Is a Return to Colonialism Needed - Afghanistan and Haiti Events Sure Make it Seem So (Palestinians, suspect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if a return to colonialism is even possible at this point in time. I think we need to come up with a third system as it is clear that de-colonialization, despite what its proponents say was not an unalloyed good. Maybe for the first level countries to come out of colonialism, for example India, but for many or perhaps even most countries previously colonized by western powers, independence has proved worse than being a colony in all measures.
Excerpt from a longer piece by the Project on Government Oversight. pogo.org
Quote:
Credit, where it’s due
If there’s one thing the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan makes clear, it’s that civilians still run the U.S. military. The U.S. military wanted to maintain a so-called residual force of perhaps 2,500 troops inside Afghanistan, but President Biden, long a skeptic of the war, refused. Inside the Pentagon, there’s a debate over whether that would have kept a lid on the Taliban, who agreed not to attack U.S. troops since the two sides signed a peace deal last year. But if Biden walked away from the deal (as the Taliban had done in some respects), it also could have set the stage for more U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and calls to send additional young Americans there.
“President Biden badly botched the withdrawal and deserves the scorn he’s getting,” former Republican-turned-Libertarian congressman Justin Amash of Michigan said August 17. “He’s also the first president who seems determined to get America out of Afghanistan during his presidency, politics be damned. For that, he deserves credit and thanks.”
Joe Klein, a colleague of The Bunker’s at Time Magazine for many years, took a longer view. “I think it's important to note that what Biden has done is sad but courageous,” he wrote. “John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon didn't have the guts to admit defeat in Vietnam. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump lacked the guts to admit that there was a reason why the Brits, the Russians and countless tribal interlopers lost in Afghanistan…It’s sad that it fell to an honest man to tell the truth about a strategic disaster.”
What exactly was that "reasonable plan"? I'd appreciate the details.
According to one ex-official, the idea was to maintain a military presence in the country while compelling the civilian government to share power with the Taliban.
According to one ex-official, the idea was to maintain a military presence in the country while compelling the civilian government to share power with the Taliban.
You'd have to swallow pretty hard to believe all that. The former president campaigned heavily on the idea of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Its one of the few points of agreement I actually had with him.
I don't like the way this withdrawal has been handled and its going to be the subject of congressional investigations. However, the reality is that our exit from Afghanistan was going to be messy. The fact that the government collapsed in just eleven days shows how hopeless trying to create the kind of government we wanted in that country was. We were played. People only went along with us because of all the money we were willing to give them.
According to one ex-official, the idea was to maintain a military presence in the country while compelling the civilian government to share power with the Taliban.
Was the plan executed? Was the plan brought to fruition? What did Donald actually accomplish in Afghanistan?
And to be fair, that is those are the same questions we should be asking Barack Obama. In a sense, I will give some credit to George. His actions led eventually to some of the desired outcomes originally expressed in the mission.
Biden was always likely to be a 1 term president based on his age alone. If he had an eye to reelection, he would have chosen to continue the status quo in Afghanistan.
It's like how there's never a good time to tell your spouse who thinks things are fine, you want a divorce. It's going to get ugly no matter how or when you pull that trigger.
I don't know if a return to colonialism is even possible at this point in time. I think we need to come up with a third system as it is clear that de-colonialization, despite what its proponents say was not an unalloyed good. Maybe for the first level countries to come out of colonialism, for example India, but for many or perhaps even most countries previously colonized by western powers, independence has proved worse than being a colony in all measures.
A somewhat successful example has been the U.S.'s suzerainty over Japan and West Germany, where the country, with the enforcement of continued occupation, was responsible for its own affairs. The Marshall Islands and other Pacific Islands, including Guam, could be a good "halfway house." I am sure that there are models that can work.
France, for example, still has considerable influence on its former colonies. The Falkland Islands are still ruled by Britain, though have some home rule. Ditto the British Virgin Islands. My point, in the OP, is that relinquishing control precipitously is sometimes, though not always, a good idea.
You'd have to swallow pretty hard to believe all that. The former president campaigned heavily on the idea of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Its one of the few points of agreement I actually had with him.
I don't like the way this withdrawal has been handled and its going to be the subject of congressional investigations. However, the reality is that our exit from Afghanistan was going to be messy. The fact that the government collapsed in just eleven days shows how hopeless trying to create the kind of government we wanted in that country was. We were played. People only went along with us because of all the money we were willing to give them.
Well, how the Trump plan (actually, a plan put together by advisers, generals, etc.) would have worked in practice is unknowable, since it was terminated by the Biden Admin. early on. But it seems to have prioritized getting the civilians out before the military.
I now believe that once we were in, there was no easy way to get out. Afghanistan is one of those places where you're in for a dime, in for a dollar. You can't just go in and wipe out Bin Laden's gang and hope they never do it again.
There were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan that trained tens of thousands of men over the years. If we don't want those kinds of camps to be operating, we have to be there, with plenty of air power, to take them out wherever they spring up, or have a very strong and dedicated local government to do it for us, and we never got that.
Alternatively, we could launch drones from Pakistan, which is "officially" a friend, although elements of the Pakistan regime have been aiding and abetting the enemy for decades to the point where the Americans gave up on them and started droning the Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds on Pak territory. And launched a secret team to take on Bin Laden right in the middle of the country, with no notification of Pakistani authorities.
I agree with others here and across the wider blogosphere who say the U.S. should give up on nation building; it almost never works unless the nation was already 99% built (Japan & Germany, e.g.).
If we want to be an imperial power, a conquering people who defeat armies and take over other lands, that's a different story. The U.S. is plenty powerful enough to do that, and maybe should, in some cases. Just move in and rule the place, and eliminate anyone who complains. That's how colonialism used to work and maybe in the long run our "moral" foreign policy is a total failure because in real life, people in many parts of the world need to be ruled by an iron fist.
If we want to be an imperial power, a conquering people who defeat armies and take over other lands, that's a different story. The U.S. is plenty powerful enough to do that, and maybe should, in some cases. Just move in and rule the place, and eliminate anyone who complains. That's how colonialism used to work and maybe in the long run our "moral" foreign policy is a total failure because in real life, people in many parts of the world need to be ruled by an iron fist.
The only question in those kinds of countries is "whose fist." Some countries do surprisingly well in independence, such as India. I am sure in practice there are significant abuses but we don't hear about tribal wars, full-scale massacres, etc. Kenya, Bangladesh, Malaysia, most of the "stans' split off from the old USSR, and I am sure others are in that category. The "failed states" that need "iron fists" include but I'm sure are not limited to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and many African countries fit that role. Others, such as Israel, Canada, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and others are normal countries.
But one cannot treat Afghanistan and Singapore the same way. One threatens no one, the other is a danger to themselves and the world.
The only question in those kinds of countries is "whose fist." Some countries do surprisingly well in independence, such as India. I am sure in practice there are significant abuses but we don't hear about tribal wars, full-scale massacres, etc. Kenya, Bangladesh, Malaysia, most of the "stans' split off from the old USSR, and I am sure others are in that category. The "failed states" that need "iron fists" include but I'm sure are not limited to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and many African countries fit that role. Others, such as Israel, Canada, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and others are normal countries.
But one cannot treat Afghanistan and Singapore the same way. One threatens no one, the other is a danger to themselves and the world.
I actually think India would have been better off remaining part of the British Empire for a few more decades. The British did a good job. No need for independence. Plus, Pakistan wouldn't have split off and become the semi-rogue nuclear state that it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
