Afghan mess - questions to my USA friends

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/world/asia/afghanistan-russia.html

Its up to Russia

Dude. Biden was  major cheerleader. It wasn't one guy. It's nearly the entire terrorist regime that is the US government. In a decent world, they would have been brought before tribunals and dealt with accordingly a long time ago.

[Didacus]

2 hours ago, hakutaku said:

To decide what's next for Afghanistan.

China are in the game too, and not to be underestimated.

[little2add]

2 hours ago, hakutaku said:

To decide what's next for Afghanistan.

The last time the Russians intervened in Afghanistan things didn't work out quite as well as they may have hoped...  

 

On December 24, 1979, the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, under the pretext of upholding the Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty of 1978.

The long-term impact of the invasion and subsequent war was profound. First, the Soviets never recovered from the public relations and financial losses, which significantly contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991. Secondly, the war created a breeding ground for terrorism and the rise of Osama bin Laden.

Go figure. 

[hakutaku]

2 hours ago, Didacus said:

China are in the game too, and not to be underestimated.

 

1 hour ago, little2add said:

The long-term impact of the invasion and subsequent war was profound. First, the Soviets never recovered from the public relations and financial losses, which significantly contributed to the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991. Secondly, the war created a breeding ground for terrorism and the rise of Osama bin Laden.

Russia and the US were competing in Afghanistan in the 50s and 60s.  They were doing so with investment money, which led to a lot of progress in the country.  However, because both sides wanted the government on their side (and the amount of money in play) corruption was rampant.  Russia was afraid of losing, so they supported a communist anti-corruption revolution.  The invasion was to cement the rule of the pro-soviet government.  In response, the US backed the right wing Mujahideen.

China is now offering large sums of investment capital to Afghanistan but Russia has a military presence already in place.  If Russia decides to compete peacefully/cooperate with China like the 50s and 60s, Afghanistan may do quite well.  If, on the other hand, Russia decides to fight China's money with military force, Afghanistan could suffer quite severely, and terror groups could thrive.

[little2add]

Don’t be surprise if “Iran” takes over everything (from Turkey to  Pakistan) 

 

[ArciMoto]

On 8/30/2021 at 7:03 AM, Didacus said:

Is the Afghan mess from pulling out troops what it looks like?

Is it Biden's fault or Trump?

Is it a failure or not?

 

What in the world went wrong there?

took a few PoliSci classes as an undergrad where I learned the british found out the hard way that the "stan" region isn't all that easy to control

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game

before 9/11 I actually managed to visit the "stan" region on holiday following the silk route,... while in the region got a feel why the USSR also found out the hard way that the "stan" region isn't all that easy to control

basically the region is vary harsh kinda like the eastern sierras/death valley (only more extreme)

the people in the "stan" region are tribal w/ a culture memory that goes back before the time of christ

basically given the harshness of the region and small population w/ a tribal outlook,... an outside military power like GB, the USSR and the USA IMHO is always going to find it pretty much impossible to impose their will on the people of the region (by force)

 

said another way because the region is a proverbial hell hole to live in, it was never possible to develop large population centers w/ trade and commerce (i.e. have a large scale society that is interdependent upon on another)

basically survival on day to day basis in the "stans" (especially Afghanistan) depends upon a small close knit support group,... so whenever an outside group invades and isn't able to help out w/ day to day survival,... they will be seen as the enemy

 

 

[Didacus]

I always said one of the USA's mistakes in invading Iraq and Afghanistan is the belief that everyone would welcome democracy.

[Machine_Washable]

On 9/7/2021 at 2:54 PM, Didacus said:

I always said one of the USA's mistakes in invading Iraq and Afghanistan is the belief that everyone would welcome democracy.

That is a tricky subject. And I will discuss it to the best of my abilities if you wish. But I don't think that was the big cause of why the people fought America. If America occupied Canada you would have fighting. Because people do not like being occupied. It is humiliating. You add issues like extreme corruption or hostility between sunni and shia, with terrorist groups provoking each side against the other, and you have a very bad situation.

[Didacus]

Good point - but back to mine, would Iraq be willing to have democracy and willing to maintain it?

[Machine_Washable]

5 hours ago, Didacus said:

Good point - but back to mine, would Iraq be willing to have democracy and willing to maintain it?

Ok. I will answer as best I can. I think there are really two questions here. 1-Is democracy compatible with Islam and 2-if it is not then would Iraqis care. 
 

The answer to 1 is complicated. I’m not a scholar so I’m not competent to give a fatwa on this issue. But I will tell you the opinions I have read on this issue. 
 

I have seen three categories of opinions on this. 
 

Category A - This group would be described as “progressive Muslims”. They would say that Islam is completely compatible with progressive, secular democracy. If you read them you get the impression that Islam actually mandates progressive, secular democracy and somehow the great ulema missed this until these progressive Muslims came along. This group is often the one you see represented in the media and seems to include some Muslim elected officials in America. In my opinion these people carry basically no weight. The left trots them out to give themselves multicultural legitimacy but they’re not taken seriously by many religious Muslims. My family is religious and conservative so maybe that’s just my bias.
 

Category B - This group are the extreme reactionaries. They will say that even voting is forbidden. Muslims should not want any democracy and if they live in the west they should not vote. this group is larger with religious Muslims that the progressive Muslims. There are really big and serious ulema who back this opinion  and it’s not a fringe view but it’s also not a majority view and mostly comes from a sect of the Salafis who were big in the 90s but have since been declining. 

Category C - This is where I would say most religious Muslims are and where most orthodox scholars in the west are. There is a lot of variety in this category so I’m just giving some broad themes. This group says that Muslims in the west can and should vote and exert political influence to preserve our rights and oppose the bad in society.

Now what would this group say about a Muslim country like Iraq? I think they would say this. Islam is not compatible with unrestrained secular democracy. It just isn’t. There are some things that a Muslim state just cannot compromise on or put to the vote. Things like collecting zakat, interest, the sale of alcohol to Muslims, adultery, gay marriage, pornography et cetera. These things that no legitimate Muslim state can put to the vote. But the modern state deals with a lot of issues that are not really addressed and not clear cut moral issues. This includes local issues like zoning and municipal planning. It also includes big issues like the healthcare system or taxes (excluding zakat) and infrastructure. These issues can be decidedly democratically so long as they don’t transgress the boundaries of the sharia (for example, it’s fine for an American Muslim to buy health insurance but a Muslim state couldn’t do something like Obama care. Something like what England does or a free market system would be fine they just can’t use insurance). 
 

I think this addresses issue 1. If it doesn’t please let me know. 
 

Now on to issue 2. Even if most Iraqis felt that Islam wasn’t compatible with any kind of Democracy I don’t think that would cause them to revolt for a few reasons. Firstly a lot of Iraqis aren’t that religious. Secondly, most religious Iraqis who do not believe Islam allows any kind of democracy would just not vote  or participate. A lot of this group belong to a sect called the madkhalis that basically says they must obey the authority even if the authority is sinful so long as they’re allowed to do the basic tenants of faith (pray, give zakat, fast during Ramadan, declare the Shahada, and make hajj).

If that does not answer your question or you have other questions let me know  

 

[Didacus]

Nice take amd thank you for the reply.

It would be naive to think that Iraqis or any other culture would simply see democracy as USA does, that is my own observation.

But then again i may be biased.  I NEVER voted, and I never believed in democracy.  I am in many ways an exception to the general rules of North America in a semse at least.

[Winchester]

Democracy is just popular tyranny.

[Didacus]

6 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Democracy is just popular tyranny.

2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

[Guest]

............and a viable alternative could be?..............

[Didacus]

I would sooner work for and accept a benevolant tyrant than any elected official.

But that's just me...

 

Back to you Bob...