And then boast about how you’ve spent $2trillion on helping said named nation, when in reality most of it went into American contractors like Blackwatch or whatever they mercenary firm is called.
2 Likes
Hmmm…it’s not Islam though, is it? Islam is a religion of peace, it’s only the radical extremists that seek to exploit a twisted interpretation of Islam in order to justify “jihad”, so as to subjugate the vulnerable and further their own interests.
I heard an interview with an ex Afghanistan vet the other day. His view is that the a large number of people in Afghanistan are Muslim but cant read. That leaves them open to manipulation by those that have a very extreme view of the Koran.
How accurate that is I couldn’t say.
I suppose another angle is that it’s very easy out there to paint a picture of the West being “evil”.
This is an incredible thread. It’s long as it is giving almost a running commentary on the changing situation over the last few days. From the beginning…
To today…
3 Likes
How brave is this!
3 Likes
There is an ideological battle inside Islam as to what Islam is and that has been going on for a long time though. Social conservatives inside Islam tends to support what you call “twisted interpretation”, or Salafism (Saudi version and Taliban version is Wahhabism), while others don’t. Not all Salafists wants to use force though, but many sympathise with those who do. Islam has many sub ideologies and there are modernism movements. Then you have Sufism, which is different again.
And this is only the Suni Ummah. You also have the Shia and they have also sub ideologies within their main ideology.
But what you call “radical extremists with twisted interpretation” does not number in the thousands but many millions (also entire states) so it is not as if one can ignore their presence and discard them as a tiny minority, because they have in fact political power, both Soft and Hard. They also have a fundamental willingness to sacrifice everything and therefore are ferocious foes. They are not the majority world wide though. My biological father for instance (Sunni) was hardly a Salafist or Wahhabist and most are not. But still, Salafists and even Wahhabists, they number a lot of people and they do have a lot of influence, particularly among the less literate (however their leaders teds to be extremely well read Islamic scholars).
I think Salafism and Wahhbism will become a lot more popular now after the Taliban defeated NATO, but only time will tell (however, events are in motion). Various extreme militant Sunni groups are now bending over backwards to congratulate the Taliban though, and religious Salafist preachers of note are calling this a great victory. Even Shia militants are taking much comfort in this, despite their usual religious disagreement with the Wahhabists. This is an enormous victory for their ideology and such victories tends to attract a lot of new adherents. I hope I understand less than I think I do and that most of the things I say are very flawed or untrue, but I obviously don’t think so. But time will tell…
1 Like
Very. I don’t think the Taliban will punish them now though (but maybe remember them and punish them later). It is in their interests to have a smooth transition with as little violence as possible. I think they will only gradually assert themselves and that you will see a very gradual approach where laws becomes stricter and stricter, but slowly so and not over night like in a chaotic revolution. They have pretty good advisors after all and have undoubtedly learned a lot from the past. Gradual dominance is smarter for sure.
1 Like
one of my close friends did two stints of peacekeeping over there, including 6months of forward base operations. he is disgusted by how all of this has turned out. called it a “complete fucking waste of time and lives to go there on peacekeeping missions while the country tries to rebuild, only to walk away a decade later. how many have died in vain”.
brutal, never seen him even discuss it before.
4 Likes
When situations are fucked up, those willing to fight the hardest tend to win. That tends not to favour reasonable moderation, but extremism, whether political or religious.
It’s a cliche, but Hitler didn’t come to power because of majority support, but because there was enough of a sufficiently enthusiastic support to impose themselves on a situation without a majority sufficiently large and united to impose themselves on the country in their stead.
3 Likes
This is so true. Fanatical willingness to die to win, even in face of total defeat, is so powerful a force.
2 Likes
I likened the ‘liberation’ of Afghanistan as an almost parall to the US’ involvement in Vietnam.
just an excuse to generate war revenue for the big machine. war is almost entirely about money, rarely about idealism.
2 Likes
Afghanistan wasn’t about money though. I don’t think anyone but arms dealers have made that much out of it. It was a knee jerk reactionary invasion to the airliner attacks against the United States. This later turned into a nation building project to limit the ideology of Al Qaida and return Afghanistan to where it was in the 60s and 70s, so it could continue that modernisation. The support the West gave to the Mujaheedin and the Pakistani ISI is one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies in history. It was understandable then, as the West wanted the USSR to economically crash, Cold War paradigm was just something else. Every evil imaginable was justified because the greater good was deemed to be so worth it. But so many awful interventions, both from the West and the USSR and allies, happened in those days under that specific paradigm. Maybe not worth digging deep into here.
In any case, I view Vietnam to be completely different. I would never compare the North Vietnamese with the Taliban personally (the Mujahedin who later became the Taliban took the country back to 1920) and the Vietnam war was also a much greater humanitarian disaster. Unification of Vietnam was different in my view and the war was morally extremely dubious and launched in a Cold War climate where certain parties believed very hard in the feared Domino-effect. The Vietnam war was in my opinion is a much more shameful affair.
But that is my view. Maybe not super relevant to this, but that’s my opinion at least.
Some pictures from the 50-70s :
1972: 
These scenes are now completely unimaginable.
2 Likes
who do you think makes all the munitions for the US military, sir? how many Trillions of dollars were generated by the US to “wage the war on terror”. Lots of folks got rich between Bush Sr campaign (WTC attack) and the end of the Obama administration. Once they got Bin Laden, I think they closed the books on that war and started the de-escalation of occupying forces.
Well, I will say it was about broader geopolitics (initially mostly revenge) and not mere money. There are no great natural resources to steal in Afghanistan in a colonisation project. And even if the state (the US) makes munitions and sells them to itself, that is not exactly a grand way of actually making money. But sure, it works in a way, but there are so much better ways to invest money and get more of it I would think. And I don’t think you go to expensive military campaigns that go on for 20 years just to sustain your arms industry.
But we can agree to disagree. Maybe best. I am a bit tired today, so not sure I want to go into a long debate.
internal economics, Magnus. it’s all about power plays and posturing. Billions of dollars being sucked from the tax base and into the pockets of defense contractors. none of that money reaches the people of Afghanistan as relief funds.
Where are these modern women now, who were so proudly walking in their streets? All hiding behind their burqas? And their daughters? 
1 Like
It plays a role, but I don’t think it plays as large a role as you think. But I can’t be bothered to trawl for sources and argue against you today, so I think it is best we just respectfully disagree regarding how much a factor that was for the Afghan War. Appreciate your argument though.
I dont like to really answer in one liners (because the regime they had back then was also not unproblematic), but some of them probably are. Afghanistan was less social conservative back then, that is at least true.
Have a nice day and evening everyone. I want to extract myself from any longer debates today. I am not in the best mood.
3 Likes