Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!

[jhkim]

We did a lot better job of nation building in Iraq, but Iraq was already much farther along the path to being a modern state when we started.

The poster child for nation-building is, of course, Japan, where we were able to both force a complete ideological break with the Imperial Japan of old, and set them back on their feet economically, so that they became a prosperous modern country, and a strong ally.

Japan was already a stable, unified, and modern country in 1945 - so I think calling it "nation building" is a misnomer. To the extent that we changed the Japanese ideology, it was from a far more massive effort than in Afghanistan - with hundreds of thousands of troops and a military occupation that continues to this day. I also think it is crucial that the Japanese people recognized that the Allies had responded to their military aggression. They learned a lesson for themselves from external consequences.

Further, we left Emperor Hirohito in place along with the most of the Japanese government, and worked with them to implement change. In the case of Afghanistan, we took on the harder task of completely rebuilding a new government from scratch.

I think it was possible for us to have had a form of success in Afghanistan, but I think it was mishandled.

It is not America's right nor obligation to "build nations" or "ensure the world is safe for democracy", nor can they do it; it's logistically impossible for any country. "Nation building" is nothing more than a euphemism installing a puppet regime after overthrowing the previous one. This is what they did with Japan, Germany (which was partitioned between globalist west and soviet east and erased as a military competitor just as they did with Japan) and many such other countries which did not align with globalism, terrorist or not. They make up excuses like weapons of mass destruction, babies in incubators, the rape of Belgium, and other made up imminent threats to justify an invasion.

I also think that most of America's wars have been excuses rather than defensive. However, in the case of some wars, the excuses are much closer to valid justification. WWII, the Korean War, the First Gulf War, and the invasion of Afghanistan were all direct responses to aggression on the part of other countries. That doesn't mean we weren't biased or fault, but far less so than our opposition.

Besides, it will fail because their islamic culture is inherently incomptible with western values. There can be no distinction between mosque and state (lol), no respect for "diversity", no such thing as free speech, etc. They never went through a protestant reformation the peace of Westphalia or French revolution.

Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong.

While the latter is true, Korea and Japan also never went through a Protestant Reformation, Pease of Westphalia, or French Revolution. Especially, I don't think that Imperial Japan in 1944 was any closer to Western values than 2001 Afghanistan.

[oggsmash]

  The first gulf war was IMO not justified.  Kuwait got their hand slapped for STEALING from Iraq.  The USA stepped in on behalf of its paymasters.  Not justified IMO.   I would also say there NEVER should have been (and I said this to everyone who would listen in 2001 and on) an invasion of Afghanistan, a massively punitive firestorm, sure, but invasion is ALWAYS occupation, and ALWAYS a fucking mess.

[oggsmash]

BTW, can anybody tell me why the US is in Afghanistan? What is the official explanation?

Terrorism, then nation building.

What do you mean by this? Is there a reasonable threat coming from Afghanistan which they're trying to quell?

We went into Afghanistan in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The Taliban were supporting and harboring Al Qaeda who were responsible for the attacks.

At the time, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan - as did most of the U.N. and most of the American populace. I think one of the few justifications of war is in response to deter aggression. If someone makes an attack like 9/11, then responsible nations should rise up and punish that aggressor. Ideally, this punishment should be swift and clear, which shows other nations that there is no gain in making such moves.

Sadly, the later goals of nation-building have muddled that deterrent - along with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Deterrent works best if other nations understand that (1) if we attack another country, we will be punished; (2) if we don't attack another country, we will not be punished.

The invasion of Afghanistan had 88% public approval at the time. Which is about as close to unanimous as our nation gets.

  Well, emotional decisions are often poor decisions. 

[oggsmash]

  Comparing Japan and Korea with Islam is perhaps not bad faith, but it is not in any way an apples to oranges comparison.   Read the Koran, and it will become a good bit clearer about how the west views a civilization should run, and how Islam views it.

[SonTodoGato]

Japan was already a stable, unified, and modern country in 1945 - so I think calling it "nation building" is a misnomer. To the extent that we changed the Japanese ideology, it was from a far more massive effort than in Afghanistan - with hundreds of thousands of troops and a military occupation that continues to this day. I also think it is crucial that the Japanese people recognized that the Allies had responded to their military aggression. They learned a lesson for themselves from external consequences.

Further, we left Emperor Hirohito in place along with the most of the Japanese government, and worked with them to implement change. In the case of Afghanistan, we took on the harder task of completely rebuilding a new government from scratch.

I think it was possible for us to have had a form of success in Afghanistan, but I think it was mishandled.


I also think that most of America's wars have been excuses rather than defensive. However, in the case of some wars, the excuses are much closer to valid justification. WWII, the Korean War, the First Gulf War, and the invasion of Afghanistan were all direct responses to aggression on the part of other countries. That doesn't mean we weren't biased or fault, but far less so than our opposition.


While the latter is true, Korea and Japan also never went through a Protestant Reformation, Pease of Westphalia, or French Revolution. Especially, I don't think that Imperial Japan in 1944 was any closer to Western values than 2001 Afghanistan.

You're right, they're not islamic either; you can't compare East Asia with the Middle East. Asian societies have traditionally been very rigid when it comes to societal organization, and this is still reflected to this day, particularly in China and Japan. China is in deep corporate socialism and party technocracy. Japan is far better, but they're still rigid; social cohesion, meeting expectations, moderation and abiding by norms are still some of their values to this day. I don't share them, but I respect their culture. I don't know about Korea, I guess they are an exception indeed since they've become very "progressive". The point is that Japan was inherently hierarchical and thus very stable, apart from the fact that they were nuked twice and left alone against the world. Islamic societies are far from being as orderly as Asian societies. Their whole religion is built upon expansionism; their leader was a warlord and their logic is convert or die. Polls show that even in the West muslims support attacks or censorship against those who blaspheme against Allah or Mohammed.

How can Americans expect to erase centuries of that culture and impose one that's totally foreign to them? Their best attempt would be to send financial aid to whatever party or regime cooperates with them. I guess it'd be cheaper and more convenient.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, the "West" has become so thoroughly corrupt, weak, and feminized, it isn't a surprise that we can't handle a war with any Muslim nation. Afghanistan isn't anything special, nor is the constantly-heralded fanaticism of the Jihadists.

Ghengis Khan annihilated Afghanistan, the Khorasan region of Persia, and the entire Kwarazm Empire. The Mongols annihilated anywhere from 50% to 90% of the entire population. In Kwarazm, it was typically about 50%. In Khorasan, it was 90%. Years after the Mongol conquest, there were still dozens of cities, towns, and villages that were in blasted, smoking ruins. Silent graveyards, attended to by the occasional flock of ravens or a lamenting shepherd. Islam's mightiest armies were slaughtered easily. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim women were packed off in chains as slaves. The greatest Muslim nobles and Sultans had molten silver poured down their throats. The Caliph of Baghdad was forced to watch as his entire family--his wives and daughters--were plundered and executed. His sons beheaded or impaled on pikes, before he, too, was swiftly beheaded. The city of Baghdad was the greatest city in the Muslim world at the time--and it was utterly annihilated. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims--perhaps a million--were put to the sword. Hundreds of thousands more, like many before them, were marched off in chains.

The feared Assassins? The guys that gave the Christian Crusaders so many problems for decades? The Mongols had them all hunted down and slaughtered in less than two years. Every one of the Assassin's great fortresses were besieged, and everyone inside was slaughtered without mercy. The Mongols sent special detachments of cavalry troops to track the Assassins down, wherever they sought to flee, and killed them all. Anyone that harboured or helped the Assassins were also executed.

A small advancing Mongol Army approached the mighty city of Damascus--yeah, the Damascus that resisted the Crusaders forever--and the whole population, the nobles, the women, the craftsmen, the merchants, the Imams, all got on their knees in the dirt, and surrendered without a fight. They begged the Mongols not to slaughter them, and promised to serve them with absolute loyalty. The Muslim armies, their fanaticism, their Imams, their Jihadists--were nothing. They were reduced to ashes and groveling in the dirt like animals. From high to low, they all begged to serve their Mongolian masters.

The Muslims knew with absolute certainty that any wavering, any resistance, would bring their swift and absolute destruction.

The Muslims were so dedicated to their Mongolian Masters that they proceeded to volunteer to serve in the Mongol armies, giving their skills as engineers, merchants, administrators, and warriors, to the Mongol Empire. Of course, the most beautiful Muslim women were also eager to embrace their Mongolian Masters as well. The entire Muslim civilization experienced an existential crisis--and when faced with utter helplessness and annihilation--they eagerly chose submission and obedience to the Mongol Empire.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

  The first gulf war was IMO not justified.  Kuwait got their hand slapped for STEALING from Iraq.  The USA stepped in on behalf of its paymasters.  Not justified IMO.   I would also say there NEVER should have been (and I said this to everyone who would listen in 2001 and on) an invasion of Afghanistan, a massively punitive firestorm, sure, but invasion is ALWAYS occupation, and ALWAYS a fucking mess.

Being invaded and occupied is not a slap on the hand. It is a huge escalation. And I think it's a good thing if the international community doesn't tolerate military invasion as a proper response to economic disputes.

Further, if a country does start one-sided military action like a pre-emptive invasion, then I think it's a good thing for other countries to strike back and deter that behavior. I'm not saying Kuwait didn't steal (-- I have no opinion on that. The point is that regardless, the answer shouldn't be invasion and conquest of their whole country -- and that such escalation shouldn't be tolerated.

  Comparing Japan and Korea with Islam is perhaps not bad faith, but it is not in any way an apples to oranges comparison.   Read the Koran, and it will become a good bit clearer about how the west views a civilization should run, and how Islam views it.

I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.

[oggsmash]

  The first gulf war was IMO not justified.  Kuwait got their hand slapped for STEALING from Iraq.  The USA stepped in on behalf of its paymasters.  Not justified IMO.   I would also say there NEVER should have been (and I said this to everyone who would listen in 2001 and on) an invasion of Afghanistan, a massively punitive firestorm, sure, but invasion is ALWAYS occupation, and ALWAYS a fucking mess.

Being invaded and occupied is not a slap on the hand. It is a huge escalation. And I think it's a good thing if the international community doesn't tolerate military invasion as a proper response to economic disputes.

Further, if a country does start one-sided military action like a pre-emptive invasion, then I think it's a good thing for other countries to strike back and deter that behavior. I'm not saying Kuwait didn't steal (-- I have no opinion on that. The point is that regardless, the answer shouldn't be invasion and conquest of their whole country -- and that such escalation shouldn't be tolerated.

  Comparing Japan and Korea with Islam is perhaps not bad faith, but it is not in any way an apples to oranges comparison.   Read the Koran, and it will become a good bit clearer about how the west views a civilization should run, and how Islam views it.

I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.

     There is no opinion to be had about Kuwait stealing, it is simple objective fact.  If Mexico started angle drilling US oil fields, what do you think the USA would do about that?   Fact is, Kuwait paid us a great deal of money and oil, and we were their stooge.   We are not and should not be the world police, ESPECIALLY since we spent years supporting Iraq (as did Kuwait) for fighting off Iran. 

   Regarding Imperial Japan, the samurai was Loooong phased out and is one of the things that allowed industrial Japan to explode out from prior feudalism.  I have a good bit of historical knowledge about Japan (Korea not so much) and am fully aware of how things ran there, but it is still not as 'off' from the basics of western civilization as Islam.  Christians were able to enter and convert Japanese people to Christianity as early as the 1500's... you think that flew in the caliphate? You think that would fly now in Islamic fundamentalist countries?  Again, read the Koran, or more history because I think you are drawing conclusion lacking a track record of behavior.

[Lurkndog]

We did a lot better job of nation building in Iraq, but Iraq was already much farther along the path to being a modern state when we started.

The poster child for nation-building is, of course, Japan, where we were able to both force a complete ideological break with the Imperial Japan of old, and set them back on their feet economically, so that they became a prosperous modern country, and a strong ally.

Japan was already a stable, unified, and modern country in 1945 - so I think calling it "nation building" is a misnomer.

Have you seen postwar images of Japan?

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-fall-of-imperial-japan-in-pictures-1945/

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been nuked, and Tokyo and other major cities had been burned to the ground by the firebombing campaign that preceded the nukes. Bridges, railways and harbors were heavily damaged or destroyed. It is completely accurate to say that Japan was rebuilt after the war.

The Humphrey Bogart movie Tokyo Joe (1949) is a Casablanca knockoff that has some really interesting location footage of then-contemporary Japan. There are images that are instantly reminiscent of modern Japan, like the canal lined with white concrete blocks that every anime character visits after school. But a lot of it looks very different, very third world. And the destruction from the war is still very apparent in aerial shots.

https://www.crackle.com/watch/8242

[jhkim]

I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.

   Regarding Imperial Japan, the samurai was Loooong phased out and is one of the things that allowed industrial Japan to explode out from prior feudalism.  I have a good bit of historical knowledge about Japan (Korea not so much) and am fully aware of how things ran there, but it is still not as 'off' from the basics of western civilization as Islam.  Christians were able to enter and convert Japanese people to Christianity as early as the 1500's... you think that flew in the caliphate? You think that would fly now in Islamic fundamentalist countries?  Again, read the Koran, or more history because I think you are drawing conclusion lacking a track record of behavior.

You're implying religious freedom as a standard in Japan. I quote from Wikipedia here because it was easy to search, and I've read the same from multiple other sources:

Under Hideyoshi and the succeeding Tokugawa shogunate, Catholic Christianity was repressed and adherents were persecuted. During Toyotomi rule especially, foreign missionaries were killed in Japan, some by (Japanese-style) crucifixion; most famously, the twenty-six martyrs of Japan were tortured and crucified on crosses outside Nagasaki to discourage Christianity in 1597. (Hideyoshi nonetheless showed favor to daimyō who had converted, such as Konishi Yukinaga.) Following a brief respite as Tokugawa Ieyasu rose to power and pursued trade with the Portuguese powers, there were further persecutions and martyrdoms in 1613, 1630, 1632 and 1634.

By this point, after the Shimabara Rebellion, the remaining Christians had been forced to publicly renounce their faith. Many continued practicing Christianity in secret, in modern times becoming known as the "hidden Christians" (隠れキリシタン, kakure kirishitan). These secret believers would often conceal Christian iconography in closed shrines, lanterns or inconspicuous parts of buildings. For example, Himeji Castle has a Christian cross on one of its 17th-century roof tiles, in place of a mon, indicating that one of its occupants was a secret Christian.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Japan#Persecution_under_the_Shogunate

Imperial Japan under Meiji from 1871 to 1945 did permit Christians as part of its effort at modernization, but I would say that was more a tactical move to facilitate modernization rather than a philosophical embrace of religious freedom -- much like how several Islamic empires like the Ottomans permitted Christian minorities for long periods but taxed them at a higher rate than Muslims.

[Ratman_tf]

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/afghanistan-kabul-airport-explosion-pentagon-confirms/

Not content to watch Americans and allied Afghanis flee in a panic, suicide bombers felt it was necessary to blow them up.

[deadDMwalking]

To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you.  If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore?  It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around. 

[Ghostmaker]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/us-officials-provided-taliban-with-names-of-americans-afghan-allies-to-evacuate-506957

What the fucking fuck.

[oggsmash]

I certainly agree that the Koran has a view very different from how the West views civilization. But I am claiming that Shinto and Imperial Japan also have a very different view of civilization. Many Westerners are introduced to modern romanticized portrayals of honorable samurai and clever ninja, but the actual historical reality of the Japanese is much less compatible with modern Western values.

   Regarding Imperial Japan, the samurai was Loooong phased out and is one of the things that allowed industrial Japan to explode out from prior feudalism.  I have a good bit of historical knowledge about Japan (Korea not so much) and am fully aware of how things ran there, but it is still not as 'off' from the basics of western civilization as Islam.  Christians were able to enter and convert Japanese people to Christianity as early as the 1500's... you think that flew in the caliphate? You think that would fly now in Islamic fundamentalist countries?  Again, read the Koran, or more history because I think you are drawing conclusion lacking a track record of behavior.

You're implying religious freedom as a standard in Japan. I quote from Wikipedia here because it was easy to search, and I've read the same from multiple other sources:

Under Hideyoshi and the succeeding Tokugawa shogunate, Catholic Christianity was repressed and adherents were persecuted. During Toyotomi rule especially, foreign missionaries were killed in Japan, some by (Japanese-style) crucifixion; most famously, the twenty-six martyrs of Japan were tortured and crucified on crosses outside Nagasaki to discourage Christianity in 1597. (Hideyoshi nonetheless showed favor to daimyō who had converted, such as Konishi Yukinaga.) Following a brief respite as Tokugawa Ieyasu rose to power and pursued trade with the Portuguese powers, there were further persecutions and martyrdoms in 1613, 1630, 1632 and 1634.

By this point, after the Shimabara Rebellion, the remaining Christians had been forced to publicly renounce their faith. Many continued practicing Christianity in secret, in modern times becoming known as the "hidden Christians" (隠れキリシタン, kakure kirishitan). These secret believers would often conceal Christian iconography in closed shrines, lanterns or inconspicuous parts of buildings. For example, Himeji Castle has a Christian cross on one of its 17th-century roof tiles, in place of a mon, indicating that one of its occupants was a secret Christian.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Japan#Persecution_under_the_Shogunate

Imperial Japan under Meiji from 1871 to 1945 did permit Christians as part of its effort at modernization, but I would say that was more a tactical move to facilitate modernization rather than a philosophical embrace of religious freedom -- much like how several Islamic empires like the Ottomans permitted Christian minorities for long periods but taxed them at a higher rate than Muslims.

  I am not implying any such thing.  The tokugawa shogonate killed christians as a measure to unify,a political stategy,  but in so far as faith, Shintoism nor buddhism had anything to do with killing other religions.  It was a political tool.  Islam, is both religion and politic, I would keep the Ottomans out of your mouth, as they also castrated christian boys and used them as slave soldiers. that is if you are making an attempt to demonstrate tolerance.   In Japan since politics and religion were not as intertwined, it was fairly easy to have what we have in modern Japan, while in Iran they stone women to death.

   Edited to add:  You just *might* want to factor current events (suicide bombers) into your line of reasoning.

[oggsmash]

To be fair to suicide bombers, there's really no point to killing yourself if you're not taking anyone else with you.  If you let all of your targets leave, then are you really even a suicide bomber anymore?  It's not easy to abandon an identity that you've built the rest of your very short life around.

  This could come off better to me as a joke if Americans were not getting killed by bombs as you make it.  I normally do not mind a taste of gallows humor, but this is pretty low class.