"US Has Achieved ‘Modicum of Success’ in Afghanistan," Topic

…Top General Says

"Two decades of war in Afghanistan have seen a "modicum of success" but also years of "strategic stalemate," the nation's top general said Wednesday in one of the military's frankest assessments of progress in the wartorn nation in recent memory.

The United States has been successful at preventing another 9/11-style attack from originating in Afghanistan, Gen. Mark Milley said during an online Brookings event, through its model of training and supporting the Afghan military and working with the government in Kabul…"

YouTube link

Main page
link

A brutal and honest assessment of the Afghanistan war from a senior Pentagon official …. finally…

Amicalement
Armand

A modicum of success that made nary an iota of difference?

Well short of killing a lot of jihadis … A'stan may be better than it was e.g. when Russia was there. But when the USA leaves … it will go back to the way it was about 40 years ago or worse. ISIS is added to the mix …

Regardless I think the General knows much more than we do on the topic …

I would only call it "success" if the United States and all our other reluctant allies can leave, and the "country" doesn't immediately implode and be worse than it was before we invaded.
Since that isn't going to happen, does that mean that Afghanistan will be a permanent line item in the Pentagon's budget, like maintenance at West Point?

John the OFM, I totally agree.

I think the General knows much more than we do on the topic …

I think the general is either a victim of group think which is endemic in US policy and defence circles or most likely knows which side of the bread is buttered and doesn't want to scarper future career progression by stating the US failed.

Well short of killing a lot of jihadis

You also killed a lot of Vietnamese, but the North Vietnamese flag still flew over Saigon (and other Communist flags flew over Phnom Penh and Vientiane despite the sheer volume of American bombs falling on those countries being more than expended in the whole of WWII).

You Americans need to learn that kill counts aren't the same as winning wars and achieving foreign policy goals.

In fact our friends the Chinese and Russians are proving you can win big time without even spilling any blood (eg Crimea or SC Sea).

"You Americans need to learn that kill counts aren't the same as winning wars and achieving foreign policy goals.

In fact our friends the Chinese and Russians are proving you can win big time without even spilling any blood (eg Crimea or SC Sea)."

Yes your right! Time to embrace your Chinese Overlords, I mean friends. ;)

es your right! Time to embrace your Chinese Overlords, I mean friends. ;)

Personally I'd rather the west give them some of their own medicine…

…Even though our political and especially business leaders eagerly embrace the Chicoms and in Europe, the Russians (Germany even risk US sanctions to deal with Russia).

We should have declared victory in 2003 and left… of course we hadn't found Bin Laden but we could have returned at any time and smacked him down… imho, the small foot print approach was the best strategy… we (United States) could have saved a ton of money and not have incurred 17 more years worth of casualties…

Mission creep.

I've argued for years that we're taking too short a view of what's going on in Afghanistan. It took 60 years to turn South Korea, The Philippines, and other countries we occupied at the end of WWII into vibrant democracies. We're expecting too much in too short a time. I've heard the comment hundreds of times that the Chinese are playing the long game and we should learn from them. In this case I agree, if we can stay long enough we can turn Afghanistan and Iraq into valuable, democratic, allies. Just my opinion.

There's a lot of truth in that observation Dn Jackson.

The Philippines is still struggling to maintain democratic safeguards. Hardly 'vibrant'.

South Korea was a military dictatorship until 1987. There are still some issues with corruption and the undue influence of the 'chaebol'. Also, jury trials are a new idea [post 2012] in South Korea and their verdicts can be ignored by the judge.

Japan, though they have elections, have had the same party in charge nearly continuously since 1955. Jury trials were reintroduced in 2009.

West Germany was democratic again quite quickly, but 30-50 years seems to be the incubation period for democracy to emerge, even in the best circumstances.

Afghanistan has no history of democracy and is a primitive tribal country with no national identity. Hardly fertile ground.

If it took 30+ years in South Korea, it's going to take double that in Afghanistan. People in large numbers have to leave, be educated and see what democracy can be, then return to take up leadership positions.

Is the US willing to stay 40 more years? Many voters are not. That said – I personally think the US will stay, retreating into fortified bases that control key areas and leaving the hinterland to the Taliban. Too much has been spent/invested in Afghanistan to just leave.

I don't think it matters who is in the Whitehouse. They get advised and it takes a very strong will to overrule all the advice from experts. Obama wanted to end both wars in 2008, but was unable to. Trump too was big on 'end the war' rhetoric but has failed to do so [last ditch efforts notwithstanding]. My point is this is above politics and therefore above the influence of the US voters.

Interesting comments about the long game Dn Jackson. Hard to play long nowadays with a 24 hour news cycle, a msm constantly on the attack no matter what you do; and an impatient citizenry. I think for the long game to be successful the current generation (everyone over 7 years old) needs to die out and the next generation needs to be educated / indoctrinated into a new way of thinking. Old ideologies die hard. In other words, it will take a few generations to bring real change.

Thoughtful comments Skarper especially with your nonpartisan insight on the limits of the President.

I would only call it "success" if the United States and all our other reluctant allies can leave, and the "country" doesn't immediately implode and be worse than it was before we invaded.

I believe as I have said before, that is going to happen one way or another. They will go back to old habits …

Since that isn't going to happen, does that mean that Afghanistan will be a permanent line item in the Pentagon's budget, like maintenance at West Point?

Disagree … we will leave as we did in SE Asia. And we will spend little on A'stan. Save for intel and SF. And at last count, that was going in about 135 countries. Well that is the unclassified number anyway. Plus the US gov't has plenty of money to keep our world class Military Academies in fine condition. Albeit there is a 10% US Military downsizing on the way. Once again many of those in DC, forget about history. But those that make those types of decisions won't have to worry about having anyone in their family going in harms way. Or coming back home in a body bag.

I think the general is either a victim of group think which is endemic in US policy and defence circles or most likely knows which side of the bread is buttered and doesn't want to scarper future career progression by stating the US failed.

Again I think the Generals know more about what is going than we do. We only hear what is unclassified.

You Americans need to learn that kill counts aren't the same as winning wars and achieving foreign policy goals.

No many have to learn that in many situations at the Plt and Co. level where I lead. It has little to do about anything but survival. At those level the best way to survive is kill them before they kill you and your comrades. And them can be anyone who is trying to kill us, e.g. Vietnamese, Chinese, Norks, Afghans, Iraqis, AQ, ISIS, Taliban, etc., etc. The list is long.

Afghanistan has no history of democracy and is a primitive tribal country with no national identity. Hardly fertile ground.

I have said this many times. We gave it a good try, but no matter how much time, blood & money is spent/wasted they and many who have similar belief systems/cultures will remain in the past. Yeah, we need to let them go back to their old habits.

I don't think it matters who is in the Whitehouse. They get advised and it takes a very strong will to overrule all the advice from experts.

In many cases they don't listen to the experts. It has been well documented by those that served in those administration. Even as early as a decade or more ago.

My point is this is above politics and therefore above the influence of the US voters.

After watching the daily news feeds that has become much more clearer than ever.

As far as Confucius's saying. As well as some other things some of the "experts" here have posted. I can't help but thinking what my PLs and SLs would have said in this situation. "Just leave the stones where the they are ! And call-in and some airstrikes !

On a side note on wether or not Afghanistan is better or worse since the US invasion; the electric power grid in Kabul has greatly expanded. The city is now illuminated at night which has spin off benefits.

Well that is something. I wonder if they can maintain that level of modernity when the US and our allies are gone?

I'm doubtful …

Interestingly, I was just talking to a Vietnam at the store. One of the first thing he said, "When we were in Basic Training. The DIs said we are only sending you there to kill." …

As I have said before. I started ROTC in '75 the year I graduated High School. The war was over but still very fresh in everyone's minds. Most of my Instructors in ROTC, then on active duty, as well as many of those who I served with were Vet's of the Vietnam War.

They trained my comrades and I, the way they were trained plus the experience they gained in combat in SE Asia. So again as a SL, PL or CO, the tactical war is "won" by killing the enemy. Often and in large numbers. Winning is survival, not only yours but your comrades. Regardless of how many of the enemy we have to kill. Again this is how we were trained.

So this comment:

You Americans need to learn that kill counts aren't the same as winning wars and achieving foreign policy goals.

Means very little to the troops at the pointy end of the spear, at the front, etc. YOU have to learn any other goals the politicians, etc., have has to comes in secondary. BTW the term is "body" count not kill count. Never heard it put that way.

Even the pointy tip isn't all about killing things. German blitzkrieg worked so well cause it's emphasis was manoeuvre not attrition warfare.

As for body count v kill count – same thing.

"If it took 30+ years in South Korea, it's going to take double that in Afghanistan. People in large numbers have to leave, be educated and see what democracy can be, then return to take up leadership positions."

A friend of mine worked for The State Department in the Green Zone. He said the South Koreans were great at convincing the locals to join the pro-US side. What they did was set up a powerpoint display. All they did was show pictures of Seoul circa 1950 and circa 2006. They then said, "This is what you can expect when you ally with the Americans."

That might be possible in Iraq, but never in Afghanistan.

South Korea had a lot of special circumstances and the rapid growth came at huge costs. I'm not sure many democracies would pay those costs to have what South Korea has now.

South Korea is ethnically homogenous with a proud history and culture. Afghanistan is just another set of random borders drawn by dead white guys.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Even the pointy tip isn't all about killing things. German blitzkrieg worked so well cause it's emphasis was manoeuvre not attrition warfare.

Please don't lecture me on modern mobile combined arms warfare. I've talked about this many times before,.i.e. US Air/Land Battle doctrine, German Blitzkrieg, etc., etc. And again I didn't just read about but was trained to practice it, in 10+ years in the Infantry.

But we all know even in maneuver warfare, many will die. As I just posted. No many have to learn that in many situations at the Plt and Co. level where I lead. It has little to do about anything but survival. At those level the best way to survive is kill them before they kill you and your comrades.

That works in maneuver warfare as well.

In fact our friends the Chinese and Russians are proving you can win big time without even spilling any blood (eg Crimea or SC Sea).

Wait … you are trying to use that as an example when both nations are know for attrition warfare. Willing to take high losses much more so than most militaries in the world. And in no case e.g. WWII did they ever not try to destroy their enemies in large numbers? BTW, That is a standard in many conflicts.

I was also trained in COIN, as well as ops in many environments, e.g. jungle, desert, urban, etc. Didn't only read about or say it on TV.

As for body count v kill count – same thing.

We never called it that in the Army. But we did have "Kill Zone, Kill Shot, etc., etc., and my favorite from the Vietnam Vets I was trained by and served with. … "Kill'm all and let God sort them out!" …

Dn Jackson +1

That might be possible in Iraq, but never in Afghanistan.

I'd agree with that …

South Korea had a lot of special circumstances and the rapid growth came at huge costs. I'm not sure many democracies would pay those costs to have what South Korea has now.

Yes, and after all that, they are now have one of the best economies in that region and even in the world. Compared to many.

South Korea is ethnically homogenous with a proud history and culture.

Yes, I saw that while I was there. That is one of their strengths. And from what I can tell many Asian countries are like that. That is a plus.

Afghanistan is just another set of random borders drawn by dead white guys.

Yes and it is not just A'stan. But many places in the moslem world, e.g. Iraq. As I posted before on other threads. I said, until they become less wedded to their religious, tribal and ethnic differences there is nothing the West, i.e. USA can do. Again islam is not one unified entity. And they generally make very poor allies.

I don't consider being 'ethnically homogeneous' as a strength. Arguably it's among the biggest weaknesses of countries like Japan and Korea. I've spent time in both South Korea and Japan. Many positives about both countries but the 'us versus them' attitude holds both places back, in my experience anyway.

Diversity is a huge positive about America, for example. I've never been there [never wanted to go], but it's a nation of immigrants [barring the tiny remnant of first nations people] and that has been a huge factor in America's success.

I don't consider being 'ethnically homogeneous' as a strength.

But it's better than what we see in the Mid East and A'stan. They have no national identity, their differences are deep and many. E.g. religion, tribal, ethnic, etc. That is what keeps them from getting into the 20th let alone the 21st Century.

'us versus them' attitude holds both places back, in my experience anyway.

Whether many like it or not that is the way the world is. E.g. just look at the Mid East, Africa, A'stan, Pakistan, etc. Even in some cases in the USA, and though out the West, as well as the PRC/CCP and Russia …

Diversity is a huge positive about America, for example. I've never been there [never wanted to go], but it's a nation of immigrants [barring the tiny remnant of first nations people] and that has been a huge factor in America's success.

You are telling me something I don't know ? And I'm pretty sure many here pro or con of the USA knows it too. E.g the men in my Plt and Company were from all over the US, whose ancestors came from all over the World, plus even some Native Americans … But in the Army they were one solid entity when it came to getting the job done.

[never wanted to go]

Yes, I don't think you'd like it here. Many attitudes I run across here would not really like it in the USA either. It's not what you see on TV or read in the media, etc., … The people in the North East are different from those in the South. As is in the Southwest different than West Coast, etc., etc. But most agree … they are all Americans. Save for a few fringe groups like Antifa, etc.

I accept having some unifying aspect helps with formation of a nation state. Being the same race is the most basic denominator and due to many countries being created by the old imperial powers, this was ignored or often used as a divider. More evidence that while the USA has a dirty history that should never be whitewashed, the British Empire, in most regards, was the first and worst. [the Empires of antiquity not really being comparable].

So Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and many other creations of the post WW1 'carve up' do not have the foundations for a modern nation state.

As for Japan and South Korea they need more diversity if they are to progress. Both countries' economies are in decline now. Both have enormous demographic time bombs ticking. Both have severe mental health crises. They need to break out of their narrow minded group think and find alternatives. Immigration and diversity can help a lot with this. There are signs of progress among the younger generations in both countries, but it would benefit from a jump start.

I accept having some unifying aspect helps with formation of a nation state. Being the same race is the most basic denominator

Yes that is true in many places in the world. And as I said is a plus operating as a nation state. As long as they are not too xenophobic, etc. But in some cases that will happen regardless. And again that is the USA's strength being diverse yet still many ID themselves as Americans.
The situation in the USA now is with the massive amounts if illegal aliens coming across primarily the Southern Border. Brings in some real criminal elements. Albeit small compared to most of those from failed and failing states trying to come here for a better life. But there is a legal proper way to come to the USA. Like many of our grandparents did a 100 or so years ago. And by not doing it that way, make those illegals criminals. As well as a country can't control it's border has not security and is not a nation at all …

So Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and many other creations of the post WW1 'carve up' do not have the foundations for a modern nation state.

Agreed and don't forget what occurred to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. E.g. the former Yugoslavia. And problems continue there as well as in much of the former Ottoman-Turk Empire in the Mid East. Lines on a map that were drawn to favor the Euros. Not taking into account all of the varied religious, tribal, ethnic, etc., that make up of those areas.

There are signs of progress among the younger generations in both countries, but it would benefit from a jump start.

The World has become flat with mass transit and the web almost everywhere. I know for a fact many Americans[and others not from those nations] live and work in Japan and ROK. It may take time but I think there is more diversity coming about. Especially that both have pretty good economies.

Iran and many other creations of the post WW1 'carve up' do not have the foundations for a modern nation state.

Iran isn't a made up country or one that was invented by the Europeans post WWI. It's a very ancient country that goes back to the Persian Empire.

There's been a Persia/Iran in one form or another for several millennia.

Iran was never conquered by the Ottomans (though the Persians and Ottomans waged many wars) or a European colonial power (save 1941).

Up to as late as the 19th century, Persian Empires were major powers in the region. Up to the 1830s the Persians controlled as far north as Georgia and Dagestan. These were lost to the Russians in the 1800-20s.

Iran is effectively like China or India – an ancient culture whose beginnings go back to nearly the start of human civilisations.

The Iranians have referred to themselves as Iranians since 1000 BC. Persia is a western word. In 1935 the Persians requested that the west stops referring to them as Persia and instead to call them Iran.

This is not that dissimilar to English people calling Germany Germany and not Deutschland or not calling Japan Nippon.

As for Japan and South Korea they need more diversity

They don't need diversity. They need to restart birth rates! Multicultural diversity is actually a big handicap.

Most countries that have had true progress were monocultural or had one extremely dominant culture that literally crushed all others (eg US). Even the Swedes suppressed the Sami culture up to the 1980s.
Switzerland is the only truly successful multi-cultural state.

The west starts to go into decline as it becomes more multicultural.

Harvard scientist Robert Putnam accidentally discovered that growing cultural diversity:

- reduces social trust
- reduces social engagement
- reduces investment in social infrastructure
- results in lower political trust
- increased social fragmentation

You really see this in the US – indeed as the dominant culture recedes in terms of numbers, there is more and more conflict there.

Most multi-ethnic states are dismal failures either held together by oppression or even violence, are relatively dysfunctional and are often borderline or actual failed states.

The only value of massed immigration flows is to to lower price of labour and ramp up profits for real estate developers. Indeed Australia has one of the biggest per capita immigration rates on the planet and it has resulted in wage stagnation in the period 2008-2020.

More workers = increased supply = lower bargaining power = lower salaries and working conditions.

It's basic free market economics 101.

It's also ramped up house prices to the point they are unaffordable in major cities such as Sydney and Melbourne (median house prices of $1.2 USD million at peak in 2018). In Hobart it doubled the homeless rate.

Again economics 101:

More people = more demand for housing

It's contributing to crowding. congestion and decline in living standards as infrastructure struggles to support such a rapidly growing population.

We now have issues with African and Muslim migrants and it's known at least 10% of the 1 million strong Chinese immigrant population is working to further Chinese interests (and maybe another 30-40% tacitly support China). Immigrants from my part of the world (Balkans) introduced terrorism to Australia in the 1970s.

Basically "growing diversity" is good for the elites and 1%, horrible for everyone else.

Yes, your information about Iran is correct. And the Anglo-USSR invasion is a very interesting WWII campaign, albeit smaller than most. link Plus I read thru the list to quickly. My bad … However, I've heard Iranians in the US refer to themselves as Persians.

As far as diversity in the USA. I posted this already above. But I think worth repeating. The situation in the USA now is with the massive amounts if illegal aliens coming across primarily the Southern Border. Brings in some real criminal elements. Albeit small compared to most of those from failed and failing states trying to come here for a better life. But there is a legal proper way to come to the USA. Like many of our grandparents did a 100 or so years ago. And by not doing it that way, make those illegals criminals. As well as a country can't control it's border has not security and is not a nation at all …

It's correct about Iran. I included it in my list by mistake. Thanks for the correction.

The 'illegal' immigrants thing is a red herring designed to deflect from the real endemic problems in the US and UK economies. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the US entered legally then overstayed. Not sure about Australia's situation so won't comment.

Rising house prices have more to do with financial speculation and cheap credit than increased demand from immigrants, legal or not. The film 'The Big Short' explains how this happened.

The UK has also failed since the 1980s to build enough low cost housing. This was government policy. Too many excessively rich people have larger houses than they need, sometimes multiple homes, while typical working class people live in rented rooms and cannot hope to live the kind of lives their parents and grandparents did.

It's a failure of capitalism to provide people the opportunities and support they need. If left unregulated, capitalism crashes the world economy every 5-10 years. Not to mention it's the main driver of climate change. We must find a better way and soon or we are doomed to a bleak future.

The UK would have had zero economic growth without the net immigration during the last 10-15 years.

Some advocate an open borders policy. Some of these advocates are the 0.01% who want wages to fall to near zero so they can get even richer. They are sociopaths who should be locked up. Another argument for open borders is that if people can leave war-torn or disaster stricken regions and move to the first world, the first world would have to act in some way. I don't see that working out, it's fanciful at best. Either way, I'm for managed immigration, not unlimited nor the fortress mentality some exhibit.

I am arguing the benefits of diversity over a mono racial culture. Japan and Korea would both benefit from some diversity. They are ridiculously narrow minded and hidebound. They won't change unless they are open to other ways of doing things. For all their wealth they are some of the most miserable people on earth.

I'm not advocating mass immigration from poorer countries as a cure all. Japan and Korea will both need to allow in low skilled workers from South East Asia and elsewhere to keep their economies going as their populations age, but I'm more talking about skilled workers, managers, teachers, etc. And these immigrants need to have equal rights with native born Japanese. Zainichi Koreans still do not despite tracing their roots in Japan to pre-1945.

Rising house prices have more to do with financial speculation and cheap credit than increased demand from immigrants, legal or not

Partially true. Recently Australian house prices slowed right in the main migrant cities, Sydney and Melbourne. The reason given was loss of immigration due to COVID!

In London the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) found that between 1991 and 2015 immigration had contributed to a 20% rise in house prices ( link )

The UK has also failed since the 1980s to build enough low cost housing.

Expecting right wing neoliberals to build social houses is delusional. That includes the New Labour or Aussie ALP or whatever.

The UK would have had zero economic growth without the net immigration during the last 10-15 years.

And an economic fallacy. The economy grows but does it improve living standards?

Australia had negative per capita growth despite overall economy growing.

So the pie grew a bit, but the number of people sharing the pie grew even more so each person's bit decreased!

And the mass migration = economic growth model is essentially a ponzi scheme based on the assumption of permanent massed migration regardless of social cost.

It doesn't even resolve the ageing population problem especially as western states often practice family reunion schemes whereby grandparents migrate.

So you get old people in who have never contributed to the system and often are sicker with more requirements due to living in poorer conditions.

It doesn't help skilled migrants are often in their 30-40s so their input is also limited before they start accessing social and health welfare.

I am arguing the benefits of diversity over a mono racial culture. Japan and Korea would both benefit from some diversity. They are ridiculously narrow minded and hidebound. They won't change unless they are open to other ways of doing things. For all their wealth they are some of the most miserable people on earth.

What benefits would they be? I have never understood how one expects mainly poor low educated people or people whose qualifications are no transferrable or people from horrible dysfunctional failed states improve things?

I know people who have been teachers in South Korea. Their cultural impact was zero and in most cases they came back very disappointed especially females who were treated badly in a misogynistic culture.

And how much diversity would you have to introduce to destroy the impact of the monoculture? Seriously you would have to destroy their majority to get any reasonable input.

Note London is already only 45% British. That's not diversity, that's cultural suicide.

link

And note that you can have all the diversity you want yet the worst excesses of the parent culture thrives – eg the Arab gulf oil states where they merely exploit the hard work of other people's (including pseudo-slavery under kafala system) whilst their horrible oppressive brutal cultures thrive buoyed by huge amounts of cash.

The other thing is diversity creates conflict especially as the new cultures gain economies of scale. France now literally has a low level Islamic insurgency! In Australia mainstream Muslim leaders have been pushing for Sharia law to apply to them instead of secular family law courts. In Germany they speak of parallel societies whereby migrants chose to exist outside of German society and law and have their own informal systems.

----

I'm a migrant by the way. The main contribution of my people (ex Yugo Balkanites and primarily Croats) to Australia was terrorism and ethnic violence at soccer games.

Most of my family soak up social welfare and do not contribute (between them my parents have been in Australia for 72 years yet their working contribution to the country is a mere 8 years!). One of my brother's spends more time unemployed as he does employed. I myself took a job from Australians in what was a very depressed part of the country.

My other brother works online in Australia but lives in Croatia – so he's contribution to the country is taxes but his wage lines non-Australian pockets.

It's a great example of the con of immigration.

Forgot to mention, immigration has a bad impact on the countries that the migrants come from – ie loss of skilled people.

And in Eastern Europe, westward immigration coupled with plummeting birth rate (itself a function of immigration of young people) is depopulating many countries:

Albania:
Population 1990 – 3.2 million
Population 2020: under 2.8 million
Median age: 33

Bulgaria:
Population 1990 – 9 million
Population 2020: under 7 million
Median age: 43

Croatia:
Population 1990 – 4.8 million
Population 2020: 4 million
Median age: 43

Estonia:
Population 1990 – 1.6 million
Population 2020: 1.3 million
Median age: 43

Latvia
Population 1990 – 2.7 million
Population 2020: 1.9 million
Median age: 44

Lithuania
Population 1990 – 3.7 million
Population 2020: 3 million
Median age: 44

Poland
Population 1990 – 38 million
Population 2000: 38.5 million
Population 2020: 37.8 million
Median age: 41

Romania
Population 1990 – 23 million
Population 2020: 19 million
Median age: 41

Most of these countries are expected to be largely depopulated with small populations of elderly. As stated birth rates are plummeting but given how many young people they're bleeding to Germany and elsewhere it's logical that birth rates are declining.

And it's a vicious cycle – skilled people live leading to deteriorating living standards which leads to more people immigrating.

Eg an article detailing how Germany is effectively draining the Balkans of medical staff. Out of 7000 Bosnian doctors, 1000 have gone to Germany since a deal was signed in 2013.

link

This is all part of the neo-liberal agenda to create free movement of labour across the world

And for some reason supposedly left wing types think it's wonderful.

(And yes all this has an impact on security etc. Countries that are impoverished are more likely to have civil unrest etc.
Depopulation also has serious impacts on sustainability of countries and as the world changes the security of them – remember what happened to depopulated Byzantium).

I think on this we will have to accept we are not going to find much common ground. I think we're even arguing at cross purposes.

I've made my points and don't want to repeat myself ad nauseam.

I agree, economic growth is not necessarily a good thing. I included that point because it is often made out that immigration is all bad with no positives.

The main issue I take is that being 'homogeneous' is not all good, as was implied in some posts above. That kind of racist/nationalist notion is a gateway to fascism, and nobody wins if that takes root.

The hysteria about sharia law is overblown too. Yes, some clerics try to argue for that but they have no traction outside a tiny minority of fundamentalist Muslims. It's a complete non-starter.

I suspect in 2-3 generations 99% of Muslims will have integrated and abandoned the hard line fundamentalist views some still hold. In the meantime, the rule of law must be applied to all equally, whether it fits with their religious views or not. Many fundamentalist Christians have views on marriage equality, LBGT rights, race, abortion, adultery, pre-marital sex et al that contradict local laws.

Edit regarding emigration stats. Sure – migration is a double edged sword. I don't suggest large scale movement of people across the globe is a panacea. Not by any means. I do argue that diversity is more positive than negative. Many of Japan's and Korea's problems would be helped by a greater degree of diversity. How to achieve that is more problematic.

Yes, some clerics try to argue for that but they have no traction outside a tiny minority of fundamentalist Muslims. It's a complete non-starter.

In Australia the sharia law push was by the mainstream clerical body, not some lunatic fringe.

I suspect in 2-3 generations 99% of Muslims will have integrated and abandoned the hard line fundamentalist views some still hold. In the meantime, the rule of law must be applied to all equally.

Again how many 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim Australians and Europeans went to fight for ISIS?

Here in Australia same for Croats and Serbs – it's why they banned ethnic affiliations for sports teams. I've known "big Croats" who were 3rd generation, never saw Croatia and didn't speak a word of Croat.

Globalisation and technology means integration is no longer required. Much easier to maintain your beliefs and culture when it's at the click of a button.

In any cases studies in Britain showed 2nd generation muslims were more religiously inclined than their parents and certainly more than other immigrant groups.

Eg

PDF link

In the meantime, the rule of law must be applied to all equally.

Yet it's not. Eg In Britain there is the Islamic Sharia Council which to steal wikipedia definition:

The Islamic Sharia Council (ISC) is a British organisation that provides legal rulings and advice to Muslims in accordance with its interpretation of Islamic Sharia based on the four Sunni schools of thought. It primarily handles cases of marriage and divorce and, to a lesser extent, business and finance.

Whilst it's determinations are not legally binding under British law, they effectively exist to bypass British law as matters are pursued through the council and not British legal system.

Or in Australia where polygamy is illegal unless they are foreign marriage. Hence you get Muslims simply getting married to multiple wives elsewhere!

And the social security system recognises polygamous relationships and will pay benefits as such.

So much for all equal under the law…

Many of Japan's and Korea's problems would be helped by a greater degree of diversity.

Totally disagree as it would require destruction of those countries' sense of self and homogenization with western values of "anything goes".

In the end the South Koreans and Japanese indeed retain a greater sense of self and are more willing to defend their homelands from the Chinese than the Europeans with their anything goes attitude who would probably easily fall under Russian or Islamic servitude.

The modern western cultural imperative is moral and cultural suicide with tolerance of even extreme values and cultural practices as long as they're done by "someone else".

The west and its people are basically weak. It is why it is in decline.

It is why Europe's destiny is to be Islamic – Muslims after all are stronger and understand the role of values, retaining culture and demographics.

a gateway to fascism,

It didn't result in fascism in most of Europe or the US or Australia.

You make many fair points which I will investigate.

Our main difference concerns Japan and South Korea. I've lived in both countries so have some insight from personal experience.

Koreans and Japanese do have a 'high sense of self' but that is, to my mind, their weakness not their strength. British people long had the same spurious superiority complex as the Japanese suffer from. Koreans have more of an inferiority complex having had their culture suppressed during colonial times. Whatever the cause of these complexes they are fundamentally delusional. Trying to live and work in Korea, we are always up against the 'Korean way is best' mindset. Best practice would be to look at other ways of doing things, then choose the best way forward without prejudice.

The same goes for Japan, though I didn't spend as long there.

I'm anti-theist, anti-religion in general, and anti-Islam as a result. I don't want to see 'Islamification' of Europe, or anywhere else, but I think it is not a realistic fear. More right-wing scaremongering again. The 'research' consists of assertion without revealing any methodology.

In 2010, around 6% of EU residents were muslim [figures are hard to confirm, which allows people to exaggerate.]. A lot of this is due to the EU expanding into muslim areas on the fringes of Europe, and some is due to immigration and slightly higher birth rates. Immigrants always tend to have larger families, but this reduces in subsequent generations.
More people leave the faith than are converted. Furthermore, like all religions, there are a great many people who are muslim by birth but do not believe, only maintaining a facade to placate family members. As the older generations die off, this will be less of an issue.

I don't think muslims are innately stronger. Immigrants tend to rely more on family and community in a new country though and also tend to come from the higher social strata of their home county. There are exceptions, but to emigrate usually demands resources, skills, connections and know-how.

Right wing parties are on the rise in the UK, France, Hungary, and virtually every other country in Europe. Australian Nationalism is also 'a thing', but not so prevalent as far as I can tell.

Right wing rise is due to globalisation, forced multi culturalism, decreased opportunities due to neoliberalism and technology and the left actually abandoning the working class in favour of neo liberalism, free movement of labour (immigration) and divisive woke tokenistic causes.

The modern left effectively seeks to destroy western civilization. Unlike the old Communists or trade unionists, the modern left doesn't offer an alternative. It only offers cultural destruction as an end goal.

The modern left effectively seeks to destroy western civilization.

Yes that is very true and some in that mix don't get it. While others are the drivers of such an agenda.

It only offers cultural destruction as an end goal.

So true and many organizations and individuals are all for that. E.g. Antifa and the more hardcore socialist leadership and members of BLM as well as some in the US Congress.

Destruction from within …

As the US Military Oath states, to paraphrase, "To protect against enemies foreign and domestic" … But I don't think they ever thought that would come from members of the US Congress.

Many factors are leading to the rise of right wing nationalistic politics, but racism/xenophobia is a key ingredient. A bit like the yeast in bread.

Scapegoating the 'other' for very tangible problems that they didn't cause is part of the playbook.

Skarper,

Agreed it's not the migrants faults. They are like the rest of us, expendable tools designed to promote certain concepts that favour the rich.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a bit of nationalism (aka patriotism). Obviously not Nazi level but you want at least the kind of level we saw in the US in the 1940s and 1950s – the so-called Greatest Generation.

The Star Trek vision of a unified humanity is just a utopian fantasy.

In reality there are communities and tribes and nation states. In reality the strong eat the weak. One a society stops caring and wanting to fight, it is destroyed by someone more aggressive. Darwinism applies as much to human societies as it does to flora and fauna.

Multiculturalism is actually designed to destroy deep patriotism in the west.

Instead of a group unified by language, culture and identity, you fragment society into a myriad little groups. Coupled with neo-liberalism and hyper-individualism the goal is to create groups of pliant consumers driven solely by need to consume and no loyalty to country or community.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi initially promoted this destruction of national identities. The EU is based on a lot of his ideas and even awards the Coudenhove-Kalergi European prize.

And the stats provided in the opening posts prove that a lot of Europeans and westerners have been so "de-nationalised" they wouldn't even defend their homelands if they were attacked.

So to a great degree multiculturalism + neoliberalism + hyper individualism worked as planned – the average westerner and especially the educated ones that are most exposed to the propaganda has no loyalty to his/her homeland or their culture or their people.

The People's Republic of China has actually identified multiculturalism as a weakness in western societies and has deployed strategies in Australia and elsewhere designed to exploit this (check out Silent Invasion by Professor Clive Hamilton for more about this).

It's a fair point, but I contend nationalism is more dangerous than positive. How much nationalism is enough without being too much? It's a slippery slope.

The great strength of the US is its ethos of democracy [admittedly under constant threat] and meritocracy [yeah – I know – but that is the 'idea'.] If an immigrant subscribes to those ideals, they can become an American citizen with all benefits and obligations. There is no religious or racial test for US citizenship.

There are significant elements within the US that are white supremacists, or tout the US as a 'Christian' country. Both of which are false and highly dangerous ideas that should be stamped out.

So – despite everything you've said I still maintain Japan and South Korea would benefit from allowing immigration by people who have something to offer and want to contribute without demanding they adopt the host culture slavishly. They REALLY need a shake up in how they do business, educate their people, order their society and tackle gender discrimination and misogyny.

It's starting to happen a little in Japan. At least in some fields like sport. The Japanese National Rugby team is 'diverse' and thus able to adapt and compete at a high level. The same could be done in other fields.

The demographic time bomb means a need for significant immigration for low skilled jobs, care work etc. Even if the birth rate could somehow be raised [unlikely IMO], the damage is done. There are not enough under 30s to have enough children for the 2040s-2050s. There are similar issues in South Korea with an excess of males to add to the problem.

Diversity is not the opposite of patriotism. Many 1st generation Americans are and were very proud and loyal to the American ideals.

Nationalism is natural in relatively homogeneous and conformist countries like Asia in which peer pressure, saving face and the needs of the collective override those of the selfish individual. The Japanese even have a derogatory word for outsiders: gaijin. When I lived briefly in Nationalist China (Taiwan) back in the 1990's, I remember nationalist "father" Sun Yat-Sen was revered as a demigod of sorts, a long passed cult figure every bit as powerful as Mao Zedong.

While borders and national sovereignty won't go away any time soon, the world is becoming a smaller place thanks to international trade and modern communications. That's not going to change regardless of the reactionary populism we've seen in recent years. When our generation dies off, future generations will be fighting wars not against other peoples but against inequality, racism and climate change. We are at the dawn of a new "enlightenment" not seen since the 18th century.

It's a fair point, but I contend nationalism is more dangerous than positive.

So like A'stan the population has no real national identity. They boil down to a bunch of individual tribes. And fight among themselves for decades … That sounds dangerous to me.

IIRC one of the first things revolutionary socialist/communist dogma does is take away a nation's identity, culture, belief systems, history[destroying and defacing statues, etc.,], no individualism, etc. There is nothing left but the state and your expendable place in it. For the greater good. Yeah that sounds like a good idea! Where do I sign up ?

Diversity is not the opposite of patriotism. Many 1st generation Americans are and were very proud and loyal to the American ideals.

Yes, like my Grandparents on both sides of my family. Who came here from Europe in the early 1900s. And became legal American citizens.

They REALLY need a shake up in how they do business, educate their people, order their society and tackle gender discrimination and misogyny.

To be honest, this sounds totally colonialist. You're saying Japan and South Korea essentially need white people to come and show them how it's done properly!

Cultural change happens from within. Bringing in others to show you the way is a recipe for failure and conflict.

We are at the dawn of a new "enlightenment" not seen since the 18th century.

I think we are at the dawn of a great collapse. The western democracies are in decline. The new powers are more intolerant, mysoginstic etc etc.

More critically inequality, automation, deterioration of public health, education, etc will lead to massive deterioration in living standards in the west. This is already happening in the US, NZ, Australia and UK.

And even in the west the supposed progressives are less committed to freedom of speech or respecting western history. They want to "cancel" people and destroy western history – smash statues, remove references about great western thinkers and pioneers. They certainly want to censor freedom of speech, to introduce "safe spaces" where even common words may be banned lest they offend someone.

The new generation is essentially hypocritical. Wanting to save the environment means not buying a new iPhone every time Apple release one. Standing up for equality means not buying lots of cheap consumer junk often made by slave labour in horrible conditions with no environmental standards.

My niece and nephew are typical "woke" millennials.

They will spout all this stuff on inequality, the environment, etc. On a few occasions I've asked them if they really believe in this stuff, then why do they engage in mass mindless consumerism.

The only answer I got from the niece was that "it's complicated." The nephew just obfuscated.

It's not really "complicated" – you either buy more expensive products made in countries with good standards or you buy lots and lots of cheap junk made by slave labour in Bangladesh or China.

You also don't constantly upgrade your phone with a new one, knowing the old one will end up leaching dangerous toxins on a tip somewhere in the third world.

And like all woke millennials they believe in censorship. They literally voiced their support destruction of books that are perceived to be intolerant or misogynistic or whatever (their mother is a librarian and had to remove some "inappropriate" books from the library.

You see this everywhere – it's endemic at universities and in the left wing media.

===

I think the future of the world is places like Mexico City, Jakarta, Mumbai or Cairo. The west's future is seen in Marseille where nearly 40% of the population lives below the poverty line.

I seriously think movies like Elysium show a realistic presentation of the world – the ultra rich and the mass of poor.

Other movies such as Idiocracy or comics such as Judge Dredd also give insights into how the future will be or is in fact turning out to be.

I'm not proposing any kind of colonialist 'white saviour' solution to Japan and Korea.

If they allowed in more people to live and work long term, had a system akin to the US green card and treated immigrants with respect rather than as 2nd class members of society, they would, perhaps, be able to learn something from them.

And they have a LOT to learn. All countries have things they could learn from others, but it's especially glaring in racially/culturally 'homogeneous' places.

We are on a knife edge. What we do today will matter tomorrow. It could continue the slide into inequality, mass poverty, environmental catastrophe etc. OR we could turn things around slowly and go in a better direction.

Generally, it's good younger people are waking up and taking an interest in environmentalism, human rights, social justice et al. But it's not enough to 'talk the talk'.

The anti-free speech trend is also disturbing. It's not a purely left wing phenomenon though. We all grew up with censorship and political correctness in media and academia. We just didn't notice it!

I'm for the absolute maximum level of free speech possible. I'd only draw the line at incitement of violence and some measures against malicious fabrications. Honest mistakes will happen, but some TV stations are just making stuff up. I won't name names lest it trigger some, but I think we all know who they are.

The problem in universities is a direct result of the commercialization of higher education. There was a recent case in Australia of a student being expelled for handing out anti-China leaflets [or something like that]. It's a very serious problem and should get more exposure.

Rainbows and unicorns are only for appearance. The real deal has always been that money talks and bs walks. Sooner or later the "young people" are gonna have to move out of their parents basement.

And they have a LOT to learn.

In your opinion. It's actually disrespectful to their culture.

No doubt they and the Muslims, Chinese, Russians etc think we decadent westerners have a lot to learn.

All countries have things they could learn from others, but it's especially glaring in racially/culturally 'homogeneous' places.

I'm sure we westerners could learn a lot from Nigeria or Sudan or Yemen – mainly how not to run a country.

We are on a knife edge. What we do today will matter tomorrow. It could continue the slide into inequality, mass poverty, environmental catastrophe etc. OR we could turn things around slowly and go in a better direction.

Globalisation doesn't fix any of that. It is in fact the direct cause of it be it proliferation of consumerism and associated environmental issues, free movement of capital and labour, increasing inequality etc etc.

Massed air travel alone accounts for 2.5% of all emissions and that's not taking into account other contributions of it to environmental degradation (cost of construction of aircraft and infrastructure, transfers to and from airports, environmental cost of mass tourism etc ). And it's literally doubled its pollution over the last few decades as it expands.

Generally, it's good younger people are waking up and taking an interest in environmentalism, human rights, social justice et al. But it's not enough to 'talk the talk'.

It's no different to the counter culture hippies who became stock brokers and corporate nasties in the 1980s and who introduced neoliberalism.

I'm for the absolute maximum level of free speech possible. I'd only draw the line at incitement of violence and some measures against malicious fabrications. Honest mistakes will happen, but some TV stations are just making stuff up. I won't name names lest it trigger some, but I think we all know who they are.

Agreed but the calls for censorship on the progressive* are more potent as these people are usually involved in education, policy setting and the media itself.

*I refuse to call them left wing as most progressives are also neo-liberals and no longer affiliated with trying to improve the low of common people who they see as "deplorables."

The problem in universities is a direct result of the commercialization of higher education. There was a recent case in Australia of a student being expelled for handing out anti-China leaflets [or something like that]. It's a very serious problem and should get more exposure.

Yes but bare in mind in Australia there was very much a denial amongst the left wing intelligentsia and Australian Labor Party that the Chinese Communists were bad, even in the 1970s. There was even denial of Mao's massive atrocities (50-70 million dead) amongst elements of both the Labor Party and academia.

Even the response to Tiananmen Square was tokenistic and both Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating embraced closer ties to China. Both made fortunes dealing with the Chinese after they left politics – Hawke acted as an intermediary in massive Chinese acquisitions of Australian agricultural property whilst Keating is sits on an advisory council for a Chinese government development bank. That's right an ex-Australian Prime Minister worked directly for the Chinese government.

The centre right of the country also embraced it. -after all the Chinese government affiliated emigres donate huge amounts of money to both parties (and still do).

The big issue was that in the 1970 and 1980s Australian patriotism was increasingly recast as a European throwback and that Australia had to reinvent itself as an Asian state. And for reasons of money this ended up making Australia completely economically reliant on the Chinese in all sectors of the new deindustrialised economy.

Sooner or later the "young people" are gonna have to move out of their parents basement.

I do think they work hard if they can get work (here in Australia at least).

A lot live with their parents cause housing is too expensive.

Getting a rental in many places in Australia is hard.

Buying a house is even more costly – my new house cost half a million dollars in a small town outside a regional city. And it's a dump- I've had to change carpets, hot water cylinder, oven, fences etc etc.

I couldn't get anything in the actual main town. You were looking at rotting weatherboard #$% holes going for over $500,000. USD

In Sydney even derelict houses go for millions of dollars. Median house price in Sydney in 2018 was over $1,100,000 USD dollars. It's now down to $850,000. USD

The cheaper suburbs median price is still $560,000. USD

link

And not just Sydney, it's increasingly everywhere.

And salaries aren't as high as the government makes it out.

The average adult's earnings in Australia are $57,918. USD Good luck saving up for a house.

link

Salaries and wages have been stagnant or in decline for the last 13 years!

As former Finance minister Matthias Corman said in 2019, low wages growth is "a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture".

link

More and more people are forced into part time work so they earn even less than that $57,918. USD

It's hard to get more work too especially when Australia has one of the highest immigration rate on the planet.

--
The progressives of course don't care about that. They think the answer is not to empower people but rather to give them welfare and have the rich keep ripping people off.

Hey!… Areal…. your country began to look like Argentina!…. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Tango,

Pretty much as Australians are already some of the most indebted people on the planet.

link

link