What's in the News? 2.0

[Hades]

Afghanistan is called "the graveyard of empires" for a reason.   Since the coup in 1973 that saw the last king of the country deposed, the country has had internal strife and been a proxy battlefield in the Cold War all the way through to the present "war on terror" that's been going on for decades now.

According to a BBC report, between the initial invasion in 2001 until 2020, the US spent an estimated $978 billion in Afghanistan.  That's military and civilian construction projects combined, but doesn't factor in the long-term health care of soldiers wounded and in need of ongoing treatment and care.  So not too far shy of a trillion dollars, and probably over a trillion with the costs included in the 2020-2021 budget that's not included in this report, and what does the US have to show for that spent capital and soldiers wounded and/or killed?

A country just as fractured and unstable now as it was when the first US boots hit the ground back in 2001.  Our original reason for going into Afghanistan was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.  Nevermind that he was found in Pakistan instead, but regardless of where he was when he was killed, bin Laden has been dead since 2011.  We've stayed there a decade longer than we should have already, and the only thing that has kept us there this long is imperialism and exportation of the natural resources that Afghanistan finds itself in possession of. 

If Afghans aren't ready after over a decade of training to defend themselves against the Taliban, how long will it take for them to be ready?  Ten more years?  Twenty? Fifty?  Do we simply maintain permanent occupation? 

[Saria]

If Afghans aren't ready after over a decade of training to defend themselves against the Taliban, how long will it take for them to be ready?  Ten more years?  Twenty? Fifty?  Do we simply maintain permanent occupation?

I’m not a fan of further US presence in Afghanistan, but I have a problem with the “we’ve done everything we can to help and it hasn’t worked, so, fuck it, let’s just walk away, and to hell with them” position.

For starters, you mentioned the many billions the US spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan. That’s true, but there are some serious qualifiers there. For example, huge chunks of that money were actually used to disrupt the “illegal” drug industry (mostly opium and weed). How is that “helping” Afghanistan? Those drugs are illegal in the US… not Afghanistan. Even if they were illegal in Afghanistan, policing the drug trade is hardly required for reconstruction. This is a case of pure US self-interest at play, not interest in what would have been good for Afghanistan. Turns out there was a lot of that going on, with large chunks of money spent on providing infrastructure and security for non-Afghan corporate interests to milk the country’s natural resources… not on what Afghanistan itself needed.

More relevantly:

According to a BBC report, between the initial invasion in 2001 until 2020, the US spent an estimated $978 billion in Afghanistan.  That's military and civilian construction projects combined, but doesn't factor in the long-term health care of soldiers wounded and in need of ongoing treatment and care.  So not too far shy of a trillion dollars, and probably over a trillion with the costs included in the 2020-2021 budget that's not included in this report, and what does the US have to show for that spent capital and soldiers wounded and/or killed?

You know where else another chunk of those billions went? Right back into the hands of the Taliban. Yes, that’s right, the US has been funding the Taliban, even after the 2001 war. That’s (a big part of) why the Taliban has been able to make such a comeback. Some of those soldiers wounded and killed that you mentioned are actually injured or dead because of the US money spent in Afghanistan.

It’s a little rich to talk about how unprepared the Afghan military is to fight the Taliban when the reason the Taliban is so well-armed and well-equipped is because the US has been training and funding the Taliban for generations. Not to mention Russia, Pakistan, and others. I think it’s often forgotten just how much foreign money and support has been funnelled into the Taliban over the years. If even a tenth of the training and funding that has been spent on the Taliban were to be spent on the Afghanistan military, they’d probably be equal to take on Pakistan directly, never mind the Taliban. What the US has spent on the Afghan military since 2001 is peanuts by comparison.

I am no fan of further US or European or other foreign presence in Afghanistan. But the bottom line is that the underlying cause for ALL of Afghanistan’s problems has ALWAYS been foreign meddling. So as much as I would prefer to see the US leave, I would much more prefer they actually stick around to clean up the goddamn mess they made for once. (Though I would much more prefer the US (and Russia, and Pakistan, and others) be forced to stick around and clean up the mess they made under the supervision of an Afghan-led coalition.)

Honestly, it’s like the US has completely forgotten something they kept saying they would “never forget”. Something about a 9 and an 11, and the last time the US walked away from the mess it made in Afghanistan, and how it came back to bite them in the ass? 🤔

You can’t make a goddamn mess, and then just walk away and forget about it. It will come back to bite you in the ass later. I don’t really care how many trillions it costs; you made the mess, you are responsible for cleaning it up.

Or, yanno, go ahead and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban. Worked out fine last time, right?

[Thufir Hawat]

I’m not a fan of further US presence in Afghanistan, but I have a problem with the “we’ve done everything we can to help and it hasn’t worked, so, fuck it, let’s just walk away, and to hell with them” position.

For starters, you mentioned the many billions the US spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan. That’s true, but there are some serious qualifiers there. For example, huge chunks of that money were actually used to disrupt the “illegal” drug industry (mostly opium and weed). How is that “helping” Afghanistan? Those drugs are illegal in the US… not Afghanistan. Even if they were illegal in Afghanistan, policing the drug trade is hardly required for reconstruction. This is a case of pure US self-interest at play, not interest in what would have been good for Afghanistan. Turns out there was a lot of that going on, with large chunks of money spent on providing infrastructure and security for non-Afghan corporate interests to milk the country’s natural resources… not on what Afghanistan itself needed.

More relevantly:

You know where else another chunk of those billions went? Right back into the hands of the Taliban. Yes, that’s right, the US has been funding the Taliban, even after the 2001 war. That’s (a big part of) why the Taliban has been able to make such a comeback. Some of those soldiers wounded and killed that you mentioned are actually injured or dead because of the US money spent in Afghanistan.

It’s a little rich to talk about how unprepared the Afghan military is to fight the Taliban when the reason the Taliban is so well-armed and well-equipped is because the US has been training and funding the Taliban for generations. Not to mention Russia, Pakistan, and others. I think it’s often forgotten just how much foreign money and support has been funnelled into the Taliban over the years. If even a tenth of the training and funding that has been spent on the Taliban were to be spent on the Afghanistan military, they’d probably be equal to take on Pakistan directly, never mind the Taliban. What the US has spent on the Afghan military since 2001 is peanuts by comparison.

I am no fan of further US or European or other foreign presence in Afghanistan. But the bottom line is that the underlying cause for ALL of Afghanistan’s problems has ALWAYS been foreign meddling. So as much as I would prefer to see the US leave, I would much more prefer they actually stick around to clean up the goddamn mess they made for once. (Though I would much more prefer the US (and Russia, and Pakistan, and others) be forced to stick around and clean up the mess they made under the supervision of an Afghan-led coalition.)

Honestly, it’s like the US has completely forgotten something they kept saying they would “never forget”. Something about a 9 and an 11, and the last time the US walked away from the mess it made in Afghanistan, and how it came back to bite them in the ass? 🤔

You can’t make a goddamn mess, and then just walk away and forget about it. It will come back to bite you in the ass later. I don’t really care how many trillions it costs; you made the mess, you are responsible for cleaning it up.

Or, yanno, go ahead and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban. Worked out fine last time, right?

Let me just add one thing to this post.
You know who benefits most from the US leaving (after the Taliban and IS)?

President Vladimir Putin - especially since the US is leaving a growing threat in Central Asia.
It's not like the countries in the region don't know who to turn to for help, though. It is going to have a price, sure. But since the USA is showing time and time again that it cannot be trusted (your former allies are getting executed now - from pilots to journalists and NGOs, guess how the local people interpret this, especially since it's not the first time)...what are the other choices? Russia and possibly China, but of them only one has shown willingness to go to war for allies...
And neither option benefits the US.
https://amp.northjersey.com/amp/7971230002
https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/with-eyes-on-afghanistan-russian-military-exercises-in-central-asia/

[Skynet]

Just have to say, Russia getting involved with Afghanistan after the US leaves would be one of the biggest geopolitical cases of Sunk Cost Fallacy.

[Saria]

I doubt Russia is willing to get too deeply involved in Afghanistan at this point. Afghanistan has a ton of natural resources that could be exploited, but not enough to justify the what it would cost to go in and clean the place up in the short to medium term. At this point, Russia’s best strategy would be to keep out of the mess, rather than reawaken old hatreds, and hope that they can cosy up to a more mellow, future Afghan government.

It’s far more likely that Afghanistan will once again become the ball in the long-running Saudi-versus-Iran game. Last time the Saudi side—the Taliban—had effectively won… up until 9/11, when the US stepped in. The US invasion completely fucked up the balance of power in the region, so it’s not obvious that the same situation will shake out. But at the moment, it sure does look like the Saudi side is going to win again, making the entire 20-year US intervention ultimately pointless.

[Haibane]

You made the comparison with Vietnam, not me.

No, it was you.

If its any consolation, Vietnam has become a much nicer country since it won the war and post-fall of communism reintegrated into the international community.

I reiterate - you can't win the war against the Taliban so long as you permit the Pakistan government to keep supplying them. But widening the war to Pakistan is not going to save lives, quite the reverse (just as widening Vietnam to include Laos and Camobodia caused untold deaths and the rise of the Khmer Rouge).

I didn't say how we should keep Afghanistan free, and I didn't suggest starting a war with Pakistan, that's madness. Why would anyone think that was a civilised approach? I just said that we MUST, regardless of monetary cost, do something and keep doing it. Keep doing what we've been doing, that was expensive but it was working. It kept extremism suppressed to a level where it was containable. How its done I am not discussing, but abandoning it is going to cause the whole of the free world a total nightmare in 5 to 10 years.

Some situations are just shit and there's not much you can do about it. The west would do well to learn the limits of interventionism. Something Must Be Done-ism falls at the hurdle of realpolitik.

Its this kind of head-in-the-sand defeatist talk that gets no-one anywhere. Its the sort of isolationist nonsense that Trump talks and its completely counter-productive. Something Must Be Done-ism as you derogatively call it is the only way a decent free world can exist. We are free because we've lived by Something Must Be Done-ism for centuries.

Are you sure you are comfortable with giving up and letting violent radicals run a society of extremist hate where we can predictably say what sort of terrorism is going to be spewing out of there into my neighbourhood and your neighbourhood in a few years? I just wanted to make sure you are okay with that, because I am not. Doing nothing should never be an option.

I might be an uninformed civilian but others think as I do.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58139590

[Thufir Hawat]

Just have to say, Russia getting involved with Afghanistan after the US leaves would be one of the biggest geopolitical cases of Sunk Cost Fallacy.

If that reply was aimed at me, "Russia helping Central Asian states with military power and improving its influence in them=/=Russia getting involved in Afghanistan".

Besides, the exact same argument was presented regarding Russian involvement in Syria .

[Humble Scribe]

OK, I'm probably going to regret posting on whisky, but here we go.

No, it was you.

This is depressing. The Taliban are overrunning Afghanistan as quickly as the North overran South Vietnam in 1972.

<Shrugs.>

I just said that we MUST, regardless of monetary cost, do something and keep doing it. Keep doing what we've been doing, that was expensive but it was working. It kept extremism suppressed to a level where it was containable. How its done I am not discussing, but abandoning it is going to cause the whole of the free world a total nightmare in 5 to 10 years.

That's what used to be called the "acceptable level of violence" solution to Northern Ireland - continued military occupation, and if a few bombs go off now and again, well, it could be worse... it was the policy from about 1971 (the phrase was first used by Home Secretary Reginald Maudling that year) to the mid-1990s.
It wasn't a long-term solution to The Troubles, and you're talking about a similar level of commitment to Afghanistan, decades of deaths and money, with UK armed forces that have been pared to the bone and frankly aren't up to it. In terms of justification, at least Ulster is part of the UK.

Its this kind of head-in-the-sand defeatist talk that gets no-one anywhere. Its the sort of isolationist nonsense that Trump talks and its completely counter-productive. Something Must Be Done-ism as you derogatively call it is the only way a decent free world can exist. We are free because we've lived by Something Must Be Done-ism for centuries.

Or we've charged around the world intervening and occasionally made things better (Kosovo, Sierra Leone) and occasionally made them *much* worse (Libya, Iraq), and we've also looked the other way when it suited us (Rwanda, Syria, Yemen, Tigray, South Sudan/Darfur, Myanmar, Sri Lanka...).

Politics is the art of the possible. It would be good to get an Afghanistan Good Friday Agreement (maybe an Eid al Fitr Agreement), but that's only possible if both sides are negotiating in good faith. The Taliban aren't - because they know they can win this. We might be able to reduce that back to "an acceptable level of violence" but only by an open ended level of commitment that the west is no longer prepared to make. You could try a UN protectorate like Cambodia, though that was decidedly mixed, and why would Russia vote for it when it can continue to see the west embarrass itself? Otherwise you have to start sanctioning Saudi Arabia and nuclear powers like Pakistan, and we all know that's not going to happen. As long as Pakistan is the Taliban's protector and supporter, you won't stop things in Afghanistan. If these things aren't possible, then we need to think about what is. I don't see how 'more of the same' is going to achieve anything other than what we've seen over the past two decades - unstable warlordism, corruption, and a continuing insurgency that feeds on our presence. If Iraq has taught us anything it's that the presence of western ground troops is often a recruiting sergeant for these movements. And why focus just on Afghanistan? Mali, Syria, Yemen and Somalia all have active Al Qaeda afiliates, yet we're not putting boots on the ground there (well, maybe Mali a bit - mainly France). I don't have a solution, but I don't see that continuing to prop up puppet regimes forever with our own armed forces just because we can't think of anything better to do is necessarily a sustainable strategy either.

[Humble Scribe]

Hm. Sober, I think I stand by most of that.

I'd just add on the prospect of Afghanistan becoming an exporter of terrorism again. That's certainly a risk. But Jihadi and Salafist groups mainly operate via the internet these days. Almost all of the UK domestic terror attacks and arrests in the past 20 years, including 7/7, were by British citizens who had been radicalised online. And they get radicalised by watching videos of British troops marching around Islamic countries imposing what they might view as a decadent foreign culture upon them.
The Taliban are very much woven into the fabric of Pashtun life. They are not Islamic State, indeed they are enemies of ISIS and are actively fighting them in places. They hosted Al Qaeda, but given that was what triggered this whole mess in the first place, they might think twice about making the same mistake again - that seems to be what the US is counting on. They are ultra-conservative, yes, and life will be harsh, especially for young women and girls. Life can be difficult for young women in northern Nigeria (see Boko Haram) and many other places. But living with continual car bombs and suicide attacks is pretty difficult too, and we know that's what continued western occupation would look like.
I'm not pretending these are easy decisions, but I think sometimes we believe our own propaganda a bit too much about the efficacy and utility of our interventions, whereas the reality is often much more mixed. There are other ways of exerting pressure and influence than just sending squaddies in armoured vehicles.

[CyranoDeBergerac]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/man-gets-25-years-added-001612821.html

So he hurt a cop, didn't get a 'long enough' sentence and then the corrections officers decided to 'fix' that by putting him in the same cell as his little sister's rapist, (little sister is still a child) and let nature run its course. Sounds like some cops should be looking at conspiracy to murder charges to me.

[Fox Lokison]

I'm not pretending these are easy decisions, but I think sometimes we believe our own propaganda a bit too much about the efficacy and utility of our interventions, whereas the reality is often much more mixed. There are other ways of exerting pressure and influence than just sending squaddies in armoured vehicles.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Military intervention in Afghanistan has gone on way too long, and in doing so, caused way too many problems that we can't unfuck now. With that being said, a solution would probably not include any occupation. It was a disastrous policy. Going forward, I think we're going to need a lot of delicacy and a lot of compromises. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Afghanistan was used, not uplifted. I spend a fair amount of time speaking to and listening to people from that specific part of the world, and I have not heard a lot of pro-american sentiments. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that America did not equip Afghanistan with the tools to build its own nation. It's hard to be seen as a benevolent ally 10 years into an occupation when you were supposedly only there to kill one guy. Do we need to do something? Probably. But should that something be military intervention? I don't think so. I don't think that's helping anything. It feels like we've been trying to use a scalpel to amputate a leg. Wrong tool for the job, and went on way too long.

Solutions are going to be complicated, unpleasant, and require a lot of compromise. Change is an incredibly slow thing whether we like it or not. Trying to force it hasn't worked in anyone's favor. I would prefer that we did not traumatize another generation of Americans by sending them off to a futile war, let alone worsen an already bad situation and turn the Afghani people's homes into a war zone yet again.

[Saria]

With that being said, a solution would probably not include any occupation. It was a disastrous policy.

I definitely agree that occupation is absolutely the wrong way to go, but there is a huge range of options between being an occupying force on the one hand, and burying your head in the sand and saying there’s no need for military support on the other. Afghanistan is a mess because of years of meddling by foreign powers—the country is absolutely flooded with weapons, and with people who know no other way of life but using those weapons. And, right now, at this very moment, is in very real danger of being conquered by the Taliban yet again. Yes, being an occupying force is the wrong answer… but being a force is absolutely, desperately, very much needed right now.

It’s infuriating that the US can’t conceive of providing help to another country unless they get to dictate the terms of that help; no aid without strings attached. The US shouldn’t be an occupying force… but it absolutely should provide a military presence to fight back against the warlords, Taliban or otherwise. That presence, though, should be under Afghanistan’s control.

I would prefer that we did not traumatize another generation of Americans by sending them off to a futile war, let alone worsen an already bad situation and turn the Afghani people's homes into a war zone yet again.

I see a lot of concern for Americans… but none for Afghans.

Just because the war won’t be of benefit to Americans doesn’t mean it would be “futile”. Defeating the Taliban again would hardly be “futile”. And I don’t know if you’ve been following the news, but Afghans’ (not “Afghani”) homes are already in a war zone yet again.

There will be a time for “delicacy”… but not when more than half the country has already fallen to the Taliban.

[Fox Lokison]

There's a reason I said military occupation. And there is a reason I also said that there is probably a solution, but it is not military occupation. We are on the same page concerning that. I don't disagree. So I'm not sure where the conflict is, but I hope this clears that up. And I also agree that the u.s. being unable to conceive of providing help without dictating the terms is a big problem. However, I don't really see the US allowing someone else to dictate our troops.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm only thinking about Americans, because I generally assumed that it was already understood in this thread that American military occupation is incredibly bad for Afghanistan and her citizens. I was offering an additional perspective, not superseding American needs over Afghanistan's. Is that was unclear, I apologize. Allow me to make it explicitly clear. American military occupation is bad for the citizens of Afghanistan.

I am following news. And again, I don't think a military occupation is a solution. And since we've established that the United States will not likely allow Afghanistan to dictate where our troops go and what we do, then American military occupation with in Afghanistan is probably a bad idea. Delicacy does not necessarily mean softness. Delicacy means delicacy. It means not dropping off another invading Force to go fight a war on someone else's soil without even Consulting those people. So I'm not quite sure why you put it in quotes. It's a situation that should be handled with care, not with more overwhelming Force. Do you disagree?

[Blythe]

https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-71024b2146f41d63ccad14ac06ea36f9

There's been complications about the ruling where I live for a while; I'm not surprised to see this bit of news.

Unsure how this will eventually resolve; it's....complex. No matter how it resolves, it's going to be messy.

[Fox Lokison]

Jeez, that looks... I don't think "ugly" is a strong enough word to describe it.

[Blythe]

Jeez, that looks... I don't think "ugly" is a strong enough word to describe it.

Honestly, my general thoughts on it are that I don't want the SCOTUS ruling overturned; I think it was immensely important as a ruling and was long overdue.

I also don't think the correct solution is allowing more federal invasiveness in tribal matters.

I'd rather see a solution that helps bolster tribal resources/personnel so that they can sufficiently manage (the currently numerous) cases that fall under their purview, but...I feel that's going to be really unlikely given that Oklahoma is...uh. Oklahoma. Not known for being great at bolstering their own infrastructure, let alone that of other groups. :/

[Fox Lokison]

Yeah, it sounds like a tangled web of fuckery. I don't know much about the situation - admittedly, I stopped keeping tabs on tribal affairs a while ago, too many other irons in fire - but yeah, not exactly sure Oklahoma is gonna lead the way in finding a meaningful compromise.

[Humble Scribe]

In the UK, August is a time when parliament is in recess and lots of hacks are on holiday. As a result, media coverage tends to drift towards stories that let's say probably wouldn't get much airtime the rest of the year. For that reason it is known as "silly season".

A prime example is currently doing the rounds, the tragic tale of Geronimo the alpaca, sentenced to death for carrying tuberculosis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-58158054

[Lustful Bride]

Anti-vaxxers break attempt to break into the BBC offices, and instead break into the wrong location.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/anti-vax-protesters-storm-bbc-s-supposed-offices-in-london-but-show-up-at-wrong-place/ar-AANaaga?ocid=msedgntp

[Beorning]

Some big news from Poland:

1. Protests took place in multiple cities today against the government's newest attempt at gagging free media:

https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-democracy-media-tvn/free-media-poles-protest-against-changes-to-broadcasting-law-idUSL8N2PH3LM

It's all directly tied to the proposed bill - which, apparently, will be voted on in the parliament tomorrow - which is obviously directed against the biggest independent TV news station in Poland. If the bill comes into effect, it will force the station's American owners to sell it and allow the government to take over it...

2. There is a glimmer of hope, though, as the ruling coalition really is starting to come apart:

https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/08/10/deputy-pm-and-head-of-junior-coalition-partner-expelled-from-polish-government/

Yeah, technically it's just a junior party being ejected from the ruling coalition, but who knows whether PiS will manage to find support among some other MPs... There's a chance that it's actually the beginning of the end for this government.

3. Politics aside, we have another big case of potential police incompetence / brutality here - a few days ago, a man died in the course of police intervention. And the whole situation seems... uncomfortably similar to the George Floyd case:

https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/08/10/death-of-man-in-polish-police-custody-prompts-anger-amid-conflicting-accounts/

It's not clear what actually happened there, but... things look shady. For once, the cops claim that the man died in hospital - but a statement of the EMT crew surfaced which openly says that the man was already dead when their arrived at the scene. Also, the prosecutor actually refused the family to see the deceased man's body... and, shortly after the whole incident, some cops appeared at the home of the man's mother (who had been filming the incident) and, without any warrant, tried to force her to give the footage up. According to the witnesses, they actually got violent when doing that...

Most importantly: at this moment, the family claims they were informed (by someone from the medical staff who saw the body, I guess?) that the deceased man died due to crushed larynx. The prosecution claims it absolutely not true and the autopsy didn't reveal any "obvious" cause of the man's death. And that further medical tests are in order. Hmmmmmmmm.

It'd be easier to believe the cops and the prosecution here, if we haven't had other cases of police brutality and trying to sweep matters under the rug. Including the horrid Igor Stachowiak case, where a guy died after having been *stripped naked* when detained at a police station and *tortured with tasers* by the cops. And this case only came to light after journalists digged into it - because the cops, their superiors and the local prosecution covered it all up...

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88nbk4/expert-mathematician-on-election-fraud-actually-a-swing-set-installer-lawsuit-claims

A man posing as a math expert with evidence Trump won the election is actually a convicted drug dealer with no college degree who installs swing sets, according to a lawsuit.

Raise your hand if you are in the least bit surprised.

[Oniya]

Swing sets, swing states - potato, tamahta...

[Oniya]

Oh hey, look!

It's finally Infrastructure week!

Didn't get everything, but there are some good looking projects in there - including getting more broadband out to people, making it easier to find a charging station for your electric vehicle, fixing the roads and bridges, and expanding public transportation.

[Beorning]

... holy crap.

PiS literally and openly cheated on a crucial vote in the Polish parliament a moment ago.

We simply stopped being a democracy at this point.

Details coming up later, if anyone's interested.

Damn. 

[Sara Nilsson]

... holy crap.

PiS literally and openly cheated on a crucial vote in the Polish parliament a moment ago.

We simply stopped being a democracy at this point.

Details coming up later, if anyone's interested.

Damn. 

I mean I want to say I am surprised but at this point.. yeah.. do keep us informed, most English speaking news I find don't say much about Poland sadly.