Losing in Afghanistan

To the immense disappointment of his base, and indeed the immense disappoint of the vast majority of American voters left and right, Trump, breaking his election promises, decided to continue war in Afghanistan, while making the war slightly less infested by lawyers, transexuals, and women’s rights activists.

Well, delawyering the war will certainly help, but lawyers are not the core of the problem.

To put the Afghan war in perspective: In 1983 Reagan invaded Grenada, won the war in about the same time as our initial victory in Afghanistan, purged the permanent government very thoroughly, including numerous “non governmental aid organizations”, installed a new government at bayonet point, and left one month after invading. The new right wing government promptly held an election, which produced a very similar right wing government, and since then there has been no trouble in Grenada, and all elections since then have produced similarly Reaganite results, even though all elections before the invasion produced radical left wing results.

Reagan put his foot down for one month, and the place remains quietly Reaganite forever, without an American soldier in sight.

The Afghan war, on the other hand, has been running for sixteen years, and the Afghan government, despite being supposedly democratically elected, is so corrupt and bitterly unpopular that it would collapse overnight without constant violent American support. And this simply shows no sign of changing. Even if we fight a lot more effectively, thanks to delawyering the war, there is still a power vacuum in Afghanistan waiting for the Taliban.

The problem in Afghanistan is not winning the war. We won the war overnight immediately after invading. The problem is, what do you do with victory?

The problem is not that the US army in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making marines wear high heeled shoes. The problem is that the government in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making schoolgirls put a condom on a banana, who are trying in an ineffectual limp wristed fashion to impose the American state religion in an environment where a hostile and armed opposing religion has deep roots. Further, every Afghan who matters can see that victory for the State Department religion would mean that he probably will not get his dick wet. Communism in Grenada had no roots except the permanent government and the quasi statal NGOs. Purge the permanent government and the NGOs, problem solved. Mohammedanism in Afghanistan has considerably deeper roots.

You need to bring a gun to a gun fight, and a religion to a holy war. The State Department has brought a religion to a holy war, but the problem is that their religion stinks.

How do you win in Afghanistan?

You install a King whose religious practices and official state religion are acceptable to the vast majority of his subjects, which is to say, totally unacceptable to the State Department. You install a conservative Mohammedan King, one who does not think that Mohammedanism, rightly understood, is progressivism. You install a King with a striking resemblance to Dost Mohammad Khan.

The cause of these wars is that the State Department is violating the peace of Westphalia, by imposing our state religion on the entire world.

25 Responses to “Losing in Afghanistan”

  1. anonymous says:

    Very true about the US violating the Peace of Westphalia. Say what you will about the Chinese, but at least they don’t seek to harvest the souls of their vassal countries. They might want your kidneys for organ transplantation, but after that they’ll throw you a few yuan and let you be.

    America doesn’t rest until its wormed its way deep into your psyche and eaten away your society.

  2. Garr says:

    Muslims didn’t sign the Peace of Westphalia, so fuck ’em. Anglos didn’t sign it either, did they? I don’t think they did.

    • jim says:

      We could say fuckem, if we were willing to kill them all and enslave their women. If we are not willing to do that, then we face the same choice that signatories of Westphalia faced: Follow the Westphalian rules, or face bloody war without end.

      • Cavalier says:

        The Peace of Westphalia wasn’t about “rules”, about religion or otherwise, but about formalizing the won supremacy of the nascent secular state over the Church. It was the Pope kneeling to the Kings. And then, quite strangely indeed, the “bloody [holy] war without end” was over.

        • peppermint says:

          …a secular state is a state that doesn’t recognize the overlordship of the leader of the Aryan race, pontifex maximus of Christendom.

          The Pope’s holy Aryan armies had bound the race together, unlike the bad old days when we were savages slaughtering each other for no reason while mud people waited for their opportunity to invade the homeland. Richard Sparklehooves wants to restore this.

          Theoretically, what followed was localism, people do what they want and it’s no one else’s problem if they fuck up

          • peppermint says:

            In reality, what followed was grand nationalisms where clear borders were established between superstates and grand national armies were thrown at each other. As concern for the race was replaced with grand nationalism, concern for the common man was replaced with socialism, and Christanity, which had been what Whites called each other was replaced with utilitarianism and the churches destroyed.

            Today no one makes friends at church or at work. Instead, we find people to argue with online.

            Anyway the only way to restore Westphalia, or create localism, or just stop fucking with people no one cares about, is to stop worshiping the holy hoax.

    • Anon says:

      If America’s stance were truly “fuck your society, whatever it is”, that would actually work out quite well for everyone. That’s the Chinese and Russian attitude.

      America’s stance really is “I have so much compassion for your society, let me make it all better by destroying it and remaking it in my image because I just want what’s best for it”.

      American ideology is like the Borg – it got to you, the white European man, first, destroyed your sense of place and identity, and now you have nothing but your tormentor to identify with. Now you spend your life trying to export your infection to the healthy.

      Christianity, taken to it’s logical conclusion.

  3. Rreactionaryfuture says:

    where a hostile and armed opposing religion has deep roots.” Not true. It’s a new thing, even newer than communism actually.

    “You need to bring a gun to a gun fight, and a religion to a holy war.” Religion is a concept pulled out of Locke and his kind’s ass. For it to make sense, you have to have a society of individuals created by Jouvenel’s power conflict.

    You are esentualizing religion, Islam, and a great many other very contingent things and depriving them of this very contingency. It’s an act of self deception.

    • jim says:

      Fundamentally, the State Department wants to make Islam progressive, and some Muslims disagree. That Islam is profoundly unprogressive has mighty deep roots.

      • Rage Against the Machine says:

        The only progressive religion is the US one. And progressiveness means focusing on the whims of the self. Of course Afghan school girls need to be taught to put condoms on bananas. How else will they learn to cum and get others to cum without consequences? The essence of the American religion is cumming.

        If the individual has the urge for buttsex in public lavatories then the individual’s whims are paramount.

        All hail the Amerifag!

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >Not true. It’s a new thing, even newer than communism actually.
      Oh please. There might be a few new wrinkles in Islam’s strategy, but the beast is 1300 years old. Oooh, I must be “esentualizing religion” and “depriving it of contingency.” Big words and opaque jargon – I’m so impressed with your big brain, but would you mind putting it in simple terms that we brainlets could understand? Or would that make it too obvious that you’re shit’s all retarded?

    • oogenhand says:

      The essential point about religion is eternal damnation. You may not believe in it, but others do. And you do need it in order to convince them.

      What about a religion that is not too unacceptable to Afghans, but macho enough to get things done, e.g. Erdogan-Islam, or Khamenei-Islam?

    • peppermint says:

      Well, you have a few years. Win, or lose, neither is Trump’s fault.

  4. pdimov says:

    “How do you win in Afghanistan?”

    You don’t. Fortunately, you don’t have to.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      If Trump is in essence a morally good person, extorting the shit out of him is a piece of cake. If he’s morally corrupt, then no need to apply much pressure. So either way — whether Trump is a good guy or yet another Machiavellian narcissist — he *will* do what the Deep State tells him to do. And it tells him to keep the CIA’s international drug-trafficking operation intact.

      • coyote says:

        excellent truth comment. “air america” flies a bit further north! small wonder our vets come home and commit suicide after guarding the poppy fields.

    • lalit says:

      Uh-oh! I disagree. You can win in Afghanistan. Let me present two exhibits

      Exhibit 1. The Arabs: Afghanistan used to be Hindu-Buddhist. It is now muslim. How? The arabs invaded and killed everyone who would not convert to Islam. One can say Afghanistan is still under Arab Rule as they Kowtow to the Uber-Muslims, the Arabs. Yes, it took the Arabs 350 years to pull it off, but pull it off they did, with seemingly permanent results.

      Exhibit 2: The Mongols. Say what you will about the Great Khan, His Excellencey , the Genghis Khan, but he believed in simple solutions to complicated problems. He just killed All Afghans who would not kow tow to his rule were just erased without so much as a second thought. The Mongols are still there, the Hazara people, the rulers of the Afghans. Yes, the Hazaras are an oppressed people now, but they were once kings.

      So yes, it can be done. Afghanistan can be conquered. It’s been done at least twice before. So, what does it take to conquer Afghanistan, then? Whatever it is, Time, patience, Sheer bloody mindedness, etc the US Empires, Both blue and Red, sure do not have it. So I second Jim on the solution in Afghanistan

      • pdimov says:

        These are land invasions. Naval empires don’t conquer, they colonize. And America doesn’t want to colonize even if we posit that it’d work.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        The English could have colonised Afghanistan, in the true sense of population displacement, except there were 1000 better places to colonise first.

        Now the English have no children, and have to try hard enough to colonise their own homes.

Leave a Reply