The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[chrisp65]

Just now, LondonLax said:

So I guess it works though?

I think it’s what our own PM would call a ‘comparative success’.

[StanBalaban]

Yeah, but he did plan to bring Gareth Bale back to the Premier League, so he's not all bad.

[villakram]

6 hours ago, StanBalaban said:

Yeah, but he did plan to bring Gareth Bale back to the Premier League, so he's not all bad.

Ex-Saudi spy chief.

Yes, let's believe and have sympathy for this guy.

[sne]

Quote

Tunisia police storm Al Jazeera office in Tunis

Security forces involved in the raid said they were carrying out instructions and asked all journalists to leave. At least 20 heavily armed plainclothes police officers entered the office on Monday, Al Jazeera journalists in Tunis reported, saying the officers did not have warrants for the raid.

Parliament suspended

President Saied suspended parliament and dismissed Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi on Sunday in a move condemned as an attack on democracy by his rivals but which others greeted with celebrations on the streets.

The presidency said the parliament would be suspended for 30 days, though Saied told reporters the 30-day period can be extended if needed “until the situation settles down.”

Saied said he would assume executive authority with the assistance of a new prime minister after violent protests broke out in several Tunisian cities over the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy.

It is the biggest challenge yet to a 2014 constitution that split powers between the president, prime minister and parliament.

“Many people were deceived by hypocrisy, treachery and robbery of the rights of the people,” he said in a statement carried on state media.

“I warn any who think of resorting to weapons … and whoever shoots a bullet, the armed forces will respond with bullets,” he added.

He also suspended the immunity of members of parliament, insisting his actions were in line with the constitution.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/26/tunisia-police-storm-al-jazeera-office-in-tunis

[Tayls]

@Awol - what’s the latest news, dude? Obviously US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is looking like it was a bad idea -although I think everyone knew that anyway. 

[Awol]

6 hours ago, Tayls said:

@Awol - what’s the latest news, dude? Obviously US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is looking like it was a bad idea -although I think everyone knew that anyway. 

Afghan - I’ve no more visibility than you (been stuck in UK since lockdown) but per reports, it’s looking very bad for the civilian population. Biden will carry the can, but I’m not sure he had a choice. 

Afghan government could only survive with direct foreign military support, but refused to reform (end corruption) while it had no existential threat forcing it to do so. 

Allies (like us) can bitch and moan about it being a strategic mistake, but we can’t stay without the US and aren’t offering a viable alternative. Biden is ripping off the plaster, but the fallout will be horrific. 

With limited resources the US and NATO have to refocus on state based threats from China and Russia, so Afghan goes under the bus. Iraq next. 

[sne]

The Talibans getting the OK from China as long as they don't support the ETIM or the  Uyghur Muslims in the Chinese Xinjiang region probably won't help things.

[OutByEaster?]

Did the TAPI get completed?

[chrisp65]

I particularly enjoyed the ex British military guy on Newsnight the other night. He was deeply insightful, he felt perhaps there were lessons to learn from the last 20 years.

That he referenced the last 20 years as being the problem, kinda said a lot more than he thought it did.

[HanoiVillan]

I feel desperately sorry for the civilian population in cities. I get a sense of rising panic just imagining what they are going through, with a bunch of medievalist barbarians inevitably capturing the whole country bit by bit.

That being said, though, international relations is not about what makes me comfortable or otherwise. It isn't and can't be the British army's role to enforce education policy in Afghanistan. If there is no achievable military objective - and there hasn't been for years as far as I can see - then we have no right to be there and occupy their country indefinitely.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I feel desperately sorry for the civilian population in cities. I get a sense of rising panic just imagining what they are going through, with a bunch of medievalist barbarians inevitably capturing the whole country bit by bit.

That being said, though, international relations is not about what makes me comfortable or otherwise. It isn't and can't be the British army's role to enforce education policy in Afghanistan. If there is no achievable military objective - and there hasn't been for years as far as I can see - then we have no right to be there and occupy their country indefinitely.

At a point in recent history, we thought the Soviets were going to sweep down from Afghanistan and threaten Iran, Iraq and then Saudi.

For that reason, we funded, trained, and propped up quite a few unsavoury people. From Saddam in Iraq, the Shah or Iran, the Mujahideen.

It’s not panned out as per the military projections. We can never know if we’ve made it better or worse..

But we are directly involved and because of the way we have left, we will inevitably become directly involved again. If we couldn’t have ISIS in Syria, why would it be ok in Afghanistan?

I’m just glad our current leader is a strategic colossus with an eye for detail and an iron will to do the right thing, not just what gets him to 5:00pm.

Not suggesting for one minute we are anything but a bit part player. But I would suggest there might not be a lot of wise counsel from Whitehall to the Whitehouse.

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But we are directly involved and because of the way we have left, we will inevitably become directly involved again. If we couldn’t have ISIS in Syria, why would it be ok in Afghanistan?

The brutal reality is that we need to not be 'directly involved'. Over the last 20 years, we have had conclusive proof that getting 'involved' does not cause satisfactory end results. It is our hubris to assume that we can get 'involved' in various ways (invading a la Iraq, bombing and running away a la Libya, supporting unsavoury allies a la Yemen, being against both sides in a civil war a la Syria) and in none of these cases, nor in Afghanistan, do we have a conclusion that satisfies either 'higher ideals' like human rights and democracy, or realpolitik. We cannot simply bend the region to our will or preferences.

More than anything else, our foreign policy needs an infusion of modesty.

[Tayls]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

Afghan - I’ve no more visibility than you (been stuck in UK since lockdown) but per reports, it’s looking very bad for the civilian population. Biden will carry the can, but I’m not sure he had a choice. 

Afghan government could only survive with direct foreign military support, but refused to reform (end corruption) while it had no existential threat forcing it to do so. 

Allies (like us) can bitch and moan about it being a strategic mistake, but we can’t stay without the US and aren’t offering a viable alternative. Biden is ripping off the plaster, but the fallout will be horrific. 

With limited resources the US and NATO have to refocus on state based threats from China and Russia, so Afghan goes under the bus. Iraq next. 

So you reckon there will be a full on withdrawal entirely from the region? Surly part of the deal struck with the Taliban would be that they do not attack towns and cities, and the allied forces would withdraw? Is it just going to be a case of letting them take complete control again? 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Tayls said:

So you reckon there will be a full on withdrawal entirely from the region? Surly part of the deal struck with the Taliban would be that they do not attack towns and cities, and the allied forces would withdraw? Is it just going to be a case of letting them take complete control again? 

Withdrawal from Afghan yes, that’s almost finished. Iraq seems very likely to follow, and that will also have consequences. 

The conditions based withdrawal from Afghan has basically been abandoned so the Taliban don’t need to compromise, and they are stronger than ever thanks to ongoing direct support from the Pakistani state. 

As @sne said China won’t mind the Taliban (whatever Beijing says publicly) because it is the creature of Pakistan which in turn is controlled by China. 

Afghanistan also contains between $1-3 Trillion of rare earth minerals, so China will benefit commercially from Taliban imposed stability. 

Best case is probably a negotiated surrender of Kabul to spare the civilian population, once the rest of the country has been overrun. 

Then the mining companies arrive. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The brutal reality is that we need to not be 'directly involved'. Over the last 20 years, we have had conclusive proof that getting 'involved' does not cause satisfactory end results. It is our hubris to assume that we can get 'involved' in various ways (invading a la Iraq, bombing and running away a la Libya, supporting unsavoury allies a la Yemen, being against both sides in a civil war a la Syria) and in none of these cases, nor in Afghanistan, do we have a conclusion that satisfies either 'higher ideals' like human rights and democracy, or realpolitik. We cannot simply bend the region to our will or preferences.

More than anything else, our foreign policy needs an infusion of modesty.

Very much (most of) this.

It's one thing getting involved in Europe (Yugoslavia) or Sierra Leone, or even the first Iraq war after they invaded Kuwait. These was kind of a clear and achievable path for those involvements

But the likes of Afghanistan and the 2nd Iraq war and so on, or Libya and etc. I think (and it's not with hindsight) that it was fairly/very clear at the time that the kind of end objective was uncertain - the question :"what does success look like and how will it be achieved?" didn't appear to be credibly answerable. The military cannot rebuild a state.

Of course we can't know what "not getting involved" would have looked like, but it's be a hard call to say it would have led to worse outcomes.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Very much (most of) this.

It's one thing getting involved in Europe (Yugoslavia) or Sierra Leone, or even the first Iraq war after they invaded Kuwait. These was kind of a clear and achievable path for those involvements

But the likes of Afghanistan and the 2nd Iraq war and so on, or Libya and etc. I think (and it's not with hindsight) that it was fairly/very clear at the time that the kind of end objective was uncertain - the question :"what does success look like and how will it be achieved?" didn't appear to be credibly answerable. The military cannot rebuild a state.

Of course we can't know what "not getting involved" would have looked like, but it's be a hard call to say it would have led to worse outcomes.

Toppling the Taliban was justified (necessary, even) after 9/11. There were then, imo, only two viable options:

Sticking a big knife into Musharraf’s desk in Islamabad, with the warning that any repeat would mean the end of his regime and the same message being delivered in Riyadh (best option). 

A focused, UN based but NATO supported effort at nation building from January 2002. 

US domestic politics ruled out both, but ensured the second, utterly unjustified error of invading Iraq in 2003. 

 

 

 

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, Awol said:

Toppling the Taliban was justified (necessary, even) after 9/11. There were then, imo, only two viable options:

Sticking a big knife into Musharraf’s desk in Islamabad, with the warning that any repeat would mean the end of his regime and the same message being delivered in Riyadh (best option). 

AFAIK, it was Al-Qaida, not the Taliban who were responsible for 9/11. Warning Islamabad about any repeat... repeat of what? Islamabad didn't cause or condone or support 9/11. I know it's very complicated with sympathies and aspects of the state turning a blind eye to this or that.

Riyadh too -  Osama was one way or another PNG and exiled - again, I know it's complicated and sure, some strong words etc. but I don't doubt the message was very clearly sent.

the US wanted to just bomb someone for revenge, with Afghanistan. Finding (or trying to) Osama hiding in cave is one thing, but that's not what they ended up trying to do, is it? Just inevitable (and foolish) political mission creep

--------

Stone age Taliban numpties are a problem of course. We, the west, don't understand or relate to the whole culture and completely different ways of places like Afghan or Iraq, and never will. Jumping in with military is just counter productive, whether the intentions are good, or less good.

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The brutal reality is that we need to not be 'directly involved'. Over the last 20 years, we have had conclusive proof that getting 'involved' does not cause satisfactory end results. It is our hubris to assume that we can get 'involved' in various ways (invading a la Iraq, bombing and running away a la Libya, supporting unsavoury allies a la Yemen, being against both sides in a civil war a la Syria) and in none of these cases, nor in Afghanistan, do we have a conclusion that satisfies either 'higher ideals' like human rights and democracy, or realpolitik. We cannot simply bend the region to our will or preferences.

More than anything else, our foreign policy needs an infusion of modesty.

Absolutely agree with all of that, and I guess the government does too, today.

Then tomorrow, it will decide that actually what we need is a very limited ‘smart’ military involvement.

Then the day after that, they will be taken by surprise as the country does not click in to western democracy mode.

Then the day after that we will ‘learn lessons’.

If 200 years of dicking about in Afghanistan has taught the British anything, well, actually it probably hasn’t. In a short while, someone will shout ISIS and we’ll all set off around the roundabout again.

 

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

AFAIK, it was Al-Qaida, not the Taliban who were responsible for 9/11. Warning Islamabad about any repeat... repeat of what? Islamabad didn't cause or condone or support 9/11. I know it's very complicated with sympathies and aspects of the state turning a blind eye to this or that.

Riyadh too -  Osama was one way or another PNG and exiled - again, I know it's complicated and sure, some strong words etc. but I don't doubt the message was very clearly sent.

the US wanted to just bomb someone for revenge, with Afghanistan. Finding (or trying to) Osama hiding in cave is one thing, but that's not what they ended up trying to do, is it? Just inevitable (and foolish) political mission creep

--------

Stone age Taliban numpties are a problem of course. We, the west, don't understand or relate to the whole culture and completely different ways of places like Afghan or Iraq, and never will. Jumping in with military is just counter productive, whether the intentions are good, or less good.

Bin Laden as the leader of AQ swore bayat (oath of allegiance) to Mullah Omar on behalf of his organisation, and in return the Taliban provided AQ with safe harbour in AFG.

After 9/11 the Taliban government  refused to hand over Bin Laden and others they were sheltering when requested to do so by the US, a choice with pretty obvious consequences. 

Pakistani ISI ran and runs the Taliban regime by proxy. Serious terrorism is almost always linked to a state actor, militant groups aren’t able to operate at that level of effectiveness without some level of state sponsorship and support.

The Taliban provides the Pakistani state with strategic depth, preventing a regime sympathetic to India emerging at their back. The two are joined at the hip. 

The major flaw in post 9/11 strategy was trying to deal with symptoms instead of causes. Islamabad and Riyadh were (are) major sponsors of Islamic militancy as a tool of their foreign policy. 

Knocking over the Taliban should have been followed by bluntest form of diplomacy: you end this or we end you. 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Knocking over the Taliban should have been followed by bluntest form of diplomacy: you end this or we end you. 

That's not tenable, is it?

Even if we assume that everything in your post is fact (I'm unsure it is), the US (or West) "ending" Pakistan - I mean that's not going to go well, is it? It's not credible.

It's far from clear that ISI runs the Taliban. It's apparent that some elements within the ISI are actively supportive, but not the whole service. It's also unclear that Pakistan Gov't/forces etc. actually have control over some areas of Pakistan where the Taliban operate and hide (or hide in plain sight). At various points Pakistan has acted against the Talibans militarily.

Threatening Pakistan's PM or Gov't with "stop those elements of your security forces which are enabling Taliban actions from doing that enabling or we'll end you" just isn't the way to actually solve the problem. Imran Khan isn't an anti-western loon. Removing or ending him or his term in office would be monumentally foolish. it would make the problem worse.

AFAIK "the Taliban" isn't even a single entity. It's a bunch of different leaders and tribes and warlords and wotnot each with their own aims and so on under an umbrella of extreme religious beliefs. Isn't that part of the problem -simpliticallt identify a single entity as the thing to be dealt with, when in reality it isn't like that?