has been a top down operation, but what you cannot deny is that a) it has been a successful policy in Europe (integration has happened) and that b) Europeans have taken an active role in it. To observe that there were differing opinions was natural. Yes, I don't object your point: also bankers had their agenda, the US did play a major part. But my only disagreement is that you seem to fail to see that their agenda is just one part of the larger picture, it simply doesn't explain everything. For a complex historical phenomenon like the European integration process one narrative with few actors doesn't explain it all.

Above all, one should not forget the incentives that European countries themselves had to join the integration agenda. Many countries, just like my countries, had to make quite delicate moves to join the integration process, and naturally the Eastern European countries were during the Cold War behind the Iron Curtain. And after being behind the Iron Curtain, they had obvious incentives to join the integration process and be left out.

US Foreign Policy has been successful when the foreigners or foreign countries at the center of the policy actually agree with the policy. Present day US unilateralism shows how badly it can fail this is not even tried.

What does give me pause is that nuclear power only has been used in the relatively stable post WWII-period. That kind of stability is historically far from a given. And I think given climate change and other technological and societal challenges that are coming, things could get rough for a while. The numbers for death rate per watts don't capture that eventuality. — ChatteringMonkey

Let's just think here just why nuclear energy is seen as so dangerous while as coal is simply forgotten. If you say that far more, many multiple times more people die because of coal, people just shrug. Why so?

- When people think about nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind. With coal or burning wood such thoughts don't come into mind.

- Radiation doesn't smell and cannot be fealt. People usually don't have any idea of what is a dangerous amount of radiation.

- People don't know that there is totally normal radiation in our environment. For example here in the Finnish capital there is so much radioactive Radon gas in the ground that special notice has to be taken in venting underground cellars and storage spaces.

- People can understand that inhaling smoke isn't good. If you inhale too much smoke, you will die. However, we have burnt wood and used coal for example for a really, really, long time.

The question is do we really want to rely on something that potentially has disastrous consequences if things do go south? Maybe it's still better then the alternative, but it's something to consider I think. — ChatteringMonkey

Actual alternatives and actual effects have to be what we base our decisions. Not lofty promises.

Running down or banning nuclear power is stupid if and unfortunately when it leaves to more use of fossil fuels. Only in the last years I think finally have renewables become competitive alternatives as the prices have come down.

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)

But they do need some continuous care and aftercare even after shutdown. — ChatteringMonkey

Absolutely. But the when actual alternative is energy production THAT KILLS PEOPLE ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY, it's a no brainer.

Let's take an example. Yes, for ages people and especially women cooked food with open fires and that smell of burning wood is at least to me very nice and calming. For a Finn immediately comes to mind that someone is warming a sauna, which is nice. Yet to cook with an open fire and inhale that smoke daily, many times during the day is simply a health hazard. Far more dangerous one fallout from a Chernobyl accident that happened over 1000km or more away from you.

I remember very well when Chernobyl happened. Just before it happened on Sunday there was a very small demonstration against nuclear power in front of our Parliament, but as nothing happens here actually, the main TV channel news was covering the demonstration. Even the activists were wavering in the effectiveness of their cause.

And then a warning came on the radio and TV. The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) that supervises radiation and nuclear safety in Finland announced that the radiation levels had risen, yet the level wasn't yet so dangerous to active safety precautions (like shelter inside). Only after that came the announcement that there had been a nuclear accident in Ukraine. Then for the next two weeks, the radiation levels went lower day after day.

And that summer there were far less butterflies than before. Only now (thanks to global warming) there are again a lot of butterflies. This of course isn't a scientific conclusion about the butterflies.

But that's it. The world worst nuclear accident, that put radiation into the atmosphere far more than all the nuclear test done above aground (which is equivalent of Pakistan and India having an all out nuclear war). That's nuclear energy at it's worst. A proper question would be, how many people has nuclear energy killed compared to coal energy?

Problem is that if society would break down, terrorism or war would become a thing again, this isn't longer all that evident... and the consequences are immense if something does go wrong, unlike with other power sources. — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah well, notice just what you are referring to. Starting from the fact that I wouldn't be communicating with you @ChatteringMonkey, I guess it wouldn't be our biggest concern then.

Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)

No.

Never.

Next subject, please.

In 1983 the bold headlines in the Newspaper read "ICE AGE COMING" — Rxspence

What newspaper? No scientific journal was saying an ice age was coming. This claim has been debunked for years. — Xtrix

Have to say what a meteorologist said about this. He firmly believed that an an ice age is coming and climate change (global warming or the greenhouse effect) is coming too. The first one in perhaps 50 000 to 500 000 years and the other one is happening just now.

It seems to me that abandoning nuclear power altogether and investing in greener technologies is the only real way forward. — thewonder

If it was only so. Still, nuclear power is a totally reasonable alternative. What's so bad in France using a lot less fossil fuel based energy production than other countries of it's size. All thanks to an investment in nuclear power.

The likely outcome is that if you ban nuclear power, you will get a lot of promises of investing in greener tech, but actually you have to resort to fossil fuels or otherwise start facing rolling blackouts.

. 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.

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.

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).

Without their mythic Goliath in the form of the United States, they would have to concern themselves with politics in their countries, thereby ultimately abandoning their favored catholicon of revolution in favor of peaceful protest and civic reform, all of which is wildly out of vogue within the far-Left. — thewonder

Well put. And it's so nice to keep things easy. If you give an answer with "On the other hand..." you seem to be confused and weak.

StreetlightX, whom, I am sure, like most people somehow taken by Giorgio Agamben, along with any number of anarchists, is probably not an actual terrorist, however, and is correct to have stated that this is "wildly off-topic". — thewonder

As an Australian, he enjoys freedom of speech. Just like you and me.

The first thing when you don't have democracy, free speech simply dies. People simply don't talk about politics. Not even anonymously in the internet. It's creepy when someone comes to this site and says has he or she is (Mainland) and wants to talk politics. You immediately start to assume you are talking either to a troll or a Chinese security person checking the site for actual Chinese citizens.

Anyways, I will be leaving now and just wanted to say that The Philosophy Forum should support Afghan refugees and convince other people to do so as well. Let's hope that the international community will both be welcoming of them and apt in their response. — thewonder

Let's hope for the best.

So long.

As I have said before, I think that we should welcome the former people of the Republic of Afghanistan with open arms. — thewonder

I think that would be in the millions perhaps to the 2,6 million or so Afghan refugees. Already what can happen is that Afghanis become again the largest refugee group (now there are more Syrian and Venezuelan refugees). People can have a lot of empathy towards Afghan refugees now, but never underestimate how quickly people forget. Empathy can easily turn on it's head and turn into hostility.

Likely those that the media is concentrating on, the people who worked for the Western forces, is the realistic group that doesn't instill a debate.Their best supporters are the soldiers that worked with them.

And of course, one should hope that in the new Islamic Emirate somehow things wouldn't go even worse. Best case scenario is that we would forget the whole country in the media just like Vietnam was forgotten afterwards. The more refugees flee, the more dismal it is for the country. Last thing that the Taliban need is for all of the government and educated class to become refugees. If they would be smart, they would understand that they do need those educated people. But we shal see.

Still, if the Taliban keep their promises and Afghanistan would see peace and be now forgotten, there is one bad consequence here. Every islamic group sees this victory as a sign that they can be victorious too and every government fighting islamic rebels will assume this. Nothing creates more support for militants than actual success. Joe Biden is already promised to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, and basically in Iraq there are only 2500 soldiers. Wonder what the IS will do in Iraq. In the end you can have more violence for example in Africa, which has been the case already there.

Also, huge numbers of refugees for example in the neighboring Central Asian countries could destabilize them too.

Indeed. The Afghans appealed to the Soviets for help because the Americans were doing such a good job at helping the reactionary feudal opium growers who were trying to fuck over the nation - and who eventually succeeded, thanks to the US. — StreetlightX

Well, the picture is from December 1955. Some thirty years before the time of "reactionary feudal opium growers helped by Americans" and some twenty or so years before Afghanistan and Pakistan even became large opiate producers. But I assume your idea of Afghanistan and the friendliness of the "Soviet assistance" is simply ignorance of history.

It's fun to watch you try and cast about and blame on every other agent but the US — StreetlightX

Lol. Obviously you don't read what others write, which is typical for you. And then when you are out of anything to say, the ad hominems start.

I have a cynical view. As others have already noted, the Afghan war can be seen as a massive money-funnelling operation. — NOS4A2

I would assume that one could make an even bigger argument about that when it came to war in Iraq. You see, that was a far more of a White House chosen war than attacking Afghanistan. Let's remember that between 9/11 and the start of the war in Afghanistan was less than one month. The war in Iraq was a far more planned thing. Do note the role in that war that the former CEO of Halliburton had.



Afghanistan was a sideshow back then.

Well the Afghan people had modernizing agendas before the US decided that the opium growers and feudal landlords ought not be displaced because the US hates democracy and fucked them. So you're quite wrong. — StreetlightX

You make my point perfectly: others are either pawns or victims of the US for you. And nobody else exists, basically.

Well, those times certain neighbor of Afghanistan had in reality a lot to do with what happened in Afghanistan. And it's interesting to note that even the monarchy of Afghanistan had close ties with that neighbor.

The Afghan king with his friendly neighbors:

But yeah, almost everything that is shit in the Middle East is a direct result of American interference. — StreetlightX

That simply is your bias. Not to think of others as important actors with their own agendas.

Better get used to it when the US backs away. Oh, I forget, then events don't matter to you.

You have to be more specific here on just who the CIA backed. Above all, it's the motivation you have to notice. CIA funded all groups to fight the Soviets. The money went basically through Pakistani ISI and they favored their guys. When Soviet Union withdrew and finally the Najibullah regime fell, the US lost interest at Afghanistan. The various warlords then started to fight each other, and finally Pakistan solved the dilemma by backing on group, "the students" lead by Mullah Omar.

CIA wasn't interested in gaining power in Afghanistan in 1994. Pakistani ISI was.

And it's worth mentioning, that the ISI policy is quite the policy of Pakistan today:

(Financial Times) Prime Minister Imran Khan declared that Afghans had “broken the shackles of slavery”. Raoof Hasan, his special assistant, wrote on Twitter that “the contraption that the US had pieced together for Afghanistan has crumbled like the proverbial house of cards”. As Afghan president Ashraf Ghani fled the country, Hasan hailed what he called “a virtually smooth shifting of power” from Ghani’s “corrupt” government to Taliban rule.

Correct. ssu is largely talking out of his ass. — StreetlightX

For you there all just a bunch of ragheads and everything happens because of the evil Americans. Everybody else are just pawns or victims of the US for you, as usual.

Which includes, of course, the very Taliban whom the US helped to usher into existence, with great fanfare. — StreetlightX

Except the US didn't care a shit about Afghanistan in 1994 as Soviet Union had left years ago. Hekmatyar and the famous Haqqani (now known as the Haqqani network) were the CIA backed warlords that rose to power thanks to CIA money. The Taliban itself is an invention of the ISI, which is now likely proud how they have succeeded finally. Basically the Taliban pushed away the squabbling ex-CIA financed warlords. Haqqani then changed sides later, wasn't a founder of the Taliban.

There is an incorrect meme that in this picture Reagan is meeting Taliban leaders. The "Freedom Fighters" met in 1983 are mainly the CIA backed warlords and other opposition leaders of that time.

It's always been in the middle of nowhere and it's always been pretty desolate. — frank

There are many desolate areas. But minefields make Afghanistan even more desolate.

I think it's much the way its always been. — frank

Except it isn't.

Perhaps it just feels a bit awkward to write about the destruction of the environment in a country that has seen 40 years war.

And Afghanistan has exceptional environmental problems, which are far more dangerous than your average contamination and waste problems: mines and ammunitions.

Afghanistan remains a perfect example of the devastation wreaked by landmines. Despite an effective demining program, and a well developed mines awareness program, the mines continue to claim civilian victims every day. Over US $100 million has been contributed to the program, enough to clear one fifth of the known mined area in the country. The mines situation in Afghanistan is unacceptable: in Ottawa the international community has an opportunity to ensure it does not happen elsewhere.

You see, the Soviet used landmines as a counter-insurgency weapon: Spread landmines in the crop fields and the farmers have to flee the area. Once no population in the area, nobody for the insurgents to get assistance. Basically the old Roman and Mongol tactic of creating artificial deserts to pacify some region. Then the Soviet had these wonderful ideas of surrounding cities with land mines. Huge fields:

Mines have been used extensively around many of the major cities in Afghanistan. The regional capitals of Kandahar (south), Jalalabad (east), and Herat (west) were all extremely heavily mined, with bands of defensive minefields around the cities. Extensive mining also took place inside the cities of Kandahar and Herat. For example, in Herat, the huge barrier minefields laid by the Soviets - which ran through the western part of the city - were laid to defend against mujaheddin insurgencies from close to the Iranian border.

The verges of important roads in and out of the cities were mined, and mines were used to protect strategic supply routes, such as the road from Pakistan to Kabul, and other major arterial roads. The lines of red warning rocks demarcating minefields, which run along the sides of roads, are a common sight while driving in Afghanistan.

And as this is Afghanistan, it's telling that the landmines sown to the ground during the previous war over twenty years ago pose a threat still. Even today.

(6th Feb 2019) The UN agency notes that since 1989, more than 18 million explosive remnants of war (ERW) items have been cleared, along with more than 730,000 anti-personnel mines including over 750 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and 30,145 anti-tank mines.

“We are still in the prevention business and we aren’t doing all that well,” said Patrick Fruchet, UNMAS Programme Manager, Afghanistan. “In 2012, we were down to about 36 casualties per month in Afghanistan - which is still enormous; those numbers jumped, those numbers jumped year on year. And in 2017, there were more than 150 casualties a month.”

This spike in casualty numbers is linked to “new contamination” by anti-personnel weapons in the country, linked to intensifying conflict between Government forces and Taliban extremists, after 2014.

These are irrelevant points but sure. — StreetlightX

Not for the US politicians.

If your argument that the US Army shouldn't ever have been in Afghanistan then sure, it's all irrelevant. But as there will be a debate about just what went wrong, the commitment to have Afghans fighting the Taliban and the US assisting with air power, logistics and intelligence is going to be the issue. It wasn't so costly as it was when there were 110 000 US troops in Afghanistan.

Has anyone btw noticed how lax the Doha peace deal requirements were for the Taliban compared to Bush original demands? Please don't have anything to do with Al Qaeda like the Doha peace deal states might have been a deal that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2001 would have gladly accepted.

That defence spending is a lower proportion of GDP is not the same a defence spending being 'low'. If GDP goes up, then defence spending goes up even when it remains the same proportion. — Isaac

Yeah, but so goes inflation and salaries. And then you are talking of the largest economy, which hasn't grown extremely rapidly as it's already quite prosperous. Only poor countries can get long periods of double digit growth.

Besides, one infantry division cost a lot less in 1970 than in 2020. Yet put the two in a jungle or into the mountains and the division with 1970's equipment would do surprisingly fine against the one with modern equipment, actually. Like, uh, the Taliban has shown us.

:smile:

Yeah, well, actually the numbers of killed don't tell the real picture of the fighting. Advances in medicine, you know.



And if people don't know, the troop levels had been for westerners quite low for some time. The Afghans were doing all the dying stuff. Until the US didn't even help anymore for them to fight the Taliban.

Dead American soldiers - most of whom were probably poor and optionless - gave their lives for this and nothing else: — StreetlightX

And those stock prices tell something? Lol.

Do notice that during that time the DJIA has gone up well over 400% during that time and the Nasdaq 900%. So basically Raytheon has been a shitty investment, General Dynamics and Boeing average. Nothing close to Internet companies.

In fact, the real cash cow wasn't the Global War on Terror. It was by any real measurement, the Cold War. And the vast majority of those weapons were never used. Arms races are the real thing, not 20 years of low intensity conflict.



(The picture earlier from antiwar isn't of US troops. Likely it's of MONUSCO troops, one of the largest peacekeeping missions headed by the UN in the DRC, who nobody cares about. But who cares about details.)

So, every day I wonder, "Are we totally and finally screwed, or not? — Bitter Crank

There is absolutely no floor to how badly you are screwed. Once you think it cannot get any worse, it does. And then you notice how fine actually you had it.

We, being the biggest consumers, are the biggest part of the problem. Or everybody else should disappear and we'll turn their formerly occupied peasant nations into unoccupied grazed prairie, forests, wet lands, and peat bogs. — Bitter Crank

And this pandemic isn't killing enough of them to make any dent! And at the height of the lockdowns in 2020 passenger air travel was down 95% from year before and half of the airliners were grounded.

The Pandemic is likely have impacted some issues far more likely than any political decision would alter the use of fossil fuels. So if it doesn't matter, what will?



I think the actual issue is that our society isn't as vulnerable as before. Many here disagree with that, but that is the truth. During Black Death didn't have any clue of how to treat the plague. Look how quickly we got informed about COVID-19. Bad harvests in a row don't create famines in rich countries. Here, in the country which saw the second last huge famine in Europe (last was in Ireland) a bigger problem for the government is the harvest is exceptionally good.

Above all, this discussion that we are having now itself shows that we aren't as vulnerable as before: the real risk is when the dangers are not understood. The fact is the usually there is this moral undertone in the discussion on what to do, it is as if it would be a replacement for the religious undertones in the past that God punished with famines and locusts people for being bad. Now it's our immoral hedonism of consumption, which is bad, so off with our heads.

I think a unified Germany without a proper military is a bigger problem for Europe than a properly armed Germany with realistic foreign policies. — Apollodorus

After the possibility of Soviet tank armies coming through the Fulda Gap evaporated, they don't know what to do with their army. There is now NATO Poland between them and Russia, so nothing to worry about I guess.

But the Bundeswehr is extremely expensive and in very bad condition. They pour many billions into defense and basically they can deploy one battalion outside of their borders. Talk about wasting resources and money. Not because of corruption, but because of cluelesness.

But I'm wondering how you square this statement with your view that "Western capitalism" and, in your very next post, NATO and US imperialism, are on the whole good things. — boethius

Because in something that has bad sides has also some good.

Yes capitalism and using market mechanism is far better that centralized planning in Marxist-Leninist socialism. That kind of central planning sucks. That said, our current financial market and debt-based system might collapse in the near future. That shouldn't be confusing. You see, in reality you can see both benefits and negative aspects in things. We don't have to be spokespeople for some ideological cause and not see both positive and negative aspects.

And why do I then say US foreign policy (US Imperialism?) is good in Europe. Well, sometimes the agenda of the US and other countries can emerge. Then that "Imperialism" is just fine. With @Apollodorus we had an interesting exchange about just who was promoting European integration post WW2 in the ECP thread. He said it was the US and it's intelligence services, I remarked that it was actually European politicians that lobbied for the agenda and found similar minds in Washington.

And this explains when US foreign policy, ie "US Imperialism", can be very effective: when it takes into account the agenda of other nations and then goes on with the issues that everybody can agree with. Then suddenly the US finds itself in the leader position and countries wait what the US does.

Yet if US policy is totally unilateral and driven by the whims of domestic politics and discourse without any interest on things like the reality on the ground, then you get a mess like this. The facts on the ground don't matter. I think the basic reason is that the US after the Soviet Union collapsed, didn't have to think at all what it actions would make the Soviets do. Without a counterbalance, they could do the hell they wanted. Especially when you get idiots like the neocons in charge.

If the withdrawal from Iraq backfired with the emergence of the IS, I wonder what now will happen with this catastrophe?

I agree with your statement to some extent. But I tend to see EU and NATO expansion as the primary cause of friction between the West and Russia. — Apollodorus

Of course! In it's Military doctrine Russia sees NATO expansion as the most dangerous threat ever. International terrorism is on 11th place or lower. Remember that the siloviks view everything they do as a defensive measure. And being on the offense is the best defense.

But notice that it's the response you get after Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. East European ex-Warsaw Pact countries are like those ex-wives of a violent alcoholic (called Russia). It's no wonder that they gang up and never let the old man close anymore. Unified Germany doesn't seem like this bully with imperialist aspirations, because it hasn't got them, at least when it comes to others lands or territory. But Russia, especially under Putin does look like the old bear everybody knows. Especially after beating up that ex-wife/girlfriend called Ukraine and earlier another one called Georgia. That's two wars, two annexations of territory. Likely my country has among the best relations with Russia (and yes, we have had wars with it and it has annexed parts of our country also). So it's no wonder that the Finnish defense and security policy is basically about the threat of Russia. And that's why NATO is so important to Eastern Europe, especially when now international operations aren't (and after this catastrophy) won't be the new hot thing to get yourself into.

Bill Clinton might have thought about East European immigrant voters when he expanded NATO, but for the countries NATO was a blessing after WP. That's the thing the US ought to understand: the US might have it's own agenda why it does something, it's allies might look for something else. This is also true in the Middle East and Central Asia. Not understanding that and things will get worse.

People are so afraid of change.

It's destabilizing!

Here is a Crimethinc article written by a war veteran. — thewonder

Oh yes, war is a racket. Well known for ages.

It's natural to see everything especially now in an dismal light. Because hard questions should be asked.

I think the real tragedy would be, if we would forget that the US, even in it's foreign & security policy, has done much good. Yes, Afghanistan is a catastrophe made by four US president together and surely much soul searching is needed, but not everywhere the US flies armed drones to kill suspected terrorists. It's something that when looking at the US actions in the Middle East, Cental Asia or Latin America we might forget.

NATO found it's original roots back after Putin annexed Crimea and here in Europe just to have the US as guarantor of peace would be a great thing. Without the war in Ukraine, NATO would be clueless and lost, especially now. (If only politicians would understand that success is NOT using military force, but having the forces only as deterrence.)

It may be hard to understand perhaps when there is this utter shit show in Afghanistan and failures in the Middle East. Yet with Europe it would be fine as here the message is still not tainted. Especially in the countries that did endure Soviet totalitarianism. Many Americans assume that they are hated in Europe, when they are not. Not all Europeans are leftist intellectuals. And even all of those aren't stereotypes. Leader of the Free World hasn't got such a sarcastic vibe as some think.

(How American military convoys were greeted in the Czech Republic few years ago:)


(And in Poland:)

But you are right that the Russians are in a much better position in the region, first because it's their backyard and second because Russia's political situation makes long-term planning much easier than the US political system where short-term objectives tend to come first and presidents come and go every few years. — Apollodorus

Totally right.

Above all, in this region the Russians simply tolerated to waited for the American to "self destruct" in the region because...there is no long term planning when it comes to the US. They didn't panic when Bush was building bases in the various countries across Central Asia and training their militaries. Now the countries are eagerly participating in joint-exercises with Russia to prepare of instability leaks over from Afghanistan (or to just show the Taliban that they are prepared).

In fact, it is a tragedy that Putin didn't follow the same waiting policy in Ukraine. If Putin hadn't seized and annexed Crimea when Ukraine was down for the count, Russia would be in a far better situation. They would still have vast support in Ukraine, Russian foreign policy would seem extremely good (yes, people forgot the Russo-Georgian war quickly) and NATO countries would have continued to dismantle their armed forces. Because let's face it, Ukraine would never had joined NATO even then. The country was (is) a dumpster fire that the US wouldn't and couldn't do anything about as it's economic problems are extremely deep. Here American promises are very empty. Ukrainian NATO membership is like EU membership of Turkey: a lot of talk of something that will never happen.

But the Imperial glory of annexing Crimea back got to Putin, and this finally woke NATO from it's deep stupor. Before that NATO was all about international operations and nothing about deterrence and defence of it's member states. Now it's not. Crimea and the civil war in Ukraine made things worst.

Unfortunately there are now many who have this "Imperial Glory" aspect that they want to enjoy (as you noted about Erdogan).

Certainly not the West. And that's where the problem is and has been for a very long time. — Apollodorus

How to deal with Pakistan has been the real failure. Or put it another way, Pakistan has outwitted the US. How to be an ally of both sides in a war has been quite amazing feat.

Exactly. That's his plan. This is why he got elected, to make the Turkish Empire great again. — Apollodorus

And Erdogan has had as an example Putin and Russia on how to "punch over one's weight limit".

The West's world order is falling apart and the Turkish and other vultures are circling in the sky .... — Apollodorus

It's great that people notice this, as you have. This is truly the West's world order collapsing. Many people don't see it.

I wouldn't use that metaphor of them being vultures. Basically the US Middle Eastern policy has been such a disaster, so totally alienated from the regional countries that it is more like they have been forced to take things into their own hands. Yes, they don't ask anymore from the US what to do. The Nasser's of today won't ask Kermit Roosevelt (of the CIA) if it's OK for them to stage a coup.

Apart from the early 1950's, the height of US power was the liberation of Kuwait. The US got the green light from the Soviet Union, the UN, and got 35 countries including muslim nations like Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Morocco and the Gulf States to join the alliance. This was the height and the end of US leadership in the Middle East. It all has gone down from there. Libya was a mess and in Syria, not even trusty Old UK backed Obama after Syria crossed the red line. In Syria the US has been one actor among many. That in Libya US allies chose different sides to back up tells that the US is in no control.

Pakistan, the old US ally which was both in CENTO and SEATO, then an important ally to the US when Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, is the most interesting case here. It has portrayed itself as an ally in the war on Terror and yet basically founded the Taliban. Yet it didn't fall into the category of a "Rogue Nation". Perhaps it's nuclear deterrent helped in this. The Doha deal was success for them. Especially when the now extinct Afghan government started to have ties with India.

In Afghanistan now Pakistan seems to be the winner for this round. And so is Russia basically in Central Asia. At the height of the Global War on Terror, there were US bases in nearly all Central Asian countries, the 'Stans. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan had all American bases. And now there is nothing. No bases. The Russians simply waited for the US interest in the region to collapse. It did.

Last to fall was Afghanistan. Other simply just were closed.

So, the more pressure is put on Pakistan and other rogue states in the region, the better. — Apollodorus

Who is putting pressure on Pakistan? I guess nobody is. And let's remember that Pakistan was an ally the US. Sort of. But who cares. The US didn't care about it's security concerns, so why would then Pakistan care about concerns that the US has? It has nuclear weapons, so it has that deterrence. And a committed intelligence service. When the Pashtun people are divided by the Durand-line, then it's natural to try to keep the taps on them.

Guess they are very happy on how things have gone at this agency:



Too bad that general Hamid Gul, the former leader of the ISI and the godfather of Taliban didn't see the victory his creation. He would surely have been happy.

Of course Erdogan is not going to miss the opportunity to fill some of the power vacuum created by the US withdrawal. — Apollodorus

I think this more of play of closer neighbors to Afghanistan. Turkey is likely genuinely trying to salvage the little it can do in this debacle. My country got out from Afghanistan in June, the Turks have a somewhat large contingent there still, remnants of the "Resolute Support Mission". And yes, Erdogan tries to be active everywhere: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan.

To continue of the impact of the above, here is a good synopsis just what went wrong:

The (unintentional) green light for Pakistan’s “creeping invasion” of Afghanistan, with the Taliban as its proxy, ultimately came from Washington.

First, there was the catastrophic exit agreement signed with the Taliban on behalf of the Trump administration by the US special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, in February 2020. The flaws of this deal were immediately obvious. Following that was Biden’s conscious choice to adhere to it.

Biden has since sought to emphasise that he inherited the agreement from Trump, but it was his decision to stick with it, and to retain its architect, Khalilzad, as his own representative. Appalling US decision-making lies at the heart of the tragedy.

The US decision also reflected a grave misunderstanding of power dynamics in Afghanistan.

As I have previously noted, mass psychology is a critical determinant of political trajectories in an environment as threatening and de-institutionalised as that in Afghanistan.

As in an avalanche, a small shift can rapidly snowball, resulting in what social scientists call “cascades”.

The collapse of the Afghan government provides a perfect example of a cascade at work. The 2020 US-Taliban deal created deep and widespread apprehension about what the future might hold. Then, it only took a few localised failures to sap the confidence of all sorts of actors, both military and civilian, in the survival of the government. Side-switching became a rational strategy, then spun out of control.

The US troop withdrawal also seems to have reflected a failure on the part of Biden – although not the US military — to appreciate how destructive the February 2020 agreement had been to the effectiveness of the Afghan military.

In requiring the withdrawal not just of US troops but US maintenance contractors, it compromised the ongoing capabilities of key assets in the inventory of the Afghan National Army, as well as depriving the army of critical air cover.

It is hard to see how Biden can emerge from this disaster without his credibility shredded, but the greater loss is to the credibility of the United States, which increasingly appears a fading power internationally (as well as a failing state at home).

_ _ _

When historians look back at the shambolic US exit from Afghanistan, it may increasingly appear a critical marker of America’s decline in the world, far eclipsing the flight from Saigon in 1975.

Has anybody read the actual Trump Doha Peace agreement from February 2020? The actual paper form the US is here: Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and the United States of America

Yeah, it's great name for the Taliban (used erroneously Taleban) above, but now perhaps we should use the de facto name Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. But just look at what the Emirate had to agree with, their side of the deal.

In conjunction with the announcement of this agreement, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will take the following steps to prevent any group or individual, including al-Qa’ida, from using the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies:

1. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qa’ida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its
allies.

2. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will send a clear message that those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies have no place in Afghanistan, and will instruct members of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban not to cooperate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies.

3. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening
the security of the United States and its allies, and will prevent them from recruiting, training,
and fundraising and will not host them in accordance with the commitments in this agreement.

4. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban is committed to deal with those seeking asylum or residence in
Afghanistan according to international migration law and the commitments of this agreement,
so that such persons do not pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies.

5. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will not provide visas, passports, travel permits, or other legal
documents to those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies to enter
Afghanistan.

PART THREE
1. The United States will request the recognition and endorsement of the United Nations Security
Council for this agreement.

2. The United States and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban seek positive relations with each other and expect that the relations between the United States and the new post-settlement Afghan Islamic
government as determined by the intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations will be positive.

3. The United States will seek economic cooperation for reconstruction with the new postsettlement Afghan Islamic government as determined by the intra-Afghan dialogue and
negotiations, and will not intervene in its internal affairs.

Just think of this. Now I don't agree with @StreetlightX often, but he is dead right about the US fucking the Afghans. And it's allies. The many American individuals, those who have served in Afghanistan, can have really tried to help the Afghan people and the wavering government that the US put in place. But that is not the official US I'm referring to. Just look at "the peace deal" above. It's basically "Don't attack us and please don't let Al Qaeda use your territory, and we will withdraw and forget that we made this government in Kabul and tried to hold elections etc".

The Taliban didn't attack the US. And the tiny original Al Qaeda has basically been in Pakistan since the start of the war. How goddam easy is it to agree with those kind of demands? In fact, they even aren't any demands. To do something you don't have as an objective means you aren't giving up anything.

AND THERE HAS BEEN NO INTRA-AFGHAN DIALOGUE. Would you put something like demands to negotiate and accept the other side in to a deal? No, then this above would be an actual peace deal. Such sidelining of the government, that you first created, is really one big Dolchstoss im Rücken. Stab in the back. No wonder the Afghans were demoralized.

In fact, for the Taliban to conquer more territory was and is totally OK as...they didn't attack American troops. Because it's quite vague when you just refer to "US and allies". That might be only US and other foreign militaries as the agreement doesn't state anything about the Afghan government. Nothing.

And this of course is how the US (Trump, basically) fucked it's allies, NATO or Non-NATO. You see, there was at first ISAF, established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001 by Resolution 1386 and then it's continuation with Resolute Support Mission. Those intended really to to train the Afghan National Security Forces and assist Afghanistan in rebuilding key government institutions. Unlike with the Republican mantra of "nation-building" not working, actually nation building like in the Balkans, or Namibia etc. has worked. International participation can work. Left totally alone, then civil wars can continue.

But fuck them. Fuck those other countries that have been participating in the effort as they were not signing the bullshit deal Trump made. Those other countries weren't intending to leave, because let's remember at the time it wasn't 100 000 force as earlier, but a 18 000 force with not so many US personnel. But of course with a Doha deal as above, there wasn't anything else to do. Because...who the fuck cared about Afghanistan?

I think that this emotional but informative interview tells extremely well how badly the administration has dealt with this. And of course, when referring to the administration, it should perhaps be better to refer simply to the US government as a whole. It really doesn't stop with the Biden/Harris administration, but goes a lot further to four different administrations.

I think that Karzai's appeal to the Taliban was quite sincere. — thewonder

Of course. Especially when the acting President went AWOL.

You see it's really important to get SOMEBODY to surrender. Nearly anybody will do. So I guess Hamid and gang opted to do it.

(These kind of moments are important. Notice that it didn't happen now in Afghanistan.)

— Shawn

1. Trump signed a deal with the Taliban.
2. Biden upheld it. — Shawn

A lousy deal (as usual for Trump, just like the deal with North Korea), which was followed with a lousy continuation of a bad deal.

First of all, Trump signed a deal without caring shit about a) it's allies and b) the Afghan government. Yes, partly those idiots didn't see the writing on the wall, but the real thing is to have the Afghan government and Taleban making the deal. That would have been were US foreign policy and diplomacy would have had to work. But who cares of those morons, just go a deal with the Taliban yourself and get some positive media light.

It's like Trump negotiating with North Korea and totally forgetting that there is a South Korea.

Let's just remember: a participant in a war will choose a peace deal ONLY if that peace deal is a better bargain than continuing war. This is a simple fact.

Here the obvious happened: US signed a peace deal without the Taliban not having to do much and also undermining the Afghan government with it.

Then comes Biden into office. And he doesn't understand that there must be a reason for the Taleban to opt for a peace deal, a stick. But no, Joe was worried that it would look bad if he wouldn't go with the military troop withdrawal and simply kept course. Then the Taleban just started a summer offensive because, why not?

And the Taleban didn't attack the US bases. They still haven't shot any bullets towards those helicopters and aircraft even now. But they sure didn't keep their promise. Why should they have? There was no stick, just all carrots for them.

Basically the Taleban has to form a government. Then the Chinese, the Pakistanis, Russians or the UN can sit down with them and talk. If things go smoothly, even the West can come back after a while. But they need a government.

And quickly. That's what Karzai and guys want too. Not to have anarchy. Because if you have anarchy, implementing sharia law publicly is a quick way to stop theft. I assume that the Western mood isn't open for public executions and hands been cut off with all the smartphone cameras around.

Benghazi was all you could hear during 2013 from Fox News and even CNN. Then there were the investigations and testimonies, and reports. Etc. — Shawn

Oh I do know them. Insane theatre, that continued then as Hillary's missing emails. It started as Benghazi hearings.

But this was the way Republicans had gotten their supporters worked up all the time with the Clintons. With continuing and continuing scandals and probes into these scandals. Starting with Whitewater. Then ending up with Bill's denial about his sperm on a intern's dress. The Clinton impeachment, remember? Ghasp! He lied about an extramarital blowjob under oath.



Use the same form with Hillary as she was the secretary of state.


Yet somehow I think things like the fall of Kabul is worth really an investigation. Problem is that it won't be looked as even Liz Cheney admitted it, as a failure in the making from both Trump and Biden.

Luckily another Benghazi didn't happen which would have legitimized house investigations, testimony, and pander from republicans. Yada yada — Shawn

Ummm....really?

You think a terrorist attack on one Embassy compound legitimized house investigations.... but not a catastrophic collapse of a 20-year commitment where about trillion dollars were spent, 2400 Americans and about 200 000+ people died isn't worth a house investigation?

To be honest, the kind of colossal failures that Trump-Biden did now DO NEED some debate in Congress. This was a botched decision making. Heck, even the Soviets did a better, nicer withdrawal and the Najibullah regime fell only sometime later. Only the British had it even worse, but that was the 19th Century.

The Soviet version:



The US version:



The Benghazi issue was this political theatre like Hillary's emails. I think we will have a large literature on why the US failed Afghanistan and could the withdrawal been handled better?

What kinds of events will culminate this tumultuous and uncertain era in history, will society stagnate, and where will we be in a hundred or a thousand years? — Enrique

There are few if any times in history when the past has been by every means better than the time afterwards.

Usually things have gotten better, even if there have been some bumps in the road. I think we can extrapolate on that.