Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Countries that are fragmented along ethnic, religious, tribal, and linguistic lines, are very difficult to colonize. Many colonial powers e.g. British, Dutch, Belgian and French, learned that quite quickly, no matter if their "charges" were actual colonies, mandates or protectorates!
In general I agree with you, but I'm not quite sure that the colonizing countries "learned that quite quickly". It seems more that they failed to learn that, time after time. It seemed more like a failure to apply what should have been somewhat obvious early on.
I have to smile at the pure logic behind your answer.
Colonies were mostly established in places where there was economic benefit. I'm sure there were exceptions, but for the most part that statement is true. Tiny Belgium establish "Belgium Congo" for economic purposes and killed millions of people - mostly by working them to death.
I did like America's approach in Afghanistan. The philosophy was well expressed by Clint Eastwood in "The Unforgiven" when he promised the town that if they did not behave he would "come back and kill all you sonsabitches" (Thunderclap follows). Genghis Khan had a similar approach which he used to great effect.
But the US certainly didn’t enforce any kind of policy
And there is money to be made in Afghanistan
It is the crossroad of that area
Millions are taken as tribute for “protection”
The appeals for relief for Haitian earthquake victims are already widespread; I have received an appeal from, of all groups, American Jewish World Services (link). Well-intentioned people will no doubt open their wallets. At some point, similar help in Afghanistan will be needed. Given the lack of a competent, transparent government to distribute the assistance, the moneys will disappear. There are plenty of greedy hands perfectly willing to take advantage of the goodwill of the generous.
More ominously, the Taliban, when it governs, participates in or permits the use of territory to launch devastating attacks, September 11, 2001 being a prime example. The original impetus to colonialism was, in part, economic greed on the part of the West. But also in part, piracy and other attacks were motivators. The sailing trips around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, and eventually the building of the Panama Canal were motivated in part by hostilities emanating from Africa and Asia. The West's response after the September 11 attacks hinted at a return to some kind of control by the West in some of these areas. Are we in for a repeat?
We have little interest in exploiting Afghanistan and similar failed states. A "debate question" is by what method does the West protect itself?
Somehow restrict nutcase presidents like Bush from going from a successful very small Green Beret op to a big war so he can dress up in his flight suit and say Mission Accomplished! I got a very strong feeling that W was doing this to prove to his old man that he too is a manly man. Fail.
Zero continued it. Trump wanted to wind it down but I don't think he was doing it right. He hired a lot of moles, he got a lot of bad advice. People hated him because he's a blowhard but he was right on so much.
Now it'll be China's turn to try to tame Afghanistan. They have unlimited warm bodies they can throw in, but I doubt they'll have any more luck than Alexander.
Somehow restrict nutcase presidents like Bush from going from a successful very small Green Beret op to a big war so he can dress up in his flight suit and say Mission Accomplished! I got a very strong feeling that W was doing this to prove to his old man that he too is a manly man. Fail.
Zero continued it. Trump wanted to wind it down but I don't think he was doing it right. He hired a lot of moles, he got a lot of bad advice. People hated him because he's a blowhard but he was right on so much.
Now it'll be China's turn to try to tame Afghanistan. They have unlimited warm bodies they can throw in, but I doubt they'll have any more luck than Alexander.
Trump did get bad advice, but in the end he had a reasonable plan. Unfortunately, the new guy tossed the plan out the window and replaced it with... nothing.
There's been talk about reining in presidential war powers, but it's mostly about politics rather than realism.
The fact that Afghanistan is and was the Vietnam story retold as an middle eastern exercise in nation building seems to have bypassed the minds of many. It's not about Afghanistan anyway for most of the Biden/Dem haters It's just one more action to criticize, just as Trump's follies were bandied about by lefties who were waiting with great anticipation of the Donald's next blunder. US foreign policy as the main tool of economic corporate imperialism has been the driver for most of the military venturing that America has visited on many countries across the globe. Colonialism, imperialism, Regime change, all are euphemisms for US hegemony, in short, our government fronting for US corporate interests.
Even the Russians went away when they figured out that basic Afghan theo/culture is a large supporting force for the Taliban. A force greatly enhanced by early day CIA support when the USSR was meddling in Afghanistan and the US used the Taliban to disrupt Russia's efforts to crush the opposition. What we should do is keep on getting our troops out, and then stay out of other nations tribal conflicts. Of course the only reason we were there in the first place has to do with US corporate hegemony and certainly not anything else.
. . . US foreign policy as the main tool of economic corporate imperialism has been the driver for most of the military venturing that America has visited on many countries across the globe. Colonialism, imperialism, Regime change, all are euphemisms for US hegemony, in short, our government fronting for US corporate interests. . . .
This is such a key point that I want to highlight it since it explains many things.
Rather than implement actual colonial empires in the fashion practiced by the old powers of Europe we did it in a sneaky way by installing dictators of our choice who ran nominally sovereign governments to administer the countries at which time we disappeared from view. We thus created the illusion that those were free and independent nations but in reality they were vassal states captive to US interests.
Good examples are the banana republics in Central America and the Caribbean where we installed despots to assure that United Fruit Company could keep their banana plantations running smoothly. We did it in Cuba too; the last of our Cuban puppets was Batista who was finally overthrown by Fidel Castro. Besides bananas there were the labor intensive sugar cane crops grown in those areas with dirt poor labor, especially Cuba and the Caribbean. We had our puppets running the Philippines largely for the sugar cane crops in support of the Fanjul family who had sugar refineries in Boston, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans (Domino Sugar / Amstar).
Farther afield there is the oil business and a key example of a de facto colonial empire is how we joined with the British in the early 1950s to install our puppet in Iran via a coup run by the CIA. There had been a contract dispute with the freely elected leader of Iran who threatened to nationalize the oil interests of US and British firms; our response was a plot to kill him and install the Shah of Iran to assure the smooth flow of oil. Like our mucking around in Cuba, that bit of empire building finally ended with the Iranian revolution of 1979 where they kicked us out and it's been a mess ever since. All in the name of oil and the billions of dollars that flow from it.
Every time I hear talking heads on TV talk about doing something to "protect U. S. interests" I just cringe and recall an old term we used at the Army agencies where I worked: BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again).
So, back to the OP's original question, NO, colonialism won't solve a thing and is the wrong solution for what ails Haiti and Afghanistan and a ton of other former colonial nations.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Somehow restrict nutcase presidents like Bush from going from a successful very small Green Beret op to a big war so he can dress up in his flight suit and say Mission Accomplished! I got a very strong feeling that W was doing this to prove to his old man that he too is a manly man. Fail.
Zero continued it. Trump wanted to wind it down but I don't think he was doing it right. He hired a lot of moles, he got a lot of bad advice. People hated him because he's a blowhard but he was right on so much.
Now it'll be China's turn to try to tame Afghanistan. They have unlimited warm bodies they can throw in, but I doubt they'll have any more luck than Alexander.
I can't give any credit to Trump for his handling of Afghanistan. Did he "win" the war in Afghanistan? No. Did he get us out of Afghanistan? No. He just kicked the can down the road...as did every president since Bush. Whether it's being handled well or not, at least Biden is doing something decisive. I cannot see how Afghanistan is more important than every other war we have been in, yet staying there for 20 years would give the impression that it is.
Afghanistan is a territory comprising a collection of tribes, two main languages, and separate cultures. Allegiance has always been first to tribe, religion, then "country". Such a complex mix that many invading empires have failed to grasp, and therefore ended up in their "Graveyard"! It is challenging to create a single cohesive entity out of such complexity. Haiti is somewhat different, but equally interesting.
I can't give any credit to Trump for his handling of Afghanistan. Did he "win" the war in Afghanistan? No. Did he get us out of Afghanistan? No. He just kicked the can down the road...as did every president since Bush. Whether it's being handled well or not, at least Biden is doing something decisive. I cannot see how Afghanistan is more important than every other war we have been in, yet staying there for 20 years would give the impression that it is.
Biden himself and other Democrats have blamed the exit on Trump (only once the media feedback turned hostile of course). So if he gets blame, he also deserves some measure of credit from those who're glad we're getting out of there.
Trump did get bad advice, but in the end he had a reasonable plan. Unfortunately, the new guy tossed the plan out the window and replaced it with... nothing.
There's been talk about reining in presidential war powers, but it's mostly about politics rather than realism.
What exactly was that "reasonable plan"? I'd appreciate the details.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
