Home | About | Donate

The Real Lesson of Afghanistan Is That Regime Change Does Not Work

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/12/21/real-lesson-afghanistan-regime-change-does-not-work

3 Likes

We all know Regime Change doesn’t work, yet 95% of us vote to keep it going.

Shame on those hypocrites.

Shame on us all.

4 Likes

It shouldn’t take 18 years for U.S. officials to publicly admit that there is no military solution to a murderous and unwinnable war for which the U.S. is politically and legally responsible.

With all due respect Medea, the war in Afghanistan, has never been about a military solution, the worst thing that could happen from the MICC’s perspective is to win the war in Afghanistan!

7 Likes

Three administrations didn’t fail. They did just what the arms manufacturers, who support their election campaigns, wanted them to do. Namely keep a failing war going so they could keep earning the big bucks supplying armaments and ammunition. This system will never change until we sort out the one ring that controls them all. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

5 Likes

“The Real Lesson of Afghanistan Is That Regime Change Does Not Work”

OK. True enough. Of course, that was the “real lesson” from innumerable changed regimes, from the Middle East (Iran, Iraq) to Central and South American (too many to list) to Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia). Permanent war means never having to learn from your mistakes.

4 Likes

But it did work. The military-industrial complex and the private contractors made billions out of it.

7 Likes

An ancient Belief proved true, yet again. In fact, Russia was ruined by Afghanistan----and now, the same is happening to the U.S. Yes, throughout history, Afghanistan has been and seems to also currently be,“The graveyard of Empires.” Yep, here comes the doomed USA right on schedule. I wonder who will be next?

2 Likes

Regime change works for the .00001% and has for at least 150years. Even those places that seem to survive regime change serve as lessons to those that might resist the bankster controlled world monetary system.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria all have in common that they had their own central banks at least partially independent of the international banksters. There are four remaining: Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.
The current playbook (it is always changing) is neoliberalism. Borrow from the IMF, shut down your own money creation and institute austerity and make your land, labor and resources available cheaply for the.00001%.

5 Likes

I think you meant to say that 95% of those who vote, vote to keep it going. Remember about half of those eligible, do not vote. Nothing gives the .00001% nightmares more than the idea that the 99% will awaken and use their collective power. The .00001% do everything they can directly and indirectly to reduce voting Stealing elections is only one tactic. When people realize that presidential elections were stolen in 2000, 2004 and 2016 not to mention other shenanigans as in 1960 and 1944, then they are less likely to vote and that is just fine with the .00001%.

1 Like

Regime change works. It was never intended to do the things it was advertised to do.

3 Likes

Afghanistan is not really a country. It’s a tribal area, populated by warlords, each of whom controls the poppy crop. The authority of the so-called central government does not extend beyond the city limit of Kabul. The Russians bombed it back to the stone age. We are now stirring the rubble. The military is in charge, certainly not our congress, that is supposed to be the authority to declare war.So we are in autopilot and will remain so ad infinitum.

2 Likes

Permanently ending this entire U.S. policy of coercive regime change is therefore a political, moral and existential imperative.

Medea Benjamin (I have to admit – I see her byline and forget about the other one) is so awesomely consistently with-it – Reading Medea is like drinking a glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice: so sweet and refreshing does it feel to encounter a human being.

Warfare is now totally incompatible with survival. Kudos for concluding on that point.

2 Likes

It doesn’t work in any positive sense. People in other countries don’t want to be Americans. They want to be themselves and they prefer poor or better government by their own rather than foreign interference.

1 Like

I know, some people here think she is a soviet agent, a putin puppy, smear, smear… I think she might be the only adult in the race.

Peace
Po

4 Likes
1 Like

The rest of the world should turn its back on us, and publicly renounce any support they gave us in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace else with troop support or renditions or torture sites. It is not enough for their citizens to be disgusted with us. The governments must renounce their alliance with us. We get away with murder and mayhem. It is time for the world to acknowledge it. First step, do not hand Julian Assange over to this band of sadists and murderers.

2 Likes

Regime change works very well for military profiteer$.

The US originally backed the Taliban who were going to let the US build a pipeline from Kazakhstan to Indian Ocean through Afghanistan. But once the Taliban got in power, they refused the US access. The US got pissed off and decided to invade and oust the Taliban and the rest unfortunately is history. And that bruised ego just gets more bruised every day.

1 Like

The Real Lesson? Simply how to make America grate with other countries - again, and again, and again, and…

Apply the arguments of Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies to WWII. Consider:

  • Certainly the Allies had every right to toss the Germans and Japanese out of the countries and territories they had invaded. (Likewise, the Soviets had no right to invade and incorporate the territories of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, what is now present day Moldova, or Tannu Tuva into the Soviet Union. …)
  • But the Allies had no right to invade Germany or Japan, or to force unconditional surrender, occupation, regime change or war crimes trials on their former leaders.

Is that what you really want?

More recently, Uganda under Pres. Idi Amin invaded northwest Tanzania. Tanzania not only tossed the Ugandan troops out, but continued marching north and forced a regime change on Uganda. Questions:

  • How many years of disorder in Uganda followed?
  • Who does the current ruler of Uganda owe anything to?

Also recently, Vietnam invaded the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, forced a regime change ousting the Khmer Rouge, and installed a government of their choice. Contrast:

  • On the one hand the Khmer Rouge, operating from near the Thai border, kept up resistance to the Cambodian government for many years.
  • On the other hand, Noam Chomsky praised the Vietnamese regime change in Cambodia as more positive than anything the USA has ever done.
    – Peace in Cambodia came from the broader Khmer Rouge ousting and killing Pol Pot, from accepting the restoration of Cambodia’s monarchy in a figurehead sense, and from a Khmer Rouge lieutenant becoming the effective leader of Cambodia, running the country on principles very different from those of the Khmer Rouge in 1975 to 1978.

Looking at now and the near future, masses of people demonstrated against the governments of France, Hong Kong, Ecuador, Bolivia and Chile. The government of Bolivia was overthrown. The government of Chile might be overthrown soon. One of those is blamed on the US seeking a regime change, the other on popular uprising. What is your basis of judgment? Are you looking closely enough at the circumstances?