Holy Charlie Wilson's War, Barman! (1 Viewer)

[NauticalGent]

Saw this headline today. I wasn't even aware that the US had evacuated Afghanistan. No real surprise there, I do not watch the news.

I have my own opinion on our activities overseas, most of them are unpopular and not shared by my countrymen. But, no matter what view you may have, I think we can all agree the US makes a proper mess of things when we "help".

To quote Tom Hanks is "Charlie Wilson's War" regarding our involvement in Afghanistan and the USSR:

These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we f-ed up the end game.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't know who told our politicians that we should make the world over in our image. I would leave the remaining arms to the Afgan "government" with a newspaper headline the next day - We're done. Free yourselves from the Taliban or go back to the 9th century and don't call us. The really horrible thing Obama did was to abandon the translators who were working for us. He laid them off to make them not eligible for permanent visas to the US.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm kind of with you on this point, Pat... We should leave Afghanistan to its own future. If they devolve into a Dark Ages nation and their women get completely subjugated again, they will find that they cannot compete in world markets. They will also find that EVENTUALLY the news of the outside world will make it in through their borders and their limited technology. At some point their people will do as the Central American people did and flee to a country with better freedom than their own. They will vote with their feet.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Afghanistan (as well as Pakistan, Iran, and others) is a HORRIBLE place to be a woman but the world doesn't care. Women are chattel but that's not like slavery is it? No one even considers the plight of a woman who has no male relative to "own" her. She can't work, she can't leave her house, she has no access to food or medicine. She's just a worthless piece of trash if a man doesn't want to own her.

 

[conception_native_0123]

She's just a worthless piece of trash if a man doesn't want to own her.

Is that really the way women are treated in Middle Eastern countries nowadays? Because if I'm not mistaken that's the way it's been for quite a while.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The Taliban is the worst offender. I worked in Kuwait for a year. The Kuwaitis are more open than many other cultures because they've always been traders. Muslim women are not mistreated. They are educated, allowed to own property, and to work with their "guardian's" permission but they still can't leave the country unless their husband/father/son allows it.

However, the country does allow sex slaves. I know this personally because I had one in my household for the first few weeks we were there. She was 19 and from India. Her father had sold her to the Kuwaiti. I didn't know this when I hired her but after a couple of weeks, the Kuwaiti who owned her found out where she was and insisted that she return. I took her to lawyers, the Indian embassy, and even the American embassy to see if I could send her home to my mother. I couldn't make any headway - probably should have sent my husband to do the job, he might have been able to buy her. In the end, the Indian embassy would send her back to India which of course didn't appeal to her since her family had sold her or she could go back to her owner. The Indian embassy would NOT give her a new passport to allow her to go anywhere else.

 

[Isaac]

I'll have a very unpopular opinion these days: I do think it's nice to put a few of our troops to help people in remote places gain democracy or freedom, if it can be reasonably accomplished. Plus, the fewer nasty terrorist regimes in the world, the better for us, 100 years from now.

 

[NauticalGent]

I'll have a very unpopular opinion these days: I do think it's nice to put a few of our troops to help people in remote places gain democracy or freedom, if it can be reasonably accomplished. Plus, the fewer nasty terrorist regimes in the world, the better for us, 100 years from now.

Yeah...and how is that working out so far?

 

[Pat Hartman]

@Isaac, intellectually, I agree with you. We ought to be able to help at some level as the French helped us but, in my lifetime, my government has consistently backed the wrong parties. The people end up with governments as bad as what they over threw.

 

[conception_native_0123]

However, the country does allow sex slaves. I know this personally because I had one in my household for the first few weeks we were there. She was 19 and from India. Her father had sold her to the Kuwaiti. I didn't know this when I hired her but after a couple of weeks, the Kuwaiti who owned her found out where she was and insisted that she return. I took her to lawyers, the Indian embassy, and even the American embassy to see if I could send her home to my mother. I couldn't make any headway - probably should have sent my husband to do the job, he might have been able to buy her. In the end, the Indian embassy would send her back to India which of course didn't appeal to her since her family had sold her or she could go back to her owner. The Indian embassy would NOT give her a new passport to allow her to go anywhere else.

This is very disheartening to hear

 

[Isaac]

@NauticalGent It's always hard to "prove" the benefit of something whose purpose is essentially to keep things from being worse than they would have been. Most of the hard evidence that exists is on the side of what it has cost us - since that is easily quantifiable. What would have happened, and how much worse, and how much sooner, had we never put any pressure on x-place or y-place throughout the years is always anyone's guess - and I admit that. Also, and separately, people constantly screwing something up doesn't prove it should never be attempted again. I'm not a 4-star general so I can't say militarily and strategically, exactly what ought to change in our tactics in these situations, but I'm very reluctant to conclude that the best option automatically ought to be considered as throwing up our hands and never intervening to help anyone ever again.

@Pat Hartman Fair point, see my comment to NG.

 

[NauticalGent]

IF and I do mean IF our intentions were in fact as noble as they claimed, then I could at least attempt to see your point.

But EVERY intervention has been self serving and just a disaster. The backlash has been sever and enduring and the number of lives lost inexcusable.

Have a read...

 

[Isaac]

IF and I do mean IF our intentions were in fact as noble as they claimed, then I could at least attempt to see your point.

But EVERY intervention has been self serving and just a disaster. The backlash has been sever and enduring and the number of lives lost inexcusable.

Have a read...

That's a great point, and I guess I have to agree with you there.

I remain strong in my belief that we as a nation should try to give of our abundance (and strength) in order to help those who legitimately want/need a chance to begin their own betterment but are facing obstacles far greater than their will to improve.

Much needs to change in the process of selecting those opportunities to do the decent thing - and in executing it, as well. I have no idea what the answer may be. I only know for sure that I wish to belong to a country that sincerely tries to respond when humanitarian crisis arise and we are capable of doing some lasting (or even just immediate) good. If you're thinking "yeah but that motivation is only 1% of what's really behind this", I agree....it's just an ideal...

Then there is the 'other' motivation - self serving. All I'm saying is imagine the hypothetical opposite. Total and complete non-engagement. What happens in 100 years? I believe the disease would spread to too much of the world for my comfort, anyway.

I probably agree with whatever that aptly named PDF says ... I'll read it tonight.