Afghanistan - Yet Another US Mistake Is Now Happening!

[caeron]

Frankly, given how obviously fragile our democracy is, is it any wonder we couldn't build one in a country that has almost no tradition of it? Worse, given the state of the country and maslov's hierarchy of needs, how many Afghani's are well off enough to give a fuck what passes for government in their world? That's a luxury that rich folks like us get to think about.

I think We (the west) should have gone in, brushed the Taliban aside and crushed Al Quada. We should have then left with the promise that we would keep returning if they kept up their ways. Much like Iraq, conservatives imagine we're so amazing that as soon as we arrive everyone will immediately become republicans. Surprise, when you kill more people than Saddam did by a large measure, they won't thank you.

As a military intelligence officer I know said at the time, "We don't know if Saddam is the way he is because of Iraq, or if Iraq is the way it is because of Saddam". Turns out, it might have been the former.

And, given what China has been up to, it is a good idea for us to step out of the cross hairs of the islamic terrorists and let state terrorists like China and they beat up on each other. 

 

[daydreamer]

21 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Are you sure it includes the translators etc.? All the reports state it is to evacuate the Embassy staff and Afghan personnel who work in the Embassy. Nowhere do the reports state that the troops will evacuate the tens of thousands of Afghanis who have helped the troops in the field.

 

Yes, it includes the translators etc.  It is called Operation Allies Refuge.  News media in the US are reporting that the 3,000 troops will aid in evacuating US Embassy personnel and visa applicants. 

 

From the US Defense Department website: 

As part of "Operation Allies Refuge," by the end of the month the U.S. is expected to begin relocation flights for eligible Afghan nationals and their families who are currently within the Special Immigrant Visa program, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said during a briefing today at the Pentagon.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2694515/defense-department-will-provide-options-for-operation-allies-refuge/

 

From Wikipedia:  Operation Allies Refuge 

The operation was unveiled on July 14, 2021 by the Biden administration. At least 20,000 SIV holders and applicants are in the process of being relocated. On July 30, 2021, the first group of 200 Afghan interpreters arrived at Fort Lee, Virginia for SIV processing. On August 12, 2021, the Biden administration announced that 3,000 troops would be deployed to Kabul to assist with the evacuation of embassy personnel as well as civilian SIV applicants. Additionally, 1000 personnel are to be deployed to Quatar to assist with processing the SIV applicants.

 

[PeterRS]

10 hours ago, JKane said:

What we did in Iraq was heinous and criminal, and will forever taint us.  But Afghanistan did it to themselves and that needs to remembered.  

Agree with your first sentence. But I think you are way off the mark in the second. For western powers to invade a country, flush out terrorists and then get out, there is perhaps some international legitimacy. But the USA in both Iraq and Afghanistan has this great power notion - one that the old colonial powers seemed not to have: the objectives then were much more trade, territory and markets - that along with invasion they have an almost God-given right to change a country by introducing the values they cherish but which have rarely if ever worked in those countries. Democracy is not alien to Afghanistan but it has rarely worked in such an entrenched tribal society. Why insist on it in Afghanistan apart from the US greater-than-thou belief? We may be appalled at the treatment of women by the Taliban. But what right have we over many years to fling open the doors to a far brighter future for the women of that country, to introduce full time education and provide opportunities for jobs, to provide security for educational establishments etc. when we then suddenly disappear in the certain knowledge that this brighter future was not merely a mirage, it has created expectations that will be totally dashed. For many young women in the country that will be a blow of the most crushing kind.

I can't remember which US President said the US was not in the business of nation building. That's certainly not how it has seemed in Iraq and Afghanistan, sadly.

The West puts up with and does virtually nothing about the massacres in a large country like Myanmar, the crushing of the 12 million or so Uyghurs in much larger China and goodness knows how many lesser conflicts around the world. Yet mission creep and the lack of a detailed, thought-out plan for the adventure in Afghanistan will result in a true tragedy for so many.

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, daydreamer said:

Yes, it includes the translators etc.  It is called Operation Allies Refuge.  News media in the US are reporting that the 3,000 troops will aid in evacuating US Embassy personnel and visa applicants. 

I think your facts are slightly skewed. According to news reports, the first planeload of 200 Afghans helpers landed in the USA only on July 31. Estimates of those yet to be repatriated to the USA vary from 50,000 to 80,000. These 200 "are the first of a group of 2,500 SIV applicants and their families who have almost completed the process." Those are the words of the Secretary of State. "Almost completed?" Given that the bureaucracy has a backlog of around 200,000 applicants (not all from Afghanistan), anyone who expects more than a thousand or so to be evacuated by the time all the troops depart must surely be living in some sort of cloud cuckoo land. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/airlift-begins-afghans-who-worked-us-during-long-military-campaign-2021-07-30/

“'Those who helped us are not going to be left behind,' Biden told reporters at the White House last month . . . Advocates are baffled as to why the Biden administration was so slow to act on evacuations, leading to a last-minute scramble that has already resulted in dozens of Taliban revenge killings and record levels of civilian casualties in the first half of 2021.

"Chris Purdy, project manager of the Veterans for American Ideals program at the advocacy group Human Rights First, told me that the Biden administration seemed to assume that the Afghan government was going to be able to hold the Taliban at bay for a few years, or at least long enough for the US to process the 18,000 individuals in the SIV pipeline and tens of thousands of their family members."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/8/9/22612320/afghan-evacuation-biden-refugee-taliban-withdrawal

The UK appears to have acted with more haste. By May it accelerated its withdrawal programme. It had already pulled out 1,300 Afghan helpers and the Defence Secretary informed the media it planned to pull out the remaining 1,700 or so quickly.

[reader]

From The Globe and Mail

Canada to send special forces to Afghanistan to evacuate Kabul embassy amid Taliban advance, joining U.S., U.K. deployments

Canadian special forces will deploy to Afghanistan where Canadian embassy staff in Kabul will be evacuated before closing, a source familiar with the plan told The Associated Press.

The official, who was not authorized to talk publicly about the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity, did not say how many special forces would be sent.

The moves highlight the stunning speed of a Taliban takeover of much of the country, including their capture on Thursday of Kandahar, the second-largest city and the birthplace of the Taliban movement.

Britain also said Thursday that it will send around 600 troops to Afghanistan to help U.K. nationals leave the country amid growing concerns about the security situation. And Danish lawmakers have agreed to evacuate 45 Afghan citizens who worked for Denmark’s government in Afghanistan and to offer them residency in the European country for two years.

Some 40,000 Canadian troops were deployed in Afghanistan over 13 years as part of the NATO mission before pulling out in 2014.

The first planeload of Afghan refugees who supported the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan arrived in Canada earlier this month. The Canadian government last month announced a special program to urgently resettle Afghans deemed to have been “integral” to the Canadian Armed Forces’ mission, including interpreters, cooks, drivers, cleaners, construction workers, security guards and embassy staff, as well as members of their families.

Ciara Trudeau, a spokeswoman for Global Affairs Canada, said that Canada is monitoring the evolving situation in Afghanistan on a continuous basis but for security reasons can’t comment on specific operational matters of its missions abroad.

“Minister (Marc) Garneau is in close co-ordination with our allies and with our ambassador to Afghanistan,” she said in an e-mail late Thursday.

“Canada continues to work with our international partners on contingency planning, including for the ongoing work on the implementation of the Special Immigration Measures program.

“The security of the Canadian Embassy and the safety of our personnel in Kabul is our top priority.”

The U.S. State Department said in a release that U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke separately Thursday with Garneau, the German foreign minister and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg to discuss the United States’ plans to reduce its civilian footprint in Kabul in light of the evolving security situation.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-to-send-special-forces-to-afghanistan-to-assist-in-evacuation/

[reader]

13 hours ago, PeterRS said:

The West puts up with and does virtually nothing about the massacres in a large country like Myanmar, the crushing of the 12 million or so Uyghurs in much larger China and goodness knows how many lesser conflicts around the world.

Back in February, the US and the EU placed sanctions against Myanmar. For details, see:

https://www.sanctionsexpert.com/myanmar

Also in February, China blocked a UN Security Council statement condemning the military coup in Myanmar.

In this thread we've seen the US lambasted for what it did--or did  not--do in Afghanistan. I don't think you're going to see too many western nations lining up to send troops to intervene now in SE Asia.

So if the UN is handcuffed by China, and ASEAN has no history of intervening in other than diplomatic ways, what specific actions would you suggest be taken against Myanmar and China, and who would you suggest take those actions?

[forrestreid]

15 hours ago, PeterRS said:

The UK appears to have acted with more haste. By May it accelerated its withdrawal programme. It had already pulled out 1,300 Afghan helpers and the Defence Secretary informed the media it planned to pull out the remaining 1,700 or so quickly.

I don't think the UK necessarily gets the gold star here.

According to a report on the BBC "Newsnight" programme a few nights ago, there are a lot of Afghans who have a claims for asylum in the UK due to their work in helping the British forces who are being denied that.

It stated that Britain was only allowing direct employees to claim asylum on the basis of having helped British forces, but not allowing Afghans who worked for contractors who supplied services to UK forces to do so.

Also, it was claimed that the Home Office is insisting that any Afghans who have a blemish on their work record be left to the tender mercies of the Taliban.

Newsnight interviewed a worker who had worked for the British Army as a translator, but is being denied a place on the evacuation flights because he was sacked from his job for using marijuana (an allegation which he strenuously denied). Because of this, it is claimed, the Home Office is refusing to let the British Embassy offer him refuge.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by forrestreid
clarity

[forrestreid]

 

It looks like the US is finally getting the finger out.

According to a CNN report today:

"The Biden administration is working to finalize an agreement with Qatar to temporarily house thousands of Afghans who worked with the United States and their families and are fleeing their country as the security situation deteriorates, according to a source familiar with the ongoing discussions. The source said it could be as many as 8,000 Afghans but cautioned the deal is not final.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/13/politics/afghanistan-us-qatar-siv-translator-housing/index.html

 

Let us hope they finalise the deal very quickly the way the Afghanistan army seems to be collapsing. As the US has an airbase in Qatar, two and a half hours flying time from Kabul, they could presumably airlift out the 8,000 pretty quickly once they get going

 

 

 

[vinapu]

21 hours ago, PeterRS said:

We may be appalled at the treatment of women by the Taliban. But what right have we over many years to fling open the doors to a far brighter future for the women of that country, to introduce full time education and provide opportunities for jobs, to provide security for educational establishments etc. when we then suddenly disappear in the certain knowledge that this brighter future was not merely a mirage

Somehow I cant recall that USA was ever concerned about treatment of women in it's great ally , Saudi Arabia. Double standard smells from a mile

[fedssocr]

It's a situation where there are no good options. Biden put out a statement today laying out what the administration sees as the situation. He seems to mainly blame the previous administration's "peace" deal that set a May 1 withdrawal date for the remaining US forces - effectively saying his hands were tied. Since the Taliban would appear to not be upholding their end of that deal at this point I'd imagine that the US could also go back on our side of the deal. But I think the train has basically left the station now. 

As noted previously the US has had only a very small troop presence for several years in training roles along with some air support. I guess there are also lots of "contractors" there. I don't know exactly what their roles are since there are quite a few mercenary "security" contractors. The disorganization and corruption of the Afghan regime seems to be a big part of the problem. The Taliban was smart enough to lay low and wait for us to leave before they swooped in. I was reading a piece earlier talking about how the Taliban isn't a monolithic organization but is a sort of group of franchises that are coordinating with each other. 

Without the US and allied presence for the last 20 years no women or girls would have had a chance at education. Would it be better that no one had a better life for that period of time because their hopes are going to be dashed now by the Taliban? Is the US required to stay there forever?

Sure, I think we all wish the Bush administration had more realistic goals. And the mission creep started long ago. But just because those things happened are we all required to stay there indefinitely? When does it end? How much more mission creep is required? The fact that it's collapsing so quickly would seem to indicate that there wasn't all that much to prop up. People are happy to shit on Biden's decision to continue with the agreement reached by Trump. But no one seems to have an answer to what he should be doing instead and how and for how long and at what cost.

People complain when the US intervenes and polices the world. And then they complain when the US doesn't. Do I wish the UN would have sent troops in to Myanmar? Kind of. But I don't know what they would have been able to accomplish and how. Stopping arms sales and cutting off the junta's funding sources makes sense. Unfortunately the Russians are only too happy to sell them arms. It's not in anyone's interest for Myanmar to become a failed state. Certainly their neighbors will be most effected and would seem to have the greatest interest in doing something about it. But we all know ASEAN is full of dictators and wannabe dictators who aren't going to do anything that might shine a light back on them. The Chinese aren't going to send their army. 

And there are plenty of other internal conflicts all of the world. Should we get involved in all of them?

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, fedssocr said:

It's a situation where there are no good options . . .

Thank you for a very perceptive post. There are indeed no good options. But let me try and give my view on some of your points.

1. It was clearly a major mistake, one which should have been realised when so-called negotiations with the Taliban commenced three years ago, to expect such an entrenched group as the Taliban to be a trustworthy partner. Besides, under the Accord which resulted in early 2020, the only deal was that the US would withdraw from the country and the Taliban would prevent attacks on US forces. It would also proceed to peace talks with the Afghan government (which oddly was not part of those early negotiations - did the USA actually rule the country?) and not allow terrorist forces to be based in the country. Why a mistake? Just look at its history. The Taliban emerged following the vacuum resulting from the withdrawal of the Soviets. They were backed by Saudi Arabia with the specific understanding that the Taliban would introduce the stricter Saudi form of Sunni Islam and Sharia Law. It seems that their initial takeover of the country in the late 1990a was largely welcomed. They rooted out much of the corruption. they made it safe for citizens to travel within the country thereby making local commerce easier, and they curbed lawlessness.

The quid pro quo, as it were, were the much stricter religious laws. Men had to wear beards, women had to wear the full burka, girls only permitted to attend school till the age of 10, music, tv and movies banned. The worst was the introduction of horrible Sharia law punishments we all know about.

The madrassas in Pakistan, despite that country's denial, clearly was another player in the creation of the Taliban. Thus only three countries recognised the resultant Taliban government - the US ally Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE. Had Osama bin Laden and his lot not based themselves in Afghanistan, my view its that Taliban rule would have continued and the world as a whole would have paid it precious little attention. To expect that such a radical group would suddenly have changed its hard-line approach to rule and would be a worthy partner in peace negotiations was surely a monstrous leap of faith! As a perceptive report on the BBC a couple of days ago, the Taliban negotiators interviewed in Qatar presented a very different view of the group's intentions from those Taliban fighters interviewed in the country. It was chalk and cheese!

2. @fedssocrquestions "Would it be better that no one had a better life for that period of time because their hopes are going to be dashed now by the Taliban? Is the US required to stay there forever?" To the first part the answer has to be "Yes, it would have been better!" How do you explain to, say, a young 18-year old girl who is finishing school, looking forward to attending university and finding a good job, "Sorry dear, we opened the door for you but now it must be slammed shut. All you are good for now is to wear your burka, get married, stay at home to look after your husband, and bear his children. You are back to being a third class citizen, you cannot have a job and your punishments will be great if you dare to disobey." I'd rather be a gay man living in China than have all my hopes and dreams dashed in such a miserable manner.

As to the US - and other NATO members, we know that around 5,000 US and NATO troops (sorry I don't know the exact number) along with their aircraft and drones were able to keep the Taliban at bay for some years. The US is perfectly happy to keep 11,000 troops in the Middle East, 28,000 in South Korea, 55,000 in Japan and 64,000 in Europe. It even has 1,700 in Australia. What is the difference between a few thousand troops stationed in Afghanistan to prevent a rogue state becoming a home once again to terrorist groups and 28,000 in South Korea because it has an unstable country to the north and an unfriendly country to the West. Why so many now still in Europe? Afghanistan was no longer a war zone in recent years. The US and its allies were there to maintain an uncertain peace and support a government it had helped to install.

3.  "Sure, I think we all wish the Bush administration had more realistic goals. And the mission creep started long ago. But just because those things happened are we all required to stay there indefinitely? When does it end? How much more mission creep is required?" Are the Afghans to blame because the US invaded their country and then got bogged down in its own mission creep? With respect I find that a view I cannot support. Why do the Afghans have to suffer because the US got its nickers in a dreadful twist without realising in advance this could have been one of the possible results? Why do they have to suffer because the USA failed to learn the lessons of the Vietnam and IndoChinese Wars? And that's before looking at its adventure in Iraq! Why does the USA act first and then much later start to think about the consequences? (Yes, I know the UK had a disaster with a similar invasion of Suez in the 1950s. The UK policy makers had failed to accept that the UK was then a failed Empire and it could no longer do as it pleased. That massively embarrassing disaster resulted in the resignation of the Prime Minister and others). Besides, let's face it. The US mission creep in Afghanistan stopped some years ago and the number of US forces has been steadily reduced. 

4. "People complain when the US intervenes and polices the world. And then they complain when the US doesn't." I agree. But in 2001 the US was the world's only superpower. And the invasion of Afghanistan was a decision by the USA which then persuaded NATO allies to come to the party. Let's also face the fact that the invasions of Vietnam (some will argue it was not an invasion; but when the CIA manipulates the government of the country you are supposedly helping and arranges the assassination of its leaders at the same time as you send 2.7 million troops and the good Lord only knows how much war equipment over a period of nearly 2 decades, that to me is an invasion) and Iraq were instigated by the USA. Let's also realise that both could have been avoided if the CIA and policymakers in Washington had had a much greater understanding of the countries they were invading, paid more attention to those who did know the countries (like the UN inspectors in the case of Iraq) and at the same time given much more consideration to possible consequences. It was reported a few days ago that in April the CIA informed Biden that the time it would take the Taliban to reach Kabul was between 6 - 12 months! How could so-called experts once again be so totally and utterly wrong?

5. "And there are plenty of other internal conflicts all of the world. Should we get involved in all of them?" Only the powers-that-be in Washington can answer that. But it is notable that those countries with which the USA has become involved were basically very poor, basically underdeveloped and initially with very few friends. With China now very close to great power status after around four decades when the USA has been the world's only policeman, the USA now has to refocus its foreign policy to a bi-polar world. When the Soviets invaded Hungary following the Prague Spring in 1968, the USA could do nothing because it feared nuclear war. Now in Myanmar, it can do virtually nothing because China is a neighbouring country and is backing the military. Further, with relations between the USA and Russia at such a low ebb, like it or not Russia will enjoy doing what it can to embarrass the USA. Trump's impact on US foreign policy was a total disaster. I believe Biden is aware the USA needs to build its alliances as a matter of great urgency.

I do realise that the present situation in Myanmar can be traced back to British colonial rule. But the old colonial powers are now powerless. In any case, if the discussion is going to go that far back, the French created the problems in Indo-China and the British, French and Americans largely created all the multifarious problems in the Middle East. 

Last point!! One poster has mentioned sanctions. Today the USA today has more sanctions in place than ever in history - against more than 2 dozen countries, more than 7,000 companies, individuals and groups. Some - like those on Cuba - have been in place for many decades. Do they work? Mostly no. And one of many reasons why they don't is that the favoured form of sanctions - economic - usually punish the people of a country rather than the policymakers. Yet often the people have no say in the selection of those policymakers. One of the most sanctioned countries is Iran. I spent two weeks there 4 years ago. I thought it an amazing country, stunningly beautiful and with a rich and very long history. Everyone I met was warm and friendly, more than a few offering me coffee or tea, even though i was a westerner from a part of the world responsible for many of the hardships they endured. I also noted that every single Iranian I met not only disliked the regime, they loathed it. How do you sanction effectively without harming those who could be on your side?

[reader]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Last point!! One poster has mentioned sanctions. Today the USA today has more sanctions in place than ever in history - against more than 2 dozen countries, more than 7,000 companies, individuals and groups. Some - like those on Cuba - have been in place for many decades. Do they work? Mostly no. And one of many reasons why they don't is that the favoured form of sanctions - economic - usually punish the people of a country rather than the policymakers. Yet often the people have no say in the selection of those policymakers.

The sanctions imposed by the US were targeted at individual coup leaders, freezing any assets they held in the US.

But you avoided answering the questions of what actions you'd believe be taken against the Myanmar regime and who should take them.  Or against China for its treatment of the Uyghurs that you talked about in a previous post.

This thread has examined every possible fault that the US and its allies made relative to Afghanistan. There seems to be general agreement on what they were. I believe we all get it at this point. But if you can be so exhaustive in your analysis of that situation you surely must be able to come up with some ideas on how to handle the Myanmar and China dilemmas, no?

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 

Last point!! One poster has mentioned sanctions........

Some - like those on Cuba - have been in place for many decades. Do they work? Mostly no. 

One of the most sanctioned countries is Iran. I spent two weeks there 4 years ago. I thought it an amazing country, stunningly beautiful and with a rich and very long history. Everyone I met was warm and friendly, more than a few offering me coffee or tea, even though I was a westerner from a part of the world responsible for many of the hardships they endured.

Cuban sanctions are most idiotic of them all, only giving excuse to the regime to blame them for all ills. Let's be honest , when was last time Cuba posed threat to USA and their interests? It's just vote getter for  Florida constituencies

As for Iran , your impressions mirrors mine. Western propaganda , twin sister of Eastern one makes us afraid to venture there and when we finally brave it , we find country exactly as you described.

[reader]

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

As for Iran , your impressions mirrors mine. Western propaganda , twin sister of Eastern one makes us afraid to venture there and when we finally brave it , we find country exactly as you described.

Rick Steves, who produces the popular PBS travel series about Europe and its environs, visited Iran in 2014 and made an hour-long episode. His reaction was identical to that of PeterRS, describing the country as the most surprising and fascinating land he's ever visited. He also had the same reaction to the people he encountered.

 

[fedssocr]

I found this recent report from US public broadcasting to be quite interesting. I don't know if it's geo-blocked. But their Afghan reporter recently returned and interviewed the Taliban (and expected to be murdered) as well as some other people on the ground. There's some sense that Iran is actually meddling quite a bit in Afghanistan

 

[PeterRS]

15 hours ago, reader said:

if you can be so exhaustive in your analysis of that situation you surely must be able to come up with some ideas on how to handle the Myanmar and China dilemmas, no?

I do believe that is a subject for a separate thread. But I know much less about the Myanmar situation and do not believe my comments will be especially pertinent, apart from heaping a great deal of blame on Britain as its colonial power and what it left behind. But with respect, this Afghanistan thread is not about future years, it is about what has happened since the US invasion and its results. I can roam through various youtube sites to give ideas how Myanmar reached the present situation. But I am not ready to go further than that now. I am sure you could start a thread to stimulate discussion if you so wish.

I can certainly say a lot more about Iran, but again that would require a separate thread. I'll start one if any reader is interested. 

[Guest]

Post WW2, the US has destroyed everywhere it has meddled.  And, when the chance was there to rehabilitate Russia, post USSR….our government totally blew it.  Now look where we are vis a vis Russia.

As for Afghanistan - a tragic ending that could have been accurately predicted 20 years ago.  Same thing happened to Soviets.  And it will happen again for whomever is dumb enough to waste lives/money/time there.

Seems to me like we should focus on US homegrown domestic terrorists that tried the Jan 6 failed coup vs the Islamic militants we’ve been chasing for 20 yrs.  But, America always seems to demand a war to keep things going and the public afraid of something “other”.

Biden just ripped the bandaid off - it wasn’t gonna be good no matter what the plan.  We stayed 19 years too long.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, Slvkguy said:

Post WW2, the US has destroyed everywhere it has meddled.  And, when the chance was there to rehabilitate Russia, post USSR….our government totally blew it.  Now look where we are vis a vis Russia.

As for Afghanistan - a tragic ending that could have been accurately predicted 20 years ago.  Same thing happened to Soviets.  And it will happen again for whomever is dumb enough to waste lives/money/time there.

Seems to me like we should focus on US homegrown domestic terrorists that tried the Jan 6 failed coup vs the Islamic militants we’ve been chasing for 20 yrs.  But, America always seems to demand a war to keep things going and the public afraid of something “other”.

Biden just ripped the bandaid off - it wasn’t gonna be good no matter what the plan.  We stayed 19 years too long.

Just more thoughts.

1. Over millennia the great powers have discovered two things: that being the world's policeman is no easy job, and that very often their actions come back to haunt them at some time in the future. Also great powers never last - they never have. In that context I suggest those interested in the subject read a remarkable book by the British historian and specialist in economics and international relations, Paul Kennedy. When "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" first appeared in 1987 it was something of a revelation. It was one of the first books to examine and analyse in detail the relationship between military might, strategy and economics in determining the forces which result in the rise of Empires and their eventual - and inevitable - demise. Although the book only covers the period from 1500 onward, it is equally applicable to the Persian, Greek, Roman and other earlier Empires. Not long after its publication, the seemingly permanent Soviet Empire came crashing down. It had never mastered the balance between economics and military might. 

2. Everything in our world changes much faster than before. Voters in many countries elect their governments every 4 or 5 years and it is surely true to say that most voters pay vastly more attention to local issues than foreign policy; hence domestic politics inevitably take precedence. But no great power can afford its major foreign policy goals always to change over the short term. Foreign policy requires a considerably longer time frame if it is to avoid often major errors further down the line, errors like mission creep, changing conditions on the ground and exit strategies.

3. The death of the Soviet Union was thought by some to be the end of a war. "We won," said Bush Snr. - a particularly stupid comment when it means rubbing another nation's face in the mud. I'll bet that was mild compared to Putin's feelings at the time! It wasn't an end. It was the start of a new international order where large and small nations flexed their muscle. The Korean and Indo-Chinese wars may have been to a large extent proxies of the Cold War. But the same is true today of much of the Middle East where the Iran regime is intent in righting the wrongs inflicted on it earlier largely by the USA and flying the flag of Shi'a Islam in a part of the world where Sunnis are very much in the majority. Russia with Putin in charge is determined not to forgive the USA for its "we've won" declaration and the way it won. China is flexing its muscles in a very big way and is on the verge of being a great power. Today it is just that the proxies have changed.

4. I don't have a solution to short-termism. But it is vital to my thinking that in terms of foreign policy great powers think long-term and have a constant body of expert advisors working closely with administrations to which administrations and their policy makers actually pay heed. The concept of invading a nation to impart America's values (or those of any other invading country) of democracy, freedom and a certain religion should be a dead duck. Nation building should be a thing of the past. Invasion should only be a final option.  In the case of Vietnam and Iraq, the US Congress proved itself a fickle body by paying attention to a bunch of liars and interested parties paraded before it. It also took on board deliberate lies spun by its government officials. Look further back and you can say virtually the same about the parliaments of other nations.

5. The United Nations will never be an effective tool in controlling and solving world problems. Why have the 5 permanent members been there since the mid 1940s? China then was a third world country. The Soviet Union no longer exists. France and the UK may have had influence then. Today they are minnows. The make up of the Security Council was reshaped in 1965. Over the last 56 years, the world has seen massive changes. When it comes to the broader make up, why is Europe afforded 3 seats when the vastly larger Africa and Asia together only get 5? The former has a population of around 500 million. The latter over 5.7 billion! And its decisions are sometimes more than strange. Why was Pol Pot's genocidal regime permitted to retain Cambodia's seat in the UN thereby being the only legitimate representative of the Cambodian people after its defeat in 1979 until 1990? The UN's International Criminal Court in The Hague, on the other hand, has had a degree of success in bringing individuals from many countries to justice. But the USA is one of the main countries that refuses to join the Court or to have any of its citizens subject to the Court's Jurisdiction.  

In 2005, Hilary Clinton made the extraordinary statement, "Europe must acknowledge that the United States has global responsibilities that create unique circumstances. For example, we are more vulnerable to the misuse of an international criminal court because of the international role we play and the resentments that flow from that ubiquitous presence around the world." Unique circumstances? Such as, I wonder? Well, I know, but will not extend this further.

[reader]

As events play out in Kabul, we're witnessing a great humiliation for a new US administration that narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis just seven months prior. That threat rapidly paled in comparison to the strangle hold Covid held on the nation. Overhanging these events was the impending departure from a decades long war in Afghanistan. Now as that plays out on the international stage, America's vulnerable underbelly is exposed to criticism for the manner it's managing this disentanglement. And justifiably so.

I've shared my thoughts on the matter along with others who've posted in this thread. On the whole, comments cited the obvious missteps over the past 20 years. Yes, there were also advances in human rights westerners hold in high regard, but most of those will fade away as the Taliban promises to restore traditional customs.

But also discussed was the inevitably of the outcome. For over a thousand years the country had been ruled by a religion-based code of behavior enforced by warlords who function as autonomous governors. They and their survivors have kept long memories and never considered democratic rule even remotely acceptable.  The reckoning has arrived for them as they banish the Americans as they did the Russians and British before them.

As an American, I share that humiliation. It reinforces lessons that should have been learned in the past: good intentions are insufficient to bring about nation building. Few in the population aspired to it because they never truly experienced it. They just want to live their lives in some manner of peace.

As new rulers take over Afghanistan, attention will be drawn to other regions of the world. And it will fall, as it inevitably does, to the nations with the most assets to decipher what role--if any--they should play in current and future disputes. Already sides are being drawn in the South China Sea as an aggressive Beijing seeks to expand its domination of Southeast Asia with its 9-dash line claims.  The US, UK, Australia and India appear determined to keep the seaways open but the situation remains tense.

As the exodus from Afghanistan winds down, I expect that even America's friends will continue to be critical but I likewise hope they don't see it as an opportunity to kick their friend when she's down. You never know when you may very much need her once more in the future.

 

 

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, reader said:

Already sides are being drawn in the South China Sea as an aggressive Beijing seeks to expand its domination of Southeast Asia with its 9-dash line claims.  The US, UK, Australia and India appear determined to keep the seaways open but the situation remains tense.

I think you've hit the next nail firmly on the head. China's determination to dominate the South China Sea in the face of opposition from a number of countries allied to all the veiled threats that Xi Jinping has been throwing out about Taiwan may well be the next major international dispute. We will see in the fullness of time if the opposition to XI within China's ruling mandarins will see him ejected from power. That could help diffuse both situations. Another could be if Biden attempts a closer relationship with Beijing. How useful that would be to him politically in the USA, I do not know - probably not much unless it opens up a lot more trade for US companies.

[Guest]

Putin got away w annexing Crimea - of course China plans the same for Taiwan.  This is inevitable & not worth war w China.

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, Slvkguy said:

Putin got away w annexing Crimea - of course China plans the same for Taiwan.  This is inevitable & not worth war w China.

I am less certain than you. I think China will face almighty international opposition if it takes Taiwan by force. It's likely to be a bloodbath since very few Taiwanese want to be ruled by Beijing.

But then, the US and many countries signed up to the one-China policy 49 years ago. So it is yet another relic of the Cold War agreed at a time when I doubt if any countries considered that China would be anything other than a relatively poor nation half a century later. Although China was then keen on a bit of sabre-rattling and occasionally fired missiles at Taiwan's offshore islands, the thought that this could be serious was rarely considered. Now, of course, China is about to become a superpower and the rest of the world is screwed! And this is desperately sad for the people of Taiwan unless negotiators can come up with some formula that will satisfy Beijing and Taipei.

Relations between the two were far better as recently as 10 years ago. Taiwan investors were ploughing countless billions into businesses on the mainland and China had for the first time permitted unlimited non-stop flights between the two. Until around then, mainland Chinese could only visit Taiwan on flights which transited first in another country/territory and vice-versa. With Hong Kong being the most convenient and fastest route, Cathay Pacific made a mint of cash with dozens of daily flights. But under President Xi, all that has changed.

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

AKA:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[forrestreid]

On 8/15/2021 at 6:06 AM, PeterRS said:

As to the US - and other NATO members, we know that around 5,000 US and NATO troops (sorry I don't know the exact number) along with their aircraft and drones were able to keep the Taliban at bay for some years. The US is perfectly happy to keep 11,000 troops in the Middle East, 28,000 in South Korea, 55,000 in Japan and 64,000 in Europe. It even has 1,700 in Australia. What is the difference between a few thousand troops stationed in Afghanistan to prevent a rogue state becoming a home once again to terrorist groups and 28,000 in South Korea because it has an unstable country to the north and an unfriendly country to the West. Why so many now still in Europe? Afghanistan was no longer a war zone in recent years. The US and its allies were there to maintain an uncertain peace and support a government it had helped to install.

 

 

That difference between those examples and Afghanistan is, that, unlike in South Korea, Japan, or Germany, the few thousand troops left in Afghanistan were obviously vital for the government staying afloat.

If the USA pulled out all its troops from Germany tomorrow, obviously Germany would be more vulnerable to foreign enemies, particularly Russia, but I don’t think the government would automatically collapse and the country sink into anarchy.

When you have such a situation in place regarding US troops, as was obviously the case in Afghanistan, well, it basically means that the US was in a de-facto colonial position.

So it was all the more necessary that America would have a cold and clear look as to whether it was worthwhile maintaining its troops in Afghanistan. Although casualties were very low since the numbers were reduced, there were still a few, and the American air support was regularly bombing Taliban positions far the Afghan government.

This situation could not have remained Indefinitely.

You could argue that the cost to the US of maintaining the force it did it for the last few years  was quite small, compared to the benefit of not having the Taliban in power. However, having the situation carry on indefinitely was obviously not acceptable Biden, with the speech about how he was very aware of the fact that he was the fifth president to be sending American troops to Afghanistan, and he would not be leaving it for his successor deal with.

All that does not negate the fact that the way the US let things collapse is shameful. At the very least, America should give refuge to all the Afghanis that were put in danger by the roles they took up in Afghanistan over the last twenty years, from cooks in US military bases to women who became news presenters and are now cowering for fear of a kick at the door.

Obviously the US government were taken very much by surprise. I read that the CIA told Biden that the Taliban would take six to twelve months to overthrow the Afghani army, and he believed it. Another success for their analysis!

 

[JKane]