the Taliban would hit back harshly. A small US force in Afghanistan could not have contained that offensive.
GOP critics knew the deal was Trump's and supported it. So most of the Fox critics about 'leaving our people behind' were bad faith.
The real issue is American
3
Exceptionalism. That's why the media framing in August was about humiliation, resolve, and credibility, rather than cutting our losses, accepting the reality that the war was unwinnable, or pulling back from overextension. Americans just don't want to hear that we made a
4
mistake of this magnitude.
So instead it was all: 'if we just stay a few more Friedman Units, we can win and justify all the bloodshed.' That is a recipe for never leaving any forever wars. If we followed that advice in the 1970s, we'd still be in
Sometimes you just have to admit that you erred - badly in this case - and pull back and move on. Biden deserves enormous credit for finally seeing that and breaking with the inertia of just staying indefinitely and vainly hoping for a break.
They won't seriously risk their rule or material perks for a psychological (nationalist) pay-off. In fact, IMO, both Koreas are de facto status quo states, despite de jure revisionism:
1. Talk is Cheap
So sure, both Koreas talk tough and maintain formal commitments to
2
unification, but talk is cheap obviously and leaders lie a lot. Unification might be formally retained as an end-goal, but only as a far-off, de rigeur ideal recited ceremonially, rather than actually seriously planned for or built into NK strategy. I could be convinced of the
quagmire with no obvious endpoint. That is not K at all. The war has been over since mid-1953, and it is NK, not the allies, who provokes. The lack of paperwork - a formal peace treaty - has no bearing on the empirical situation on the ground which is far from open conflict.
2
B. A 'War-Ending Declaration' (종전선언) is a legally bizarre neologism which no one really understands
The only reason this strange language is used is bc the Moon government's first effort to get a 'peace treaty' failed, as did its second, vaguer 'peace regime' effort. So
THREAD: Strategically, 9/11 was a one-off sucker-punch. That’s it.
1. 9/11 did not ‘change everything.’ In fact, it changed surprisingly little
This language was deployed to create political space for a vast expansion of US coercion, especially in the Middle East. If all the
1
rules have suddenly changed, then all sorts of behavior are suddenly permissible – like domestic spying, torture, and Iraq. But strategically, 9/11 did not change that much: US GDP continued to expand; US military power was scarcely affected; US alliances did not fracture; the
2
stock market re-opened after a few days and did not crash; gas prices did not spike; the global Islamic revolution Osama Bin Laden hoped this would ignite did not materialize:
If the Afghan withdrawal & 20th anniversary of 9/11 can wind-down our big foot-print 'war on terror' (for a more measured counter-terrorism), here is a quick case for greater restraint:
of empires/hegemonies is too many commitments and too few resources. We should, obviously, avoid such overstretch, & given rising China, US commitments in the Middle East particularly (Afghanistan, e.g.) should be re-considered
2. Domestic/Democratic: Blowback Militarization
2
The post-9/11 militarization of US foreign policy has come home: in the torture debate (yes, we actually 'debated' torture), domestic surveillance, endemic governmental secrecy, near reverence on military and police issues (just watch Fox for 5 minutes),and the militarization/
If Afghanistan collapses this fast, there wasn’t actually that much there to lose. If anything, the rapid collapse indicates just how accurate were all those leaks over the last
1
decade, including the A Papers, about how little progress we were making, how corrupt the government was, how soft its military’s independent capabilities were, and so on.
2. Demagogic: ‘Did our soldiers die for nothing?’
That is an emotionally manipulative version of the
2
sunk cost fallacy. We cannot bring back our war dead. If we must stay in an unwinnable conflict to ‘honor their sacrifice,’ then we condemn more to die later. That’s immoral. The logic of this argument means also we can never leave a commitment, no matter misconceived, which