4 ms·
The US is leaving the Afghan government without means to defend itself, after spending two decades there de facto in control. So it's a huge mess, where they'v
by fsloth 5y ago
The US is leaving the Afghan government without means to defend itself, after spending two decades there de facto in control.
So it's a huge mess, where they've been in control more or less, but they've failed to make the transition into a local civilian state into a stable one.
The offshoot of this is a wave of refugees that will engulf the neighboring countries, decreasing political stability in the Eurasian area.
This is a clear message to all governments - "Washington can no longer be trusted, it's a game of each for his own sovereignty now on".
I'm not saying US should be the guarantor of world piece, but this unmitigated disaster of immediate retreat is causing diminishing of political capital for Washington. It won't be considered as a dependable party from now on.
The situation is even more horrific from PR point of view since US helped to empower Taliban in 1980's to retaliate against Soviet forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
- ericmay 5y ago> So it's a huge mess, where they've been in control more or less, but they've failed to make the transition into a local civilian state into a stable one. I think Afghanistan has failed itself. U.S. put a trillion dollars and 20 years into it and it collapsed within a month (at best). At some point you admit failure and move on. I think the rest of your messaging is confusing. Washington can't be trusted, but we shouldn't be the guarantor of world peace? Should I stay or should I go? What do you want us to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? Where and when does it end?
- fsloth 5y ago"What do you want us to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? Where and when does it end?" Like I said, I don't want Washington to do anything. I'm a disinterested observer. I can be a disinterested observer while saying something is an objective failure. It does not mean necessarily that there might have been any other outcome, or that I was rooting for some other particular policy.
- jacquesm 5y ago> Stay in Afghanistan forever? It's either that or don't go there in the first place. Afghanistan has been cynically used by world powers over and over again to get at each other and as a convenient battle field. Leaving it to the Taliban will only guarantee another chapter in that series.
- ericmay 5y agoI mean it seems like it's just returning back to 2000 before the U.S. and NATO allies invaded. The Taliban ruled then, and they're going to rule again in the future because after 20 years and over a trillion dollars it just didn't work. And what good does staying do? If we stay we're bad, awful imperialists and playing global police. If we leave we're bad too for letting Afghanistan return to the year 2000. If you're damned either way might as well save money. Maybe the EU can step up and commit resources and money and prevent this outcome you're describing. Why does America have to do it? I think most Americans hold this viewpoint too. If you don't like it, I think it might be beneficial to go back and look at the years of "America in Afghanistan bad" international press. No wonder Americans said "fuck it we're done". Funny enough the more controversial war (Iraq) seems to have brought about the more successful long-term change. U.S. forces are effectively out and the Iraqi government is running Iraq. Would be great if the Iranians would stop meddling but is what it is.
- jacquesm 5y agoNo, this is much worse because now the Taliban will end up much more powerful than they ever were prior to 2000. This will have no end of consequences and all of them negative.