This is an interesting idea and I hope it plays out the way you suggest it could. I don't think it will. My perception is that disdain for Western values is core to Islamic fundamentalism (not more progressive Islam, but that's not what we're talking about here). Nonetheless, it's possible.
I finished The Fourth Turning by Strauss/Howe a few months back. I didn't think it was a particularly good book, but the concept of an inevitable crash/break is interesting. I'm thinking of Afghanistan through that lens -- America was the world's policeman post-WWII.
In the first turning, we handled that role somewhat effectively -- the Marshall Plan; Korea; etc. -- intervening on occasion where we could do some good or as necessary, but not always. During our third turning as the world's policeman, we started to show signs that we'd lost the stomach for the job. We used the WMD fiction to kick Hussein out of Kuwait, but we stopped short of owning the whole mess that is Iraq. Still, we propped up the petrodollar system.
By the fourth turning, however, we were beguiled by our own self-deception. We thought we were more powerful than we were; that our technology could change others' ideology; that we were pure and right and others backwards and wrong. Hence, Afghanistan and Iraq II.
Now, our role as the world's cop, as well as the petrodollar system, appears to be coming to an end. I'm not sure there will be a disruptive change, but power abhors a vacuum. If there needs to be a new policeman, I'm not sure who will fill the role. China? Some other coalition? I don't know, but it appears the USA is no longer up to the task.
And, perhaps that is a good thing, particularly if it deflates some of our recent arrogance that's led us to believe we can imprison enemy combatants indefinitely in Guantanamo, or initiate drone strikes against anyone in the world, regardless of others' sovereignty, because . . . we're the USA. We're always on the side of RIGHT.
The Nazis were committed to world domination—and a not inconsequential level of ethnic cleansing. The vast majority of Germans weren’t Nazis. And those that were were held accountable. Maybe that’s why Americans (or the French, British, Dutch, Belgians, etc.) don’t hate all Germans today.
Vietnam was a victim of the 19th century wave of European imperial colonization. Maybe that’s why they still hate the French.
The Taliban are religious fanatics committed to world domination. Their religion is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization. The Taliban beat the Russians. Yet the Taliban still hates the Russians.
If losing wars inexorably led to peace and warm relations among former foes, no one would ever prosecute a lengthy war. Or fight another one—against the same opponents. History is a little more complicated.
You've certainly lost subscribers: Donald Rumsfeld's PNAC pals and the "We Must Bomb Weddings For The Sake Of Girls' Education" crowd (but I repeat myself) are gonna be pretty miffed.
Aside from that, I'm not sure your thesis holds; we certainly hated, and executed many of, and to this day continue to hate the memories of, WW2's losers. That their descendents share this hatred, and hate themselves to boot, is really beside the point. And I'm not sure how the Vietnamese feel about Kissinger, but I have a feeling they're not admirers. Actually, that's the point:
We know Frank wasn't at Bergen-Belsen; it wasn't his fight.
Ms. Phúc Hieu knows you didn't spray her countrymen with Agent Orange; it wasn't your fight.
Afghanistan was never the American people's fight. It was an imperial project to implement the End of History, as pre-written by megalomaniacal globalists, who hid first behind the Star-Spangled Banner before abandoning it for the Pride Flag and donning pink pussy hats.
I hope the Taliban figures out what many Americans already have: that our parasitic oligarchy imposing its will on the world isn't much more beneficial to us than them.
The best realistic outcome for Afghanistan would be a government that's not too repressive (ideal would be one that's not repressive at all, but that's not a realistic possibility), that doesn't seek to cause trouble for its neighbours or the wider world, and that pursues economic development.
Afghanistan has large amounts of rare earths and other minerals (https://pontifex.substack.com/p/afghanistan-has-3tn-in-minerals) which they need infrastructure developed to mine effectively. I imagine quite a few Afghans are fed up with war and would rather have peace, stability and economic growth.
This is an interesting idea and I hope it plays out the way you suggest it could. I don't think it will. My perception is that disdain for Western values is core to Islamic fundamentalism (not more progressive Islam, but that's not what we're talking about here). Nonetheless, it's possible.
I finished The Fourth Turning by Strauss/Howe a few months back. I didn't think it was a particularly good book, but the concept of an inevitable crash/break is interesting. I'm thinking of Afghanistan through that lens -- America was the world's policeman post-WWII.
In the first turning, we handled that role somewhat effectively -- the Marshall Plan; Korea; etc. -- intervening on occasion where we could do some good or as necessary, but not always. During our third turning as the world's policeman, we started to show signs that we'd lost the stomach for the job. We used the WMD fiction to kick Hussein out of Kuwait, but we stopped short of owning the whole mess that is Iraq. Still, we propped up the petrodollar system.
By the fourth turning, however, we were beguiled by our own self-deception. We thought we were more powerful than we were; that our technology could change others' ideology; that we were pure and right and others backwards and wrong. Hence, Afghanistan and Iraq II.
Now, our role as the world's cop, as well as the petrodollar system, appears to be coming to an end. I'm not sure there will be a disruptive change, but power abhors a vacuum. If there needs to be a new policeman, I'm not sure who will fill the role. China? Some other coalition? I don't know, but it appears the USA is no longer up to the task.
And, perhaps that is a good thing, particularly if it deflates some of our recent arrogance that's led us to believe we can imprison enemy combatants indefinitely in Guantanamo, or initiate drone strikes against anyone in the world, regardless of others' sovereignty, because . . . we're the USA. We're always on the side of RIGHT.
Go read the Gulag Archipelago and get back to me about not hating the losers.
You do know that after they rode the dodgems, they burnt the fairground to ashes?
The Nazis were committed to world domination—and a not inconsequential level of ethnic cleansing. The vast majority of Germans weren’t Nazis. And those that were were held accountable. Maybe that’s why Americans (or the French, British, Dutch, Belgians, etc.) don’t hate all Germans today.
Vietnam was a victim of the 19th century wave of European imperial colonization. Maybe that’s why they still hate the French.
The Taliban are religious fanatics committed to world domination. Their religion is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization. The Taliban beat the Russians. Yet the Taliban still hates the Russians.
If losing wars inexorably led to peace and warm relations among former foes, no one would ever prosecute a lengthy war. Or fight another one—against the same opponents. History is a little more complicated.
You've certainly lost subscribers: Donald Rumsfeld's PNAC pals and the "We Must Bomb Weddings For The Sake Of Girls' Education" crowd (but I repeat myself) are gonna be pretty miffed.
Aside from that, I'm not sure your thesis holds; we certainly hated, and executed many of, and to this day continue to hate the memories of, WW2's losers. That their descendents share this hatred, and hate themselves to boot, is really beside the point. And I'm not sure how the Vietnamese feel about Kissinger, but I have a feeling they're not admirers. Actually, that's the point:
We know Frank wasn't at Bergen-Belsen; it wasn't his fight.
Ms. Phúc Hieu knows you didn't spray her countrymen with Agent Orange; it wasn't your fight.
Afghanistan was never the American people's fight. It was an imperial project to implement the End of History, as pre-written by megalomaniacal globalists, who hid first behind the Star-Spangled Banner before abandoning it for the Pride Flag and donning pink pussy hats.
I hope the Taliban figures out what many Americans already have: that our parasitic oligarchy imposing its will on the world isn't much more beneficial to us than them.
The best realistic outcome for Afghanistan would be a government that's not too repressive (ideal would be one that's not repressive at all, but that's not a realistic possibility), that doesn't seek to cause trouble for its neighbours or the wider world, and that pursues economic development.
Afghanistan has large amounts of rare earths and other minerals (https://pontifex.substack.com/p/afghanistan-has-3tn-in-minerals) which they need infrastructure developed to mine effectively. I imagine quite a few Afghans are fed up with war and would rather have peace, stability and economic growth.