>> Was Afghanistan better off before the pull out, or now under the Taliban?
Why is that the comparison? The comparison should be was Afghanistan better off before we invaded in the first place. And committed war crimes. And radicalised a tonne of people who then came into Europe to murder civilians. You'd have to do mental somersaults to justify the Iraq + Afghanistan wars and think they were the right choice.
It's as contentious as the russian invasion of ukraine is. Meaning, not at all unless you fall for the obvious war justifying rhetoric.
I dont know why but it seems like there's been such a weird push for rehabilitating what the US and it's allies did to the middle east since the start of the russian war of aggression against ukraine.
The situation in Iraq is tough but no, I don’t think it’s obvious to me it would be better off still under Saddam Hussein, or maybe by now one of his sons. If you wonder what a dynastic succession like that can look like, check out Syria, and the young Assad is a pusseycat compared to Uday or Qusay.
There was no dynastic succession in syria, if anything the baathist regime shows how weirdly resilient it is even when faced with insane pressure. Keep in mind the iraqi baathist party was much more popular in iraq that assad is in syria. Also, no matter how violent a hypothetical baathist succession crisis would be, it would not have come close to what happened due to the invasion.
If anything, the iraqi war was the reason the syrian civil war was so bloody. The al qaida elements in iraq overtook the grass root rebellion in syria, and ISIS would literally have not existed if Saddam was still in power. Same for the sectarian violence that will plague iraq for decades to come.
Saddam absolutely deserved the rope, but that does not mean the US had any right to intervene because of that. Plus, the reason the US invaded had officially nothing to do with regime change. The "saving iraq from it's dictator" narrative only came after the WMD lies became evident.
> The "saving iraq from it's dictator" narrative only came after the WMD lies became evident.
True, none of which can be laid at the feet of the British army. I’m no fan of Blair but I’m not sure to what extent he knew it was all flimflam either.
There was no shortage of radicals coming to Europe already. I think the lesson from all of our engagement and lack of it in the Middle East, and beyond, is you can’t not be engaged. It will come and kick you in the arse whether you like it or not. For all the problems our interventions might have caused, our attempts to disengage have caused as many if not more problems.
I suspect anyone who thinks our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and abandoning its people to their fate is the end of our problems in that direction is going to be sadly disappointed.
> For all the problems our interventions might have caused
Might have caused? US is heavily responsible for the current state of the Middle East. A lot of the issues stem from the coups in Syria and Iran which were orchestrated by the CIA. Nevermind the shit show there of the last 30 years.
Why is that the comparison? The comparison should be was Afghanistan better off before we invaded in the first place. And committed war crimes. And radicalised a tonne of people who then came into Europe to murder civilians. You'd have to do mental somersaults to justify the Iraq + Afghanistan wars and think they were the right choice.