OK, I will probably regret this, but I'm going to do a thread on Afghanistan, because something about the current discourse is baffling me. I'll lay out the situation as I see it & then hopefully someone smart can answer my question.
We've been in Afghanistan for 20 years. At first it was to diminish terrorist capacity, but that pretty quickly faded & the new mission was state-building: building a gov't & a military that could prevent the Taliban from taking back over.
Through all those 20 years, all the surges & drone strikes & wasted money & lost lives, we have failed utterly in that mission. The gov't was weak & lacked support outside Kabul. The military was a shitshow (often responsible for its own atrocities).
We've known for a while that the state-building is futile (Biden told Obama when he was VP), but in US politics, sticking w/ a disastrous military intervention is less politically risky than ending one, so no one actually did it until Biden.
More or less everyone knew that, when the US finally left, the Taliban would take back over. Worth repeating: everyone knew this. No one knew or proposed any way of avoiding it, other than staying there forever. Some hawks would be fine w/ that, but the US people weren't.
Now, Biden -- along with *everyone else*, including US intelligence agencies -- believed that, while the gov't & military were weak, they would, at least, fight off the Taliban for a few weeks or months. Everyone thought that Taliban takeover would take a while.
It is obviously clear now that the Taliban was more prepared, and the gov't & military even weaker, than anticipated. The takeover happened much faster than anyone (again: anyone) predicted. It made for some ugly imagery, though things have proceeded fairly well since.
So, here are some possible criticisms of Biden: 1. He should have prevented the Taliban takeover. But the only way he could have done that is by staying forever. Unless you support that, you're acknowledging that the harms of Taliban takeover were inevitable.
2. He should have evacuated Americans & allies before announcing the withdrawal. But as Biden has said, doing so would have been waving a giant red flag -- an unmistakeable signal to everyone that the gov't & military were going to collapse. He didn't want to signal that. Now ...
... in retrospect, given how rapid the takeover was, it probably wouldn't have made much difference. But again, no one knew it would be so fast. The admin wanted to give the gov't & military a sporting chance. That made sense given the info they had at the time.
3. Biden should have slowed down the Taliban takeover, to give more time for orderly withdrawal of Americans & allies. But the only way to do that would have been yet another "surge" of troops. As Biden asked, would you want your kid to be the last one to die in a futile war?
4. Given how rapid the Taliban takeover turned out to be, Biden should have evacuated more ... competently. But what does this mean? There have been comparatively few lost lives. People are getting out now. How, *specifically*, should Biden have evacuated differently?
The characteristic feature of Afghanistan discourse among pundits & VSPs is that virtually no one grapples with these questions honestly. You've got pundits who haven't said shit about a disastrous waste of money & lives for 20 years suddenly caring.
You've got Republicans who wouldn't piss on a refugee if they were on fire going on TV to weep crocodile tears about the Afghanis left behind. You've got people waving their hands around "competence" while refusing to say what could have been done differently.
You've got people still putting "Biden's catastrophe" in their headlines when, after one chaotic/ugly day, we've had five days of relatively orderly withdrawal, with very few casualties. You've got the Republican architects of this whole epic fuckup on TV backseat driving (😡)!
Here's what happened: we got hit on 9/11, it activated all our worst impulses, we lunged into an endless war with no chance of success, we predictably failed, and now an elite class with a lifetime of American-exceptionalism delusions just can't fucking deal with it.
It is tragic what's happening in Afghanistan. It's tragic what's *going* to happen, especially to women & girls, especially to Afghanis who put their lives on the line to help us. It's absolutely awful. But after 20 years, we have to accept: there's not much we can do about it.
Turns out we're not the world's Superman, just a blundering, violent oaf, stepping on rakes. It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially for a relatively insular US population that has had nationalist mythology blown up its ass for as long as it's been alive.
But it is dysfunctional & dishonest to take all that negative feeling, all that humiliation & impotence & rage, & channel it into ... bashing Joe Biden, the president who finally had the gonads to end this thing. Ending it was always going to be ugly. The choice ...
... was an ugly ending or staying there forever. Just once, I'd like to see this country grow the fuck up & take responsibility for its mistakes & acknowledge the limits of its power, to see itself from the outside rather than from within a haze of self-serving mythologies.
As it is, looking around at the way US elites have responded to this, I have no faith that we won't do something equally stupid in response to another attack. We refuse to learn.
Anyway, that's my Afghanistan take. Had to get it off my chest. You may yell at me now. </fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is just one way that the entire system is set up to ensure 50/50 results. It's homeostatic -- if one side starts to do well, systems (journalism, polling, PAC money) move into action to balance it.
If you get a poll leaning in one direction, it prompts polls leaning in the other direction. If one side's rich people create a substantial spending advantage, the other side's rich people ratchet up their spending.
And above all: if there's a Puerto-Rico-joke PR disaster on one side, it prompts effusive "Biden gaffe" coverage on the other side.
This homeostasis is not the result of any grand conspiracy, it's just an outcome of politics infused with money & treated like a reality show.
I'm glad I don't have to write an endorsement piece, because I really wouldn't know how to go about it. Ever since 2015, when Trump descended the escalator, I have had the same feeling, which I've never quite seen articulated, so I will briefly try:
It's basically this: Trump is so obviously, manifestly repugnant -- his words, his gestures, his behavior, his history -- that it strikes me like a tsunami. It's a kind of total, perfect, seamless repugnance that I've never witnessed before in my life. Which means ...
... pointing out some particular piece of the repugnance & arguing against it feels ... surreal, I guess. "He has regularly sexually assaulted women, almost certainly raped a few, and ... I think that's bad."
Yeah. I mean, I think rape is bad. But here's the thing ...
Christ, reading anything about the rise of Hitler is so unsettling these days. The key thing is that there was nothing inevitable about it -- he rose to power thanks to a few thoughtless decisions by the small, feckless men around him. Sound familiar?
Goebbels, 1928: "The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction."
It's also chilling to read how many times the Nazis failed before they succeeded -- they were broke & unpopular in the early 1930s -- and how many times they were written off. Hitler dismissed all these press reports as a "witch hunt." Sound familiar?
Bezos is just doing what the entire US elite has done for years, what many many center-left pundits still do constantly: contemplate the results of a coordinated 60-year assault on media (& other mainstream institutions) from the right & conclude a) this is our fault, and ...
... b) if we cringe more, indulge in even more self-hatred, blunt accuracy even more in the name of "balance," bend over farther backward, we can reclaim the trust of people who have said, clearly, for decades now, that they want us dead & gone, not improved.
You see the heads of institution after institution -- social media, academia, etc. -- submit to this same shit. It's difficult to tell which of them are actually dumb enough to fall for it & which of them secretly agree with the RW, but either way the result is the same.
Thank you @Mike_Podhorzer for writing this so that I feel slightly less insane. The US is on the verge of real, bona fide, violent fascism of the sort we gawk at in history books and, to a first approximation, our civic leaders don't seem that worried. weekendreading.net/p/sleepwalking…
We are, in other words, sleepwalking our way into fascism *exactly the same way previous countries have sleepwalked their way into fascism*. Exactly. All the same beats, the same dynamics, the same rhetoric. We have learned NOTHING from history. It's just fucking amazing.
Nothing makes me want to simultaneously laugh & puke these days quite like the phrase "never again." Everyone says that in the wake of every fascist atrocity, with great solemnity, and yet we do it again. And again. We're doing it again right fucking now.
This quote from Trump captures the beating heart of reactionary authoritarianism better than anything I've ever seen: "I think it is a threat. I think everything is a threat. There is nothing that is not a threat."
That is not a conclusion drawn from evidence, it is ...
... reflective of deep psychological, even neurological, structures. For whatever reason -- genetics, early childhood development, whatever -- Trump has been left with hyperactive "sensitivity to threat," as they call it. Everything else issues from that.
High sensitivity to threat yields the classic authoritarian personality: averse to ambiguity or uncertainty; attracted to simplicity & clear lines between in groups & out groups; selfishness & an assumption that *everyone* is selfish & only threat of punishment maintains order.