5 ms·
It's equally scary how optics rule the conversation, not outcomes. Whilst killing all life within 1km of any Taliban is ridiculous and absurd, the thought of a
by fleddr 5y ago
It's equally scary how optics rule the conversation, not outcomes.
Whilst killing all life within 1km of any Taliban is ridiculous and absurd, the thought of a true extermination strategy of the Taliban should be on the table. At the very least as a thought.
The Sri Lankan government has managed to permanently wipe out the Tamil Tiger movement by sheer effort, aggression and indiscriminate military approach. Endlessly beating down on them until they gave up, and dissolved their movement, permanently. The human cost of the conflict has been enormous, without question.
Has it been worth it, this permanent solution? I really don't know, and I'm in absolutely no position to tell. The only point I'm making is that total victory is possible, yet at a high price.
China goes even further, it seems even the thought of rebellion makes you end up in a re-education camp, and sometimes not even that. Again, the human cost is enormous. But does it work, if the sole aim is to suppress or wipe out rebellion? Probably yes.
One could at least contemplate what would have happened if the US had directly engaged with the Taliban, and use its full military, diplomatic, intelligence and monetary might to do so.
The West has higher morals, we like to tell ourselves. Hence, an indirect approach. The outcome is 200K casualties, and trillions spent. The grand "prize" of all this suffering is the country firmly back in the hands of the Taliban, under Sharia law. Afghanistan's tiny economy tanking, hence every single citizen suffering. All women rights reversed, back to being cattle.
A telling stat is that roughly 7K US soldiers died, yet another 30K committed suicide back home. Due to the length of the war and multiple exposures to traumatic experiences.
Altogether, I don't believe it is unreasonable to wonder if the "good intentions" approach's outcome isn't just as terrible or worse compared to an actual extermination approach. I won't claim to know the answer, I'm merely raising the question.
Admittedly, based on this article and given the backing of neighboring countries, in this case there simply may not be any winning approach at all. You can't defeat an enemy when they keep switching camps.
- watwut 5y ago> Whilst killing all life within 1km of any Taliban is ridiculous and absurd, the thought of a true extermination strategy of the Taliban should be on the table. At the very least as a thought. It is neither ridiculous nor absurd. It plain simply involves killing almost everyone in an area. Which is called genocide. It is doable. Nazi done it. Khmer Rouge done it. Hutu in Rwanda done it. You want to frame it as attacking Taliban, which is not true. Majority of victims would not be Taliban. It would be quite literally going to Afghan to commit genocide in half of it. > The grand "prize" of all this suffering is the country firmly back in the hands of the Taliban, under Sharia law. Anyone including women have better chance under Sharia law then they have under your proposal. Cause your proposal is to plain kill them. You don't get to propose killing people and then saying someone else is cruel. > Altogether, I don't believe it is unreasonable to wonder if the "good intentions" approach's outcome isn't just as terrible or worse compared to an actual extermination approach Under Taliban, those people are alive. With your approach, they are all dead. So, they are better off now. I don't think few terrorism victims in USA is good enough excuse for that. > One could at least contemplate what would have happened if the US had directly engaged with the Taliban, and use its full military, diplomatic, intelligence and monetary might to do so. They did and lost.
- fleddr 5y agoDid people all of a sudden lose the ability to read, or what? "It plain simply involves killing almost everyone in an area." No, not almost everyone. Only Taliban. Which arguably is complex, but surely if the US would make full effort to infiltrate and map the network, such selective targeting would be possible. "Cause your proposal is to plain kill them. You don't get to propose killing people and then saying someone else is cruel." It gets even weirder, I guess. You know the very point of the Afghan military was to kill the Taliban, right? Together with the US backing them up, they managed to kill 52,000 Taliban and other opposition fighters. What exactly do you think happens in a war? "Under Taliban, those people are alive. With your approach, they are all dead." All? The Taliban is estimated to have a force some 50,000 strong, 100,000 tops if you include weak allies. That's 0.13% of the total population. So you're saying that the selective targeting of the Taliban, will also wipe out the other 99.87% of the population? Some 38 million people? Get the fuck out of here.
- watwut 5y agoKilling all life within 1km of any Taliban literally involves killing all people there. And it is not even Taliban hiding among civilians. It is them living with their parents in their village. > Together with the US backing them up, they managed to kill 52,000 Taliban and other opposition fighters. What exactly do you think happens in a war? Not every war is going on with goal of killing everyone in an area. So while civilians always die, what you propose has that extra step of being genocide. > The Taliban is estimated to have a force some 50,000 strong, 100,000 tops if you include weak allies. That's 0.13% of the total population. Yes, because your plan is to not just kill them, but to kill everyone around.
- fleddr 5y agoAre you drunk? I did not make the "killing all life" remark, it's by another commenter. I specifically said to target an exterminate the Taliban. "Not every war is going on with goal of killing everyone in an area. So while civilians always die, what you propose has that extra step of being genocide." No that is the exact opposite of what I propose! "Yes, because your plan is to not just kill them, but to kill everyone around." What!?
- content_sesh 5y agoDamn, this is the second guy in this thread "just asking questions" about if genocide would have been a good approach.
- fleddr 5y agoWhat a ridiculous summary of my comment. I guess you must get a thrill from framing a deeply complex matter into such low life hot takes. The very intent of the message is the reduction of suffering, not the prolonging of it. The West has now inflicted an enormous amount of suffering with absolutely nothing to show for it but even more suffering. This doesn't raise any questions to you? If not, then that's exactly what I mean: managing optics, not outcomes.
- gremloni 5y agoIs it even what we want? I think the taliban have some good ideas about the role of feminism in society.
- fleddr 5y agoI guess this forum turned into Twitter overnight, unbelievable.
- gremloni 5y agoIt’s probably a sign of the times. We’re very polarized and I feel very strongly about my opinions. I feel like modern feminism is a cancer eating away at American society. I’m very progressive about pretty much every other “politicized” opinion, maybe besides guns.
- fleddr 5y agoThis took an odd turn. I'm actually in agreement with you that modern feminism is in many ways counter productive or even harmful. That's still a far cry from what you said. Maybe it was just deeply cynical, but I sure hope you don't support the way the Taliban treats women.
- gremloni 5y agoI absolutely do not support the way the taliban treat women. I think you need to move pretty far to an extreme to move the needle towards the middle though.