The key problem here is that our political and senior military apparatus never articulates what it means to “win”, or does so in such expansive ways that winning is impossible.
Even in my own time in Afghanistan, it was never clear what our objectives were beyond platitudes about freedom for the Afghan people.
If we had instead articulated something tangible like: “dislodge the Taliban from national government in Afghanistan” we would have won in 2001.
1. Good post; nice job of delineating between military victory and more comprehensive victory.
2. Noam Chomsky thinks we actually won Vietnam. Not sure if his criteria or framing matches your own, Noah, but he’s a leftie and his judgement is contra to many others on the left. Looking for citation, but having a hard time...
I see no references to lefties actually making this argument, though I'm sure there are some people on Twitter who do make it (since for every possible argument there is someone on Twitter making it). All I can say is that my experience growing up around a lot of actual lefties, most of them made basically the argument you are making here. Glad you are helping get that message across!
As Keynesian stimulus goes, war is the worst—worse than burying gold to dig up again. In war, we actually pay to destroy capital, and most of the things we build to fight a war have no non-destructive use. Even the technology that might come out of war endeavors is often black-boxed for security reasons. Far better as stimulus to put a woman on the moon or just build a bridge.
It's very strange that you characterize the left as being defined by the position that America loses all it's wars. 1. your anecdotal experiences on twitter do not constitute "the left" and 2. I've never encountered any leftist in my entire life that's cared to make this argument. Sure maybe they exist or somebody has uttered this at some point. But leftists prefer to make the point that wars are unjust and immoral and therefore we shouldn't do them, not that American loses them or something.
You do this frequently where you open up a newsletter article about "the right says this and the left says that" to tee up why both are wrong and you are right. That sometimes works for you but this time it's just straight dumb and sloppy.
I find this post and the comments quite good. I'd like to add two things. First, WW II was an anomaly for another reason than Noah lists: most of fighting in Europe was done by the Soviets, supported by us. If they had given up, the outcome would have been much much different. Second, I think most wars of choice have their ultimate roots in domestic politics. We're an empire, and we have interests around the world. Between WW I and WW II, we were a regional empire. Back then and since 1945, politicians have been able to manipulate us into going to war to deal with illusionary threats. To protect lives and property in the 1920s in the Caribbean and Central America and since 1945 to deal with commie insurgencies, terrorists, etc., the result is almost always unsatisfying, just as they were in dynastic wars in 18th & 19th century Europe.
I mostly agree with you on this argument. However, I have two disagreements with you. One is specific to this piece, the other is about your general approach to political analysis.
My specific issue regards the lack of recognition of the institutional imperatives which encourage excessive reliance on military force. The defence and foreign policy establishment tends to view our possession of the "biggest hammer in the world" as sufficient justification for the exercise of military force for every foreign policy challenge. You don't have to view America as the Great Satan of the world to feel this results in unwise foreign policy choices. Indeed, your essay tends in that direction.
As noted, I find your broad general approach to issues aligns with my own views. However, I'm leery of your Strawman characterization of the "left." The only prominent public figure who coincides with your left label is Noam Chomsky. He has been dismissed by such notably left-wing sources as the New York Review of Books. The broad left in this country is more likely to identify with your approach to application of military force than the extremist views you characterize as Left. Perhaps your critique is influenced by the Bay Area political context. I'm sure there are some loonies out there.
Woe to the statesman whose arguments for entering a war are not as convincing at its end as they were at the beginning.—Bismarck
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.—Karl Rove
Not only did WWII establish an unrealistic standard for victory, but the decades after WWII set a fleeting stage where eye-popping US power and ambition were aligned. They no longer are. We’ve evolved from super power to hegemon and now back to super power. By the end of the century, we might well find ourselves a mere great power. For post-WWII America, individual wars were not a game of chess, but more like a individual moves on a global chess board. Looking back, the question worth asking is just how realistic were our goals and how well did war serve them? Looking forward, we need to ask ourselves how our relatively reduced power can best serve us in a world where full-spectrum dominance no longer exists, and our list of allies grows thin.
Thinking that the second Iraq war could be declared a victory because regime change happened when it’s basically falling apart at the seams… I think you need to read some more.
And no, “Well North Korea is worse ain’t it” perhaps we need to read a book about material conditions, sanctions, and the history of South Korea as well.
“We bombed the hell out of a country and now it’s chaos” is in fact not a win! Yet it describes a lot of military interventions by the US.
The way you can qualify these as victories is through the pense of empire management. You should perhaps argue that that lens is in fact bad, instead of twisting yourself in a knot to reach the same conclusions.
Everything doesn’t need to be proven by graphs. Murdering a bunch of civilians for nebulous reasons, and refusing to clean up things afterwards, is bad.
Was just reading a bunch of early 90s wire service articles about Gulf I, and was mildly surprised to see how vocally Gorbachev advocated for the survival of Saddam's regime. Some articles attributed Gorbachev's preservationism to Iraq's weapons purchases, but it feels like there were a lot of other more subtle factors as well (in part surely genuine ideology opposing Western interventions and fiercely in favor of nearly unlimited national sovereignty).
Part of the reason wars were harder and murkier post WWII is that there was often a massive global power on one side with a client (ok, usually on both sides).
It sounds like there was a brief spirit of cooperation to roll up the brushfire wars in the early 90s and jointly pressure for resolutions, but I just don't think that was sustained. Maybe it was never really sustainable, given the lack of focus and commitment across leaders in both countries, and the actual policy costs to divesting from the outcomes of these conflicts.
I also am deeply curious how much of the Japan / Germany / South Korea results relied (1) on massive resource in-flows from the US, (2) on better postwar administration, (3) on re-constitutionalization (sometimes with radically reduced security spending allowing a peace dividend), or (4) on societies that were already heavily invested in radically transforming their economies pre-war anyway merely continuing that trend.
There are some million books and podcasts covering strategy and tactics for winning and losing wars. Then there's some paltry handful about postwar administration. If nobody cares about how to do a thing well it will probably not get done well. And if you utterly fail at the postwar stuff it's going to make the rest of it look more like a failure regardless of how it went tactically.
1) I think almost everyone dramatically underates how positive the impact of the US intervention in Afghanistan was. Afghanistan in 2001 was not like Iraq in 2003. It was a in the midst of a civil war between the Taliban/Durrani Pashtuns and The Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks) and the US intervention changed which side won. If you just look at population, life expectancy, GDP per capita you can see how much better this situation is for Afghanistan than pre US intervention. The Taliban are now mostly a governing force only in Pashtun areas.
I think it's also a mistake to say that the Afghan government is an unsupported puppet government. Election turn outs are really high despite massive personal risk and people are even voting for candidates not in their ethnic group! (https://repository.upenn.edu/senior_seminar/13/)
Afghanistan is massively massively corrupt and there's huge amounts of intimidation around elections, but is by a long way more democratic than it's ever been (although there was a period in the late 60s-70s where is actually made a lot of progress.)
2) I think modern wars if done right can be pretty dramatically beneficial. The intervention is Kosovo is a great example of this, so is the British intervention is Sierra Leone. I'd also argue the first gulf war was pretty successful - limited loss of men and treasure for the US, helped to uphold the taboo against invading other countries, Kuwait wasn't occupied. I know much less about these, but Granada and Panama also seem good maybe?
I'd say that a better rule than 9/10 aren't worth it is that it's almost never worth starting a war in a stable country even with a monstrous regime, but can quite often be worth intervening when there's already a war going on.
This turned out to be more like one thing, but oh well.
Like I said above "f Course,I am NOT saying that the Kabul bombing was a false flag,to message Taliban,that they were vulnerable EVEN IN KABUL,and EVEN WHEN THE US WAS AT ITS MOST VULNERABLE"
It turns out that it was NOT a FALSE FLAG ! IT WAS JUST FALSE !
Is there a revival of Jehad across the globe ? Or is it Islamism ?
Houthis used a Missile,to attack a Saudi base,in Yemen on the 30th of August,2021 – just after a misifired rocket in Kabul today !
If the US does NOT recognise Taliban and aid them with food,funds and intel,Taliban will have no option but to let loose Daesh and others,in a few provinces.In essence,if the US and IMF do NOT release the funds of the Afghan state,FROZEN by the WEST,then doom is certain.dindooohindoo
It will NOT take much for the exodus of Muslims in EU and US to Afghanistan to join Daesh and others.
In any case,the Leon Uris Exodus from Kabul,has brought Daesh to EU and the US.
So long as Logar and other provinces with the mines are with Taliban – Taliban will not mind leaving Daesh alone, if they are confined to 1 province,using dry land farming,solar power and drip irrigation,for poppy farming – with the caveat that Daesh does NO attacks,after 1st September 2021.
Post 1st September,Taliban will start the REAL WAR in Panjshir and the TESTING WAR on ISIS.The Panjshir war will BURY THE INDIAN WEASELS AND RATS – of they do not aid Masood’s son and Saleh.I bet that the Indian weasels will NOT fund or arm the Panjshir.
Neither will the US,as there will be 1000s of US hostages in Kabul – post 31st August,2021.If the US does not release Afghan funds and unblock Afghan banks – then Taliban MAY NOT, also secure the Americans left behind in Kabul.
The Testing war with Daesh, is to test the western response in terms of rewards to the Taliban,Even when NATO was IN AFGHANISTAN,Taliban had spectacular successes w.r.t. Daesh.Now with no enemies left,Taliban can POTENTIALLY drive out Daesh – BUT ONLY if Taliban gets some benefits !
People write off Daesh too easily.The US had int on 9/11,Kabul airport but COULD NOT STOP IT.In 24 hours of the Kabul attack,the US drones killed the 2 planners – w/o Taliban int and w/o tipping off the Taliban.Such genius, coincidence and providence – just like the fables of the Bible.THE 2 PLANNERS WERE TRAVELLING IN A 3 WHEELED CONTRAPTION IN NANGHAR.- AND THE STORY GETS MORE WONDERFUL ! The Daesh attack ALLOWED THE USAF to drone a target in a soverign nation with a new govtt ! A US message that once they exit, they will do MORE.Of Course,I am NOT saying that the Kabul bombing was a false flag,to message Taliban,that they were vulnerable EVEN IN KABUL,and EVEN WHEN THE US WAS AT ITS MOST VULNERABLE.The Crux is that the US is playing POKER,till the 31st August,2021.
Americans have spent 20 years in Afghanistan.They will have assets and HUMINT,in every 1 square mile of Afghanistan – which they will use to prime effect,once they exit and CERTAINLY,after all US citizens are out of Kabul. – In essence,Anti-Taliban forces,will use Daesh and Fund Daesh – like in Syria and Iraq- where besides Mossad – even the Indians supplied arms,medicines and doctors for ISIS ! There are many nations and kings ,by the Taliban.Even the Americans are capable of using Daesh or false flagging them – especially as their int,on Daesh attacks,is so exquisite.
BEST OPTION is THAT US RELEASES AFGHAN FUNDS,AND TALIBAN TRIANGULATES AND QUARANTINES DAESH,IN 1 PROVINCE – AND THEN WAITS TO SEE THE RESPONSE OF the US AND EU.
ELSE,Taliban will need to bring in PLA,on the pretext of securing the mining concessions,and ore concentrate transportation.There will be a perpetual risk to Taliban,of financial freezes and sanctions. Hence,the time has come for Afghanistan,to adopt the Yuan and take Chinese aid.If every poor Afghan has free food,quality water,free education,free power and some economic employment – Taliban will win the elections – and that is the 1st step to get back the Billions of USD frozen,by the US/EU and Aid institutions.PLA is already in one Northern Province bordering PRC (Badkashan).
Then the next step is PLA ADS,to stop US drone strikes.
PROVIDENCE HAS BROUGHT TALIBAN,PRC,TURKEY AND PAKISTAN TOGETHER FOR 1 PURPOSE – GHAZWA E HIND !
US enters a nation, when it seeks decisive results, and in an emergency or an urgency !
So the 1st thing it needs to do, is to build, breed and maintain, a loyal force, of local military, politicians and bureaucrats
For that, these 3 targets have to ADOPT the ideology, of the US.
Thence, comes in the money to co-opt these 3 targets - by salaries,aid and infra projects - wherein the projects are given to cronies of these 3 targets, to pay off the 3 musketeers ! This is THE GENESIS OF CORRUPTION !
These 3 targets then spread the US ideology, to the masses and some bite - BUT MANY DO NOT - as there is NOT enough money to go around, and that some people, JUST DO NOT WANT ANY IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE - It is the comfort, with the OLD.
Then as time passes the majority are cut off the quasi American elite - and the seeds of permanent war are sown - and that makes the incumbent regime a US puppet.
In a few years,some local or global power supports the masses - and you have TOTAL WAR !
The war is fought by and among locals, with US strat and tech, and some US lives.
The Country is annihilated, and the regime exits and CHAOS resides.
It is the same movie - BUT THAT IS THE WAY THE DIRECTOR WANTED IT ! THE DIRECTOR =US !
The target nation is doomed and will always be a US puppet ,and the regime which exited, is a PERMANENT LONG TERM ASSET of the US,and if all goes well,THE TARGET NATION WILL BE PARTITIONED !
So the US Goals are always MET,albeit at the cost of a few US lives,The Financial Cost is not much !
In Iraq - the OIl offset the cost !
In Afghanistan - it was the 9/11 CAT insurance and the Drugs ! And now,unless the US aids Taliban,the drugs will resume.
Today in Viet - the Viet slit eyes love the Yanki as it is the Yanki alone which can save the Viets from PRC.
And the TRUTH is that the US does NOT CARE ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE.That India's Chabahar and Infra in Afghanistan are blown to smithreens - is of no concern to the US !
Additionally, another weird condition that was met with WW2: the US happened to be in a position where running massive war-spending was necessary to get them out of a 10-year economic depression they otherwise had no plan to deal with.
The key problem here is that our political and senior military apparatus never articulates what it means to “win”, or does so in such expansive ways that winning is impossible.
Even in my own time in Afghanistan, it was never clear what our objectives were beyond platitudes about freedom for the Afghan people.
If we had instead articulated something tangible like: “dislodge the Taliban from national government in Afghanistan” we would have won in 2001.
Two Things:
1. Good post; nice job of delineating between military victory and more comprehensive victory.
2. Noam Chomsky thinks we actually won Vietnam. Not sure if his criteria or framing matches your own, Noah, but he’s a leftie and his judgement is contra to many others on the left. Looking for citation, but having a hard time...
"First, let’s go to the ultimate arbiter of truth: Wikipedia."
LMAO, but seriously, Wikipedia is an amazing resource and the prejudice that middle school history teachers instill against it is unfair.
I see no references to lefties actually making this argument, though I'm sure there are some people on Twitter who do make it (since for every possible argument there is someone on Twitter making it). All I can say is that my experience growing up around a lot of actual lefties, most of them made basically the argument you are making here. Glad you are helping get that message across!
As Keynesian stimulus goes, war is the worst—worse than burying gold to dig up again. In war, we actually pay to destroy capital, and most of the things we build to fight a war have no non-destructive use. Even the technology that might come out of war endeavors is often black-boxed for security reasons. Far better as stimulus to put a woman on the moon or just build a bridge.
It's very strange that you characterize the left as being defined by the position that America loses all it's wars. 1. your anecdotal experiences on twitter do not constitute "the left" and 2. I've never encountered any leftist in my entire life that's cared to make this argument. Sure maybe they exist or somebody has uttered this at some point. But leftists prefer to make the point that wars are unjust and immoral and therefore we shouldn't do them, not that American loses them or something.
You do this frequently where you open up a newsletter article about "the right says this and the left says that" to tee up why both are wrong and you are right. That sometimes works for you but this time it's just straight dumb and sloppy.
I find this post and the comments quite good. I'd like to add two things. First, WW II was an anomaly for another reason than Noah lists: most of fighting in Europe was done by the Soviets, supported by us. If they had given up, the outcome would have been much much different. Second, I think most wars of choice have their ultimate roots in domestic politics. We're an empire, and we have interests around the world. Between WW I and WW II, we were a regional empire. Back then and since 1945, politicians have been able to manipulate us into going to war to deal with illusionary threats. To protect lives and property in the 1920s in the Caribbean and Central America and since 1945 to deal with commie insurgencies, terrorists, etc., the result is almost always unsatisfying, just as they were in dynastic wars in 18th & 19th century Europe.
I mostly agree with you on this argument. However, I have two disagreements with you. One is specific to this piece, the other is about your general approach to political analysis.
My specific issue regards the lack of recognition of the institutional imperatives which encourage excessive reliance on military force. The defence and foreign policy establishment tends to view our possession of the "biggest hammer in the world" as sufficient justification for the exercise of military force for every foreign policy challenge. You don't have to view America as the Great Satan of the world to feel this results in unwise foreign policy choices. Indeed, your essay tends in that direction.
As noted, I find your broad general approach to issues aligns with my own views. However, I'm leery of your Strawman characterization of the "left." The only prominent public figure who coincides with your left label is Noam Chomsky. He has been dismissed by such notably left-wing sources as the New York Review of Books. The broad left in this country is more likely to identify with your approach to application of military force than the extremist views you characterize as Left. Perhaps your critique is influenced by the Bay Area political context. I'm sure there are some loonies out there.
Woe to the statesman whose arguments for entering a war are not as convincing at its end as they were at the beginning.—Bismarck
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.—Karl Rove
Not only did WWII establish an unrealistic standard for victory, but the decades after WWII set a fleeting stage where eye-popping US power and ambition were aligned. They no longer are. We’ve evolved from super power to hegemon and now back to super power. By the end of the century, we might well find ourselves a mere great power. For post-WWII America, individual wars were not a game of chess, but more like a individual moves on a global chess board. Looking back, the question worth asking is just how realistic were our goals and how well did war serve them? Looking forward, we need to ask ourselves how our relatively reduced power can best serve us in a world where full-spectrum dominance no longer exists, and our list of allies grows thin.
Thinking that the second Iraq war could be declared a victory because regime change happened when it’s basically falling apart at the seams… I think you need to read some more.
And no, “Well North Korea is worse ain’t it” perhaps we need to read a book about material conditions, sanctions, and the history of South Korea as well.
“We bombed the hell out of a country and now it’s chaos” is in fact not a win! Yet it describes a lot of military interventions by the US.
The way you can qualify these as victories is through the pense of empire management. You should perhaps argue that that lens is in fact bad, instead of twisting yourself in a knot to reach the same conclusions.
Everything doesn’t need to be proven by graphs. Murdering a bunch of civilians for nebulous reasons, and refusing to clean up things afterwards, is bad.
Was just reading a bunch of early 90s wire service articles about Gulf I, and was mildly surprised to see how vocally Gorbachev advocated for the survival of Saddam's regime. Some articles attributed Gorbachev's preservationism to Iraq's weapons purchases, but it feels like there were a lot of other more subtle factors as well (in part surely genuine ideology opposing Western interventions and fiercely in favor of nearly unlimited national sovereignty).
Part of the reason wars were harder and murkier post WWII is that there was often a massive global power on one side with a client (ok, usually on both sides).
It sounds like there was a brief spirit of cooperation to roll up the brushfire wars in the early 90s and jointly pressure for resolutions, but I just don't think that was sustained. Maybe it was never really sustainable, given the lack of focus and commitment across leaders in both countries, and the actual policy costs to divesting from the outcomes of these conflicts.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/08/03/The-Cold-War-replaced-by-Third-World-Hot-Wars/2608649656000/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-19-mn-1526-story.html
I also am deeply curious how much of the Japan / Germany / South Korea results relied (1) on massive resource in-flows from the US, (2) on better postwar administration, (3) on re-constitutionalization (sometimes with radically reduced security spending allowing a peace dividend), or (4) on societies that were already heavily invested in radically transforming their economies pre-war anyway merely continuing that trend.
There are some million books and podcasts covering strategy and tactics for winning and losing wars. Then there's some paltry handful about postwar administration. If nobody cares about how to do a thing well it will probably not get done well. And if you utterly fail at the postwar stuff it's going to make the rest of it look more like a failure regardless of how it went tactically.
Two things.
1) I think almost everyone dramatically underates how positive the impact of the US intervention in Afghanistan was. Afghanistan in 2001 was not like Iraq in 2003. It was a in the midst of a civil war between the Taliban/Durrani Pashtuns and The Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks) and the US intervention changed which side won. If you just look at population, life expectancy, GDP per capita you can see how much better this situation is for Afghanistan than pre US intervention. The Taliban are now mostly a governing force only in Pashtun areas.
I think it's also a mistake to say that the Afghan government is an unsupported puppet government. Election turn outs are really high despite massive personal risk and people are even voting for candidates not in their ethnic group! (https://repository.upenn.edu/senior_seminar/13/)
Afghanistan is massively massively corrupt and there's huge amounts of intimidation around elections, but is by a long way more democratic than it's ever been (although there was a period in the late 60s-70s where is actually made a lot of progress.)
2) I think modern wars if done right can be pretty dramatically beneficial. The intervention is Kosovo is a great example of this, so is the British intervention is Sierra Leone. I'd also argue the first gulf war was pretty successful - limited loss of men and treasure for the US, helped to uphold the taboo against invading other countries, Kuwait wasn't occupied. I know much less about these, but Granada and Panama also seem good maybe?
I'd say that a better rule than 9/10 aren't worth it is that it's almost never worth starting a war in a stable country even with a monstrous regime, but can quite often be worth intervening when there's already a war going on.
This turned out to be more like one thing, but oh well.
Like I said above "f Course,I am NOT saying that the Kabul bombing was a false flag,to message Taliban,that they were vulnerable EVEN IN KABUL,and EVEN WHEN THE US WAS AT ITS MOST VULNERABLE"
It turns out that it was NOT a FALSE FLAG ! IT WAS JUST FALSE !
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000007963596/us-drone-attack-kabul-investigation.html
Like I said !
I must be divine ! dindooohindoo
Is there a revival of Jehad across the globe ? Or is it Islamism ?
Houthis used a Missile,to attack a Saudi base,in Yemen on the 30th of August,2021 – just after a misifired rocket in Kabul today !
If the US does NOT recognise Taliban and aid them with food,funds and intel,Taliban will have no option but to let loose Daesh and others,in a few provinces.In essence,if the US and IMF do NOT release the funds of the Afghan state,FROZEN by the WEST,then doom is certain.dindooohindoo
It will NOT take much for the exodus of Muslims in EU and US to Afghanistan to join Daesh and others.
In any case,the Leon Uris Exodus from Kabul,has brought Daesh to EU and the US.
So long as Logar and other provinces with the mines are with Taliban – Taliban will not mind leaving Daesh alone, if they are confined to 1 province,using dry land farming,solar power and drip irrigation,for poppy farming – with the caveat that Daesh does NO attacks,after 1st September 2021.
Post 1st September,Taliban will start the REAL WAR in Panjshir and the TESTING WAR on ISIS.The Panjshir war will BURY THE INDIAN WEASELS AND RATS – of they do not aid Masood’s son and Saleh.I bet that the Indian weasels will NOT fund or arm the Panjshir.
Neither will the US,as there will be 1000s of US hostages in Kabul – post 31st August,2021.If the US does not release Afghan funds and unblock Afghan banks – then Taliban MAY NOT, also secure the Americans left behind in Kabul.
The Testing war with Daesh, is to test the western response in terms of rewards to the Taliban,Even when NATO was IN AFGHANISTAN,Taliban had spectacular successes w.r.t. Daesh.Now with no enemies left,Taliban can POTENTIALLY drive out Daesh – BUT ONLY if Taliban gets some benefits !
People write off Daesh too easily.The US had int on 9/11,Kabul airport but COULD NOT STOP IT.In 24 hours of the Kabul attack,the US drones killed the 2 planners – w/o Taliban int and w/o tipping off the Taliban.Such genius, coincidence and providence – just like the fables of the Bible.THE 2 PLANNERS WERE TRAVELLING IN A 3 WHEELED CONTRAPTION IN NANGHAR.- AND THE STORY GETS MORE WONDERFUL ! The Daesh attack ALLOWED THE USAF to drone a target in a soverign nation with a new govtt ! A US message that once they exit, they will do MORE.Of Course,I am NOT saying that the Kabul bombing was a false flag,to message Taliban,that they were vulnerable EVEN IN KABUL,and EVEN WHEN THE US WAS AT ITS MOST VULNERABLE.The Crux is that the US is playing POKER,till the 31st August,2021.
Americans have spent 20 years in Afghanistan.They will have assets and HUMINT,in every 1 square mile of Afghanistan – which they will use to prime effect,once they exit and CERTAINLY,after all US citizens are out of Kabul. – In essence,Anti-Taliban forces,will use Daesh and Fund Daesh – like in Syria and Iraq- where besides Mossad – even the Indians supplied arms,medicines and doctors for ISIS ! There are many nations and kings ,by the Taliban.Even the Americans are capable of using Daesh or false flagging them – especially as their int,on Daesh attacks,is so exquisite.
BEST OPTION is THAT US RELEASES AFGHAN FUNDS,AND TALIBAN TRIANGULATES AND QUARANTINES DAESH,IN 1 PROVINCE – AND THEN WAITS TO SEE THE RESPONSE OF the US AND EU.
ELSE,Taliban will need to bring in PLA,on the pretext of securing the mining concessions,and ore concentrate transportation.There will be a perpetual risk to Taliban,of financial freezes and sanctions. Hence,the time has come for Afghanistan,to adopt the Yuan and take Chinese aid.If every poor Afghan has free food,quality water,free education,free power and some economic employment – Taliban will win the elections – and that is the 1st step to get back the Billions of USD frozen,by the US/EU and Aid institutions.PLA is already in one Northern Province bordering PRC (Badkashan).
Then the next step is PLA ADS,to stop US drone strikes.
PROVIDENCE HAS BROUGHT TALIBAN,PRC,TURKEY AND PAKISTAN TOGETHER FOR 1 PURPOSE – GHAZWA E HIND !
Y does the US leave a trail of destruction ?
US enters a nation, when it seeks decisive results, and in an emergency or an urgency !
So the 1st thing it needs to do, is to build, breed and maintain, a loyal force, of local military, politicians and bureaucrats
For that, these 3 targets have to ADOPT the ideology, of the US.
Thence, comes in the money to co-opt these 3 targets - by salaries,aid and infra projects - wherein the projects are given to cronies of these 3 targets, to pay off the 3 musketeers ! This is THE GENESIS OF CORRUPTION !
These 3 targets then spread the US ideology, to the masses and some bite - BUT MANY DO NOT - as there is NOT enough money to go around, and that some people, JUST DO NOT WANT ANY IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE - It is the comfort, with the OLD.
Then as time passes the majority are cut off the quasi American elite - and the seeds of permanent war are sown - and that makes the incumbent regime a US puppet.
In a few years,some local or global power supports the masses - and you have TOTAL WAR !
The war is fought by and among locals, with US strat and tech, and some US lives.
The Country is annihilated, and the regime exits and CHAOS resides.
It is the same movie - BUT THAT IS THE WAY THE DIRECTOR WANTED IT ! THE DIRECTOR =US !
The target nation is doomed and will always be a US puppet ,and the regime which exited, is a PERMANENT LONG TERM ASSET of the US,and if all goes well,THE TARGET NATION WILL BE PARTITIONED !
So the US Goals are always MET,albeit at the cost of a few US lives,The Financial Cost is not much !
In Iraq - the OIl offset the cost !
In Afghanistan - it was the 9/11 CAT insurance and the Drugs ! And now,unless the US aids Taliban,the drugs will resume.
Today in Viet - the Viet slit eyes love the Yanki as it is the Yanki alone which can save the Viets from PRC.
And the TRUTH is that the US does NOT CARE ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE.That India's Chabahar and Infra in Afghanistan are blown to smithreens - is of no concern to the US !
But then Y should the US care ? dindooohindoo
Additionally, another weird condition that was met with WW2: the US happened to be in a position where running massive war-spending was necessary to get them out of a 10-year economic depression they otherwise had no plan to deal with.