OK, I guess I misspoke and should have said “stable republic”.
So if you don’t mind, I’ll put the question to you again. Do you think that if all constraints were removed, we could have left Afghanistan a stable Republic?
I think he was covering for Powell in a way. Powell didn’t have the stomach for it, not that that’s a bad thing, he was commended by many. Probably would have changed history though.
What would be the res (‘thing’) and who would be the public in Afghanistan?
1 Like
The mission was to bait Hussein into ‘reclaiming’ Kuwait as a way to illustrate to the oil princes not to wander too far from the US aegis.
Between you and @WuWei, this has become very interesting indeed.
History is replete with examples of conquered societies becoming stable, democratic (to varying degrees), and prosperous.
So why did we fail in Afghanistan? Was it lack of will on our part? Something unique to that country? Something else?
Also, I am not challenging you, I’m just, as they say, asking questions.
You’ll have to offer a few examples, to see if we share a premise.
For what it’s worth, I don’t assume I’m being challenged in this no-stakes milieu.
I am not sure what you are getting at here, please restate.
I can’t believe that every single person in Afghanistan views this through the aperture of tribe and clan. Surely, there is a large chunk of “normal” people who just want to raise their families and enjoy peace, and maybe modicum of prosperity?
Republic from ‘res publica’, the public('s) thing.
For there to be any kind of a republic, at least a controlling plurality of people have to agree what is the public estate and the thing by which it is enforced/taught/transferred from generation to generation.
So, what would that be for Afghanistan?
Absolutely nothing.
The tribes have irreconcilable differences.
Iraq has the same issue, although instead of dozens upon dozens of separate tribes it’s three major ones (Kurds, Sunni, Shia.)
Can’t turn those places into nation states. No matter how many bombs you drop.
It would take 3 generations to change the will of the people. That is why we failed.
Sure, sure.
Well, I’ll give some examples, but am not interested in arguing about them. Either they work or they don’t. Honestly, I’d be more interested in your examples, to get a feel of the shared premise.
So I will offer up Great Britain, and the American Indigenous as examples of conquest, yet going on to be stable and prosperous.
It’s worth a lot to me, and I appreciate your indulgence.
So, maybe I am being naive, but: isn’t there a large chunk of people in Afghanistan that just want to raise their families in peace, educate their boys and girls, and maybe have some prosperity?
We saw glimmers of this during our occupation. Ready examples to cite: the soccer teams and the robotic team.
Is there not a “middle class”* that simply yearns to get on with life and see their children do better?
*I understand that is a loaded term, but just for ease of reference and discussion.
I tend to agree, but do you think that is the
only reason? I personally think we also would need to kill a bunch more people.
Please note: I am not advocating some sort of genocide, rather I am trying to understand if this result was inevitable.
No.
Freedom requires either A)Responsibility or B)Absence of government.
Look at this country. Look at how people here don’t want/can’t handle freedom.
Most people are sheep. They want a shepherd. They want rules.
When you see an absence of conflict, it’s because there is no presence.
Afghanistan is ungovernable. Oh, they’ll control Kabul and a few other population centers, but they’ll never control the country. They won’t try, they’ll cede them.
It is a combination of the nature of the people that @Tzu touched on, the terrain, the lack of reward being worth the effort.
Ahmed the Goat Humper doesn’t care what form of government they have in Kabul. If they leave him alone, they can call it what they want. If they push him too far, he’ll kill them or die trying.
Within boundaries and only as defined by the conqueror’s system.
Always temporary. It becomes in the interest of the conquered not to rebel. It’s not worth it. Until it is.
The conqueror has to make enough concessions, stop pushing, to avoid resentment.
But as you said earlier, there are people, cultures, that have resentment for authority in their DNA. Free men. Or Free Folk. Outlaws.
Of course there are. The vast majority of the population.
If Trump had been running things it would’ve been the exact same ■■■■ show and you guys would’ve been swooning about how it would’ve been SO much worse under someone else.
Hmmm…again, a grim assessment.
Do you think that, all else aside, we should have left Afghanistan in 2003, even knowing that the Taliban would come back?
Next: we didn’t leave, so the previous question is counterfactual. However, do you think that the stability and the glimpse of something better might inspire the young Afghans to reach for that better thing?
Or, has it all been a giant waste of time, money, and lives?
Counterfactual. Trump wasn’t running things.
1 Like
You know I’m right.
