Saigon All Over Again

odyssey06 said:
True but in this case I don't think a country's interests will be furthered by being seen as weak and abandoning allies...
Click to expand...
I don't think pulling out of Afghanistan is weak, If there was any weakness was in staying longer than required
They did not abandon their allies they went into Afghanistan because the Taliban were allowing Afghanistan soil to be used to attack the USA,
all wars come to an end sooner or later,
 
But then they stayed and put in significant resources to try to setup a stable regime. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to do that, and it was always doomed to failure, but they did. It looks weak and perception matters.

They abandoned the Afghans who were willing to fight for the regime the US setup, and the NATO allies who were prepared to stay there to support it as long as the US stayed.
It was not a large ongoing commitment in resources for the US to remain providing air support and small number of support troops, in light of the effort already expended and military infrastructure put in place.

It sends a message for any future US initiatives in terms of what you can rely on, if they are looking for allies.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that a sizable proportion of the population support fundamentalist Islamic laws. They have no problem with the Taliban. That makes all this a political issue for them, not a clash of ideals.
 
Purple said:
The problem is that a sizable proportion of the population support fundamentalist Islamic laws. They have no problem with the Taliban. That makes all this a political issue for them, not a clash of ideals.
Click to expand...
It's something of a civil war within Islam itself between moderates and fundamentalists. A sizable proportion have a problem with the Taliban and could have held the line, at least in the cities, with US (and NATO) support.
 
odyssey06 said:
It's something of a civil war within Islam itself between moderates and fundamentalists. A sizable proportion have a problem with the Taliban and could have held the line, at least in the cities, with US (and NATO) support.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with that is, is to defeat the Taliban is to defeat Islam in a sense. Muslims can argue over social and economic policy, they can argue over the interpretation of the Koran.
But as long as there are Muslims that interpret the Koran to meaning xyz then it is hard to ever defeat that.
Similar to Catholics and Protestants trying to defeat each other, and more so the fundamentalists within each camp.
 
odyssey06 said:
It's something of a civil war within Islam itself between moderates and fundamentalists. A sizable proportion have a problem with the Taliban and could have held the line, at least in the cities, with US (and NATO) support.
Click to expand...
Yep, and invading countries, reducing their cities, towns and infrastructure to rubble and blowing up their children doesn't generally lead people to be moderate. Islam in the region was the most moderate in the world before the Mongols invaded and totally wrecked the place.

The link between modern Islamic Fundamentalism and Colonial misadventure is striking, be it the British in India (their destruction of Deli after the rebellion the Brits had the gall to call a mutiny), the British in Sudan (Gordon and all that), the British and French in Arabia (picking out violent illiterate extremists, the Saudis, and arming them to overthrow the Hashemites who were interested in pan-Arab Nationalism), the Americans in Arabia (support for the Saudis) and latterly the Russians and American in Central Asia. Violent Islamic extremism should be viewed as a political phenomena, not a religious one. It was created in a political and economic crucible and the heat of that fire is sustained by external fuel sources.
 
odyssey06 said:
It's something of a civil war within Islam itself between moderates and fundamentalists. A sizable proportion have a problem with the Taliban and could have held the line, at least in the cities, with US (and NATO) support.
Click to expand...
But I think the moderates will win out because that is where the money is and that is the direction Saudi Arabia is moving in. Yes they funded Islamic extremists and the madrases in the 90s but it came back to bite them in the ass.
Even the Taliban seems to have moderated or at least they see that their previous incarnation was a failure also Isis and al Qaeda ultimately turned out to be failures , they were too extreme and never achieved any lasting objectives. The Taliban now seems to place great emphasis on gaining recognition rather than rape and plunder even though that is going on they are trying to keep it under the surface
 
I hope you are right, but the mask might slip from the Taliban yet.
 
Consumerism and wealth is the true enemy of extremism and religious extremism in particular.
 
Purple said:
Consumerism and wealth is the true enemy of extremism and religious extremism in particular.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of something from PJ O'Rourke's book "Give War a Chance", covering the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Paraphrased here...
A Kuwait Air Force colonel explains to him that Iraq started the war because Kuwait was spending all its oil money on things for its citizens so Iraq "either had to brings its citizens up to the Kuwait level or bring Kuwait citizens down to the Iraq level" 'In other words' O'Rourke explains ' Kuwait caused the war by shopping too much. This leaves us with little hope of world peace as long as wives are allowed to hold credit cards in their own names.
 
Women cause wars. Controversial.
 
What does it mean for Europe now and European defence surely the voices for a European defence alliance independent of NATO will get much stronger now. What does it mean for Irish neutrality now that the US seems to be withdrawing to much narrower domestic concerns.
Irish neutrality is only possible because of the overarching presence of the US in Europe since WW2 we have never needed to consider seriously our own defence.
With the potential for a more unstable middle east with possible skirmishes with the Balkans and southern European countries or possibly from Russia is Irish neutrality still sustainable ?
Before WW2 when neutrality was devised we were not members of a European economic and political alliance like we are now?
 
We care not neutral. We are unaligned.
I do think that our current stance, where even of the Dail votes for out participation in a conflict China and Russia have a veto over their decision, needs to change.

Our stance of avoiding any conflicts is cowardly. We should be part of any EU led military defence agreement.
 
Purple said:
Pick a superpower; USA, China, Russia or India. If one has to dominate the world which would you choose?
Click to expand...
Well just thinking about each in turn.

India: not really a likely candidate, its internal tensions are too great, Hindu nationalism is inward looking I don't think it has an expansionary mindset.

Russia: I am a huge admirer of all things Russian, Russian people are warm and friendly, unfortunately their tendency to paranoia leads them to embrace a strong leader, a Tzar, Stalin, Putin. It is no co-incidence that each new regime eventually arrived at a strongman stage. Russia is also inward looking, Russia has little desire for empire, although they do wish to dominate their neighbours to keep potential threats at bay, the paranoia thing. A little less strong man a little more rule of law I could live under a Russian dominated world.

China: The Chinese are pragmatic, they have little interest in ideology. Would they have the wit to understand that if they dominated the world allowing other countries to prosper would be in their own interest. Would they seek to impose Chinese levels of social control more broadly. Ultimately I think the individual is not seen as important in the Chinese view, I would be uncomfortable with that.

USA: Well the US dominated world we live in has suited me very well. I am not so sure I would think that if I were South American, or Vietnamese, or indeed poor in the US. Now if I were South Korean I would be a seriously big fan
 
Purple said:
We should be part of any EU led military defence agreement.
Click to expand...
Why?

Because it is the 'right' thing to do? or because it is in our own self interest.

Ireland has a huge military advantage that few other countries have, we are effectively unassailable to anyone except the Brits. They have a population and industrial base 15 times ours. We could never resisted them militarily if they chose to invade again. Our only defence is soft-power based. We have been doing this so successfully for many years that the idea of them invading us again is beyond even the Rees-Mogg, John Redwood end of the Tories.

They one lesson I have tried to imprint on my sons is 'if they start a war stay out of it'. Be ready for the subtle and sophisticated pressures that will be brought to bear suggesting its your duty or your responsibility to get involved. Nothing is worth your life.
 
cremeegg said:
We could never resisted them militarily if they chose to invade again.
Click to expand...

They would overrun our military no doubt. But there is a track record of resisting British military might at the height of their Empire and during the conflict up North.

cremeegg said:
we are effectively unassailable to anyone except the Brits
Click to expand...

The Russians have recent track record of flying military aircraft off the West Coast of Ireland.

Russian aircraft of coast of Ireland

A colleague of mine is interested in all things military. He suggested this was the Russians letting theIrish government know, and NATO, that Shannon Airport being used as a stopover for US aircraft is within their strike capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register