3 ms·

> poor subsistence farmers who's insurrection is basically self funded This is some wild revisionism. There have been all kinds of state actors backing the Afg

> poor subsistence farmers who's insurrection is basically self funded This is some wild revisionism. There have been all kinds of state actors backing the Afghan insurgencies, in the US occupation as well as the Soviet occupation.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I guess it was an exaggeration but compared to what even a low level proxy war looks like they are practically self funded. Nobody is rushing to give them AGTMs like is the case in Sryia. Yes they have gotten a fair share of hardware from places like Iran but they haven't gotten anything "good" in any quantity sufficient to matter. The Taliban are really hardware poor compared to damn near every other group in the region in the last 20yr. They basically just fight with rifles, mortars, IED supplies and the occasional RPG. The time they fought the Russians they had plenty of state backing though.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > I guess it was an exaggeration but compared to what even a low level proxy war looks like they are practically self funded A low level proxy war is exactly what it is, though. The Taliban are funded by Pakistan, who doesn't want an assertive, nationalist neighbor, Saudi Arabia[1], who wants to enflame sunni/shia strife to harass Iran, and Russia, who wants to poke a finger in the eye of the US. They can't give more than light arms to the insurgents without it being a naked attack on the US, so rifles, mortars, IED supplies and the occasional RPG are what they get. To get back to the overarching point though, armed revolt driven by light arms in the US would not be some glorious revolution that would result in more freedom for everyone. It'd likely be a lot of proxy warfare and nonstop terrorism on our soil. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-a...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

I guess it was an exaggeration but compared to what even a low level proxy war looks like they are practically self funded. Nobody is rushing to give them AGTMs like is the case in Sryia. Yes they have gotten a fair share of hardware from places like Iran but they haven't gotten anything "good" in any quantity sufficient to matter. The Taliban are really hardware poor compared to damn near every other group in the region in the last 20yr. They basically just fight with rifles, mortars, IED supplies and the occasional RPG. The time they fought the Russians they had plenty of state backing though.

mullingitover 6y ago
> I guess it was an exaggeration but compared to what even a low level proxy war looks like they are practically self funded A low level proxy war is exactly what it is, though. The Taliban are funded by Pakistan, who doesn't want an assertive, nationalist neighbor, Saudi Arabia[1], who wants to enflame sunni/shia strife to harass Iran, and Russia, who wants to poke a finger in the eye of the US. They can't give more than light arms to the insurgents without it being a naked attack on the US, so rifles, mortars, IED supplies and the occasional RPG are what they get. To get back to the overarching point though, armed revolt driven by light arms in the US would not be some glorious revolution that would result in more freedom for everyone. It'd likely be a lot of proxy warfare and nonstop terrorism on our soil. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/asia/saudi-arabia-a...