United States Trump fires Bolton

Sol Zagato said:
I count that as equivalent to making peace with them.
Click to expand...

If you want to be wrong, sure.

If your enemy suddenly has become your greater, they will do unto you all a hundredfold what you have done to them.

While that won't happen, the Taliban would attack and invade us if it had the capacity to do so in it's current state.

That's not peace, that's walking away and telling the twerp to fuck off.
 
Emperor Tippy said:
In the longer term, the US is probably better off simply pulling out and ignoring Afghanistan. Making "peace" with the Taliban isn't really politically acceptable at home and they can't be trusted to honor the terms, so unless the US is willing to enforce said terms with force then a peace treaty just makes the US look weak.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The US long ago made its point that attacking the American homeland is a bad idea. Furthermore, attacking America is no longer a viable strategy. Before, the US maintained the world order, which maintained the borders of the artificial nations within the Middle East, and therefore an attack upon America was entirely rational.

Now the US is getting out of the game. The attack upon America and the subsequent invasion did not bring the thing that Al Quaeda had envisioned; it did not unit the Muslim world, it did not bring the downfall of America, and it did not even liberate the area from American imposed limits upon local regions to act within artificial states. In fact, it intensified the disunity of the Muslim world, it strengthened America's military focus, and it forced greater American interference within the Middle East. The 9/11 Islam Attacks were a complete and utter failure, planned by a fool.

Decades later though, other aspects of geography has reduced the American's reliance upon the region. There's no more need to try and force the US out, because the US is leaving. That was apparent under Obama, who did not give two shits what happened in the Middle East. Under Trump, the US is actively tearing the entire system that made the world order work--and in doing so freeing up local regions to define themselves.

There is in my mind, very little rational for why any of these groups will want to risk bringing the wrath of American might back to their shores. Instead, they're going to be far more preoccupied with killing each other than coming after us.



At this point it doesn't serve US interests to handle Afghanistan how it should have been handled back in '01/'02. Ultimately, Bush (and later Obama) was/were unwilling to eat the political bitching that would have come from properly handling Afghanistan. It should have been put under the control of a US military governor with zero attempt to give any kind of power to a nominally independent Afghan government. Martial law should have been declared (and enforced) with partisans shot on sight. The nation should have been conquered, occupied, and then had the US's boot kept on its neck for fifteen to twenty years while the sons and daughters of the local upperclass/powers that be were "invited" to the US to be educated and indoctrinated into the US system. Then, around now, they should have been returning and being the first generation of "local" leaders. Winning in "free and fair" (i.e. rigged to all hell) elections and strongly supported by US money and manpower. Give it another twenty years after that before the US really pulls out.
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

The reason why Afghanistan failed as a state was because Afghanistan as it exists on our maps is an abomination in the eyes of God. These are not a people; they are various people who were penned in by the British and the French to serve European objectives and the US simply kept them that way for the sake of convenience.

You abducting the upper class children of these separate tribes would have failed for various reasons.

  1. Unless you start with very young children, the children in the young adult range would remember their blood feuds.
  2. If you did not take those children, then they would have been political rivals when the abducted kids returned home from the USA.
  3. If you dispose of those rival kids so as to avoid that, you must then still contend with their parents, who will attempt to undo your brainwashing of their children.
  4. If you dispose of those parents or otherwise prevent this, you will have created a massive gulf in relations between the upper and lower classes, as you see in America. Where the upper class is more globalist and thinks the custom of their own people is the product of inbreed bible thumpers, then set them against a lower class of people who are more nationalist and look upon their betters as blood traitors.
  5. Even if you could manage that, local powers around Afghanistan, to which many of those ethnic groups are connected to, would attempt to remove those kids or otherwise convert them. Or arm the local populations against them.
  6. You would still need to bridge the language gap, the cultural gap, and the geographical gap that exists within these groups that made integration under brutal regimes that came before the US range from difficult to impossible.

While this is going on, you take over all the radio and TV stations (and fire HARM on any unapproved transmission sites), and make the internet and cellphones basically the NSA's version of the great firewall of china, you build mixed gender schools, bring in teachers from the US, and then make attendance mandatory. You embed Green Berets into the local population with orders to kill anyone who attempts to build a political movement against you, and any religious leaders who aren't willing to toe the line.
Click to expand...

And you would immediately create a rebellious population that would resist ALL of those forms of media. Similar now to how conservative groups view all mainstream media outlets from entertainment to the news as mere propaganda designed to brainwash and destroy society.

But the US, since the end of WW2, is incredibly unwilling to actually do what is necessary to pacify, indoctrinate, and integrate a conquered territory.
Click to expand...

Because that was not the point of going into the country.

The point was to take out the terrorist cells and sympathetic leaders of the Afghanistan government. And instead of doing that, Bush and his Neo-Con buddies decided that nation-building should be part of that objective. And instead of then sensibly breaking Afghanistan up and giving it to other countries or making smaller, separate entities, the Bush administration instead wanted to retain the strategic advantage of Afghanistan as one state.

It was doomed to failure because the Bush administration was working at cross purposes. It wanted to give liberty to the people, while forcing them all to remain within an artificial nation state they all despised.


EDIT

This map here folks, is why Afghanistan should never have existed:

1280px-Afghanistan_ethnic_groups_2005.jpg
 
Last edited:
Glad he's gone from the administration. I'm sure as with anyone connected to Washington D.C. he will do plenty of speeches for tens of thousands of dollars per useless speech to maintain his current lifestyle.

Plus if you notice in all the pictures of him, he has no upper lips anymore, Its all mustache.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top