Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (479084)	9/3/2021 1:57:45 PM
From: koan	1 Recommendation Recommended By Maple MAGA Respond to of 541008

My argument for staying: I guess we just have a different perception of what is best for the country and world, politics, sociology and humanity? As Richard Haas said it was pretty peaceful for the last 6 or 7 years, so that theory about the Taliban is suspect, plus we should not be making deals with the devil.. I think we would have done better to stay there and contain it for several reasons. These are just my opinions, but let me preface with one overriding idea: Biden said we should not be involved in "nation building", but has everyone forgotten we engaged in massive nation building after WWII in Germany, Europe, Japan and South Korea and had wonderful results as all are now powerful democracies and powerful economies. What is the difference? As well, we should have saved the Jews, just as we should have saved the Afghans. And is the opposition to saving the Afghans really that different from that against saving the Jews? It would be easier and cheaper and better for Democrats, the Afghans and our intelligence and world peace to protect the infrastructure we had built over 20 years and nursed a burgeoning "civilization" and humanity. We not only let that all be destroyed, we have given the Taliban a military to stamp out any good revolution like the one in the Panjshir valley, people who are sort of like the Kurds. And I have heard our military might help the Taliban stamp out resistance. I hope they were talking about Isis and not the Panjshir valley folks. 1) Of course humanity is my primary concern and is about the terror of torture, and death and the very survival, the people will have to face as we put much of that nation in to. And many allies that we owe a lot to. I expect a severe famine to break out over a failed economy which will impact our allies still there more than others as many will have to hide for a long time, and so many will die from that. 2) From an intelligence point of view, staying their gave us eyes on future danger from terrorists we do not have now e.g. igniting a suit case nuclear bomb in one of our cities. Now they have an entire country to organize those sorts of things without interference. . 3) From a political perspective it is a disaster e.g. the Republicans will bash us constantly about letting thousands of people in from a terrorist country without vetting and where will they stay and how much will it cost us? A lot more money and trouble than containing them in their own country, IMO. 2/3rds of the country thinks Biden did a bad job on the evacuation and his poll numbers have fallen from 57% approval to 43% and that portends badly for the 2022 election. And we will constantly be hit with both stories of abuse in Afghanistan and the immigrants. <<vMessage #479084 from JohnM at 9/3/2021 12:09:45 PM As I read the heart of your argument, koan, it's based on your notion of moral grounds. We, you argue, have a moral commitment to Afghans who helped us and to Afghans who counted on our presence to preserve new liberties. Those of us supporting Biden's withdrawal simply misunderstand the moral basis. But there is a counter moral argument. Several elements: The absence of serious conflict in the past few months was heavily due to Trump's agreement with the Taliban--in return for a commitment from the US to leave in May, the Taliban would not attack US troops. So staying beyond Biden's commitment to leave at the end of August would seriously endanger any remaining US and coalition troops. The moral commitment, thus to stay in Afghan, meant troop sacrifices. Perhaps large. That would entail a commitment to stay long term. With the absence of a workable, legitimate Afghan government, US troops would have be the only guarantee. Thus, creating much more loss of life from US troops. With no end in sight. Particularly, given Dexter Filkins argument in his New Yorker piece, that Afghanistan is essentially, not accidentally, tribal. There is no basis for centrality. Nor is there likely to be. Thus would have to leave some time. And some level of chaos would ensue when done. Better to leave now than sacrifice more US military lives. As for the chaos of the exit, I think it was minimized. I'm very impressed by the ability of the American military to get as many Americans and Afghans out as they did. The only comparison that comes to mind is the one from South Vietnam. This one was extraordinarily better.