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. — boethius

Because in something that has bad sides has also some good.

Yes capitalism and using market mechanism is far better that centralized planning in Marxist-Leninist socialism. That kind of central planning sucks. That said, our current financial market and debt-based system might collapse in the near future. That shouldn't be confusing. You see, in reality you can see both benefits and negative aspects in things. We don't have to be spokespeople for some ideological cause and not see both positive and negative aspects.

And why do I then say US foreign policy (US Imperialism?) is good in Europe. Well, sometimes the agenda of the US and other countries can emerge. Then that "Imperialism" is just fine. With @Apollodorus we had an interesting exchange about just who was promoting European integration post WW2 in the ECP thread. He said it was the US and it's intelligence services, I remarked that it was actually European politicians that lobbied for the agenda and found similar minds in Washington.

And this explains when US foreign policy, ie "US Imperialism", can be very effective: when it takes into account the agenda of other nations and then goes on with the issues that everybody can agree with. Then suddenly the US finds itself in the leader position and countries wait what the US does.

Yet if US policy is totally unilateral and driven by the whims of domestic politics and discourse without any interest on things like the reality on the ground, then you get a mess like this. The facts on the ground don't matter. I think the basic reason is that the US after the Soviet Union collapsed, didn't have to think at all what it actions would make the Soviets do. Without a counterbalance, they could do the hell they wanted. Especially when you get idiots like the neocons in charge.

If the withdrawal from Iraq backfired with the emergence of the IS, I wonder what now will happen with this catastrophe?

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

After the possibility of Soviet tank armies coming through the Fulda Gap evaporated, they don't know what to do with their army. There is now NATO Poland between them and Russia, so nothing to worry about I guess.

But the Bundeswehr is extremely expensive and in very bad condition. They pour many billions into defense and basically they can deploy one battalion outside of their borders. Talk about wasting resources and money. Not because of corruption, but because of cluelesness.

Pls America kindly fuck off from the face of the Earth outside of America kthx.

Dead American soldiers - most of whom were probably poor and optionless - gave their lives for this and nothing else:

Dead American soldiers - most of whom were probably poor and optionless - gave their lives for this and nothing else: — StreetlightX

And those stock prices tell something? Lol.

Do notice that during that time the DJIA has gone up well over 400% during that time and the Nasdaq 900%. So basically Raytheon has been a shitty investment, General Dynamics and Boeing average. Nothing close to Internet companies.

In fact, the real cash cow wasn't the Global War on Terror. It was by any real measurement, the Cold War. And the vast majority of those weapons were never used. Arms races are the real thing, not 20 years of low intensity conflict.



(The picture earlier from antiwar isn't of US troops. Likely it's of MONUSCO troops, one of the largest peacekeeping missions headed by the UN in the DRC, who nobody cares about. But who cares about details.)

Do notice that during that time the DJIA has gone up well over 400% during that time and the Nasdaq 900%. So basically Raytheon has been a shitty investment, General Dynamics and Boeing average. Nothing close to Internet companies. — ssu

OK sure, dead American soldiers died for not just defense stocks but incredibly shitty defense stocks. Excellent point comrade. Didn't think they could have died in more vain than they already have, but there you go.

A good recruitment slogan, no? Join the military! Die for below-average ROI.

Your graph doesn't show what it purports to show. That defence spending is a lower proportion of GDP is not the same a defence spending being 'low'. If GDP goes up, then defence spending goes up even when it remains the same proportion.

Arms manufacturers aren't interested in the proportion of GDP they get, they're interested in the actual cold hard cash.

US defence spending has never been higher https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget . I don't see what difference it makes that other industries have also benefitted from American expansionism.

:smile:

Yeah, well, actually the numbers of killed don't tell the real picture of the fighting. Advances in medicine, you know.



And if people don't know, the troop levels had been for westerners quite low for some time. The Afghans were doing all the dying stuff. Until the US didn't even help anymore for them to fight the Taliban.

A great irony is that Taliban are running much of their operation through WhatsApp, an American company with American servers, owned by Facebook.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/world/asia/afghanistan-whatsapp-taliban.html

Sure, it's granted that far more Afghanis died for American colonial designs than Americans. America's trail of dead is multicultural. A rainbow coalition of dead. Par for the course for the most murderous nation on the planet. I'm pretty sure not even the Taliban could have matched the number of Afghan deaths attributable to American violence had they not been temporarily put in the sin bin for the last 20 years.

Yet another excellent point comrade. Keep 'em coming.

These are irrelevant points but sure. — StreetlightX

Not for the US politicians.

If your argument that the US Army shouldn't ever have been in Afghanistan then sure, it's all irrelevant. But as there will be a debate about just what went wrong, the commitment to have Afghans fighting the Taliban and the US assisting with air power, logistics and intelligence is going to be the issue. It wasn't so costly as it was when there were 110 000 US troops in Afghanistan.

Has anyone btw noticed how lax the Doha peace deal requirements were for the Taliban compared to Bush original demands? Please don't have anything to do with Al Qaeda like the Doha peace deal states might have been a deal that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2001 would have gladly accepted.

That defence spending is a lower proportion of GDP is not the same a defence spending being 'low'. If GDP goes up, then defence spending goes up even when it remains the same proportion. — Isaac

Yeah, but so goes inflation and salaries. And then you are talking of the largest economy, which hasn't grown extremely rapidly as it's already quite prosperous. Only poor countries can get long periods of double digit growth.

Besides, one infantry division cost a lot less in 1970 than in 2020. Yet put the two in a jungle or into the mountains and the division with 1970's equipment would do surprisingly fine against the one with modern equipment, actually. Like, uh, the Taliban has shown us.

Yeah, but so goes inflation and salaries. — ssu

It's not about inflation, spending has gone up even in real terms because GDP has gone up in real terms. It's no good trying to make it about the poor squaddie's wage packet, it's not. It's about the massively lucrative deals the arms manufacturers have.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2079489/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2021-budget-proposal/

But as there will be a debate — ssu

Among morons, sure.

This is Afghanistan. Let's not lose perspective here.

It is so beautiful. Sad of how humans can destroy the nature and earth just for religious or political beliefs, right?

So, your argument is basically that Afghanistan should have never been invaded? Of course this is some fantasy argument, you realize?

It is so beautiful. Sad of how humans can destroy the nature and earth just for religious or political beliefs, right? — javi2541997

I think it's much the way its always been. It looks like a section of the moon.

Americans are too fucking stupid and barbarous to imagine they would have done otherwise. — StreetlightX

It's really faux pas that you mention this with respect to a war waged with the Taliban, who behead, execute, and punish due to tribalism and barbarism.

Much of which has been ongoing since they took over Kabul as of recent.

Wait till you find out about how America treats its own citizens. Just last year they had enormous, nationwide protests against the local regime over continued state brutality against minorities which were promptly put down with all manner of violence. Now the authorities send their children into schools while forbidding them to take protective measures during a global pandemic. They install rapists and sexual abusers as their heads of state and high judiciary. And the natives are under the impression that they live in a democracy. It's wild over there.

But I'm a big tent kinda guy - Taliban, Americans, rubbish one and all. Although only one of these is running a world empire that continually props up dictators and genocidal states all across the globe. Which includes, of course, the very Taliban whom the US helped to usher into existence, with great fanfare.

I think it's much the way its always been. — frank

Except it isn't.

Perhaps it just feels a bit awkward to write about the destruction of the environment in a country that has seen 40 years war.

And Afghanistan has exceptional environmental problems, which are far more dangerous than your average contamination and waste problems: mines and ammunitions.

Afghanistan remains a perfect example of the devastation wreaked by landmines. Despite an effective demining program, and a well developed mines awareness program, the mines continue to claim civilian victims every day. Over US $100 million has been contributed to the program, enough to clear one fifth of the known mined area in the country. The mines situation in Afghanistan is unacceptable: in Ottawa the international community has an opportunity to ensure it does not happen elsewhere.

You see, the Soviet used landmines as a counter-insurgency weapon: Spread landmines in the crop fields and the farmers have to flee the area. Once no population in the area, nobody for the insurgents to get assistance. Basically the old Roman and Mongol tactic of creating artificial deserts to pacify some region. Then the Soviet had these wonderful ideas of surrounding cities with land mines. Huge fields:

Mines have been used extensively around many of the major cities in Afghanistan. The regional capitals of Kandahar (south), Jalalabad (east), and Herat (west) were all extremely heavily mined, with bands of defensive minefields around the cities. Extensive mining also took place inside the cities of Kandahar and Herat. For example, in Herat, the huge barrier minefields laid by the Soviets - which ran through the western part of the city - were laid to defend against mujaheddin insurgencies from close to the Iranian border.

The verges of important roads in and out of the cities were mined, and mines were used to protect strategic supply routes, such as the road from Pakistan to Kabul, and other major arterial roads. The lines of red warning rocks demarcating minefields, which run along the sides of roads, are a common sight while driving in Afghanistan.

And as this is Afghanistan, it's telling that the landmines sown to the ground during the previous war over twenty years ago pose a threat still. Even today.

(6th Feb 2019) The UN agency notes that since 1989, more than 18 million explosive remnants of war (ERW) items have been cleared, along with more than 730,000 anti-personnel mines including over 750 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and 30,145 anti-tank mines.

“We are still in the prevention business and we aren’t doing all that well,” said Patrick Fruchet, UNMAS Programme Manager, Afghanistan. “In 2012, we were down to about 36 casualties per month in Afghanistan - which is still enormous; those numbers jumped, those numbers jumped year on year. And in 2017, there were more than 150 casualties a month.”

This spike in casualty numbers is linked to “new contamination” by anti-personnel weapons in the country, linked to intensifying conflict between Government forces and Taliban extremists, after 2014.

It's always been in the middle of nowhere and it's always been pretty desolate.

Before this latest shit show our Veterans and their families struggled pondering "Is it worth it?"
Yesterday, Veterans were willingly leaving this Earth at a clip of 22 souls a day.
Now we and they are wondering if it was worth it.
It didn't have to end this way :broken:

Which includes, of course, the very Taliban whom the US helped to usher into existence, with great fanfare. — StreetlightX

Except the US didn't care a shit about Afghanistan in 1994 as Soviet Union had left years ago. Hekmatyar and the famous Haqqani (now known as the Haqqani network) were the CIA backed warlords that rose to power thanks to CIA money. The Taliban itself is an invention of the ISI, which is now likely proud how they have succeeded finally. Basically the Taliban pushed away the squabbling ex-CIA financed warlords. Haqqani then changed sides later, wasn't a founder of the Taliban.

There is an incorrect meme that in this picture Reagan is meeting Taliban leaders. The "Freedom Fighters" met in 1983 are mainly the CIA backed warlords and other opposition leaders of that time.

It's always been in the middle of nowhere and it's always been pretty desolate. — frank

There are many desolate areas. But minefields make Afghanistan even more desolate.

I was under the impression that the CIA backed the mujahedeen to battle the Soviets that then became the Taliban. Is this true of Brzezinski's idea?

I was under the impression that the CIA backed the mujahedeen to battle the Soviets that then became the Taliban. — Shawn

Correct. @ssu is largely talking out of his ass.

You have to be more specific here on just who the CIA backed. Above all, it's the motivation you have to notice. CIA funded all groups to fight the Soviets. The money went basically through Pakistani ISI and they favored their guys. When Soviet Union withdrew and finally the Najibullah regime fell, the US lost interest at Afghanistan. The various warlords then started to fight each other, and finally Pakistan solved the dilemma by backing on group, "the students" lead by Mullah Omar.

CIA wasn't interested in gaining power in Afghanistan in 1994. Pakistani ISI was.

And it's worth mentioning, that the ISI policy is quite the policy of Pakistan today:

(Financial Times) Prime Minister Imran Khan declared that Afghans had “broken the shackles of slavery”. Raoof Hasan, his special assistant, wrote on Twitter that “the contraption that the US had pieced together for Afghanistan has crumbled like the proverbial house of cards”. As Afghan president Ashraf Ghani fled the country, Hasan hailed what he called “a virtually smooth shifting of power” from Ghani’s “corrupt” government to Taliban rule.

Correct. ssu is largely talking out of his ass. — StreetlightX

For you there all just a bunch of ragheads and everything happens because of the evil Americans. Everybody else are just pawns or victims of the US for you, as usual.

For you there all just a bunch of ragheads — ssu

Interesting projection there. You must be confusing me for @frank's overt racism.

But yeah, almost everything that is shit in the Middle East is a direct result of American interference.

CIA funded all groups to fight the Soviets. The money went basically through Pakistani ISI and they favored their guys. When Soviet Union withdrew and finally the Najibullah regime fell, the US lost interest at Afghanistan. The various warlords then started to fight each other, and finally Pakistan solved the dilemma by backing on group, "the students" lead by Mullah Omar. — ssu

Yep

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

But yeah, almost everything that is shit in the Middle East is a direct result of American interference. — StreetlightX

That simply is your bias. Not to think of others as important actors with their own agendas.

Better get used to it when the US backs away. Oh, I forget, then events don't matter to you.

I have a cynical view. As others have already noted, the Afghan war can be seen as a massive money-funnelling operation. The best way to erase the evidence of such a scheme, in my mind, was what happened. Hence the horrendous intelligence and the Biden lies.