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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@JoeyFoxx I mostly agree but clearly this is a failure in its own terms. Its cost Britain billions and America a trillion.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@Burnley123 but, think about it.

Who benefited from those expenditures?

Follow the money.

msros · F

@JoeyFoxx Dubya, Rumsfeld and company.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@msros nah. They believed in what they were doing. They got played.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@msros Yeah, there was a lot of profiteering. The tail wags the dog.

@JoeyFoxx I think both things are true. They believed in neoconservative ideology but also found it nice and handy that they could make a bit of money. Double motivation.

My point is that the neoconservative ideology failed completely in its own stated aims.

Platinum · M

@JoeyFoxx can't agree, it has cost the USA and uk billions and why leave if you want control

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Platinum Because it failed on its own terms. The plan actually was to defeat the Taliban and rebuild the country as a pro Western democracy. That was never close to happening.

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@Platinum “control” was never the real goal.

What has been created is a future need for military investment.

That was always the real goal.

Platinum · M

You said control@JoeyFoxx

JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M

@Platinum you’re right. I did.

I should clarify.

My comment was redundant. It’s about control of money, not control of activities.

Think about what’s happened. Families and neighbors have been turned against one another. All parties have been armed.

Afghanistan can defend itself against Russia… but also go on the offensive.

So long as China recognizes them as legit, they will have commerce snd therefore the ability to purchase more weapons. Guess where they will buy them? From US based manufacturers.

One needn’t control anybody who needs something you have: control comes naturally from that dependency.

Though, I believe many of these folks are far more crafty snd strategic than many assume.

We shall see.

Platinum · M

@JoeyFoxx these countries are not civilised and will never change...they can't defend themselves let alone Russia...

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?