12 ms·
Afghan President Ghani relinquishes power, Taliban form interim gov't
- dabinat 5y agoThe speed at which the Taliban were able to retake the country shows just how little the US achieved in 20 years.
- guerrilla 5y agoThey were being beaten back for at least the last three years that I was following it. They didn't just leave voluntarily, they were defeated and left early to save face. Check a timelapse map of the Taliban's territorial gains and consider that recapture of the entire country took them only two weeks.
- cm2187 5y agoKeeping in mind it is an afghan defeat even more than a US defeat. I kind of agree with Biden when he says "One more year, or five more years, of U.S. military presence would not have made a difference if the Afghan military cannot or will not hold its own country"
- dbish 5y agoThis is not how most of the world or Americans are going to see it. Speaking as an independent, this is precisely the kind of abject failure and mess that will be the reason for a single term presidency as well as a likely change in party next term.
- cm2187 5y agoI don't know. Getting out of Afghanistan is kind of a bipartisan issue. I am conservative leaning and I side with Biden on this. In effect he executed the Trump plan and I don't think Trump would have done any better. I think Biden is a one term president but not for exiting Afghanistan, unless it becomes again the host for the sponsors of a new major terrorist attack on the US. And it is not clear to me that this is something the Talibans are really contemplating. I think people are surprised by the speed of the outcome, not by the outcome.
- beerandt 5y agoWithdrawal happening vs how withdrawal is happening are two very different things. Trump's plan was to be out by Christmas, which generals delayed to May. This is not Biden executing Trump's plan.
- cm2187 5y agoThat's details, it's not a few months earlier or later that would have made any difference. The point of the plan being prompt and full withdrawal within a year.
- beerandt 5y agoTimely withdrawl before the Taliban started shelling the capital absolutely would have made a difference. But I'd settle for getting US citizens and diplomats (and afghans who've earned a visa) out before having our military cut and run in the middle of the night.
- Denvercoder9 5y agoHonestly, I don't see what difference it would've made. The past week has shown that the ANA is either utterly incapable of or uninterested in defending Afghanistan against the Taliban. Whether we'd left by Christmas or stayed another two years, the outcome would've been the same.
- beerandt 5y agoIt's not about the end result of the country, but a withdrawal being executed properly, getting civilians out before the diplomatic corps before the military. The reverse of what's happened. And all before the summer gave the Taliban time and mobility (as in no snow) to start gaining ground.
- tablespoon 5y ago> And all before the summer gave the Taliban time and mobility (as in no snow) to start gaining ground. Yeah, I've read that the Taliban basically retreats during the winter, then returns for "fighting season." So it would have been much smarter to withdraw US troops during the winter. Withdraw them now ensured that the Taliban was in the best position possible to capitalize on it, which we are seeing now.
- StanislavPetrov 5y agoSpeaking also as independent (and not a Biden supporter), this is one of the few statements Biden has made that I agree with. I find it incredibly refreshing to see that for once we didn't seek to delay inevitable disaster at the huge cost of blood and treasure for political expediency.
- anm89 5y agoNot even close. The average Biden voter isn't losing sleep over having less presence in Afghanistan and knows that the mess was in place long before he stepped foot in the office.
- walkedaway 5y agoThere's not a single Biden voter that cares that Biden is incompetent and creating messes for the US (border crises, inflation, gas shortages, etc). What they care about is no more Trump mean tweets.
- speeder 5y agoI disagree on that. USA accused Taliban of sheltering Bin Laden, and invaded afghanistan because Taliban was the government. Now USA is leaving, and Taliban is again the government... to me this feels more like USA invaded, occupied for 20 years with the help of a puppet government, and now Afghanistan as it was before the invasion, won. This isn't just a insurgency winning or terrorism, USA litearlly invaded a country, tried to conquer it, and failed, it is a country vs country war and USA lost.
- cm2187 5y agoDepends on how you value 20 years with the Talibans in retreat.
- Denvercoder9 5y agoBoth of these things can be true. The USA has lost, and at the same time five more years wouldn't have made a difference.
- ASalazarMX 5y agoThe brutal carpet bombing and the countless collateral civilians killed didn't help USA win the locals' appreciation. At the time of the bombings, it was reported that they were overdone because it was old stock, as if disposing of it instead of strategically bombing Taliban bases. Some lucky contractors likely were very happy to replenish that stock.
- beardyw 5y agoWar on Terror wakes up in shower https://newsthump.com/2021/08/14/war-on-terror-wakes-up-in-shower/ https://newsthump.com/2021/08/14/war-on-terror-wakes-up-in-s...
- lobocinza 5y agoIt's a white peace. USA don't risk an invasion and Taliban can't ask for reparations But future retalions in the form of terrorism are possible.
- beerandt 5y agoExcept when it was a campaign issue, he said Trump's timeline for troops out before Christmas, which generals delayed to troops out by May, were both too fast. Now it looks like being out before the summer fighting season started would have been the right call.
- Jcowell 5y agoThus is the power of hindsight
- beerandt 5y agoHindsight would be proposing a different plan today and claiming it would have worked better. Actually proposing a different plan ahead of time is a validated opinion/decision.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago> Now it looks like being out before the summer fighting season started would have been the right call. I didn't know there were seasons to fight. What impediment would winter/spring pose there?
- beaunative 5y agoThe US has rarely won any aggresion or proxy war in this and the past century.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wdr1 5y ago2021 - 100 = 1921 The US wasn't on the victorious side in World War I or World War II?
- cannabis_sam 5y ago> aggresion or proxy war
- fomine3 5y agoIt can be said that US got Okinawa(Ryukyu) on WW2. It finally returned (I believe returning isn't planned initially), but still has big bases.
- cannabis_sam 5y agoI’m not sure how that changes the question of whether the US joined WW2 as an aggressor or defender.
- guerrilla 5y agoWorld War I ended in 1918. The Soviets did most of the work winning World War II [1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
- ASalazarMX 5y agoSometimes I think winning is secondary, and the main objective is to keep the war machine going. A prolonged period of peace (mutual or by sheer intimidation) would be disastrous for the sector.
- ecf 5y ago> just how little the US achieved in 20 years. Can’t help people who don’t want to help themselves.
- walkedaway 5y agoOr possibly how bad Biden and Gen Milley are at planning and military strategy.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoWhy was the US there for 20 years? I suspect that the main objective could have been achieved quickly and we might be back to exactly that point (Taliban in power but with the understanding that they should not cross red lines). But if the objective was to somehow change the country and make it more 'Westernized' then then that was rather arrogant and that did not end better than in Iran...
- raxxorrax 5y agoIran was quite different. It had a modern society and political system before intervention after which religious fundamentalists took over. No conflict was about bringing western values to anyone...
- mytailorisrich 5y agoMost of Iranian society was conservative and not comfortable with Western influence. The government was a puppet of the West. That's a familiar pattern.
- raxxorrax 5y agoIt also wasn't primarily the US, they were just onboard with it. But these interventions are never to transport values, that is ridiculously naive. It should be extremely clear in the case of Iran since it was its democracy that was undermined in favor of a more western aligned dictatorship which was then replaced by a religious theocracy because people were spiteful enough to just get western influence out of their country. Not a good solution, but completely understandable.
- guerrilla 5y agoJust FYI, The Daily Sabah is a pro-AKP paper, not that that should cast any doubt on this, which is headling everywhere right now.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoYeah, this is all over CNN too. In fact it's more than just "the formation of an interim government": Kabul has fallen.
- redisman 5y agoIts got the full page width headline on NYtimes now
- COGlory 5y agoI thought I read a couple days ago that they were ~a month away from taking Kabul? Yet this article is saying they already have taken it.
- uniacid 5y agoBecause that wasn't the truth from whoever was pushing, probably to paint a prettier picture than the true reality. The "US Afghanistan" govt has collapsed and the Taliban are the new chiefs in town.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoOh come on. Once Ghani fled that was it. Things are evolving quickly. It's not some big conspiracy. All reports have been dire.
- totoglazer 5y agoThey were ridiculously wrong.
- busymom0 5y agoYep. They were wrong. The us Intel agencies are wrong on important topics quite often. The predictions went from 1month away to 72 hours to it's already taken within days.
- Cyberdog 5y agoI don't come to HN for politics, so I'll try to say this as apolitically as possible: I'm reading in some places that after deciding to pull out, the United States decided to not fulfill promises to emigrate many Afghan civilians who helped the US or the US-backed government by serving as translators and such. These "traitors" may find life particularly difficult under a reinstated Taliban government. If this is true, it is shameful and (for better or worse) may make attempts at finding local support for future regime-building adventures much more difficult.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If this is true, it is shameful and (for better or worse) may make attempts at finding local support for future regime-building adventures much more difficult. This is such a regularly recurrent kind of thing at the end of US interventions that the n+1st instance probably won't noticeably change the total effect from what is there from the first n instances.
- t0mas88 5y agoThis discussion is also in the news today in the Netherlands with regards to our own involvement there. Some translators have been evacuated, some have not yet been picked up. And apparently there are others that weren't local translators but that did support the military there (e.g. as drivers or suppliers) and are at risk. That last group hasn't been saved yet and it's unclear whether something has been arranged.
- lordnacho 5y agoThis wavering with helping our friends will surely have an effect on our chances of making friends in the future. It's quite frankly dishonourable to leave them in the lurch like is happening. I do appreciate the advance has been swift but it should not have been hard to simply put everyone on a plane and process their claims someplace less dangerous.
- christophilus 5y agoWe did the same to the south Vietnamese. Disgraceful. I really feel bad for any Afghanis who aided the US.
- toiletaccount 5y agooh boy another theocracy. can't wait for the idiots to come out of the woodwork saying it's some phobia or -ism to criticize because religion or skin color. e: flagged, lol. i'm sure women and homosexuals in afghanistan appreciate your concern for the feelings of muslim theocrats.
- nemo44x 5y ago20 years later and the Taliban has more land than they did as well as a much improved infrastructure and military equipment. I imagine they have a small air force now. Maintaining it will be an issue, but it’s quite an upgrade for them.
- Denvercoder9 5y ago> I imagine they have a small air force now. If Wikipedia[1] is to be believed, the Afghan Air Force consisted mostly of utility and light attack helicopters, primarily designs from the 1970's. That's unfortunate, but they're no match for any modern air force. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Air_Force#Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Air_Force#Aircraft
- nemo44x 5y agoBut certainly a match for any internal resistance militia that may rise up. Even this out dates tech, if maintained, could help stop the probable uprisings in certain providences.
- dzonga 5y agogeneral lesson in this, specially to westerners. don't assume what you believe in, is what everyone else believes in. the us, went to a false / wrong war with the taliban under the additional presumption that afghan natives don't wanna be under taliban rule. or they wanna practice a form of western democracy. now what's apparent is the afghan military are just abandoning their posts and returning home. and natives likewise, don't mind taliban rule, as long they're not under civil war.
- ericjang 5y agoSpecifically about "natives, likewise, don't mind taliban rule". Nicholas Kristof (an American journalist with possibly pro-American biases, but one who I think has a pretty good track record of honest reporting), has pointed out that Afghani women may enjoy less rights under the new administration, and there are many who have worked for pro-Western NGOs that are fearing for their lives. I'm not sure things will "just be life as usual" for all citizens, particularly women, under Taliban rule. Source: https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1426546421906362368?s=20 https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1426546421906362368?s...
- luckylion 5y ago> for all citizens Very few things are ever what all people want, but when the overwhelming majority seems to be fine with something, it's fair to say they don't mind it. If e.g. an election is decided with a 80/20 split, the electorate "wanted that person to win", even though some didn't. On average, they do. Getting into semantic over it isn't achieving much.
- ericjang 5y agoI wasn't debating semantics https://inews.co.uk/news/world/afghanistans-first-female-mayor-waiting-taliban-come-kill-her-1152127 https://inews.co.uk/news/world/afghanistans-first-female-may...
- busymom0 5y agoA while back I was listening to one of those "group analysts" on a mainstream "news" channel where they were talking about how they had perfect plans to transform the middle east for "western democracy" with regime change and installing western friendly governments. Not a single one of the "analysts" they had brought on had any experience or talked to Arabs, Persians or Afghanis. These "analysts" think all countries want the same thing which is simply not the case. I know Afghanistan isn't exactly middle east but the regime change wars were all identical. Libya is another example.
- justicezyx 5y agoAfghanistan's CCP moment. I hope this time CCP can teach Taliban some lessons of how to manage a country after conquering her.
- f6v 5y agoI imagine the EU is “excited” to welcome the new immigrant wave. Whenever the US screws with a regime, they pay.
- mardifoufs 5y agoThe EU knows how to screw with foreign regimes just fine. They lead the way in Libya and weren't holding any punches in Syria. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. For example, France is extremely involved in African affairs and likes to act as a King maker there, in such a blatantly colonial way that it puts US imperialism to shame. The only difference is the world wide focus on American affairs... and maybe also because of the ingrained belief in France that Africa ought to be their own backyard ("Francafrique"). so it's okay when they do it, meaning there's way less internal oppostion to French interventionism (in Africa). Contrast that with the huge, bi partisan anti foreign interventionism voting block that has emerged in the US.
- beaunative 5y agoNot long ago, the news of China meeting with Taliban sparked criticism, though China has also met with the then government of Afghan. The United States did not issue any diplomatic protest. Now we see why, China knew this will happen, and so did the United States, and likely also a lot of people who follow closely with the currents of that region. It's not surprising. It's the expected result from the US' retraction. What surprised me is the reaction from the media, somehow the Taliban became a bigger enemy in the public discourse than the governments has declared it to be.
- 55555 5y agoThe Taliban's yearly revenue is likely in excess of $7 billion now.
- hendzen 5y agoHave they considered raising VC?
- gjsman-1000 5y agoWhy would you be a US ally after this? If I am Taiwan, I have zero faith the US will defend us.
- xdennis 5y agoI've heard many Americans question why the US should defend even NATO members like the Baltic countries (e.g. Dan Carlin). Taiwan is in a better position because it's technology makes it very valuable for the US.
- runawaybottle 5y agoThat’s an amazing point. Taiwan is China’s to take and America won’t be able to get involved after this debacle.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoWhat's striking is the speed with which the government and army crumbled. It implies they felt the masses supported the Taliban. How did the US miss that?
- grandinteg3 5y agoThe masses do not support the Taliban. The speed at which they took over is not a reflection of the support they have on the ground but more a function of the fear they instil in people. My family and many others fled to Kabul when fighting started in Mazar-e-sharif, people are terrified. You have to remember that the Taliban were in power for quite some time prior to the US, images of public executions and floggings are still fresh in our minds. You'd struggle to find anyone supporting these barbarians.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoBut do they support the now former government?
- thinker403 5y agoI've always wondered if the big unspoken reason for establishing American bases in Afghanistan and Iraq was to surround Iran. They perfectly sandwich Iran in from the east and west. Maybe with that clash seeming less imminent it was time to pull out. Geographical advantage is behind most military decisions but it's never enough of a reason to get public support for invading countries. Hence, the need to defeat terrorism and get Bin Laden.
- croutonwagon 5y agoWell it also gave us some regional operating capability near Pakistan, which we have out own interesting relationship with and the the Kashmir region has been said to be a huge powder keg and possible cause for the next large scale mutli-national war.
- yahoo1234 5y agoBiden a month ago: > There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable. 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... This when his top commander in Afghanistan, months earlier, advised that a quick unraveling was the most likely scenario. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-taliban-afghan-collapse/2021/08/14/da7cba66-fcf7-11eb-b8dd-0e376fba55f2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-talib... The guy's out to lunch.
- 8eye 5y agonice, now we have something to go back to in 10 more years /s
- anm89 5y agoA friend from another country asked me why we were in Afghanistan in the first place and I mindlessly said something about securing oil. And he pointed out that we weren't in Afghanistan for oil. And then I realized I had no idea why we were ever over there. 20 years of desperate fighting for "regional stability" or the far more ridiculous "defending democracy"? Maybe "regional stability in order to secure oil". Kinda of embarrassing that as someone who considers themselves to stay fairly in the loop in international affairs I couldn't write the first paragraph on why we were in Afghanistan for 20 years. Somehow the true answer seems to me like: some politicians said some stuff after 9/11 and then it just stumbled on for two more decades based on momentum and not wanting to lose.
- T-A 5y ago> I realized I had no idea why we were ever over there If you want to change that, you could do worse than read this: https://www.amazon.com/Jawbreaker-Al-Qaeda-Personal-Account-Commander/dp/0307351068 https://www.amazon.com/Jawbreaker-Al-Qaeda-Personal-Account-...
- croutonwagon 5y agoOur original reasoning was the War on Terror and specifically to hunt Bin Laden and deny Al-Qaeda a safe base of operations to plan out future attacks. The Taliban was considered, at the time, to provide safe harbor to Al-Qaeda and thus were driven out of power with force. At the time, before the invasion Bush even demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. But the Taliban refused and demanded "sufficient proof" of the 9/11 attacks. It all went downhill from there though. Our money had Afghan's turning in their local enemies as terrorists. Taliban went into hiding but still had plenty of influence. And many villages, especially those that were super rural and away from the larger cities, didnt really want the infrastructure or modernization that the US tried to use as a bargaining chip. Basically it was the US being really upset about 9/11 and vowing vengance, but losing their way once it became obvious that vengance was not really going to be...swift.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
- hamburgerwah 5y agoGhost wars, and it's followup Directorate S, are excellent books on the history of US involvement in afghanistan. It has been an enourmous clusterfuck but not for most of the reasons outlined in the comments here. The second afghan involvement post 9/11 was a very poorly run proxy war with pakistan (or perhaps the pakistani intelligence service ISI) and not really all that much to do with afghanistan itself.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoAmerica's chief moral argument for continuing to intervene in Afghanistan is now that the Taliban will mistreat women and girls. There is a simple solution that does not require indefinite occupation: Hold the country for a year or two longer, and sponsor free flights to the US for Afghan women. Obviously, also provide expedited US residency. Imagine what the US government could do with a large fleet of cargo aircraft. For that year or two, the US could maintain a network of fortified franchises, throughout the country, to which women could go. These would be advertised widely. It could also conduct periodic "door-kicking" raids of Afghan homes, in order to rescue any women who may be held there under patriarchal conditions. Logistically, the easiest way to do this would be to bring all the women encountered to US military bases. There, outside of earshot of their "husbands", they could be offered the choice of free transportation back home (if they really are happy with their marriages), or transportation to the United States (if they are not). In addition to the usual "tough guys" employed by the US military, this would also create useful employment for American women, who we can expect would be better able to relate to the Afghan women than the dudes-with-guns would be. Essentially, they'd be working in Human Resources. A successful program would uplift the rights of women, bring millions of new workers to America, and destroy Taliban biopower, all with a single stroke. And America has no shortage of cargo aircraft to do this.
- ASalazarMX 5y agoThis reads like the plot of a B movie. Would the women refugees be able to bring their children too? Would they be allowed to form an Little Afghan since most of them don't speak English or know the local culture? Would they be protected from the hate against Arabs the media has fanned for two decades? T-trust me Morty, I assure you this will burp work!
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago> Would they be allowed to form an Little Afghan since most of them don't speak English or know the local culture? Of course, this is always allowed. Chinatown, Little Italy, strip malls throughout America... Why would Afghans be any different? But, now that you mention the language difficulties, well, that's actually a good idea. Hook women up with English lessons, maybe at local libraries. There'd probably be no shortage of English-speaking volunteers who'd help for free, but some government funding couldn't hurt. Surely it's cheaper than funding a war. > Would the women refugees be able to bring their children too? Sure, if they want. Not sure what the age threshold should be for male children. Maybe 16. > Would they be protected from the hate against Arabs the media has fanned for two decades? Not completely, but you can't compare the occasional racist in America to enslavement by the Taliban. > This reads like the plot of a B movie. I do my best.