Why America Failed In Afghanistan | Sarah Paine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 бер 2024
- Full Episode: • Sarah C. M. Paine - WW... (October 2023)
Transcript: www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/sarah...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/073V...
Follow me on Twitter: / dwarkesh_sp - Наука та технологія
I think she made some very interesting points, but she left out one major factor that contributes to Afghanistan's failure, debilitating levels of oppressive corruption, which is what allowed the Taliban to gain control in the first place. Corruption still threatens wealthy developed nations like the US. What chance do impoverished countries with a culture of abusive corruption have?
I hear people arguing over Socialism versus Capitalism, but the thing most failed states have in common is corruption.
Absolutely, friends I know observed, police on streets extorting the same businessman three times on the same day! No economy can survive that, ask 1980s Russians?
This and wage disparity, difference between rich and poor!
I remember this explanation from an Afghan: the taliban would extortion you on the road but they would give you a recipt to show the talibans ahead that you were already extorted, but the US backed soldiers would extortion you at every chance given
@@diegopena4773 I've never heard of US soldiers extorting locals. The high levels of corruption pre-date the US invading Afghanistan. Read Sarah Chayes, "Thieves of State". The US had plans to address corrupt Afghan politicians, but backed off because they received blowback from local officials who were either corrupt or connected to corrupt Afghan officials.The US military opted to try a purely military solution, which was doomed to failure, because it lacked support of the populace who preferred the lower levels of corruption under the Taliban.
@@limen7679 never said us soldiers, i said us backed soldiers, meaning the afghan soldiers of the islamic republic od afghanistan (the ones that were overthrowed). But maybe i shoud have phrased myself better
Good discussion and absolutely true.
I love these Sarah Paine videos. Keep posting them.
Thank you for exposing me to the brilliance of Sarah Paine! This educator makes her lessons so understandable. Priceless
Like listening to my fathers cousin. She could go on for hours on medieval writing and the origins of Scandinavian literature it was a pure joy to listen to, when we picking fruits in the orchard.
But why does she wear a garbage bag? 🤔
It's functional....were you expecting a fashion model? There's always one student who cannot pay attention to the lecture.
I much appreciate these bite-size pieces of Dr. Paine’s analyses. I am thrilled she is educating a generation of US Navy officers.
She's a coward who will never have an adversarial interview in her life. The Republican version of dei.
I remember a friend of mine who was a retired engineer living in Thailand for 6 months of the year when the war with Afghanistan started that it was a total waste of time. My friend had been in Afghanistan before the war and described the society as a 6th century mentality, very tribal, and very backward.. He was scoffing at Bush idea that you ever could turn those people into democratic societies. 24 years later my friend Graeme was proven right.
In the military basically most moslems are thought to be "cavemen with cellphones"
neither the afghan government, army or people , basically tribes, resisted the taliban. they did not see themselves as belonging to a single country. the vietcong had the jungle and north vietnam, the taliban had the mountains and pakistan.
Classic Islamists
@@kevinlatham5661 states lost cause whatever the reason may be environment or social bottom line nobody wanted you there in the first place with the exception of whoever was receiving dollars in the form of Aid or whatever.
Which Afghan War? 2001 or 1979?
Only for about one lifetime did Afghanistan have a united, peaceful country. The exiled king was popular with his once-subjects, but George B the II didn't want to re-establish the monarchy.
Biggest mistake we made there.
Sarah Paine needs her own channel
She's a hack
@@moiseshuerta3984you're braindead
Like Philomena Cunk? 🤔
Yes agreed. I love listening to her!
"You have all the clocks, but we have all the time"
They can have all time they want, if you’re not investing it for the betterment of the nation, whats the point? Being oppressive and backwards thinking will keep you in the dirt. To each their own, i guess. Sucks for the little people.
imma be honest - keep posting clips! generally don't have time for multi-hour podcasts in one go so small bits of it which cover one/two interesting questions is great! and i'd say keep doing it on main channel only, clips channel hard to gain traction! all in all - keep going! best podcaster i've had the pleasure of listening!
After World War II, Japan and Germany reverted to their basic cultures which were still intact. Their basic cultures were modern, educated, scientific, and industrial. It was easy to rise from the ashes. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has a tribal, medieval culture, with no real rules of law.
How could you expect Afghanistan to change when the underlying culture does not change?
Answer: it does not.
They were also a Islamic republic rife with the most extreme violence that religion endorses. She skipped around that issue, like all polite westerners, which is also part of why we failed.
This person makes way too much sense. Love listening to her.
As Sarah Paine mentioned, I also think it's a matter of troops on the ground. We had hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan and a very well-built-out military and civilian logistical structures. You can't throw a few thousand troops into a country and expect to totally change it quickly.
We were in Afghanistan for twenty years. How much time do we give them?
@@daniels.3062 I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that I thought it would ever have changed like German and Japan did. My point (which I did not express clearly) was that I think one of the reasons that the occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan worked is because there was a critical mass of troops. Which we never even tried to do in Afghanistan. It was always a shoestring war, even before we took folks out to invade Iraq. We were never going to be able to foster fundamental change in Afghanistan with so few troops, even at the peak levels.
Valid point. This was also the same way how the Brits pacified South African Boers where there were even more British troops than the _entire_ Boer population at the time, albeit at some untold brutalities (e.g., Boer concentration camps).
The problem is that how to convince the average 'Murican population to enlist en masse, as well as the cost of running such bloated army.
Hearts and minds....hearts and minds.
The more troops Americans had thrown the more casualty they wud have suffered and the more enmity wud have emerged.
Let me tell u why??
Its due to PAKISTAN. isi provided various Safe heavens to afghans. It was milking Money resources Mil bases to US for giving way to landlocked Afghanistan.
As Taliban was created by JV of CIA ISI Against USSR. CIA did it to hurt USSR. But ISI did it to destroy afghan Nation and establish strategic hold over that nation. Why ? Bocz pakistan is very narrow elongated area. When Indian army has attacked they have crossed whole pakistan within a day. All cities and BASES r in target of smaller Indian missiles, some even under artillery range. So for Pakistani army to retreat and get safe heaven for Long war they want to make Afghanistan as their 5th Province. Pakistan also has big chunk of Afghan area which was bigger created by brits but pakistan retained it. Afghanistan don't recognise it and want that area back.
After USSR defeat , war on terror US wanted to establish Afghanistan as a Nation again where terrorism doesn't thrive. But it was Against Pakistan interest. That's why US cud never win or establish Afghanistan as a Nation.
The infra created to create Afghan fighters in pakistan BY CIA ISI. Kept running. It kept churning out Suicide Bomers. It kept brainwashing Afghans that US is their enemy. That's why more US wud have put men , pak wud have used that more to instigate anti US feelings in Afghanistan. US was STUCK as it can't even destroy the SHURA which were safe heaven for talibs in pakistan . Same for OSAMA BIN LADEN Where US did one operation for which Pak army got huge deal too.
Afghanistan will become a nation Now. When US has left it. Social media , a core of modern atheist rational Afghan have emerged, they have started to learn abt nationalism and their history.
Infact new gen Talibs themslves have become pashtun Nationalist. Earlier one hated nationalism and talked abt Ummah.
Don't overthink it. America may have failed, but the defense contractors and their investors succeeded wildly.
soo true
%100 true
Don’t think too much. It might burst your bubble.
This is just lazy thinking.
One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there was a huge incentive for the United States to rebuild those countries because there was a large tangible near peer adversary like the Soviet Union which they were competing with. If they didn't rebuilt those countries, Communism would've became more popular because its propaganda appeals to poor people. As an Afghan I think one of the reasons why the US failed was that the alternative that they presented to the Taliban were people that were warlords and corrupt politicians that the Taliban were popular for driving out before the US invasion. These warlords and corrupt men backed by Western armies and funds laundered the money while the occupation forces imposed those people on the country and employed increasingly harsh and brutal counterinsurgency methods. Then there is the whole other factor of Western governments assuming that western secular democracy is a universal aspiration of all people. It isn't.
Sorry it is an universal aspiration. Your analysis about Afghanistan is incomplete but accurate. Can I add. For Germany and especially for Japan the USA has accomplished an enormous amount of sociological, historical and cultural understanding of the two countries. This was not the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the American administration tried to impose its own cultural point of view. This was all run by incompetent fools.
The last thing you said might have some truth to it. But afghans were dumb if they choose oppression. If they didn't see that They didn't have to keep a secular anything. You can have a democracy with a state religion if they wanted.
I'm sure the women of Afghanistan would much prefer a democracy where they had some rights with a chance to improve.
IMO they should've brought the king of Afghanistan back rather than trying to play at making a parliament.
@@DSan-kl2yc I think most men in Afghanistanian countryside and villages are very conservative and they want to keep things the way there have always been. It is easy for them to support Taliban when it comes to women's rights. The Afganistan army without active American support was nothing but a paper tiger, and they didn't have a real motivation to fight against Taliban. Even the South Vietnamese Army was more capable to fight in 1973-1975.
Definitely doesn’t take centuries to become developed. South Korea, Singapore, etc basically started from scratch
This is not my field but merely an opinion. I do believe that Chines culture permeated Asia and some of the Pacific Island nations. Confuscianism is highly bureaucratic, a positive quality, that allowed these nations to have the social structure to develop.
Post-war South Korea (and ROC) was playing an easy mode development game (with sheer backing of the entire NATO + Japan).
Singapore had a head start of being already a cosmopolitan logistic center of Asian British Empire - by the time of the Malaysian Federation independence it constituted 30-40% of its GDP despite only having 10% of the federation's population. Having a _relatively_ peaceful (compared to their neighbors) colonial and post-colonial histories also helped immensely - no violent retribution and deep distrust against former colonizers and outsiders, which allowed a lot of foreign investment.
You are missing the point. Centuries means a long time.
BTW, Skorea has a below zero population replacement rate. Over the timespan of centuries, South Korea never even existed.
@@FelonyVideos
And that's okay. 😮
Nothing to do with Chinese culture, the Koreans and Japanese are just part of a competent race
It also doesn’t help when Paul Bremer summarily kicked out of a job everyone that had any connection to the Baathist party and the Iraqi army. This meant that anyone that had any skills in running the state was effectively pushed towards the insurgents as after 20 years in power everyone with any administrative competence would be tainted by the previous regime. He completely ignored any lesson learnt from WW2.
I have always been sympathetic to this argument. That was never the case in post war Germany, Japan, or most of Europe and South Korea for that matter. We kept a functioning civil administration and industries and simply replaced leadership. These decisions were not always popular. People at the time wanted to restructure some of those countries as well.
The reason is simpler: different cultural perspectives. Germany is Western-oriented, like the rest of Europe, while Japan adapted many Western ideas during the Meiji Restoration Era. Iraq and Afghanistan have a different culture built on the tenets of Islam, which does not embrace democratic ideas.
Not to mention their tribalism
Yes. As one journalist who spent 10 years in Afghanistan and got married there described:
"They do not understand government, they despise government because government is always corrupt. The more they get something for free from government the more they despise it, because they never got anything for free. They value wide family ties over government and any family member is more respected than any government representative".
What a load of BS. Typical western cluelessness about Islam. As for tribalism, there’s tribalism everywhere, your lot just like to disguise it. Democrats vs republicans, right vs left, liberals vs conservative. The ONLY reason the west failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, was they backed corrupt governments whom they could control. As long as they could control them, the west couldn’t give two shits about the normal people. Thankfully the west is in decline due to its own “civilised corruption” and the era of western dominance is coming to an end. Would be interesting to see which nation/peoples gain hegemony next
But isn’t your answer actually over-simplified, reductionist and based on cultural racism?
Attributing the failure of democracy in Afghanistan solely to culture and Islam is an oversimplification. While cultural and religious factors can certainly influence politics and governance, there are many other complex factors at play. These include historical context, foreign intervention, corruption, economic challenges, tribal dynamics, and the legacy of conflict. Understanding the full spectrum of these factors is crucial for a more comprehensive analysis of Afghanistan's democratic struggles.
Afghanistan is a Western idea. It is actually four or five groups of people and subgroups within those groups. The average Afghani is 90% closer to a Taliban view of the world and 10% Western view of the world. It is very difficult to create a national system and very easy to destroy one, of any type. The terrain of Afghanistan makes it unconquerable. , , , , , Many knowledgeable people about the area told the US, it is impossible to change the place. . . . . No one listened.
Agreed. Two Afghanistan leaders in the past tried to implement western ideals and a strong centralized government. One was chased out into exile and the other was killed. They are tribal people who do not accept a big centralized government or western style democracy. If anyone in the State Department would have read one of the 20 or so books on the history of Afghanistan they would realize it was a project doomed from the start. Even the mighty British Army got slaughtered and chased out in the 1840s. The British learned the lesson that Afghanistan is easy to invade but impossible to hold during the second Anglo-Afghan war and got out as soon as possible after a decisive victory. Exactly what the US should have done; invade, install a strong warlord, then leave.
The Pashtuns rebelled against Iran when Iran converted to Shiism cos Pashtuns are obsessed sunnis. In their rebellion they managed to steal a portion of Persian speaking cities like Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif.
@@ChristianAltura-cr4su Thank you. My high school 1977-1980, in West LA was 50% Iranians. They never told me this story.
She is brilliant. I hadn't heard of her before a couple of weeks ago,
I really enjoy her dissertations on current events, thanks for posting these.
Wow this woman really knows her stuff.
Great Video, Thanks!
I continue to be awed by the knowledge, confidence, and presentation skills of this woman.
Ms Paine’s clarity is refreshing.
I never heard of Sarah Paine before about a week ago. I am a fan now
Dr Paine is amazing.
Never heard of Sarah Paine before I stumbled on this but will be checking her out. Great interview.
I'm so glad I found these clips from Sarah Paine, what a treasure!
Great analysis by this woman. The sad truth is that America didn't fail in Afghanistan. We provided the Afghans with a nearly 20 year window of safety to create a nation opposed to the beliefs of the Taliban. The Afghans failed to create a strong coalition in favor of that change.
The US was a ruling entity in Germany 11 years, and in Japan, 7 years.
US still rules germany and japan . The foreign policy of these nations are basically slavery to America
😂😂😂
Alaexander the Great couldn't The British couldn't tame Afghanistan. The Soviets tried to invade Afghanistan and that was the beginning of the end of the USSR.
And the Americans fancied their chances in Afghanistan? I know they had to do something after 9/11, but they went in cos they were dumb as shit. They failed, because they made a dumb move to go in.
@sieteocho your mistake is your assumption that America's mission was to "conquer" Afghanistan. America succeeded at both of its initial missions. Send a message to the Taliban, and hunt down Osama bin laden. Check on both counts. The mistake American leadership made was thinking America somehow "broke" Afghanistan and that they had any responsibility to fix it.
Too much money and not enough respect for civil society? Well intended grandiosity?
Ecxcellent Idea and execution of your Channel. I def will be back!
The Afghanis thought of the U.S. as conquers. However, the U.S. did not act like conquers and that was the mistake.
It also helped that in both Germany and Japan you had the spectre of the Soviets looming over their waiting for an opportunity to swoop in
Or at least that was what we believed. And true also.
@@pcopeland15 There were communists with direct ties with the Soviets within Japan attempting to take advantage of the postwar chaos. They were shut down in order for a a market-oriented democracy to take root. A great book to read is called, "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. Different from the German postwar experience because America (MacArthur) called all the shots.
@@vigilante619 I don't disagree.
I think Iraq never having a developed state is debatable, in the main cities they had an education system and middle class, before Saddam invaded Kuwait. But the occupation forces did not have effective plans for how to establish a non-volatile political structure and engage the necessary stakeholders in the governance of the country.
I think the rest of what she said makes very good sense.
I agree. Baghdad had reliable electricity, and was at least partially developed. They do have groups that hate it each other.
The problem is America thinks everybody is Germany or Japan and we just need new leaders and everything will be great. But then we break it even worse, and now we own it.
Terrific discussion from a smart professor of military history.
RS. Canada
She’s so great. Love these videos.
How could the US not have failed in Afghanistan. They were in a trap from the start.
A good analysis
Thanks, Dwarkesh Patel.
Why did the Taliban take over Afghanistan? When Russia invaded with tanks, bombers & machine guns, a Taliban fighter, with his worn out bolt action rifle, was interviewed by a TV journalist & asked him "How do you think you can win?" The Talib looked at him & said "Because, it is always the same, one day they will be gone & we will still be here."
The man was correct. America is a sprinter. In the first 100 yards, we are unbeatable, but in the marathon, we come up short and out of breath.
The USSR fought against the Mujahideen. The USSR pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Taliban wasn't formed until 1994. USSR never fought against the Taliban.
@@99Michael I think we went a little more than 100 yds in WW2. The North went more than 100 yds in the Civil War. Both wars ended with the main enemies crushed and lying prostrate on the ground. The main difference in the wars America has won vs those they "lost" was public enthusiasm and buy-in; the US can certainly go the distance if the public rallies behind the cause.
@@robertdickson9319 Different men in a different time. I believe the Korean War was the last great effort. Vietnam was a rock and roll war, with the majority of fighters drafted for a two-year tour of service and then back home thousands of miles from the conflict. Since Vietnam, there has been an endless series of interventions followed by a quick withdrawal of forces with little change in the nations. Lebanon, Nicaragua, the Somalian pirates, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Egyptian president Anwar Sadat who noted the USA was short of breath and would soon lose interest.
I think also a big factor was the length of the conflict and who started it. Japan attacked us first and Germany declared war on us. Then the war dragged on for years and got millions of their people killed. It really gave those regimes ample opportunity to discredit themselves in the eyes of their own citizens. By the end of the war a peaceful occupation and help rebuilding into a democratic state must have been like a dream. With Iraq and Afghanistan it was the total opposite. The average citizen just woke up to find American bombs falling on them while having little to no understanding of why. The average person this time had much more will and cause to resist the occupation. Our own corruption and embezzlement among military and political leaders is also to blame, no doubt.
I think the biggest reasons for the difference in how the occupations of the Axis powers and the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are largely due to cultural and ethnic causes. While not every German was a Nazi they were all Germans, and with a relatively small number of exceptions were tired of the war, realized they had lost, realized that cooperation with the Allied occupation forces was in the best interest of their nation, and that what was in the best interest of their nation would also be in the best interest of themselves and their descendants. Japanese culture revolved around a view of their Emporor as a Deity to whom obedience was ingrained. Japanese culture also has historically frowned upon acting or speaking in a manner that calls attention to oneself as it is considered boastful and rude. So if your society is told by the Emperor who is viewed as a Diety and must be obeyed, that they must not fight against the Americans who are going to occupy, and that society will probably reject anybody trying to instigate a resistance because anybody trying to instigate a resistance is behaving in a manner that calls attention onto themselves then it's not likely that many people are going to be eager to try resisting the Americans.
In Afghanistan and Iraq however the societal structures are not as homogenous. Loyalties are based on tribal, then ethnic, and then possibly nationalist lines with religious faith playing a varying role as one tribal group may be more or less devout than another or of a different sect. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are populated by tribal clans who have alliances and fewds with other tribal clans. So if your tribal clan has a longstanding grievance against a tribal clan that seems to be cooperating with the occupation forces you will most likely find yourself resisting them. Add to that a religious component that calls the occupation of "The Holy Lands" as a call to Jihad, and especially in Afghanistan a culture that has been at war for 40 years continuously and a history of resisting Empires attempting to occupy their lands and It would have been an absolute shock to me if they hadn't resisted. Yes, in both Iraq and Afghanistan when the regimes in charge were toppled (or partially toppled in Afghanistan) the people were initially grateful, their oppressive nature made those regimes unpopular. But in both nations a small number of people loyal to the old regimes lashed out. They were in both nations then joined by foreign fighters that met the call for Jihad. The Jihadists also knew that as long as most of the population supports and cooperates with the occupatoon forces the Jihad will not succeed and the way to end that support and cooperation is to use violence against the population to create chaos and instability. That chaos and instability will quickly be blamed upon the occupying forces regardless of who is committing the violence that causes it because the population is led to believe if the occupiers leave the violence will end and since they aren't leaving they are responsible for the continuing violence.
In Germany and Japan the occupations brought order and peace. Without anyone standing to resist that order, with no foreign influence coming in to agitate against it, and a homogenous culture based on a society built on order they were ot likely to resist occupation forces that were going to rebiild them. Iraq and Afghanistan, having heterogeneous cultures and a society built on violence were all but certain to be ready and willing to destroy themselves resisting the occupation forces.
Afganistan was very well know laust cause. When the Talibans offered peace talks early and the US said no it was game over. This was now for them "until the end" which for the Taliban/Afganuistan is litteral. She is very right about needing existing institutions to buidl on though. Removing them in Iraq was another ... not to bright example :)
I could just listen to her for hours. Greetings from germany.
Fascinating
Ms Paune has a brilliant insightful mind
Amazingly interesting lady. Clear thinking.
This woman is very enlightening.
One big reason why the lands of the former Arab caliphates (roughly the lands from Morocco to Pakistan inclusive) are so screwed up is because of the custom of marrying one's father's-brother's-daughter: the Arabic language even has a special phrase "bint al-'amm" to describe such a preferred wife. This custom is believed to have originated in the Levant about a century before the birth of Muhammad, but was spread over a wide area by the 7th-century Muslim conquests.
This type of cousin marriage isn't just genetically harmful (and more so than the globally more common mother's-brother's-daughter variety of cousin marriage) but also splinters society into self-contained clans that hinder nation-building. It is notable (for example) that most of the personnel of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq were drawn from his own clan from the city of Tikrit.
And one of the reasons why fundamentalist religion is so popular in these territories, is because religion is one of the few forces that can transcend clan loyalties.
These videos are really interesting. An educated person who knows what she's talking about, speaking in full sentences without resorting to profanity. Amazing!
Wow. She is so great at explaining history
I see the truth. Thank you
The brutal truth is that the fundamental components of what make an effective fascist empire, such a strong sense of country, and the fundamental components of what make up a thriving capitalist democracy are very similar.
A distinction without a difference.
Empire existed long before fascism or Democracy.
Also its "Hearts & Minds"
She is excellent. 🙏🏼
I've never really thought of this before, it is indeed easier rebuild buildings than institutions.
very interesting
My friend who is a former British marine commando who in the Siege of Sangin said that the US soldiers were fucking up. The Afghan loved the British troops and did not want to deal with the Americans.
I remember saying that factions in Iraq , and Afghanistan need to learn to accept electoral defeat' I never thought that would be a big issue in America..
It isn't. In almost every election there are a few people who deny the validity of the results, but most people move on with their lives. It's been a very long time since election results have created an existential threat in the US.
@@jasonscott5791 Trump and his fans won't accept the reality that he lost the last election.
The people of Afghanistan is being left out. They didn't even try to fight for their own future.
I've always said Afghanistan isn't really a nation with unifying principles but a collection of tribes.
Would love to see her debate John Higley on this.
Mideast countries like Iran and Afghanistan are basically British Administrative Zones left over from the 19th & 20th century colonial eras. They have arbitrary borders drawn up on maps with little regard for who lived there or the politics involved.
Not one word of that actually applies to Afghanistan. They were never a colony and their borders are the result of the conquests by Afghan empires.
If I could add one detail to Japan's postwar transformation, in addition to the point that Dr. Sarah Paine mentioned about the Imperial Army totally discrediting itself... there was an established anti-war movement in wartime Japan (mostly in jail), and when the military gave in and admitted defeat, they were ready to go with their plans for which direction their nation should go.
Think religion plays a big role too
pretty much
Absolutely. I watched the entire podcast and she didn't really mention religion.
There is another aspect, we still have troops in Germany and Japan. We have never pulled completely out of either country. Not that we are occupying them anymore, but we have been always there.
The biggest reason is scale. Sure, you can make the argument that Afghanistan and Iraq aren't unitary polities, and that's true, but that didn't stop the previous regimes from holding these areas together. The real difference is just pure, unadulterated numbers. Between the United States, France, the U.K. and Russia, we had *millions* of troops deployed into Germany, for a country of about 140k square miles and a population of 70 million.
By contrast, we tried to occupy Afghanistan, a country of 250k square miles and 30 million people with, at peak, 130,000 soldiers. There was no way we had near enough manpower to effect any kind of meaningful change in their society. We were just *there*, hunkering down in secured military bases, interrupted by the occasional excursion against concentrations of Taliban.
Not to mention, the Oligarchs in Russia seem to have a problem with NOT falling out of multi-story building windows.
Iraq was created by the Brits after WWI. (Churchill) The Kurds Sunnis and Shia hated each other, which meant they would not fight the Brits. Afghanistan was a Tribal nation, similar to N America before the Europeans showed up. Each Tribal leader ran his own and looked out for their own. No one could conquer those tough old world people. Like Sarah said, both countries were primitive by most standards. Another issue was Iran sent tons of aid and fighters to the Shia areas to stop the US efforts. They knew if Iraq was pacified, THEY WERE NEXT
She is amazing
The more interesting question would be why was America successful in country building in the Phillipines (after the Phillipino Insurrection). They speak English, not Spanish and are friendly to the USA. They were not a developed country. Why was the USA more successful than Spain?The war in the Phillipines was very harsh and long, and there was also a Muslim population.
USA should have left Afghanistan after only one year in the first place. and I said that ALL along. Don't understand why politiicians continually can't see the obvious. Just like GW should never have invaded Iraq. I knew the postwar period would be traumatic and counterproductive.
Read Jim Gant's "One Tribe At A Time'' You'll see why we failed.
Honestly, I always wondered what the difference was between places like Germany and Japan and even South Korea that effectively got rebuilt by the Western world after being bombed back to near the stone age after WW2 and the Korean War and this put it really succinctly. Obviously there's a lot more to it as things aren't so cut and dry and the world is complicated. But I never considered that in the aftermath of the wars, the West was doing State Reconstruction rather than Nation Building.
And evidently, Nation Building takes a lot longer to do than most people thought.
She’s living in the past trapped by nostalgia for our last “good war.” I know. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam. Those days are long gone. We no longer are the military empire we were back in the Second World War. She’s a neocon ideologue with a rigid, myopic view, clueless to how much the world has changed in the intervening decades since the end of the Second World War.
Also both Japan and Germany wanted to be part of progress again.
Irak and afghanistan have a culture of extorting each other.
Another headwind is the American resistance to nation building. After our experiences in Bosnia, the American political right put a bad taste on the whole idea of nation building, so by the time we actually hoped to do some nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had neither the stomach or the mindset to invest what would have been needed to drag those countries into modern times. Granted it would have been a very long uphill battle. MK NWC graduate (Civilian) 2010
You can put civil back into civilization. But you can't put civil back into chaos.
America got the withdrawal wrong. They should have trained the afghan army in guerrilla tactics not outdated 1940s tactics. Small raiding groups would have caused havoc for the taliban and the troops could easily disappear into the civilian population or move their operations to another area
3:15 Yes, Germany and Japan were 'developed countries' (unlike Afghanistan or Irak),
but they began atrocious wars; so 'developed' is a relative quality, I'm afraid.
This outlines the challenges but a lot of this was foreseeable. The issue is you need a major long term civilian plan to convert a country with the military providing the security. Imagine as the military went to patrol all the small villages a teacher was travelling teaching how to read and speak English so 10 years later all Afghanistan tribes were using English as a baseline. This might have worked because only like a 3rd of the Country was literate when the Taliban was first forced out. If you want a country to be receptive to you after being conquered improve their quality of life.
Very complex problem. The Bush Administration was incompetent, the Afghans have always been unruly, Afghanistan was surrounded by powers that were hostile to the US, there was no political process of reconciliation.......The US had succeeded in building an impoverished country into a thriving democracy. South Korea is the prime example.
Also, Afghanistan, which had fewer internal tensions and considerably less resistance - as evidenced by the smaller American death toll - was occupied by 1/7 the number of soldiers as Iraq. It was remarkable just how much of the country the Americans were able to control with 30,000 men, compared to the constant upheaval in Iraq despite the 150,000 soldiers there.
And also, Donald Rumsfeld. At the end of 2001, the Taliban were beat. They offered to surrender as long as their leaders could live free in Kandahar. Rumsfeld refused, the Taliban took to the mountains of Pakistan, and an endless unwinnable insurgency began. Thanks a lot, Rummy.
Rumsfeld said his biggest regret was not meeting Saddam Hussein in captivity. (Remember, he'd already met him in 1985.) Well, Rumsfeld got his chance to meet Saddam again eventually.
Iraq absolutely has and had a sense of nationhood and nationality. Conflating Afghan and Iraq as "the same type of place" is insanely ignorant.
America
iraq is still clan-based, just like afghanistan. All arab countries are like that, and that's why they'll never get anywhere.
Kurds voted to become independent just a couple years ago. So much for sense of nationality.
It's NOT "ignorant". What she said is true. Please do some more research. 💡
we are sorry we do not raise up to your FSB level troll
The real core issue is the people of Afghanistan don't care for democracy and don't care for Western values. We paid mercenaries and then when we left we were surprised they weren't patriots that would fight for the system we set up. It should be a lesson on self determination
💯
And don't forget that Germany and Japan combined had nearly 10 million deaths during WW2. Suffering that amount of violence sure keeps you in check.
She's sort of right, but the most important difference between the nation-building experiences of Germany/Japan and Afghanistan is that after WWII, except for select high profile war criminals, there was a strong continuity of personnel between the old defeated regimes and the postwar democratic regimes. More Nazis were in Adenauer's cabinet then there were in Hitler's. And one only need to look at Hirohito who died peacefully in his sleep in 1989 for the Japanese case.
With the Taliban, they offered to surrender in early 2002 and looked for some role in a postwar society, The US and it's NATO allies told them to get lost as they were a defeated force and terrorists.
I am smarter for having listening to this woman
Honest fact based news... It's like I've never seen it before ;)
Tribalism at its best.
Actually winning wars and unconditional surrender are helpful too.
Dr. Paine listed important reasons as to why our efforts in Afghanistan failed but I cannot help but wonder how we could have done better too.
I felt that a New Deal style infrastructure &/or mass hiring of the population could have solved a lot of our problems in Afghanistan. For example: Afghanistan's population is 40 million. What if the occupation authority direct hired 5 million of that population, for a guaranteed 36 months, for a good not great wage. To start you put these people to work building infrastructure, manually if needed just to keep them busy. As you get more organized, you offer members of this labor pool other opportunities like joining the army, technical training, and basic primary education for others. If you keep this system going for the length of a 20yr occupation I image that something good & lasting would have grown out of it.
If these efforts are focused in and around the cities the local economies in those areas would be stimulated. In the short to medium term, this would have drawn in young men from the countryside looking for well-paid work. These young men would be working in the cities instead of fighting in the countryside. Some of the money would have been sent home to the villages, which would have improved the lives of the people in the countryside. The tribal leaders would be less likely to take action to upset a bottom-up benefit.
there is nothing you can do in XXI-th century with a massive illiterate population...and no afghan population really, just a bunch of different tribes and local chiefs controlling different areas with no submission or connection to the central government...
@strigoiu13 the best way to unite Afghanistan is religious fanaticism, which the Taleban monopolised.
Honestly the best Western strategy mightve been to go the opposite way by divide and rule. Get all the clans infighting with each other to such a degree that the Taleban cannot establish control.
You assume that these young would rather work than prance around with AK-47's
I do enjoy these informative clips. Everything she spoke of was plausible. I do wonder if in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq there is a factor called Umma. This will unite disparate Islamic groups against a non Islamic country like the USA.
It's what America does. Interferes and leaves a mess.
I think the main difference was that the USA dealt with the local ideology very differently. For instance they basically outlawed the Nazi Party, and made it illegal for Japan to have a military. Harsh treatment after a terrible war, yet the USA did not really really address the troublesome ideologies.
Right to the point - Nazis were outlawed in Germany after capitulation, but Afghanistan was allowed to found an Islamic Republic as a state right after having been liberated from islamic fascists aka Taliban. No recipe for success
You should look into the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea (1919-45). During Japan's colonial rule of Korea, Korean activists formed a government headquartered in China with branches in the US and Europe. The activists lobbied world governments for help, fundraised, and were united in the cause of Korean independence. All of this work gave them experience on managing a country and later became the leaders of the modern Republic of Korea. The current S Korea is the descendant of the Provisional Government. It is a myth that South Korea was established as a puppet of the US.
That withdrawal was laughable. Press doesn’t say a word.
Afghanistan had a preexisting institution that could be built outwards from. Centered around the old King to which almost all Afghanis had affection.
But Americans don't like Kings so engineered a Republic.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned Mediaevalism is a move towards progress compared to Tribalism.
But Americans wanted to jump 500 years as if you drag a people that far, that fast. Unsurprisingly it didn't work.
She's a smart cookie.
gloss over foreign intervention in the 1970s-80s that led to the rise of islamic jihadism in afghanistan and if i had to guess iraq as well.