7 ms·

Once again, Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

by cf100clunk 5y ago

melling 5y ago
America wasn’t there to create an empire. We were supposed to leave long ago
- justinzollars 5y ago
  How is the United States different than Rome or The British Empire?
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    The Romans lasted 100s of years. Us Brits made over 100. The US is flagging barely 30 years after outlasting communism...
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      Technically, our "empire" started after WWII, so it's more like 80 years.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        I'm not sure when the clock starts exactly. After ww2 the ussr looked like the biggest badest empire. Doubly so after sputnik and their first atomic bombs. Maybe the 70s?
        chaostheory 5y ago
        Multiple empires can co-exist simultaneously. The US actually already had colonies since 1898 so it would already qualify as an empire at that point. You can even make a case that the US started in empire in 1848 when it annexed Mexican land. The 1970's is way too late. Even my initial guess of post-WWII is late.
      - krapp 5y ago
        America was an actual empire (as in actually taking over other countries and colonizing them) back in the 19th century. America's "empire" after WW2 is more of a redefinition of the term.
        chaostheory 5y ago
        Good point. Puerto Rico, Guam, and maybe even the Virgin Islands are proof of that. The Philippines too, but we didn't keep that island chain. 1898 is that birth of the US empire.
  - finiteseries 5y ago
    It’s essentially an entire continent unto itself that stays completely geographically insulated as long as a single power doesn’t coopt all of Eurasia. The territorial ambitions are slightly different to a colonial maritime power within spitting distance of no fewer than 3 other maritime powers, or one in control of the Mediterranean with a very large front door open to the North European Plain.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The US was meant to be nation building. Everyone knew that would take a generation or 3. Thats why the US couldnt and didn't leave after 2 weeks.
  - adventured 5y ago
    The US was not in Afghanistan to nation build. It went there to dismantle Al Qaeda and kill bin Laden, which it did. Preventing the Taliban from retaking the nation would have been a bonus certainly. The US didn't leave after two weeks because it took a lot longer than that to find and kill bin Laden and wipe out Al Qaeda in the country. The US didn't leave after killing bin Laden because Afghanistan was a relatively inexpensive sandbox for the military industrial complex to play in, train its soldiers in, and deploy/test weapons in. US & allied troop deaths in Afghanistan have been fairly low since 2013. So Afghanistan got to act as a war training ground with low risk of losing a lot of soldiers, an exceptionally rare commodity as far as the Pentagon is concerned. Now they have to find another country to occupy.
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    20 years and trillions of dollars later, and they did a hell of a job.
frozenport 5y ago
Afghanistan: waste of time
- melling 5y ago
  I wonder if instead we had taken $2 trillion and 20 years to cure cancer(s) instead, how close we would have come.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    Given the amount of money that has flown into cancer research already, probably not a lot closer. Cancer research is actually historically one of the largest wastes of money with some of the worst outcomes in terms of life expectancy increase. And I'm not just being quip, the actual point here is that these generic takes about "military spending bad, xy good" are kind of shallow.
  - justinzollars 5y ago
    or infrastructure
    - philwelch 5y ago
      The Senate just passed a bill to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure.
      - underseacables 5y ago
        And regulate digital currency, require drunk driving detection systems in cars, that infrastructure bill was so helpful!
        philwelch 5y ago
        Exactly. If you wish for the government to spend a couple trillion dollars on something, be careful what you wish for.
  - 5y ago
pradn 5y ago
This trope belies two thousand years of present-day Afghanistan being part of flourishing empires or being the seat of empires itself. Read this to learn more: https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166?s=20 https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166... Maybe the calculus has changed in the past two centuries?
- cf100clunk 5y ago
  Maybe the calculus does not rely on metronomic time frames but rather historical push-pull factors from surrounding empires? That's the nuanced, complex reality of Afghan history - a place that exists on/as a natural invasion/trade route, much like Laos, Armenia, Poland, etc. The list of rebuffed invaders is long, and we can now add the U.S.A. and its allies who are now leaving. It is, indeed, the graveyard of empires: https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/why-is-afghanistan-the-graveyard-of-empires/ https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/why-is-afghanistan-the-grave...

Once again, Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

melling 5y ago

America wasn’t there to create an empire. We were supposed to leave long ago

justinzollars 5y ago
How is the United States different than Rome or The British Empire?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The Romans lasted 100s of years. Us Brits made over 100. The US is flagging barely 30 years after outlasting communism...
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    Technically, our "empire" started after WWII, so it's more like 80 years.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      I'm not sure when the clock starts exactly. After ww2 the ussr looked like the biggest badest empire. Doubly so after sputnik and their first atomic bombs. Maybe the 70s?
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        Multiple empires can co-exist simultaneously. The US actually already had colonies since 1898 so it would already qualify as an empire at that point. You can even make a case that the US started in empire in 1848 when it annexed Mexican land. The 1970's is way too late. Even my initial guess of post-WWII is late.
    - krapp 5y ago
      America was an actual empire (as in actually taking over other countries and colonizing them) back in the 19th century. America's "empire" after WW2 is more of a redefinition of the term.
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        Good point. Puerto Rico, Guam, and maybe even the Virgin Islands are proof of that. The Philippines too, but we didn't keep that island chain. 1898 is that birth of the US empire.
- finiteseries 5y ago
  It’s essentially an entire continent unto itself that stays completely geographically insulated as long as a single power doesn’t coopt all of Eurasia. The territorial ambitions are slightly different to a colonial maritime power within spitting distance of no fewer than 3 other maritime powers, or one in control of the Mediterranean with a very large front door open to the North European Plain.
LatteLazy 5y ago
The US was meant to be nation building. Everyone knew that would take a generation or 3. Thats why the US couldnt and didn't leave after 2 weeks.
- adventured 5y ago
  The US was not in Afghanistan to nation build. It went there to dismantle Al Qaeda and kill bin Laden, which it did. Preventing the Taliban from retaking the nation would have been a bonus certainly. The US didn't leave after two weeks because it took a lot longer than that to find and kill bin Laden and wipe out Al Qaeda in the country. The US didn't leave after killing bin Laden because Afghanistan was a relatively inexpensive sandbox for the military industrial complex to play in, train its soldiers in, and deploy/test weapons in. US & allied troop deaths in Afghanistan have been fairly low since 2013. So Afghanistan got to act as a war training ground with low risk of losing a lot of soldiers, an exceptionally rare commodity as far as the Pentagon is concerned. Now they have to find another country to occupy.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  20 years and trillions of dollars later, and they did a hell of a job.

frozenport 5y ago

Afghanistan: waste of time

melling 5y ago
I wonder if instead we had taken $2 trillion and 20 years to cure cancer(s) instead, how close we would have come.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  Given the amount of money that has flown into cancer research already, probably not a lot closer. Cancer research is actually historically one of the largest wastes of money with some of the worst outcomes in terms of life expectancy increase. And I'm not just being quip, the actual point here is that these generic takes about "military spending bad, xy good" are kind of shallow.
- justinzollars 5y ago
  or infrastructure
  - philwelch 5y ago
    The Senate just passed a bill to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure.
    - underseacables 5y ago
      And regulate digital currency, require drunk driving detection systems in cars, that infrastructure bill was so helpful!
      - philwelch 5y ago
        Exactly. If you wish for the government to spend a couple trillion dollars on something, be careful what you wish for.
- 5y ago

pradn 5y ago

This trope belies two thousand years of present-day Afghanistan being part of flourishing empires or being the seat of empires itself. Read this to learn more: https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166?s=20 https://twitter.com/Alex_Khaleeli/status/1425608335726940166... Maybe the calculus has changed in the past two centuries?

cf100clunk 5y ago
Maybe the calculus does not rely on metronomic time frames but rather historical push-pull factors from surrounding empires? That's the nuanced, complex reality of Afghan history - a place that exists on/as a natural invasion/trade route, much like Laos, Armenia, Poland, etc. The list of rebuffed invaders is long, and we can now add the U.S.A. and its allies who are now leaving. It is, indeed, the graveyard of empires: https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/why-is-afghanistan-the-graveyard-of-empires/ https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/why-is-afghanistan-the-grave...