8 ms·
The Taliban’s terrifying triumph in Afghanistan
- truffdog 5y agoThere is no mention of any failures of the occupation, atrocities committed by NATO forces or the old Afghan government, just an axiomatic belief that imperialism is good. Very on brand for the Economist.
- 1cvmask 5y agoSame sentiments Mark Twain said during the genocides in the Philippines during the Spanish-American wars. https://www.esquiremag.ph/long-reads/features/mark-twain-philippines-a00304-20200104 https://www.esquiremag.ph/long-reads/features/mark-twain-phi...
- dcolkitt 5y agoWhatever valid criticisms exist, they’re simply incomparable to the insanely evil human rights abomination that is the Taliban. It’d be like asking after the Nazi invasion of France “why is nobody talking about the human rights abuses in Algeria?” EDIT: Downvotes for the very controversial opinion of... checks notes... saying the Taliban has less respect for human rights abuses than the United States.
- cududa 5y ago…you’re aware the Nazis occupied Algeria, yes?
- dcolkitt 5y agoHow is that relevant?
- toomuchtodo 5y agoYou’re not wrong about the Taliban, but it is also untenable for American forces to remain in a country after trillions of dollars, two decades, and so many lives were lost when Afghans were never going to fight for themselves. Evacuate everyone who wants out, leave behind those who choose to exist under Taliban rule. Treat it like Cuba but with more support for those who intend to flee (arranged safe passage through diplomatic and military supply chains, for example).
- dcolkitt 5y agoI completely agree. But I object to OP’s characterization of “both sides are bad”. This is very much a case of evil triumphing over good. Not saying there are any other options at this point, but it’s stupid to celebrate a victory by the Taliban
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- trasz 5y agoHow many people have been killed by Taliban, compared to the number of victims of US invasion?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoAccording to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bsder 5y agoIt is easy to naysay and complain. The problem is ... what does a positive outcome for Afghanistan look like and how do you get there? And, if we couldn't get there in 20 years, should we be there at all? Apparently, there is not enough fight in any group in Afghanistan to oppose the Taliban. So, now what?
- credit_guy 5y ago> just an axiomatic belief So you prefer a data-driven belief, don't you? Let's see, this ICC probe [1] (ICC = International Criminal Court, a court that the US does not recognize, and also a court that it not known to be US-friendly) alleges: >> Taliban actions are believed to have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties [...] The Afghan security forces are being investigated for several war crimes against hundreds of civilians [...] The U.S. armed forces and CIA are now under investigation for war crimes against around eighty victims So, the Taliban made tens of thousands of victims, the Afghan security forces hundreds, and the US armed forces "around 80". Your turn, please. [1] https://www.cfr.org/article/iccs-probe-atrocities-afghanistan-what-know https://www.cfr.org/article/iccs-probe-atrocities-afghanista...
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoPaywall, but the economist is basically written like a fantasy what-if-the-british-empire-never-fell. Yeah, they're going to think it's disaster. But from what I've read on the couple times I've looked into Afghanistan: - The Taliban always ruled rural Afghanistan. - The Afghan government was so corrupt it make other corrupt regimes embarrassed. - The Afghan government was basically an opium/poppy narco-state supported by our troops. - The western desire is to have centralized control over a country to economically exploit it. Thus the ECONOMIST is going to view that as terrifying. - We did not "bring civilization to the savages", the old big lie of building schools for the conquered so that we don't feel like Ghenghis Khan. So is this article basically the predictable neolib hangwringing about not being able to extract resources from the third world?
- oezi 5y agoEven if you don't care, there are enough stories/videos/message of Afghans in tears at losing the little bits of freedoms that western military and billions could grant. About the economic exploitation argument: I fail to see any scenario in which any of coalition countries could have hoped to gain even a tenth of a percent back of the money the war in Afghanistan has cost them.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoIt's right next to China and Iran. So it represented a geopolitical pincer attack on Iran to get to their oil. Which, you know, mattered about twenty years ago. Afghanistan has a ton of natural resources that the West wanted to exploit. And of course, China was right next door, so yet another geopolitical game of ta thorn in their side.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoAmerica doesn’t have the patience to oversee Afghanistan like was done with Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc. It takes many decades…
- xrd 5y agoI would really love to have someone summarize how we "oversaw" Japan and Germany as opposed to Afghanistan. I wonder if we built more or less schools (or any at all) and invested in different ways in the past or now. I always lament the trillions spent on war machines and (bad assumption?) very little spent on improving society through education. People in the US lament the high cost of education here, but I really wonder what would have happened if we had just taken all that money and handed it to the Afghan government with an expectation it needed to be spent on infrastructure or education instead of our military bases. Am I totally wrong to think that's how it went down?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoI might say "you've been lied to" rather than "you're totally wrong", but basically yeah. The US followed precisely the strategy you're suggesting for most of the occupation, the Afghani government could not or would not reliably channel the funding towards real schools, and the US found it expedient to avoid pushing too hard for accountability. (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azmatkhan/the-big-lie-that-helped-justify-americas-war-in-afghanistan https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azmatkhan/the-big-lie-t...)
- bellyfullofbac 5y agoMore on the Afghan corruption, written in 2015, as an overview of a book on corruption: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/corruption-revolt https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/corruption-rev... The book author Sarah Chayes argues that corruption leads to insurgencies or at least normal civilians turning a blind eye to them, why help the government/police when they've been grafting all over the place. To me it's also clear why the Afghani army gave up, (if it even existed, it's probably like the ghost schools and students): a leader that was (or appeared) clean and inspirational might've been able to generate a sense of national pride, which the soldiers would've fought and died for. But the soldiers probably knew the elites were corrupt scumbags, who wants to die for that? (Unless the embezzled riches tricked down to them...). Edit: reading your article makes me think of "reality must take precedence over public relations". It's disgusting to see how the US institutions deluded their way into reporting success, it's almost comparable to the legend that said Saddam Hussein probably thought he had a great WMD program, because all his subordinates were too afraid to bring him bad news..
- TheBobinator 5y agoUS has energy independance due to Fracking so it's pulling out and leaving behind all sorts of toys while handing the Taliban a political victory. China is dependant on ME energy imports and Russia due to its collapsing demographics only cares about taking the Carpathanian mountains and a chunk of Turkey to have a defensible border. The Chinese need to take Taiwan to break out of the first island chain to secure energy Imports, but even if they take Taiwan this year or next, they now have to deal with a Taliban 3-5 years down the road that have American training and arms and all of whom have experience fighting Americans for the last 20 years. So if they take Taiwan they'll end in a direct conflict with Japan, Indonesia and India while the world shifts it supply chain to India whom has healthier demographics than China, and even if China manages to maintain its energy supply chain, it has to deal with disruption in the middle east and has to ship troops over to fight an arguably better equipped and more experienced adversary. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
- randomopining 5y agoThe Russia take makes no sense. They already have physical defense. They’re just trying to re-carve their sphere that they had. China has no need for invading Afghanistan. They’re just gonna make clever minimalistic deals with the Taliban to extract rare metals and such. That’s all they need there. China’s Achilles heel is their burning desire for Taiwan and to always save face, as well as their imports of oil. Other than that they’re a tough enemy. I’m glad Biden recalibrated towards taking on the CCP since they’re clearly our largest threat and also the free worlds.
- aksss 5y agoarchive site is getting hammered today capturing the myriad hot-takes out there on Afghanistan, but for posterity this article is archived at: https://archive.is/l5IPA https://archive.is/l5IPA
- horns4lyfe 5y agoI think since the beginning the Taliban taking over was inevitable, as Afghanistan is not really a cohesive nation and any army assembled will behave as such. That said, the way this retreat has been executed is horrifically bad. It’s mind-boggling that this is the best the pentagon and Biden admin could come up with.
- aazaa 5y ago> How did a government with 350,000 soldiers, trained and equipped by the best armies in the world, collapse so quickly? A better question: how did the (arguably at this point) most powerful country on earth fail to understand even the most basic principles of life in Afghanistan and why any counterinsurgency effort, no matter how well-funded and armed, must ultimately end where it has? And even worse, why did this country not learn exactly the same lesson 50 years ago?
- ohmysoks 5y agoHaving soldiers deployed to a country for 20 years, yet barely any interest in learning the local language and customs just shows arrogance. The kind that leads to hate i presume since day one they left all tribes turned against the us. Sending illiterate midwest boys to fight illiterate mideast boys doesn't win wars it would appear, nor do pompous speeches about democracy and equal rights when at home the wrong race can get you killed. Instead, sending hordes of goats, agriculture tools, building irrigation systems, and generally speaking showing them what the alternative to their current lifestyle is may have won the war. But you know, deluding one selves with statements such as “the most powerful country on earth” show an utter lack of understanding of one’s position. Richest? Yes, for now. Most powerful? Well, recent events in ag, a failed coup in the us, a barely winning fight against a pandemic and the many examples of rampant corruption puts some serious questions over that tag. Certainly the us cant protect those working for them, such as translators and local allies, let alone defend the status of “mOsT pOwErFuL” country. The us needs to spend some time reflecting over its past decades because other than debt and wall street shares not much is going up - not its reputation nor its ability to actually win wars. Edit: imbeciles censoring harsh truths.
- LatteLazy 5y agoThey did understand. The agreement with the Taliban includes the assumption they'll be running the country. It requires them to do the sorts of things governments do like issuing visas and being responsible for the whole place. Now, after the agreement made months ago, and unanimously supported by the UN security council, everyone wants to pretend this wasn't part of the plan.
- randomopining 5y agoBiden is recalibrating towards taking on the CCP. Afghanistan was a waste. Never was gonna work and besides the rare earth metals they don’t have anything we need. Waste of soldiers and logistical support and air power. We need to take on CCP head on. Give nukes to SK and Japan and then declare that if any sovereignty of them or Taiwan is violated, we will instantly nuke all known military bases in CCP-land. No more games with these autocratic devils.
- onepointsixC 5y agoFine, let's leave. But wild idea, maybe we should have evacuated Afghans who helped us and American citizens first, before having our soldiers leave. Instead Biden just blamed Afghans for not getting out sooner before going back to his vacation. Especially considering there's a 18,000 backlog on visa's for translators and other at risk Afghans, plus 54,000 for their families.
- randomopining 5y agoActually that's not what he did. He blamed the Afghan government and army for literally dissolving in 1 week to 10 days. Within 10 days they gave up like 17 of the largest cities, eventually Kabul, a city of 4.5 million people literally in a couple of hours. It was absurd. Who would've predicted that? And what would Trump have done differently, since I'm sure that's your guy. He wanted to pull out by May. Obviously from your vacation comment (he was at Camp David which is like 30 mins by heli from the White House)... you're just being partisan and a troll.
- trasz 5y agoLiterally anyone except Americans would predict that. See, from the American point of view, war is not much more than GTA. They don’t risk anything. American casualties are insignificant compared to the number of their victims. Compare this to the situation of people who actually live there, and have to choose between fighting a war they cannot win, and surviving.
- dandotway 5y agoPerhaps Kabul fell so fast because the CIA is actually helping the Taliban to ultimately harass China across the 47-mile long China Afghanistan border[1], which leads right into Xinjian province where Chinese communists are putting Uygur Muslims in concentration re-education camps. The CIA aided the proto-Taliban insurgency against Russia in the 1980s in what made Afghanistan become Russia's own "Vietnam." During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s the USA aided Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Islamist Iran while at the same time the CIA was secretly selling weapons to Iran to get money to fund anti-socialist rebels in Nicaragua, in what became called the Iran-Contra Affair[2]. So the USA has a history of playing both sides, and it's not tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theory crankery to conjecture that the CIA told the Taliban how to crush the Afghan government troops in exchange for an understanding that the Taliban would soon be orchestrating a rebel insurgency across the Chinese border to liberate their oppressed Muslim brothers, because the Taliban is now more valuable as a proxy-war partner against rising China than the corrupt incompetent Afghan government was. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan%E2%80%93China_bord... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
- TheCuriousGuy 5y agoChina will get access to the natural resources at a fraction of what US spent in Afghanistan all these years. More discussion in this podcast episode: https://jingle.fm/p/tabadlabs-dragon-road-1570336991/s01-e08-china-in-a7a325de https://jingle.fm/p/tabadlabs-dragon-road-1570336991/s01-e08...