Some people will get out safe, hopefully.
I mean, hasn’t that always been true? Aren’t all military actions a result of domestic politics?
It’s hard to see Korea and Vietnam as being directly related to domestic politics. They were more like “strategic” politics in the Cold War logic of the time - sure there was an element of domestic concern but there certainly wasn’t a belief that if Vietnam falls, next goes the US. The chain of dominoes was much, much longer.
OTOH, Iraq 1 was 100% about a Republican administration terrified of becoming the next oil embargo target - effectively they traded with the devil and agreed to save Saudi Arabia to keep the price of oil stable and low. Iraq 2 and Afghanistan are directly related to both revenge for 9/11 and for the inability of any domestic administration to “take the hit” and be the ones to withdraw from the region (and take the blame for the “loss”) like Nixon did.
Old-school imperialism did work, within its own set of parameters, as long as the imperialists were willing to pour in the blood and treasure–and as long as the people being dominated lacked both the internal capacity and the external support to resist. Once the global situation shifted, and anti-imperialist ideas gained traction, while simultaneously indigenous people around the globe gained more capacity to physically resist, the old model rapidly imploded due to skyrocketing costs, economic and political as well as military.
Even at its “best,” though, imperialism promised short-term gains at the cost of long term pains. Only the most short-sighted of the imperialists believed it would last forever, and I suspect most knew they were just pushing the price to be paid down the line to a future generation.
Even Nixon only ‘took the hit’ during his second term when he was basically never going to run for office again. He campaigned in ‘68 on a secret plan to win the war, then campaigned in ‘72 as opposed to withdrawing without victory, then made a deal to declare victory and run. His position, and that of Kissinger, was that the Paris Peace Accords represented victory, and that the subsequent subjugation of the South by the North wasn’t their fault, but the fault of later administrations.
Yes, but if all goes back to pre-9/11 minus Bin Laden then it was essentially all for naught. It seems like a huge loss of blood and treasure to me.
Isn’t staying in Afghanistan indefinitely also a huge loss of blood and treasure? Because that seems like what it’d take.
Some light reading:
Individuals commit the sunk cost fallacy when they continue a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort) (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). This fallacy, which is related to loss aversion and status quo bias, can also be viewed as bias resulting from an ongoing commitment.
yeah, you can’t justify a bad decision on the basis that we’ve already committed resources to the decision previously.
The decision would need to be based upon whether future costs resulting from leaving Afghanistan would eclipse the costs of staying.
Oh, I’m totally on the same page. I’m saying that it was a waste to be there for 20 years if things go back to the way they were in the next 3 months (according to the direst predictions). I’m not at all saying that we should stay there because of all we’ve invested. Afghanistan never changes.
nods in Russian
Alexander the Great himself said, in a letter to his mother, “I am involved in the land of brave people where every foot of the ground is like a wall of steel, confronting my soldiers. You have brought one son into the world, but everyone in this land can be called an Alexander.”
Yeah but Matt Gaetz says Alexander the great was a wuss.
Note to self: Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
It’s so sad. A whole generation of people able to make something of their lives… Suddenly that life is threatened.
It is a wonder that anyone is willing to work closely with the US in any of these places, after Vietnam and now Afghanistan. It’s like Lucy and the football, and the poor bastards on the ground are all Charlie Browns.
But what are we going to do? Stay there long enough for a generation to grow up with these freedoms, and hope they take root into a countries culture?
Is that part of the price that we need to pay as a developer nations with a colonial history?
It just sucks any way you slice it.