5 ms·

Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/xeMGm https://archive.is/xeMGm > Such is the starkness of deepening poverty in Afghanistan, a humanitarian crisis that is worse

Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/xeMGm https://archive.is/xeMGm > Such is the starkness of deepening poverty in Afghanistan, a humanitarian crisis that is worsening fast after the Taliban seized power on Aug. 15, prompting the U.S. to freeze $9 billion in Afghan central-bank assets and causing a halt in most foreign aid. So the cause is not so much any economic policies instituted by the Taliban, but the seizure of Afghan assets by the US, and the ambiguously worded "causing a halt in most foreign aid" - does this mean the US government stopped giving aid, or did the US stop others from giving aid? I'm assuming the US is also pressuring other countries to enact various sanctions? I'd appreciate it if someone could shed more light on this. It would not be the first time the media was very discreet about US sanctions (Venezuela comes to mind). On the other hand: > The U.S. and other Western nations that spent the past two decades fighting in Afghanistan have a particular responsibility, some aid officials say. This is a common sentiment, but how does that responsibility arise? Are they claiming that Afghanistan would be better off had the US not intervened? (I'm not informed enough about Afghanistan to discount this possibility, so I don't mean to imply the answer is "No".) If so, I'd prefer they phrased it that way, instead of this "You touched it last so anything that happens after is your fault" logic.

redis_mlc 5y ago
> I'm not informed enough about Afghanistan Thanks for being one of the few honest people on HN. The reality is that Afghanistan is a failed state that cannot afford a federal governent. Afghanis love their country's border, but cannot afford to operate Kabul as a capital. So British, Russians and Americans attempted to fill in the void by funding Kabul. Since the Taliban wants to govern/control the country, they need somebody to fund their federal government, electrical grid, roads, hospitals and universities. So they continue to talk to the UN and the US to get that money, but they have nothing to offer except minerals in the ground and geopolitics. Afghanistan also is land-locked, so needs permission from neighbors to overfly their countries first. The main value of Bagram is that it already existed and allowed a superpower to fly in supplies securely, so the US should not have abandoned it for another century. As I mentioned before on HN, when the US polices an Islamic country, they need to be perceived as polite policemen, not disrespectful occupiers. American troops' disregard of cultural local norms in Somalia and Afghanistan ruined any chance of success. Examples are flying around dangling the bottom of their boots, and doing night raids on residences and touching family members - you simply can't act that way under Islam without armed resistance. To address your specific questions, apply what I wrote against what you wrote. You'll understand what aid means to Afghanistan, and what the responsibilities of the global community are. The CCP is playing Afghanistan in a very smart, long-term manner. Just take their resources (be transactional) and offer nothing. But that will never fund Kabul, which ultimately the country needs to overcome being isolated little valleys herding goats, if that's the goal.

redis_mlc 5y ago

> I'm not informed enough about Afghanistan Thanks for being one of the few honest people on HN. The reality is that Afghanistan is a failed state that cannot afford a federal governent. Afghanis love their country's border, but cannot afford to operate Kabul as a capital. So British, Russians and Americans attempted to fill in the void by funding Kabul. Since the Taliban wants to govern/control the country, they need somebody to fund their federal government, electrical grid, roads, hospitals and universities. So they continue to talk to the UN and the US to get that money, but they have nothing to offer except minerals in the ground and geopolitics. Afghanistan also is land-locked, so needs permission from neighbors to overfly their countries first. The main value of Bagram is that it already existed and allowed a superpower to fly in supplies securely, so the US should not have abandoned it for another century. As I mentioned before on HN, when the US polices an Islamic country, they need to be perceived as polite policemen, not disrespectful occupiers. American troops' disregard of cultural local norms in Somalia and Afghanistan ruined any chance of success. Examples are flying around dangling the bottom of their boots, and doing night raids on residences and touching family members - you simply can't act that way under Islam without armed resistance. To address your specific questions, apply what I wrote against what you wrote. You'll understand what aid means to Afghanistan, and what the responsibilities of the global community are. The CCP is playing Afghanistan in a very smart, long-term manner. Just take their resources (be transactional) and offer nothing. But that will never fund Kabul, which ultimately the country needs to overcome being isolated little valleys herding goats, if that's the goal.