4 ms·

The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

59 points by edeion 5y ago

defaulty 5y ago
What's worse is the billions in armored vehicles and weapons that can be used against those who resist them. If anything, the Taliban are now in a stronger military position than in 2001.
- newsclues 5y ago
  Without supply chains most of it will be useless in a year or two.
  - sigzero 5y ago
    "a year or two" smh
  - j245 5y ago
    Phew ! - That’s only one or two years of suffering for the Afghan population. Who cares ?! /s
  - abacadaba 5y ago
    For the planes maybe. Don't see why they couldn't use a certain number of those vehicles to scavenge parts from for a very long time.
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      In most cases where the US has supplied this kind of equipment, the locals don’t have the skills to actually work on the vehicles. The maintenance work in these situations is usually contracted out to a company from the US (just another part of the $2T grift). They can probably figure out how to fix the ground vehicles and keep them running, but aircraft without a proper maintenance schedule will break down very quickly.
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    I'm sure people said Cuba would run out of cars in the 60s. They might be able to use all that gear per the manual and best practices, but they'll make use of it however they can. Humans do that. I hope history will look back at that and see it as a "plowshares" dump, where native ingenuity took tons of scrap iron and reformed into the infrastructure of a better society. I figure it's about as likely as being canrally pleasured by a pink unicorn, but its a pleasant fantasy.
    - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
      There is a stark difference between old cars and modern tech, especially when we take into consideration repairability and right to repair being pressing issues.
      - rualca 5y ago
        Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?
        thanksforfish 5y ago
        Presumably, if the customer doesn't have the right to repair then the manufacturer would be able to make parts that are exceptionally difficult to repair without specialized knowledge and tools. Or worse, enforce cryptographic locks on any software/firmware to prevent unauthorized changes. I think right to repair is about ensuring that the customer can make reasonable repairs to the product, and the manufacturer not infringing on their rights when designing the product.
        rualca 5y ago
        > Presumably, if the (...) In this case, the "customer" is a sovereign state that has the ability to set its own laws. Why does anyone think that "right to repair" applies in this case?
        5y ago
  - Torwald 5y ago
    If the Taliban now represent the official .gov of Afghanistan it is not a crime for any company to provide supply and services. Edit: I am not talking about US-American companies only.
    - pstrateman 5y ago
      It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
      - mikehotel 5y ago
        Afghanistan is not yet on the list[1]. If the new government doesn’t uphold its obligations under Doha, there is a good chance it will be added to it in the future. 1. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
        RandomBK 5y ago
        "Afghanistan" (the recently routed government) is not on the list. The Taliban is not a (yet) recognized nation-state in most Western countries. It'll take time for these lists to get updated with recent events. Considering that the Taliban is/was a hostile party to an active US military operation, starting economic activities with them without explicit government approval is probably not a good idea.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        The Taliban (in Afghanistan; the Pakistani Taliban is on both the Treasury and State lists), as well as a very large number of persons and organizations associated with the Taliban separately, is on the Treasury Department OFAC Sanctions list even though for diplomatic reasons the Taliban has not been included on the State Department list of international terrorist organizations.
      - Torwald 5y ago
        I didn't say it is "ok". I said it is not a crime.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  That equipment can be decommissioned from the air with low risk to allied forces.
  - WJW 5y ago
    Most of the Afghan civilian population do not have the benefit of an air force but many of them will die from US-built (and now Taliban-operated) equipment all the same. Sure, the civilians are not "allied forces" but it's still a shit move to give their opponents more weapons.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Yes, it was a mistake to leave the equipment, I don’t dispute that. I’m stating that the problem can be fixed from the air.
  - fastasucan 5y ago
    What about innocent civilians?
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Provide ample warning abandoned military hardware is considered in the kill box.
- geofft 5y ago
  I saw this recently: "We lost the war. Losing wars often puts you in a worse position. That's one reason starting wars you are unlikely to win is a bad idea." https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1426941800468652039 https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1426941800468652039 That should be obvious to everyone, but in 2001 it was unpatriotic and politically incorrect to ask whether the US was capable of winning the war.
  - trynumber9 5y ago
    As part of the Doha agreement the Taliban agreed not to support Al-Qaeda. Not a victory but it was basically the US casus belli.
  - wiredfool 5y ago
    Yeah. But there were a significant number of people who grew up seeing the Russians get beaten in Afghanistan, thought it was a decent lesson to learn without being involved, and then lo and behold, your country gets into a land war in Asia and gets to learn it for themselves.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I'd go further and say that in 2001 "the war" wasn't even that well defined. It seemed to be more about the action of attacking rather than any coherent vision. Iraq was at least up for debate, whereas Afghanistan was like well of course we need to attack them "back" how could you think otherwise?
- rambojazz 5y ago
  I would be surprised if those armored vehicles could be easily turned on by turning a key. Can the talibans just hop in and drive them?
steve76 5y ago
USA leadership no longer cares if foreigners horribly murder hundreds of millions of it's own. Just look at the doubling murder rate and year of looting. They'll go on doing what they do regardless. If anything prevents future terror attacks, it's that. It does nothing except kill people. Russia, China, most of the world, are criminals masquerading as political leaders. They have zero consent from the people they govern. What you think they care about, like being a super power and taking over the USA, they care very little about outside of using it as a prop for their legitimacy and to avoid the gallows for horrible past crimes.
bigmattystyles 5y ago
Why do we leave so much behind? Is it impractical to remove economically or there’s no money that be made from it? I understand large parts of it was given to the Afghan army but it’s jarring to see. With regards to anything other than a weapon, we should be able to brick everything with a firmware update in the future.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- op00to 5y ago
  It wasn’t needed. The equipment is useless outside of theater. No one wants it. It’s a clear as day example of why the war was a waste of money from the start.
- hncurious 5y ago
  There's no accountability and the equipment already served its purpose. Julian Assange, 2011: "The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war" https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1427929346262642688 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1427929346262642688 US veteran who oversaw training of Afghan forces, 2021: "I would sit in on staff meetings, because part of my position there was with a Joint Command that was building the Afghan military and police force — the division that I worked with was about training and policy for the Afghan police. And that also included arming and funding them. I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment." https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operation-afghanistan https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operati...
- quetzthecoatl 5y ago
  >Why do we leave so much behind? because it was part of the deal? It's the same playbook used to equip ISIS back when toppling asad was the objective. It's not like none of these could be dismantled or outright destroyed. That and Taliban was created by none other than US with the help of Pakistan. It's not like US and Taliban are strangers, and surprise surprise, taliban isn't even in the designated terrorist list apparently. You also have UK military head doing PR for Taliban. Taliban takeover was with the approval of US, and weapon transfer was part of the deal.
AllSeason 5y ago
We should never have left valuable material behind. How often has our own money and technology been used against us? We need to learn out lesson and do better. If we planned on leaving we had time to get that type of technology out of there first or destroyed the equipment beyond the point of repair.
- ridiculous_leke 5y ago
  Taliban would love to use any technology that's available to them considering their position.
  - AllSeason 5y ago
    Agreed.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  I don't think "hate the West" is even the right way to put it. They're much more concerned with the islamic world, and turning "bad" (secular) muslims into "good" (shariah) muslims. It's not like they love the west either, but they fully expect non-muslims nations to be evil and don't care nearly as much. The west is more of a useful propaganda tool to achieve the real goal of establishing the islamic caliphate (like from ottoman days).
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    That's a pretty naive and reductive way to describe the situation. The relationship between early al qaeda days and various US agencies who armed and trained them is very well established.
    - kodah 5y ago
      Both what you and GP said can be true simultaneously, and in my opinion is.
      - 5y ago
howaboutnope 5y ago
> Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, “We still live in a dangerous world.” > Thanks to you, you fucker! What are you doing? Last week Kuwaitis had nothing but rocks! > They’re arming the fucking world man. -- Bill Hicks
- trynumber9 5y ago
  I suppose it is a joke but Kuwait had tanks before that. 200 Yugoslavian M84s.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I also assume that was the elder Bush (based on your Yugoslavian tanks comment). Since we literally had just fought a war on Kuwait's behalf, arming them seems reasonable.
  - neonate 5y ago
    Of course it's a joke. It's Bill Hicks. Wish he were still around so we could hear what he would make of "But they had 200 Yugoslavian tanks".
baybal2 5y ago
You can get rid of ID papers with a lighter, getting rid of biometrics will require poking out your eyeballs. A very dire predicament. Being identified, and killed, or having to live the rest of your life without sight.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
Too bad those weren't built like Internet of Things that need to call home to metrics and ads and stuff, otherwise they brick. They would have become abandonware. Perhaps getting the advertisers hands on the military will solve all global conflicts?

59 points by edeion 5y ago

What's worse is the billions in armored vehicles and weapons that can be used against those who resist them. If anything, the Taliban are now in a stronger military position than in 2001.

newsclues 5y ago
Without supply chains most of it will be useless in a year or two.
- sigzero 5y ago
  "a year or two" smh
- j245 5y ago
  Phew ! - That’s only one or two years of suffering for the Afghan population. Who cares ?! /s
- abacadaba 5y ago
  For the planes maybe. Don't see why they couldn't use a certain number of those vehicles to scavenge parts from for a very long time.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    In most cases where the US has supplied this kind of equipment, the locals don’t have the skills to actually work on the vehicles. The maintenance work in these situations is usually contracted out to a company from the US (just another part of the $2T grift). They can probably figure out how to fix the ground vehicles and keep them running, but aircraft without a proper maintenance schedule will break down very quickly.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  I'm sure people said Cuba would run out of cars in the 60s. They might be able to use all that gear per the manual and best practices, but they'll make use of it however they can. Humans do that. I hope history will look back at that and see it as a "plowshares" dump, where native ingenuity took tons of scrap iron and reformed into the infrastructure of a better society. I figure it's about as likely as being canrally pleasured by a pink unicorn, but its a pleasant fantasy.
  - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
    There is a stark difference between old cars and modern tech, especially when we take into consideration repairability and right to repair being pressing issues.
    - rualca 5y ago
      Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?
      - thanksforfish 5y ago
        Presumably, if the customer doesn't have the right to repair then the manufacturer would be able to make parts that are exceptionally difficult to repair without specialized knowledge and tools. Or worse, enforce cryptographic locks on any software/firmware to prevent unauthorized changes. I think right to repair is about ensuring that the customer can make reasonable repairs to the product, and the manufacturer not infringing on their rights when designing the product.
        rualca 5y ago
        > Presumably, if the (...) In this case, the "customer" is a sovereign state that has the ability to set its own laws. Why does anyone think that "right to repair" applies in this case?
        5y ago
- Torwald 5y ago
  If the Taliban now represent the official .gov of Afghanistan it is not a crime for any company to provide supply and services. Edit: I am not talking about US-American companies only.
  - pstrateman 5y ago
    It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
    - mikehotel 5y ago
      Afghanistan is not yet on the list[1]. If the new government doesn’t uphold its obligations under Doha, there is a good chance it will be added to it in the future. 1. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
      - RandomBK 5y ago
        "Afghanistan" (the recently routed government) is not on the list. The Taliban is not a (yet) recognized nation-state in most Western countries. It'll take time for these lists to get updated with recent events. Considering that the Taliban is/was a hostile party to an active US military operation, starting economic activities with them without explicit government approval is probably not a good idea.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        The Taliban (in Afghanistan; the Pakistani Taliban is on both the Treasury and State lists), as well as a very large number of persons and organizations associated with the Taliban separately, is on the Treasury Department OFAC Sanctions list even though for diplomatic reasons the Taliban has not been included on the State Department list of international terrorist organizations.
    - Torwald 5y ago
      I didn't say it is "ok". I said it is not a crime.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
That equipment can be decommissioned from the air with low risk to allied forces.
- WJW 5y ago
  Most of the Afghan civilian population do not have the benefit of an air force but many of them will die from US-built (and now Taliban-operated) equipment all the same. Sure, the civilians are not "allied forces" but it's still a shit move to give their opponents more weapons.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Yes, it was a mistake to leave the equipment, I don’t dispute that. I’m stating that the problem can be fixed from the air.
- fastasucan 5y ago
  What about innocent civilians?
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Provide ample warning abandoned military hardware is considered in the kill box.
geofft 5y ago
I saw this recently: "We lost the war. Losing wars often puts you in a worse position. That's one reason starting wars you are unlikely to win is a bad idea." https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1426941800468652039 https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1426941800468652039 That should be obvious to everyone, but in 2001 it was unpatriotic and politically incorrect to ask whether the US was capable of winning the war.
- trynumber9 5y ago
  As part of the Doha agreement the Taliban agreed not to support Al-Qaeda. Not a victory but it was basically the US casus belli.
- wiredfool 5y ago
  Yeah. But there were a significant number of people who grew up seeing the Russians get beaten in Afghanistan, thought it was a decent lesson to learn without being involved, and then lo and behold, your country gets into a land war in Asia and gets to learn it for themselves.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I'd go further and say that in 2001 "the war" wasn't even that well defined. It seemed to be more about the action of attacking rather than any coherent vision. Iraq was at least up for debate, whereas Afghanistan was like well of course we need to attack them "back" how could you think otherwise?
rambojazz 5y ago
I would be surprised if those armored vehicles could be easily turned on by turning a key. Can the talibans just hop in and drive them?

steve76 5y ago

USA leadership no longer cares if foreigners horribly murder hundreds of millions of it's own. Just look at the doubling murder rate and year of looting. They'll go on doing what they do regardless. If anything prevents future terror attacks, it's that. It does nothing except kill people. Russia, China, most of the world, are criminals masquerading as political leaders. They have zero consent from the people they govern. What you think they care about, like being a super power and taking over the USA, they care very little about outside of using it as a prop for their legitimacy and to avoid the gallows for horrible past crimes.

bigmattystyles 5y ago

Why do we leave so much behind? Is it impractical to remove economically or there’s no money that be made from it? I understand large parts of it was given to the Afghan army but it’s jarring to see. With regards to anything other than a weapon, we should be able to brick everything with a firmware update in the future.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
op00to 5y ago
It wasn’t needed. The equipment is useless outside of theater. No one wants it. It’s a clear as day example of why the war was a waste of money from the start.
hncurious 5y ago
There's no accountability and the equipment already served its purpose. Julian Assange, 2011: "The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war" https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1427929346262642688 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1427929346262642688 US veteran who oversaw training of Afghan forces, 2021: "I would sit in on staff meetings, because part of my position there was with a Joint Command that was building the Afghan military and police force — the division that I worked with was about training and policy for the Afghan police. And that also included arming and funding them. I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment." https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operation-afghanistan https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operati...
quetzthecoatl 5y ago
>Why do we leave so much behind? because it was part of the deal? It's the same playbook used to equip ISIS back when toppling asad was the objective. It's not like none of these could be dismantled or outright destroyed. That and Taliban was created by none other than US with the help of Pakistan. It's not like US and Taliban are strangers, and surprise surprise, taliban isn't even in the designated terrorist list apparently. You also have UK military head doing PR for Taliban. Taliban takeover was with the approval of US, and weapon transfer was part of the deal.

AllSeason 5y ago

We should never have left valuable material behind. How often has our own money and technology been used against us? We need to learn out lesson and do better. If we planned on leaving we had time to get that type of technology out of there first or destroyed the equipment beyond the point of repair.

ridiculous_leke 5y ago
Taliban would love to use any technology that's available to them considering their position.
- AllSeason 5y ago
  Agreed.
asimpletune 5y ago
I don't think "hate the West" is even the right way to put it. They're much more concerned with the islamic world, and turning "bad" (secular) muslims into "good" (shariah) muslims. It's not like they love the west either, but they fully expect non-muslims nations to be evil and don't care nearly as much. The west is more of a useful propaganda tool to achieve the real goal of establishing the islamic caliphate (like from ottoman days).
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  That's a pretty naive and reductive way to describe the situation. The relationship between early al qaeda days and various US agencies who armed and trained them is very well established.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Both what you and GP said can be true simultaneously, and in my opinion is.
    - 5y ago

howaboutnope 5y ago

> Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, “We still live in a dangerous world.” > Thanks to you, you fucker! What are you doing? Last week Kuwaitis had nothing but rocks! > They’re arming the fucking world man. -- Bill Hicks

trynumber9 5y ago
I suppose it is a joke but Kuwait had tanks before that. 200 Yugoslavian M84s.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I also assume that was the elder Bush (based on your Yugoslavian tanks comment). Since we literally had just fought a war on Kuwait's behalf, arming them seems reasonable.
- neonate 5y ago
  Of course it's a joke. It's Bill Hicks. Wish he were still around so we could hear what he would make of "But they had 200 Yugoslavian tanks".

baybal2 5y ago

You can get rid of ID papers with a lighter, getting rid of biometrics will require poking out your eyeballs. A very dire predicament. Being identified, and killed, or having to live the rest of your life without sight.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

Too bad those weren't built like Internet of Things that need to call home to metrics and ads and stuff, otherwise they brick. They would have become abandonware. Perhaps getting the advertisers hands on the military will solve all global conflicts?