US withdrawal from Afghanistan - your thoughts?

Now that the last US troops have left Afghanistan, I wonder what's next. Militant groups often stick together while fighting an exterior enemy, but then fragment when that enemy is defeated.
 
Bulletpoint said:
Now that the last US troops have left Afghanistan, I wonder what's next. Militant groups often stick together while fighting an exterior enemy, but then fragment when that enemy is defeated.
Click to expand...
They may work out a way to share things. After all, through out Afghanistan's history the government in Kabul has rarely / never had full control of what happens in all the provinces. We may find a Taliban "light" with some northern representation in Kabul with total nutters running some of the provinces. Or the nutters will win out and try to control everything and end up with more civil unrest in parts of the country.

The only thing we do know is there is no pretty or peaceful scenario. At least not that I can see.
 
Stafford said:
Back to the status quo is my prediction, tribal warlords.
Click to expand...

Tribal warlords is the correct answer. That is what is going to happen/has already happened.

Here's the real question, now that this disaster is over, why should anyone in a western nation care about what happens in Afghanistan? By this, I mean, after we get our people/allies out. Why should anyone in any western nation give a f**k about what happens there?
 
Well, its not like they will attack anyone with all their newly gifted weapon systems (excluding small arms) so I agree. Besides, Russia would be a little offended should they make a move across its
borders.
(One of) the problems is that someone (country/politicians) is going to push us to "save" the Afghan population from itself (again) and we're just a girl that can never say "no" when that happens.
I think the most significant cause for concern is terrorist cells using Afghan for safe havens and large training bases. You know, just like 20 years ago? So, we're back to drone warfare and...it never
ends.
I do wish the U.S. would start to lean more towards letting/pressing some of our Allies take the laboring oar more in global politics. In my younger days I was quite the isolationist and never understood
why the U.S. acted the way it did on an international basis when it rarely ever got anything in return. Then I changed a bit and decided sometimes one must just take the "high road." Now, I'm back to thinking
maybe it is time for us to consider getting out of the world police business and let others become more involved if, in fact, outside involvement is called for. Of course, the U.S. is no longer able to hunker down
behind its borders and concentrate on doing what is best for the U.S. Mostly because we have no borders and our elected representatives are incapable of actual leadership.
(stopping before rant starts...) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Meat Grinder said:
Tribal warlords is the correct answer. That is what is going to happen/has already happened.

Here's the real question, now that this disaster is over, why should anyone in a western nation care about what happens in Afghanistan? By this, I mean, after we get our people/allies out. Why should anyone in any western nation give a f**k about what happens there?
Click to expand...
Precisely
 
mTk said:
I think the most significant cause for concern is terrorist cells using Afghan for safe havens and large training bases. You know, just like 20 years ago?
Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue. You went to Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Hidin, you got him, but then the mission somehow morphed into "Let's make this country liveable", a noble cause to be sure, but ultimately doomed.

Will the Taliban care if Al Qaeda set up training bases out in the back blocks for attacks into Western countries? I rather doubt it.

Surveillance and drones will probably be the name of the game for a good long while yet.
 
Stafford said:
Therein lies the issue. You went to Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Hidin, you got him, but then the mission somehow morphed into "Let's make this country liveable", a noble cause to be sure, but ultimately doomed.
Click to expand...
To be fair about that, I recall that the rest of the world looked down long noses at the USA and said about the state of the Afghan and Iraqi nations, "You broke them. You should fix them.". Can't say we didn't try, as ill advised as it was.
 
Badger73 said:
To be fair about that, I recall that the rest of the world looked down long noses at the USA and said about the state of the Afghan and Iraqi nations, "You broke them. You should fix them.". Can't say we didn't try, as ill advised as it was.
Click to expand...
All in perspective, holding only responsible the policy makers/decision makers (not the whole USA / people on this forum :) ): the second invasion of Iraq was arguably a stuff up. There wasn't really a plan for what to do 'after', it's not like the world forces USA to invade and occupy Iraq. Let's also remember that the WMD story which was basically the foundation for going there in the first place. Not that I liked Saddam, but it seems that his mass murdering habits would have been preferable over the shitstorm that went on in Iraq after he was toppled. At least for the people living there.

Afghanistan was of course a different story. There was the 9/11 attacks, it already was a mess before the invasion. I agree that the long noses and international politics about doing the right things, in the end often produce bad things because military occupations aren't miracles that can build nations ;-).

However I feel that what 'the coalition' and countries like my own bring to the table, isn't that much. I mean USA sends 500k troops and what like a couple of hundred of F16s/etc, we send 500 troops and 4 F16s. Many countries, like NL, do tend to talk much I guess. It's on our blood lol. And come with our own human rights demands before committing to coalitions. Which looks good on paper and in rhetoric's but doesn't really put in significant influence on the ground on the macro level (a couple of schools and roads built in some village is great but on the scale of a country it is not significant).
So I don't think that what the rest of the world says about such subjects is that important for USA.

And yes I think many of the people involved in the project really tried hard to improve stuff and make it a better place. Which makes the current situation more tragic imo.
 
Meat Grinder said:
Tribal warlords is the correct answer. That is what is going to happen/has already happened.

Here's the real question, now that this disaster is over, why should anyone in a western nation care about what happens in Afghanistan? By this, I mean, after we get our people/allies out. Why should anyone in any western nation give a f**k about what happens there?
Click to expand...

I think the question should have been, should we try to get involved in an quagmire before we're having to get out of some disaster. And yes I personally feel that if you are involved in something, you should care about it. If you'd been DIYing your house and I offered some help, after which the house collapses on you. Do I get out of dodge, think good riddance and ask myself whether I should care about the whole thing? ;)

Although had the whole thing never happened I agree that we should not concern ourselves too much about what happens in places we don't have any involvement.
 
The bottom line is that for a nation to have a legitimate central government and functioning democracy, the people must see themselves as one people with shared interests.

Look at 3 failed US attempts at nation building:

1) In Vietnam, we supported a small Catholic ruling class. This ruling class was corrupt, illegitimate, and not like the rest of the Vietnamese population. So it failed.

2) In Iraq, we tried to juggle the interests of Sunnis and Shiites. These people hate one another. There is no aligning them and getting them to place nice together. Iraq will fail in the next decade. It is just a question of when.

3) In Afghanistan we tried to unite a nation that is divided first on ethnic grounds and then even further on tribal grounds. No way that was going to work.

When will we learn?

But before people condemn the US, know that our time as the dominant power in the world was far more benevolent than our predecessors. US world stewardship was far better than 500 years of European in-fighting and colonialism.

Let's see what China brings....
 
Nemesis said:
But before people condemn the US, know that our time as the dominant power in the world was far more benevolent than our predecessors. US world stewardship was far better than 500 years of European in-fighting and colonialism.

Let's see what China brings....
Click to expand...
Lol that wasn't difficult. And I'd rather have USA vs China, Russia or even EU (in the current state). :coffee:
 
Lethaface said:
Lol that wasn't difficult. And I'd rather have USA vs China, Russia or even EU (in the current state). :coffee:
Click to expand...
Funny. As am American, I actually would like out. While you pay taxes and get free healthcare and other goodies, we pay taxes for almost no social services and a giant military. I would get the US out of the role of world policeman fully realizing that this will lead to chaos and a faster rise of China.
 
Nemesis said:
Funny. As am American, I actually would like out. While you pay taxes and get free healthcare and other goodies, we pay taxes for almost no social services and a giant military. I would get the US out of the role of world policeman fully realizing that this will lead to chaos and a faster rise of China.
Click to expand...
Small correction: we pay monthly for our (obligatory) healthcare insurance (~100-150 eur average, higher if you have condition). But indeed social security and job protection is much better.

Although I feel that you don't have to be the world policemen if you are the dominant power. I don't necessarily think either that that will lead to chaos. Actually I think that many of the policing itself (war on terror, war on drugs) caused more chaos than it did any good. Plus if you follow the money there are some entangled interests with certain powerful companies making good money of these wars.
 
Last edited:
I read an analysis from the Danish Insitute of International Studies that said there's a reorientation going on in jihadist/islamist groups, where some are arguing more for a focus on the "near enemy" (Muslim governments perceived as corrupt) rather than the traditional focus on the "far enemy" (USA and the West). One example is Pakistan, where Taliban has a local chapter. Another case is Iraq - it already collapsed once to IS, but if it happens again, is the West too war weary to throw them back once more?

Another way of asking could be... how serious a terrorist attack would it now take for the US to invade another Muslim country?
 
Nemesis said:
I would get the US out of the role of world policeman fully realizing that this will lead to chaos and a faster rise of China.
Click to expand...

I dont see the US as ever having fulfilled that role. They simply furthered their goals by any means necessary and sometimes it ended up working to this effect.
Even if the US decided tomorrow to close all its overseas bases and cancel all its alliances the world wouldnt erupt into chaos.
China will take over taiwan and russia might finish taking ukraine but wars are a thing that even with the US influence still happens and in recent times often even started by the US so no significant change there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom