In October of last year I wrote a column entitled “When Exactly Did The AngloZionist Empire Collapse” in which I presented my thesis that the Empire died on 8 January 2020 when the Iranians attacked US bases with missiles and the US did absolutely nothing. Yes, this was the correct decision, but also one which, at least to me, marked the death of the Empire as we knew it.
In that article I made reference to a brilliant book by J.M. Greer’s “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” which I later reviewed here. The main plot of the book is that the US will collapse following a completely unpredictable external military defeat (read the book, it is very well written!).
So my question today is whether the debacle in Afghanistan (not only Kabul!) is such an event or not. Afghanistan is often called the graveyard of empires, but might it even become the graveyard of the last empire?
I will try to answer it below.
First, we are now all bombarded by information from, and about, Afghanistan. Issues like the failure of “country building” are mixed in with bodies falling off US transporters, US Marines sharing one (!) bottle of water with severely dehydrated kids with street whippings. None of that is analytically helpful and it conflates completely different issues. I want to offer a different set of questions which, I hope, might be more helpful:
- Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?
- Was that the correct decision?
- Why did Kabul fall so fast?
- Why did such a truly colossal failure in intelligence happen?
- How was the evacuation of US forces actually executed?
These are just a few questions, there are many others, especially about what will happen to Afghanistan next, but that is one I think is too early to tackle and an entirely separate issue anyway.
Let’s take these questions one by one next.
Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?
I don’t know why or how this decision was taken. But my best guess is that it is due to combination of the following factors:
- “Biden” came to power while waving the Woke/BLM/CRT/Homo/etc. agenda which I would sum up as the “Wakanda worldview” and not liberalism. But at least officially, Biden is a true, peace loving liberal. Since his policies all prove the exact opposite, he tried to “play nice” and do something “liberal”, at least in appearence (and, no, a woke-freak is not really a liberal at all! And neither is a Neocon “conservative” – these are all lies for the dull).
- “Biden” also knew that a large part of the Trump base wanted to stop all the wars started by Obama and Co.
- “Biden” probably thought that if the operation was a stunning success, he would get all the credit, and if it was an abject failure, he would dump it all on Trump (which is exactly what “Biden” did).
- As for Biden himself, let’s just kindly assume that he has “the right political instincts” to maybe smell an opportunity here and bless what might have looked to him as a “good plan”.
Was the decision to leave correct?
Here, I will catch a lot of flak, but I believe that yes, it absolutely was. In his (actually very bad) speech about the withdrawal, Biden said one very true thing (quoting by memory, so don’t quote this) “those who say that 2 or 5 more years will bring us victory are lying to you” (or something pretty close). Here I agree with him 100% (as far as I can tell, only a real, hardcore Neocon ideologue would openly disagree with this; at least I hope so…).
Not only does the US (or any other country) not have any kind of mandate or responsibility to police the planet, the US is certainly the least competent imperial power ever, in spite of a lot of help from the Five Eyes and its EU lackeys. If you are bad at something, but very good at something else, why persist? The US is a true virtuoso in things like bribing, subverting, economically hurting, politically demonizing, killing undesirable leaders, etc… That is really how the Europeans eventually defeated the North American Native Indians.
For those whom this thesis might throw into a patriotic rage, I highly recommend the book “The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814” written by Dr. John Grenier. That book won him the Society for Military History’s Outstanding Book Award in American History in 2007; Grenier himself is a retired USAF Lieutenant-Colonel and a United States Air Force Academy, USAFA, CO, associate professor of history. His next book is announced as a “biography of Major Robert Rogers, the “Father of American Special Operations.” Hate me all you want, but read this book anyway!
The US was founded by and for thugs. Calling them explorers, immigrants, robber-barons or founding fathers makes no difference to their true worldview, their ethos – the seizure of the North American continent was an act of international thuggery on every level. That is, of course, NOT to say good people did not exist then or did not live righteously or, even less so, that anybody in the modern USA has any kind of personal guilt over any of this. Only God can judge them! But unless we forget the true roots of the “American Dream”, we will end up with a “US Nightmare”.
Of course, some US immigrants at the same time did try to create a truly free society, protected from the kind of vicious abuses so prevalent in the Old World! The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (aka the “the Charters of Freedom“) are a monument to both the genius and the worldview of some of the founders of the United States. But good intentions and proclamations are only credible when everybody upholds them for everybody and in each case (not the kind “but this is different, we are democracies after all!” western politicians repeat every time they are accused of hypocrisy)
In the USA, generation after generation of the thugs strengthened their grip power while pushing decent people out of the way (even more so after JFK and 9/11 and other recent events). But that was just a show, a mob “going legal” if you wish.
Thugs have guns, of course, and they can beat the crap out of any civilian. But they can’t fight a military. That is why thugs have gangs, not battalion tactical groups in the first place. Furthermore, as soon as they grow in size, the gangs of thugs try to look more respectable (by purchasing PR campaigns about their “philanthropy” is typical) and less violent. Pretty soon they outsource the violence to others, expandable, lower, gangs.
If it does – it’s because it is!