Pharma companies aren't known for putting patients first. Abusing the patent system to increase profits at the expense of patients. Paying doctors in the hopes of driving more sales to patients, a practice that’s alive and well with Ozempic by the way. Everything involving the opioid crisis. Which may not be all their fault, but last year 112,000 Americans died from fatal overdoses, and their greed and lack of responsibility is partly to blame. But even with all that being known, we’re still quick to trust the next “miracle drug.”
Episode S51/262
This is Smart Politix! I’m your host, Anthony Arnold. Joining me today are…
So I think it’s safe to assume that most of you have heard of Ozempic. But in case you haven’t, it’s a drug, originally developed in 2008, that’s meant for the treatment of diabetes. Recently however, it’s become popular for its weight loss properties, which is how I’m guessing most of you know about it.
And by popular, I mean “Oprah, the Queen of Weight Watchers is taking it” popular. In 2022, Medicare spent $5.7 billion dollars on Ozempic and similar drugs, up from $57 million in 2018, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit specializing in health care policy. While my math may not be the sharpest, that’s an absolutely staggering increase in spending in a very short time.
Which is understandable.
Weight management is hard. I speak from personal experience as someone who has, for a while, struggled to both lose weight and maintain a healthy weight. I won’t claim to have terrible body image problems, but I’d be lying if I said it hasn’t caused me some degree of stress. From the frustration of trying to find clothes that fit properly off-the-rack, to realizing that those pants from a few years ago don’t fit the way they used to, I really do sympathize.
And I’m not alone.
The weight management market was worth $150 billion dollars last year, and is expected to nearly double in size by 2030. Over 75% of that is in dieting. Americans spend, and will continue to spend, a staggering amount of money on trying to lose weight. So the promise of a pill that can help us accomplish this goal that we’re already trying so hard to reach has an understandable allure.
But there are real questions to ask. And to the media’s credit, many are pointing out that no matter what the drug does, it can’t fix our culture. That no pill can magically make your self-image better. Though that doesn’t mean it won’t help.
I, however, believe that there’s a more fundamental question that isn’t being asked. One that’s the focus of this episode.
“Why should we trust pharmaceutical companies at all?”
I know how that sounds. In the wake of covid, when vaccines became a scorching hot topic that divided the country, even talking about drugs is a fraught conversation. Being pro-pharmaceutical became a sign of political affiliation and social status.
There was always a tension there though. One that’s present here too.
Pharma companies are kind’ve terrible.
Abusing the patent system to increase profits at the expense of patients.
Paying doctors in the hopes of driving more sales to patients, a practice that’s alive and well with Ozempic by the way.
Everything involving the opioid crisis. Which may not be all their fault, but last year 112,000 Americans died from fatal overdoses, and their greed and lack of responsibility is partly to blame.
But even with all that being known, we’re still quick to trust the next “miracle drug.”
How do we make sense of that? Should we be so trusting? How do we balance the real benefits of these drugs with the extreme harm the companies that make them cause? And should we, on reflection, be more considerate of those who choose not to put their faith in these companies at all?
I can’t wait to dig in on this one with my guests.
Randolph, Rustin and the Black Socialists Movement, and Why It Still Matters Today
In this episode we’re going to expand our worldview of the civil rights era, by focusing not just on Randolph and Rustin, but in particular on the document they helped to produce a few years after the March on Washington called “A Freedom Budget for All Americans.”
Episode S50/261
This is Smart Politix! I’m your host, Anthony Arnold.
The date is August 28th, 1963.
That time of year Washington, D.C. is typically hot and humid. But on this day, it seems fortune, or perhaps a higher power, has chosen to intervene. Because the weather, at least by D.C. standards, is mild and pleasant. A beautiful, cloudless day, where the temperature won’t rise very far above 80 degrees.
Which is fortunate, because on this day 250,000 people will gather in front of the Lincoln Memorial and listen to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver one of the most famous speeches in world history. One that’s been endlessly dissected and imitated. One whose impact is immeasurable, having succeeded at the equally improbable tasks of not just winning hearts and minds, but at altering policy.
I am, of course, referring to the “I Have a Dream” speech. It’s an iconic moment in history, so well-defined in our minds that just those four words can draw forth a host of sights and sounds. A great mass of people, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, their attention held at the end of a long day of speeches, by one man.
But right before Dr. King’s speech starts, we briefly hear another man, one who introduces King as the “moral leader of our nation.” That man, one of the two organizers of the day’s events, was A. Phillip Randolph.
And he, along with the other primary organizer of that day, Bayard Rustin, are the focus of this episode. But not their biography. If what you’re looking for is information about days and dates, then Wikipedia will suffice.
Instead, we’re going to talk about their ideas. What were they? How did they fall out of favor? And what impact might this have on the politics of today?
Because they do matter.
The Black intellectual tradition has a rich history in America.
Frederick Douglass. Booker T. Washington. W.E.B. DuBois.
Ida B Wells. Ella Baker. Angela Davis.
Cornel West. John McWhorter.
Kimberle Crenshaw. Nikole Hannah-Jones.
It’s a tradition that spans centuries, and it’s one that has offered, and continues to offer, insight into all aspects of life.
But the various thinkers that form the backbone of that tradition haven’t always agreed with one another. From disagreements over approach, to disagreements over what, exactly, black people should be fighting for, the differences between these individuals has always been vast.
Which isn’t a surprise, right?
People, even ones who share superficial similarities such as skin color, are unique.
And yet, this basic fact is so often lost when discussing non-whites.
Think about the ways in which the “black vote” is discussed. The surprised reaction from people when they look at polls and notice that some black voters might be considering options they haven’t looked at in decades. Their shock is indicative of a populace that has, for far too long, associated blackness with far too narrow of a worldview.
So in this episode we’re going to expand that worldview just a bit, by focusing not just on Randolph and Rustin, but in particular on the document they helped produce a few years after the March on Washington called “A Freedom Budget for All Americans.” By gaining just a bit of insight into how these two men thought, we can better appreciate the differences in black people today, and start to understand how those differences show up among black voters.
Iran has long provided both money and arms to Hamas, without controlling their actions overtly. This allows them to claim, truthfully, that they aren’t responsible. In the same way that the U.S. claims not to be whenever a group we arm does something we don’t like.
While this may sound ridiculous, it provides just enough political cover to make a direct attack on them unacceptable domestically, and unsupported internationally.
But when a response targets some other group, Iran then casts us and our allies as illegitimate aggressors anyway, highlighting the very real carnage and death that’s happening.
And if we do nothing? Or leave, as we did in Afghanistan?
Episode S49/260
This is Smart Politix! I’m your host, Anthony Arnold.
Last year, on the morning of October 8th, the world began grieving.
Some mourned over the tragedy that struck Israel.
Some mourned preemptively, suspecting that Israel’s pain would quickly turn into Palestinian suffering.
And yet others mourned over the latest cycle of violence in a region that’s been plagued by it for longer than most have been alive.
All three perspectives have proven correct.
For months, we’ve learned new details about the attack, with each one proving to be more shocking than the last. And as kidnapping victims slowly return home, the slow trickle of information continues.
Israel’s response has, as feared, proven to be brutal, and shockingly indiscriminate. There have been tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties, and much of the area has been destroyed.
Which is why the cycle seems all but certain to repeat itself. This kind of violence can never produce peace. It can never lead to solutions and answers. It can only be used as fuel for the next round of atrocities.
But these perspectives aren’t the only ones.
Winston Churchill is credited with the quote “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” And while I understand that there’s something cynical and gross about using it in this context, it’s important to recognize that this is exactly how some have seen the unfolding of events over the last 4 months.
Specifically, it’s how the leaders of Iran view things.
Iran’s foreign policy goals have, for a very long time, been in direct opposition to ours in a fundamental way. They wish to reduce the degree of influence we and our allies wield, and replace it with their own.
Whether you think our own specific policy goals are right or wrong is irrelevant. Accomplishing them, no matter how hawkish or dovish they may be, requires power. Iran has long hoped to deprive us of ours.
Since October 7th they’ve been actively working towards that goal. There have been over 150 attacks on U.S. forces since that date, many of which have been carried out by Iranian backed proxies. These attacks are aimed not at destroying the U.S. military, but at discrediting it. Which is a crucial difference.
By using proxies, and operating in a murky gray zone, they seek to deny us a legitimate opportunity to respond with overwhelming force. And by continuously harassing U.S. forces, disrupting international trade, and interfering with the functioning of governments across the region, they hope to prove that neither we or our allies are capable of being forces for stability.
The war between Israel and Hamas is, on a grand scale, this strategy playing out.
Iran has long provided both money and arms to Hamas, without controlling their actions overtly. This allows them to claim, truthfully, that they aren’t responsible. In the same way that the U.S. claims not to be whenever a group we arm does something we don’t like.
While this may sound ridiculous, it provides just enough political cover to make a direct attack on them unacceptable domestically, and unsupported internationally.
But when a response targets some other group, Iran then casts us and our allies as illegitimate aggressors anyway, highlighting the very real carnage and death that’s happening.
And if we do nothing? Or leave, as we did in Afghanistan?
They cheer that on too, pointing out our failures and using them as a way to create an opening for themselves.
If you’ve been paying attention to the news recently, then you know things have heated up in a big way, with U.S. soldiers dying at the hands of Iranian proxies, and the U.S. launching a number of attacks against those same groups in response.
If this all sounds very, very complicated, then that’s the point.
American policy in the Middle East has, for decades, been clear as mud. Each scenario is incredibly complicated, and every possible solution likely leads to more questions than answers. But, this show is called Smart Politix for a reason. We’re gonna try to provide a little bit of clarity by asking big questions.
How should we deal with the “proxy” problem?
Should we attack Iran head-on?
Should we leave the region entirely and let the chips fall where they may, no matter the humanitarian cost?
This is going to be a meaty episode. Which is why I’ve brought a few friends along to help me out.
Should Parents Be Jailed for the Crimes of Their Children?
Jennifer Crumbley, was found guilty of four counts of manslaughter, for her son's crimes. In an effort to secure the maximum punishment possible, the State of Michigan tried Ethan Crumbley as an adult. A designation that would seem to suggest he already bears full responsibility for his actions. And yet, his parents both face the possibility of jail time for those same actions.
By now, you’ve no doubt seen one of the various polls showing that both the current President, Joe Biden, and the former President, Donald Trump, are lacking in the eyes of the public.
So how did we get here? And who should be blamed?
Holidays bring people together around something common to them all. So what's common enough for Americans to celebrate Martin Luther King Day or National Lego Day or any other holiday, that's not religious?
For the last few decades, the world seemed like a mostly stable place. The odds of conflict between major powers was low. And while there were still lingering questions, it seemed as if the answers to those questions were within our grasp. It was certainly a nice dream, wasn’t it?
We apologize for the audio and technical difficulties experienced on this show.
Legacy media is collapsing and local media is dying. Who will tell our local stories — the stories that matter most — if we continue to lose local newspapers?
Vices "Remember When Smoking Was Cool? ", Part 5 of 5
If I asked you to picture a cigarette smoker in your head, what’s the first image that you imagine? For some of you, it might be something ghastly. Something that speaks to the long-term consequences. For others, it might be of a particular brand you always associate with smoking.
Episode S42/240
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast R. Anthony Arnold, Host with Francine Dash
The Iron Triangle
A bureaucracy is defined as “a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives. That’s what the “Iron Triangle” leads to.
Episode S41/238
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast R. Anthony Arnold, Host with Francine Dash
The Country that Laughs Together...
For a growing share of Americans, their laughs are coming from a surprising source: Fox News. More specifically, Greg Gutfield!
Episode S40/236
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast R. Anthony Arnold, Host with Francine Dash
The World's Proxy War in Ukraine Continues
It's no secret that the United States is fully supporting Ukraine against Russia; but does that mean that we are at war with Russia?
Episode S39/234
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast R. Anthony Arnold, Host with Francine Dash
Hollywood and the Labour Movement
This strike is about more than just writers and actors. It’s also a lesson in how technology is changing the landscape of labour in unanticipated ways; and it provides a preview into the kinds of conflicts that may become more common in the future.
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast R. Anthony Arnold, Host with Francine Dash
Trump 2.0
Are there any conclusions to be drawn about the state of our politics, the voters, and/or the Republican party, from Trump’s continued frontrunner status?
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast R. Anthony Arnold, Host with Francine Dash
Vices "The Effects of Culture and Technology ", Part 4 of 5
In a post-pandemic culture full of mental awareness, yet rising depression and suicide rates, should the expansion of technology into gaming, allowing people
to go to Vegas on their phones, be alarming or just another sign of progress?
Vicksburg, Mississippi was, in 1835, a haven of debauchery. The allure of easy money, easy land, and riverboat gambling had turned it into a place where people came from far and wide to get rich quick. But on the fourth of July, something snapped.
Vices "Our Complicated Relationship with Alcohol", Part 2 of 5
Drinking isn’t good for you. That’s one of those statements that seems obvious, and yet, for decades, quite the opposite was thought to be true. If you’ve ever heard that a glass of red wine can be healthy, then you’re one of the many people who’s heard what’s known as “The French Paradox.” An idea first proposed in 1991.
But recent studies have found the science behind that idea to be not so credible, and likely a result of poorly interpreting the data.
And the recent health recommendations go way beyond that. Earlier this year the World Health Organization titled “No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.” None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not even the temperance movement was so bold as to suggest that “risks start from the first drop.”
In World War 2 soldiers were given amphetamines, the drugs we use to help treat ADHD, to help them stay alert and awake. We’re talking tens of millions of pills. And after the war, some of those soldiers not only returned home, but they went back to baseball. It’s unimaginable now, but over 500 baseball players served in the military. Players like Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.
And when those players returned to baseball, they brought their amphetamines, or “greenies”, back with them.
Steven Universe tells the coming-of-age story of a young boy, Steven Universe who lives with the Crystal Gems—magical, mineral-based aliens — in the fictional town of Beach City. Steven, who is half-Gem, has adventures with his friends and helps the Gems protect the world from their own kind.
“I really like the mature themes of the show, and how the writers take on serious issues without being reactionary. Like redemption, the show tells us that as long as a person is willing to try that they are not beyond redemption,” Nicholas Homberg.
For many, hip hop educated as much as it entertained, filling the gap between what people thought they knew and the reality of how people were really living. Now, some believe hip hop has been co-opted, becoming another corporate product and a shell of what it used to be. But for others, there's still hope.
“Hip hop is what made me culturally aware of life outside of my world... and I have hope that it will return to being able to make that type of impact, again,” Frank Jamison, IV.
Politix & Culture "'Haikyu' Manga Series", Part 1 of 4
Haikyu is a Japanese Shonen manga series about a high school volleyball team, written and illustrated by Haruichi Furudate. Our own Professor X (Alex Krohannon) talks about why this manga is one of the greatest and how it mirrors politics.
“Politics comes from culture; and culture has roots in the stories that we tell,” Professor X.
History of Democracy "The Road that Leads to Tyranny", Part 7 of 7
The road that leads to tyranny is paved with peoples desires, their outright yearning, for freedom of self and freedom to make the living they want to make for their families; and they want whoever the hell is in charge to do things that make reaching these timeless goals possible.
“Tyranny has never worked for anyone, but the tyrant.” said Arnold.
“I do think the desire to try these things is part of human nature. But we don’t have to be bound by the lesser angels of our nature.”
Episode S28/207
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast Anthony Arnold, Host
History of Democracy "Post War Fascism in Italy and the Story of Benito Mussolini, better known as 'Il Duce'", Part 6 of 7
"Early in his life, Mussolini's views sounded almost like the kinds of things you hear in many left wing circles today. He supported worker’s rights, unions, direct action protests, and was willing to stand against the imperialism that he believed was suppressing the common people around the globe. I say almost because Mussolini also possessed a darkness that would land him jail for advocating the use of violence. And it’s this belief in violence that would cause him to break with his socialist allies, and set him down a different path."
Episode S27/203
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast Anthony Arnold, Host
History of Democracy "An American Tyrant in Louisiana", Part 5 of 6
It’s the smart ones who pose the greatest threat. [Huey P.] Long was smart enough to work the system, charismatic enough to make people love him, and shrewd enough to get away with the bullying. And because he delivered results, the people kept electing him. He was chosen democratically, twice, and had he not died to an assassin’s bullet in 1935, there’s really no telling where his career might have taken him. Could he have one day been President? I absolutely think it’s possible.
Episode S26/201
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast Anthony Arnold, Host
History of Democracy "Was The American Revolution a War on Taxes?", Part 4 of 6
Much has been said about the Revolutionary War and its causes and all of them are pretty much true. But not much has been discussed about how colonists cheated the crown out of taxes owed; and while becoming among the wealthiest colonies used its wealth (back taxes, maybe?) to defeat the British.
Episode S25/197
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast Anthony Arnold, Host
History of Democracy "Democracy and Socrates", Part 3 of 6
Before Donald Trump became President, George Washington was, by a mile, the wealthiest President we had ever had. Thomas Jefferson comes just after him, and James Madison is number 6. John Adams, with a 2022 net worth of 25 million, looks like a pauper when compared to the estimate of 700 million for Washington. So the founding class of this country wasn’t just comfortably well-off, they were rich.
Episode S24/192
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast Anthony Arnold, Host
History of Democracy "The Athenian Court System", Part 2 of 6
Instead of the small, intimate juries that we have today, ancient Athens had juries that started at 200, and could number in the thousands for exceptional cases. There were also no jury deliberations, like we have today. Instead, jurors would hear the arguments being made, occasionally expressing their approval or disapproval on the spot; and when the arguments concluded, they would immediately vote.
Episode S23/188
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast Anthony Arnold, Host
History of Democracy "The Pros and Cons of Democracy", Part 1 of 6
One of the first human societies that we consider advanced was ancient Sumeria, in Mesopotamia. We’re talking roughly 6,000 years ago, give or take a few centuries. Democracy, in ancient Greece, didn't emerge until thousands of years later, and it didn't really catch on until a few hundred years ago. Just think about that. For millennia the experience of people choosing their own leaders wasn’t [even] a thing.
Episode S22/183
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "Keep Calm and Vote", Part 7 of 7
Politics is not about who you like. It’s about who can get you what you want. This is the power of a democracy. This is the power of the people.
Episode S21/175
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "(Squandering) The Power of the Vote", Part 6 of 7
We have a lot of democracy. And the reason we have so much of it is because we're meant to be changing the people who are doing those jobs fairly often. If what the founders wanted is a system where officials serve for life, then I imagine they would have built it that way. We could, if we chose to, change every elected official in six years. Every. Single. One. If you’re unhappy with an elected official, you could throw them out. If you don’t like them, you could get rid of them. It really is that simple.
Episode S20/170
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "It's About Power", Part 5 of 7
On the surface, it would appear that these events have virtually nothing in common.
What could possibly unite all these causes together?
The answer is the most basic force in the world.
The desire for power.
Episode S19/166
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "The Violence of the 60s and 70s", Part 4 of 7
When we recall the history of that era, we see the same thing playing out again and again. As a nation, we have buried the tremendous violence that was occuring during those years. And when we do talk about violence, we talk about groups like the Black Panthers, or the Vietnam protestors, without acknowledging the violence they were responding to. Mostly though, we just don’t talk about it all.
Episode S18/162
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "The Women’s Suffrage Movement, the Bisbee Deportation & the American Labor Movement", Part 3 of 7
The violent fight for rights in America is as old as the country itself; and has helped to form our country and some of the rights we enjoy, today. Listen to how American women were beaten in the streets, during a protest and force-fed in jails; and how American miners were deported from Bisbee, Arizona and forbidden from returning to their homes for asking for safe conditions and fair pay.
Episode S17/157
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "The War in Ukraine", Part 2 of 7
"On a historical level, war has been with us from the start. You can go back as far as you wish in history, and you’ll find it. Humankind has a tragic tendency to find reasons for killing one another. But if war is always going to be with us, then that means every generation has an obligation to think about the questions it raises, and seek out answers."
Episode S16/151
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Violence and the Origins of the Modern World "The Great Revolutions", Part 1 of 7
"You could go a lifetime without hearing anything about the Haitian Revolution. You won’t read about it in many textbooks. There aren't any Hollywood movies and shows about it. A name like Toussaint isn’t recognized like Robespierre or Jefferson. If you didn’t seek out a chance to learn anything about it, then you might not ever know it existed.
And yet, no act of resistance better represents a demand for liberty and equality."
Afghanistan "How Instability in Afghanistan Works", Part 4 of 4
"For generations, this part of a world has served as a staging ground to destabilize and manage perceived allies and enemies without any regard for the people in the region."
Afghanistan, "The Future", Part 3 of 4
This is Smart Politix, and I’m your host Anthony Arnold. Smart Politix helps you make sense of the news. The stakes in politics are real, and it’s important that we think clearly about the issues that matter most.
This is part 3 of my series about the war in Afghanistan. I’d recommend going back and listening to the first 2 episodes if you haven’t already.
Those episodes dealt with the history of Afghanistan before we got there, and what the true cost of the war really was, not just the money spent. For this episode I’m looking to the future. And not just to the future of Afghanistan, but to the future of war itself.
Themes that I touched on in previous episodes such as the geography of the region, and the role of technology, will become more prevalent here. But there’s also a larger fact to keep in mind. While our departure from the country threatens to undo much of the progress that was made, the changes in warfare are ones that can’t be undone. I believe that our time in Afghanistan fundamentally changed war forever, and the world will look far different moving forward.
So in this episode I’m going to try and predict what I think happens in Afghanistan now that we’re gone, and I’m going to explain exactly how drones have changed everything.
Let’s begin.
The news of the last few weeks has already shown this to be true, but it’s worth saying anyway. The return of the Taliban to power is likely going to result in a significant rollback in human rights for the people in Afghanistan. Political leaders may try to convince us of the Taliban’s sincerity, or that they’ve changed their ways, but there’s no evidence of that.
Already, we’ve seen the gradual reduction in women’s rights, the return of public executions, and the reintroduction of a society based on an extremely strict theological interpretation. None of this is meant as a justification for returning to war. If you listened to episode 2 then you know I fully appreciate how horrific war can be.
But, we shouldn’t pretend that whatever gains we made have a good chance of staying in place. The Taliban have a very specific view of how Afghanistan should be run, and they’re the ones in charge now. Which means they get to try and turn that view into reality.
While that reality is going to be harsher, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be unwelcome by everyone. This may be hard to understand, but there really are people who prefer life under the Taliban.
When the Taliban first came to power, one of the things they claimed to be fighting against was corruption and chaos. Years of war and instability had made some people hungry for anything else. And now, after 20 years of war, there are people who are once again ready to return to Taliban rule, even if it comes at the price of some of their freedoms.
To understand why, you have to realize that, for instance, during our time in Afghanistan there was a significant rise in both crime rates, and drug addiction rates. The chaos, death, and destruction that was a part of our occupation also made it difficult to start legitimate business. And the unemployment rate, which fell after our initial invasion, had started to creep up to pre-invasion levels a few years ago.
So Afghanistan was not in a good place in the years leading up to us leaving. The Taliban, while unquestionably brutal, represent a source of calm for some. But the price for that calm will be high. There will be horrifying stories, and the crackdown on freedom for women, in particular, is going to be a bitter pill for us to swallow. It’s going to be a continual reminder of our failure.
Beyond that though, Afghanistan’s future is likely to be determined by the countries that surround it. In the first episode I mentioned that the country was circled by nations that were both more powerful, and also intensely interested in what happened. Our time there allowed those countries to step back. But with us leaving, they’re going to return.
On a basic level, those countries aren’t interested in having an unstable haven for terrorists near their borders. The establishing of ISIS inside Afghanistan’s borders would be upsetting for us, but for their more powerful neighbors it’s a much different threat. Which means they’re going to interfere in the politics of the country.
One of the most tragic aspects of the past, present, and future for Afghans is that they’ve never really been allowed to determine their own future. Whether it was the British, the Russians, or the Americans, much of their recent history has been shaped by others. Unfortunately, I don’t see that letting up anytime soon.
Their neighbors may want stability, but they’re also competing with one another. So while they may, on occasion, allow the people to have a voice, they’re all trying to make sure their voice is the loudest in the room.
Ultimately, I think another country will invade Afghanistan eventually. I can’t predict who it will be, or when it will happen. I can’t even say that it won’t be us. But, the conditions in the country make it difficult to see a path towards prosperity.
The economy is spiraling down already, as foreign aid money is pulled out and sanctions on the Taliban kick in. And if their human rights abuses start to pile up, then more sanctions will be on the way. As that process happens, the Taliban’s ability to govern starts to collapse, as does their ability to keep out extremist elements. And if one of those elements became too threatening to a regional or global power? That’s how another war in the country would begin.
But how might that war be fought?
Right now we’re living through a massive change in warfare. It’s difficult for us to comprehend, because we’re not a victim of it, but also because it can be hard to understand history while you’re living through it.
We’ve become accustomed to discussing drone strikes as if they’re an accepted fact of war. The reality is that before 2001, drones were only used for reconnaissance. The first time a drone was armed, in our pursuit of Osama bin Laden, was the first time it had been done. But with new military technology comes new questions about how to use it in a way that’s ethical.
Similar to how the invention of atomic weaponry raised questions about when, if ever, it was appropriate to wipe a city, the invention of lethal drones brings its own problems.
Is it appropriate to kill an enemy combatant at no risk to yourself? Intuitively the answer would seem to be yes. But casualties are one of the main risks of war. If the risk of them is zero, then you’ve just removed one of the largest deterrents to war. The low risk/high reward nature of drones is what allowed us to fight for 20 years, while largely focusing only on the financial costs of doing so.
Should technologically advanced countries be able to easily ignore the boundaries and wishes of the less advanced? Drones, with their size and flight patterns, are difficult to stop. But incredibly lethal when they arrive. For countries without sufficiently advanced countermeasures, drones can be deployed in those places to kill anybody, at any time.
And it won’t stop at drones. Last year, Israel pulled off one of the most improbable assassinations in human history. An AI assisted machine gun, mounted on a vehicle, and ultimately fired by a person still in Israel, was used to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist. In Iran.
Killer drones and AI hitmen would have sounded like science fiction two decades ago. But this isn’t some far-fetched story, it’s the present. The future of warfare is going to be driven by robots and computers. There may still be a person pulling the trigger, but that person is going to be comfortably seated thousands of miles away.
As wild as these advancements are, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Already, our military is considering a number of ways to upgrade our drones. More durability, more weapons, and the ability to be controlled by an AI are all things we’re exploring right now. And as other other countries begin developing their own programs to match ours, even greater leaps forward are sure to follow.
We dropped the atomic bomb in 1945. With the force of 20 kilotons of TNT, and the capacity to level a city, it seemed impossible to imagine that something ever stronger could be developed. But 16 years later, in the midst of the Cold War, the Soviet Union detonated the Tsar Bomba, a nuclear weapon with a 50 megaton blast, over 3,000 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
The era of machine driven combat is only beginning. And just as the development of atomic weaponry raised troubling, and still unanswered, questions about warfare, this new era will raise its own. I don’t know when the next war will be fought, and I don’t know who will be doing the fighting. But if the past is any indication, it won’t look anything like what we’re used to.
Whether that ends up being for better or worse is going to be up to us and our leaders. It’s going to require us to start asking questions about ethics and morality. It’s going to require us to start thinking carefully about the world we want to pass on to future generations. The war in Afghanistan belongs to history now, but the future is still undetermined.
Episode S14/144
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Afghanistan "The Future", Part 3 of 4
"Already, we’ve seen the gradual reduction in women’s rights, the return of public executions, and the reintroduction of a society based on an extremely strict theological interpretation. None of this is meant as a justification for returning to war. If you listened to episode 2 then you know I fully appreciate how horrific war can be.
But, we shouldn’t pretend that whatever gains we made have a good chance of staying in place. The Taliban have a very specific view of how Afghanistan should be run, and they’re the ones in charge now."
Afghanistan, "The Future", Part 3 of 4
This is Smart Politix, and I’m your host Anthony Arnold. Smart Politix helps you make sense of the news. The stakes in politics are real, and it’s important that we think clearly about the issues that matter most.
This is part 3 of my series about the war in Afghanistan. I’d recommend going back and listening to the first 2 episodes if you haven’t already.
Those episodes dealt with the history of Afghanistan before we got there, and what the true cost of the war really was, not just the money spent. For this episode I’m looking to the future. And not just to the future of Afghanistan, but to the future of war itself.
Themes that I touched on in previous episodes such as the geography of the region, and the role of technology, will become more prevalent here. But there’s also a larger fact to keep in mind. While our departure from the country threatens to undo much of the progress that was made, the changes in warfare are ones that can’t be undone. I believe that our time in Afghanistan fundamentally changed war forever, and the world will look far different moving forward.
So in this episode I’m going to try and predict what I think happens in Afghanistan now that we’re gone, and I’m going to explain exactly how drones have changed everything.
Let’s begin.
The news of the last few weeks has already shown this to be true, but it’s worth saying anyway. The return of the Taliban to power is likely going to result in a significant rollback in human rights for the people in Afghanistan. Political leaders may try to convince us of the Taliban’s sincerity, or that they’ve changed their ways, but there’s no evidence of that.
Already, we’ve seen the gradual reduction in women’s rights, the return of public executions, and the reintroduction of a society based on an extremely strict theological interpretation. None of this is meant as a justification for returning to war. If you listened to episode 2 then you know I fully appreciate how horrific war can be.
But, we shouldn’t pretend that whatever gains we made have a good chance of staying in place. The Taliban have a very specific view of how Afghanistan should be run, and they’re the ones in charge now. Which means they get to try and turn that view into reality.
While that reality is going to be harsher, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be unwelcome by everyone. This may be hard to understand, but there really are people who prefer life under the Taliban.
When the Taliban first came to power, one of the things they claimed to be fighting against was corruption and chaos. Years of war and instability had made some people hungry for anything else. And now, after 20 years of war, there are people who are once again ready to return to Taliban rule, even if it comes at the price of some of their freedoms.
To understand why, you have to realize that, for instance, during our time in Afghanistan there was a significant rise in both crime rates, and drug addiction rates. The chaos, death, and destruction that was a part of our occupation also made it difficult to start legitimate business. And the unemployment rate, which fell after our initial invasion, had started to creep up to pre-invasion levels a few years ago.
So Afghanistan was not in a good place in the years leading up to us leaving. The Taliban, while unquestionably brutal, represent a source of calm for some. But the price for that calm will be high. There will be horrifying stories, and the crackdown on freedom for women, in particular, is going to be a bitter pill for us to swallow. It’s going to be a continual reminder of our failure.
Beyond that though, Afghanistan’s future is likely to be determined by the countries that surround it. In the first episode I mentioned that the country was circled by nations that were both more powerful, and also intensely interested in what happened. Our time there allowed those countries to step back. But with us leaving, they’re going to return.
On a basic level, those countries aren’t interested in having an unstable haven for terrorists near their borders. The establishing of ISIS inside Afghanistan’s borders would be upsetting for us, but for their more powerful neighbors it’s a much different threat. Which means they’re going to interfere in the politics of the country.
One of the most tragic aspects of the past, present, and future for Afghans is that they’ve never really been allowed to determine their own future. Whether it was the British, the Russians, or the Americans, much of their recent history has been shaped by others. Unfortunately, I don’t see that letting up anytime soon.
Their neighbors may want stability, but they’re also competing with one another. So while they may, on occasion, allow the people to have a voice, they’re all trying to make sure their voice is the loudest in the room.
Ultimately, I think another country will invade Afghanistan eventually. I can’t predict who it will be, or when it will happen. I can’t even say that it won’t be us. But, the conditions in the country make it difficult to see a path towards prosperity.
The economy is spiraling down already, as foreign aid money is pulled out and sanctions on the Taliban kick in. And if their human rights abuses start to pile up, then more sanctions will be on the way. As that process happens, the Taliban’s ability to govern starts to collapse, as does their ability to keep out extremist elements. And if one of those elements became too threatening to a regional or global power? That’s how another war in the country would begin.
But how might that war be fought?
Right now we’re living through a massive change in warfare. It’s difficult for us to comprehend, because we’re not a victim of it, but also because it can be hard to understand history while you’re living through it.
We’ve become accustomed to discussing drone strikes as if they’re an accepted fact of war. The reality is that before 2001, drones were only used for reconnaissance. The first time a drone was armed, in our pursuit of Osama bin Laden, was the first time it had been done. But with new military technology comes new questions about how to use it in a way that’s ethical.
Similar to how the invention of atomic weaponry raised questions about when, if ever, it was appropriate to wipe a city, the invention of lethal drones brings its own problems.
Is it appropriate to kill an enemy combatant at no risk to yourself? Intuitively the answer would seem to be yes. But casualties are one of the main risks of war. If the risk of them is zero, then you’ve just removed one of the largest deterrents to war. The low risk/high reward nature of drones is what allowed us to fight for 20 years, while largely focusing only on the financial costs of doing so.
Should technologically advanced countries be able to easily ignore the boundaries and wishes of the less advanced? Drones, with their size and flight patterns, are difficult to stop. But incredibly lethal when they arrive. For countries without sufficiently advanced countermeasures, drones can be deployed in those places to kill anybody, at any time.
And it won’t stop at drones. Last year, Israel pulled off one of the most improbable assassinations in human history. An AI assisted machine gun, mounted on a vehicle, and ultimately fired by a person still in Israel, was used to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist. In Iran.
Killer drones and AI hitmen would have sounded like science fiction two decades ago. But this isn’t some far-fetched story, it’s the present. The future of warfare is going to be driven by robots and computers. There may still be a person pulling the trigger, but that person is going to be comfortably seated thousands of miles away.
As wild as these advancements are, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Already, our military is considering a number of ways to upgrade our drones. More durability, more weapons, and the ability to be controlled by an AI are all things we’re exploring right now. And as other other countries begin developing their own programs to match ours, even greater leaps forward are sure to follow.
We dropped the atomic bomb in 1945. With the force of 20 kilotons of TNT, and the capacity to level a city, it seemed impossible to imagine that something ever stronger could be developed. But 16 years later, in the midst of the Cold War, the Soviet Union detonated the Tsar Bomba, a nuclear weapon with a 50 megaton blast, over 3,000 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
The era of machine driven combat is only beginning. And just as the development of atomic weaponry raised troubling, and still unanswered, questions about warfare, this new era will raise its own. I don’t know when the next war will be fought, and I don’t know who will be doing the fighting. But if the past is any indication, it won’t look anything like what we’re used to.
Whether that ends up being for better or worse is going to be up to us and our leaders. It’s going to require us to start asking questions about ethics and morality. It’s going to require us to start thinking carefully about the world we want to pass on to future generations. The war in Afghanistan belongs to history now, but the future is still undetermined.
Episode S13/141
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Afghanistan "The War", Part 2 of 4
"According to some estimates, we carried out 13,000 drone strikes in Afghanistan over 20 years. Which breaks down to exactly 650 strikes a year. That means for 20 straight years the United States, on average, struck somewhere every single day. Every day. It didn’t matter who the President was. It didn’t matter who controlled Congress. We rained death and destruction from the safety of a robot down on the people of Afghanistan with far too little regard for their well being."
Afghanistan, "The War", Part 2 of 4
This is Smart Politix, and I’m your host Anthony Arnold. Smart Politix helps you make sense of the news. The stakes in politics are real, and it’s important that we think clearly about the issues that matter most.
This is part 2 of my series about the war in Afghanistan. If you haven’t listened to the first part yet, then I recommend you do. In that episode I covered the modern history of the country, while trying to paint a fuller picture of what Afghanistan is really like.
For this episode, I’m going to take the same approach to the war itself.
Over the last 2 decades, the primary way that we’ve discussed the war is in terms of dollars. We’re all familiar with the speeches highlighting the money spent. And we’ve all heard the pundits noting that if we had used that money on domestic causes, just think of what could’ve been accomplished. Often, it’s sounded like our political leaders are describing a bad financial investment.
It’s true, of course, that the war was expensive. $2 trillion dollars is real money. But wars aren’t just about dollars spent. They aren’t financial transactions.
The real cost of the war is one that we haven’t yet grappled with. The cost in terms of lives lost, and destroyed. The cost to our psyche as a nation, and to the stability of the country we invaded. The cost to our prestige. Once you appreciate the full cost, to both sides, you realize that the money spent, while significant, was the cheap part.
So on this episode I’m going to focus less on the money, and more on everything else. If we’re to have any hope of learning valuable lessons from the last 20 years, then it must start with understanding the price that was paid.
Let’s begin.
Imagine a day. An ordinary workday. You wake up, shower, brush your teeth, and get a bite for breakfast. You help your kids get ready for school, say goodbye to your significant other, and go to work.
And you have an ordinary day at work. You groan and complain, chat with your coworkers, and look forward to going home at the end of your shift. All in all, it’s just another day.
But on the way home from this most ordinary of days, you’re killed. A bomb destroys your car. Your partner is now a widow. Your kids are now missing a parent. And when they try to figure out “Why” this happened, the only thing they’re greeted with is an acknowledgement that your death, while tragic, serves a larger purpose. That your death was somehow necessary.
That scenario, while dark, is still far too rosy of a picture compared to the reality in Afghanistan. There’s a recent story about an aid worker who was killed, along with 7 children. Or the story from 2 years ago about the 30 people killed while returning from harvesting pine nuts.
To really illustrate the horror I want to read an excerpt from a recent article in The New Yorker:
“But in 2019, as the U.S. was holding talks with Taliban leaders in Doha, Qatar, the Afghan government and American forces moved jointly on Sangin one last time. That January, they launched perhaps the most devastating assault that the valley witnessed in the entire war. Shakira and other villagers fled for the desert, but not everyone could escape. Ahmed Noor Mohammad, who owned a pay-phone business, decided to wait to evacuate, because his twin sons were ill. His family went to bed to the sound of distant artillery. That night, an American bomb slammed into the room where the twin boys were sleeping, killing them. A second bomb hit an adjacent room, killing Mohammad’s father and many others, eight of them children.
The next day, at the funeral, another air strike killed six mourners. In a nearby village, a gunship struck down three children. The following day, four more children were shot dead. Elsewhere in Sangin, an air strike hit an Islamic school, killing a child. A week later, twelve guests at a wedding were killed in an air raid.”
According to some estimates, we carried out 13,000 drone strikes in Afghanistan over 20 years. Which breaks down to exactly 650 strikes a year. That means for 20 straight years the United States, on average, struck somewhere every single day. Every day. It didn’t matter who the President was. It didn’t matter who controlled Congress. We rained death and destruction from the safety of a robot down on the people of Afghanistan with far too little regard for their well being.
But it wasn’t just limited to drone strikes. There were civilians shot while performing everyday tasks. Errant mortar strikes while retaliating against the insurgent forces who were attacking us. The presence of security checkpoints that silently promised the possibility of violence should you do something deemed “dangerous.” The definition of which was entirely arbitrary.
Added all together, there have been more than 70,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, a number which is likely far lower than the reality.
This is what it means to occupy a nation. And that’s what we were. An occupying force.
Now I’m no naive fool. I remember the events of 9/11. I understand the rationale, and the burning desire behind it, that led us to invade in the first place. I recognize that we were traumatized, afraid, and wounded. And that in our fear and anger we sought an outlet and a target.
In the week after those terrible events George Bush promised that we would hunt down those responsible, showing no distinction between the perpetrators and those hiding them. That those responsible would be hearing from us soon.
Through one lens, those words sound defiant. Possibly even inspirational. Certainly understandable.
But looking back, I’m struck by an altogether different thought.
There’s a quote attributed to Confucius that says “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” The meaning of the quote is simple. On your quest for vengeance you may kill the person who wronged you, but in the process you’ll destroy yourself so completely that you too will be destroyed.
It’s not your body that’s at risk though. It’s your soul. Vengeance is a corrosive motivation, and indulging it will inevitably lead to your own corruption.
And when you look at the price we paid, I do think that this war, and what it did to our own psyche, destabilized us far more than we realize.
In the military operations since 9/11 there have been a total of 7,057 personnel killed. This figure is what has led many of us to believe that our war on terror has been a relatively bloodless one for us. However, over those same 20 years there have been more than 30,000 suicides by active duty personnel and veterans.
Yes, it’s true that not all of those are veterans of this particular war. But the fact that we don’t have precise reporting on the number is a reflection of the callousness that has been present from the start.
That’s the danger of revenge. The attitude that we took towards civilian deaths in Afghanistan is the same attitude that we took towards suicides here at home.
And that wasn’t the only area in which we turned a blind eye to suffering.
Over the first decade or so of our war, we engaged in what we euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” More appropriately known as torture. We also engaged in a practice called “extraordinary rendition,” which involved forcibly transferring somebody, without legal process, from one government to another. Always for the purpose of detention, interrogation, and sometimes torture. This practice is, at its core, state sponsored kidnapping.
There’s a reason that we gave these actions such dry sounding names. When you say the words torture and kidnapping, you have made it obvious that what’s happening is wrong. By calling it something plain, almost scientific, you lend it an air of credibility. Or at least deniability. You can remove the fact of human suffering from it.
To pull such a thing off requires you to either see other people as subhuman, or it requires that their trauma remain hidden. But the actions that we took abroad eventually brought shame to us. The feelings of pride and resolve that many felt eventually soured into feelings of disappointment, and then resentment. As the war dragged on, the money wasted and the bodies destroyed piled up. At a certain point it became clear that America had lost its way. And we became furious with the leaders who we held responsible.
Ultimately, the price that America paid wasn’t really about money. $2 trillion dollars over 20 years is nothing for a country of our size.
What it cost us was our moral authority. Institutions that were supposed to represent the best of us didn’t. Media organizations that were supposed to tell us the truth failed to do so. Values such as liberty and freedom, the very things we claimed to be delivering to the people of Afghanistan, were trampled. We wanted to portray ourselves as liberators, but instead we became something else.
The war in Afghanistan, and the tragedy that resulted from it, had many victims. Soldiers. Civilians. Hope. And with its end, we close the book on a sad chapter in American history.
But our series isn’t over yet. In the next episode I look to the future. What’s the potential fate of Afghanistan, and the people who live there? What lessons, if any, have we learned? And how have the last 20 years changed the nature of warfare itself?
Join me on my next episode.
Episode S12/138
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Afghanistan "A Center of Influence", Part 1 of 4
"Afghanistan sits at the center of a crossroads. Boxed in from all sides by countries with their own visions. It’s a nation that has rarely been allowed to chart its own course. The geopolitical games that everyone has been playing for decades now have far more influence on the lives of the people in Afghanistan than the Afghan people themselves."
Afghanistan, "A Center of Influence", Part 1 of 4
This is Smart Politix, and I’m your host Anthony Arnold. Smart Politix helps you make sense of the news. The stakes in politics are real, and it’s important that we think clearly about the issues that matter most.
For the next few episodes I’m going to take a slightly different approach than usual. Instead of one episode, I’m going to tell the story of the Afghanistan war in three parts, focusing on the country of Afghanistan itself, along with its history, before we arrived, then moving on to painting picture of what the war was actually like on both sides, and finally forecasting what I think the future of Afghanistan, and war, looks like.
Over the last 20 years, the war in Afghanistan was largely background noise. It happened someplace far away. The costs of the war, in terms of both lives and money, were things we didn’t really grapple with. And the long term consequences of our actions were only really discussed around Presidential elections, fading away again when something more exciting came to our attention.
We, as a country, spent those 20 years wandering through a fog. But as the Afghanistan war explodes into our collective consciousness once again, it’s time to look back and begin the process of seeking out answers. How did a country that most of us can’t find on a map become a place where we eventually spent $2 trillion dollars? What does modern warfare really look like? And what does it mean for the future?
By the end of this series, you’ll have a deeper understanding of Afghanistan, it’s history, and our place in it.
Let’s begin.
For this first episode, we’re going to do a crash course on Afghanistan, and take a brief tour through its history in the years and decades before we arrived. You won’t become a Mid East scholar, but you will start to think about the country in a different way.
It’s important to keep in mind a pretty basic fact: Afghanistan existed before we got there. It had its own history, culture, and complications. While that seems like such an obvious thing to say, I’d argue that many of our future issues stem from the fact that we never stopped to consider how the people in Afghanistan felt about anything. We never tried to look at our actions through the eyes of the people most impacted. And you can’t do that, unless you bother to learn something about them first.
The most fundamental question that needs to be understood about Afghanistan is “Where is it?” While basic, the answer to that question is one that looms large over any other discussion.
Afghanistan is surrounded by major and minor powers. To the North, if you cut through about three countries first, lies Russia. But the distance between the two countries is about the same as the distance from Los Angeles to New York. Far enough away to be a journey, but not so far away that Russian influence can’t be easily felt.
To the East, and the South, lies Pakistan, India, and China. To the Southwest, separated by a narrow body of water, is Saudi Arabia. And to the West Afghanistan shares a border with Iran, with Iraq sitting just on the other side.
Above all of this is the ever present specter of American power, a modern day empire whose influence crosses borders in an attempt to envelop the globe.
So while you still may not know much about Afghanistan, and you certainly knew less before the war, in your head I’m guessing a mental map is already forming.
Afghanistan sits at the center of a crossroads. Boxed in from all sides by countries with their own visions, it’s a nation that has rarely been allowed to chart its own course. The geopolitical games that everyone has been playing for decades now have far more influence on the lives of the people in Afghanistan than the people itself. This central fact remains key in any discussion.
But before we dive into the history before our war, I want to stay focused on the basics of Afghanistan for just a bit longer.
Imagine California. If you can, close your eyes and really picture it. The gorgeous beaches and extensive coastlines. The hustle and bustle of LA. The towering redwoods, the rolling farmland and the vast deserts. The snow capped mountains. All of this natural diversity nestled up against sprawling cities. There’s a reason so many people move there.
Now do the same for Afghanistan. What do you picture in your head? If the only thing you know about the area is what you’ve seen over the last 20 years, then maybe you imagine war-torn streets, sand, and despair. And while those images aren’t untrue, they’re far from complete.
Afghanistan has a population similar to that of California, around 40 million people. Kabul, its largest city, has a population similar to that of Los Angeles. That alone should reframe your thinking. It’s not an empty place. It’s a place full of people. Full of life.
And those images of deserts and sand? They’re no more representative of the country than a picture of the Mojave desert would be of California. Yes, there are deserts. But there’s also beautiful and lush farmland. Breathtaking mountains and valleys. Fields of poppies and tulips, their national flower.
I grow flowers myself, as I imagine at least some of you do. There’s something humanizing about the idea that in this country, so far from where I am, there are gardeners tending to the same kind of flowers that I do.
There’s also numerous wonders created by the people. The bird market of Kabul, the blue mosque, the gorgeous and ancient minarets and gardens. Yes, there’s devastation, but there’s also a rich and vibrant past and present.
Maybe you’re wondering what the point of this detour is.
Discussions of history and war are often intentionally abstract. We present them in the driest way possible, treating the topics as little more than a collection of facts and numbers. Those are important, but they allow us to mistake trivia for understanding.
History and war happen to people. People who may not be so different from us. People who have dreams and desires of their own. History and war happen in places that, if you imagine, you can picture in your head. Places that aren’t merely points on a map.
So what about the history of modern Afghanistan? What was it like in the decades before we arrived?
In a word: Complicated.
Following the events of World War 1, Afghanistan broke free of British rule. The British had been periodically fighting wars in Afghanistan, in an attempt to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining more power in the region. What they were really concerned about was anybody threatening their empire in India, and so Afghanistan was used to stage a proxy war.
But they were weak after World War 1, and Afghans defeated them, establishing themselves as an independent nation. In 1933, Zahir Shah became King, ushering in an era of reform, and a 40 year stretch of peace. One that hasn’t been matched since.
Halfway through that stretch, in 1953, the King named his cousin, Mohammed Daoud Khan, Prime Minister. Unfortunately he had some views on both the Soviet Union and Pakistan that were at odds with his King. He wanted the country to become closer to the Soviets, and he wanted the country to conquer parts of Pakistan.
Eventually this tension led to him quitting his role as Prime Minister in 1963. But in 1973, while the King was away, Daoud Khan orchestrated a coup. And with that, the long stretch of peace was shattered.
Khan’s rule as President didn’t last long. When he began to resent the amount of influence the Soviet Union had he started moving the country away from them, and started forging closer ties to the West. Which angered the Afghan Communist Party that had secretly formed in 1965. And in 1978, only 5 years into Khan’s reign, they overthrew him in a Communist coup, with Nur Mohammed Taraki becoming President.
But only 1 year later, in 1979, internal divisions in the Communist party led to another coup, with Taraki’s Prime Minister overthrowing him.
The Soviets, worried about the country continuing to drift away from their influence, invaded, beginning the 10 year Soviet-Afghan rule. And their opponents in this war were the Mujahideen, which were backed by, among other countries, the United States.
So let’s pause here. There’s been a lot of names, and a lot of history. But the particulars aren’t as important as the theme. From 1973 to 1979 there were 3 successful coups, and the eventual outbreak of war. All of which were supported and encouraged by various foreign actors in an effort to fight their war with each other.
The Cold War is called that because the Soviet Union and the United States didn’t fight each other. But we did sponsor a war in Afghanistan where the casualties, on both sides, were mostly Afghans. So while the war wasn’t “hot” to us, it was to the people of Afghanistan. History changes shape considerably depending on the angle you view it from.
Returning to the history of Afghanistan, we left off in 1979, with the beginning of the Soviet-Afghan war, and the arrival of the Mujahideen. And there’s one rebel here who matters more than the rest: Mohammed Omar.
Omar, like the other rebels at the time, was trained by a combination of Western money and Pakistani intelligence services. And this isn’t merely speculation. In the United States the program was known as Operation Cyclone, and it was the subject of the movie Charlie Wilson’s War with Tom Hanks. There was even a New York Times article published in 1988 that unearthed the fact that over 10 years, the United States spent around $2 billion dollars providing support to Afghan rebels. Which would be around $4.5 billion in 2021.
So why does Omar matter? Because when the war ended Afghanistan was in chaos. Nearly 20 years of continual fighting, backed by outside forces, had left the nation broken, and suffering from extreme internal divisions. And that brought about the Afghan Civil war, which lasted from 1992-1996.
Omar wanted to end that war and rid the country of what he thought was corruption due to the influence of outsiders. He did that by founding the Taliban in August of 1994. So began the Taliban’s slow conquering of Afghanistan, ending in their eventual victory in 1996.
Which takes us to the point that most of you are probably roughly familiar with. The Taliban’s desire to rid the country of outside influence would eventually turn it into a safe haven for extremists, like Osama bin Laden. Which would one day lead us into the start of our 20 year war.
I can’t, and won’t, tell you exactly what conclusions to draw from any of this. History isn’t nearly neat enough to give us the kinds of answers we seek. But the facts do illustrate something important.
The history of Afghanistan, beginning as far back as 1973, is marked by the influence of others. For their own reasons, countries around the world kept interfering. Maybe some of their intentions were noble. Maybe they weren’t. But every instance of outside interference pushed us one step closer to 9/11. A cycle of war and violence, experienced primarily by the people of Afghanistan, ended with some of those people becoming resentful. And the world, having spent time, money, and goodwill for decades, was unable to stop them.
Which leads us to the next part of our story.
What was our war like? Not the largely unfiltered version that we’ve been sold, but the brutal reality of it.
That’s what we’ll be covering on the next episode of Smart Politix,, as we step out of history from long ago, and start talking about our time there.
"If you’ve been paying attention to the news, then there’s a chance you’ve heard something about this. But maybe you have questions. Hopefully I can help answer those questions by explaining what the Shadow Docket is, where it came from, and what it’s growing importance means for the courts. Because the Supreme Court’s reliance on it has some serious consequences, and our entire Constitutional order could be at stake.
To be clear, the Shadow Docket isn’t a new phenomenon. Historically, the court has always made some decisions outside of the public purview."
Episode S10/129
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
with Francine Dash, host of "We, the Voters..."
Memory Hole
The Insurrection of January 6, 2021, has fallen in between being revised as something else or even being forgotten all together; but who benefits from this memory hole and who will be forced to acknowledge it?
"Deciding what to remember, and what to forget, is one of the most important decisions a country can make. We can only remember so much of the past, and prioritizing one thing means leaving something else behind. But there is a price to pay. By ignoring the moment where our democracy failed, we’re making it much more likely that it will fail again, and we’re risking our future as a result. It doesn’t have to be this way."
Episode S9/122
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
with Leonard Nelson, Homicide Detective, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
Crime Statistics and The Wire
Crime statistics do not tell the full story of the level and intensity of crime; but affects how crime fighting is funded.
"Right now, you may be thinking, “We could just look at the crime statistics.” That’s what I thought, until I realized that those numbers, in almost every single case, aren’t particularly accurate. From crimes that simply never go reported, to crimes that are miscategorized or lost in administrative red tape, there is a lot more crime occurring than we believe."
Episode S8/118
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Why We Intervene in Other Countries and Why It Matters
"The main objective of any foreign policy decision is to give America an edge. You may view the Paris climate accords as a way to make the world better. But the people executing foreign policy also see it as a way for America to lead, and thus burnish our reputation. No serious foreign policy thinker is going to be interested in advancing ideas that don’t serve our needs first.
At its best, military intervention can inspire. It can generate a sense of healthy pride in people. Not the irrational nationalism that can lead to a feeling of superiority, but the kind of pride that causes citizens to believe the country is capable of great things.[But] ...it’s hard to feel pride for something that nobody can explain to us."
Episode S7/112
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
The Real Power Players in Washington
The real power brokers in Washington often do not occupy the White House. Listen in as the power structure is broken down
from the dismantling of Obamacare to the fight over minimum wage.
"So if we were in a world without the filibuster, here are the four Senators I think matter most: Joe Manchin from
West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona, Angus King from Maine and Susan Collins, also from Maine. Two Democrats, one
Independent, and one Republican."
Episode S6/105
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
The Power of a Promise
The events of the last two months have been unprecedented. Across the country millions of Americans are watching the news, and
they’re asking two questions: How did we get here? And where do we go?
"Twenty years ago we had a pretty contentious election. Bush vs Gore was hotly contested, with the two candidates ending
up separated by fewer than 600,000 votes, or .5 percent. And the fate of the election ended up coming down to the electoral
votes from Florida, where the two candidates were separated by only 600 votes. Of course this was controversial because the
state was governed by Jeb Bush, the brother of George Bush."
Episode S5/100
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Francine Dash, Guest Narrator
The Help We Need ‐ Now
Pandemic relief has been slow to arrive, while many households seek alternatives to making ends meet
and staying healthy, until they are able to receive the vaccine.
"In the background thousands of Americans have been dying and millions of Americans have been
begging for assistance and praying that somebody somewhere will listen to their cries and take their l
ives seriously. What I want is what most of us wants ‐ to be safe and secure, to be to able to
look forward to the day when this is behind us ‐ and we can get back to living, again. But right
now, we need help."
Episode S4/96
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host Francine Dash, Guest Narrator
My Shrinking American Dream and Why I Still Vote
"Your kids are older now, so they need more. And college isn’t too far off for them, so you’re
beginning to believe that they’ll end up in the same boat as you since you haven’t been able to put
anything aside to help. But it’s not just money. Your dreams have shrunk too. You really aren’t sure
what exactly you’re voting for anymore, but you’re going to vote anyway. If not out of excitement, then
at least out of duty."
Episode S3/88
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
How to create a shadow government and how a two term president can become President of the United States for life.
"If you can’t imagine voting for the other side, then it means that your side is free to do whatever they wish.
It means that the door to corruption, abuse, and yes, even tyranny, is cracked open because you don’t really have a choice —
and without a choice, anything can happen."
Episode S2/82
Smart Politix ⋮ A Pointcast Podcast
Anthony Arnold, Host
Francine Dash, Guest Narrator
This premiere episode tells the story of a person in rural America dealing with the challenges of finding healthcare and
also voting for someone who supports the things they believe in.
"Of all the gaps between urban and rural America, the gap in basic understanding may be the largest. People who live
in rural America believe that those in the cities don’t understand them. And those of us in cities believe rural Americans
don’t understand us."
