Afghanistan Crisis

[Moomintroll]

In spite of the fact that I have read extensively on the last 150 years of Middle Eastern History & have been watching & reading closely Current Events there since Iraq invaded Kuwait, I have no idea what will happen next or what would be for the best except one thing.

After all our ongoing meddling, it is belatedly time for the West to get the hell out of the Middle East & let them sort it out one way or another. We have fermented hatred & division in that part of the world for far too long & we need to stop putting targets on our backs with our actions in these Countries.

In the unlikely event they want external mediation then send some Diplomats but otherwise leave well alone.

[beefybake]

14 hours ago, San Starko Rover said:

I’m sorry but this is the biggest pile of shit I’ve ever read, I did 22 years in the RAF and believe me I’m no BritNat Queen and country type it was “just a job” to me. I don’t recall in all those years meeting anyone who I saw as unemployable in a civilian job and most I met didn’t join straight from school they’d worked in jobs before joining, the average age when I joined was about 25. Most people who join the forces do so because the pay is pretty good, the pension is good, there’s opportunities to travel and they can do activities like sport and education while working and most of them walk into jobs when they leave, the “homeless soldier” isn’t exactly the norm despite the pish you read in the media.  
 

Aside from infantry most have a trade and job exactly as they would outside of the Forces they don’t sit around waiting for battles.  As for infantry soldiers they’re certainly not unemployable either while they might in many cases have a lower aptitude, they join as they earn a better salary and have a contract of employment better than they’d get outside doing a shit zero hours contract job or even short term contract work, a Corporal can earn  over £30,000 not many low skilled civilian jobs will pay that after a few years.  
 

Do they carry copies of the Geneva Convention? funnily enough no, they’ve got enough to carry but everyone of them sits through briefings based on the Geneva Convention such as Laws of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and simple do’s and don’ts for their theatre of operations.  Of course rules are sometimes broken in wars as they are anywhere, there will always be some who break them (although it’s easier to stick to the GC when you’re fighting a conventional army who fight by the same rules than a force who don’t) but anyone caught doing so is open to prosecution for war crimes.
 

you’re obviously not a fan of the military and have issues with the conflicts they’ve been in in recent years, that’s totally fine and to be honest the “hero’s” and “our brave boys” pish gives me the boak as everyone serving is a volunteer.  But I can assure you most of them can make a coherent decision whether they’re holding a gun or not and they’re no different from the civilians I work with now.   
 

  

Interesting...

As it happens , I was homeless for quite some time around the turn of the millennium.  I was friends with a man , who after he left the army, in his own words, he'd never quite got it together.  He didn't do the begging stereotypes, lying in the gutter etc.  He did odd jobs locally..., mostly variations of kitchen portering, and helping with food prep in cafes. He'd save his earnings, then once or twice a year he'd buy an air ticket, and fly off to somewhere sunny and/or interesting for 2 or 3 weeks.  Not a daily drinker, about once a month or so, he'd go on an absolute binge. This would basically put him out of circulation for several days. 

Where did he sleep at night.? Night refuge, abandoned railway worker's hut at the local station. Cubicles in public toilets. Travelling more widely he'd stay for long weekends at monks' priories, where they gave you  bed and board for a few days in return for doing some not too onerous work in the garden.

One of his trips away was to the US. One day he walked into a bar in New York. Got chatting to a woman who turned out to be a dresser on Broadway. He gradually did more trips to America, and at the point where I had my last contact with him,  they were planning to get married.

 

Another man I knew, somewhere between a friend and an acquaintance had served in Northern Ireland during the troubles.  He'd been in the regiment/division which got posted out there after 1 Para left, after the murders they committed on Bloody Sunday 1972.  My friend/acquaintance's colleagues, regular army, took the hit in deaths  for what the Paras had done. He despised the Paras. 

There were several other ex-services people who were homeless, and of my passing acquaintance. 

I do remember thinking at the time that given the size of both local and wider populations, there seemed to be quite a high ratio of ex servicemen who were homeless.

Me ?  After university, and an 18 month stint driving buses in Glasgow, I joined the MOD, and worked at an RAF admin base for 3 years as a civilian. There I learned computer programming.  From my own experiences, and looking around, in many ways being in the services seemed quite a sheltered life.

The homeless ex-servicemen that I met had had difficulty making the transition to civilian life.

Edited August 20, 2021 by beefybake

[Tight minge]

40 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

I agree with a lot of this.  What you are basically taking issue with is the predated notion of nation building.  Despite claims to the contrary, the Western governments have been unable to detach their use of military from those Victorian ideals.   That being said, what you have described is precisely what the remnants of Western military in Iraq currently do, and should have been doing in Afghanistan.   The US state department, rather than bombing the shite out of everything that moves, spends the majority of its budget on soft power - building schools, providing academic replacements for universities, and assisting IDP settlements, and so forth.  In practical terms, that requires military presence.  What Trump did was to remove the funding for those soft projects, redistributing it to the hard weaponry of the military.  The cutbacks in overseas spending were achieved not by cutting back on military spending, but by taking away from what the State department should be doing.  Then, when the military moves out, lining the pockets of the odious private security sector (to wit, Trump’s pals).  The effect of this is what you are seeing now.  

 

 

Yes, agree with that. Wholly this idea from Ad Lib that you can go from A - Z immediately without milestones, concessions and humility is absurd and his deep understanding of Islam that makes him know what is best for Muslims.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

51 minutes ago, Moomintroll said:

In spite of the fact that I have read extensively on the last 150 years of Middle Eastern History & have been watching & reading closely Current Events there since Iraq invaded Kuwait, I have no idea what will happen next or what would be for the best except one thing.

After all our ongoing meddling, it is belatedly time for the West to get the hell out of the Middle East & let them sort it out one way or another. We have fermented hatred & division in that part of the world for far too long & we need to stop putting targets on our backs with our actions in these Countries.

In the unlikely event they want external mediation then send some Diplomats but otherwise leave well alone.

I can see some replies coming your way for this, Moomin, accusing you of being simplistic, harsh or uncaring, but I totally agree. I can't claim to have an encyclopaedic knopwledge of Middle East/Central Asian history, but what knowledge I do have tends to bolster the impression that every time outsiders get involved, shit's going to hit the fan at some point down the line. 

The saying that springs to mind is "good money after bad". Not completely apposite, I know, but this country needs to free itself from the notion that affairs half way across the globe have absolutely anything at all to do with us. Who knows - we might find that if we stop poking our noses into the affairs of these countries and, crucially, make it clear (through action, not bullshit) that we are not the USA's mini-mes, we might find ourselves less of a target for terrorism. Not saying we will, but anything that increases the chances for women and children in this country to live, with all their arms and legs intact, has to be worth a try, surely?

[welshbairn]

Patrick Cockburn, who usually has a balanced and well informed outlook, doesn't think the Taliban will survive for long unchallenged if they don't play nice.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/afghanistan-taliban-afghan-war-refugees-b1905867.html?r=37693

Edited August 20, 2021 by welshbairn

[Moomintroll]

2 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

I can see some replies coming your way for this, Moomin, accusing you of being simplistic, harsh or uncaring, but I totally agree. I can't claim to have an encyclopaedic knopwledge of Middle East/Central Asian history, but what knowledge I do have tends to bolster the impression that every time outsiders get involved, shit's going to hit the fan at some point down the line. 

The saying that springs to mind is "good money after bad". Not completely apposite, I know, but this country needs to free itself from the notion that affairs half way across the globe have absolutely anything at all to do with us. Who knows - we might find that if we stop poking our noses into the affairs of these countries and, crucially, make it clear (through action, not bullshit) that we are not the USA's mini-mes, we might find ourselves less of a target for terrorism. Not saying we will, but anything that increases the chances for women and children in this country to live, with all their arms and legs intact, has to be worth a try, surely?

I probably will get some grief, no doubt from people who know as little about the situation as I do.

I do care deeply about any person suffering but it is a sad fact of the world we live in that that will happen, I am self aware enough to realise that I won a decent prize in the lottery of life & am thankful for that.

We (alongside other Western Countries) have meddled far too much & we need to step back and allow these people to develop their societies without us interfering.

On a separate note I am currently reading a book on the Native American Wars & it is uncanny how they cannot even learn a lesson within their own Country as to the human toll, on both sides, that forcing your ways & beliefs on an Indigenous population results in. We also need to learn those lessons & accept that this is now a very different World.

[Left Back]

22 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

The saying that springs to mind is "good money after bad". Not completely apposite, I know, but this country needs to free itself from the notion that affairs half way across the globe have absolutely anything at all to do with us. Who knows - we might find that if we stop poking our noses into the affairs of these countries and, crucially, make it clear (through action, not bullshit) that we are not the USA's mini-mes, we might find ourselves less of a target for terrorism. Not saying we will, but anything that increases the chances for women and children in this country to live, with all their arms and legs intact, has to be worth a try, surely?

Has Ad Lib converted you?

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

Yes, agree with that. Wholly this idea from Ad Lib that you can go from A - Z immediately without milestones, concessions and humility is absurd and his deep understanding of Islam that makes him know what is best for Muslims.

At absolutely no point have I said that you can “go from A - Z immediately without milestones”.

My point was exactly Savage Henry’s: that the viability of soft power measures sometimes depends, as an unavoidable prerequisite, on the new or continued presence of external military forces.

Nothing he has said there contradicts what I have said.

If a Muslim man thinks that what is best for his 14 year old daughter is that he as her father gets to decide who and when she marries, that her husband is allowed to force her to have sex without his consent, that she is not allowed to be in a public place without her male chaperone on threat of being whipped, and that she is not allowed to go to school, then yes I know better than him what is good for Muslims.

[LongTimeLurker]

10 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

...If a Muslim man thinks that what is best for his 14 year old daughter is that he as her father gets to decide who and when she marries, that her husband is allowed to force her to have sex without his consent, that she is not allowed to be in a public place without her male chaperone on threat of being whipped, and that she is not allowed to go to school, then yes I know better than him what is good for Muslims.

But if she's Saudi people will suddenly grow strangely silent and if she's Syrian it will suddenly be OK for the mainstream western media narrative to cheerlead the dismantling of the state that was providing some secular modernity so a bunch of medieval headchoppers can take over instead in a similar sort of manner to what happened in Afghanistan in the 80s and early 90s because ultimately what really matters in all of this is the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by LongTimeLurker

[Ad Lib]

25 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

But if she's Saudi people will suddenly grow strangely silent and if she's Syrian it will suddenly be OK for the mainstream western media narrative to cheerlead the dismantling of the state that was providing some secular modernity so a bunch of medieval headchoppers can take over instead in a similar sort of manner to what happened in Afghanistan in the 80s and early 90s because ultimately what really matters in all of this is the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

One can know better than someone but lack the means to displace or replace them.

For example, both you and I know better than Jeff Bezos about what it is ethical and acceptable for Amazon pay their workers. We know this because he imposes work conditions that mean they often are not paid the minimum wage. You and I (I presume) both think that paying the minimum wage is an absolute bare minimum requirement to be a morally acceptable employer. But neither of us have the power, influence or money to (a) confiscate Amazon from Jeff Bezos (b) force him to pay his workers properly or (c) to ensure his workers are otherwise given fair income for the work they do. So Jeff Bezos continues to exploit those people until an entity sufficiently powerful imposes the letter and spirit of the minimum wage properly on his company.

The same is true in international relations. We know better than the Taliban about the absolute baseline for how women and girls should be treated in the 20th, let alone the 21st, century. We also know better than the Saudi state. But we know there is no viable route involving military means that would achieve those goals with the Saudis, so we don't gratuitously invade them.

By contrast, we know that we were big enough and strong enough to displace and replace the Taliban in large parts of Afghanistan. And once we did so, we assumed the moral obligations for ensuring that those who had been freed from Taliban oppression retained the most basic of human rights. The mere fact that they physically could not defend themselves against the Taliban does not mean that they accept or are content to live under their diktats.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Ad Lib

[Cheese]

2 hours ago, Moomintroll said:

On a separate note I am currently reading a book on the Native American Wars 

If it's not Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, then you should read that next.

[Moomintroll]

1 minute ago, Proposition Joe said:

If it's not Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, then you should read that next.

Read that a few years back, this one is called The Earth is Weeping. As with most 16th-19th Century History books I read, I cannot escape the conclusion that European Powers  & their direct descendants were/are absolute dicks

[101]

Shambles continues, really feel for these folks been let down by us and their employer.

[Savage Henry]

22 minutes ago, 101 said:

Shambles continues, really feel for these folks been let down by us and their employer.

Yup. And par for the course.  The UK treats those served as and alongside “our” forces abhorrently. 

[ICTChris]

 

[Fullerene]

7 hours ago, Moomintroll said:

In spite of the fact that I have read extensively on the last 150 years of Middle Eastern History & have been watching & reading closely Current Events there since Iraq invaded Kuwait, I have no idea what will happen next or what would be for the best except one thing.

After all our ongoing meddling, it is belatedly time for the West to get the hell out of the Middle East & let them sort it out one way or another. We have fermented hatred & division in that part of the world for far too long & we need to stop putting targets on our backs with our actions in these Countries.

In the unlikely event they want external mediation then send some Diplomats but otherwise leave well alone.

You mention the time when Iraq invaded Kuwait.  It would have been nice if the countries of the Middle East sorted that out by themselves.  After all, we must have sold them enough weapons to get the job done.  Instead they asked the United States (and others) to get it sorted.

Similarly, Bosnia.  Surely the Europeans should have sorted that out, yet the Americans were criticised for wanting to sit that one out.  Yes, America interferes a lot in the affairs of other countries but it also gets blamed for not interfering.

It would be great if we left the Middle East alone.  Unfortunately we have a serious addiction to oil and like all addictions it clouds our judgement.  We despise the brutality of the Taliban but not the brutality of Saudi Arabia.  Easy answer to that one.

[beefybake]

3 hours ago, 101 said:

Shambles continues, really feel for these folks been let down by us and their employer.

 

My email last night to my local MP, one James Heappey. He's a minister at the MOD, and has been

the government spokesman on Afghanistan several times over the last few days.

 

"....

Dear James Heappey

 

I watched you on Ch 4 Tv the other night.  A pathetic performance of hollow words. Trying to put

a face on a scenario where a senior minister was too lazy to do the job himself. From a prime minister

who is notorious for his lassitude to Rabb, and now you, I just about despair that your government ever

has any connection with doing the right things.  If this had been about travellers in Axbridge or Cheddar,

you would have been right on it, mouthing off about invaders in our lovely Somerset, feeding the prejudices of the locals

in shovels full.

 

Now today....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/19/guards-at-kabul-embassy-told-they-are-ineligible-for-uk-protection

 

For Pete's sake, just for once, do something more than self serving soundbites, and do the right thing by these embassy

guards. And I don't mean a couple of quid termination bonus. Give them an offer to come to the UK. This is supposed to be

a welcoming country !

 

Yours sincerely

 

.........

[Tight minge]

6 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

At absolutely no point have I said that you can “go from A - Z immediately without milestones”.

My point was exactly Savage Henry’s: that the viability of soft power measures sometimes depends, as an unavoidable prerequisite, on the new or continued presence of external military forces.

Nothing he has said there contradicts what I have said.

If a Muslim man thinks that what is best for his 14 year old daughter is that he as her father gets to decide who and when she marries, that her husband is allowed to force her to have sex without his consent, that she is not allowed to be in a public place without her male chaperone on threat of being whipped, and that she is not allowed to go to school, then yes I know better than him what is good for Muslims.

As said, a deep understanding.

[Tight minge]

57 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

You mention the time when Iraq invaded Kuwait.  It would have been nice if the countries of the Middle East sorted that out by themselves.  After all, we must have sold them enough weapons to get the job done.  Instead they asked the United States (and others) to get it sorted.

Similarly, Bosnia.  Surely the Europeans should have sorted that out, yet the Americans were criticised for wanting to sit that one out.  Yes, America interferes a lot in the affairs of other countries but it also gets blamed for not interfering.

It would be great if we left the Middle East alone.  Unfortunately we have a serious addiction to oil and like all addictions it clouds our judgement.  We despise the brutality of the Taliban but not the brutality of Saudi Arabia.  Easy answer to that one.

I don’t recall, and could probably be wrong, that the Middle Eastern countries asked the US to sort the Kuwait invasion. If I recall the US had to do a fair bid of campaigning to get these states to support and participate. Regardless, your point still stands. There is a huge reluctance for the neighbouring countries to intervene in issues on their doorsteps for many differing reasons and that should be noted.

Same as the number of refugees the Middle Eastern countries took in during the Syrian war.

As for Saudi, it is not just oil and arms that the west cannot take any significant action and Saudi is a huge destabiliser.

It is a hugely complex mess, that we seem, sometimes through that oil fuelled, clouded judgement you mention, that we can resolve.

I think for all these conflicts in the region, this is probably quite apt:

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat

 

 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

There's an interesting dynamic being played out here in the UK press, as the right wing media choose to attack Joe Biden....who they see as being 'left wing'.....rather than concentrate on the failings of Johnson and his government.

In fact The Telegraph has an editorial headlined...'A special relationship does not mean following America's lead wherever it takes us'.... despite having spent the last 50 years sycophantically begging each and every UK Prime Minister to actually follow America's lead, wherever it takes us. 

We're at a crossroads in US/UK history here, I suspect. The UK media, having spent 2 generations talking about the 'special relationship' (a phrase that only exists on this side of the Atlantic) is now attacking the US President because they see him as an American version of Jeremy Corbyn, and is singularly unable to see/accept the fact that the UK means pretty much f**k all to the USA. 

We'te only months away from The Telegraph/Express/Daily Mail/Sun pretty much begging Trump to come back.