US withdrawal from Afghanistan - your thoughts?

[Nemesis]

I dont see the US as ever having fulfilled that role. They simply furthered their goals by any means necessary and sometimes it ended up working to this effect.
Even if the US decided tomorrow to close all its overseas bases and cancel all its alliances the world wouldnt erupt into chaos.
China will take over taiwan and russia might finish taking ukraine but wars are a thing that even with the US influence still happens and in recent times often even started by the US so no significant change there.

Did the US have significant interests in Korea? Vietnam? Lebanon? Somalia? Bosnia? Rwanda? Syria? Libya?

People often forget how nasty the Communists were. South Korea is much better off than North Korea, for example. Would Europe have fallen to the Soviets without an American counterweight?

How did the US benefit from Somalia? Did we steal oil from Iraq? The Europeans definately took raw materials from nations that they "helped."

Are you sure that the Russians would stop with the UKR? Would China stop with Taiwan? What would Iran do to Iraq and/or the Gulf states? Pakistan and India? What would happen in the Arab-Israel saga?

 

[Stafford]

I'd rather see the USA being world police than some of the other likely candidates. Now I'm not sure if Putin would make like Uncle Joe and go full noise for the Bay of Biscay but he likely has a few more territorial ambitions to the west of Russia at the moment.

Also if the USA was to make like the 1930s and go full isolationist 'we're staying inside our own borders, have fun world!', and no force to keep China at least pretending to play nice, they'd probably go all out for Africa, and bully any smaller neighboring nations into getting whatever they want. They already do, but more overtly.
As for Australia, I doubt they would invade, they have no need to. If a certain couple of political parties here were voted in they'd all but roll out the red carpet for the CCP.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Did the US have significant interests in Korea? Vietnam? Lebanon? Somalia? Bosnia? Rwanda? Syria? Libya?

I think you could argue that being a superpower necessarily means having a significant interest in what happens in most countries in the world. They are all either allies or enemies, or allies or enemies of your allies and enemies.

 

[holoween]

Did the US have significant interests in Korea? Vietnam? Lebanon? Somalia? Bosnia? Rwanda? Syria? Libya?

Korea and Vietnam are fighting communitst regimes during the cold war
Lebanon has no US involvement
Somalia sits right next to one of the worlds most important trade routes.
Serbia i give you
Rwanda had no us involvement
Libya was Primarily a european campaign
Syria is just an extention of fighting the IS which is a continuation of Iraq and a counter to Iranian influence

People often forget how nasty the Communists were. South Korea is much better off than North Korea, for example. Would Europe have fallen to the Soviets without an American counterweight?

How nasty the oposition is has no bearing on US interventions. While the communitsts certainly werent great there are far worse around where the us didnt even consider intervening.
Also any positive outcomes for the affected population tend to be purely incidential. For every South Korea there is an Afghanistan or Iran as a counterpoint.

Would the Soviets have overrun europe? Militarily no. If the US had pulled out of europe they wouldnt have needed to.

How did the US benefit from Somalia? Did we steal oil from Iraq? The Europeans definately took raw materials from nations that they "helped."

Im under no illusion that any european power ever helped anyone out of the goodness of their heart. You seem to be under the illusion the US is somehow different.

Are you sure that the Russians would stop with the UKR? Would China stop with Taiwan? What would Iran do to Iraq and/or the Gulf states? Pakistan and India? What would happen in the Arab-Israel saga?

Had the Russians wanted they could have taken the entirety of Ukraine in 2014 or Georgia in 2008. Neither were protected by the US and both were easily defeated militarily and All Russian goals fulfilled. In both cases preventing them from even possibly joining NATO and in Ukraines case straight annexing Crimes.
Taiwan is the only "Country" under direct Chinese threat that is protected by the US.
It is possible Iran takes over the shiite parts of Iraq but its hard to do worse than what the US did since 2003. Also Irans post ww2 history isnt exactly a point in favour of the US.
Pakistan and India have repeatedly been at war. US power has no relevance there.
Israel is going to survive for the forseeable future. There is a 50/50 chance Israel simply annexes the rest of Palestina and goes full apartheit state or they actually work towards lasting peace.

 

[Nemesis]

Actually, the US has intervened in Lebanon a couple times. Again, not much to gain for us. As I recall, we lost 240+ Marines there.

The US went to Somalia because of mass starvation. The trade routes are pretty easy to protect with navies.

And the Chinese have territorial disputes with all of their neighbors including US allies Japan and the PI. Just like Europe, without a US counterweight, who knows what might happen.

Again, in most of the cases you are not showing how the US benefited. If we are "acting in our own interest" then what did we get? Mostly a lot of treasure spent and dead troops. Other than protecting oil supplies, there is not much. And the world should be very grateful that we beat back the Soviet communists.

 

[Nelson1812]

Again, in most of the cases you are not showing how the US benefited. If we are "acting in our own interest" then what did we get?

At a guess, it gives the USA a window to say look at my muscle... not necessary a bad thing. In addition, you get to test your weapons, and train your troops. Your arms industry, is enriched and you have cash to reinvest in future weapons.
Sorry, if this sounds a little cold. I may not agree with some of the wars the US and its allies have intervened in, or those that have been overlooked... but until this latest misadventure, the Americans and their allies seemed to be doing a good job of policing the world.

 

[Hardradi]

I am cynical enough to agree with both sides.

What other countries have had military personal in Afghanistan (and Lebanon)?

 

[Stafford]

I am cynical enough to agree with both sides.

What other countries have had military personal in Afghanistan (and Lebanon)?

In recent times the Soviets tried to control Afghanistan, which lead to much the same circumstances as the US recently found out. It was referred to as 'Russias Vietnam'.

Going back to the late 19th/early 20th century the Brits semi-sort-of controlled Afghanistan for a while, and arguably had the most success by establishing the Kingdom of Afghanistan which lasted around fifty years and was that countries most stable and prosperous time in recent history.

 

[Hardradi]

@Stafford I am aware of the previous history. Sorry, I meant in the last 20 years.

I will answer my own question. What other countries have had military personal in Afghanistan (and Lebanon) in the last 20 years?

Pretty much the majority of countries represented by people commenting on this thread. If I go back through the last two pages Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, UK, Australia, US, Canada, etc.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I will answer my own question. What other countries have had military personal in Afghanistan (and Lebanon) in the last 20 years?

Pretty much the majority of countries represented by people commenting on this thread. If I go back through the last two pages Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, UK, Australia, US, Canada, etc.

Not sure what your point is here?

 

[Bones26]

@Stafford I am aware of the previous history. Sorry, I meant in the last 20 years.

I will answer my own question. What other countries have had military personal in Afghanistan (and Lebanon) in the last 20 years?

Pretty much the majority of countries represented by people commenting on this thread. If I go back through the last two pages Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, UK, Australia, US, Canada, etc.

If memory serves me right, at least in the case of Afghanistan, those other countries were there at the behest of the U.S. who invoked Article 5 the mutual-defense clause of the NATO Treaty. (First time it was ever invoked.)

 

[Bones26]

At the risk of inflaming certain partisan passions with this post, the thing that annoys me the most with respect to the frequent U.S. posturing that is inevitably trotted out as justification for having to 'police' the world, is that it is far too often presented as this noble, altruistic undertaking that the U.S. must reluctantly shoulder the burden of, in order to keep the world safe. Perhaps we would be better placed if we were to step back and consider that maybe there is more than a little self-interest at play in many, if not most, of these military forays and adventures. To wit:

Writing in 1948, George Kennan, director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, made an essential point. “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population,” he wrote. “Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.”

With this purpose in mind, Kennan’s associates, chief among them George Marshall, Dean Acheson, James Forrestal and Paul Nitze undertook a series of initiatives aimed at perpetuating this position of disparity. Their approach centered on devising mechanisms to project American power globally.

Among their best-known initiatives were the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO, which were then later supported by the Carter Doctrine, and the Reagan Doctrine. Hardly less important was the National Security Act of 1947, which, among other things, created the CIA; NSC-68, a secret document that in 1950 committed the United States to the pursuit of permanent military superiority; and the fashioning of Strategic Air Command into an instrument of genocidal nuclear attack.

Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined. That's an awful lot of police stations... just saying...

Cheers!

 

[Lethaface]

Did the US have significant interests in Korea? Vietnam? Lebanon? Somalia? Bosnia? Rwanda? Syria? Libya?

People often forget how nasty the Communists were. South Korea is much better off than North Korea, for example. Would Europe have fallen to the Soviets without an American counterweight?

How did the US benefit from Somalia? Did we steal oil from Iraq? The Europeans definately took raw materials from nations that they "helped."

Are you sure that the Russians would stop with the UKR? Would China stop with Taiwan? What would Iran do to Iraq and/or the Gulf states? Pakistan and India? What would happen in the Arab-Israel saga?

Well if the CIA (and mi6) didn't perform a coup against Mossadegh/ Iran in the 50s to bring back the Shah, Iran probably wouldn't have been the 'extreme' state it is now. Then we probably also wouldn't have armed Saddam with all these weapons (including gas) to fight Iran with. Etc etc.

And without going into the entangled interests too much, I always think this speech by President Eisenhower has unfortunately not been heeded well enough:

President Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address

President Dwight Eisenhower spoke to the nation in a farewell address. The address, sometimes referred to as the "Military-Industrial Complex Speech", is considered by some to be one of the most significant speeches of the Eisenhower presidency.

www.c-span.org

See from ~2:30

 

[Bones26]

So sad really ...

 

[Hardradi]

Not sure what your point is here?

Bones got it.

 

[Hardradi]

If memory serves me right, at least in the case of Afghanistan, those other countries were there at the behest of the U.S. who invoked Article 5 the mutual-defense clause of the NATO Treaty. (First time it was ever invoked.)

50 countries involved Afghanistan but only 30 member countries in NATO.

I wonder why they all piled in.

 

[Wellsonian]

 

[Bulletpoint]

Your tax dollars at work

Taliban parade captured equipment in Kandahar

The militant group showcased the kit captured during their takeover of Afghanistan.

www.bbc.com

 

[Lethaface]

50 countries involved Afghanistan but only 30 member countries in NATO.

I wonder why they all piled in.

At least it's a good song to listen

 

[Lethaface]

Your tax dollars at work

Taliban parade captured equipment in Kandahar

The militant group showcased the kit captured during their takeover of Afghanistan.

www.bbc.com

Of course this is painful to see. But a couple of Humvee's and small arms, which they can buy (or decent alternatives) without that much effort. Would they manage to build an actual air force out of the leave-behinds, that would be another thing. But I felt it's mainly a Taliban propaganda video.
Anyway I think that the bigger losses are in 'sunk costs', and that is in the human capital which we (every country involved) have invested in over all those years. Lives of our own soldiers/people, lives of Afghani. Good chance most of that effort will be for nothing / reversed, at least for Afghanistan. Some of those people now have a chance to built their lives here. Perhaps they can, in a utopian future ;-) , help rebuild Afghanistan by Afghans and for (all) Afghans.

Not that I think you will disagree on this point.