3 ms·

When it comes to popular resistance movements, you are underestimating the most prominent force of all... that of persuasion. The Taliban had to just sit back,

When it comes to popular resistance movements, you are underestimating the most prominent force of all... that of persuasion. The Taliban had to just sit back, do nothing, and preach at the mosques about how the evil christians were coming to destroy good islamic peoples, and wait for their followers to amass. You have to be deluding yourself to think that poppy farms are what they really want. They are a religious faction. They want followers. The poppy farms are just an added benefit. But in terms of holding land, they have what matters most... people. And more importantly, they have religious and cultural dogma. You will never win against the Taliban. Just like empires have never won against Christianity. You are talking about a group of people with shared values that can act in concert without ever meeting because they have shared values that are so deeply engrained in their culture. The best way to break the Taliban apart would have been covert ops designed to sow sedition and splinter the group, but even that is risky and not a guarantee. > In fact, that's why they're trying to take over the country again, to once again have control of the Opium / Poppy farms and start getting more money for their organization. No it's not the reason they want control of the country. They want control because they believe it is their religious obligation. Any discussion of the Taliban that does not include Islam is like discussing Spanish colonialism without mentioning the church.

dragontamer 5y ago
Was defeat of the Taliban really the plan? I don't think so. The important plan was to kill Osama Bin Laden, which did happen. And another important bit was to hamper their resources such that they won't attack the US homeland again. Defeat of the Taliban was secondary from the start. If the Taliban negotiated a peace such that they wouldn't support Al Qaeda, I'm sure we would have let them take over the country and integrate back. Even in WW2, we never killed every Nazi or every Japanese. We let Japan keep their Emperor for example, though they were a society who was willing to accept a new government / democracy. But anyone who was hoping to kill the Taliban until they gave up would be hopelessly naive. --------- I do think it was perhaps a mistake to try to push liberal ideals to their primitive society (okay, so Women were getting abused. It'd be nice if those women could be treated better... but now we've left the country and all those women are going to be oppressed again). It would have been more important to have them build their society akin to their values, as opposed to our values. Spreading our ideals never was really part of the plan or a priority.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  This is amnesia. The neocons thought they could export US style democracy to the Middle East and Central Asia. They were wrong, morally and practically. Also, the Taliban did not attack America. Al Qaeda, led by OBL, did. Now the Taliban is back in power (as good as) and the US is giving material and military cover to rebranded Al Qaeda groups in Syria. Fortunately Russia put a stop to the regime change plans in Syria.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Obama was not a neocon. The war was presided over 3 Presidential terms with a wide variety of political and policy viewpoints. To focus on just one political group as a scapegoat ignores the huge support the country had in 2001 across the political spectrum. Iraq was a mistake. Iraq convinced locals that we were anti-Muslim. ISIL was born from that mistake. The Taliban harbored and protected OBL and Al Qaeda. If they renounced AL Qaeda like other Muslims, I'm sure we could have worked out an agreement. But your post has amnesia: Mullah Omar of the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Our attack on the Taliban is a natural result after that.
    - a0-prw 5y ago
      I didn't say Obama was a neocon. He inherited the war, but it was engineered by neocons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I don't think it matters much who's president. There's clearly semi-shadowy decision making behind the presidential facade. I think in internal politics the US president still has some influence but in international affairs, not so much. Edit: Fwiw, I acknowledged the US' right to attack Afghanistan in 2001 because they harboured OBL, and refused to renounce. Everything changed in 2003 with the completely unjustified attack on Iraq. You guys (assuming you're American) have absolutely no idea of how much you lost with that war of aggression. Now, everyone knows what the US is. People (who think) started reappraising history and once you start digging you realise what the US really is. Your narrative is broken. Noone believes in your values anymore. Now, countries which support the US are merely doing it for short term purposes, not because they really believe in your "values". The pipe dream of democracy, international rule of law and human rights all ended in 2003. It was always just a dream, but the world woke up in that year.

dragontamer 5y ago

Was defeat of the Taliban really the plan? I don't think so. The important plan was to kill Osama Bin Laden, which did happen. And another important bit was to hamper their resources such that they won't attack the US homeland again. Defeat of the Taliban was secondary from the start. If the Taliban negotiated a peace such that they wouldn't support Al Qaeda, I'm sure we would have let them take over the country and integrate back. Even in WW2, we never killed every Nazi or every Japanese. We let Japan keep their Emperor for example, though they were a society who was willing to accept a new government / democracy. But anyone who was hoping to kill the Taliban until they gave up would be hopelessly naive. --------- I do think it was perhaps a mistake to try to push liberal ideals to their primitive society (okay, so Women were getting abused. It'd be nice if those women could be treated better... but now we've left the country and all those women are going to be oppressed again). It would have been more important to have them build their society akin to their values, as opposed to our values. Spreading our ideals never was really part of the plan or a priority.

a0-prw 5y ago
This is amnesia. The neocons thought they could export US style democracy to the Middle East and Central Asia. They were wrong, morally and practically. Also, the Taliban did not attack America. Al Qaeda, led by OBL, did. Now the Taliban is back in power (as good as) and the US is giving material and military cover to rebranded Al Qaeda groups in Syria. Fortunately Russia put a stop to the regime change plans in Syria.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Obama was not a neocon. The war was presided over 3 Presidential terms with a wide variety of political and policy viewpoints. To focus on just one political group as a scapegoat ignores the huge support the country had in 2001 across the political spectrum. Iraq was a mistake. Iraq convinced locals that we were anti-Muslim. ISIL was born from that mistake. The Taliban harbored and protected OBL and Al Qaeda. If they renounced AL Qaeda like other Muslims, I'm sure we could have worked out an agreement. But your post has amnesia: Mullah Omar of the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Our attack on the Taliban is a natural result after that.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    I didn't say Obama was a neocon. He inherited the war, but it was engineered by neocons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I don't think it matters much who's president. There's clearly semi-shadowy decision making behind the presidential facade. I think in internal politics the US president still has some influence but in international affairs, not so much. Edit: Fwiw, I acknowledged the US' right to attack Afghanistan in 2001 because they harboured OBL, and refused to renounce. Everything changed in 2003 with the completely unjustified attack on Iraq. You guys (assuming you're American) have absolutely no idea of how much you lost with that war of aggression. Now, everyone knows what the US is. People (who think) started reappraising history and once you start digging you realise what the US really is. Your narrative is broken. Noone believes in your values anymore. Now, countries which support the US are merely doing it for short term purposes, not because they really believe in your "values". The pipe dream of democracy, international rule of law and human rights all ended in 2003. It was always just a dream, but the world woke up in that year.