Is that a rhetorical question? But the question was whether US withdrawl would enhance Afghan sovereignty, not whether we'd necessarily object to their domination by someone else. And I'm inclined to take your response as a "no," unless I'm missing something here...
Not really - clearly describing the enemy in Afghanistan would go a long way to clarifying our goals and decisions there. Military occupation seldom enhances sovreignty.
It's fairly obvious to everyone other than you and your ilk. Neither does political anarchy, civil war and internecine tribal warfare (all of which were occurring in Afghanistan before the US arrived).
The enemy - singular? Indeed. But the question was whether the end of this particular military occupation would equal the end of military occupation of Afghanistan as such - there are other militaries in the area interested in the fate of Afghanistan, after all - or otherwise substantially enhance Afghan sovereignty.
I was referring to 2001, when Afghanistan was not a sovereign nation. The chaos created prior to that was initially due to Soviet meddling and its subsequent invasion. If the US bears responsibility, it's for walking away after the Soviets left and watching the country spiral into political anarchy, civil war and internecine tribal warfare. But the fact remains, Afghanistan is much more "sovereign" today than it was in 2001.
Or not. Only one way to find out. So the US bears no responsibility for its contributions prior to 2001? Fascinating. I want to be one of the people who can just routinely deliver silly, unsupported opinions like that one with a straight face, and explicitly call them "facts". I get threatened with suspension for merely stating my opinions in declarative sentences, with evidence.
It wasn't when the Soviets left that that occurred. It was 3-4 years later, when the Soviet Union disintegrated and so stopped propping up the Afghan government with funds and weapons. People seem to elide over this period frequently, as if the withdrawl of the Red Army represented the end of Soviet influence/support/meddling/whatever. Likewise, massive US and Saudi support for the mujahedin continued throughout that time, despite the complete absence of Soviet troops.
I'm sorry, can you fucking read? I clearly wrote: If the US bears responsibility, it's for walking away after the Soviets left and watching the country spiral into political anarchy, civil war and internecine tribal warfare. You do that everyday. Or else you really do have no clue who we're fighting. Ignorant or biased? Pick one and embrace it. If you get threatened at all, and that's doubtful, then it's for stating opinions as facts and refusing to follow the site's guidelines by backing up your arguments up with sources. Agreed, up to a point. That is, I did not mean to give that impression, totally. My point is that after the shooting stop and the Red Army left, American attention, funding and enthusiasm ebbed (Bush famously did not even know the conflict was still going on). And the scene from the end of Charlie Wilson's War is fairly accurate: The US was not interested in humanitarian aid or nation-building there. Helping to rebuild the country's infrastructure 20 years ago would have been a lot easier than today.
Considering that you advanced the initial (unbacked) assertion, I'd suggest that you ought to state your own case before you can demand that others do so with a straight face.
Like I said, I want to be one of you guys who can say something obviously doubtful (and really kind of stupid), explicitly claim it to be a fact, fail to provide even an argument let alone a source, and not catch any flac for this habit, over and over and over and over. That's what I read, yep. No responsibility for its contributions prior to 2001, only the possibility of maybe - "if" - some responsibility for walking away - which, as others pointed out to you, didn't happen. Or were you objecting to my finding that kind of sillyass fact free opinionating "fascinating'? OK, I take it back. It's not fascinating. It's boring, moronic bullshit. No. Your point was that the US bears no responsibility for what it did in Afghanistan before 2001. That point was in support of your assertion that Afghanistan is "much more" of a sovereign nation now than in 2001, an assertion you appear to wish to make without invoking considerations of what exactly had happened to bring Afghanistan so low in 2001. Apparently we are to assume that it "spiraled" more or less of its own accord, free of cause from the immediate past of US involvement. That opinion as asserted (fact free and argument lacking) seems unsound, on the face of it, as Afghanistan is under foreign military occupation and has no political coherence now, neither condition obtaining - at least, to this degree - in 2001. But perhaps you have evidence? Argument?
