You missed the one hiding in shame behind the first helo.
As well he should be.
As an aside, this is the first time that I’ve realized that the random camo paint job is actually identical from helo to helo.
I think part of the problem is the Western short termist view.
Most states in the first world took quite a number of centuries to stabilise, and even then that stability is still a fairly recent phenomenon, with a number of such states being involved in significant internal and regional strife within the last 20 years.
The US is one of the few nations that has developed first world stability in less than 3 centuries - but it took civil wars and civil rights legislation to achieve it.
Turning some of these failed states into nations that have a collective, instead of tribal, worldview is going to take much longer than most of us are prepared to countenance - and the transition from tribal politics to nationalist outlook takes a very long time, involving dynastic changes among other changes.
Look at the fall out from the Ottoman Empire, or the Hapsburgs, it is still going on today, many centuries later - and this will evolve over many more decades, its quite a thing to slice up parts of the map for empire building but these always collapse and leave various peoples split across regions whose loyalties lie only in their tribal identities.
We are still dealing with the Balkanisation of certain regions, and we are at least seeing some settling out, but not - for example - for the Kurds, how long will some sort of national recognition take place, who will compromise to allow it to happen?
So, in summary, Afghanistan will not become a successful state for a very long time, and tribal affiliations will have to be replaced by national identities - it ain’t happening for a long time.
Walking away is only going to create power vacuum which will make the process take even longer because other regional players will simply move in and make the whole thing even worse.
That’s a very colonialist view. It’s unclear to me why we need to shepherd some other country for a century or more while they develop the institutions of a civil society.
John Mace:
Because otherwise, the country will be a haven for terrorists who attack us?
Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan is known as the “Graveyard of Empires”; even when the nation has been essentially occupied by, say, the Macedonians or the British Empire, they have never managed to exercise operational control even a fraction of the territory or a majority of the Pashtun majority, and even more than Iraq, Afghanistan is not populated by a singlular culture but a number of competing cultures and tribal groups who owe no affiation to any national government and for whom modernization and liberal governance represents an existential threat to their essential way of life.
The “long term view” needs to be one of containment and cautious support (funding and training) for more progressive elements rather than any expectation at wholesale regime change and the cultural reimagining that would require.
Stranger
I don’t think this is anywhere near a given.
Red Wiggler:
Neither did most people, circa September 10, 2001. But now we know the consequences of leaving Afghanistan in a situation where the Taliban is an active force that can potentially take power. Those who don’t learn from history…
You really think the Taliban leadership are going to allow Al Queda set up shop like they did last time?
If what they’ve learned is that they can make the US tuck tail and run home, and they can re-take the Afghan government, then absolutely. Maybe not the al-Qaeda itself (it’s not exactly as powerful as it once was), but whatever militant Muslim groups want to take action against western targets.
Well ISIS is in Afghanistan and the Taliban seem to be virulently opposed to their presence.
We’ve been there for SEVENTEEN YEARS! It’s the single longest active American military operation in our country’s history. There’s absolutely no way to make that into us tucking tail and running home without seeming absolutely insane.
Ryan_Liam:
Because until the Taliban manage to re-take power in Afghanistan, they don’t want rivals doing so, even like-minded ones. Al Qaeda was never interested in establishing its own country.
jayjay:
It seems that way from a certain perspective, but guerrilla armies relish the victory of having ousted a larger army by harassing them over a long period of time.
Next time there’d be nothing to tuck tail. It would be a cloud of cruise missles that darkens the sky - and whoever’s in charge of Afghanistan at that time would damn well know it.
And regardless, you don’t need training camps in a terrorist friendly country to plan a 9-11. So continuing to spend billions of dollars per yer to make sure one country doesn’t maybe some time in the future allow training camps is beyond ridiculous.
This business about “a haven for terrorists” is the WMDs of the new decade. There are dozens of places that are or could become “a haven for terrorists”. There is nothing special about Afghanistan other than they know what happens to “havens for terrorists”. We don’t need a land force to pack a lethal punch.
In the past 20 years, there’s been one terrorist attack on US soil that had a body count above a hundred. There’s been a small handful of terrorist attacks that broke double digits - the second bloodiest of which after 9/11 was committed not by some foreign agent trained in camps, but rather by a nutter with a bump stock and a clear view of a concert from his hotel room. The third bloodiest? Not some foreign agent trained in camps, but a homophobic nutter with a few guns in a crowded room.
Meanwhile, over 2,000 US troops and intelligence officials have been killed in action in Afghanistan. Over 20,000 have been wounded. We’ve sunk upwards of $2,400,000,000,000 - 2.4 TRILLION Dollars! - into the Afghani sands. And for what? What do we have to show for it?
Even taking your ideas as absolutely given (which, for a variety of reasons, I wouldn’t)… Is it worth it?
One thing that might help give us a little direction is the realization that the American occupation of Afghanistan was never strictly about controlling terrorism. For fucks sake, we were doing business with the Taliban before 9/11 in hopes that US interests could help complete a pipeline from India to Turkmenistan, running right through the heart of Taliban country. America’s Afghanistan project is not about simply protecting ourselves against terrorism, and as long as we continue to believe in that pile of bile, then we’re going to continue wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. It’s about establishing and maintaining economic and political power in Central Asia.
It’s also worth revisiting some of my contrarianism on those Vladimir Putin threads. There’s a history of Russian involvement in Afghanistan, yes, but there’s also a history of American involvement in the region as well - something about Afghan “traps,” supporting fundies in Pakistan and later Afghanistan in an attempt to stick it to commies. But to bring more of a modern context to it, look at a map today and consider where the US has its military installations: Eastern Europe to Russia’s West; Japan and South Korea to Russia’s East (or Southeast); and pretty much throughout the Middle East and Central Asia to its South. America has Russia encircled. America always speaks of regime change, and forcing its enemies out of power. Why would Russia look at projects like an American overthrow on its doorstep - one of several- in hopes of major petroleum pipeline projects and control of international waters, and not be at least a little concerned?
Both America and Afghanistan will be better off when more voters here at home start educating themselves about how their tax dollars are spent, and what they’re really spent on.
I’m not seeing the logic there. Firstly, before 9/11 we weren’t occupying Afghanistan, so what we did prior needn’t affect what we did after. Also, so what if we say that our occupation in only 50% about controlling terrorism-- there are other goals as well? Occupying a country to “control terrorism” is a lost cause from the get go. Most people don’t like being occupied, so you’re likely to be creating more terrorism by being The Evil Empire. We don’t have the stomach to impose the kind of draconian rule that’s needed to drive terrorism deeply underground. Not much terrorism in North Korea, for instance. Also regarding pre-invasion days, the US never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE did.
You are forgetting that 40-50 other countries also have troops or have given support in Afghanistan. So will those other countries also leave?
In a way, this has been “on the job” training for some countries who’s troops have had very little actual combat training.
According to the above Wiki article the US has only 7,000 troops in Afghanistan. Another has them at 8,400 with overall 13,000 nato troops.
So I dont see the US and its allies leaving very soon.
Who would object to having their country be the site for “no the job training” of combat troops?
Great. Let the UN or Nato run the show. As we all well know, the US has been providing the bulk of the troops from day 1. We shouldn’t hog all the glory. Let other countries bask in the limelight for awhile.