Not really? Unless you’re counting the sudden agreement for withdrawal of US forces against the wishes of the Afghan government and the release of thousands of Taliban fighters by the Trump administration.

The Taliban has long been the Pakistani ISI’s baby.

His face is small, but it’s also a common joke to shrink his face by 5%-10% to exaggerate this.

Thanks for making me realize after 30 years of life terminally on the computer that computer ‘scrolling’ is in reference to ‘unraveling’ the page like an actual scroll

It’s a really easy “Everyone wins” scenario though, as long as you aren’t someone who prefers obscene wealth to life. :)

On the bottom three levels, I only know the Roman related points (Vandal Kingdom, Roman coins in Mozambique)

FUN FACT: The furthest regular trading port frequented by the Romans in Africa was in Tanzania, which took nearly two months to travel to from Roman Egypt by sailing ship, and then two months to return - assuming ideal winds!

Implying I MAKE memes! What, do you think I have a sense of work ethic or something?! No, I scavenge from the recycle bins of the internet, like a DECENT person.

You only feature in the title, so it’s more of a ‘on the news ticker’

Explanation: In the US Civil War, the secessionist Confederacy began hostilities by besieging Federal forces in Fort Sumter, and after several days, opening fire on the fort.

Yet in order to play the victim after getting their slaver asses kicked, many Confederate apologists to this day call it “The War of Northern Aggression”.

Shitwits.

Me, a garden hermit:

Explanation: Shapur I was the Shahanshah (‘King of Kings’) of Sassanid Persia during the mid-3rd century AD. He won not one, but three wars against Rome, contributing to the destabilization of the Empire, and earning everlasting glory for himself and his own reign. He went so far as to capture a Roman Emperor, Valerian, even, supposedly using him as a footstool to mount his horse with.

Even as a Romaboo, I have to admit, that’s some pretty impressive success and subsequent mogging.

Nevermore! Waka waka waka waka!

PROTIP: Fascist talking points are not a good way to analyze society.

PROTIP: Fascist talking points are not a good way to analyze society.

Did you read the article I linked?

The wiki article on the offensive?

Pakistani support was only one item on a very long list of factors. I’m also very much not convinced that foreign support for the Taliban was more than what the Republic was getting.

… Pakistani support has been integral to the Taliban since it’s literal birth. Are you being fucking serious right now?

The much more serious problem was that the Republic was unable to maintain the illusion of legitimacy necessary for a state to survive.

No, the problem was that the republic was unable to maintain an actual military to defend itself. Do you… do you think that US assistance was keeping the civilian functions of the Afghan government operational, that it was imposed like some colonial bureaucracy? The Afghan government fell to a literal military offensive by paramilitaries supported by a neighboring country, not some dissolution of civilian legitimacy.

If you want to condemn me as a Taliban apologist, you first have to confront the very real and ultimately fatal problems confronting the Republic even after 20 years of American money and airstrikes.

The issue of the republic’s weaknesses and faults is a very different discussion than “The republic had to fall and the Taliban had to win to free Afghanistan from foreign rule!!!”

Yes, the fatal problem of “The government cannot stand up without foreign support against a military with foreign support” is an issue. Imagine making this same argument with regards to South Korea and North Korea during the 50s.

I’m sure now that the Taliban is in charge, ‘any day now’ the Afghan people will rise up and heroically throw it off, just like the oppressed people of North Korea have done the same. Because you want to believe that’s how things work, of course, and it absolves you of having to confront reality.

And a bunch of independent militias and Taliban defectors,

What the fuck do you think ‘independent militias’ were doing during the Taliban offensive?

with more speculated to be on the way if those guys can hold on against the Taliban. So no, it is not in fact the same groups of people who defended the republic against the Taliban offensive.

It’s been three years. When are these ‘speculated’ reinforcements coming, again?

It’s the same fucking demographics, whether or not you want to confront that fact. I understand that it’s inconvenient to the position that the Taliban winning was good over the long run, but the fact of the matter is that the Taliban winning has done nothing but worsen Afghanistan’s prospects for digging itself out of foreign domination and oppression. But hey, at least the Taliban is busy selling off the nation’s resources in ridiculous concessions at bargain-bin prices to foreign countries - can’t get any less foreign-dominated than that!

I never said anything about Imperialist Chains™;

This you?

The so-caled government of Afghanistan was better described as the American-installed occupation government, and here’s the thing: The people of Afghanistan were never going to accept an occupation government; as long as the American-installed government was fighting on behalf of and the Taliban were fighting against America, there was only one way this was going to end short of straight up American colonial rule. It’s not pretty, but what we’re seeing now is the start of the painful and sometimes bloody process of Afghans forging their own path forward, and within the context of that process the only thing American presence did was make the Taiban that much stronger by giving them very impressive and very real anti-imperial credentials.

This you?

Now that Uncle Sam is gone, Afghans have a real shot at getting rid of the Taliban and putting half-decent leadership in charge.

Obviously they were running a much more tolerable operation than the Taliban program

That’s funny, because you’ve spent this entire comment chain talking about how important it was that they HAD to fall for the sake of the nation.

It was a band aid that did nothing to address, and was mutually exclusive to addressing, the wound festering under it.

Yes, as we all know, Taliban occupation of the country is not mutually exclusive to addressing the underlying wound.

At some point Afghanistan was going to have to sink or swim; an eternal status quo was simply not tenable. To repeat, the Taliban takeover wasn’t good, it wasn’t desirable for a Better Future™; it was the unavoidable result of the inevitable US withdrawal, in which case delaying the inevitable hurt many and helped no one.

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of bullshit I’ve been talking about. That you continually deny upholding this viewpoint and then restate it in slightly different terms is exactly the kind of Taliban apologia I’m talking about.

Fuck off with your whitewashing of Taliban atrocities for campist masturbation along accelerationist lines.

This WWII experience. Also,

As pointed out by that very article, those guard/auxiliary units were used for ‘policing action’ in the Levant - ie they did not see much, if any, serious combat.

After the British army, the Haganah was considered the most powerful military force in the Middle East.

Okay? What does that have to do with WW2 experience?

All in all, some 30,000 Palestinian Jews served in the British army during the war.

Again, most of them in guard units that did not see serious combat during WW2. The 12,000 Palestinians who served Britain in WW2 saw, proportionally to those who served, more combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah

So yeah. Zionists had some pretty impressive forces by 1948.

Zionists having ‘impressive forces’ and having experience from WW2 in excess of Palestinian Arabs are two entirely different concepts.

First he forced an attack on Israeli positions not covered by the Egyptian SAM umbrella, which was the lynchpin of the war (Egypt had no illusions about its ability to face off with the Israeli Air Force), losing Egyptian troops and giving Israel the momentum to launch a counteroffensive. Second, when during that counteroffensive Israel crossed the Suez Canal, he prevented his chief of staff from moving forces to the West Bank of the Canal to stop them. This would later lead to the disabling of Egypt’s SAM umbrella and the complete derailing of the war effort. Egypt’s goal in the war, was to take the East Bank of the Suez (which was protected by the SAM umbrella) and hold onto it for dear life to get Sinai in a negotiated peace, so while Sadat’s meddling wasn’t outright fatal it greatly strengthened the Israeli position. Had Israel’s crossing been limited by prompt Egyptian intervention, the war would’ve been a clear Egyptian victory, which probably wouldn’t have mattered much in the long term but it would’ve prevented Zionists from acting so fucking smug about the whole thing.

I’m skeptical of the narrative of “Just one decision would have saved us” considering how seriously the Egyptian offensive was thrown back, but I also have to concede that the strategic situation of the Yom Kippur War is hardly something I’m read up on.

I mean, Syria does need to rebuild but Egypt already has those institutions; it just needs competent leadership able to fund and use them. While some new military ideas likely do need to be imported, the one thing the Egyptian regime has done is keep the military well-armed and trained.

Press X to doubt.

Uh… no? The War of the First Coalition predates the Republic,

Only nominally - the War of the First Coalition occurred because King Louis XVI attempted to flee France in the hopes of raising an army to restore his power. When the war broke out, France was technically a monarchy, but holding Louis XVI literally as prisoner, and executed him only a few months later. “Because they wanted to crush what was clearly in the process of formalizing a republican regime” is a distinction without a difference.

and if anything the Holy Roman Emperor was supportive of the French Revolutionary project

What the fuck???

The same Leopold II who made an open declaration the year before the war that military force would be employed if those uppity French so much as reduced King Louis XVI’s powers??

It was French warmongers pushing for war with Austrians to weed out supposed foreign agents and conspirators and bring Revolutionary Purity™ to the country. The stuff about Austria wanting to destroy the Revolution was only true in the French’s heads, at least at the start.

This is an extremely bizarre take and not even vaguely connected to reality.

I mean, I have no idea, but do note that a whole generation of Arabs has been radicalized against Israel by the genocide in Gaza, so it wouldn’t be too hard to push a Holy War of Patriotic Liberation on Behalf of our Palestinian Brothers™ (I’m only slightly exaggerating).

Combined with the widespread antisemitism in Egyptian society, that sounds like a great recipe for a genocide upon any theoretical success.

It’s not easy, but it does happen. See: WWII.

… yes, when all major democratic counties who joined joined because of the direct threat of war by an aggressive non-democratic polity. The UK and France started it up because, as they saw it, Germany was clearly not going to stop after the last five annexations, and they were clearly on the chopping block next. The US only joined because we were directly attacked.

Economic starvation?

Is there a blockade that China is preventing with its land border?

And how would they substitute trade with their foreign partners?

See previous statements about blockades not being an easy thing like you think they are.

Yes, but nothing from Central Asia, and Iran has a good amount of influence on Iraq, its only Arab neighbor. Iran can still sell its oil and drones, as long as it can circumvent sanctions.

And how would pressure from neighboring countries prevent that? Their primary means of selling oil involves passing through the Strait of Hormuz; ‘hostile power is in striking distance’ is not really the factor you’re portraying it as.

I mean, the intelligence sharing and airlift seem like full-throttle support to me. That’s all American could’ve done in that situation short of boots on the ground.

An option which was only raised because of Israeli nuclear threats if they didn’t get assistance (which shouldn’t have been conceded to, but that’s another issue entirely), and which was limited to resupply of losses. The initial question of aid was roundly rejected in high-level US discussions, Kissinger (may he rest in piss) excepted.

The Directory et al led most of the war, but it was the Legislative Assembly that started it on the pretense that it would be quick, easy and glorious. It was none of those things, yet they continued anyway with no real peace movement in France.

It was started because of a clearly stated threat by Austria and Prussia, and attempts by nobility - including the king himself - to raise foreign forces for an invasion of France.

My understanding is that the domestic objection to Iraq was more about the pointlessness of the whole thing, because there really was no reason for America to be in Iraq. It’s not like the American public soured on the noble mission of liberty espoused by Bush and crew; it was more a realization that there was no noble mission in the first place.

Not really, no.

For instance an Islamist-led revolution would be much more likely to lead to a war with Israel than one led by liberal moderates

… I thought we were discussing a stable and democratic regime, not an Islamist pseudodemocracy. At that point, we might as well start discussing strongman states again.

The Blitz certainly didn’t discourage Britain from fighting in WWII.

The Blitz was also a direct attack on Britain during a war with existential implications for the continuation of the British government, not a fucking foreign adventure.

Hopefully with less indiscriminate targeting, but yes. I’d also assume most countries would be less willing to attack Egypt so they don’t get shut out of the Suez Canal.

By international agreements, if Egypt were to shut the Suez Canal to international trade for reasons of pressuring Israel or other countries supporting Israel, things would get very sour very fast.

It’s only getting off that lightly because it still has its Mediterranean ports. Take those away and they will be cut off from the outside world.

See previous statement about blockades not being all that easy.

Add in the Palestinian Intifada that would no doubt be inspired and supported by such action and you get a recipe for something to happen without too many non-Palestinian Arabs getting thrown into the meat grinder.

I’m sorry, are the Palestinians just not ‘inspired’ enough to fight for their lives at present?

A lot of this amounts to not much more than “If we BELIEVED enough it would be easy!”

It doesn’t need to be a full blockade; turn that area into a warzone and nobody will want to ship there.

Like how no one ships to Ukraine now?

Also I want to note that while you seem to have focused on the war bit, there’s also a full spectrum of non-military democratic Arab states could do to significantly pressure Israel, especially by targeting their all too critical relationship with Europe. A more economically robust Arab League could have another go at the original Arab League boycotts of Israel or threaten another oil embargo.

Considering that oil production was ramped up in Western countries so that the original embargo couldn’t be repeated with the same devastating effects, and that oil is of decreasing relevance in the modern day, it would be a very long shot.

I’m also not sure what knobs can be turned regarding the Suez Canal short of denying ships access, but there’s probably something.

Not much. The Suez Canal is highly regulated by international agreements precisely to stop Egypt from using it as a weapon, like it tried to in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

The Romans enjoyed getting ravens to talk. One very civilized bird was trained to say “Hail Caesar!” to the first Emperor

In 1948 you had states who were recently or currently under colonization, with armies built along outdated Ottoman lines,

This is very far from true. The Egyptian Army was intensely modernized in both technology and organization by WW2, while the Syrian Army was kept weaker (especially in the command element) by the French, it was still fundamentally a modern and French-style army, not Ottoman, by '48.

and WWII experience

… what WW2 experience? Most Jews in Mandatory Palestine arrived before the outbreak of WW2; only a few volunteers in the paramilitaries would have had WW2 experience at the outbreak of the war. While some of the long-term Zionist settlers would have been in the multiethnic Middle-East Commando, there would have been Palestinians with that same experience on the opposite side in '48. I find it difficult to attribute WW2 experience to the Israeli success in 1948.

And finally in 1973 Egypt actually had some success after modernizing its army, but then Sadat reared his ugly head and turned the war from a clear Egyptian victory into an inconclusive engagement. And yes, it was inconclusive; Israel whipped Syria but they have no claim to victory on the Egyptian front.

… the idea that the Yom Kippur War was an Egyptian victory beyond the initial surprise attack is extremely curious. What is it that Sadat did that you think turned it into an inconclusive engagement?

Also remember that American full-throttle support was already a thing by that point.

In 1973? Not even close to true.

I mean when you ask yourself why a country like Egypt isn’t a great power state on par with France or Britain, half the answer turns out to be colonialism, eye-wateringly bad dictatorial governance and corruption. This sounds like hyperbole but it’s really not.

I mean, I don’t disagree, but even if Egypt was operating at the same level of France, my conclusions would remain the same.

I should also note that the IDF hasn’t had a real engagement with a peer army in decades; I strongly doubt they’re prepared to fight anything more than militias in terms of military doctrine.

Short of having the armies of Syria and Egypt go through decades of reforms and rebuilding in a handful of months, how do you expect Egypt and Syria to spend years to create the necessary warfighting institutions that Israel simply fails to notice and react to?

but I’d say since Revolutionary France entered a generation-long war purely out of hatred for Austrians.

… Revolutionary France entered into a generation-long war out of the (correct) perception that the Austrians were seeking the total destruction of the French Republic. Not to mention that pre-industrial wars are a very different beast - and certainly pre-industrial wars wherein one party enjoys overwhelming success, which is far from guaranteed - and certainly pre-industrial wars in a polity that is not all that democratic to begin with, as the Directory, the Consulate, and the Empire were the prosecutors of the wars in the majority of that period.

And on that bit, I think you underestimate the sheer amount of hatred Arabs of all shapes and stripes have for Israel and their apartheid.

Hatred is one thing. The willingness to sacrifice your own sons and daughters is another - and the question arises, how many? Would a million be an acceptable price, like Russia has lost in Ukraine? Democracies are much more sensitive to such losses than strongman states; how much blood and how much of the nation’s future would a democratic Egypt be willing to sacrifice against nuclear-armed Israel in an attempt to bring them to the negotiating table? It’s taken as a matter of (correct) course that Poles fucking hate Russia, and with plenty of reason to do so - existential reasons, even - yet Poland has still declined to enter into the war in Ukraine. Democracies are not easy to goad into expensive and bloody wars.

America, which has three times the population of Egypt and is immensely wealthy, had record-breaking protests over the casualties inflicted in the Iraq War (and while I would love to say it was out of a sudden burst of principle, I have my fucking doubts) which resulted in the electoral thrashing of the responsible government. The numbers - some 4,500 American dead over the course of 5 years. About as many Americans were struck (though not killed) by lightning in that same period. How many Egyptian dead, do you think, will occur in a war with Israel?

And the cost - as Eisenhower once said, every missile is a child left hungry, every tank a theft of the nation’s future - what financial cost will the Egyptian people accept as a sacrifice in a war against Israel with uncertain chances of victory? The US burned through literal trillions of dollars in the ~8 years of the Iraq War, and that was against a foe which was largely suppressed after the initial month of the invasion. Right now, Americans - and other Western democracies - are increasingly balking at the much lower cost of simply supplying Ukraine, for those same simple reasons stated - will an Egyptian democracy be ‘pure’ of these petty concerns, willing to accept a war with Israel on high-minded terms at any cost?

I mean, you’d be looking at a full overhaul of the relationship between Palestine and Israel at that point, not a worthless pinky promise,

From a blockade? Hardly. I would doubt Israeli society would capitulate its genocidal aims based on military coercion for anything less than a successfully prosecuted war - and especially since blockades are a notoriously difficult thing to enforce even with air superiority and naval supremacy, as seen by the aerially-challenged and navally bereft Ukraine having rendered the attempted blockade of Russia to a financial inconvenience rather than the hoped-for crushing blow.

but as for how many? Probably more than you’d expect.

Enough to wrest Israel out of what it would view as an existential crisis for the existence of the state and probably with full support of Israeli society?

It’s doesn’t seem relevant now because most Arab countries are dictatorships willing to cut deals an Arab Muslim electorate would never stomach. Success of a preventive measure doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.

My point is that the goals and motivations of current Israeli policy are very different from what they were previously. Their primary interest now is not in preventing an invasion that seems unlikely to come or develop in any form in the near-to-medium future, but in providing ‘red meat’ for the increasing right-wing leaning of already-quite-right-wing Israeli society.

In Iran’s case the pressure is almost all coming from the West, not from their immediate neighbors. The West’s geopolitical clout is obviously immense, but there’s still only so much you can do from half a world away.

There is an immense amount of pressure on Iran from Arab states, as led in coalition by the Saudis. It has yet to topple Iran or change Iranian domestic policy, or give any hint that it is assisting meaningfully in such measures.

As for North Korea, its land border with China is really what’s saving it here. Again, no such thing exists for Israel. This makes it extremely vulnerable to coercion tactics.

What do you think the land border with China is saving North Korea from, exactly?

I mean you’ve seen how much damage Yemen did with drones and Iranian missiles

… Israel is estimated to have lost 4 billion over the past two years of the attempted Houthi blockade, which itself has been reliant on blatant violations of international law to achieve its effects, resulting in military pressure from even parties uninvolved in defense of the Israeli genocide. That’s not chump change, but it’s also not exactly the kind of numbers which pressure a state to change a core policy, and has come at the cost of engagement with a number of additional belligerents. Is that a viable plan for Egypt, do you think?

replicate that on its Mediterranean coasts and the choice will be give in or starve to death.

Again, see above - even naval supremacy and air superiority - both very questionable achievements - are far from capable of enforcing a blockade against a modernized military.

Killin’ Nazis in style