The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[HanoiVillan]

39 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Biden is on record as kinda agreeing with that , when he said " I'm not sending my boy back there to risk his life on behalf of Afghan women's rights... That's not what they're there for".

I'm not sure its a good look for him specifically referring to his own son v the cause of Women's rights in a whole country , but there was almost certainly  more context at the time at the time of that isolated quote .

 

I kinda disagree with you though , Afghanistan women had the right to vote in 1919  ( a year behind some women in the UK )  , their rights were progressing , maybe not at the same speed as other nations mainly due to  some resistance in rural areas , before they regressed as a result of becoming an islamic state  before the the Taliban in effect condemned women to house arrest  ... it's 2021  no woman should have to live as a prisoner in her own home , be forced to marry , be deprived of education  ..our moral code may not be the only code , it may not always be the right code , but in this instance it 100% IS the correct moral code and the rest of the world should hold the Taliban to account through whatever means it can .

I don't have the answer and an Afghanistan solution is way above my paygrade , but somehow I don't think the Taliban are going to suddenly become enlightened and join the 21st century 

I know you've framed this as a disagreement, but I don't disagree with anything here, except perhaps 'hold the Taliban to account through whatever means it can', where I would modify that to 'apply diplomatic pressure through eg UN bodies where appropriate, but in no way involving military force'. It's true that Afghanistan did, to a significant extent, 'de-develop' during the twentieth century, and that is very sad. You can find photos online - I'm sure you've seen them - of women in knee-length skirts filling the cars they're driving themselves at petrol stations from the middle of the century, and it's a fairly forlorn feeling looking at them. And you'll get no disagreement from me about the superiority of our moral code - I have all the tiresomely woke views on gender and sexuality I'm sure you think I have!

But Biden is right about what armies are for, and it's not for enforcing electoral laws or education policy, even when those are being repealed or damaged in horrible ways. Militaries are there for our collective defence, and Afghan education policy is not a significant risk factor for our defence at the end of day.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Militaries are there for our collective defence

This is a good point.

Go there, get Osama, leave. That's fine.

Once the politicians then set the military a different objective, they can't absolve themselves of the consequences of their decisions or the need and responsibility to address those consequences, which is what they've done

[HanoiVillan]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

The thing is, you can. There are lots and lots of things that get resources chucked at them with no end game.

Leaving aside morality for a moment, anyway, it seems like the Talibans have taken control of the country through not needing to use much force, because the people that were there protecting the nation either ran away or just gave up, rather than defend the country.

The fact that the army gave up, switched sides, and melted away, is a pretty strong signal that it was poorly-run, corrupt, and had no meaningful commitment to the Afghan state. We need to reckon with the fact that that was the situation, after 20 years of occupation. If anything, the speed of the collapse vindicates the decision; if there had instead been a huge long drawn-out war between the Taliban and the Afghan government, with the Taliban gaining inches per year, and gradually wearing down the government over a decade-long civil war, then it would make sense to say that a bit more of a push from us, a bit more funding, might have made all the difference. Instead the whole thing collapsed in a puff of smoke - there was nothing there, after 20 years.

36 minutes ago, blandy said:

So now there's a bunch of stone agers in control and they're going to create, and already have created a huge number of refugees. People in genuine fear of their lives from the Talibans. So one end game here is (was) preventing a refugee crisis. I mean we spend money on flood defences, on Fire and Police and Ambulances and Parliament and government - what's the end game with them? to keep things ticking along, to put out fires and prevent crimes and...

So what's wrong with preventing people having to flee their homes in fear of death? Especially when you've also got education (for all), culture and all the rest of it - doesn't some of that both help prevent future terrorists? doesn't it improve health and well being in the country. And tolerance and all that stuff?

This isn't how international law works though, and nor should it. We should not be occupying a country forever, in order to prevent the admission of comparatively small numbers of refugees (the vast majority will go to neighbouring nations, as always). The world is not ours to arrange at our pleasure.

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

 @HanoiVillanposted that "it cannot be the role of the British military to enforce our views on gender roles down the barrel of a gun". Being facetious, the reply to that is "no, that's the Taliban's job". More seriously, the people weren't being forced to be be "free" from gender oppression under the threat of British or US gun barrels. The (in recent times) relatively small number of western forces there were protecting a large population from Stone Age tribes wanting to impose Stone Age values on them, and all the while allowing things to improve for the population.

The situation is more complex than that though. In practice, the relatively small number of western forces (as you correctly describe them) were training Afghan security forces, not protecting people from gender oppression. Or not directly anyway; that was the Afghan government's job. And the Afghan government collapsed in a puff of smoke. Does that mean gender oppression is not important? Of course no, but if people aren't willing to fight for a thing then that thing can be taken away. And we need to acknowledge that our 'allies' were hardly gender defenders themselves much of the time. Two New York Times headlines, which tell their own story - 'US Soldiers Told To Ignore Sexual Abuse Of Boys By Afghan Allies' (2015); 'Afghan Paedophiles Get Free Pass From US Military, Report Says' (2018) (sorry, haven't given extracts of these for space reasons of this already long comment, but happy to supply links if needed - the stories say exactly what the headlines suggest in any case). Our efforts at nation-building necessarily relied on people who were not much more moral or savoury than the people who have just taken over.

[Big Salad]

46 minutes ago, Genie said:

This is the inside of the US military plane apparently.

Did the just scoop up a lucky few hundred people or are they chosen?

I’d assume by the desperation to get on board they were just the lucky ones offered a ticket out. 

I think they just the beat the rush and were lucky to get on yeah.Sad to see the pics of the ones who weren't able to get on.

This whole situation is so **** up in so many ways.

[DCJonah]

48 minutes ago, blandy said:

The thing is, you can. There are lots and lots of things that get resources chucked at them with no end game.

Leaving aside morality for a moment, anyway, it seems like the Talibans have taken control of the country through not needing to use much force, because the people that were there protecting the nation either ran away or just gave up, rather than defend the country. So now there's a bunch of stone agers in control and they're going to create, and already have created a huge number of refugees. People in genuine fear of their lives from the Talibans. So one end game here is (was) preventing a refugee crisis. I mean we spend money on flood defences, on Fire and Police and Ambulances and Parliament and government - what's the end game with them? to keep things ticking along, to put out fires and prevent crimes and...

So what's wrong with preventing people having to flee their homes in fear of death? Especially when you've also got education (for all), culture and all the rest of it - doesn't some of that both help prevent future terrorists? doesn't it improve health and well being in the country. And tolerance and all that stuff?

 @HanoiVillanposted that "it cannot be the role of the British military to enforce our views on gender roles down the barrel of a gun". Being facetious, the reply to that is "no, that's the Taliban's job". More seriously, the people weren't being forced to be be "free" from gender oppression under the threat of British or US gun barrels. The (in recent times) relatively small number of western forces there were protecting a large population from Stone Age tribes wanting to impose Stone Age values on them, and all the while allowing things to improve for the population.

The USA went in to Afghan to "get" OBL and then the mission creep started. Surely if anything we've learnt over the past 30 years is that if you go in somewhere you can't just have no long terms commitment to what you've undertaken. There is a responsibility to manage the mess invasion creates, to restore stability and maintain it. Doing a runner, 'cus you've lost interest, or think you can get away with it is a bad course of action for the future not just of the place itself, but also the wider world and your own society. Is it better to prevent a refugee crisis, or to (struggle to) manage one when it happens? Never mind the morality, what about the practicality of all those refugees and lives?

There is no ideal solution, but what's been enacted by Biden is ruinously stupid and cowardly. The US leaves, then the nations that clubbed together to support the US after 9/11 essentially have to leave too.  We stood by America, and then America ran away, once it thought it could get away with it.

This is the part that makes me angry about it all.

Part of me gets the argument that at some point, troops and money needed to removed. 

But when you decide to be the world's police, you have a morale obligation to ensure that what you've created is embedded in place. 

I'm also angry because in a few weeks no one will care and the incoming refugee crisis will allow climate change to be pushed aside once again as those who always fear immigration have something to latch on to.  

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is a good point.

Go there, get Osama, leave. That's fine.

 

This is absolutely what we should have done, and the equivalent of what we must do in future if any other attacks stem from groups in that area.

The withdrawal has been a disaster, we should have offered evacuation to Afghans that had assisted us over the yearsd well before they were put in harm's way, but my views on our obligations to offer ongoing support and investment have softened somewhat over the last 24 hours. When it comes to "fixing" the country and trying to liberalise/modernise it, we've seen we're wasting our time and money when most of the country doesn't want it. At least not enough to fight for it. When the US and UK have invested as much as we have in training and equipping them, their army is (on paper) 4 times as strong, and the taliban take the country without as much as a skirmish, well, it's on the people of Afghanistan to be honest. If they want the freedom to live a different life, they need to fight for it themselves.

At this point, once we've got out our people and those who worked with us, we have to leave them to live under Taliban rule and do what we can to keep their barbarism to within their own borders.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Davkaus

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

This is the part that makes me angry about it all.

Part of me gets the argument that at some point, troops and money needed to removed. 

But when you decide to be the world's police, you have a morale obligation to ensure that what you've created is embedded in place. 

I think that a mistake was made 20 years ago - and whatever the world's police decides to do now will not be a great move.

[Davkaus]

On a lighter note, I think we have got a valuable insight into a more effective way of changing hearts and minds. **** the bombs, send them fairgrounds.

 

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

On a lighter note, I think we have got a valuable insight into a more effective way of changing hearts and minds. **** the bombs, send them fairgrounds.

 

I know the Taliban are from the stone age , but even so , you'd think they would know to flip the phone to landscape when recording a video on it 

[desensitized43]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

This is absolutely what we should have done, and the equivalent of what we must do in future if any other attacks stem from groups in that area.

The withdrawal has been a disaster, we should have offered evacuation to Afghans that had assisted us over the yearsd well before they were put in harm's way, but my views on our obligations to offer ongoing support and investment have softened somewhat over the last 24 hours. When it comes to "fixing" the country and trying to liberalise/modernise it, we've seen we're wasting our time and money when most of the country doesn't want it. At least not enough to fight for it. When the US and UK have invested as much as we have in training and equipping them, their army is (on paper) 4 times as strong, and the taliban take the country without as much as a skirmish, well, it's on the people of Afghanistan to be honest. If they want the freedom to live a different life, they need to fight for it themselves.

At this point, once we've got out our people and those who worked with us, we have to leave them to live under Taliban rule and do what we can to keep their barbarism to within their own borders.

100% this.

Those arguing we should have stayed because we had an obligation having started the process of "nation building" need to remember that in order for it to work the people have to want it. There's a massive proportion of that population who have been actively fighting against what we've been trying to do for years. We were there for 20 years, we sacrificed a lot of lives, we gave them a tonne of money and equipment, we even subsidised the wages of the soldiers and at the end of the day they cut and run.

If at the end of this there's some kind of armed resistance to the taliban that wants to take to the hills and continue the fight I'd not be against arming them etc but it's their country, only they can make it better.

[bickster]

27 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

...when most of the country doesn't want it. At least not enough to fight for it... their army is (on paper) 4 times as strong, and the taliban take the country without as much as a skirmish, well, it's on the people of Afghanistan to be honest. If they want the freedom to live a different life, they need to fight for it themselves.

Before I say what I'm going to say, I'm still completely undecided as to what the correct course of action should have been towards Afghanistan. I'm a complete fence sitter for now

Right, so...

You appear to be saying that the outcome for the vast majority of the population was dependent upon their army protecting them and as it decided not to well quite frankly.. sod 'em, they all carry the consequences of their armies actions and will have to live (or not) with it.

This seems both callous and misguided. I'm no expert in these matters but a little factoid I picked up on the radio this morning was that as we know, Afghanistan is a very tribal community but most of the military came from one single tribe. If that one tribe do a deal with the Taliban then that shits all over the interests of the rest of the population. I'm not so sure that you can then say they should have fought for their country, it just isn't the same as a Western democracy and judging the situation by our standards just seems a little off

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

This is absolutely what we should have done, and the equivalent of what we must do in future if any other attacks stem from groups in that area.

The withdrawal has been a disaster, we should have offered evacuation to Afghans that had assisted us over the yearsd well before they were put in harm's way, but my views on our obligations to offer ongoing support and investment have softened somewhat over the last 24 hours. When it comes to "fixing" the country and trying to liberalise/modernise it, we've seen we're wasting our time and money when most of the country doesn't want it. At least not enough to fight for it. When the US and UK have invested as much as we have in training and equipping them, their army is (on paper) 4 times as strong, and the taliban take the country without as much as a skirmish, well, it's on the people of Afghanistan to be honest. If they want the freedom to live a different life, they need to fight for it themselves.

At this point, once we've got out our people and those who worked with us, we have to leave them to live under Taliban rule and do what we can to keep their barbarism to within their own borders.

Oh yeah. Go in get the bad guy, leave. That absolutely, and that's not with hindsight, either.

The next bit, well yeah, look after the people that helped us. of course. Also unarguable

The point you and @HanoiVillanmake about the Taliban just walking in, despite, as we've agreed, there being (up to this point) only a small number of Western forces there only shows how important that support was. Take it away and the place crumbles. They were there, not "occupying" but genuinely, welcomed and helping. Of course not everyone welcomed them, but the majority did and the wailing about being abandoned by the USA and west is telling.

The least bad course of action would have been to stay with the relatively small skeleton force, keep the Talibans out, keep the Country, as flawed and problematic as it is, relatively stable and safe, don't create another refugee crisis, whether for Europe or neighbouring countries. I mean "it's alright they ain't coming here, they're going to Pakistan" is a terrible and lame argument on two levels - firstly, obviously refugees fleeing in only the clothes they wear and with what they can carry is a tragedy in itself, and then the notion that they're going to some other country but not the UK/West...yeah, just dumping problems elsewhere, another poor country. Nice.

It's clear we've just turned our backs and legged it. No planning, no warning, Just **** it, we're off.

[Davkaus]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

Before I say what I'm going to say, I'm still completely undecided as to what the correct course of action should have been towards Afghanistan. I'm a complete fence sitter for now

Right, so...

You appear to be saying that the outcome for the vast majority of the population was dependent upon their army protecting them and as it decided not to well quite frankly.. sod 'em, they all carry the consequences of their armies actions and will have to live (or not) with it.

This seems both callous and misguided. I'm no expert in these matters but a little factoid I picked up on the radio this morning was that as we know, Afghanistan is a very tribal community but most of the military came from one single tribe. If that one tribe do a deal with the Taliban then that shits all over the interests of the rest of the population. I'm not so sure that you can then say they should have fought for their country, it just isn't the same as a Western democracy and judging the situation by our standards just seems a little off

I think where I currently am is if they want their society to change, yes, their people need to fight for it, whether that was to be their military, or a civil war. It's awful, blood will be spilled, but as you say, it isn't a western democracy. There's not going to be change through the ballot box, power resides with the biggest mob with the biggest guns, and if they don't like how they're going to be forced to live, they're going to need to fight to change it. Much easier said than done, and I count my lucky stars it's not me in that situation, but the reality is the change needs to be internal, us imposing a way of living under military occupation is not going to work, and it's not our place to tell them how to live, or to fight on their behalf.

These are mostly arguments for not doing it in the first place or for us to not return, though. Given there was already a presence, perhaps maintaining the status quo was best; I'm joining you on that fence.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Davkaus

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point you and @HanoiVillanmake about the Taliban just walking in, despite, as we've agreed, there being (up to this point) only a small number of Western forces there only shows how important that support was. Take it away and the place crumbles. They were there, not "occupying" but genuinely, welcomed and helping. Of course not everyone welcomed them, but the majority did and the wailing about being abandoned by the USA and west is telling.

The least bad course of action would have been to stay with the relatively small skeleton force, keep the Talibans out, keep the Country, as flawed and problematic as it is, relatively stable and safe

It's an interesting point. Obviously the stationing of western troops isn't just about how many of them there are, it could have been a small enough number nowhere near enough to actually overcome a taliban attack, but the message is "you **** with us and the drones are on their way".

The more difficult bit is: is it our right to do that and prop up a government, if so on what basis, and more so, is it our duty to do that after what's occured over the past 20+ years, and those are much more difficult questions. On the topic of being welcomed, the way the last few days have gone makes me wonder if that was for any reason other than the piles of money flowing into the country. I'm sure there was some support, especially from women who were able to live much better lives, but from the rest of the country, the leadership, and the military rank and file? We might need a referendum

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point you and @HanoiVillanmake about the Taliban just walking in, despite, as we've agreed, there being (up to this point) only a small number of Western forces there only shows how important that support was. Take it away and the place crumbles. They were there, not "occupying" but genuinely, welcomed and helping. Of course not everyone welcomed them, but the majority did and the wailing about being abandoned by the USA and west is telling.

I don't think we know at all that 'the majority genuinely welcomed' the American military presence. It's difficult, because obviously there is no polling or reliable way to measure, but there are lots of groups who would have reason *not* to welcome the American presence - highly conservative religious people who actually like the Taliban ideology; people whose friends or family members died in drone strikes or night raids; people whose family members were sexually assaulted by American allies; people who want to grow opium, or have other financial or business connections to the Taliban; people who are the victims of Afghan government corruption. It all adds up.

Of course, there are plenty to weigh on the other side too - those worried about women's and children's rights; those with government jobs, or jobs linked to the Americans; those with more moderate religious views; those who live in Kabul or other urban centres.

My point is that it's a complicated situation, that defies assertions like the majority were welcoming the occupation.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't think we know at all that 'the majority genuinely welcomed' the American military presence. It's difficult, because obviously there is no polling or reliable way to measure, but there are lots of groups who would have reason *not* to welcome the American presence

That's fair,  I suppose. I wrote it in counter to the poster(s) who kind of said we were not wanted by most of the country or were forcing "our" values on them. That to me is more dubious to claim. The populous larger towns and cities seemed braodly, from what I've read to accept/welcome the security and greater freedom brought about by the presence of the west, but yeah, of course not all.

[Davkaus]

Maybe we should just split the land in half so the people can choose to live in the region most suitable for their beliefs. 

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's fair,  I suppose. I wrote it in counter to the poster(s) who kind of said we were not wanted by most of the country or were forcing "our" values on them. That to me is more dubious to claim. The populous larger towns and cities seemed braodly, from what I've read to accept/welcome the security and greater freedom brought about by the presence of the west, but yeah, of course not all.

Yes, there seems (unsurprisingly I guess) to be a fairly clear urban/rural divide. But there's always a danger of focusing on those we 'like' or sympathise with - the terrified translator who helped our forces, the urban woman who doesn't want to wear a burqa, or whoever - and mentally inflate their numbers. We are, after all, talking about the people who supported (or 'supported') a government with seemingly little legitimacy, that completely collapsed after facing two decades of guerilla warfare. People were willing to die for the other side too, in fact (much) more willing.

[maqroll]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Biden is on record as kinda agreeing with that , when he said " I'm not sending my boy back there to risk his life on behalf of Afghan women's rights... That's not what they're there for".

I'm not sure its a good look for him specifically referring to his own son v the cause of Women's rights in a whole country , but there was almost certainly  more context at the time at the time of that isolated quote .

 

I kinda disagree with you though , Afghanistan women had the right to vote in 1919  ( a year behind some women in the UK )  , their rights were progressing , maybe not at the same speed as other nations mainly due to  some resistance in rural areas , before they regressed as a result of becoming an islamic state  before the the Taliban in effect condemned women to house arrest  ... it's 2021  no woman should have to live as a prisoner in her own home , be forced to marry , be deprived of education  ..our moral code may not be the only code , it may not always be the right code , but in this instance it 100% IS the correct moral code and the rest of the world should hold the Taliban to account through whatever means it can .

I don't have the answer and an Afghanistan solution is way above my paygrade , but somehow I don't think the Taliban are going to suddenly become enlightened and join the 21st century 

A lot of the Taliban fighters will have grown up with an awareness of and regular access to the internet, social media, etc. Early indications suggest that they might be taking a less brutal approach because they know their brutality will be broadcast globally whereas in 1997 they had no such worries about bad optics. 

[bickster]

40 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Maybe we should just split the land in half so the people can choose to live in the region most suitable for their beliefs. 

Two? or Twenty Two?

I heard Afghanistan being described as the most diversely cultural country in the world today, whilst I have no idea if that is true, I do think two is a little short on the numbers required