Afghanistan Poll

[MrPotatoTed]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Why, because I'm viewing this from outside the troped, and - statistically in majority - failed military and political doctrine and suggesting something that resources existed for and could have spared a mountain of unnecessary death, destruction, hatred, and the spawning of more terrorist groups?

Because you are pretending there are easy answers...and, worse, OBVIOUS easy answers that were guaranteed to work flawlessly...and that the reason nobody did the obvious easy thing that was guaranteed to work is because nobody was as smart as you are.

[MrPotatoTed]

12 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Did you read any of the article that I linked? It goes over failures to try and set up a military police because the U.S. doesn't have one. 

Thanks, I’ve read it now.  It’s an interesting point, though not one that actually says, even with the power of hindsight, “in retrospect, here’s how we should have done it instead.”  He offers no solutions, only problems — other than “maybe a different country could have tried,” and maybe they certainly could have, except they didn’t show up.  We did, and so we did our best because we were the only ones who were willing to try.

(and by “we” I mean all who tried, not exclusively Americans)

We took on an impossible task, and it didn’t go perfectly — or, at times, even well — and if that’s on us, then so be it.

But we TRIED.

Choosing not to try is a choice too, and those who choose not to try are just as responsible for the consequences of their inaction.

[Hestia]

Just now, Patine said:

To be fair, you're once again bringing it to the impossible to fulfill, statistically almost always a failure, and hypocritically-applied (given all the horrid, bloody-handed, human-rights-abusing tyrants who are, and have been, U.S. allies, and even deliberately installed by the U.S.) mandate of, "fighting tyranny in other nations by military invasion." Perhaps if the U.S. turned it's vast cultural, economic, and political, "global broadcast frequency," if you will, to be more truly positive and constructive outside a strictly American Nationalist, parochial point-of-view, and worked to shed it of it's overtly toxic, exploitative, and confrontational nature, THAT would likely be a FAR more powerful and successful tool against tyranny in the world than any number of invasions or interventions could be, and far less bloody and hate-generating and atrocity-inspiring.

The tyranny was not in other nations. The tyranny was in our nation after we were attacked. If you will, look at it through a historical lens of the fact that two airplanes were slammed into civilian targets and killed thousands of innocent Americans. I don't need to be lectured about "atrocity-inspiring" when Al Qaeda committed the worst act of terror the world has seen. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks, I’ve read it now.  It’s an interesting point, though not one that actually says, even with the power of hindsight, “in retrospect, here’s how we should have done it instead.”  He offers no solutions, only problems — other than “maybe a different country could have tried,” and maybe they certainly could have, except they didn’t show up.  We did, and so we did our best because we were the only ones who were willing to try.

(and by “we” I mean all who tried, not exclusively Americans)

We took on an impossible task, and it didn’t go perfectly — or, at times, even well — and if that’s on us, then so be it.

But we TRIED.

Choosing not to try is a choice too, and those who choose not to try are just as responsible for the consequences of their inaction.

Sure, we did try. Why is bringing up problems a bad thing? If we refuse to listen to the problems, then no one is going to try to find solutions. Is it the job of one person to find the solutions rather than the vast reach of the US government? I don't think so, personally. As you've seen, I think we were right to go in and try. It's also our job to listen to how we failed - and improve. Putting our fingers in our ears and saying "well, we tried" doesn't solve anything in the future, and it doesn't show a capacity to learn. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

Sure, we did try. Why is bringing up problems a bad thing? If we refuse to listen to the problems, then no one is going to try to find solutions. Is it the job of one person to find the solutions rather than the vast reach of the US government? I don't think so, personally. As you've seen, I think we were right to go in and try. It's also our job to listen to how we failed - and improve. Putting our fingers in our ears and saying "well, we tried" doesn't solve anything in the future, and it doesn't show a capacity to learn. 

I’m confused by this response — in some way, we’ve stopped understanding each other.  I’ll head to bed.

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Not to justify the 9/11 attacks or say in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM they were justified, deserved, or were anything but a monstrous crime committed against a large civilian population deliberately and after years of planning (disclaimer) - but Islamist terrorism ONLY exists (or even, "Islamist extremism," in it's current form, which is unprecedented in the vast majority of Islamic history outside, generally shunned, fringe groups) because of Post-WW2 meddling in the politics, culture, military, and economics (notably oil) of predominantly Islamic countries by the Western NATO powers, the USSR, and Israel in the same cavalier proxy wars that typified the Cold War in general. Islamist terrorism cannot be meaningfully, and finally, dealt with until these route sources are acknowledged, accepted, and work made to change, over time, the toxic foreign policy that led to them. What Bush didn't understand was that a big thumping military response to, "a War of Terror," was him, effectively declaring a belated defeat and handing a belated victory to his opponent because he doesn't seem to understand Islamist terrorism and their obvious, "victory conditions," which are NOT at all conventional.

 

The Middle East was messed up particularly by Britain and France as early as before WW1. However, the problem with terrorism is that you cannot negotiate with them. It's pretty much the definition by now. After 9/11, Bush couldn't just say, "Hey, please stop, that wasn't nice". There's little else to do after a catastrophic event of that size other than to go after the person who perpetrated it. It's also easy to say it's all our fault (the collective West and USSR have a lot of blame - not really agreeing with the Israel portion when it comes to this), when these predominantly Islamic countries (caveat of not all - several have and are still friendly) or have done just as bad and worse to their own minority populations like the Kurds, as well as going after Israel unprovoked several times. 

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I mean...at what point do we blame the Afghani people?  We gave them twenty years, equipment, training, and billions of dollars.  Why was that not enough?

That’s ultimately the reason why the mission to build a westernized version of the country was doomed from the start. But our leaders should have realized this before committing vast amounts of resources and manpower to try and do just that.

[Timur]

1) Some abuses and extremism must be combated in Afghanistan (e.g. Abuse of Women, lack of religious freedom, human rights, etc.)

2) However, why does everybody have to be like the West?

[Hestia]

Just now, Timur said:

1) Some abuses and extremism must be combated in Afghanistan (e.g. Abuse of Women, lack of religious freedom, human rights, etc.)

2) However, why does everybody have to be like the West?

Personally, I think 1 and 2 are related. Abuses and extremism must be combated. Al Qaeda attacked the United States, who is part of the West, who came in to fight them. The only world the US knows how to build/shape is one like the West. Therein lies the conundrum - how does a Western nation who wants to help actually create an Afghanistan that combats all of those extremes and abuses without creating a world like the West? It's a problem the US government didn't know the answer to.

[vcczar]

13 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Neither one was possible.

I mean, start with: Diplomacy with WHO?  The Afghani Government in 2001 was the Taliban, and they were actively protecting Al Qaeda and it's leader Osama Bin Laden.  They made their bed, and they made it intentionally.  Who exactly were we supposed to engage with diplomatically, when they refused to stop shielding those who had attacked us and killed thousands of our people?

As for airstrikes -- sure, we did, to the best of our ability.  But Aghanistan is mountains and it is exceptionally difficult to get meaningful, accurate intelligence about where the enemy is in the mountains, without "boots on the ground" exploring every nook and cranny.

I'll admit any prospect of dealing with Afghanistan was doomed to fail. As such, I think that the best way to have approached it would have been to deal with Afghanistan in a way that would have accomplished the following:

• Limited the number of potential US deaths. 
• Limited the situation in which we're just throwing money at something that we can't "win"
• Punished the Taliban in a way in which they are worse of than they were prior to the 2001 attacks, primarily by focusing on non-military means of isolating the Taliban, disrupting their communications, blocking them off from trade from other countries, etc. 
• Limited the chance that our revenge/interference is less likely to further inflame Islamic extremism by our mere being there. 

While I'll admit, I could be convinced in intervene in the way Bush did. I would have to first be convinced that there was no other alternative. My initial idea would be to do the following:

• Demand that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden and or let us know specifically where he is. Bush did try to do this. Taliban refused. 
• Following this, I'd give them one more chance to reconsider and a 4 hour timeline. If they still refuse, I airstrike everything ASAP that is airstrikable and connected to the Taliban or terrorist organizations. I'd assume the CIA will have had a lot of this information already. 
• While airstrikes are going on, I contact every nation and organization that in any way aids the Taliban from outside of Afghanistan, be it sending food, selling guns, technology, etc. I would use whatever diplomatic pressure/incentive to stop the flow of anything beneficial entering Afghanistan as best as possible. 
• I send arms and such to all anti-Taliban groups that are not themselves strongly associated with Islamic terrorism.
• I send medical aid, food, etc., to Afghanis in areas not occupied by the Taliban with the idea that such goodwill will inspire them to oppose any efforts of aiding the Taliban. 
• I doubt there's much Wifi or potential for Wifi in Afghanistan, but it there is any. I'd see if there's  way to permanently knock them off the grid so they can't communicate via the internet. 
• To diffuse hatred towards Westerners, I'd make sure that Afghanis are doing all of the "boots on the ground" stuff. All leading US personnel in Afghanistan will themselves be Muslim officers, preferably of Afghani-descent.
• Airstrikes will continue anytime anything Taliban-related emerges out of the mountains until Bin Laden is dead or handed over. 

The focus of my strategy would not be nation-building. It would be to purely punish the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden. I would refuse to fall for their boots-on-the-ground trap. It's unwinnable terrain. They know that. Bush fell for it. The Taliban knew they just had to wait it out and come back.

It reminds me of when Napoleon invaded Russia. The Russians cleverly abandoned their capital, knowing that Napoleon couldn't stay in Russia forever. Napoleon had won every battle, invaded with a force of over 500,000 men (unheard of in those days). Winter set in as Napoleon waited for Russia to come to terms/accept defeat. No concessions came and Cossacks and other groups were periodically causing all sorts of logistical issues. Napoleon had to retreat. Russians took back their capital. Napoleon returned to France with fewer than 100,000 of his men that he went into Russia with. As with most of history, this isn't an exact parallel. But the idea of Russians taking their defeats on the battle ground--and the loss of their power and authority over their own county--confident that they just had to wait it out before the enemy would be forced to leave, is somewhat similar to how I'm sure the Taliban thought would happen. 

 

[pilight]

The internet was completely banned in Afghanistan before the invasion.  The Taliban claimed it broadcast "obscene, immoral, and anti-Islamic material."  I suspect it will be more difficult to eliminate now that there are millions of regular users in the country than it was to shut it out before.

[Timur]

22 hours ago, pilight said:

The internet was completely banned in Afghanistan before the invasion.  The Taliban claimed it broadcast "obscene, immoral, and anti-Islamic material."  I suspect it will be more difficult to eliminate now that there are millions of regular users in the country than it was to shut it out before.

Well, it does have plenty of material that is obscene and immoral. And it does contain a lot of anti-Islamic material. It also contains a lot of material not obscene by our standards but obscene by theirs (e.g. Mohammed cartoons).

[Edouard]

I am happy that most of the people here are able to put their partisanship aside

Who is to blame for the US failure in Afghanistan?

Bush : For going into a country without a long term plan or knowledge about how to get rid of Talibans as a political and military force (but, he was right to go because they were covering Al Quaida, the blame is on the lack of "what to do then")

Obama : For continuing on the same path and believing that once US troops leave, the situation will be fine, basically "US are giving cash and giving training to regular forces so it should hold". The problem was that the Afghanistan state was too weak with inherent corruption inside the army and public offices

Trump : For going in the same exact direction, believing into the same myth just like Obama that Afghanistan could still hold even if he told in 2012 that he believed in a Taliban uprising, he still signed a quick withdrawal agreement to get US troops out of Afghanistan for May 1st 2021 in order to serve his anti war rethoric during the 2020 presidential election

Biden : For accepting Trump deal and being chained to events. For witnessing the collapse of an artificial state which was badly led while several hundreds thousands of Aghanis would have been glad to replace them and to protect their country, for being in the denial that he should have been tougher with Talibans before to withdraw and that he is now faced with the risk of an Al Quaida returns into the country

 

Should the Afghanistan War be considered a failure in the same way the Vietnam War was?

 

Yes, just like in 1968, the jeopardized state is going to disappear very soon and be replaced by another one. It is maybe an even bigger failure when we consider the 2 decades involvment for giving aircrafts and tanks to Taliban forces in the end.

Will Taliban taking control lead to more worldwide terrorist attacks?

 

Depends if Al Quaida comes back with Talibans, according to me it is highly likely so yes. Talibans try to say that they have changed but they just buy times. We saw that comedy when the Afghan pres was "negotiating peacetalks" and today announces that he left the country because "Afghanistan is lost".

[pilight]

Ultimately the Afghani "leadership" is to blame for the Taliban's quick retaking of the country.  The US left them with a significant advantage in manpower and equipment, twenty years of training, and control of all the major cities.  Maintaining a hold over the country shouldn't have been that difficult.

[Timur]

Looks like the Taliban won. Ashraf Ghani & Amrullah Saleh have fled to Tajikistan.

Man, that was quick.

 

[Timur]

Wait, has the Taliban liberalized...or are the using deceitful methods?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/taliban-pledged-safe-passage-of-civilians-to-kabul-airport-white-house-says.html

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-1d4b052ccef113adc8dc94f965ff23c7

https://kstp.com/news/taliban-announces-amnesty-urges-women-to-join-government/6210038/

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/08/168e39f5c461-taliban-declare-amnesty-in-afghanistan-let-women-join-govt-report.html

[vcczar]

8 hours ago, Timur said:

Wait, has the Taliban liberalized...or are the using deceitful methods?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/taliban-pledged-safe-passage-of-civilians-to-kabul-airport-white-house-says.html

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-1d4b052ccef113adc8dc94f965ff23c7

https://kstp.com/news/taliban-announces-amnesty-urges-women-to-join-government/6210038/

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/08/168e39f5c461-taliban-declare-amnesty-in-afghanistan-let-women-join-govt-report.html

They were firing on protestors this morning.

[Timur]

https://thehill.com/homenews/568339-condoleezza-rice-last-four-us-presidents-have-made-mistakes-in-afghanistan

[Hestia]

 

There were numerous good speeches from the British House of Commons today, but the one that stood out to me was the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Lisa Nandy of the Labour Party. I didn't intend to, but I watched all 15 minutes of it, and I think everyone should. It was directed at the British Prime Minister, but it could just as easily been directed at our American President. 

[pilight]

There are plenty of examples of peaceful protesters being fired upon in the US from last summer

[Timur]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

*sighs* Firing on peaceful protesters seems to be a dirty trick of many Governments, First, Second, and Third World (the predating viewpoint of nations from before that system was applied at the end of WW2) since the turn of the 20th Century. Even Tricky Dick did it several times in the U.S., as well many of the incidents where Government police and military did so to openly with corrupt Industrialists in the U.S. (and many European countries, and several examples here in Canada, as well as Australia and South Africa, on peaceful labour strike actions in the early 20th Century). Also an unused, but frighteningly totalitarian and HIGHLY Unconstitutional and illegal (along with the whole Unconstitutional and illegal - and treasonous - Un(Patriot) Act, who passing, enforcement, and existence was no legal validity and has made criminals and traitors of the Bush and Obama Administrations to their people, nation, and Constitution) that say that there is a provision where, "protesters of war efforts against, 'terrorism,' who, 'block traffic,' can be summarily sent to up to, 'life sentences in forest work camps.'" This unenacted clause displays firmly the open contempt for Constitutional laws and limits on the Bush Administration and another indicator of why they belong serving life in prison and more Americans should open their eyes the to the traitors to their nation and promoters of internal tyranny they were.

 

7 hours ago, pilight said:

There are plenty of examples of peaceful protesters being fired upon in the US from last summer

What are peaceful protesters?

[Timur]

6 minutes ago, Timur said:

 

What are peaceful protesters?

Like those peaceful protesters in the Storming of the Capitol, and that peaceful mob in the Wisconsin Capitol in 2011, and those peaceful Trumpist protesters against vaccines & claiming that there was voter fraud, those peaceful protesters in Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, and those peaceful protesters (and armed ones) that protested in front of Michigan's Capitol. I like the new law proposed in the UK that deals with protesters.

(Frankly, the only protests I can describe as purely peaceful is the one in Belarus.)

Edited August 19, 2021 by Timur

[Pringles]

7 minutes ago, Timur said:

Like those peaceful protesters in the Storming of the Capitol, and that peaceful mob in the Wisconsin Capitol in 2011, and those peaceful Trumpist protesters against vaccines & claiming that there was voter fraud, those peaceful protesters in Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, and those peaceful protesters (and armed ones) that protested in front of Michigan's Capitol. I like the new law proposed in the UK that deals with protesters.

(Frankly, the only protests I can describe as purely peaceful is the one in Belarus.)

Theres a lot of protests that are good and bad. But the looting that went on last year was unacceptable. And I agree with some of the sentiments in what you're saying.

You can agree with the message of a protest. You don't always have to agree with their methods of it though. And that goes for everybody.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Most protests happen because those doing them have no other methods to accomplish their goals - many such goals very vital to the livelihood and tenability of affairs to those doing so, because other options (like negotiating with employers in good faith without a strike action, hurting an abusive corporation by boycott in the realistic modern market, or forcing Government policy in a way, or around a law, or set of laws, considered vital, where either elections mean nothing (like in many totalitarian regimes), or no, "viable," party or candidate has sympathy for the given cause (this is often a big catalyst in the U.S.)). So, what alternative methods would you suggest for people in such situations?

Well for example, I think the riots in 2020 could've still had their message heard by going to their state capitols, police departments, marching in streets. No looting is needed. 

It's one thing to be angry and want to make your voice heard. Doesn't mean you need to ruin the life of someone else and their business. Like say, a small business grocery store or a pub that had its windows smashed. There is absolutely no need for that and it is unacceptable.

For those in an Authoritarian country I recognize citizens will have to go above and beyond. And I support them in their endeavors such as Belarus, and China to name just a few. However, even I still dont think that that entitles you to just burn a house down of some random person. That's just stupid.

If I really wanted to protest something you'd never see me burn a house or a grocery store down. That's just plain dumb and unacceptable.

 

[Pringles]

14 minutes ago, Patine said:

Are we on the same page? I thought you were saying you disagreed with the practice of protest in general (or at least, that's how your post read), and not just some infamous examples.

I said I agreed with some of the sentiments Timur was expressing. But I dont disagree at all with the practice of protest and never said such a thing.