International Events VI: Glorious Anarchy and Chaos!

[Makk]

What a complete debacle. Looks like the west has been paying the Taliban wages, providing them weapons and building them infrastructure for the last 20 years. Just the sheer speed at which this has happened and lack of actual combat indicates there must have been near universal corruption in the security forces. In some ways you can say this is democracy. More than half the country wants the Taliban in charge.

[Arakan]

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

What is this talk about the US, Taiwan, China? This is a fantasy forum I am aware but let’s get real nevertheless. I feel a lot of hurt pride in this thread. The US (and its dumb allies like Germany) right now are getting embarrassed in front of the whole globe. And people are talking about mighty USA coming to aid little Taiwan against China. 

The reality

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Arakan said:

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

What is this talk about the US, Taiwan, China? This is a fantasy forum I am aware but let’s get real nevertheless. I feel a lot of hurt pride in this thread. The US (and its dumb allies like Germany) right now are getting embarrassed in front of the whole globe. And people are talking about mighty USA coming to aid little Taiwan against China. 

The reality

But we stepped up to help Georgia, right? Err, never mind about that. But we are protecting our Georgia! 

Wait, shit....

[Arakan]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But we stepped up to help Georgia, right? Err, never mind about that. But we are protecting our Georgia! 

Wait, shit....

We, as we in the US, UK and EU really should take a very deep breath and start to critically self-reflect. Our approach clearly isn’t working and doing the same thing over and over again is moronic. Time to re-think and re-evaluate everything. 

In 20 years in Afghanistan we achieved nothing except some nice PR ops now and then again. We propped up a systemically corrupt regime and turned a blind eye on everything  (drug producing/trafficking, human trafficking, sex slavery) as long as we were guaranteed a „nice, seemingly stable“ Afghanistan so that our liars of politicians could come from time to time and make nice pics. 

And it’s time to accept that when it comes to lying and denialism our politicians and a lot of our mainstream media are not better than old Soviet politicians and Pravda. 

Until a few days ago, Germany considered Afghanistan a safe enough country to expel illegal Afghan immigrant for god’s fucking sake. A month ago our foreign minister basically said everything will be ok in Afghanistan and Mrs Merkel is keeping silent. The one politician who was there from the beginning. Ridiculous. 

[Ran]

The US security interests in the South China Sea are orders of magnitude greater than its security interests in Afghanistan today. 

Afghanistan poses no economic concerns, exerts no control over international trade routes, affects the security of only one partner (Pakistan) in any meaningful way, and is not a venue for the global balance of power.

The South China Sea and its trade lanes are extremely important economically and in terms of international trade, directly impacts the security of partners like Australia and Japan, and is an active area of interest for great powers.

So, yeah, the US would indeed act to defend Taiwan, IMO. The US would not need to remain stationed in Taiwan for 20 years to deter Chinese aggression. It just needs to keep naval groups roaming the Pacific, which it does anyways. Wildly different situations.

[Arakan]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

The US security interests in the South China Sea are orders of magnitude greater than its security interests in Afghanistan today. 

Afghanistan poses no economic concerns, exerts no control over international trade routes, affects the security of only one partner (Pakistan) in any meaningful way, and is not a venue for the global balance of power.

The South China Sea and its trade lanes are extremely important economically and in terms of international trade, directly impacts the security of partners like Australia and Japan, and is an active area of interest for great powers.

So, yeah, the US would indeed act to defend Taiwan, IMO. The US would not need to remain stationed in Taiwan for 20 years to deter Chinese aggression. It just needs to keep naval groups roaming the Pacific, which it does anyways. Wildly different situations.

That’s all paper wishful thinking for me, I am sorry. Let’s agree do disagree. And you are speaking of security interests, what about global economic interests? The whole world would lose massively due to global economic inter-dependency. And for what? A small island with 23 million people on it. Will not happen. And it can be argued that Taiwan IS a deflective province of China, because that’s what it is. If „we“ like it or not. 

A war between China and the US over Taiwan will not happen. Let’s remember that no US administration will act against the economic interests of basically all of its major companies. Same goes for Europe. And I am not speaking only of basically every kind of consumer product which nowadays are all produced in China. For basically every international company China is the most important market, be it cars, machinery, shipbuilding, aviation or luxury products. And China controls the largest reserves of rare earth materials in the world, needed for all kind of electronics and batteries (do I hear Tesla?) but that just by the way.

And if the US act they will have to act without any formal support of the EU. UK and Japan I am not sure. 

There is nothing to win and all to lose. Time for the West to smell the coffee. 

[kiko]

@Ran et al, honestly. Can't you show a bit of humility and tone down the hybrid for a while? Americans and their allies have been defeated by a bunch of literal cave men in a most humiliating fashion. For the umpteenth time. Maybe wait a day or two before you praise the almighty might of the mighty and greatest nation on earth.

[Ran]

56 minutes ago, kiko said:

@Ran et al, honestly. Can't you show a bit of humility and tone down the hybrid for a while?

Facts are facts. Conventional warfare is the only way China can invade Taiwan, and in conventional warfare there is no contest between the US and China. Trying to use Afghanistan to extrapolate China believing it can beat the US and its allies in the South China Sea is absurd. There is way, way more at stake in the South China Sea than was ever at stake in Afghanistan.

Quote

Americans and their allies have been defeated by a bunch of literal cave men in a most humiliating fashion. For the umpteenth time. Maybe wait a day or two before you praise the almighty might of the mighty and greatest nation on earth.

We won the war in Afghanistan in the Spring 2002, is the thing. People forget this. The problem was that once we won, our focus was immediately shifted by Bush and co. to Iraq for no good reason, and then simply the fact that Afghanistan is not a modern nation and cannot be turned into one by occupation. Had Bush not been an idiot, the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden and promised not to harbor terrorist groups as the price of getting the US to leave, but no, he bought into the chimera of nation building being a cakewalk.

None of those facts applies to Taiwan, however, so stop trying to shut down a conversation you don’t like just because you feel like wringing your hands and beating your chest.

[Relic]

Define the word "won", please. 

[Ran]

24 minutes ago, Relic said:

Define the word "won", please. 

Quote

Though it’s now difficult to imagine, by mid-2002 there was no insurgency in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda had fled the country and the Taliban had ceased to exist as a military movement. Jalaluddin Haqqani and other top Taliban figures were reaching out to the other side in an attempt to cut a deal and lay down their arms.

From Anand Gopal, the journalist who has written some of the best coverage of Afghanistan.

That’s a war won, your enemy defeated and suing for peace, you and your allies controlling the country unhindered. The problem lay in wanting even more than that, in trying to forcibly change the entire character of a nation, which is 100% the fault of the Bush administration.

[kiko]

11 minutes ago, Relic said:

Define the word "won", please. 

Sitting in your fortresses and getting blown up if you leave them in your humvees.

And paying billions for the privilege.

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

Facts are facts. Conventional warfare is the only way China can invade Taiwan, and in conventional warfare there is no contest between the US and China. Trying to use Afghanistan to extrapolate China believing it can beat the US and its allies in the South China Sea is absurd. There is way, way more at stake in the South China Sea than was ever at stake in Afghanistan.

We won the war in Afghanistan in the Spring 2002, is the thing. People forget this. The problem was that once we won, our focus was immediately shifted by Bush and co. to Iraq for no good reason, and then simply the fact that Afghanistan is not a modern nation and cannot be turned into one by occupation. Had Bush not been an idiot, the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden to promised not to harbor terrorist groups as the price of getting the US to leave, but no, he bought into the chimera of nation building being a cakewalk.

None of those facts applies to Taiwan, however, so stop trying to shut down a conversation you don’t like just because you feel like wringing your hands and beating your chest.

Yes, we understand that. The military might of the USA is bigger than the one of the Taliban. Nobody doubts that for one second. You managed to bomb them back into the stone age with ease.

They are still there though and we are gone. I'm sure it was all Nixon's sorry Bush's fault.

 

[kiko]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

From Anand Gopal, the journalist who has written some of the best coverage of Afghanistan.

That’s a war won, your enemy defeated and suing for peace, you and your allies controlling the country unhindered. The problem lay in wanting even more than that, in trying to forcibly change the entite character of a nation, which ia 100% the fault of the Bush administration.

That was one moment in time. Are you trying to tell the outcome would have been different if you guys would have left immediately?

[Arakan]

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

Facts are facts. Conventional warfare is the only way China can invade Taiwan, and in conventional warfare there is no contest between the US and China. Trying to use Afghanistan to extrapolate China believing it can beat the US and its allies in the South China Sea is absurd. There is way, way more at stake in the South China Sea than was ever at stake in Afghanistan.

We won the war in Afghanistan in the Spring 2002, is the thing. People forget this. The problem was that once we won, our focus was immediately shifted by Bush and co. to Iraq for no good reason, and then simply the fact that Afghanistan is not a modern nation and cannot be turned into one by occupation. Had Bush not been an idiot, the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden to promised not to harbor terrorist groups as the price of getting the US to leave, but no, he bought into the chimera of nation building being a cakewalk.

None of those facts applies to Taiwan, however, so stop trying to shut down a conversation you don’t like just because you feel like wringing your hands and beating your chest.

I don’t shut down anything. I am delivering real world arguments (which you totally ignored because you can’t refute them even an iota) for why the US will not start a conventional war against China for the independence of Taiwan. 

And about Afghanistan, well the Taliban are back in office, aren’t they? And your last sentence, no idea what you are insinuating but I served for 6 months in Afghanistan 2002/03 (Panzergrenadiers, Bundeswehr, 3rd tour). So if anything I am angry about the utter shitshow Afghanistan proved to be, countless human lives lost on all sides for propping up a corrupt regime and it all collapses like a house of cards the first moment. With regards to your „winning in 2002“ comment: yes it was relatively quiet in spring 2002 forwards for a few years but the Taliban were still there, in strategic withdrawal yes, but still active. Comrades of mine where killed by IED in 03 on their way from Camp Warehouse to the airport, so they are enough prove to me. You win when your enemy is defeated and the Taliban were not defeated. Of course you and everyone else still in denial about the hard truth can spin it however you want. 

Time to accept reality and time to self-reflect. 

[rotting sea cow]

2 hours ago, ash_what_ said:

But was it peaceful entirely...

Well. Hadn't the ANA collapsed so quickly, US and NATO partners would have felt more compelled to provide additional support prolonging the bloodshed and hardening the resolve of the Taliban and in the end getting ourselves to the same or even a worse place. Instead, we get indications that the Taliban is willing to engage with their neighbors. We will see how it pans out.

As disastrous this defeat is from the Western perspective, at least it has (so far) avoided a bloodbath. I don't think Biden had many options, he just got the hot potato in his hands and I really hope that no escalation will happen just to save face. If necessary, ransoms should be payed for any person needing evacuation.

Of course the comments "this is not Saigon!" are laughable.

[Arakan]

The Taliban might be reactionary fundamentalists but they are not crazy fanatics with a death wish. Only people who never saw or spoke with one in person will call them so. They had a clearly defined, reasonable goal and learned their lesson from 2001. You cannot stay in power in a geographically surrounded country like Afghanistan, with various belligerent ethnicities, without amicable relations with your direct and indirect neighbors. The Taliban worked on that front quite well, searching for good relationships with China, Russia, Iran. Good relationships with Russia means that Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kasachstan will not be the staging ground for a North Alliance 2.0. 

[Relic]

40 minutes ago, Ran said:

From Anand Gopal, the journalist who has written some of the best coverage of Afghanistan.

That’s a war won, your enemy defeated and suing for peace, you and your allies controlling the country unhindered. The problem lay in wanting even more than that, in trying to forcibly change the entire character of a nation, which is 100% the fault of the Bush administration.

A good friend of mine was stationed in Kabul while working for the UN from 2008 - 2012. I'm curious if you would still use that word "won" after listening to her experiences there.  Literally couldn't leave the military base without an escort, ever. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

On 8/8/2021 at 5:16 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

This was always inevitable imo.

As I said back on page 9, I've never had any confidence in the mission.

We were always doomed to be the outsiders, the occupiers. To believe we could put a heel on that society for 20 yrs and that somehow transformatively they would magically become allies was always a fools dream.

We were always just an occupational force in fortresses. It could not end any other way the moment we left behind those fort walls.

[Arakan]

3 minutes ago, Relic said:

A good friend of mine was stationed in Kabul while working for the UN from 2008 - 2012. I'm curious if you would still use that word "won" after listening to her experiences there.  Literally couldn't leave the military base without an escort, ever. 

The reality even in the relatively calm years 2002-04 was that the central Kabul authorities had no real say whatsoever in the provinces. When you wanted to get things done (building infrastructure, drilling wells, etc) you had to be in the good books of the local clan leaders and war lords. No other way. And even back then we were told to look the other way, be it poppy fields to the horizon or the ever-present corruption and bribes we had to pay. Afghanistan never was a „real“ state or a nation whatsoever. Every valley a new clan, a new tribe, a new „authority“, and new bribes. 

Only as long as we offered the better deal, a region stayed calm. A house of cards. 
In retrospect we could have learned so much from the Soviet experience but our own arrogance and self-righteousness forbid it. Because we were „good“ and bringing „civilization“, infrastructure and democracy and education and human rights. And the Soviets obviously were just evil. What a joke in reality. 

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Relic said:

A good friend of mine was stationed in Kabul while working for the UN from 2008 - 2012.

She came in 6 years into the occupation. The war was, again, won in mid-2002. The unnecessary occupation was lost. 

Quote

I'm curious if you would still use that word "won" after listening to her experiences there.  Literally couldn't leave the military base without an escort, ever. 

She came too late for the war. The rest was just the logic of occupying a land that doesn't matter to you inhabited by a people that didn't want you.

[Relic]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

She came in 6 years into the occupation. The war was, again, won in mid-2002. The unnecessary occupation was lost. 

She came too late for the war. The rest was just the logic of occupying a land that doesn't matter to you inhabited by a people that didn't want you.

So your definition of "won" applies strictly to the initial conflict. The "enemy" faded into the terrain as is always the case in Afghanistan, the Taliban was not dismantled, the people of Afghanistan were not better off, but we "won" anyway. Got it. 

I'm not some military genius, I'm no expert on geopolitical affairs, I know next to nothing on the current affairs in the Middle East...but this entire sad affair has been an abject failure on every single level. Unless carpet bombing weddings and not counting collateral damage (what a cute phrase, that) fits your definition of success I'm not even sure how we can have a debate on this topic. 

It makes me so fucking angry that the people responsible for this incursion, the Neo-Cons and the Democratic cowards who allowed the authorization for use of military force in 2001, have not been held responsible the the incredible loss of life due to their decisions.