|
Cat Mattress posted:Pakistan doesn't need the USA anyway, since they have China. China is very glad for any US disinvestment from Asia in general and they have plans for Pakistan. See CPEC. You can denounce and sanction Pakistan all you want, they'll still have a great power propping them up regardless. Incidentally China also has large investments in Afghanistan, so Pakistan having a degree of influence over afghanistan by way of the Taliban might not be completely undesirable (for them), although obviously china would likely prefer a stable, centralized afghanistan if it wants to actually see its investments pay dividends. A less volatile afghanistan is kind of a prerequisite for the CPEC to become a success, so in that respect, some kind of trilaterial trade relationship between afghanistan, pakistan and china might have a bigger chance of influencing the political situation in a positive manner than an everlasting military occupation. That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we start seeing the chinese sponsoring afghan security forces by way of arms and materiel in the near future, if they aren't doing it low-key already. Bohemian Nights fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 28, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
It's still surprising to me how little emphasis the US seems to be placing on clearing the last ISIS pockets east of the Euphrates. I get why the YPG is more concerned about events elsewhere at the moment, but what happened to the FSA groups brought over from Tanf? Did they never really make a difference, or did the SDF just take enough casualties over the course of the campaign against ISIS that they needed a breather? From a cynical perspective, it kind of seems like once the US decided we're staying east of the Euphrates even after ISIS is gone, the drive to completely eradicate them just sort of stopped being a priority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's still surprising to me how little emphasis the US seems to be placing on clearing the last ISIS pockets east of the Euphrates. I get why the YPG is more concerned about events elsewhere at the moment, but what happened to the FSA groups brought over from Tanf? Did they never really make a difference, or did the SDF just take enough casualties over the course of the campaign against ISIS that they needed a breather? From a military perspective - you're absolutely right. They would be best off finishing off ISIS to prevent being trapped in a two front situation. But from a political perspective the Kurds have a lot to gain by letting a small ISIS presence continue to exist. It makes it much harder for the US to justify pulling its support any time soon when ISIS is still a (small) threat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Seems like everything is going great in 'government' controlled Yemen: https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/957611563028025345 https://twitter.com/Dr_E_Kendall/status/957558420831375366 https://twitter.com/RashaJarhum/status/957569567949246464
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:Incidentally China also has large investments in Afghanistan, so Pakistan having a degree of influence over afghanistan by way of the Taliban might not be completely undesirable (for them), although obviously china would likely prefer a stable, centralized afghanistan if it wants to actually see its investments pay dividends. A less volatile afghanistan is kind of a prerequisite for the CPEC to become a success, so in that respect, some kind of trilaterial trade relationship between afghanistan, pakistan and china might have a bigger chance of influencing the political situation in a positive manner than an everlasting military occupation. You're right, China should support a secular Afghanistan since CPEC is threatened by islamist extremists in Pakistan. For evidence: consider the fact that China's original plans for Gwadar have been scaled down in light of murders and abductions of Chinese engineers and laborers in Balochistan. At this point, India, Afghanistan, and Iran would all likely prefer having a stable Chinese client state as a neighbor to the unstable military state that Pakistan actually is. It doesn't help that instead of eradicating islamists, Pakistan's new strategy is to 'mainstream' them, not unlike how the IRA was mainstreamed in Ireland and the UK. The difference is that these are fundamentalists who not only desire more political autonomy, but want to enforce Shariat in Pakistan. Whereas in the past, Pakistan would've moved militarily against them (cf: the Seige of Lal Masjid), the military now placates them (a recent example: acquiescing to demands of islamists during recent riots in Faisalabad over a change to the Khatam-e-Nabuwat). Ignoring Pakistani duplicity, which has been the US' policy since the Nixon era, if not earlier, is a waste of time, money and manpower. The Obama admin was right when they called Pakistan the ally from hell, and Obama was right to say that Pakistan was what kept him up at night. It's a shame that instead of exercising smart diplomacy during his term, he left it to Trump. If Pakistan were to shut down NATO supply lines, as some people were worried about in this thread after the January 1st tweet, we'd at least have a casus belli. Unfortunately, Pakistan's military seems to not be diplomatically retarded. A lot of their rhetoric is for internal consumption only, since the US has conducted drone strikes on Pakistani soil twice after Pakistan's Air Force chief swore that any American drones would be shot down if caught bombing Pakistan. Throwing your hands up and saying "well, them's the breaks!" is what's going to lead to a nuclear WW3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's kind of an argument for going ahead and admitting we aren't really on good terms. If Pakistan is China's ally, and India is becoming ours, introducing a level of clarity to those relationships isn't all bad. India's obviously the bigger prize anyway, and if Afghanistan is unwinnable even with Pakistan's ostensible help for nearly two decades, pissing them off isn't going to prevent us from winning either. The history of US-India relationships always has been a bit "friend-zoned," specifically New Delhi has never wanted to go too far with getting into bed with the US for a number of (legitimate) reasons and traditionally sided a bit more toward the Soviets and post-Soviet Russia. I could see the Russians being a bit of a snag since they are still working with the Indians, which gives India more options. Also, it is unclear what a closer US-Indian alliance would get them besides arms-sales (they buy plenty from everyone already). As for sanctioning Pakistan...eh hell if I know what they would do beyond adding another check mark to a growing list (and China would absolutely veto a UN resolution and the EU isn't going to do poo poo). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Speaking of Kabul, 100 people died there in a VBIED attack with an ambulance yesterday. That's more than the number of Americans who have died in the country in the last 4 years combined. Perspective. Perspective: The United States has already spent over 850 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan. About $56 billion per year since 2002. Total projected cost of past operations including future spending on things like veterans healthcare will probably exceed $2 trillion. Annual funding shortfalls for global anti-malarial programs are estimated by the WTO at approximately $3.8 billion. One shouldn't have to think hard on whether another $56+ billion given to Uzbek child rapists is money well spent. The ROI on a mosquito net looks a lot better than that of a MOAB. svenkatesh posted:With the rise of IS Khorasan, wouldn't you agree that it's more dangerous than ever to step back from Afghanistan? It's not even about humanitarianism - it's inevitable that IS-trained militants in Afghanistan would spread havoc to our allies (e.g. in Pakistan and India, and in Europe due to refugee resettlement) and to our own backyard. The risks are real. However I think people often forget that aggressive anti-terror campaigns have often have unpredictable liabilities. My favorite example is the US "shadow war" in Somalia circa 2003 which transformed what was maybe at most a few dozen al Qaeda sympathizers into Al Shabaab, one of the most active international terrorist organizations today. Their attacks against Uganda, Burundi, and Kenya came after those nations participated in the occupation of Somalia, and are explicitly conducted to pressure them to remove themselves from Somalia. Similarly IS coordinated attacks are explicitly in revenge for the coalition campaign against them. These groups are not irrational, their terror attacks are usually launched to achieve specific strategic or tactical aims. Stepping in has proved in some cases as dangerous as stepping back. In any case, I think its obvious that the opportunity cost of the war, that is what we could have done otherwise if we weren't stuck in that country, exceeds whatever modest benefits one can argue are accrued. We also see serious costs to national security in Pakistan of the war in Afghanistan, with spillover from the war against the Taliban costing many thousands of lives in that country. So it's hard to argue not fighting the war is more dangerous to them than fighting it. I'm also skeptical anyone is going to take the US ending a 16+ year war as a signal America lacks commitment to her allies. Also debatable how democratic Afghan government is given that President Ghani was almost certainly installed through massive fraud. Tias posted:So, how come we haven't had a backlash at home? Denmark still participates, and while we always have the lowest war weariness regardless of the war somehow, I think it helps that casualties remain relatively low. How does this translate to America? You got a lot of kids come home in coffins by now, after all. I think its clear US strategy has been designed to keep war weariness minimal. That's why the emphasis has been on keeping US soldier exposure to combat minimal. This has also been the case in Somalia, where the US and allies have outsourced to conflict to mercenaries from places like Uganda and Burundi. When Americans think about the conflict at all it tends to be negative, but they just don't think about it much if they can help it. A recent Politico article about new army units specialized for modern advise and assist missions shows even the men involved usually have rather low expectations of what they will accomplish. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/26/afghanistan-specialized-units-army-312032 The Army's latest weapon to turn around the war in Afghanistan posted:Indeed, the troops assigned to the 1st SFAB are mostly eager, battle-hardened volunteers — to a surprising degree, given what many veterans of the 17-year-old conflict see as the thankless nature of the task ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:A recent Politico article about new army units specialized for modern advise and assist missions shows even the men involved usually have rather low expectations of what they will accomplish. To add some context to this, less my personal opinion of the units, these units are advertised as two things. One is a group of mostly experienced personnel to serve in advise and assist roles. This mission has, in the past, been conducted by active brigades where they wanted to send advisors, but leadership didn't want to or didn't have authorization to send a full-up brigade combat team (BCT) into country. Guess what happens to a BCT's readiness/effectiveness when you send all the more senior officer/NCO leadership over to Iraq/Afghanistan to advise and assist, but leave all the lower ranking soldiers back in garrison with a skeleton crew of senior leaders? So this is partially a move to try to provide stability in the middle east at a lower cost, but it's potentially in larger part an attempt to stop screwing up BCT readiness without just walking away from stability and counter-terrorism wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:To add some context to this, less my personal opinion of the units, these units are advertised as two things. One is a group of mostly experienced personnel to serve in advise and assist roles. This mission has, in the past, been conducted by active brigades where they wanted to send advisors, but leadership didn't want to or didn't have authorization to send a full-up brigade combat team (BCT) into country. Guess what happens to a BCT's readiness/effectiveness when you send all the I would assume the BCT that was stripped of its officers/NCOs probably wouldn't be ready for development, which essentially means we are cannibalizing parts of military even if the BCT is still there on paper. Besides cost, it is also a way to limit political liability of deployments since you're own sending 1,000 men in at a time. I wonder how training is going to go when the ANA seems to be in a state of slow collapse, and even the most secure parts of Kabul are open to attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Perspective: The United States has already spent over 850 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan. About $56 billion per year since 2002. Total projected cost of past operations including future spending on things like veterans healthcare will probably exceed $2 trillion. The president is Donald Trump fyi. If the plan was to abandon Afghanistan, it wouldn't be because there are more effective humanitarian efforts they could pursue. Much of the money in the Afghanistan war was used on civil affairs projects that built infrastructure, schools, and provided better means of security. A lot of this stuff got really expensive with all the bribes that were thrown around, but at the end of the day, a lot of projects were built. In the absence of that, there will be consequences, and I don't think you fully appreciate what those consequences were when ISIS evolved into their boss form in 2014 after the US left. We could very well end up right back there trying to save major cities in Afghanistan from falling like we had to do with Erbil. I get the frustration people have with the never-ending nature of the war, but the fact is that in its current form, it's sustainable, it's not politically urgent, and the best course action is to not rock the boat and see what the future brings. And that's exactly what's going to happen. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would assume the BCT that was stripped of its officers/NCOs probably wouldn't be ready for development, which essentially means we are cannibalizing parts of military even if the BCT is still there on paper. SFABs are in addition to existing BCT force structure, not in lieu of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The president is Donald Trump fyi. If the plan was to abandon Afghanistan, it wouldn't be because there are more effective humanitarian efforts they could pursue. Much of the money in the Afghanistan war was used on civil affairs projects that built infrastructure, schools, and provided better means of security. A lot of this stuff got really expensive with all the bribes that were thrown around, but at the end of the day, a lot of projects were built. In the absence of that, there will be consequences, and I don't think you fully appreciate what those consequences were when ISIS evolved into their boss form in 2014 after the US left. We could very well end up right back there trying to save major cities in Afghanistan from falling like we had to do with Erbil. I get the frustration people have with the never-ending nature of the war, but the fact is that in its current form, it's sustainable, it's not politically urgent, and the best course action is to not rock the boat and see what the future brings. And that's exactly what's going to happen. loving bullshit. For the last year I've been doing my best to throw the goddamn boat over. A "sustainable" war is the worst possible outcome, radically worse than a Taliban government. War is awful. It's probably the worst possible thing that can happen to a society. And when the United States commits to sustaining a war with no hope of ever ending it or even a clear idea of what would constitute an end, that is by far the most monstrous policy that could have possibly been chosen. And you are forgetting the other side of the humanitarian aid coin. As Shagelectic brought up a few pages ago, US aid isn't just lost to corruption, it actually produces it. The occupation has retarded the development of functional Afghan institutions, and corrodes institutions. The Iraqi ghost soldiers and inept officers and politicians were themselves a product of the occupation. The contradictions and inefficiencies eating the Afghan government from the inside are enabled by the occupation, and only when it ends will Afghanistan be forced to confront those problems, just as the advance of IS forced the Iraqi government to confront many of its own problems. The form of Afghan solutions to Afghan problems probably won't appeal to western sensibilities. Just like the murderous Shia militias the Iraqi government has leaned haven't been the kind of solution to Iraqi insecurity the US would have like to have seen. Sometimes that's just how it goes though
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:SFABs are in addition to existing BCT force structure, not in lieu of. Yes, but the men for SFABs, as you said, have to come from somewhere which is the BCTs. Is a BCT with part of its command staff/NCOs as part of a SFAB going to be ready for deployment or if they already in country, are they going to be able to work competently?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
actually sustainable forever war is a positive outcome if your goal is to keep feeding the military industrial complex, provide massive opportunities for mercenaries, private militaries and torture black sites, it's also amazing for keeping up the foreverwar framework so that americans can continue to be maligned and deranged socially and politically as a militarized police, massive surveillance, black sites and torture become the new norms of american life and keeping the idiot chuds frothing at the mouth at browns and mohammedans while their basic neccessities of life and dignity (healthcare, housing, work, etc.) are stripped of them in favour of this eternal conflict where the win conditions arent defined and the enemy keeps reforming and re-shaping precisely due to the policies enacted ten years ago then they're shocked when those policies keep making things worse. I want you guys to take a long think of each specific event since 2002 - 2018 and think of how many things kept feeding into each other as events got worse and worse with each decision feeding into and creating new problems for this forever war. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:loving bullshit. For the last year I've been doing my best to throw the goddamn boat over. A "sustainable" war is the worst possible outcome, radically worse than a Taliban government. I agree in general, but medical care has improved so dramatically since the war in Afghanistan started that it's probably saved a lot more lives than have been lost in the fighting. It's not a cost effective means of producing that outcome, because we saved way way way more with actual humanitarian efforts around the world for far cheaper, and you can make a case that it's bad policy for the US, but the case that the war in Afghanistan is actually bad for the people living there isn't really clear to me. Maybe if we stepped away the government would shape up and do things right, or maybe they'd just crumble and the Taliban would take over again. Yeah, the Iraqi government now seems able to stand up to threats like ISIS, but that was with the assistance of both the US and Iran. If you take the US out of Afghanistan though, the dominant neighbor becomes Pakistan, and they obviously aren't interested in propping up the government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yes, but the men for SFABs, as you said, have to come from somewhere which is the BCTs. At the risk of derailing away from ME politics, here's basically how it works: There are approved UICs (units) with MTOEs (people and stuff) slots for the SFABs (advise/assist units). Sure, you don't recruit someone tomorrow to be an E-7 or O-4, but slots are filled so far in the SFABs through a combination of volunteers, incentives, and pre-requisites. However, since the force structure is approved formally and not just an ad hoc decision or a DMO (temporary overstaffing), this doesn't mean BCTs are just getting cannibalized. SFABs have been years in the making, so the promotion/retention/manning issue has been thought of since years ago. So BCTs don't have "part of its command staff/NCOs as part of an SFAB." BCTs have their existing command/staff structure, and SFABs are an entirely different unit with a unique MTOE, not a tasking to BCTs. It's not like last year they just cut 20% out of 5 BCT staffs or 10% out of 10 BCT staffs to form 1 SFAB. So far, if anything, the shortages have been hitting the SFABs, because not enough people want to volunteer to go to an SFAB and would rather stay in their BCT or low density job posting. Also, it's not just men for SFABs, unless you meant mankind rather than men or women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Squalid posted:loving bullshit. For the last year I've been doing my best to throw the goddamn boat over. A "sustainable" war is the worst possible outcome, radically worse than a Taliban government. This period could easily look like a sustained ceasefire compared to what the future could be. You don't just get to snap your fingers and put the Taliban in power. A lot of Malala's have to take a bullet in the head for that to be possible. And afterwards, all you've achieved is setting the stage for more darkness in the future for Afghanistan. Negotiations with them aren't likely to yield any more fruit than negotiations with ISIS would. So what, you just pull all support and let the country succumb to terrorists in the name of preventing war? That didn't yield much fruit for Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and a lot of people died for it. quote:And you are forgetting the other side of the humanitarian aid coin. As Shagelectic brought up a few pages ago, US aid isn't just lost to corruption, it actually produces it. The occupation has retarded the development of functional Afghan institutions, and corrodes institutions. The Iraqi ghost soldiers and inept officers and politicians were themselves a product of the occupation. The contradictions and inefficiencies eating the Afghan government from the inside are enabled by the occupation, and only when it ends will Afghanistan be forced to confront those problems, just as the advance of IS forced the Iraqi government to confront many of its own problems. You advocated reaching a settlement with the Taliban and then trying to "bribe them into senescence" a page ago, so this rings a bit hollow. It's pretty clear you just want US forces to leave Afghanistan on principle, no matter the cost. I for one am not eager to see the healthy democratic growth Afghanistan would make "confronting its own problems" when we go all America First and force them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and handle their security situation themselves. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:This period could easily look like a sustained ceasefire compared to what the future could be. You don't just get to snap your fingers and put the Taliban in power. A lot of Malala's have to take a bullet in the head for that to be possible. And afterwards, all you've achieved is setting the stage for more darkness in the future for Afghanistan. Negotiations with them aren't likely to yield any more fruit than negotiations with ISIS would. So what, you just pull all support and let the country succumb to terrorists in the name of preventing war? That didn't yield much fruit for Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and a lot of people died for it. Well alternatively we could actually try to win the war, rather than just trying to lose slowly enough that our leaders can dump responsibility on their successors. Of course that would be contingent on spending several more trillion. quote:You advocated reaching a settlement with the Taliban and then trying to "bribe them into senescence" a page ago, so this rings a bit hollow. It's pretty clear you just want US forces to leave Afghanistan on principle, no matter the cost. I for one am not eager to see the healthy democratic growth Afghanistan would make "confronting its own problems" when we go all America First and force them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and handle their security situation themselves. If the Taliban were willing to cut a deal in exchange for bribes I'd be perfectly happy corrupting them. I don't necessarily believe the Afghan government should have no support from western states, but the purpose and value of that aid needs to be seriously reconsidered. I don't think the present manifestation of the war is in the interest of Americans, nor do i think it is in the service of international humanitarianism. That Trump cares nothing for the world's poor and wouldn't spend a dime on them just reaffirms that fact, this war is not fought for the Afghans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Finally put my finger on why the news articles about this Strava thing have seemed a little bit odd: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/28/16942626/strava-fitness-tracker-heat-map-military-base-internet-of-things-geolocation quote:Strava’s map doesn’t necessarily reveal the presence of military installations to the world: Google Maps and public satellite imagery have already done that. But where Google Maps shows the location of buildings and roads, Stava’s map does provide some additional information: it reveals how people are moving along those areas, and how frequently, a potential security threat to personnel. We are now at the point where "US soldiers in Syria" is old news; the reason this matters is because some rear end in a top hat could use these maps to track those US soldiers in Syria, which puts them in danger. Goddamn that normalization happened fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Don't worry, its just another land war in Asia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
It's "verified" a handful of alleged locations that are more controversial, although it should be noted people aren't doing their due diligence in connecting routes with bases. It's the wild west right now. People are still trying to understand how to fully exploit the thing. A week from now, if the database stays up, who knows what will have been dug up. I played with it for five minutes and found the full name of a British officer who ran a really slow time on a common route outside of the apparent CIA annex in Mogadishu. Home addresses and such can be singled out easily from there. There was also a UN staffer and about 15 other names in just the one spot. The Russian embassy in Damascus and the base in Latakia are lit up like the 4th of July as well, so this is something that's going to end up affecting a lot of different countries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
It sure would be nice if this led to a rethink of mass data collection by corporations in general, and how they make individual privacy essentialy meaningless, but no way that's coming to an end any time soon. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It sure would be nice if this led to a rethink of mass data collection by corporations in general, and how they make individual privacy essentialy meaningless, but no way that's coming to an end any time soon. Oh well. Rethink what? The entire purpose of the app, is that you're recording your runs and sharing them witha bunch of friends and strangers, deliberately, in their various groups and competitions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It sure would be nice if this led to a rethink of mass data collection by corporations in general, and how they make individual privacy essentialy meaningless, but no way that's coming to an end any time soon. Oh well. Call me when deleting, rather than publishing, openly shared info makes money for corps, we'll get super rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You advocated reaching a settlement with the Taliban and then trying to "bribe them into senescence" a page ago, so this rings a bit hollow. It's pretty clear you just want US forces to leave Afghanistan on principle, no matter the cost. I for one am not eager to see the healthy democratic growth Afghanistan would make "confronting its own problems" when we go all America First and force them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and handle their security situation themselves. Perhaps it's the US security assistance that makes these democratic governments seem to always come up short, because they don't have to do anything hard, since the US military keeps them propped up. Imperial projects aren't meant to work the way you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Afghanistan: explosions heard near Kabul military academy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/29/explosions-kabul-military-academy-afghanistan quote:Explosions have been heard near the military academy in the Afghan capital of Kabul, according to reports. Cable Guy fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...lient=firefox-b Kam Air. The airline responsible for 90% of the flights in Afghanistan and one of top 5 tax payers is in a bad way after the attack on the Intercontinental Hotel. As previously reported 9 of it's staff were killed in the attack. Now 50 of it's foreign workers fled the country out of fear for their safety. 5 of the company's 9 planes are currently grounded. Flights have dropped from 37 a day to 17.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Perhaps it's the US security assistance that makes these democratic governments seem to always come up short, because they don't have to do anything hard, since the US military keeps them propped up. Well, sometimes it works. South Korea and Taiwan managed to develop quite nicely with US security assurances and funding despite being authoritarian and corrupt. Of course, there are way more counterexamples than there are examples on this topic and these two in particular stand out by their security threats being external rather than internal.  Volkerball posted:You advocated reaching a settlement with the Taliban and then trying to "bribe them into senescence" a page ago, so this rings a bit hollow. It's pretty clear you just want US forces to leave Afghanistan on principle, no matter the cost. I for one am not eager to see the healthy democratic growth Afghanistan would make "confronting its own problems" when we go all America First and force them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and handle their security situation themselves. The problem is that as long as the forever-war is ongoing Afghanistan can never recover. The instability makes it impossible for any real economic development to happen and the Taliban, ISIS and the other warlords in the area need to keep the heroin trade going to finance their war against the occupation. Right now the US is propping up a state which has no legitimacy, has structured its institutions around siphoning off international aid and that is completely unable to actually control the territories it lays claims to. The only ways this conflict ends is by Kabul falling or by Kabul rescinding its claim to the current borders of Afghanistan and rolling back to a consolidated portion of territory which they are actually capable of securing. Yes, lots of people will die if we retreat but that's ignoring that lots of people are already dying and will continue dying regardless if the occupation goes on. In-between the CIA kickstarting the heroin for weapons racket back in the cold war and Bush ousting the Taliban we're already way past any amicable solutions to Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Well, sometimes it works. South Korea and Taiwan managed to develop quite nicely with US security assurances and funding despite being authoritarian and corrupt. Of course, there are way more counterexamples than there are examples on this topic and these two in particular stand out by their security threats being external rather than internal. Or I can go back to the example I know of, for which same could be said. The US bombing campaign in the Balkans at the end of the 90s - it worked because it was three geographically defined areas (Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia). Of these Bosnia came out the worst, but even there the violence wound down the moment Serbia's support and fuel for it got cut off by airstrikes and international sanctions. Can you realistically stop the heroin trade, that the CIA itself kickstarted, or any other such economic vehicle from fuelling this conflict further? If the answer is no, then this war will go on for as long as the Taliban (and possibly ISIS, since they seem to want in on this poo poo now too) finds fresh bodies to throw at the government and there are always plenty of those to find. The same cannot be said about US soldiers coming over, or the government forces they propped up. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
Thankfully, unlike many posters in this thread, our heads of government aren't Taliban sympathizers. https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2018/01/277729.htm quote:All countries who support peace in Afghanistan have an obligation to take decisive action to stop the Taliban's campaign of violence. There can be no tolerance for those who support or offer sanctuary to terrorist groups. The United States stands with the people of Afghanistan, and we remain firmly committed to supporting the Afghan people’s efforts to achieve peace, security, and prosperity for their country. https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-national-day-of-mourning/4228311.html quote:This murderous attack renews our resolve and that of our Afghan partners. The Taliban’s cruelty will not prevail. The United States is committed to a secure Afghanistan that is free from terrorists who would target Americans, our allies, and anyone who does not share their wicked ideology
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Unless backed up by an actual plan it's all smoke and mirrors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
hey crazy idea but what if the united states wasn't a global capitalist empire constantly waging forever-war in the interests of the rich
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Kanine posted:hey crazy idea but what if the united states wasn't a global capitalist empire constantly waging forever-war in the interests of the rich wow anti-american much
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Kanine posted:hey crazy idea but what if the united states wasn't a global capitalist empire constantly waging forever-war in the interests of the rich Get a load of this commie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
svenkatesh posted:Thankfully, unlike many posters in this thread, our heads of government aren't Taliban sympathizers. Pessimism is not the same as sympathy for the Taliban.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
Kanine posted:hey crazy idea but what if the united states wasn't a global capitalist empire constantly waging forever-war in the interests of the rich For sure, a communist country would never invade Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pessimism is not the same as sympathy for the Taliban. Point taken, but there are posters in this thread who claim that the democratic government in Kabul is illegitimate and that the US should instead give direct cash payments to the Taliban. What is that, if not sympathy and support? svenkatesh fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:For sure, a communist country would never invade Afghanistan. They didn't, technically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
communism will never invade afghanistan, as long tehre is a president in america!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2018 15:31
|
|
