Anxious
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Tony Blair and George W Bush have a lot to answer for.

From the moment that the invasion happened, there were only two possible outcomes: perpetual military occupation or the Taliban retaking the country. This is because the Afghan people (whatever their views on the Taliban) never ever supported the military invasion by foreign powers. Look at the pitiful resistance given by the heavily funded government army. Also look at how the Taliban managed to survive any military defeats by getting support from the rural Afghan populations. You can win a conflict by conventional means but you can never win consent to rule in this way.

This is not WW2: in which the population of a modern Western country accepted military defeat and preferred subjugation by Western powers to the alternative, which was rule by Stalin's USSR. The process was aided by massive national guilt for the holocaust, a willingness to build a new country and a desire to eventually reunite with East Germany. That situation was exceptional is no analagy for the war against the Taliban.

You can't invade a country, kill lots of people and then expect a domestic populations to support you. Vietnam does work as an analogy, as does Iraq.

The war never had a true humanitarian aim anyway. Nor was it ever really about defeating terrorism. There were and are plenty of other abysmal regimes across the globe and Bin Laden got killed (in Pakistan) years ago. It was a war fought for the same reasons most wars have always been fought: over power and resources. That it failed so abysmally on its own terms does not mean that those terms were ever good.

Biden will get blamed for this but to criticise him here misses the pount: this was always going to happen. It could have been ten years later or ten years earlier but the awful results woukd still have been the same.
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M Best Comment
We've come full circle. The folly of the war on terror eclipsed by the delusion of nation building and then in it's own turn by operation enduring freedom.

After trillions spent and thousands of dead (US and UK) servicemen we're back where we started. A vicious bunch of warlords united by the most extreme and barbaric form of Islamic fundamentalism once again get to impose their will on an entire population.

If there's one straw to clutch at , it's that this (our) lunacy might never be repeated.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
In regards to this foreign policy, Biden is a kinder and more intelligent version of the prior President, but he is literally no better: carrying forward a policy started by the previous administration and blaming the previous administration.

The Afghan war was never about peace or democracy. The US involvement in any of the countries in that region has never been about human rights or weapons of mass destruction. Those have been convenient covers.

It has always been about money and control.

Now, thanks to this effort, the Taliban has more weapons and is better educated than they were 2 decades ago, but they are every bit as vicious.

It establishes a new power balance so that the US can justify spending more money on security, weapons, etc.

This isn’t a mistake. This outcome has been the end game all along.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@Platinum civilized by western standards? Perhaps not. But many of them believe we are not civilized.

Hence… incompatible forms of government.

But they are, in fact, civilized and intelligent. The Taliban will emerge in the coming weeks and months as softer and more liberal-minded, because they know how to manipulate social media.

And now that they have western weapons, they can and will defend themselves.
Platinum · M
They are not civilized by any standards, they treat women badly...don't be fooled by the Taliban they are as ruthless as ever....@JoeyFoxx
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@Platinum the United States supported overthrowing an Afghani government that encouraged women going to universities … because it was a Leninist government

These countries have the capability to be civilized. It was the US that supported rebels that disrespect women.

How do you square this?
mrh1972 · MVIP
Spot on, and also they are tribal and live a conpletely different way tk the west.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
This got two downvote.

Ofmg I feel terrible and I'm going to change my opinion. Or not.

Meanwhile, the same people who did this are probably attacking the admins for allowing the downvote option because they don't want their own precious opinions cancelled.

😜
@Burnley123 Sound about right.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
I got my first downvote. Oh well.
Budwick · 70-79, M
You know, when my dog takes a dump in the back yard, he kicks dirt and grass to bury it.

And democrat instinct leads them to bury their mistakes, like abandoning Afghanistan by blaming everyone but the man and party in charge.

SARCASM
Budwick · 70-79, M
@basilfawlty89 Trump had nothing to do with the abandonment of US citizens in Afghanistan.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@Budwick yes he had. He made the deal with the Taliban. He released 5000 Taliban warlords.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@basilfawlty89 Trump had nothing to do with the abandonment of US citizens in Afghanistan. All Joe.
deadgerbil · 22-25
That invasion opened up a huge can of worms.

I'm so glad that I do not live in a war torn country and one that is now gripped by religious fundamentalism. I feel for people, like women, who will have their rights stripped away and worse.
@deadgerbil LOL You meant this tongue-in-cheek, right?
Stopmakingsense · 56-60, F
The cabal of madness featuring Rumsfeld, the Bush family and the CIA was close to the Labour Party of Tony "War Now, ask Questions Later" Blair. They were famous for Iran Contra and the overthrow of many a democracy in Latin America.
Platinum · M
No one knows if things would not be worse if they never went in...these countries are not civilized and whatever they do nothing will change.....
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Platinum If we hadn't gone in, the Taliban might have been in charge or might not. Its up to the Afghan people.
Platinum · M
@Burnley123 the afgan People are weak and the taliban are in charge and 1000s are dead or injured and they are back to square one
assemblingaknob · 26-30, F
In theory you are right. Sadly we don't live in a world where western leaders are accountable for anything.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Max13 The Pakistan central government is a western backed dictatorship. The strategic reasons for backing them and the 'aid' (agree or not) is that a Taliban style government would probably take Pakistan if they ever fell.

The government don't really have power in the areas that border Afghanistan. There, even local governments and the Pakistan military are Taliban sympathetic.

None of this makes my points wrong.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Max13 OK. What do you think my biases are?
Here’s a thought: It’s alleged Clinton chose not to go after Osama Bon Laden for fear of collateral damage.

We can only speculate what might have come to pass had Clinton actually taken Bin Laden out.
@soar2newhighs Middle East.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Thanks.. ThT never occurred to me .
@soar2newhighs I mean by that point the only action he tried outside of the Middle East was failing to blow up a parking garage.
Human1000 · M
Blaming Biden just seems absurd to me. Personally, I didn’t think the US should have left, but no one else agreed with me. This is what ending “endless wars” looks like.


There’s gambling in Casablanca? I’m shocked!
Northwest · M
@Human1000 [quote]Perhaps indefinitely. 3000 troops were doing the job. No American fatalities for 18 months.
[/quote]

This was not an option. Even Orange Man understood that, leading to the commitment he made to the Taliban (he did not involve the Afghan government in that decision), to withdraw by May 1, 2021.

The alternative, as presented by the Taliban, would have been a renewal of the all-out wars, forcing the USA to recommit a full force of hundreds of thousands in direct and support personnel.

So, Trump decided to take the Taliban offer of no hostilities against the US forces, in return for a US withdrawal. Under Trump it would have happened sooner.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
Human1000 · M
@Northwest I am sure you are right, but my point isn’t really advocating staying forever, so much as not being surprised about what happened when we left.
Northwest · M
@Human1000 I don't think anyone who was close enough to the situation is surprised. The 300K soldiers were close to 60K soldiers, without a real supply and command structure in place.

 
Post Comment