Ep. 156 - What’s Next for Afghanistan and the World with Brett Ewer
Making sense of a changing world 🌏
In this episode, Brett Ewer and Mattimore Cronin discuss what the US withdrawal from Afghanistan signals about how the world is changing…
Topics Discussed:
Significance of US withdrawal
Was military action in Afghanistan a mistake?
Once there, when should the US have left?
Mission objectives: security vs nation building
Which mission objectives succeeded vs failed
Why the Afghan government fell so quickly
What the US withdrawal signals to the world
Lessons for US to take from its longest war
How other countries are likely to respond
Three poles of power emerging in the world
Western liberalism vs authoritarianism
The blockchain and sovereign individualism
From "Pax Americana" to "Pax Bitcoinica"
Open questions that are still TBD
Future Scenarios:
Worst case scenario
Best case scenario
Most likely scenario
Thanks for tuning in 🔭
Episode 156 Transcript
Mattimore Cronin (00:13):
Welcome to Hence The Future podcast. I'm Mattimore Cronin.
Brett Ewer (00:15):
I'm Brett Ewer.
Mattimore Cronin (00:17):
And today we're discussing what's next for Afghanistan and the world. Brett. Thanks for coming on the podcast.
Brett Ewer (00:23):
Yeah, always good to be on. Thanks for having me.
Mattimore Cronin (00:26):
The reason we brought you back on is that something pretty momentous has just recently happened... The US withdrew from Afghanistan after occupying the country for more than 20 years, after spending more than $2 trillion (that's more than $300 million per day), and after sacrificing over 2,300 American lives and 75,000 Afghan lives. And, within hours of US troops withdrawing from Afghanistan, the US-backed government under president Ashraf Ghani collapsed, and the Taliban took over not only Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan, but also all the equipment and money that the US had left behind.
Mattimore Cronin (01:04):
So the questions that I want to talk with you about in this episode are: Was it worth it for the US to go into Afghanistan militarily in the first place? And, once in Afghanistan, what should the US have done differently? And what does America's defeat signify about the changing role of America and other poles of power in the world?
Mattimore Cronin (01:30):
A good place to start off would be a quote from Antonio Garcia Martinez, which I had DM'd you on Twitter. He said, "I don't know about you, but the Afghanistan thing has me utterly bent out of shape. Rare these days to feel that giddy rush of history happening before our eyes, but this was it. Something has clicked on the cosmic order. An era is over and matters will forever be different."
Mattimore Cronin (01:58):
So first I just want to ask you, do you have a similar sense that this is a pretty momentous signifier??
Brett Ewer (02:08):
Yeah, 100%. I mean, aside from the media's coverage of it, where you have the shot by shot news cycle, if you consider Saigon and other moments, this definitely seems momentous... If not for the fact that it was literally 20 years or just short of 20 years of engagement. I mean, how can that not define an era? I mean, you're talking 20 years, that's an entire generation. There were people who were born and are adults today, who have known nothing but a reality where there is conflict in this country. And so of course it's going to be momentous just by virtue of how long it is, let alone all the various intensities along the way.
Mattimore Cronin (02:58):
Yeah. It feels like the reality on the ground has been pretty abysmal for awhile now, but when America withdrew and the government collapsed right away, within a matter of hours, not weeks or months, it felt like a bubble burst, the bubble of what people thought was going on, the bubble of what people thought America's role was and how powerful America may be internationally. And it seems like there is maybe a power vacuum forming. So I definitely want to get into what's likely to fill that vacuumm and how other poles of power may respond. But first I think it would be really useful for us to do almost like a post-mortem of the whole Afghanistan situation, and consider: What could we have done differently? What could we learn from this? And what are the important lessons to take away for the future? So the first thing I want to ask you as it relates to that is: Should America have gone into Afghanistan militarily in the first place, right after 9-11?
Mattimore Cronin (03:55):
Edward Snowden had a great line in his recent Substack post, where he said that he, like many Americans after 9-11, wanted to pick up Afghanistan and shake out all the terrorists like snakes out of a boot. And I think a lot of people felt that after the attacks. But by going into Afghanistan militarily, without actually declaring war, and it being unclear who we were actually fighting it, that put America in a precarious position. And it also seemed to elevate the terrorists to a level of peers by going in and having a "war on terror" rather than taking some sort of police action in conjunction with other countries. I'm curious to get your thoughts. Should we have gone into Afghanistan in the first place? And if not, what should we have done instead?
Brett Ewer (04:45):
Yeah. I mean, I say all of this with the caveat that I'm not an international relations expert. I'm just opining here. So take what you will from that. Looking back it's easy now to see with 20 years of hindsight that we should have had a much more concerted police intervention and that it should have been more global with respect to the coalition that was going in which I think it originally was. I mean, the United States is a member of NATO. There was an attack on a NATO country. And so a bunch of NATO nations went in to intervene.
Brett Ewer (05:21):
The question is: How long should we have been there? And if was the end goal was to find the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks - Osama Bin Laden - if the goal was to root him out, we weren't successful for the first 10 years.
Mattimore Cronin (05:48):
Right. And once we got him, he wasn't even in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan.
Brett Ewer (05:52):
Yeah, of course. It's almost silly. I know very little about Pakistan's internal governance, but my understanding is that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is fairly permeable. So, if you're trying to find someone in an area that's sort of ill-defined, it sort of belies the idea of a nation state going to war against the government of another nation state. Right? And that's how we approached it. So I don't think we can be super surprised that with that approach, we did not find success through that path. Our goal needed to be to find a particular person and a particular group of people that committed a terrorist act. And instead we went way beyond that.
Mattimore Cronin (06:48):
It does seem similar to Vietnam in the sense that we went in there. We didn't have a clear opposing army that we were going to fight in a field battle like a traditional military would. And whether we look back to when the British were occupying Afghanistan, or the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan, or when the US was occupying Afghanistan... Every time it follows a similar pattern where you have this global power enter and try to handle the situation as a traditional military would, but Afghani people and the Taliban do not like to fight openly. Instead they recede into the hills, they recede into the mountains, and then they just pick you off one by one over years or decades. And they're incredibly patient because they have these very strong religious beliefs on their side. And so when you have a bureaucratic overextended global power fighting against those really strong religious beliefs, and by them knowing the terrain better and having the support of tribal elders and local people, it becomes an almost unwinnable task. If your goal is basically to export America's way of life to a people that doesn't want America's way of life, or at least not everyone wants it, not a critical mass of people wants it...
Brett Ewer (08:00):
I think you touched on something there that carries not just for Afghanistan, but for probably any country: When you have an invading, occupying force, people aren't really going to take kindly to that. Because of the vast scale of the war machine of modern war, there's always going to be some collateral damage. That is real. Those are people's real lives that are ended. People who were either legitimate military targets, or workers, or civilians.
Brett Ewer (08:33):
And that engenders hatred on the part of people who are living there, who are on the receiving end of the brute force of an invasion force. And so I think any place that would be on the receiving end, that would be invaded like Afghanistan, would probably react in a similar way. You'd have a lot of people who know the terrain better than you. They live in the country. They know the terrain. They're dealing with local institutions that they know. And then there's a new entity or force that comes in. Of course there's going to be some merited resistance.
Mattimore Cronin (09:15):
Yeah. So I think we both agree that we should never have entered Afghanistan militarily in the first place. If anything, it should have been a police action done in concert with other countries.
Mattimore Cronin (09:24):
But once there, the next question I have for you is... What was the right time for us to leave? Was it in 2001, right after we toppled the Taliban's rule? Or maybe after that, since we were still concerned that there could be another attack. So maybe after 2004, once NATO forces were fully there and there was the first establishment of the Afghan government? Maybe in 2009 after Obama's troop surge, where we pushed back the Taliban to the furthest extent that we had throughout the war? Or in 2011 after killing Osama Bin Laden? Or in 2014 after NATO combat mission ended? Or in 2021, when we did follow through with what Trump had negotiated. There's many times where we could have left, and many ways in which we could have left. I'm curious what you think would have been the best way for us to leave after having gone there in the first place?
Brett Ewer (10:23):
Going along the lines of what we were talking about earlier - that we're there to specifically hunt down a person who planned the terrorist act against the United States - it seems like the justification would end with the killing of Osama Bin Laden. But then I can also understand the idea of, okay, you're there now you need to make sure that it can stick, that things won't just immediately go into chaos, because you get blamed for that too, obviously. And there would be a horrible outcome there as well. I think probably the most justifiable time to leave would be the end of authorization for NATO.
Mattimore Cronin (11:18):
Right. In 2014, when NATO's combat mission ended, and most NATO troops pulled out.
Brett Ewer (11:26):
I think that, generally, the mandate for the world's intervention there, or at least the US's substantive intervention there, would end with the bringing to justice of the person who conducted the 9-11 attacks. And then give enough time to set up some kind of a government that would be able to stand on its own. And then, if NATO declared the combat mission to be over, I think that it would be incumbent on the US to work within that framework and follow their lead and then depart. So I'd probably say 2014.
Mattimore Cronin (12:07):
Tthis gets to the question of: Should the US have been in Afghanistan for the purpose of nation building, or simply for the purpose of protecting America's security and bringing the people who attacked America during 9-11 to justice? It seems like we kind of flip-flopped. It started as being purely about protecting America. If you remember, during the George W. Bush era, it was all about preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, even though it became very clear afterwards that they didn't have nukes or anything like that. And then it became a nation building effort, a symbol of liberalism, like showing the power of liberal values, democratic values.
Mattimore Cronin (12:46):
And I mean, you look at it historically: After the Soviet union fell in the 1970s, Francis Fukuyama wrote the book, "The End of History," and people had this notion of, okay, great. We defeated communism. Now everyone's just going to be democratic, capitalist, and it'll all be fine. And then NATO was established.
Mattimore Cronin (13:05):
And now it seems like, with the Afghanistan withdrawal, that dream, the bubble of that dream burst, and people realized there are other forces at play here that we need to grapple with. And liberal values aren't going to win out inevitably. They have to be fought hard for. And there has to be a will from the people themselves to have those values win out. It can't just be something exerted on you from some external force.
Brett Ewer (13:31):
Yeah. I don't know if it's some kind of irony or some kind of paradox to try to force liberal thinking on someone, right? Maybe the paradox of tolerance. I'll leave that to the philosophers. But yeah, it certainly signals that there are competing visions for the world and that merely using force to try to say this is how your society must act just isn't tenable, at least in that instance. And I think that could potentially be extended to other countries and other interventions as well. I think something that's important to note is the history of Afghanistan
Brett Ewer (14:22):
There were three British wars conducted in Afghanistan. Their occupation failed. Then the Soviet occupation failed. I think it's too soon to say, but probably the US occupation failed. I mean, it depends on what your metrics are. But something I think is so interesting is looking back to when the Mongols took over, and when Alexander the Great and the Greeks took over.
Brett Ewer (15:11):
And, at least for the Greeks, the occupation was less direct than the modern versions. It was more that they were simply settling in the area. Soldiers that moved there said, well, there's a lot of land here. And this led to setting up laster kingdoms. It was much more along the lines of a sort of colonialism, a settler colonialism, rather than a colonialism of creating an output and extracting resources that go to an Imperial hub. I figured that was worth mentioning because when we look at all of the grand scale of the history of interventions in Afghanistan, I often see these false equivalencies or false contrasts. And I figure it's worth flushing them out.
Mattimore Cronin (15:57):
Totally. It's fascinating to look at the history of Afghanistan. People also point out that its geography is so important for determining what role it plays in the world. Because it's got this massive mountain range in the middle that kind of separates the north from the south. So it makes it harder to be unified. It creates these tribal divisions. And you mentioned during Alexander the Great's rule and his whole empire, it was sort of like Siberia for the Greeks, where they would exile people to Afghanistan. So it was a kind of border land, a place where you would exile people. But of course, before it was the graveyard of empires, it was also a kind of birthplace for empires. For instance, the Mongols had their summer camp in Kabul. So when it was really cold, they would come to Kabul and run their operations from there
Mattimore Cronin (16:42):
And you mentioned that the British were the first modern global power to occupy it. And the reason why they occupied it is because they were worried that the Afghan people would ally themselves with the Russians. And so they basically were like, hey, we've got to have the ear of the Afghan people so that they don't ally themselves with the Russians. And this is kind of the same pattern that repeats itself over and over again. After the British finally had this horrible defeat, then the Russians make the same exact kind of mistake. And basically when they leave Afghanistan, that's the end of the USSR. So that was very much a bookend to that whole chapter of history. And then with America, it was the same kind of thing. Afghanistan shares a border with China. It's really important geographically because it ties together the east with the west and the north with the south. It has valuable resources, valuable oil. The petrodollar system relies on how oil relates to the dollar. All of these are reasons why Afghanistan is important beyond it's being a place that has oppression from a liberal point of view.
Brett Ewer (18:00):
Yeah. And I see that from a crossroads perspective, only something like 40 million people live in Afghanistan. And I don't know how many people have existed through history in proportion to other population centers nearby, but I would bet that there are fewer people there than there are in the Indian sub-continent or in Eastern China or in Iran or in the steppes just north of it in all of the Stan countries. And so it is a crossroads for all of these powers, whether that's the Persian empire or whether it's the the civilizations along the Indus and in India. So it always seems like a natural flashpoint. It does seem to be a pretty consistent point of contention as a border land where forces end up clashing.
Mattimore Cronin (19:02):
Yeah. Now I want to talk about who really benefited from the war. And when you look at just the amount of money we spent there... I heard one story where president Ashraf Ghani left Kabul with $169 million in cash fluttering from his helicopter. And he didn't tell anyone he was leaving. He just up and left. And we talked about the bubble bursting. And part of that bubble bursting is that on paper, it looked like we had an incredible amount of forces at the ready in Afghanistan. We had all of these troops that were one of the best equipped armies in the world. And Biden was talking about how great they are and how amazing it is and all the efforts we've done. And then turns out it was pretty much only that: it was just on paper. There was so much money sloshing around that, sure, a lot of Afghan people were willing to take those dollars and do various activities while Americas are overseeing. But as soon as the Americans leave, they didn't have any buy-in, they didn't really care. They weren't willing to put their life on the line for a corrupt government that was put in from an external global superpower.
Brett Ewer (20:10):
I've heard that. I've heard that for a lot of the ANA soldiers (the Afghan National Army) simply weren't paid. So of course they're not going to put their lives on the line. If there's no level of inculcated discipline or incentive for them to buy in. Why would you do a job if you're not getting paid? And if it's simply going to some higher up who's just siphoning it away, then of course things are going to crumble. And why would someone be so corrupt in that instance and siphon away those funds for personal use?
Brett Ewer (21:01):
Either they earnestly don't believe in the project, in which case they could just say, well, I don't want a liberal democracy. Or they might think that this is outside of the realm of comprehension for working within that culture or within that system. And I think that the only way that you could create a system where that's expected within the culture is literally through cultural astroturfing. I mean, you'd have to bring in top soil, metaphorically speaking. You'd bring in top soil where the expectation is that you have all of these liberal rights. And then that raises the question of is it right for a force to come in and tell people how they should live their lives? At what line is that justified? Is it justified if women are being systemically abused and shut out from society? I'm not going to answer any of these questions because they're really weighty. And I haven't given them enough thought.
Mattimore Cronin (21:56):
Well, one question I've been thinking about: Are Afghans better off today than if the US had never entered Afghanistan? Or are they worse off? Because on the one hand you could say they're worse off because if we had never entered Afghanistan, they would have had 20 years of being able to self determine their own future. And maybe it probably would have been a very different path than America has taken in progressing, but maybe because it was their own path, they would be further along now than they would have otherwise. On the other hand, maybe because America enabled 20 years of people to grow up, and for girls to get an education, and for them to be exposed to these Western values, maybe now that we're leaving, yes, it's true, the Taliban are in power, but you also have a citizenry that has been much more exposed to Western values. And maybe therefore it will progress more rapidly than if we had never entered there. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that.
Brett Ewer (22:54):
Yeah, I think that's kind of the central question. If you are indeed engaged in a project of cultural change, of inculcation, of bringing in the top soil to continue that metaphor. Would 20 years be enough? And it's an interesting counterfactual to chew on: But for our getting involved, would there have been the current state of things in Afghanistan? Would women feel free to go get an education? And then you'd have to weigh that against how much did it cost just in terms of treasure, and more importantly in terms of people's lives, and weigh that against what would have probably transpired had the Taliban continued to rule there without any kind of social change. Let alone the Taliban repressing half of the population - women - who are pretty much only allowed to just be in homes, we also need to take into account the repression of other minorities, religious, LGBTQ, any kind of social minority you can think of, and all of the horror that comes with living in a fundamentalist society when you are a member of that minority. And what about just basic due process rights?
Brett Ewer (24:21):
Is it right for your hand to be cut off if you're a thief? I wouldn't say so. You'd have to weigh all of these things. It's hard to be a judge of that, right?
Mattimore Cronin (24:37):
It is really hard from our Western point of view to imagine what it's like for an Afghan living there, especially when you think about why the is Taliban so popular and powerful relative to America. I mean, a lot of people thought that there's no way that this group of unorganized, backwards people are going to be able to very quickly take over all of the major cities in Afghanistan in a concerted effort. And it's pretty impressive and surprising to a lot of Westerners to see how successful the Taliban were.
Mattimore Cronin (25:08):
And when you look at the history of the Taliban, they were really created as a reaction to external powers coming into Afghanistan. And so they kind of became almost like heroes among the more rural, conservative areas. It was totally decentralized movement. It's not like there's like one leader of the Taliban.
Mattimore Cronin (25:34):
And they would basically kick out the invaders and establish a religious rule where it was more in line with their faith. And so you can see the attraction of that. And some people have even drawn parallels to, this might be unfair, the insurrection at the US Capitol, which was from people who were very nationalistic, very religious, they wanted to return to traditional values. I think it was maybe like Michael Moore, the filmmaker, who said, "They've got a Taliban, we've got a Taliban, everyone's got a Taliban." I don't think that's fair. But there is something to those common features, and conservatism vs progressivism. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Brett Ewer (26:20):
Yeah. I think when people feel threatened, whether that's by a change to the order that they grew up in, and whether that's through legitimate social movements, and change, and people being free to speak out about what they don't like as in the US versus an occupying coming in, I think for both of those things, there's going to be reaction. And I think for many people, they cling to elements of culture, and what they know, and what they're comfortable with. And sometimes that manifests through religion. Comparing the people at the Capitol on January 6th to the Taliban is quite a stretch. But you can see the similar underlying themes and currents that we should be wary of.
Mattimore Cronin (27:17):
Yeah, I agree. Well, let me ask you this: What lessons should the US take away from this 20 year campaign in Afghanistan? If you were Biden and you were briefing the American public, or your cabinet, or members of NATO, what would you say regarding, "Here's what we've learned. Here's what we should do differently next time."
Brett Ewer (27:39):
I would say very broadly that if we're going to do something, it should be with more assent from the global community. If you want to have a moral high ground, which is necessary, if you're trying to place a culture onto another group of people, if you're taking the tenants of liberalism and putting them on a place that might not traditionally be liberal, you need to have most of the world agreeing that that's a good thing. So I think that does sort of break down the unipolar approach that we've had since the end of the end of the cold war, since the early nineties. But the world is changing, and I think it's important for any action taken really by any country that goes beyond the bounds of controlling itself internally requires some buy-in from the rest of the global community.
Brett Ewer (28:47):
So that's what I would say. If I were advising the president, I would say that any time we get involved with something larger than ourselves, our traditional allies need to have our back in doing this. And also I think countries that are emerging are going to have more of a say in the future should also have a say in this and should be in a position to agree. So that, going forward, anything that's being done is viewed by most of the world as being the right thing to do.
Mattimore Cronin (29:22):
Yeah. We shouldn't foist our own way of life onto anyone else, especially not via military force. The other big lessons I was thinking of is obviously never to get involved in a land war in Asia. That's basic military knowledge.
Brett Ewer (29:37):
Yeah! That's like fifth grade RISK. Come on. Yu're going to spread your forces too thin with that approach.
Mattimore Cronin (29:44):
Right. And then there's Afghanistan being the graveyard of empires. So we could have probably learned from that. And then the biggest lesson from my point of view is that it's not enough to have a military prowess. We also need belief. We need buy-in. We need alignment of values.
Mattimore Cronin (30:01):
I almost view it as that we have these three orbs of power, of conscious power that are taking place in the world. You have the orb of the traditional American state and western liberal ideals, which is somewhat combined with wokeism, and the New York times, and the ability to cancel people because they don't quite align with Western values. That is one orb of power. And then you also have the orb of power of authoritarianism, which I would say is embodied by the Chinese Communist Party, which limits access to information, and limits freedom so that the state can maintain total control and total surveillance.
Mattimore Cronin (30:38):
And then there's a third orb of power that's emerging, which is the decentralized crypto world where it's all about a bottom up system, wherein everyone is empowered to have privacy, to have wealth that holds its value over time, and to be able to interact with other people without any sort of surveillance or suppression or limitations of speech. And so what is so momentous about what's going on in Afghanistan is that we are seeing in real time the decline of that traditional Western power orb, while the Chinese authoritarian power orb is growing, and then at the same time, we've got this stealth crypto power orb that is also growing, probably even more rapidly than the growth of China and authoritarianism, but it's still under the radar. And what's really interesting from my perspective is what happens next for Afghanistan? Because the US and the IMF cut off all dollars going to the country.
Mattimore Cronin (31:41):
So they're going to have a currency crisis. There's a big open question about how will they be recognized or not recognized by the international community? How will other countries respond? And it seems like maybe this will be a case where cryptocurrencies will like take hold. And there'll be a real case of crypto anarchy or crypto fascism, where you have an oppressive rule under the Taliban, while people still have some semblance of civilization behind closed doors via cryptography. Or you might have a much worse outcome. Maybe China becomes the next global empire to enter the graveyard of other empires. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Brett Ewer (32:20):
Yeah. I struggle to think, as interesting as it would be, that the common folk in Afghanistan will start getting involved in decentralized currencies, or decentralized systems. I think that certainly would be interesting. I feel like that's probably not likely. But who knows. Stranger things have happened. But I think that that's an interesting framing of the world. There's this traditional establishment, we can just call it for sloppy shorthand "The West," meaning liberal democracies, whatever you want to call it. I think people can generally create a sort of frame of understanding of what it is in contrast to less free places, shall we say, authoritarian countries where things are much more centrally planned and dictated like in China. And then, you do have the realm of decentralized finance or the cryptocurrency world, or whatever you want to call it...
Mattimore Cronin (33:21):
Sovereign individualism might be a good name for it.
Brett Ewer (33:24):
Yeah. You have a number of people across the world who have access to way more information, because now information is just so free flowing and they no longer view themselves as being necessarily tied within one different establishment bucket. And so, in a sense it's beautiful, because you can recognize common humanity with people by transcending boundaries. And that's amazing. But then, whether the other two groups would like that or not, if it's siphoning away power at their expense, that remains to be seen. I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with Afghanistan from a traditional real politic lens. Let's assume that if China were to get involved, they would be much less concerned about the individual welfare of individual Afghans.
Mattimore Cronin (34:31):
Right. It might just be more of a common sense deal of, Hey, we'll give you this money and you give us access to these lithium mines. And we'll recognize you internationally.
Brett Ewer (34:42):
Yeah. And realistically, they might give legitimacy through the security council to the Taliban regime. In return they get some very favorable access to natural resources, or it's another outpost of their growing sphere of influence. Maybe they would exploit the Taliban's pension for repression by using slave labor to extract those resources. I could see that as being very likely to happen. It's also possible that the Taliban could be a total thorn in the side of China, which is dealing with clamping down on thier own Muslim population in Xinjiang province. And the pretense there, I don't know whether it's justified or not, but the pretense is that it's to stop terrorist activity. Whether they might expand that into Afghanistan, as either a police action or an Imperial action, remains to be seen. But now that we're not there, that the US is not there, gives a much more open playing field, certainly.
Mattimore Cronin (36:04):
Yeah, totally. Well, I think that's a good lead into the future scenarios. Let's start with the worst case scenario.
Brett Ewer (36:23):
I think the worst case would be just brutal repression of people in Afghanistan. You can't set that aside. There will be brutal oppression, and that's just abysmal. On a global scale, I think what could be worrying is if there's a growing crisis of legitimacy that leads to some kind of conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. I hope people don't forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Same with India. So if you want to put that on a color chart, you would knock up that risk rating a few levels. It makes for a much more vibrant threat. And so, maybe this is a lame cop out, but I think the worst possible case, if we're getting superlatives here, is nuclear destabilization, nuclear weapons that are deployed either through some kind of religious extremism or, who knows, simply by accident.
Brett Ewer (37:39):
That can happen. That's why they're so dangerous. And that would lead to not only terrible ecological effects, but also the breakdown of political and social borders. I could see easily happening. So that's what I see as the worst possible scenario: a chain reaction where a nuclear weapon goes off in somewhere in that region, and then another nuclear force misreads that as being an attack on them, and then it causes a chain reaction. I mean, that would be terrible, obviously.
Mattimore Cronin (38:16):
Right. One thing I thought that was interesting is that maybe this will be the end of massive human conflicts where we have lots of soldiers, lots of troops on the ground. And maybe this will be the beginning of an even more extreme form or cyber warfare, robot warfare, drone warfare. And so in the worst case, we could have a new - either world war three or cold war - type of scenario, which is really more of a robot / cyber / drone war. And maybe we have other proxy countries where battles get fought. But it could still lead to a lot of disastrous effects, especially when you consider how reliant we are on technology. If you start having global powers knocking out other powers' power grid, and all their hospitals go down, all their infrastructure goes down, you'd have this total cyber economic warfare. That to me seems somewhat likely now.
Brett Ewer (39:10):
Yeah. I think if we're looking at the broad strokes of history, the age of strict force projection, of boots on the ground, that kind of era is on its way out. And we're moving much more toward a concerted kind of warfare. What you're describing where adversaries focus on taking out their opponents' infrastructure. That is why some of the most key areas of infrastructure are air gapped, meaning they're not connected to any network. It's just operated by people on the ground there. So you'd probably see how the defense against those kinds of attacks would be accomplished by actually reducing the amount of technology, and how much any particular edifice is reliant on being connected to a network. So if a dam is connected to some kind of network that regulates hydropower turbines, then it would be more secure to have that system air gapped, where it's not connected to any network. I see that as being much more likely in the future.
Mattimore Cronin (40:42):
Totally. That's a good transition to get into the best case scenario.
Brett Ewer (40:51):
I think the best case scenario would be that there's a large group of people in Afghanistan who've gotten used to liberal rights and say, no, we actually rather like these. And so there is a decrease in poverty that leads to people being able to not feel like they need to latch on to a sure thing, which would be a reactionary force like what the Taliban provide. They provide a terrible thing, but it's a sure thing. You know what you're getting. And so there wouldn't be that instability that leads to people to latch on to them. And instead they have aspirations for liberal democracy. That's what I would hope for. Is it likely? I don't really know. But that's my hope: that you create a system where people have fundamental freedom and rights and that grow organically.
Brett Ewer (41:54):
As it relates to the US and Afghanistan, my best case is that there's a recognition of our shared history. That there's some form of reconciliation, and that we would operate in a similar way to how we operate now with Vietnam. We actively trade with Vietnam. And I don't know too much about the internal circumstances there, but we actually have a working relationship with the government and with the people and we can increase the standards of living so that they are in line with a vision of the world that is fundamentally liberal.
Mattimore Cronin (42:40):
Yeah. I would hope that happens too.
Brett Ewer (42:43):
Again, is it likely? I have no idea. But I think that would be the best case.
Mattimore Cronin (42:50):
Yeah. And certainly I've heard some news reports that there are people protesting in Afghanistan. It's not like everyone is fully on the side of the Taliban.
Brett Ewer (42:58):
I saw these four ladies who were dressed in traditional clothing, and they were holding up these signs, not even signs, they were just holding up pieces of paper, shouting for their rights and protesting. And I thought, man, do I have the courage to do that? Probably not. But like good for them. They're willing to stand up for what they believe in and stand up for their rights. It's just amazing. That takes a lot of courage. Shout out to those ladies!
Mattimore Cronin (43:35):
Yeah. I think you've summarized what the best case is for Afghanistan really well. When we look at the impact on the broader world, the way I would summarize my best case scenario is that we transition from the "Pax Americana" to the "Pax Bitcoinica."
Mattimore Cronin (43:49):
Basically, we've had this period of peace since world war II. I was trying to look back at... Where do we actually put the original blame of what's wrong with the system? And it seems to me like a lot of it does stem from the military industrial complex that did not lessen after world war II. America had this major buildup in world war two. And then after the end of the war, there was a real question of, should we disband parts of the military? Should we still be spending so much money on it? And we had an opportunity to invest more in what's good for regular citizens, but instead we kept spending more and more on the military, and that led overspending in wars like Vietnam and Korea, a lot of these cold war conflicts, and because of how much America overspent, it led other countries to call our bluff as it relates to the gold standard.
Mattimore Cronin (44:45):
So we had England and France send ships to America to take the gold back in exchange for dollars, because we had the gold standard back then. And that's what led to Nixon taking the US off of the gold standard in 1971. So a lot of people would put the initial blame at Nixon for taking the US off the gold standard. But the only reason he did that is because America had overspent so much already and gotten into so much debt already through the wars and the military industrial complex. So to me, I think that's one of the main origins of the problem.
Brett Ewer (45:21):
Yeah. I think what you're speaking to is a symptom of a general problem, which is like a crisis of legitimacy. A lot of people around the world, now that they aren't as siloed within particular countries, have access to a lot more information and different ways of thinking and approaching world affairs. And so, most of the world and most governments and structures rely on faith and buy-in. And if you don't have that, then those are imperiled. And so, I think it's incumbent on everyone to come up with a solution, a way to approach institutions, which actually verifies and legitimizes their activities. There needs to not be a crisis of legitimacy. Hell I don't know how to solve that. But that seems to be at the root of all of these different symptoms of what we're talking about.
Mattimore Cronin (46:36):
Totally. A "crisis of legitimacy" is a really good way to distill it. I think this switch from the Pax Americana to the Pax Bitcoinica is inevitable. Because Bitcoin is a more efficient system. And it is actually more beholden to those liberal Western values than the current system where so many people are falling through the cracks.
Brett Ewer (46:58):
Yeah. I think the idea of there being some kind of objective verification is something that's lost in a lot of society today. A lot of people question the objective standards of what they label as subjective. A lot of things are shifting. An example would be beauty standards, right? People are now reconsidering, hey, what does it actually mean? And so I think people are sort of thirsting for some kind of objective standard. And the blockchain in particular provides that. I think it's up to existing institutions to take those ideas, understand that people are thirsting for some kind of validator, and implement one that would work. And that would actually demonstrate to people, hey, you know, there is a reason to buy into this system. You actually do clear responsiveness.
Mattimore Cronin (47:56):
There's mathematical certainty. It's not just like you have to trust in the people in power.
Brett Ewer (48:01):
Yeah. And I don't know enough about Bitcoin or blockchain or whatever to actually weigh in. But I think that just even bringing it up is sort of a suggestion that there is the crisis of legitimacy, and that so many people are looking to either reaffirm what already exists or greatly improve on it.
Mattimore Cronin (48:22):
Right. One way I've heard it described is that we're moving from a "proof of war" system to a "proof of work" system. Because you look at the whole Petro dollar Fiat global monetary system... That whole system relies on the military industrial complex and our treaties with middle Eastern countries that produce oil. Whereas Bitcoin is based on proof of work, clean energy, and just mathematical certainty. You don't have to really trust in anyone other than the code itself. So maybe now let's talk about the most likely scenario.
Brett Ewer (49:01):
I think what's most likely is that there's less appetite on the part of most people in the United States to get involved in foreign ventures, for better or for worse. I think that's likely what will happen. And there is still that hunger for some kind of internal resolution to happen because there does seem to be a divide culturally in the country. And so yeah, people could turn to that kind of external validator, whether it's blockchain or whatever, but I think that it's incumbent on those institutions to figure out a way to solve that crisis of legitimacy. And is that likely? I hope so. What that will mean for us is such a larger question than just Afghanistan. What is likely to happen is that we'll see, probably the next few months or so, the Taliban government testing to see how much they can take away from people. And how much appetite there is for restraining peoples' freedoms and customs they've gotten used to in the past 20 years. Hard to say what's most likely. I think it remains to be seen.
Mattimore Cronin (50:35):
Yeah. It is really hard to predict what's going to happen. I would say, going back to the theme of the three orbs of power - the Western liberalism power, the authoritarian power, and then the Bitcoin sovereign individual power - that I think what's actually most likely is that we end up somewhere in the middle of that triangle. So we're going to have some influence of Western liberal values. We're going to have some influence of, Hey, you can't do this. There are strict rules in place. And some element of sovereign individualism, where if you don't think that the people in power are doing what's best for you, then the people can sort of rise up and self determine their own future via technology which will enable that power to counter the other two forces. So I think it's probably most likely that we'll end up in the middle there, at least as a world.
Mattimore Cronin (51:26):
And certain places around the world will be much more concentrated in one aspect or another. And there will also be some no man's lands. I think Afghanistan is likely to be a really interesting no man's land where we'll kind of see which way does it sway naturally. Does it sway towards liberalism on its own? Does it get gobbled up by the CCP? Does some decentralized blockchain economy emerge from beneath? It's so hard to say, but that's why this is such a fascinating topic. It really is a harbinger of the great changes to come in our lifetime through technology...
Brett Ewer (52:00):
...and climate change. When you're talking about geopolitics, we're talking about a place, Afghanistan, that is incredibly hot already. And people are probably not likely to move if it's going to be much worse. I don't want to strip the varnish off, but there's so much up in the air right now. It's hard to say what will happen.
Mattimore Cronin (52:24):
Yeah. Though I do tend to believe, and maybe it's just the optimist in me, that the long arc of history does bend towards truth, freedom, and justice. And I think there is something deep within humanity and conscious beings in general, where we're not willing to abide by things that aren't right for too long. Things do get rectified over enough time. And so I'm very hopeful that yeah, the next 10 years might be really tough with all the global changes taking place, but I really believe that the sovereign individualism will emerge as the winning force with those two other forces as balancing forces. And I think, for America, all America has to do is embrace the decentralized technology ecosystem that is already taking place. And I feel very optimistic if that occurs.
Brett Ewer (53:18):
Yeah. People need to be able to trust some kind of validator. Right? And so far it seems like there's only been deconstruction of all kinds of validators. There's going to have to be at some point a resurgence of trust. I don't know in exactly what form. But you're right. Transitions are happening. And transitions are always scary.
Mattimore Cronin (53:42):
Well, thanks so much for coming on to discuss these weighty topics, Brett. And thanks to our listeners for tuning in. We'll see you next time.