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, Turkey didn't announce what you said they announced. And Erdogan wanting to meddle with Afghanistan's current situation in order to increase his influence has nothing to do with him showing willingness to put Turkey's military at the disposal of the Taliban. That's just a misunderstanding of the basics of what has happened. To understand beyond the diplomatic language, one has to understand the diplomatic language (and the diplomatic relations) in the first place. Here are the ABC's of the situation. It's the opposite of what you suggested almost in all respects.

Does that mean that a future cooperation between Erdogan and the Taliban is out of question? No. Erdogan is wildly opportunistic and a pragmatist. Does that mean that he wants to see the Taliban succeed? No. They're foes and regional rivals, so in the long term Erdogan could benefit more from an Afghan government that's subservient to the USA. And even though Erdogan wants to stand his ground as much as possible against the USA, he still needs USA infinitely more than he needs the Taliban.

So, Turkey didn't announce what you said they announced. — hairy belly

That was what I had heard on the news, that Erdogan offered to deploy Turkish troops at Kabul if the Taliban agreed. And Khan was offering to put Erdogan in touch with the Taliban. This seems to be supported by the articles I posted. I will post more when I find them.

Of course Erdogan has plans for Afghanistan. I think @ssu understands the situation much better.

None of that is supported by the article that you linked me to. Erdogan said nothing about securing the airport "if the Taliban agreed". That's not what your article says, neither what any other articles I've seen say. He was in talks with Biden, not with the Taliban. And Khan was "mediating" because the Taliban reacted negatively to Erdogan's attempt to "secure the airport", which they called an "occupation".

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. — ssu

Correct. Personally, I think there is more to it and Kissinger is one of the links that connects certain US interests with China and Pakistan (in an old alliance against Russia-friendly India). I think you will find more stuff on this in the US National Archives.

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.

Unfortunately, America and Europe seem to be on a warpath with Russia whilst at the same time leaving many weak spots exposed and allowing China, Turkey, and Pakistan to exert too much influence to the point that the situation is becoming dangerous for the whole Western world.

The Western world order took a long time to establish and once it starts unraveling it can go downhill very fast.

Westerners tend not to understand and not to care. "Human rights", "the environment", and "wild life (in the Third World)" is all that matters to most of us.

Let's hope Westerners, mainly those that care for things other than human rights, the environment and the wild life, will go downhill together with their abhorrent world order. Hopefully taking with them their offsprings like the Taliban, Erdogan, Putin and all that shitshow.

America and Europe seem to be on a warpath with Russia whilst at the same time leaving many weak spots exposed and allowing China, Turkey, and Pakistan to exert too much influence to the point that the situation is becoming dangerous — Apollodorus

It was irrational of Britain in the 1850s not to stay neutral, let Russia try to fend off France while perhaps learning a small lesson about whatever that was about, not bolster Turkey (which would have genuinely benefitted from modernising then and not in the 1920s). Instead Russia got so weakened it had to sell off Alaska where Russians had been more humane than their successors became, receiving only enough money to pay landlords / nobility and nothing left over for the serfs, who fell to the agitators. Neglecting Germany and Austria into the bargain and look what happened there.

Taliban seek no ‘revenge’ and all Afghans will be ‘forgiven’

Also from the Guardian:

On women’s rights, Mujahid said the issue was “very important”. He told journalists in Kabul:

"The Islamic Emirate is committed to the rights of women within the framework of sharia.

Our sisters ... have the same rights, will be able to benefit from their rights. They can have activities in different sectors and different areas on the basis of our rules and regulations, educational, health and other areas.

They are going to be working with us, shoulder to shoulder with us, and the international community - if they have concerns - we would like to assure them that there is not going to be any discrimination against women, but of course within the frameworks that we have."

Who knows as to with what degree of veracity we can consider these claims?

If we take them at their word, I think that the conference is more promising than anyone could have hoped for. That's, of course, if we take them at their word.

Record number of refugees fleeing to Afghanistan
Aug 17, 2021

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—After the successful installation of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, their new offices and processing centers have received more refugees, VISA and citizen applications than they currently have capacity for.

"We have families with young children living in tents right outside", said Ahmad Qahar, an official of the Afghan immigration agency, pointing at the would-be shanty town outside.

The unprecedented situation has put a heavy strain on Afghan resources, and they have approached the UN for assistance.

"With the uncertain future and potential dangers, our family quickly decided to get on the first plane to Kabul", said Mei Cy, a Singaporean national. Similar sentiments have been expressed all around the globe, like Yael (from an unspecified Middle Eastern region) and Swedish Björn, who wished to otherwise remain anonymous.

With the US finally opening their borders for residents wanting to exit, the Taliban authorities could be faced with a larger influx still, and, without help from the international community, the fall could see humanitarian disasters.

Spencer Ackerman has written a piece on his blog in favor of "a life they can live, resettling them in the United States if they so choose" and "reparations", though I'm not entirely sure what reparations could even look like, given the transfer of power.

In a less humane appeal, Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, has attacked none other than former Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for posting on Twitter, "the President must urgently rush to defend, rescue, and give and expand asylum."

There are a lot of executions ongoing in Afghanistan...

Here is a Crimethinc article written by a war veteran.

After a lengthy analysis of the war and American society, he concludes:

"Now is the time to listen to the Afghan people, to support refugees, to support aid organizations, and to rail against those responsible for the catastrophe of the past twenty years—to open our hearts to new possibilities and new potential accomplices—to develop the skills and mindsets that will keep us safe as we go forward into the unknown."

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).

It was irrational of Britain in the 1850s not to stay neutral, let Russia try to fend off France while perhaps learning a small lesson about whatever that was about, not bolster Turkey (which would have genuinely benefitted from modernising then and not in the 1920s). — Fine Doubter

Yes, the British always had a fear of being invaded by Continentals who were secretly digging tunnels under the sea to get them. So, British policy was dictated by the "balance of power" doctrine that aimed to side with the weaker continental power against the stronger.

After the unification of Germany in 1871 the situation was reversed and Germany was seen a competitor on the Continent and in other parts of the world like Africa and the Pacific.

Russia became Britain's other chief enemy and all because of the struggle for resources. Instead of having a united Europe we got two European civil wars, America replaced England, and now China is replacing America and the rest of the Western world. I think we need to wake up a.s.a.p. before it's too late.

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:)

People are so afraid of change.

It's destabilizing!

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. — ssu

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.

The EU's idea was to gradually incorporate all former Communist Bloc and Soviet republics into its own economic and political system. This would have isolated Russia too much, creating an intolerable situation. For many Russians it was unthinkable to lose Ukraine. And the West was beginning to meddle in Russia itself.

The EU-US should have been more restrained toward Russia. West-Russia conflict can only benefit our enemies like China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey. We can't keep attacking Russia and letting China and others get away with murder just because it's good for business. That strategy is going to cost us dearly one day and I think it's going to be very soon.

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.

I thought that it was an interesting perspective to present and fairly good analysis from the ground of the war. I also liked his concluding remarks.

As much as I have political qualms with Crimethinc, such as the naivete of their approach to being "home free" or their interpretation of the "diversity of tactics" in that it ultimately does preclude strict nonviolence, I think it rather laudable of them to have published a piece written by a former intelligence analyst and veteran of the War in Afghanistan. You couldn't find such a voice of dissent anywhere else.

You are correct in that a focus upon the actions of the United States in Western and Central Asia and Central and South America, of which the reasons for being critical of and in active opposition too are many and justified, does too readily omit the reasons for our support amongst people in Europe, primarily located in what was formerly called "Eastern Europe", though, albeit lacking in an alternative term, I think the characterization of the world as having been divided into a somewhat mythic "East" and "West" was motivated by an odd kind of what you might call "occidentalism". The support of dissidents, publication of banned texts, aiding and abetting of expatriates fleeing the former Soviet Union and its satellites, offering of amnesty, support for human rights, and even, I would argue, to a certain extent, creation of Radio Free Europe were all very beneficial to the people there. There were a lot of things that we did during the Cold War that I don't agree with, but, it's not as if the United States' presentation of itself as a bastion of "freedom and democracy" in the world was a complete façade. On some level, it was to an extent, as I kind of suspect for activists to both have taken more initiative and better followed through with some of the aforementioned virtues of Western exceptionalism than any Americans in office, occasionally without or even in opposition to them, but it is the case that we do, at least, have some American policy to thank for certain gains that have been made in the protection of the free press, international amnesty, and, though I would express more caution in this regard, the development of human rights.

There is an interesting review of Frances Stonor Saunders's, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, "The Cultural Cold War: Faust Not the Pied Piper" ultimately, as I am, in favor of the so-called "third camp", that adds some interesting nuance nominally inapt dispute between the "East" and "West", that I will post here if you are curious.

Alas, however, I have staged this press junket for long enough and now must attend to my life outside of The Philosophy Forum, and, so, either now or after another post or two, will be off.

If anyone reads any of this, thanks to whomever I mentioned in my previous posts for their support of Afghan refugees. Here is an op-ed piece published by New York Magazine.

Unified Germany doesn't seem like this bully with imperialist aspirations, because it hasn't got them, — ssu

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

Germany is Europe's largest country, with the strongest economy, and sitting right in the heart of Europe. It should logically be Europe's strongest defender. Instead, it is a giant with feet of clay that gives in to China, Turkey, and others before they even ask.

This puts Europe, the world's largest economy, in the ridiculous position of a military midget and political non-entity that is being colonized and taken over by others, just like America was once colonized and taken over by Europeans.

The West is turning itself into the laughing stock and doormat of the world.

Alright, well, if there is no further commentary, I'll be off. Thanks to @jorndoe for letting me blow up this thread and @ssu for his apparent willingness to offer consistent and detailed political analysis.

So long, The Philosophy Forum! Best of luck to everyone in Afghanistan!

It's all a wallowing of sorts.

That, too, of course.

Anyways, I'll be off. It's been fun, in ways. All that we can do now is to hope for the best. I, or one, am somewhat hopeful. So long!

I can't fathom what a civil war would have looked like.

Was this chain of events preferable?

From a former US Vet:

"I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment. ... The overwhelming impression I got — it didn’t occur to me that we were purposefully delivering this equipment into the hands of al Qaeda, or whatever. But the sense that I got was: Oh, well, the purpose of us being here is to justify pouring mountains of cash into the pockets of contractors — the manufacturers of this equipment. The incentive structure was, “Lose shit, because then it’ll have to be replaced. We’ll have to send more out there.”

I would sit in staff meetings where we would talk about, OK, this month we sent 14 armored Humvees down to Helmand Province for the Border Patrol. And 12 of those 14 Humvees along the way went missing — or, quote unquote, broke down — and were disabled. And that was a regular thing. Like the majority of shit we were adding to the inventory of these Border Patrol units, just wasn’t even making it there. I mean, it seemed like the whole thing was just a big setup for contractors to be given license to fleece us. As far as the US military presence there — I just viewed it as a big money funneling operation."

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operation-afghanistan

Afghanistan was not a waste or a loss or failure.

It was an absolute success.

Every time someone calls it a failure, they have no fucking clue what the purpose of the colonial occupation of Afghanistan was for.

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. — ssu

Unfortunately I don't have enough time, right now, to continue in the climate change and other debates.

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.

Now, please reflect: is your argument "well, could be worse" (sure, NAZI's could have been worse and used their nerve agents all over the place; you need to get to literally satan to have a "bad as it gets"), or is your argument that despite environmental and social catastrophes the system is still somehow "good" and has no fundamental flaws.

Lol, those enlightened vets are so funny. In a way, funnier than redneck vets that still suck Uncle Sam's dick. Their "Eureka" moments are precious. It only took the guy a couple of wasted Afghan generations to conclude that it is now time to listen to the Afghans (whatever that means)! It only took the other one a shitload of lost Humvees to realize that war mongers profit from the war! Fortunately, they are here to tell us.

No, no, no, you don't understand.

It's a time for "soul searching", intentions were pure, nothing was predictable in advance, zero reasons to have plausible audits of anything at anytime during these 20 years; serious organizations don't do audits, they soul search after the mission fails in every possible way in the most spectacular fashion.