7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- incrudible 5y ago
  I don't think you can find anything remotely comparable in US history that would give you the answer as to whether this mission was feasible or not, ahead of time.
nate_meurer 5y ago
> only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around It's exactly this kind of stupid, arrogant, historically illiterate rhetoric that gets us into trouble. Between the Brits and the Soviets, Afghanistan has been occupied half a dozen times in the modern era. Each time the occupiers have sought to reshape Afghan society from the bottom up into something resembling a modern western character. Every one has ultimately failed in a similar way. So now Americans act surprised that the seventh attempt failed? Are you fucking joking?
- incrudible 5y ago
  > Each time the occupiers have sought to reshape Afghan society from the bottom up into something resembling a modern western character. You underestimate the degree to which countries like Afghanistan or Iran were already "westernized". Cities like Kabul or Teheran weren't that different from Istanbul. The Islamists that you seem to conflate with "Afghan society" are a modern phenomenon. It's true that many have tried (and failed) to deal with this problem. The only ones who have succeeded unfortunately tend to be cold-blooded strongmen like Hafez/Basher al-Assad, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Broader civil society is not equipped to deal with it. The mission objective was to change this. Despite the failure, it was a noble objective. You speak from your position within a privileged society wherein religious extremism is a thing of the distant past. Imagine for a moment that your military didn't exist and that armed evangelicals chose to ride into every major city to defend some of their "values". How exactly would you defend yourself and your (lack of) values? I suspect you would react by keeping your head down and hoping for better times.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    > You underestimate the degree to which countries like Afghanistan or Iran were already "westernized". Cities like Kabul or Teheran weren't that different from Istanbul. Pick any aspect you like-- industrial, legal, political, civil, architectural, anything-- and tell me how "westernized" Afghanistan was in 1929, or 1919, or 1878, or 1838? Do you even know what those dates are? I'll give you a hint: moments in history, when Afghanistan was much the same as it was when we invaded in 2001, that could have enlightened us regarding our fate if we were willing to be educated. > The Islamists that you seem to conflate with "Afghan society" are a modern phenomenon. Modern radical islamism is completely irrelevant to my point. I neither mentioned nor even thought about it when writing my comment. If history is any guide, not many decades will pass before some other wealthy nation again decides to civilize Afghanistan, and the inevitable tragic and bloody failure will again be justified post-hoc by historically illiterate folks who say things like "Gee whiz, who could have seen that coming? Oh well, at least it was a noble cause."
dragonwriter 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. It was a mistake worth making. Dubious, but at leaat arguably true. But, unfortunately, the mistake you suggest is worth making is not the mistake we actually made, the serious effort in Afghanistan being shortchanged early on for the distraction of the war of choice in Iraq. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were (among other issues, particularly with Iraq) afflicted with “counterinsurgency on the cheap” disease in the Bush Administration, with fairly predictable consequences even if one thinks that nation-building with counterinsurgency warfare by the US as a key pillar was viable.

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.
incrudible 5y ago
I don't think you can find anything remotely comparable in US history that would give you the answer as to whether this mission was feasible or not, ahead of time.

nate_meurer 5y ago

> only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around It's exactly this kind of stupid, arrogant, historically illiterate rhetoric that gets us into trouble. Between the Brits and the Soviets, Afghanistan has been occupied half a dozen times in the modern era. Each time the occupiers have sought to reshape Afghan society from the bottom up into something resembling a modern western character. Every one has ultimately failed in a similar way. So now Americans act surprised that the seventh attempt failed? Are you fucking joking?

incrudible 5y ago
> Each time the occupiers have sought to reshape Afghan society from the bottom up into something resembling a modern western character. You underestimate the degree to which countries like Afghanistan or Iran were already "westernized". Cities like Kabul or Teheran weren't that different from Istanbul. The Islamists that you seem to conflate with "Afghan society" are a modern phenomenon. It's true that many have tried (and failed) to deal with this problem. The only ones who have succeeded unfortunately tend to be cold-blooded strongmen like Hafez/Basher al-Assad, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Broader civil society is not equipped to deal with it. The mission objective was to change this. Despite the failure, it was a noble objective. You speak from your position within a privileged society wherein religious extremism is a thing of the distant past. Imagine for a moment that your military didn't exist and that armed evangelicals chose to ride into every major city to defend some of their "values". How exactly would you defend yourself and your (lack of) values? I suspect you would react by keeping your head down and hoping for better times.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  > You underestimate the degree to which countries like Afghanistan or Iran were already "westernized". Cities like Kabul or Teheran weren't that different from Istanbul. Pick any aspect you like-- industrial, legal, political, civil, architectural, anything-- and tell me how "westernized" Afghanistan was in 1929, or 1919, or 1878, or 1838? Do you even know what those dates are? I'll give you a hint: moments in history, when Afghanistan was much the same as it was when we invaded in 2001, that could have enlightened us regarding our fate if we were willing to be educated. > The Islamists that you seem to conflate with "Afghan society" are a modern phenomenon. Modern radical islamism is completely irrelevant to my point. I neither mentioned nor even thought about it when writing my comment. If history is any guide, not many decades will pass before some other wealthy nation again decides to civilize Afghanistan, and the inevitable tragic and bloody failure will again be justified post-hoc by historically illiterate folks who say things like "Gee whiz, who could have seen that coming? Oh well, at least it was a noble cause."

dragonwriter 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. It was a mistake worth making. Dubious, but at leaat arguably true. But, unfortunately, the mistake you suggest is worth making is not the mistake we actually made, the serious effort in Afghanistan being shortchanged early on for the distraction of the war of choice in Iraq. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were (among other issues, particularly with Iraq) afflicted with “counterinsurgency on the cheap” disease in the Bush Administration, with fairly predictable consequences even if one thinks that nation-building with counterinsurgency warfare by the US as a key pillar was viable.