5 ms·

> Each time the occupiers have sought to reshape Afghan society from the bottom up into something resembling a modern western character. You underestimate the

> 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."
- incrudible 5y ago
  > Modern radical islamism is completely irrelevant to my point. I neither mentioned nor even thought about it when writing my comment. You didn't think of it? If I understand correctly, your point is that Afghanistan has been "mostly the same" for 200 years straight and that by invading this country, the same mistake has been repeated over and over, for the same reason. That's a remarkable feat of reductionism. Big, if true!
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    You're detouring into minutae in order to avoid my refutation of your idiotic "only in hindsight" claim. Nowhere did say or imply that Afghanistan has been "mostly the same" for 200 years straight. I'll leave it to you to somehow divine what I did say. In the future, you might, just might, want to consider even a cursory study of Afghan/English/Russian history before weighing in on this topic.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > You're detouring into minutae in order to avoid my refutation of your idiotic "only in hindsight" claim. Detour into minutae? Let's be clear: I'd like to stop talking to you, your style of debate is quite unpleasant. I get it, you have opinions. You can keep them. > Nowhere did say or imply that Afghanistan has been "mostly the same" for 200 years straight. How else am I to interpret this paragraph? "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 mistake is the same only if the objective is mostly the same and the country is mostly the same. If not, then your "could've seen that one coming!" assertion just falls apart. In particular, to disregard the rise of Islamism and the power-grab of the Taliban that preceded the US invasion strikes as willfully ignorant. This is what makes your argument so weak - these premises are indefensible and you don't seem eager to even try. Instead, you resort to a gatekeeping maneuver. Nice try! > I'll leave it to you to somehow divine what I did say. Refusing to clarify when required immediately disqualifies you from debate.

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."

incrudible 5y ago
> Modern radical islamism is completely irrelevant to my point. I neither mentioned nor even thought about it when writing my comment. You didn't think of it? If I understand correctly, your point is that Afghanistan has been "mostly the same" for 200 years straight and that by invading this country, the same mistake has been repeated over and over, for the same reason. That's a remarkable feat of reductionism. Big, if true!
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  You're detouring into minutae in order to avoid my refutation of your idiotic "only in hindsight" claim. Nowhere did say or imply that Afghanistan has been "mostly the same" for 200 years straight. I'll leave it to you to somehow divine what I did say. In the future, you might, just might, want to consider even a cursory study of Afghan/English/Russian history before weighing in on this topic.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > You're detouring into minutae in order to avoid my refutation of your idiotic "only in hindsight" claim. Detour into minutae? Let's be clear: I'd like to stop talking to you, your style of debate is quite unpleasant. I get it, you have opinions. You can keep them. > Nowhere did say or imply that Afghanistan has been "mostly the same" for 200 years straight. How else am I to interpret this paragraph? "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 mistake is the same only if the objective is mostly the same and the country is mostly the same. If not, then your "could've seen that one coming!" assertion just falls apart. In particular, to disregard the rise of Islamism and the power-grab of the Taliban that preceded the US invasion strikes as willfully ignorant. This is what makes your argument so weak - these premises are indefensible and you don't seem eager to even try. Instead, you resort to a gatekeeping maneuver. Nice try! > I'll leave it to you to somehow divine what I did say. Refusing to clarify when required immediately disqualifies you from debate.