4 ms·

No way to impose any sort of external order there. Russia was there, US/UK and half NATO have been there, the insurgent groups have financing via drugs and God

by yawaworht1978 5y ago

No way to impose any sort of external order there. Russia was there, US/UK and half NATO have been there, the insurgent groups have financing via drugs and God knows what else(look at Colombia how much drug financed groups can hold back progress). All the foreign forces have done plenty of damage and lost credibility. Looking back, what in the world made Russia go there in the first place and then the USA? Why is this matter not settled yet? This has gone past many administrations and advisors, and yielded nothing. Does anyone know if the Taliban actually have some sort of popular support there or only by fringe groups?

acjohnson55 5y ago
I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure power there is fragmented, hierarchical, and transactional. Popular support does not figure in. According to Wikipedia, "As estimated by the CIA World Factbook, 26% of the population was urbanized as of 2020. This is one of the lowest figures in the world." It's probably a fair bet that the urbanized population does not support the Taliban, but they can't stand alone. The warlords and Taliban want control over the largest city, and Kabul depends on the countryside. Think about the urban-rural cultural divide in the US, but imagine that rural people vastly outnumbered urban and that there was no central monopoly on violent force. Another interesting question is why should the Taliban be stronger than any other potential leadership group? I suspect this comes down to their past success, their connections to Pakistan, and their appeal to international fighters.
nickff 5y ago
The Taliban are power-hungry and ruthless, while their external (Pakistan/ISI & China) supporters don't mind it. In an battle between kindness and ruthlessness, (especially where the former is less committed than the latter,) the ruthless will always win. Put another way, if you had one side giving you aid (food/medicine) in exchange for support, and the other (credibly) threatening to kill you for disloyalty, what would you do? You'd probably feign support for the former, and never betray the latter.
- captain_price7 5y ago
  > if you had one side giving you aid (food/medicine) in exchange for support I'm afraid you have an awfully rosy version of what life was like for an average rural afghan under American rule. Here are some links to get started- - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-to... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-af... - https://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/world/01/12/12/outrage-over-video-marines-urinating-taliban-corpses https://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/world/01/12/12/outr...
  - nickff 5y ago
    I've left out a lot of detail, because I was writing a comment, not a treatise. I also left out how the Taliban fighters routinely raped the widows and children of their opponents, as well as the Taliban's horrific history of brutality. In addition to all of these atrocities, there are a number of outliers, such as those you pointed out.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
It's obviously an islamic dominated country, and by the fact that the military and government fell so quickly, it's as if everyone knew the US would leave and everyone secretly actually wanted the Taliban. Us westerners like to look at "The Taliban" as some evil anti-women hate group but what most woke westerners are too scared to bring up is that this is Islam in it's barest of forms. Especially among illiterate peoples. The Taliban has ridiculous support and has had it for the longest time primarily because many people want the sort of religious regime. While us enlightened democratic types like to think democracy is so great, it actually makes change very difficult. Especially essential change such as controlling the local petty lords that essentially enslave people in perpetual bondage like serfs. The only way you can do away with that is an even more powerful authority higher than them that people can support. If some man with a turban and thousands of men with AK-74's need to tell you Allah does not approve of enslaving Muslims, guess what, you're gonna be hard pressed to fight back when all other lords are gonna be fearing for themselves too. Too many pampered Americans like to think we can solve all problems by petitioning the government and talking. Vocal ignorant influencers love to believe we can solve all problems peacefully at all times and all situations are the same because they grew up in a nice little suburb. In reality globally, it only uniquely works in cultures where that has been integral to the establishment of the actual nation. I mean South Korea and much of Central and South America has been governed by Military Juntas for decades and they have become far more freer than any place that was given democracy outright like Afghanistan and Iraq. The tight grip and control on people is meant to get them adjusted to the new way of life. As time progresses, reforms occur to ensure stability and people don't go rioting in the streets to establish another government that totally undermines all the work done to ensure the system continues.
- watwut 5y ago
  > Us westerners like to look at > "The Taliban" as some evil anti-women hate group but what most woke westerners are too scared to bring up is that this is Islam in it's barest of forms. Especially among illiterate peoples. The Taliban has ridiculous support and has had it for the longest time primarily because many people want the sort of religious regime Those are not mutually exclusive. You write about it as if there was contradiction and they somehow were not women hating as proven by them being religious. They are exactly that. Besides, misogyny and authoritarianism/violence are related almost everywhere.
xh-dude 5y ago
There is an argument that the ‘stay and tolerate the corruption for another generation’ strategy would eventually outlast native “Taliban” resistance - this is the path the U.S. was on, fairly explicitly since 2010 or so. In a realist framing, this is something that deserved more careful consideration before, and also now, in the aftermath. Look at the outcomes for Karzai and Ghani as an indicator - I don’t know that ‘popular support’ is something to attribute to the Taliban but we ought to entertain the notion that the framing of Afghanistan for domestic consumption in the U.S. distorts a useful, realist analysis. How could we arrive at the current state of things if, outside of Kabul, the dynamics were as simple as painting a target on the Taliban?

acjohnson55 5y ago

I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure power there is fragmented, hierarchical, and transactional. Popular support does not figure in. According to Wikipedia, "As estimated by the CIA World Factbook, 26% of the population was urbanized as of 2020. This is one of the lowest figures in the world." It's probably a fair bet that the urbanized population does not support the Taliban, but they can't stand alone. The warlords and Taliban want control over the largest city, and Kabul depends on the countryside. Think about the urban-rural cultural divide in the US, but imagine that rural people vastly outnumbered urban and that there was no central monopoly on violent force. Another interesting question is why should the Taliban be stronger than any other potential leadership group? I suspect this comes down to their past success, their connections to Pakistan, and their appeal to international fighters.

nickff 5y ago

The Taliban are power-hungry and ruthless, while their external (Pakistan/ISI & China) supporters don't mind it. In an battle between kindness and ruthlessness, (especially where the former is less committed than the latter,) the ruthless will always win. Put another way, if you had one side giving you aid (food/medicine) in exchange for support, and the other (credibly) threatening to kill you for disloyalty, what would you do? You'd probably feign support for the former, and never betray the latter.

captain_price7 5y ago
> if you had one side giving you aid (food/medicine) in exchange for support I'm afraid you have an awfully rosy version of what life was like for an average rural afghan under American rule. Here are some links to get started- - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-to... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-af... - https://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/world/01/12/12/outrage-over-video-marines-urinating-taliban-corpses https://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/world/01/12/12/outr...
- nickff 5y ago
  I've left out a lot of detail, because I was writing a comment, not a treatise. I also left out how the Taliban fighters routinely raped the widows and children of their opponents, as well as the Taliban's horrific history of brutality. In addition to all of these atrocities, there are a number of outliers, such as those you pointed out.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

It's obviously an islamic dominated country, and by the fact that the military and government fell so quickly, it's as if everyone knew the US would leave and everyone secretly actually wanted the Taliban. Us westerners like to look at "The Taliban" as some evil anti-women hate group but what most woke westerners are too scared to bring up is that this is Islam in it's barest of forms. Especially among illiterate peoples. The Taliban has ridiculous support and has had it for the longest time primarily because many people want the sort of religious regime. While us enlightened democratic types like to think democracy is so great, it actually makes change very difficult. Especially essential change such as controlling the local petty lords that essentially enslave people in perpetual bondage like serfs. The only way you can do away with that is an even more powerful authority higher than them that people can support. If some man with a turban and thousands of men with AK-74's need to tell you Allah does not approve of enslaving Muslims, guess what, you're gonna be hard pressed to fight back when all other lords are gonna be fearing for themselves too. Too many pampered Americans like to think we can solve all problems by petitioning the government and talking. Vocal ignorant influencers love to believe we can solve all problems peacefully at all times and all situations are the same because they grew up in a nice little suburb. In reality globally, it only uniquely works in cultures where that has been integral to the establishment of the actual nation. I mean South Korea and much of Central and South America has been governed by Military Juntas for decades and they have become far more freer than any place that was given democracy outright like Afghanistan and Iraq. The tight grip and control on people is meant to get them adjusted to the new way of life. As time progresses, reforms occur to ensure stability and people don't go rioting in the streets to establish another government that totally undermines all the work done to ensure the system continues.

watwut 5y ago
> Us westerners like to look at > "The Taliban" as some evil anti-women hate group but what most woke westerners are too scared to bring up is that this is Islam in it's barest of forms. Especially among illiterate peoples. The Taliban has ridiculous support and has had it for the longest time primarily because many people want the sort of religious regime Those are not mutually exclusive. You write about it as if there was contradiction and they somehow were not women hating as proven by them being religious. They are exactly that. Besides, misogyny and authoritarianism/violence are related almost everywhere.

xh-dude 5y ago

There is an argument that the ‘stay and tolerate the corruption for another generation’ strategy would eventually outlast native “Taliban” resistance - this is the path the U.S. was on, fairly explicitly since 2010 or so. In a realist framing, this is something that deserved more careful consideration before, and also now, in the aftermath. Look at the outcomes for Karzai and Ghani as an indicator - I don’t know that ‘popular support’ is something to attribute to the Taliban but we ought to entertain the notion that the framing of Afghanistan for domestic consumption in the U.S. distorts a useful, realist analysis. How could we arrive at the current state of things if, outside of Kabul, the dynamics were as simple as painting a target on the Taliban?