The US has never given a shit about international law and squabbling about this or that internal agent is a game for idiots.

All very obvious, Street.

What might you have done with it?

What might you have done with it? — Banno

I'm not sure it would matter other than a game of speculative fantasy.

...a game of speculative fantasy — StreetlightX

Sounds good to me. A trillion dollars is enough to give everyone in Afghanistan... twenty-five thousand each? A decent weekend on the Gold Coast, that.

If you think about the CIA and what can be done about it for long enough, that is the only conclusion to be drawn.

Consider the absurdity of a few alternatives. There's convincing all of the rest of the entire world to put the International Criminal Court to the effect of reforming the organization, but, in order to do so, you would need something like the support of around seventy-five percent of the voting age global populace or to be capable of collaborating with the international intelligence community, neither of which are really all that viable. There's protest, which is sure to be unanimously regarded as conspiratorial by our news media, aside from that having five people picket the pentagon or stand on some street corned does absolutely nothing whatsoever. You can print leaflets and table and make it about as far as any minor Trotskyist sect. There's revolution, which relies upon the sine qua non of that the United States Military decides not to fire upon a civilian populace and defect to them, thereby entrusting the transfer of power to an organization that is not at all likely to be taken by any form of so-called "radicalism" whatsoever. There's guerilla insurrection, which, given the scope of security apparatus is just completely suicidal. There's détournement, which could be utilized to bring awareness to their activities to the general populace, but, at that point, what the general populace even can do is to either stage mass protests, which, like those against the Iraq War, won't do anything other than raise awareness and very slowly reform the Democratic Party at all, or convince whomever there is in whatever position they have which grants them the potential to do so to put the aforementioned mechanisms to the effect of reforming our intelligence service.

What anyone thinks about anything else doesn't matter as that is all that can be done.

Furthermore, as I edited the above post to clarify, staging mass protests just raises awareness and, at least, in these regards, very slowly reforms the Democratic Party, which, in turn, leads us, again, to the only possibility of utilizing whatever legal regulatory mechanisms there are to have proceeded from the Church Committee.

As I'm sure you're quite interested in what I think about all of this, as to what we can do about our arms industry, I have absolutely no ideas whatsoever. Our military budget could be taken to by someone who was willing to go at it like the most notorious of all Thatcherites, but they'd have to somehow include within their campaign promises not to cut into soldier's salaries and actually do so in order to get anywhere whatsoever. They'll complain about their equipment, but, I'm sure that that is also somehow able to be dealt with.

I think that they should divert the funds into things like free healthcare and education, but, I do honestly not care if some Libertarian gets into office and just decides to pay off a portion of our debt to China.

The point being, here, is that, aside from the very time consuming gradual reform of the Democratic Party, what can, otherwise, be done is to find a senator, congressman or presidential candidate who is willing to wage a unilateral campaign that relies upon putting every potential legal prohibitive measure into effect against the Central Intelligence Agency and convince our Congress to approve a defense budget that may have even been reduced by a tenth.

Contrary to the wisdom of the Left, which is to offer castigating critique of the Democratic Party, what should instead be done is to find, among its members, a person who is willing to engage in their role as an executive or legislator as if they were on a mission from God. It is the very idealistic bleeding heart liberal whom they present as representative of pure ideology who can change American foreign policy.

It's also, perhaps, notable that they would happen to be a pacifist.

, what should instead be done is to find, among its members, a person who is willing to engage in their role as an executive or legislator as if they were on a mission from God — thewonder

The democratic party is the graveyard of Left politics in the US. It exists to coopt, diffuse, and suck-in any viable left energy. It's a black hole. It can rot for all I care.

You just make snide remarks like this so that you can score more acolytes of whatever your particular left-wing cult is. Anyone on the left who is with it enough to figure all of this out just does the same thing.

Or maybe I make snide remarks like that because the democratic party is one half of a right-wing ratchet mechanism that is dragging your miserable nation into fascism.

I suppose that they could be a Green Party or independent candidate. Assuming that they come from one of the two parties, though, there's only one likelihood.

I don't really like the Democratic Party either, but, in so far that our foreign policy is to change, it is probably them who even can effectuate that.

You probably have some communization inspired invocation of insurrection or something. It's très chic, but what it ultimates in is either starting a terrorist cell à la the 2 June Movement or starting a terrorist cell à la Action Directe.

Besides, what difference would there be were we to trade places between the United States and Australia, anyways?

All of this seems wildly off topic. My point is simply that America has been responsible for making Afghanistan the hell hole it is today, and while its withdrawal is a good thing in the long run, the 'madness' taking place right now is one more twist of the knife long held into the belly of the Afghan state by American maleficence.

People praising Biden for finally putting an end to the game of Afghan hot potato are like those praising Jeffrey Dahmer for promising to finally stop dismemebering young boys; except Biden was responsible for deaths on an order of magnitude worse, and far more horrific. Along with the rest of the US state.

Fair enough, but that quip is pretty goddamn clever if you ask me.

There was no justification for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place and we were there for long enough for even me to forget about it, and, so, there is no real reason to applaud Biden for the withdraw, though it is kind of a relief that we finally left.

I don't know. The transition seems to be going fairly well at least.

Expected Afghan influx reopens divisions over refugees in Europe

Albania, a country of 4.2 million in south-eastern Europe, is taking in hundreds of refugees.

“I am devastated to see people left behind and want to give them at least the possibility to breathe again,” the country’s prime minister, Edi Rama,

:up:

Austria’s interior minister, Karl Nehammer, described banning deportations as “a pull factor for illegal migration which only fuels the inconsiderate and cynical business of smugglers and organised crime”.

:down:

My logic is simple.

Who would benefit if the USA continued on in the land of the Afghans?

Women, children, atheists, moderate muslims, secularists, and so on.

Who would gain if the USA hightailed it out of Afghanistan?

Extremists, the Taliban and other radical Islamists who'll find safe haven there.

Who made the decision to pull out American troops from Afghan territory?

USA.

Ergo,

The USA isn't interested in the welfare of women, children, atheists, moderate muslims, secularists, etc. OR, this is scary shit, the USA wants the Taliban back at the helm of Afghan affairs.

:chin:

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?

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.

Regardless of the West's mistakes, I think it is important not to ignore Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan.

For decades, Pakistan has served as a sanctuary for the Afghan Taliban, who have often crossed the countries’ rugged, 1,660-mile border with ease. Officials have acknowledged that Taliban fighters maintain homes and families in Pakistan, at a safe distance from the battlefields …
Pakistan has leverage that it is not bringing to bear, government officials in other countries say. It still allows Taliban leaders free movement into and out of the country and continues to serve as a safe haven where fighters and their families can receive medical care, they say.
Some critics, particularly in Afghanistan, accuse Pakistan of actively supporting the Taliban’s offensive, saying that the insurgents could not have mounted such a large effort without assistance. On social media, the hashtag campaign #SanctionPakistan has gained popularity in Afghanistan and among the diaspora.

Pakistan Under Pressure as Taliban Advance in Afghanistan - The New York Times

Pakistan's leaders clearly see the Taliban's occupation of Afghanistan as a "victory" and a "liberation from Western slavery". Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban.

Taliban have broken ‘the shackles of slavery,’ says Pakistan PM Imran Khan – The Independent

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

Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban. — Apollodorus

Turkey has lost all their chances to be part of the Western world with this action. Erdogan is a crazy and incompetent leader...

Two conversations, one conclusion.
One retired Army Sergeant 33 years started in Vietnam ending in Operation Desert Storm.
One young freshly graduated college student among classmates who dedicated their lives to the service of our country.
One conclusion:: extract as many people as possible now and understand the up and coming ranks will not fight their ancestors war.

It's that British and American politicians went in there making promises they had no intention of keeping and they expect UK and US troops and public to trust them?

I note Trump's text (which is no excuse for Biden or the UK). Trump went to Fordham.

Correct. Erdogan is the Hitler and Stalin of the Mid East.

He dreams of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire that included the Mid East, North Africa, and Southeastern Europe and has forged close alliances with other Muslim Central Asians in an attempt to create a Turkish zone from China and Pakistan to the Mediterranean and beyond.

Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban. — Apollodorus

Show us the announcement.

Turkey has offered to deploy troops at Kabul airport after NATO withdraws and has held talks with the United States for weeks. In exchange, President Tayyip Erdogan has asked for financial, logistical and diplomatic conditions to be met.

In a televised interview with broadcaster CNN Turk on Wednesday, Erdogan said he could meet with the Taliban as part of efforts to end the fighting in Afghanistan.

"Our related institutions are making efforts that could extend as far as some meetings with the Taliban... I could even meet the one that will be in the position of their leader," Erdogan said

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-08-11/turkey-still-keen-to-run-kabul-airport-despite-taliban-advances-officials-say

Of course Erdogan is not going to miss the opportunity to fill some of the power vacuum created by the US withdrawal, is he?

Nowhere in that quote says that "Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban" or anything remotely close to it. Do you not understand what you're reading or are you distorting willingly?

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.

Well, what you read there is diplomatic language.

Of course Erdogan is not going to say openly what his intention is. But he's got troops in many countries and once they are in, under any pretext, they will carry out Erdogan's plan as instructed.

There are people of Turkic origin in Afghanistan that Erdogan may be able to exploit. And he may make a deal with China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and Turkic states like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan that are allies of Erdogan.

But Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said yesterday, Wednesday, in statements to foreign media in Islamabad - after talks with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar - that his country is making efforts to facilitate talks between the Taliban and Ankara.

"The best thing is for Turkey and the Taliban to have a direct dialogue, so that the two sides can talk about the reasons why Kabul airport should be secured," Khan added.

https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-08-11-erdogan--i-may-receive-the-taliban-leader-in-the-coming-period.BJGKZYa-gK.html

I for one can't imagine Erdogan staying out of it. Who's going to stop him, you?

Who is putting pressure on Pakistan? I guess nobody is. — ssu

Certainly not the West. And that's where the problem is and has been for a very long time. There is a US-Pakistan-China connection that works against Western interests and that some people refuse to see.

And yes, Erdogan tries to be active everywhere: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. — ssu

Exactly. That's his plan. This is why he got elected, to make the Turkish Empire great again. And he's got to do it (1) because he likes being a great leader, (2) because he is an Islamist who wants Turkey to be the leader of the Muslim world, and (3) because that's what his own people expect him to do. And he's got powerful allies like Russia and China.

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

Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s and has already formed an alliance (Turkic Council) with Turkic speaking Central Asian states like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

But the idea of a Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China was in fact the idea of Kissinger who was Turkey’s and China’s best friend:

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV

When Streetlightx paints his s**t on s**t, then is a form of life long grown tedious and meaningless, and with its monochrome brown cannot be rejuvenated, only known as such; the vulture of Street takes flight enclosed in its permanently scatological-hued skies.
(pace Mr. H)