6 ms·

The fact that we are willing to even call this “nation-building” speaks volumes to how deeply we are penned. Nation-building? Is that what we were doing in Afgh

The fact that we are willing to even call this “nation-building” speaks volumes to how deeply we are penned. Nation-building? Is that what we were doing in Afghanistan? We were there to build a democracy of institutions? Or were we there to pillage a country? Why don’t we “nation-build” Saudi Arabia? Oh. We are already extracting the wealth? Right.

ethbr0 5y ago
Nation-building is UN-speak for an ethical war. It simultaneously delegitimizes the current / former government (not "a nation") and casts the outcome in unimpeachable terms (more democracy, more freedom, more nation). But in a lot of ways, it's a tautology. Because nation building really means "more like us." And what country would disagree that the rest of the world would be so lucky as to be made more like it?
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  This is very much what the UN charter is about. Article 2 has always irked me the wrong way. It's basically saying that any member has to support the UN in any action towards non members if it suits their view of peace and security. Which is obviously very vague. 5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
ProjectArcturis 5y ago
What in the world would anyone try to pillage from Afghanistan? They have nothing but rocks and guns.
- t-3 5y ago
  Afghanistan is incredibly rich in resources, and they have a suitable climate for the production of opium poppy, the precursor to heroin. "natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones, arable land" https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/afghanistan/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/afghanistan...
  - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    Did the US pursue a policy of building mines in Afghanistan? Did they promote poppy cultivation?
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Poppy cultivation was serially outlawed, punished, tolerated, encouraged, etc, start again. Different policies came through on a regular basis, with no more reliance on logic or local circumstances than any other USA military policy in Afghanistan. The only constant was that nobody screwed with fields owned by powerful people e.g. Ahmed Wali Karzai.
JohnBooty 5y ago
Is that what we were doing in Afghanistan? We were there to build a democracy of institutions? Or were we there to pillage a country? I'm not a fan of the US' occupation of Afghanistan, and I don't think the US was there for some sort of higher ideal... but, pillage? It's not a country from which there is much wealth to extract. Of course, the US military-industrial complex profited nicely. That's not quite the same as pillaging, though.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  Except of course for the Trillion worth of mineral wealth found in 2010[0], that the Afghan government has been spending $300 million per year on(probably to US contractors)[1]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.htm... [1] https://www.dw.com/en/afghanistan-taliban-to-reap-1-trillion-mineral-wealth/a-58888765 https://www.dw.com/en/afghanistan-taliban-to-reap-1-trillion...
chasd00 5y ago
There’s nothing to pillage in Afghanistan except heroin. If there were things would have probably gone better because at least there would have been a point.

ethbr0 5y ago

Nation-building is UN-speak for an ethical war. It simultaneously delegitimizes the current / former government (not "a nation") and casts the outcome in unimpeachable terms (more democracy, more freedom, more nation). But in a lot of ways, it's a tautology. Because nation building really means "more like us." And what country would disagree that the rest of the world would be so lucky as to be made more like it?

rjzzleep 5y ago
This is very much what the UN charter is about. Article 2 has always irked me the wrong way. It's basically saying that any member has to support the UN in any action towards non members if it suits their view of peace and security. Which is obviously very vague. 5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

What in the world would anyone try to pillage from Afghanistan? They have nothing but rocks and guns.

t-3 5y ago
Afghanistan is incredibly rich in resources, and they have a suitable climate for the production of opium poppy, the precursor to heroin. "natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones, arable land" https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/afghanistan/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/afghanistan...
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  Did the US pursue a policy of building mines in Afghanistan? Did they promote poppy cultivation?
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Poppy cultivation was serially outlawed, punished, tolerated, encouraged, etc, start again. Different policies came through on a regular basis, with no more reliance on logic or local circumstances than any other USA military policy in Afghanistan. The only constant was that nobody screwed with fields owned by powerful people e.g. Ahmed Wali Karzai.

JohnBooty 5y ago

Is that what we were doing in Afghanistan? We were there to build a democracy of institutions? Or were we there to pillage a country? I'm not a fan of the US' occupation of Afghanistan, and I don't think the US was there for some sort of higher ideal... but, pillage? It's not a country from which there is much wealth to extract. Of course, the US military-industrial complex profited nicely. That's not quite the same as pillaging, though.

rjzzleep 5y ago
Except of course for the Trillion worth of mineral wealth found in 2010[0], that the Afghan government has been spending $300 million per year on(probably to US contractors)[1]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.htm... [1] https://www.dw.com/en/afghanistan-taliban-to-reap-1-trillion-mineral-wealth/a-58888765 https://www.dw.com/en/afghanistan-taliban-to-reap-1-trillion...

chasd00 5y ago

There’s nothing to pillage in Afghanistan except heroin. If there were things would have probably gone better because at least there would have been a point.