Taliban Strategy in Afghanistan

solarz

Brigadier
To better explain my position. The US wants a major structural shift in the extended Middle East in order to cement her position as leading power after the Cold War for the whole 21st century and the money and blood are yet peanuts in comparison to the magnitude of the goal. Russia and China are still too dependant on US goodwill for their economies, so they won't pose a serious threat or even outright support the Taliban to the degree such acts were common throughout the Cold War era. The Taliban are a nuisance for enacting this plan of a strategic control of important parts of earth's surface and the current US strategy is to find a way to remedy the earlier decision of not including this best organized group of the ongoing Afghan civil war.
Iran is a centerpiece of this vision of a new world order of US power in the 21st century and while the costs look impressive, they pale in comparison to the revenue deficits derived from taxing the rapidly growing wealth of the rich US citizens less and less.

You vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US. The ruling elite might have such ambitions, but the citizenship is unwilling to go along.

Yes, the actual deaths suffered by the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan are peanuts compared to most wars, but the real impact is those tens of thousands of surviving veterans who now require care for the rest of their lives. In addition to the wars themselves costing trillions of dollars, the care of the wounded veterans will cost additional billions for decades to come. Beyond the economic impact, the social impact would also be tremendous:families would be under enormous strain trying to make ends meet to support a disabled veteran. Divorces, domestic violence, disillusionment and discontentment with the government is sure to rise.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
To better explain my position. The US wants a major structural shift in the extended Middle East in order to cement her position as leading power after the Cold War for the whole 21st century and the money and blood are yet peanuts in comparison to the magnitude of the goal. Russia and China are still too dependant on US goodwill for their economies, so they won't pose a serious threat or even outright support the Taliban to the degree such acts were common throughout the Cold War era. The Taliban are a nuisance for enacting this plan of a strategic control of important parts of earth's surface and the current US strategy is to find a way to remedy the earlier decision of not including this best organized group of the ongoing Afghan civil war.
Iran is a centerpiece of this vision of a new world order of US power in the 21st century and while the costs look impressive, they pale in comparison to the revenue deficits derived from taxing the rapidly growing wealth of the rich US citizens less and less.

i think your view of the world is seriously mis-guided
 

Kurt

Junior Member
You vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US. The ruling elite might have such ambitions, but the citizenship is unwilling to go along.

Yes, the actual deaths suffered by the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan are peanuts compared to most wars, but the real impact is those tens of thousands of surviving veterans who now require care for the rest of their lives. In addition to the wars themselves costing trillions of dollars, the care of the wounded veterans will cost additional billions for decades to come. Beyond the economic impact, the social impact would also be tremendous:families would be under enormous strain trying to make ends meet to support a disabled veteran. Divorces, domestic violence, disillusionment and discontentment with the government is sure to rise.

I agree with you that the concept of the elite differs from the ambitions of members of the population, but isn't this the case in every country?

You correctly pointed out the costs of such a war. Would China not invade Taiwan if they declared independence because of the dead soldiers?

As to disillusionment and discontent with the government, a democracy is a system of constant peaceful "revolution" because of discontent that makes it different from non-electorate gouvernments. One problem is that people do perceive no eligible change sometimes, requiring a very major shift when enough pressure has built up. While democracy is not the best system, it's the best evolving system and for this reason very stable.
 

delft

Brigadier
Several European countries are starting to look less than stable. And looking back to France in the '50's .....
 
Top