Doing The Opposite – Afghanistan Thought Experiment

Donald Trump considers pulling out of Afghanistan:

Donald Trump is said to be considering withdrawing troops from Afghanistan – less than three months after senior Trump administration and military officials recommended expanding the US military’s strength in the country.

Although the administration was expected to have determined its strategy for Afghanistan by mid-July, officials continue to debate whether or not to deploy more troops to aid Afghan security forces and push back against a resurgent Taliban.

The US military presence in Afghanistan began in 2001, in response to the 11 September terror attacks.

Unable to agree on a plan to send up to 3,900 more American forces to the country, the administration is taking a new look at what would happen if the US decided to roll back its military presence instead, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Doing so would mean the US would be more likely to rely on drone strikes and special forces to target extremists.

Last week, in some of his only public comments on Afghanistan during his first six months in office, Mr Trump told reporters: “I want to find out why we’ve been there for 17 years.”

It is a good question. What does America get in return for the risks to our Military men in that wasteland?

Way back, after 9/11, we had to plot our strategy against Al Qaida in Afghanistan. We know the path George Bush chose, and we know where it led. He chose to focus the public’s perceptions of the war on only a small cohort of radical Islamists, famously proclaiming that Islam was a religion of peace.

Let’s extrapolate out what would have happened if we had followed a different strategy. I hope when this is done, it will highlight the benefit to the K-strategy of creating conflict where there may not necessarily need to be any.

Suppose that immediately after 9/11, we had declared Afghanistan our enemy for harboring Al Qaida, and adopted a strategy of bombing all populations in the nation and killing everyone. We’d have set up a base of operations, and just leveled everything with a pulse of bombings twice per year from a standoff position. After 9/11, all the rabbit nations were ready to get out of our way, so I am sure that although there would have been grumbling at first, we could have gotten away with it.

As I see it this would have had several beneficial effects, such as the preservation of the 3500+ lives of American K-strategists. Primary among those effects would have been to anger the Muslim world, and establish a state of conflict with Islam in general. Leftists would have portrayed this as a massive strategic misstep, but look at where such a state of conflict would have led.

9/11 highlighted that we were destined for conflict with the Muslim world. By giving the Muslims political cover, and minimizing the public’s perception of the scope of that conflict, George Bush in many ways put us where we are now. Today the Muslims are set to overtake Europe, and potentially one day turn it into a caliphate, complete with enslavement of non-Muslims, wanton rape of female unbelievers, and the reduction of civilized Europe’s democracies into low IQ third world hellholes like Qatar or Syria, either lacking in central governments, or under Islamic dictatorships. All we are waiting on is an economic collapse to touch off the hostilities.

Had we established a perception of a state of conflict with the Muslim world, some aspects of the war on terror would have been more difficult.

But a following quick depopulation-bombing campaign as a war-policy against Muslim enemies would have saved the lives of 3500 Americans in Afghanistan and 5900 Americans killed in Iraq – almost 10,000 K-strategists together, something much more affecting when you consider the slower rates of reproduction of K-strategist genes. In my opinion, preservation of K-strategist genes is probably one of the most important factors in preserving the K-strategy.

It would also have headed off the r-strategists’ attempts to destroy our nations through the importation of such a clear enemy as the Muslims by establishing our nations as being in conflict with them, even as our nation’s attitudes were shifted toward a more defensive K-selected strategy by the conflict.

If you deal with narcissists, you will recognize the leftists’ strategy. The narcissist will smile at you, and tell you how much they care, even as they gleefully undertake actions to screw you over. Their goal is the avoidance of open conflict, as they screw you over. They want that free attack, and consequence-free win. The migrant invasion is a textbook covert narcissist attack on the decent, happy people of Europe.

Had George Bush had the foresight to not lie about the nature of Islam, and to acknowledge the threat it posed to Western civilization, he likely would have ignited a cold war with the ideology which would have both, immunized us to the left’s present line of attack on Western Civilization, and introduced a true K-ifying stimulus which would have driven all of our people, all over the world, far more K, and kept our worldviews operating on a far longer timeframe.

Rabbitry is the ideology of lies, and it requires that one lie about the threat enemies pose, so those enemies can then be infiltrated into your society, and allowed to act against the rabbit’s own nation and people. Had George Bush been truthful about Islam and treated it as it should have been treated, it is possible a Global Civil War could have been avoided. Instead George W lied, and soon the civilized world will pay a horrible price for those lies.

It is tempting to just view a conflict solely in terms of win or lose on the present terrain, using the resources available to you. But if r/K Theory is accepted as correct, one should also understand that seeking too easy a strategy, with perceived risks and threats too minimized, to make the population feel better, can build the r-strategy in your population and leave a society maladapted for conflict and primed for destruction decades later.

One must consider the shifting terrain of r/K, and how portions of one’s strategy may aid native rabbits in their perpetual struggle to betray your own, or assist enemy rabbits to betray their own populations in your favor. One must also give thought to how certain strategies can shift the r/K balance in your own population in favor of your enemies, or shift your enemy’s population’s r/K balance in favor of you, years, or even decades down the line through means ranging from the loss of K-strategist genes to the conflict, to epigenetic effects produced by cognitive inputs in your own population.

In truth, given all populations have cohorts of traitorous r-strategists, and the stimuli which produce them are so easy to understand, I am gobsmacked that no military theorist has examined the provisioning or withholding of threat stimuli and/or resource availability as a means of altering the capabilities of your own, or your enemy’s treasonous cohorts.

Europe could actually be lost one day, for the lack of people’s understanding of r/K Theory today.

Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because nobody can understand war fully without it