Musings regarding US and Afghanistan

 I think that american pragmatism has the flaw that is focusing on means, not on outcomes.

In 20 century I saw US throwing money at problems, or trying to use technology to solve stuff. In Vietnam they wanted to build an electronic wall to stop Vietcong, in Central America, they payed officials to fight drug trafficking, while the countries were ruled by narcos.

They thought that if they throw technology and money they will have a base in Afghanistan. The technology gap is narrowing, China has night vision goggles, and can give to Taliban, Turkish drones are cheaper than an airplane.

The economy has its crisis and you can't finance a war forever, unless you extract wealth from it 

If US administration would have consulted NATO allies in policies they could make better decisions.

But as Trump has said it, and Biden had done it: "America first" and US internal politics overshadow the external one. 

Also the politics trump the truth, Bush needed uranium in Irak to invade it, Biden needed 300k afghan troops, to pull out. 

A superpower hybris can destroy an alliance:

In 1961 after returning from a visit in Asia, the Romania's communist president Dej, found out that Soviet Union has placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Dej was upset because he could be drawn in a nuclear war that it didn't want, and soviets didn't tell him anything when he made his stop over to Moscow.

"They are nuts?" He said "Hruschev can drag us into a war. These issues must be addressed within Warsaw treaty, because all we are affected"

Since then he decided to split from Moscow, and approach US.

At an UN meeting an Romanian diplomat approached an US colleague and told him that Romania doesn't have nuclear missiles and US shouldn't attack it.

Since them Romania was more on US side than Russia's.

I expect that EU security cooperation to strengthen, and EU to follow a real politik approach to external policy.

The best approach in my opinion, was that after defeating Taliban's, US would lead an international conference on fate of Afghanistan, because many countries had help to fight Taliban, and even fewer wanted them in power. To the conference all the great powers would be present, and the neighbors.

Afghanistan would have been a neutral country as Switzerland, and any member of the agreement would be sanctioned if supported terrorism in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan constitution and organisation should have mimic the Switzerland,another mountainous country, with different culture, but with some local characteristics. You cannot have a centralized state if you don't have a common culture

The war who ended all wars in the West at least

 I saw some historical recreation of medieval battle.

The battles were real, real knights versus real knights fighting with blunted weapons. Men and women sweating under heavy armour, suffocated by their helmets, while taking blows from all sides.

What a difference with  experiences from WW1 described in Owen Wilfred poetry Dulce et decorum est: https://youtu.be/qB4cdRgIcB8 

In preindustrial wars, one cover himself glory either by defeating enemies, either by bravely dying.

WW1 on western front took away this. The only thing you could be covered was mud.

Soldiers survival depended more on whims of artillery gods, than their personal skills. Also the victory depended more on power of industry than their skills 

So the idea that the war is a chance for the warrior to prove himself was over.

Masculine vs feminine, meritocratic versus inclusive

 I heard a lot of pro and cons regarding ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion, but I noticed that most of proponents for DEI, are women while the most opponents are men.

Maybe it how masculine and feminine society work.

In all tribal societies, the boy becomes a men and joins dangerous activities of men after a trial. It could be to stay one week alone in forest, or hunt an animal, or undergo something painful as circumcision.

The reason is that men hunt and wage warfare and down need a weakling to hold you back. A group marches at the speed of slowest individual.

So men society is more selective, and prizes independence.

Women on the other hand have other issues, during pregnancy they are vulnerable and need help of other people and they tend to create social networks and include many people.

Women society is more inclusive, and priorities reciprocity.

New World was colonised first by men, and this biased cultures to be more masculine, competitive and individualistic. In South America you have machismo, US you don't have paid vacation for the birth of the child as some poorer European countries have 

In more old sedentary societies who have enough food you notice that social networks are wider, and issues of taking care of family and others have more importance.

After the wilderness was tamed the number of women increased  and they shifted the characteristics of society. 

Neither of these views is correct per se.

These views must be applied in the right context 

You can't be inclusive were you have competition, in a sports team. You must select for competent persons.

But you can't refuse support to a weaker person like a child because it has to man up.

If Steven Hawkins would be born on Sparta, he would be killed, and Sparta would have lost a genius 

Inclusion should increase the pool of talents. As Nikola Tesla said "half of the population is not used" he was referring to the women. He was a particular child and without tutelage of his mother he wouldn't have succeded.

In WW2 Germany selected from top down based on theory. 

US included many diverse people, including German Jewish scientist, and they had a bigger pool of talents to select and US made the first atomic bomb.

Also the selection in a democracy is done from bottom up.

Inclusivity and selection work hand in hand.