5 ms·

It was a bad idea to go in. Having gone in, made a generations long commitment to people and started the work, it was a mistake to come out. But both mistakes w

It was a bad idea to go in. Having gone in, made a generations long commitment to people and started the work, it was a mistake to come out. But both mistakes were (are) wildly popular with the US electorate.

systemvoltage 5y ago
I agree. It is inevitable I think. I am glad the US is pulling out - there is no way we can fund the war anymore and regardless of what happens in Afghanistan, I would vote for no-more-war at every opportunity, including ending all the current ones.
- chmod600 5y ago
  Why do you say the US can't fund the war? What percentage of the government budget is spent in Afghanistan?
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I'd rather spend war funds on building our own infrastructure. American infra is falling apart. I think regardless of the %, it is simple - Afghan war has an opportunity cost.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Remember, not long before the war on terror Clinton had managed to balance the budget. What's the deficit at now? Not all of that is Afghanistan of course. There was Iraq 2 too. And a bunch of other conflicts. And 2 rounds of tax cuts. I'd include 2008 bailouts but I think they ran at a profit in the medium term?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The cheapest option was to do nothing. The best opinion was nation building. The US choose to pay for nation building but give up before any nations were built. The worst of all possible worlds. There is an approach to politics that basically says people create excess value (more than they need to survive), and all politics is just deciding what to spend that on. Each "side" will sometimes squander resources just to stop the other "side" getting them: someone on the left will gold plate social security so that someone on the right can't use the money for tax cuts. I never really subscribed to the theory, but I have to admit the "war on terror" seemed designed from day one to bankrupt the US treasury. Either the people in charge were all really stupid or it was intended, and I don't think they were all stupid.
incrudible 5y ago
> It was a bad idea to go in. It would've been a bad idea to not go in and maintain Afghanistan as the El Dorado for international terrorists. The Taliban got the message rather quickly though, the occupation was unnecessary. However, only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around, to reverse the decades-long descent into tribal mob rule. It was a mistake worth making. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  >However, only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around, to reverse the decades-long descent into tribal mob rule. I don't think this is true at all. I think we knew from Japan, Korea and other "projects" that it works but it takes generations. We knew that before going in. We know it now even though it suits people to pretend it's impossible and that people in Afghanistan are somehow different to people literally everywhere else... Its exactly this sort of ignoring of known facts that gives the US a bad name. The US is great at shock and awe and giving up.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    Active nation-building in Afghanistan has lasted 20 years, compared to ~7 in Japan and I'm not sure exactly what you'd count in Korea.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Japan was already a highly literate, secular, capitalist society when nation building started. And they're still not really a democracy (they only recently changed governing party for instance, or take a look at their attitudes to criminal justice). The US has had one foot out of the door of Afghanistan since day one. In Japan the US wanted an ally against the communists. Rebuilding was important. In Afghanistan, the US had no such need. So we didn't bother. You can build nations (eg Japan). It takes longer when you're working from a rougher starting place. I don't think these are unreasonable points of view. Nor were they novel before Sept 11th 2001. I should say the coalition or nato rather than the US for a lot of the above. Plenty of other countries followed along on an obvious bad idea.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I agree. It is inevitable I think. I am glad the US is pulling out - there is no way we can fund the war anymore and regardless of what happens in Afghanistan, I would vote for no-more-war at every opportunity, including ending all the current ones.

chmod600 5y ago
Why do you say the US can't fund the war? What percentage of the government budget is spent in Afghanistan?
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I'd rather spend war funds on building our own infrastructure. American infra is falling apart. I think regardless of the %, it is simple - Afghan war has an opportunity cost.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Remember, not long before the war on terror Clinton had managed to balance the budget. What's the deficit at now? Not all of that is Afghanistan of course. There was Iraq 2 too. And a bunch of other conflicts. And 2 rounds of tax cuts. I'd include 2008 bailouts but I think they ran at a profit in the medium term?
LatteLazy 5y ago
The cheapest option was to do nothing. The best opinion was nation building. The US choose to pay for nation building but give up before any nations were built. The worst of all possible worlds. There is an approach to politics that basically says people create excess value (more than they need to survive), and all politics is just deciding what to spend that on. Each "side" will sometimes squander resources just to stop the other "side" getting them: someone on the left will gold plate social security so that someone on the right can't use the money for tax cuts. I never really subscribed to the theory, but I have to admit the "war on terror" seemed designed from day one to bankrupt the US treasury. Either the people in charge were all really stupid or it was intended, and I don't think they were all stupid.

incrudible 5y ago

> It was a bad idea to go in. It would've been a bad idea to not go in and maintain Afghanistan as the El Dorado for international terrorists. The Taliban got the message rather quickly though, the occupation was unnecessary. However, only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around, to reverse the decades-long descent into tribal mob rule. It was a mistake worth making. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan

LatteLazy 5y ago
>However, only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around, to reverse the decades-long descent into tribal mob rule. I don't think this is true at all. I think we knew from Japan, Korea and other "projects" that it works but it takes generations. We knew that before going in. We know it now even though it suits people to pretend it's impossible and that people in Afghanistan are somehow different to people literally everywhere else... Its exactly this sort of ignoring of known facts that gives the US a bad name. The US is great at shock and awe and giving up.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  Active nation-building in Afghanistan has lasted 20 years, compared to ~7 in Japan and I'm not sure exactly what you'd count in Korea.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Japan was already a highly literate, secular, capitalist society when nation building started. And they're still not really a democracy (they only recently changed governing party for instance, or take a look at their attitudes to criminal justice). The US has had one foot out of the door of Afghanistan since day one. In Japan the US wanted an ally against the communists. Rebuilding was important. In Afghanistan, the US had no such need. So we didn't bother. You can build nations (eg Japan). It takes longer when you're working from a rougher starting place. I don't think these are unreasonable points of view. Nor were they novel before Sept 11th 2001. I should say the coalition or nato rather than the US for a lot of the above. Plenty of other countries followed along on an obvious bad idea.