|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CSPbzitPL8 Since 2001 The United States, assisted by many allied nations, has fought a determined campaign to destroy the Al Qaeda organization wherever it is found. Yet despite the expenditure of billions or trillions of dollars, there is today little prospect of a conventional end to the conflict. While Al Qaeda's ability to move across boundaries and conduct attacks in the West has been weakened, since 2001 its regional franchises have grown from small cells of perhaps a few dozen people into large scale insurgencies threatening to overthrow local governments. Afghanistan  Taliban with a captured vehicle supplied by the US to the Afghan government In Afghanistan the Taliban continue to gain strength. Today they control more territory than at any point since the US intervention. 2016 was the bloodiest year yet for Afghan forces, and there is now no prospect of the government becoming secure enough for the last 8,000 US forces to leave. Will the Taliban and government ultimately work out a power sharing deal? Or will Afghanistan face another decade of civil conflict? Somalia  Al Shabaab with captured government forces following the 2016 withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from Western Somalia Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda's Somali franchise, has been driven out of Somalia's major towns and cities but remains a potent threat in the countryside. AMISOM, the African Union peacekeeping, has long been one of the primary bulwarks against their advance. The mission has an uncertain future however, with participants facing pressure to withdraw troops to handle unrest in their own countries and Western funding withheld over human rights violations and disputed elections. It is unknown how many US forces are engaged in Somalia, but they often call in "self defense" airstrikes while on patrol with Somali Federal forces. Do you think the Somali government will ever become self sufficient? Yemen  Extent of Al Qaeda influence in Yemen last year. The coalition has since removed them from several cities but their strength remains largely unchanged. Al Qaeda's Yemeni franchise has long been identified as the most dangerous to western states, launching numerous attacks on American targets. Prior to 2015, America operated a large scale operation targeting Al Qaeda within the country, however the collapse of the Hadi government and the ensuing war between the Houthi and Saudi coalition largely put an end to it, and Al Qaeda and ISIS have exploited the chaos to expand their operation. With rumors Al Qaeda fight alongside the Saudi coalition against their shared Shia enemies, their strength will continue to grow. Iraq, Syria, Libya and the Wider Middle East There already is a good thread about the wars in the Middle East so there's no need to go into detail, but Al Qaeda has positioned itself as the relatively moderate face of Jihad in many of these places. Should the US continue aggressive efforts to destroy local franchises like Jabhat Fateh al-Sham in Syria, or work with them to counter the threat of ISIS? West Africa and Beyond There are numerous other affiliates operating in nations including Algeria and several states of the West Africa. Al Shabaab has conducted several attacks in central and East Africa. How should the nations of the world continue to confront these threats? As the Trump administration fast approaches I see American policy at a crossroads. Most likely he will continue the global war using the same mix of special forces and targeted bombings Obama has, but how will he approach the larger American commitments in Afghanistan? The Afghan Army struggles just to hang on while political chaos and corruption snarls its basic functions. While few would question the necessity of confronting terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, at times the United States has pursued morally questionable policies, and suffered blow back as a result. Al Shabaab in Somalia came into existence following the bloody "shadow war" of 2003 when forces armed by the US escalated violence in Mogadishu to levels unseen since 1993. Today the Somali Federal government is a loose confederation of warlords, some of whom have been charged with war crimes including the mass killing of children. In Afghanistan the Federal government also includes ex-warlords like Vice President General Abdul Rashid Dostum, known for running his enemies over with tanks during the Civil Wars and currently hiding in his stronghold on the Uzbek border from a Kabul court summons relating to allegations he had a local governor beaten and sexually assaulted. In Yemen our once ally Ali Saleh, who once received hundreds of millions in counter terror aid, is now aligned with the Iranian backed Houthi movement, and their civil war has given Al Qaeda unprecedented space to grow. There is no need to go into detail on what happened in Iraq, the severity of that disaster is known to all. Where do we draw the line on acceptable conduct? I envision this thread as a space to discus international terrorism and especially the war in Afghanistan. The Middle East thread often handles these discussions, but as the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate there will be more to discuss on the subject. Until the summer offensive news will be somewhat sparse on that front but I intend to post any articles of interest I see to keep the thread bumped. For frequent updates from around the world I recommend this site: http://www.longwarjournal.org/ which compiles news on this the GWOT. Squalid fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jan 16, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Good idea for a thread. It's kind of hard to discuss general trajectories when it comes to al-Qaeda due to how different the situation is for them in each different country they have a presence in. In Libya, Iraq, and Tunisia, I'd say they are trending down. In Egypt and Afghanistan, they are trending up. And in Yemen, Syria, and Algeria, it's hard to say what their role will be moving forward. But that's been the nature of this war from the beginning. One step forward, two steps back. As we get ready to move into the Trump presidency, I'm really concerned about the potential negative ramifications his policies could lead to in this regard. I've often disagreed with Obama's approach when it comes to undermining terrorism, but I feel it's quite likely that a Trump administration could be significantly worse. It's hard to predict, as he's issued often contradictory statements on it. But in my view, there's two viewpoints that I think really resonate with Trump and his base, and I do believe they are going to be major guiding principles in his foreign policy. Neither of them bode well. The first is sort of generic selfishness. "Why is it our responsibility to solve all these other countries problems? Let them fix their own poo poo." "We've got our own problems." That sort of thing. While Obama didn't speak so callously, he had a functionally similar ideology during the Arab Spring. He tried to keep the US in the background and focus on other things. As al-Qaeda began to emerge in Syria, he didn't attempt to nip the problem in the bud. As it festered and got worse, and ISIS came into prominence, the administration downplayed the problem, calling ISIS the "JV team," and attempted to avoid military action. And finally, the US were dragged into the conflict whether he liked it or not. The same will likely happen with the Trump administration if they try to downplay the situation in countries like Libya and Tunisia that are teetering on the brink. While I don't see him de-escalating the current efforts that are ongoing in fighting against jihadist militias, I could see him hesitating on getting more deeply involved, especially when it comes to working with local actors to undermine jihadists, and providing aid to foreign governments. The fact is that these are not "their" problems. They are very much the problems of the US, and the west as whole, and they are going to demand more attention than perhaps Trump will be willing to give them in the early going. If so, then US efforts to combat jihadists could be extremely insufficient, and we could be dealing with a much worse problem a year or two down the line when things have gotten bad enough that Trump can't argue that it's Saudi Arabia or whoever's responsibility to stop the attacks going on in the west and in the US. The second is a more malicious selfishness. We see that on display when Trump is talking about "taking their oil," and working with Russia, who have objectively empowered al-Qaeda in Syria, in the name of better relations with Russia, at the expense of the Syrian people. There's a well established link between tyranny and terrorism, and what Trump sounds like when he mentions these sorts of things is an ally for tyranny. If the US sided with Russia in Syria and spoke positively about Russian efforts to combat al-Qaeda, everyone in Syria, jihadist or no, is going to view the US as in the corner of the brutal dictator who has committed horrific atrocities on a near daily basis in Syria. That resentment is the fuel that groups like al-Qaeda need to thrive. The realpolitik strategies of "whatever benefits me is good, gently caress everyone else," have played a massive role in breeding instability in the Middle East, and they've been horrible not just from a human rights standpoint, but also in regards to US interests, which was the only thing the strategy is supposed to take into account. Trump coming in on the side of tyranny in the Middle East is, I think, among the worst possible strategies you could ever have in the region, and the negative ramifications of it would present themselves immediately in the form of a reinvigorated surge in jihadist militia activity all over the region. That all said, it's just speculation. So we'll see. I'm really not optimistic moving forward though. 2017 could see a lot of gains reversed. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Ok but I'd like to make the usual reservation against the politicized use of the word "international terrorism" as synonymous with violence perpetrated by Muslims we don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Ok but I'd like to make the usual reservation against the politicized use of the word "international terrorism" as synonymous with violence perpetrated by Muslims we don't like. It's a good point, although I think it is clear that Bush's "Global War on Terror" was specifically against Islamist influenced movements. Although I believe that just as during the Cold War all leftists were conflated with the Soviets, since 2001 all Islamists are often conflated with Al Qaeda and there brand of violent anti-western ideology, even when actual connections are tenuous. It is also worth noting that Barack Obama declared an end to the war on terror, of course in real terms that didn't mean very much. Volkerball posted:That all said, it's just speculation. So we'll see. I'm really not optimistic moving forward though. 2017 could see a lot of gains reversed. Frankly I doubt there will be much change in policy outside Syria and maybe Libya, unless something dramatic happens in Afghanistan outside US control (keep your eyes on the news next August folks!). In places like Yemen and Somalia there was virtually no change from Bush to Obama in terms of policy, and certainly the policy has been remarkably stable. For example one of the most import contributors to AMISOM has been Burundi, which is ruled by the cruel dictator Pierre Nkurunziza. Burundi is paid for its contribution of men however after Nkurunziza illegal third election and the ensuing political violence, EU funders began withholding payments prompting Nkurunziza to threaten to withdraw. Late last year the EU caved and payed anyway. The conflict is fought very cynically over all, with little care taken to ensure civil rights or Democracy is protected. It is my belief that our efforts to destroy Al Qaeda have in many ways made it stronger, although perhaps we have also made its members think twice before attacking the west.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Not sure how the USA can credibly claim to be fighting a war on terror when it supports and protects an extremist Islamic State in Saudi Arabia and trains and arms jihadists in Syria. I don't see a point to most of the nonsense in the last decade except for defense, intelligence and arms contractors making bank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
credibility has nothing to do with anything international anymore if it ever did
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's a good point, although I think it is clear that Bush's "Global War on Terror" was specifically against Islamist influenced movements. Although I believe that just as during the Cold War all leftists were conflated with the Soviets, since 2001 all Islamists are often conflated with Al Qaeda and there brand of violent anti-western ideology, even when actual connections are tenuous. It is also worth noting that Barack Obama declared an end to the war on terror, of course in real terms that didn't mean very much. There never was a "war on terror", it's a figure of speech. What Obama did was to clarify the intent of the policies behind it by essentially dismantling the rhetoric. That was a good thing, and I'm not sure why we're reanimating its corpse right here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:There never was a "war on terror", it's a figure of speech. What Obama did was to clarify the intent of the policies behind it by essentially dismantling the rhetoric. That was a good thing, and I'm not sure why we're reanimating its corpse right here. The war on terror was always the war on Islamic extremism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
The United States isn't at war with Islamic extremism, if anything the opposite would be closer to the truth since the US has maintained supportive relationships with the most egregious exporters of Wahhabism and has stood by or even encouraged the growth of radical Sunni militias in any context where those militias are opposing enemies of the United States. Insofar as you could make a grand characterization of America's current role in the middle east, they are patronizing the Sunni side of a nasty inter-generational demographic conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Seriously. The US has managed to destabilize every secular state in the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
US businesses make good money thanks to it, and the electorate loves watching the home team beat up on a bunch of nobodies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The United States isn't at war with Islamic extremism, if anything the opposite would be closer to the truth since the US has maintained supportive relationships with the most egregious exporters of Wahhabism and has stood by or even encouraged the growth of radical Sunni militias in any context where those militias are opposing enemies of the United States. Insofar as you could make a grand characterization of America's current role in the middle east, they are patronizing the Sunni side of a nasty inter-generational demographic conflict. You shouldn't simply the issue down to one of Sunni vs Shia, as groups like the Islamic Courts Union formed in regions without any sectarian conflict. Several American advisers where even killed in hostile action in the Philippines, where they were assisting in the campaign against Moro separatist groups like Abu Sayyaf, which has since pledged allegiance to IS. Part of this is simply reflective of the enormous volume of cash the US was throwing at anti-terror operations after September 11 2001, which targeted anything that smelled of Islamism. There was a recent NYTimes article you might find interesting on Saudi links to the Taliban. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-afghanistan.html Not gonna quote it as Nytimes blocks c/p however it provides detail on Taliban fundraising in the Gulf. The United States and Saudi Arabia certainly have a complicated relationship. Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The United States isn't at war with Islamic extremism, if anything the opposite would be closer to the truth since the US has maintained supportive relationships with the most egregious exporters of Wahhabism and has stood by or even encouraged the growth of radical Sunni militias in any context where those militias are opposing enemies of the United States. Insofar as you could make a grand characterization of America's current role in the middle east, they are patronizing the Sunni side of a nasty inter-generational demographic conflict. KSA's relations with the wahhabist factions in the country are far more complicated than you are letting on. The seizure of the Grand Mosque serves as an excellent reminder of that. And it's funny you would claim that had the US chosen a side in the sectarian civil war, it would be the Sunni's, given how the US invaded Saddam's Iraq, not Khomeini's Iran, and replaced him with a sectarian Shia tyrant. They also provide air support and weaponry for Shia militias in their fight against jihadists in Iraq, but didn't nearly match that level of support when it came to Sunni militias in Syria fighting against a ruthless dictator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:There never was a "war on terror", it's a figure of speech. What Obama did was to clarify the intent of the policies behind it by essentially dismantling the rhetoric. That was a good thing, and I'm not sure why we're reanimating its corpse right here. While I agree it is hard to argue the United States hasn't at times behaved as if it were at war with Al Qaeda. For example the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was justified as an "act of war" in internal Justice Department memos on the subject, as presumably was his 16 year old son. If a similar situation arose again, do you think Donald Trump would demand all steps are taken to insure due process? More likely I think he would resort to the same logic of war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The war on terror was always the war on Islamic extremism. And "Islamic extremism" has always been a convenient cover for taking motivations away from people who are muslim and saying "musta been their weird religion" when someone does something totally expected like defend their own homeland from invaders or fight people that have overthrown their government or occupy their land. Not even saying they are correct, but if it was white people people would talk about geopolitical reasons they do things, if it's arabs then the right talks about it being all muslims being inherently evil and the left generally restricts it to some types of islam being evil but everyone just ignores actual motivations and blames some brand of islam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Here's the way I see it: The problem with the US's actions in the middle east, is that it's being motivated by 3 conflicting goals, and it cannot achieve 1 without giving up on the other 2. Yet all 3 are currently indispensible, and there's no feasible path to dropping any of them. Those 3 goals are: 1 - Maintain a good relationship and provide security and wealth for Saudi Arabia 2 - Protect Israel from any backlash, even against any kind of punishment for its own immoral and unjust actions. 3 - Promote liberal internationalism. 1 is necessary because of hard economic reality - there is no substitute for oil and no better reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia. 2 is necessary because of the strength of the very well funded Jewish lobby, and the christian religious fundamentalists voting block, which will end your domestic political career if you even speak the truth. 3 is necessary because that is how the US sees itself. But, in trying to achieve any one goal, in ends up undermining the others, hence the constant scatterbrain response of the US to events in the region. Clearly, only 3 is the 'good' goal, but the US needs both energy independence, and less racism against Muslims in its domestic population, if it's to pursue that goal exclusively. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:1 is necessary because of hard economic reality - there is no substitute for oil and no better reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia. quote:2 is necessary because of the strength of the very well funded Jewish lobby, and the christian religious fundamentalists voting block, which will end your domestic political career if you even speak the truth. quote:3 is necessary because that is how the US sees itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Clearly, only 3 is the 'good' goal, but the US needs both energy independence, and less racism against Muslims in its domestic population, if it's to pursue that goal exclusively. You could certainly say at least in economic liberalism has been pretty painful for much of the Middle East, and while the US is obviously weded to the "Washington Consensus" I don't know if I would call this the result of a "good goal". Look to contemporary Tunisia and Egypt to see how the Washington Consensus affects political stability in the Middle East. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
America doesn't like israel because of jews controlling the government, they like it because it's a country of mostly europeans living in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
I would say there is a 4 - to maintain their own ability to project force in the reason by ensuring no dominant regional powers emerge. They do this by funding and protecting Israel, thus keeping their neighbours weak, as well as playing both sides of the Sunni / Sheite divide. If there was a stong, stable region power and a sense of Pan-Arabic identity, I think the US would struggle to act with the kind of impunity it does now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But, in trying to achieve any one goal, in ends up undermining the others, hence the constant scatterbrain response of the US to events in the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
StudlyCaps posted:I would say there is a 4 - to maintain their own ability to project force in the reason by ensuring no dominant regional powers emerge. They do this by funding and protecting Israel, thus keeping their neighbours weak, as well as playing both sides of the Sunni / Sheite divide. Granted, 1-4 would be a direct legacy of the Cold War itself when the US was dedicated to breaking up pan-arabism (which was initially at least leftist in nature and the pan-Arab movement was traditionally allied with the Soviets) and backing Israel/Saudi Arabia (both Cold War allies). Furthermore, a chief aim was promoting "liberalism" in the context of the Cold War and now the Washington Consensus was based on stamping out leftism in the region once and for all. In all honesty,the biggest reason the region is screwed is because we kept on fighting the Cold War long after the Soviets were gone. Institutional inertia also meant we turned a blind eye when regional allies (such as the Saudis) allowed private citizens and members of the royal family to finance extremist organizations with near impunity. Ironically, this eventually left such a power void than once thought of "extinct" powers such as the Russians were able to make considerable headway. I doubt this will chance either, Trump is absolutely of the same mindset even though he has a obvious softspot for the Russians (who are no longer leftist and therefore acceptable to much of the American right.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:1 is necessary because of hard economic reality - there is no substitute for oil and no better reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia. There are substitutes for a lot of uses of oil, particularly natural gas, and we have large domestic reserves, potentially truly vast ones, of offshore oil and gas in Alaska, the deepwater Gulf, and areas of the Atlantic that were only just being surveyed with modern tools at the time of the oil price collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Natural gas only really works in power generation, and the US doesn't have much in the way of oil powered electricity to replace. In fuels + plastics, it's essentially irreplaceable.Owlofcreamcheese posted:America doesn't like israel because of jews controlling the government, they like it because it's a country of mostly europeans living in the middle east. I'll agree in the abstract that racism definitely plays a role, but that's not the only factor here, nor is that the terms it's conceptualized in. When American conservatives spout off about 'judeo-christian values', they're making the statements that america is a christian nation, israel is a jewish nation, and that therefore they share similar value systems. It's also an explicit attempt to exclude any muslim or other religious countries, and that's where the prejudice is (along with the idea that America is or should be a christian country). So there definitely is prejudice, but I'm not sure it's as simple a simple racial prejudice. botany posted:Other than Russia. But Venezuela popping up to #1 is interesting, and something I didn't know - it's apparently a very recent discovery that put it over the top, because of newly discovered oil sands reserves. Now that is the kind of poo poo that rocks the geopolitical boat. Also let's not hope Trump gets rid of 3, yeah? He might, but who knows. StudlyCaps posted:I would say there is a 4 - to maintain their own ability to project force in the reason by ensuring no dominant regional powers emerge. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Natural gas only really works in power generation, and the US doesn't have much in the way of oil powered electricity to replace. In fuels + plastics, it's essentially irreplaceable. Power generation is becoming rapidly more relevant to road vehicles via electrification, and cheap gas is hugely relevant to power generation. A large proportion of fleet vehicles and shorter-haul ships already are or could be run directly on natural gas anyway. Oil is only really irreplaceable right now as an aviation fuel, a fuel for ships on intercontinental routes, and a chemical/plastic feedstock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Transport electrification is not going to happen as fast as you think, batteries are expensive, degrade over time, and take time to manufacturer. Moreover, what percentage of the US do you think drives cares that are only 1 or 2 years old? 2nd hand clunkers are going to continue to be a real thing for a long, long time, and that same logic applies to logistic companies. If you're buying a new fleet, you'd of course go for the latest models + tech, but it's going to take a couple of decades for all that to trickle through the rest of the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I've noticed no one so far in the thread has brought up the situation in Afghanistan. But I'd like to remind everyone that there is still no plan to end the war. The Afghan government's position is not sustainable, last year it's casualties were estimated to have increased by 10% over 2015. Is Trump going to declare victory and get out? Or are we going to see another American escalation? Because after a certain point something has to give, and I'm frustrated that almost no one in the media ever talks about it. And right now the Taliban seems to think it can win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Actually, no, that's not true, according to http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-largest-oil-reserves-by-country.html Russia has much, much smaller proven reserves than Saudi Arabia. Oh, my apologies, I thought I had read that recently but I must have gotten something mixed up. Google tells me Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, so maybe I confused that. Anyway, thanks for correcting me!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I've noticed no one so far in the thread has brought up the situation in Afghanistan. But I'd like to remind everyone that there is still no plan to end the war. The Afghan government's position is not sustainable, last year it's casualties were estimated to have increased by 10% over 2015. Is Trump going to declare victory and get out? Or are we going to see another American escalation? Because after a certain point something has to give, and I'm frustrated that almost no one in the media ever talks about it. And right now the Taliban seems to think it can win. I sincerely think that we had a chance of stabilizing Afghanistan following the Taliban's swift exile after 9/11, but for all the imperial machinations of W. he had absolutely no brains to see them through to completion. When we shifted our focus to Iraq we opened the door for the Taliban to regroup and expand its presence while destroying our own reputation throughout the world. Ever since then it's been as if we are locked in a rear guard action against the Taliban while we just 'wait' for a proper country to come around so we can leave one day maybe? There is no momentum that I can see in Afghanistan that favors American involvement, but I'd love to be proven wrong. So long as Pakistan is a haven for the Taliban they will never be defeated, and their strategy has always been to wait out the American intervention until we tire of maintaining an imperial outpost on the other side of the planet. It worked against the Soviets in the 1980s and they were a neighbor, so why wouldn't it work against the United States? Before too long we're going to be there for two god drat decades. Are we supposed to stay there forever? If you ask our military and certain chicken poo poo senators (McCain) the answer will always be yes. But staying there doesn't solve the underlying problems, it just slaps a band aid on the wound and does nothing else to dress it. What possible path forward do we have? Yet another escalation? Obama did that as a campaign promise in 2009 and here we are in 2017 asking the same problems that we asked in 2008. If Trump declares victory and leaves it will be a replica of Obama declaring victory in Iraq and leaving. It will rip open a massive power vacuum and while the government may last for a period of time it will fall, just like how the Soviet friendly government fell after the Soviets withdrew, and a dark tyranny will replace it. Trump might just shrug and move on and, after a certain point, that is probably the right move. If there is no path forward then we have to retreat. Otherwise we are bleeding resources for vanity and ego, which is a very Trump thing to do, so now that I mention it let's stay there forever. This is an aside, but I gotta say that I  'd when the Taliban watched the first debate and said that Trump was a moron who they couldn't take seriously. Just like the rest of us, now ya gotta learn!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I've noticed no one so far in the thread has brought up the situation in Afghanistan. But I'd like to remind everyone that there is still no plan to end the war. T I suspect that's the reason. Hard to say something with a beginning, an end, and a point about that particular mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I suspect that's the reason. Hard to say something with a beginning, an end, and a point about that particular mess. Most people just want to pretend this mess will just disappear if they ignore it long enough. Unfortunately events have a way of catching up with us, and change is coming to Afghanistan. No American politician during the last election wanted to say anything about Afghanistan, and nobody wanted to ask either. However Western forces are still dying, enormous sums of money are still being spent, all to achieve objectives for which we know the expenditure is inadequate. Nobody wants to lose, but nobody is willing to do what is necessary to win. Barring a miracle there are hard choices ahead, and it is better to make them now than to wait for the next emergency. So what say you? If the Taliban were willing to agree to a peace deal on relatively lax terms, oh say the government had to give vice presidency to Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, put Taliban fighters on the army payroll and institute a few mild Islamist reforms of the government, would it be worth it? Trump has reportedly spoken with President Ghani and assured him the US mission will continue but in general his public statements have opposed humanitarian justifications for continued action. He might stay in Afghanistan if he thinks he'll look bad for leaving, but he's not going to do it for the Afghans. Last year the government reported 60,000 casualties, and there's no reason to think that number will be any lower next year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And "Islamic extremism" has always been a convenient cover for taking motivations away from people who are muslim and saying "musta been their weird religion" when someone does something totally expected like defend their own homeland from invaders or fight people that have overthrown their government or occupy their land. October 10th 732 Never Again! Brother Friendship posted:I sincerely think that we had a chance of stabilizing Afghanistan following the Taliban's swift exile after 9/11, but for all the imperial machinations of W. he had absolutely no brains to see them through to completion. When we shifted our focus to Iraq we opened the door for the Taliban to regroup and expand its presence while destroying our own reputation throughout the world. Ever since then it's been as if we are locked in a rear guard action against the Taliban while we just 'wait' for a proper country to come around so we can leave one day maybe? There is no momentum that I can see in Afghanistan that favors American involvement, but I'd love to be proven wrong. So long as Pakistan is a haven for the Taliban they will never be defeated, and their strategy has always been to wait out the American intervention until we tire of maintaining an imperial outpost on the other side of the planet. It worked against the Soviets in the 1980s and they were a neighbor, so why wouldn't it work against the United States? Before too long we're going to be there for two god drat decades. Are we supposed to stay there forever? If you ask our military and certain chicken poo poo senators (McCain) the answer will always be yes. But staying there doesn't solve the underlying problems, it just slaps a band aid on the wound and does nothing else to dress it. What possible path forward do we have? Yet another escalation? Obama did that as a campaign promise in 2009 and here we are in 2017 asking the same problems that we asked in 2008. I mean Afghanistan had a fairly stable (for the region) government from the late 1800's up to the 1970's when it all went haywire. So a united and fairly prosperous Afghanistan isn't some pipe dream with no basis in reality, other than the fact country has been utterly hosed by a de-facto state of war for nearing forty years now (1978-2017). and considering the average life expectancy of Afghanistan is 60 or so, in reality the only people who have known as an adult a peaceful Afghanistan are the regions elders. Maybe back in 2001, there was maybe a chance of effecting peace, but as mentioned Bush got distracted by Iraq and let everything backslide. Pakistan, USA, Russia, Iran, China, etc. all have their own vested interests in Afghanistan and just like between the British and Russians in their "Great Game" the country is stuck in the middle and getting gangbanged. Personally I think the ?least bad? Option for the USA is to back away from Afghanistan, did it make all those deaths kinda pointless in the long run? Yeah however right now foreign policy in Afghanistan looks like a guy at the Casino already in the hole a couple of grand and trying to rationalize losing a few thousand more of a his retirement fund on the hope he hits the jackpot. Losing the money isn't going to break the bank, but its still loving stupid because the jackpot isn't even that big. The sunk cost fallacy is real, and we should just walk away like we did with Vietnam. Let China try to sort out the region because getting involved in a retarded Afghan adventure is pretty much a requirement for Great Powers. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:I sincerely think that we had a chance of stabilizing Afghanistan following the Taliban's swift exile after 9/11, but for all the imperial machinations of W. he had absolutely no brains to see them through to completion. When we shifted our focus to Iraq we opened the door for the Taliban to regroup and expand its presence while destroying our own reputation throughout the world. Ever since then it's been as if we are locked in a rear guard action against the Taliban while we just 'wait' for a proper country to come around so we can leave one day maybe? There is no momentum that I can see in Afghanistan that favors American involvement, but I'd love to be proven wrong. So long as Pakistan is a haven for the Taliban they will never be defeated, and their strategy has always been to wait out the American intervention until we tire of maintaining an imperial outpost on the other side of the planet. It worked against the Soviets in the 1980s and they were a neighbor, so why wouldn't it work against the United States? Before too long we're going to be there for two god drat decades. Are we supposed to stay there forever? If you ask our military and certain chicken poo poo senators (McCain) the answer will always be yes. But staying there doesn't solve the underlying problems, it just slaps a band aid on the wound and does nothing else to dress it. What possible path forward do we have? Yet another escalation? Obama did that as a campaign promise in 2009 and here we are in 2017 asking the same problems that we asked in 2008. plus, you know, throwing the US's support behind a despot that blatantly stole elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Squalid posted:So what say you? If the Taliban were willing to agree to a peace deal on relatively lax terms, oh say the government had to give vice presidency to Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, put Taliban fighters on the army payroll and institute a few mild Islamist reforms of the government, would it be worth it? Probably, but as far as I know the Taliban of today isn't even close to being the united party that ruled the country, so the question is, would "Taliban" splinter if that happened, and would other claimants to power pop up from its remains? Otherwise a less brutal Islamic government with a better human rights record than the original Taliban is probably the best hope for peace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Probably, but as far as I know the Taliban of today isn't even close to being the united party that ruled the country, so the question is, would "Taliban" splinter if that happened, and would other claimants to power pop up from its remains? Otherwise a less brutal Islamic government with a better human rights record than the original Taliban is probably the best hope for peace. I mean even the "unified" Taliban government still had significant issues dealing with the other Mujahadeen groups, I would imagine if whatever ineffectual government the USA leaves behind in Kabul would be toppled by the Taliban, who would splinter into sub-factions fighting over the pie and everyone else who doesn't like the Taliban, until China invades and installs some guy with the last name Ma to the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
"Al Qaeda-linked group claims attack on Mali military camp posted:Al Mourabitoun, an Islamist group linked to al Qaeda, claimed a suicide bomb attack on a military camp in northern Mali on Wednesday that killed at least 42 people and wounded more than 100 others, according to a Mauritanian news agency. Does anyone know much about the conflict in Mali? The peacekeepers were also the target of a large vbied attack in December, so resistance to the government has obviously continued since the French intervention, but it doesn't come up that often in the news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:So what say you? If the Taliban were willing to agree to a peace deal on relatively lax terms, oh say the government had to give vice presidency to Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, put Taliban fighters on the army payroll and institute a few mild Islamist reforms of the government, would it be worth it? If you can't win through sheer force of arms a negotiated settlement is something to to take pride in. It takes strength to realize your own limits, and gently caress this country for allowing itself to become so wrapped in hubris that it can't talk to its enemies. Didn't Nixon talk to China? Didn't we negotiate with the North Vietnamese? We even 'talked' to Saddam, although that was just a front to justify invading Iraq. Hell, Putin is engaged in a Shadow War against western civilization and we still answer the calls from that mother fucker. Though, yea, you gotta recognize that the Taliban is a splintered network at this point because it tried standing against US air power. If the Taliban could be divided and more moderate elements absorbed into the political process, however... Meh, just a pipe dream at this point. Jack2142 posted:Personally I think the ?least bad? Option for the USA is to back away from Afghanistan, did it make all those deaths kinda pointless in the long run? I think this is the worst thing about our imperial adventures overseas. We're caught in this vice grip where we need to win to justify our losses but we can't win because there's no loving plan to win so we just continue losing men and wealth with no end in sight. Domestic and foreign politics just don't mix well together. A big flaming stink posted:plus, you know, throwing the US's support behind a despot that blatantly stole elections. We talking Karzai? Yet another great Cheney relic! IIRC he was literally some piece of poo poo in an oil company and Cheney was like 'Oh, you'll be a good president' and we all had to act shocked when he was a corrupt piece of poo poo. I don't think that Cheney guy is on the level!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
I have a theory that some part of the American national psyche was so deeply wounded by the experience of Vietnam that they feel the need to re-enact the trauma over and over again, hoping each time for a different result yet making the same mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
StudlyCaps posted:I would say there is a 4 - to maintain their own ability to project force in the reason by ensuring no dominant regional powers emerge. They do this by funding and protecting Israel, thus keeping their neighbours weak, as well as playing both sides of the Sunni / Sheite divide. I agree with this wholeheartedly, to the point that 1 to 3 are encapsulated by it. In a geopolitical sense the United States goal is simple; to maintain the relative position of strength that they currently enjoy. The spread of liberal ideals is a pretense for destabilizing the region through regime change. The war on terror has been a convenient carte blanche for American intervention in the region when in the nation's interest. Since the collapse of the USSR the focus has shifted from containment of a primary challenger to hegemony to destabilization as a form of prevention to the development of regional powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Squalid posted:You shouldn't simply the issue down to one of Sunni vs Shia, as groups like the Islamic Courts Union formed in regions without any sectarian conflict. Several American advisers where even killed in hostile action in the Philippines, where they were assisting in the campaign against Moro separatist groups like Abu Sayyaf, which has since pledged allegiance to IS. Part of this is simply reflective of the enormous volume of cash the US was throwing at anti-terror operations after September 11 2001, which targeted anything that smelled of Islamism. Nothing you say here is wrong and yes it is extremely complicated but all you're really getting at here is that demographic or sectarian conflicts, which tend to sprawl over decades or centuries, are incredibly convoluted and don't lend themselves to neat summaries. There's been a resurgence of a very extreme form of Sunni Islam that has been growing for decades now. The United States has been on both sides of the issue and like any great power it seeks to play local sectarian groups off against each other to it's own benefit, but overall I think it's fair to say that the US has for the most part been using this resurgence of Sunni Islam to achieve it's regional goals. That quite often has meant directly sponsoring or assisting it, in other cases it's meant standing by while it grows or enabling American allies to fuel it. Volkerball posted:KSA's relations with the wahhabist factions in the country are far more complicated than you are letting on. The seizure of the Grand Mosque serves as an excellent reminder of that. And it's funny you would claim that had the US chosen a side in the sectarian civil war, it would be the Sunni's, given how the US invaded Saddam's Iraq, not Khomeini's Iran, and replaced him with a sectarian Shia tyrant. They also provide air support and weaponry for Shia militias in their fight against jihadists in Iraq, but didn't nearly match that level of support when it came to Sunni militias in Syria fighting against a ruthless dictator. That's just tantamount to saying real life is more complicated than our often unrealistic expectations of it. I never suggested or implied Sunnis are some kind of monolithic bloc operating in unison without internal squabbles or conflicts. I think that's such an elementary observation that it hardly needs to be made explicit. Likewise, the US invaded Iraq rather than Iran for complicated reasons but it hardly disproves the fact that the US is mostly on the Sunni side of the current middle eastern fault line. Saddam's ethnic base was Sunni but much like Assad in Syria he represented an older, more secular and socialistic kind of politics that the United States has been trying to stamp out for decades. Like I said, it's reductive and simplistic to present the United States as a sponsor of the Sunni revival but there's a lot of truth to that statement all the same. The US has been standing by while Sauid Arabia commits genocide in Yemen and sponsors the spread of the most vicious kinds of Sunni Islam far and wide with tens of billions of dollars of oil money. Or in some cases they've encouraged these trends because religious extremists have been some of the most dedicated and effective opponents of socialist or left-wing movements. The Iraq example in particular is mostly a byproduct of the sheer folly involved in going to war in the first place. The United States has indeed been lending support to a Shiite controlled government, but because of their overall stance in the region this hasn't worked very well for them. That kind of schizophrenic or counter-productive policy is more a reflection of how sprawling, dysfunctional and decadent American foreign policy has become. Nobody in the Bush administration was planning on installing an Iran-friendly Shiite regime in Iraq, I think they were just way too short-sighted to understand what they were getting into.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:42
|
|