4 ms·

I mean, at the end of the day, if the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban as their government again, isn't that what they should get, according to the princi

I mean, at the end of the day, if the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban as their government again, isn't that what they should get, according to the principles of democracy? This would imply that anyone who worked with the US government, or are perceived as doing so, should leave immediately. You can't fight the tide.

detaro 5y ago
What suggests to you that the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban? > should leave immediately Would be a good idea, yes. Slight problem with that is that the western militaries seem to have forgotten all promises about that now...
sriram_malhar 5y ago
Eh? It is not a choice. The non-armed people of Afghanistan don't have a vote. --s
wbl 5y ago
The Taliban could put down their arms and compete in the electoral process. They have not. That says something about their popularity.
- spfzero 5y ago
  But the Taliban have an ideology, which is not aligned with democracy, and they would not want to legitimize what they consider a foreign system put in place by a foreign power.
BurningFrog 5y ago
The people of Afghanistan do not, to put it mildly, want anything in a unified sense. Their many civil wars illustrates that in a clear and bloody way. The argument you may be looking for is that Afghanistan should be ruled by Afghans, without outside interference. Most would agree, but there is no way from here to there without fighting it out, and whoever wins will rule very far from any western ideals. Perhaps the more realistic scenario is that as the US leaves, Iran, Pakistan, and maybe Russia, China and India will keep fighting proxy wars there. As an American, I'm OK with that as long as we stay out.
- chmod600 5y ago
  What does it mean for other countries to get involved in Afghanistan as the US withdraws? What will they gain, and how will it affect the US?
yojo 5y ago
Armed insurgents != elected officials. Myanmar is a good example of this. Typically the people with the guns can seize power. This does not mean it is the will of the people. I heard an NPR story that there is a large backlog of asylum requests from Afghani that worked with the US government. They see the writing on the wall.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  People with guns are nothing without support from local people. They'll always lose to other people with guns and support from local people. Because you need to feed, you need safe passages, you need cooperation with local people. If you have strong back up from another country which will supply you with enough goods, you can suppress all local people, but that's can't continue forever. And yes, as I see that situation, Afghani local people do support Taliban, like it or not. They are Muslim people and they want Muslim country with Sharia law. Forcing democracy on such people does not do any good. You can't quickly change culture. USSR tried to eradicate religion for 80 years and former USSR countries are very religious atm.
  - likecarter 5y ago
    Myanmar? North Korea? Hard to argue the people enjoy their ruling party.
incrudible 5y ago
It's not so much that "the people" want the Taliban in power, it's that the Taliban are the strongest military force. There's nothing to stop them from taking power. There's also an ethnic component to it. The Pashtuns, from which Taliban recruit, form the largest ethnic group. Afghanistan ultimately has the same problem as many countries in the region: Borders drawn with little regard to populations on the ground.
- sorokod 5y ago
  Actually the government of the state is also Pashtun but of a different tribe that the Pashtun "government" of the Taliban. Some more information here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27792595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27792595
sorokod 5y ago
Afghanistan is an aggregate of tribes with shifting alliances and ideologies. With that in mind, the question "what do people of Afghanistan want" makes little sense. If you accept the above statement, then very little of what has been done by US in Afghanistan makes sense either.
dirtyid 5y ago
>worked with the US government Aka collaborating with the invaders. I know Afghan tribal factionalism doesn't reflect Westphalia state mores, but purging traitors post war is the norm. US should have done more to extract these folks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dogma1138 5y ago
The Taliban itself is predominantly foreign to Afghanistan too. It was created by Pakistan due to the fear of the soviet invasion spilling into their country, it was ideologically and financially supported by the Saudis with some logistical support early on form the US. The Saudis gave the funds for the ISI to train 100,000 fighters and introduced what essentially was a new religion into the area. Afghanistan wasn’t historically particularly conservative from a religious point of view Deobandi/Salafi fundamentalism is quite foreign, mosques were rare to non existent in the tribal areas and organized religion doesn’t overall works that well with a predominantly tribal and illiterate population.

detaro 5y ago

What suggests to you that the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban? > should leave immediately Would be a good idea, yes. Slight problem with that is that the western militaries seem to have forgotten all promises about that now...

sriram_malhar 5y ago

Eh? It is not a choice. The non-armed people of Afghanistan don't have a vote. --s

wbl 5y ago

The Taliban could put down their arms and compete in the electoral process. They have not. That says something about their popularity.

spfzero 5y ago
But the Taliban have an ideology, which is not aligned with democracy, and they would not want to legitimize what they consider a foreign system put in place by a foreign power.

BurningFrog 5y ago

The people of Afghanistan do not, to put it mildly, want anything in a unified sense. Their many civil wars illustrates that in a clear and bloody way. The argument you may be looking for is that Afghanistan should be ruled by Afghans, without outside interference. Most would agree, but there is no way from here to there without fighting it out, and whoever wins will rule very far from any western ideals. Perhaps the more realistic scenario is that as the US leaves, Iran, Pakistan, and maybe Russia, China and India will keep fighting proxy wars there. As an American, I'm OK with that as long as we stay out.

chmod600 5y ago
What does it mean for other countries to get involved in Afghanistan as the US withdraws? What will they gain, and how will it affect the US?

yojo 5y ago

Armed insurgents != elected officials. Myanmar is a good example of this. Typically the people with the guns can seize power. This does not mean it is the will of the people. I heard an NPR story that there is a large backlog of asylum requests from Afghani that worked with the US government. They see the writing on the wall.

vbezhenar 5y ago
People with guns are nothing without support from local people. They'll always lose to other people with guns and support from local people. Because you need to feed, you need safe passages, you need cooperation with local people. If you have strong back up from another country which will supply you with enough goods, you can suppress all local people, but that's can't continue forever. And yes, as I see that situation, Afghani local people do support Taliban, like it or not. They are Muslim people and they want Muslim country with Sharia law. Forcing democracy on such people does not do any good. You can't quickly change culture. USSR tried to eradicate religion for 80 years and former USSR countries are very religious atm.
- likecarter 5y ago
  Myanmar? North Korea? Hard to argue the people enjoy their ruling party.

incrudible 5y ago

It's not so much that "the people" want the Taliban in power, it's that the Taliban are the strongest military force. There's nothing to stop them from taking power. There's also an ethnic component to it. The Pashtuns, from which Taliban recruit, form the largest ethnic group. Afghanistan ultimately has the same problem as many countries in the region: Borders drawn with little regard to populations on the ground.

sorokod 5y ago
Actually the government of the state is also Pashtun but of a different tribe that the Pashtun "government" of the Taliban. Some more information here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27792595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27792595

sorokod 5y ago

Afghanistan is an aggregate of tribes with shifting alliances and ideologies. With that in mind, the question "what do people of Afghanistan want" makes little sense. If you accept the above statement, then very little of what has been done by US in Afghanistan makes sense either.

dirtyid 5y ago

>worked with the US government Aka collaborating with the invaders. I know Afghan tribal factionalism doesn't reflect Westphalia state mores, but purging traitors post war is the norm. US should have done more to extract these folks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dogma1138 5y ago

The Taliban itself is predominantly foreign to Afghanistan too. It was created by Pakistan due to the fear of the soviet invasion spilling into their country, it was ideologically and financially supported by the Saudis with some logistical support early on form the US. The Saudis gave the funds for the ISI to train 100,000 fighters and introduced what essentially was a new religion into the area. Afghanistan wasn’t historically particularly conservative from a religious point of view Deobandi/Salafi fundamentalism is quite foreign, mosques were rare to non existent in the tribal areas and organized religion doesn’t overall works that well with a predominantly tribal and illiterate population.