PODCAST: After Afghanistan Should US security partners question this Coalition of the Willing – Buchanan + Manning

7
300

A View from Afar – In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss: with the United States being viewed as responsible for a monumental botch-up in Afghanistan, how should its traditional security partners, including NATO, position for the future?

  • For example; why should the United States of America’s global security partners, in both northern and southern hemispheres, view the USA as a reliable security leader?

When we consider the United States-led conflicts in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, there is a pattern that stands out: these are all wars of opportunity or choice, rather than necessity.

In analysing this, it follows that lessons learnt by NATO and other global security partners may very well be to not follow the USA into such conflicts if existential threats do not exist.

Also of consideration is this:

  • Are the United States’ failures tied solely to incompetent leadership?
  • Or is this clearly apparent incompetence caused by those within the star-general-ranks of occupational forces command?
  • Or is this problem institutionalised within a morphed alliance-of-incompetence from a broad-base of institutions located within the United States security-defence apparatus?

Now, the United States is shifting its global defence strategy to counter the rise of China in the Western Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions.

  • Should the states and economies of the Asia Pacific fall in behind the USA once again and risk being drawn into another unnecessary and protracted war?
  • And considering the United States’ domestic situation being insecure and democratically chaotic, should the USA lead from the rear but only after it gets its own house in order?

WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN THE RECORDING OF OUR LIVE PODCASTS WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Podchaser - Evening Report
Listen on Apple Podcasts

***

7 COMMENTS

  1. “After Afghanistan Should US security partners question this Coalition of the Willing. ”

    I don’t know about that but I do know about this fellow.
    Russell Brand talks about the bullshitting wankers making billions off shredded parents, children and animals.
    The scum who dragged us, along with the terminal ignorance they supplanted within us then exploited, into a blood bath of unimaginable horrors are now spending the money they made from that via their various corporations manufacturing war-machinery on their own wonderful selves.
    Russell Brand.
    Taliban Takeover – This PROVES You Can’t Trust Mainstream Media
    “In this video I talk about the symbiotic relationship between mainstream media outlets, the weapons industry, and the former military officials, who all work together to perpetuate war and profits.”
    https://youtu.be/WbsgDBKh8eA
    Russell Brand makes all other discussions/debates on Afghanistan seem pointless and ridiculous to me.

    • Agreed, Russell Brand raises vital points, and I also encourage everyone to check it out.

      But CB, in this comment: “Russell Brand makes all other discussions/debates on Afghanistan seem pointless and ridiculous to me.” are you suggesting all the rest of us who are also exploring this 20 year old unnecessary war, pack up, give up, and not bother? If so, and if everyone else took your view and applied its implied inaction, doesn’t this isolate descent and critical analysis to a single point of reference and as such minimise the voice of activism and opposition? I’d suggest your approach only favours those who have benefited from this atrocity.

      • The comments section of The Daily Blog is one of the few places that will speak the truth, revealing the reality’s of the world. We come from different philosophical and scientific positions which lead some to believe that maybe, we are correct.

        What if free will is an allusion, and all that matters is to understand the factors and variables of a phenomenon, to predict it’s outcome?

        Are you, Selwyn Manning, prepared to accept the cruel reality of what we propose?

        To understand if a comment is correct, is to understand the philosophical approach known as reductionism in which it is believed that the reduction or simplification of different elements that can solve problems. For example E= MC2 or and even simpler equation that can explain everything.

        But am I correct. If I am then everything can be reduced to mere numbers.

        When we explain the world using mathematics, graphs, data and do on, it leaves no for mystery, superstition, or Russel Brands.

        In the end Russel seeks peace and a truce with the UKs enemies. In most sectors we do seek peace with Afghanistan but a most important question is how long will this peace last?

        The last words in a conversation is very important. Meaning that I am a man of my words or that there is no reason to lie.

        People who are powerful and in control has no need to lie, despite the changes some people like Russel Brand would like to make, even if the truce has already failed. The recent bomb blast around Kabul airport proves that the kind words said about woman by the Taliban will not last.

        Once again, mathematical reductionism has not failed, so far.

  2. Not sure that I heard correctly , but was Paul Buchanan’s critique of the US’s approaching military (from the air and sea)attack on China to do with it’s effectiveness, rather than the utter catastrophic folly of further war?
    Earlier in the broadcast I detected a much more pacifist sensibility
    These days , with warfare being carried out via media, culture, economics as well as military posturing, I find I view all news reports about the Uighurs for instance with a very wary eye

    • Hi Francesca, it seemed to me Paul was referring to its air and sea effectiveness in such conflicts, like commenting on how effective it may be in achieving its goal/s in that kind of conflict, rather than a values-based statement on that element. Later, for example, he cautions against US-led security coalitions and gives a recommendation that traditional US security partners in the Asia Pacific region (including Australia) should position their own national security interests as a primary consideration instead of falling into line when the US comes calling for support in any future conflict with China.

  3. Thanks Selwyn , will tune in
    I particularly liked the way Paul pointed out how our defence forces leadership are probably more attuned to each other and the US military leadership, than their own nation’s wider interests.
    I imagine career mobility depends on these overseas actions, following the “big boys” into action
    I’d also like to see our foreign policy decisions publicly explained/debated more extensively and transparently.

Comments are closed.