Pretty much spot on; the only way for Afghanistan to have succeeded as a democracy would have required multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion.
Only once the pre-occupation population dies out (or at least severely diminished due to old age) - and are replaced by successive generations that grew up in that environment - would it become self-sustaining.
It’s very easy to dismiss the Afghan people have “always been like that” - all the while forgetting that the current religious ferver is mostly due to a power vacuum following the failed Soviet invasion of the late ‘80s.
Prior to that, the metropolitan areas weren’t all that different to pre-revolution Iran.
That’s overly reductive, and not very accurate - would you describe West Germany and Japan as colonised post-WW2?
While an imperfect comparison, I’d liken it more to reparations; if someone were to drive a bulldozer through your house, should they not be responsible for ensuring that the property is fully repaired and you as the homeowner made whole?
Afghanistan pre-Soviet invasion was not too dissimilar to Iran pre-Revolution; it was only once the US abandoned the reconstruction following the collapse of the USSR, that Afghanistan found itself under the despotic rule of the Taliban.
This directly lead to the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghanistan war. Now, by again abandoning their allies in the fledgling Afghan Government and allowing it to fall back into radicalised hands - it has ultimately devalued all of the hard work the US had spent for the prior 20 years.
Would you describe West Germany and Japan as colonised post-WW2?
Obviously yes? They both literally have american military base on their soil to this day. They empowered fascists infiltrating security services and the governement.
“Obviously”? No. Especially given that most academic discussion on the subject is most coached in nuance - it more reflects your black and white worldview more than the complex truth of the matter.
Military occupation of a conquered adversary? Sure, that one a definite tick.
Cultural and ideological domination? Hardly, both nations have their own distinct cultural and ideological identities.
Economic exploitation? Japan was one of the biggest economic forces through to the mid-90s, and Germany has the largest GDP in Europe. One can’t argue with a straight face they were exploited - especially given how vanquished adversaries were treated prior to WW2.
Political control and loss of sovereignty? Strike three, unless you’re seriously going to try and insinuate that somehow neither Germany nor Japan have sovereignty?
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
Don’t believe that? Look at what happened in Afghanistan following the collapse of the provisional government.
Given their most recent acts of war (and war crimes) in Iran, inability to sufficiently defend their Gulf state “allies” from retaliatory strikes, and going fanatical support of the Zionist regime in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more nations evict US military bases from their territories in the near future.
TL;DR - just because you don’t like something, doesn’t automatically make it “colonisation”. The world is a million shades of grey, so stop trying to call half of it black.
Beside, you literally wish for afghanistan “multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion” (your words). How is that not colonisation? Quit contradicting yourself
It’s not a contradiction to want to see Afghanistan restored to how it was pre-Soviet invasion; the US is arguably just as responsible as the USSR was for Afghanistan’s fall into religious fundamentalism, due to abandoning its reconstruction following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Undoing that level of cultural damage takes a long time, in order to ensure subsequent generations aren’t radicalised. So while it does suck, it would have taken at least another generation of occupation to shape a more democratic and progressive future for Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the US isn’t as good at nation building as it once was - it’s actually not as good at a lot of things, as it once was.
The debate is weather occupying afghanistan would have been justified. You say yes, I say no. Nor was it justified to occupy western europe after the war. Or japan.
I mean you want to colonise Iran so why on earth would I think you’re unbiased.
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
I want to colonise Iran? Be careful you don’t pull a hamstring jumping to those sorts of conclusions!
While I have no love for the Ayatollah and the IRGC, the US and Israel are the unprovoked aggressors in this conflict, and I look forward to their defeat and inevitable retreat from this war. I just hope that they are made to pay for the death and destruction they have caused over the past month.
As pointed out earlier in the chain:
Occupation ≠ Colonisation
See,I live in an area of Australia that has a large proportion of Afghani refugees; these people are my friends, neighbours and colleagues. Our children go to the same schools, play the same sports, and spend their free time together. We regularly catch up on weekends for birthday parties and barbecues.
These people did not arrive here because the US was occupying Afghanistan - they all fled just as the US pulled out. All they want is to live in a country where their sisters, wives and daughters were free to express themselves, for everyone to be free from persecution by religious zealots, and a chance of freedom to experience the sort of life their grandparents had up until the USSR invaded in 1979.
The US had already let down their parents generation once before, abandoning those „gallant people of Afghanistan” following the fall of the Soviet Union, by failing to follow through with their own Marshall Plan style reconstruction.
So when it comes to the US militarily occupying that same nation just some ~12 years later - yes, I think that seeing through the reconstruction of said nation to its pre-1979 state is the least the US should be responsible for. That the US quit and failed in this task, should be a black mark against the soul of the nation.
if someone were to drive a bulldozer through your house, should they not be responsible for ensuring that the property is fully repaired and you as the homeowner made whole?
…so anyone who owns a construction yard in this analogy has carte blanche to demolish as many houses as they want without any penalty or repercussions?
You think reconstruction of europe after the war was made for shit and giggles? They reconstructed europe because its good business. America made money out of the marchall plan, it’s no charity. The same ways colonisers didn’t go to africa to help poor people develop out of charity. They went there to open new markets, forcibly if needed.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn’t be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn’t be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Firstly, sticking with the original analogy - the construction company that does the damage doesn’t need to be the one contracted to rebuild, but it should definitely should be held accountable and foot the bill - reparations are a thing for a reason.
Secondly, the US made money as a result of the Marshall Plan (which was largely grants, not loans) - because rebuilding Europe meant additional friendly markets for which to trade with, but also because it would serve to prevent the same dire economic circumstances that befell Europe in the aftermath of WW1, leading to the rise of the Nazi Party, and ultimately WW2.
Doing an ostensibly good thing, even for purely selfish reasons, where one stands to benefit from others also doing well, is not inherently a bad thing. The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is fitting - or maybe I’m just a Consequentialist at heart.
ah yes and I guess the UK colonized India to civilise them, out of sheer charity? “Open new market” = force them to use the colonizers services and industry. Quit being fucking naive. Hell the US is still forcing us to buy their shitty planes. The US killed left-wing politicians. The US empowered nazis in intelligence services so we wouldn’t grow too close to the USSR.
Of course the US should foot the bill. In kind. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Iran nor anywhere else they destroyed.
„Opening a new market” in this case means funding and rebuilding an otherwise war obliterated continent with next to no means of housing or feeding its people; or are you seriously arguing that they should have just left it all to the Soviet army to rape, pillage and plunder like they did to Eastern Europe?
I’m not being naive, you’re just being obstinate.
The US is capable of some vehemently abhorrent action, but the Marshall Plan was not one of them.
Of course the US should foot the bill. In kind. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Iran nor anywhere else they destroyed.
So America can at max half ass all their decisions without thinking of the long term aside from the money the private military contractors made during 20 years? Got it make sure the USA stays the fuck out of the middle east
Pretty much spot on; the only way for Afghanistan to have succeeded as a democracy would have required multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion.
Only once the pre-occupation population dies out (or at least severely diminished due to old age) - and are replaced by successive generations that grew up in that environment - would it become self-sustaining.
It’s very easy to dismiss the Afghan people have “always been like that” - all the while forgetting that the current religious ferver is mostly due to a power vacuum following the failed Soviet invasion of the late ‘80s.
Prior to that, the metropolitan areas weren’t all that different to pre-revolution Iran.
you’re describing colonisation
That’s overly reductive, and not very accurate - would you describe West Germany and Japan as colonised post-WW2?
While an imperfect comparison, I’d liken it more to reparations; if someone were to drive a bulldozer through your house, should they not be responsible for ensuring that the property is fully repaired and you as the homeowner made whole?
Afghanistan pre-Soviet invasion was not too dissimilar to Iran pre-Revolution; it was only once the US abandoned the reconstruction following the collapse of the USSR, that Afghanistan found itself under the despotic rule of the Taliban.
This directly lead to the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghanistan war. Now, by again abandoning their allies in the fledgling Afghan Government and allowing it to fall back into radicalised hands - it has ultimately devalued all of the hard work the US had spent for the prior 20 years.
Obviously yes? They both literally have american military base on their soil to this day. They empowered fascists infiltrating security services and the governement.
You’re a mad man
“Obviously”? No. Especially given that most academic discussion on the subject is most coached in nuance - it more reflects your black and white worldview more than the complex truth of the matter.
Military occupation of a conquered adversary? Sure, that one a definite tick.
Cultural and ideological domination? Hardly, both nations have their own distinct cultural and ideological identities.
Economic exploitation? Japan was one of the biggest economic forces through to the mid-90s, and Germany has the largest GDP in Europe. One can’t argue with a straight face they were exploited - especially given how vanquished adversaries were treated prior to WW2.
Political control and loss of sovereignty? Strike three, unless you’re seriously going to try and insinuate that somehow neither Germany nor Japan have sovereignty?
True, the US has deployed military bases all over the globe, but that in and of itself is not “colonisation”. These bases exist with express permission from host nations - usually as part of a mutual defence pact.
Don’t believe that? Look at what happened in Afghanistan following the collapse of the provisional government.
Given their most recent acts of war (and war crimes) in Iran, inability to sufficiently defend their Gulf state “allies” from retaliatory strikes, and going fanatical support of the Zionist regime in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few more nations evict US military bases from their territories in the near future.
TL;DR - just because you don’t like something, doesn’t automatically make it “colonisation”. The world is a million shades of grey, so stop trying to call half of it black.
Beside, you literally wish for afghanistan “multiple generations of occupation, in order to permanently impact the culture through ideological immersion” (your words). How is that not colonisation? Quit contradicting yourself
It’s not a contradiction to want to see Afghanistan restored to how it was pre-Soviet invasion; the US is arguably just as responsible as the USSR was for Afghanistan’s fall into religious fundamentalism, due to abandoning its reconstruction following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Undoing that level of cultural damage takes a long time, in order to ensure subsequent generations aren’t radicalised. So while it does suck, it would have taken at least another generation of occupation to shape a more democratic and progressive future for Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the US isn’t as good at nation building as it once was - it’s actually not as good at a lot of things, as it once was.
The US never was good. They never built a nation any more than the brits built australia. They colonised it.
Ah yes because white liberal democracy are actually at the forefront of progress /s
You mean the colonial government?
So did congo. I guess algeria wasn’t colonised by france because they still had “their own distinct cultural and ideological identites”?
Gish-gallop.
The topic of debate was whether US colonised West Germany and Japan following WW2.
I’ll take your pivot as your concession.
This ain’t highschool debate club sweetie.
The debate is weather occupying afghanistan would have been justified. You say yes, I say no. Nor was it justified to occupy western europe after the war. Or japan.
I mean you want to colonise Iran so why on earth would I think you’re unbiased.
Ah yeah like egypt and the UK?
I want to colonise Iran? Be careful you don’t pull a hamstring jumping to those sorts of conclusions!
While I have no love for the Ayatollah and the IRGC, the US and Israel are the unprovoked aggressors in this conflict, and I look forward to their defeat and inevitable retreat from this war. I just hope that they are made to pay for the death and destruction they have caused over the past month.
no sorry, my bad. You wanted to colonize afghanistan. I was just a few hundred miles off
As pointed out earlier in the chain: Occupation ≠ Colonisation
See,I live in an area of Australia that has a large proportion of Afghani refugees; these people are my friends, neighbours and colleagues. Our children go to the same schools, play the same sports, and spend their free time together. We regularly catch up on weekends for birthday parties and barbecues.
These people did not arrive here because the US was occupying Afghanistan - they all fled just as the US pulled out. All they want is to live in a country where their sisters, wives and daughters were free to express themselves, for everyone to be free from persecution by religious zealots, and a chance of freedom to experience the sort of life their grandparents had up until the USSR invaded in 1979.
The US had already let down their parents generation once before, abandoning those „gallant people of Afghanistan” following the fall of the Soviet Union, by failing to follow through with their own Marshall Plan style reconstruction.
So when it comes to the US militarily occupying that same nation just some ~12 years later - yes, I think that seeing through the reconstruction of said nation to its pre-1979 state is the least the US should be responsible for. That the US quit and failed in this task, should be a black mark against the soul of the nation.
Not when that guy owns the construction company
…so anyone who owns a construction yard in this analogy has carte blanche to demolish as many houses as they want without any penalty or repercussions?
What?
You think reconstruction of europe after the war was made for shit and giggles? They reconstructed europe because its good business. America made money out of the marchall plan, it’s no charity. The same ways colonisers didn’t go to africa to help poor people develop out of charity. They went there to open new markets, forcibly if needed.
The guy who destroy houses shouldn’t be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.
Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Firstly, sticking with the original analogy - the construction company that does the damage doesn’t need to be the one contracted to rebuild, but it should definitely should be held accountable and foot the bill - reparations are a thing for a reason.
Secondly, the US made money as a result of the Marshall Plan (which was largely grants, not loans) - because rebuilding Europe meant additional friendly markets for which to trade with, but also because it would serve to prevent the same dire economic circumstances that befell Europe in the aftermath of WW1, leading to the rise of the Nazi Party, and ultimately WW2.
Doing an ostensibly good thing, even for purely selfish reasons, where one stands to benefit from others also doing well, is not inherently a bad thing. The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is fitting - or maybe I’m just a Consequentialist at heart.
ah yes and I guess the UK colonized India to civilise them, out of sheer charity? “Open new market” = force them to use the colonizers services and industry. Quit being fucking naive. Hell the US is still forcing us to buy their shitty planes. The US killed left-wing politicians. The US empowered nazis in intelligence services so we wouldn’t grow too close to the USSR.
Of course the US should foot the bill. In kind. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Iran nor anywhere else they destroyed.
More gish-gallop.
„Opening a new market” in this case means funding and rebuilding an otherwise war obliterated continent with next to no means of housing or feeding its people; or are you seriously arguing that they should have just left it all to the Soviet army to rape, pillage and plunder like they did to Eastern Europe?
I’m not being naive, you’re just being obstinate.
The US is capable of some vehemently abhorrent action, but the Marshall Plan was not one of them.
Finally we can agree on something.
So America can at max half ass all their decisions without thinking of the long term aside from the money the private military contractors made during 20 years? Got it make sure the USA stays the fuck out of the middle east