web analytics

SHUT UP NEOCONS

By Pete Moore On October 13th, 2020

Thousands of families are fleeing their homes as heavy fighting between government forces and the Taliban rages in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

It is the third day of violent clashes as Afghan forces try to defend the strategic capital of the province, Lashkar Gah, from a Taliban assault.

It is estimated that about 35,000 people have so far fled their homes.

What a disaster these liberal colonial wars were. All those lives lost, all that misery and bloodshed, and all that wealth wasted. Anyone with two brain cells and a passing knowledge of the region knew that Afghanistan would revert to the mean.

14 Responses to “SHUT UP NEOCONS”

  1. //What a disaster these liberal colonial wars were. //

    An earlier disaster was the 1979 invasion by the liberal Soviets, which has since then been strongly praised and endorsed by the liberal Donald Trump.

    AFAIK, the only member of the US Congress that opposed the subsequent US invasion was the wonderful Barbara Lee. Yes, female, black, Democrat and very liberal. She warned against embarking “on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.”

    All the rest fell into line. The US invasion had support right across teh board in the US, but probably most strongly among conservatives. The American’s right to respond to 9-11 was also recognised by most free countries around the world, including by several European countries that later opposed the Iraq farce.

  2. Yes – The US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan post 9/11 was almost entirely unopposed across the political spectrum and was of course led by a Republican Conservative administration and wholeheartedly supported by the Right. It is disingenuous for Pete to label it a liberal adventure.

  3. aye colm,
    they’re all the same these petem type fanatics
    year zero revisionism straight out of Orwells 1984

    they’re the worse cancel culture people you can imagine !
    cancel history, cancel the truth of what happened to fit
    the fanatic narrative

    the past is all deception and the future future-less Noel ?

  4. Very good, Kurt.

    One rather new thing for me is how close anarchism is to much right-wing thinking. There’s a large amont of a weird kind of anarchism in the Trump phenomenon, the fun or indifference at seeing the old order turned over, and a kind of reckless disregard for all consequences, even those involving yourself. I read somebody (an obvious Democrat) say recently that the Dems are the party of worriers and the timid, and conversely – and I think this was said by someone here in the past day or two – the Trump crowd are brash and daring.

    There’s a lot of truth in that, and while it’s obviously no way to organise a state, I think everyone has at least some sympathy with it

    If you make a revolution, make it for fun.
    Don’t make it in ghastly seriousness.
    Don’t do it in deadly earnest.,
    Do it for fun.

    Don’t do it for equality,
    do it because we’ve got too much equality
    and it would be fun to upset the apple-cart
    and see which way the apples would go a-rolling.

    ……

    D H Lawrence

    https://allpoetry.com/A-Sane-Revolution

  5. Colm

    Correct

    And there are right wingers who want still more fun no risk foreign adventurism, on a bigger scale, in Iran. Right Pat?

  6. One rather new thing for me is how close anarchism is to much right-wing thinking

    Only if you think that anarchism is a homogeneous. singular ideology. At its root anarchism is fundamentally self government based on personal authority and responsibility but there are different schools of anarchism. Ancaps. (anarchist capitalists) and libertarian anarchists are very Pete Moore but there’s a world of difference between them and. for example, anarchist communists and socialists and anarcho syndicalism.

    Trumpistas are essentially radical nihilists, there’s a huge difference between them and the anarchists writers I’ve read.

    BTW, the US was lead by a conservative Republican at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, the invasion of Afghanistan & the invasion of Iraq.

  7. Just about every Republican politician in the country supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than the eccentric Ron Paul

  8. What a disaster these liberal colonial wars were.

    So Dubya and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bolton are liberals? Who knew?

  9. Noel, Colm, Peter –

    The wars of the late-20th/early-21st Century were firmly in the Wilsonian tradition. Woodrow Wilson was a liberal in the American sense and his legacy was an aggressive liberal internationalism.

    Common principles that are often associated with “Wilsonianism” include:

    – Emphasis on self-determination of peoples;
    – Advocacy of the spread of democracy;
    – Advocacy of the spread of capitalism; and
    – Support for collective security, and least partial opposition to American isolationism.

    It is absolutely correct to describe those wars as liberal colonial wars.

  10. Pete

    The American military action in Afghanistan was not liberal colonialism and was not influenced at all by Wilsonian principles. It was a direct reactionary response to a specific large scale violent assault directly on American territory. It was an act of immediate military retaliation and absolutely nothing to do with advocacy of the philosophy of a President from 100 years prior. The Iraq invasion can be seen as a more deliberate planned ‘Wilsonian’ act, but not the Afghan one.

  11. Colm

    Back of the net on Afghanistan.

    Iraq is more complex. A big factor often overlooked was Dubya’s desire to kill Saddam Hussein because Saddam had plotted to kill Dubya Senior in revenge for the first Iraq War. The 9-11 attack gave him the opportunity even though he knew well that it had **** all to do with Iraq. Never underestimate the personal.

    And of course, the big question: would Iraq have been attacked in 2003 if it didn’t happen to have the fifth largest oil reserves in the world?

    “And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

    https://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

  12. The Afghanistan action was morally justified.

    Unfortunately, things never work out well there.

  13. Colm –

    US forces are still in Afghanistan, 19 years after 9/11 and 9 years after bin Laden was killed.

    Recall, the explicit reasons for the invasion included ensuring that Afghanistan could not again be used as a base to launch terrorist attacks. Dragging Afghanistan into a liberal future, based on democracy, was key.

    Beyond a man hunt it was very much a Wilsonian war.

  14. There are Afghans who want human rights and a fair society.

    But there aren’t enough of them, certainly not enough of them who are willing to fight the Taliban.