3 ms·
> The US thought it could play nation-builder like with Japan. The continued involvement in afghanistan was part of the ongoing "war against terror" to reduce t
by aiilns 5y ago
> The US thought it could play nation-builder like with Japan. The continued involvement in afghanistan was part of the ongoing "war against terror" to reduce the chance of afghanistan becoming a heaven for terrorists again.
I would more easily characterize US external politics as nation-destroyer than nation-builder. Even if you disregard the evidence, it's quite a stretch to believe that the situation in Afghanistan is solely due to incompetence despite US good intentions.
> If you look at history, the victor would more or less burn the invaded country to the ground and enslave its people to avoid similar long term issues
Even if this has happened with some frequency I'm not so sure it's the rule; certainly there are many exceptions. In any case, it's no argument for doing the same.
- _8j50 5y ago> Even if this has happened with some frequency I'm not so sure it's the rule; certainly there are many exceptions. In any case, it's no argument for doing the same. The only time where there is nation building is after permanent colonization or assimilation into an empire. The US did pretty much burn the country to the ground, my argument is they should have left right after. Same with Iraq. If theu harbor terrorists again, give them round two but worse. Let the people self-determine and fight for whatever government will prevail. They shouldn't have worried about what happenes after they left so long as they made the price of harboring terrorists clear.