World Politics Thread

[andruid]

more presidents means more democracy right? thats how this works?

Not just in Afghanistan, but in Kenya and Guinea Bissau too.

 

[hendrix]

terrorism reaches a new low.

at least 24 dead in an attack on a maternity ward in Afghanistan.

who the **** attacks a maternity ward. Just unbelievable. To think we were starting to get numb to this ****

 

[Spark]

Sometimes it's easy to forget that all available evidence is that the majority of the Afghan populace really wants some sort of ongoing US military presence within the country. This probably illustrates why.

 

[hendrix]

Sometimes it's easy to forget that all available evidence is that the majority of the Afghan populace really wants some sort of ongoing US military presence within the country.

what

 

[hendrix]

.............

 

[GIMH]

Sometimes it's easy to forget that all available evidence is that the majority of the Afghan populace really wants some sort of ongoing US military presence within the country. This probably illustrates why.

There's bad takes and then there's this

 

[Spark]

There's bad takes and then there's this

Sorry that the world doesn't fall simply into ideologically convenient boxes?

It's not an endorsement or a statement of opinion. All available public evidence is that there was intense public pressure on the Afghan government, particularly at the two most recent elections, to sign a security partnership with the US prior to any withdrawal taking place.

 

[StephenZA]

Did not Afghanistan and America have quite good relations until the Soviets stepped in in the 70's sometime? Followed by an invasions?

 

[Spark]

For example, here are the figures of a yearly Asia Foundation survey asking Afghans if the Afghan army needs foreign support to provide security for the country since 2015: 83%, 86%, 85%, 85%, before plummeting in 2019 to the tiny figure of 83%. There's also this:

The continued presence of foreign military forces in Afghanistan is viewed by 53.2% of Afghans as not too important or not important at all in any negotiated deal.

You tell me if "there is strong public support for a continued US presence in the country to support the ANA" is unjustified on those figures. There's also, at the same time, strong support for a peace deal between the US and the Taliban. Maybe US domestic politics and domestic political pundits are not the best gauges of Afghan public opinion?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...reStory/correction-afghanistan-story-68525439

 

[Spark]

The majority of Afghans surveyed said they feared their homeland would descend into civil war if America pulls out its troops without first getting a peace deal.

This is exactly what I said...? I'm not seeing the contradiction here. Maybe the word "ongoing" was slightly imprecise but the point is that they want the peace deal as a precondition, and they want US support at least until that happens (and there's a bit of ambiguity in what is meant by "foreign troops" - other surveys have indicated high levels of support for a training role, which I would certainly count as a 'presence')

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

"Ongoing" is pretty important though.

 

[Spark]

"Ongoing" is pretty important though.

Sure, but it depends on the details tbh. But it's certainly a far cry from the "Afghans are desperate to kick the Americans out!" meme that you hear at times. What the surveys I've read indicate they really don't want is the US calling the shots in the peace process for domestic US political purposes. That doesn't mean that the widespread concerns that the ANA might not be up to the task of securing the country without US/NATO support are a fabrication.

 

[GIMH]

Sorry that the world doesn't fall simply into ideologically convenient boxes?

It's not an endorsement or a statement of opinion. All available public evidence is that there was intense public pressure on the Afghan government, particularly at the two most recent elections, to sign a security partnership with the US prior to any withdrawal taking place.

Ideologically convenient? Or simply does your statement ignore the context of what might have led people to feel like that in the first place?

 

[hendrix]

For example, here are the figures of a yearly Asia Foundation survey asking Afghans if the Afghan army needs foreign support to provide security for the country since 2015: 83%, 86%, 85%, 85%, before plummeting in 2019 to the tiny figure of 83%. There's also this:



You tell me if "there is strong public support for a continued US presence in the country to support the ANA" is unjustified on those figures. There's also, at the same time, strong support for a peace deal between the US and the Taliban. Maybe US domestic politics and domestic political pundits are not the best gauges of Afghan public opinion?

??? what on earth do those figures have to do with your bolded statement?

You're asking an entirely different question?

Bizarre logic.

This is exactly what I said...? I'm not seeing the contradiction here. Maybe the word "ongoing" was slightly imprecise but the point is that they want the peace deal as a precondition, and they want US support at least until that happens (and there's a bit of ambiguity in what is meant by "foreign troops" - other surveys have indicated high levels of support for a training role, which I would certainly count as a 'presence')

? Weird comments tbh

 

[hendrix]

Sure, but it depends on the details tbh. But it's certainly a far cry from the "Afghans are desperate to kick the Americans out!" meme that you hear at times. What the surveys I've read indicate they really don't want is the US calling the shots in the peace process for domestic US political purposes. That doesn't mean that the widespread concerns that the ANA might not be up to the task of securing the country without US/NATO support are a fabrication.

what on earth are you talking about.

Afghans are not "desperate to kick the americans out" because they basically already have.

Also lol at Afghans' "fear of the country descending into a civil war". errr when did the civil war end? I mean unless you're saying it's ended now because the Taliban have already won (closer to reality than the other way around...just look at a map)

Sure, many (most even) Afghans are not happy of the prospect of the Taliban returning to full power. Doesn't mean they want ongoing US presence because errr...look where that got them...the Taliban already runs most of the country anyway so unless the US is gonna do another full scale invasion that's not changing with or without US presence.

 

[Spark]

what on earth are you talking about.

Afghans are not "desperate to kick the americans out" because they basically already have.

Also lol at Afghans' "fear of the country descending into a civil war". errr when did the civil war end? I mean unless you're saying it's ended now because the Taliban have already won (closer to reality than the other way around...just look at a map)

Sure, many (most even) Afghans are not happy of the prospect of the Taliban returning to full power. Doesn't mean they want ongoing US presence because errr...look where that got them...the Taliban already runs most of the country anyway so unless the US is gonna do another full scale invasion that's not changing with or without US presence.

Errr... what? Have you done this?

Who controls the major population centres in the country? Is the Taliban in charge in Kabul, Herat, Kandahar now? What an utterly bizarre characterisation of the situation in the country. There is no reasonable characterisation of the war in which the Taliban has "already won" given that its quite obvious goal is to replace the central government, and the central government is still there and controls more districts of the country than the Taliban by a margin of 3 or 4 to 1, with a remaining third of the country being actively contested. The fear is, yes, that once the US goes then the central government will collapse, but the US is still there. That's why there's demand to get a peace deal done first that allows US troop withdrawal (but you are a naive man if you think that even that means that every US soldier will be gone from the country any time soon).

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-territory-control.html

His own analysis in The Long War Journal has the Afghan government controlling 143 of the country’s districts (35 percent) and the insurgents 53 districts (13 percent), with 202 districts contested (49.6 percent).

This does not look like "a civil war that has already ended because the people controlling 13% of the country have already won".

But oh well, no one cares about Afghanistan beyond domestic political contexts, so why bother assessing the actual facts of the situation?

 

[hendrix]

Errr... what? Have you done this?

Who controls the major population centres in the country? Is the Taliban in charge in Kabul, Herat, Kandahar now? What an utterly bizarre characterisation of the situation in the country. There is no reasonable characterisation of the war in which the Taliban has "already won" given that its quite obvious goal is to replace the central government, and the central government is still there and controls more districts of the country than the Taliban by a margin of 4 to 1, with a remaining third of the country being actively contested. The fear is, yes, that once the US goes then the central government will collapse, but the US is still there. That's why there's demand to get a peace deal done first that allows US troop withdrawal (but you are a naive man if you think that even that means that every US soldier will be gone from the country any time soon).

I dunno, I would have thought that "The War On Terrorism", with its express goal of eliminating the Taliban, has failed. And given Taliban forces control about half the country, and the US is now negotiating terms of retreat, yeah I'd say that a pretty reasonable case for the Taliban winning could be made.

As horrible as that is.

the naivety is in thinking that this is anything other than terms of retreat. It negotiated a big fat zero for the current government.

 

[Spark]

I dunno, I would have thought that "The War On Terrorism", with its express goal of eliminating the Taliban, has failed. And given Taliban forces control about half the country, and the US is now negotiating terms of retreat, yeah I'd say that a pretty reasonable case for the Taliban winning could be made.

As horrible as that is.

the naivety is in thinking that this is anything other than terms of retreat.

Cite a source that says they control half the country. Like, any source.

And surely to win a war you have to achieve your own aims, which in the Taliban's case is to replace the central government and restore the pre-2001 order. They clearly are not yet capable of doing so. Why is the American-centric characterisation of the war the only valid one here?

 

[honestbharani]

Plus Trump pulling troops out is more of a selfish choice on his part than a concession of defeat. He probably wants the army guys to help build the wall or something.