I have never been to Afghanistan but I’m pretty sure they don’t have Wally Worlds or Dollar Generals.
It is not our job to force our way of life onto others. This is clearly a rejection of our conceptions of “free and just societies.”
Our ideals are not always their ideals. I also don’t think their shooting a Malala in the face everyday.
Water seeks its own level.
Last night I watched video of Jan 6 insurrectionists violently attacking journalists, unprovoked, right in front of LAPD headquarters. With the police just standing by (and just as likely cheering them on). In some, the rioters are screaming to their mob to rip the masks off, while the people doing so to journalists and counter-protesters are wearing flag-emblazoned masks themselves.
Land war, huh?
Great, but none of those things make Betsy DeVos or the American right-wing equivalent to the Taliban. Which, unlike all of those things you’re arguing against, actually was said by one of us.
And no, I don’t think it’s fair to say that 75,000 people blitzing through a 350,000-man army that just refuses to fight is any kind of wide-spread rejection of ‘free and just societies’ in any form. It’s 75,000 people out of 38 million ruling by threat of violence.
We can dream can’t we?
China’s the one group that does consistently win land wars in Asia.
You missed the “if” at the start of the sentence and have left my question unanswered.
Yup. Never should have interfered with that dude in Germany, if he was just doing what his people wanted, that’s up to them to deal with.
No place for morality or justice on the world stage.
Cool, then we can send our folks back in to run the shadow war backing the Taliban that we just fought against the Chinese, set up the next cycle for 2040.
Thread
Calm down boy.
From the BBC, all commercial flights from Kabul suspended. By tomorrow morning Eastern time, things are going to look even worse. Taliban may have agreed to let everyone peacefully evac, doubt they have enough control over their elements to prevent this becoming a bloodbath. That certainly doesn’t read like they do.
The Chinese aren’t going to dispose of the Taliban. China will look the other way at human rights abuses by the Taliban, and try to succeed with money instead of guns. It still isn’t going to work. Any infusion of cash inevitably translates into armed conflict between factions in that country.
The drawback of this is that it would have exacerbated the impression that the whole game was over.
The assessment that that couldn’t have led to a worse situation was not an p.o.v. that enjoyed much credibility when the withdrawal started.
What, don’t like being confronted with what your positions lead to in other circumstances?
I haven’t paid enough attention to Sino-Indian relations, but I can’t imagine Modi is happy that China and Pakistan are cooperating extensively.
That could get tense.
I don’t think the Chinese would be foolish enough to take on the Taliban militarily. They don’t need to. China is working toward economic hegemony over its neighbors with “The Belt and Road Initiative”. Afghanistan fits in nicely with that.
My guess is China already has a plan to fill the void. They will invade with bulldozers, not tanks.
It’s been tense between the two most populous nations in the world for decades.
So did Alexander, the Persians, the British Raj, the Tsars, and the Soviets.
Those who … history … how’s that quote go?
1946-47. Lessons of empire: WWII made it impossible for either France or the UK, among the Allies, to hold on to their former colonies, and the Brits utterly failed to facilitate Indian independence in a way that could provide a framework for viable multi-ethnic government.
Someone on Twitter (sorry, can’t recall who) was describing doing some talking-heads late night punditry, and meeting DeSantis in the green room, where he was ranting to everyone and no one, spouting QAnon nonsense. So he may be a Tru Buhleever ™.
Yes. This is on Trump, and Dubya before him. (and no, I don’t exactly excuse Obama, who I think believed–probably correctly–that he didn’t have the political capital, in either term, to get us out).
Facile historical comparisons are a problem. The two cases do not compare.
I know people (analysts) who worked for CIA and NSA, who were let go shortly after 9/11, precisely because they spoke Arabic and insisted that Dubya/Cheney invasion was insanity. What “went very, very wrong with the system” was, in part, its utter politicization by 43 and 45.
Taliban leadership has been way too smart to fall into this error. It is a vast mistake (not saying you’re doing this) to underestimate their political as well as tactical deftness.
That’s what the Brits thought. Stoddard and Connolly ending with their heads on pikes. It doesn’t work there; tribal leadership is way too smart and understands their own tactics way too well.
Totally spot-on. Excellent analysis.
’
Say again: facile historical analogies are also wrong.
Can’t agree…. The Afgans were ignoring a few camps of homeless Saudi extremists. We should have bombed those camps for a year, period.