[Oldmanmatt]

Well, the last paragraph, I suspect; is somewhat prophetic and the ‘Northern Alliance” will be feeling the benefit of the change in strategy.

I suspect it was more important, politically, to make a grand response, post 9/11 than any of the other incidents, insurrections  and emergencies you mentioned, though.
The “Hawks” probably held a fairly strong hand, so “logic” and history, were outvoted. You know plenty of our illustrious rulers are there out of nepotism and patronage, not ability. They’re often of the overly simplistic bent. I also expect plenty of senior military leaders opposed the action, but, ultimately, follow orders.
Frankly, I’d rather they did. Often turns out a bit Rum when military leaders decide they know better than democratically elected morons, uh, sorry, officials.

I’d be surprised if any of the “Leaders” had planned much beyond looking good for the remainder of their term of office and so left cleaning up to their successors. Afghan probably dragged on as long as it did, because it needed a US leader who only sought a single term, to take the hit. Occupation never really works and everybody knows that.

I also think the “public” could/should be forgiven, after all, 9/11 was pretty damn big, as was 6/6, so…

Then, there’s that thing about “Britain & the US”. That’s actually a 95% US decision, 2% British resolve and 3% Britain doing what daddy told it to do. We punch above our weight, militarily and politically, but ultimately we don’t call the shots. We are simply not a Superpower.

Edit:

Toby.  Don’t think they have all left. I bet there’s a fair few pale looking chaps knocking around certain places where the Taliban can rely on a less than enthusiastic welcome.

[TobyD]

 This is an interesting view: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/03/biden-president-war-intervention-military-adventurism?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I'm not posting it because I agree with every word incidentally.

[seankenny]

The lack of maturity of thought is astounding and yet when it is challenged  ...

So you disagree with the policy of humanitarian intervention*. Fair enough. Does that mean you think western powers were right not to interfere in the Rwandan Genocide?

* Feel free to call it "so called" humanitarian intervention if it makes you feel better.

Well this is depressing but not unexpected. Our resident leftists want to be taken seriously yet can't be bothered to answer a fairly obvious question that's an attempt to probe their views on foreign policy beyond their preferred narrative. I'm put in mind of this:

Not particularly enthusiastic to intervene in your private battle with Brutus and inquiry into his views on foreign policy.

 

What would have followed if a much smaller-scale focussed use of force was used to contain regional Islamic-extremist terrorist organisations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Things would probably most likely look similar to what Afghanistan looks like currently.

Ahhh, but this is my point. I struggle to see a path from the Afghanistan of 2001 to the Afghanistan of today with the Taliban remaining in power after 2001, that's how different the country is, and a measure of what a terrible situation it was in back then. I'm talking here in terms of income, infrastructure, maternal mortality, literacy rates and so on. There was just no way the Taliban state could have absorbed the amounts of money required to get to where Afghanistan is now. The had no international recognition, no technocrats capable of running a state in any meaningful way, half the population basically imprisoned at home, and four million (iirc) Afghan citizens living as refugees in Pakistan and Iran. The place was hobbling along on life support. Even as it was, with the creation of an urban middle class capable of running things, the Afghan state could barely contain the money we pumped into it. The Taliban's finance ministry was a bloke with a box of cash.

Politically of course it's very hard to say, but the Pakistani journalist Ahmad Rashid's book on the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s finishes with his view that the situation in Afghanistan was fundamentally unstable. Obviously we know that it actually *was* unstable, as you can't host Osama bin Laden without some trouble coming your way, but there were plenty of other sources of instability: opium, radicalised refugees, links to Kashmir, support for terrorists targeting Russia/CIS states, etc. So perhaps it's fanciful to assume that the Taliban would just have carried on ruling indefinitely even if the west hadn't intervened.

If decision-makers in the US back in the early 2000s had some foresight they'd realise that change and progress happens anyway, if slowly.   

I think this is a misnomer. Countries can and do suffer periods of stagnating GDP per capita, or indeed falling income. There's often some social change within that, of course, but fundamentally living standards can and do stagnate. Note that I'm using GDP per capita here as it's fairly closely correlated with life expectancy and generally gives a good idea of where a state is at in terms of development. I'm afraid I can't see Afghan incomes nearly trippling (which is what happened) without the US intervention.

And I guess this is where I want to probe those left-wingers who were always opposed to the Afghan conflict, is where do you place those gains with respect to the costs? They never even figure in their narrative.

re Iraq, completely agree with what you've written.

[Oldmanmatt]

I have a close friend, who “worked for the US Government” and spent much of the 90s “Teaching English” to both the Gilgit Scouts and their Chitral equivalent; on the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan. He actually spent most of that time brokering peace between these rival units of the Pakistani military, which just isn’t the cohesive body we in the West might imagine, local commanders being more akin to Warlords than our idea of a Colonel of a regiment. Even then the border was largely academic and tribalism more prominent than nationalism.
He retired to teach English at Sheikh Zayed University, which is where we met in 99/2000.
He was recruited to reprise his role, in Afghanistan, in 2007 and spent five years there, trying to get individual ANA units to actually play nice together. Retired, finally, to a beach on Mindoro, he’s been reminiscing on FB; the last week or so.
Given some of his shared experiences, this was always going to happen; always a when, not if. He’s also fairly clear that he thinks that what is happening is largely at the direction of Islamabad and certain factions in Pakistan. Mainly, though, he thinks the current Taliban regime unlikely to last. He was talking about their prior incarnation being largely foreigners, from various Islamic nations (like ISIS, I suppose) and them having been a useful tool for those factions to the south, looking to control ever greater territory. He talks of the Afghan civil war being between largely foreign factions and indigenous Warlords, rather than a civil war at all. The Taliban probably don’t have that foreign financial backing, anymore and that their “soldiers” will likely begin to evaporate as the victory celebrations die down and the lack of payment begins to bite as winter draws in and families need feeding.

I’m interested to see if that pans out.

[TobyD]

I have a close friend, who “worked for the US Government”
...

I’m interested to see if that pans out.

I'm a little confused about what this predicted outcome is then, that Afghanistan descends into a civil war? Or that the hardline Taliban administration won't resurface and it'll be more moderate because they lack the outside help to brutally repress the population?
I have no special knowledge but the mere fact that the Taliban have a communications hub in Quatar seems to indicate that they have some pretty wealthy backers doesn't it?
I've said it before but, its absolutely disgusting that the world cup is being held in Quatar, for any number of reasons, but not least because the only thing that Quatar has to do with football is pouring money into it, and it seems like it'll be a horrible place to try to run around for 90 minutes or more for the players. 

[Oldmanmatt]

I think a fizzle out of Taliban “rule”, decent into disorganised, tribally oriented, semi autonomous regions, bickering and low grade civil war until equilibrium is reached. Was what he’s anticipating.

I suppose, it depends on how invested the outside players remain and how much cash they invest in their proxies.

[petejh]

The Taliban very quickly announced that China is their 'primary partner', following the west's departure. The country has worthwhile mineral wealth - some would say vast...
..while others in the mining and investment industries would dispute this as an American spin to sell the war effort...

I think the most likely 20-year outlook is the country will resemble a south Asia version of one of the poor but mineral rich third-world central African countries, which has had half a decade of first world meddling. China will want a long term return on its Belt and Road investment and won't accept civil wars impacting its plans too much. It's the most obvious path and the Taliban will do well out of Chinese investment provided they can convince the Muslim population to stomach the hypocrisy of the great atheist state, which reportedly murders its Uyghurs, stimulating the development of their country.. But then much of the UK population seems to accept Chinese money when it suits so I'd expect Afghans to lap it up too.   

[TobyD]

On domestic politics rather than foreign affairs for a moment,  the regressive potential policy of raising national insurance seems to be receiving criticism from almost every part of the spectrum. Curiously,  I find much to agree with here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-raise-tax-to-subsidise-the-wealthy

And,  its remarkably similar to many of the arguments from Labour: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/pressure-grows-on-starmer-to-back-tax-on-rich-to-pay-for-social-care?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

And, former prime ministers: https://inews.co.uk/news/john-major-warns-over-increasing-national-insurance-to-pay-for-social-care-1183956

[IanP]

On domestic politics rather than foreign affairs for a moment,  the regressive potential policy of raising national insurance seems to be receiving criticism from almost every part of the spectrum. Curiously,  I find much to agree with here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-raise-tax-to-subsidise-the-wealthy

And,  its remarkably similar to many of the arguments from Labour: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/pressure-grows-on-starmer-to-back-tax-on-rich-to-pay-for-social-care?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

And, former prime ministers: https://inews.co.uk/news/john-major-warns-over-increasing-national-insurance-to-pay-for-social-care-1183956

While I agree that using an increase in national insurance is obviously wrong and reqressive, in particularly since it is only paid by those in employment, I don't think the main thurst of Spectator argument has much merit.  The requirement for long term care is a chance based health outcome - if the argument is that the well off shouldn't get help then exactly the same argument should apply to other chance based health outcomes such as cancer treatment.  There seems to be no sign of a working insurance based system to cover social care costs (the other solution to these type of chance based very significant costs) so it seems some sort of funded government system is much better than the current health lottery.

The increase in household wealth identified is true, with a signiifcant number of pensioners now holding large amounts of wealth in property.  Doesn't this point to the possibility of taxing that unearned and untaxed growth in household weath in some way to pay for social care - maybe via a much less avoidable inheritance tax at lower rate but kicking in at much lower threshold.  Of course the Spectator view wouldn't go for this because this impacts the really wealthy with their multi-million pound houses who can afford their own high quality care easily while hardly impacting their assests as opposed to the middle income moderately wealthy who can see savings depleted down to £14,000 and then have to sell their houses.

[TobyD]

I thought that was pretty much what Fraser Nelson is saying. The wealthy can just pay or sell their property to fund a care home, after all most elderly care home residents don't live more than a couple of years and don't return home. Frankly I think one of the main problems is that hardly anyone knows how social care works until they desperately need it, and then they're pissed off because it isn't on the NHS.

[webbo]

To avoid care home fees, you need get yourself sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. Following this the local authority in which you reside are responsible for your aftercare.

[Oldmanmatt]

To avoid care home fees, you need get yourself sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. Following this the local authority in which you reside are responsible for your aftercare.

I assume that underpants on head, pencils up your nostrils and repeating the word “whibble” is insufficient to obtain such aftercare?

[webbo]

Anything’s worth a try to avoid watching your assets ( or your parent’s assets) disappear.

[IanP]

Nels
I thought that was pretty much what Fraser Nelson is saying. The wealthy can just pay or sell their property to fund a care home, after all most elderly care home residents don't live more than a couple of years and don't return home. Frankly I think one of the main problems is that hardly anyone knows how social care works until they desperately need it, and then they're pissed off because it isn't on the NHS.

Yes, he's saying that, which means the wealthy afford it with no problem, the moderately/averagly wealthy who are unlucky enough to need long term care see savings depleted and are forced to sell houses at difficult times etc. My argument is that such costs should be shared across the population by some sort of proper wealth/inheritance tax - but the wealthy may not be so keen since they would pay more, wonder why Nelson is all in favour of the staus quo?

[TobyD]

Nels
I thought that was pretty much what Fraser Nelson is saying. The wealthy can just pay or sell their property to fund a care home, after all most elderly care home residents don't live more than a couple of years and don't return home. Frankly I think one of the main problems is that hardly anyone knows how social care works until they desperately need it, and then they're pissed off because it isn't on the NHS.

Yes, he's saying that, which means the wealthy afford it with no problem, the moderately/averagly wealthy who are unlucky enough to need long term care see savings depleted and are forced to sell houses at difficult times etc. My argument is that such costs should be shared across the population by some sort of proper wealth/inheritance tax - but the wealthy may not be so keen since they would pay more, wonder why Nelson is all in favour of the staus quo?

Because,  as he says hes against the National Insurance rising to pay for it because that only increases the inequality over the status quo. In a way it doesn't matter at the moment if you're very wealthy or just own say, a detatched house in Sheffield worth a few hundred grand, if you go into a care home you're unlikely to be coming out, the changes planned by the government only safeguard inheritance for some of these families at the expense of people who currently rely on the council care homes. 

[IanP]

Because,  as he says hes against the National Insurance rising to pay for it because that only increases the inequality over the status quo. In a way it doesn't matter at the moment if you're very wealthy or just own say, a detatched house in Sheffield worth a few hundred grand, if you go into a care home you're unlikely to be coming out, the changes planned by the government only safeguard inheritance for some of these families at the expense of people who currently rely on the council care homes. 

Obviously a National Insurance rise to pay for social care is a terrible idea as I stated at the start, that doesn't mean that the status quo is a any good either.  Why is alzheimer's different to cancer? Why is it sensible to have a public health lottery system for older people dependent on the specifics of their health problems.   

I do have a decent understanding of how the social care system works having helped to look after my father in law for 8 years after a stroke - fortunately with the help of some excellent carers we were able to support him in his wish to stay at home to end, he still spent tens of thousands of his savings on care costs.  He had dropped below the savings limit for funding when the got so ill his care became palliative at which point he NHS would have started to pick up the cost if we didn't have more important things to think of than filling in paperwork.
   

[Oldmanmatt]

Because,  as he says hes against the National Insurance rising to pay for it because that only increases the inequality over the status quo. In a way it doesn't matter at the moment if you're very wealthy or just own say, a detatched house in Sheffield worth a few hundred grand, if you go into a care home you're unlikely to be coming out, the changes planned by the government only safeguard inheritance for some of these families at the expense of people who currently rely on the council care homes. 

Obviously a National Insurance rise to pay for social care is a terrible idea as I stated at the start, that doesn't mean that the status quo is a any good either.  Why is alzheimer's different to cancer? Why is it sensible to have a public health lottery system for older people dependent on the specifics of their health problems.   

I do have a decent understanding of how the social care system works having helped to look after my father in law for 8 years after a stroke - fortunately with the help of some excellent carers we were able to support him in his wish to stay at home to end, he still spent tens of thousands of his savings on care costs.  He had dropped below the savings limit for funding when the got so ill his care became palliative at which point he NHS would have started to pick up the cost if we didn't have more important things to think of than filling in paperwork.
 

To be clear, palliative care for cancer patients (amongst others) is largely handled by charitable hospices, not the NHS. You might receive, for instance,  palliative treatment, chemo etc, on the NHS, however your “care” will be down to family or a hospice/hospice nurse. District Nurse visits are about checking meds, not helping you shower.

I think most people are unaware of such things until they have to face it themselves (I know how much crap I had to listen to from people who couldn’t understand why I had to stop work and how shocked I was at how much the “respite” at the charities expense, was needed).

The principal difference is, of course, the duration of such care.

But, both of those examples pale compared to those who’s “lottery” throws up a chronically disabled child or experience life changing events that result in a similar long term chronic disability. Again, these families and individuals will become hugely reliant on charities, since the gap between NHS provision and actual need is simply Grand Canyon in scale.

This is not the fault of the NHS, but we are ignoring the Elephant in the room and I actually don’t see any way of addressing it without increasing National Insurance. The reality is that it’s not just old age provision that needs addressing, though, so probably the measures don’t go far enough. Obviously, how the burden is shared, is something that requires careful consideration and I doubt the current crop of clowns are capable of doing that.

[IanP]

To be clear, palliative care for cancer patients (amongst others) is largely handled by charitable hospices, not the NHS. You might receive, for instance,  palliative treatment, chemo etc, on the NHS, however your “care” will be down to family or a hospice/hospice nurse. District Nurse visits are about checking meds, not helping you shower.

I think most people are unaware of such things until they have to face it themselves (I know how much crap I had to listen to from people who couldn’t understand why I had to stop work and how shocked I was at how much the “respite” at the charities expense, was needed).

Charities do provide suport for palliative care at home as well, but general care was still provided by the care providers already in place.  We did find out that once he was in that stage of end of life care he was no longer required to pay for that care - however by the time we got round to following that up it wasn't really relevant.

This is not the fault of the NHS, but we are ignoring the Elephant in the room and I actually don’t see any way of addressing it without increasing National Insurance. The reality is that it’s not just old age provision that needs addressing, though, so probably the measures don’t go far enough. Obviously, how the burden is shared, is something that requires careful consideration and I doubt the current crop of clowns are capable of doing that.

This is where I disagree (and agree with Toby and the Spectator), National Insurance is definitely the wrong way to raise money.  In fact NI is just used so that the Tories can argue that they are no raising income tax - if you want to raise money via direct taxation on earning it should definitely be from income tax which is paid by everyone including plenty of well off pensioners.  Though as above I think we should be looking a raising such money from wealth in other ways - in particular the growth of property wealth which is basically untaxed for majority of of people in the UK.

[petejh]

I'm ambivalent about the proposed NI increase. The figures say the proportion of pay taxed increases for the wealthier (a result of the lower tax threshold):

A 1% NI increase results in the following extra payments, as a proportion of the following salaries:
£20,000 extra £104 per year or 0.52% of salary
£40,000 extra £304 per year or 0.76% of salary
£60,000 extra £504 per year or 0.84% of salary

A 1.5% increase widens the gap in proportions.

But I suppose a more important metric is what proportion of spending money, following essential living costs, is the increase? A person on £20,000 per year will have much less spare money than somebody on £60,000. So the £104 increase will likely be higher proportionally.

Seems madness that pensioners who still work don't need to pay NI, this seems like it should be the first change. Then a banded increase in NI perhaps to target the most well-off. They'd pay an even higher proportion of their salary as per above.. but more in line with proportion of spare money.

Tories seem to be cynically protecting the short term grey vote.. probably wise from a short term stay in power point of view but it's the usual short-termism bullshit in politics.

[wasbeen]

As I understand they are proposing a 1% increase in both employer and employee NI contributions i.e. 2% in total.

In practice the employer contributions will get passed on to the employee through lower pay rises.

So I wonder if a motivation for targeting NI is that they get a 2% increase for the political cost of a 1% increase.

[Wellsy]

I think the main reason is that older people don't pay NI and older people vote Tory by and large. They don't mind young people paying, but they hate it. So it's a political calculation, and it'll probably go down well; young people are not politically aware by and large, they'll cough up and just be worse off.

[wasbeen]

But I suppose a more important metric is what proportion of spending money, following essential living costs, is the increase? A person on £20,000 per year will have much less spare money than somebody on £60,000. So the £104 increase will likely be higher proportionally.

And on this theme. People with more disposable may be able to negate the increase by salary sacrificing more of their salary into their pension.  A luxury the young and lower paid can rarely afford.

[SA Chris]

So I wonder if a motivation for targeting NI is that they get a 2% increase for the political cost of a 1% increase.

Make the NHS look profitable before it's sold off....

[TobyD]

I think the main reason is that older people don't pay NI and older people vote Tory by and large. They don't mind young people paying, but they hate it. So it's a political calculation, and it'll probably go down well; young people are not politically aware by and large, they'll cough up and just be worse off.

Historically true, but the divisions in voting solely by class and age are beginning to be eroded by small c conservative people voting Conservative especially if they haven't been to university and more socially liberal, further educated people voting for another party. I'm not saying that age isn't still extremely important but as the recent by elections indicate, if not prove, this may change.

Re the NI hike, I don't think that the actual loss of income to an individual is necessarily the issue although it will really matter to some, it's the unfairness of paying for the social care of pensioners who have never contributed, and may be extremely wealthy

[petejh]

The benchmark for credible policy these days is whether the plans pass muster in the House of Marcus Rashford.