International Events VII- Afghan Catastrophe

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Just goes to show you that party affiliation is by far the biggest predictor for how people will answer these questions.  It also helps Biden that in general, the people in the US don't really care about what happens in the Middle East.  And a large chunk of the survey took place before the fall of Kabul.  

Certainly true on both counts.  I think between this and the delta variant (which was already starting to hurt Biden's approval before the Taliban started taking over), it could also give us an idea of Biden's "range" regarding overall approval.  Trump's was a very hard 35-45, while Obama's was about 45-55 post-honeymoon..maybe more 43-53.  Biden's approval has steadily declined, but there's still only one poll on 538's list that has him under 45 (at 44).  Looks like his range may be essentially identical to Obama's.

Which is surprising in one aspect - I'd think Obama is the more popular politician just intuitively.  But I suppose that gap is accounted for by the increasing polarization - and perhaps shift in partisanship among the population - over time.

Now, of course, one huge caveat is Trump's floor is a hard floor.  He could virtually destroy the universe and still get 35 percent approval.  Biden's floor could be broken if the economy tanks (and he's blamed for it) and/or he's engulfed in scandals similar to Trump - just as Obama's could have.

[kiko]

No complaints just an observation: you guys know we have an us politics thread? Approval ratings for your political offices may be better discussed there

[TheLastWolf]

1 hour ago, kiko said:

you guys know we have an us politics thread?

I was just gonna ask that...

[DMC]

1 hour ago, kiko said:

No complaints just an observation: you guys know we have an us politics thread? Approval ratings for your political offices may be better discussed there

Yeah but that would include me multi-quoting and having to click out of this topic and into the US politics threads.  That'd cost me, like, 5-10 whole seconds. And that's not counting remembering to actually do it.  And I'm lazy, ok?  Sue me.

[Arakan]

What really gets me is the continuing dishonesty of a lot of politicians regarding Afghanistan, especially pro-interventionist types. They still try to portray the country as a free and democratic success story, of course with faults (but hey which country is perfect?). If only we stayed a bit longer, everything would have been fine.

With that degree of dishonesty we will never learn and repeat the same mistakes over and over. For God’s sake, Karzai‘s brother was the drug king of Afghanistan . Karzai himself was corrupt to the bone. That such a person still gets airtime in the West, without being called out on his bullshit, tells it all. 

On a sidenote, the increasing disenfranchisement of citizens from their mainstream politicians is completely understandable. We are ruled by career politicians with no backbone at all. No one is accountable for nothing. But with no accountability democracy and justice becomes a farce. 

Helmut Schmidt, former German chancellor, said it well: becoming a representative of the people (that’s what a politician actually should be) should be a „Berufung“ (calling), not a „Beruf“ (job). Never be or make yourself dependent on the direct and indirect income you get as a politician. Otherwise you end where we are now. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'm still baffled that more U.S. citizens didn't high tail out of Afghanistan much earlier.

Trump had already announced U.S. intentions way back in February.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

It was the Worlds worst kept secret that we were leaving after all.

 

The fact is, President Joe Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump, were both eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and end what Biden referred to in his Aug. 16 speech as “America’s longest war.”

The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal.

And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the Taliban leadership.

endquote

Biden would later delay a May 1st withdrawal date that he inherited, making it even more disingenuous to act blindsided now when all the way into mid August 2021 our politicians finally follow through on what leaders in both parties have been saying they were going to do.

Not all, and certainly not all our allies, had a chance to get out earlier, but certainly some of the trapped behind, had plenty of advance warning to get out.

Eta: I myself feel that any U.S. civilian still in country as of say, Jan. 2021, should've been acutely aware of the dangerous choice they were making.

[HoodedCrow]

The Trumpites just wanted Biden to take the “loss”. Biden, doesn’t want to do another Viet Nam. I think Biden doesn’t want military personnel to be killed and the Trumpites would see that as “ weak”, a desirable outcome.

[Zorral]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-wouldnt-know-it-from-the-us-news-coverage-but

Quote

 

The bonfire of hyperboles in US press coverage seems limitless at the moment. And the consequences of the fall of the US-backed government in Kabul are likely to be very, very limited beyond Afghanistan itself. But I wanted to focus on something that seems to be getting very, very little above-the-fold coverage in the American press coverage: the key leaders of the US backed government over the last two decades are relaxedly meeting with the political leadership of the Taliban in Kabul about the formation of the new government.

Meanwhile, Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan President whose precipitous flight hastened the rapid collapse of the government last weekend says he supports these negotiations and is in the process of negotiating his own return to the country.

He’s currently in the United Arab Emirates.

Meanwhile, Afghan media reports that Ghani’s brother, Hashmat Ghani, pledged loyalty to the Taliban and has encouraged all Afghans to do the same. I have no idea if that is in line with these negotiations or something different.

You probably know the name of Hamid Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun who was President of Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014. Abdullah was Karzai’s Foreign Minister from 2001 to 2005. He lost in a disputed 2014 election to Ghani and then became “Chief Executive” of the country which was something like the Prime Minister and I think was part of some deal growing out of the disputed 2014 election. (His pre-2001 background was with the so-called Northern Alliance, the final holdouts against the Taliban.) This is not my area of expertise. But these three are among the most prominent leaders of the US era government. There’s zero question about that.

Here is Abdullah meeting with President Biden in the Oval Office, along with Ghani, back on June 25th.

President Joe Biden, His Excellency Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (center), and His Excellency Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan make statements to the press in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Friday, June 25, 2021.  (photo by Pete Marovich for The New York Times)
WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 25: U.S. President Joe Biden (R) hosts Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani (C) and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of the High Council for National Reconc...MORE 

Now, what does this all mean? I can’t answer that question. If nothing else it reminds us that a key truth of any military occupation is that the locals live there and the occupiers don’t. They’ll be there after the foreigners are gone; a reality never lost on the people from the country. In this particular case, everyone’s interests seem pretty straightforward. Karzai, Abdullah and Ghani want some role in the new regime or at least don’t want to be on the wrong side of it. At least in the short-run stabilizing the situation is likely in everyone’s interests. The Taliban meanwhile, for all their military success, will rapidly need international recognition, access to the global banking system and access to the country’s money in US banks. All of that was cut off as soon as the former government fell.

Whether or not the Taliban actually plan on governing differently than they did between 1996-2001, that financial need will become acute. If nothing else they likely want to have a longer tenure than they did in their first period at the helm in the country.

I flag this first because it seems highly newsworthy if we’re trying to understand just what is happening in the country. But it is remarkable to me that you can immerse yourself in the current US media coverage and as far as I can tell see very, very little discussion of this at all. I only noticed it and started digging around because I noticed Abdullah’s tweet and did some digging from there.

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

From Philip Hensher’s book, The Mulberry Empire, long-listed for the Booker, published in 2002. It’s a fictionalized tale of the first Anglo-Afghan War that started in 1839 (“anachronisms and plain falsifications have on the whole been indulged in when it pleased me”). From the ending:

”The empire was cleansed, and washed clean with blood, and the princes of the empire rode over the fallen warriors and their wicked bones crunched like dry bread and the glory and might of the Afghans.”

That’s from the WaPo book club post, and the book sounds interesting. Strangely enough, though, Hensher does not seem to be on the radar here, my library only has one of his books. Funny, because he’s been both long-listed and short-listed for the Booker.

[Ran]

I quite like Dan Drezner new piece. He wrote last week that from an international relations perspective the withdrawal from Afghanistan didn't matter in terms of American reputation, but that the early chaos may have impugned Biden's and America's competence. Now he's followed up and examined the evidence and largely finds that Biden seems to have acted as correctly as was possible given the set of information he had and the determination he had to leave. It wasn't perfect, but it's not (yet) the debacle that it initially seemed when the initial panic took place. So long as evacuation is ongoing -- and we have US forces and allies (specifically, the Qatari ambassador in Kabul) now occasionally going out of the airport to collect and bring people safely to the airport -- it's way too early to judge how this evacuation will look in retrospect.

[Zorral]

I can't recall where I read this morning the numbers are over 28,000 successfully evacuated, all alive, during a period in which 500 Americans (i.e. US citizens presumably) died of Covid and thousands and thousands and thousands have been hospitalized.

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

The Taliban has drawn a line in the sand about August 31 being the absolute last day for evacuations, so I guess things could still go further south after that date (assuming not everyone is out by then).

[The Anti-Targ]

On 8/21/2021 at 7:58 PM, Arakan said:

What really gets me is the continuing dishonesty of a lot of politicians regarding Afghanistan, especially pro-interventionist types. They still try to portray the country as a free and democratic success story, of course with faults (but hey which country is perfect?). If only we stayed a bit longer, everything would have been fine.

With that degree of dishonesty we will never learn and repeat the same mistakes over and over. For God’s sake, Karzai‘s brother was the drug king of Afghanistan . Karzai himself was corrupt to the bone. That such a person still gets airtime in the West, without being called out on his bullshit, tells it all. 

On a sidenote, the increasing disenfranchisement of citizens from their mainstream politicians is completely understandable. We are ruled by career politicians with no backbone at all. No one is accountable for nothing. But with no accountability democracy and justice becomes a farce. 

Helmut Schmidt, former German chancellor, said it well: becoming a representative of the people (that’s what a politician actually should be) should be a „Berufung“ (calling), not a „Beruf“ (job). Never be or make yourself dependent on the direct and indirect income you get as a politician. Otherwise you end where we are now. 

Problem with that is then only independently wealthy people can afford to be elected to government. I also disagree with Helmut Schmidt. If you feel politics is a calling, that just means you are driven by a different corrupting motive: ambition for power. Elected representatives should see themselves as servants of those who elected them (and those who didn't just as much) and their role as one of humble service. it's fine to see service as an elected representative as a job, it just should not be seen as a career. The one thing that Schmidt got close to with the calling thing is that elections should be a call to serve from the people, rather than the person putting themselves forward to the people as the best person to lead.

Taking money off the table in democracy and govt is not about what elected reps get paid when in office, it's about the money train they ride to get there.

It's all upside down and you ain't gonna fix it by tinkering.

[rotting sea cow]

17 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The Taliban has drawn a line in the sand about August 31 being the absolute last day for evacuations, so I guess things could still go further south after that date (assuming not everyone is out by then).

CIA director has secretly privately met with the Taliban to solve - I suppose - this impasse.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/cia-director-secretly-met-with-taliban-leader-in-kabul-report-says-1.10146153

 

[Loge]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Problem with that is then only independently wealthy people can afford to be elected to government. I also disagree with Helmut Schmidt. If you feel politics is a calling, that just means you are driven by a different corrupting motive: ambition for power. Elected representatives should see themselves as servants of those who elected them (and those who didn't just as much) and their role as one of humble service. it's fine to see service as an elected representative as a job, it just should not be seen as a career. The one thing that Schmidt got close to with the calling thing is that elections should be a call to serve from the people, rather than the person putting themselves forward to the people as the best person to lead.

Taking money off the table in democracy and govt is not about what elected reps get paid when in office, it's about the money train they ride to get there.

It's all upside down and you ain't gonna fix it by tinkering.

Schmidt wasn't suggesting politicians in office shouldn't be paid salaries. The problem with the current crop of politicians (in Germany, at least) is that they never had a real job that they might go back to. They need to hold some kind of office for life. If they happen to get voted out for some reason, they'll get a job in their party's organisation or it's associated foundation, all tax-funded.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Huh....thats interesting. I thought for the longest time the doctrine "The US does not negotiate with terrorists" was true, but its actually the opposite of true. We've done it numerous times in the past and will continue to do so.

[kiko]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Problem with that is then only independently wealthy people can afford to be elected to government. I also disagree with Helmut Schmidt. If you feel politics is a calling, that just means you are driven by a different corrupting motive: ambition for power. Elected representatives should see themselves as servants of those who elected them (and those who didn't just as much) and their role as one of humble service. it's fine to see service as an elected representative as a job, it just should not be seen as a career. The one thing that Schmidt got close to with the calling thing is that elections should be a call to serve from the people, rather than the person putting themselves forward to the people as the best person to lead.

Taking money off the table in democracy and govt is not about what elected reps get paid when in office, it's about the money train they ride to get there.

It's all upside down and you ain't gonna fix it by tinkering.

I completely disagree. If you want to make serving the people your job, become a public officer. If you feel the calling to serve, become a politician. Most (almost all) politicians will never earn money to sustain themselves with their calling. Never. If you are in a position to earn serious money, you could do better in a quite average position in every corporation in the country. So, don't do it for money.

Helmut Schmidt was right with his assessment.

[Werthead]

8 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Huh....thats interesting. I thought for the longest time the doctrine "The US does not negotiate with terrorists" was true, but its actually the opposite of true. We've done it numerous times in the past and will continue to do so.

The US has not designated the Afghan Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO), which they definitely did with Al-Qaeda and ISIS. It looks like they accepted the Taliban as the de facto government of Afghanistan in the 1990s and treated them as a government organisation, albeit one they decided was an enemy, and seem to have treated them as such ever since, though some of the individual organisations and groups within and allied to the Taliban have not been so lucky.

It does make it easier to negotiate with them (then and now) without betraying the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line.

Just to really confuse things, the US apparently has declared the Taliban in Pakistan as an FTO (seemingly recognising they have a potentially legitimate role in Afghanistan but not Pakistan).

Interesting speculation here, if somewhat fanciful, that the US may have been suggesting offering assistance to the Taliban should they come under attack from ISIS-in-Afghanistan in return for more time to clear the airport. The Taliban and ISIS are not well-disposed to one another, and reportedly have been clashing intermittently for months already (ISIS-in-Afghanistan are a pretty small organisation, though, with believed to be well under 2,000 members, so are not likely to pose an imminent threat to the Taliban).

[Arakan]

16 hours ago, Loge said:

 If they happen to get voted out for some reason, they'll get a job in their party's organisation or it's associated foundation, all tax-funded.

This is by far the most harmless part. Much more dangerous is the increasing entanglement with business, even when still active: They get positions on supervisory boards, they are dependent on lobby money, they found „consulting firms“ (only real asset: political network). And when they decide to end their political career, they end up immediately in executive business positions or as lobbyists and consultants. The question is: whose interests do politicians serve? Those of the people who elected then or those of the special interest groups? No one bites the hand who feeds oneself. 

We have seen so many politicians monetizing their political connections during the pandemic. Even though it was their job as representatives of the people! It’s disgusting.

As another example it is no secret that tax laws all over Europe (and the US I guess) are basically written by lobby groups. 

[The Anti-Targ]

22 hours ago, kiko said:

I completely disagree. If you want to make serving the people your job, become a public officer. If you feel the calling to serve, become a politician. Most (almost all) politicians will never earn money to sustain themselves with their calling. Never. If you are in a position to earn serious money, you could do better in a quite average position in every corporation in the country. So, don't do it for money.

Helmut Schmidt was right with his assessment.

LoL, I was stupid to try to argue a position in a system that I regard as fatally flawed anyway. There is no improvement to be made no matter how one frames what should motivate people to enter politics as we currently know it. I was wrong no matter what position I took. Even being in full agreement with you and Arkan I am still wrong.