4 ms·
> the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause. I wonder how long they cashed their checks, knowing full well the
by 908B64B197 5y ago
> the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause.
I wonder how long they cashed their checks, knowing full well they were going to surrender immediately as soon as the US was going to pull out. Or better, despite not ever having the intention of fighting (or even agreeing with the Taliban), claiming persecution to hustle a western visa/passport when they would inevitably lose.
- jonnycomputer 5y agoI've read that some families would send one son to fight for the Taliban, and the other to fight for the Afghan army or police as a kind of insurance policy: "The power of kinship led to a common arrangement whereby extended families have protected themselves by sending one son to fight with the government army or police (for pay) and another son to fight with the Taliban. This has been a strategy in many civil wars, for example, among English noble families in the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. It means that at a given point, one of the sons can desert and return home without fearing persecution by the winning side." https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/16/afghanistan-history-taliban-collapse-504977 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/08/16/afghanista...
- mason55 5y agoWell, reports are that the leaders of the ANA were corrupt and stealing the checks and the Taliban paid the soldiers to surrender so…