14 ms·
Taliban enter Kabul as Afghan government on brink of collapse
- a3n 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon
- Clewza313 5y agoFall of Saigon v2. Although I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support.
- godelmachine 5y agoThey just have strong level of petro-dollar support from the Gulf.
- clydethefrog 5y agoAnd America has "just" the biggest invested army world wide. I guess you need more than money to win the fight sometimes.
- hulitu 5y agoWars are not meant to be win. If you win a war quickly you don't make any profit.
- godelmachine 5y agoUS pulled out only because the general American public was bored of being in Afghanistan. Americans would had stayed there forever if they wanted to, and kept the Taliban at bay.
- neatze 5y agoKen Burns Vietnam War documentary, exemplifies really well how limited commitment to fight a war, will result in similar situation as in Korea (to a degree, I guess), Vietnam, almost in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan.
- xbmcuser 5y agopetro-dollar support from the gulf if actually exists was peanuts compared to 100s of billions from the US, Nato and India.
- godelmachine 5y agoWhat makes you think they don’t get the same amount from the Gulf? Only US and NATO provided military assistance. Others like India invested billions in constructive projects like Salma dam.
- rightbyte 5y agoWhat would the talibans do with the money? It is quite obvious the Afghan army has a more expensive operation than talibans with rifles and pickups. I guess the Afghan army should have focused more on quality than size to be able to afford talanted soldiers.
- godelmachine 5y agoI don’t think that’s a valid question. What would they do with money? Buy more weapons, I guess? Invest in training. Hire more recruits.
- vkou 5y agoBoth you and the parent poster are missing the forest through the trees. The failure is not in money, training, or conscription. The failure is in not giving the army any reason to fight. If you don't give a rat's ass about your cause, and there's a serious possibility of defeat, why would you keep fighting? The problem is that in twenty years, the coalition-supported government failed to make enough of its constituents give a rat's ass about their cause. They might not like the Taliban much, but they seem to prefer to live under them, than die for what is perceived as a corrupt, self-serving, ineffective government.
- THINkttwICE 5y ago
- Clewza313 5y agoNot really. Most Gulf states are petrified of militant Islam, and the Taliban subscribe to a creed (Deobandi) that's not particularly popular among Arabs.
- godelmachine 5y agoNevertheless, the funding they receive is more than enough to keep them going, as such point where US pulls out and they could fight the fledgling Afghan army.
- Rerarom 5y agohttps://www.lynalden.com/fraying-petrodollar-system/ https://www.lynalden.com/fraying-petrodollar-system/
- leereeves 5y agoJust over a month ago [July 8] the President was actually arguing that the Afghan army would win: Q Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not. Q Why? THE PRESIDENT: Because you — the Afghan troops have 300,000 well-equipped — as well-equipped as any army in the world — and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. ... I trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- — more competent in terms of conducting war. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
- AdrianB1 5y agoThey have 300,000 troops that are either poorly trained, lead by incompetent officers and/or corrupt to the bone. It is expected to lose badly. This was known, that makes the speech a big lie as many speeches of most leaders of most countries.
- hutzlibu 5y agoAnd wasn't there recently something shared here, that the afghan air force cannot really fly, because the US cancelled their contracted maintainance service? Also with the sheer size of the US embassy - it rather looks to me like there never was a sovereign afghan government in the first place, so of course they don't stand a chance on its own. It was all too artificial and US dependent.
- rvense 5y agoIt's almost as though the American leadership doesn't really understand Afghanistan.
- hulitu 5y agoOf course they do. But is a nice playing ground for the army and the military industrial complex makes good profits. The lifes of milions do not matter for them.
- swang 5y agoMore like Fall of Phnom Penh v3
- EdwardDiego 5y ago...assuming you're referring to indiscriminate shelling of civilians and then mass reprisal killings... what was v2?
- numpad0 5y agoMaybe v1 is 1945/08/15 by his definition
- implements 5y agoThe locals keeping their heads down in the face of an insurgency the Afghan state is clearly unable to defeat probably shouldn’t be presented as “strong popular support” (the true level of which is supposed to be about 10%).
- Eckolnojh 5y agoIs there even such a thing as an "Afghan state"? From what little I know of their culture, they're more accurately described as tribes or clans who happens to speak similar languages and have the same religion rather than a nation-state.
- hulitu 5y agoThey are surely sick of 20 years of useless war so they will support the new leaders.
- captain_price7 5y agoTaliban is certainly more popular than they were 25 years ago. Last time there was a pretty strong grassroot movement against Taliban, particularly in the northern parts of the nation. Taliban didn't have to fire a shot in many of these places this time.
- baybal2 5y ago> I have to say the speed at which the Taliban took over once the US pulled out is pretty astonishing: it's clear they have a strong level of popular support. The explanation is very, very simple, but I don't see any Western media talking about it at all. Basically, Afghan government fell apart when USA withdrew the pork barrel of military contracts from locals. People forget that 20 years ago USA mounted all kinds of warlords, and other rogue elements into seats of power. The entirety of regional elites which emerged in these 20 years are a product of that system. The only things securing their loyalty to USA, and thus to the government in Kabul were American money. The moment they ran out, it all fell apart just like Middle Eastern, and Latin American US friendly regimes. The "Our Bastard!" theory showed extreme naivete of people following it yet again. There is no such things as "Our Bastards!" Time to learn that after 60 years. Henry Kisinger lured USA into a geopolitical deathtrap with his lunatical political theories. Now US has found itself in the world surrounded by backstabbing, and turncoat regimes of its own making, who nor fear, nor respect it now, and who will pounce the moment USA stops spoonfeeding them, and shows its back. USA has less allies in the world now than at any time in the last century. USA can't now fight half the world dominated by solidified group of corrupt regimes. Escaping this situation will be extremely hard. USA cannot rely on allies who are loyal only to American printing press. USA will not score any real allies without changing itself first
- Eckolnojh 5y ago> USA can't now fight half the world dominated by solidified group of corrupt regimes. If there is anything the past few decades have shown, it's that the pocketbook and the sword are both useless tools when it comes to any kind of Middle Eastern policy.
- hulitu 5y agoThis was always the view of Americans: Monry can buy everything. While it may be true for their democracy it is not true for other things that people value.
- yyyk 5y agoIn these parts of the world, 'defecting to the winning side' is a basic survival skill. As soon as the US stopped its support it was obvious who'd win (the people still getting state support from Pakistan). So why should a smart faction fight and die? To make the people who aren't there anymore look better?
- captain_price7 5y agoI think you're overestimating Pakistan's capability. It gave Taliban leaders shelter at their worst moment, and that is about the only leverage ISI had. The moment Taliban started to carve out territory inside Afghanistan, that leverage was gone. There's some gratitude, but also lots of resentment among Taliban leadership about the way they were treated by the Pakistani authority.
- baybal2 5y agoYep, totally right. I think you need to also tell about Afghan government itself "returning Pakistan a favour," and dispatching the Pakistani Taliban.
- erklik 5y agoThe amount of support Pakistan provides Taliban is severly overblown. Did they provide them refuge when Taliban was on the back foot? Sure, probably. Is Pakistan aiding them in this current offense? It really doesn't seem like it.
- yyyk 5y agoISI help is significantly more than refuge. That said, the Taliban didn't need help for this offensive. They've been handed the country on a platter.
- bawolff 5y agoI don't know that much about the region, but the us-supported side had 20 years and lots of money to prepare for this day. I would assume if they enjoyed more popular support in the near past they would have built something that would less obviously be the losing side today, and people wouldn't have jumped ship so quickly.
- squarefoot 5y agoThey don't have all that support from population; it's more like "if you can't beat them...". Unfortunately among those surrendering without any resistance it's the Afghan Army, with all their weapons, which means now the Talibans are much more heavily armed than a few months ago.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThe corruption is so bad soldiers in hospitals starved to death. It's clear that in the past 30 years afganistan did not have a functioning government at all. Its not about popular support, its a failure of 'statebuilding' https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corruption-rations-soldiers-army-eat https://observers.france24.com/en/20200218-afghanistan-corru...
- mnd999 5y agoAbsolutely the government were in it for themselves, not for the people. The average Afghan has no love for the Taliban or the government but it’s pragmatic to side with whoever is winning.
- CapricornNoble 5y agoMost of the Afghan government just pocketed as much money as possible and stashed in (and their families) in Dubai: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-11-04/the-afghan-officials-families-with-luxury-pads-in-dubai https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-11-04/the...
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoWell Russian government also pockets the money and stashes them in foreign countries, but it is not totally dysfunctional - they can get infrastructure built and the army organised. They dont do it well, but they can defend themselves.
- captain_price7 5y agoAnd then there were "phantom soldiers"- it's the practice where officers would just create non-existent soldiers to pocket their salary.
- trainsplanes 5y agoVietnam ultimately became a pretty nice country a few years after the US government finally gave up on trying to turn it into hell on earth, and it’s only getting better. If this really is Saigon 2.0, 20 years from now Afghanistan will be a peaceful country with active tourism. With the Taliban seemingly making efforts to appease China for economic gain, who knows, it just might happen.
- AniseAbyss 5y agoI'd say Saigon but let's be honest the South Vietnamese army did fight pretty hard and clinged on for longer.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 5y agoI remember having seen a similar scene in a couple of times by now. I guess we will be getting an Hollywood version of the facts in 10 years timeframe. My heart goes to those that died for nothing, and those that will now face the revenge of Talibans.
- jacquesm 5y agoPlenty of those that helped the Americans and other troops are now facing gruesome execution by the Taliban. Translators, people working for them in any capacity, teachers, they're all on the run fearing for their lives. Turkey is overrun by a wave of people getting out of Afghanistan.
- pjmlp 5y agoYeah really bad, and Germany is still doing extraditions there. :(
- forgingahead 5y agoI was told in January this year by many gleeful people they were so happy that "competence" was coming back into the US administration. What an absolute bunch of morons and their failures. *Edit: to answer the questions about "what should have been done instead", here is my reply from further down the page: I would have liked to see a withdrawal that did not turn back the clock 20 years to where we were in August 2001, squandering all the blood and treasure that has been expended in 2 decades. "Explainers" are why this is happening - weak minded people who prefer marketing (appearance of performance) over results. Surprising to me considering the heated replies to the other thread on the front page about how "story-telling" to appeal to VCs is fake news, and we should all be concerned about product quality first. US governance (both domestic and foreign) has devolved into nothing more than marketing sizzle instead of product quality.
- kettleballroll 5y agoWit seems to me like this failure waa decades in the making anyways. What would you have done differently if you were in Biden's shoes?
- vkou 5y agoCompetence would not be getting embroiled in a unwinnable forever-war in the first place, but once you are, bowing out of one may be the way to go. Also, you may wish to recall that the US spent most of 2020 making a peace deal with the Taliban [1]. An agreement was reached, outlining an American withdrawal in 2021. It's, uh, now 2021. If the coalition-supported government can't secure its own territory after nearly two decades of foreign support, by this point, it can only be described as a failed state. Just like entering this war was bi-partisan politicking, so was withdrawing from it. One would hope that some lessons were learned in the process. [1] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agreement-afghanistan-war https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agree...
- bdibs 5y agoI would consider getting out of this boondoggle as soon as possible an example of competence.
- 5y ago
- yalogin 5y agoWhat a failure of the US armed forces here. 20 damn years staying in the country with the only 2 goal - to help Afghans build an army and help defend themselves and to eradicate the Taliban. They failed miserably in both. Trillions spent and many lost lives. Why would we ever pour money into such a terrible, incompetent system? Of course, the cycle keeps repeating itself and we keep growing the military.
- sneak 5y agoI think it’s more a failure of the people who sent them there than the forces themselves. This is a management issue. For all of the failings of the current US president, getting the hell out of an endless, unnecessary war is a good thing.
- throwawaysea 5y agoI disagree that getting out is a good thing. It means a terrorist organization will control a nation and harbor terrorists once again in the future (remember the same Taliban sheltered 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda!). It means we lose a foothold in the region, militarily and economically. It means rivals like China expand their influence and force projection at our expense, since they plan to recognize the Taliban government and invest in their infrastructure via their belt and road initiative (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/china-taliban-welcome-back-belt-road-afghanistan https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-s...). We should have at least kept a smaller force around as a presence to maintain continuity. See this “rescue plan for Afghanistan” from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for more suggestions that aren’t blindly exiting Afghanistan in a few short months: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-taliban-joe-biden-11628890626 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-rescue-plan-for-afghanistan-t...
- fighterpilot 5y agoI am also not fully sold on the idea that getting out is a good idea, but for different reasons. The growth of Afghanistan's economy (300-400% GDP) and the quality of life improvements since the Taliban were removed has been notable, and if this regresses then there will be a real human toll. But not pulling out seems to be just delaying the inevitable, and a continued presence is expensive and arguably incendiary/destabilizing to the whole region, so I can understand doing it. This isn't a commentary on the specifics of how it was done, merely on whether a withdrawal should have been done.
- throwawaysea 5y agoThe Taliban has already entered the capital (https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghanistans-taliban-seize-jalalabad-as-panic-grips-kabul-11629005282 https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghanistans-taliban-seize-jala...). This is an utter disaster for Biden and America. We should instead have performed a slower withdrawal and also continued to maintain a military presence permanently at Bagram field. Instead it appears China and Pakistan will welcome a new Taliban government and build new economic ties while America loses influence in the region. This withdrawal was so poorly handled that just two days ago the administration claimed Kabul would fall in 90 days when it seems it may fall today. Meanwhile the Taliban, who harbored 9/11 terrorists and is still allied with al Qaeda, is literally taking over American weapon stores that were left behind in this hasty evacuation (https://news.yahoo.com/weapon-seizures-massive-boon-taliban-052812817.html https://news.yahoo.com/weapon-seizures-massive-boon-taliban-...). What an utter and complete failure of leadership, military intelligence, foreign policy, and “nation building” (or rather lack thereof). EDIT (in response to reply, since I got the dreaded rate limiting message): Trump didn’t initiate a departure. He set up a deal that included numerous conditions and phases contingent on commitments and actions from both the Taliban and Afghanistan government (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-sign-historic-deal-taliban-beginning-end-us/story?id=69287465 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-sign-historic-deal-taliba...). But it really doesn’t matter. Biden is either the President or he isn’t. The withdrawal timeline he set and executed is his to own. Anything less than full ownership means he isn’t fit to be President.
- hulitu 5y agoThis is not a disaster for Bidden. I'm sorry to say it but it is really a victory for Bidden to limit the loss of lives.
- lamontcg 5y agoAs usual though the Democrats are the ones that wind up holding the bag and doing the necessary thing, so that they're the ones that will carry the blame as far as political simpletons go.
- jokoon 5y ago
- ramesh31 5y agoSaigon 2: Sharia Boogaloo
- fuoqi 5y agoIt's interesting to note that DRA (the pro-Soviet Afghanistan government) has fought for 3 whole years after the Soviets have left Afghanistan. And it was with the almost complete lack of military support from the USSR (you know, the Union collapse and all) and with Taliban being actively funded by the US and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the current government probably will fall even before the US will finish its humiliating retreat and it does not look like Russia or China have substantially supported Taliban, at the very least it most certainly was not on the US scale of 30 years ago.
- rascul 5y ago> Meanwhile, the current government probably will fall even before the US will finish its humiliating retreat The humiliating part is that the U.S. was there at all, not that the U.S. finally pulled out of a place where troops should never have been sent.
- Beldin 5y agoHaving to send new troops just to evacuate embassy personnel before your old troops have finished leaving isn't the proudest moment ever, I'd think. That is: the humiliation isn't in retreating, but in things collapsing even before you've left.
- GaryTang 5y agoMost of us knew this was inevitable as soon as Biden became president. What happens when weak leadership takes over is weak results. Tale as old as time.
- vishnugupta 5y agoWorth quoting this passage from an insightful article[1] People fought in Afghanistan, and people died, but not always in the obvious way. They had been fighting for so long, twenty-three years then, that by the time the Americans arrived the Afghans had developed an elaborate set of rules designed to spare as many fighters as they could. So the war could go on forever. Men fought, men switched sides, men lined up and fought again. War in Afghanistan often seemed like a game of pickup basketball, a contest among friends, a tournament where you never knew which team you’d be on when the next game got under way. Shirts today, skins tomorrow. On Tuesday, you might be part of a fearsome Taliban regiment, running into a minefield. And on Wednesday you might be manning a checkpoint for some gang of the Northern Alliance. By Thursday you could be back with the Talibs again, holding up your Kalashnikov and promising to wage jihad forever. War was serious in Afghanistan, but not that serious. It was part of everyday life. It was a job. Only the civilians seemed to lose. Battles were often decided this way, not by actual fighting, but by flipping gangs of soldiers. One day, the Taliban might have four thousand soldiers, and the next, only half that, with the warlords of the Northern Alliance suddenly larger by a similar amount. The fighting began when the bargaining stopped, and the bargaining went right up until the end. The losers were the ones who were too stubborn, too stupid or too fanatical to make a deal. Suddenly, they would find themselves outnumbered, and then they would die. It was a kind of natural selection. [1] https://scholars-stage.org/fighting-like-taliban/ https://scholars-stage.org/fighting-like-taliban/
- WalterBright 5y agoSounds a lot like the Italian mercenary armies in the middle ages, where they mostly maneuvered for advantage rather than fought. Being mercenaries, they had little interest in dying for their employer's cause.
- raincom 5y agoAnother example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I... This example was discussed in Robert Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation".
- sorokod 5y agoTo state the obvious, the Afghans in aggregate, were not willing to build an army and were not willing to defend themselves against the Taliban. This Is What Winning Looks Like (2013?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI
- belter 5y agoWars are won by men willing to die for their cause. The US, Canadian and many other soldiers who helped liberate Europe in the 2nd World War were willing to die for freedom. And the Taliban are willing to die for theirs. I wish a safe return to the very professional troops from more than 20 countries still on the ground. Once again they are victims of incompetent politicians. But it 20 years, was it not always obvious, that a young Afghani, that just got in the Army because it was only available well paid job would not be willing to die for some very local nebulous cause? To defeat a group that embodies the cultural heritage that prevailed in the country for the last few centuries?
- croes 5y agoSo will the Taliban stop the opium production again?
- chewz 5y agoOn the contrary. Taliban increased poppy fields by 50 percent in 2020 and they are also pushing meth through their channels. Taliban budget estimated at 2 bilion dollars is supported chiefly by opium trade... https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/19/taliban-expanding-drug-trade-meth-heroin/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/19/taliban-expanding-drug-...
- weimerica 5y agoIs this intentional, desired policy on their part or more of a "means to an end?" I understood it that, historically, the Taliban were anti-opium. I suppose if Western nations pursue a North Korean containment style policy, that this would continue similar to NK methamphetamine operations.
- MichaelZuo 5y agoQuestionable story, drugs are a huge taboo for devout muslims. Hard to square with the Taliban rank and file showing strong support for their leaders.
- acdha 5y agoGiven all of the other Islamic laws they bend or break, do you really think it’s unlikely that someone desperately in need of operating funds has found a distinction between using drugs themselves and selling them to others?
- chewz 5y agoBelieve in what you want to. Or use Google… https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2021/May/afghanistan_-37-per-cent-increase-in-opium-poppy-cultivation-in-2020--while-researchers-explore-novel-ways-to-collect-data-due-to-covid-19.html https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2021/May/afghanista... https://theconversation.com/amp/afghanistan-what-the-conflict-means-for-the-global-heroin-trade-165995 https://theconversation.com/amp/afghanistan-what-the-conflic... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55048147 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55048147
- mikaeluman 5y agoThe Biden administration doing this so haphazardly is irresponsible and with little to no reward - political or anything else. Moving away from US centric debates on the economic value of this war and attempt at governance; I fear Afghanistan will again become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism atrocities and also put increased pressure on Europe in terms of migration. To the latter point, Europe is already on the breaking point here and further stress will probably - judging from recent experience - lead to further success of conservative and anti-immigration political parties.
- adriancr 5y ago> The Biden administration doing this so haphazardly is irresponsible and with little to no reward The same was said about Bush administration when the war was started. The same was said about the whole 'nation building' and troop surge and so on that happened until now... Judging by the lack of fighting back, nothing was achieved in 20 years and same thing would happen even if US stayed 20 more years...
- mikaeluman 5y agoRegardless of the downvotes I’ve received I think it’s pretty clear now after the fact that the withdrawal is a complete mess and failure. Once you go in - you at least have a responsibility for the manner in which you get out. In particular for all the allies that helped you for the past 20 years and now are at risk. The Afghan army couldn’t fight back once Biden forbade all service technicians to stay in the country and maintain the machines and veichles, and certainly not when the army was trained to work in coordination with US Air Force which hastily left. It’s a complete failure all around.
- adriancr 5y ago> The Afghan army couldn’t fight back ... when the army was trained to work in coordination with US Air Force ... Did their AK-47s need special US Air Force attention to work? > Once you go in - you at least have a responsibility for the manner in which you get out. The people living there had every chance to train and fight for their freedom. Apparently they did not want that. The pull out was announced and negotiated 2nd of Feb 2020, they had ample time to prepare. Did you have the same oppinions then as well regarding the pull out?, and did you do anything about it then? Full press release from back then: https://theweek.com/afghanistan-war/1003748/gop-takes-down-2020-page-touting-trumps-historic-peace-agreement-with-the https://theweek.com/afghanistan-war/1003748/gop-takes-down-2... PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CONTINUED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN PEACE TALKS AS HE SIGNED A HISTORIC PEACE AGREEMENT WITH THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH WOULD END AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR On February 2, 2020 , the Trump Administration signed a preliminary peace agreement with the Taliban that sets the stage to end America's longest war. Under the agreement , the U.S. will withdraw nearly 5,000 troops from the country in 135 days in exchange for a Taliban agreement to not allow Afghanistan to be used for transnational terrorism. Time Magazine reported that other components of the agreement included an agreement that U.S. counterterrorism forces stay in the country, permissions for the CIA to operate in Taliban-held areas, and details of how the Taliban's promises to reduce violence will be monitored and verified. The deal has been called the " best chance to end this conflict ," a " decisive move " towards peace, and " the best path " for the United States. The war in Afghanistan is the longest in U.S. history, a conflict that has killed more than 3,500 U.S. and NATO troops and cost U.S. taxpayers nearly 900 billion dollars. As part of the peace agreement, the Taliban and the Afghan government recently began historic peace, talks which would end decades of war that Afghanistan has consumed. The negotiations will cover the terms of a " permanent ceasefire, the rights of women and minorities, and the disarmament of the country's many militia groups ."
- jacksonkmarley 5y agoSeems like the Taliban are holding back to allow foreign personnel to evacuate. I wonder if that is part of an explicit agreement, or just them not wanting to create problems for themselves when they've already clearly won.
- rightbyte 5y agoGiving safe passage for a defeated enemy is an ageold courtesy. Having an airborne brigade fighting with their backs against the wall is probably not what a militia wants.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y agoHunting down a retreating enemy has always been a bad war tactic. The only thing it can accomplish is creating additional casualties on your side, and you gain no additional turf. Killing them while they're trying to retreat just makes them turn around and start shooting back, because if they're going to die no matter what, they might as well go down in a blaze of glory.
- t0rt01se 5y agoVery mixed feeling about this. The implications for minorities, women and progress are now obviously dire. Though I can't help feel somewhat pleased to see Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfo's legacy ground to dust and all their supporters/apologists with pie on their face. I couldn't believe Dubya prancing around like an elder statesman while Trump was in office. There's an element of their m.o. that has overflown from the military to other branches of US life as the military got less stretched in recent years. The mistakes made haven't been as educational as they should've been.
- THINkttwICE 5y agoAfghanistan's situation is obviously as complex as it can get but at the level of day to day experience of majority of locals (not only elite city-dwellers) Taliban are hated/feared but consistent, and they generally practice what they preach. In my brief personal encounters, and observations of what locals face: the corrupt government, its police and its army is like the "Zahhak the Snake Shoulder" (an evil figure in Persian mythology); an insatiable unstable monster better avoided at all cost. I suspect this is one of the main reasons nobody really put up a fight this time around. Afghanistan's tragic contemporary conflicts has many winners and losers that switch places every so often but there's been one constant loser: its civilians.
- sorokod 5y agoIn what sense are "locals" not in government, police, army or indeed the Taliban ?
- naruvimama 5y agoIt is just the new US administration falling into the Pakistani-Chinese trap.
- sumedh 5y agoWhat trap?
- singularity2001 5y agoOne hopeful prospect is that the radical Taliban will alienate neighboring Iranians into moderation.
- rootsudo 5y ago“We are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power,” Taliban spokesman Suhail Saheen told the BBC. When did terrorist groups get spokespeople, geez.
- megous 5y agoEver since they had an aspiration to govern Afghanistan? Apparently they also have a English website: http://alemarahenglish.net/?p=48412 http://alemarahenglish.net/?p=48412
- CodeGlitch 5y agoI believe they consider themselves to be a governing body. So they'll have PR, HR departments, etc
- _moof 5y agoMaybe next time we protest against starting a war, listen to us.
- lamontcg 5y agoYeah I called this one in real time right as I watched the planes hit the towers. Knew we'd kill hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east before we had to pull out defeated. I didn't quite expect it to take 20 years though. Then protested Iraq and they cheered our freedom of speech, then rolled tanks into Baghdad anyway and the WMDs weren't there, just like Scott Ritter told them. That worked out well. Really should have listened to us when it came to Kuwait in 1991 as well. The towers might still be standing. I eagerly await the mental tap dancing and 'splaning that results in us being the hopelessly geopolitically naive ones, when the other side of the argument has been wrong for a solid 30 years straight.
- _moof 5y agoHell, if you zoom out from the Middle East, you can go all the way back to Vietnam. (I don't know much about Korea.) That's over six decades of being wrong--sixty years of belligerence with nothing to show for it but a horrific body count and whole generations turned against us.
- lamontcg 5y agoYeah I was just sticking with events in my lifetime, I just wasn't alive much for Vietnam, and wasn't very concerned with politics right after I was born. Someone reminded me about Reagan sending weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, which I do remember (and Carter boycotting the Olympics).
- CapricornNoble 5y ago>>>That's over six decades of being wrong--sixty years of belligerence with nothing to show for it but a horrific body count The problem with this argument is we have no way of definitively proving it one way or the other. If Communist Vietnam hadn't spent 10 years and a million lives dislodging the US, could Communism have overtaken SE Asia? Would Vietnam have had the military experience necessary to depose the Khmer Rouge after that regime killed ~25% of Cambodia's population? How many excess deaths would you be counting if Thailand's Communist insurgency had eventually turned into a Khmer Rouge clone (itself having copied the worst excesses of Mao's Cultural Revolution)? https://www.cia.gov/static/e73ecdedf076611c592b1d8397cbe61a/Defeating-an-Insurgency.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/e73ecdedf076611c592b1d8397cbe61a/... Bottom line: Hindsight is 20/20. Don't assume that the outcome we have is the worst one possible and therefore all has been for naught. That said.....hold people accountable for shit decision-making, and there definitely has been that in spades.
- hintymad 5y agoClausewitz famously said in his book On War that "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Following this logic, I don't see any reason that Afghanistan government wouldn't collapse. I mean, for what will their troops fight, and for whom will their troops fight? Most of the people there do support Sharia law per Pew Research. Afghanistan people are famous for being independent and for fighting foreign occupation to death. So, the troops were not fighting for their ideals, neither for their people. Besides, they knew they would lose. The US intelligence said the government would fall in 90 days. Then why would the troops fight their own people for a losing war, especially given that Taliban will exact bloody reprisal on those who didn't surrender?