7 ms·

There was an instagram post I saw (one of the boys sent it to me, I'm not a social media guy) that showed the Taliban walking through our old FOB in Afghanistan

There was an instagram post I saw (one of the boys sent it to me, I'm not a social media guy) that showed the Taliban walking through our old FOB in Afghanistan. What was odd to me about seeing that is I really had no emotional response to it. I thought I would, but I just ... didn't care anymore. Over the last few weeks I've also been sent article after article about the withdrawal from other friends (not veterans) who are deep in policy circles, about how this or that thing will mean this or that thing for Afghanistan. Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? Apparently these people in DC think they do. My brother today asked me if I had an opinion on the withdrawal from Afghanistan when we did our weekly gaming session (tonight was Hearts Of Iron), and I told him "no, why would I? The war was over years before I even got there".

Seattle3503 5y ago
For the past 20 years we have been focused on what it costs us to remain. Leaving has shown the cost to others for us to go. No matter what you think we should do, that cost is a bitter pill to swallow.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Not when I step over homeless/needy Americans. Don't get me wrong, it's sad, but the USA is not what it used to be, and we need to target our borrowed money resources. (I have no idea as to the real reason we stayed so long there. I'm beginning to think it was military practice. I wouldn't be suprised if some defense guy said, we have to build up our the iron in our military in order to keep our lead on China's expanding fleet of war machines. (I used "iron" because I'm lazy, and figured it was ok because of what Xi just said.)
parsimo2010 5y ago
> Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? I don’t think too many people care out of compassion for individual Afghans, but the original reason we “liberated“ them was because the Taliban was providing a safe haven for Al Qaeda to train and launch terrorist attacks. The USA created a democratic government in the hopes that the troops could be withdrawn and the local Afghan government would maintain its own affairs and keep terrorists from operating in its country. There are many Americans that care that after 20 years the Taliban will take over again shortly after the troops are gone. Nothing changed, the next OBL could be operating out of Afghanistan and Americans got nothing for their 20 years of wasted tax money except thousands of casualties and a lot of broken families. So I don’t know if too many Americans care exactly which government Afghanistan adopts, but I’m pretty sure anyone paying attention is disappointed that they didn’t get literally anything different. Edit: to be clear, this wasn't me critiquing the plan, saying whether it would or wouldn't work. This was me responding to GP's prompt about whether America cared about what style of government Afghanistan adopted. Yes America cares, not so much about the style of government but about the outcome. They were told that Afghanistan was going to get a new government that wouldn't allow terrorists free reign to operate as they please; as a result America and the world would be safer. They didn't get that. Yes there are other places that terrorists could operate from, but removing Afghanistan from the list would have been nice. Yes, democracy would be nice, but America would have accepted if Afghanistan had adopted a limited monarchy ran by a Grand Poobah. What we're about to end up with is the Taliban running the government again and probably handing a few of the recently vacated facilities to terrorists as new training camps.
- pjc50 5y ago
  OBL was, in the end, operating out of Pakistan, a "democratic" "US ally". It was impossible to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan because they could retreat to, operate from, and occasionally bomb US fuel supplies in, Pakistan. The quest for revenge after 9/11 just gave the US two more Vietnams.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    True but at least the US doesn't have the draft anymore so American society doesn't care much and life goes on unchanged. When I read about an aircraft carrier being diverted to cover the withdrawal I couldn't help mutter "Saigon".
    - rascul 5y ago
      > True but at least the US doesn't have the draft anymore Unfortunately it does. Hasn't been called up since the Vietnam War but the system is still in place and people are still required to register. https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Unfortunately it does. No, it doesn't. > Hasn't been called up since the Vietnam War Right, because there is no draft law. > but the system is still in place and people are still required to register. No, the registration system is in place, but it would take a change in law for there to be a draft.
- visualradio 5y ago
  > The USA created a democratic government in the hopes that the troops could be withdrawn and the local Afghan government would maintain its own affairs Democracy in the USA is based upon directly elected local government and a local property tax on landowners. We never tried to establish anything resembling american style democracy in Afghanistan. Imagine if after each contentious national election the President appointed all of the state governors, all the county and city executives were also appointed by the governors or the President, that there was no direct property tax on corporate and individual land owners, and that the national government levied an internal sales tax. The USA wouldn't survive more than a few years under Afghanistan style democracy.
colordrops 5y ago
I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources, and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century. Human rights and self defense have very little to do with it, and to believe so is to fall to propaganda.
- refurb 5y ago
  You’ll have to define power and resources. I mean, Afghanistan offers very little of either and any control you want to exert comes at a high cost and fades pretty quickly.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  You can be as blunt and stupid as you choose. >but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resource Sure, I'll collect my check at the pump, I guess. >and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century I think you're missing the meaning of my original post, which was a comment about people who experienced war in Afghanistan feel about it. You're welcome to contort that into whatever point about human rights, "America is bad", whatever point you feel like. Like I said originally. I don't care.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    I was replying to this: > Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? Apparently these people in DC think they do.
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      Are you asking what I think the DC establishment thinks is the right government structure for Afghanistan?
      - 5y ago
gexla 5y ago
Love this. And it's how I feel about most things which aren't directly relevant to the items on my todo list in a given day. I care if my house was flooding, I care about tickets being posted to some queue that I'm being paid to watch and I care about anything which is generally conspiring to get me to make a reaction or even just move a finger to show I'm still alive. Outside of these things, my life is about keeping the list of things I care about as small as possible. Nothing about politics makes that list.
thephyber 5y ago
> Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? As just an ordinary American citizen, I think that question is nearly 20 years too late (or 32 if we consider Charlie Wilson’s War). And that particular question is downstream of other more important questions. My primary calculation is: what is the likelihood that a central Afghan government could actually influence the governing of regions far from the major cities, what is the likelihood that American soldiers could support the central government in establishing order/governance there, how much progress have we made in 20 years, how much longer would it take to make such a project self-sustaining without further US support, would the central government be considered authentic by those whom it governs or just a Vichy, and how do American citizens know the progress we are making is real or just optimistic spin by professional generals whose reputation is tied to this engagement. Honestly I’ve been pretty pessimistic about Afghanistan since Bush 2 took his eye off the ball in 2003 and moved his efforts to Iraq, which was at least a stable governing organization (although I freely admit I would never want to live there). We elected Obama and Trump since, both of whom tried to pull the US out of these Middle East wars and mostly did (until things changed). If America had any real chance to help Afghanistan, it was in 1989 right after the Soviets left and we left the weak remaining government to deal with the well trained mujaheddin with no significant American support.

Seattle3503 5y ago

For the past 20 years we have been focused on what it costs us to remain. Leaving has shown the cost to others for us to go. No matter what you think we should do, that cost is a bitter pill to swallow.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
Not when I step over homeless/needy Americans. Don't get me wrong, it's sad, but the USA is not what it used to be, and we need to target our borrowed money resources. (I have no idea as to the real reason we stayed so long there. I'm beginning to think it was military practice. I wouldn't be suprised if some defense guy said, we have to build up our the iron in our military in order to keep our lead on China's expanding fleet of war machines. (I used "iron" because I'm lazy, and figured it was ok because of what Xi just said.)

parsimo2010 5y ago

> Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? I don’t think too many people care out of compassion for individual Afghans, but the original reason we “liberated“ them was because the Taliban was providing a safe haven for Al Qaeda to train and launch terrorist attacks. The USA created a democratic government in the hopes that the troops could be withdrawn and the local Afghan government would maintain its own affairs and keep terrorists from operating in its country. There are many Americans that care that after 20 years the Taliban will take over again shortly after the troops are gone. Nothing changed, the next OBL could be operating out of Afghanistan and Americans got nothing for their 20 years of wasted tax money except thousands of casualties and a lot of broken families. So I don’t know if too many Americans care exactly which government Afghanistan adopts, but I’m pretty sure anyone paying attention is disappointed that they didn’t get literally anything different. Edit: to be clear, this wasn't me critiquing the plan, saying whether it would or wouldn't work. This was me responding to GP's prompt about whether America cared about what style of government Afghanistan adopted. Yes America cares, not so much about the style of government but about the outcome. They were told that Afghanistan was going to get a new government that wouldn't allow terrorists free reign to operate as they please; as a result America and the world would be safer. They didn't get that. Yes there are other places that terrorists could operate from, but removing Afghanistan from the list would have been nice. Yes, democracy would be nice, but America would have accepted if Afghanistan had adopted a limited monarchy ran by a Grand Poobah. What we're about to end up with is the Taliban running the government again and probably handing a few of the recently vacated facilities to terrorists as new training camps.

pjc50 5y ago
OBL was, in the end, operating out of Pakistan, a "democratic" "US ally". It was impossible to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan because they could retreat to, operate from, and occasionally bomb US fuel supplies in, Pakistan. The quest for revenge after 9/11 just gave the US two more Vietnams.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  True but at least the US doesn't have the draft anymore so American society doesn't care much and life goes on unchanged. When I read about an aircraft carrier being diverted to cover the withdrawal I couldn't help mutter "Saigon".
  - rascul 5y ago
    > True but at least the US doesn't have the draft anymore Unfortunately it does. Hasn't been called up since the Vietnam War but the system is still in place and people are still required to register. https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Unfortunately it does. No, it doesn't. > Hasn't been called up since the Vietnam War Right, because there is no draft law. > but the system is still in place and people are still required to register. No, the registration system is in place, but it would take a change in law for there to be a draft.
visualradio 5y ago
> The USA created a democratic government in the hopes that the troops could be withdrawn and the local Afghan government would maintain its own affairs Democracy in the USA is based upon directly elected local government and a local property tax on landowners. We never tried to establish anything resembling american style democracy in Afghanistan. Imagine if after each contentious national election the President appointed all of the state governors, all the county and city executives were also appointed by the governors or the President, that there was no direct property tax on corporate and individual land owners, and that the national government levied an internal sales tax. The USA wouldn't survive more than a few years under Afghanistan style democracy.

colordrops 5y ago

I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources, and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century. Human rights and self defense have very little to do with it, and to believe so is to fall to propaganda.

refurb 5y ago
You’ll have to define power and resources. I mean, Afghanistan offers very little of either and any control you want to exert comes at a high cost and fades pretty quickly.
remarkEon 5y ago
You can be as blunt and stupid as you choose. >but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resource Sure, I'll collect my check at the pump, I guess. >and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century I think you're missing the meaning of my original post, which was a comment about people who experienced war in Afghanistan feel about it. You're welcome to contort that into whatever point about human rights, "America is bad", whatever point you feel like. Like I said originally. I don't care.
- colordrops 5y ago
  I was replying to this: > Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? Apparently these people in DC think they do.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    Are you asking what I think the DC establishment thinks is the right government structure for Afghanistan?
    - 5y ago

gexla 5y ago

Love this. And it's how I feel about most things which aren't directly relevant to the items on my todo list in a given day. I care if my house was flooding, I care about tickets being posted to some queue that I'm being paid to watch and I care about anything which is generally conspiring to get me to make a reaction or even just move a finger to show I'm still alive. Outside of these things, my life is about keeping the list of things I care about as small as possible. Nothing about politics makes that list.

thephyber 5y ago

> Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? As just an ordinary American citizen, I think that question is nearly 20 years too late (or 32 if we consider Charlie Wilson’s War). And that particular question is downstream of other more important questions. My primary calculation is: what is the likelihood that a central Afghan government could actually influence the governing of regions far from the major cities, what is the likelihood that American soldiers could support the central government in establishing order/governance there, how much progress have we made in 20 years, how much longer would it take to make such a project self-sustaining without further US support, would the central government be considered authentic by those whom it governs or just a Vichy, and how do American citizens know the progress we are making is real or just optimistic spin by professional generals whose reputation is tied to this engagement. Honestly I’ve been pretty pessimistic about Afghanistan since Bush 2 took his eye off the ball in 2003 and moved his efforts to Iraq, which was at least a stable governing organization (although I freely admit I would never want to live there). We elected Obama and Trump since, both of whom tried to pull the US out of these Middle East wars and mostly did (until things changed). If America had any real chance to help Afghanistan, it was in 1989 right after the Soviets left and we left the weak remaining government to deal with the well trained mujaheddin with no significant American support.