You probably just drank too much coffee. — frank

I know it must be hard for some people, perhaps like yourself, to understand that there are people out there who are sincerely happy for the conclusion of a "forever war" that was unjustifiable in the first place.

The real interesting question is why such idiots as the neocons, like Wolfowitz, did get into power?

There's really something wrong with the "Blob", the Foreign Policy establishment of the US.

The real interesting question is why such idiots as the neocons, like Wolfowitz, did get into power? — ssu

The US has a vibrant conservative streak. Bush appealed to that, I guess.

There's really something wrong with the "Blob", the Foreign Policy establishment of the US. — ssu

Lack of experience probably.

obviously the Emirate will be short of cash — ssu

Well, seeing that America is holding Afghanistan's foreign reserves, cash will probably start being a problem pretty soon. And if I'm not mistaken, Afghan currency is printed in England :smile:

But I think the whole thing is a huge intelligence failure on the part of the West (i.e., US & UK).

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Taliban start taking hostages ....

Lack of experience probably. — frank

I think there is and ought to be experience. Yet it simply doesn't matter. Those deciding don't have the experience, even if the establishment has collective knowledge.

Yes, the US lacks the long term planning as China, but in the end the Foreign Policy is quite similar if the political rhetoric is put aside and real policy decisions and actions are viewed. Notice how Obama continued the war on terror of Dubya Bush. And how when it came to Afghanistan, Biden continued with the Trump surrender (called a peace deal) with the Taliban. Trump bitched about many things, but in the end actual policy implementation was quite the same, excluding the Doha peace deal.

When you listen to Foreign policy analysts or the people that ought to know, they do know. Yet the closer they come to the TV media discourse, the less do they talk the same lines. Domestic policy or the political debate in the US simply brushes away any smart thinking.

The message is dumbed down to few punchline that actually don't make sense (if you have an idea of the reality), but sounds good for the ignorant. Then this punchline becomes policy.

Please keep in mind that were in the final stages of the 20 year war. The fact that ISIS-K is now some blip on the radar is interesting.

The Isisk is likely the next gang up after the Taliban. One is the other. Like the Dirty Dozen, the Hells Angles, the Bloods or the Crypts. They are all bad assess and have their territory, turf wars, meth users ect that makes them money and fame but they are all gangs.
It's the same over there. Unfortunately we took out the last man made the trains run on time.

Please keep in mind that were in the final stages of the 20 year war. The fact that ISIS-K is now some blip on the radar is interesting. — Shawn

:up: It's an opportunity for the Taliban to show they are capable of adulting. Hopefully we weren't the only ones to learn a lesson. They suffered WAY more than we did over the last 20 years, and they know that if another 9/11 happens we won't worry about nation-building next time.

Yes, the US lacks the long term planning as China, but in the end the Foreign Policy is quite similar if the political rhetoric is put aside and real policy decisions and actions are viewed. — ssu

I have ideas about what the Iraq invasion was about, but I'm just a tiny ant on an anthill, so who knows? I think the ant colony perceived that somebody had stepped on the hill in 2001 and door flung open that most likely would have remained closed otherwise.

Was it too much? Was it not enough? Was it even close to addressing the problem that led to the disappearance of the world trade center and a hole in the pentagon?

It's interesting that you bring up China. If we examine the way they deal with Muslim extremism, it's absolutely abhorrent to the average American. But sallying forth with a bunch of bombers is just fine? Different values, for sure.

Please keep in mind that were in the final stages of the 20 year war. The fact that ISIS-K is now some blip on the radar is interesting. — Shawn

Yet the war was actually the Global War on Terror, which Afghanistan was only part of. Notice that you have fought that war also Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Niger. And so on...




So withdrawal from Afghanistan (and hence the Afghan mujaheddin can claim victorious about both Soviet Union and the USA) will surely boost the moral of quite a few islamist groups. Not just ISIS-K, I assume.

You're painting with a broad brush. There are no active warzone's in Africa or South Asia...

If the political base of the right was still interested in the war in Afghanistan, then I'm sure we would still be there.

In fact, what has the Taliban achieved? What do they represent, and whom do they represent are interesting questions in my opinion.

If anyone is interested in the war on terror. I have a thread on it below:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4724/the-war-on-terror

Ssu is the main contributor to it, thankfully

Wow I can't believe the Taliban are offering a $10K reward to any Afghanistan citizen willing to sue another person who, in any way, helped make an abortion possible. We really need to reinvade the country for women's rights.

oh wait..

Here's two people talking: Was US failure in Afghanistan inevitable?

...and a guest, Stephen Wertheim.

In the introduction there's discussion of the notion that Afghanistan isn't a country so much as a gap between countries; a space between empires, defined by its boundaries, by what is outside of it, rather than what is inside it.

There's lots more in the podcast worth discussing, but here's a start.

In the introduction there's discussion of the notion that Afghanistan isn't a country so much as a gap between countries — Banno

:meh: Seems kinda like an imperialist take to me, where 'country' = 'centralized system which can be taken over easily by an invading power'. Don't like it at all as you've described it. That Afghanistan isn't an colonial-invasion-friendly country doesn't make it 'not a country' and just 'an empty space between countries'.

There's an argument to be made that the very idea of a 'country' is the kind of thing imposed on nations and communities all the better for empires to bat around at will, but that doesn't sound like what's at stake here.

But I'll listen to it if I have time.

1dReplyShareFlag — ssu

Almost a perfect answer! :heart:

Seems kinda like an imperialist take to me — StreetlightX

...more that Afghanistan is essentially ungovernable because it is not a unit; not an individual. Hence, applying the philosophical issues of individuation to a... geographic area?

Hence, applying the philosophical issues of individuation to a... geographic area? — Banno

I spent most of my reading budget this year reading about state-formation and the contingency and fragility of the state-form so yes, very much so, and this is pretty uncontroversial except to those for whom history began in 1648. Most anti-colonial struggle is a struggle over geographic individuation among other things. Even your own comment - "Afghanistan is ungovernable" is of a piece with imperialist rhetoric. No, Afghanistan is perfectly governable, it's just not governable by a centralized state-system which would like to impose governance from above (at least, not governable very well by such a system).

Also, all individuation is political, which is the first thing anyone talking about individuation should know. Which rules out all of analytic philosophy quite nicely.

Russia says:

Taliban have captured more than 100 military helicopters

Considering the US had 20 years to get their logistics straight, these were not captured. They were gifted.

Jesus Christ the instinctive rhetoric people use to talk about Afghanistan is so fucking poisoned by colonialist bullshit.

And of course, if the choppers were so unimportant that they could just be dumped in the hands of terrorists, this tells you that their only function were as units for wealth transfer to arms manufacturers. What actually happens to them is completely irrelevant because the money has already changed hands, and that was the only purpose of the Afghan business venture.

What actually happens to them is completely irrelavant because the money has already changed hands, and that was the only purpose of the Afghan business venture. — StreetlightX

The US invaded Afghanistan on behalf of Russian helicopter manufacturers?

When you learn that capital is indifferent to fake lines on a map except to the extent that it can use them to its advantage, it doesn't really matter who does the manufacturing.

What actually happens to them is completely irrelevant because the money has already changed hands, and that was the only purpose of the Afghan business venture. — StreetlightX

Agreed. Now that Afghanistan failed as worldwide business nobody would care about women and kids living in Kabul. It is so disgusting how the "powerful" countries will leave a lot of citizens there dying or starving. What a failure.

No, Afghanistan is perfectly governable, it's just not governable by a centralized state-system which would like to impose governance from above — StreetlightX

That comes out in the Minefield podcast.

Which rules out all of analytic philosophy quite nicely. — StreetlightX

:razz:
Actually, that is the conclusion to which analytic philosophy leads.

When you learn that capital is indifferent to fake lines on a map except to the extent that it can use them to its advantage, it doesn't really matter who does the manufacturing. — StreetlightX

As long as I get my percentage, I don't care what's moving to whom. Sounds about right.

You're painting with a broad brush. There are no active warzone's in Africa or South Asia... — Shawn

Never heard of Boko Haram in Nigeria? Or the Benghazi attack in Libya and the present situation in the country? Or Al-Shabaab in Somalia? Or about Nusrat al-Islam, the Al Qaeda branch in Mali?

Africa does have warzones and Islamist terrorist groups. US Special Forces personnel have died there in combat in Niger. Mali, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya continue to have quite active insurgencies. (And do notice in the map it's "counterterrorism training" Indonesia.)

If we assume that the "Global War on Terror" has ended, let's look at reporting from this year 2021 just what it is like in other places than

Here's a good report from Iraq. Now Biden is happy with Iraq. Somehow the model was accepted in Iraq, but not in Afghanistan. That model is that a small contingent of US forces gives intel and training to local forces and also air support. As the armed forces are trained to fight as the US forces, they rely on US air support. Iraqi leadership want US combat troops to be withdrawn, but likely the US personnel interviewed (or their counterparts) won't be leaving the country anytime soon:



And then Somalia. Trump withdrew US forces from Somalia. Yet the airbase in Djibouti is quite active. The withdrawal is seen as a victory by Al-Shabaab.



Then there is Mali. A country that was nearly captured by Islmamists (after Libya collapsed to anarchy) and a rapid French military intervention put the islamists on the defense. In Here's a documentary, again from this year, of British troops being sent to the war torn country.



That's only three countries that aren't in the news. There are more: Syria, Libya, Nigeria etc. So in all, the Global War on Terror is quite active; alive and kicking. Even if people don't know it anymore.

A drone strike, intended to kill members of the Islamic State - Khorasan Province, also lead to the deaths of ten Afghan civilians. Among those ten were six children. The ten civilians were killed when the drone strike blew up a car right outside their house. The youngest victim was two years old. Her name was Sumaya.

Ramin Yousufi, a relative to those slain, let out his heart to a BBC reporter: "Why have they killed our family? Our children? They are so burned out we cannot identify their bodies, their faces." The most grotesque part is that the family was planning to evacuate to America through Kabul Airport. One of those murdered had worked as a translator for US forces in Afghanistan. Another had already secured visas for their departure. An American Dream dashed across the sands of Afghanistan

https://themountain.news/news/american-drone-strike-murders-ten-afghan-civilians-six-children

Americans braying about 'women and children' need to shut the fuck up forever.

The madness has left the building. The building is left, leaving it in a state of mad agony and people wanting some peace and comfort after years and years of US and Sovjet induced madness. Madness that laid the foundations of another madness from which 9-11 sprang. So the Afghans now just want peace. Who else to support than the Taliban? Its a bit stupid though that they freed IS members. They'll try a coup for sure. They'll ban the Tali.

So in all, the Global War on Terror is quite active; alive and kicking. Even if people don't know it anymore. — ssu

:100: Over the last 20 years we have spun up an operation that many people don't know about. T's are waking up in the middle of the night with their throats slit. Heads are mysteriously exploding into a pink mist. You can't go out and take shit without wondering if a three foot missile is going to turn that boulder into 10k pieces of granite shrapnel. Any time, any place. You spend so much time on counter-intel and hiding that you can't plan ops; especially ops across the ocean with the Great Satan. It's a good thing.

Biometrics tracking, humint, it's gotten so much better than the Cold War days. Can it come home and be used against us? Let's hope not. But the private sector can pay so much more than service pay. We rely on honor, honesty, courage and humility to protect us from ourselves. Call it the Deep State or whatever you want, but it's better than having a wild card running the show.