Afghanistan and the "international community"

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Recently the news have been full of the advancement of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Americans are still bombing them but they cannot thwart the inevitable unless troops on the grounds stay indefinitely. It is similar to Iraq in that many government forces have less fighting morale and abandon their weapons and posts.

In my view, the "international community" should accept facts and deal with the Taliban. I.e. do not intervene in internal affairs, but strike at them if they strike first (which in their mind would be justified retaliation... but this could be negotiated).

The media often shows working women who ask for the international community to step up. I find this very odd. It is like a married women asking strangers to beat up her husband. There might be justification in certain instances (e.g. violent; drunk) but this cannot go on for decades.

Your view?

 

[jimbo13]

Recently the news have been full of the advancement of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Americans are still bombing them but they cannot thwart the inevitable unless troops on the grounds stay indefinitely. It is similar to Iraq in that many government forces have less fighting morale and abandon their weapons and posts.

In my view, the "international community" should accept facts and deal with the Taliban. I.e. do not intervene in internal affairs, but strike at them if they strike first (which in their mind would be justified retaliation... but this could be negotiated).

The media often shows working women who ask for the international community to step up. I find this very odd. It is like a married women asking strangers to beat up her husband. There might be justification in certain instances (e.g. violent; drunk) but this cannot go on for decades.

Your view?

We tried that for over a decade, you can't obtain a "victory" with anything less than brutal subjugation and complete disregard for the civilians, there always going to be able to hide amongst innocent people and civilians.

Could the US take out the Taliban? Yes. Does either side want a substantial death toll off innocent people to do that, I think the conclusion is pretty well accepted as no.

 

[Taleweaver]

I'm not sure if I should give my opinion, but ey...why not? Those that already hate me aren't going to change their mind, and those that don't are at least able to respectfully disagree.

Since the OP, things got worse fast. The president's fled the country, the Afghanistan army refuses to fight and the Taliban effectively took over Afghanistan.

And I'm...mostly baffed. When did the US start the war there exactly? *quick google* October 7th, 2001. That's just shy of twenty years. TWENTY FREAKING YEARS!!! Sorry, but I think it's safe to say that the US has massively failed there. From what I remembered from Biden's speech yesterday, it was clear that they WEREN'T there to help build something, WEREN'T there to spread democracy or...basically anything but keeping aggression in check. Way to fucking go. The only reason I'm not throwing rotten eggs at Joe is because the alternative (just staying the course) is even less of a solution.


So...how to go about getting to a solution? I reluctantly agree with you for now, @UltraDolphinRevolution. Yes, they marched into the capital and took over the country. And so? Now they've got a responsibility to it. They're not "just" leading their pack or clan or whatever, but the entire country. They're responsible for massive amounts of people being scared, women afraid to lose rights or education values, trade agreements that can go south very fast and military represailles from foreign powers that can strike back at them if they're too strict in supressing the general population.

But I'll say this: they (as in: the general population of Afghanistan) hate the US. Yes, I'm generalizing and yes, it's probably racist. Just...hear me out for a second, okay? Bin Laden lead a terrorist group (Al qaeda) into NY's twin towers. There came retalliation. But those members became martyrs. Their families, friends and such might not have agreed with him, but it's safe to say the US didn't exactly convince those people of their good intentions. Not everyone of those friends/families became terrorist, but some did. Most probably got eradicated as well. Result: more friends and families having lost one of their own. Keep this up for twenty years and I think you'll agree that most of them are either terribly afraid of the US, see them as enemies or both(1).

Result: whenever we're talking "international community", I strongly advice the US to stay clear of it. No matter how generous or courting they'll be, the attempt will fail if they're involved. Distrust is the best they can get(2), but more likely it's open hostility. So...just stay clear. At least Joe's an intelligent guy who can understand the wisdom in this approach.


(1): it's kind of the same as what would happen if the EU started to hunt down and kill the terrorists of the January 6th capitol invasion. We could shout we're on the good side of democracy all day long, but at the end you just know in the end we'll have (much) more enemies than friends
(2): what? you think the Taliban won't look up "Cuban bay of pigs invasion"? Think again.

 

[subcon959]

@Taleweaver that perspective is only possible from the outside. America is essentially broken right now as most discourse doesn't elevate above red vs blue.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

WEREN'T there to spread democracy or...

Do you think it is justified to bomb and occupy a country to give it "democracy"?

 

[Dakitten]

Do you think it is justified to bomb and occupy a country to give it "democracy"?

No. Democracy needs to be a choice, otherwise it really can't be democratic so much as a foreign backed multiple choice coronation. If the US wants Democracy in the middle east, they need to display the benefits in a better way than allowing the country to be at the cusp of civil war between a minority of violent reality blind zealots and Democrats.

 

[AlexMCS]

Democracy is but an illusion.

US did right in leaving that country, considering their goals.
They should have annexed it (and whatever they invade/have invaded) if they wanted stability, but that's not what the US (the real powers driving the country, not the masses, nor the puppet government) wants.

Democracy is but an illusion.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

OP talks about international community should deal with Taliban, but why?

Finland did not trained a guerrilla that ended up being the embryo of the current days Taliban. USA did it.

Jamaica did not invaded Afghanistan as a public display of power in response of a terrorist act. USA did it.

Angola did not occupied Afghanistan during 20 years. USA did it.

So it is an USA mess, they should solve it. If it will take 200 years, 2000 years, it is not the world problem, USA should solve it.

The Americans are worried about elections, red vs blues, but is their national duty, it is not a Republican or Democratic thing, it is an international mess that nobody but the USA themselves are to blame.

 

[Dakitten]

OP talks about international community should deal with Taliban, but why?

Finland did not trained a guerrilla that ended up being the embryo of the current days Taliban. USA did it.

Jamaica did not invaded Afghanistan as a public display of power in response of a terrorist act. USA did it.

Angola did not occupied Afghanistan during 20 years. USA did it.

So it is an USA mess, they should solve it. If it will take 200 years, 2000 years, it is not the world problem, USA should solve it.

The Americans are worried about elections, red vs blues, but is their national duty, it is not a Republican or Democratic thing, it is an international mess that nobody but the USA themselves are to blame.

Fair to lay the blame, but it is broader than just occupation. The region has been divided into nonsensical confetti pieces for a century, and many regions have sponsors. It needs to be an international issue because it involves many nations surrounding Afghanistan, and more beyond those. The USA COULD turn it into a colony, but that could escalate into something even darker. Staying there without placing a permanent foothold was never viable, sadly.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

The USA COULD turn it into a colony, but that could escalate into something even darker. Staying there without placing a permanent foothold was never viable, sadly.

This is far from the only alternative. It didn't happened to Japan, for example. I know the comparation is stretched, but huge amounts of reconstruction money would be way more effective than 20 years of assisted poverty and bombs. I mean, that Marshall plan thing on post war Europe was a huge roadblock for communism, so why colonization is the only alternative if the USA never tried a proper reconstruction against the terror?

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

The US could have given every Afghan 50.000 USD instead. However, than the weapon industry would not have profited.

BTW it is ironic that many Americans think it is about spreading Democracy when they do not have it themselves. Almost all people wanted to get out of Afghanistan but almost all media and politicians disagree. This populist idea (think about it: why is populist a negative word?) was one of Trump´s secrets for success. Too bad he even increased military spending. And it is why people like Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul or Jimmy Dore are either demonized or not given air time.