Afghanistan Crisis

[WhiteRoseKillie]

11 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Then we should have a permanent military presence there. That’s is my argument.(1)

We have a duty in Afghanistan because we were already there. (1)The duty arises regardless of whether the initial intervention was a justified one.

I have explained at some length on here why Saudi Arabia and China are different from Afghanistan. But for your benefit again: I do not see a plausible military strategy by which we could take anything more than fleeting control of a territory in either of those countries, without a severe risk of directly inflaming conflicts elsewhere we can’t control, involving nuclear powers in such a way as to risk catastrophic eight or nine figure loss of life: something that is clearly, on balance, much worse for the oppressed in aggregate.(2)

In every situation where it is viable to intervene against those criteria, I support military intervention.(3)

That is why I supported much fuller intervention in Syria in 2013 before Obama shat the bed after Cameron’s Commons defeat leading to Putin propping up Assad and a drawn out conflict that took many more civilian lives, for example.

I really don’t care what you think I’m doing. I’m just explaining what I think and why how I know so much more about this than anyone else on the thread. (4)

1. And where are you going to get this presence from? The UK Army has well South of 100,000 bodies, and Afghanistan is not a small country. I'm not even going to get started on the gear and supplies they'd need. 

2. Again with the military intervention. Become quite the Hawk, haven't we, now? As far as I can see, you're the only one mentioning military intervention against these states. Personally, I reckon we'd be better off starting by, oh, maybe not supplying equipment , support and training to the Saudis. 

3. Again, translating your mealy-mouthed conditions, you're happy to mess around in foreign states' affairs if "success" is guaranteed. 

4. FTFY.

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

The majority of Syrians oppose Assad.  Unfortunately for them, Assad is the army, and the army is the state.  

It is not sufficient to oppose a regime if there's no common ground for what should replace it. That's the situation that they've got themselves into, by a failure of political strategy as much as any other factor.

[Savage Henry]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

It is not sufficient to oppose a regime if there's no common ground for what should replace it. That's the situation that they've got themselves into, by a failure of political strategy as much as any other factor.

I don’t disagree.  The response of course would be that “it’s for the Syrian people to decide”.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

10 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

If doing so would cost a million civilian lives in Afghanistan over, say, a decade, for example, we could take seriously the claim that in aggregate the people there were worse off for it.

As it stands, the civilian deaths attributable to the war figure to April of this year, so over a two decade period, was estimated at about 71k, or about 4kpa. For the sake of drastically increasing the freedom and life prospects of (conservative estimate) more than 2 million women and girls in Kabul alone, that’s a decent return on investment. Excellent even, when you consider how many civilians were routinely executed under the Taliban before they lost control of parts of Afghanistan.

I didn’t say it would be “too messy”. I said it wasn’t feasible. As in we would not succeed in creating the bare minimum conditions necessary to advance the interests of the women and girls living there.

By contrast it was feasible in Kabul. We know this because it actually happened for 20 years.

Of course we take a utilitarian calculus to this. You don’t do things that are demonstrably self defeating to the objective that matters most to you.

The number of deaths over 20 years in Afghanistan is tiny compared to the suffering and oppression that would have arisen under 20 years of Taliban rule. And the withdrawal of NATO troops will not lead to zero future deaths and tortures and rapes and chattel-acquiring. It will cause those things to rocket.

And by our Pontius Pilate esque foreign policy we will have been complicit in it. Complicit by our failure to use the military resources we have to reduce that pain and suffering.

Yes, it was feasible in Kabul. Meanwhile, in the rest of the region, the Taliban just waited until the Occupying Forces' masters got bored. Which they'll do again. And again. 

Meanwhile, living conditions for the lower classes (i.e. fucking all of us who aren't independently wealthy) in this Sceptred Isle continue to deteriorate. Don't even try to pretend I'm drawing an equivalence here, but who is going to get elected on a ticket of "Wee Jimmy can't get a decent meal because his folks are on UC, but in a couple of years he can sign up to go and protect women's rights and the LGBTQ community in a country he can't even find on a map. Oh, and when he comes back he may be missing bits or crippled with PTSD. Good luck with getting treatment for that."

Tell you what - I'll support your military intervention if every single MP who votes to carry it out has every family member between the ages of eighteen and forty drafted to bolster numbers. You can go as well, if you like. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

10 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

 

The National Coalition, which we were already supporting at the time but with far more limited aerial support.
 

Libya was finely balanced but yes I think we probably should have got a lot more involved than we did. The failure to assert early control on the ground was a big part of why all hell broke loose there.

Why, ffs? And how much more involved? Nice safe airstrikes from outside their defences? Or throwing squaddies in to a situation where every bump inevery road could potentially spread them across the desert or end up in a wheelchair? 

[Jacksgranda]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

So who would you have bombed? ISIS, the Syrian Army, Al Nusra, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Kurds, the Turks, Russians, Israelis? All of them?

Aye, better safe than sorry.

[Left Back]

3 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Yes, it was feasible in Kabul. Meanwhile, in the rest of the region, the Taliban just waited until the Occupying Forces' masters got bored. Which they'll do again. And again. 

Meanwhile, living conditions for the lower classes (i.e. fucking all of us who aren't independently wealthy) in this Sceptred Isle continue to deteriorate. Don't even try to pretend I'm drawing an equivalence here, but who is going to get elected on a ticket of "Wee Jimmy can't get a decent meal because his folks are on UC, but in a couple of years he can sign up to go and protect women's rights and the LGBTQ community in a country he can't even find on a map. Oh, and when he comes back he may be missing bits or crippled with PTSD. Good luck with getting treatment for that."

Tell you what - I'll support your military intervention if every single MP who votes to carry it out has every family member between the ages of eighteen and forty drafted to bolster numbers. You can go as well, if you like. 

I was quite surprised watching the debate yesterday how many MP's were former military.

[Ad Lib]

15 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

1. And where are you going to get this presence from? The UK Army has well South of 100,000 bodies, and Afghanistan is not a small country. I'm not even going to get started on the gear and supplies they'd need. 

I'm literally criticising the whole of NATO (and America especially), not just the UK Government in isolation. They should have "got this presence" by "not withdrawing".

15 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

2. Again with the military intervention. Become quite the Hawk, haven't we, now? As far as I can see, you're the only one mentioning military intervention against these states. Personally, I reckon we'd be better off starting by, oh, maybe not supplying equipment , support and training to the Saudis.

They are literally the two examples other people asked me about earlier in the thread about whether I'd support fresh military interventions.

I agree with you that our strategy towards Saudi Arabia has been a counterproductive one. I agree with you that we shouldn't arm them to the hilt. And I agree with you that invading Riyadh would not achieve any strategic objectives that would justify it.

15 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

3. Again, translating your mealy-mouthed conditions, you're happy to mess around in foreign states' affairs if "success" is guaranteed. 

I don't require a "guarantee" of success at all. I think we should only initiate military operations that aren't absolutely certain to be complete and utter failures. Until this withdrawal of troops happened, NATO's military intervention in Afghanistan was not, by any objective standard, a complete and utter failure. It achieved many strategic objectives and drastically improved the lives and prospects of several millions of Afghans.

Apparently this is a controversial statement now? Who knew.

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

I don’t disagree.  The response of course would be that “it’s for the Syrian people to decide”.

'The people will decide everything later' is not how you successfully overthrow a regime though.

The issue with the Arab Spring is that the street unrest stemmed from tangible and urgent social and economic distresses of the lower classes, that vague gesturing towards 'democracy' by its self-appointed respectable leadership could not solve. Without an organising force that takes on the political and social questions, either the regime or counter-revolution is always likely to win out in the end. 

 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

10 hours ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

This though is a big part of the problem. At least ‘imposing’ the values you expect/know.

This is more or less what was tried and failed and would always be doomed to failure.

Before going on, Sharia Law is abhorrent and should not be practiced in my opinion. 

Values, expectations and needs vary from place to place. The centre of the world isn’t America or western civilisation, in fact for your average Afghan outside of Kabul, the centre of the world isn’t even Kabul. It is more likely his family, his plot of land, his village elder or Imam and anything above that means nothing.  Whether beyond that it is a white faced western soldier or Taliban matters little. They will just want to keep out the way and survive. 

The smaller picture is more important than the bigger picture when you have little or nothing.

This is why the Taliban can melt away and return quickly, how free elections have little to no value. Who is your average Afghan going to vote for? Whomever his Imam tells him, whomever hands a little money or just whomever is in line of site.

All in all its helpless. 

For those that will be in ‘line of site’ of the Taliban will be terrified and desperate, but for those that aren’t, they will just be thankful they are not in line of site and do there best to stay out the road. That itself is probably human nature.

Western governments really fucked this.

 

Good post.

[Ad Lib]

5 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Why, ffs? And how much more involved? Nice safe airstrikes from outside their defences? Or throwing squaddies in to a situation where every bump inevery road could potentially spread them across the desert or end up in a wheelchair? 

I think there was a strong case for boots on the ground, as it may have reduced the overall number of casualties and led to greater stability more quickly between the warring factions, but I appreciate reasonable views could differ on whether that would have worked.

[Sergeant Wilson]

46 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

he hysteria appears to be in the fear of Taliban reprisals as opposed to the reality on the ground, with the media reporting that the Taliban are being rather restrained. 

To be fair though, they see it like hundreds of years of war against invaders. Hanging on a few weeks before getting started won't bother them.

[Jacksgranda]

23 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

1. And where are you going to get this presence from? The UK Army has well South of 100,000 bodies, and Afghanistan is not a small country. I'm not even going to get started on the gear and supplies they'd need. 

2. Again with the military intervention. Become quite the Hawk, haven't we, now? As far as I can see, you're the only one mentioning military intervention against these states. Personally, I reckon we'd be better off starting by, oh, maybe not supplying equipment , support and training to the Saudis. 

3. Again, translating your mealy-mouthed conditions, you're happy to mess around in foreign states' affairs if "success" is guaranteed. 

4. FTFY.

That's already been established - there's a bit of it twice the size of Wales, what size is the whole of it?

[Ad Lib]

9 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Yes, it was feasible in Kabul. Meanwhile, in the rest of the region, the Taliban just waited until the Occupying Forces' masters got bored. Which they'll do again. And again. 

Literally no one is saying that it was as successful a mission outside of Kabul as in it. I'm not sure why you think this is a killer point.

9 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Meanwhile, living conditions for the lower classes (i.e. fucking all of us who aren't independently wealthy) in this Sceptred Isle continue to deteriorate. Don't even try to pretend I'm drawing an equivalence here, but who is going to get elected on a ticket of "Wee Jimmy can't get a decent meal because his folks are on UC, but in a couple of years he can sign up to go and protect women's rights and the LGBTQ community in a country he can't even find on a map. Oh, and when he comes back he may be missing bits or crippled with PTSD. Good luck with getting treatment for that."

Fewer than 3 UK military deaths a year in operations in Afghanistan in the last 8 years. Like I said earlier, we're probably losing more men from heat stroke on training operations on hillsides in the UK than in Afghanistan.

Foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by the whims of the electorate. The electorate are fickle and short-termist.

The whole point of governing is to do the right thing because the people left to their own devices won't or can't think in strategic terms. 

9 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Tell you what - I'll support your military intervention if every single MP who votes to carry it out has every family member between the ages of eighteen and forty drafted to bolster numbers. You can go as well, if you like. 

I've already said if drafted I'd gladly serve, so fine.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

10 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

You are labouring under a heavy misapprehension that I support almost any of the policies advocated by any of the three politicians you’ve just named.

The UK has a substantial military. For various historical reasons, it is deployed in certain places.

That being the case it should always be resourced and deployed in the places where it will do the most good for humanity as a whole, honouring our obligations to people who cannot protect themselves but whom we can protect.

One does not have to support all British foreign policy to advocate a continued presence instead of a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

So substantial that they won't even be able to fulfil the most recent idea our Ls and Ms have come up with - to backfill the shortage of HGV drivers affecting our supply chain. 

Our own country is falling apart. Be it this latest stopgap, or flood defence, or any otherdisaster, less than 100k troops don't stretch that far. To further commit forces to Afghanistan would only accelerate that process. And I'm sorry, but my kids and grandkids don't live in Kandahar.

[Ad Lib]

2 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Ad lib is interested in getting rid of certain types of government, and artificially injecting the ideals of one part of the world into another that doesnt actually want it

Yes, I absolutely want to impose on absolutely every single corner of the planet a political structure which gives women and girls meaningful legal and social protections against forced marriage, rape, stoning and beheading. I couldn't give two shits how "artificial" that is or isn't. If a society is writing off more than half of its population based on its sex that is no more defensible than slavery. There are moral absolutes.

 

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

So substantial that they won't even be able to fulfil the most recent idea our Ls and Ms have come up with - to backfill the shortage of HGV drivers affecting our supply chain.

I don't have to defend the poor immigration and trade policies of our rubbish government.

4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Our own country is falling apart. Be it this latest stopgap, or flood defence, or any other disaster, less than 100k troops don't stretch that far. To further commit forces to Afghanistan would only accelerate that process. And I'm sorry, but my kids and grandkids don't live in Kandahar.

Our country isn't falling apart, stop being melodramatic. We have a fucking useless government that has very poorly managed the resources and relationships at its disposal, and that has weakened our position in the world significantly, but in global terms we are still essentially fine, as are your kids and granchildren.

You know who's not fine? The 15 year old girls in Kabul who are being beaten, raped and murdered by people with AK-47s strapped around their shoulders.

[Detournement]

41 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

“Liberal” ideals are no more of an imposition on Afghan society than shariah law is.   Likewise in Libya, which has - by a grass routes uprising - only achieved replacing savage dictatorship with chaos and sectarianism.  The majority of Syrians oppose Assad.  Unfortunately for them, Assad is the army, and the army is the state, and that relationship means that their Arab Spring was always doomed to failure.  

If the majority of Syrians opposed Assad he wouldn't have held onto the majority of the populated territory so easily, been able to sustain an army for a decade of brutal war and maintain security in the rear. 

You live in a Neocon fantasy land. 

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, Detournement said:

If the majority of Syrians opposed Assad he wouldn't have held onto the majority of the populated territory so easily, been able to sustain an army for a decade of brutal war and maintain security in the rear. 

You live in a Neocon fantasy land. 

This might come as a surprise to you, but strategically competent dictators with tanks and guns can be really effective at preventing people who oppose them from successfully rising up against them.

[Left Back]

23 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I've already said if drafted I'd gladly serve, so fine.

Seeing as there is no conscription we all know you really mean no.