10 ms·

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 mili

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?
        PartiallyTyped 5y ago
        From another reply: > Ah, I see you don't know that companies can "prohibit" chip manufacturers from selling specific chips to third parties [1,2]. Moreover, schematics, repair guidelines, and all sorts of other tools are not available to independent repair shops, which render repairs very difficult, Louis Rossmann has had frequent rants about this on his channel on Youtube [2], and is one of the most prominent advocates of the right to repair. > It follows then that unless right to repair passes/exists, obtaining replacement parts for any devices is exceptionally difficult. There is therefore a stark contrast between 1960s cars and their very limited electronics and current tech that relies on often hundreds of chips and software to operate. > [1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep... > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI It is not that the right to repair applies in this case, but rather because the right to repair does not exist/has not passed, the procurement of chips and other electronics necessary to repair the hardware may be difficult or outright impossible. The cars that we compare to (1960) are orders of magnitude simpler than modern day electronics and not reliant on megacorps allowing others to obtain schematics and microchips.
- 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?

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?
        PartiallyTyped 5y ago
        From another reply: > Ah, I see you don't know that companies can "prohibit" chip manufacturers from selling specific chips to third parties [1,2]. Moreover, schematics, repair guidelines, and all sorts of other tools are not available to independent repair shops, which render repairs very difficult, Louis Rossmann has had frequent rants about this on his channel on Youtube [2], and is one of the most prominent advocates of the right to repair. > It follows then that unless right to repair passes/exists, obtaining replacement parts for any devices is exceptionally difficult. There is therefore a stark contrast between 1960s cars and their very limited electronics and current tech that relies on often hundreds of chips and software to operate. > [1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep... > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI It is not that the right to repair applies in this case, but rather because the right to repair does not exist/has not passed, the procurement of chips and other electronics necessary to repair the hardware may be difficult or outright impossible. The cars that we compare to (1960) are orders of magnitude simpler than modern day electronics and not reliant on megacorps allowing others to obtain schematics and microchips.
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?