3 ms·

> You underestimate the degree to which countries like Afghanistan or Iran were already "westernized". Cities like Kabul or Teheran weren't that different from

> 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
      > How else am I then to interpret this paragraph? I think you're having trouble interpreting it simply because you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the significance of those dates, for example, so you probably can't imagine why I left 1979 off that list. You don't know how the country evolved throughout the British occupation, so you have no idea how absurd it is to talk about how "westernized" it was. This stuff is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the country's history. The real problem is that your question doesn't even make sense. It makes no sense to posit whether Afghanistan has changed, because Afghanistan isn't a single entity. It's barely even a country. So the answer is yes and no. Vast rural areas are indeed almost unchanged since the pre-British era; life in eastern mountain valleys, for example, looks pretty much the same as it did a hundred years ago, with the notable and somewhat jarring exception of cell phones. Kabul and Khandahar on the other hand went through drastic changes mid-century. These are essentially different countries. > The mistake is the same only if the objective is mostly the same and the country is mostly the same. If not, then your bold "could've seen that one coming!"-claim just falls apart. That's some interesting logic. I and others who predicted failure in Afghanistan over twenty years ago were unaware of these rules, and yet we somehow managed to predict the course of the conflict. That could just be a total coincidence. Or it could be that a deep knowledge of the country and its history allows one to analyze the long sequence of conflicts there, differences and commonalities between the various actors and conditions of the country across those times, and then draw informed predictions. Do you think maybe a few books were written about this exact topic? > In particular, to disregard the rise of Islamism and the power-grab of the Taliban that preceded the US invasion appears willfully ignorant. You might be surprised to learn (and I'm guessing you'll actually be surprised) that the rise of militant Islamism did not make us more likely to win. Regardless, both the Brits and the Ruskies, who had very difference experiences in Afghanistan in many ways, including the absence and presence of militant Islamism respectively, were nevertheless able to confidently tell us that our own little project was almost certainly doomed. And hey, they were right, imagine that. There aren't any "premises" here that have to be defended. This is just information about our countries and their common history that is easily accessible to you if you cared to find it. You could start with Edward Ingram's paper that I cited in a different comment. Look, this is all pretty simple. Your claim was, "only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around". This claim is idiotic. Not only idiotic; it's eye-rollingly, mind-numbingly stupid. Lots and lots of people knew exactly what was going to happen, and they've been proven right at every turn. And nobody on the other side of the debate, not even the most die-hard neocons, made the argument that our victory was assured. The neocon argument involved a lot of technical hand waiving about America's strength in intel and covert ops, but none of them was stupid enough to claim that failure was unforseeable, like you're claiming. Go read Doug Feith's book. Or Wolfowitz and Perle. Or anything. Even worse was your second claim, that after trillions dollars and tens of thousands of lives lost, the "mistake was worth making". This is some arrogant, ignorant, first-world tech-bro idiocy that I don't even deem worthy of spending time on, so I didn't. I have to say, as fun as it is for me to point and make fun, I probably won't come back to this thread.

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
    > How else am I then to interpret this paragraph? I think you're having trouble interpreting it simply because you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the significance of those dates, for example, so you probably can't imagine why I left 1979 off that list. You don't know how the country evolved throughout the British occupation, so you have no idea how absurd it is to talk about how "westernized" it was. This stuff is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the country's history. The real problem is that your question doesn't even make sense. It makes no sense to posit whether Afghanistan has changed, because Afghanistan isn't a single entity. It's barely even a country. So the answer is yes and no. Vast rural areas are indeed almost unchanged since the pre-British era; life in eastern mountain valleys, for example, looks pretty much the same as it did a hundred years ago, with the notable and somewhat jarring exception of cell phones. Kabul and Khandahar on the other hand went through drastic changes mid-century. These are essentially different countries. > The mistake is the same only if the objective is mostly the same and the country is mostly the same. If not, then your bold "could've seen that one coming!"-claim just falls apart. That's some interesting logic. I and others who predicted failure in Afghanistan over twenty years ago were unaware of these rules, and yet we somehow managed to predict the course of the conflict. That could just be a total coincidence. Or it could be that a deep knowledge of the country and its history allows one to analyze the long sequence of conflicts there, differences and commonalities between the various actors and conditions of the country across those times, and then draw informed predictions. Do you think maybe a few books were written about this exact topic? > In particular, to disregard the rise of Islamism and the power-grab of the Taliban that preceded the US invasion appears willfully ignorant. You might be surprised to learn (and I'm guessing you'll actually be surprised) that the rise of militant Islamism did not make us more likely to win. Regardless, both the Brits and the Ruskies, who had very difference experiences in Afghanistan in many ways, including the absence and presence of militant Islamism respectively, were nevertheless able to confidently tell us that our own little project was almost certainly doomed. And hey, they were right, imagine that. There aren't any "premises" here that have to be defended. This is just information about our countries and their common history that is easily accessible to you if you cared to find it. You could start with Edward Ingram's paper that I cited in a different comment. Look, this is all pretty simple. Your claim was, "only in hindsight is it obvious that Afghanistan could not be turned around". This claim is idiotic. Not only idiotic; it's eye-rollingly, mind-numbingly stupid. Lots and lots of people knew exactly what was going to happen, and they've been proven right at every turn. And nobody on the other side of the debate, not even the most die-hard neocons, made the argument that our victory was assured. The neocon argument involved a lot of technical hand waiving about America's strength in intel and covert ops, but none of them was stupid enough to claim that failure was unforseeable, like you're claiming. Go read Doug Feith's book. Or Wolfowitz and Perle. Or anything. Even worse was your second claim, that after trillions dollars and tens of thousands of lives lost, the "mistake was worth making". This is some arrogant, ignorant, first-world tech-bro idiocy that I don't even deem worthy of spending time on, so I didn't. I have to say, as fun as it is for me to point and make fun, I probably won't come back to this thread.