• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Team Biden: Neocon Light?

Harry Bosch said:
barbos said:
Before Soviet invasion Afghanistan was fairly secular, albeit unstable state. After USSR invasion (which was provoked by the CIA with the sole purpose to payback for Vietnam) US started supporting islamic terrorists in their fight against secular government, which to be fair, have made mistakes with their dealing with religion.
In any case, it was US support which allowed this shit to grow to the size it is today. Now you have generations of people who never knew normal life.
Click to expand...

You're blaming the USSR invasion of Afghanistan on the US? Seriously?!!
Click to expand...
Yes, seriously. I have done so many times, I am surprised it's a news to you
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Harry Bosch said:
The funny thing about Russians is that they invade and threaten and bully; but always claim that they are victim!
Click to expand...
The United States using the "moral" argument gets old after decades of doing wrong for the good of defeating communism. But Russia claiming being the victim is quite nauseating.
Click to expand...

I feel that I have the moral right to criticize another government even though I'm an American because I also criticize American government actions. US actions against Iran and Iraq have been terrible over the years. I agree with Barbos that the US was a little too aggressive with NATO. There are many many other mistakes! I'm not a US fanboy. If the only people eligible to criticize are those from governments that make no mistakes - there'd be no criticism! The difference here is that my friend Barbos is a fanboy. He always supports the Russian position.
 
barbos said:
Harry Bosch said:
barbos said:
Before Soviet invasion Afghanistan was fairly secular, albeit unstable state. After USSR invasion (which was provoked by the CIA with the sole purpose to payback for Vietnam) US started supporting islamic terrorists in their fight against secular government, which to be fair, have made mistakes with their dealing with religion.
In any case, it was US support which allowed this shit to grow to the size it is today. Now you have generations of people who never knew normal life.
Click to expand...

You're blaming the USSR invasion of Afghanistan on the US? Seriously?!!
Click to expand...
Yes, seriously. I have done so many times, I am surprised it's a news to you
Click to expand...

I thought that you were being sarcastic. My goal is to someday find one issue that you can criticize Russia for! Just one.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
funinspace said:
Swammerdami said:
I forgot to mention a key part of my "plan": The U.S. would have spent much money improving the lives of Afghanis, building schools, hospitals and roads. They would have presented a giant Carrot instead of a Stick. This would have enabled the people to progress, gain confidence, and reject the Taliban.

How much money? Much less than was wasted on stupid military adventures there.
Click to expand...
The only way this enlightened plan would have had a chance in Hades, would be if the US parked about 250,000 soldiers within the country AND secured the insanely rugged border with Pakistan. Even at our peak military body count, it still wasn't enough to properly suppress the Taliban... To get rid of the corrupting influence of contractors, it would take that many soldiers. And at 250,000 soldiers, the long term borrowing of National Guard and reserves would have been nearly impossible over the decade this would probably take. So, how to scrounge up so many soldiers for this occupation... Ergo the political problem the Shrub faced and solved by putting the war on Uncle Sam's credit card, pouring money upon contractors, and abusing the intent of the guard and reserves over the years...
Click to expand...
Very much so. If you are going to overthrow a government and replace it, and want that government to remain in power, you need to occupy that nation, not small parts of it. And if done right in the beginning, that could have happened, we had the coalition to work with and if done well and strongly enough, maybe (but still it was a long term project). However, the W Admin's hard-on for Hussein... well, it distracted the mission, if it really ever existed in the first place. The Neocons are blithering idiots when it came to the realities of nation building.
Click to expand...

I was always suspicious that the neocons really just wanted to rebuild nations in order to cover their mistakes! I think that the real deal is that they thought there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think that they were absolutely stunned when they discovered that there were none. But they needed a strategy to cover themselves for this blunder. I really don't think that the average neo-con in the Bush administration gave a damn about helping the average Iraqi citizen. Just my opinion.

On the other hand, I think that we need to be careful regarding attacking nation building. The opposite of neo-con is Trump's warped "America First". The problem with America first is that it's incredibly naïve to think that the actions outside the US don't affect the US. It's belief that we can de-globalize is insane and dangerous. It has greatly damaged our soft power. It's incredibly greedy and arrogant. It forgets that the only way to solve global problems that affect all of us it to work together.

Here's what I'm interested in: Can we find a foreign policy of responsible global engagement that most Americans support, that draws the right lessons from our past mistakes, that steers between the equally dangerous trends of confrontation and retreat, and that understands the difference between self-interest and selfishness. We need a new path between neoconism and America First. I'm far more confident that Biden and his team will steer us in the right direction rather than Trump!
 
Well, since this thread as somewhat grown into an Afghan thread...

I thought this was an interesting article/perspective on how this invasion/occupation began after 9/11 from a former Indian diplomat (M.K. Bhadrakumar). I find his POV interesting, in that he does not seem wedded to US neocon/domination perspectives.

https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/obituary-for-americas-war-in-afghanistan/
Truly, this was an “unavailing war.” In a survey in the Washington Post, Ishaan Tharoor began by lamenting: “The initial punitive mission might have succeeded, but it turned into America’s longest war, a Sisyphean exercise in counter-insurgency and state-building.” [Emphasis added.] How did that happen?

The heart of the matter is that this was a war doomed to fail. The US invasion of Afghanistan was completely unnecessary for the stated purpose of removing the Taliban from power. No Afghan party, including the UN-recognized government led by the late Burhanuddin Rabbani, sought an American military intervention.
Click to expand...
 
Postponing the leave date for the troops, while simultaneously taking credit for getting the troops out. The Taliban is threatening reprisals if the troops aren't out by the agreed upon deadline. Said reprisals could be considered a "sufficient" reason for the troops to stay.

It is possible.
 
Harry Bosch said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Very much so. If you are going to overthrow a government and replace it, and want that government to remain in power, you need to occupy that nation, not small parts of it. And if done right in the beginning, that could have happened, we had the coalition to work with and if done well and strongly enough, maybe (but still it was a long term project). However, the W Admin's hard-on for Hussein... well, it distracted the mission, if it really ever existed in the first place. The Neocons are blithering idiots when it came to the realities of nation building.
Click to expand...

I was always suspicious that the neocons really just wanted to rebuild nations in order to cover their mistakes! I think that the real deal is that they thought there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think that they were absolutely stunned when they discovered that there were none. But they needed a strategy to cover themselves for this blunder. I really don't think that the average neo-con in the Bush administration gave a damn about helping the average Iraqi citizen. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they probably believed their own Kool-Aid, as much as anything.

On the other hand, I think that we need to be careful regarding attacking nation building. The opposite of neo-con is Trump's warped "America First". The problem with America first is that it's incredibly naïve to think that the actions outside the US don't affect the US. It's belief that we can de-globalize is insane and dangerous. It has greatly damaged our soft power. It's incredibly greedy and arrogant. It forgets that the only way to solve global problems that affect all of us it to work together.
Click to expand...
I understand an argument that we need something between neocon domination games and complete detachment. The problem with 'America First' / Trumpism IMPOV, is that it really doesn't stand for anything outside of what Clownstick has sharted out lately. Ironically, IPMOV FFvC's lack of interest in keeping US neocon games going in Syria and Afghanistan were the right thing. However, going berserker on Iran and egging on Saudi Arabia in Yemen were the wrong thing. And FFvC playing footsie with Putin was down right dangerous and stupid, and somehow our white nationalists have started to embrace the whiteness of Putin and his authoritarian patterns.

FFvC's gambit against China, which appeared to be an attempt to make them bow down to some sort of new reduced normal on trade, turned into a massive cluster fuck. China will be a force to reckon with moving forward. Unfortunately, it is probably already too late to prevent it becoming an US verses THEM equation. We won't like loosing our domination across eastern Asia, and in reality we most probably won't be able to do anything but slow it down. Our constant use of economic threats and actions for all sorts of international issues, will come back to bite us as China becomes the most important world economy in the world over the next decade. Every year lately, China has become the single largest market for XYZ categories, and it is only going to continue...so as they become the economic 800lb gorilla, and we slide back to the 600lb gorilla, it will get messy.


Here's what I'm interested in: Can we find a foreign policy of responsible global engagement that most Americans support, that draws the right lessons from our past mistakes, that steers between the equally dangerous trends of confrontation and retreat, and that understands the difference between self-interest and selfishness. We need a new path between neoconism and America First. I'm far more confident that Biden and his team will steer us in the right direction rather than Trump!
Click to expand...
Biden will certainly be less bad, and maybe even do a few things right. I suspect that neoconism and America First will eventually become more integrated into some sort of new right wing normal, that is still part of an intent of maintaining American domination globally. I doubt the US public will draw the right lessons, but it would be nice...
 
barbos said:
Harry Bosch said:
barbos said:
Yes, seriously. I have done so many times, I am surprised it's a news to you
Click to expand...

I thought that you were being sarcastic. My goal is to someday find one issue that you can criticize Russia for! Just one.
Click to expand...
I criticize USSR for falling into CIA trap.
Click to expand...

Some U.S. officials at the time seem to have agreed with Mr. barbos' assessment: they were delighted to let the Soviets to fall into a quagmire similar to U.S.'s Vietnam. But the main reason for the U.S.'s early help to the mujahideen was neither to "help" the Afghan people — Hah! — nor to hurt the Soviets, but simply as a favor to Pakistan's General Zia, who wanted to appeal to Islamists.

And the anti-Soviet forces led by U.S.'s "friends" like Osama bin-Laden contributed to a horrific war which cost millions of lives. It is certainly wrong to blame this solely on the Soviets while absolving the U.S. and its "friends" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Note that this CIA-led Operation Cyclone was not solely the project of Reagan's fun-loving coven of bloodthirsty neocons — it was started during the Administration of Jimmy Carter.
 
Some U.S. officials at the time seem to have agreed with Mr. barbos' assessment: they were delighted to let the Soviets to fall into a quagmire similar to U.S.'s Vietnam
Click to expand...
Zbigniew Brzezinski was not just some U.S. official. And it was not just letting, US was actively provoking it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom