Fanatical and patriotic is one thing; outright racist ethno-nationalist sentiments in a military unit- whilst useful on an evolutionary scale in the past- is always going to be problematic in a modern military.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
AFAIK UK's special forces have the best reputation for their professionalism. Maybe Australia should learn from them
Let's just say I disagree that those "special guys" are that extra patriotic, they're more like extra arrogant; extremely high on their capability to the point that there's a growing number of them that have began to see themselves and their units as demigod or close to infallible. They think and assume that since military members that get into their special units are not only have to be extremely fit and passes the very rigorous training to weed out the weakling, but they must also supposedly possess high I.Q. and to any and many regular Joe's and Jane's the requirements and the steps to become part of SOCOM would definitely lend to the credibility that those chaps could almost walk on water. But therein lies the problem, these groups have began to see themselves as above reproach; above questioning and worst of all their results i.e. failures could never be attributed to them. The fault is almost always passed down to the regular Army, Marines, REM, and most definitely the lame politicians. And that makes these nutjobs dangerous because a growing number of these guys forget just who they work for, who and what they are fighting for. After all the SOCOM motto is "Sine Pari" which is Latin word for "without equal."
Just one of the few published examples that are known to some in the public. These groups are insular and misconduct, indiscipline, and leadership failures are a plenty.
Good points. Elitism along with Hollywood’s spotlights and the military branches’ desperation to fool 18 year olds into thinking they have an easy shot really turned them into idols which made them extremely pompous and over their heads. I don’t think I have ever seen them admitting that they are wrong. Plus, the right wingers’ excessive worship of them only makes things worse.
A ‘Strategic Apocalypse’ in Afghanistan: A Seismic Shift, Years in the Making
By ALASTAIR CROOKE - 23 AUG 2021
The author is a former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum.
An earlier piece, reflecting fury at Biden – and the sense of a strategic apocalypse having befallen Washington – is best caught in this agonised cry, again from Michael Rubin, representing the hawkish AEI (American Enterprise Institute):
“By enabling China to advance its interests in Afghanistan, Biden also enables it to cut-off India and other American allies from Central Asia. Simply put … Biden’s incompetence now risks the entire post-World War II liberal order … God help the United States”.
Rubin says plainly what Afghanistan was always truly about: Disrupting Central Asia, to weaken Russia and China.
[Every serious analyst knows that the “overriding” geopolitical purpose of the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago was to establish an essential Empire of Bases foothold in the strategic intersection of Central and South Asia, subsequently coupled with occupying Iraq in Southwest Asia. ~ ]
Rubin at least spares us the hypocrisy about safeguarding girls’ education (others, who are close to the U.S. military industrial complex, continue the mantra of the need to re-deploy to Afghanistan and for continued war – and consequent weapons sales – in Afghanistan, in part ‘to protect’ women’s rights). Rubin concludes: “Rather than enhance America’s position against China however, Biden has hemorrhaged it”.
To be fair, Michael Rubin was ‘half right’ when he said that “Rather than enhance America’s position against China, Biden has hemorrhaged it”, but only half right. Because the missing ‘other half’ is that Washington was outplayed by Russia, China and Iran. Western Intelligence failed utterly to see the new domestic Afghan dynamics – the external actors underwriting the Taliban’s negotiations with the tribes.
And they still do not see all the external dominoes falling into place around an Afghan pivot, that changes the whole Central Asian calculus.
Civil war remains a risk: We may expect that the CIA will try to stand-up an Afghan counter-insurgency to the new government – the path is not difficult to forecast: acts of violence and assassinations will (and are) being attributed to the “terrorist” Taliban. They will likely be false flag operations. And there is talk too, (mostly in the West) as to whether the Taliban can be ‘trusted’, or will stick to their undertakings.
During the rout China and Russia (‘co-incidentally’) closed the airspace over northern Afghanistan on account of their joint military exercises taking place to the north of Afghanistan – and, for the first time the two powers exercised under joint military control. This represents the third (and very significant) domino, though one barely noticed by the West.
(...)
Note: This article was written before the suicidal bombing events by ISIS in Kabul.
Last edited:
nothing serious to make out from it. China and US have been doing this show of will multiple times recently. This meeting is the American effort to say "hi, I am not here for a real fight". The very reason that this meeting is initiated by US means that China does not need this meeting because its actions do not depend on whether US is coming for a real fight or just a show.
The whole thing mirrors the fact from the strategic level. China's will unify Taiwan regardless what US does, cost is not a decisive issue. US on the other hand has to make a choice "fight or leave", and therefor must make sure its true intention is not mistaken. Therefor China does not need a dialog while the US does.
Last edited:
I must have missed it but where is the evidence that the US was funding ISIS?