Biden's Anticipated Foreign Policy (2 Viewers)

[Isaac]

@Isaac we can agree on the concept of nation-building might be beneficial if managed correctly with a stated goal and exit strategy but sadly up until now, it's been very sketchy. Just one man's opinion, nothing earth-shattering

Yeah - I think we can gather around that sentence and shake our heads in agreed sorrow!

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think it does make at least some sense to put some stock in the concept of democracy-based nation-building, no matter how loathed that term is now, it's grounded in truth and common sense.

There is no way you can give a representative form of government to people who don't understand it and are not motivated to fight for it themselves. Granted the latest debacle was over the top and should have been avoided but leaving Afghanistan was always doomed to end this way at some level. These are people who want to live in the 7th century. Sure they like phones and TV and some other modern conveniences but they really like the way they live. The women, not so much. But men don't fare badly under the Taliban since they are the masters and they are not motivated sufficiently to protect their womenfolk because it benefits them personally to have the women be their slaves.

Keep in mind that the meaning of the word "Islam" is to submit. These are people who are browbeaten into submission from childhood. They do not know what freedom actually is so they can't really aspire to it. The best they can hope for is a benign dictator who doesn't torture them and put them in political prisons. In the Madrassas, boys memorize the Koran and learn little else except to hate America and the West. Girls are too unimportant to bother to educate at all in poor countries. In a sense, Islam is the polar opposite of the Christian mindset where Christ teaches us to live and let live and forgive our enemies, Mohamad teaches his followers to submit and if you don't they will kill you. So, anyone who is not Muslim, must still submit to their domination or be killed. There is no middle ground. Try reading some of the Koran to see how "beautiful" it is. And then there is Sharia law if you want to find out just how worthless women are.

Look at how quickly the 300,000 strong Afghan army simply collapsed. These men were trained by Americans and other Westerners but just because they could fire a weapon doesn't mean they had the inner strength to stand and fight. They were in the army to begin with because it was a job and they were going to get their own gun. Clearly, they didn't think freedom was important so we wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of our precious children to give them something they simply did not want. The art of giving is all about giving the recipient something he wants not just something you want to give him. It would have been much better for Afghanistan if we gave them a benevolent dictator instead of a constitution they didn't want and the women would have been far better off because reforms could be tolerated if women didn't actually have any power.

You can't blame Biden although he certainly didn't need to do what he did to cause this awful debacle. and he was in the Senate when all this started so he certainly deserves a lot of criticism. We can blame ourselves though. Eisenhower warned us in the 50's to watch out for the military industrial complex and we took our eyes off the ball. We allowed these people to infiltrate our government and military and businesses and this is how it ends. Endless, meaningless wars that we some how get into without any intention of winning but which make many people rich along the way. Trump's military advisors LIED to him. They LIED to the president of the United States of America and admitted it on TV after the fact. All to keep Trump from drawing troops out of Iraq. What happened to those traitors? Nothing. Is lying to the President and disopeying orders even a crime in this country any more? I guess not if you lie to the evil Orange man. An honest man who disagrees with the boss resigns. He doesn't lie and do what HE thinks is best behind the boss' back. But when you are part of the deep state, you know who has your back and you can do whatever you want and get away with it and they did.

 

[Steve R.]

@Isaac we can agree on the concept of nation-building might be beneficial if managed correctly with a stated goal and exit strategy but sadly up until now, it's been very sketchy. Just one man's opinion, nothing earth-shattering

I think it does make at least some sense to put some stock in the concept of democracy-based nation-building, no matter how loathed that term is now, it's grounded in truth and common sense.

Nation building is an arrogant action that demeans the native culture. Who are we (the US) to unilaterally define what the "best" political/moral/ethical systems should be for a particular country. Through nation building we are exporting our values on a society that may have no appreciation for those values or a desire to adopt our values.

Tangentially, the "Woke" crowd is currently imposing a form of nation building on the US. Concepts vital to Judeo-Christian values are being vilely undermined in the name of "progress", one freedom targeted for elimination is free speech. So, I don't want that form of nation building to be forcibly inflicted on the US and by extension to other countries.

And as a side note to this theme, there have already been a few jokes to the effect that the Taliban was successful in "recovering" Afghanistan from the "evil" West as they wanted nothing to do with the US attempts to impose "Woke" culture on Afghanistan. Note that as an insult to societal norms of Afghanistan, the US embassy flew the gay pride flag. That is being an "Ugly American".

U.S. embassies have flown the Pride flag in some of the most anti-LGBTQ countries on Earth this year

The Pride flag is now flying in the United Arab Emirates, one of the most religiously conservative countries. Being gay is illegal there.

www.lgbtqnation.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

Nation building is an arrogant action that demeans the native culture. Who are we (the US) to unilaterally define what the "best" political/moral/ethical systems should be for a particular country.

While I can appreciate the sentiment the alternative is bringing hundreds of thousands of Afghans into the US who are not capable of assimilating into our culture because of religious reasons.

 

[Steve R.]

While I can appreciate the sentiment the alternative is bringing hundreds of thousands of Afghans into the US who are not capable of assimilating into our culture because of religious reasons.

That is a conundrum that has emerged in the last 100 years that paralyzes us into non-solutions. Prior to 100 years ago ethnic cleansing and mass deportations of populations were considered "normal". Today, it is not considered normal and we have virtually no place to deport populations in-mass because the Earth is "full".

According to one website the world population in 1927 was estimated around 2 billion. In 2020 nearly 7.8 billion.

To add some context. Dan Carlin had a podcast concerning the Nanjing Massacre in 1937/1938. In that podcast, he noted that the Nanjing Massacre represented a paradigm shift concerning the sacking of cities. In the "old days" conquering armies routinely sacked cities; there was very little outrage and very little public knowledge outside of the local area. In the case of the Nanjing Massacre there was modern (at the time) communications, journalists, and a large expat community that aided in exposing the incident. Today, events like that occurring in Afghanistan are under the microscope and have a high degree of public/worldwide exposure. Today, due to our evolving social norms, the international community will not tolerate "strong" solutions that have massive adverse impacts on populations. Unfortunately, we now see massive non-solutions such as refugee camps in Syria and situations such as that in Gaza.
.

 

[Isaac]

Nation building is an arrogant action that demeans the native culture. Who are we (the US) to unilaterally define what the "best" political/moral/ethical systems should be for a particular country

I respect the point you are trying to make, but I'm continuing to hold that there are certain oppressive actions (cutting off a person's hand for committing adultery, raping children, torturing people in general) which justify intervention on a compassionate basis. It doesn't bother me that some will call me arrogant, demeaning, self-appointed, etc. I'm quite comfortable being called any of those things to step in and help someone who being brutalized, in some cases desperate OR may not even know there is a better life possible.

If i was in Afghanistan and saw that happening to someone and (somehow) had the magic wand to step in and prevent or stop it, I'd do it.
I expect similar values (but possibly a very different application, and various limitations as have been discussed), to permeate upward into my government policies.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There are 10000 mini-Bin Laden's under him who feel exactly the same as big Bin Laden. I'd say I feel about .001% safer with a single one of them gone.

Not the point I was making. I don't give a toot that the mini-Bin Ladens don't like us. I don't like them either. But none of them masterminded that kind of attack on U.S. soil.

We went into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. We did. Put some lead in him, dragged his corpse out of the country. Showed that we can be very badly vindictive if we want to be.

At that point, we should have as gracefully as possible backed out of that den of vipers. But no, that didn't happen. We did some nasty things and wasted a lot of lives, time, and money (in that order of importance) to get one man and bring him to justice.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I respect the point you are trying to make, but I'm continuing to hold that there are certain oppressive actions (cutting off a person's hand for committing adultery, raping children, torturing people in general) which justify intervention on a compassionate basis. It doesn't bother me that some will call me arrogant, demeaning, self-appointed, etc. I'm quite comfortable being called any of those things to step in and help someone who being brutalized, in some cases desperate OR may not even know there is a better life possible.

If i was in Afghanistan and saw that happening to someone and (somehow) had the magic wand to step in and prevent or stop it, I'd do it.
I expect similar values (but possibly a very different application, and various limitations as have been discussed), to permeate upward into my government policies.

The problem is religious in nature, at least partly, because hand removal, stoning people to death, suppression of women's rights, and certain other treatments are mandated by the Qur'an - so in order to prevent this, we have to convince Muslims that sharia (Muslim religious law) is wrong. Would you care to listen to folks that tell you that Judaism and Christianity are morally wrong? Because that is the equivalent request.

 

[Jon]

My understanding is that much of the Afghan army were not being paid due to corruption at the top. Considering that being a soldier is a job, when you are not paid you are far less likely to want to continue to risk your life for no reward. An unpaid civilian will not want to work for free. There is no difference for a soldier. Also, they need to do other things to survive and put food on the table.

Considering these factors at play, it is hardly surprising that the Afghan army collapsed. The Taliban are rewarded with their ra** and pillage, forced marriages with underaged girls and the status that comes with being in power.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Good point, the Taliban are thought to be funded by Russia, Pakistan, and opium production. This is why you stick to a smaller limited mission that can be accomplished with a clear exit strategy.

 

[Steve R.]

Good point, the Taliban are thought to be funded by Russia, Pakistan, and opium production. This is why you stick to a smaller limited mission that can be accomplished with a clear exit strategy.

The Israelis have what could be considered the superior approach to addressing "terrorism". Hunt-down the instigators, one by one, and quietly eliminate them.

There is an old story that may well be an urban myth. The incident occurred in the days when the Soviet Union still existed. According to the "story", a possible Soviet official of some type was assassinated by a some organization in Syria. The Soviet secret police then hunted-down as many of the people (including family members) they could find who were responsible for the assassination and then mailed the body parts to that organization. That organization never again took an action against a member of the Soviet Union. Obviously assuming that there is any truth to this story, the Soviets were extremely brutal but on the positive side, they "solved' a terrorist problem.

The story above segues in how the US treats terrorists. The US simply puts them in jail for a few years. That really does not neuter them from being able to instigate terrorist acts from prison or resuming those activities after they are released. The fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban resulted in the release from prison of incarcerated Taliban fighters who can now resume terrorist acts against the US. Evidently Khairullah Khairkhwa falls into that category.

War is a dirty business. Many in the US seem to believe that through empathy and understanding we can resolve problems, such as terrorism. Unfortunately, that leads us to non-solutions that appear humanitarian, but are actually detrimental to our well being. For example, now tha Khairullah Khairkhwa has been released from prison, he may have no reluctance executing one of the people who advocated that his life be preserved. Eliminating the threat of terrorism requires that those using terrorism be eliminated.

 

[Isaac]

The problem is religious in nature, at least partly, because hand removal, stoning people to death, suppression of women's rights, and certain other treatments are mandated by the Qur'an - so in order to prevent this, we have to convince Muslims that sharia (Muslim religious law) is wrong. Would you care to listen to folks that tell you that Judaism and Christianity are morally wrong? Because that is the equivalent request.

Oh, I agree you have a point. Hence my many comments on this forum that quite thinly disguise what I think of the expansion of Islam into Western or European countries - including what they have gotten back from it so far.

I hope that we can trust the 'rest' of the Islamic community who swears that that is an inaccurate or outdated interpretation of their koran and most Muslims don't believe that, kind of like Christianity (except for the fact that we don't have millions of Christians today that believe the bible stops at the old testament and that the commands God gave the original Hebrews in Leviticus hold true today literal), and yes I'm excluding orthodox Jews because I don't agree with their beliefs).

 

[Isaac]

Not the point I was making. I don't give a toot that the mini-Bin Ladens don't like us. I don't like them either. But none of them masterminded that kind of attack on U.S. soil.

Well....Okay, maybe that wasn't the point you were making, perhaps I was deliberately switching gears there, I still hold that I don't see eliminating the one top guy as such a monumental achievement. Plenty continue to arise to do the same. Killing one every few years after a catastrophic (or maybe a bit less) event isn't the way I would approach the problem.

But yeah, it did some good, and I'm glad we did.

 

[Pat Hartman]

but I'm continuing to hold that there are certain oppressive actions (cutting off a person's hand for committing adultery, raping children, torturing people in general) which justify intervention on a compassionate basis.

What would you have us do? Specifically. These practices are all condoned by Sharia law, which, BTW is now being practiced in parts of the US. We have allowed Muslim communities to establish Sharia courts.

Nation building doesn't work. Who are we to tell them that their religion is evil and totally at odds with our Judeo-Christian beliefs? So, what exactly, should we do?

 

[Isaac]

What would you have us do? Specifically.

I think our presence in general - and whatever we've been doing for the last 20 years in the middle east - has certainly helped to minimize it, made it grow less than it would have had we never showed up.

I'm not a military strategist, but it takes neither an academic nor a soldier to see that our military presence has deterrent and mitigation effects.

But if you really want a specific example, I'll throw you a bone: Having a couple hundred or thousand US soldiers in the general vicinity of NGO's who are providing SERIOUS humanitarian aid to the oppressed, sick, hungry etc - means that that NGO is somewhat protected, much more than it would be were we never to arrive. In fact, many of them are collapsing now that we've withdrawn. Not sure how many examples you need..

 

[conception_native_0123]

While third-party help is great, if the people as a whole don't want it, it ain't gonna happen. If the people as a whole want it but not enough to risk their own lives over it, it ain't gonna happen.

can't argue with those sentiments, richard. good calls.

 

[Isaac]

can't argue with those sentiments, richard. good calls.

I would call the actions of any Afghan interpreter over the past decade or so, "Risking your life".

I would also call the multitudinous testimonies of disappointed Afghans right now, devastated at the thought of Taliban rule, and the desperate many clawing their way to the airport, "wanting it" (meaning wanting what they were seemingly headed towards rather than Taliban rule).

I think that's kind of hard to refute, but go ahead naysayers! j/k guys.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac, this is going to sound harsh, perhaps, and it is NOT intended to be personal, but we have only to look at France with their overthrow of their monarchy and the USA with our overthrow of remote English rule. We can look at the Free French Army and the various other underground forces in WWII. Or look at the Russian Revolution of the peasants against the Tsars.

We and the other people I named wanted it bad enough to stand up and fight for it at continued personal risk. We didn't turn tail and run. We didn't flee. We didn't cower in dark corners or run like scared rabbits. We fought, bled, and died for the cause. Whether we are talking about survival of the fittest in the wilderness or forging a new a nation, if you can't put skin in the game, you don't want to win. You want to just dabble. The only freedom that you truly treasure is that for which you fought to obtain with ferocity and determination.

As to the Afghan interpreters? They put skin in the game. Bring them here. They personally demonstrated that they understand the idea of risk for a desirable goal.

I will stop here because if I take this any farther, I will likely insult a lot of people very quickly.

 

[AccessBlaster]

When we lost the Vietnam War a similar thing happened, hundreds of thousands of refugees were dumped in Orange County California. In the 1970s this devastated our local communities and some of these folks have still not assimilated despite being here for 40+ years. People think this will not happen to their community but imagine 100,000 Afghans dropped off in Phoenix AZ or Nashville TN. The point is losing war after war has major consequences on OUR existing culture and citizens.