Easy for him to say the Taliban rule is the best outcome, he is a straight man…

Though I suppose there is something to be said for ending the anticipation and letting the inevitable horror just happen.

I hate this situation because I do not know what to think. In the one hand the Taliban is so horrible. On the other, the US can’t stay there forever and has its own affairs to attend to

Nic, maybe the US could do it if it had moral, financial, and logistical support from the rest of the world in the effort. I haven't heard that Brazil and Indonesia were offering soldiers for the effort at sustaining a lawful, representative government there… But Afghanistan is a world problem, not an America problem. The enduring fix will probably be a change in the global response in such places rather than a brilliant solution from America (or China or India or Europe).

I seriously suspect Afghanistan's problems are not merely cultural.

There WAS international support in the beginning

Didn't we have the same sort of enlightened opinions oozing from the same sort of enlightened opinionators in 1975, suggesting that for South Vietnamese and Cambodians, life was about to be a little better?

Don't kid yourself NicoleK. It was a US show from the beginning. Other nations only committed a token force or refrained from officially complaining.

Which is fine. It was a US war and the US should be responsible for it.

The bigger issue was our unwillingness to fully execute it. When the Taliban were in Afghanistan we killed them. When they retreated to Pakistan suddenly it is timeout. We also shut down most bottom up programs in favor of top down ones that were easier to highlight on TV news. Hence the continued corruption and quick collapse once US forces were removed.

Just read an essay by Ellis describing the magnitude of this fuckup. History will not be kind to Biden.

You voted for this. Every vote not going to a republican, went for this. Voting libertarian or democrat is voting for the Taliban here in the US. Don't for a second think the "progressives" won't welcome them. There isn't a system of mass control that exists that they don't get a massive hard-on dreaming of belonging to.

Simmer down, Mom.

When they retreated to Pakistan suddenly it is timeout.

Even with that, there was always the spring offensive when they would come back. We should have been killing them within sight of Pakistan. In droves, and more droves.

Kill enough of your enemy, and they stop fighting. But we're compassionate. Now others will pay for our errors.

Yes yes, you're right… I admit it! It's true! I had a glass of wine with the lox bagel at lunch… But HEAR ME OUT!!

What if we impeached Biden?

IJS

When the Taliban were in Afghanistan we killed them. When they retreated to Pakistan suddenly it is timeout. ~ Ben at August 14, 2021 6:06 AM

A big part of that may have been political. If the Pakistanis had allowed us to hunt the Taliban in Pakistani territory, they risked their own fundamentalist population getting restless, wondering why its government, ostensibly a Muslim one, was allowing infidels to hunt Muslims in territory it controlled.

The real mistake was trying to gild a modern, technological, and democratic state onto a cultural system locked into 14th century thought processes. We slapped the trappings of a modern state onto the rotted foundation of Afghanistan, convincing ourselves afterward that we had created a stable, modern state. We hadn't.

==================================================

Every vote not going to a republican, went for this.... ~ Momof4 at August 14, 2021 7:17 AM

The problem with that statement is that this started under a Republican; granted, not entirely by his choice, but with his consent and acquiescence. And with the consent and acquiescence of a large part of the Democratic Party as well (including Joe Biden); although most of them have disowned their complicity.

The attempt at nation-building after militarily defeating the Taliban is what created this mess. In an effort to avoid leaving the same sort of power vacuum that gave rise to the Taliban, the US powers that be decided they could bridge six centuries of ignorance in a few years. Twenty years later and Afghanistan is back where it was on September 10, 2001. All that blood and treasure spent, and we bridged nothing.

Which brings up the question, why is the US military pull-out such a slipshod affair? We've had months to plan and our pull-out resulted in thousands of military assets abandoned to be captured by the Taliban, including heavy weaponry. We have made no plans to deal with the $9.5 billion in liquid financial assets sitting in Kabul. Think of how much and what types of anti-American terrorism that money will fund.

==================================================

History will not be kind to Biden. ~ Crid at August 14, 2021 6:46 AM

Nope. He owns this.

See the above comment on abandoned assets and terrorism funding. That's all on Joe.

Here's the thing: The new American reticence about international military engagement hasn't been supplanted by any new international coalition of righteous actors… When shit turns bad over there on an international scale, again, we're going to get the call, again. Putin & Xi aren't going to bother.

We should have at least brought back the helicopters.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wretchard%27s+the+three+conjectures&t=chromentp&ia=web

Time to reread the Three Conjectures.

"A big part of that may have been political." ~Conan

Of course it was political. Both for them and for us. And from a numerous angles too.

But at the end of the day that it was mainly about politics made this war unwinnable.

"Which brings up the question, why is the US military pull-out such a slipshod affair?" ~Conan

Politics again. Trump tried to pull us out of Afghanistan. He wanted to do so in an orderly manner. It honestly looks like some of the generals engaged in treason to prevent that. Those same generals are responsible for this mess.

"We should have at least brought back the helicopters." ~Crid

Or demoed them. A little surplus explosive resolves having assets that aren't worth the trouble of moving.

> Or demoed them.

✔

There are definitions to be considered. I'd say 'winning the war' would be bringing the culture into mainstream modernity…

But in Afghanistan's case, we'd have been starting at zero. There are very good reasons that your local metropolis hasn't offered to swap teenagers for a summer in Sister Cities programs with Afghanistan. Those people are confounded by toilet paper: A grocery scanner would be black and powerful magic.

The have-your-daughters-ready thing has been bugging me all of this sunny day.

In earlier times, midway through our residence there, it was hoped that Afghanistan might become 'the Saudi Arabia of lithium,' which is a good country to be… On a planet awash with smartphones.

Somewhere in the trackless lands that make up much of Afghanistan, just to the right or left of the Old Silk Road, there are apparently huge caches of untapped wealth in the form of metal and stone prized in both the ancient world and the modern: gold, copper, and lapis lazuli, to name a few.

The technology isn't the issue. In sub-Saharan Africa as well as Afghanistan you can find very high tech tools used. They need to be battery operated or very resistant to power spikes, but they are still there. Tools can be purchased.

The real 'black magic' is Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 12th edition.

The real 'black magic' is Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 12th edition. ~ Ben at August 14, 2021 5:16 PM

That's the 14th century culture in which the Afghans are mired. We may laugh at our own founding fathers' relatively primitive views, but they were legions ahead of today's Afghan leaders, this despite being two centuries removed from them.

✔ Conan the Grammarian at August 14, 2021 5:22 PM

And the important difference may be simple candlepower, G, IQ.

This won't go away.

It's striking that Ben presumed I was saying the problem was tech.

Here's a cynical entry from the popular "Twitter" internet microblogging service.

Another: How's your career going this summer?

"Those people are confounded by toilet paper: A grocery scanner would be black and powerful magic." ~Crid

You mentioned tech.

And no, the issue is not IQ. I know you want to blame everything on IQ. Something about only having a hammer . . .

And no, the issue is not IQ. I know you want to blame everything on IQ. Something about only having a hammer . . .

Ben at August 15, 2021 7:07 AM

I think it is both. A poisonous anti freedom totalitarian culture imposed on a largely illiterate and low IQ population.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country#:~:text=Countries%20by%20IQ%20-%20Average%20IQ%20by%20Country,%20%20126%2C050%2C804%20%2074%20more%20rows%20

> You mentioned tech.

And you extrapolated like a loon. Literacy has nuances, pilgrim.

There was no extrapolation. Literate you appear not to be. Like it or not you were just wrong. Toilet paper and bar code readers aren't black magic to rural afghans. They are just too poor to buy toilet paper. It isn't like they are unaware of the stuff.

"I think it is both." ~Isab

From your link Afghanistan has an average IQ of 84, just below the average IQ on the list. They beat out India. Italy beats out everyone other than China, Japan, and South Korea. They certainly aren't a ringing endorsement for intelligence.

Figuring out everyone should have a chance to talk doesn't require you to be smart. But it does require a different set of values. Same with private property and rule of law.

You see the same problems Afghanistan has in the tribal nations here in the US. When everything is owned by everyone the reality is everything is owned by one man. The one man who gets to settle disputes. There is no reason to improve your own house when the best house belongs to the local chief. If your house is better than his he will just swap with you. All that sweat equity right down the drain. So people don't improve things. Not even themselves. Same thing happened in the USSR. And in China.

China is actually a good counter example. They have the second highest average IQ on your list. That isn't a new thing. The Chinese have been very interested in intelligence for over 2000 years. Essentially leading an unintentional eugenics program partially responsible for that high IQ. How well did communist China do? How fast did their economy grow after private property was permitted? How are they doing now as they start outlawing various industries so the party can hold on to power without changing?

I'm not saying IQ is bad. Just pointing out lack of IQ isn't the problem here. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you are going to be robbed blind tomorrow. At that point the smart thing ends up being poor.

To rephrase:

(Italy) "They certainly aren't a ringing endorsement for intelligence." leading to good governance.

IQ is the problem. It is impossible to establish the rule of law in a society where a large percentage of the population is incapable of abstract thinking. It is a necessary precondition for a technological society. They aren’t tribal because no one has given them a functioning government. They are tribal because that is all their culture and intelligence can support.

To rephrase:

(Italy) "They certainly aren't a ringing endorsement for intelligence." leading to good governance.

Ben at August 15, 2021 10:25 AM

With China and Italy you are confusing cause and effect.

Yes their governments are dysfunctional, corrupt and in the case of China totalitarian. But intelligence is the necessary precondition for the rule of law. It doesn’t automatically create it.

"... convincing ourselves afterward that we had created a stable, modern state. ' ~ Conan

While I can agree with your sentiment at some level, another part of me is thinking, 'What stable modern state?' Like the one we live in here? Hahahahaha!

It's ALL rotted foundations now, no matter where we are. We've morphed into a corrupt idiocracy. A blinding world-wide example of the Peter Principle.

Welcome to the beginning of the Second Dark Ages!

When it comes to Mozambique I won't argue with you, Isab. An average IQ under 70 is hard to work with. In Afghanistan you do have enough IQ to support rule of law. You just don't have a tradition or value system for it. You also don't have the bad weather that forces you to develop those traditions or die. There is a good reason Islam is a mostly equatorial religion.

“When it comes to Mozambique I won't argue with you, Isab. An average IQ under 70 is hard to work with. In Afghanistan you do have enough IQ to support rule of law. You just don't have a tradition or value system for it. You also don't have the bad weather that forces you to develop those traditions or die. There is a good reason Islam is a mostly equatorial religion.

Ben at August 15, 2021 11:48 AM

I doubt it. The US army won’t accept anyone with an IQ under 80 for a reason. They are incapable of being trained. With an average IQ of 84, my guess is half the country of Afghanistan would qualify as mentally disabled by American standards. Most of them will never learn to read and write, let alone weigh their options in a voting booth.

Do you feel the same way about India? They are at 82 on your link. Afghanistan is at 84. Vietnam is at 94 and still a shithole. Mentally disabled like you are talking about is under 70. Mozambique at 64 is what you are talking about.

The other key thing for me is environmental IQ factors. Just putting in closed sewers and toilets adds ~5 IQ points to your average. The reduced bacterial load has a very measurable impact. One that Afghanistan is certainly able to take advantage of if the people living there wanted to. But they don't want to . . . which is the real root problem.

It doesn't matter how smart they get. They just aren't interested in living any other way. So what if there is 'gold in them thar hills'. They aren't getting a cut of it. Why not rob anyone coming to mine it?

Reminds me of what a fictional character said. "You can't fool anyone who's really stupid."

Though I'm sure some real-life orator has said that as well.

But, at the same time, certain low-IQ animals can be herded and thus put to use.

“Do you feel the same way about India? They are at 82 on your link. Afghanistan is at 84. Vietnam is at 94 and still a shithole. Mentally disabled like you are talking about is under 70. Mozambique at 64 is what you are talking about.”

What part of necessary precondition do you not understand?

Clearly you have dealt with very few people with an IQ of 80. Also realize that low intelligence is not spread randomly across the population of a country. It tends to concentrate. In areas where it exists they are substance farmers at best.

> Literate you appear not to be.

That was playful and gay, dance-number stuff.

Isab, I work with people with an IQ around 80 all the time. Yes they aren't the brightest. But they can read and write. It isn't unusual for them to have factory or machinist jobs. Though they do need someone smarter to setup the CNC for newer equipment.

You are talking about 70 not 80.

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

Momof4 Says:

"You voted for this. Every vote not going to a republican, went for this. Voting libertarian or democrat is voting for the Taliban here in the US. Don't for a second think the "progressives" won't welcome them. There isn't a system of mass control that exists that they don't get a massive hard-on dreaming of belonging to."

Well, this line of thinking is patently untrue. Now, should we have gone into Afghanistan in the first place? Should we have left after two decades of attempted nation building? Who knows? No one can tell what would have happened had another path been travelled. All we can do is deal with the one we took. And I say that as someone who was rather against opening up this can of worms to begin with, and who did not vote for Bush.

I hope the Republicans come up with a moderate I can vote for.

NicoleK,

The Republican Base has largely lost their minds at this point and most of the politicians understand this.

At this stage they run moderates out of the party entirely.

Justin Amash was elected as a Republican and was run out of town when he disagreed with Trump so he became independent and later switched to Libertarian.

Liz Cheney was in house Republican leadership and was stripped of her position because she wanted to hold people accountable for the attack on the Capitol on Jan 6th.

Adam Kinzinger has even been abandoned by conservatives within his own family because he wasn't sufficiently on his knees for Trump.

You will not get a moderate Republican beyond any primary.

The candidates you are going to be looking at are likely to be one of the following or someone with similar comportment:

Donald Trump
Donald Trump Jr.
Ron DeSantis

These are the kinds of folks the Republican base want.