Afghanistan

[Foxbatt]

It's a part of the cold war/post cold war we are in. Smaller states often get swept up in the plans of larger ones. Russia's involvement in Syria, the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO in the Balkans, Libya etc.,

It has got nothing to do with the cold war for Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. It was in their backyard and they knew what would happen if that lot were let loose and they were absolutely right. Even today the effects of the Afghanistan war is being felt around the world. There is no smaller states being invaded by anyone else apart from the USA and to a lesser extent the UK. The US went in and destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq and the NATO went in and destroyed Libya and the Saudis and the Emiratis supported by the US tried to destroy Syria.
You do realise do you that the Russians only came in when it was requested by the legal Syrian government and long after the ISIS and Al Queda had starting fighting against the government of Syria. While the US, UK went and attacked the legal government of Iraq and without the authority of the UN Security council authorisation and destroyed the country and still we all are suffering from it while the poor Iraqis are suffering of course a lot more with more than half a million people already dead and ISIS born after the invasion of Iraq and they have now destroyed half of Syria.
NO it has got nothing to do with cold war or post war. It is purely one country trying their hegemony on the rest of world.

 

[Raoul]

It has got nothing to do with the cold war for Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. It was in their backyard and they knew what would happen if that lot were let loose and they were absolutely right. Even today the effects of the Afghanistan war is being felt around the world. There is no smaller states being invaded by anyone else apart from the USA and to a lesser extent the UK. The US went in and destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq and the NATO went in and destroyed Libya and the Saudis and the Emiratis supported by the US tried to destroy Syria.
You do realise do you that the Russians only came in when it was requested by the legal Syrian government and long after the ISIS and Al Queda had starting fighting against the government of Syria. While the US, UK went and attacked the legal government of Iraq and without the authority of the UN Security council authorisation and destroyed the country and still we all are suffering from it while the poor Iraqis are suffering of course a lot more with more than half a million people already dead and ISIS born after the invasion of Iraq and they have now destroyed half of Syria.
NO it has got nothing to do with cold war or post war. It is purely one country trying their hegemony on the rest of world.

You seem to speak very highly of the Russian dictator. You may want to check in with the Georgians, Ukrainians, Moldovans about how they feel about being intervened with. As for Putin's involvement in Syria, he has no interest in repelling ISIS unless it furthers his agenda of keeping Assad in power so he can project Russian power globally by coming to his aid and retaining his two naval bases, while using the Syrian intervention as a propaganda tool on his public to obfuscate from domestic problems.

 

[Synco]

I hope people understand that all this happened because of the USA and the Saudi Arabia funding the " Mujaahideen" who turned into Al Queda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan to help the legal Afghani government. A government that was secular. It would have happened in Syria too if the Russians did not go in and help Assad. Putin was not going to let it happen the second time.

As far as I know the history, this version is far from accurate.

That 'legal government' was the product of a coup d'etat led by Soviet forces, toppling another government enthroned by an earlier coup d'etat, as it was unreliable and feared to move away from Soviet influence. Arab-based Al Qaeda weren't simply the same as the earlier Mujaheddin, most of whom were Afghans originating from sections of the (very heterogenous) Afghan population.

There's no doubt about the destructive role of the US/NATO in all of this, but - just as in Syria - there are many parties responsible, including the ones you seem to see as the good guys.

 

[Foxbatt]

Of course there are many parties involved and no one has clean hands in any war. But the involvement of Pakistan and India is looked in a different way than the US in Asia. It is their neighbourhood anyway. Of course the legal government of any country is what is accepted by the UN as the legal government in this case the Afghan government that the soviets came in to help was recognised by the UN. The Mujahideen was all groups who fought against the soviets and that Afghan government. This included the Tajuks, the Pashtuns, Uzbeks etc. But they were supported by USA, Saudis, Pakistan etc and including fighters and money and which is were Ben Ladin came into play. Eventually they fought among themselves too .Mullah Umar formed the Taliban. Actually Mujahideen is the plural of Jihad like Taliban came from Talib.

 

[Synco]

Of course there are many parties involved and no one has clean hands in any war. But the involvement of Pakistan and India is looked in a different way than the US in Asia. It is their neighbourhood anyway. Of course the legal government of any country is what is accepted by the UN as the legal government in this case the Afghan government that the soviets came in to help was recognised by the UN. The Mujahideen was all groups who fought against the soviets and that Afghan government. This included the Tajuks, the Pashtuns, Uzbeks etc. But they were supported by USA, Saudis, Pakistan etc and including fighters and money and which is were Ben Ladin came into play. Eventually they fought among themselves too .Mullah Umar formed the Taliban. Actually Mujahideen is the plural of Jihad like Taliban came from Talib.

I mainly said that "the Mujahideen turned into Al Qaeda" is an inaccurate statement, as is "the Soviets came in to help the Afghan government". (Again, they installed that government during their invasion, letting their special forces kill the head of state, who was deemed too unreliable as an ally.) I also said that both statements are part of a larger attempt to give the actions of the USSR/Russia/Assad more legitimacy than those of rivalling powers, which neither of them deserves. Now mitigating the blame for Pakistan's decade-long ruthless actions because Afghanistan is "their neighborhood" is just as objectionable to me.

Let's just say our dissent is obviously the result of very different attitudes towards politics, power and the violence that comes with it.

 

[2cents]

 

[Pexbo]

Fair enough

 

[milemuncher777]

US air attacks in May on Afghan drug labs killed 30 civilians: UN
UN says it verified 39 civilian casualties, including 30 deaths, in May 5 air attacks, but US military rejects report.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...labs-killed-30-civilians-191009083835426.html

 

[2cents]

Tomorrow marks 40 years since the Soviet invasion:



Afghanistan hasn’t had a day of peace since.*

*(edit - actually the country was already effectively at war before the invasion)

 

[2cents]

Thread/

 

[2cents]

More anniversary stuff here:

 

[2cents]

Great stuff here, a collection of all the threads covering 1979 in Afghan history:

 

[2cents]

Sirajuddin Haqqani has a, eh, op-ed in the New York Times...

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

So much for not negotiating with terrorists. If Hilary and Obama had signed this deal and shook hands with the Taliban, Fox news would have had a collective outrage that would have brought down the government and security apparatus.

 

[2cents]

So much for not negotiating with terrorists. If Hilary and Obama had signed this deal and shook hands with the Taliban, Fox news would have had a collective outrage that would have brought down the government and security apparatus.

You’re probably right, but does it matter? This is the first bit of hope for peace the country’s had in decades, it should be welcomed by everyone, though obviously with caution.

 

[2cents]

Also this should be in the Afghanistan thread, @Raoul?

 

[Raoul]

Also this should be in the Afghanistan thread, @Raoul?

Done

 

[Adisa]

Taliban executes women for teaching their daughters to read and write.
I am uncomfortable doing any deal with them.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

You’re probably right, but does it matter? This is the first bit of hope for peace the country’s had in decades, it should be welcomed by everyone, though obviously with caution.

It matters because with US troops withdrawing, it will be open season on anyone who worked with them and the puppet government they helped install. The opium trade is going to be booming once again which is a sidenote.

 

[utdalltheway]

Is now the time to reflect on the legacy of that war for both the US and the Afghans?
What’s really changed over there after the thousands of dead and many more maimed not to mention the vast sums of money spent by the coalition?

 

[2cents]

It matters because with US troops withdrawing, it will be open season on anyone who worked with them and the puppet government they helped install. The opium trade is going to be booming once again which is a sidenote.

That’s more a critique of any kind of peace deal with the Taliban (which is a legitimate position IMO) rather than a specific objection to a Trump-led initiative. I think Obama or Clinton would have loved to have made this kind of progress, whatever the criticism they’d have inevitably faced.

 

[2cents]

 

[Drifter]

Judges say Afghanistan war crimes probe can proceed

Judges at the International Criminal Court say an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan can go ahead despite U.S. opposition. Thursday's (March 5) ruling, which overturns a lower-court decision, will allow prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to probe alleged crimes by the Taliban, Afghan forces and U.S. forces. It comes days after the United States agreed to pull its troops out of Afghanistan under a deal signed with the Taliban on Saturday (February 29). A pretrial panel rejected Bensouda's 2017 request to open a probe last year, saying it would not 'serve the interests of justice'. Arguing the passage of time and a lack of cooperation from Kabul and Washington meant the odds of success were low. That was a mistake, the presiding judge said, since Bensouda's work so far has found reasonable grounds to believe war crimes have been committed. The abuses she wants to investigate happened between 2003 and 2014. They include the mass killings of civilians by the Taliban, and the alleged torture of prisoners by Afghan authorities, and to a lesser extent by U.S. forces and the CIA. U.S. and allied forces entered Afghanistan in 2001 after the September 11 al Qaeda attacks. It has become the United States' longest war.

 

[Zlatattack]

About time. Shame it took hundreds of thousands of dead Afghans to get to this point.

 

[2cents]

This is pretty incredible:

 

[RedTiger]

This is pretty incredible:

Wow

 

[RedTiger]

This is pretty incredible:

 

[2cents]

What can you say (there’s more depravity in the article)?

 

[Foxbatt]

Why are they called militants?

 

[Synco]

Moved here from the Samuel Paty murder thread because of off-topic.

The Mujahideen at the onset were not religious zealots. They were anti establishment and war lords. Dustum The Uzbek was the most notorious.

For all I know, this isn't true. I can write about my understanding later, but first I'd like to ask you - when do you believe the Mujahideen became Islamists, and for what reasons?

Also, Dostum came from a totally different background, he literally fought for the other side during the entire Soviet-Afghan war.

 

[Foxbatt]

Moved here from the Samuel Paty murder thread because of off-topic.

For all I know, this isn't true. I can write about my understanding later, but first I'd like to ask you - when do you believe the Mujahideen became Islamists, and for what reasons?

Also, Dostum came from a totally different background, he literally fought for the other side during the entire Soviet-Afghan war.

The Taliban were in the same side supported by the Pakistani intelligence. They simply had the support of the general public compared to the warlords once the Soviets left.

By the way huge news in Australia for the war crimes committed by their Special Forces in Afghanistan.

 

[Synco]

The Taliban were in the same side supported by the Pakistani intelligence.

I'm confused, I thought you wrote about the development of the Mujahideen in the part I quoted, not the Taliban? At least that was what my question was about.

They simply had the support of the general public compared to the warlords once the Soviets left.

Not sure I understand you right, but the Taliban didn't enter the scene for about 5 years after the Soviet withdrawal. Up until then, the civil war was fought by Mujahideen factions, as well as the old government until its collapse.

By the way huge news in Australia for the war crimes committed by their Special Forces in Afghanistan.

It's really one horrific piece of news after the other. Just a few days ago there was an IS suicide bombing that killed many young students and injured scores, Shia apparently. Part of an ongoing stream of violent deaths.

 

[Foxbatt]

I'm confused, I thought you wrote about the development of the Mujahideen in the part I quoted, not the Taliban? At least that was what my question was about.

Not sure I understand you right, but the Taliban didn't enter the scene for about 5 years after the Soviet withdrawal. Up until then, the civil war was fought by Mujahideen factions, and the old government until its collapse.

It's really one horrific piece of news after the other. Just a few days ago there was an IS suicide bombing that killed many young students and injured scores, Shia apparently. Part of an ongoing stream of violent deaths.

The Taliban was already there when the Soviets where there but not under that name. Initially they were students from the Madrassas who came out to fight. Then when the warlords started looting and rape and destruction they got together to fight them. The public supported them because they were calling for peace and security and Sharia. Of course the ISI supported them. In Afghanistan todays allies are enemies tomorrow. Only the Taliban seems to be holding on to their ways. Dustom even became the VP and now is set to be promoted to Marshal. He has switched sides more times than anyone can count. It is a mess in Afghanistan and is going to be a mess for a long time because too many foreign countries are involved in there.
Without the warlords destruction of the country the Taliban may never have been successful. But it is time that foreigners let Afghanistan be to the Afghanis but Pakistan would never let them alone.

 

[Synco]

The Taliban was already there when the Soviets where there but not under that name. Initially they were students from the Madrassas who came out to fight. Then when the warlords started looting and rape and destruction they got together to fight them. The public supported them because they were calling for peace and security and Sharia. Of course the ISI supported them. In Afghanistan todays allies are enemies tomorrow. Only the Taliban seems to be holding on to their ways. Dustom even became the VP and now is set to be promoted to Marshal. He has switched sides more times than anyone can count. It is a mess in Afghanistan and is going to be a mess for a long time because too many foreign countries are involved in there.
Without the warlords destruction of the country the Taliban may never have been successful. But it is time that foreigners let Afghanistan be to the Afghanis but Pakistan would never let them alone.

I still find it quite hard to follow your argument, and to understand how it relates to my original question. And honestly, I think you mix a lot of things up.

But if I try to isolate the bits relevant to the original question, it seems to be this:

1. the original Mujahideen were Dostum-like* anti-government warlords without any Jihadist agenda
2. Militant Islamism chiefly came to Afghanistan through the (probably Pakistani) Madrasas; even during the Soviet Wars it came through some form of proto-Talibans

I think this narrative is patently untrue and, besides mixing things up, ignores a lot of what happened before 1980. And afterwards, for that matter. Having had a few arguments with you before (one at the top of this page), my guess is that the underlying logic is to reduce militant Islamism in Afghanistan to a product of foreign powers - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the US. (Of course I know how important that factor was, my criticism is not about the acknowledgement, but the reduction.)

As I said, I had to guess what you mean, so this may be unfair, but you can correct me.

--------------------
* reducing Dostum to his post-1989 existence

 

[2cents]

@Synco I’m sure you’re aware of this, but thought I’d post it anyway - a little bit on Burhanuddin Rabbani’s background from a book I haven’t got around to reading yet. As I’m sure you know, he taught both Massoud and Hekmatyar at Kabul University:

Also I take it you’ve seen this very interesting picture?

(edit): much more detail in this if you can access it -https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2058856.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:e293f5984dc59f57954bb05eb37c2803

 

[Synco]

@Synco I’m sure you’re aware of this, but thought I’d post it anyway - a little bit on Burhanuddin Rabbani’s background from a book I haven’t got around to reading yet. As I’m sure you know, he taught both Massoud and Hekmatyar at Kabul University:

I was only aware of the Kabul University connection in general, but not many details beyond that. For example the direct MB influences. The book looks very interesting.

Incidentally, the timing of your post is pretty fitting - I'll PM you soon.

Also I take it you’ve seen this very interesting picture?

No, don't think I ever saw it, I had to use Google Images to identify the fella on the right. What's the context of this meeting?

 

[2cents]

No, don't think I ever saw it, I had to use Google Images to identify the fella on the right. What's the context of this meeting?

I’ve no idea. I find it really intriguing, especially Erdogan and Ghannouchi’s positioning vis-a-vis Hekmatyar.

I think it made the rounds on Saudi media a while ago when they were trying to discredit Erdogan.

 

[2cents]

Just got this book in the post, flicking through came across this account of a British Muslim returning home from Afghanistan in the late 80s:

 

[2cents]

Just got this book in the post, flicking through came across this account of a British Muslim returning home from Afghanistan in the late 80s:

So I just finished this book and I really have to recommend it for anyone with an interest in the Afghan jihad of the 80s, the Arab role in it, and the origins of al-Qaeda and the global jihad. It lays to rest a number of myths concerning the latter two topics, and brings much new and sometimes surprising information to light. Absolutely meticulously researched.