Graveyard of Empires

[MajGenl.Meade]

The situation of women and female children in Afghanistan is the cause of much hand wringing in the west and elsewhere (such as here in SA). Tea and sympathy is about as far as that goes.

I've yet to see an argument (but may have missed such) pointing out that it was the unrealistic expectations released upon Afghan society by the US invasion and ouster of the Taliban from national power that have, 20 years later, placed women in greater jeopardy.

The situation of women and female children in Afghanistan is the cause of much handwringing in the west and elsewhere (such as here in SA). Tea and sympathy is about as far as that goes.

I've yet to see an argument (but may have missed such) pointing out that it was the unrealistic expectations released upon Afghan society by the US invasion and ouster of the Taliban from national power that have, 20 years later, placed women in greater jeopardy.

I do not know if women were systematically raped, beaten, or brutally oppressed when the Taliban ran Afghanistan. No doubt women were kept in their centuries-long relationship to society - uneducated, second-class (or third, behind men and horses), treated as objects, sometimes subjected to mental or physical violence. But it was their society (by ‘their’ I mean Afghanis) and it was only exposure to Western ideas (inevitable osmosis) that encouraged some few to stand up demanding equality, then more enjoyed the advantages of freedom (and now suffer even more for doing so). Somehow, other cultures have managed to improve the lot of women in their own timeframe, no matter how reluctantly, without the need for outside invaders to impose a new cultural norm. Such attempts having never succeeded (??)

Those women are now paying for their emancipation by bonds worse than those which existed before. One can only hope, for their sake, that as time passes, the triumphant Taliban will settle into a government less interested in exacting revenge or making horrible examples of such 'westernized' women (and men). They may return to nothing better than obtained 20 years ago or 100 years ago, but it’s better than what is going on right now.

[MajGenl.Meade]

This the real end of the message. For some reason, I get an internal server error when it's attached to my first post there

Bush (and Congress) initiated a wrongful invasion; Trump sold out the Afghans (and the women especially) by making a 'deal' with the devil (Taliban) to pull US troops out by May 2021; Biden has sacrificed those same people by the politically expedient completion of the previous administration's bad intent.


PS I don't understand what you're saying, lib

[Jarlaxle]

This the real end of the message. For some reason, I get an internal server error when it's attached to my first post there

Bush (and Congress) initiated a wrongful invasion; Trump sold out the Afghans (and the women especially) by making a 'deal' with the devil (Taliban) to pull US troops out by May 2021; Biden has sacrificed those same people by the politically expedient completion of the previous administration's bad intent.

So...what should he have done? Keep troops in Afghanistan forever?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Can we put this entire stupid discussion (too few Blacks in the sharp end of the military) to bed?

This table is from American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics


Just using Meade's numbers for race which sound about right but I have not independently verified them: Blacks and Whites are respectively 13.4 and 60 percent of the civilian population. In other words there are about 60/13.4 = 4.5 times as many Whites as Blacks in the US population.

Looking at the Persian Gulf War up to 16 July 2020 there were 280 White deaths and 63 Black or African American deaths. I am unclear if there is a distinction between Black and African American, and for the purposes of this we will ignore other races and females.

280/63 = 4.44

Any questions?

[BoSoxGal]

The situation of women and female children in Afghanistan is the cause of much hand wringing in the west and elsewhere (such as here in SA). Tea and sympathy is about as far as that goes.

I've yet to see an argument (but may have missed such) pointing out that it was the unrealistic expectations released upon Afghan society by the US invasion and ouster of the Taliban from national power that have, 20 years later, placed women in greater jeopardy.

The situation of women and female children in Afghanistan is the cause of much handwringing in the west and elsewhere (such as here in SA). Tea and sympathy is about as far as that goes.

I've yet to see an argument (but may have missed such) pointing out that it was the unrealistic expectations released upon Afghan society by the US invasion and ouster of the Taliban from national power that have, 20 years later, placed women in greater jeopardy.

I do not know if women were systematically raped, beaten, or brutally oppressed when the Taliban ran Afghanistan. No doubt women were kept in their centuries-long relationship to society - uneducated, second-class (or third, behind men and horses), treated as objects, sometimes subjected to mental or physical violence. But it was their society (by ‘their’ I mean Afghanis) and it was only exposure to Western ideas (inevitable osmosis) that encouraged some few to stand up demanding equality, then more enjoyed the advantages of freedom (and now suffer even more for doing so). Somehow, other cultures have managed to improve the lot of women in their own timeframe, no matter how reluctantly, without the need for outside invaders to impose a new cultural norm. Such attempts having never succeeded (??)

Those women are now paying for their emancipation by bonds worse than those which existed before. One can only hope, for their sake, that as time passes, the triumphant Taliban will settle into a government less interested in exacting revenge or making horrible examples of such 'westernized' women (and men). They may return to nothing better than obtained 20 years ago or 100 years ago, but it’s better than what is going on right now.

You might want to do some research into what life was like for women in Afghanistan in the 1970s, before the Soviets invaded and the interminable modern horror of the Afghan people began.

Here’s a hint; Kabul, 1972.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Any questions?

To be fair to lib the statistics for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom - further on in the same link - are not as convincing as the above ones for Desert Storm and Desert Shield which were, after all 30 years ago. The ratio for these (Black:White deaths) is more like 8 to 1 which does tend to support lib's case that Blacks are currently underrepresented in the combat forces.

The issue then is why should this be when clearly - at least using death statistics - it was solved 30 years ago.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So...what should he have done? Keep troops in Afghanistan forever?

Why not? US military are stationed in many places around the world - perhaps 'forever'. After all, they have to be somewhere. And didn't they join to see the world rather than Fort Hood?

Great point, BSG.

[ex-khobar Andy]

You could have taken the same photo in 1970s Iran. Those of us who welcomed the expulsion of the Shah - and I'm one of them - did not foresee all the consequences of that revolution.

[Big RR]

So...what should he have done? Keep troops in Afghanistan forever?

Why not? US military are stationed in many places around the world - perhaps 'forever'. After all, they have to be somewhere. And didn't they join to see the world rather than Fort Hood?

Great point, BSG.

Why? Because it's apparently not what the people of Afghanistan wanted; most people prefer their own imperfect government to one imposed on them from the outside. If the Afghan army had put up any fight, I might have thought they'd want a government free from religious fundamentalists, but apparently this is not the case. Why stay there, spending our money and lives propping up an unwanted regime?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Why? (a) Because it's apparently not what the people of Afghanistan wanted; most people prefer their own imperfect government to one imposed on them from the outside. (b) If the Afghan army had put up any fight, I might have thought they'd want a government free from religious fundamentalists, but apparently this is not the case. (c) Why stay there, spending our money and lives propping up an unwanted regime?

a b c added above

(a) And you know what "the people" of Afghanistan want because you are Afghani and have spent a long time there???? (I'm not so sure what "they" want)

(b) The Afghan army put up a hell of a fight as long as British and U.S. military support was in existence. Being abandoned by allies who promised support is about par for the Western course (ask the Montagnards or the Kurds)

(c) To avoid a worse humanitarian crisis of refugees, murder, despotism and the shame of cutting and running (yet again)

According to a BBC report

Research by Brown University estimates losses in the Afghan security forces at 69,000. It puts the number of civilians and militants killed at about 51,000 each. More than 3,500 coalition soldiers have died since 2001 - about two-thirds of them Americans. More than 20,000 US soldiers have been injured.

According to the UN, Afghanistan has the third-largest displaced population in the world. Since 2012, some five million people have fled and not been able to return home, either displaced within Afghanistan or taking refuge in neighbouring countries.

This is worth a scrutiny: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan

[Big RR]

Meade:

(a) And you know what "the people" of Afghanistan want because you are Afghani and have spent a long time there???? (I'm not so sure what "they" want)

I honestly do not know what "they" want because "they" have not told me, but I can only watch what they do. And when a 300,000 strong well equipped army with air power does not stand up to the Taliban insurgents, all I can conclude is that they do not want what we are selling..

(b) The Afghan army put up a hell of a fight as long as British and U.S. military support was in existence. Being abandoned by allies who promised support is about par for the Western course (ask the Montagnards or the Kurds)

Of course they were left with a fairly well equipped and well-trained army which did not put up any fight, let alone a "hell of a fight" . At best, all we can try to help people to step up and defend themselves to create the society they want; if they don't, all I can conclude is it is something they did not ant in the first place. Unless we have the ultimate gall to substitute our judgment for theirs--you know, like in Vietnam and so many other places.

(c) To avoid a worse humanitarian crisis of refugees, murder, despotism and the shame of cutting and running (yet again)

Re "cutting and running" remark, "peace with honor is IMHO the most asinine reason to commit resources, including lives.

Re the "humanitarian crisis, maybe we need better ways to handle this than to turn our military into police forces--it certainly doesn't earn us a lot of affection or even respect. And if, after 10 years and untold monies and lives we can't even get the trained army to stand up aginst the insurgents and prevent the crisis, all we are doing is delaying it. People have to take responsibility for their own destinies; freedom is always something earned, no something given to them, and it may include rejecting the viewpoint of the "liberators".

[Jarlaxle]

So...what should he have done? Keep troops in Afghanistan forever?

Why not? US military are stationed in many places around the world - perhaps 'forever'. After all, they have to be somewhere. And didn't they join to see the world rather than Fort Hood?

Great point, BSG.

The troops shouldn't be in most of those places, either. Other than Embassy guards, there should be NO US troops stationed outside the country. Long past time to fire up the chainsaws and start slashing budgets.

[Big RR]

In the modern world, it is silly to pretend that we can have our own fortress country without having to deal with what was going on in other countries. And it is ls silly to think we can have an effective foreign policy without sometimes committing our own troops. The only thing we need to do better is in deciding who we will support militarily; at least since WW@ we tend to such at that, preferring to support totalitarian regimes that oppress their people rather than support individual rights and freedom of the populace--it makes more economic sense that way.

[Bicycle Bill]

The troops shouldn't be in most of those places, either. Other than Embassy guards, there should be NO US troops stationed outside the country. Long past time to fire up the chainsaws and start slashing budgets.

How's the saying go — "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?"

That sounds suspiciously like isolationism.  It backfired on us in 1914, and again in 1941, even when we COULD supply ourselves with just about everything we needed from within our own borders.

And with the global economy and interdependence that has sprung up since then, we can't just wall ourselves off and let the rest of world go about their own business now.  Just look at North Korea to see just how well that working for them.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

And those who do not read posts are doomed to repeat them, passim..

[Jarlaxle]

The troops shouldn't be in most of those places, either. Other than Embassy guards, there should be NO US troops stationed outside the country. Long past time to fire up the chainsaws and start slashing budgets.

How's the saying go — "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?"

That sounds suspiciously like isolationism.  It backfired on us in 1914, and again in 1941, even when we COULD supply ourselves with just about everything we needed from within our own borders.

And with the global economy and interdependence that has sprung up since then, we can't just wall ourselves off and let the rest of world go about their own business now.  Just look at North Korea to see just how well that working for them.

-"BB"-

Call the Olympic committee. Those wild leaps should get you on the track and field team.

[Scooter]

Over 70,000 airlifted out in 10 days. Not a single U.S. death. Is this what failure is supposed to look like?

[Big RR]

The failure is in the mission in the first place; it's not like the place is better off because of the money and lives we wasted there.--indeed, it's arguably worse off. Additionally, the failure resides in our abandonment of those Afghan nationals we left behind who cooperated with us and will be treated badly, to say the least (of course the leaders got out with the money--they always do). But you are correct, these things aside, the airlift went well.

[BoSoxGal]

RIP to the two US Marines and the multiple children and other civilians killed in the ISIS bombing in Kabul.

Hard to guess where this clusterfuck is heading next. I still feel we need to get the fuck out and leave it to the Afghans to sort out, but I recognize how much damage this is all doing to our credibility. Except I guess everyone around the world already knows we are imperialist assholes so maybe not so much.

[Big RR]

I doubt it has damaged our credibility all that much; when is the last time we had a successful military intervention? Possibly Desert storm, based on your point of view on how it ended, but I think we'd really have to go back to WW2. IMHO, we suck at it because we never really define the mission so we can know when it begins, and when it ends and we go home; additionally, we are fairly terrible at winning hearts and minds of the locals; most of the ones who claim to support us love us while the money is flowing and detest us when the spigot is cut off. Supporting more moderate regimes could go a long way to alleviating some of this, but then that isn't the best way to advance our business interests--keeping the people oppressed is.