3 ms·

FTA: " A peace agreement in Afghanistan would allow the government to redirect its scarce resources. The government might also see substantial new revenue flow

FTA: " A peace agreement in Afghanistan would allow the government to redirect its scarce resources. The government might also see substantial new revenue flow in from legal sectors now dominated by the Taliban, such as mining." This assumes facts not in evidence, namely: (i) that there will be a peace agreement, and (ii) that the Taliban would honor a peace agreement. The brute reality seems to be that very shortly, essentially all of the members of the current government will be in exile; hanging from lampposts; or minus their heads.

tablespoon 5y ago
Yeah. Why would the Taliban negotiate a peace (acceptable to the US) when they're about to win? To think they would is nothing but wishful thinking. That would be like the US, in 1944, negotiating a peace to end to WWII that left Hitler in power. It seems like there's been a fair bit of (public) wishful thinking by the Biden administration regarding the withdrawal (e.g. that pulling the rug out from under the Afghan government would cause them to somehow pull a rabbit out of their hat). Right now, it seems like it was basically a decision to hand Afghanistan directly to the Taliban, especially now that it has momentum on its side.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Like Japan? Some context: I haven’t been following this at all for most of the last decade, but, some things don’t change. Kabul and the Northern Alliance areas have always been hard to win and hard to hold for the Taliban. They’re not above practicality, and they have common enemies in the border regions of the East and North-West. In the SouthWest, the Marine Corps had success in direct negotiations to combat the common enemy of drug trafficking warlords, which is the whole reason they gained support there in the first place, and similarly became the focus of US operations in the region as well. In this case, I’m not sure that makes sense, however, as the coalition government has, in the past, suffered accusation of influence from these outside enemies. It’s not a stretch to think of them as a financial empire, and unlike the US, most Afghans have stronger ties to their tribes than their 401k.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> That would be like the US, in 1944, negotiating a peace to end to WWII that left Hitler in power. > Like Japan? Sorry, I meant more like late 1944/1945, after D-day and past the point where a negotiated peace offered any clear benefit. > Some context: I haven’t been following this at all for most of the last decade, but, some things don’t change. Kabul and the Northern Alliance areas have always been hard to win and hard to hold for the Taliban. IIRC, provincial capitals in Northern Alliance areas are falling to them now. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/world/asia/the-insurgents-success-in-northern-afghanistan-is-an-ill-omen-for-kabul.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/world/asia/the-insurgents...: > Now, [the Taliban] have seized six cities in recent days, five of which are in northern parts of the country. And experts fear that if government forces are unable to stop their advances in the north, Afghanistan’s capital is more vulnerable than ever.

tablespoon 5y ago

Yeah. Why would the Taliban negotiate a peace (acceptable to the US) when they're about to win? To think they would is nothing but wishful thinking. That would be like the US, in 1944, negotiating a peace to end to WWII that left Hitler in power. It seems like there's been a fair bit of (public) wishful thinking by the Biden administration regarding the withdrawal (e.g. that pulling the rug out from under the Afghan government would cause them to somehow pull a rabbit out of their hat). Right now, it seems like it was basically a decision to hand Afghanistan directly to the Taliban, especially now that it has momentum on its side.

jl2718 5y ago
Like Japan? Some context: I haven’t been following this at all for most of the last decade, but, some things don’t change. Kabul and the Northern Alliance areas have always been hard to win and hard to hold for the Taliban. They’re not above practicality, and they have common enemies in the border regions of the East and North-West. In the SouthWest, the Marine Corps had success in direct negotiations to combat the common enemy of drug trafficking warlords, which is the whole reason they gained support there in the first place, and similarly became the focus of US operations in the region as well. In this case, I’m not sure that makes sense, however, as the coalition government has, in the past, suffered accusation of influence from these outside enemies. It’s not a stretch to think of them as a financial empire, and unlike the US, most Afghans have stronger ties to their tribes than their 401k.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> That would be like the US, in 1944, negotiating a peace to end to WWII that left Hitler in power. > Like Japan? Sorry, I meant more like late 1944/1945, after D-day and past the point where a negotiated peace offered any clear benefit. > Some context: I haven’t been following this at all for most of the last decade, but, some things don’t change. Kabul and the Northern Alliance areas have always been hard to win and hard to hold for the Taliban. IIRC, provincial capitals in Northern Alliance areas are falling to them now. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/world/asia/the-insurgents-success-in-northern-afghanistan-is-an-ill-omen-for-kabul.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/world/asia/the-insurgents...: > Now, [the Taliban] have seized six cities in recent days, five of which are in northern parts of the country. And experts fear that if government forces are unable to stop their advances in the north, Afghanistan’s capital is more vulnerable than ever.