3 ms·

> useless goal Is bringing peace, civil rights, and good governance to a corrupt, poor, and violent country useless? (Obviously, we ended up failing in large p

> useless goal Is bringing peace, civil rights, and good governance to a corrupt, poor, and violent country useless? (Obviously, we ended up failing in large part.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aerosmile 5y ago
Agree that "useless" was a bit harsh. Perhaps "unachievable"? It's a bit like dieting. You take someone who has been chubby their entire life, put them through a bootcamp, and then look at their weight 5 years later. The stats are not looking good in those cases, and I think they largely reflect our efforts in up-leveling the political landscape in historically corrupt countries. I am not saying that we shouldn't keep trying. But I think we should internalize that the chances of success are slim, and then make that a part of our upfront decisioning process on budget, casualties, political cost, etc.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
Well, considering America's recent military endeavors have done the opposite, you have to wonder how many times you can hear that until you conclude it was always a bald-faced lie to mask our economic interests. Dropping bombs on a country rarely makes it less prone to conflict unless you intend to occupy it, it just gives more recruiting material to the "violent" radicals.
- erentz 5y ago
  > to mask our economic interests If "our" means the US and it's people as a collective, then it really seems clear that it wasn't in our collective economic interests either. If our means military contractors, then yes they made out very well.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    It was in interests of the oil companies as well, and by extension the interests of the leaders of the country who are effectively on their payroll. But yes, "our" in this case was perhaps a poor choice of words to refer to the interests of, for lack of a better term, the ruling class, whose interests do not align with the vast majority of the country.
kilroywashere 5y ago
the ghani administration was nothing more than an american imperialist puppet government, forcing american "ideals" (see: consumerism and globalism) on a people who want nothing to do with it. “God has promised us victory, and Bush has promised us defeat. We’ll see which promise is more truthful,” - Mullah Omar.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Mostly: the concept of a nation. Afghanistan isn't a nation. And you can't externally force people to believe they're part of a nation. Either they do, in which case they're willing to accept sacrifices for the greater good of their fellow citizens, or they aren't.
maccolgan 5y ago
Yeah violating self-determination of a country without also permanently occupying it can be seen as useless.

> useless goal Is bringing peace, civil rights, and good governance to a corrupt, poor, and violent country useless? (Obviously, we ended up failing in large part.)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

aerosmile 5y ago

Agree that "useless" was a bit harsh. Perhaps "unachievable"? It's a bit like dieting. You take someone who has been chubby their entire life, put them through a bootcamp, and then look at their weight 5 years later. The stats are not looking good in those cases, and I think they largely reflect our efforts in up-leveling the political landscape in historically corrupt countries. I am not saying that we shouldn't keep trying. But I think we should internalize that the chances of success are slim, and then make that a part of our upfront decisioning process on budget, casualties, political cost, etc.

LordDragonfang 5y ago

Well, considering America's recent military endeavors have done the opposite, you have to wonder how many times you can hear that until you conclude it was always a bald-faced lie to mask our economic interests. Dropping bombs on a country rarely makes it less prone to conflict unless you intend to occupy it, it just gives more recruiting material to the "violent" radicals.

erentz 5y ago
> to mask our economic interests If "our" means the US and it's people as a collective, then it really seems clear that it wasn't in our collective economic interests either. If our means military contractors, then yes they made out very well.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  It was in interests of the oil companies as well, and by extension the interests of the leaders of the country who are effectively on their payroll. But yes, "our" in this case was perhaps a poor choice of words to refer to the interests of, for lack of a better term, the ruling class, whose interests do not align with the vast majority of the country.

kilroywashere 5y ago

the ghani administration was nothing more than an american imperialist puppet government, forcing american "ideals" (see: consumerism and globalism) on a people who want nothing to do with it. “God has promised us victory, and Bush has promised us defeat. We’ll see which promise is more truthful,” - Mullah Omar.

ethbr0 5y ago
Mostly: the concept of a nation. Afghanistan isn't a nation. And you can't externally force people to believe they're part of a nation. Either they do, in which case they're willing to accept sacrifices for the greater good of their fellow citizens, or they aren't.

maccolgan 5y ago

Yeah violating self-determination of a country without also permanently occupying it can be seen as useless.